United States         Office of
Environmental Protection,    Emergency and
Agency       ,     Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/167
September 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision
Fort Dix Landfill,  NJ

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. z.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/167
4. Tltte and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author)*)
9. Ptrforming Organization None and Addre**
12. Sponsoring Organization Nun* and Addreu
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient1* Acc***ton No.
5. Report Date
09/24/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|ect/TMk/Work Unit No.
1 1. Contr»ct(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
 15. Supplementary Note*
 16. Abstract (Umlt: 200 word*)
   The 126-acre Fort Dix Landfill site  is  an inactive landfill  located in the southwest
   section of  the  U.S.  Army Fort Dix Military Reservation, Pemberton Township,
   Burlington  County,  New Jersey.  The  site is surrounded by military housing
   developments, a hardwood swamp, and  a densely vegetated hardwood forest.  The site  is
   bordered  by Cannon Run Stream, located  on the east side of the  landfill, and an
   unnamed stream  located northwest of  the landfill.  From 1950 until its closure in
   1984, the site  was used and operated by the Fort Dix Military Reservation to dispose
   of various  wastes including household waste from the military base,  paints, thinners,
   demolition  debris,  ash, and solvents.   From 1968 to 1984, McGuire Air Force Base also
   used the  landfill for waste disposal.   Landfilling operations consisted of excavating
   a series  of parallel trenches and filling with waste materials.  .Waste disposal began
   at the northern portion of the landfill in 1950 and proceeded in a southerly
   direction to the southern boundary of the landfill.  In addition to the landfill,
   during 1982, the Army used a pit in  the southwestern area of the site to dispose of
   mess hall grease and degreasing agents.  A 1982 State investigation revealed ground
   water contamination beneath the site that had resulted from  landfill leachate.  This

   (See Attached Page)
                                             NJ
17. Document Amlycl* a. Descriptor*
  Record of Decision - Fort Dix  Landfill,
  First Remedial Action - Final
  Contaminated Media:  soil, debris
  Key Contaminants:  VOCs  (benzene, toluene),  other organics  (PAHs),  metals
  .. .^ »« ~— * ^.-r      (chromium, lead)
  b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Term*
   e. COSATI Reid/Group
1& Availability Statement
19. Security Cl*** (Thi* Report)
None
20. Security Claa* (Thi* Page)
None
21. No. of Page*
104
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
                                     See Instructions on Reverse
                                                                           OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                                           (Formerly NTIS-3S)
                                                                           Department of Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/167
Fort Dix Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final

  stract (Continued)

Record of Decision  (ROD) addresses final source control at the site; however, if
additional investigations reveal significant increases in unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment, then additional remedial actions will be proposed.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris are VOCs including
benzene and toluene; other organics including PAHs; and metals including chromium and
lead.

The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the 50-acre southern
portion of the landfill with a clay or geomembrane cap; developing a soil erosion and
sediment control plan; long-term ground water, surface water, and air monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including deed, land, and ground water use
restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing.  The estimated capital cost
for this remedial action is $12,600,000, with an annual O&M cost of $218,900 for the
first 2 years and $199,900 for years 3-30.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:  Not applicable.

-------
                          ROD  FACT  SHEET
SITE

Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date)
Fort Dix Landfill
Pemberton Township, New Jersey
II
37.40
67 for Federal Facilities (8-30-90)
ROD

Date Signed
Remedy

Capital Cost
0 & M/year
9-24-91
Landfill Cap & 30 years of groundwater
monitoring
$12,600,000
$   199,900
Enforcement, EPA
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Main PRP(s)
PRP Contact
Paul G. Ingrisano
Robert J. Wing
U.S. Army
Lt. Colonel Donnie L. Henley (609) 562-3255
                             (212) 264-6609
                             (212) 264-8670
Type and media:




Origin

Est. quantity
The groundwater and surface water are
contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds as well as, heavy metals including
manganese, lead, and cadmium.

On-site waste disposal.

126 acres

-------
Donnie L. Henley
Lieutenant Colonel, Engineer
Director of Engineering and Housing
Department of the Army
Headquarters, U.S. Army Training
  Center and Fort Dix
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640-5501

Dear Lieutenant Colonel Henley:

Enclosed is the final copy of the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the Fort Dix Landfill which was signed by the Deputy Regional
Administrator on September 24, 1991.

Please note that, as required by the Interagency Agreement (IAG),
within twenty-one  (21) days of issuance of the ROD for the Fort
Dix Landfill, the Army shall propose deadlines for the submission
of the Remedial Design and Remedial Action Workplans in
accordance with Part XIII (Deadlines) of the IAG.

We ask that the Army place copies of this letter declaring that
the ROD has been signed, together with the ROD itself, on file at
the information repositories which the Army is maintaining for
this site.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at (212) 264-6609.

Sincerely yours,
Paul G. Ingrisano
Project Manager
Federal Facilities Section

Enclosure

-------
                               -2-
cc:  Secretary L.D. Walker, U.S. Army
     General JiP. Herriing, Fort Dix
     L. Barb, U.S. Army
     D. Felder, Fort Dix
     E. Kauffman, USATHAMA
     A. D. Gupta, Baltimore District, COE
     N. Hubler, Philadelphia District, COE
     C. Shah, Law Environmental, Inc.
     K. Walters, Advanced Sciences, Inc.
     L. Miller, NJDEPE
     H. Shah, NJDEPE

bcc: V. Pitruzzello, PSB, w/o encl
     R. Wing, PSB, w/o encl
     R. Hargrove, EIB, w/encl
     D. Mellot, ORC, w/encl
     P. Ingrisano, PSB, w/o encl
     M. Margetts-Jaeger, OEP, w/encl
     P. Moss, PSB, w/encl^
     L. Richman, NJSB2, w/encl
     L. Elson, EPA-HQ, w/encl

-------
     RECORD OF DECISION

      PORT DIX LANDFILL

FORT DIX MILITARY RESERVATION

     PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEV JERSEY

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section                                                              Page

  1.0  DECLARATION STATEMENT	   1-1

       1.1  Site Name and Location	   1-1

       1.2  Statement of Basis  and Purpose  	   1-1

       1.3  Assessment of the Site	   1-1

       1.4  Description of the  Selected Remedy	   1-1

       1.5  Declaration	   1-4

  2.0  DECISION SUMMARY	   2-1

       2.1  Site Name,  Location and Description	   2-1

       2.2  Site History and  Enforcement Activities	   2-3

       2.3  Highlights  of Community Participation	   2-5

       2.4  Scope and Role of Response Action 	;.   2-6

       2.5 Site Characteristics	   2-7

       2.6  Summary of  Site Risks	   2-10

           Human Health Risks	,   2-11
           Environmental  Risks	   2-15

       2.7  Description  of Alternatives	   2-16

           Alternative  1 - No Remedial Action	   2-17
           Alternative  2 - Cap and Monitor ..•	   2-18
           Alternative  3A - Ground Vater Pumping and On-site
           Treatment	   2-19
           Alternative  3B - Ground Vater Pumping and Off-site
           Treatment	   2-20
           Alternative  3D - Partial Ground Vater Pumping and
           On-site Treatment	  2-21
           Alternative 4A - Ground Vater Interception and
           On-site Treatment	  2-21
           Alternative 4B - Ground Vater Interception and
           Off-site Treatment	  2-22

      2.8  Summary of Comparative  Analysis of Alternatives  	   2-22

           Overall Protection of Human Health and the
           Environment  	   2-24
           Compliance vith ARARs	w...	   2-25

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                           (continued)
       Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence	  2-26
       Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume  through
       Treatment 	  2-28
       Short-Ten Effectiveness	  2-29
       Implement ability	  2-30
       Costs	  2-31
       State Acceptance	  2-32
       Community Acceptance 	  2-32

  2.9  Selected Remedy		 2-32

  2.10 Statutory Determinations 	  2-34

       Protection of Human Health and the Environment	  2-35
          Air 	  2-35
          Soils	  2-35
          Ground Vater	  2-36
          Surface Vater	,	  2-36
          Biological Community 	  2-37
       Compliance.vith ARARs	  2-37
       Cost  Effectiveness	  2-38
       Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
          Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery Tech-
          nologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable	.  2-39
       Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element	..  2-39

Attachment  1.  Figures
Attachment  2   Tables
Attachment  3  'Responsiveness  Summary
Attachment  4   HJDEP letter of Concurrence vith the Record of Decision

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

   1    General Location Map

   2    Site Location Map

   3    Land Use Map

   4    Landfill Development Progression

   5    Monitoring Veil and Piezometer Locations

   6    Surface Vater, Sediment,  and Leachate Sample Locations

   7    Air Sample Locations

   8    Alternative 1, No Remedial Action

   9    Alternative 2, Landfill Closure
                                                 «
  10    Typical Closure Cap Detail

  11    Alternative 3A, Plume Pumping,  Treatment and Reinjection

  12    Treatment  Process Schematic,  Module  I

  13    Treatment  Process Schematic,  Module  II

  14    Treatment  Process Schematic,  Module  III

  IS    Alternative 3B, Plume Pumping,  Treatment and Off-site
        Discharge

  16    Alternative 3D, Localized  Plume Pumping  vith On-site Treatment,
        Injection,  and Landfill Closure

  17     Alternative 4A,  Interceptor Drains,  Treatment and
        Reinjection

  18     Alternative 4B,  Interception  Drains,  Treatment and
        Discharge

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES

Table

    1    Summary of  Contaminants  Detected in Ground Vater, Surface
        Vater  in Cannon Run,  and Swamp Vater Table Samples

    2    Summary of  Contaminants  Detected in Grease Pit, Subsurface
        Soil,  and Sediment  Samples

    3    Concentrations of Contaminants in Air Samples

    4    Health Effects Criteria  for Chemicals of Concern at the Port
        Dix Site -  Potential  Carcinogens

    5    He..th Effects Criteria  for Chemicals of Concern at the Port
        Dix Site -  Noncarcinogens

    6    Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site Cost Summary and Implementation
        Time

    7    Summation of Total  Estimated Risks for the Present Site Use
        Exposure Pathways

   8    Summation of Total  Estimated Cancer Risks for the Future Site Use
        Exposure Pathways

   9    Characteristics of  the Remedial Action Alternatives

  10    Port Dix Sanitary Landfill:  Selected ARARs

  11    Estimated Capital Costs of  Alternatives
                        *
  12    Estimated Annual O&M Costs  of Alternatives
(fortjlix 99)

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                            DECLARATION STATEMENT
 1.1  SITE NAME AND LOCATION

 Fort Dix Landfill
 Fort Dix Military Reservation
 Pemberton Township
 Burlington County, Nev Jersey

 1.2  STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 This decision document presents the selected  remedial action  for  the Fort
 Dix Landfill in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, Nev Jersey,
 developed in accordance vith the Comprehensive Environmental  Response,
 Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund
 Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section
 9601,  e_t seq., and,  to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
 Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.
 This decision is based op the administrative  record for this  site.

 The State of Nev Jersey concurs vith the selected remedy.

 1.3  ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

 Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
 not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record
 of  Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
 public health,  velfare,  or the environment.

 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF  THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected  remedial alternative for  the Fort Dix Landfill site is
essentially a source  control  action that vill reduce the amount of
                                   1-1

-------
 contamination being introduced into the ground water.  It consists  of
 covering the southernmost SO acres of the landfill vith a low-permeability
 cap,  while undertaking actions consistent with State solid waste landfill
 closure requirements and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
 guidance.  Monitoring will also be conducted during the design phase and
 will  include the following:

      1.  Collect and analyze sediment samples at the point where
          Cannon Run discharges into the North Branch of Rancocaa
          Creek;
      2.  Perform standard bioassay testing for freshwater species on
          samples collected from a piezometer, a proposed monitoring
          well,  and surface water along Cannon Run?
      3.  Conduct air sampling for volatile organic analysis; and,
      4.  Sample newly installed and selected existing monitoring wells
          for chemical analysis.

 A long-term monitoring program (30 years) will also be implemented  as part
                                                         »
 of this action  to detect changes in ground water,  surface water, and air
 quality.  These data will be reviewed, as they are collected so that, if
 significant degradation in the quality of these media is noted that
 produces an unacceptable risk,  then further action can be initiated.
 Unacceptable risk will b.e determined through a revision of the latest risk
 assessment,  using the most recent total volume of  data.  Risk assessments
 will  use EPA guidance and policy effective at the  time of the review.  The
 information obtained during the monitoring program in items 1-4 above will
 be used in  the  three year post-closure review.   The effectiveness of the
 selected  remedy will be reevaluated no less often  than three years  after
 commencement of remedial action and at least every five years thereafter as
 required  under  CERCLA.

 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are  not applicable to this action because
 the landfill will be capped and placement will  not occur.

The major components of the selected remedial alternative  are:
                                    1-2

-------
 1.   Installation of a cap on the southern  50 acres  of  the
     landfill that vill consist  of vegetative,  drainage, and
     lov-permeability layers. Tvo feet  of  final  cover vill be
     maintained on the regaining portion of the landfill vhich
     vill not receive the cap.   The final cover requirements vill
     be developed in consultation vith the  Nev Jersey Department
     of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 2.   Installation of a landfill  gas venting and air  monitoring
     system (to determine if  methane gas and volatile organic
     compounds (VOCs) emissions  require-treatment).

 3.   Installation of a chain-link fence  around  the perimeter of
     the landfill to restrict access to  the site.

 4.   Implementation of landfill  closure  requirements in accordance
     vith Nev Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 7s26-2A et seq.
     and RCRA guidance.

 5.   Long-term ground water,  surface vater,  and air  monitoring (30
     years)  pursuant to the Nev  Jersey State .closure requirements.
     A yearly statistical analysis  vill  be  performed on the
     chemical analysis results to determine  the trend of the
     overall contamination levels.

 6.   Long-term operation and  maintenance (O&M)  to provide
     inspection of and repairs to the landfill  cap.

 7.   Institutional controls in the  form  of deed and  vater use
     restrictions  on future uses  of the  landfill and ground vater
     in  the  immediate vicinity of the landfill.
                  •»
8.  Development and implementation of a soil erosion and sediment
     control plan  consistent vith the Soil Erosion and Sediment
    Control Act Regulations of  1975, NJSA 4:24-40 et seq., and
    NJAC  2:90-1.1 et  seq.

9.  Using the data obtained  in  the monitoring  program, the risk
    assessment vill be  revieved  and  subsequently revised if the
     trend shovs significant changes  in  vater quality.  These
    revievs and revisions vill occur no less often  than three
    years after commencement of  remedial action and every five
    years thereafter.  Any changes  in actual exposure scenarios
    vill  be addressed  in  the revised risk assessments.  Risk
    assessments vill  use EPA guidance and policy effective at the
     time  of the reviev.

10.  If significant  increases in  unacceptable risk to human health
    and the  environment are determined  in the  revised risk
    assessments,  additional remedial actions vill be proposed.
                              1-3

-------
 1.5  DECLARATION

 The selected remedy is protective of human health and  the environment,
 complies vith Federal and  State requirements  that are  legally applicable or
 relevant and appropriate (ARARs) to the remedial action, and is
 cost-effective.   This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
 treatment technologies, to the maximum extent practicable for this site.
 Because treatment of the potential threats at the site vas not found  to be
 practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
 treatment as a principal element of the remedy.

 Because this remedy vill result in hazardous substances remaining on-site
 above health-based levels,  a reviev vill be conducted  vithin three years,
 then every five  years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that
 the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
 environment.
Date
Lewis D. Valker
Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Army
Environment, Safety &
Occupational Health
Date
(fortjlix/98)
                                            Regional Admi
                                            Region II
                                            U.S. Environmental Protection
                                            Agency
                                   1-4

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                              DECISION SUMMARY


 2.1  SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

 The Fort Dix Landfill is located in the southwest  section of  the U.S.
 Amy's (Army) Fort Dix Military Reservation in Pemberton Tovnship,
 Burlington County, Nev Jersey (see figure 1).   The Fort Dix Landfill covers
 approximately 126 acres and is located about 2,200 feet from  the post
 boundary (see figure 2).  The site is surrounded by Pointville Road to the
 north,  Juliustovn-Brovns Mills Road to the east, Pemberton-Brovns Mills
 Road to the south, and Pipeline Road to the vest.  Tvo streams flov near
 the landfill.   Cannon Run, located on the east side of the landfill, flovs
 south into the North Branch of Rancocas Creek. An unnaied stream, located
 northvest  of the landfill, flovs to the vest into  the North Branch of
 Rancocas Creek.   A svaop that drains into Budds Run (and eventually into
 the North  Branch of Rancocas Creek) is located to  the vest of Pipeline
 Road.   The terrain, is gradually sloping tovards the south, from a
 topographic elevation of approximately 160 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
 at  the  northern portion''of the landfill to approximately 75 feet above MSL
 tovards the svampy area to the south of the landfill.

