United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/149
September 1991
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/149
4. Title and SuMMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ
Second Remedial Action
7. Authorfs)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accession No.
5. Report D«te
09/30/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. ProJecVTssk/Work UnH No.
11. ContracqC) or Gnnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report A Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Umrb 200 words)
The 2.1-square mile Rockaway Borough Wellfield site is a municipal well field in
Rockaway Borough, Morris County, New Jersey. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential. The estimated 10,000 people who reside in Rockaway Borough use the
underlying glacial aquifer as their sole source of drinking water. Beginning in 1980,
a number of State investigations revealed VOC-contaminated soil, sediment, and ground
water, which had originated from several source areas within the Borough. In 1981,
the Borough constructed a granular activated carbon adsorption treatment system that
treated approximately 900,000 gallons per day of raw water pumped from the well field.
Overall, the system has reduced VOC concentrations in the municipal water supply to
levels meeting State and Federal drinking water standards. A 1986 Record of Decision
(ROD) provided for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing ground
water treatment system, for a continuation of the RI/FS to positively identify
additional contaminant sources, and for further delineation of the full extent of
contamination. The 1986 ROD did not, however, address ground water restoration.
Recently, EPA also has approved a State-initiated modification to the current
treatment system to include the installation of an air stripper as the first stage in
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE), metals (chromium, lead)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
66
22. Price
(SeeANSU39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/149
Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
the treatment process. This ROD addresses final restoration of the contaminated onsite
ground water to drinking water standards. A future ROD will address the need for
remediation of the contaminant sources. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE; and metals including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes onsite pumping and treatment of
ground water from two of three plumes of concern using chemical precipitation and air
stripping, followed by reinjecting the treated ground water onsite into the glacial
aquifer; and conducting environmental monitoring. Under this remedial action, a single
treatment facility would be necessary for the two treatment areas, and no active remedial
measures would be taken for the third plume. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $17,818,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $1,502,000 for 27
years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based
on the more stringent of Federal or State MCLs, and include PCE 1 ug/1 (State MCL) and
TCE 1 ug/1 (State MCL).
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
0 & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Borough, Morris Co., New Jersey
II
42.26 (August 1982)
377 (March 1990)
September 30, 1991
Extraction of contaminated groundwater plume
for treatment via chemical precipitation and
air stripping. Reinjection of treated
groundwater and appropriate environmental
monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy.
$ 4,959,000
$ 1,502,000
$ 17,818,000
Agency Federal Remedial Lead
Primary Contact (phone): Courtney McEnery (212) 264-1251
Secondary Contact (phone): Robert McKnight (212) 264-7509
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Groundwater - Elevated levels of VOCs,
primarily TCE and PCE.
Groundwater.
Pollution originated from three separate
source areas within Rockaway Borough.
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Office of the Commissioner
CN40Z
Trenton. Nj 08625-0402
Tel. # 609-292-2885
Scotr A. Weiner Fax # 609-984-3962
Commissioner
September 30, 1991
Mr. Constantine Sidaaon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Sidaaon-Eristoff: ~ ~
Subject: Rockavay Borough Municipal Vellfield
Record of Decision Concurrence Letter
After reviewing the selected remedy proposed by EPA and the Information you
supplied the Department in the Agency's Preliminary Evaluation memo dated
September 16, 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) conditionally concurs with the selected remedy for the
above referenced site at this time.
"The remedy presented in this document addresses the current and future
threats to human health and the environment associated with the
contaminated grpundwater at the Rockavay Borough Well Field site. A
previous Record of Decision, signed on September 29, 1986, selected an
initial remedy for the site which called for the continued operation
and maintenance of the existing Borough water treatment system, but did
not address groundwater restoration. This Record of Decision provides
for the restoration of the contaminated groundwater to drinking water
standards. A subsequent decision document is planned to evaluate the
need for remediation of the contaminant sources.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater and restoration of the
groundwater to drinking water standards;
Treatment of extracted groundwater to levels attaining drinking
water standards.;
Reinjaction of treated groundwater; and
- Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness
of the remedy."
New/ersey Is «n Cqutl Opportunity Employer
Recycled Ptper
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD
Site Name and Location
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockavay Borough, Morris County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
groundwater contamination at the Rockavay Borough Well Field
site, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision
is based on the administrative record for the site.
Assessment of.the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
«
The remedy presented in this document addresses the current and
future threats to human health and the environment associated
with the contaminated groundwater at the Rockaway Borough Well
Field site. A previous Record of Decision, signed on September
29, 1936, selected an initial remedy for the site which called
for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing
Borough water treatment system, but did not address groundwater
restoration. This Record of Decision provides for the
restoration of the contaminated groundwater to drinking water
standards. A subsequent decision document is planned to evaluate
the need for remediation of the contaminant sources.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater and restoration
of the groundwater to drinking water standards;
Treatment of extracted groundwater to levels attaining
drinking water standards;
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Rockaway Borough Well Field site is located in Rockaway
Borough, Morris County, New Jersey. The Borough is approximately
2.1 square miles in size and is bordered to the north and west by
Rockaway Township and to the east and south by Denville Township.
The Rockaway Borough Well Field site is a municipal well field
serving approximately 10,000 people. Groundwater in the area is
classified as.Class II-A, a current source of drinking water.
The Borough's three water supply wells (Numbers 1, 5, and 6) are
in a glacial aquifer designated as a sole source aquifer since it
is the only viable source of drinking water for Rockaway Borough
and the surrounding communities. The three municipal wells are
located off Union Street in the eastern section of the Borough.
The municipal wells .range in depth from 54 to 84 feet.
The Rockaway River is located approximately 750 feet south of the
center of the well field, and Beaver Brook, a tributary to the
Rockaway River, is located approximately 2,000 feet to the east.
Both the Rockaway River and Beaver Brook are classified as FW2-NT
surface water bodies, indicating that they are fresh water with
no natural trout population. Prior to distribution, the
groundwater is treated by a carbon adsorption treatment system
which is housed near municipal well Number 5, along with the
Rocknway Borough Department of Public Works garage.
Rockaway Borough is located in northwestern New Jersey in the
broad, flat valley of the Rockaway River, between two prominent
ridges. The easternmost boundary of the borough is near the
confluence of the Rockaway River and Beaver Brook. Local relief
is approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Glacial
processes have shaped the surrounding area. The local bedrock
was scoured by glaciers into northeast- to southwest-trending
ridges separated by broad valleys. Large cobble and boulder
fields are present throughout the area as remnants of the
Wisconsinan terminal moraine.
Bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits and fill material
throughout most of the site area. These deposits vary in
thickness and are typically thickest in the bedrock troughs. In
addition, the thickness of these deposits varies depending on the
proximity to the terminal moraine which generally parallels the
Rockaway River.
An interpretation of available subsurface information shows five
stratigraphic subunits within Rockaway Borough. These units, in
-------
descending order, include: (l) undifferentiated fill; (2) a
well-sorted sand and gravel unit with cobble-rich horizons; (3) a
clay and silt unit; (4) a boulder and cobble unit with abundant
sand and gravel; and (5) biotite gneiss, granite and/or diorite
bed.-ock. During the field investigation, a clay unit was not
observed at any of the newly installed soil borings or monitoring
well locations, although other environmental investigations
conducted under New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility
Act (ECRA) indicated that a clay/silt confining unit is present
in the northeast portion of the site.
Regional groundwater flow within the glaciofluvial aquifer is in
an easterly to southeasterly direction. The municipal production
wells have a direct effect upon groundwater elevations,
direction, and flow patterns within select portions of the
Borough. Municipal pumping well Number 6 is the primary
production well of the Borough, with additional quantities of
water being pumped from Number 5 and Number 1. Groundwater
within the area of influence of the municipal pumping wells will
flow at various rates towards these wells. The rate of flow is
proportional to the hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient,
porosity of the aquifer and the pumping rates of the municipal
production wells.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Investigations, conducted by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) at the Rockaway
Borough Well Field site since 1980, indicated the presence of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene
(TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the groundwater. Other
investigations that were conducted since 1985 at several
industrial facilities in Rockaway Borough, under ECRA and other
programs, have identified sediment, soil, and groundwater
contamination. These facilities include the Roned Realty
industrial area, the Klockner and Klockner property, the Pettit
Paints facility, and the Stapling Machine Company. The primary
contaminants of concern are TCE and PCE. Several inorganic
compounds including chromium, lead, and nickel were also
identified. This contamination, which has affected the well
field, emanates from multiple source areas within Rockaway
Borough.
The presence of VOC contamination caused the Borough of Rockaway
to construct a three-bed granular activated carbon (GAC)
adsorption treatment system. The system began operating in July
1981, treating approximately 900,000 gallons per day (gpd) of raw
water pumped from the Borough's wells. Overall, the system has
reduced the VOC contaminant concentrations in the municipal water
supply to levels meeting the state and federal drinking water
standards.
-------
In December 1982, the site was placed on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Priorities List of Superfund
sites. Under a cooperative agreement with EPA, NJDEPE initiated
a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. The first
operable unit RI/FS, conducted by NJDEPE, confirmed the presence
of the VOC contamination, but was unable to determine the overall
extent or source(s) of the contamination. The RI/FS utilized a
soil gas survey that identified three potential source areas
within the Borough, although the horizontal and vertical extent
of groundwater and soil contamination was not defined. As part
of the study, remedial alternatives were developed and evaluated
to address the known contamination.
Following a public meeting, at which the results of the RI/FS
were presented, and a 30-day public comment period, EPA signed a
Record of Decision (ROD) on September 29, 1986. This ROD
selected a remedy for the Rockaway Borough Well Field site with
the concurrence of the NJDEPE. The selected remedy called for
the Borough to continue to operate and maintain the existing GAG
filtration system, but noted that the carbon should be changed
more frequently. The ROD also directed the continuation of the
RI/FS in an attempt to positively identify the contaminant
source(s) and further delineate the full extent of contamination.
In recent communications, Rockaway Borough has requested EPA
approval of a modification of the current treatment system as
approved of in the 1986 ROD. This modification would include the
installation of an air stripper as the first stage in the
treatment process to be followed by the GAC system. The Borough
has determined that due to increases in drinking water standards
and the cost of carbon replacement, the proposed upgrade of the
treatment process would be cost-effective.
Since, with this modification, the treatment would continue to be
protective of public health and the environment, continue to
provide potable water which meets federal and state drinking
water standards, and be more cost-effective for the Borough to
operate and maintain, EPA has determined that it is consistent
with the 1986 ROD and, therefore, EPA has no objection to it
being implemented by the Borough. Further, EPA recognizes that
continued operation of the Borough's water treatment system is an
integral part of the remedy selected in this ROD and, therefore,
supports any measures taken to reduce operational costs.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan (CRP) was developed to ensure the
public opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions,
including site analysis and characterization, alternatives
analysis, and remedy selection. In addition, the CRP was used by
EPA to determine, based on community interviews, activities to
-------
ensure public involvement and to provide opportunities for the
community to learn about the site.
