PB94-963801
EPA/ROD/R02-94/224
July 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fried Industries Site,
East Brunswick, NJ
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Fried Industries Site
Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
June, 1994
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
Operating Unit Number:
Capital cost:
Construction Completion:
0 & M in 1998:
(after completion of
Remedy in 1998)
Present worth:
(Capital Cost + O&M)
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement:
EPA/State/PRP:
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRP(s):
PRP Contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Estimated Quantities:
FRIED INDUSTRIES
East Brunswick Township, Middlesex
County, New Jersey
II
33.61 (June 1986 NPL Ranking: 565/703)
June 27, 1994
Ground water; Pump and Treat (chemical
precipitation and activated carbon)
Soil; Off-site stabilization and
disposal of arsenic-contaminated
soil; off-site treatment and
disposal of VOCs-contaminated soil.
OU-1
$5,000,500 (in 1993 dollars)
March, 1998
$476,500 (in 1993 dollars)
$10,956,900 (7% discount rate/30 years)
Remedial
EPA-Lead
Thomas Porucznik (RPM)
(212) 264-7609
Charles Tenerella (Section Chief)
(212) 264-9382
Phillip Fried (sole PRP)
Samuel V. Convery, Jr. (PRP's Attorney)
137 Main Street/P.O. Box 551
Metuchen, New Jersey 08840
Arsenic, VOCs
Ground water, soil
Discharge of process water, poor
storage and operating practices,
deteriorating drums
900 cu. yds. Arsenic-contaminated soil
2700 cu. yds. VOCs-contaminatred soils
(includes 400 cu. yds. of soil
contaminated with arsenic and VOCs)
Additional deep bedrock wells will be
drilled at start of design phase to
estimate the volume of ground water
to be treated
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Fried Industries
Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Fried Industries Site, which was chosen in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion and Liability Act, as amended, and to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan. This decision document is based on the administrative record
file for this Site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Fried Industries Site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an
imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy represents the first and only planned operable
unit for the Fried Industries Site. It addresses contaminated
surface soils on the site and groundwater contamination in the
underlying shallow and deep aquifers.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
Excavation, and off-site treatment and disposal, of
approximately 900 cubic yards of surface soil contaminat-
ed with arsenic;
• Excavation, and off-site treatment and disposal, of
approximately 2,700 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
volatile organics;
-------
Extraction of groundwater contaminated with volatile
organics from the bedrock and shallow aquifers, with on-
site treatment and discharge to surface water; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environ-
ment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and
is cost-effective. If any effluent limitation for discharge to Bog
Brook is not technically achievable within the range of the
treatment system identified in the Feasibility Study and this
Record of Decision, the Environmental Protection Agency, in
conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, may either relocate the treated groundwater
discharge to Lawrence Brook to meet that limitation, or waive the
effluent limitation for Bog Brook. The remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it satisfies
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment which
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as their principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on the site above health-based levels (contaminated groundwater),
a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
William J. MuazyBsyKi^-.'E. Date
Deputy Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Fried Industries Site
Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 6
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 15
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 15
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 20
SELECTED REMEDY 26
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 29
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 34
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Fried Industries Superfund Site (the Site) is located at
11 Fresh Ponds Road, in the Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex
County, New Jersey (Figure 1).
Approximately 25,000 persons live within 3/4 mile of the Site.
The closest community, with a population of about 7,000 persons,
is Milltown, whose center lies approximately 3/4 mile north of
the Fried Industries Site. The Site is located approximately 1
mile southeast of Route 1, and about 1.2 miles from three shop-
ping malls located at the intersection of Routes 1 and 130.
North Brunswick High School is located about 1 mile from Fried
Industries.
The Fried Industries property is approximately 26 acres in size,
occupying Lot 20.03, Block 308.19 on the Township of East Bruns-
wick Tax Map. The property encloses a pond, a marsh area,
several other separate wetlands areas, woodland/upland areas, and
a building complex (Figure 2). The building complex occupies
about three acres, and is comprised of several single story
buildings/structures, a staging/loading area, several above-
ground and below-ground storage tanks, a number of trailers, and
an abandoned railroad boxcar. Wetlands occupy approximately
70 percent of the total Site acreage, including a three-acre pond
resulting from excavations predating Fried Industries operations
(Figure 3). The Site is drained by two unnamed streams which
flow into Bog Brook. Bog Brook, in turn, empties into Lawrence
Brook, a tributary to the Raritan River.
The Site is roughly rectangular in shape, bordered on the north-
east by a strip of land adjoining Bog Brook, on the northwest by
a residential area, on the southeast by Fresh Ponds Road, and on
the southwest by a swamp and undeveloped woodland. The sole en-
trance to the Site is in the southeast part of the property,
about a quarter mile southwest of the juncture of Dutch Road and
Fresh Ponds Road. A dirt road leads from the entrance gate to
the building complex.
As recently as ten years ago, the deep bedrock aquifer supplied
many of the residences in the area with potable water. At the
present time, neither of the two aquifers (the deep bedrock and
the Farrington Sand aquifers) is being used as a source of
potable water in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Residences
located along Fresh Ponds Road no longer make use of private
wells and are now being serviced by a public water supply ob-
tained from a surface water source. Although there are approxi-
mately 150 wells located within a three-mile radius of the Site,
the nearest well immediately downgradient of the contaminated
ground-water plume is about 1/4 mile from the Site. Since the
contaminated ground-water plume lies entirely within Site bound
-------
3
aries, this well has not been impacted by Site contamination.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
From 1906 to 1920, the Milltown Sand and Clay Company operated a
clay pit on the Fried Industries Site property. After quarry
operations concluded, no significant activities at the Site
occurred until 1965, when the East Brunswick Planning Board
granted permission to manufacture detergents and floor finishers
on the current Fried Industries Site property. In 1985, Mr.
Philip Fried, the owner of the property and the company, agreed
to cease all manufacturing and production operations.
During the years that Fried Industries operated at this location,
the company manufactured industrial strength aqueous detergent
solutions, floor finishing products, adhesives, and algicides.
Products were formulated using chemicals purchased in bulk
quantities. Ingredients included xylene, butyl cellosolve,
methyl carbitol, sodium metasilicate, formaldehyde, sodium
tripolyphosphate, ammonia, methylene chloride, soap, surfactants,
mineral spirits, and quaternary amines, among other chemicals.
In addition, Fried Industries produced chemical products from
components such as toluene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. At times,
Mr. Fried also leased Site facilities to other companies for the
manufacture of automotive antifreeze products, including ethylene
glycol and methanol.
In July 1983, the Township of East Brunswick Department of Health
(EBDOH) received a complaint from a resident living on Fresh
Ponds Road regarding taste and odor problems in water from the
resident's well. The EBDOH confirmed the presence of contamina-
tion in the area by analyzing samples from five homes along Fresh
Ponds Road. All five wells were contaminated with volatile
organics (VOCs), including chloroform at concentrations up to 250
parts per billion (ppb). Because of a possible threat to human
health, the Township connected a number of residents in the area
to the public water supply.
In August 1983, representatives from the EBDOH and the Middlesex
County Department of Health (now the Department of Environmental
Health) analyzed well water and septic tank samples from the
Fried Industries Site, revealing a wide range of volatile organic
contaminants, at concentrations up to 2000 ppb. In December
1983, a task force comprised of federal, state, county, and
township agencies, and headed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), obtained a search warrant and investigated the
Fried Industries Site. Along with evidence of soil contamination
caused by chemical spills, analysis of the samples obtained
during this investigation revealed that hazardous wastes were
improperly stored on the Site.
-------
Subsequent investigations revealed evidence of numerous sources
of contamination, including deteriorated buried drums, drum spill
areas, and stained soil areas. Process waste waters and contami-
nated water from the drum storage and handling areas were dis-
charged directly onto the ground. Other sources of contamination
included leaking and improperly stored drums, abandoned laborato-
ry equipment and chemicals, and contaminated process and septic
tanks. Historical aerial photographs also indicate extensive
soil disturbances on the Fried Industries Site.
Based on the information obtained during these early Site inves-
tigations, EPA proposed the Fried Industries Site for inclusion
on the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984. The Site
was added as part of the June 1986 update to the NPL, making it
eligible for cleanup under EPA's Superfund program.
EPA notified Mr. Fried, via letter dated April 30, 1985, that it
intended to conduct a Remedial Investigation & Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) at the Site. This study was subsequently undertaken by
contractors funded by EPA. On May 26, 1987, a Consent Decree was
entered in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey,
relating to the Site. Under the terms of that Decree, Mr. Fried
agreed to cease all manufacturing and production operations at
the Site, and to allow federal officials and agents to enter the
Site for activities related to the RI/FS.
In December 1987, EPA awarded a contract to Ebasco Services,
Incorporated (Ebasco) to conduct an RI at the Site. The main
purposes of the remedial investigation were to determine the
physical characteristics of the Site and the sources of contami-
nation, to evaluate the nature, magnitude, and extent of contami-
nation, and to characterize the potential health risks and
environmental impacts of the contaminants present at the Site.
Data obtained during the initial remedial investigation (Phase I
RI) indicated significant organic and inorganic contamination in
the vicinity of the Site buildings. In order to accurately
characterize and delineate the contamination discovered in the
Phase I RI, EPA conducted a supplemental study (Phase II RI).
Ebasco began work on the Phase II RI in October 1991. The Phase
II RI included additional soil borings and monitoring wells, an
aquifer pump test, a wetlands evaluation, and analyses of samples
taken from surface water, ground water, sediments, surface soils,
subsurface soils, and test pits. The Phase II RI was finalized
in September 1993.
During the initial remedial investigation, EPA determined that
many of the drums and containers at the Site contained hazardous
materials. Analytical results indicated there was a significant
risk to human health and the environment due to the ignitable,
toxic, and/or corrosive nature of the materials in the drums and
-------
containers. To eliminate this immediate threat, EPA authorized a
Superfund Removal Action in September 1989 to install a security
fence around the building complex, and to remove, and properly
dispose of, nearly 1200 drums/containers and 4200 laboratory
items containing solid and liquid hazardous materials. This
significant action was completed in February 1992 at a cost of
approximately $1.5 million. Removing the containerized hazardous
materials, securing the Site with a fence around the building
complex, and providing public water to residences in the area
greatly reduced the immediate threat of exposure to hazardous
substances.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A public meeting was held in the East Brunswick Courthouse on
August 18, 1988 to review the proposed RI activities. EPA
discussed conditions at the Site, and the objectives of the
investigation activities described in an RI Work Plan.
A public availability session was held in the East Brunswick
Public Library on March 4, 1992 to discuss the results of the
completed Phase I RI and the scope of the impending Phase II RI.
Between the public meeting and the availability session, the
public was kept informed of EPA activities by distributing
several Fact Sheets.
The Phase II RI report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the
Site were released to the public for comment on September 9,
1993. These documents were made available to the public in the
administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II,
26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY, and the information repository
at:
Reference Desk
East Brunswick Public Library
2 Jean Walling Civic Center Drive
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was
published in the Home News on September 8, 1993. The public
comment period on these documents was held from September 9, 1993
to October 8, 1993.
On September 21, 1993, EPA conducted a public meeting at the East
Brunswick Senior Center to inform local officials and interested
citizens about the Superfund process, to discuss the findings of
the RI, FS, and proposed remedial activities at the Site, and to
respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
EPA responses to the comments received at the public meeting, and
in writing during the public comment period, are included in the
-------
6
Responsiveness Summary section of this Record of Decision.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
EPA has decided to address the Site in one operable unit which
will address all remaining risks at the Site.
Therefore, this Record of Decision (ROD) will address remedial
alternatives for surface soils and for ground water, and is
expected to be the only ROD for the Fried Industries Site.
During the design, if significant contamination is found in the
underground storage tanks and tank car remaining on the Site, the
contaminated tanks, and any associated soil contamination, will
be removed and treated as part of the remedial action.
EPA previously conducted a removal action, completed in 1992.
This action addressed deteriorating drums, buckets, and other
vessels containing hazardous materials. During the design, if
significant soil contamination is found in the areas that were
used for staging drums, the contaminated soil will be removed and
treated as part of the remedial action.
To ensure the safety of on-site workers, and to facilitate heavy
equipment operations in implementing the selected remedy, the
building complex will be demolished to eliminate the physical
hazards associated with these unsafe structures. If significant
soil contamination is found beneath the main building, the cont-
aminated soil will also be removed and treated as part of the
remedial action.
Data obtained during the RI suggests the possible presence of
concentrated areas of contamination in the ground water, and
perhaps the soil, in the vicinity of Wells #8 and #14. Addition-
al sampling will determine the need to remove any such ground
water and/or soil "hot spots", thereby facilitating the removal
of contaminants from ground water during the remedial action
stage.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
An RI was performed to determine the type and concentrations of
contaminants in various media at and around the Site. Samples
were collected from surface and subsurface soils, ground water,
surface water, air, and the building. Details of the results of
these sampling efforts may be found in the RI reports. 'The
collected samples were analyzed using the EPA Contract Laboratory
Program procedures.
-------
Site Geology and Hydrology
The Fried Industries Site is located on the northern part of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain of New Jersey. The subsurface strata
generally consists of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, and
clay. The dominant aquifer system in this area is the Potomac-
Raritan-Magothy, in which the Farrington Sand is located. The
Farrington Sand is the major public water supply aquifer for
communities to the southeast.
