United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
April 1985
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Friedman Property, NJ
-------
FRIEDMAN PROPERTY, NJ
Record of Decision
Abstract
The Friedman Property site is located in Upper Freehold Township,
Monmouth County, New Jersey and is an open, vacant lot with scrub
vegetation. The site is bordered by an unnamed tributary to Lahway
Creek, a single-family residential property, and Routes 537 and 539.
Between the late 1950's and the early 1970's the site received bulk
liquids and household and demolition debris. Due to impending litigation,
information regarding contamination at the site is limited, however,
investigations have revealed the presence of pentachlorophenol and
other volatile organics in ground water samples.
The selected remedy for the Friedman Property site consists of
no action with regard to remediating the low levels of contamination
detected at the site, monitoring on-site wells annually^ for a five-
year period, and recommending that the State of New Jersey request
the appropriate local authorities to implement deed restrictions on
the property. Total capital cost of the selected remedial alternative
is estimated to be $60,000.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site: Friedman Property, Upper Freehold, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness ot remedial alterna-
tives for the Friedman Property site.
- Friedman Property Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Upper Freehold Township, New Jersey.
- Staff Summaries and Recommendations.
- Responsiveness Summary dated September 1984.
Description of Selected Remedy
- No action with regard to remediating the low levels ot
contamination detected on the Friedman site.
- Monitor on-site wells, annually, for a five-year period.
- A recommendation that the State request the appropriate
local authorities to implement deed restrictions on the
property.
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the
"no-action" alternative combined with precautionary monitoring ot
the ground water by annually sampling the existing on-site moni-
toring wells for a five-year period, is the appropriate remedy
for the Friedman Property site. Because of the lack ot signiti-
cant contamination at the site, and the lack ot evidence that
contamination has migrated from the site, these measures are
adequate to protect public health, welfare, and the environment.
The State of New Jersey has been consulted and agrees with this
remedy.
-------
-2-
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate wben balanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for_use at other sites. The "No Action" alternative in
conjunction with ground water monitoring will adequately protect
public health, welfare and the environment.
Jack W.
Office
:Graw, Acting Assistant Administrator
if Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Date
-------
SUMMARY F REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SE ITION
Friedman Property Site
Upper Freehold, New Jersey
Site Location and Description
The Friedman Property site is located in Upper Freehold
Township, Moniiiouth County, New Jersey. (See Figures 1 and 2).
The site lies just north of the boundary from Plumsted Township
at the intersections of Routes 537 and 539. The site is bordered
on the southeast by Route 537, to the northeast by an unnamed
tributary to Lahaway Creek to the north by a single family
residential property and to the southwest by Route 539 (See
Figure 3). Development around the Friedman Property consists of
commercial, residential and agricultural properties. Several
homes and two trailer parks are located within one-quarter mile
of the site.
The Friedman property currently exists as an open, vacant
lot bordered to the east by scrub vegetation running into a pine
and hardwood grove. This field is nearly flat with less than a
1 percent slope toward the northeast.
An approximately 100 foot by 200 foot patch of dense, woody
vegetation is found at the southwest corner of the property at
the junction of Routes 537 and 539. This dense vegetation covers
a surface depression that is approximately six feet lower than
the surrounding ground surface. This surface depression receives
drainage from the west side of Route 539 and from the south of
Route 537. The drainage leaves the depression via a 36-inch
diameter corrugated metal culvert pipe that trends north-northeast
at a slope of 2.3 percent under the dump site. This culvert
runs through the site for 275 feet to its discharge at a marsh-
land where it flows through a small channel for 100 feet to the
unnamed tributary to Lahaway Creek.
At the northeast and eastern portions of the site the land
increases in slope (approximately 10 feet of relief) forming a
wooded escarpment with slopes varying between 10 and 40 percent.
This escarpment slopes into a marshland formed by the tributary.
The total relief through the study area is 20 feet with
an average slope of 3.3 percent.
The geological conditions around the Friedman Site have
been generally defined by subsurface investigations of the Goose
Farm Site located one mile to the south.
The Friedman Property is located at an outcropping of the
western terminus of the Vincetown formation. The Vincetown
formation consists of a lower and upper member with the lower
member outcropping at the site. This lower member is a greenish-
gray, micaceous, clayey, glauconitic, fine to medium sand.
-------
-2-
Ahove the water table the clay is. typically eluviated, the
lime dissolved,"and the green color altered to yellow. The
Vincetown formation dips to the east-southeast. The formation
is only a few feet thick at its western extent but becomes
as thick as 130 feet down dip.
A survey of domestic wells conducted for the Goose Farm Site
shows only six wells finished in the Vincetown formation. All
these wells yield less than 50 gpm except for one well located
three miles south of the Friedman Site that yields 180 gpm.
The Vincetown formation unconformably overlies the Horners-
town formation. The Hornerstown is a massive, green, semiconsol-
idated medium to coarse-ground, glauconite sand, silt, and clay
with interbedded shell layers. The Hornerstown is 30 to 50 feet
thick. The low permeability of the Hornerstown makes it a poor
aquifer.
Below the Hornerstown formation are the Red Bank Sand and
the Navesink formations. Both of these formations combine with
the Hornerstown to form a confining layer between the Vincetown
and Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifers and also are poor aquifers.
The Red Bank Sand grades from yellow to red-brown, medium to
coarse grained, micaceous sand with partly pyritized lignite, to
a dark gray member with micaceous fossiliferous, glauconite sandy
clay. The Red Bank can sometimes resemble the Hornerstown and
Navesink formations. This formation has an inferred thickness of
15 to 20 feet at the Friedman Site.
The Navesink formation is a greenish-black greensand marl
consisting of glauconite and quartz grains filled with calcium
carbonate and clay. The Navesink has an inferred thickness of
40 feet at the Friedman Site.