EPA held a meeting in August 1986 to explain the initial RI/FS to
the public and to report on the progress being made at the site.
The results of the RI/FS were presented and groundwater
remediation efforts planned for the near future were discussed.
Another meeting was held in November 1989. The purpose of the
meeting was'to provide residents and local officials with an
update on past activities conducted by EPA and NJDEPE, and to
discuss the activities of the supplemental RI/FS.
The supplemental RI and FS reports, which addressed the
groundwater contamination, were released to the public in July
1991. A Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, was released on July 18, 1991. The documents were
made available to the public at information repositories
maintained at the Rockaway Free Public Library and the Rockaway
Borough Municipal Complex. The administrative record for the
site is located at the Rockaway Free Public Library. A public
comment period was held from July 18 through September 16, 1991.
A public meeting was held on August 12, 1991, to present the
findings of the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, and to solicit
public input. The issues raised at the public meeting and during
the public comment period are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. This decision
document presents the selected remedial action for the Rockaway
Borough Well Field site, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). The decision for this site is based on the administrative
record.
SCOPE AMD ROLE OF ACTION
This document addresses the requirement of the 1986 ROD which
called for the preparation of a supplemental RI/FS, and deals
specifically with contamination in groundwater. The selected
remedial action entails pumping and treating contaminated
groundwater for restoration of the aquifer. This restoration
will take an estimated 27 years to complete; however, actual
aquifer conditions during remediation may affect this duration.
As noted above, this document deals specifically with remediation
of the groundwater. Additional investigations to further
delineate the extent of contamination within the immediate source
areas will be necessary. While the purpose of the remedial
action is to achieve the goal of aquifer restoration, it does not
constitute a -final action for the site. A subsequent operable
-------
unit will be necessary to evaluate the need for remediation of
contamination sources.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Although the 1986 ROD selected a remedy for the site, the data
obtained during the initial RI/FS were insufficient to fully
characterize the groundwater plume and positively identify source
areas. Therefore, it was necessary for EPA to conduct a
supplemental study.
The field investigation at the Rockaway Borough Well Field site
consisted of a soil boring and groundwater monitoring well
installation program, and the sampling of subsurface soils and
groundwater.
Soil
The soil sampling program included five soil borings taken in an
area that may have been once used as a municipal landfill located
near John and Barnett Streets in the northeast section of
Rockaway Borough. VOC contamination was detected in one soil
boring, but did not exceed the NJDEPE soil action level. Eight
additional soil borings were located throughout Rockaway Borough
at suspected contaminant source areas. Figure 1 shows the
locations of the soil borings. These soil borings were
eventually converted to monitoring wells during the RI.
Inorganic contamination was detected in soil boring samples in
the former Morris Canal, near the Wall Street/East Main Street
area, and the Dye Pit area, near the current location of the
Saints Peter & Paul Orthodox Church. Of the 18 inorganic
compounds identified in the subsurface soil, beryllium was
detected at levels slightly above NJDEPE Interim Soil Action
Levels. Arsenic and chromium were also detected above NJDEPE
soil action levels. Tables 1 and 2 show the concentrations of
contamination found through the soil sampling program.
Groundwater
Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected during the
supplemental, or Phase II RI. The first sampling round occurred
in October 1989 and consisted of sampling 23 existing monitoring
wells. The second round of sampling occurred in September 1990
and consisted of sampling groundwater in 11 newly installed Phase
II monitoring wells in addition to 44 other monitoring wells
located throughout Rockaway Borough. Figure 1 shows the
locations of the monitoring wells. Groundwater samples obtained
from shallow, intermediate, and deep wells were analyzed and the
results demonstrated that the groundwater is contaminated with
VOCs and metals. Tables 3 through 5 show the concentration of
the contaminants found in the groundwater.
-------
A total of 12 organic compounds were detected in the groundwater
in Rockaway Borough. VOCs were the most frequently detected
organic chemicals and of these, PCE and TCE were the most common.
TCE was found in significantly higher concentrations than PCE.
Concentrations of both contaminants exceeded the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which have been developed to protect
drinking water. TCE was detected at concentrations as high as
5,900 parts per billion (ppb) in an intermediate depth
groundwater monitoring well, and PCE was detected at
concentrations as high as 570 ppb in a shallow well. The New
Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act MCL for both of these contaminants
is 1 ppb. The other organic chemicals were detected infrequently
in the groundwater at generally low (<5 ppb) concentrations.
The extent of groundwater contamination by inorganic compounds
was evaluated based on the results of samples collected from the
11 newly installed monitoring wells. Chromium, beryllium, and
nickel were detected at levels above the primary MCLs. The
highest level of chromium was detected in a Wall Street/East Main
Street monitoring well at a level of 1,170 ppb. The MCL for
chromium is 50 ppb.
Based on the sampling program conducted in the RI, groundwater is
contaminated in the Klockner and Klockner, Roned Realty, and the
Wall Street/East Main Street areas, with the. most extensive
contamination present near the Klockner and Klockner property.
Figure 2 shows the conceptual location of the three areas of
organic groundwater contamination. The extent of organic
contamination in the groundwater is generally described as
follows:
Klockner & Klockner area - The plume is approximately 1,125
feet wide by 1,375 feet long, and 100 feet deep. The
contaminated groundwater volume is estimated to te
approximately 290 million gallons. Organic contaminant
levels range from 0.5 to 570 ppb for PCE and from 0.3 to
5,900 ppb for TCE.
Roned Realty industrial area - The plume is approximately
500 feet in diameter. The contaminated groundwater volume
is approximately 11 million gallons. Organic contamination
is primarily TCE, which ranges from 1.1 to 4.3 ppb.
Wall Street/East Main Street area - The plume is
approximately 500 feet wide by 1,750 feet long, and 85 feet
deep. The contaminated groundwater volume is estimated to
be approximately 139 million gallons. Organic contamination
is primarily PCE, which ranges from 3.3 to 120 ppb.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Risks
EPA conducted a Public Health Evaluation (PHE) of the "no action"
alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment associated with the Rockaway Borough Well Field
site in its current state. This risk assessment only addressed
those potential human health impacts associated with domestic use
of untreated groundwater from the Rockaway Borough Well Field
site. Because a groundwater treatment system is currently in
place in the Borough, domestic use of untreated groundwater is
considered unlikely. However, the human health risks associated
with such use were evaluated to provide a risk-based measure of
the extent of contamination associated with the various source
areas within Rockaway Borough. This assessment was not intended
to provide a complete or exhaustive characterization of all risks
potentially associated with groundwater or other contamination in
the Rockaway Borough area.
The risk assessment focused on the contaminants which are likely
to pose the most significant risks to human health and the
environment (chemicals of potential concern). These "chemicals
of potential concern" and their concentrations in groundwater are
shown in Table 6, and include volatile organic compounds
(primarily TCE and PCE) and heavy metals.
Groundwater monitoring data obtained during the RI indicate that
chemicals have been released to and are being transported in
groundwater. However, because there is currently no use of
untreated groundwater by residents or other persons in Rockaway
Borough, no complete exposure pathways exist under current land-
use conditions. Potential risks associated with in-home use of
groundwater were evaluated to provide a risk-based measure of -he
extent of contamination resulting from the various source areas
within the Borough.
EPA's PHE identified several potential exposure pathways by which
the public could be exposed to contaminant releases from the
Rockaway Borough Well Field site. Persons using untreated
groundwater as a domestic water supply could be.exposed to
chemicals in groundwater through the ingestion of drinking water,
inhalation of chemicals that have volatilized from groundwater
during use (while showering, cooking, watering the lawn), and
dermal contact with groundwater during in-home use (while
bathing, swimming in pools, washing dishes).
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
-------
associated with exposures to individual indicator compounds were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively. The
Health Effects Criteria for the chemicals of potential concern
are presented in Table 7.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular media. The hazard index is
obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media. A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that the
potential.exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a
result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with.
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10"* to
1 X 1CT6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
individual has no greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a
million chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to
site conditions over a 30-year period.
The Hazard Indices and cancer risks associated with the potential
exposure pathways at the Rockaway Borough Well Field site are
presented in Table 8. The dominant health risk is posed by the
potential future use of groundwater for drinking and showering.
Based on the contaminant concentrations identified in the upper
8
-------
portion of the aquifer in Rockaway Borough, ingestion of
groundwater from the Klockner and Klockner region would pose the
greatest carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk to residents. For
adults, the excess lifetime cancer risks is lxlOJ (one in a
thousand) and the Hazard Index is 30. For persons exposed from
birth to age 30, the excess lifetime cancer risk is 2X10"3 and the
Hazard Index is 40. This is primarily due to the liver
toxicants, PCE and TCE. In the Roned Realty industrial area, the
excess lifetime cancer risk for adults is 4x10"* (four in ten
thousand) and the Hazard Index is 6. For persons exposed from
birth to age 30, the excess lifetime cancer risk is 6x10"1 and the
Hazard Index is 8. The excess lifetime cancer risks for adults
in the Wall Street/East Main Street area is 3X10"4 and the Hazard
Index is 8. For persons exposed from birth to age 30, the excess
lifetime cancer risk is 4X10"1 and the Hazard Index is 10.
Similarities of risks between the Roned Realty industrial area
and the Wall Street/East Main Street area are primarily due to
varying levels of potential contaminants of concern other than
TCE and PCE.
As in any risk assessment, the estimates of risk for the Rockaway
Borough Well Field site have many uncertainties. As a result of
the uncertainties, the risk assessment should not be construed as
presenting an absolute estimate of risks to human or
environmental populations. Rather, it is a conservative analysis
intended to indicate the potential for adverse impacts to occur.
Environmental Evaluation
This risk assessment only addressed those potential human health
impacts associated with domestic use of untreated groundwater.
Environmental impacts were not addressed in this risk assessment.
Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The goal for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination at the
Rockaway Borough Well Field site is to restore the groundwater to
the MCLs which have been developed to protect drinking water.
MCLs are enforceable standards based on health risks associated
with an individual's consumption of two liters of water per day
over a 70-year period. Therefore, health risks associated with
the groundwater contamination resulting from the site will be
reduced to within the acceptable range of between 1 x 10"1 to 1 x
10* for carcinogens, and the Hazard Indices for noncarcinogens
will be less than one. The MCLs for the contaminants of concern
-------
£t the site are shown on Table 9. The area of attainment is the
contaminated groundwater plume.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, requires that each selected
site remedy be protective of human health and the environment,
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and be cost effective.