 The area immediately surrounding the landfill  consists of a hardvood svamp
 and densely vegetated hardvood forest.   Unauthorized recreational
 activities such as dirtbiking and hunting take place throughout the year,
 although access to the landfill is restricted  by road gates, boulders (at
 dirt  road  entrances),  and military police patrols.  Three military housing
 subdivisions are located beyond this forested  area to the north of the
 landfill (Kennedy Courts,  Laurel Bousing,  and  Garden Terrace).  The Fort
 Dix Elementary School  is also located to the north of the landfill (see
 figure  3).   The  tovn of Brovns Mills is immediately to the east of the
military reservation.   To the south of  the Fort Dix Landfill are tvo
abandoned  farms,  approximately 12 homes,  several county buildings, the
county hospital,  and  the Burlington County Juvenile Detention Center and
                                   2-1

-------
 Shelter.   Pemberton Tovnship municipal  buildings, sewage disposal plant,
 public vater supply veils,  and several  homes are located to  the southwest
 of the landfill.   The public water supply wells identified are located
 within three miles to the southwest of  the landfill boundary.

 The Fort  Dix site is located within the Protection Area of the New Jersey
 Pinelands.
                                                               •
 The site  area lies within the Atlantic  Coastal Plain physiographic
 province,   nich is characterized by a southeasterly dipping wedge of
 unconsolidated sediments consisting of  clays, silts, sands, and gravels
 that thicken in a seaward direction.  The Cretaceous and Tertiary age
 sediments  that overlie the  bedrock strike northeast-southwest and dip
 gently to  the southeast between 10 and  60 feet per mile.
                                                  *

 An understanding of the subsurface geology of the site is necessary to
 evaluate any potential ground water contamination, its directions and speed
 of travel,  and its impact on the environment.

 The thickness of  the unconsolidated sediments at the site is approximately
 1,200  feet;  however,  only the upper few hundred feet are important to this
 study.  The underlying sediments are effectively sealed off by relatively
 impermeable formations of fine-grained  silts and clay.

The subsurface geological formations under the site include the following:

     o  The Cohansey Sand,  the uppermost formation, which outcrops
        at  the site,  was observed to range from 15 to 90 feet in
        thickness  within the site
     o  The Kirkwood  Formation,  which outcrops south and southwest of
        the landfill  and east  of the landfill along Cannon Run, was
        observed  to  be 25 to 50 feet thick at the site
     o  The Manasquan Formation,  which  outcrops near the town of
        Browns Hills,  was observed  to be 10 to 20 feet thick
     o  The  Vincentown Formation, which is poorly developed at the
        site, was  observed  to  be 17  to 23 feet thick
                                   2-2

-------
      o  The Homers tovn  and  Naves ink  For nations,  ranging  from  12  to 30
         feet thick and 12  to 22  feet  thick, respectively

 The Cohansey and Rirkvood  Formations  fori a single unconfined  aquifer at
 the site.  Ground vater  flow in  this  aquifer is to the south and southwest
 toward Cannon Run and the  marsh, where  it discharges at the surface.

 The underlying Manasquan,  Homers tovn,  and Navesink Formations form a
 confining layer that limits  ground water flow downward from the landfill
 site.

 The Cohansey and Kirkwood  Formations  were estimated to have horizontal
 hydraulic conductivities (a  measure of  the ease with which ground water can
 flow through the formation)  of 25 feet  per day and five feet per day,
 respectively.   These aquifers discharge into Cannqn Run and the marsh.

 The vertical conductivity of the confining layer — consisting of the
 Manasquan,  Homers tovn,  and Navesink  Formations — was estimated to be
 approximately  0.0001 feet per day,  indicating that this layer forms a
 barrier to  the downward flow of ground water from the landfill site.

 2.2  SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"

 The Port  Dix Landfill has been in operation since 1950; it was officially
 closed  on July 6,  1984.   Prior to landfill development, the area was used
 for Army  training.   Between 1950 and  1984, the landfill was used and
 operated  by the Fort Dix Military Reservation.  McGuire Air Force Base also
 used the  landfill  from 1968 until it vas closed.  Access to the landfill
 was not controlled until 1980; therefore,  records of disposal practices,
 waste types, and quantities are incomplete.  However, wastes that have been
 reportedly  disposed of at the landfill include domestic waste (household
 waste from  the military  base), paints and  thinners, demolition debris, ash,
and  solvents.   The  final filled area is approximately 126 acres.

Landfill operations consisted of excavating a series of parallel trenches
 to a depth  of approximately 10 feet below  grade.  The trenches were then
                                    2-3

-------
 filled vith vaste materials and covered with about tvo feet of native soils
 that vere originally removed during excavation.   In general, trench exca-
 vation and vaste disposal began at the northern  portion of the landfill (in
 the 1950's) and preceded in a southerly direction to the landfill's
 southern boundary as of July 6, 1984 (see figure 4).  After 1969,  landfill
 capacity vas increased by depositing wastes to an elevation of approxi-
 mately 10 feet above grade, therefore doubling the depth of vastes disposed
 of in each trench.
                                                               •
 In addition to the landfill, a pit in the southwest area of the site (see
 figure 2'f -as reported by the Army to be used for an estimated period of
 four months in 1982 to dispose of mess hall grease and grease trap
 cleansers.  The pit covered approximately one-half acre to a depth of six
 feet.  Disposal into the grease pit vas discontinued in October 1982.  The
                                                 t
 type of grease trap cleansers has not been confirmed,  although Army
 contacts have stated that degreasers vere not used.  Prior to disposal at
 the grease pit,  mess hall grease vas disposed of throughout the landfill.

 Older portions of the landfill vere revegetated  vith ash and pine  trees,
 vhile the never portions of the landfill vere left to naturally revegetate.
 These portions of the landfill are either covered by high grass, lov
 vegetation,  or are bare'.'  Never sections of the  landfill vhere refuse vas
 disposed of  at elevations above the original grade suffer from extensive
 soil  erosion and vashouts,  vhere vaste materials (e.g.,  tires) are exposed.
 Along the eastern portion of the landfill (trenched from approximately 1960
 to  1970),  large  metal and concrete objects vere  exposed along the  perimeter
 of  the landfill  and appear to have been filled into the vet lands of Cannon
 Run.   These  materials are nov partially covered  vith natural organic
 detritus.  Tvo feet of final cover vill be maintained  on the remaining
 portion of the landfill vhich vill not  receive the cap.

 In  1979 and  1982,  a series  of ground  vater monitoring veils (LF series
veils  on figure  5)  vere installed around the perimeter of the landfill.
Reports  indicated  that VOCs vere detected in many  of the ground vater
samples  taken  in 1982.   The major VOCs  that  exceeded the NJDEP ground vater
limits vere methylene chloride and trichloroethylene.   In*December 1983,
                                   2-4

-------
 eight additional ground water monitoring veils (MV veil series in figure 5)
 vere installed to further define ground vater contamination.   Eleven veils
 vere installed in May 1984 as part of a ground vater investigation
 performed by the U.S. Army Engineers Vatervays Experiment Station (WES
 series veils in figure 5).  VOCs and heavy metals  vere detected in the
 ground vater samples collected from veils located  immediately to the south,
 southeast, and southvest of the landfill.   These compounds included
 methylene chloride,  di- and trichloroethane,-  tri-  and tetrachloroethylene,
 methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,  mercury,  cadmium,  and other
 heavy metals.

 An interim Nev Jersey Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System  (NJPDES)
 permit vas issued for the Fort Dix Landfill on May 29,  1984.   Since that
 time,  quarterly sampling of "LF" monitoring veils  continues to be performed
                                                 «
 by various laboratories to satisfy the landfill NJPDES permit.   On July  6,
 1984,  the Army ceased the disposal of vaste at the landfill in compliance
 vith the  landfill closure date.   The landfill vas  ranked  for  inclusion on
 the National Priority List (NPL) on September 14,  1984.   On .October 15,
 1984,  32  Federal facilities sites,  including  the Fort  Dix Landfill,  vere
 proposed  in the Federal Register for addition to the NPL.

 On September 16,  1985, "the Army entered into  an Administrative Consent
 Order  (AGO)  vith NJDEP and EPA.   The AGO required  the Army to conduct a
 Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and to implement the
 selected  remedial alternative  approved by NJDEP and  EPA.

The Fort  Dix Landfill  vas  placed on the NPL in July  1987.

 2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The  RI and  FS reports  and  Proposed  Plan (PRAP)  for  the  Fort Dix Landfill
site vere released to  the  public in April 1990.  These  documents vere made
available  to  the  public  in  both  the administrative record  and at three
information repositories:
                                   2-5

-------
      o  Fort Dix Environmental Resources Branch
         Building 5512
         Texas Avenue
         Fort Dix, Nev Jersey
      o  Burlington County Library
         Browns Mills Branch
         348 Lakehurst Road
         Browns Mills, Nev Jersey
      o  Nev Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
         Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
         Bureau of Community Relations
         401 East State St.
         Trenton, Nev Jersey

The  notice of availability for these documents vas published in the
Burlington County Times on April 26, 1990.  A public comment period was
held from April 25,  1990, through Hay  25, 1990.  In addition, a public
                                                 •
meeting vas held on May 7, 1990.  At this meeting, representatives from the
Army formally presented the findings of the RI and FS and ansvered
questions about environmental conditions at the site and the remedial
                                                        t
alternatives under consideration.  Representatives from EPA and NJDEP vere
also present to ansver questions.  A response to the comments received
during this period is included in the  Responsiveness Summary vhich is part
of this ROD.   This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for  the Fort Dix Landfill Site, in Pemberton Township, Nev Jersey, chosen
in accordance vith CERCLA, and, to the extent practicable, the NCP.  The
decision for this site is based upon the administrative record.

2.4   SCOPE AND ROLE  OF RESPONSE ACTION

The  selected  remedial alternative for  the Fort Dix Landfill site is a
source  control action that vill reduce the amount of contamination being
introduced to the ground  vater.  The RI vas designed to characterize
contaminant migration from the landfill through the implementation of a
series  of  field investigations.  The FS report presents a complete descrip-
tion and evaluation  of the alternatives.
                                    2-6

-------
 A long-term monitoring program (30 years) vill be implemented as part of
 the selected remedial action to detect changes in ground vater,  surface
 water, and air quality.

 If significant degradation in the quality of these media is noted that
 produces an unacceptable risk,  then further action vill be initiated.
 Unacceptable risk vill be determined through a revision of the latest risk
 assessment, using the most recent total volume of data.  Risk assessments
 vill use EPA guidance and policy effective at the time of the reviev.  Thtf
 effectiveness of the remedial action vill be evaluated no less often  than
 three years after commencement  of remedial action and at least every  five
 years thereafter as required by CERCLA.

 2.5  SITE CHARACTERISTICS
                                                  *

 As a result of the Army's extensive RI at this site,  the nature  and extent
 of contamination has been characterized  in sufficient detail to  conduct a
 FS.   the following is a summary of this  characterization.

 As part  of the scoping for the  RI,  tvo suspected  sources of contamination
 vere identified for investigation.   These areas vere  the landfill and  the
 grease pit.   The grease "pit  vas evaluated through the analysis of soil
 samples  while the investigation of the landfill focused on characterizing
 contaminant  migration from the  landfill  through ground vater monitoring and
 surface  vater and sediment sampling.

The  analyses of subsurface soil samples  from the  grease pit vere comparable
 to subsurface soil samples taken  to  determine background or "natural*
 conditions,  indicating that  the grease pit  is not currently a source  of
 contamination,  although it may  have  been  in the past.

Ground vater in the shallow  aquifer  comprised  of  the  Cohansey and Kirkvood
Formations immediately (approximately  within  300  feet)  to  the south and
southwest of the  landfill  contained  levels  of  VOCs and  metals above
background and/or in excess  of  HCLs.  These VOCs  included,  but vere not
limited to,  vinyl  chloride,  benzene, trichloroethylene,  te'trachloro-
                                   2-7

-------
 ethylene, 2-butanone, and toluene.  In addition,  inorganic  compounds
 (cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, iron, magnesium,  manganese, mercury,
 nickel,  and sodium) vere found at levels above background in  these veils.

 There vas no evidence of organic contaminant migration in the shallow
 aquifer  beyond 300 feet to the south/southwest of the  landfill.  The review
 of the ground vater data collected between November 1982 and  January 1986
 indicated that the number of and concentration of VOCs declined*
 substantially during the period of sampling events.

 Magnesium, potassium, sodium, calcium, chloride,  nitrate, and total dis-
 solved solids were detected at levels above background in monitoring well
 LP-11 (southeast of the landfill).  These constituents may  be attributed to
 landfill leachate flowing into Cannon Run.
                                                  *

 Low levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) were detected in well CDM-6, located
 southwest of the landfill and screened in the Vincentown aquifer.
 Additional field investigations were performed to identify  the  contaminant
 source and consistency of contaminant concentration.   Samples from three
 other wells did not indicate the presence of TCE.   The six  sets of data
 from CDM-6 Indicate a decreasing trend to the lowest level  in the spring of
 1989.

The  landfill as a source of TCE in the Vincentown aquifer is  questionable
because  no other characteristics of the contaminant plume are evident in
ground water samples collected from the Vincentown aquifer.   In addition,
subsurface soil samples collected from the Manasquan Formation  (the
confining unit) at the location of well CDM-6 did not  indicate
contaminant migration to or through this aquitard.

Further  investigation of contamination detected in this aquifer is being
conducted  separately from landfill activities by  the U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous  Materials Agency.

Soil screening  for volatile organic vapors indicated no significant VOC
contamination within subsurface soils  at any of the COM borehole locations.
                                   2-8

-------
 Ammonia, iron, magnesium, and calcium vere found to increase as  the surface
 vater sample locations approach the landfill.   Berylliua,  iron,  and mercury
 vere detected above the State surface vater criteria.  Remedial  criteria
 for these contaminants have been established in table  1.   The long-term
 monitoring program (30 years) vill help determine if these contaminants are
 reaching the remedial criteria once the cap is  in place.   Geophysical
 investigations and chemical analyses of ground  vater,  surface vater, and
 sediment samples indicate that a plume of contaminated ground vater in the
 shallow aquifer is emanating from the southern  portion of  the landfill.
 However, no contaminants from the landfill vere detected in the  sediment,
 surface vater or ground vater samples taken dovngradient of the  area
 immediately to the south of the landfill that is recharged by the
 contaminated ground vater.   Natural mechanisms  (such as adsorption,
 dispersion,  and volatilization) may be dissipating contaminant
 concentrations in these media to undetectable levels in the vicinity of the
 landfill.

 Organic compounds vere detected in only one sample from Cannon Run,  a
 leachate soil sample from the central eastern boundary of  the landfill.
 Two  polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons detected  in this sample may be
 related to  early landfill practices of disposal of coal ash and  refuse
 burning.  Pesticides such as DOT,  vere also detected in this sample, and
 may  be  the  result of an accumulation of spraying around Fort Dix.   DDT vas
 used at Fort Dix in the 1950s and  1960s,  although no records of  usage or
 disposal have been found.   This information vas provided by intervievs vith
 facility personnel.

 VOCs vere detected at extremely low concentrations at  several gas vents and
 monitoring veil sampling locations.   Host of these compounds vere also
 detected  in  either field,  trip,  or method blanks and vere  determined to be
 unrelated to environmental  conditions at  the landfill.