The Mount Laurel-Wenonah formation underlies the confining
Hornerstown, Red Bank and Navesink formations at approximately
90 to 100 feet bekow grade and has an inferred thickness of
90 feet at the Friedman property. The Mount Laurel formation is
a glauconitic, clayey to pebbly sand with a distinctive salt and
pepper appearance. The top of Mount Laurel is distinguishable
from the overlying Navesink formation by a massive shell hed.
The Wenonah formation consists of a silt to medium-grained,
yellow micaceous, and chloritic sand. The formation is sometimes
interbedded with thin black clays and indurated iron bearing
sandstone beds. Lignite and glauconite are present in trace
amounts.
-------
-3-
The Mount Laurel and Wenonah formations are similar and
therefore classified as .one hydrologic unit. The aquifer formed
by the two -formations is an important source of ground water for
the majority of domestic wells around the Friedman Site. The
average permeability of the aquifer has been reported to be 500
gpd per square foot. The Mount Laurel-Wenonah formation is
artesian throughout Monmouth County with the regional piezometric
surface sloping southeast.
The greatest potential for human risk due to organic contami-
nation of water supplies appears to be the local domestic wells.
All the homes, commercial facilities, and trailer parks near the
Friedman Property use well water as their potable water supply.
The unnamed stream adjacent to the site flows northwestward into
Lahaway Creek from where it flows westward into Crosswicks Creek
and eventually into the Delaware River near Trenton. As far as
is known, surface water leaving the site is not used as a direct
source of potable water anywhere along the route to the Delaware
River.
Prior to August of 1983, limited information was available
on the nature and extent of dumping activities at the Friedman
Property. It is known that the dumping of bulk liquids, house-
hold, and demolition debris occurred at the site at various times
between the late 1950s and the early 1970s. Shortly after the
site was identified in February 19RD, public input was solicited,
and affidavits were obtained from those actually familiar with
and involved in the dumping activities. However, due to impending
litigation concerning the Friedman Property, access to this infor-
mation and to the files of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) was restricted. The only reportable information
existing prior to August 1983, on the potential for hazardous
substances at the Friedman Property comes from:
1. A NJDEP testing program which made a preliminary assessment
of the dangers posed by past disposal practices.
2. A USEPA KIT investigation by Fred C. Hart Associates to
make a preliminary study of potential toxics.
The results of these investigations indicated that high
concentrations of metals were found in the water from the site
monitoring wells. Pentachloropheno.l, bis-( 2-chloroethoxy) methane
and 1-2 trans-dichloroethylene were found in the ground water at
the site. Also, the sediments in the feeder streams to the
tributary to Lahaway Creek contained traces of base/neutral
extractable organics. This group of base/neutral extractables
may have been the result of site dumping activities or other
off-site activities. Table 1 indicates the results of the USEPA
FIT investigation of the Friedman Property conducted in 1981.
-------
-4-
The Friedman Property was one of fourteen original Superfund
sites designated in New Jersey. A Cooperative Agreement between
USEPA and NJDEP was signed in September 1982, for the funding of
a Remedial "Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at a total cost
of 5270,000. Subsequently, the NJDEP procured a consultant to
undertake the work necessary to complete the RI/FS.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site investigation program undertaken as part of the
remedial investigation phase included the following components:
1. Drilling and installation of six monitoring wells.
2. Excavation of two trenches and four test pits on site.
3. Drilling of two soil borings.
4. Collection of soil, waste, ground water, surface water
and stream sediment samples.
5. Installation of two geodetic monuments and preparation
of site maps.
. . 6. Preparation of waste inventory.
The investigation indicated a pattern of contamination at the
site consistent with its use for disposal of household and demolition
debris. In addition, the investigation indicates that the site has
not resulted in significant contamination by organic or inorganic
priority pollutants of the air, ground water, surface water, or
stream sediments. Table 2 includes the analytical results of
the remedial investigation sampling activities. A more detailed
discussion of the remedial investigation activity results is
included below.
Air Monitoring Results
During the course of the field investigations conducted at
the site, air quality,--as monitored by a HNU photoionizer and
explosimeter, remained at ambient levels across the site. In
addition, there has been no history of complaints concerning
odors, fumes or airborne irritants emanating from the site,
during the digging of test pits and drilling of monitoring wells.
No odors or fumes were detected by personnel working at the
site. The lack of airborne contamination is further substantiated
by the low levels of volatile organics found in the site soils.
Rased on this information, the air migration route is not carrying
contaminants from the Friedman property to the adjacent community
•and is, therefore, not considered a pathway for contamination.
-------
-5-
GPOUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS
Shallow Aquifer
The results of chemical analysis of six shallow monitoring
wells indicate the presence of low levels of zinc (<0.5 mg/1)
in all wells and phenols at a 0.03 mg/1 level in the monitoring
well designated w-1. The fact that the other substances detected
in the original sampling were not detected leads to the assumption
that many of the contaminants detected during the 1981 FIT sampling
have dissipated with time. With the exception of zinc, phenols and
methylene chloride there are no similarities between the compounds
detected in the site soils and those found in the monitoring wells.
A review of the water quality of the background well as well
as that of downgradient wells indicates no significant difference
between the compounds found. Given that there is little variation
in the values reported for the site monitoring wells and the back-
ground water quality, the shallow ground-water migration route is
not considered a pathway for transmitting ground water contaminants
from the site.
Deep Aquifer
The results of sampling of eight local domestic wells indicate
a few instances of low concentrations of organic and inorganic
contaminants. Trace amounts of zinc were found in all wells.
Zinc appears to be a common inorganic in the area as it has been
found in soils, shallow and deep wells as well as stream sediments.
None of the organic priority pollutants were identified in
any of the deep wells sampled. However, three contaminants were
identified during the library search, namely siloxanes, hexadienes
and 1,2-Benzene Dicarboxylic acid Butyl Methylpropylester. The
siloxanes and hexadienes most likely are artifacts of well
construction materials being transported by water entering the
well as these compounds are common constituents of electrical
insulation.