The RI identified the groundwater itself as the principal
environmental medium affected by contamination. The sources of
this groundwater contamination are not addressed by this ROD.
The FS evaluated, in detail, three main alternatives for
remediating the groundwater. Alternatives 2 and 3 have been
further broken down into separate components. A brief
description of each of the alternatives, as well as an estimate
of their cost and implementation time frame, follows.
Alternative 1: No Further Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Five-Year Review Cost: $ 44,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 27,000
The Superfund program requires that a "no action" alternative be
developed and evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison of other remedial alternatives. Under this
alternative, EPA would take no further action to address
contamination at the site. This alternative relies entirely on
natural attenuation and the existing water supply treatment
scheme for achieving cleanup levels. A five-year review would be
conducted to determine whether or not the contamination has
spread. If necessary, appropriate actions would be considered at
that time.
Alternative 2: Separate Remediation of Plumes
Option 2A - Extraction, Air Stripping with Treated Water
Discharge
Reinjection to Discharge to
groundwater surface water
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 6,386,000 $ 6,217,000
Estimated Annual Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.: $ 3,001,000 $ 2,942,000
Estimated Present Worth: $20,439,000 $19,899,000
Implementation Time Frame: 27 years 27 years
10
-------
The major features of this remedial alternative include
groundwater extraction (pumping and collection) from all three
contaminant plumes, construction and operation of three separate
facilities for groundwater treatment, discharge of the treated
water from the three separate treatment facilities, and a
performance monitoring program.
Groundwater would be extracted at an estimated total rate of
1,450,000 gallons per day (gpd) from the aquifer using a series
of approximately 12 extraction wells. The groundwater extraction
strategy for the individual plumes would be designed to capture
the bulk of the contaminants from the respective plumes. It is
estimated that three extraction wells would extract groundwater
at a rate of 130,000 gpd (total 390,000 gpd) from the Roned
Realty industrial area. It is estimated that five extraction
wells would extract groundwater at 100,000 gpd (total 500,000
gpd) from the Wall Street/East Main Street plume and four
extraction wells would extract groundwater at 140,000 gpd (total
560,000 gpd) from the Klockner and Klockner plume. The exact
number and location of the extraction wells would be determined
during remedial design.
Treatment of the extracted groundwater would include chemical
precipitation to remove inorganic contaminants. The resultant
sludge would require appropriate off-site disposal. Chemical
precipitation would then be followed by air stripping to remove
VOCs from the contaminated groundwater.
It is estimated that VOCs would be emitted from the air stripper
at levels below allowable discharge rates without any air
pollution controls. However, the need for provisions to destroy
them by catalytic incineration or adsorption using vapor-phase
activated carbon will be evaluated during remedial design.
Discharge options include either reinjectiqn into the aquifer or
discharge to the surface waters of Rockaway River and/or Beaver
Brook.
For the reinjection options, groundwater would be treated to MCLs
and reinjected into to the aquifer using approximately 12
injection wells. The conceptual layout of the system includes
three injection wells located upgradient of the plume. These
wells would reinject into the aquifer all of the treated
groundwater from the Wall Street/East Main Street plume. At the
Roned Realty industrial area, three injection wells would be
located along the circular boundary of the plume in order to
redirect the groundwater flow away from the river. For the
Klockner and Klockner plume, three injection wells would be
located at the upgradient plume boundary. The other three
injection wells would be located near the northeastern corner of
the plume, where the groundwater divide is located at present.
An option of using infiltration galleries would also be explored.
11
-------
The exact number and location of the injection wells would be
determined during remedial design.
For surface water discharge options, the groundwater would be
treated to levels which attain New Jersey surface water discharge
limitation requirements and discharged to on-site surface water
bodies. Treated water from the Roned Realty industrial area and
the Wall Street/East Main Street area would be discharged to the
Rockaway River and the treated groundwater from the Klockner and
Klockner area would be discharged to Beaver Brook.
Option 2B - Extraction, Chemical Oxidation enhanced by Ultra-
violet (UV) Photolysis with Treated Water Discharge
Reinjection to Discharge to
groundwater surface water
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 6,369,000 $ 6,304,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 3,063,000 $ 3,004,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 20,888,000 $ 20,349,000
Implementation period: 27 years 27 years
This option is basically the same as Option 2A, with the
exception that chemical precipitation would be followed by
chemical oxidation enhanced by UV photolysis. In addition, UV
photolysis options may require treatability studies to establish
operating parameters for site-specific conditions. These
treatability studies would be conducted during the remedial
design for the site.
Option 2C - Extraction, Carbon Adsorption with Treated Water
Discharge
Reinjection to Discharge to
groundwater surface water
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 6,041,000 $ 5,871,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 2,998,000 $ 2,939,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 20,086,000 $ 19,546,000
Implementation period: 27 years . 27 years
This option is basically the same as Option 2A, with the
exception that chemical precipitation would be followed by carbon
adsorption to remove VOCs from the contaminated groundwater.
Carbon adsorption treatment would require off-site regeneration
or disposal of the spent carbon.
12
-------
Alternative 3A: Combined Remediation of the Klockner and
Klockner and Wall Street/East Main street Plumes
and No Further Action at Roned Realty Industrial
Area
Option 3A(1) - Extraction, Air Stripping with Treated Water
Discharge
Estimated Capital Costs:
Estimated Annual O&M:
Estimated Present Worth:
Implementation period:
Reinjection to
groundwater
$ 4,959,000
$ 1,502,000
$ 17,818,000
27 years
Discharge to
surface water
$ 4,369,000
$ 1,446,000
$ 16,794,000
27 years
The major features of this remedial alternative include
groundwater extraction (pumping and collection) from the Klockner
and Klockner and Wall Street/East Main Street plumes, the
construction and operation of a single treatment facility for
groundwater treatment, discharge of treated water from this
combined treatment facility, and a performance monitoring
program. No active remedial measures would be taken for the
Roned Realty industrial area plume. The residual risks
associated with the Roned Realty industrial area are not
considered significant, since flushing and attenuation processes
are expected to restore the aquifer quality in that area prior to
the completion of the remediation efforts at the Klockner and
Klockner and Wall Street/East Main Street plumes.
Conceptually, groundwater would be extracted at a total, rate of
approximately 1,060,000 gpd from the aquifer using an estimated
nine, extraction wells. It is anticipated that five extraction
wells pumping at approximately 100,000 gpd each for the Wall
Street/East Main Street plume, and four extraction wells pumping
at approximately 140,000 gpd each for the Klockner and Klockner
plume would be required. The exact number and location of the
injection wells would be determined during remedial design.
Treatment and discharge options for this option are the same as
those for Alternative 2, Option A. However, one single treatment
facility would be constructed, instead of three separate
facilities discussed in Alternative 2.
It is expected that the amount of groundwater treated would vary
in time. Initially, groundwater would be treated at a total rate
of approximately 1,060,000 gpd, but would decrease to
approximately 560,000 gpd as the Wall Street/East Main Street
plume attained remediation goals (estimated at approximately 11
years). At that point in time, only the wells extracting
groundwater from the Klockner and Klockner plume would continue
to operate (estimated at approximately 16 more years).
13
-------
Considering this variation in treatment requirements, a modular
approach could be used in estimating the size of the treatment
facility. The facility could have two modules, essentially one
for each of the two plumes being treated. As soon as the
remediation of the Wall Street/East Main Street area is
completed, one module could be shut off, achieving a significant
reduction in O&M costs for the duration of remediation. The
overall cleanup time frame is estimated to be 27 years.
Option 3A(2) - Extraction, Chemical Oxidation enhanced by UV
Photolysis with Treated Water Discharge
Estimated Capital Costs:
Estimated Annual O&M:
Estimated Present Worth:
Implementation period:
Reinjection to
groundwater
$ 5,040,000
$ 1,547,000
$ 17,448,000
27 years
Discharge to
surface water
$ 4,450,000
$ 1,491,000
$ 16,424,000
27 years
This option is basically the same as Option 3A(1), with the
exception that chemical precipitation would be followed by
chemical oxidation enhanced by UV photolysis.
Option 3A(3) - Extraction, Carbon Adsorption with Treated Water
Discharge
Estimated Capital Costs:
Estimated Annual O&M:
Estimated Present Worth:
Implementation period:
Reinjection to
groundwater
$ 4,882,000
$ 1,501,000
$16,922,000 .
27 years
Discharge to
surface water
$ 4,292,000
$ 1,444,000
$ 15,898,000
27 years
This option is basically the same as Option 3A(1), with the
exception that chemical precipitation would be followed by carbon
adsorption.
Alternative 3B:
Combined Remediation of the Klockner and
Klockner and Wall Street/East Main Street Plumes
and Separate Remediation of the Roned Realty
Plume
The major features of this remedial alternative include the
groundwater extraction (pumping and collection) from all of the
three contaminant plumes, construction and operation of two
separate facilities for groundwater treatment, discharge of the
treated water from the two separate treatment facilities, and a
performance monitoring program.
14
-------
This alternative includes the combined remediation of the
Klockner and Klockner and Wall Street/East Main Street plumes as
in Alternative 3A, with the addition of a separate extraction and
treatment system for the Roned Realty plume. Treatment and
discharge options for this alternative are the same as those for
Alternatives 2 and 3A. However, one treatment facility would be
constructed for the Klockner and Klockner and Wall Street/East
Main Street plumes with a separate treatment facility constructed
for the Roned Realty industrial area plume.
Under this alternative, the estimated present worth for treatment
by air stripping with treated water discharge is $19,441,000; by
UV photolysis, $19,008,000; and by carbon adsorption,
$18,177,000.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation Criteria
The alternatives noted above were evaluated using criteria
derived from the NCP and SARA. These criteria relate directly to
factors mandated by SARA in Section 121, including Section
121(b)(1)(A-G). The criteria are as follows:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment
• Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment
Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
Comparisons
A comparative discussion of the major components of the
alternatives, using the evaluation criteria, follows.
Overall Protection
Overall protection of human health and the environment is the
central mandate of CERCLA, as amended. Protection is achieved by
15
-------
reducing health and environmental threats and by taking
appropriate action to ensure that, in the future, there would be
no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment through
any exposure pathway.
The "No Further Action" alternative would not provide any
additional protection of human health and the environment than
has been provided by the remedy initiated by the Borough of
Rockaway and later endorsed in the 1986 ROD. No further
treatment would be provided, and only natural and pumping-induced
processes would attenuate groundwater contamination.
The "No Further Action" alternative is not considered protective
and, therefore, will not be considered further in the analysis of
options for this site.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are responsive to the remedial action
objectives and provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment.
The major difference among Alternatives 2 and 3 is the manner in
which groundwater is treated and discharged. Since all the
groundwater extraction and treatment options would meet the
cleanup goals effectively, the degree of protection is not much
different.