The Site lies in an outcrop area of the Farrington Sand. The
Raritan Fire Clay, underlying the Farrington Sand, acts as an
aquitard. The Farrington Sand aquifer outcrop area, at and
around the Site (referred to as the shallow aquifer), is utilized
by private homeowners for potable water. Also in the vicinity of
the Site, the deep Triassic bedrock aquifer, until recently, was
used as a source of potable water for private residential wells.
Based on data obtained during the RI, ground water in both aqui-
fers was found to flow in a north-northeasterly direction.
More than two-thirds of the Site's acreage is wetlands
(Figure 3). A man-made pond, near the entrance to the property,
discharges through one of the wetlands areas to a small stream
passing east of the building complex. As this stream flows
northward from the property's northern terminus, it combines with
an unnamed creek that runs along the southwest border of the
Site. The combined flow empties into Bog Brook, which, in turn,
drains into Lawrence Brook, a tributary of the Raritan River.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
The RI disclosed the presence of significant contamination in the
surface soil and ground water, and limited contamination in the
stream and swamp sediments. Determining the nature and extent of
the Site contamination required a comprehensive effort, includ-
ing, among other activities, thorough geophysical and soil gas
surveys, analysis of existing aerial photographs, geologic and
water quality investigations, an aquifer pump test, and a compre-
hensive sampling program. The RI sampling program, which was
conducted in two phases, included approximately 300 surface and
subsurface soil samples, 40 monitoring well samples, and about 50
sediment samples, in addition to numerous air, surface water,
drum, off-site residential well, and building wipe samples. To
obtain subsurface soil and ground-water samples, EPA drilled 17
monitoring wells, installed a pump test well and 6 piezometers,
excavated 20 test pits, and drilled 19 soil borings. In addition
to EPA activities, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) completed a supplemental soil
sampling program to determine background levels of arsenic and
other metals in undisturbed surface and subsurface soils. The
-------
8
data obtained in this effort was used to calculate the arsenic
cleanup level for surface soil in accordance with the NJDEPE's
technical requirements and/or proposed cleanup criteria.
The predominant soil contaminants, and their maximum detected
concentrations, in parts per million (ppm), are: arsenic
(557 ppm), lead (465 ppm), and xylenes (145 ppm). An illustra-
tion of the range of concentrations found in the soil is provided
in Table 2 and Table 3. The maximum detected concentrations of
the principal contaminants found in swamp and stream sediment in-
clude: arsenic (199 ppm), beryllium (7.7 ppm), zinc (525 ppm),
lead (221 ppm), antimony (118 ppm), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (2.9 ppm). The only contaminant of significance in the
pond sediment is beryllium, with a maximum detected concentration
of 14 ppm. A summary of the range of contamination found in
sediment is provided in Table 4. In surface water, contaminants
were found in concentrations that were considered not significant
(Table 5).
The predominant ground-water contaminants present in the shallow
aquifer, and their maximum detected concentrations, include:
benzene (6.4 ppm), toluene (280 ppm), total xylenes (49 ppm),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (10 ppm), vinyl chloride (0.55 ppm), ethyl-
benzene (12 ppm), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (11 ppm), styrene (20
ppm), and trichloroethene (4.2 ppm). The principal groundwater
contaminants present in the deep bedrock aquifer include: 1,1-
dichloroethane (6.4 ppm), l,l,1-trichloroethane (22 ppm), trans-
1,2-dichloroethene (0.99 ppm), and 1,1-dichloroethane (0.53 ppm).
An example of the range of contamination found in ground water is
provided in Tables 1-1 and 1-2, and in Figures 8 and 9.
The concentration levels of these and other contaminants, ob-
tained from ground water in both the shallow and deep bedrock
aquifers, exceed Federal and/or State drinking water Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and/or State Ground-water Quality
Standards (Table 6).
The plume of contaminated ground water in the shallow aquifer
encompasses the building complex and extends to the north-north-
east, and lying entirely within the boundaries of the Fried
Industries Site (Figure 4). The estimated dimensions of this
plume are: 800 feet long by 400 feet wide by 10 feet deep.
Additional deep monitoring wells will be drilled into the bedrock
aquifer during the design stage to determine the dimensions of
the deep bedrock aquifer contaminant plume.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future Site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
-------
the human health and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the Site if no remedial action were taken.
The following summarizes the finding of the Risk Assessment.
Additional information concerning public health risks is pre-
sented in the Risk Assessment section of the Phase II RI report.
Human Health Risk Assessment
The reasonable maximum human exposure is evaluated. A four-step
process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks
for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identifica-
tion—identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and
duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed.
Toxicity Assessment—determines the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship
between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response). Risk Characterization—summarizes and
combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer
risk) assessment of Site-related risks.
EPA uses a reference dose (RfD) and a slope factor, respectively,
to calculate the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk, attrib-
utable to a particular contaminant. An RfD is an estimate of a
daily exposure level that is not likely to result in any appre-
ciable risk of deleterious effects during a person's lifetime. A
slope factor establishes the relationship between the dose of a
chemical and the response and is commonly expressed as a proba-
bility of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a human
lifespan.
To assess the overall potential for carcinogenic effects to
arise, EPA calculates excess cancer risk. Excess cancer risk is
an estimation of the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the
potential carcinogen. Current federal guidelines for acceptable
exposure are an excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"4 to
10'6 (approximately one in ten thousand to one in one million) .
The baseline, risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern (COCs) which would be representative of Site risks
(Table 7). The COCs for the Fried Industries Superfund Site were
obtained by screening the RI data according to frequency of
occurrence, concentration, toxicity, and chemical characteris-
tics. The most significant COCs in the ground water include
vinyl chloride, toluene, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-
-------
10
dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, benzene, 1,1-dichloroethene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, total xylenes, ethylbenzene, and phenol.
COCs for soil and sediment include arsenic, beryllium, lead,
toluene, phenol, and bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate. Several of the
contaminants, including arsenic, vinyl chloride, and benzene, are
known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected of
being human carcinogens (Table 8).
The area surrounding the Fried property is zoned for residential
use, as evidenced by the presence of homes all around the Site.
Back in 1965, the East Brunswick Planning Board re-zoned the
Fried property for commercial use, including light industrial
use. However, because of the potential for future residential
use on the non-wetland portions of the 26-acre property, the more
stringent criteria required by a future residential use scenario
were incorporated in the risk assessment. Residential use of
land implies the use of ground water; accordingly, the potential-
ity for use of ground water had to be considered in the risk
assessment.
All possible exposure pathways were considered in the risk
assessment, including inhalation, ingestion, and absorption of
chemicals originating from subsurface and surface soil sources,
ground water from both the shallow and deep bedrock aquifers,
stream, pond, and marsh sediment, surface water, air, and build-
ing surfaces. Table 9 contains a summary of the carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risks arising from these sources.
Lifetime cancer risks were calculated for exposure pathways in
present and future land use scenarios (Tables 10-1 through 10-3
contain Site-specific parameters and assumptions used in the
calculation of chronic daily intakes and risks; Table 11 de-
scribes the derivation of Site-specific chronic daily intakes).
At the present time, there are no people residing on the Site
property.
Therefore, exposure pathways were evaluated for Site workers and
for adults and children trespassing on the Site property. Under
present use conditions, the pathways associated with the greatest
carcinogenic risks involved surface soil ingestion, with excess
cancer risks of 2.9 x 10"6 for adult Site workers, and 1.5 x 10"6
for adult trespassers. This means that nearly three additional
adult Site workers out of one million and two additional tres-
passing adults out of one million could be at increased risk of
developing cancer if the surface soil were ingested. Arsenic is
the primary contaminant responsible for the excess cancer risks
in surface soil. The estimated cancer risks for sediment inges-
tion in the present use scenario are 1.6 x 10"6 for trespassing
adults, and 1.5 x 10'6 for trespassing children. Beryllium is the
primary COC responsible for the excess cancer risks in the sedi-
ment. All four of these estimated cancer risks are well within
the EPA guidelines for acceptable exposure (10"4 to 10"6) . Present
-------
11
use scenarios were not evaluated for ground-water pathways
because, at the present time, there are no pathways of exposure
for the consumption of ground water.
Because the potential exists for portions of the Fried property
to be developed into a residential area, pathways were examined
under a future residential land use scenario. The highest future
use risks are associated with surface soil ingestion under a
residential use scenario; namely, 3.8 x 10"6 for resident adults,
and 3.0 x 10"6 for resident children. Arsenic is primarily
responsible for these excess cancer risks in the surface soil.
Risks from sediment ingestion under the future residential use
scenario are 1.6 x 10"6 for resident adults, and 1.5 x 10"6 for
resident children. Beryllium is the primary COC responsible for
these excess cancer risks in the sediment. All four estimates
are within the guidelines for acceptable exposure.
In addition to sediment and surface soil pathways, ground-water
exposure pathways were evaluated under a future use scenario.
Five ground-water exposure pathways exceeded the acceptable
cancer risk range of 10"' to 10"6. For ground water in the shallow
aquifer, the estimated cancer risks for ingestion, dermal contact
(while showering), and inhalation of volatiles (while showering),
by resident adults, are 1.6 x 10'2 (1.6 in a hundred), 2.0 x 10'3
(2.0 in a thousand), and 1.3 x 10'2, respectively. The COCs
primarily responsible for these excess cancer risks in the
shallow aquifer are vinyl chloride, benzene, and arsenic.
Similarly, for deep bedrock aquifer ground water, the estimated
cancer risks for ingestion, dermal contact (while showering), and
inhalation of volatiles (while showering), by resident adults,
are 4.8 x 10~3, 5.6 x 10"5 (5.6 in a hundred thousand), and 3.9 x
103, respectively. Vinyl chloride, benzene, and 1,1-dichlor-
oethene are the primary COCs responsible for the excess cancer
risks in the deep bedrock aquifer. The results of the baseline
risk assessment clearly indicate that ground water, in both the
shallow and bedrock aquifers, poses an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment.
To assess the overall potential for non-carcinogenic effects, EPA
developed the Hazard Index (HI). This index is calculated by
comparing, as a ratio, the exposure level over a specified time
period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose derived for a
similar exposure period. Current federal guidelines for accept-
able exposures require His not to exceed 1.0.
The baseline risk assessment calculated the potentials for non-
carcinogenic effects (His) under the same present and future use
scenarios as for carcinogenic risks. For non-ground-water path-
ways under present use conditions, there were no instances where
the HI exceeded 1.0. For ground-water pathways, present use
scenarios were not evaluated due to the absence of realistic
routes of exposure.
-------
12
Under the future use scenario, the highest His were calculated
for resident children and resident adults exposed to contaminated
ground water via various pathways; His for exposure to surface
soil and sediments did not exceed 1.0. For ground water in the
shallow aquifer, the maximum His associated with ingestion,
dermal contact (while showering), and inhalation of volatiles
(while showering), for resident children, are 197, 25.6, and 450,
respectively. .Similarly, for adult residents, the corresponding
His are 98.3, 19.5, and 225. The primary COCs producing these
non-carcinogenic risks in the shallow aquifer ground water
include toluene, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 2-butanone, and 2,4-
dimethylphenol. For deep bedrock aquifer ground water, the
maximum His for ingestion and inhalation of volatiles (while
showering) for resident children are 24.0 and 7.6, respectively.
Similarly, for adult residents, the corresponding His are 12.0
and 3.8. In the deep bedrock aquifer, the COCs responsible for
most of the non-carcinogenic risks include 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
and 2-methylphenol. As with the carcinogenic risks, evaluation
of the potentials for non-carcinogenic effects indicates that the
ground water, in both the shallow and bedrock aquifers, poses an
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
In summary, the baseline risk assessment identified unacceptable
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to human health and the
environment from ground water in the shallow and deep bedrock
aquifers. In addition to the extraction and on-site treatment of
ground water from both aquifers, remediation of the ground water
will be expedited and facilitated by excavating the surface and
subsurface soil from several locations containing high concen-
trations of volatile organics (Figure 7) and transporting this
material to an appropriate off-site facility for treatment and
disposal.
The baseline risk assessment for surface soils evaluated a large
data set representing more than 200 surface soil samples collect
ed across the entire 26 acre Site. Although the risk assessment
indicated that carcinogenic risks were within EPA's acceptable
risk range, EPA and NJDEPE have concerns about the elevated
concentrations of arsenic at several specific locations
(Figure 6) in the surface soil. Essentially all of the carcino-
genic risk in the surface soil is due to arsenic, a Class "A"
carcinogen. Under the future residential land use scenario,
resident children could be exposed to carcinogenic risks exceed-
ing 10* if they play in the areas containing high levels of
arsenic in the surface soil. These localized areas have concen-
trations of arsenic that significantly exceed the concentration
used to calculate the risks posed by exposure to arsenic in
surface soil. Therefore, EPA and NJDEPE are proposing remedia-
tion of these localized areas of elevated arsenic contamination
as an appropriate risk management measure. For this purpose, an
-------
13
arsenic cleanup level of 27 ppm was determined using Site-specif-
ic arsenic background data (Table 12).
Environmental Risk Assessment
The reasonable maximum environmental exposure is evaluated. A
four-step process is utilized for assessing Site-related ecologi-
cal risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Problem
Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant release,
migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of concern,
receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure
pathways and receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure
point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment—literature
reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant
concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Char-
acterization—measurement or estimation of both current and
future adverse effects. Unlike human health risk assessments,
ecological risk assessments focus on the population and ecosystem
levels. Because there is a scarcity of toxicity data relevant to
wildlife, it is difficult to draw inferences at the population
and ecosystems level. Thus, this ecological assessment is
largely qualitative.
