United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
E PA/ROD/R02-88/075
September 1988
&EPA
Record of Decision
Ringwood Mines/Landfill,
-------
<
REPORT DOCUMENTATION j *.-nfO*T NO. 2.
PAGE j EPA/ROD/R02-88/075
4. Title »nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Ringwood Mines/Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
^Author(s)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
wasnington, u.c. <:U4ou
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
09/29/88
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
300/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
ls- A^te"c^(ingwoodwoM
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-88/075
Ringwood Mines/Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
surface water in the area. In July 1982, NJDEP detected moderate levels of VOCs, as
well as naturally occurring heavy metals, in ground water in the northern section of the
site, which had been retained by RRC and a portion used for industrial waste disposal.
The site was subsequently divided into four discrete areas for investigation. Between
October 1987 and February 1988, Ford International Services, Inc. conducted a removal
action, entailing excavation and offsite disposal of 7,000 yd3 of surficial paint
sludge containing lead and arsenic from four onsite areas. Subsequent sampling,
however, indicated that soil within a small area (less than one acre) still contains
concentrations of lead and total petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of health-based
levels. Furthermore, there is sporadic and moderate ground water contamination,
generally confined to paint sludge locations, exceeding MCLs for lead and arsenic. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are arsenic, lead,
and petroleum hydrocarbons.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: confirmatory sampling of soil
with excavation and offsite disposal of any soil exceeding health-based levels, followed
by backfilling and revegetation; and ground water, surface water and wetlands
monitoring. Since ground water in the vicinity of the paint sludge areas in not used as
a drinking water source and natural attenuation is expected to reduce contamination
levels of below health based levels after removal of the source, ground water will not
be treated. The estimated capital cost for this remedial action is $225,000 with annual
O&M of $50,000.
-------
DECLARATION_STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME.AND LOCATION
Ringwood Mines/Landfill, Ringwood Borough, Passaic County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action tor
the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site in Ringwood, New Jersey, developed
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensati.on, and Liability Act (CEhCLA), as amended by the Supertund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq^
and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP),
at 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
The attached index identifies the documents' in the administrative
record upon which the selection of the remedial action is based.
The State of New Jersey concurs on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action identified in this document is designed to
address potential soil, surface water and ground-water contamination
at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site. A surficial paint sludge
removal .action was conducted at the Site pursuant to a CERCLA §106
unilateral order to remediate soil contamination and to eliminate
the direct contact hazard to human health and the environment.
Under the unilateral order any soil contaminated with lead and total
petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the New Jersey
Cleanup Objectives for Soil will be removed from the Site.
There is no detectable ground-water contaminant plume at the Site,
and contamination is not' entering the surface waters which arain
the Site.
A long-term ground-water and surface-water monitoring program will
be initiated at the Site. The long-term monitoring program will
last a minimum of thirty years.
The major components of the monitoring program include:
0 Sampling and analyses of potable wells in the vicinity or the
Site.
0 Performance of geophysical surveys in order to determine grouna-
water flow and optimum placement of monitoring wells.
0 Performance of soil and rock geochemical surveys to determine
background concentrations of metals.
-------
Sampling and analyses of new and existing ground-water
monitoring wells, surface waters, and wetlands exiting the
Site.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR
Part 300, I have determined that the selected remedy is pro-
tective of human health and the environment, attains Federal
and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action and is cost effective. This
remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site.
However, since treatment of the principal threats of the Site
was not found to be practicable, this remedial action does
not satisfy the statutory preference tor treatment as a
principal element of the remedy.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Date
William J .
Acting Re-gional A
P . L .
inistrator
-------
Decision Summary
Ringwood Mines/Landfill
^.0 Site Location and Description
The Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site (the Site) consists of approx-
imately 500 acres in a historic mining district in the Borough of
Ringwood, which is located in the northeast corner of Passaic
County/ New Jersey (Figure 1). The Site, which is about one-half
mile wide and one and one-half miles long, consists of rugged
forested areas, open areas overgrown with vegetation, abandoned
mine shafts and surface pits, small surficial pits, an inactive
landfill, an industrial refuse disposal area, small surficial
dumps, a municipal recycling area, the Ringwood Borough garage and
approximately 50 private homes. The Mines are located immediately
west of the town of Ringwood, approximately one-quarter mile west
of Ringwood Manor State Park and one mile northwest of the northern
most segment.of the Wanaque Reservoir (Figure 2).
1.1 Site Geology
The Site is situated at the southeastern extension of the New
Jersey Highlands (Figure 1). The rocks of the New Jersey Highlands
are chiefly Precambrian age (more than 600 million years old)
banded gneisses, schists and igneous intrusives or pegmatites.
Topography consists mostly of northeast-southwest trending broad-
topped -parallel ridges, which were carved out by the continental
ice sheet which spread over the area during the Pleistocene Epoch,
approximately 2 million years ago. Bedrock outcrops are fairly
common along the ridges, but are scarce in the valleys. The bedrock
in the valleys is generally covered by unconsolidated and reworked
glacial deposits. Folding is the primary structural geologic
feature in the vicinity of the Site and the magnetite (iron ore) is
associated with the folds.
The combined action of folding, faulting and glaciation have all
had an impact on the hydrogeology of the Site. Two aquifers have
been identified beneath the Site. The upper aquifer consists of
glacial till and overburden and extends down to a depth of approx-
imately 60 feet. The direction of ground-water flow in the upper
aquifer is generally to the south. Ground-water discharge from the
upper aquifer is to surface streams and the Wanaque Reservoir. The
lower aquifer consists of fractured gneiss bedrock. The gneiss
itself is not permeable so that ground-water flow is along fractures
in the rock. The complex fracture system in the lower aquifer
makes ground-water flow directions difficult to predict (Figure 3).
The upper aquifer near the Site is not used as a potable water
source. Furthermore, New Jersey State law requires that all wells
in the region must withdraw water below 50 feet. Well yields
within the lower aquifer generally range from 5 gallons per minute
(gpm) to 50 gpm. Better well yields are found where the wells are
screened within cross-cutting fractures. Hydraulic conductivity
•between the upper and lower aquifers is poor. Deep monitoring
-------
RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
Figure 1 •- LOCATION AND GEOLOGIC .SETTING OF
' RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
-------
, WANAQUE
'RESERVOIR
f\
NORTH
Figure 2 - RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
DRAINAGE PATTERNS WITH -SEDIMENT AND
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SW - SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
SD - SEDIMENT SAMPLE
-------
Bedrock
Outcrops
Figure 3
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE GEOLOGY AT THE RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
-------
wells (below 100 feet) have shown that fracturing is less evident
as depth increases and where fractures do occur, they are generally
filled with silica. The existence of perennial streams with relatively
small drainage basins further implies rejected recharge from the
deep bedrock aquifer (lower aquifer).
The Highlands in Passaic County are drained by the Pequannock,
Wanaque and Ramapo Rivers which join to form the Pompton River, a
tributary of the Passaic River. There are three surface water
streams that drain the Site (Figure 2). They are Mine Brook, Peters
Mine Brook and Park Brook. Peters Mine Brook joins Mine Brook along
the southern boundary. Mine Brook flows into Ringwood Creek, just
upstream (north) of the Wanaque Reservoir. Pa-rk Brook flows into
Ringwood Creek just one mile upstream of its confluence with the
Wanaque Reservoir.
2.0 Site History
The Ringwood Mines are a series of iron ore mines that were operated
almost continuously from the mid-1700s to the early 1900s. Prior
to 1940, the entire mine area was purchased by the U.S. Government
and administered by the U.S. Government Defense Plant Corporation.
The mine area was subsequently leased to the Alan Wood Steel Company
as part of the World War II effort. Extensive subsurface mapping
of the mines was conducted during the early 1940s. In 1956, the
U.S. Government sold the property to the Pittsburgh Pacific Company,
of Hibbing, Minnesota. Use of the Site between 1956 and 1965 is
not well documented. Aerial photographs taken in 1959 indicated
that the mines were in operation at that time.
On January 1, 1965, the Pittsburgh Pacific Company sold the mine
area to the Ringwood Realty Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Ford Motor Company (Ford). The property was administered by
J.I. Keelak Inc. of Trenton, New.Jersey. A Bureau of Mines Safety
Inspection Report, dated 1-965, indicated that some refuse, including
municipal waste, was already present in the abandoned mining pits
and shafts and recommended procedures for safeguarding the mines.