An important difference between the two treatment alternatives is
the construction of the treatment facilities. Alternative 2
includes the use of three separate facilities (one for each
plume) while Alternative 3 treats contaminated groundwater in
one combined facility. For Alternative 3A, there is no provision
of control measures for the Roned Realty industrial area plume.
However, the residual risks associated with that area are not
considered significant since flushing and attenuation processes
would alleviate groundwater contamination.
Compliance with ARARs
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedies for Superfund
sites comply with federal and state laws that are applicable and
legally enforceable. Remedies must also comply with the
requirements of laws and regulations that are not applicable, but
are relevant and appropriate. Applicable requirements are
defined as cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under federal or state law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, remedial
action, location, or other circumstance at a Superfund site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are defined as substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law that, while not
"applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
16
-------
remedial action, location or circumstance at a Superfund site,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to
the particular site. EPA has also developed another category of
requirements, known as "to be considered" (TBCs), that includes
nonpromulgated criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed
standards issued by federal or state governments. TBCs are not
potential ARARs because they are neither promulgated nor
enforceable. It may be necessary to consult TBCs to interpret
ARARs, or to determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs
do not exist for particular contaminants. However,
identification and compliance with TBCs is not mandatory in the
same way that it is for ARARs.
ARARs for the Rockaway Borough Well Field site include the more
stringent of the federal or state MCLs, which are shown in Tables
9 and 11, New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water
Act Ambient Water Quality Criteria, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration Standards, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Clean Air Act.
EPA has divided ARARs into three categories to facilitate their
identification:
Action-Specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-
based requirements or limitations on actions or conditions
involving specific substances.
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based
numerical values or methodologies used to determine
acceptable concentrations of chemicals that may be found in
or discharged to the environment.
Location-specific ARARs restrict actions or contaminant
concentrations in certain environmentally sensitive areas.
Examples of areas regulated under various federal laws
include floodplains, wetlands, and locations where
endangered species or historically significant cultural
resources are present.
The goal for the cleanup of groundwater contamination at the
Rockaway Borough Well Field site is to restore the groundwater to
the more stringent of the federal or state MCLs which have been
devised to protect drinking water. For groundwater reinjection
options, extracted water would be treated to MCLs, and for
surface water discharge options, it would be treated to attain
New Jersey surface water discharge limitation requirements.
The treatment plant and associated facilities for both
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be operated in accordance with federal
and state hazardous waste treatment facility requirements. Both
alternatives would comply with all pertinent chemical-specific,
17
-------
action-specific, and location-specific ARARs as referenced
earlier.
To ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,
a cultural resources survey will be prepared during the remedial
design phase.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This evaluation criterion refers to the ability of the remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time once cleanup goals have been met.
The major benefits associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 include
minimization of migration of contaminated groundwater and removal
of contaminants. The bulk of contaminated groundwater would be
treated to meet ARARs resulting in significant reductions of
risks to human health and the environment. The extracted
groundwater will be treated to achieve the more stringent of the
federal or state MCLs prior to its reinjection into the ground in
order to bring the aquifer to its intended beneficial use without
treatment. For discharge to surface water options, groundwater
would be treated to attain New Jersey surface water discharge
limitation requirements. The long-term performance monitoring
program would confirm the effectiveness of the remedy.
For Alternative 3A, there is no provision of control measures for
the Roned Realty industrial area plume. However, the residual
risks associated with that area are not considered significant,
since flushing and attenuation processes are expected to restore
the aquifer quality in that area prior to the completion of the
remediation efforts at the Klockner and Klockner and the Wall
Street/East Main Street plumes.
The remedy would be designed to prevent adverse impacts to the
Borough's wells. An assessment would be made during the design
of the remedy to ensure that any adverse impacts to wetland areas
would also be mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated
groundwater could be discharged to wetland areas to help offset
any dewatering effects created by groundwater extraction. It is
believed that reinjecting the treated water will minimize adverse
impacts.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
This evaluation criterion relates to the performance of a
technology or remedial alternative in terms of eliminating or
controlling risks posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of the contaminants present in the groundwater through the
18
-------
use of extraction and treatment methods. Sludge resulting from
the treatment for metals removal would be disposed of off site,
and spent carbon from the removal of VOCs would be regenerated or
disposed of off site. It is anticipated that, at the conclusion
of the remedial action, the groundwater quality will be within
MCLs. The treatment provided under both of these alternatives
would be irreversible.
The toxicity of contaminants for Alternative 3A, at the Roned
Realty industrial area plume, would be reduced by flushing and
natural attenuation processes.
Short-term Effectiveness
This criterion considers the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
The major risk associated with the contaminated groundwater is
the use of it for potable purposes. A GAC filtration system was
installed on the Borough's municipal water supply system in July
1981. Therefore, that risk has already been significantly
reduced.
Neither Alternative 2 or 3 would create any significant short-
term, health-related concerns for the public beyond those
associated with normal construction activities. Increased
traffic during construction and transportation of treatment
residuals is expected.
The remedy does present a slight risk increase resulting from
emissions; however, these can be minimized through careful
management of the treatment unit.
The remedy would be designed to prevent adverse impacts to the
Borough's wells. An assessment would be made during the design
of the remedy to ensure that any adverse impacts to wetland areas
would also be mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated
groundwater could be discharged to wetland areas to help offset
any dewatering effects created by groundwater extraction. It is
believed that reinjecting the treated water will minimize adverse
impacts.
Implementabilitv
This criterion examines the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including availability of materials and
services needed to implement the chosen solution.
Alternatives 2 and 3 both rely on technically feasible and
reliable treatment processes to actively restore groundwater
19
-------
quality. Extraction and treatment systems are relatively easily
designed and constructed. The treatment units described in
Alternatives 2 and 3 are readily available, and can be easily
operated and maintained. A pilot-scale treatability study would
be required to establish operating parameters for UV photolysis
as a treatment option. The reinjection of treated groundwater
should be relatively easily implemented, and would aid in the
flushing of contamination from the aquifer. Surface water
discharge should also be relatively easily implemented, however,
it would not influence the movement of groundwater and enhance
the flushing of contaminants from the aquifer.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have few associated administrative
difficulties which could delay implementation. The technologies
have been used successfully to address similar contaminants at
other Superfund sites, and skilled workers needed to implement
the remedies are readily available in the area.
Sufficient land is available to build the treatment plants
required for any of the alternatives within the existing
boundaries of the Rockaway Borough Well Field site. Installation
of the extraction and injection wells and their associated piping
may have to take place on private properties and may be expected
to require some administrative and legal efforts.
Cost
Costs are evaluated in terms of remedial action capital costs,
operation and maintenance costs, and present worth.
The major cost differences between the alternatives depends on
their classification. The No Further Action alternative is the
least expensive with an estimated present worth of $27,000. The
estimated present worth for the Separate Remediation of Plumes
ranges from $19,546,000 to $20,888,000, whereas, for the Combined
Remediation of the Klockner and Klockner and Wall Street/East
Main Street plumes with No Further Action at the Roned Realty
industrial area, it varies between $15,898,000 and $17,818,000.
If remediation of the Roned Realty industrial area plume is
included as in Alternative 3B, the estimated present worth ranges
from $18,177,000 to $19,441,000. The preferred alternative,
3A(1), has an estimated present worth of $17,818,000. Table 10
shows the summary of costs.
State Acceptance
The State Acceptance factor addresses whether the State of New
Jersey supports, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred
alternative.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
has conditionally concurred with the selected remedy. The
20
-------
Department has raised some issues relative to the attainment of
MCL goals and the consideration of other alternatives. It has
also questioned the effectiveness of moving ahead with a
groundwater remedy without addressing the sources.
The Record of Decision clearly indicates that subsequent source
investigations will be necessary to better characterize any
continuing sources of contamination as well as to determine the
need for remediation of such contamination. It also indicates
that the MCL goal may be reevaluated based on operating
experience with the remedial system. In addition, the ROD
commits to evaluating reasonable approaches to ensure that the
Borough's water supply system and our extraction and treatment
system operate in a complimentary and efficient manner.
Contrary to the State's position, EPA considered appropriate
remedial alternatives to address the groundwater contamination
and firmly believes that the selected remedy will be successful
in achieving cleanup goals and can be performed in a cost-
effective manner. Therefore, EPA is not making a commitment to
amend the ROD at a later date.
Community Acceptance
This evaluation factor addresses public reaction to the remedial
alternatives which were considered, and the preferred
alternative.
Issues raised during the public comment period and at the public
meeting held on August 12, 1991, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of this ROD. Upon review of these
comments, EPA has determined that no significant changes to the
remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan,
were necessary.
SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121(b) of CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to select
remedial actions which utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery options
to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, EPA prefers
remedial actions that permanently and significantly reduce the
mobility, toxicity, or volume of site wastes.
After careful review and evaluation of the alternatives evaluated
in detail in the feasibility study, and consideration of all
evaluation criteria, EPA presented Alternative 3, Option A(l),
Combined Remediation at the Klockner and Klockner and Wall
Street/East Main Street Plumes with No Further Action at the
Roned Realty Industrial Area. This alternative includes
groundwater extraction, treatment by chemical precipitation and
21
-------
air stripping, reinjection of treated groundwater, and a
performance monitoring program.
The input received during the public comment period, consisting
primarily of questions and statements submitted at the public
meeting held on August 12, 1991, and written comments, is
presented in the attached Responsiveness Summary. Public
comments encompassed a range of issues, but did not necessitate
any major changes in the preferred alternative for the site.
Accordingly, the preferred alternative has been selected by EPA
as the remedial solution for the site.
The selected remedy addresses only the contaminated groundwater.
Additional investigations to further delineate the extent of the
sources of the groundwater contamination will be necessary.
The goal of the remedial action at the Rockaway Borough Well
Field site is to restore the groundwater to MCLs. Based on
information obtained during the remedial investigation and on a
careful analysis of the remedial alternatives, it is anticipated
that the selected remedy will achieve this goal. However,
studies suggest that groundwater extraction and treatment
remedies are not always completely successful in reducing
contaminants to health-based levels in an aquifer. Actual
operation of the remedial system may indicate the technical
impracticability of reaching health-based water quality standards
using this approach. If, during the implementation of the
remedy, it becomes apparent that contaminant levels have ceased
to decline and are remaining relatively constant at levels higher
than the remedial goal, or that it is no longer cost-beneficial
to operate the remedial system, than the remedial goal and the
remedy itself may be reevaluated.
Under the above scenario, it is likely that operation of the
remedial extraction wells and treatment system would be
suspended. The Borough would then need to continue operating its
system to treat the levels of contamination remaining in the
groundwater prior to distribution for potable use.