The ecological risk assessment evaluated the contaminants associ-
ated with the Site in conjunction with Site-specific biological
species/habitat information. The sediment and surface water COCs
for this assessment include: 1,1-dichloroethane, bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate, 1,1-dichloroethene, lead, silver, and nickel.
Detailed information on the potential ecological effects of the
COCs and other Site contaminants is contained in Section 5.8 of
the Phase II RI report.
Approximately 70 percent of the Site is comprised of wetlands and
associated open water habitats. With the exception of the area
in the vicinity of the building complex, the Site contains
several different upland and wetlands habitats supporting numer-
ous and diverse wildlife species. Much of the Fried Industries
Site was previously disturbed by clay mining operations.
Although the Henslow's sparrow and the wood turtle (state endan-
gered and threatened, respectively) have both been recorded in
the vicinity of the Site, no endangered or threatened animal
species were recorded on the Fried property. Similarly, no
threatened or endangered plant species are known to inhabit the
Site, although Swamp pink, a federally listed threatened species,
has been found to occur in this area of New Jersey.
The potential impacts of contaminant exposure on local biota were
-------
14
assessed with a review of available criteria and the relevant
literature. The primary sources for this information include the
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (surface water) and data
complied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(sediment).
Examination of the combined surface water and sediment data from
the RI, and comparison of this data to ecological assessment
values cited above, have revealed that organic and inorganic
contaminants are present at levels which, potentially, could
cause adverse ecological impacts. However, analysis of back-
ground soils and Bog Brook background surface water and sediment
indicate that contamination is due primarily, if not totally, to
regional natural background conditions. An EPA assessment of the
macroinvertebrate population present in this segment of the brook
indicated that the macroinvertebrates were severely impacted.
However, populations of macroinvertebrates present in segments of
the brook, located both upgradient (background) and downgradient,
were also severely impacted. Given this information, and the
fact that only a small portion of the Site drains to the brook,
the contamination and resultant impacts on the stream cannot be
exclusively related to Site contamination. Furthermore, any
minimal benefits which might be derived from remediation of the
stream would be shortlived unless the upgradient portion of the
stream were remediated in conjunction with the elimination of all
upgradient sources contributing to the contamination.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of the
other active measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evalua-
tion, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sam-
pled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the
actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error
can stem from several sources, including the errors inherent in
the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
-------
15
sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. Unidentified contaminants and tentatively
identified compounds (TICs) detected at the Site serve as addi-
tional sources of uncertainty. These uncertainties are addressed
by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to popula-
tions near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate
actual risks related to the Site.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available data, standards such as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), and risk-based levels estab-
lished in the risk assessment. The following remedial action
objectives were established:
>• Prevent exposure to areas with arsenic concentrations
in surface soils (approximately 900 cy greater than 27 ppm);
and
> Restore contaminated ground water, in the shallow and bed-
rock aquifers, to applicable drinking water standards.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), requires that each selected
site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be
cost effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize
permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, and
resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of
treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
The FS report evaluates, in detail, four remedial alternatives
-------
16
for addressing the contamination associated with surface soil
(source control), and three remedial alternatives for addressing
the ground-water contamination.
These alternatives are:
SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The source control alternatives discussed below were developed to
address areas of concentrated arsenic contamination in the
surface soil. Accordingly, surface soil remedial alternatives
have been developed to effectively reduce the potential for human
ingestion of arsenic from areas of high arsenic contamination in
the surface soil.
Alternative SC-1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual Operation and
Maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $ 0
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 43,200
Estimated Construction Time: None
CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) require the evaluation of a "No Action"
alternative to serve as a point of comparison with other remedial
action alternatives. The "No Action" alternative for the Fried
Industries surface soil consists of leaving the contaminated soil
in place. Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on the Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires
that the Site be reviewed at least every five years. If justi-
fied by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove
or treat the contaminated soils. No other action is proposed
under this alternative.
Alternative SC-2: Limited Action (Institutional Controls)
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 73,400
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $ 50,800
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 746,600
Estimated Construction Time: Six months
The "Limited Action" alternative would allow the Site to remain
in its present condition, as in the "No Action" alternative
(SC-1). In addition, this alternative includes monitoring, fence
installation, land use restrictions, and a public awareness and
education program for the community. Because this alternative
-------
17
would result in contaminants remaining on the Site, CERCLA
requires that the Site be reviewed at least every five years.
Alternative SC-3: Excavation/On-Site Treatment/On-Site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 561,500
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $ 0
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 604,600
Estimated Construction Time: One Year
This alternative consists of the excavation of approximately
900 cubic yards of contaminated surface soils, on-site stabiliza-
tion, and on-site disposal of the stabilized soil.
Surface soil contaminated with arsenic would be excavated and
treated in an on-site stabilization plant. Soil disturbance may
result in the generation of fugitive dust and volatiles, requir-
ing air monitoring and engineering controls. The excavated soil
would be mixed with chemicals and water, resulting in the metals
becoming bound within a solid matrix. The treated soil would
then be tested to ensure that surface soil cleanup levels are met
before redepositing on the Site. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with treated soil. An upland area near the Site
entrance would be used for the disposal of the additional volume
of material resulting from the addition of solidification agents
to the soil during the stabilization process. The surface would
be graded and provided with a topsoil cover.
In addition, the four underground storage tanks and tank car
still remaining on the Site would be investigated during the
design phase to determine if the tanks, and any significant
associated soil contamination, should be removed. If significant
soil contamination is found beneath the main building, and/or in
the areas used for staging drums removed during the removal
action, the contaminated soil will be removed and treated as part
of the remedial action. Additional sampling during the design
will determine the need for removal of soil "hot spots" contain-
ing zinc, in order to help meet surface water discharge require-
ments for treated ground water.
Alternative SC-4: Excavation/Off-Site Treatment/Off-Site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 652,500
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $ 0
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 652,500
Estimated Construction Time: One Year
Like Alternative SC-3, this alternative includes excavating 900
-------
18
cubic yards of surface soil contaminated with arsenic. The
excavated material, however, would be transported to an off-site,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted facility
for treatment and ultimate disposal. For costing purposes, it
was assumed that the material would be stabilized at the off-site
facility. Clean fill would be used to backfill the excavated
areas.
Additionally, the four underground storage tanks and tank car
still remaining on the Site would be investigated during the
design phase to determine if the tanks, and any significant
associated soil contamination, should be removed. If significant
soil contamination is found beneath the main building, and/or in
the areas used for staging drums removed during the removal
action, the contaminated soil will be removed and treated as part
of the remedial action. Additional sampling during the design
will determine the need for removal of soil "hot spots" contain-
ing zinc, in order to help meet surface water discharge require-
ments for treated ground water.
GROUND-WATER ALTERNATIVES
The ground-water alternatives discussed below were developed to
address the inorganic and organic contamination in the shallow
(Farrington Sand) and deep (underlying Triassic bedrock) aqui-
fers.
Alternative GW-1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual O & M Cost: $ 0
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 43,200
Estimated Construction Time: None
The CERCLA and NCP regulations require the evaluation of a "No
Action" alternative to serve as a baseline for comparison with
other remedial action alternatives. The "No Action" alternative
for the Fried Industries ground-water contamination consists of
leaving the ground water undisturbed. Because this alternative
would result in leaving contaminants on the Site above health-
based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at least
every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the contaminated ground
water. No other action is proposed under this alternative.
Alternative GW-2: Limited Action (Institutional Controls)
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 29,700
-------
19
Estimated Annual O & M Cost: $ 53,900
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 742,100
Estimated Construction Time: Six months
Like the "No Action" alternative (GW-1), the "Limited Action"
alternative would allow the ground water to remain undisturbed.
In addition, the "Limited Action" alternative includes a public
awareness and education program for the community, and water use
restrictions. Because this alternative would result in leaving
contaminants on the Site, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed at least every five years.
Alternative GW-3: Pumping and Treating of Ground Water/Limited
Source Extraction
This alternative includes pumping contaminated ground water
collected from both the shallow and deep bedrock aquifers to an
on-site ground-water treatment system. The treatment system
would include chemical precipitation for metals removal, followed
by treatment of the organics. The treated ground water would
then be discharged to Bog Brook, at a rate of about 10 gallons
per minute. The ground water would be treated to meet applicable
Federal and State requirements (Table 14). To facilitate the
removal of organic contaminants from the ground water via the
ground-water treatment system, several areas of concentrated VOCs
contamination in the soil, encompassing approximately 2,700 cubic
yards (based on the presence of xylenes above 10 ppm and chloro-
form above 1 ppm), would be removed and transported to an appro-
priate off-site facility for treatment and/or disposal. Approxi-
mately 400 cubic yards of the VOC-contaminated soil is also part
of the soil volume contaminated with arsenic at concentrations
requiring remediation. This 400 cubic yards of soil would be
subject to off-site treatment and disposal in accordance with
RCRA and other waste disposal regulations. Clean fill would be
used to backfill the excavated areas.
Additional sampling during the design will determine the need for
removal of ground-water "hot spots" containing zinc, in order to
help meet surface water discharge requirements for treated ground
water.
Two different technologies for the treatment of organic contami-
nants in ground water are presented in the following two options.
Option 1: Precipitation, Activated Carbon, and Discharge to
Surface Water
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 4,348,000
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $ 476,500
-------
20
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 10,304,400
Estimated Construction Time: One Year
Estimated Completion Time: 30 Years
Ground water, pre-treated for metals removal, would pass
through a carbon adsorption system, including multiple
carbon units, for removal of the organic contaminants. The
treated effluent would be discharged to Bog Brook
(Table 14). The ground-water treatment system would be
monitored to assure proper operation and confirm that sur-
face discharge requirements are being met. For costing
purposes, the length of time to complete the ground-water
phase of the remedial action was estimated to be 30 years.
The actual time required would be determined during the
remedial design. The sludge and spent activated carbon
would be prop erly disposed of at an off-site facility in
accordance with Federal and State regulations.
Option 2: Precipitation, Air Stripping/Activated Carbon, and
Discharge to Surface Water
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 4,440,600
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $ 599,800
Estimated 5-Year Review Cost: $ 20,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 11,926,500
Estimated Construction Time: One Year
Estimated Completion Time: 30 Years
Option 2 is similar to Option 1, except that the organic
contaminants would.be removed via an air stripper, followed
by an activated carbon unit. In addition to off-site dis-
posal of the resulting sludge and spent carbon, the air
stripper off-gas would be treated prior to being vented to
the atmosphere.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was conducted with respect to each of the nine
criteria described below. This section discusses and compares
the performance of the remedial alternatives considered against
these criteria. All selected alternatives must at least attain
the Threshold Criteria. The selected alternative should provide
the best balance among the nine criteria. The Modifying Criteria
were evaluated following the public comment period. These nine
criteria were developed to address the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions.
-------
21
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether or not an alternative provides ade-
quate protection and describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institu-
tional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not an alter-
native will meet all of the ARARs of the Federal and
State environmental statutes or provide a basis for
invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the
magnitude of residual risk and the ability of an alter-
native to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time once remedial objectives
have been met.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume addresses
the statutory preference for selecting remedial actions
that employ treatment technologies that permanently and
significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of
the hazardous substances as a principal element.
5. Short-term Effectiveness refers to the period of time
that is needed to achieve protection, as well as the
alternative's potential to create adverse impacts on
human health and the environment that may result during
the construction and implementation period.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular
alternative.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review
of the RI and FS reports and the Proposed Plan, the
State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any
reservations with the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general
-------
22
response to the alternatives described in the Proposed
Plan and the RI and FS reports. Responses to public
comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary of
this Record of Decision.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives, based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above, is presented below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
In evaluating the source control (surface soil) alternatives, the
"No Action" (SC-1) and "Limited Action" (SC-2) alternatives do
not offer adequate protection of human health because of the
levels of arsenic that would remain untreated in the surface
soils under a future residential use scenario. Alternatives SC-1
and SC-2 would not reduce the human health hazards associated
with surface soil ingestion of arsenic, although SC-2 would
slightly reduce the likelihood of exposure. Alternative SC-3
would offer adequate overall protection by immobilizing arsenic
and other metals in a solid matrix disposed of on the Site.
Alternative SC-4, by removing the contaminated surface soil for
off-site treatment and disposal, would also offer adequate
protection.
In evaluating the ground-water alternatives, the "No Action"
(GW-i) and "Limited Action" (GW-2) alternatives offer some pro-
tection of human health, but do not offer adequate protection of
the environment because high levels of organics and inorganics
would remain in the ground water. Furthermore, the institutional
controls in Alternative GW-2 would provide some public health
protection through use restrictions and limited Site access. The
active remediation described in Alternative GW-3, however, would
attempt to restore the contaminated ground water to Federal and
State MCLs and New Jersey Ground-water Quality Standards, and
would provide better overall protection of human health and the
environment.
Compliance with ARARs
In evaluating the source control (surface soil) alternatives, the
"No Action" (SC-1) and "Limited Action" (SC-2) alternatives would
meet location-specific ARARs, as would active Alternatives SC-3
and SC-4. Based upon metals contents and leachability charac-
teristics of the soils, it is anticipated that Alternative SC-3
would comply with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). If
the selected treatment technology cannot meet the LDR standards
for characteristic wastes, a treatability variance may be re-
quired.
Up to six acres of wetlands may be disturbed during implementa-
-------
23
tion of the selected remedy. Appropriate remedial measures to
protect or restore such wetland areas will be determined during
the Remedial Design. Due to the proximity of surface water
bodies and wetlands, waivers may be needed for some location-
specific ARARs such as the State's transition area rules to
conduct remedial activities under Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4; the
need for such ARAR waivers would be determined during the remedi-
al design stage. Alternative SC-4 would comply with all ARARs
for transport, treatment, and disposal of the contaminated soil.