<»
Since there are no similarities between contamination of
site soils, shallow ground water, and the deep aquifer (except
for zinc), a pathway of contamination to the deeper aquifer from
the Friedman property does not appear to exist.
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Results
Results of surface water samples indicated zinc at levels
which represent background in the area. In addition, methylene
chloride was detected in low levels. However, these data are
suspect since methylene chloride was also detected in trip blanks.
There were no other organic compounds identified in the forward
library search of forty non-priority pollutant peaks shown by
the mass spectrometer.
-------
-6-
Stream sediment analyses indicate that a number of organic
and inorganic priority pollutants were detected in sediments on
and adjacent-to the site. Comparison of the recent data with
previous sampling results indicates that a group of polynuclear
aromatic~"hydr*ocarbons, most likely a result of road maintenance
operations, have been trapped in the surface water sediments.
The areas of highest concentration appear to be moving downstream,
with time. Lead, a common pollutant associated with roadway run-
off was also found in stream sediments. Numerous other compounds
and concentrations were detected by the forward library search.
However, due to either their low concentrations or lack of
published toxicity data, there is no indication they pose a
significant risk.
Given the low level of zinc detected in the surface water
and the fact that methylene chloride was detected at low levels
in surface water and also detected in the field blank, it can be
concluded that surface water as a pathway is not contributing
contaminants to the environment. In addition, although numerous
organics and inorganics were present in stream sediments around
the site, they appear to be a result of roadway runoff and roadway
operations rather than site contamination.
Soil and Waste Sampling Results
Soils and waste materials recovered from borings and test
pits contained varying levels of organic and inorganic compounds.
These contaminants are considered relatively immobile since they
were not detected in the shallow ground-water samples. A number
of heavy metals were detected in the soil; however, none of these
compounds were found to be present at levels exceeding background.
Although a number of volatiles, base/neutrals and acids
were found at levels above background, these excess levels were
discovered in a very limited number of samples, thereby indicating
a lack of consistent contamination, and possibly reflecting house-
hold or small quantities waste disposal. Because this limited
contamination has not migrated, there is no significant threat
to ground water. Theats related to direct contact and plant
uptake are not 'believed to be significant but land use restriction
would be appropriate..
Enforcement
The State of New Jersey and EPA have identified Thiokol Corporation
as a potentially responsible party. A Notice Letter was sent to
Thiokol on March 18, 1982. This resulted in a meeting with the
company on July 7, 1982, to discuss their role in undertaking the
site clean up.
Further correspondence resulted in Thiokol submitting two
proposals for conducting a modified RI/FS. These proposals were
rejected by EPA on January 26, 1983. A second Notice Letter was
sent to Thiokol on March 18, 1983, indicating that the State
would be responsible for performing the RI/FS.
-------
-7-
Alternatives Evaluation
Local public health and environmental concerns as well as
NJDEP afRi EPA requirements, including the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), were considered in developing the appropriate response
objectives and criteria. For the purposes of identifying levels
of permissible exposure, the Suggested No Adverse Response Levels
(SNAPLS) and the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NIPDWS) have been reviewed to assess impacts on drinking water.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration exposure
limits for volatile organics have been reviewed to assess air
quality. These criteria in conjunction with the NJDEP Interim
Hazardous Waste Guidelines were used in developing the appropriate
response objectives and criteria for the Friedman Property site.
As discussed above, the site is not resulting in air contam-
ination; ground water contamination levels are essentially at
background; and while sediments are contaminated, these levels
appear to result from roadway runoff. Finally, within the waste
area itself, levels of heavy metals do not exceed background,
and (except for methylene chloride, which was found in several
samples but did not exceed background significantly) other com-
pounds were found only in scattered samples, generally well
below the surface.
Because of the apparent low degree of risk posed by the
site, only a limited number of remedial alternatives were con-
sidered to determine if any increase in protection was feasible.
The following five remedial action alternatives were developed
for a detailed analysis of effectiveness and cost:
1. Minimize infiltration - Although the contaminants on
site are not migrating into the air, ground water and
surface water, additional assurances that migration
would not take place could be obtained by regrading,
capping and revegetating the site to maximize runoff
and prevent erosion and significant infiltration.
\
2. Removal of waste material - This action would preclude
deed restrictions and allow for future use of the property,
3. Deed restrictions - Noting presence of landfill materials
and restricting uses that would require excavation (e.g.,
construction of building foundations.) This alternative
would reduce the possibility of direct contact with the
low limited contamination remaining on-site.
4. No action - Since there is no evidence that contaminants
are migrating from the site or are present at the site
at levels representing a significant threat to public
health or the environment, the "No Action Alternative"
should be considered as a feasible response.
-------
-8-
5. Monitoring- Used independently or in conjunction with
otker alternatives, this alternative would allow NJDEP
__ to review ground water quality, noting any apparent
cha'nges, and inspect the site on a regular basis to
ensure proper management.
The cost-effective alternative is the lowest cost alternative
that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively
mitigates or minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment.
The alternatives were assessed relative to the following
considerations:
0 Appropriate treatment and disposal technologies.
0 Special engineering considerations.
0 Environmental impacts and proposed methods for
mitigating any adverse effects.
0 Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements.
0 Off-site disposal needs and transportation plans.
0 Temporary storage requirements.
0 Safety requirements for remedial implementation.
0 How the alternatives could be phased into individual
operable units.
The following evaluation of the five remedial action
alternatives will consider the effectiveness of each alternative
to meet these critical components:
Alternative #1 Minimize Infiltration
•»
Capping is a means of controlling the transport of contami-
nation into the ground water by reducing infiltration. Material
of relatively low permeability is placed over the waste deposit,
covered with loam and vegetated. The cap would be contoured to
promote runoff and the vegetation would promote evaporation and
transpiration. This would achieve reductions in percolation of
greater than 90 percent.