Since the Borough's water supply system is extracting a portion
of the contaminated groundwater, continued operation of the
system has a beneficial effect on groundwater quality.
Therefore, during design of the selected remedy, EPA will explore
ways to integrate the water supply and remedial systems to
maximize their combined effectiveness.
22
-------
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
estimated period of 27 years, during which the remedial system's
performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. Modifications may include, but not be limited to:
a) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points; and
b) pulse-pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to
encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into the
groundwater.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedial
design and remedial action phases for the site. These activities
are described below.
.The aquifers will be periodically monitored during the
remedial design and remedial action phases, as well as
following the completion of the remedial action.
During the remedial design, studies will be undertaken to
further delineate the extent of contamination and
groundwater flow patterns, and to determine if the
remediation of the groundwater contamination can be
accelerated by optimizing the extraction system.
An assessment will be made during the remedial design to
ensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas will be
mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated groundwater
could be discharged to wetland areas to help offset any
dewatering effects created by the groundwater extraction.
A cultural resources survey will be prepared to ensure
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on CERCLA, as amended, and
tl:e regulations contained in the NCP. EPA's primary
responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake remedial
actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Additionally, several other statutory requirements
and preferences have been established. These specify that, when
complete, the selected remedy must comply with ARARs, unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The remedy must also be cost
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, there is a preference for remedies which
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous wastes as their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the remedy
•
23
-------
selected for the Kockaway Borough Well Field site meets these
requirements and preferences.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment
through the extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
The extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater will
significantly reduce the threat of potential exposure to
contaminated groundwater. The potential risk, estimated under a
future use scenario in the PHE, is 2 xlCT3. The remedy, upon
completion, will restore the aquifer to the MCLs. Therefore,
health risks associated with the groundwater contamination
resulting from the site will be reduced to within the acceptable
range-of between 1 x 10"4 to l x 10* for carcinogens, and the
Hazard Indices for noncarcinogens will be less than one.
There are no short-term adverse impacts associated with the
selected remedy which cannot be readily controlled. While no
cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy, any
environmental impacts associated with site related contaminants
or remedial activities will be addressed in the remedial design.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate action-, contaminant-, and location-specific
requirements. The ARARs are presented below.
Action-Specific
The selected remedy will be in compliance with all federal and
state ARARs. The cleanup goals for the remediation of the
groundwater are the more stringent of the state and federal MCLs
which are standards for drinking water.
Emissions from the treatment unit would conform with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. This will be accomplished
through the installation of appropriate air pollution control
equipment if necessary. Sludge from chemical precipitation would
be disposed of according to RCRA requirements. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration requirements would be complied
with during the implementation of the remedy.
With respect to state action-specific ARARs, the air stripper and
any other regulated equipment will be designed, constructed, and
operated to meet the Air Pollution Control and the Noise
Pollution Control Act requirements and regulations.
24
-------
Chemical-Specific
The more stringent of the state and federal MCLs will be used as
cleanup goals for the groundwater remediation.
Location-Specific
The site is not within the coastal zone as defined by the State
of New Jersey. Additionally, there are no federally designated
wild and scenic rivers and there are no significant agricultural
lands in the vicinity of the site. The project area may be
sensitive for the discovery of cultural resources. Therefore, as
discussed earlier, a cultural resources survey will be prepared
during remedial design. Additionally, a wetlands assessment will
be performed at that time to determine the presence of and
potential impacts on wetland areas. If the remedial action takes
place in a floodplain, or will result in changes to flooding
levels, a floodplains assessment will be conducted during the
design phase.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
Rockaway Borough Well Field site. Of the alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment, and comply with
ARARs, EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides the
best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved
through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability,
cost, and community acceptance.
Alternative 2 reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
contaminants in the groundwater; complies with ARARs; provides
both short-term and long-term effectiveness; and protects human
health and the environment equally as well as Alternative 3.
The costs for both of the alternatives are also relatively close.
However, Alternative 3 may be more easily implemented than
Alternative 2. Therefore, the selected remedy is determined to
be the most appropriate solution for the contaminated groundwater
at the Rockaway Borough Well Field site.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected alternative is determined to be cost effective
because it provides the highest degree of protectiveness among
the alternatives evaluated at reasonable cost.
25
-------
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater, the
selected remedy addresses the threats posed by the site through
the use of treatment technologies. Therefore, the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element is satisfied by the selected remedy.
26
-------
SOt MMNdCmnMNMIfR MNKMC MU.M0
sncw CMX tocAtms
Rockaway Borough-Well Field
Rockavay, New Jersey
-------
LOCATION OF CONTAMINATION FLUMES
Rockatrajr Borough Well-Fiald
Rockaway, New Jersey
FIGURE 2
-------
TABLE 1
ROOKAWMVKWOUOMWtUnOOOTC
•UmUflFMX KM.
•CM-VOAItt OfVMMC MMUTOCM. KMT*
08
OQ
MMDUUICAIMM
MTCCOUKW*
Wit «»«4f%
•Ml •««.
ItJ
t»J
-------
TABLE 2
MOMMMC «NM.vnc«L
lOCMKM
*«VV.
««rT.
»«rr.
Mk M-MfT.
MftCOUlCfl*
F.IW
•a*
• 3»*
•n*
•.It*.
«M*
91.1 •
MM
MMW
•.It*
•.M*
•0*
•MB
MM
It*
to*
M.*J
O
oo
MW
MM
ia.*J
MM
«f**
•M
MM*
MM*
*••
U
KM
r* SH
MM
MM
MM
•M
IMM*J
u
?*•
*r*
M
Ml*
OTMW
•nt
MM
MM
M4*l
SM*
Mi*
M*
*••
MM*
•UJ
M«
Ml*
II*
MLMJ
•UNI
MtMf
IMJI
MMJ
1*14
»»M»J
4MK •.!« Ill »ll
-------
35
oo
3a ra
oo
•"*** jJ.IH*
I?*" ^™-
•\> '2*
Is r-
TABLE 2
NOCKNMW •OffOUOH MtU. «U> *lt
MOMMMCAMMvncM.mu.re*
*•»••>«•)
tOCItnON
•Mtcauicm
Ul
«•*•
•MB*
•mm
*••
•TMU
•MM
MlMJ
tM
4I.WM
NLMW
nrj
MJ
MMJ
**-«*rr.
ttl'J
4*«M-J
U»
I.MB
tt
tmt
at
«*-«>ff.
I.W4
*->•
•LfBW
^430*
•MM
•L4IM
•MM
rw
•mm
• MB
-M
•Ml «r»»rf.
tM
ttMJ
IJMJ
tnirj
mmm
•••ttfT.
•••Ml
ft MM
«J»MI
MMU
IJM
4LMB
«4M
-?
•»*4PT.
MMJ
t.4»J
tJMj
M.MJ
•MJ
M.MJ
4MJ
MMJ
•MM
MMJ
MMJ
•^HMMII
•VJnMi**
kfe*n*«i*»i
ItowMlM
J.
• •
*.
-------
TABLE 2
nocKMVAY nowtainM vmi mo one
(MNVNVFACC no*.
MOROAMC MMimcM. fcmra*
Tl
OO
OQ
fr-
^
SII
^i'_j
iOCAnow
•.nm
••rw
MJWt
-------
TABLE 2
MORIMMC wMivncM. mum*
-a
o
oo
QO
B-IH'i***"*
t-Ci l«i»c«.
M-M"«
-------
TABLE 3
NOCKAWMV gnnniioM wm nno tm
• onfMMcaMMivncM.neau.nl
tMTIft
MWM8
<«
MWfMJ
MW-IO
MMTIO
•TNM?
o
o
:D:XI
25 o-
>• £-
KtOCNNtfl HMD ItlOCKHIfl
(ICQ
«ra
tOIWLVMMWi
•*
•»
**
M
ft I
IM
*.(
M
ft
»
ft*
>ft
M
I«J
MM
•t*
MMO
•row
•row
•ft
fit
ft*
ft*
ftl
ft4'
• I
*•
ft*
ft*
ft*
it
m
M
10TM.VOU1M
•.Mft*
-------
TABLE 3
noocAwAv mnnuaH mm. mu one
OnOUNOWAttn VOLAU E OnCtANKS AMN.VHCM. flEWM*
MW3S
WW38
MMMO
0/MMf
MW-9O
MM-3O
••M
ir
in
41
•L4M
At
*»
0-1
•I
M
TJ
O
oo
•oo
Mil*
MM
I.I
Ov
«.t
tanltl
T**rteM«»lM<*(TOQ
Ti»»i«i...«,ii..«ra>
ftt
T.OJ
4?
MM
IJOOJ
TOTM. vaunt*
no.r
-------
TABLE 3
nocMkwAv innounN «KU nan mtc
onouNnwAiER vnuttu oreuMca tmtma
>»«t»l
IfWW MW«S MW«O WW«O MM-TS
ft It tl
tn ' «4 »t
w •« -
— •• —
I.««W
«.•>*•
b»ta
• tX^^^H^^tf^M^ >M M» Off
l.t.»-W
»^<
— — «fl
•M* — - •>
— — *4
O
oo
oo
-------
TABLE 3
AOCKAWMV mnoutiH tiwu r«ui *re
onoLMDWAtEN VOIATU WWAMOI MMC; ICM. mum
OOC4
Mr
on&t
OOCJ
ooc-a
OOC-J
DOO4
OQC4
NOMOMEM.TV
08
o ,o
•""**' U/Ib«
•t
•a
•a
•I
•a
•i
M '
•tt
til
•I
•I
•LI
•I
•Ll
•I
•Ll
MO
ND
HO
NO
HO
MD
MO
NO
ND
NO
M
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
• I
•J
•I
NO
NO
1.1
1.1
•ll
M
-------
TABLE 3
AOCKAWAV noflounM wdt FVID vie
QNOUNaMAHMVOlAniEOnnMflCaMMlVnCM.IC9M.ra
ooc«
ooc-s
OOC-S
ooc«
ooc«
ooc-t ooc-r
ooc-r
•Mr
o
oo
• 1 i
NO
M
»»
1C
«•
t.t
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
MO
NO
ND
NO
NO
MO ND
ft*
•If
-------
TABLE 3
flOCKAWAV ItonoOOM WEU. rCIO MTC
onmmmvAfEn VCHAWI OMHAMCS MtAimcM. mum
•AMM
•MM
•HMO
HP
Op
OQ
r- £
•4
•I
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
•at
NO
NO
NO
Mil
•I
M
•t
• fl
NO
NO
NO
VOTM.VMA1U
-------
TABLE 3
AOCKAWAV MOAtJUdM WV11FVIJD VfC
•M4M
•MOT
t*
•>
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ttt
•t
M
I
•I
Nl4
«*«
CO
oo
-"••'• .ft.V«
ZZ !.-r
-$> -J-v'
r~" CT!