All activities would be conducted in accordance with action-
specific ARARs.
Contaminant levels in the ground water are above established
Federal and State MCLs and State Ground-water Quality Standards,
and calculations indicate that there would not be any appreciable
attenuation over time. Therefore, implementing the "No Action"
and "Limited Action" ground-water alternatives (GW-1 and GW-2)
would not meet ARARs in a reasonable amount of time. For Alter-
native GW-3, the extraction and treatment of the shallow and
bedrock aquifer ground water would continue until chemical-
specific ARARs are met. The treated ground-water discharge
stream would also be monitored for compliance with discharge to
surface water ARARs. Should any effluent limitation for dis-
charge to Bog Brook (which is an intermittent stream) not be
technically achievable within the range of the treatment system
identified in the Feasibility Study and the ROD, EPA, in conjunc-
tion with NJDEPE, may either relocate the treated ground-water
discharge to Lawrence Brook (which is a continuous flowing
stream) to meet that limitation, or waive the effluent limitation
for Bog Brook.
Since the Fried Industries Site is largely wetlands, ground-water
treatment facilities (Alternative GW-3) would be erected in the
large upland area near the entrance to the Site. It would be
necessary to waive location-specific ARARs because the treatment
facilities would be located within a wetlands transition area as
defined by New Jersey Transition Area Rules.
Several action-specific ARARs also address the conduct of remedi-
al actions around wetland areas. Since much of the Site is
either wetland or open water, an ARAR waiver may be necessary
because it is technically impracticable to implement the remedy
when there is inadequate room for treatment units and auxiliary
equipment. Impacted wetland areas are expected to be minimal;
however, those wetland areas that are impacted will be restored
in accordance with federal and State requirements.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The "No Action" and "Limited Action" alternatives (SC-1, SC-2,
GW-1, and GW-2) would not provide an acceptable reduction in risk
-------
24
in the surface soil and ground water. Each of these alternatives
would result in hazardous substances remaining on the Site; this
would require that EPA review the Site at least every five years.
Both Alternative SC-3 and Alternative SC-4 would remediate the
surface soil for arsenic and other metals. However, Alternative
SC-3 would require long-term monitoring to ensure the integrity
of the on-site stabilized material. Therefore, off-site stabili-
zation and disposal (SC-4) would provide superior long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
Alternative GW-3 would be consistent with the long-term effec-
tiveness goals for the Site by treating the ground water until
MCLs are achieved, or until it is demonstrated that it is techni-
cally infeasible to attain remediation goals.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
The "No Action" and "Limited Action" alternatives (SC-1, SC-2,
GW-1, and GW-2) do not achieve any significant reduction in the
toxicity of the contaminated soils and ground water. Migration
of contaminants in soil and in ground water would continue, and,
due to this mobility, the volumes of contaminated soil and ground
water would increase with time.
Alternative SC-3 would achieve effective reduction in mobility of
arsenic through stabilization. However, stabilization results in
an increase in the volume of contaminated material through the
addition of solidifying reagents. Although the toxicity actually
remains the same, the solidified matrix makes it inaccessible.
In Alternative SC-4, arsenic would be immobilized at an off-site
facility, and disposed of at an off-site landfill. Hence,
Alternative SC-4 would be effective at reducing the mobility of
arsenic contaminated surface soils; as in Alternative SC-3, the
toxicity of the material would not be reduced through stabiliza-
tion.
Alternative GW-3 is effective in reducing the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of ground-water contaminants by removing both organic
and inorganic contaminants via treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The "No Action" and "Limited Action" alternatives (SC-1, SC-2,
GW-i, and GW-2) would have no significant short-term impacts.
The soil treatment alternatives (SC-3 and SC-4) involve disturb-
ing the soil, which would generate fugitive dust and volatiles
from Site operations. However, these concerns could be effec-
tively addressed through air monitoring and engineering controls.
-------
25
Both soil treatment alternatives would require the implementation
of a health and safety plan to minimize any risks to on-site
workers and nearby residents. The amount of time until protec-
tiveness is achieved could increase substantially for SC-3 if an
off-site staging area is required for implementation (see discus-
sion below). The time to reach protectiveness for Alternatives
SC-3 and SC-4 is estimated to be one year.
The installation of extraction wells and the collection system in
Alternative GW-3 also involves some soil disturbance, generating
fugitive dust and possibly volatiles from drilling and excavation
operations. Air monitoring and engineering controls may be
necessary to reduce airborne dust and emissions. A health and
safety plan would be required to minimize any risks to on-site
workers and nearby residents from well installation and trench
construction operations. The time to reach protectiveness for
Alternative GW-3 is estimated to be 30 years.
Implementability
There are no problems implementing the "No Action" alternatives
(SC-l and GW-1) because they would only involve five-year re-
views. The "Limited Action" alternatives (SC-2 and GW-2) are
also easily implementable, involving only five-year reviews,
monitoring, land use restrictions, and fence installation (SC-2).
Alternative SC-3 would be easily implemented from a technology
standpoint. However, Alternative SC-3 may require nearby areas
for the staging of equipment and materials handling, due to the
extensive on-site wetlands; therefore, Alternative SC-3 may not
be easy to implement logistically. The off-site stabilization
alternative (SC-4) uses the same proven technology, but would be
easier than Alternative SC-3 to implement because the excavated
soils would be treated and disposed of at off-site facilities,
obviating the need for additional staging areas near the Site.
Aside from the obvious impacts caused by the excavation of
contaminated soils from wetland areas, and the disturbances
arising from the installation of piping and related equipment for
the extraction wells and collection trench, there shouldn't be
any additional disruptions to the wetlands areas.
The treatment steps in ground-water Alternative GW-3 include
conventional wastewater treatment processes that have been used
extensively to treat contaminated ground water. The technology
is we11-developed and commercially available. Although consider-
able institutional management is necessary to ensure proper
operation, maintenance, and compliance with various regulations
and requirements, these should not pose any unusual difficulties.
A common implementation problem encountered during remediation of
Superfund sites is the need for an on-site staging area. Any
-------
26
planned ground-water and/or soil remediation activities will
require staging areas for materials, equipment, decontamination,
and support services. The limited availability of a staging area
due to the presence of extensive wetlands at the Site, as well as
safety reasons, will likely require that the building complex be
demolished.
Cost
Estimated present worth costs for stabilization of surface soils
are $604,600 for Alternative SC-3 (on-site stabilization/dispo-
sal) and $652,500 for Alternative SC-4 (off-site stabiliza-
tion/disposal) . Due to the minor cost differences between the
two alternatives, and the more difficult implementability of
Alternative SC-3, Alternative SC-4 is considered to be the most
cost-effective alternative that would be protective of human
health and the environment.
The estimated present worth of the treatment options in Alterna-
tive GW-3 is $10,304,400 for Option 1 (activated carbon system)
and $11,926,500 for Option 2 (air stripping/activated carbon).
Alternative GW-3, Option 1, is the most cost-effective ground-
water alternative that would be protective of human health and
the environment.
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey supports the selected remedy presented in
this Record of Decision.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance was evaluated after the close of the public
comment period. Written comments received during the public
comment period, as well as verbal comments during the public
meeting on September 21, 1993, were evaluated. The responses to
these comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
Comments received during the public comment period indicated that
the local residents were mostly satisfied with the preferred
alternatives for the soil and ground water.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine criteria,
and public comments, EPA and NJDEPE have determined that Alterna-
tive SC-4 (Excavation/Off-Site Treatment/Off-Site Disposal), and
-------
27
Alternative GW-3 Option 1 (Pumping and Treating of Ground Water/
Limited Source Extraction) is the most appropriate remedy for the
Fried Industries Site.
The major components of the selected remedy include the follow-
ing:
For surface soils:
Excavation of about 900 cubic yards from areas of elevated
arsenic contamination in the surface soil (Figure 6), off-
site stabilization, and off-site disposal of the stabilized
surface soil. Treatment residuals will be disposed of, at
an appropriate off-site facility, in accordance with CERCLA
requirements. During design, if significant soil contami-
nation is found in the vicinity of the underground storage
tanks and tank car, in the areas that were used for staging
drums, and/or beneath the main building, the contaminated
soils will be removed and treated as part of the remedial
action. Additional sampling during the design will deter-
mine the need for removal of soil "hot spots" containing
zinc, in order to help meet surface water discharge require-
ments for treated ground water.
For ground water:
On-site ground-water extraction from the bedrock aquifer:
collection of ground water from the shallow aquifer; com-
bined ground-water flow is subject to metals pretreatment by
precipitation, organics treatment by activated carbon sys-
tem, and discharge to Bog Brook. In addition, excavation of
approximately 2,700 cubic yards from areas of concentrated
VOCs contamination in the soil (Figure 7), with appropriate
off-site treatment and disposal (this includes treatment and
disposal of 400 cubic yards of soil contaminated with both
VOCs and arsenic). Additional sampling during the design
will determine the need for removal of ground-water "hot
spots" containing zinc, in order to help meet surface water
discharge requirements for treated ground water.
Residual wastes such as precipitates and spent carbon will be
transported to an appropriate off-site facility for disposal in
accordance with RCRA and CERCLA requirements.
The goal of the ground-water portion of the remedial action is to
restore the ground water to its beneficial use, in this case, a
potential source of drinking water. Vinyl chloride, benzene,
toluene, and other contaminants present in the two aquifers will
be extracted/collected and treated until concentrations in these
aquifers are reduced to levels below the most stringent of the
Federal MCLs, New Jersey MCLs, or New Jersey Ground-water Quality
Standards. In addition, the effluent from the treatment process
-------
28
will achieve Federal and State surface water quality discharge
standards (Table 14).
EPA recognizes that the selected remedy may not achieve this
aquifer restoration goal because of the technical difficulties
associated with achieving ground-water cleanup levels. It may
become apparent, during implementation or operation of the
ground-water extraction/collection and treatment system that
contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining
constant at levels higher than the remediation goals (Table 6)
for ground-water cleanup levels. In such a case, the system's
performance standards, and/or the remedy, may be reevaluated.
Performance monitoring of the ground-water extraction/collection
and treatment system will be implemented. The data collected
will be used to suggest system adjustments or modifications to
provide more effective or efficient attainment of cleanup levels.
Such adjustments or modifications may include: increasing or
decreasing the extraction rate, initiating a pulsed pumping
schedule, installing additional extraction wells, or ceasing
extraction at wells where cleanup levels have been achieved.
Monitoring data will be used to assess the effectiveness of the
modifications implemented and may be used to re-assess the time
frame required to achieve cleanup levels. In addition, contami-
nation in surface water and in sediments will be monitored to
insure there are no risks generated by these media.
The levels of volatile organic contamination in the soils, in
this case, do not pose unacceptable carcinogenic or non-carcino-
genic risks. However, several areas of concentrated volatile
organic contamination in the soil represent continuing sources of
high ground-water contamination. In order to facilitate the
removal of VOCs from the ground water, approximately 2,700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil will be removed from these areas
(Figure 7) and transported to an appropriate off-site facility
for treatment and disposal. The combined areas to be excavated,
including both arsenic-contaminated soils and VOCs-contaminated
soils, are represented in Figure 5.
EPA and NJDEPE have agreed that a site-specific arsenic cleanup
level of 27 ppm, statistically derived from Site background data,
will be used for surface soil remediation (Table 12), because of
the high background arsenic concentrations found at the Site.
The estimated present worth cost of off-site stabilization of
surface soils (Alternative SC-4) is $652,500. Due to the minor
cost differences between the two stabilization alternatives (SC-3
and SC-4), and the more difficult implementability of Alternative
SC-3, Alternative SC-4 is considered to be the most cost effec-
tive alternative that would be protective of human health and the
environment. The estimated present worth cost of on-site treat-
ment of ground water (Alternative GW-3 Option 1) is $10,304,400.
Option 1 (activated carbon system) was chosen in lieu of Option 2
-------
29
(air stripping/activated carbon) because Option 1 is the most
cost-effective of the alternatives that would be protective of
human health and the environment. An analysis of the present
worth costs of the selected remedy (Source Control Alternative
SC-4 and Ground-water Alternative GW-3 Option 1), including
capital costs and operation and maintenance costs, are presented
in Tables 13-1 and 13-2.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that are protec-
tive of human health and the environment. In addition, Section
121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements
and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected
remedial action for the Fried Site must comply with applicable,
or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established
under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treat-
ment 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 wastes. The following sections discuss how the select-
ed remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the envi-
ronment, as it effectively addresses the principal threats posed
by the Site, namely: the arsenic-contaminated surface soils and
the VOCs-contaminated ground water in the surface and deep
bedrock aquifers.
The arsenic in the surface soil, the contaminant of concern that
is responsible for almost all of the carcinogenic risk in surface
soil ingestion, will be excavated down to 27 ppm, a level repre-
senting an ingestion exposure risk of 2.1 x 10"5 for carcinogens,
an HI less than 1.0 for non-carcinogenic effects, and the back-
ground concentration for arsenic in the area. Excavation and
off-site stabilization of arsenic-contaminated surface soil will
protect against future ingestion hazards. Additionally, the
removal of the contaminated soil from the Site will reduce
infiltration of arsenic into the ground water.
Capturing and treating contaminated ground water from the shallow
and deep bedrock aquifers will protect against future ingestion,
and direct contact and inhalation hazards while showering. The
contaminants in the ground water will be reduced to levels that
-------
30
are acceptable for drinking water, thereby protecting human
health.