A summary of contaminants detected in vater, soil,  and air samples  is
 presented in tables  1,  2 and  3.  Sample locations can  be found in figures
5, 6 and 7.
                                   2-9

-------
 The major routes of migration of site contaminants  is  via precipitation and
 subsequent formation and infiltration of leachate  to ground vattr.  They
 move in the sane direction as the shallow ground vater to local discharge
 areas along Cannon Run to the southeast and  to  the  svamp to the southvest
 of the landfill.  Other potential routes of  Migration  include transport to
 Cannon Run via erosion and runoff and volatilization.

 2.6  SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

 During the RI/FS,  an analysis vas conducted  to  detemine the potential for
 any impact to public health and the environment vhich  night result  if the
 contamination associated vith the Fort Dix Landfill vere not controlled in
 an acceptable manner.   This analysis of potential detriment to human health
 or the environment,  if no remediation is conducted,  is commonly called a
                                                 «
 baseline  risk assessment.  In conducting this assessment,  the focus vas on
 the human health and environmental effects that could  result from exposure
 to contaminants  associated vith the landfill in various environmental media
 (air,  surface vater,  sediments,  soil,  and ground vater).

 During the evaluation  of site risks,  chemicals  that  vere detected in the
 ground vater,  surface  vater,  sediment,  grease pit,  subsurface soil  and air
 samples vere  screened  to' select  indicator chemicals  for the Fort  Dix
 Landfill  site.   These  chemicals  vere  selected as those most representative
 of site conditions and as those  expected to  contribute the  greatest risks
 to human  health  and  the environment.   The indicator  chemicals for the site
 are  1,2-dichloroethane,  benzene,  vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene,
 tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 2-butanoiie, toluene,
 trans-l,2-dichloroethylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury,
 cadmium,  zinc, chromium,  and  manganese.   EPA has classified the indicator  .
 chemicals as  the following based  on EPA's Weight-of-Evidence  Categories for
Potential carcinogens:
     o  Benzene and vinyl chloride are classified as Group A, human
        carcinogens
                                   2-10

-------
      o  Trichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane,  tetrachloroethylenet
         bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate are classified  as Group B2,
         probable human carcinogens (based on  aniul  carcinogenic! ty,
         yet inadequate evidence of human carcinogenic!ty)
      o  1,4-dichlorobenzene is classified as  Group C,  possible human
         carcinogen (based on limited evidence of  carcinogenicity  in
         animals)

 The remaining indicator chemicals are considered  to  be noncarcinogens by
 EPA.
 Human Health Risks

 The human health exposure pathways that vere analyzed  for current use of
 the Fort  Dix Landfill included:
                                                 •
      o Inhalation of VOCs in the ambient atmosphere
      o Direct, contact vith soils including dermal absorption of and
        .incidental ingest ion of  soil contaminants
      o Direct  contact vith surface vater in the svampy area vest of
        the  landfill and inhalation of VOCs
    .  o Direct  contact • vith contaminants predicted to  be present in
        the  North Branch of Rancocas Creek
                        *•
Under present conditions, exposure to ground vater in  the Cohansey-Rirkvood
formation vas not considered to  be a complete pathvay  because private veils
are currently not in the path of the landfill plume.   In addition, the
probability  of  future development of vater supplies in the
Cohansey-Rirkvood formation in the path of the landfill plume is unlikely
because of the  characteristics of the aquifer in this  area.

Exposure  to  soil  is  of greatest  concern vith young children because of
their  increased  tendency to ingest soil.  In addition, it is possible for
children  to  gain  access  to the landfill.  Children have been seen playing
on and around the landfill.   Thus,  young children vere used to represent
the exposed  population for most  of the pathvays.
                                   2-11

-------
 The concentrations of the selected chemicals of concern at potential expo-
 sure points vere estimated for each public health exposure pathway.   These
 "exposure point concentrations" along with assumptions concerning the ex-
 posed populations, the rate of exposure,  the duration of exposure, and the
 level of exposure vere used in the calculation of chronic daily intakes.
 For potential carcinogenic compounds, the lifetime exposure durations for
 the selected chemicals of concern vere.developed to provide the upper-bound
 cancer risk estimates.  For chronic noncarcinogenic effects, the time
 period used vas the actual period of exposure.  The daily intake vas
 expressed in terms of the concentration of the contaminant per unit  of body
 veight over the duration of the event (mg/kg/day).

 The carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards vere calculated using
 the carcinogenic potency factors and reference doses (RfDs) shovn in tables
                                                  «
 4 and 5,  respectively.  Cancer potency factors (CPF) have'been developed  by
 EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment  Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer
 risks associated vith exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals..
 CPFs express carcinogenic potency in terms of lifetime cancer risks  per
 mg/kg/day"   and are estimated  upper 95-percent confidence limits of  the
 carcinogenic potency of a chemical.   The  carcinogenic risk vas developed
 using the following equation:"
                        V
                            Risk - (LADE  x CPF)

 Because the  CPF expresses the  lifetime risk,  the Lifetime Average Daily
 Exposure  (LADE)  vas calculated by averaging the  estimated chronic daily
 intake by the years of exposure over a 70-year lifetime.   The total
 estimated carcinogenic risk for each pathvay vas estimated by summing the
 individual carcinogenic  risks.   The  results  of this  characterization
 provided  the  upper-bound  estimate of the  potential carcinogenic risk per
 pathvay.  The term  "upper bound"  reflects  the conservative estimate  of  the
 risks calculated  from  the CPF.   Use  of this  approach makes the under-
estimation of the actual  cancer risk highly  unlikely.  These total risks
vere used in  the development of the  aggregate risk for  total ingestion,
inhalation,  and dermal exposures.
                                   2-12

-------
 The hazard index (HI) provides a useful reference point for gauging the
 potential significance of Multiple contaminant exposures vithin a single
 medium or across media.  Noncarcinogenic risks are assessed using a HI
 approach.  RfDs developed by EPA are estimates of daily exposure levels for
 humans vhich are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
 individuals).  Estimated intakes of chemicals are compared  vith the RfO to
 derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular media.
 The HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
 all media.  A HI greater than one indicates that, potential  exists for
 noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
 exposures.  The chronic daily intakes for noncarcinogens vere  developed by
 dividing the daily intake by one year of exposure.   The RfDs shovn  in table
 5 vere used to calculate the potential hazards posed by the noncarcinogenic
 compounds.
                                                  «
 A comparison vas made between the projected chronic intake  and the  accept-
 able intake for chronic exposure for noncarcinogens and between calculated
 risks and target risks for potential carcinogens.  Each exposure pathway
 vas  examined individually to estimate the potential health  effects  that
 vould result from the exposure to the selected indicator chemicals.  The
 health risks from each'pathway were then summed to  allow for a complete
 evaluation of the potential risks and hazards that  would be associated with
 the  Fort  Dix Landfill and the surrounding area in the absence  of remedia-
 tion.

 EPA  has proposed that remediation should occur vhen the excess cancer risk
 exceeds the acceptable range.   The acceptable risk  range for carcinogens is
                                                                    -4
 defined as an excess cancer risk posed to a population of from 1x10  to
 1x10  .   This is interpreted as the probability that  one additional  case of
                                           x   ...              £
 cancer in a population of ten thousand (10 )  to one million (10 ) is
 expected  to occur as a result  of exposure to  compounds associated vith a
site.   For noncarcinogens,  vhere the sum of expected  dose/RfD  ratios
exceeds one,  observed concentrations pose unacceptable risks of exposure.

A summary of  current site risks can be found  in table 7.  It vas determined
 that  the  inhalation  of VOCs  detected in  the ambient air vould  not pose a
                                   2-13

-------
 significant risk to human health under both the most  probable and worst
 case scenarios.  The scenarios developed used source  concentrations and
 represented the exposures that could reasonably be expected  to exist during
 the spring and fall.  The risks to the surrounding community vould be
 expected to be significantly lover than the estimated source risks due to
 the distance to the nearest homes and the heavy vegetation surrounding the
 site.
                                                               »
 Direct contact and incidental ingestion of soils vould not present a risk
 to human • calth under the vorst case conditions.  For the most probable
 conditions, it vas determined that this pathvay vas incomplete and vould
 not present a risk to human health.

 Because the calculated risk numbers  in table 7 are less  than the EPA risk
 range of 1x10"  to 1x10" ,  direct contact vith contaminants  in the svamp
 vould not pose a risk to human health.  It vas also determined that the
 inhalation of VOCs vould not pose a  risk to human  health.  Risks posed by
 the svamp vould be limited  to individuals having access  to the svamp and
 vould not extend tD the surrounding  community.   No significant risks vould
 be posed by periodic svimming in the North Branch  of  Rancocas Creek.

 The sum of all estimated" most probable cases for carcinogenic risks under a
 present use scenario for the four pathvays vould be eight additional cancer
                       a
 cases in a billion (10 ) people.   The vorst case,  or  more conservative
 estimate,  predicts an excess cancer  risk of one in ten million (10 ).
 Hovever,  MCL's vere exceeded in the  Cohansey aquifer, thereby varranting a
 remedy other than  no action.

Although future use of the  landfill  site vas not expected to result in any
additional  exposure pathvays,  three  additional  pathvays  that may be of
concern in  the future vere  analyzed:   (1)  the construction of a surface
vater  intake on the North Branch  of  Rancocas Creek; (2)  the use of the
Vincentovn  aquifer dovngradient of the landfill; and, (3) the use of the
Cohansey aquifer dovngradient  of  the landfill.
                                   2-14

-------
 Exposure to water from the North Branch of Rancocas  Creek may be associated
               7          -9
 vith a 5 x 10   to 4 x 10   cancer risk using conservative assumptions.  A
 total estimated cancer risk for the 1989 Vincent own  scenario (based on 1989
 data) would be 1 x 10~7.   Total risks of 5 x  10"7 and 8  x 10"6 were
 estimated for the most probable and the worst cases  Vincentown scenarios,
 respectively.
 Another possible future use is the construction of an on-site  potable water
 well screened in the  Cohansey aquifer.  The estimated risks  associated with
 the ingest ion of water  within the plume found  in  the Cohansey  aquifer range
 from 2  x 10   to 6 x  10" .   The future site risks are presented  in  table 8.

 Under the current worst  case conditions,  the cancer risks associated with
 the Fort Dix  Landfill were  at the lower end of the EPA risk  range,  while
 the most probable case  predicted the risk to be well below this  range.
 Based on the  assumptions used in the risk assessment, noncarconogenic
 hazards  were  predicted not  to present a human  health hazard  under the
 evaluated current and future (Rancocas Creek and  Vincentown  aquifer only)
 case scenarios.   Under  future use conditions,  however, the worst-case
 cancer risk is above  the EPA risk range.   Furthermore, Federal or State
 drinking water standards (HCL's)  were exceeded for vinyl chloride,
 1,2-dichloroethane, tritnloroethylene, benzene, tetrachloroethylene,
 methylene chloride and  trans-1,2-dichloroethylene.

 Environmental Risks

The  environmental assessment conducted as part of the RI determined that
 contamination of  the  surface water and sediments  of the swamp  and Cannon
Run  was  limited  to low concentrations of  VOCs  (swamp area only)  and metals.
The  concentrations of aluminum,  calcium,  iron, magnesium, manganese,
potassium and zinc were  higher than would typically be expected, with iron
detected  above the ambient water  quality  criteria.  However, significant
impacts  to wildlife and  vegetation were not expected to occur  and any
impacts  to  the biotic communities  would be limited to areas  where the
volatiles and/or metals  were detected above the ambient water  quality
criteria.                                                 •
                                   2-15

-------
 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.

 2.7  DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

 The alternatives presented in the PRAP vere developed  based upon a
 screening of possible remedial technologies, compliance of the alternatives
 vith ARARs and the ability of the alternatives  to  satisfy  the remedial
 objectives summarized belov:

      o  To prevent contaminants that migrate from  the  landfill from
         affecting drinking vater supplies  of the local population
                                                 «
      o  To prevent landfill contaminant migration/exposure via Cannon
         Run and Budds Run (svaap) from restricting State-designated
         dovn-stream surface vater uses on  the North  Branch of Rancocas
         Creek (i.e.,  fishing, svimming, and future vater supply)
      o  To protect people vho perform military-related or  unauthorized
         recreational  activities on the Fort Dix property from
         potentially harmful effects due to the landfill
      o  To satisfy all appropriate local*  State and  Federal
         requirements  for*proper landfill closure
      o  To prevent significant adverse environmental impacts  on the
         surrounding flora and fauna caused by contaminant  release from
         the Fort  Dix  Landfill
      o  To satisfy all site-specific ARARs as practicable

The remedial alternatives addressed both source control and plume
mitigation technologies.   Excavation of the landfill material, including
the destruction of the vastes by incineration or other treatment
technologies, and  its disposal off-site in a secure  commercial landfill, or
re-disposal on-site in a  lined landfill, vas eliminated early  in the
screening  process  as  a result of excessive cost, potential  short-term
impacts on human health,  and  limited additional long-term benefit in
comparison  to other alternatives.
                                   2-16

-------
 During development of remedial alternatives,  it vas determined that
 installation of a lov-per»eability cap over only the southernmost 50 acres
 of the landfill should be evaluated because the older portions of the
 landfill are believed to be exhausted of any hazardous leachable material.
 The age of the landfill sections, the method of vaste material placement in
 the landfill, and a thorough reviev of present and historical ground vater
 quality records for the northern portions of the landfill indicated  that
 capping of the entire landfill is not necessary.  In addition,  a veil
 established tree, shrub, and grass cover exists on the older portions of
 the landfill.  Maintenance of the existing vegetative cover is  believed to
 be more beneficial to the environment than installation of a
 lov-pemeability cap over this older portion  of the landfill.

 Therefore,  seven remedial alternatives vere evaluated that vould further
 protect public health and the environment from the contamination identified
 by the RI.  The characteristics of each alternative are summarized in table
 9.  Remedial  alternatives vere evaluated based on the nine criteria  -
 identified  in the FS report  and summarized in section 2.8 of this ROD.
 CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human
 health and  the environment,  comply vith ARARs,  utilize permanent solutions
 and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to
 the maximum extent  practicable,  and be cost-effective.   The engineering
 controls, institutional  controls,  quantity of vastes handled, and imple-
 mentation requirements for each alternative vere discussed in detail  in the
 FS and its  addendum.   Each of these seven alternatives are summarized
 belov.  The construction cost,  04M costs,  and the estimated time for
 completion  for each alternative are shovn In  table 6.

Alternative 1  - No  Remedial  Action

The no  remedial action alternative is  defined as  closure of the Fort  Dix
Landfill in accordance vith  NJAC 7:26-2A  et seq.,  except that the final
cover system vould  not include  a lov-permeability  geomembrane and/or  clay
cap.  Other closure  improvements  such  as  surface grading and  revegetation
(vhere  insufficient vegetation  currently  exists),  stormvater and  erosion
controls, gas monitoring  and  controls, and  perimeter  fencing vould be
                                   2-17

-------
 constructed under this alternative.   Components of this alternative are
 presented in figure 8.

 The development and implementation of a closure and post-closure plan as
 defined by NJAC 7:26-2A.9 e_t seq., vould also  be included and is required
 for landfill closure.   The plan vould consist  of both  a closure and
 post-closure care plan and financial plan.

 In addition, the existing ground vater and  surface vater monitoring program
 (under NJPDES)  vould be expanded to include more sampling points and more
 analytical parameters.

 Alternative 2 - Cap and Monitor
                                                  »
 Alternative 2 involves landfill closure (as described  in alternative 1
 above),  installation of a lov-permeability  cap over the southern 50 acres
 of the landfill (the never portion of the landfill), and an expanded
 monitoring program (see figure  9).  The partial cap vill serve to reduce
 the amount of contamination being introduced to the aquifer system.  The
 cap vill  consist  of a  multilayer cover system  as required by RCRA and NJDEP
 regulations.  The three-layer cover  system  vill include an upper vegetative
 layer,  underlain  by a  drainage  layer,  over  a lov-permeability layer (either
 clay or geomembrane).   A typical closure cap detail is  presented in figure
 10.  This  alternative  also includes  institutional controls in the form of
 deed and vater  use restrictions on future uses  of the landfill and ground
 vater  in  the  immediate vicinity of the landfill.