Beginning in 1967, Ringwood Realty used the site to deposit waste
products from the Ford factory in Mahwah, New Jersey. These waste
products included, but may not have been limited to, car parts,
solvents and paint sludges. Some of these wastes were deposited on
the ground surface in both natural and man-made depressions. Other
wastes were allegedly dumped into the abandoned mine shafts.
In 1970, Ringwood Realty divided the property, donating 290 acres
to the newly-formed Ringwood Solid Waste Management Authority
(RSWMA). The remaining land (approximately 150 acres) in the
vicinity of Peters' Mine was retained by the Ringwood Realty
Corporation. A portion of the 150-acre tract was known as the O'Connor
Refuse Disposal Area and it was used for industrial refuse disposal
by Ford which used O'Connor Trucking as the hauler. Property
records suggest that by 1974, Ford was no longer sending waste of
any type to the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site, including the O'Connor
Refuse Disposal Area. In 1973, Ringwood Realty donated the remaining
150 acres of the mine area to the Housing Operation With Training
Opportunity Inc. (How To Inc.).
-------
In March 1972, the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission,
(NJDWSC), which is responsible for administering the downstream
Wanaque Reservoir and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), agreed to permit the development of a municipal
refuse area on RSWMA property. This municipal disposal area,
located near Margaret King Avenue (Figure 4) was supposed to be
limited to municipal refuse and industrial packing and waste parts
from Ford (not including liquid waste, chemical or petroleum products).
In 1976, the NJDEP sampled surface water from the vicinity of the
Municipal Disposal Area and determined that it was contaminated by
leachate emanating from the landfill. NJDEP closed the landfill in
1976. Preliminary Assessments were conducted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NJDEP between November
1979 and April 1980 for the entire Site.
In July 1982, NJDEP conducted a Site Inspection of the Ringwood
Mines/Landfill site. Based on ground-water sampling results taken
from waters in the Peters' Mine shaft which contained moderate
amounts of benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, chloroethane and bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, as well as naturally occurring heavy metal
contamination (nickel, cadmium, tin and chromium) found in samples
from Peters' Mine Brook, the Site scored high enough on EPA's
Hazard Ranking System to be proposed for the National Priorities
List (NPL) in December 1982. The Site was officially added to the
NPL in 1983. Pursuant to a March, 1984 Section 3013 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent
between EPA and Ford International Services, Inc. (Services),
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) was retained to perform the field
studies and conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI). The RI was con-
ducted in four phases between March, 1984 and April, 1988 under EPA
oversight.
In June, 1987 a Section 106 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act unilateral order was issued by EPA
to Services to conduct a Feasibility Study (FS). WCC was retained
by Services to perform the FS. In addition, Environ Corporation
was retained by Services and WCC to conduct an endangerment assess-
ment in order to evaluate any potential risk to public health and
the environment posed by the Site.
Under a separate unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA in
June, 1987, Services and its contractors in accordance with an EPA
approved work plan, excavated and removed 7,000 cubic yards of
surficial paint sludge containing lead and arsenic from four areas
at the Site. The paint sludge was disposed of at an out-of-state
facility in compliance with Federal and State regulations. Paint
sludge removal operations began in October, 1987 and ended in
February, 1988.
In August 1988 at a meeting between EPA and Ringwood Borough
officials, EPA agreed to monitor potable ground-water wells which .
may have been affected by the Site as part of the proposed remedial
action.
-------
fcingwood Manor
State Forest
Furnace Oam Pond
alnt Sludge
O'Connor Disposal Area
erimeter of
Study Area
Peter's Mine
Brook
Residential Lots
niclpal Undfill
To Ringwood Cree
and Uanaque Res.
Rlhgwooo Borough Hall
Ł
LEGEND
PAINT SLUDGE
MINE SHAFTS. PITS
STREAM
WETLANDS
Figure 6 -, GENERALIZED SITE PLAN
RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
RINGUOOD, NEU JERSEY
SOURCE: TAX ASSESSKNT MAP OF '
BOROUGH OF RINGUOOD
6. MALDO RUDE4ASSOC. 1981
AND USGS GREENWOOD LAKE
• VQUADRANGLE
f.5 MINUTE SERIES, 1965
Approx. Scale
T • 900'.
-------
3.0 Community Relations History
The Ringwood"Borough and concerned citizens have been actively
involved in activities related to the Site since reports of dumping
were first received in the late 1960s. Ringwood residents and
Borough officials aided NJDEP and EPA in determining sampling
locations for the Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation
completed in 1979 and 1980.
Prior- to the paint sludge removal operations in the fall of 1987,
a briefing and pre-removal meeting was held by EPA with potential
removal contractors and Borough officials. Some concerns were
expressed at that time about possible hazards (including fire)
related to the removal operations, but these concerns were addressed
by EPA and removal contractor responses.
During performance of the field studies for the RI, the Borough
officials were kept informed of site activities. In early 1988
following removal activities, local Borough and County health
officials requested that EPA and/or Services conduct ground-water
monitoring of potable wells which might be impacted by the Site.
EPA has informed the public health officials that monitoring of
site-related potable wells will take place during the Remedial
Action phase.
The RI/FS reports were sent to the Ringwood Borough Library which
is the local information repository. Upon the library's receipt of
these reports, the .public comment period commenced and was ex-
tended from August 9, 1988 to September 6, 1988. Copies of the
RI/FS were also sent to the Ringwood Borough Hall. A public
meeting was held on August 17, 1988 at which time EPA presented
the results of the RI/FS along with the preferred remedial
alternative' for the Site. Prior to the public meeting, a briefing
was held between EPA and local Borough officials on August 12,
1988.
4.0 Scope and Role of Response Action Within Site Strategy
The scope of this Record of Decision is to make a final determination
of appropriate remedial action for the soils, surface waters and
ground waters (upper and lower aquifers) of the Ringwood Mines/Land-
fill site, and to provide for institutional controls (e.g. controls
on the drilling of ground-water wells and/or deed restrictions)
and long-term monitoring. A complete description of the long-term
monitoring program is given in section 4.5.
As discussed above, a removal action was conducted by Services
in 1987-1988, and entailed the excavation and disposal of 7,000
cubic yards of paint sludge contaminated with lead.
-------
Based on aerial photographs and ground reconnaissance, the Site was
divided into four areas of potential environmental concern. Area I
(Peter's Mine), Area II (St. Georges Pit/Miller Keeler Pit), Area
III (Cannon Mine), and Area IV (the inactive Borough Landfill).
The selected remedy addresses all of these Areas.
4.1 Area I (Peter's Mine)
4.11 Soil
Surficial paint sludge containing lead was removed from three
locations totaling nine acres in Area I. These former paint sludge
locations were sampled and then backfilled with clean soil. These
sampling results indicated that residual levels of lead (1300 ppm)
and total petroleum hydrocarbons (1060 ppm) may remain within a
less than one-acre area from which paint sludge was removed (see
Tables I &II).
4.12 Surface Water
No significant contamination has been found in the surface waters
of Area I. The recommended response action is a long-term monitoring
program for at least thirty years to monitor surface water quality.
4.13 Ground Water
4.131 Upper Aquifer
The EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and New Jersey Ground
Water Quality Standards (NJGWQS) for both lead and arsenic .are 50
ppb. Lead concentrations in the upper aquifer in two of seven
wells from Area I exceeded Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) by
a maximum of 35 ppb. In addition the MCL was exceeded only once
during one of three sampling events. The arsenic concentration in
one of seven wells exceeded the MCL by 6.6 ppb. Furthermore, the
lead and arsenic contamination is localized and a ground-water
contaminant plume has not been detected in Area I. The upper
aquifer will be monitored to verify that contamination has decreased
to acceptable health-based levels through natural attenuation
processes.
4.132 Lower Aquifer
The lower aquifer in Area I is free of contamination and does not
pose a threat to human health and the environment. A long-term
monitoring program of both the upper and lower aquifers is recom-
mended to ensure future protection of public health and the en-
vironment.