Further assurances could therefore be provided that any
possible leachate generation and future migration of contamination
off the site would be prevented. A cap would preclude air emissions,
could be rapidly implemented and would have minimal adverse
environmental effects resulting from construction. Capping has
lower implementation costs when compared with other structural
actions (i.g., removal of waste material). The capital cost of
this alternative is estimated to be $73,000. This cost is based
-------
-9-
on placement of 18 inches of material with low permeability
(1 x 10~7cm/sec.). Initial site grading was considered to
providers minimum slope toward the stream and associated wetland,
with side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Tt should be noted that contamination was found below the
water table. If contamination was migrating off site, capping
would do little to prevent further contamination. Therefore,
such an alternative would have limited the applicability at this
site. The alternative would limit use of the land in the future,
since the integrity of the cap must be maintained. The feasibility
study indicates that there would be little change in concentration
at identified receptors compared to the "No-Action" alternative.
Alternative »2 Pemoval of Waste Material
Waste excavation and removal to a secure landfill represents
the most complete remedial action. Contaminated soils would be
removed and replaced with clean backfill material. The reduction
in volume of contaminants remaining on site would:
1. Minimize the low possibility of any significant contami-
nation migrating from the site.
2. Greatly reduce monitoring requirements.
3. Have no long-term operating or maintenance costs.
Implementation would be very expensive, much more so than
capping. Pemoval operations could produce potential volatile
emissions and would require on-site sampling/analysis to optimize
removal operations.
The cost was identified for excavating and removing waste
material for disposal at a secure landfill, and backfilling with
clean borrow obtained from a nearby off-site source. In order
to excavate, semove and dispose of an estimated 13,500 cubic
yards of waste material and backfill with clean soil material,
the total cost is estimated to be $1,450,000. This estimate
is based on a SlOO/yd excavation/disposal cost and $7/yd for
obtaining and placing clean backfill.
Alternative #3 Deed Restrictions
The deed notice and plat restrictions would be entered in
county land records noting previous use of site and restricting
on-site excavations agricultural use and residential use. This
alternative would minimize direct exposure to the low levels of
contamination remaining on the site. No costs would be associated
with this alternative.
-------
-10-
Alternative #4 No Action
The principal conclusion that has resulted from the teasibiiitJ
study is that'no remedial action is required to meet OSHA, USEPA, '
NJDEP air—and-water quality criteria (See Table 2). Private wells
that serve as drinking water supplies have not been attected by
waste deposited at the Friedman site. It should be emphasized
that the analysis of all data resulting from field investigations
has indicated that the contaminants detected at this site will
not present significant threat to present or future public health,
welfare or the environment.
Alternative #5 Monitoring
The objective of a monitoring program at the Friedman site
would be to ensure the early detection of any ott-site migration
of the low-level contamination remaining on site. This would
require that water supply wells downgradient of the site and
selected ground water monitoring wells be sampled annually tor
a five-year period.
Community Relations
A public meeting was held by the NJDEP on October 20, 1983,
to discuss the initiation of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) for the Friedman Property site. Notification of"
the meeting was accomplished through press releases sent to all
newspapers listed in the Friedman Community Relations Plan and
mailings to all parties listed in the "Contacts" section ot the
plan. The meeting was attended by approximately 35 people in
addition to the Township Mayor and Council.
A second public meeting was held by NJDEP on July 12, 1984,
to discuss the results of the RI/FS. Approximately 30 people
attended. The contractor outlined the objectives, scope ot
work, results and conclusions of the Feasibility Study. he
recommended an alternative consisting of the following
components:
1. No remecUal action
2. Continued mortitoring for five years
3. Regrading and reseeding
The meeting was then opened for discussion. A series ot
comments and questions regarding the site were raised. An
in-depth description of both public meetings is included in the
attached Responsiveness Summary (Attachment 1).
The Feasibility Study was available for public review and
comment for a 30-day period at the county library, township
municipal building and NJDEP1s Hazardous Site Mitigation Admin-
istration office. There were no comments received subsequent to
the meeting.
-------
-11-
Consistency With Other Environmental Laws
Contamination at the Friedman site appears to result fcrom
disposal of domestic/household waste and demolition debris, as
well as readway run-off. There is no reliable evidence to indi-
cate that hazardous wastes, as such, were ever disposed at the
site. (The suspicion that such disposal had occured originally
triggered the evaluation of the need for remedial action at the
site.) In addition, the pattern of contamination found at the
site is consistent with that which would generally be found at a
site where disposal of domestic/household waste and construction
debris, as well as roadway runoff, had occurred (i.e., relatively
low, highly variable concentrations of a variety of chemicals).
Given this general makeup of contamination, it would appear
to be appropriate to evaluate the site in terms of standards tor
a solid waste dump, rather than a hazardous waste disposal site.
Therefore, RCRA Subtitle D (Open Dump) criteria would be relevant
for a determination of what actions are necessary to adequately
protect public health and the environment. These criteria would
be fully met through the implementation of the actions included
within the recommended remedial alternative.
Recommended Alternative
According to 40 CFR Part 300.68(j), the cost-effective
remedy is the lowest cost alternative that is technically teasible
and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damayes
to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare,
and the environment. Evaluation of the five remedial alternatives
leads to the conclusion that a remedy which combines alternatives
3,4, and 5, deed restriction, no remedial action and on-site
ground water monitoring is appropriate to protect adequately
public health, welfare, and the environment.
The results of field investigations have indicated that the
low levels of contamination at the Friedman site do not create a
substantial danger to present or future public health or tne
environment. Based on historical information and an on-site air
survey, no air quality degradation is occuring under present
conditions. The shallow aquifer has no priority pollutant contam-
ination except for low levels of methylene chloride, zinc and
phenols, all of which are at or close to background concentrations.
It has been determined that the shallow aquiter is not
carrying contaminants from the site. The sampling results ot
the deep aquifer indicate no contamination except for zinc (a
background contaminant) and three non-priority pollutant compounds.
The source of the low levels of contamination at the site can be
attributed to household trash, demolition debris and roadway
run off.