»>.-»!
•M04
(•t
••M
MM
•an
t«M
ft
a
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NJ
19
NO
NO
NO
NT
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
nmnvoutnu
ftttt
-------
TABLE 3
VMnauaMWfu
OMOUNDWAttR VDtAWT OmAMCA MMYICM. ffBM.1>
-o
O
oo
"JO
•«
tfnzi
MO
MO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
II •
NO
MO
oo
-------
TABLE 3
nonouoHwru
onouNDWAftnvouknconnAMc9MiM.vncM.Nnum ,
TJ
o
CO
QP
~z a
»^-»noo
MM
•J4
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
tMfUJ
MM
-------
TABLE 3
AOCXAWAV MMOUOH WOL tCID HTC
onmmowAtER VOUMU OROAMCS MWLvncM. newm
-IA
tFAWtll*
TMMl40fc*lMW»V
-------
TABLE 3
NOCMWAV MMUUnM WFU tf\D Wtf
oRouNnwmttn votAtB r oncvtMm M4mmcM. muira
o
oo
•»c«i
NMJ
OQ
tOIMLVMAHU
-------
TABLE 3
ROCKAWAV BonoUOH WEU FKID OTC
onouMMMtf R voLAn c OROAMC AMM.VTCAI tcMTt
OW«I
OW4M
OW48
wtus
•J
•t
•t
tt
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
•r
•r
•i
•.a
•9
NU
••M
M«J
Tl
CO
o
(CMta
M
*•
At
MJ
tt
M
t*
tt
• I
tt
•r
rt
tt
nt
ionn«auiu<
ML«
tut
-------
TABLE 3
mcM«mv •OMOUON «mi nno «nc
onouNDWAttn VOUWIE cnoamc MM.VICM. flramw
NO
(ran
oo
20 ro
oo
• d-
WIM.VOM1U
-------
TABLE A
HOCKAWAV mnounH wru r»u> wre
onouNOWAttn cuimciM* c ontwMca MMtvncM. mum
tPAWKUB
09 04 « . . «• Of tTA
TJ
o
CO
20 ZO
CD O
NO M«J NO NO W W«J Xl»i ?J»J MJ NO tMJ
NO NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NB NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
i to WOO
-------
TABLE 5
nocKAwmv mnmioH »mi ntio one
OmUNOMMTfR
MFTA19 ANAIY1ICAI WSUITS ABOVE MWRi
"P
oo
mw-s
M
«
• M
I.IM
W.I
I.1W
IM.OM
*****
MtaMi
Q9 FMiMl MOI» Nt VB •M^At V
-------
TABLE 5
nocMWMv •OHOUOM wru ncto tm
onouNOMMttn
tCTAU MIM.VICM. tCMHTB «KMC
»*
Ml 100 Ml
IM — tM
».?«• Ml t*M
a&9 — M.C
-------
TABLE 6
W CNtKICAlS KTCCTCP IB
AI tocuuAT MtaucM icu
(Cancantratfana rt^rtad In iajA>
Sourca Araa/
Frequency of
Oetectlan <•)
tang* «f Detected
Concentrat lane •
Concentration
t KLOCCNCI
Organic ChantcaU:
dfeulffde (0)
1.1-Dlchloroethene
eta- 1.2-01 ehl ereethene
trenf1,2-OUhlereethene
•bi»<2«Ithylheiyl)BMhelate
*«thytene chloride
Tetreehleroethene (t)
Trichloroethene
•Ctletut
CeMlt
Cepptr
•Iron
Kiekel
1/25
10/75
r/zs
1/25
U/2S
21/25
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
/3
;/3
; /3
:/s
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
c.r • 12
2.4
0.1 • 270
C.4 • S.2
r-jr
P.S • S10
0.3 • 1900
300
33.7
37100
22.2
11.*
*41
3.S
13900
30.1
U.I
mo'
10500
15.2
20.9
$.7
100
39.2
53000
340
23.9
4*10
4.3
23300
255
403
7140
104000
73.9
28.1
SO
10
MD
ID
19 • 70
no
NO
MD
439 • 4350
40.4
29600 • S4400
17.9 • 155
4.*
14.4 • 20
U10 •
1.1
13300 •
33 •
24.5 -
2WO •
19100 •
18.6
28.2
7620
• 9
20800
1010
72.4
5990
27700
26.8
69.6
MINT
Chwiticili:
(d)
TftrtcMorotthtm
Teli*nt (•)
(total) (a)
mm (g)
1/4
1/6
2/6
!'*
2/6
1/6
S850
32
0.4 • 0.7
17200
ID
NO
MO
MD
MO
MO
1,1'Diehloreethane
ei»-1,2'CieMoreethene
TetracMeroethene
TrfeMoroethene
Vinyl chloride
1/7
1/7
1/7
2/7
1/7
2.9
4.9
1.4
1.1 • 4.3
1.S
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
(a) Tht ru*»r of aaaptaa In *!cft tha ehaafeat naa atotactad divlaM ty tha tatal Mfetr «f aanpttt
»%alr Sarpiti: «-1, MUM WirouBh w>7. W-6. UW-6 thrauvh UW-8, SAt>04. SAI*07. and WC-1
thresh SMC>5.
(d) Ttntativtly 1, MW-1A, UW-2, UI-02, Wrf 8AI'03.
• • Conpxnd not aa lac tad M • chaalcal tf patantUt cantam; aaa taxt.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 6
KMUKT Or CHEMICALS DETECTED IN OtOUNDUATE*
AT tOCKAUAT ftOftOICH UELl HELD
(Conctntratione f*cortad In ui/L)
Souret Arc*/
Chamieal
•raquancy •*
Oataction (•)
•ant* »f Datactad
Cone antrationa
•aekground
Concentration (b)
•ONEO IEALTT
(cent.)
Inorganic Chaaicalt:
Araenic
lariun
laryUiiw
Calciun
Chromium
' Cobalt
Copptr
Iron
laad
•agnaiimi
Manganasa
Niektl
'etasiiuo
SOdijTI
Vanadiun
Zinc
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
49800
9.4
1.7
I.S
124000
S68
SS.1
129
1UOOO
37.2
•MOO
2060
2S9
11300
29000
207
196
459 • 4350
MO
40.4
NO
S.4
29600 • S4400
17.9 • 155
4.6
14.4 • 20
1610 • 7620
1.6 • 9
13300 • 20SOO
33 • 1010
24.5 • 72.4
2990 • 5990
19100 • 27700
18.6 • 26.«
28.2 - 69.6
WAIL ST. AW I. MAIM ST. (h)
Organic Chamical*:
•t»tC2>Ethylhtxyl)pr.thalata
Tatrachlorocthar* (•)
Inorganic Chamicals:
Araanic
lariu*
•aryliiui
•Caleiui
Chroniui
Cobalt
Copptr
iron
laad
Magnasitja
Hickal
•etattiui
Salaniua
Sodid*
Zinc
1/3
5/7
3/3
1/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3
3/3
44
3.3 • 120
214 • 27300
3.5
20.5 • 195
35700 • 55300
34.1 • 1170
11.6
6.6 • 94
1125 • 68000
2.6 • 11.7
10800 • 23000
36.2 • 943
30.8 • 362
1975 • 9770
2.1 - 4.5
47450 • 60900
33.6 • 122
23.1 • 131
19 - 70
NO
439 • 4350
NO
40.4
NO
29600 • 5UOO
17.9 • 155
4.6
14.4 • 20
1610 • 7620
1.8 • 9
13300 • 20800
33 • 1010
24.5 • 72.4
2990 -5990
HO
19100 • 27700
18.6 • 26.8
26.2 • 69.6
(a) Tha ruit»r of ta^lat in tftieft tha cheaical ma datactod dividad by tha total rwter of aanplas
analyztd for that chanical.
(b) tanga of backgrotf^ concantrationa rapertad fr« Mill IW-4 and MW-5.
(c) Swrplat: «-1, WW-1 throg»h NU*7, M>6, MW-4 through tlW-8, SA1-04, SA1-07. and SMC-1
through SMC'S.
(d) Tantativaly identified conpeund. . '
(a) Or* of tha sanplat waa analyst* tuiea. tharafora tha arittwatic «aan «f tha tM concantrationa ia
rtpertad.
(f) Sanplat: »»-1 through M-6; tamplH not ana I yi ad for inorganic chmieaU.
(g) Jvrpl*i: OCC-2 through CCC-7, and llw-3.
(h) Sanplti: *W-1, W-5, IMM, MW-1A, MW-2, SAI-02, and SAI-03.
• • Compound net aa I act ad aa a chwtcal *f petontial eoncam; aa« tnt.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 7
CHRONIC OUl TOXJCJTT VALUES »0» OtKlCALS Of NTEHTIAl CONCEIN
Chemical
Chronic leference
fiost (e«/kg>day)
(Unetrtainty
Factor] ia)
•eference
Oose
Target Organ (b) Source
Cancer
Slope Factor
Wki-doyM
USE'A weight
of Evidence
Classification
(C)
Slope
Facter
Source
Organic Chemicala:
«is-1,2-&iehlorotthtnt
trenfl,2'eieMcroethtnt
1,1-pieMoroethane
1.1«D1ehloroetheni
tthytbenxene
ftethylent chloride
Tttraehloreethent
toluene
tricfcleroethent
Vinyl chloric*
ayltm* (total) -
Inorganic ehemiealt:
11-02
21-02 H0003
11-01 (1000]
9E-03 [1000]
11-01 tlOOO)
«-02 11003
11-02 [10C3]
21-01 110003
7.41-03 riOOOJ
21*00 tlOO]
•lead
Hood term
Kidney
liver
liver/Kidney
liver
liver
liver/Kidney
Hwr
'••>
C«/»ortality
«AST
IIIS
MUST
IIIS
1118
IIIS
IIIS
IIIS
IMS
4E«01
T.JI-03
S.11'02 Ct)
LIE-02
1.fl»00
B
0
C
c
e
•2
•2
»
•2
A
0
IIIS
IIIS
•EAST
IIIS
IIIS
HIS
MEAST
IIIS
NEAST
KEAST
IIIS
Arsenic
teryliiUB
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
lead
Manganese
ajictel
Potassium
Vanadium
1E-03 (1]
TE-02 (33
51-03 (100]
• •
51-03 (5003
*»
3.71-02 (1) (g)
• ••
••
- 1E-01 (13
2E-C2 BOO]
••
3E-03 1153
7E-63 [100]
2E-01 [10]
Skin
Stood pressure
Total tuwra
••
•ervous ayitom
**
61 Tract
••
CHS
CHS
Sody Might
••
•Oeraatitia
liver, Kidney
Anemia
•EAST 8*c
IIIS
IIIS 4J
•• »
IIIS
• •
•EAST
••
IIIS
eSAST
IIIS
*•
IIIS
•EAST
MEAST
e <»»
.