-------
TABLE I
SOIL: SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST METALS DETECTED IN
POST PAINT SLUDGE REMOVAL SAMPLES
RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
Soil Samples from Former Paint Sludge Locations
Location A
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
A2 A3
1.8 1.5
24 39
18 22
15 46
14 4.0
14 16
35 36
A4
1.7
34
19
30
11
16
36
A5
1.4
25
18
21
25
14
30
A6
0.60
9.6
100
9.1
72
110
15
0.70
19
140
Location B
m
6.3
1.0
400
50
0.778
1300
0.794
97
B2
0.74
0.99
69
21
0.346
40
0.483
33
B3
1.0
54
40
0.319
5.6
0.683
35
Location C
_C3
0.95
58
33
1.38
13
0.460
38
JC7
1.0
39 ''
20
0.546
6.6
0.267
29
Location D
m
1.8
38
16
29
23
14
35
D2
1.7
31
15
16
3.0
14
36
NOTES: 1. Samples collected on 14 and 15 March 1988
2. Values reported in micrograms per gram (ug/g)
-------
\ LJ 1J L> X i.
SOIL: SUMMARY OF
OROHK
COMPOUNDS DETECTED
IN POST PAINT SLUDGE REMOVAL SAMPLES
RINGWOOO MINES/LANDFILL SITE
Soil Samples from Former Paint Sludge Locations
Location A Location 8 Location C
Location D
A2
A3
Benzene
Trans-1,2-dlchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
4-methyI-2-pentanone
M-xylene
0, P-i«ylene
Bis (2 etylhexyl) phthalate
dl-n-butyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Ben/o (g,h,l) perylene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Ben.ro (b) fluoranthene*
Benro (k) Muoranthene*
Benzo (a) pyrene
Naphthalene
2-methy(naphthalene
A4
3J
2J
A5
A6
IJ
Bl
82
83
C3
C7 Dl
02
2J
I20J 260J IOOJ
2J
300J
7IJ
200J
35J
I90J
2IOJ
I20J
49J
56J
I30J
200J
200J
99J
33
4J
4J
5600
IIOJ
77J
65J
69J
42J
2J
I70J
42J 94J
I20J
46J 360J
46J 370J
I80J
66J
77J
46J I70J
320J
320J
I80J
2100
1100
NOTES: I. Samples collected on 14 and 15 March 1988
2. Values reported In mlcrogram per kilogram (ug/kg)
3. * * Indistinguishable Isomer
4. J « estimated value. This flag Is used when the mass spectral data Indicate the presence of a compound that meets the
Identification criteria but the result Is less than the specified detection limit but greater than zero.
-------
12
r
4.2 Area II (St. Georges Pit/Miller Keeler Pit)
Contaminant concentrations found in all media in Area II (Soils,
sediment, surface water, seep water and ground water) were within
acceptable health based levels. Long-term monitoring of surface
water and ground water is recommended for Area II to ensure future
protection of public health and the environment.
4.3 Area III (Cannon Mine)
4.31 Soil
Surficial paint sludge was removed from one location in Area III.
Total volatile organics exceeded the New Jersey Cleanup Objective
for Soil by 0.4 ppm in one soil test pit sample obtained prior to'
paint sludge excavation (TP-3, Table III). Two additional tests pits
were dug (TP-19 and TP-20) during the post paint sludge removal
sampling round to confirm that the contamination had been removed
from the TP-3 area. The total volatile organics were undetectable in
TP19 and TP-20; therefore it is concluded that the soil in Area III
no longer poses a threat to public health and the environment and
further remediation of soils is not necessary.
4.32 Surface Water
No significant contamination has been found in the surface waters
of Area III. Long-term monitoring of surface water is recommended
for. Area III to ensure future protection of public health and the
environment.
4.33 Ground Water
Contaminants of concern were not detected in the ground water from
Area III. Therefore, the ground water does not pose a threat to
human health and the environment. Long-term monitoring of ground
water is recommended for Area III.
4.4 Area IV (the inactive Borough Landfill)
4.41 Soil
No significant soil contamination was detected in.Area IV. Soil
does not pose a threat to public health and the environment; there-
fore remediation is not recommended.
4.42 Surface Water
Samples taken from the surface streams around Area IV did not detect
contaminants of concern.
4.421 Seep Water
Seep-water quality is believed to be representative of surface water
quality at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site. Seep water in one
sample (S-3) taken in 1984 contained mercury contamination
-------
Ill
SOIL: SUMMARY OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SAMPLES FROM TEST PITS
RINGWOOO MINES/LANDFILL SITE
TP-I TP-2 TP-3 TP-3 TP-4 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 TP-7 TP-7 TP-8 TP-9 TP-IO
(Top (Leaf (Soil/
(Soil) (Soil) (Fill) Soil) (Fill) Litter) (Fill (Fill) (Fill) (Soil) Fill) (Soil) (Soil)
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
34
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
I,I,2,2-tetrachloroethylehe
Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Total Alcohols and Ketones
510
140
26
665
36
81
262
NOTES: I. Samples TP-I through TP-13, and TP-IS were collected during July 1984
Samples TP-I6 through TP-I8 were collected on 10 March 1986
Samples TP-I9 and TP-20 were collected on 15 March 1988
2. FllI = fill soil
3. NS = not submitted. Organic vapor monitoring did not Indicate the presence of organic vapors associated with the test pit.
Samples were therefore.not submitted for laboratory analysis.
4. Values reported In microgram per kilogram (ug/kg).
5. NR = not reported. Since paint sludge and associated contaminated soil have
been removed, the sample results are not representative of site conditions.
Cd88-l55T4
Page I of 2
-------
TABLE III (continued)
SOIL: SUMMARY OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SAMPLES FROM TEST PITS
RINGWOOO MINES/LANDFILL SITE
TP-II
(Fill)
NS
TP-12
(Soil)
NS
TP-13
(Fill)
NS
TP-14
(Paint Sludge)
NR
TP-14 TP-14
(Soil) (Fill)
NR NR
TP-15
(Fill)
NS
TP-16
(FIII-6 ft)
TP-16
(FIII-8 ft)
TP-17
(Fill)
NS
TP-18
(Fill)
NS
TP-19
(Fill)
TP-20
(Fill)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
I,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Total Alcohols and Ketones
20
NOTES: I. Samples TP-I thorugh TP-13, and TP-15 were collected during July 1984
Samples TP-16 through TP-18 Mere collected on 10 March 1986
Samples TP-19 and TP-20 were collected on 15 March 1988
2. Fill = fill soil
3. NS = not submitted. Organic vapor monitoring did not Indicate the presence of organic vapors associated with the test pit.
Samples were therefore not submitted for laboratory analysis.
4. Values reported In mlcrogram per kilogram (ug/kg).
5. NR = not reported. Since paint sludge and associated contaminated soil have
been removed, the sample results are not representative of site conditions.
cd88-155T4
Page 2 of 2
-------
15
above the MCL. Subsequent sampling and analysis conducted in
March, 1988 did not show detectable mercury contamination. There-
fore, it was concluded that seep water does not pose a threat to
public health and the environment.
Long-term monitoring of surface water in Area IV is recommended
to ensure future protection of public health and the environment.
4.43 Ground Water
4.431 Upper Aquifer
Contamination was not detected in the upper aquifer in Area IV.
The upper aquifer does not pose a threat to human health and the
environment.
4.432 Lower Aquifer
Benzene concentrations were above MCLs in two of eleven samples
from one lower aquifer well in Area IV. These two samples are not
statistically valid because two subsequent sampling events taken in
1986 and 1988, did not reveal benzene concentrations in detectable
amounts. Therefore the lower aquifer does not pose a threat in Area
IV. Long-term monitoring of both the upper and lower aquifers is
recommended to ensure future protection of public health and the
environment.
4.5 Description of Long-Term Monitoring Program
The long-term monitoring program will be designed to monitor on-
site and off-site ground-water and surface-water quality to ensure
the future protection of public health and the environment.
A geochemical study of the soils and rocks at the Site will be
conducted in order to determine the background concentrations of
metals.
Presently ground-water wells are required by the NJDEP to be
screened at a depth of at least fifty (50) feet. Ground water in
the vicinity of the former paint sludge disposal areas is not
used as a drinking water source. Residences in the area are serviced
by a public water supply.
Specifically, the monitoring network will include all potentially
affected drinking-water wells and surface-water tributaries leading
to the Wanaque Reservoir. A separate geophysical study will be
conducted to optimize the location and placement of monitoring wells.
The geophysical study should include a surficial fracture-trace
analysis as well as subsurface reflection seismograph analyses to
locate fractures within the deep bedrock.