-------
-12-
Recause the remedial investigation indicates that there is
no substantial existing source of contamination or migration of
contamination, capping or removal of waste material is not
necessary to protect health and the environment. However, monit-
oring of the shallow aquifer under the site is necessary as a
precautionary measure to address the possibility of unexpected
off-site migration of hazardous substances. Specifically, the
State of New Jersey would be authorized to monitor on-site wells
for all priority pollutants plus the forty highest peaks for a
five-year period. In addition, although the degree of risk from
the site is limited, EPA will recommend to State, county and
local officials that, as a further precaution, the deed on the
property be restricted as discussed above.
Cost Summary for Recommended Remedial Alternative
The figures listed below represent a cost estimate for the
proposed actions. Since the proposed action (monitoring) is
considered to be operation and maintenance, cost sharing for
project implementation will be 90 percent Federal and 10 percent
State for a one-year period. After this time, all monitoring
costs will be borne by the State.
Monitor Ground Water On-site $60,000
for Five Years (O&M) (S12,000/yr)
Federal Share (90% o&M Cost
for One Year) $10,ROO
State Share 549,200
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The "no-action" alternative in conjunction with ground water
monitoring of the site and deed restriction is the recommended
remedial action. There are currently six monitoring wells on-site
which penetrate the underlying shallow aquifer. These wells
will be sampled for, priority pollutants annually for a period of
five years. The estimated cost for this monitoring is $60,000.
The State of New Jersey''Department of Environmental Protection
has agreed to undertake and finance their share of this effort.
-------
KFY TO ILLUSTRATIONS •
AND ATTACHMFNTS
Figure 1 - Regional Location Map
Figure 2 - Vicinity Map
Figure 3 - Local Site Map
Figure 4 - Cross Section of Regional
Site Geology
Table 1 - USEPA FIT Data
Table 2 - Remedial Investigation Sampling
Results
Attachment 1 - Responsiveness Summary to Friedman Property RI/FS
-------
REGIONAL
MAP
O£L
' I trutirric act** _
-------
.>•
MAP
GOOS£
FARM
2000*
2000*
s
ArelMrt«wn
-------
FIGURE i
'•'V '*.
• '• V*.
f
.7 NOTE BOUNDARIES OF WASTE MATERIALS
ARE ESTIMATES ONLY, AND MUST
BE CONFIRMED V
LOCAL SITE MAP
/
•OPEN FIELD
f t *
•4
I i
FRIEDMAN PROPERTY
_
ROAD
\ "\ /' -?yt T^7
-A / -./•_-:. ,-
RTE. 537
a •.'-=--
\ LAKE
i
\
• D-;
— TRAILER PARK —
i!
i .
-------
NW
•aeee'
'*•* *tr
t_LJ_LJIMM
Figure 4
Cross-section of regional site geology.
-------
TABLE 1
rit imMiuffirai or menu*
MM UKMTW JM.I I, IM1
M«1I«
Mi/1
II
IM
i.a-tcMM-»i«kioco«tiiyiMM
II
VltMiMtMM '
•U«a-«tkyllMByll|*tlMltt«
MJ/1
•.4
tetkf«o«««
nt/l
Mi/I
Ckl«cl4«
MB/I
•.a
•.a
•.MS -
•••1
•.91
•••9
•.•9
•.a
•••i
•a
Cktoalu*
units
MI/I
Mi/I
Mlck«|
•Ua
Mi/I
MJ/1
JUtlMny
TlMlllM
MJ/1
Mi/I
MJ/1
144)
l.i
4*
I.S
MJ/1
M
II
•?•
>M
JIM
IS
a.*
a.«a
aa«
•i
at*
4IM
i.l
•.II
a*
•7
!•
II*
*•
1-1
to
tk«
l«i tk«
M 1UU o( tM •*
-------
TABLE
OONUTIC MILL MATH AMALV8IS
•
VOLATILU
MASK/NEUTRAL*
TCOO
ACIDS*
ruTiciou, rc
INORGANICS
rr MathyUn* Chloride »e/l
TIC CyclottUlloiaM,
••••Mthyl ng/1
TIC a.4-N«B«dl*M N9/1
TIC Cyclot«tr««lloi«n«,
OctaMthyl wg/1
TIC 1.4-M«««dUM wg/1 f_
TIC 1,2-ftMMiMdlcar-
boiyllcacld, butyl l.J-
N«thylpropyla«t«r w/1
:•••
rr sine my/ 1
r-i r-a
MO HO
•0 MO
MO MO
MO HO
MO MO
MO HO
HO HO
HO HO
• .•4 4). a
r-j
HO
a)
».»
17
HO
HO
HO
o.oa
r-4
HO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
17
HO
0.01
DcUklng
Hat* i KtMd«r<> Dvttrvtlcii
r-5 r-« r-7 r-s rttMcy Mc««d«cy u»it
HO HO MO MO IS wg/1
1
1* HO HO HO
HO HO HO HO
I
10 HO MO MO
9.9 MO MO HO
HO MO HO MO
HO HO HO HO
HO HO HO HO
HO ..•> ••« ..•> ».«^/l .«• ./I
ffi Prloflty rollutMt
TICi T*at«tl*«ly
MO: Mlow Halt of d«t«ctlon.
•t 1 MM/n*ut(al «od 4 acid compound* war* d«t«ct«d b«low 101 purltyi tk«r«foc« tk«y c«* not b« pcapccly ld««tlfl*d.