A closure  and post-closure care plan vill be prepared and vill include the
 following  activities:   construction  of a  final  cover (capping and
vegetation), construction  of  structures  to  control  surface vater runon and
 runoff, installation of a  landfill gas monitoring and control system,
 installation of a  facility access  control system,  and implementation of
measures to ensure  the site is  compatible vith  the  surrounding area.  A
financial plan vill also be developed  and implemented.
                                   2-18

-------
 Monitoring of ground vater and surface vater vill  continue  until  remedial
 criteria are met as set forth in table 1,  or alternatively  it  is  determined
 that further remedial action is necessary,  but  in  either case  long-term
 ground vater and surface vater monitoring  vill  continue for 30 years under
 the post-closure plan.

 Alternative 3A - Ground Vater Pumping  and  On-sitc  Treatment

 Alternative 3A consists of collection  of ground vater immediately
 dovngradient of the landfill using extraction veils, on-site treatment, and
 reinjection of the treated ground vater into the shallov aquifer, in
 conjunction vith landfill  closure in accordance vith RCRA and NJDEP
 regulations and monitoring as described in alternative 2.   Contaminated
 ground vater vould be pumped out south of  the landfill, treated, pumped to
 the north of the landfill,  and then reinjected upgradient of the capped
 area.   This alternative vould flush out, treat, and clean up contaminants
 in  the saturated zone at  the site, and isolate any vastes above the vater
 table.   Since the ground vater is a potential future source of drinking
 vater  in the area,  it vould  be treated to meet drinking vater and ground
 vater  standards.   The treated effluent vill  meet KJPDBS requirements.  A
 general layout  of alternative 3A is presented on figure 11.
                       »«                                 •
 A system of 11  extraction veils vould  be installed to a depth of 30 feet to
 the southvest of the  landfill.  Each veil vould be pumped at a rate of 10
gallons  per minute, for a  total of 110 gallons per minute to be extracted,
 treated,  and reinjected.  A  total of 30 injection veils vould be installed
 to the  norinvest  of the capped portion of the landfill.  The ground vater
 treatment processes used in  the preliminary design, presented in figures
 12, 13,  and 14,  include unit  processes grouped into the folloving nine
process  system  design modules:

     o   Module  I  - preliminary treatment (iron removal)
     o   Module  II - VOC stripping
     o  Module  III -  semivolatile organic compound removal by granular
        activated carbon adsorption (GAC),  ion exchange,  and pB
                                   2-19

-------
         adjustment for sodium concentration,  reduction,  and
         neutralization
      o  Nodule IV - sludge and backwash handling
      o  Module V - lime slurry preparation
      o  Module VI - polymer and potassium permanganate (KMNO,)
         solution preparation
      o  Module VII - carbon storage and transfer
      o  Module VIII - ion exchange regeneration and pH adjustment
      o  fc  'ule IX - utilities (plant vater, pover, compressed air,
         heat)

 Pilot testing  would be required prior to final design of  the  treatment
 system.  Additional long-term monitoring (30  years) vould be required to
 determine  the  efficiency of the treatment unit and to determine if
 additional treatment for air pollution control and sludge disposal vould be
 required.

 Alternative 3B - Ground Vater Pumping and Off-site Treatment

 Alternative 3B consists of  collecting ground  vater dovngradient of the.
 landfill through interceptor veils,  transmission of the ground vater to an
 off-site facility for  treatment and  disposal, along vith  landfill closure
 in accordance  vith RCRA and NJDEP  regulations as described in alternative
 2.  Contaminated  vater  vould be pumped by a system of 11  interceptor veils
 located to the southvest of the landfill  to on-site storage, and then
 transported by tanker truck to  an  off-site facility vhere it vould be
 treated to meet NJPDES  requirements.   An  estimated volume of 150,000
gallons per day of ground vater vould  require transportation and treatment.
Collected ground vater vould  be held  in storage facilities vith at least
 three days of  storage capacity  to  allow the vater to be sampled and tested
daily prior to  its transport.   Pretreatment of ground vater for iron prior
to transportation may be necessary.  Alternative 3B is presented on figure
15.
                                   2-20

-------
 Alternative 3D - Partial Ground Vater Pumping and On-site Treatment

 This alternative is similar to alternative 3Aj the landfill vould be closed
 in accordance with RCRA and NJDEP regulations, and interceptor veils vould
 be used to capture contaminated ground water, vhich vould be treated
 on-site, pumped to the northwest of the landfill, and reinjected upgradient
 of the capped area.  Since the ground water is a potential future source of
 drinking vater in the area, it would be treated to meet drinking vater and
 ground vater standards.  The treated effluent vould meet NJPOBS
 requirements.  The intent of this alternative vould focus on the cleanup of
 the inorganic plume alone, which is smaller in area than the organic plume.
 Although treatment for VOCs vould be required for extracted ground water,
 some of the organic plume would not be collected but rather vould be
 allowed to discharge eventually to the surface vater bodies and volatilize
 through natural processes.

 Four interceptor veils located immediately to the southwest of the landfill
 vould extract a total of approximately 40 gallons per minute and send it to
 a  treatment system consisting of the following principal components!

      o  Metals removal'by chemical precipitation,  coagulation,  and
         sedimentation  .
      o  VOC removal by air stripping
      o  Sludge and backvash handling

 A  schematic flovsheet for this proposed treatment  system is presented in
 figure* 16,  although final design vould depend on a treatability study.

 The  treated vater vould be pumped to the northvest of the capped area of
 the  landfill for reinjection through a system of approximately eight veils.

Alternative 4A - Ground Vater  Interception and On-site Treatment

This  alternative consists of landfill closure vith a low-permeability cap
in accordance  vith RCRA and NJDEP regulations (as  presented in alternative
2), a dovngradient  drainage trench or French  drain to intercept the
                                    2-21

-------
 observed contaminant plume, an on-site treatment facility (as described  in
 alternative 3A), and upgradient injection of treated vater.  This
 alternative vas developed to accomplish the same purpose as alternative  3A,
 to flush out leachable vastes in the saturated zone and treat the
 contaminated vater.  Since the ground vater is a potential future source of
 drinking vater in the area, it vould be treated to meet drinking vater and
 ground vater standards.  The treated effluent vould meet NJPDES
 requirements.  The dovngradient drainage, trench replaces the interceptor
 veils described in alternative 3A.

 The dovngradient drainage trench vould be excavated to a depth of 30 feet
 immediately to the southwest of the site.  A geotextile filter, crushed
 stone bedding and envelope, and a perforated pipe about 8 to 12 inches in
 diameter vould be installed in the trench, vhich vould then be backfilled
                                                  *
 to grade.  The filter fabric vould be tested for compatibility vith the
 contaminated ground vater.  Contaminated ground vater vould be collected by
 gravity.  Because pumping vould not be necessary, this plume extraction
 alternative vould require a minimum amount of energy.

 On-site treatment and discharge of the collected ground vater vould be the
 same  as described in alternative 3A.   This alternative is presented in
 figure 17.              s

 Alternative 4B - Ground Vater Interception and Off-site Treatment

 Alternative 4B consists of collection of ground vater dovngradient  of the
 landfill using an interceptor trench,  off-site treatment to meet  NJPDES
 requirements and disposal of  the ground vater (as vith alternative  3B),  and
 landfill closure in  accordance vith RCRA and NJDEP  regulations as described
 in  alternative 2.  This alternative is presented on figure 18.

 2.8   SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The alternative preferred by  the Army,  NJDEP,  and EPA for implementation  at
 the Fort  Dix Landfill is  alternative 2,  closure vith. a low-permeability cap
over  the  southern 50 acres of  the landfill,  and an  expanded  ground  vater
                                   2-22

-------
monitoring program.  Based on current information, this alternative

provides the best balance among the nine criteria that EPA uses as a means

of alternative evaluation.


The alternative evaluation and comparative analysis have been made in

accordance vith the revised NCP (March 8, 1990).  This section provides a

summary of the nine criteria and a comparative analysis of the remedial

alternatives to each of the criteria.  The nine criteria are described
belov.
        Overall protection of human health and the environment
        addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protectIon
        and describes hov risks posed through each exposure pathway
        are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
        engineering controls, or institutional controls.
                                                 t
        Compliance vith ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy meets
        Federal and State environmental statutes arid/or provides
        grounds for invoking a vaiver.

        Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
        of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
        and the environment over time once cleanup goals have been
        met.  It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the
        measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by
        treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
                        •
        Reduction of toxicity,  mobility or volume of contaminants
        addresses the anticipated performance of the remedy with
        respect to these parameters.

        Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
        to achieve protection,  and any adverse effects on human health
        and the environment that may be posed during the construction
        and implementation period of the alternative.

        Implementability is the technical and administrative feasi-
        bility of a remedy,  including the availability and performance
        of materials and services needed to implement the remedy.

        Cost includes estimated capital,  O&M costs,  and net present
        worth costs.

        State acceptance indicates whether,  based on its review of the
        RI/FS and Proposed Plan,  the  State concurs with,  opposes,  or
        has  no comment  on the preferred  alternative.
                                  2-23

-------
      -  Community acceptance indicates whether the public  concurs
         with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred  alternative
         as reflected in the public comments received on  the RI/FS
         report and the PRAP.


 The comparative analysis, which identifies the relative  advantages and

 disadvantages of each alternative under each evaluation  criterion, is

 presented below.


 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment


 The baseline risk assessment determined that the landfill  does not present
 significant risks and hazards to human health and the environment under  the

 known site use conditions.   Each of the alternatives, including no action,
 incorporates features to protect human health and the environment.  These

 are described below.
      o  Opportunity for direct  contact  with soils  would be reduced by
         construction of a fence.

      o  Surface grading would control runoff and erosion of soils.

      o  Based  on water level elevations and water  quality data south
         of  the landfill,  the exposure pathway for  ground water is
         currently incomplete.

      o  Surface water and sediments  pose no significant risk through
         direct contact or ingestion  exposures, and contaminant concen-
         trations would continue to decrease through natural attenua-
         tion.

      o  Existing institutional  controls would prevent future use of
         ground water from within  the area of the contaminated ground
         water  plume.

      o  Gaseous emissions from  the landfill pose no significant risk.

      o  Monitoring of ground water,  surface water,  and air quality
         will provide  sufficient advance notice of  adverse changes from
         existing conditions to  allow determination of need for
         additional remedial actions,  and their implementation before
         significant exposures could  occur.

In each  alternative,  except Alternative 1 - no action, construction and

maintenance of a low-permeability cap would reduce leachate formation by
                                   2-24

-------
 limiting the infiltration of rain vater through  the landfill  and,
 subsequently! the rate of contaminant discharge  to ground vater  and  surface
 vater.  The cap also vould Minimize the incidence of soil transport  by
 erosion, and reduce the opportunity for direct contact by covering soils
 and fill material that may be contaminated.

 The ground vater interceptor and treatment systems proposed for  alterna-
 tives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B vould capture a significant portion  of  the  con-
 taminant plume exiting the landfill,  reducing the total contaminant  load
 that may discharge to surface vater.   The interceptor system  proposed  for
 alternative 30 vould provide a smaller capture zone than the  systems
 evaluated for the other alternatives,  and vould allow most of the ground
 vater plume to discharge to surface vater.
                                                 «
 None of the ground vater treatment  alternatives vould provide any
 additional  public health benefit over  landfill closure vith monitoring (the
 selected remedy)  because existing conditions currently do not pose a
 significant risk  to human health and  the environment and the
 lov-permeability  cap should significantly reduce the generation  of leachate
 discharging to the ground vater.

                        *
 Compliance  vith ARARs                                   .

 Each of the seven alternatives  vas  estimated to achieve chemical-specific,
 location-specific,  and  action-specific ARARs for ground vater quality  and
 surface vater quality,  based  on existing conditions and the expectation
 that  no future releases vould occur.   The ground vater and surface vater
 quality standards are based on  State and Federal NCL's for drinking  vater,
 State ground vater and  surface  vater quality criteria, Federal vater
 quality criteria,  and NJPDES  requirements.  The location-specific ARARs,
 including the E.O.  11990 "Protection of  Wetlands",  Nev Jersey Freshvater
Vetlands  Act (NJAC 7:7A-1.1), E.O.  11988 "Floodplain Management", and
Section 7 of the  Endangered Species Act, vill be addressed in  the design
documents for  the selected alternative.  Any activities in the floodplain
of Cannon Run vill  be designed  in accordance vith the Flood Hazard Area
Control Act  Regulations  (NJAC 7:13-1.1 et seq.)  for stream encroachment.
                                   2-25

-------
 Each alternative, except alternative 1, vould Beet  landfill closure
 requirements under RCRA and NJDEP regulations,  and  vould  satisfy NJPDES
 requirements.  No action is not an appropriate alternative because of the
 AGO and RCRA closure requirements for the landfill.  Therefore, it vill not
 be considered further in this analysis as an option.  The soil erosion and
 sediment control plan and the gas venting system vill conform to
 requirements vithin the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 (NJSA
 4:24-40 et. seq., and the regulations NJAC 2:90-1.1  et seq.), arid Air
 Pollution Control Regulations (NJAC 7:27-1 et seq.).

 The alternatives incorporating ground vater treatment are expected to meet
 NJDEP requirements for air emissions and NJPDES requirements for either
 reinjection of treated effluent or its acceptance at a publicly-ovned
 treatment vorks.  The operation of the on-site treatment  system vould
                                                 «
 comply vith RCRA requirements.

 Location-specific and action-specific "to be considered"  (TBC) goals
 identified for the Fort Dix site include State endangered plant/animal
 habitat species and veil drilling, sealing,  and pump installation
 requirements.  Although potentially threatened  species or habitats vere
 identified, vithin one mile of the site,  the Fort Dix Landfill is not"
                        »,
 impacting these areas.   Veil drilling,  sealing, and pump  installations vill
 be  addressed in the design documents and vill be conducted in accordance
 vith the Nev Jersey requirements for all actions.

 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

 The technologies employed by each of the alternatives historically have
 shovn  high reliability,  vith proper maintenance.

 Under  present site conditions (table 7)  the  total risk to human health
 under  a  vorst-case scenario is 1x10" .   Because this number is less than
 the acceptable risk range,  current exposure  to  the site is not expected to
 pose a significant risk.   The estimated  cancer  risk under future ground
vater  use,  however,  is  greater than the  acceptable range  and may pose a
significant risk.
                                    2-26

-------
 None of the alternatives provides a permanent remedy, and reviews of the
 performance of the remedy vill be needed no less often than three years
 after commencement of remediation and every five years thereafter, as
 required under CERCLA.  It is unlikely that Fort Oix, knowing the risks
 that could result from the consumption of this water, would construct a
 well for drinking water purposes either through or in the plume associated
 with the landfill.  In addition, it is unlikely that NJDEP would approve of
 a well permit application for a water supply well in this area.  As long as
 Fort Dix maintains control of the landfill, the possibility of constructing
 a well on-site is minimal.  This aquifer will continue to be monitored and
 appropriate remedial action will be implemented if needed.

 Alternative 1 provides no controls for contaminant migration.   Contaminants
 would continue to migrate from the landfill to ground water, and subse-
 quently to surface water.

 Alternative 2 is  a relatively simple remedy to operate and maintain.
 Performance of the cap,  passive venting system,  and monitoring system are
 reliable with proper maintenance.   Monitoring would continue until the
 remedial criteria for ground water and surface water are met as set forth
 in  table 1,  or alternatively it is determined that further remedial action
 is  necessary,  but in*either case long-term ground water and surface water
 monitoring will continue for 30 years  under the post-closure plan.   If
 significant  increases in unacceptable  risk to human health and the environ-
 ment are determined  in the revised risk assessments,  additional remedial
 action vill  be proposed.   Unacceptable risk vill be determined through a
 revision of  the latest risk assessment,  using the most recent  total volume
 of  data.   Risk assessments vill use EFA guidance and policy effective at
 the time of  reviev.   Once  additional remedial action is deemed necessary,
 clean-up goals for the ground water and surface  water will be based on
 chemical specific ARARs.   Institutional controls (i.e.,  technical and/or
 administrative restrictions  placed by  the  Federal and/or State agencies) on
 land use can be maintained as long as  the  Army retains control over the
 landfill.  Land use restrictions currently in place could be altered
 through legislative action or the  public review  process,  but should be
reliable at least  through  the planning period for the-remedial action.
                                   ?-27

-------
 Vater use restrictions, if enforced properly through local, state,  and
 federal agencies, should also be reliable.