-------
16
5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics
Six different media were sampled during the RI: seep water/ soils,
overburden (upper aquifer) ground water, deep bedrock ground water,
surface water and stream sediments. As previously stated, WCC
divided the Site into four areas of potential environmental concern:
Area I (Peters Mine), and Area II (St. Georges Pit/Miller Keeler Pit),
Area III (Cannon Mine), Area IV (the inactive Borough Landfill).
These Areas were delineated based upon aerial site reconnaissance,
previous site history information and geologic mapping. Each Area
was investigated separately to ensure that all portions of the Site
which were potentially impacted, could be properly characterized.
5.1 Ground-Water Investigation
The monitoring wells at the Site range in depth from 14 feet to 543
feet below ground level. Seventeen upper and four lower aquifer
monitoring wells were installed and sampled.
Existing data indicate that at Ringwood, as well as other areas in
the New Jersey Highlands, bedrock permeabilities typicallly decrease
with depth; that is the tightness of the rock mass increases with
depth. Even though fractures exist within the bedrock, the frequency
of these fractures decreases with depth (Figure 3). Therefore, the
potential for water transmission also decreases with depth. Bedroc
permeabilities below 100 feet reported in the Phase II RI investi-
gat ions averaged on the order of 1x10~5 centimeters per second.
Based on these permeabilities, as well as investigations of the same
rock at other areas in New Jersey, there is very low potential at
deep depths for water flow and associated transport of contamination.
Only where vertical faults/fractures are encountered and are open
to flow is significant ground water found. Fractures found at
depth which are filled with silica will not transmit water. A
geologic study was conducted as part of the Phase I RI investiga-
tions to locate possible faults, fractures or joints. Four deep
lower aquifer monitoring wells were located to investigate these
faults or joints. A total of five faults were detected. Water
production did not increase significantly in the wells when these
faults were encountered. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
faults do not serve as a good conduit of water and associated
contamination.
The upper aquifer consists of an upper zone of glacial fill plus
a lower zone of fractured gneiss bedrock. These fractures were
probably caused by buckling of the bedrock during geologic uplift
and erosion. The lower fractured bedrock unit however is less
permeable than the upper unit. Permeability of the bedrock unit
for both the upper and lower aquifers depends on the fracture
-------
17
frequency and spacing which generally decrease with depth.
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese and zinc are metals
found in ground water which exceed the MCLs at the Ringwood Mines/
Landfill site (Table IV). Chromium, iron, manganese and zinc are
all related to the iron ore, magnetite. Magnetite is part of a
mineral group called the Spinels. Spinels are metallic oxides in
which metallic cations can substitute for each other within the
chemical framework of the mineral. These metallic cations may
include chromium, iron, manganese and zinc. As a result of this
substitution, all of these metals are considered to be naturally
occurring substances at the Site. Since these metals are naturally
occurring, they are not considered a threat to public health and
the environment and are not addressed further.
A summary of contaminants which exceeded applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards (ARARs) is listed in Table V and these con-
taminants are addressed below by Area.
5.11 Area I (Refer to Table V)
Arsenic concentrations in the upper aquifer exceed the MCL by 6.6
ppb in one sampling round from one well in Area I. Arsenic con-
centrations in all wells were below the MCL in two additional
sampling rounds.
The cadmium concentration in the lower aquifer exceeded the MCL
by 10 ppb in one well during the first sampling round. Cadmium
was not detected in any well in two subsequent sampling rounds.
Lead concentrations exceeded the MCLs by a maximum of 35 ppb in
three of seven wells in the upper aquifer. In each of these wells
lead was detected in only one of three sampling rounds. This lead
contamination was most likely a result of residual contamination
following the paint sludge removal.
5.12 Area II
Ground-water contaminants did not exceed MCLs or other ARARs in Area II
5.13 Area III
Contaminants of concern did not exceed MCLs or other ARARs in Area III.
5.14 Area IV
Benzene concentrations exceeded the New Jersey Interim Action Levels
for Drinking Water by 19.3 ppb in two of eleven samples which were
taken in 1984 from one lower aquifer well. In two subsequent sampling
events, benzene concentrations were not detected.
A ground-water contaminant plume has not been identified for any of
the contaminants found in any of the Areas at the Site. Results of
the RI indicate that ground-water contamination occurs at a low level,
and is scattered and generally confined to paint sludge locations. No
-------
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUND-WATER MONITORING WELLS
RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Benzene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Benzene
OB-1 OB-2 OB-3 OB-4
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
' _M JL
1.1 A. 6 NT 9.3 NT NT NT 33 NT
0.12 0.44 NT 0.14 NT NT NT 4.1 NT
0.01 NT 0.01 NT 0.04 NT
•
OB-7 OB-8 OB-9 OB-10
0.007 0.0106 0.031
NT
NT
7 NT 13 0.45 NT NT NT 9.5 NT
0.065
0.042 NT 1.9 0.32 NT NT NT 5.4 NT
0.01 NT 0.1 NT .054.088 .6 NT
OB-5
1st 2nd 3rd
31 NT
1.1 NT
NT
OB- 11
0.006
. 20 NT NT
0.06
2 . 9 NT NT
0.02 NT 0.046
OB-6
1st 2nd 3rd
4.1
0.09
0.02
OB-12
NT NT
NT NT
0.011 NT NT
NOTES: 1. First (1st), second (2nd), and third (3rd) refer to rounds of sampling
First round samples were collected during August and -September 1984
Second round samples were collected during June 1986
Third round samples were collected during March 1988
2. Values are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/1)
3. NT = not tested
4. U = unfiltered
5. F = filtered (in the field)
-------
TABLE IV (continued)
«t
*
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND tf^ROUND-WATER MONITORING WELLS
RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
OB- 13
1st 2nd 3rd
OB-14A OB-14B OB-15A
1st 2nd 3rd ' 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
U F U F
OB-15B
1st 2nd 3rd
U F
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Benzene
NT
0.027
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.015 0.0566 0.0294
NT
NT
0.078
NT
NT
NT
0.085
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.0036
NT NT
NT NT
NT NT NT
NT NT NT
0.032 NT NT
0.0022
NT NT NT
NT NT NT
0.021
RW-1
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
RW-2
2nd
3rd
1st
RW-3
2nd
3rd
1st
RW-4
2nd
3rd
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Benzene
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT NT
0.074 0.04Q
0.02
0.16
0.05
0.13
0.02
0.058
NT NT 0.42 NT
NT NT NT
0.018 0.037 0.03
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NOTES: 1. First (1st), second (2nd), and third (3rd) refer to rounds of sampling.
First round samples were collected during August and September 1984.
Second round samples were collected during June 1986.
Third round samples were collected during March 1988.
2. Values are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/1) except for methylene chloride which is reported in
micrograms per liter (ug/1).
3. NT - not tested
4. U - unfiltered
5. F = filtered
6. * = See table V for benzene values
-------
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF ARAR/CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES
ADDRESSED AT RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
WCC's ENVIRON'*
Area Area Constituent
1 Paint Sludge lead
location 0
1 Paint Sludge Cadmium
location D
1 O'Connor Arsenic
Disposal Area
1 O'Connor lead
Disposal Area
t
III- Municipal B«n/ene
IV landllll
Sampling Results by Round (ppm)
Sample 3rd ARAR/Crlterla
location Media 1st 2nd U f Title
OB- II GW 0.06 NO NO NO MCI
NJGWOS
NJCGWPR
RM-3 CW 0.0? NO NO NO MCI
NJGVOS
NJCGWPR
OB-HA CW - 0.01? 0.0)66 0.0?9« MCI
NJGWOS
NJCGWPR
08-UA O - NO 0.085 NO MCI
O9-9 CW NO 0.065 NO NO NJGWOS
NjCCwPR
RW-? CM 0.009* NO NO NJIAIDW
ARAR/Crlteria
Value
0.0)
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00066
Comment (s)
• Fill nail screened across material >hlch
may be mine tailings.
• Detected in unllltered sample.
• Detected In unllltered sample
• Not detected In any other ground water.
seep and surface water samples
• Fill «ell apparently screened across 'III
soil and debris associated «ifh the
O'Connor OlSDOSSl »rea
K
C
• fill «eM apparently screened across II II
soil sod debris asioc'a'ed «lth f>e
O'Connor DISPOS9' *re> l09-'*»)
• De'ec'ed In uniiitfed samples
• Presence no* confirmed In subsequent
rounds
NOUS: I. Table based on Risk Assessment perlorned by (NVIRON (I9HBI.
?. Conccntra* Ions reported In ppi ("K)/l lor oater a»d «q/vq lor soil and sedi«>«nt).