E»00
•
•
IIIS
• •
2 IIIS
• •
IIIS
• •
••
• •
2 IIIS
IIIS
IIIS
• •
IIIS
..
**
i«) UrKartainty factors uite te dtvtlop raftranci OO»M Hf»r«Uy conaiit 0f aulttoa kneim to a* affected by
tht chemical it Utted.
Ct) I»A wtight ef Evidtnct for Carcinogenic Effects: (A3 • fJfler, carcinegen beted on edecuatt evidence from hunan
atudiei; 1123 • rreUblt hJ»i carciroetn bated on. inedequttt evidenct from huan it we its and adequatt evidence from
aniiMi itueitt; tC3 • *ettiblt htmn carcinoetri bated on linfted evidence free sniaal atu^iea in the abaenct of hown
atuditt; and B3 • net classified as te hk«en carcinotenicity.
ten withdraw by EPA.
Texicity criteria reported ia for ehro»i* VI, M all chra*<« ia conaorvatlvtlr «aa«ad te ka In the fora of
ehromimi vi. _
f|) Stinking vtttr standard reported in a«/l ia converted ta a»A|-dey by atatfiinf a 78 kj adutt cena«tt 2 liters
Of vattr per day.
th) EH 1vSfi. sptcial report on inettted inorianic araenlc skin cancer; nutritional etsentiality. liak taaeaaaent forun.
I»A. Uathington, B.C. EH *23/3-o7/013F. Jyly 19tt.
«OTE: CVS
61
IIIS
MEAST
NA
E»A
Central nervous system
Cmreinttstinal
Intte-ittd litk Information System • February 1, 1*91
Miith Efftcti Asststment S^mary Tablet • Saptanter .1, IfTO
Drinking wittr Mttlth Aoviaery
EnvireT«ital Protection A|tncy ' .
ke infenMtion availa<
POOH QUALITY
ORiGiNAL
-------
TABLE 7
CHRONIC INHALATION TW1CITT VALUES TO* CNEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Chemical
Organic Chemicals:
eis-1,2-0ichloro«thene
trans-1,2-0ichiorotthtnt
1,1-Oichleroethant
1,1-Oiehlorotthtnt
Ethylbenztne
Mthyltnt chloride
Tetraehloroethent
Toluene
Trichlorotthtnt ."
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
Chronic Reference
Cost (mg/kg-day)
[uncertainty
Factor] (a) •
..
• •
1E-01 C1000]
• •
2.9E-01 (300) Criterion reported in mg/m3 is converted to «g/kg-day by assuming a 70 kg adult inhales
20 cubic meters of air per day.
Cf) standard reported in (ug/m3)-1 is converted te («g/kg-day)-1 by assuming a 70 kg adult Inhales
20 cubic meters of air per day.
-------
TABLE 8
OKJLATJVE IJSKS TO 0-30 TEA* OLD IESIBENTS US IMC UNTUATCO
CtOUHDWATEt n» THE tOCUWAT tOtOUGH WILL flEL* SITC
(INCESTION 140 IATHIH6 CXPOSJtES)
Upptr totfri
Cxcass Kfttti
Canetr litk
Indue
KiOCCNEK t KIOCXNER
llth*
Total
2C-OS
X-06
C*I*01)
(71*02)
»»« •>••••
(41*01>
•ith *
Total
H-09
(Sl»00)
(91*03)
tONCO REALTT
Ing»st
-------
TABLE 8
CUMULATIVE RISKS TO ADULT IESIDEKTS US INC UNTREATED WOUHOUATER
MOM THE ROCUUAY IOROUGH WELL FULD SITE
(INGESTION AND SHOWERINC EXPOSURES)
Source Am/
Exposure Pathway
Upptr Sound
Ixcesa lifctii
Cancer Iitk
Harare* Ifldtx
KLOCKNER I KLOCKNER
Ingestien
Shower *
Total
PETITT'PAINT
Ingtstien
Shower *
Total
RONES REALTY
11-03
IE-OS
'••*•••
2E-OS
11-06
2E-07
"IE-06
(6C-06)
(3E»01)
<2E»00)
(3E»00)
Shower *
Total
«E-04
SE-06
AE-Ot
(6E*00)
(5E-04)
(6E*00)
WALL ST. t E. MAIN ST.
Ingestien
Shower *
Total
3E-M
2E-06
31-M
>1 (8£»00>
Hot applicable
>1 (81*00)
* - Inhalation and dermal
POOR QUAL1'. V
ORIGINAL
-------
. TABLE 9
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
, CHEMICALS DETECTED AT THE ROCKAWAY BOROUGH SfTE (ug/l)
•
Chemical
' New Jersey
A-280 Maximum
. . Contaminant
Levels (a)
New Jersey
Groundwater
Standards (b)
federal ,
Maximum
Contami-
nant Levels
NJDEP
Ground-
water
Cleanup
Level
Benzene 1 1 (P) B(0)
Bromochloromethane — 100 (P.C) 100(0,0)
Carbon Tetrachloride 2 2(P) B(0)
Chlorobenzene 4 4(P) -100(0)
Chloroform —< 100 (P.C) 100 (0,0)
l.~2-Dichioroethane 2 2 (P) . B (d)
1,1-Dichlorocthene '2 t(P) 7(0)
cis-i,2-Dichloroethene 10 . 10(P) 70(0)
trans-1,2-Dichloroetn0n0 10 100*) 100(0)
1,2-Dichloropropane — — B(0)
Ethyibenzene — — 700(0)
Te:ra:hiorornene 1 1 (P) B (0)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 26 26 (P) 200(0)
Trichioroethene 1 1 (P) B (d)
Vinyl Chloride 2 2(P) 2(0)
Xylenes (Tota!) 44 44 (P) 10,000 (0)
— Standard not developed for this chemical.
(P) Proposed
(a) Amendment 280 to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act New Jersey Drinking Water Institute
recommended MCLa. In the absence of a NJ State promulgated MCL for a specific cornpo md,
NJOEP adopts the Federal MCLs M Rated in Section 7:10-8.1 U the NJ SDWA. .
(b) New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act Ground Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9-6).
(c) The value of 100 ug/liter k for total trthaJomethanes (10., the sum of oNoroform, tromochloromethan
and tromoform).
(d) 40 CFR, Pan 141-Nrional Primary Drinking Water Regutaiions. S26-533, S&S-S87.
(e) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register. VoL 56, No. 20, January 90,1991.
FOORQUAUif
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 10.
Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 : Option A: Reinfection/ Air Stripping/ Chemical Precipitation
-o
O
oo
o o
£>*'' a ^J*****
ITEM
(1) IONG-1ERN HONITORIN6 ft REVIEW
(2) CROUND MATER ENTRACTION SYSTEM
(3) TREATMENT STSTEN
<4) TREATED MATER DISPOSAL
CONSTRUCTION SURTOTAL
Health and Safety. 10*
•id Contingency, 15X
Scope Contingency. JOT
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Administrative ft legal. 5*
Services During Construction, 101
TOT Al IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Engineering ft Design. 10*
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
CAPITAL
COSTS
$110.000
$718.000
$1.741.000
$688.000
$3.257.000
$325.700
$408,550
$977.100
$5.048.350
$252.418
$504.835
$5.805.603
$580.560
$6.386.163
1st month
$85,000
$394.300
$1.816.200
$105.000
$2.400.500
$240.050
$360.075
$3.000,625
$3.000,625
$3.000,625
month 2-60 i
$05.000
$276,200
$1,007,500
$75.000
$1.443.700
$144,370
$216,555
$1.804.625
$1,804.625
$1.804.625
ANNUAL
rears 6-11
$66,000
$276.200
$1.007.500
$75.000
$1.424.700
$142.470
$213.705
$1.780.875
$1.780.875
$1.780.875
OtN COSTS
years 12-16
$66.000
$138.100
$440.500
$40.000
$604.600
$68.460
$102.690
$855.750
$855,750
$055.750
•
years 17-27
$33.000
$138.100
$440.500
$40.000
$651.600
$65.160
$97.740
$814.500
$814.500
$814.500
years 28-32
$33.000
$0
$0
$0
$33.000
•3.300
$4.950
$41.250
$41.250
$41.250
PRESENT WORTH
OF OtM aiOX
$641.295
$2.182.472
$7.819.100
$599.317
$11,242.184
•1.124.218
$1,686.328
$14,052.750
$14.052.730
$14,052.730
NET PRESENT UORTN Of COSTS Of ALTERNATIVE: $20.438.892
-------
TABLE 10
Cost Estimates for Alternative 2": Option 8: Reinieetion Chemical Oxidation enhanced
Mith UV Photolysis/ Chewical Precipitation
-o
O
oo
SQ
P.— p
i «*.«*••
•<
ITEM
(1) IONG-TERN MONITORING ft REVIEU
(2) GROUND UATER EXTRACTION STSTEM
(3) TREATMENT SfSTEN
(4) TREATED UATER DISPOSAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Health and Safety. 10*
•Id Contingency. 1SX
Scope Contingency, 30X
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
AdalnlstraMve ft legal. SX
Services -Our ing Construction. 10X
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Engineering ft Design. 10X
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
CAPITAL
COSTS
•110.000
•718.000
•1.785.500
•688.000
t3.301.SOO
•330.150
•495.22S
•990.450
•S.117.32S
•255.866
•511.733
•5.884.924
tS88.492
•6.473.416
ANNUAL OtM COSTS PRESENT UORTN
1st Month Month 2-60 years 6-11 years 12-16 years 17-27 years 28-32 Of OtM 810X
•85,000
•394.300
•1.866.000
•105.000
•2.450,300
•245.030
•3.062.875
t3.062.87S
•3.062,87$
•85.000
•276.200
•1.043.500
•75.000
•1,479.700
• 147.970
•221.955
•1.849.625
•1.849.625
•1.849.62S
•66,000
•276.200
•1.043.500
•75.000
•1.460.700
•146,070
•219, 105
•1.825.875
•1.825,875
•1.825.875
•66,000
•138,100
•460.500
•40.000
•704.600
•70.460
•105.690
•880,750
•880.750
•880.750
•33.000
•138.100