-------
TABLE 2
11MAM MDIMMT CAMVLI AMALlfllS
•D-l
•0-2
•D-J
•0-4
•0-9
•D-t
Drinking
•taker •t«i»d*rd
rrtMry Mcoadary
Detect loo
Limit
0 AM/NEUTRAL
rr ). 4-Oemof luorentbeee tig/kg
rr OensoU) Artbreceno
rr OenBolAl ryrene
rr DensoUl riuoientbene wg/kg
rr Chryeene
rr riuorenthene
rr rbenentbrene
rr ryrene Kg/kg
TIC ryrene. 1-Metbyl-
T1C rentecoeene
TIC Cyclotrlelloiene,
NeiaBethyl
TIC 2,4-Meiadiene
TIC Cyolotetreelloiene,
OctMMtbyl
VIC Cyclobeiene
ng/kg
TCOO
4M
•20
4*0
940
240
HO
100
HO
HO
HD
HD
HD
2<0
HO
ISO
420
4eO
1M
940
1100
MO
1000
11
MO
MD
MO
HD
HD
HD
MD
HD
HO
HO
HO
HD
HD
HO
HO
HO
It
HD
MD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HO
HD
HO
220
HD
MD
MO
200
HD
HO
HD
HD
HO
HO
HD
HO
940
940
240
2tO
HO
HO
HD
HD
HO
HD
HO
HD
HD
HO
HO
HD
HD
MO
HO
HD
HO
4000 wg/kf
4000 ng/kg
4000 eg/kg
4001
4000
4000
4000
4*00 M/kg
400*
400*
400*
400* eg/kg
4000
M/k9
ACIDS* TIC rent«decenotc«cldl4-
•ethylMthyleeter tig/kg
•ESTICIDU. rcfe
iMorcAHicf rr oeryiiiu* .]
1.9
7*
0.04
HD
a.*
* *
270
HD
1.2
2.1
21
4.9
100
0.02
1.4
MO
41
t2>
HO
HO
1.2
12
1.9
11
0.0«
HD
HD
2t
HD HO
HO HD
HO
2.7
14
• .!•
24
• .01
HD
.90
.to
.1
.7
2
.Olt
.(
HD HO
49 40
MO
HO
HO
1.92
19
9
•1
•.•2
1.19
2.2«
22
4000 »g/kg
4000 vg/kg
!.•
* v*0
100
9.t
•.2
(M/9)
lug/g)
lm/g|
lM/9)
(M/9)
02 (wg/gl
(M/9)
-------
TABLE 9H
RESULTS OF
SOIL SAMPLES I BORE HOLES AND TRENCHES) ANALYSES
fiA
N-l N-2 N-l H-4 M-S H-6
10-12' 5-7' 10-12' 5-7' 10-12' 14-1»'
VOLATILE**
BASE/
NEUTRALS*
ACIDS*
TCDD
PESTICIDES,
INORGANICS
PP Hethylene Chloride
PP 1,2-Dlcbloro Ethan*
PP 1,2-Dlchloro Propane
PP Toluene
PP Trlchloroethylene
TIC 1.1-Oxathiolane
TIC Propane,
1.2.3-Trlchloro
TIC Carbon Diaulflde
TIC 2-Propanone
PP 01612-Chloro Ethoiy)
Methane
TIC Acetaalde.
n-Ethyl-n-Phenyl
TIC Ethanol. 2-Butony
TIC 1,3-Oxathiolane
TIC 1,2.4-Trlthlolane
TIC Cycloheiane, Chloro-
TIC Cyclotetraalloiane,
OctaMthyl
TIC Ethanol, 2-12-Buto-
lyethoiy)
TIC Poralc Acid, Cyclo-
henyleater
TIC 1.2.4,6-Tetrathlepane
TIC 1 ,1.6-Trlo*ocane
Sulfur Hoi. (Eg)
TIC 1,4-Dlthlane
PCBa
PP Araenic
Beryl HUB
CadBlua
ChroBiuB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
W/kg
Mg/kg
W/kg
Mg/kg
w/kg
Mg/kg
Mg/kg
Mg/kg
W/kg
M/kg
pg/kg
M9/kg
W/kg
Mg/kg
wAg
M9/kd
Mg/kg
Mg/kg
M9/kg
W/kg
M9/kg
Mg/kg
Mg/g
Mg/g
w/g
py/g
w/g
pg/g
w/g
BO
ND
.*"»
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.9
7.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
36
1.1
2.1
82
4.7
13
.035
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1900
ND
11
ND
1.1
52
0.6
4.5
.020
160
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
51
ND
260
ND
ND
ND
NO
4500
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
27
2.1
3.2
99
1.1
12
.010
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
7.8
ND
ND
2.6
0.5
2.6
.012
99
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
430
ND
8.1
99
I6U
18
.010
86
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
0.51
1.0
14
1.0
3.1
.017
H-7
13-15*
210
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8
6.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
780
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
• ND
6.4
2.1
2.1
.021
H-8 t
11-15' T-2
61 99
ND 11
ND 11
ND 14
ND 570
NO 92
ND 1900
ND ND
NO ND
ND 4400
ND ND
ND ND
t
T-l
1800
NO
ND
ND
550
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND 120000 26000
NO 23000
NO NO
270 ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND NO
NO ND
NO ND
ND 20,000
ND ND
ND ND
17 4.6
1.5 ND
1.0 0.5
21 2.0
15 2.0
4.6 5.1
Drinking
Hater
Standard*
t PrlBary/ Detection
T-5 T-7 T-9 T-ll Secondly LUltng/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
500
ND
410
ND
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
810
ND 20000
NO
NO
.012 .081
710
ND
21
18
ND
NO
ND
ND
11
ND
1.6
5.1
10
12
.014
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
II
ND
0.34
3.4
ND
2.4
.015
ND 270 ( , 10
ND ND ' 10
ND ND 10
ND ND 10
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
NO ND
ND ND ' 4000
ND 18
ND NO
ND ND
ND ND
ND 140
ND 4200
ND ND
ND 92
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
11 42 5.0 ug/g O.Uiy/g
ND 1.4 0.2
0.81 2.5 1.0 0.2
1.6 170 5.0 1.0
.81 1.8 100 1.0
ND 18 5.0' 2.0
.009 .012 0.2 0.00*
-------
TABLE 2
MATH 8AMPLI AMALfMf
•
VOLATILE Pf Natbyia»a chiorloa
•ABI/MBtmUU*
TCOO
AC IDS
ptsriciou, rco
INOMAMICfl rt SiAC
•-1
14/1 11
NO
MO
•0
'• HD
(•9/1) .•>
•-a
•D
MD
•D
MO
MD
MO
•-J
If
MO
MO
MO
HO
.15
Or Ink Ing
Mat«( Standard 0*t*ctlo»
rclaary Sacoodary U«lt
10 M/l
S.I M/l •••> *i/l
PPi Priority Pollutant.