J. The sa«p'es »ere analyfed lor t^lal chromium. We conservatively a%su«>ed i»a» 'he chromium »as present In »ha more »o«lc he.avalenf form.
4. The concentration lor benrene In Pw-? Is an average ol *he selective /one simples calculated by (NVIRON (19Q9I.
5. U • Unllltered
6. r • filtered (In the Held)
7 . ARAR: Npn-Prc«»uli]/»ted Criteria :
NJGWOS • He. Jersey Ground w/»»er 0*j« Jersey Criterion lor r,ro>>" Jrrser Ground w/)ier Cleanup Criteria
MCI • USfP» Mfl.lmt.m Con t j|" < "In t l»vel I or O' i "k I ng W/»ler NJI»IOW • Me» Jt'\er Interim «CI'O" levels lor Drinking Mute'
MJ»WOC • Ne. Jersey «mbie"t filer Qiulit, Criteria AwQC • USIP« 'moment Mjter Quality Criteria
8. * • ol ten selective /o"e s^">pie^. only t.o hit-., the m««lmum concentration Is'reported.
9. GW • ground •lie'
10. NO • not detected
-------
21
detectable migration of ground-water contamination has been identified
at the Site.
5.2 Surface Water Investigation
There are three surface water streams that drain the Site (Figure 2).
WCC measured stream flows from these streams on five different
occasions so that seasonal variations could be considered.
Three rounds of surface water sampling were conducted and a summary
of the analytical data results is presented in Table VI.
Iron and zinc consistently exceeded ARARs, but as explained in the
Ground-Water Investigation section, these metals are naturally
occurring substances.
5.21 Seep Water Sampling
As previously mentioned, seep water quality is believed to be
representative of surface water quality. Mercury contamination
exceeding MCLs was found in one seep water sample from Area III in
1984. Subsequent sampling events did not detect mercury contamin-
ation.
Surface water quality at the Site is acceptable and contaminants
are not affecting the downstream Wanaque Reservoir.
5.22 Stream Sediment Sampling
Arsenic .was found in stream sediment samples from Park Brook and
Peters Mine Brook. The highest concentration found was 31 mg/kg.
Arsenic concentrations as high as 13.5 mg/kg were found in upstream
samples.
5.3 Soil Investigation
Soil test pits were dug in each Area. In one soil test pit sample
from Area III taken prior to the paint sludge removal, total volatile
organics exceeded the New Jersey Cleanup Objective for Soils by 0.4
ppm. Two additional test pits were dug following the paint sludge
removal and the total volatile organics were undetectable in these
test pits.
5.31 Paint Sludge Waste
Paint sludge was identified at four locations at the Site (Figure 4).
As part of the Paint Sludge Removal Program, the paint sludge from
each of the four locations was sampled and analyzed to determine
a waste classification. Based on these analyses, the sludge was
identified as EP toxic for lead.
After excavating the paint sludge, soil samples were taken from
the excavated surfaces of each of the former paint sludge locations.
One sample, B-l, contained concentrations of lead and total petroleum
hydrocarbons that exceed the non-promulgated NJDEP Cleanup Objectives
-------
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
RINGWOOD MINE/LANDFILL SITE
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Di-n-
octylphathalate
'Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Di-n-
octylphathalate
NOTES :
1. First (1st)
SW-1
1st 2nd 3rd
U F
4.3 4.2 NT NT
0.11 0.064 NT NT
NT NT
SW-7
1st 2nd 3rd
24 31
3.1 0.24
1.7 0.053
0.31
, second (2nd) ,
SW-2
1st 2nd 3rd
U .F
0.04
5.0 4.2 NT NT
0.27 0.15 NT NT
0.03 0.02 NT NT
0.049
SW-8
1st 2nd 3rd
U F
5.1 5.3 NT NT
0.17 0.26 NT NT
0.026 NT NT
0.086
14
SW-3 SW-4
,1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
5.1 5.6 11 15
0.29 0.12 0.94 0.19
0.23 0.12
0.13 0.091
SW-9 SW-10
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
14 13 14 12
2.4 1.0 1.7 0.44
0.29 0.25 0.12
0.01 0.52 0.07
18
. SW-5 SW-6
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3t
U
C
6.6 8.7 16 24 NT
0.33 0.18 4.2 3.0 NT
0.06 0.03 1.4 1.2 NT
0.19 0.01 0.31 0.
SW-11 SW-12
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
U F U
NT NT NT
NT NT NT
NT NT NT
0.039 0
and third (3rd) refer to rounds of sampling
3.
4.
5.
First round samples were collected on 10 July 1984
Second round samples were collected on 3 April 1985
Third round samples were collected on 17 March 1988
Values are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/1) except for Di-n-octylphathalate which is reported in
micrograms peV liter (ug/1).
NT - not tested
U - unfiltered
F - filtered
-------
for soil. In sample Bl lead was reported at a concentration of
1,300 ppm and total petroleum hydrocarbons were reported at a
concentration of 1,060 ppm (Table II). The NJDEP Cleanup Objective
for lead ranges from 250 to 1,000 ppm, and the objective for total
petroleum hydrocarbons is 100 ppm. This location was backfilled
with three feet of clean soil; however, it still poses a threat to
public health and the environment as access to this location is
unrestricted.
6.0 Summary of Site Risks/Contaminant Pathways
The RI/FS studies at the Site and the surrounding area indicate
that there are limited pathways for the migration of contaminants
associated with site disposal activities through local soils,
ground water and surface waters. A discussion of the locations and
media (soil, sediment, seep water, surface water, and ground water)
where contaminants were detected, and a separate evaluation of
potential impacts to public health and the environment are contained
in the document entitled An Assessment of the Human Health and
Environmental .Risks Associated With the Ringwood Mines/Landfill
Site, by Environ Corporation.
Environ Corporation, under contract to Woodward Clyde Consultants
and Ford International Services, Inc., performed a risk assessment
for the Site. Numerical estimates of risk were calculated for
sixteen indicator chemicals1 for each potential route of exposure,
on the basis of Acceptable Intake for Chronic Exposure (AIC) or
Cancer Potency Factors (CPFs) and the human intakes estimated for
each exposure scenario. For the Site, the potential health risks
were evaluated for the following indicator chemicals: benzene,
benzo[a]pyrene, methyene chloride, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene,.
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, selenium, thallium and zinc.
In the risk assessment, individual contaminants were separated into
two categories of chemical toxicity depending upon whether they
cause carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic effects. In the case of
chemicals exhibiting carcinogenic effects, exposure and associated
risks were expressed in an exponential nomenclature; 1 X 10~4 (one in
ten thousand), 1 X 10~7 (one in ten million) etc.2
For chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic effects, exposure and
associated risks are expressed as a ratio. This ratio was determined
1 Indicator chemicals for the Site were chosen using the ranking scheme
described in the Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (USEPA
1986). This ranking scheme incorporates information on each constitu-
ent chemical's toxicity, concentration, environmental persistence
and mobility, in order to select those constituent chemicals predicted
to have the greatest impact on human health or the environment.
2 EPA considers health risks between 10~4 and 10~7 to be acceptable,
with risks below 10"^ considered negligible and risks above 10~4
considered unacceptable.
-------
24
by dividing the maximum daily dose (MDD) that would be encountered
on site, by the AIC for each chemical compound. The AIC represents
the amount of a compound that an individual can be exposed to on a
daily basis over a long period of time, with no adverse health
effects. When this ratio does not exceed one (1.0), non-carcinogenic
health effects would not be expected to occur under those conditions.
Health risks due to exposure to ground water, surface water, sediments/
seep water and soils were considered for the Site. Highly conserva-
tive exposure scenarios were utilized in estimating contact with each
media. For ground-water ingestion, for example, it was assumed that
individuals would drink only the most contaminated ground water
identified in each area over a seventy-year lifetime.
The risk assessment concluded that lifetime ingestion of arsenic
present in ground water from three sampling locations in the upper
aquifer, lifetime ingestion of lead and thallium in two of the same
sampling locations in the upper aquifer, and lifetime ingestion of
cadmium and lead from one sampling location in the lower aquifer would
pose unacceptable health risks. It is noted however, that much of
the contamination appeared only sporadically in the sampling, and
was clearly not widespread throughout the Site. Additionally, the
residents of Ringwood receive water from a municipal water supply,
and NJDEP will not permit installation of wells to minimize the
possibility of any future use of water from the upper aquifer.