•460.500
•40.000
•671.600
•67.160
•100.740
•839.500
•8)9.500
•839.500
•33.000
to
to
•641.295
•2.182.472
•8.108.916
tO tS99.3t7
>•••*•••••••»•»•»•»«•*•
•31.000 t11.S3t.999
•3,300
•4.950
•41,250
U1.250
•41,250
tl. 153.200
•1,729.800
•14.414.999
t14.414.999
t14.414.999
Ntf PRESENT UORTM Of COSTS Of AllERNATIVCt t20.888.41S
-------
TABLE 10
Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 : Option C: teinjectlon/ Carbon Adsorption/ Chemical Precipitation
HEM
(1) tONC-IEMI NONI10RIM I REVIEM
<2) GROUND tMIER EURACtlON STStEN
(3) TREAtNENT STStEN
(4) 1REA1EO MAtEt OISPOSAI
CONS tRUCt ION SMtOtAl
Health and Safety, 10X
P lid Contingency. 15X
(„) Scope Contingency, 30X
£? f.-2 CONS1RUC1ION tOt At
^ ,— v Administrative t legal. SX
'••• ':,zl. Services bur ing Construction. 10X
CA'ltAl
costs
1110.000
1718.000
11.565.000
1688.000
13.081.000
1308.100
1462.150
1924,300
14,775.550
1238.778
1477.555
ANNUAL MM COStS
1st Month month 2-60 years 6-11 years 12-16 years 17-27 years 28-32
185.000
1394.300
11.814.000
1105.000
12.398.300
1239.830
1359.745
12.997.875
185.000
1276.200
11.006.500
175.000
11.442.700
1144.270
1216.405
11.803.375
166.000
1276.200
11.006,500
175.000
11.423.700
1142.370
1213.555
11.779.625
166.000
1138.100
1440.500
140.000
1684.600
168.460
1102.690
M55.750
133,000
1138.100
1440.500
140.000
1651.600
165,160
197,740
1814.500
133.000
10
10
10
tn.ooo
PRESENt WOUIN
or MM aiox
1641.295
12.182.472
17.812.505
1599.317
"l1l"235*589"
13.300 11.123,559
14.950 11.685.338
•41.250 114.044.486
•*•••••••••
tOIAllMPlEMENtAtlON COStt 15.491.883 12.997.875 11.803.375 11.779.625 1855.750 1814.500 141.250 114.iD44.486
Engineering t Design. 10X 1549.188
********** f *********** ~ *mmtmmmummmmn»m*mm**u*mm*mm**m*m**mf*»***mfKmnfsa****a*ftf*t**sfB**nm**»mn**mmmmmnm»»mm»»mmnnmm**»mm*»*mts»*m*mumm
101M. ES1INA1EO COStS 16.041,071 12.997.875 11.803.375 11.779.625 1855.750 1814.500 141.250 114.044.486
Ntt HESENt MRtN Of COStS Of AltEMAtlVE: 120.085.557
-------
"•— I
TABLE 10
Cost Estimates lor Alternative 2 : Option 0: Surface Water Discharge/
Air Stripping/ Chemical Precipitation
HEN
(1) lONC-tERN NONItOMINC ft REVIEW
(21 GROUNC.UAtER EMtRACflON STStEN
(3) IREAfHERt SVStEN
CAPIfAl
costs
S1 10.000
•713.000
St. 741.000
(4) IREAtED IM1ER DISPOSAL S601.500
CONStRUCtlON SMtOtAl SS. 170.500
O
~\li
0
tj
O
ro
O
Health and Safety. 10X
•id Contingency. 15X
Scope Contingency. SOX
CONStRUCtlON 101AI
Administrative ft legal. 5X
Services During Construction. 10X
S317.050
S4 75.575
S951.150
S4.914.275
S245.714
S491.428
ANNUAl O»M COStS
1st Month month 2-60 years 6-
S85.000
S394.300
S1.816.200
•58,000
S2.S5S.500
•235.350
S353.025
S2.941.875
S85.000
S276.200
SI, 007. 500
S38.000
St.406.700
•140.670
S2II.005
St. 758. 375
<66
S276
S1.007
S38
St. 387
S138
S?08
St. 734
It years 12-16 years 17-27 years 28-32
,000
.200
.500
.000
.700
.770
.155
.625
MA. 000
SI 58. 100
S440.500
S20.000
S664.600
S66.460
S99.690
S830.750
•33,000
•138.100
•440,500
•20,000
•631.600
•63,160
•94.740
S789.500
•33.000
SO
SO
SO
•33.000
ss.soo
S4.950
S41.250
PftESCNI UORTH
or out aiox
S641.295
•2.182.472
S7.819.100
•303.322
S10.946.190
•1.074.619
tt.641.928
t1S.682.H7
10TAI InTtlMtHIAf IOK COS IS
t5.65t.416 S2.941.87S St.758.375 St.734.625 S830.750 S7W.500 S41.250 t13.682.H7
Engineering ft Design. 10X S565.142
mmsmnmmmm***mmm*m*um*mmm*mumm*mummmm»»***m**mmmmu*mmt,**mamsamf**s*fafss
101 Al EStlNAtEO COStS S6.216.558 S2.941.875 SI.758.375
St.734.625 S830.750 S789.500 S41.250 •13.682.737
HEt MESENt UMtN Of COStS OF AltERNAtlVE: t19.899.295
-------
O
oo
Z£J DO
CDO
3
TABLE 10
Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 : Option E: Surface Water Discharges Chemical OnIda11 on
Enhanced with UV Ttratotysfs/ CheMcial Precipitation
ITEM
(1) LONG-TERM MONITORING ft REVIEW
(2) GROUND WATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM
CD TREATMENT SYSTEM
(4) TREATED WATER DISPOSAL
CAPITAL
COSTS
tl 10.000
•718.000
tl. 785.500
•601.500
ANNUAL OM COSTS PRESENT WORTH
1st Month Monlh 2-60 years 6- It years 12-16 years 17-27 years 28-32 Of OM 910X
•85.000
•394.300
tl. 866.000
•58,000
•85.000
•276.200
•1.043.500
•38.000
•66.000
•276; 200
•1.043.500
•38.000
•66.000
•138.100
•460.500
•20,000
•33.000
•138.100
•460.500
•20.000
•33.000
to
to
to
•641.295
•2.182.472
ta. 108.916
•503.322
CONSTRUCTION SMTOTAl
Health and Safety. 10X
•id Contingency. 15X
Scope Contingency, 30X
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
i3.2T5.000 (2.403.500 «1.442.700 il.423.700 i684.6OO (651.600 t33.000 tll.236.005
•521.500 (240.330 «144.270 (142.370 (68.460 (65.160 t3.300 tl.123.601
•482.250 t360.495 (216.405 U13.555 »102.690 W7.740 U.950 t1.6B5.401
•964.500
• •••••••••*«BC»B»n»it*K»XX»*aBa*3«»3SECEZ«E*KC»X>C»»»CZ>**H»«»M*»MMM*MMBM>HB*MMH*B
M.983.250 •3.004.125 •1.803.375 tl.779.625 t855.750 •814.500 U 1.250 t14.045.007
Administrative t legal. 5*
Services During Construction. 10X M98.325
mnmmm**s***mmmm*mmmm*m9*m»mmmmmm*mm*mm*mmm**fmf»mmmmmm*m*mm*f*t*e***t*iat***mmm*m*m*»xsfm*mmn***mm*»*m**mm»mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm»m»*m**mummm»m
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS tS.730.738 t3.004.125 tl.803.375 it.779.625 t855.750 M14.500 U1.250 »14.045.007
engineering I Design. 10K
•573.074
mmmmmmf**m*tmmmfm»**mm»m*mmmmm*m*mm*»m*mmmfm****m»m****m*mm***zrs***m**sx*t**c*im****3m***x**iKmmm**********m*mmmmmmmm*mm*m*mmmmmm**m**m
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS t6.303.811 i3.004.125 il.803.375 tl.779.625 M55.750 M14.500 t41.250 t14.045.007
MET fRESENT WORTH OF COSTS Of ALTERNATIVE: t20.348.818
-------
TABLE 10
Cost Estimates for Alternative t : Option t: Surface Muter Discharge/
Carbon Adsorption/ Chemical Precipitation
MEM
i
(i) LONG-TERM' MONITORING ft REVIEW
<2) GROUND WATER EMTRACTION STSTEN
(3) TREATMENT SYSTEM
(4) TREATED WATER DISPOSAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Health and Safety. 10X
•id Contingency. 151
Scope Contingency. SOX
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Adttnlstrattve ft legal. SX
Services During Construction, 10X
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Engineering ft Design. 10X
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
CAPITAL
COSTS
t 110. 000
t718.000
•1.S6S.OOO
•601.500
t2.994.SOO
•299.450
•449.175
•898.350
•4.641,475
t/32.074
•464.148
t5.S37.696
tsss.m
t5.871.466
ANNUAl OtN COSTS
1st Month month 2-60 years 6-11 years 12-16 years 17-27 years 28-32
•85.000
•394. SOP
tl.814.000
•58,000
tz.ssi.soo
t2SS.1SO
tS52.69S
tZ.9S9.12S
•85.000
•276.200
•1.006.500
•38.000
•1.405.700
•140.570
•210.655
•1.757.125
•66.000
•276.200
•1. 006.500
•18.000
tl. 386.700
•158.670
•208.005
•i.ns.STs
•66.000
•138.100
•440.500
•20.000
•664.600
•66.460
•99.690
•830.750
tSS.OOO
•138.100
•440.500
•20.000
•631,600
•63.160
•94.740
•••••••••••••••a
•789.500
tSS.OOO
to
to
to
tSS.OOO.
ts.soo
•4.950
U1.250
tZ.9S9.1ZS
•2.939.125
tl.757.12S
tl, 757. 125
•i.ns.sTs
ti.ns.S7s
•830.750
•830.750
•789.500 t41.Z50
t789.500
U1.Z50
PRESENT WORIH
OF 0(M aiOX
•641.295
•2.182.472
t7.81Z.505
•303.322
tio'w'ws*
tl. 093.959
tl. 640.939
*************
t1S.674.49S
t13.674.49S
t1S.674.49S
NET PRESENT WORTH Of COSTS Of ALTERNATIVE: t19.S4S.959
-------
TABLE 11
NBOKAWAY HMDUOM WCJ. WC «Tf
KHELEW w*Snj WIMT %Bi,Hftra MMB. MBai.
|b) bMfsniwW *ngBCMn 4«Mer (CFA). 1HI H«iri Pi«M>y ** tiuer^, OfH** W»r %g IMura; P^pOMa IXi. >!•!*%»•>. VM.ftl.NB.fr.
WenM, M**S IMC BOG-S1K
0) fww»»fl»' feQBoer *g»»| C^A) 1W.
f; E<*"WMn*» LJ»» floM «n< IMBBBM >»«M»> &»**ig»
V* II, No 1«, aillMim, ThnMr. *«UB ««. llftl
K 13. NB 141
«e: i»» c-.^.ia MCU* 10u^
M C*Aprto>
pOORQUAUr/
ORIGINAL
------- |