MO: MIOM Halt of datactlon.
•i 1 Maa/nautral wa* datactad baloM tO% purltyi tbarafora tkay ca« not ba proparly idantlflad.
-------
TABL
MOUND MATH 0ANPLI8
aMALLOH HOMITOHIMO MILLS
Drinking
Water Otandard Detection
M-l M-a M-l H-4 M-S M-« Primary secondary Limit
VOLATILE* rr Netbylene Chloride »g/l HO MO U 10 HO 11 10 »g/l '
•ASI/MWTRALC* TIC CyclotrlellOMM
f
TIC 2,4,-Neiadlene
TIC CyclotetrealloB
Octaawtbyl
TCDO
ACIOfi*
PCfiTICIDU, PC*
IMONOANICO PP line (•g/1) .07 .4 .5 .02 .10 .02 5.0 M/l 0.02 m/l
99
PPi Priority Pollutant.
TICi Tentatively Ident If I
MOt fee low Halt ol detection.
•j 2 *aae/neutral and 1 acid compound Mere detected below 00% purltyi therefore they can not be properly Identified.
M/l
HB/1
(•g/ll
1*0/11
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
.07
.01
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
.4
MO
MO
NO
MO
MO
MO
MO
.5
MO
20
MO
0.0
MO
MO
MO
.02
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
I)
o.s
20
MO
MO
MO
.01
MO
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Responsiveness Summary:
Completion of Feasibility Study
Friedman Property •
Upper Freehold Township
-Monmouth County
A public meeting was held by the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection (NJDEP) on October 20, 1983 to discuss the
initiation of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
for the Friedman Property. Notification of the meeting was
accomplished through press releases sent to all newspapers listed
in the Friedman Community Relations Plan and mailings to all
parties listed in the "Contacts" section of the plan. The meeting
was attended by approximately 35 people in addition to the Township
Mayor and Council. After the initial presentation by the contractor,
the meeting was opened for public discussion. Two questions
predominated: 1) Is there a real problem at the site? and 2) Why
must the actual cleanup wait until 1985?
With regard to the first question, an investigation of the site was
initiated after receipt by NJDEP of signed affidavits stating that
toxic wastes had been dumped on the property. The contractor h'ad not
found evidence of buried drums by the time of the meeting, but the
site was still under investigation; soil and water sample analyses
were ongoing.
Discussion led to the second question of why remedial action was
such a lengthy process and, specifically, why cleanup of the Friedmc
Property was scheduled for 1985. The remedial action process was
lengthy due to the amount of time required to perform the work
following accepted Federal and State standards and procedures. The
answer to the second part of this question was that remedial action
at this one site needed to be addressed along with the approximately
120 other sites in the NJDEP's Management Plan for hazardous waste
site cleanups.
There were no additional comments or questions of major significance
generated by this first meeting.
A fact sheet was^distributed at the meeting (see Attachment A).
A second public meeting was held by NJDEP on July 12, 1984 to
discuss the results of the RI/FS. Approximately 30 people
attended (see attendance sheet, Attachment B). The contractor
outlined the objectives, scope of work, results and conclusions of
the Feasibility Study. He recommended an alternative consisting
of the following remedial actions:
1. No action
2. Continued monitoring
3. Regrading and reseeding.
-------
Responsiveness Summary: Friedman Property Page 2 of 2
The meeting was then opened for discussion.
One attendee suggested that the term "hazardous waste site" be used
with greater discretion because this site was ultimately designated
as "non-hazardous." Grace Singer, Community Relations Program
Manager and George King, Section Chief, Bureau of Site Management,
explained that the site was investigated as part of the group of
"Plumsted sites". There were reports and signed affidavits which
indicated that hazardous waste could have been dumped there.
A comment was made that regrading/reseeding this private property
would be a waste of taxpayer's money.
A resident living adjacent to the site insisted that there was
contamination at one time. He said that the site used to catch
fire. His children used to watch tanker-trucks come in and pull
their plugs. His wife had a kidney removed. In his assessment,
the contamination's "been and gone".
One attendee asked for an explanation of the earlier contamination
that was detected. He was told that the study attributes this to
road maintenance runoff and glues used in well joint couplings.
Additional possible explanations are that the earlier, less extensive,
sampling and analytical activities were in error, or that contamination
detected at that time has since been diluted in the environment.
An attendee asked if the site could be fenced off and barred from
use, allowing the property owner, Mr. Friedman, to suffer the
consequences. Ms. Singer replied that all comments would be considered,
but because the site is now deemed "non-hazardous", there may not
be any legitimate reason to erect a fence barring its use.
An attendee commented that there should be no further spending of
taxpayer's money at the .site.
The Feasibility Study was available for public review and comment
for a 30-day period at the County Library, Township municipal building
and NJDEP's Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration Building office.
There were no comments received subsequent to the meeting.
A handout set including a fact sheet, was distributed at the meeting
(see Attachement C).
The NJDEP Record of Decision (ROD) calls for annual ground water
monitoring for the next five years. Although the investigation did
not reveal the presence of hazardous waste, in order to confirm
these results, monitoring will continue. This is an additional
precaution taken due to the reported dumping. The ROD also includes
a recommendation to the Township that the deed to the property
include information regarding the investigation and its results.