Sampling data indicated the building complex presented no signif-
icant risk from contamination. The buildings and other struc-
tures in and around the building complex are in poor condition,
constituting a safety hazard to Site workers as well as creating
an impediment to equipment operation. To ensure the safety of
these Site workers, and to facilitate heavy equipment operations
in implementing the selected remedy, the building complex will be
demolished to eliminate the physical hazards associated with
these unsafe structures.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for the aquifer will be
achieved via the extraction/collection and treatment of ground
water. As previously discussed, should any effluent limitation
for discharge to Bog Brook (which is an intermittent stream) not
be technically achievable within the range of the treatment
system identified in the Feasibility Study and the ROD, EPA, in
conjunction with NJDEPE, may either relocate the treated ground-
water discharge to Lawrence Brook (which is a continuous flowing
stream) to meet that limitation, or waive the effluent limitation
for Bog Brook.
Action-specific and location-specific ARARs will be complied with
during implementation of the remedy. The specific ARARs for the
selected remedy are listed below.
Chemical-specific ARARs;
»• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs):
(40 CFR Part 141)
* Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria (WQC):
(40 CFR Part 131)
*• RCRA Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) :
(40 CFR 264)
>• RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions:
(40 CFR 268)
> New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs:
(NJAC: 7:10-16)
> New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act Standards for
Ground Water:
-------
31
(NJAC: 7:9-6)
>• New Jersey Water Pollution Discharge Elimination System:
(NJAC: 7:14A)
* New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards:
(NJAC 7:9-4.1)
Location-specific ARARs;
*• Clean Water Act, Section 404:
(33 USC 466)
*• Executive Orders on Floodplain Management and Protection
of Wetlands:
(E.O. 11988, 11990)
»• EPA/COE Memorandum of Agreement on Wetlands Protection
> Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act:
(16 USC 661)
>• Endangered Species Act:
(16 USC 1531)
>• National Historic Preservation Act:
(16 USC 470)
•• New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control Act:
(NJSA 58:6A-50)
»• New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act:
(NJSA 13:9B-1)
> New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Transition Area Rules:
(NJAC 7:7)
>• New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Rules:
(NJAC 7:7A)
>• New Jersey Stream Encroachment Regulations:
(NJAC 7:13-1.1)
Action-specific ARARs:
> Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria (WQC):
(40 CFR Part 131)
* RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions:
(40 CFR 268)
»• Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards:
-------
32
(40 CFR Part 50)
> OSHA General Industry Standards:
(29 CFR 1910)
»• OSHA Safety and Health Standards:
(29 CFR 1926)
> OSHA Record Keeping, Reporting, and Related Regulations:
(29 CFR 1904)
*• RCRA Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste:
(40 CFR 262.1)
> RCRA Standards for Transporters of Hazardous Waste:
(40 CFR 263.11, 263.20-21, and 263.30-31)
> RCRA Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted
Hazardous Waste Facilities:
(40 CFR 264.10-264.18)
*• RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention:
(40 CFR 264.30-31)
>• RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures:
(40 CFR 264.50-264.56)
*• RCRA - Ground-water Protection:
(40 CFR 264.90-264.109)
»• RCRA - Standards for Excavation and Fugitive Dust:
(40 CFR 264.251-264.254)
•• RCRA - Miscellaneous Units:
(40 CFR 264.600-264.999)
> RCRA - Closure and Post-Closure
(40 CFR 264.110-264.120)
*• DOT Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials:
(49 CFR 107, 171.1-172.558)
+ New Jersey Hazardous Waste Manifest System Rules:
(NJAC 7:26)
•> New Jersey Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facility Permitting Requirements:
(NJAC 7:26)
> New Jersey Water Pollution Discharge Elimination System:
(NJAC: 7:14A)
-------
33
> New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards:
(NJAC 7:9-4.1)
> New Jersey Clean Air Act:
(NJSA 26:2C)
*• New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act:
(NJAC 7:27-5, 13, 16, and 17)
Cost-Effectiveness
Of the alternatives which most effectively address the threats
posed by Site contamination, the selected remedy provides for
overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost. The estimated
total project cost, including both the selected surface soil and
ground-water alternatives, is $10,956,900 (derived from
Tables 13-1 and 13-2).
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Contaminants in the ground water will be removed and treated
before discharging to surface water. Hazardous wastes generated
by the treatment process will be disposed of at an approved
off-site facility. This will significantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of the contaminants, and offer a permanent
solution to the risks posed by the contaminated ground water.
Off-site stabilization of soil contaminated with arsenic in
excess of 27 ppm will reduce the mobility of this contaminant
and, therefore, represents a permanent solution to the risks
posed by the contaminated surface soil at the Site. Although the
toxicity and volume of the contaminated soil will not be reduced
at the actual treatment facility, the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which the toxicity, mobility, and volume
can be reduced at the Site in a cost-effective manner.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected ground-water remedy satisfies the preference for
treatment as a principal element. The on-site contaminated
ground water will be extracted/collected and treated, using
precipitation for metals and carbon adsorption for VOCs, to
reduce the levels of contaminants, thereby reducing the risk to
human health. The excavation and off-site treatment/disposal of
VOCs-contaminated soil was included for the purpose of facilitat-
ing the pump and treat process; the treatment of soils highly
contaminated with VOCs will also serve to further reduce any
potential threat to human health.
-------
34
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element will also be satisfied for the arsenic-contami-
nated soil. The arsenic-contaminated soil will be transported
for treatment and disposal at appropriate off-site facilities,
thereby reducing the risk to human health.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released to the public on
September 9, 1993. The Proposed Plan identified the preferred
alternatives for ground-water and soil remediation. EPA reviewed
all written and verbal comments received during the public
comment period. Upon review of these comments, EPA determined
that no significant changes to the selected remedy, as it was
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
However, after the Proposed Plan became final in October, 1993,
several minor revisions to the remedy became necessary. Addi-
tional sampling will be included during the design, to determine
if there is significant soil contamination in the areas used to
stage drums and/or beneath the main building. Samples may also
be taken to identify soil and ground-water "hot spots". The
contaminated soil and ground water would be removed and treated
as part of the remedial action. Additional expenses that might
result from the above activities have not been included in the
cost of the remedy. Similarly, costs resulting from the possible
cleanup of the underground tanks and tank car contamination were
also not included in the cost of the remedy.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
Figure # Identification
1 ' General Location Map
2 Fried Industries Site Map
3 Wetlands Areas on the Fried Property
4 Extent of Ground-water Contamination Plume
5 Areas to be Excavated
6 Arsenic Contamination in Surface Soil
7 VOCs Contamination in Soil
8 Ground-water Contamination (Phase I RI)
9 Ground-water Contamination (Phase II RI)
-------
FARRINGTON
SURFACE WATER
MONITORING
LOCATION
SCALE IN FEET
r sy- .. / . • u
SOURCE: FROM USGS NEW BRUNSWICK QUAD.,1954
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
-------
fcUlLDING COMPLEX
FRESHTPONDS ROAD
-------
BOTTOM LAND HARDWOODS
CATTAU.
MARSH
-------
ii a a M is is IT la
-------
• WWIWC «01 lOC.non (OOP BCBKJC") (l«0 - U/fl 1I.11.iri.'W»«'lri»c
A ON-9IT UOMJUCNTltlON IOCAHON f^mS~V . "~ ~»
spur/let suvru (SSI on
11/11 <•!-« IS «
If/91 (MV«OK. IOCAHWS
-------
Ml KM IOC*
luxma •irtbcAnoM ISHWIO* ovonumoi) (IIS.IKKS - n/vi)
• HOHIOmC «CU lOC*mH (MU> BUMOOI) (l« -
A OM-sit «»Meii«no« ioc»m»i _ —"
• v». SORHQ (sa) u/»i. sunrncc sum (ss)
• SH*T CUM« \^j?
A MKMC1DI 11/H (PI-* B M KMCX)
• its' mi
O SOMMT WWU 13/11 (M*mi. 10
••• mi PII nfn (ttfrnn UXADWS)
-------
2-BUTANONE
TOLUENE
VOLATILE TIC'S
2-BUTANONE 100 J
TOLUENE 48
VOLATILE TIC'S 3,600
-------
891111 r=v j.
i. uantann/fQmmm% U&D ON new «WCY stAtt ceranc cwmoi
_^ k UCAN SCA ICVCl AOJUSTHOir MUMOMT
J. SURVEY M ACCORDANCE HIM OOP CONVCYANCC BY HMCUS 1 RKMI. MC.
ID mup v nno AW jom c/>r«u m con OAIW JULY IB. mal
mORDCD IN OOO BOON JOW, P«« 47. !<•_!!;
UCENO;
4| STRAH It" lOCATION
0 UOMTOnHC «CU IOCAINH (9HAU
• UOMTOnmC MU. IOCAIMN (COP
O nST eORING UKATION
I.MKcMofocOlnie (Mil)
IJ'(Kc4mtfmpinc
Rtnitnt
» KIBoonJID
Mfll
imi
JOOJ
iwnm
MO I
I20.0I10II
noo I
irai
I4*si|
105.1701
117
Trir.hlnimOlow
l.l-llidilnrrfmfant
llmfcne
m-l.l ndibmOm
Sljmw
Tnlticm
|X|>t«t»(kiul)
VolitltTIC.
Srnil-VolilileTICt
Aivnic
Tnlixne
Xylmcs(mul)
|Tri,hlnntl)>m«
Voliile TIO
ino.oonni
1110 IM
17)5)
Htjmi
HI
21)
nciume
WE
IS?
\
lUcmme
Xylmn (Inul)
Vinyl cfilniMe
t)
•^ /'f ( JMw.inn|»—i
// |vpi«ii.Tlf^ ~
f \/j!^~nr
J I'si \\\
\
MW-MHtoundDl
C»rom)uni
L~J
Nkl.1
Ml
171
1(1
is N\ VJ
\l
r~ V
/
Btrone
Mntitlme
Xjrlma (hul)
VnllBleTIQ
i""l-VoliHleTTC.
15.11711
9II1M!
CD
Hi
\\
\\ • / 517—
\\ \ ' ~
^ 4uTB-7
\\ J^-r
•\\
MW.IS (Rnurfll
ISmii-VnlitileTll'*
Ifimmium
!i^
WELL-25
TB-5
D
O
-._ v.»ii»mricrran;iifJ'M«iimumront«nJn«)ll«vrl
Ftrfcnl MCI« irvVof Ottml Dr*ikin| Water MCla (TaMc M!|.
All crwilimirunl cmctntnlinrw •« ittnwn in Vlfl.
"*»
i(V(l.).l
MW. ID (Ri^^ri)'
'o\\
o /
1°
IMI m
7111|
O
0UMC 1CMI H 1
_IM>)
IKCCEOCNCC9
-------
IUOOO
10.000
JfjOODI
mo
111.1091
VdMHetlCi
Bonn iOUM»l
2. Al conttRlnuit eenetrtriOera tra Owirn h ua/l
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
Table # Identification
l Ground Water Data (Phase I and II RI):
2 Tables
2 Surface Soil Data (Phase I and II RI)
3 Subsurface Soil Data (Phase I and II RI)
4 Sediment Data (Phase I and II RI)
5 Surface Water Data (Phase I and II RI)
6 Federal/State Maximum Contaminant Levels
7 Contaminants-of-Concern
8 Toxicity Data (RfDs, Slope Factors, etc.)
9 Summary of Risks
10 Exposure Parameters/Assumptions: 3 Tables
11 Calculation of Chronic Daily Intakes
12 Derivation of Arsenic Cleanup Level
13 Capital and Operation/Maintenance Costs of
Selected Remedy: 2 Tables
14 Treatment Plant Discharge Requirements
-------
Table 1-1
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (SHALLOW) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
,1,1 -Trlchloroethane
,1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
,1-Dichloroe thane
,1-Dlchloroethene
,1-Dichloropropene
,2,3-Trlchloropropane
,2,4-Trlmethylbenzene
,2-Dlchloroethane
,2-Dlchloroethene (total)
,2-Dlchloropropane
1 ,3,5-Tf Imethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dlchloropropane
2-Butanona
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachtorlde
Chloroethane
Chloroform
cls-1,2-Dlchloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p- Isopropyltoluene
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
un/L
15.00
0.70
670.00
6.00
16.00
35.00
55000.00
26.00
260.00
170.00
570.00
51.00
300.00
2.00
130.00
1000.00
6400.00
5.00
0.20
1400.00
0.80
11000.00
12000.00
77.00
2000.00
83.00
93.00
39.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
UO/L
0.30
0.70
0.10
6.00
14.00
30.00
21.00
0.60
6.00
2.00
5.00
46.00
0.50
0.30
1.00
16.00
1.00
0.10
0.20
9.00
0.40
2.00
1.00
69.00
1.00
4.00
70.00
36.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ug/L
5.18
4.64
68.17
5.08
6.67
9.58
4684.42
5.52
13.75
16.75
99.42
12.25
47.27
4.56
13.42
97.55
249.83
4.47
4.80
93.11
4.51
973.50
376.39
16.33
115.39
16.92
30.17
10.42
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (SHALLOW) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Confd)
sec-Butylbenzene
Styrene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
Trlchloroetnene
Vinyl chloride
Xytenes (total)
SEMIVOLAT1LE COMPOUNDS
2.4-Dlmethytphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dlethylphthalate
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/L
5.00
20000.00
280000.00
29.00
4200.00
550.00
49000.00
370000
44.00
6500.00
8200.00
700
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
15.00
90.00
70.00
3.00
30000.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/L
5.00
1.00
0.20
2.00
0.50
11.00
0.10
17.00
34.00
5.00
9.00
4.00
2.00
0.60
3.00
1.00
3.00
20.00
4.00
3.00
740.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
ug/L
5.00
641.36
18412.92
6.21
131.18
20.72
2760.56
39131
9.81
353.22
562.08
5.00
4.88
4.29
492
4.83
5.58
12.00
18.08
12.10
1810.69
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (SHALLOW) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
beta-BHC
della-BHC
gamma-BHC (Llndane)
Heptachlor
Dleldrln
Endosulfan II
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDT
Methoxychlor
alpha-Chlordane
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
MAX DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
up/L
0.67
0.04
0.04
0.29
0.29
0.35
0.4?