 The ground vater interception and treatnent components of the other
 alternatives are expected to be short-term actions (10-year planning
 period), and provide no additional benefit toward long-term effectiveness
 because remedial criteria are expected to be met vithin the same  time frame
 as in alternative 2.

 Current risks and hazards to human health at the site are belov EPA's risk
 range.  The alternatives 2, 3A, 3B, 3D, AA and 4B would act to minimize
 these risks even further, vhile Alternative 1 to a lesser degree, vould act
 to minimize some of these risks.  To minimize any future risk and to
 evaluate the ground vater, surface vater, and air quality, these  three
 media vould be monitored under all alternatives.'

 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

 Under CERCLA, remedies that use treatment to permanently and significantly
 reduce the toxicity, mobility,  or volume of contaminants are to be  given
 preference over remedies that do not.   Bovever,  full compliance vith this
 criterion is impractical at the Fort Dix Landfill, vhere the contaminated
 volume is large and contaminant concentrations are believed to be lov.

 Each  of the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation in this report
 vould allov this potential source of contamination to remain.

 Alternative 2,  and  each of the  remedial actions  Incorporating ground vater
 treatment,  reduces  the rate of  contaminant migration to surface vater, and
 the volume  of the leachate generated,  by reducing the infiltration  of rain
 vater through the landfill.   Treatment of the ground vater is  currently not
 necessary for protection of human health or the  environment, and  treatment
 of the  landfill contents is not  practical.

Treatment of  the ground vater vould  reduce the toxicity of the present-day
 plume, and vould reduce the total amount of contaminants-eventually dis-
                                    2-28

-------
 charged to surface water.  Under existing site conditions,  ground  water
 treatment is not expected to yield significant benefit  over landfill
 capping alone, because the aaount of contamination discharging  to  surface
 water is small and the contamination appears to be dissipating  through
 natural processes.  Contaminants currently discharging  to surface  water
 bodies do not present a threat to human health or the environment.

 Alternatives 3A and 4A provide treatment to'the maximum practical  extent,
 but would produce residues (alkaline iron sludge and spent  activated
 carbon) that would require off-site disposal or additional  treatment.
 Alternative 30 would treat a smaller volume of ground water (50 instead of
 220 gallons per minute),  but would produce a smaller amount of sludge for
 disposal,  and no spent carbon.   Alternatives 3B and 4B  are  similar  to
 alternatives 3A and 4A,  respectively,  but provide for off-site treatment of
 the ground water.

 Short-Term Effectiveness

 Because volatile organics and particulate matter could  be released  into the
 atmosphere during* the installation of  the landfill cap, contingency plans
 and monitoring plans for  construction  will be developed under the design-
 stage documents to minimize  risks  to on-si.te workers or to  the community.
 Risks to the community will  decrease as  attenuation decreases contaminant
 concentrations.   Yorker protection will  be maintained by monitoring to
 detect deviations from expected  conditions,  and use of  engineering
 controls,  including respiratory  or dermal protection, if needed.

 No  significant  adverse impacts are expected from the short-term operation
 of  any of  these alternatives  except  3B and 4B.   Engineering controls will
 be  used  to  control  surface runoff  and  minimize erosion, and suppress dust
 generated during construction.           '

Construction  and  maintenance  of  the  low-permeability cap, under each of the
alternatives  except  "no remedial action," will significantly reduce the
rate of leachate  formation and subsequent  contaminant loading to ground
                                   2-29

-------
 water and  surface vater.  Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B will signifi-
 cantly  reduce  the total contaminant loading to surface vater by intercept-
 ing the contaminant plume exiting the landfill.  However, the increase in
 truck traffic  associated with the off-site transport of ground vater under
 alternatives 3B and 4B constitutes an undesirable short-term impact.  Under
 alternative 3D, most of the contaminant plume vould be allowed to dis-
 charge.  Alternative 2 vould allov all of the plume to discharge to surface
 vater,  but at  a much lover rate than alternative 1, "no remedial action."
 As there is no significant risk to public health or threat to the environ-
 ment under current conditions, the differences in the rate or quantity of
 contaminants discharged is not a critical factor in remedy selection.
 Contaminant concentrations are lov and may be dissipating to undetectable
 levels  through natural processes.

 Implementability

 Excluding consideration of "no remedial action*,  Alternative 2 vould be the
 most simple to construct,  and its  O&M vould be the most straightforward.

 Construction and operation of alternatives 3A,  3B,  and 3D vould be more
 complex, as there vould be more  components to  construct and operate,  but
 still  vould be fairly  straightforward.   Conventional treatment processes
 vould  be used,  and equipment  specialists and materials are available.

 Alternatives 4A and 4B vould  be  somewhat more difficult to implement.
 Construction of the trench vould require devatering,  and the collected
 vater vould have to be treated for disposal.  During operation an estimated
 50  trips per day of trucks  of 6,000-gallon capacity vould  be required  to
 transport ground vater offsite for treatment.   Over time the interceptor
 trench may  experience  clogging or  structural failure,  and  its  repair or
 replacement  vould-be as difficult  and costly as its construction.

Each alternative  includes a monitoring  program  that vould  provide  notice  of
deviations from expected environmental  conditions or  failure of the remedy
vith sufficient advance notice to  determine vhether additional  remedial
actions  are warranted, and allov their  implementation  before significant
                                   2-30

-------
 exposures can occur.  If additional actions are warranted,  any of the
 alternative remedies could be augmented by additional remedial actions
 (e.g. extended cap, additional capture veils, changes to treatment process)
 without interfering vith the existing remedy.

 Under each alternative, KJDEP approval through NJPDES would be needed to
 incorporate additional ground vater monitoring veils,  and monitoring  at
 surface vater discharge points.  Should land use and  vater  use restrictions
 be necessary they vill be arrived at through consultation vith EPA, NJDEP,  .
 and the Army.

 Under alternatives 3A,  3D,  and 4A, NJDEP approval vill be needed  for  air
 stripper emissions and  effluent reinjection.   Off-site disposal of
 treatment residues may  become more difficult as disposal regulations  and
 capacity limitations become more restrictive.

 Under alternatives 3B and 4B, a Significant  Indirect  User permit  and
 approval from the Mount  Holly Utilities Authority vill be needed  for  ground
 vater to be received at  the Mount Holly treatment plant.  The  facility
 management has stated its willingness  to accept ground vater from the site
 for treatment.
Costs
Alternative 2 has the lowest total project and operating costs of all the
alternatives, except  "no  remedial action.*  Construction of the cap is the
most expensive component  of any of the remedies, but its annual maintenance
cost is  the lowest*

Alternative 30 has the next lowest total project cost of the alternatives,
but offers  no significant benefit over alternative 2.  It has the next
lowest annual O&M costs,  about  40 percent of those for alternative 3A or
4A, but would be  much less effective  in intercepting contaminants before
discharge.
                                   2-31

-------
 The total project costs of alternatives 3A,  3B,  4A,  and 4B are  comparable,
 vith 3A being the least expensive.  Annual costs for 3A and 4A  are similar,
 as are annual costs for 3B and 4B.  Annual costs for these alternatives are
 several times greater than for the other alternatives.   A summary of costs
 for each alternative is presented in tables  6, 11  and 12.

 State Acceptance
                                                               •
 The New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection concurs vith
 the selt-ied remedy.

 Community Acceptance

 Public comments on the Proposed Plan are addressed in the Responsiveness
 Summary.

 2.9  SELECTED REMEDY

The Army,  EPA,  and NJDEP have  evaluated the  remedial alternatives in
accordance vith Section 121(b) of CERCLA and Section 300.432 of the NCP,
and have  selected  alternative  2 as the  preferred remedial  action for the
landfill  based  on  the  findings of the RI/FS.

The selected remedy for the Fort Dix Landfill, alternative 2, is landfill
closure vith a  lov-permeability cap and an expanded  environmental
monitoring program subject to  EPA approval.  This  provides a landfill
closure plan in accordance vith NJAC 7s26-2A et  seq.  The  preferred remedy
includes but is  not limited to:
     1.  Installation of a cap on  the southern 50 acres of the
         landfill that vill consist of vegetative, drainage, and
         lov-permeability layers.  Tvo feet of final cover vill be
         maintained on the remaining portion of the landfill vhich
         vill not receive the cap.  The final cover requirements vill
         be developed in consultation vith NJDEP and EPA.
     2.  Installation of a landfill gas venting and air monitoring
         system (to determine if methane gas and VOC emissions require
         treatment).
                                   2-32

-------
      3.  Installation of chain-link fence around the perimeter of the
          landfTil to restrict access to the site.

      4.  Implementation of landfill closure requirements in accordance
          vith KJAC 7:26-2A et seq., and RCRA guidance.

      5.  Long-term ground water, surface vater, and air monitoring (30
          years) pursuant to the Nev Jersey State closure requirements.
          A yearly statistical analysis will be performed on the
          chemical analysis results to determine the trend of the
          overall contamination levels.

      6.  Long-term O&M to provide inspection of and repairs to the
          landfill cap.

      7.  Institutional controls in the form of deed and vater use
          restrictions on future uses of the landfill and ground vater
          in the immediate vicinity of the landfill.

      8.  Development and implementation of a soil erosion and sediment
          control plan in accordance vith the Soil Erosion and Sediment
          Control Act Regulations of 1975,  NJSA 4:24-40 et seq.,  and
          NJAC 2:90-1.1 et seq.                    '

      9.  Using the data obtained in the monitoring program, the risk
          assessment  vill be revieved and subsequently revised if the
          trend shovs significant changes in vater quality.   These
          revievs and revisions  vill occur no less often than three
          years after commencement of remedial action and every five
          years thereafter.   Any changes in actual exposure scenarios
          vill be addressed  in  the revised risk assessments.  Risk
          assessments vill use EPA guidance and policy effective at the
          time of the re^viev.

    10.   If significant  increases in unacceptable risk to human health
          and  the environment are determined in the revised risk
          assessments, additional remedial  actions vill be proposed.

In addition,  monitoring  vill be conducted  during the design phase that vill

include the folloving:
     1.  Collect and analyze sediment samples  at  the  point vhere
         Cannon Run discharges  into  the North  Branch  of Rancocas
         Creek;

     2.  Perform standard bioassay testing  for freshvater species on
         samples collected  from a piezometer,  a proposed monitoring
         veil, and surface  vater along Cannon  Run;

     3.  Conduct air sampling for volatile organic analysis; and,

     4.  Sample nevly installed and selected existing monitoring veils
         for chemical analysis.

                                   2-33

-------
 This alternative is protective of human health and the environment,
 complies vith ARARs, and is cost-effective.  A list of ARARs for this
 alternative is set forth in table 10.  Labor, materials, and methodologies
 are available for implementation of this alternative.  Short-term risks
 associated vith alternative 2 are construction-related and can be
 minimized.  The lov-permeability cap effectively reduces the amount  of
 infiltration and leachate generated by the landfill,  provides a protective
 layer that reduces potential impacts to the environment and public health,
 and costs less than the other "action* alternatives.

 As vith all of the alternatives,  a long-term environmental monitoring plan
 (30 years) vould be developed as  part of landfill closure to monitor the
 effectiveness of the remedy in protecting the environment and public
 health.   The results of the environmental monitoring vould be reviewed by
 the Army, EPA, and NJDEF.   Based  on the results of this monitoring,
 additional remedial actions may be required as appropriate.
                                                        »
 Treatment of the ground vater is  currently not necessary for protection of
 human health or the environment.   Treatment of the landfill contents is not
 practical as described in  the FS  (i.e.,  the contaminated volume is large
 and,  based on the historical and  RI data,  the contaminant concentrations
 are believed to be lov).  Recent  guidance pn remedy selection under
 CERCLA indicates that  treatment need not be considered under these
 circumstances.   LDR are not applicable to this action because the landfill
 vill  be  capped and placement vill not occur.

 2.10   STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

 The primary responsibility of  the Army and EPA at Federal Facility
 Superfund sites  is  to undertake remedial actions that achieve protection of
 human health and  the environment.   In addition,  section 121 of CERCLA
 establishes  several other  statutory requirements and  preferences.  These
 specify  that vhen complete,  the selected remedial action for this site must
 comply vith applicable  or  relevant  and appropriate environmental  standards
 established under Federal  and  State environmental lavs unless a statutory
vaiver is Justified.  The selected  remedy  also must be cost-effective and
                                   2-34

-------
 utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
 resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.   Finally,
 the statute  includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that
 permanently  and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
 hazardous vastes as their principal element.

 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

 Because it vould include fencing, capping, monitoring,  landfill  gas
 venting, and deed restrictions, the selected remedy vould  be protective of
 human health and the environment.  Hov the selected remedy vill  address
 each potential exposure pathvay is presented belov.

 Air.  Following installation of the 50-acre cap,  and revegetation  of the
 capped areas, exposure pathways involving air transport  of contaminated
 particulates vould no longer be complete.  Those areas  to  the north of the
 proposed cap, vhich are. not heavily vegetated,  vould be  covered  with clean
 soil and revegetated to maintain at least tvo feet  of clean soil over the
 landfilled material.   The vegetation should reduce  the erosion of  the
 surface and the transport of soils as fugitive  dusts.  Restricted  site
 access vould also reduce the potential for exposure at  the older sections
 of the landfill.

 Methane,  other gaseous components of anaerobic  degradation,  and  VOCs vould
 be released to the atmosphere from the passive  gas-venting system  installed
 as part of  closure.  Bovever,  the emission of VOCs  is not  expected to
 present a threat  to  public health under knovn site  conditions.   In
 addition,  the air monitoring program vould be used  to evaluate the
 effectiveness of  the system and  to predict impacts  to on-site workers and
 the surrounding community.

 Soils.  Placement  of the  cap over  the never sections of  the  landfill vould
 cover  any contaminated soils or vaste materials present  at  the surface of
 the landfill.  As  long as the  integrity  of the  cap  is maintained,  the
exposure pathvay of direct  contact vith  contaminated soil or vaste
materials vould be eliminated.  In addition,  the  construction of the fence
                                   2-35

-------
 around the landfill to restrict site access also vould limit  opportunities
 for contact with on-site soils.  Grading of the site and  construction of
 the cap vould reduce or eliminate hazards associated vith erosion or
 vashout of on-site soils, and the exposure of refuse and  construction
 materials.  Construction of the cap would, therefore,  prevent  the landfill
 from presenting a risk to human health and the environment  by  eliminating
 the exposure pathways involving direct contact yith  contaminated soils, or
 their transport in surface runoff.

 Ground Water.  Capping the landfill would significantly reduce the rate of
 migration of contaminants to the ground water.  If the landfill does not
 continue to act as a source, the reduction in infiltration  caused by the
 cap would allow an eventual improvement of ground water quality.

 The composition of the landfill materials was not' investigated during the
 RI.  However, inferences can be made regarding the likelihood  of future
 releases based on the information that is available.   Because  disposal
 practices were controlled from 1980 until disposal activities  ceased, it is
 believed that drummed wastes are absent from the area identified as the
 most likely source of the contaminant plume.   Soils  and fill materials have
 been washed by infiltrating precipitation for up to  40 years,  which would
 be  sufficient to remove most of the leachable waste  material.   Moreover,
 there has been no evidence of episodic releases since  ground water
 monitoring was initiated in 1979.   For these reasons,  it  is believed that
 significant releases are not likely to occur at any  future  time.