-------
800 Connecticut Boulevard
Environmental ATTACHMENT A ,Ea$t Hartford. Connecticut 06108
Consultants, Inc. (203) 289-8631
Friedman-Site Feasibility Study
October 20, 1983
Upper Freehold Township, New Jersey
I. Objectives
A. Investigate Presence of Hazardous Substances
B. Develop and Evaluate Remedial Alternatives
II. Scope of Work
A. Six Technical Tasks
1. Preinvestigation Activities
a. Health and Safety Plan
b. Sampling Plan
c. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plans
2. Site Investigation
a. Soil Boring/Sampling
b. Well Installation/Ground Water Sampling
c. Surface Water/Stream Sediment Sampling
d. Domestic Well Sampling
e. Waste Inventory
f. Site Mapping
3. Identify Remedial Alternatives
4. Laboratory and Field Studies
5. Evaluate Alternatives
4
a. Cost/Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
b. Recommend Alternatives
6. Conceptual Design and Final Report
B. Status
1. Complete through Site Investigations
2. Awaiting Sample Results
3. Scheduled Final Report in January/February 1984
Principal Offices: Hartford, CT • Denver, CO • San Diego, CA
-------
ATTACHMENT B
•
H.J. -Departaent of Environmental Protection
Division of Waste Management
_ Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration
Public Meeting to. Discuss the Completion of the Feasibility Study
at the Friedman Property
Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County
Tharsday, July 12, 1984
6:30 p.m.
Upper Freehold Township Municipal Building
Route 539
Cream Ridge, N.J.
NAME
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
V -
^ £L u*
ts.F.
/
I
^
.
a PI
L
-------
NAME
U.
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
/
^
17.
18.
19.
/Ye <*£
3?
25.
2?.
28.
29.
30.
-------
ATTACHMENT C
-NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
Public Meeting
on
Feasibility Study Completion
at
Friedman Property
Thursday, July 12. 1984
6:30 p.m.
Upper Freehold Township
Municipal Building
Route 539
Cream Ridge, N.J.
AGENDA
1) Overview of current situation.
Introduction of NJDEP personnel
and contractor, TRC Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Ms. Grace L. Singer, Manager
Community Relations Program
NJDEP
2) Presentation: Feasibility Study
results and recommended alternatives
Mr. William W. Beck, Jr.,
Project Manager
TRC Environmental Consultants,
Inc.
3) Questions and Answers
-------
FACT SHEET
Public Meeting
on
Results of Feasibility Study
at
Friedman Property
Upper Freehold Township
Hooaouth County
July 12, 1984
Site Description:
Background;
Status:
The Friedman Property site is an inactive landfill
approximately two acres in size which is located at the
intersection of Routes 537 and 539, Upper Freehold
Township, across the boundary fro* Plums ted Township. It
is bordered by an unnamed tributary to Lahaway Creek,
which is a tributary of the Delaware River. The site was
suspected by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) of having accepted hazardous wastes and
household trash in the late 1950's to early 1960's. In
the spring of 1980, field investigations by NJDEP and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USE?A)
identified contamination in the ground water and surface
waters associated with the site.
Four monitoring wells were installed at the site by NJDEP
in 1980. A Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and NJDEP
was signed on September 3, 1982 for the funding of a
Feasibility Study at a total cost of $300,000. A Request
For Proposal (RFP) was prepared and issued in the spring
of 1983. A contract for a Remedial Investigation/Feasi-
bility Study was awarded to TRC Environmental Consultants,
Inc. in 1983.
The results of TRC's investigation indicate that there
have not been significant hazardous waste disposal
operations conducted at the Friedman Site. Contaminants
present in the the stream sediment samples are attributed
to road runoff, not from previous disposal activities.
There are minute quantities of both organic and inorganic
compounds on site, but these are being contained at the
sice and do not appear to be migrating in the air, ground
water, or surface water pathways. These compounds do not
pose substantive danger to the public health or welfare.
Direct contact with these compounds or contaminated soils
is improbable unless excavations are made at the site in
the future.
Over...
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
- - DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
A CosBunlty Relations Program at Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites
As part of the federal/state program of cleanup at hazardous waate
sites, a Community Relations Program is conducted to receive local input and
to advise local reaidents and officials about the planned remedial actions at
the three major stages of the cleanup: 1) remedial Investigation/feasibility
study 2) engineering design and 3? removal/treatment/constructiqn. Local
briefings and public meetings are conducted with elected officials and
residents and generally take place at: . ':
1) The commencement of a remedial investigation/feasibility study so
that local concerns can be addressed early in the process. -i.
" ** "" *
2) The completion of a feasibility study to discus*/ the alternative
courses of remedial action. There is a 30-day comment period after
public presentation of the alternatives during which the feasibility
study is available in local repositories. :
3) The engineering design stage to carry out the mandates of the
selected remedial alternative.
4) The commencement of the removal/treatment/construction stage to
advise of the expected physical remedial action.
5) The completion of the remedial action.
In addition to the more formal activities outlined above, there is
generally informal communication with local officials and residents.
Depending upon whether the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the lead
in remedial action at a site, community relations activity is conducted by
the relevant State or Federal agency.
In New Jersey, the DEP Community Relations Program is conducted by Grace
Singer, Community Relations Program Manager (609) 984-3141/4892. At Region
II, EPA, the contact person is Lillian Johnson, Community Relations
Coordinator (212) 264-2515.
HS45:ms
5/84
-------
STEPS INVOLVED IN A MAJOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CLEANUP
(1)
Site Identified
and Referred
(5)
Prioritlzation
(9)
Hiring of Contractor
for Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility
Study
(13)
Hiring of Construction/
Removal Cleanup
Contractor
(2)
Initial Site Investigation
t
' (6)
Determination of Lead
(10)
Preparation of
Feasibility
Study
(14)
Cleanup Evaluation
(3)
Secure Site
(4)
Site Analysis Evaluation
and Assessment
(7) (8)
Community Relations Signing of Contract or
Plan Activated Cooperative Agreement
(ID (12)
Selection of Remedial Hiring of Contractor
Action Alternative for Engineering Design
(15)
Contractor Audit and
Close out
New
Department of Jfovlfecnmental Protection
^Pvf *
------- |