1000
2.30
0.28
51400.00
50.60
387.00
5.30
2.90
66900.00
262.00
37.00
77.00
140000.00
46.40
38500.00
990.00
0.87
162.00
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/L
0.67
0.04
0.03
0.29
0.29
0.35
042
2.00
2.30
028
516.00
050
7.80
0.30
2.30
2330.00
290
360
360
827.00
1.30
846.00
17.20
0.20
7.20
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ufl/L
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.49
0.49
0.50
1.08
037
0.25
9405.08
10.74
106.64
1.65
250
13740.28
65.38
18.20
30.64
47638.23
13.35
4466.56
245.69
0.13
35.58
-------
Table 1-1 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (SHALLOW) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Cont'd)
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/L
9980.00
290
467000.00
2.70
485.00
215.00
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/L
91800
1.00
1610.00
2.60
2.50
17.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ufl/L
4120.84
2.34
70222.50
4.87
129.53
. 71.96
* Average concentrations Include all detected concentrations, as well as half the Contract Required Quantttation Limit (CRQL) value (or non-detect samples, whenever a compound
was detected In any sample of the same environmental medium. This may result In an average concentration value that Is greater than the maximum or lower than the minimum
detected value, as certain chemicals were detected at concentrations lower than their respective CRQL and there were different CRQLs for the Phase I and II analyses.
-------
Table 1-2
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (DEEP) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
,1.1 -Trlchloroe thane
. 1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
,1-Dlchloroe thane
,1-Dichloroethene
,2.4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichloroethane
,3.5-Trlmethylbenzene
2-Butanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disutflde
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromettiane
els- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropyl benzene
Methylene chloride
n-Propy (benzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Butyl benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,2-Olchloroethene
Trlchloroe thene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ua/L
22000.00
18.00
6400.00
530.00
20.00
50.00
7.00
320.00
1200.00
160.00
1.00
310.00
21.00
1.00
0.30
12.00
3.00
660.00
1.00
0.20
0.30
2.00
200.00
990.00
11.00
55.00
22.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/L
8200.00
400
300
160.00
20.00
4.00
700
320.00
20.00
0.70
0 10
25.00
090
020
0.30
010
300
050
100
020
030
1.00
73.00
190.00
6.00
0.20
0.50
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
uq/L
4616.67
6.90
1214.00
146.50
10.00
8.07
5.67
33.64
206.67
23.73
3.78
87.88
5.24
4.27
4.61
5.19
4.33
180.34
3.67
3.40
3.43
4.30
35.44
95.00
5.81
8.35
6.91
-------
Table 1-2 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER (DEEP) ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
'ug/L
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/L
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
ug/L
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Phenol
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
40.00
43.00
25.00
10.00
22.00
10.00
34.00
33.00
10.00
0.90
5.00
2.00
10.39
10.50
7.89
5.06
7.62
5.33
4.4--DDE
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
0 10
006
0.06
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
5710000
820
103000
4.90
6490000
79.20
26.50
51.80
132000.00
24.20
106.00
090
41.50
0.30
11800.00
280
3.60
360
5170.00
1.50
6193.80
3.88
231.13
2.37
32633.33
19.64
2094
14.42
22421.00
5.76
-------
Table 2
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1,1.1 -Trlchloroe thane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
1.2-Dlchloroethene (total)
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfkfe
Carbon tetrachtorlde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xytenes
Trichloroethene
Vinyl acetate
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1,2-Dtehlorobenrene
1.3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
MAX DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kg
710.00
260.00
240.00
23.00
250.00
2800.00
18.00
23000.00
440000.00
110.00
25.00
14000000
8800.00
240.00
7600.00
100000.00
144500.00
21.00
190.00
110000.00
9300.00
29000.00
130.00
340.00
380.00
12000.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kg
300
5.00
4.00
7.00
2.00
15.00
4.00
1.00
3100.00
110.00
25.00
1.00
200
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
21.00
38.00
30.00
340.00
1300.00
130.00
49.00
93.00
48.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ug/kg
6.50
4.21
3.80
6.05
6.27
74.24
2.63
114.20
10368.24
4.94
5.83
733.69
56.05
6.94
43.36
481.23
891.66
2.89
7.17
2625.45
380.98
867.28
163.25
165.31
170.50
230.63
-------
Table 2 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Confd)
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenot
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anttiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a,h)anttiracene
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Benzole acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalat9
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Ol-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
Fluorene
Hexachloroe thane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N- Nitrosodiphenylamlne
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachtorophenol
Phenantfirene
Phenol
Pyrene
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug?kg
2200.00
760.00
1000.00
320.00
2300.00
4300.00
330000
77.00
700000
910.00
730.00
61000.00
210000
420000
200000
100000
370.00
610.00
130.00
1000000
1400.00
750.00
1200.00
750.00
44.00
18000.00
530.00
43.00
8500.00
11000.00
15000.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/kfl
48000
55.00
450.00
34.00
39.00
28.00
10.00
77.00
16.00
42.00
15000
3800
87.00
13.00
41.00
10.00
6900
290.00
76.00
23.00
53.00
750.00
57.00
86.00
44.00
3800
530.00
43.00
16.00
51.00
9.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
uq/kq
208.73
169.30
173.76
164.45
180.50
203.83
205.88
164.37
283.66 •
169.20
791.88
629.47
188.02
233.89
180.19
177.13
165.12
170.45
164.23
310.22
172.87
177.72
176.17
201.27
161.10
288.62
181.59
389.18
265.90
732.31
344.68
-------
Table 2 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
4.4--DDD
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDT
Aldrin
alpha- BHC
alpha-Chlordane
bela-BHC
Dieldrln
Endosulfan II
Endosullan sullate
Endrin
Endrin ketone
gamma-BHC (Llndane)
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachtof
Heptachlor epoxlde
Methoxychtor
Afodor-1254
Arodor-1260
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kg
180.00
34000.00
120000
67.00
42.00
6700.00
12.00
30.00
110.00
0.34
2100000
12000.00
99.00
2200.00
12.00
2200.00
510.00
310.00
100.00
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kfl
0.40
0.19
0.26
0.40
1.00
0.03
10.00
0.29
110.00
0.34
0.20
12000.00
0.63
1.30
0.20
0.33
0.46
310.00
100.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
uq/kq
9.87
182.71
18.86
5.07
4.44
96.29
' 4.12
7.94
10.37
7.68
403.81
234.26
4.49
54.14
3.95
16.61
44.98
91.50
80.45
-------
Table 2 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mq/Kq
25100.00
1411.00
557.00
210.00
280
5.80
19500.00
79.00
33.00
291.00
1 18000.00
465.00
15500.00
767.00
2.50
670.00
10600.00
2.10
6.70
1370.00
0.64
522.00
946.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mq/kq
35.00
0.77
0.33
0.90
0.20
0.64
B.60
2.90
0.69
060
977.00
1.10
7.80
0.76
010
1.10
28.90
0.30
1.00
4.30
0.32
5.30
220
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
mq/Kq
4987.05
12.42
6.60
20.75
0.59
0.75
1154.03
20.44
4.99
21.85
21457.41
25.92
968.31
57.55
0.08
11.89
525.88
0.52
1.20
310.97
0.98
71.74
42.00
* Average concentrations Include all detected concentrations, as well as half the Contract Required Quantilatlon Limit (CRQL) value for non-detect samples, whenever a compound
was detected In any sample ol the same environmental medium. This may result In an average concentration value that Is greater tian the maximum or lower than the minimum
detected value, as certain chemicals were detected at concentrations lower than their respective CRQL and there were different CRQLs (or the Phase I and II anaryses.
-------
Table 3
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4- Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulflde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xytenes
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/kq
12.00
21.00
1000.00
e.oo
1100.00
3.00
62.00
2700.00
2700
6.00
4.00
29000
3.00
16000.00
40.00
290.00
32.00
660000.00
94000.00
3.00
9.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/kq
3.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
10.00
3.00
2.00
51.00
1 00
2.00
200
1200
too
1.00
1.00
290.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
900
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
uq/kq
2.67
3.21
23.76
2.69
66.56
4.95
6.67
109.00
3.49
258
2.53
12.13
2.49
215.51
3.88
7.21
3.22
8825.41
1275.33
2.51
5.11
-------
Table 3 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Oichlorobenzene
2,4.5-Trichloropheno)
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dimetnylphenol
2- Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4- Methy (phenol
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzole acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Dl-n-butylphlhalata
Ol-n-octylphthalate
Olbenz(a,h)anthracene
Olbenzoluran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphtnalate
Fluoranthene
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ufl/kfl
140.00
470.00
160.00 -
310.00
380.00
58000
1500000
200000
870.00
100000
150000
700.00
520.00
110000
4300.00
3800.00
9200.00
1500.00
2100.00
24000.00
260.00
390000
3900.00
87.00
200.00
550.00
45.00
100.00
7300.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kg
140.00
150.00
160.00
110.00
71.00
58000
15.00
47.00
870.00
110.00
1500.00
35.00
37.00
39.00
12000
9.00
11.00
38.00
95.00
21.00
53.00
41.00
58.00
23.00
36.00
74.00
41.00
100.00
5.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ufl/kq
164.60
170.27
164.87
374.00
171.46
172.16
452.08
210.57
177.16
198.18
418.97
175.81
168.42
186.08
253.97
238.01
324.15
189.49
822.24
725.19
162.99
248.46
280.19
159.97
162.33
17332
158.74
163.33
335.91
-------
Table 3 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Confd)
Fluor ene
Indenof 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
N-nltrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
4,4'-DDD
4.4--DDE
4.4'-DDT
Aldrln
alpha-Chlordane
delta BHC
Dieldrln
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrln ketone
gamma-BHC (Llndane)
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxlde
Arodof-1260
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kq
660.00
1800.00
3200.00
5000.00
7900.00
390000
3600.00
6400.00
34.00
13.00
150.00
90.00
1800
16.00
140.00
035
250.00
170.00
0.70
35.00
30.00
77.00
5.40
270.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/kg
22.00
38.00
3200.00
19.00
540.00
28.00
35.00
6.00
0.42
5.90
0.73
90.00
0.16
16.00
0.36
0.26
250.00
170.00
0.70
35.00
0.83
2.00
0.90
270.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
ug/kg
181.94
195.78
213.95
26087
515.76
275.60
320.89
310.45
8.63
8.06
9.85
5.39
36.00
4.19
9.80
7.60
13.15
10.66
7.88
4.50
36.76
5.04
3.96
84.87
-------
Table 3 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAX DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mg/kg
54500.00
17.70
91.20
533.00
5.40
15.70
4310000
11900
98.70
44300
9440000
69900
3930000
1590.00
016
294000
40300.00
1.70
044
240000
340
28000
106000
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mg/kg
21900
0.77
0.40
1.20
026
0.62
1390
1.20
1.20
1.50
476.00
0.40
1600
069
Oil
2.00
1700
027
0.44
9.60
0.2S
3.20
2.30
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
mg/kg
10674.91
6.19
7.69
76.80
1.10
1.20
1743.37
28.62
16.58
30.60
21197.32
23.73
6175.28
198.33
0.03
65.59
4946.82
0.52
0.99
336.37
1.03
52.93
96.46
* Average concentrations Include all detected concentrations, as well as half the Contract Required Quantttation Limit (CRQL) value for non-detect samples, whenever a compound
was detected In any sample of the same environmental medium. This may result In an average concentration value that Is greater than the maximum or lower than the minimum
detected value, as certain chemicals were detected at concentrations lower than their respective CRQL and there were different CRQLs for the Phase I and II analyses.
-------
Table 4
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1,1-Dlchloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroettiene (total)
2-Butanone
Acetone
Carbon dlsulOde
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total xylenes
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene .
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Benzole acid
Bte(2-ethy1hexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthatate
Carbazole
MAX DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/kg
1.00
400
44.00
79.00
800
38.00
5.00
4.00
36.00
4.00
35.00
1300.00
100.00
92.00
540.00
1100.00
960.00
2140.00
530.00
500.00
2900.00
68.00
110.00
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/kq
1.00
4.00
9.00
67.00
4.00
38.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
35.00
240.00
38.00
49.00
81.00
42.00
53.00
99.00
100.00
120.00
60.00
68.00
35.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
ug/kq
2.46
254
984
13.00
2.75
6.94
253
2.55
3.18
2.55
„
199.61
154.84
157.58
177.39
228.05
209.45
358.13
178.95
717.78
344.18
162.45
154.12
-------
Table 4 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (Confd)
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrena
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrln
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
beta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
gamma-Chlordane
Methoxychlor
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE-SAMPLES
ua/kq
1200.00
240.00
110.00
2500.00
260.00
480.00
27.00
93.00
530.00
1700.00
1900.00
13.00
7.60
7.00
5.10
2.90
21.00
28.00
9.70
7.20
21.00
110.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uo/kg
46.00
50.00
23.00
52.00
68.00
91.00
22.00
58.00
530.00
40.00
43.00
6.10
3.90
7.00
5.10
2.90
10.00
28.00
9.70
7.20
5.50
110.00
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ufl/kfl
234.45
160.68
156.79
312.10
165.21
177.53
148.47
160.29
186.47
258.12
306.18
8.07
7.75
7.94
4.04
3.94
35.59
4.63
8.10
7.95
35.62
42.50
-------
Table 4 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mq/kq
26400.00
1 18.00
199.00
188.00
14.00
9.10
6550.00
1520.00
28.00
208.00
84400.00
221.00
613000
273.00
2.00
49.40
4700.00
3.00
16.00
1180.00
000
9900
525.00
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
mn/k
-------
Table 5
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
1,1.1 -Trichloroe thane
1.1-Dichloroe thane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-Dibromoe thane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
els- 1 .2- Dichtof oettiene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
trans- 1 . 2-Dlchtoroethene
' Trlchloroethene
Vinyl acetate
MAX DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
'uq/L
8900
4200
1.60
0.10
4.00
0.10
3.50
030
30.00
2400
16.00
030
400
0.50
700
660
020
13.00
5200
1700
0.20
1.80
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/L
0.10
0.50
0.20
0.10
2.00
0.10
3.00
0.30
2.60
010
0.50
0.10
4.00
0.40
0.20
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.10
17.00
0.10
1.80
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ujj/L
11.36
5.95
4.07
4.15
4.84
4.79
' 4.42
4.80
6.11
4.81
4.81
3.95
4.95
4.41
4.36
4.78
4.37
5.52
6.24
5.52
415
4.85
-------
Table 5 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
ug/L
MIN. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
yg/L
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES*
ug/L
2-Methylphenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
6.00
5.00
2.00
600
2.00
200
5.05
4.57
12.00
4.4--DDE
4.4'-DDT
gamma-BHC (Llndane)
0.130
0.32
0.210
0 130
0.06
0.026
0.48
0.47
0.04
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
17700.00
196.00
38.70
421.00
4.50
9.30
35800.00
78.00
76.00
83.00
32600.00
62.00
8640.00
108.00
2800
2.30
30.00
2.10
5.00
2570.00
9.20
4.20
6.50
595.00
1.10
855.00
3884.15
34.74
5.76
70.78
255
3.41
1377321
10.77
28.10
38.84
4671.40
13.40
3598.75
-------
Table 5 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYSES
PHASE I AND II
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Cont'd)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAX. DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
uq/L
31200
28.40
94.00
9400.00
220
60800.00
25.00
48900
MIN DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES
Ufl/L
30.00
3.70
8.90
1200.00
2.20
3880.00
4.90
2300
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN THE SAMPLES'
ug/L
143.42
086
27.11
3715.00
2.49
26928.53
23.43
116.59
* Average concentrations Include all detected concentrations, as well as hall the Contract Required Ouantitatton Limit (CRQL) value for non-detect samples, whenever a compound
was detected In any sample ol the same environmental medium. This may result In an average concentration value that Is greater than the maximum or lower than the minimum
detected value, as certain chemicals were detected at concentrations lower than their respective CRQL and there were different CRQLs for the Phase I and II analyses.
-------
FEDERAL AND STATE
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS (MCLs)
Contaminants of Concern
Volatile (ug/L)
CMoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroe thane
Methylene Chloride
Cariwn Disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
CnJoTofuiiii
1,1,1-TrichJoroethane
1,2-DJchbropropane
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Tetnchloroethene
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xyknes
Cis-l^-Dichloroethene
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Semivolatile (ug/L)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Icophorone
2,4-Dimethylpheno]
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalaie
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Metals (ue/U
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Maximum
Observed
Concentration
SDWA(
MCLs
1
550
1400
2000
1
530
6400
50
320
21
22,000
165
4200
18
6400
2
280000
130
12000
20000
49000
11000
990
1200
.
2.0
.
5.0
.
7.0
.
5.0
.
100*
200
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1000
.
700
100
10,000
70
100
.
27500
4700
7350
65
3550
64
435
15
22
10
50.6
1030
53
226.5
46.4
118.5
6.0
50
2000
4.0
100
15
100
NJSDWA
MCL
2,0
2.0
2.0
2.0
100*
26
1.0
1.0
1.0
44
10
10
50
2000
100
15
NJ Groundwater
Quality Standards0*
30
0.08
2.0
1.0
70
03
6
30
0.5
1.0
3.0
0.2
0.4
1000
400
700
100
40
10
100
700
4000
100
100
5000
900
3
0.02
2000
0.008
100
5
100
Most
Stringent
Requirement
30
5.0"'
2.0
2.0<4>
70
03
6
26
05
1.0
3.0
1000
400
700
100
40
10
10
700
4000
100
100
5000
900
30<4>
2000
20(4)
100
10"'
100
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Maximum Most
Observed SDWA0) NJSDWA w NJ Groundwater Stringent
Contaminants of Concern Concentration MCLs MCLs Quality Standards0* Requirement
Pesticide Contaminants (ug/L)
Delta-BHC 0.670 ...
Gamma-BHC 0.040 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
4,4'-DDE 0.10 - - 0.1 0.1
NOTES:
t Compiled from Phase H RI Report, Tables 3-19. 3-20 and 5-1 (Ebasco, 1993)
- None Available
'" Safe Drinking Water Act - 40 CFR 141.11-16.
m New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act
m New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards
w Practical Quantitation Limit - New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards
• Total Trihalomethanes
-------
TABLE 7
FRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN BY MEDIA
Groundwaier
1,1-Dichloraethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,1-TrichJoroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
Total xyknes
Ethylbenzene
Isophorone
2-Butanone
1,2-Dichloropropane
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Surface Water
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Nickel
Air
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
2-Butanone
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
trans-l^-Dichloroethene
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phmalate
Naphthalene
Diethylphthalate
Nickel
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Beryllium
4,4'-DDE
Gamma-BHC
Soils
1,1-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Isophorone
2-Butanone
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylh«yl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Arsenic
Nickel
Sediments
Chloroform
2-Butanone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Beryllium
Cadmium
Lead
Silver
-------
TABLE 8
FRIED INDUSTRIES jITB
TOXICITV DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
Noncarcinogen Reference Dose
Chemical
Volatile*:
,1-Dichloroethane
,1-Dichloroethene
,1,1-Trichloroe thane
, 1 ,2-Trichloroe thane
,2-Dichloroelhane
•* *^.« • •
,Ł-uicnloiopfu|Mne
Cw- 1,2-Dichloroethene
CnJorofufiii
OuoiDinclnanc
Melhylene Chloride
Tetrachloroe thane
Tran»- 1 ,2-DicMoroethene
Trichlofoethane
Vinyl Chloride
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
4-Mefhyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Elhylbenwne
Slyrene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Rfd
(oral)
(mg/Kg-day)
I.OOE-OI*
9.00E-03
9.00E-02*
4.00E-03
ND
ND
1.00E-02*
I.OOE-02
ND
6.00E-02
I.OOE-02
2.00E-02
UN
ND
5.00B-02*
I.OOE-OI
5.00E-02
I.OOB-OI
UN
I.OOE-OI
ZOOE-OI
ZOOB-OI
2.00E+00
Rrc
(inhalation)
(mg/Cu.m)
5.00E-OI*
ND
UN
UN
ND
4.00E-03
ND
UN
1.00401
3.00E+00*
ND
ND
UN
ND
I.OOE+00
1.00B-02*
8.00E-02
ND
UN
I.OOE-fOO
ND
4.00E-OI
UN
RfD
(inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day)
I.43E-OI*
ND
UN
UN
ND
I.I4E-03
ND
UN
2.86E+00
8.57B-OI
ND
ND
UN
ND
186E-OI
186E-03*
2.29B-02
ND
UN
Z86B-01
ND
I.I4E-OI
UN
Subchronic
Rit)
(oral sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
I.OOE+00
9.00E-03
9.00E-01
4.00E-02
ND
ND
I.OOE-OI
l.OOE-02
NA
6.00B-02
I.OOB-OI
ZOOE-OI
ND
ND
S.OOB-OI
I.OOB-OI
5.00E-OI
I.OOE+00
ND
I.OOE+00
ZOOB+00
2.00E+00
4.00E+00
Noncarcinogen Reference Dose (1)
RIC
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Cu.m)
5.00E+OO
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.30E-02
ND
ND
NA
3.00E+00
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.00E+00
I.OOE-02
8.00B-OI
ND
ND
I.OOE+00
ND
ZOOE+00
NA
RID
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
1.43E+00
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.7IB-03
ND
ND
ND
8.57B-OI
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.57B-OI
2.86E-03
2.29E-OI
ND
ND
Z86E-01
ND
5.7IE-OI
NA
SF
(Oral)
(mg/Kg-day)- 1
ND
6.00E-01
ND
5.70E-02
9.IOE-02
ND
ND
6.10E-03
ND
7.50E-03
ND
ND
I.10E-02(2)
I.90E+00*
ND
ND
ND
ND
Z90B-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
Carcinogen Slope Factor
Weight
C
C
ND
C
B2
ND
ND
D2
ND
B2
ND
ND
B2
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
Unit Risk
(Inhalation)
(ug/Cu.m)-l
ND
5.00E-05
ND
I.60E-05
2.60E-05
ND
ND
2.30B-05
ND
4.70E-07
ND
ND
1.70E-06(2)
8.40E-05*
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.30E-06
ND
ND
ND
ND
SF
(Inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day )-l
ND
I.75E-OI
ND
5.60E-02
9.IOE-02
ND
ND
8.05B-02
ND
I.65B-03
ND
ND
5.95E-03(2)
2.94E-01
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.91 E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
Weight
ND
C
ND
C
B2
ND
ND
B2
ND
B2
ND
ND
B2
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
A
N
ND
ND
ND
-------
Chemical
Semi-Volatile*:
2,4-Dime thylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Melhylnaphthalene
Dibenzofunn
Naphthalene
sophorine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalale
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethylphthalate
2-Methylphenol
4-Methyl phenol
TABLE 8 (continued)
FRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
NoncarcinoRen Reference Dose
Rfd
(oral)
(mg/Kg-day)
ZOOE-02
3.00E-02
6.00E-01
ND
ND
4.00B-02*
ZOOE-OI
1.90B-02
l.OOE-OI
8.00E-01
5.00B-02
5.00B-02
we
(inhalation)
(mg/Cu.m)
ND
UN
NA
ND
UN
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RfD
(inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day)
ND
UN
NA
ND
UN
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Subchronic
RfD
(oral sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
2.00B-OI
3.00B-02
6.00E-01
ND
ND
4.00E-02
ZOOE400
100B-02
t.OOE*00
8.00E-KK)
S.OOB-OI
S.OOE-01
NoncarcinoRen Reference Dose (1)
RfC
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Cu.m)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RfD
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SF
(Oral)
(mg/Kg-day)- 1
ND
1.20B-OI
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.50E-04
1.40E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
Carcinogen Slope Factor
Weight
ND
B2
ND
ND
ND
ND
C
B2
ND
ND
ND
ND
Unit Risk
(Inhalation)
(ug/Cu.mH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SF
(Inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day)- 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Weight
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PCBs and Pesticides:
4,4-DDB
Della-BHC
Gamma-BHC
ND
ND
3.00E-04
ND
ND
UN
ND
ND
UN
ND
ND
3.00E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.40E-OI
ND
ND
B2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
PRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOOBNIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
Noncarcinogen Reference Dose
Chemical
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Rfd
(oral)
(mg/Kg-day)
3.00B-04
7.00B-02
5.00E-03
1.00E+00
NA
2.00E-02
RfC
(inhalation)
(mg/Cu.m)
ND
UN
ND
UN
ND
UN
RfD
(inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day)
ND
UN
ND
UN
ND
UN
Subchronic
RfD