Furthermore, natural attenuation processes should bring the sporadic
contamination down to health-based levels.
EPA determined further that the. presence of residual soils from the
paint sludge removal action in a small area around soil sample
Bl, could potentially pose a health risk over time, and EPA will
confirm this contamination through resampling, and, if necessary,
supervise the removal of these soils from the Site.
The risk assessment determined that exposure to other site soils
and surface water does not present significant risk to public
health and the environment.
Table VII lists compounds and their current pathways where a risk
greater than 1 X 10~6 and a MDD/ADI ratio greater than one was
estimated.
7.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
EPA's preferred alternative as documented in the Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) was the No Further Action with Long-Term Periodic
Monitoring alternative. This alternative has been altered because
a Health Consultation conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has shown that soil in a small portion
of Area I may pose a threat to human health.
Post paint sludge removal sampling revealed that one soil sample
-------
SUMMARY OF POTENtlAL PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
ADDRESSED AT RINCWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
rfCC's
Sampling Results fly Round (ppm)
ENVIRON'S Sample • i» d
Area Constituent location Media 1st 7nd U F
1 i I e t i me
Cancer
Risk
Ma* Imum
MOO/A'JI Exposure
Ratio Scenario Comments
Exis;
Path-
Yes
I Paint Sludge Arsenic
location A
I Paint Sludge Arsenic
Ioc a 11 on 0
O8-15B
09-11
GW
CM 0.006
0.00?
NO
NO
NO
NO
1.01 K 10"
7.74 > 10"
Assumes Ingest Ion of upper
OQuller ground water.
Assumes Ingest Ion ol upper
aquifer ground water.
Detected In unllltered sample.
Does not e»ceed AHAR/Crlterla.
Fill *ell screened across material
which may be mine tailings.
Does not e»ceed *B»R/cnt«r|8.
Detected In unllltered sample.
Paint Sludge . lead
location D
08-11 GW 0.06 NO NO
NO
7.5? • Assumes Ingestlon ol upper
aquifer ground water.
Fill well screened across material
which may be mine tailings.
Delected in unllltered sample.
Ps'it Sludge Thai 11 urn
local Ion D
08-11 GW 0.01
NO
NO
I*. 7 • Assumes Ingestlon ol upper
aquiler ground water.
Fill well screened across material
which may be mine tailings.
Detected In unliltered simple.
Paint Sludge Cadmium
location 0
RV-3 GW 0.07 NO NO
NO
4.06 • Assumes IngestIpn ol lower
aquiler ground water.
Detected In unliltered sample.
Not delected In any other ground
water, seep and surlace water samples.
Paint Sludge lead
local Ion 0
Paint Sludge Chromium
location 0 (see not* B)
RW-J GW 0.0) NO NO
NO
RW-J GW NO NO NO 0.058
7.1} • Assumes Ingestlon ol lower
aquiler ground water.
Detected In unllltered sample.
Does not e«ceed ARAR/Crlterla.
Detected In tillered sample only.
Not detected In any other ground
water, seep and *ur(ace water sample*.
-------
S'JMMARY OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
ADDRESSED AT RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
Sampling Results By Round (pp(*o lifetime Ma«lmum
rfCC's ENV IRON'S
*rea Area Constituent
1 O'Connor Arsenic
Disposal Area
1 O'Connor Arsenic
Disposal Area
1 O'Connor Lead
Disposal Area
II- Municipal Ben/ene
Land! II 1
Sample
location
OB-MA
08- MB
OB-9
OB-IO
SD-9
SO- 10
08-I4A
08-9
RW-7
3rd Cancer MOD/'Dl t-oosure ^XIJ
Media 1st 7nd U
CM - 0.01) 0.0)66
GW - 0.0)6 NO
GM 0.007 O.OIO6 NO
CW O.OJI - NO
SED J1.4
SEO 77.3
GW - NO 0.08)
C* NO 0.06) NO
GW 0.009* NO NO
f Risk Ratio Scenario
0.0794 7.59 » 10 - • Assumes Ingestlon ol upper •
NO aquifer ground water.
NO
NO
1.3? » 10 • Assumes dermal contact •
wl th sediment.
-A
4.6) « 10 • Assumes Incidental
Ingestlon of sediment.
NO - 3.)7 • Assumes Ingestlon ol upper •
NO aquiler ground water. •
7.J8 « I0~6 - • Assumes Ingestlon ol lower •
aqul fer ground water
4.7) • 10 and Inhalation while
shower 1 ng.
Comments
Risk based on concentration
In 08.I4A.
Do not e»ceed ARAR/Crl ter la
(O8-I4B. 08-9, and 06-10).
Constituent occurs naturally. ^
concentration eq--i'-'sle"- -~ fcarXcrs-nc
Ratio based on concentration In OB-MA.
Detected In unliirered samples.
May be an artifact ol sampling.
OIES: I. Table based on Risk Assessment performed by ENVIRON (1988).
7. Concentrations reported In ppm (mg/l for water, and ng/kg lor soil end sediment I.
3. The concentration lor ben/ene In RW-? Is an average ol the selective /one samples calculated by ENVIRON (1988).
4. U • Unl11tered
). r - filtered (In the Held).
6. • • O» ten selective /one samples, only two hits. The mo«l«u« concentration Is reported.
7. NO • Not Detected*
8. The samples were enaly/ed lor total chromium. We conservatively assumed that chrc-lu- -as present In the -ore to.lc he.evelent form.
-------
27
(Bl) in Area I contained lead and total petroleum hydocarbons which
exceed the health-based levels (see Table I). The remedial action
will now include confirmatory sampling and excavation and off-site
disposal of this soil. The removal area will then be graded, back-
filled with clean soil and revegetated. The capital cost for this
action is estimated at $75,000.
8.0 Description of Alternatives
A Feasibility Study (FS) was initiated in March 1988. The FS eval-
uated various alternatives for site cleanup based upon the findings
of the RI. Four ground-water alternatives were developed which
addressed the localized and low level contamination in Areas I, III
and IV. These alternatives are described in the FS document and in
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan.
As documented in the Summary of Site Risks section of this document,
the ground water at the Site currently does not pose a significant
risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, alternatives
discussed in the FS for ground-water remediation are not included
in the Record of Decision and only alternatives and proposals which
address the threats posed by the Site are described in this document.
8.1 Proposal for Confirmatory Sampling Then Removal of Soil,
Backfilling, Grading and Revegetation in Area ~T
As stated in the Site History section of this document, 7,000 cubic
yards of surficial paint sludge were excavated and removed by Services
under.a unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA in June, 1987.
Post removal sampling revealed that soil within a small portion of
Area I (less than one acre) still contained lead and total petroleum
hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of health-based levels.
Confirmatory sampling will be performed in order to verify the
results of the post-removal sampling. If these results are verified,
then the remaining contaminated soil exceeding health-based levels
will be removed from/and around the location of post paint sludge
excavation sample Bl and transported to a RCRA hazardous waste
facility. The area will be resampled, then graded, backfilled with
clean soil and revegetated.
The lead concentration in sample Bl was 1,300 ppm. The NJDEP
Cleanup Objective for lead in soils is from 250 to 1,000 ppm. This
proposal is expected to reduce the lead level to below 250 ppm.
The total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration in sample Bl was
1,060 ppm. The NJDEP Cleanup Objective for total petroleum hydro-
carbons in soil is 100 ppm. This proposal should reduce the total
petroleum hydrocarbon concentration to below 100 ppm.
The estimated capital cost for this proposal is $75,000.
-------
28
8.2 Ground-Water and Surface Water Alternative; No Further Actioji
with Periodic Long-Term Monitoring
This alternative addresses the ground water and surface water at the
Site. A long-term ground-water and surface-water monitoring program
is included in this alternative in order to confirm that chemical
concentrations in the ground water of the upper aquifer in Area I
reach health-based levels within a short period of time, and to
protect against possible future threats to the ground water and
surface water throughout the Site.
This alternative acknowledges that the suspected source of ground-water
contamination (i.e. paint sludge) has been eliminated and assumes
that any residual contamination levels will decrease over time to
acceptable levels. The monitoring network will include all potentially
affected drinking water wells and surface water tributaries to the
Wanaque Reservoir. Geophysical studies such as fracture-trace analyses
and mapping of faults, folds, lineations and joints will be conducted
to optimize the location and placement of long-term monitoring wells.