 Potential exposure pathways for ground vater are considered to be
 incomplete under existing conditions.  Institutional controls  restricting
 the use  of on-site ground water would be needed to prevent  exposure to
 contaminated ground vater through  future uses.  Existing  controls should be
adequate  for this  purpose.   The purpose of the monitoring program is to
determine if further action at the Fort Dix landfill is needed.

Surface Vater.  The construction of the landfill cap vould  not directly
eliminate  the existing  contaminant plumes,  or the transport of drainable
vastes (if  present)  from the landfill into the ground  vater flow field.
                                    2-36

-------
 However, the cap would  reduce the  amount  of  leachate  generated by  reducing
 the amount of infiltration.   The baseline risk assessment determined  that
 periodic contact vith surface vater and sediments  in  the svamp and Cannon
 Run would not pose  a significant health risk to children playing in that
 area,  under existing conditions.   Surface vater quality should improve over
 time with the installation of the  cap, with  resulting reductions in
 estimated risk.

 Leachate seepage from the landfill will be significantly reduced through
 capping, and fencing will restrict access to those sections of Cannon Run
 immediately adjacent to potential  seeps.   The potential health risks
 associated with  exposure to contaminants  in  Cannon Run are not significant
 under  known conditions, and would  be reduced to even  lower levels by  these
 remedial measures.
                                                 *
 Biological Community.  Construction of a  fence around the site and sections
 of  Cannon Run would decrease  the likelihood  of domestic or wild animals
 coming in contact vith contaminated soil  or  ingesting contaminated plants.
 However,  fencing the site will make the landfill a less viable habitat for
 larger animals.  •

 Continuation of  contaminant discharge to  either the svamp or Cannon Run may
 result in adverse impacts to  aquatic life, vegetation, and wildlife that
 use  these areas  as a vater source.  However, it is expected that the
 adverse effects  would be minimal,  considering the nature and levels of the
 contaminants detected in the  ground vater and the history of improved vater
 quality.

 Compliance vith  ARARs

The  selected alternative consists  of closure of the Fort Dix Landfill in
accordance vith  NJDEP and RCRA regulations,  along vith a sampling  program
 to monitor changes in ground  vater, surface  vater, and air quality.   This
alternative vould also include a closure  and post-closure plan as  defined
by NJAC 7:26-2A.9 et seq.  Monitoring of  ground vater and surface  vater
vill continue until remedial  criteria are met as set  forih in  table 1, or
                                   2-37

-------
alternatively it  is determined that  further  remedial action  is  necessary.
The  soil  erosion  and sediment control  plan and  the gas venting  system vill
con fora to requirements vithin the Soil  Erosion and Sediment Control Act of
1975 (NJSA 4:24-40 ejt seq.  and the regulations  NJAC 2:90-1.1 et seq.), and
Air  Pollution Control Regulations  (NJAC  7:27-1  et seq.).  Any activities in
the  flood plain of Cannon Run vill be  designed  in accordance with  the Flood
Hazard  Area Control Act Regulations  (NJAC 7:13-1.1 e_t seq.)  for stream
encroachment.                                                 .
                                 t
A  health  \nd safety program for the  installation and maintenance of the
landfill  closure  elements and monitoring program would be established in
compliance with the National Institute for Occupational Safety  and Health
and  the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations.

Location-specific ARARs,  including the E.O.  11990 "Protection of Vet lands",
Nev  Jersey Fresh  Water Wetlands Act  (NJAC 7:7A-1.1), E.O. 11988 "Floodplain
Management",  and  Section 7  of the  Endangered Species Act vill be addressed
in the  design  documents for the selected alternative.

Location-specific and action-specific  TBCs identified for the Fort Oix site
include State  endangered  plant/animal  habitat species and veil  drilling,
sealing,  and pump installation requirements.  Although potentially
threatened species or habitats vere  identified  vithin one mile  of  the site,
the  Fort  Dix Landfill does  not impact  these  areas.  Well drilling, sealing,
and  pump  installations vill be addressed in  the design documents and vill
be conducted in accordance  vith the  Nev  Jersey  requirements  for all
actions.
Cost
"he (elected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined  to
Provide overall effectiveness proportioned  to its costs (present vorth -
114.3 million).  Tables 11 and 12 compare estimated costs affiliated  vith
••eh component of all alternatives.  The selected remedy has significantly
lover capital and 04M costs than all of the other "action" alternatives.
                                   2-38

-------
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to  the Maximum Extent Practicable

The Army, EPA, and NJDEP have determined that the selected remedy
represents the maximum extent to vhich permanent solutions and treatment
technologies  can  be utilized in a cost-effective manner.

Based upon the information presented, the selected remedy vill protect
ground vater  quality by reducing infiltration and leachate production.  It
provides the  best balance among all nine evaluation criteria, with the
following being the most important considerations for the site:

     1.  Compliance vith State and Federal ARARs for solid waste
         landfill closure
     2.  Availability of equipment and materials
     3.  Cost of  construction, 04M
     4.  Elimination of rain vater infiltration and, thus, reduction
         in the volume of leachate released  to the ground vater
     5.  Continued monitoring to ensure the  remedy continues to be
         protective of human health and the  environment

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected  remedy does not satisfy  the statutory preference  for treatment
because treatment is impractical.  The remedy does not include treatment of
any contaminated  matrix.  Treatment of the source of contamination (the
landfill itself)  is technically impracticable because of  the large volume
of material,  the  expected heterogeneity of the material, and the lov
contaminant concentrations believed to be present.  The feasibility of
treating isolated, heavily contaminated areas cannot be evaluated because
the nature and extent of contamination vithin the fill area has not been
quantified.

None of the ground vater treatment alternatives vould provide  any
additional public health benefit over landfill closure vith monitoring  (the
selected remedy)  because existing conditions currently do not  pose a
                                   2-39

-------
significant risk  to human health and the environment and the
low-permeability  cap should significantly reduce the generation of leachate
discharging to  the ground water.  The monitoring program that will be
implemented as  part of  this action will better define the nature and extent
of contamination  (organic and inorganic) and detect changes in ground
water, surface  water, and air quality.  These data will be reviewed as they
are collected,  so that  if significant degradation in the quality of these
•edia is noted, then further action can .be initiated.  Unacceptable risk
will be determined through a revision of the latest risk assessment, using
the most :ecent total volume of data.  Risk assessments will use EPA
guidance and policy effective at the time of the review.  Also, the
effectiveness of  the selected remedy will be reevaluated no less often, than
three years after commencement of remedial action and at least every five
years thereafter  as required under CERCLA.

(fort_dix/101)
                                   2-40

-------
ATTACHMENT 1  FIGURES

-------
                             _J
                             ^                      I
                            t  McGuire Air Force J
                                      Base     	|
                                            )
                                                                                           -/N
                                                                                X
V*>
 \s
  \
                                                   Training Area     
-------
 1000    0     1000
    SCALE PEST
COM
              Figure 2
   Site Location Map
Fort Oix Sanitary Lancfili

-------
  LEGEND

      AplcuHuiai fUsktenllal
 AP  A0ilCiilluial Pioduciion
 R-1  lUoh Density Single Family Residential
 0 '  •-"" Single, and Multiple Family
          um Density Slnflla FamUy H«sideiilidl
 H-6  Low O«nslly Slngl* FamUy
 R-17 V«iy Low O«naily SlnQl* f wnUy
 Mil  Mobil* llom* n«sld*nll«l
 TC   Town C«ni«r
 HO   Ikuplial 0«v«lopm«nl
QIM        IU"'V*"0n
LHH
KG  KMMMfy Couda
              * School
                         Land Use Mup
                  Foil Olx Sanitary

-------
      N
 1000
  0 Materiai Riled Between 1974.1984
  (?) Material Pilled Between 1970-1974
  CQ Materiai Filled Between 1963-1970
  0 Matehal Riled Between 1996-1963
  (D Materiai Riled Before 1996
COM
                                Rgure 4
Fort Dix Landfill Development Progression
                    Fort Dix Sanitary

-------
  N
Swampy Area
  0 MW

 (f)

  O
IOOO
1000
                                                                     PgureS
                                                          Monitoring Well and
                                                         Piezometer Locations
                                                                          i
                                                         Fort Obc Sanitary Landfill
                                                       poon

                                                           ORIGINAL

-------
      N
  LEGEND:

 C Surface Water
   and Sediment
   Sample Location*
1000
1000
   SCALE FEET
COM
                                                                  Figure 6

                                              Surface Water. Sediment and
                                                Leacnate Sample Locations

                                                      Fort Oix Sanitary UncMi

-------
      N
                                             r*1  Pvmocfton—Brawn* Millt Read
   Swampy Area
                        Rancocas
 LEGEND:
    • .Air Samplt* Locations
  • IF-Air Samp* Monitoring Wall
 •OW—Downwind Sampte Location
 •UW—Upwind Sampto Location

1000   o     1000

   SCALE FEET
COM
             Figure 7
Air Sample Locations
 Port Oix Sanitary

-------
      .N
1000
1000
COM
                                                                          Figure 8

                                                                    Alternative 1
                                                                       No Action
                                                            Fort Ota Sanitary Landfill

-------
      N
                                                       3 +i?    ^^X,
                                                                  Ptmbtrteo  Ofo*ni MUls Read
                   1000
COM
              Figure 9
        Alternative 2
     Landfill Closure
Fort Qix Sanitary Lanofilj

-------
                                                              Grass
                                              v.r;*i-j '-ivr.' stfc;. »• f v;
                                                                               FiH«f Fabnc
                                                                               36 mil
                                                                               Geomambrana
                                                                               Unar
Nolle
COM
                    Figure 'i

Typical Closure Cap Detail
         Side Slopes <7 %

       Fort Oix Sanitary LandHi!

-------
     N
             Sctwntiic Injection
             WtU
                                                     Senwnatle tmtmptor
                                                     WtlFMi
1000
1000
COM
                                                            Figure 11

                                                      Alternative 3A
                              Plum* Pumping, Treatment and Reinjectior

                                                 Fort OU Sinitiry Lane

-------
                    Mr
                                    ph
   Rawwatof
   tan lank
   125 gpm
 Blower
700 dm
UTHaO
 2 HP
                                   Urn.
                                 0-1.1 gph
                                  1/4 HP
                       09gphHaO
                                10>KCa(OH)2
                                  38gpd
                                   fcom
                                                                                                       bom
                                                                                                     moduialX
                                                                                                Bachwash
                                                                                             357 gpm/liller
                                                                                                  IS nun.
                                                            ftotUualF*

                                                            •ocadaOon
      Scdlnwnlallon-
                                                             mtUfing
KMn04
  8%:
  Of*
                     125 gpm
                     60* TOM
                      5 Hp
                                                                             Shjdfl*
                                                                             pump
                                                                             •" ^
1.5 ppm
» gph
                                                              Irom
                                                                   4 25 gpm
                                                                   1/SolliiM
                                                                           modutolV

                                 Backwash
                                  sloiagc
                                 12.000 Gal
                                                                                                       5«Mn
                                                                                                                module N
COM
                                              FlQiiro li!

                        Trealmenl Process Schematic
                                            Module I
                                   Fort Oil SaniMry I jn.ll/U

-------
                             OFF GAS: (391-50) mgl x 8.34 X 0.18 -.512 ppd In 3340 ACFM x 1440 - 481 HO8 ACF
                             Hotwtftf
         3.44 x 10 §
          Blu/tir.
        Frommodutel
           65°F
                                                 140°F
                                    85°F
ttoal •xchanger
  300 «g ft.
                                       100°F
                           Oil gas
                            VOC
                           •Kipper
                           column
130°F
                              Blower
                                                                                                          To module III
COM
                     Ml
      t mtn*g«m*nt coniuHtnn
                                                                       Fiymu 13

                                                   Treatment Process Schumniic
                                                                      Modulo II

                                                             foil Oi« SdiiilJiy I jiulliU

-------
     125 gpm
       fca«
            125
            30-TDII
     LEGEND:
                                                                 1
                                          1cgpai;ISnln.
                           I
                           t
GACI
                 Ill gpm; oh.

                Fraahi
                    I
                    t
OAC2
                                                      too


                 I
                 I
                 I
                 r
                                                             Ito. I
                             Towaato
                                        IIMgpd^^
                                        2410 gpd            _
                                        2IT40gpd^^	|
                                                                   iliMiy
                                                                          lOgph
                                                                                               M«l«ring
                                                                                                Pump
   ba
Eidiang*
  No. 2
                                                                          25 gpm
phAd|
 Static
                                                                                 To ElUuanl Tank
                                                                             NOTE: Votum«t ol ragciMiant. spanl add
                                                                                 and «ISM. hw both unit
COM
                                                                                           FlQuia 14

                                                                     Traalmeni Process Schematic
                                                                                         Modulo III
                                                                                 Foil Ou SjniUiy

-------
       N
                                                          Sdwmatic Inttrctptor
                                                          WHRtW
                                                          Ptmbtneo—0
-------
   "D
~°
oo
=9 33
OO

          CDM
          tnvroamoatsl »rrr
-------
          Schematic Injection
          Weil
      'WMNO.
  Sdwtnalte Lorn*"*1
  at Intwaptor Orairag* Trwdi ^TvT

  Swwnpy Arm
                                                        Pwntwion  QIOWIIS Mills Road
1000
1000
COM
                                                               Figure 17
                                                          Alternative *A
                                                      Interceptor Drains.
                                               Treatment and Reinfection
                                                    Fort OU Sanitary Landiii:

-------
 '  N
      W«i NO.
  A-1.2
  S-». S
  •-«. to
 IBUNO:
                    GTMM Pit
  Sctwnatte loctfton         .*•  .
  at Intacwptor Driinag* Twnchs^ .--

  Swampy
COM
              Figure
         Alternative •
     Interception  Drair
Treatment and Discharg
    Fort Dix Sanitary Undfi.
                                                           OOR QUALITY
                                                              ORIGINAL

-------
ATTACHMENT 2  TABLES

-------
                    TABLE 1

SMART OF OCNEAKINANrS Lb'LVL'HU IN GROIN) WATER
           StFFACE WATER IN CAMCN RLN
          AM) SWAMP WATER TABLE SAMPLES


Organic
Chemicals
Volatile;:
Vinyl chloride
Chloroe thane
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1 , 1-Oichloroe thane
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroetnylene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
2-Butanone
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroetnylene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Acid, Base/Neutral:
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
Benzole acid
Napthalene
Diethylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate

Frequency
of
detection

3/37
6/37
3/37
6/37
7/37
6/37
0/37
2/37
V37
3/37
3/37
10/37
6/37
4/37
4/37
5/37
6/37
6/37

1/37
3/37
17/37 •
3/37
4/37
6/37
23/37
1/37
Ground Water
Maxinun
concentration

-------
                   TABLE 1
                  (continued)

SUfiART OF OCNTAMnWNTS DETBCIH} IN OWN) WATER
               AM) SURFACE USER
Surface Water from Cannon Run Remedial Criteria
Organic
Chsncials
Volatiles:
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Chloroe thane
1 , 1-Dichloroe thane
trans-1 , 2-
5J
ND
W
ND

4J
ND
Geometric ,
mean FWT EWXT
(ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)

ND 2* WK
ND A.7^N
ND
ND
m *i
H> 700^ ....
ND 0-05^
ND 0.383
HI «
ND 3,100^
ND ...
ND 2.7TL
ND 1.2^*
»
ND ^.8
ND 10,0002
ND 3,100^
ND

ND 400
ND
2.7
ND
ND ^
ND 23,000^
*iV
3C 1 O^J"
.0 +v"
ND 2700 J

-------
                  TABLE 1
                  (continued)

SUtttRT OF OQNEAKINANES Ltltt'IlU IN GROUD UKDE8,
          SURFACE BOER IN CAWCN ION,
         AN) SlttMP VATER TAH£ SAMPLES


Organic
Chancials
VoLatiles:
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Chloroe thane
1 , 1-Oichloroe thane
trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
2-Butanone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichlotopropane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Acid, Base,/Neutrals:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
Diethylphthalate
bis(2-£thylhexyl)
phlhalate
Di-n-butylphthalate

Frequency
of
detection
0/6
2/6
0/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
0/6
0/6
1/6
0/6
1/6
0/6
1/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6