Geochemical analyses of surrounding rocks and soil will be conducted
in order to establish background concentrations of metals. After five
years the monitoring program will be reevaluated to ensure that the
ground water has reached health-based levels and the surface water is
not impacting the Site. However, long-term monitoring for the entire
Site should continue for a period of thirty years.
Presently, the shallow aquifer is not being used as a potable water
'source and•restrictions on shallow wells should remain in effect in
the forseeable future. Within a short period of time, natural atten-
uation should bring levels of contaminants of concern below ARARs.
Capital, operation and maintenance and net present worth costs are
estimated as follows:
Capital Costs = $150,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs = $50,000
* Net Present Worth = $712,889
* Based on 8% discount rate and 30-year period of performance.
9.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Each proposal and alternative was evaluated and analyzed according
to the following nine criteria:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
- Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Short-term effectiveness
-------
29
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
Implementability
- Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The proposal to conduct confirmatory sampling and remove soil that
is above health-based levels in Area I is protective of human
health and the environment because it eliminates the remaining
source of ground-water and soil contamination.
The No Further Action with Periodic Long-Term Monitoring Alternative
will provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
The source of suspected contamination (i.e., paint sludge) has been
removed and the long-term monitoring program will be designed to
protect against future threats to human health and the environment.
9.2 Compliance with ARARs
The proposal to conduct confirmatory sampling of soil above health"
based levels will eliminate the contaminated soil around the Bl area
which is above the New Jersey Cleanup Objectives (NJCO) for soils.
This proposal will bring the remaining contaminated soil in compliance
with the NJCO. This portion of the Site will be closed consistent
with- alternate clean-closure requirements under RCRA.
The paint sludge which has already been removed from the Sitef was
found to be a RCRA characteristic waste for lead. Due to the
small amount of contaminated soil remaining .and its lower lead
concentration, the remaining soil is not expected to be a RCRA
characteristic waste. Because the remaining soil is not a RCRA
characteristic waste, land ban requirements do not apply.
The purpose of the long-term ground-water and surface-water monitor-
ing program is to ensure that the ground water and surface water
are at State and Federal MCLs.
9.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Confirmatory sampling and removal of the soil in Area I will
permanently eliminate the remaining contaminated soil from the
Site.
The monitoring program provides for a minimal period of thirty
years of surface-water and ground-water monitoring and, therefore,
is effective in providing long-term protection of human health and
the environment.
-------
30
9.4 Short-Term Effectiveness
The proposal to conduct confirmatory sampling and then to remove
the soil in Area I provides for short-term effectiveness.
The No Further Action with Periodic Long-Term Monitoring Alternative
relies on natural attenuation processes to bring the remaining contam-
ination down to acceptable health-based levels. Natural attenuation
of ground water and surface water should take a relatively short
period of time. The monitoring program will be reevaluated in five
years to ensure that the ground water and surface water is at acceptable
health-based levels.
9.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
Only alternatives which involve treatment are analyzed under this
criterion. Neither the Soil Removal Proposal nor the No Further
Action Alternative involve treatment and, therefore/ they are not
analyzed under this criterion.
9.6 Implementability
"- -1-- -~' "" "• — *
Implementability addresses how easy or difficult it would be to
implement a given alternative from the design stage through con-
struction and long-term operation and maintenance.
The No Further Action Alternative, does not present any implementation
problems, except that before any additonal monitoring wells are
installed a detailed geochemical and geophysical survey must be
performed to optimize placement of these wells.
The Confirmatory Sampling, Removal of Soil, Grading, Backfilling and
Revegetation in Area I Proposal, would be easy to implement. It
may require some time to mobilize heavy equipment before the removal
can be implemented. Revegetation may require some maintenance of
the vegetative cover to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
9.7 Cost
The cost criteria for each proposal and alternative include the
estimated capital costs and operation and maintenance costs (0 & M)
and the net present worth costs.
The capital, 0 & M and net present worth costs are presented in the
Description of Alternatives section of this document. The proposal
to conduct confirmatory sampling and remove soil in Area I is a one-
time action which does not involve operation and maintenance nor
net present worth costs.
9.88 State Acceptance
This evaluation criterion addresses the concern and degree of support
that the State government has expressed regarding the remedial alter-
natives being addressed. NJDEP has reviewed the RI, FS, Risk Assess-
-------
31
ment and this document. NJDEP has given its concurrence on the
selected remedial action.
j?.j _ Community Acceptance
EPA held a public meeting on August 17, 1988 at which time the
results of the RI and FS were presented along with EPA's preferred
remedy. Questions and comments raised during this meeting are
summarized in the Responsiveness Summary section of this document.
Prior to the public meeting EPA met with Ringwood Borough officials on
August 12, 1988 to discuss the proposed remedy. Ringwood officials
stated their desire for the monitoring of potable wells near the Site
and gave their support of the proposed long-term monitoring program.
10.0 The Selected Remedy
EPA's selected remedy has three components:
1. Achieving health-based levels in the upper aquifer of Area I
through natural attenuation processes.
2. Implementation of a long term surface water and ground-water
monitoring program to confirm that ground-water contamination
in Area I meets health-based levels and to protect against future
threats to the ground water and surface water throughout the Site.
3. Confirmatory soil sampling and possible removal of contaminated
soils to levels meeting NJCO. This action will be conducted
pursuant to the CERCLA 106(a) unilateral removal order
Index No. II-CERCLA-70102.
11.0 The Statutory Determinations
Section 121 of CERCLA requires that EPA select a remedy which is
protective of human health and the environment, attains ARARs , is
cost effective and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
Based upon the analysis presented in the Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives and Selected Remedy sections, the following conclusions
are reached regarding the Soil Removal Proposal and the No Further
Action with Periodic Long-Term Monitoring Alternative.
11.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Long-term ground-water and surface water monitoring are protective
of human health and the environment because the source of contamination
(i.e., paint sludge) in the ground water has been removed except for
a small' portion of Area I. Removal of soil above health-based
levels around sample Bl will eliminate the remaining contaminated
soil in Area I.
-------
-32-
There is no immediate threat to the downgradient Wanaque Reservoir.
Surface water sampling to date has shown that no contamination is
entering the reservoir from the Site. The long-term monitoring
program will be designed to monitor on-site and off-site ground-water
and surface-water quality to ensure future protection of public
health and the environment.
11.2 Attainment of ARARs
Promulgated regulations which apply to the Ringwood Mines/Landfill
Site include the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standard, the New
Jersey Criterion for Ground Water Protection and Response/ and the
USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water. The principal
ARAR is to achieve 50 ppb arsenic and lead in the upper aquifer.
Non-pronulgated criteria include the New Jersey Cleanup Objectives
for Soil.
As explained in the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section,
samples exceeding ARARs are localized and minimal. Removal of the
soil in Area I which is confirmed to be above health-based levels will
bring contamination levels below the New Jersey Cleanup Objectives
for Soil. It is expected that contaminants in the ground water
will reach health-based levels within a short period of time.
Ground-water monitoring will be utilized to confirm this hypothesis.
11.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The estimated costs associated with each alternative are presented
in the Description of Alternatives section. Combining the Proposal
for Confirmatory Sampling and Removal of Soil in Area I and the No
Further Action with Periodic Long-Term Monitoring Alternative
provides the maximum protection for human health and the environ-
ment and is cost effective.
11.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Techonolgies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Confirmatory sampling and removal of the contaminated soil around
sample Bl provides a permanent remedy for the soil medium in Area I.
11.41 RATIONALE FOR REMEDY SELECTION
Confirmatory sampling and removal of the remaining contaminated
soil in Area I combined with long-term ground-water and surface
water monitoring is the preferred remedy for the Site. The rationale
for the selection of this remedy is as follows:
0 The selected remedy is a straight-forward action and an obvious
solution. It is consistent with other actions already taken at
the Site (i.e., paint sludge removal).
0 The paint sludge removal already completed at the Site has
-------
33
eliminated the suspected source of ground-water contamination in
the upper aquifer, except for a small portion of Area I which the
Soil Removal Proposal addresses.
0 The residual concentration of contaminants in the ground water
was found to be low level and localized. No ground-water contaminant
plume has been identified at the Site.
0 Presently, ground water in the vicinity of the former paint sludge
disposal areas is not used as a drinking water supply source.
Residences in the area are on a public water supply system.
0 There is no threat to the downgradient Wanaque Reservoir. Surface
water sampling to date has shown that no contamination is entering
the reservoir from the Site.