0/6
0/6
0/6
1/6
0/6
1/6

0/6
0/6
Swanp Water Table
Maximum
concentration
(us/1)
to*
110
to
12
12
LJ
LJ
ND
to
8
ND
23
ND
93
to
to
to
LJ

t
ND
ND
ND
21
to
9

to
to

Geometric
mean
(ug>l)
ND
69
ND
12
12
1
LJ
ND
to
8
to
2
to
93
ND
to
to
LJ

ND
ND
ND
21
ND
9

ND
ND
Remedial Criteria*

FW2 FH3C
(ug/1) (ug/1)
2*
*W
4.7~K


Lit
700 *ff
°'<*ff
0.38^*
OJ
3,100*3
*K
7 7
*1K
1.2^K
A
*j-8
io,oco2
3,100^


400*



*-)
23,000^
*HK
^•8^
2700^

-------
                    TABLE 1
                   (continued)
SUfttKT OF OCNIAMINANrS LUlHim) IN GROIN) WATER
               AND SURFACE WATER
Ground water


Inorganics
Aluminum
Barium
Berylliun
fjaHnriim
Calcium
Chronium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
detection
37/39
24/39
9/39
14/39
24/39
33/39
18/39
28/39
39/39
21/39
39/39
38/39
8/39
6/39
25/39
1/39
24/39
3/39
22/39
39/39
Maximn
concentration
(ug/1)
52,240
551
3.2
10.2
38,210
197
86
89
285,000
114
90,510
4,626
16.8
146
26,230
2.4
237,000
26
239.5
910
Geometric3
mean
(ug/1)
940
178.5
0.3
4.9
6,149
16
8.5
12.3
3,222
19.5
4,218
69
3.9
34
3,122
2.4
10,759
24.6
11.2
36.7
Remedial Criteria*

GW2
(ug/1)
*
1000
*
10
it
50
*
ia»*
300*
50
*
»*
2

*
50*
50,000

*
5,000

-------
                                               TABLE 1
                                             (continued)

                                   OP OWEAMDWHrS CETBCIH) IN GROIN)
                                          AM) SURFACE WATER
                             Surface water from Camon Run             Ranedial Criteria*
                       Frequency       Maximum       Geometric3
_      .                   °*        concentration       mnpn         my          niy
Inorganics             detection       (ug/1)          (ug/1)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
6/7
7/7
3/7
0/7
7/7
in
0/7
2/7
7/7
0/7
7/7
7/7
1/7
0/7
7/7
3/7
7/7
0/7
3/7
7/7
982
81
0.2
N)
38,280
3
ND
4
17,100
M)
6,094
173
0.4
H)
5,658
2.5
9,908
N)
4.2
21
152.9
48.2
0.2
to
20,863.6
3.5
to
3.5
515.5
to
4,688.2
61.6
0.4
M)
3,971.7
2.2
7,591.7
M)
4
8.8
+
1000

10
50*



50


2

X
50





«»•
,..0076*
Vf3
(Cr^ttTol; (CR+3) 33.0C03
j, f
1,300*^
JL
50
*f
50 *
*i-l*
510^
•<
913





-------

SIMttRY
TABUS 1
(continued)
OF CDNIAMDWJIS DETECTED IN OWN) WATER
ftO SSFffZ WATER
Swamp Water Table Randal


Inorganics
All minim
Barium
Beryllium
CadmiuDi
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
detection
6/6
6/6
3/6
0/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
5/6
6/6
0/6
0/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
0/6
5/6
6/6
Maximum
concentration
(u*/l)
2,221
138
0.8
M)
16,060
11
9
15
129,000
11
14,840
865
NO
N)
5,305
5.5
23,390
M>
10
13,380
Geometric4
mean FW2
(ug/1) (ug/1)
551 .
72 1000
0.6
ro 10
3,272 ,
7 50
9
5
3,164
8 50
2,165
51
ND 2
NO
3,972 .
4.6 50
4,624
H>
7
10,026
.Criteria*

FWQC
(ug/1)

*K
..0076^
10
(CR+6)1703;(Cr*3)33,0003
o-J
1,300*3

50

50 ^
...14
510^

91^




aOnly the detected values of  the contaminant were used in the calcula-
  tion of  the geometric mean.  When the concentration was detected only
  in one sample,  the measured  concentration was used to represent both
  the  maximm concentration and  the geometric mean concentration.

^D - Not detected at  the detection limit.

°B »  Found in blank; use as estimated value.

 J *  Estimated value.

e a Office of Drinking Water, U5EPA, Drinking Water Regulations and
    Health Advisories, April  1990 (Federal Drinking Water MCL's).

f = NJAC 7:10-16.7(a).

g = NJAC 7:9-6.6(b), Ground Water Quality Criteria.

h = MJAC 7:9-4.1 et seq., Surface Water Quality Standards.

i = 40 CFR Part 131, Federal Water Quality Criteria, June 15,1990.

j 3 Criteria revised to reflect current agency RFDs, as contained in
 the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).

K - Criteria based on carcinogenicity (10   risk).

-------
                                 TABLE 2


               SUMMARY OP CONTAMINANTS Di'ilUU) ZN CREASE PIT,
                   SUBSURFACE SOIL, AND SEDZHDfT SAMPLES
                                    Grtaa* pit
                       Prtqutncy       Haxian       GtOMtrie'
                          of         concentration      Man
    Contaminant         dtttction       (ug/kg)
 Volatilts:
   Mtthyltm chloridt      0/15           ND*            ND
   Acttont                 0/15           ND             ND
   Carbon diculfid*        0/15           M)             ND
   2-ButanoM              0/15           ND             ND
   Trlchloroethylene       0/15           ND             ND
   tenztM                 0/15           ND             ND
   Tolutn*                 0/15           ND             ND
   Chlorobcnxtn*           0/15           ND             ND
   Chlorocthant            0/15           ND             ND
   Total xylant*           0/15           ND             ND

Acid, baM/twutrals:
   l,3-DiehlorobtnMn«     1/15          130            130
   l,4-Oichlorobtnz«M     0/15           ND             ND
  Di-n-butyl phthalatt    7/15          400            267
  bis(2-EthylhMyl)
      phthalat*           4/15          440JC          256
  riuoranthvM            0/15           ND             ND
  B*nco(b)fluoranthtM    0/15           ND             ND
  Bmsoie acid    •        1/15        1,OOOJ        1,000

Pt«ticidt§:
  4,4'-OOT                0/15           ND             ND
  4, 4 '-0*                0/15           ND             ND
  4, 4 '-CO)                0/15           ND             ND
                                                                  (FD1/6)

-------
                        \

                  TABLE 2
                  (continued)

SUNfARY OF OQNZMfZMtfUS milLTUJ IN GREASE PIT,
     SUBSURFACE SOIL, AND SEDZHEtfT SMffLES
Subsurface soil


Contaminant
Vole ilesi
Ite-nylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
2-Butanone
Trlchloroethylene
Bensene
Toluene
Chlorobtnztnt
Chloroe thane
Total xylenes
Acid bftM/tomtralS!
1 , 3-Oichlorotenxtn*

, 4-DiciuoroMnztM
Di-ft-butyl phthalat*
bi§(2-Cthylh«xyl)
phthalaU
riuoranthem
B«nzo( b ) f luormntt)«M
Bensoic acid
Pesticides:
4,4'-DOT
4,4'-oce
4,4'-OCO
Frequency
of
detection

0/4
1/4
2/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
3/4
0/4
0/4
0/4

0/4
^r ~
0/4
0/4

3/4
0/4
0/4
0/4

0/4
0/4
0/4
Haxima
concentration
(ugAg)

* H
170Bd
26
(O
3J
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
-•
ND
ND
ND

480J
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
Geometric'
van
• (uo/kg)

ND
170
7
ND
3
ND
4
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

322
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
                                                     [roi/6)

-------
                 TABLE 2
                 (continued)
sumw or CONTMIXNANTS mm'm ZN GREASE FIT,
     SUBSURFACE SOIL, AND SEDIKEWT SAMPLES



Contaminant
Volatile:
«»thyl«nt chloride
AC* tOM
Carbon disulfid*
2-Butanont
Trlchloroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobtnztn*
Chloro«thaM
Total xyltms
Acid baa«/h«utralf:
1 , 3-DichlorobtnztM
1 , 4<-OiehlorobmMM
Di-n-butyl phthalau
bi«(2-Ethylhaxyl)
ptithalata
riuoranthtnt
Btnto ( b ) fluoranthtn*
Bcnzoie acid
FMticidu:
4, 4 '-DOT
4,4'-OC€
4,4'-CCO

Prtqvwncy
of
dttcction

Q/9
1/8
0/8
1/8
0/8
1/8
0/8
1/8
0/8
0/3

0/8
1/8
1/8

5/8
1/8
l/«
0/8

1/8
3/8
2/8
Cannon Run Mdiatnts
. Maxima
concentration
(ugAg)

(O
320B
to
888
ND
11
M>
28
(O
ND

ND
790
240J

1,600
1,500
1,100
(0

120J
180J
270J

GaoMtric*
man
(ug/kg)

ND
320
ND
88
ND
11
ND
28
ND
ND

ND
790
240

284
1,500
1,100
ND

120
13
52
                                                  (roi/6)

-------
                   TABLE 2
                   (continued)

SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS UtliLlii) ZN GREASE PIT,
     SUBSURFACE SOIL, AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES



Contaminant
Vol» tiles:
Me^nylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
2-Butanone
Trichloroechylene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroe thane
Total xylenes
Acid base/neutrals:
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Di Chlorobenzene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
bis(2-Itnylhexyl)
~~~ phthalate
Pluoranthene
Benzo( b ) fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Pesticides:
4,4'-DDT
• m 9 ••ODC
A A 9 «CDQ

Frequency
of
detection

1/4
0/4
0/4
R
0/4
1/4
4/4
1/4
1/4
1/4

0/4
0/4
1/4

V4
0/4
0/4
0/4

3/4
4/4
4/4
S*eH> sediamts
Haxiaui
concentration
(ug/kg)

10
ND
ND
R
ND
6
57
7
7J
7J
•
ND
ND
2,100

290J
ND
ND
ND

340
1,100
7,900

Geonetric*
Man
(ugAg)

10
ND
ND
R
ND
6
23
7
7
7

ND
ND
2,100

290J
ND
ND
ND

160
352
1,650
                                                       (FD1/6)

-------
                             TABLE 2
                            (continued)

           SUMMARY or COWOMINANTS DETECTED  ZN GREASE PIT,
               SUBSURFACE SOIL,  AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
                                  Grease pit
                    Frequency       Maxioun          Geenetric*
                       of          Concentration        HMD
HtUl               detection     . (ag/kg)           (ag/kg)
AluBimai
Arsenic
Bariun
Beryllium
Calcivn
ChroniuB
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
PotassiuB
Silver
Sodixn
vanadit*
Zinc
16/16
1/16
9/16
16/16
0/16
16/16
16/16
3/16
16/16
14/16
16/16
0/16
0/16
16/16
8/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
5,558
7
13
0.7
ND
18
2
2
9,129
766
46
(!)
ND
1,969
2.7
479
18.2
20
2,047
7
8.0
0.5
W
. 11.8
2.0
2.0
4,760
227.3
13.7
. ND
ND
1,730
1.8
385.6
11.3
9.7
                                                              (roi/6)

-------
                  TABLE 2
                  (continued)
SIWARY OF CafOMnaNTS UtllUlD ZN GREASE PIT,
     SUBSURFACE SOIL, MD SEDIMENT SAMPLES



Hetal
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc

Frequency
of
detection
4/4
0/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Subsurface soil
«»«<•••
concentration
(•gAg)
6,400
ro
R«
0.9
113,400
29
a
10
20,122
6.8
4,513
99
MD
33
8,520
5.4
599
12.7
66

Geometric*
mean
(*3Ag)
5,339
ND
R
0.77
46,448
20.6
5.6
5.3
15,391
5.2
3,440
64.1
VD
22
7,489
2.5
375
8.5
62
                                                    (FD1/6)

-------
             TABLE 2
             (continued)
   or carzMONMirs  utin-iiD ZN GREASE PIT,
SUBSURFACE SOIL, MO SEDIMENT SAMPLES
               Caiman Run Mdiatnts
natal
AluBinuB
Araanic
BariuR
Berylliui
Caleiw
ChroBiia
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
HagnaaiiB
Hanganeae
Mercury
Niekal
Potaaaiua
Silver
Sodiu*
vanadiuB
Zinc
Frequency
of
detection
R
0/8
7/8
8/8
R
5/8
8/8
5/8
8/8
4/8
8/8
0/8
0/8
8/8
5/8
R
7/8
R
KaxiKJB
concentration
R
M)
35
0.3
R
10
7
27
131,306
274
90
IB
M>
3,358
3
R
185
R
Geooetric*
•aan
(•9A9)
R
»
S.I
0.1
ft
4.3
2.3
3.4
2,356.3
85.9
5.1
MI
M)
1,284.2
2.4
R
5.4
R
                                                (FD1/6)

-------
                                 TABLE 2
                                 (continued)

               SUMMARY OF OGNIMUNMRS DETECTED ZN GREASE PIT,
                    SUBSURFACE SOIL, AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
                                           sediments
Metal
A1UBU..AJB
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
detection
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
0/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Maximum
concentration

-------
                                                TABLE 3
                               OONONIBATIONS Of OdNTAMDUHTS IN AH SAMPUS

Upwind/downwind sMplea
frequency HaxiauM Geometric
of concentration «eao
Chenical detection <•!/•) <•«/•)
Hethylene chlorid*
trans-l ,2-Dlchlaroethylene
1,1-OichloroethaM
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroathaM
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
TollMIM
ChlorobonMM
BthylboMOM
^
1/4 3.3rtO"*J* 3.3»10"*
0/4 M^ MD
0/4 MD M>
1/4 l.SKW'j l.SalO"1
0/4 » M»
0/4 MD MD
3/4 6.5«10'SJ 4.3«10'§
0/4 MD ND
0/4 MD MD
2/4 l.felO~'j 3.3«10~4
Vent saaplea
Frequency
of
detection
1/11
1/11
2/11
4/11
2/11
2/11
11/11
3/11
1/11
6/11
NulM
concentration
<•«/•)
2.8>10~*J
5.9«10"SJ
5.U10"*J
8.telO~*J
4.2/10'Vl
4.9xlO~sJ
1.2K10'1
2.3B10'1
1.2xlO~'j
2.0JT10'1
Geocwtric
•can
(•I/-1
2.8«10~4
5.9nlO**
2.4«10"*
2.3«10~4
2.3nlO"4
4.2x10-'
4.2KMT*
2.9»10"'
1.2xlO~s
3.2«10''
'J BstiMted value.
kND ContMiinant  was analyxed for but not detected in saaples at the detection Halt.
(Pni/24)

-------
                                 TABLE 4

               Health  Effect Criteria for Chemicals of Conctrn
                At  tht Port Dix Site — Potential Carcinogens
                                EPA/CAG
                             Potency Factor*
 Chemical                    (mi/kg/day)'1              Weight of Evidence6
                                     Inhal
Oral        Inhalation
 Benseae               2.91-02        2.9E-02
 bis(  -Ethylhexyl)      1.4E-02          ~"             B2
   phthalate
1,4, -Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dlchlorethane
1 , 2-Diehloroe thane
Tetrachloroe thane
1,1, 1-Tr iehloroethane
Trichloroechylene
Vinyl chloride
2.2E-02*
9.1E-02
9.1E-02
1E-02
t
1.1E-02
2.3
c
~
9.1E-02
	 cf
g.lE-09f
1.3E-02
2.9E-01
B2
C
B2
B2
D'
B2
A
B2
C
B2
B2
D/C'
B2
A
'Source of potency fact on  EPA Integrated Risk Information Systea as of
 June 7, 1989.

*EPA veiffht of evidence classification scheme


'— • Criterion has not been developed for this chemical and route of
 exposure.

*HA • Mot applicable.  Exposure via this route vas not quantitatively
 evaluated.

*Source of potency factor for 1,4-dichlorobexene:  Draft Toxicolofical
 Profile for  1,4-Dichlorobensene (ATSOtVEPA, 1987).

*0ral carcinogenic potency factor vas used to asaess inhalation exposure.

'EPA has classified 1,1,1-trichloroethane as 0. not classifiable as s human
 carcinogen,  lovever, MJDEP classifies 1,1,1-trichloroethane as a class C
 carcinogen for inhalation.

(FT DIX2/6)NT-GMO

-------
                   TABLE 5

"Btalth Effects Criteria  for Chcaicals  of Conetrn
     At  the Fort Oix Sitt — Noncarcinoftns
Cheaical
Organic*;
Benzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalace
2-Butanone
Chlorobenitne
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-01 chloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1 , 2-Dichloroethylene(trans)
Ethylb«nrtn«
Tecrachloroechyl en*
Tolu«n«
' t
l,l,l-Trichloro«thaat
Trichloroethyltnt
Vinyl chloride
Inorianies:
Cadaiua
Chro«iua
MUfUCSt
Mtrcury
Nickel
Zinc
Oral
R£D

b
2.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.1E-02
l.OE-01
b
2.0E-02
1E-01
l.OE-02
3.0E-01
9E-02
1.1E-02
b

5.0E-4
3.0E-03
1.0E*0
2.2E-01
3.0E-OA
2.0E-02
2.E-01
Source*

b'
XXIS
XRZS
BEA
BA
BEA
b
XKXS
ZXZS
ZXZS
PBZ
ZBZS
HIS
b

BA
IRIS*
IRIS
BEA
PBE
IRIS
BEA
Inhalation
WD Source*

b b
— ?
2.4E-02 . BA
5.0E-03 . BEA
—
l.OE-01 BEA
b b
^ ...
— —
1.9E-02 BA
2.9E-01 BA
..
1.3E-02 IRIS
b b

NA* NX
HA HA
HA HA
HA HA
HA HA
HA HA

-------
                                 TABLE 5
                                 (continued)

              Health Effects Criteria For Chemicals  of Conctrn
                   At tht Fort Dix Sitt — Noncarcinogens
'Source: IRIS as of 6/8/89
 HA  • Htalth Advisorits  (EPA 1985)
 PHE • Superfund Public Htalth Manual (EPA 1986)
 HEA • Health Efftcts Assessments (EPA 1984)

*RfDs hav« not been calculated because of the potential nature of tht
 carcinogenic response.

c—•Criterion have not been developed for this chemical and this route of
 exposure.

*NA • Not applicable.  Exposure via this route vas not quantitatively
 evaluated.

*5.0E-03 is the value for chromium II
 l.OE+0  is the value for chromium III
(FT OIX2/5)HT-CMO

-------
                                                     TABLE «

                                         PORT Oil LANDFILL SUPERFUNO SITE

                                                  COST  SIMNABY*
! Estimated Operation and
construction maintenance Total
Alternatives cost cost project cost
1.
2.
1A.
IB.
10.
4A.
4B.
No remedial action with monitoring
Landfill closure: wltn monitoring program
Ground water pumping and onsite treatment
with ground water Injection
Ground water pumping and off site
treatnent
Partial ground water pumping and onsite
treatment with ground wnter Injection
Ground water Interception and onslte
treatnent with ground wnter Injection
Ground water Interception and off si to
treatment
6.6 1.4 8.0
12.6 1.9 14.5
16.6 9.8 26.4
13.5 16.7 30.2
13.7 4.1 17.8
21.3 9.0 30.3
18.2 16.0 34.2
Implementation
time,
(years)
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.O
2.0
2.0
2.0
MOTE:

'costs are presented In nillions of dollars

bA 10-year landfill post-closure care period and 10-year gtound water withdrawal  and  treatnent
 period were used to develop the total project cost.

(fort dlx/96)

-------
                                 TABLE  7

                SUWATION OF TOTAL ESTIMATED RISKS  FOR THE
                     PRESENT SITE USE EXPOSURE PATHOYS
                             (Pristnt Site Uaa)
Exposuct
Pathway
Exposurt
Rout*
Total Estiaattd Risk
Host Prohibit worst cast
Air: Volatilti     Inhalation
1 x 10*l°
2 x 10'*

Soils:
Surf act Kattr:
Swaap
Surf act watar:
Swiaaing
Total liaka:
All Pathways

Ingtstion
inhalation
Dtraal Absorption '
Ingtstion
Inhalation
Dtraal Abaorption-
aurfaca watar
Dtraal Abaorption-
aadiaanta
«
lagaation
Inhalation
.Dacaal Abaorption

1 x 10' l°
0 (3xW10)'
Inconplttt ,,
0 (8 x 10"11}
0 (4 x 10'1')
Incoaplttt
7 x 10'f
3 x lO'18
7 x 10'11
7 x lO0
6 x 10'11
1 « iO-11
8 x 10*'
2 x 10' '
2 x W'
8x 10
2 x 10'1
Inccnplete
6 x 10'1
4 x NT1
2 x 10'*
7 x 10'*
7 x 10'10
1 x W'
1 x 10''
*Tht tost probabla cast  risks would bt zaro  aa tht  pathway was assuatd to
 bt incoaplttt.  Avtragt worst cast risks  art prtstntad in tht partntheses.

(DPS02/25)NY

-------
                               TABLE 8

               SUMMATION 0? TOTAL ESTIMATED CANCER RISKS
          FOR THE POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE USE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

                          (Future  Site Use)
                                  Total Estimated Risk
                                        .1
Exposure                   ~~
Scenario                    Most Probable          Worst Case
1.  Rancocas CreeX            4 x  10*                 5 x 10*'



2.  Vincentovn Aquifer        5 x  10T                 8 x 10**



3.  Cohansey Aquifer          6 x  10*                 2 x io4

-------
                                               TABLE 9




                          CHARACTERISTICS OP THE REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
nuaber
1
2
3A
3B
3D
4A
4B
Landfill
cap
No
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Honitoring
prograa
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Tea
Pluae
abateaent
No
Tea
Interceptor
veils
Interceptor
veils
Interceptor
veils (partial)
Interceptor trench
Interceptor trench
Ons ite treat Bent
and disposal
No
No
Tes
No
Tes
Tes
No
OCCsite treataept
and disposal
No
No
No
Tes
No
No
Tes
(fort dix/62)

-------
                                                TAHIE 10

                                        RFT rax SANITARY LAWFUL
 FHHWL
 SI/OB
 o • 11 ^H i n»i t-?pt3ci£ic

 SAFE OONOK; WATER ACT (SDUA)

  o National Primary Drinking Water Standards,
   40 OR Part 141
 CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

  o Water Quality Criteria, 40 CFR Part 131

 Location-Specific

 Executive Order 11990  "Protection of Wetlands"
 Executive Order 11988  "Floodplain Management"
 Endangered Species Act,  16 USC 1531
 dean Water Act,  Section 404, 40  OR 230

 Action-Specific

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 CFR
 Part  264


 CLEAN WATER ACT (CHA)

 o Disposal of  Dredged and Fill Material,
   40 OR 230

 CLEAN AIR ACT (CM), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

 OTHERS

 o Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA),
   29  U.S.C. 651-678
 SDWA MCLs, NJAC 7:10-1 et seg.

 Ground Water Quality Standards, NJAC 7:9-6.6 (b)
                                                      Surface Water Quality Criteria,  NJAC 7:9-4.1
                                                      et seq.
Location-Specific

Flood Hazard Area Regulations, NJAC 7:13-1 et sea,.
Fresh Water Wetlands Protection Act Rules, NJAC
7:7A-1.1 et seg.
(fort dix/109)
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
  o Hazardous Waste Regulations, NJAC 7:26-1
    et seq.
  o Non-Hazardous Waste Regulations, NJAC 7:26-1
    et seq.
  o Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Regula-
    tions, NJAC 2:90-1.1 et ^.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

  o Air Pollution Control, NJAC 7:27-1 et seq.

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES

  o Requirements for Ground Water Monitoring,
    NJAC 7:26-9 et seq.

EMERGENCY RESPCNSE ACTIONS

  o Notice of Release  of Hazardous Substances  to
    Atmosphere and Water Pollution Control,
    NJSA 26:2C-19

OTHER

  o Noise Control Act  NJSA 13:1G-1 et seg.
  o Noise Pollution, NJAC 7:29-1 et seq.

-------
                                                            TABLE 11

                                             ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Component                        Alternative    Alternative   Alternative   Alternative   Alternatve     Alternative   Alternatl

                                      1             2            3A            3B            3D            4A    '        4B
Landfill cloaure

Additional  Monitoring wella

Extraction wella and  piping

Injection wella and piping

Downgradlent trench

Ground  water treatment

Storage and  tranafer  to
offalte treatment


    Subtotal  (rounded)

Engineering and contingencies
(15 percent)

Total
$4.900.000

    25,000
             $9.300.000

                 25.000
$9.300.000

    25,000

   200.000

   220.000



  2.600.000
$9.300.000   $9.300.000

    25.000       25.000

   180.000       80,000

                 50.000
                                                          690.000
$9.300.000     $9.300,0)

    25.000         25,0.
                                                                        220.000

                                                                      3.700.000

                                                                      2.600.000
                                             460.000
                                                                                      3.700,01
                                                                                       460.0(


4.900.000     9,300.000    12.300,000    10.000.000   10.100,000     15.800.000     13,500.01

 1.700.000     3.300.000     4.300.000     3.500.000    3.600.000      5.500.000     4.700.0'
 $6.600.000    $12.600.000    $16.600,000    $13.500.000   $13.700.000     $21.300.000   $18.200,01
 (DECI80/39)

-------
                                                            TABLE 12

                                           ESTIMATED ANNUAL 04M COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Component Alternative
1
Poat-cloaure care with cap
Poet -closure cere without cap 31,500
Ground and aurface water 115.000
•onlcortng
Extraction and/or Injection wella -
Downgradlent trench -
Ground water treatment -
Storage and tranafer to offalte -
treatment
Offalte treatment
Total $146.500
Alternative ' Alternative Alternative Alternative
2 3A IB 30
$84,900 $84,900 $84.900 $84.900
-
115,000* II5.0001 II5.0001 115.000*
137.000 120.000 41,800
1.265.0002 - 369.400
20,000
- - 2.143.000
$199.900 $1.601,900 $2.482,900 $611,100
Alternative
4A
. $84,900
-
115.000*
17.000
15.500
I.265.0002
-
-
$1.497,400
Alternatlvt
4B
$84.901

115. OOO1
I5.i0d
20.00H
2,143.000

$2.378.400
  $134,000 a  year  for the  flrat  two yeara.

  Ftrat-year  coat;  annual  coat  In yeara 2-5 about $72.000 leas  and  annual  coat  In yeara 6-10 rangea fro* about $175,000 less
  (year b) to about $569.000 leaa (year 10) mainly because of reduced chealcal  and  carbon  regeneration coata.
(DKCIflO/39)

-------
ATTACHMENT 3  RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
I.  Introduction

In accordance vith EPA's Community Relations policy and guidance, the Army
held a public comment period from April 25, 1990 to Hay 25, 1990, to
solicit comments on remedial alternatives for the Fort Dix Landfill site.
As part of  the selection process, the Any published a PRAP describing the
Army's and  EPA's preferred alternative and issued a public notice
announcing  a public meeting.

The Army, in conjunction vith the EPA and NJDEP, held the public meeting to
present the PRAP on Hay 7, 1990 at the Nev Hanover Tovnship Municipal
Building in Cooks town.  Approximately 18 people attended the meeting,
including representatives of Federal, State, and local public agencies, and
from local  newspapers.  No members of the general public attended the
public meeting.  Copies of the PRAP vere distributed at the meeting and
vere available in three information repositories.

The Army presented a brief overview of the Fort Dix Landfill site, the
decision-making process, the findings of the RI/FS and the preferred
alternative.  Comments from the meeting attendees vere then received by  the
Army.  No comments vere received by the Army, other than those presented at
the public  meeting, during the public comment period.
                       h
The purpose of the Responsiveness Summary is to document the Army's
responses to comments and questions raised during the public comment
period.

II.  Response to Comments

     1.  When the results of the risk assessment vere being presented,
clarification  as to vhat the computation 10    Mans vas  requested.

         Response:  The value of 10    represents one additional cancer
risk in ten billion people exposed to certain environmental conditions.

-------
     2.  Definition of what a  filter fabric is as part of the landfill cap
vas requested.

         Response;  Filter fabric is a permeable uterial often used
betveen layers of material of  different grain sizes to prevent mixing of
finer material vith the layer  of coarser uterial.

The effectiveness of the coarser layer used as a vater drainage layer in
the landfill cap may be reduced by the clogging of pores by fiaer material
if a filter fabric or a filter layer is not present.  Filter fabrics can
also help :o minimize internal erosion and settlement as a result of fines
movement within the cap.

     3.  A request for clarification vas made concerning Table 5-1 of the
presentation given at the public meeting, vhich states that plume Abatement
is part of alternative 2.

         Response:  Alternative 2 does not include abatement of the ground
water plume directly.  However, ground water monitoring and evaluation of
the remedial action at least every five years are included in alternative 2
which could trigger an active  ground water treatment approach if deemed
necessary.
                      •
     4.  A review of the remaining steps in the process to implementing the
proposed remedial action was requested.

         Responset  After the  public comment period is over a response  to
all public concerns will be prepared and incorporated into a document
called a Record of Decision (ROD).  The ROD will outline  the alternative
that wax chosen, and the basis upon which  it was selected'over the other
alternatives.  The Deputy Assistant Secretary of  the Army and  the EPA
Regional Administrator will sign  the ROD.  Once  the ROD has been  finalized,
the Army will initiate the design and  construction of the selected remedial
action.

-------
     5.  Has additional technical information btcn made available to the

public other than what was presented at the public meeting?


     Response:  Other technical information concerning the Fort Dix

Landfill is available for public reviev at the following three

repositories.


     o  Fort Oix Environmental Resources Branch
        Building SS12
        Texas Avenue
        Fort Dix, Nev Jersey

     o  Burlington County Library
        Brovns Mills Branch
        348 Lakehurst Road
        Brovns Hills, Nev Jersey

     o  Nev Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
        Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
        Bureau of Community Relations
        401 East State Street
        Trenton, Nev Jersey


(fortjlix/102)

-------
ATTACHMENT 4 ~NJDEP LETTER OF CONCURRENCE WITH THE RECORD OF DECISION

-------
                                              	cu i OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTCN
                                               .JCDfTH X YASJCIN, COMMISSIONS*
                                                         CN402
                                                  TRENTON. NJ. 08625-0402
                                                      (609) 292-2185
                                                    Fix: .609) 984-3962
                                                       2 S Jt'N 1990
Mr. Joseph Haug
USATC «nd Fore Olz
Fore  Olz Environmental Branch
ATZD-EB
Fore  Dlx, NJ  08640-5500

Dear  Mr.  Baug:

Re:   Draft Record of Decision
      Fore Dix KPL Landfill
      Pemberton Township* Burlington County, Hew Jersey

This  Is to  formally notify  you Chat New Jersey Department of  Environmental
Protection has reviewed  the  enclosed Draft Record  of Decision  for  Che above
referenced  site   and  concurs  with  the  recommended  remedy  providing  the
enclosed  comments  are Incorporated  In the final Record  of Decision.   This
remedy will consist of the following components:                         .

           Landfill Closure
           Perimeter Fencing
           Deed Restrictions
•      -    Storm Water *nd Erosion Control
      -    Air, Surface Water and Ground Water Monitoring
                         »                •                        •
New Jersey fully appreciates  the  importance of the Record of  Decision in the
cleanup  process  and will  continue  to take  all reasonable  steps  to ensure
that  the  State's  commitments in this area  are mat.	
                                  / 'Judith A. Taikl/
                               £/  Commissioner*^

Enclosure

c:   With Enclosure:
     VftVDm^l^mBH^m^Bm^Hmmms^H
     All Alavi,  USATHAMT

     Without Enclosure:
     Constantlne Sidamon-Eristoff, Regional Administrator/USEPA
                           Ntw Jtnif it M £fMo/ Opfonuiutf

-------