0 Analyses of soil samples from test pits at the former paint sludge
locations and at the former O'Connor Landfill did not show significant
contamination except for a small portion of Area I. This remaining
contaminated soil will be excavated, if necessary, and properly
disposed of off-site.
0 Although ground-water treatment technologies are proven and
reliable, they may not be feasible to implement because of the low
level and scattered nature of ground-water contamination at the
Site. -Specifically, extraction wells would draw clean water from
outlying areas into the areas of contamination, thus diluting the
already low levels of contamination in the ground water. This
further dilution would make ground-water treatment impractical.
For the reasons stated above the Confirmatory Sampling and Soil
Removal Proposal combined with the No Further Action with Periodic
Long-Term Monitoring Alternative is the most appropriate remedy for
the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site. This remedy addresses the soil, .
surface-water and ground-water media, at the Site and is protective
of human health and the environment.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
RINGWOOD, NEW JERSEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction - 1
II. Site Contamination Concerns 1
A. Iron Mines 1
B. Ground-Water Monitoring 2
C. Drinking Water 3
D. Sampling ' 3
III. Additional Areas of Concern 4
A. Municipal Landfill 4
B. Other Concerns 5
IV. Written Comments 5
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL SITE
RINGWOOD, NEW JERSEY
I. Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a
public comment period from August 9, 1988 to September 6, 1988, to
provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment on EPA's
proposed remedial action of the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund
site in Ringwood, New Jersey. EPA held a public meeting to present
the proposed remedial action plan on August 17, 1988. Approximately
15 community residents attended the meeting. Copies of the proposed
remedial action plan were distributed at the meeting and placed in
the information repositories for the site.
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to document EPA
responses to comments and questions raised during the public comment
period. Sections II and III below present a summary of the questions
and comments expressed by the public at the August 17 meeting.
Section IV presents a summary of written comments received following
the meeting. The questions and comments are grouped into general
categories o"f subjects. All questions or comments are followed by
EPA's responses.
II. Site Contamination Concerns
A. Mines
1. A group of citizens asked for information about what is
allegedly in the former Ringwood iron mines.
EPA response; Although there have been allegations of
hazardous waste dumping in those mine shafts, they have
not been supported by any documentation. Allegedly,
the Ford Motor Company dumped solid and industrial waste
form car manufacturing and assembly.
EPA's investigation at the site was targeted toward
determining the quality of ground water in the mines.
To that end, contractors sampled ground water which is
hydrologically connected to the mine shafts. This
sampling was accomplished by drilling monitoring wells
into fractures that run through the mines. No con-
tamination was detected.
-------
B. Ground-Water Monitoring
1. One attendee spoke of the ground-water monitoring
wells that were installed at Furnace Dam Pond and asked
whether these wells were tested only for lead. In
addition, he wondered whether monitoring is being
conducted to test the iron content in wells near the
Furnace Dam Pond, as people use water from these wells
because they believe that they are "natural".
EPA Response; In one round of monitoring, water from
the Furnace Dam Pond area was tested for a comprehensive
range of hazardous substances. Other rounds tested for
hazardous substances which included some heavy metals
found in very low concentrations. Lead was not found.
The level of contamination is not likely to have changed
in the past four years, as there is no contaminant plume
moving from the site. This area will be considered in
the long-term monitoring program designed for the Site.
2. One resident noted that road workers are blasting to
create Interstate 287 and wanted to know whether the
blasting would cause fractures in the bedrock which
could effect the Wanaque Reservoir.
EPA Response; Blasting can create fractures, but not
deep enough to affect deep bedrock ground-water wells.
Blasting to create 287 should not affect ground water
near the Wanaque Reservoir, as these two locations are
divided by a ridge system which serves as an effective
ground-water barrier.
3. One attendee questioned the Borough of Ringwood's
reasons for installing gas vents in his yard, which
borders the Municipal Landfill, and wondered whether
gases would be pumped out through monitoring wells.
EPA Response; The vents have been installed to prevent
the buildup of methane gas, which arises from decomposi-;
tion and could lead to explosions within the landfill.
Monitoring wells would not draw gases as they are
screened in the ground water.
-------
C. Drinking Water
1. One citizen expressed his concern about the possibility
of contamination of drinking-water wells in Erskine
Lakes and asked for EPA's assurance that the water is
suitable for drinking.
EPA Response; The Borough samples the drinking water
in Erskine Lakes regularly and there is no reason to
believe that the water has been affected by contamina-
tion at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site.
2. One attendee asked whether EPA had studied the locations
and depths of public and private wells and whether
ground-water wells were monitored at the proper depth.
EPA Response; In 1983, EPA in consultation with the
Borough of Ringwood, conducted a potable well inventory.
Wells adjacent to the Site were analyzed and were found
to be free of contamination. Monitoring wells were
screened at a variety of depths commensurate with
potable wells in the area.
3. An attendee wanted to know the depths of potable wells.
EPA Response; Potable well depths in the area range
from 70 feet to 600 feet, averaging approximately
200 feet.
4. A-citizen asked the depth of the well from which the
Borough draws its water.
EPA Response; Approximately 300 feet.
D. Sampling
1. One attendee wanted to know who actually performed the
sampling conducted as part of the remedial investigations
at the Site.
EPA Response; Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) performed
sampling activities at the Site as a contractor working
for the Ford Motor Company, with oversight by EPA.
-------
2. One attendee questioned whether WCC works for EPA;
whether it has a laboratory in-house; and whether
EPA approved the laboratory that was used by WCC.
EPA Response; WCC does not work for EPA; it was
retained by the Ford Motor Company to perform technical
investigations at the site. WCC sends its samples to an
outside laboratory which was approved by EPA.
3. One attendee asked whether, because EPA is relying on
WCC and its laboratory, there are people taking civil
and legal responsibility for the results, and who is
liable in the event results have been falsified.
He also asked what percentage of samples are "split","
so that EPA tests the same samples as the contractor
laboratory to check for inconsistent results. •
EPA Response; Falsification of data is a serious
offense; however, EPA feels comfortable with the quality
of the remedial investigation data due to the Agency's
quality assurance/quality control approval process,
sample splitting, and the fact that WCC used three
different laboratories. Although the percentage of
samples that are split between EPA's laboratory and
the laboratory used by WCC varies, it is usually 25 to
30 percent.
III. Additional Areas of Concern
A. Municipal Landfill
1. One attendee asked what EPA is planning to do about
the waste at the Municipal Landfill, which he believes
to be toxic, and wondered whether monitoring wells
could be installed in the landfill itself. He feels .
that EPA is not familiar enough with the region to
identify all problem areas.
EPA Response; EPA has ensured that monitoring wells
have been installed immediately downgradient of the
Municipal Landfill to obtain ground-water data
representative of what was disposed of in the landfill.
Therefore, it is not necessary to install wells
directly into the landfill to obtain water quality data.
Up to this point, it has been EPA's understanding that
there is no hazardous waste in the Municipal Landfill.
There are two monitoring wells in the landfill area
which revealed no contamination related to hazardous
waste disposal activities. During the course of the
-------
long-term monitoring program, EPA will install more
wells, if needed. EPA would be willing to accompany
residents on a field visit to locate any unaddressed
areas of concern.
B. Other Concerns
1. One citizen stated that his announcement of the public
meeting had been delivered in the mail only that
afternoon.
EPA Response; In addition to mailing the announcement
of the meeting to interested persons, EPA placed
advertisements in local newspapers announcing the
meeting.
IV. Written Comments
A. The Proposed Remedy
1. Mr. Robert Westerdale of Hewitt, New Jersey expressed
his belief that "no further action" is not a suitable
alternative for remediation of the site. He stated
his concern that alleged uncontrolled dumping in the
mine area has caused high levels of ground-water
contamination and that ground-water movement may be
deceptive. Therefore, it may cause EPA to believe that
the Site is safe but in reality, there may actually
be a highly-contaminated plume that will infiltrate
a drinking-water source someday.
EPA Response; High levels of ground-water contamination
have not been found at the Site, and there is no
evidence of a contaminant plume. The long-term monitor-
ing program will be designed in such a way that any
contaminant plume that may develop in the future will be
detected. Potable drinking-water wells will be
monitored to protect drinking-water sources.
2. Ms. Joan Helinski of the Northern New Jersey Water
Supply Commission expressed her support of the remedy
selected by EPA for the Site.
------- |