(oral sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
3.00B-04
7.00E-02
5.00E-02
I.OOE+00
ND
2.00E-02
Noncarcinogen Reference Dose (1)
RfC
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Cu.m)
ND
ND
ND
UN
ND
ND
RfD
(inhalation, sub)
(mg/Kg-day)
ND
ND
ND
UN
ND
ND
SF
(Oral)
(mg/Kg-day )-l
1.75E+00
ND
4.30E+00
ND
ND
ND
Carcinogen Slope Factor
Weight
A
ND
B2
ND
ND
ND
Unit Risk
(Inhalation)
(ug/Cu.m)-l
4.30E-03
ND
2.40E-03
ND
ND
ND
SF
(Inhalation)
(mg/Kg-day)- 1
I.5IE40I
ND
8.40E+00
ND
ND
ND
Weight
A
ND
B2
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 9
FRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS AND NONCARCWOOENIC HAZARD INDEX VALUES
FOR EXPOSURE SCENARIOS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXCESS CANCER RISKS
Average Case Worst Case
3.23 x 10-VS)(A)
5.66 X 10*(D)(A)
4.84 x IO*(S)(A)
5.95 x 107(D)(A)
4.99 x 10'(S)(A)
9.24 x 10*(D)(A)
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Oroundwater
Digestion of groundwater
during residenlal future use
Direct contact with
groundwater during showering
(future use)
Inhalation of volatile* in
groundwater while showering
(future use)
Soils and Sediments
Ingestion of site surface soil
- current recreational use
by residents and children
- current on-site worker
- future residential use
Inhalation of site surface soil
- current recreational use
- current on-site worker
- future residential use
Inhalation of volatiles from
subsurface soil in the basement
air by future resident
Residential consumption of fish
from the pond, swamp and brooks
Recreational use of the pond, swamp
and Brooks - sediment (current and future)
Inhalation of volatiles in Site Air
- to local residents downwind of the
site
- future residential use
- current on-site worker
(S) Shallow (overburden) aquifer; (D) Deep (bedrock) aquifer
(A) Adults; (C) Children
NE - Not Evaluated for RME Scenario
1.60 x
4.83 x 10 J(D)(A)
1.98 x 10'(S)(A)
5.63 x 10'(D)(A)
1.29 x 10'(S)(A)
3.90 x 10 '(D)(A)
1.8 x 10* (Worker)
7.5 x 105
RME
NE
NE
NE
HAZARD INDEX
Average Case Worst Case
1.45x10* (A)
2.90x10*
3.76x10* (A)
3.01x10* (C)
9.88x10" (A)
9.46x10*
2.57x1010 (A)
1.03x10'° (C)
1.58x10* (A)
6.34x10* (C)
7.54x10* (A)
3.02x10* (C)
1.55x10* (A)
1.51x10* (C)
1.41xlOT (A)
5.65x10* (C)
UJxlO7
4.2(S)(C)
1.08(S). 0.0193(D) (A)
' -). 0.025(D) (C)
2.06(S) (C)
98(S). 12(D) (A)
197(S), 24(D) (C)
19(S). 0.24(D) (A)
25(S). 0.32(D) (C)
225(S), 3.8(D) (A)
450(S), 7.6(D) (C)
RME
NE
NE
NE
2.64xlO'(C)
4.28X10-"
1.72x10'(A)
6.86xlOJ(C)
1.27xIO"(A)
4.09x10*
3.31xia"(A)
6.61xlO"(C)
2.60xia'(A)
5.21xlO'(C)
1.64xlC\'A)
3.28xlO'(C)
1.50x10'(A)
7.31xlO'(C)
2.25xlO*(A)
4.49xlO*(C)
2.25xial
-------
TABLE 10-1
FRIED INDUSTRIES RISK ASSESSMENT
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIO
PATHWAY
INHALATION/INTAKE RATE
LENGTH OF BIOAVAILABILITY DAYS EXPOSED/
EXPOSURE FACTOR DAYS/YEAR
YEARS EXPOSED/
YEARS LIFETIME
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Surface Soil
Inhalation
Sediment
Ingestion
Fish
Ingestion
Outdoor Air
VOC Inhalation
Subsurface Soil
100mg/day -Adults*
200mg/day -Children
1.25 m3/hr •
200mg/day *
54g/day **
3 m3/hr **
0.9m3/hr "
NA
0.44 hrs/day **
NA
NA
0.44 hrs/day **
1 hr/day **
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.40E-01 *
2.85E-01 (1)
7.40E-01 *
2.14E-01 - Adults *
2.60E-01 - Children
2.14E-01 *
7.40E-01 •
7.40E-01 *
4.29E-01
8.57E-02
4.29E-01
8.57E-02
4.29E-01
8.57E-02
4.29E-01
8.57E-02
4.29E-01
8.57E-02
4.29E-01
- Adults *
- Children
- Adults *
- Children
- Adults*
- Children
- Adults*
- Children
- Adults*
- Children
- Adults*
VOC Inhalation
8.57E-02 - Children
(1) Current residential use (adult and children) Phase I Rl
* Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
** Exposure Factors Handbook
-------
TABLE 10-2
FRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE
POTENTIAL RISK FROM CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER VIA THE INHALATION PATHWAY
FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS
Children: 0-17 Years Adults
Case Estimate: Average Case Worst Case Average Case Worst Case
Frequency of Exposure (days/year)
Bathroom Air (Shower) 365 365 365 365
Hours Per Day Exposed
Bathroom Air (Shower) .17 .25 .17 .25
Duration of Exposure
(years/lifetime) NA NA 9 30
Lifetime = 75 years
Respiratory Volume (m'/hour) 1.5 3.0 1.4 3.0
Bathroom Volume (mj) 12 12 12 12
Bioavailability Factor,
Volatile Inhalation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Body Weight (kg) 35.0 35.0 70.0 70.0
NA: Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 10-3
FRIED INDUSTRIES SITE
PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE
POTENTIAL RISK FROM CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER PATHWAYS
INGESTION AND DIRECT CONTACT
FUTURE-USE SCENARIOS
Children: 0-17 Years Adults
Case Estimate: Average Case Worst Case Average Case Worst Case
Frequency of Exposure (days/year)
Groundwater (Ingestion, Showering) 365 365 365 365
Hours Per Day Exposed
Shower Pathway 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.25
Duration of Exposure (years/lifetime) NA NA 9 30
Lifetime = 75 years
Groundwater Ingestion Rate (I/day) 22 22
Skin Surface Area Exposed (cm1)
Shower Pathway 11,900 11,900 18.150 18,150
Ingestion Absorption Factors 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Body Weight (kg) 35.0 35.0 70.0 70.0
* Present and Future-use assumptions are identical.
-------
TABLE 11
CALCULATIONS USED TO DERIVE
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKES (GDIs)
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
Carcinogens:
GDI = WC(mg/l) x DI(L/day) x % Bioavail. x # Events x Years Exp.
BW (kg) 365 days 75 years
Noncarcinogens:
GDI = WC(mg/L) x DI(L/day) x Bioavail. x ^Events
BW (kg) 365 days
INHALATION OF VOLATILES IN GROUNDWATER
Carcinogens:
GDI = AC (mg/m3) x Bioavail. (100%) x IRfmVevent) x ^Events
BW (kg) 365 days
x Years Exp.
75 years
Noncarcinogens:
GDI = AC (mg/m3) x Bioavail. x IR (mVevent) x # Events
BW (kg) 365 days
DIRECT CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
Carcinogens:
GDI = WC (mg/L) x SSA fcm2) x DP (cm/hr) x 1 Liter x Hours
BW (kg) 1000 cm3Event
x ^Events x Years EXP.
365 days 75 years
Noncarcinogens:
GDI = WC (mg/L) x SSA (cm2) x DP (cm/hr) x 1 Liter x Hours
BW (kg) 1000 cm3 Event
x # Events
365 days
DEFINITIONS:
GDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
UC = Water Concentration (mg/L)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
75 = Years in Average Adult Lifetime
DP = Dermal Permeability constant (cm/hr)
SSA = Skin Surface Area (cm2)
DI = Daily Ingestion Rate (L/day)
IR = Inhalation Rate (m3/event)
Bioavail. = Bioavailability Factor
AC = Air Concentration (volatiles) (mg/m )
-------
TABLE 12
CALCULATION OF ARSENIC CLEANUP LEVEL
AT FRIED INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
A statistical analysis of the data from twenty-three (23)
samples, obtained during the background data survey by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE), was performed by EPA. The results were as follows:
_ n
(1) XA (arithmetic mean) = (1/n) ii x, = 172.33
i=l 23
XA (arithmetic mean) = 7.49
n _
(2) a (standard deviation) = (1/n) E xt 2 - ( x2 )
O (standard deviation) = 9.60
(3) We will use the arsenic concentration corresponding to
the arithmetic mean plus two times the standard
deviation:
ARSENIC
CLEANUP (A.C.L.) = X + 2 G
LEVEL
A.C.L. = 7.49 + (2 X 9.60)
A.C.L. = 7.49 + 19.20
A.C.L. = 26.69
ARSENIC CLEANUP LEVEL = 27 PPM
-------
TABLE 13-1
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1993 Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE sc-4: Excavation/Off-Site Treatment/Off-Site Disposal
I. Site Preparation $ 56,400
II. Support Facilities 71,500
III. Clearing and Grubbing 1,500
IV. Contaminated Soil Excavation 10,400
V. Sheet Piling 30,000
VI. Transportation (included in Item VIII)
VII. Pretreatment (included in Item VIII)
VIII. Off-Site Stabilization 273,000
IX. Stabilized Soil Disposa (included in Item VIII)
X. Clean Fill 36,400
XI. Restoration of Wetlands 4,100
Total Direct Construction Costs (TDCC) = $ 483,300
Contingency @ 20% of TDCC = 96,700
Engineering @ 10% of TDCC = 48,300
Legal and Administrative @ 5% of TDCC = 24,200
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = $ 652,500
ALTERNATIVE GW-3: Pumping and Treating of Groundwater/Limited
Source Extraction (Option 1)
I. Site Preparation (included in Source Control)
II. Support Facilities (included in Source Control)
III. Groundwater Monitoring Wells $ 36,000
IV. Groundwater Interception Trench 35,000
V. Groundwater Extraction 226,000
VI. Collection 21,500
-------
TABLE 13-1 (continued)
VII. Chemical Precipitation System 71,600
VIII. Filtration System 64,300
IX. Sludge Handling System 31,000
X. Air Stripper/Carbon 32,600
XI. Treated Water Disposal 82,000
XII. Source Control 2,292,800
(includes $ 2,160,000 for incineration)
XIII. Office and Control Building 52,500
XIV. Electrical 100,000
XV. Instrumentation and Controls 60,000
XVI. Process Water Supply 3,000
XVII. Foundation and Pads 12,500
XVIII.Health and Safety 50,000
XIX. Mobilization/Demobilization 50,000
Total Direct Construction Cost (TDCC) = $ 3,220,800
Contingency @ 20% of TDCC = 644,200
Engineering @ 10% of TDCC = 322,000
Legal and Administrative @ 5% of TDCC = 161,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = $ 4,348,000
-------
TABLE 13-2
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES (1993 Dollars)
ALTERNATIVE sc-4: Excavation/Off-Site Treatment/Off-Site Disposal
This Alternative does not require Operation and Maintenance
ALTERNATIVE GW-3: Pumping and Treating of Groundwater/Limited
Source Extraction (Option 1)
I. Extraction $ 1,000
II. Collection 1,300
III. Chemical Precipitation System 1,000
IV. Sludge Handling System 1,700
V. Filtration System 23,500
VI. Activated Carbon Treatment System 200,700
VII. Labor 116,800
VIII. Maintenance Cost 74,200
IX. Monitoring 33,600
X. Contingency 22,700
Total Annual 0 & M Cost = $ 476,500
PRESENT WORTH OF O & M (7% discount rate) = $ 5,956,400
-------
TABLE 14
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM VALUE IN NJDEPE EFFLUENT LIMITS
6ROUNDWATER(1> (monthly average) (daily maximum)
CONVENTIONAL/NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
0.014
(10 gal/min)
330
207
Flow (mgd)
BOD5 (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
pH (std. units)
Petroleum Hydro-
carbons (mg/1)
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/1)
Total Organic
Carbon (mg/1)
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
Chronic Toxicity
(% effluent)
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS fin ua/1)
925
323
666
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chioroethane
Chloroform
1200
6400
320
1400
21
1,1-Dichloroethane 6400
1,2-Dichloroethane 50
1,1-Dichloro- 530
ethylene
0.014
(10 gal/min)
Report<2)
Report
5.0 minimum
6.0 minimum
10
Report
Report
Report
NOEC > 100%(3)
50
1.2
16
Report
25
250
9.0
15
500
50
40
NOEC > 100%<3)
100
2.4
32
Controlled with 1,1-Dichloroethane
5.7 11
16 32
0.38 0.76
0.57 1.1
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
MAXIMUM VALUE IN NJDEPE EFFLUENT LIMITS
PARAMETER GROUNDWATER (monthly average) (daily maximum)
trans-l,2-Dichloro-
ethylene 990
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
165
21 54
Controlled with 1,1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene 12000
Methylene Chloride 2000
130
4-Methyl-
2-Pentanone
Styrene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-
ethane
32
4.7
13
108
9.4
26
20000
280000
22000
Controlled with Benzene
26 80
18
Trichloroethylene 4200
Vinyl Chloride 550
Xylenes, Total 49000
11
6.0
2.7
2.0
Controlled with Benzene
22
12
5.4
4.0
ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS fin tta/1)
Di-n-Butylphthalate 22
2,4-Dimethylphenol 3550
Report
Controlled with Phenol
10
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-
Phthalate
10
2-Methylnaphthalene 44
2-Methylphenol 4700
4-Methylphenol 7350
Napthalene 64
Phenol 27500
Report 10
Controlled with Naphthalene
Controlled with Phenol
Controlled with Phenol
10 20
15 26
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
PARAMETER
PESTICIDES
gamma-BHC
4,4' -DDE
METALS (in
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAXIMUM VALUE IN
GROUNDWATER
fin ua/1)
0.04
0.10
51400
51
1030
5.3
227
33
72
115000
47
990
0.87
119
200
421
9220
NJDEPE EFFLUENT LIMITS
(monthly average) (daily maximum)
0.19
Report
Report
Report
250
0.5
8.0
10
4.6
250
1.1
100
Report
30
Report
Report
32
0.38
0.0012
[0.004 (MDL)<4>]
250
0.036
[0.5 (MDL)<4)]
500
1.0
16
20
9.2
500
2.1
200
0.020
[0.2 (MDL)<4)]
60
100
20
65
(2)
(3)
(4)
Maximum concentration of this parameter observed in the data obtained during the Phase I and
Phase II Remedial Investigation (RI)
The monthly average must be reported to the NJDEPE'
NOEC is the No Observable Effect Concentration
Ground-water treatment will result in arsenic concentrations below the Practical Concentration
Limit (PQL)
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
FRIED INDUSTRIES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and other information
P.
P.
P.
P.
100001-
100022
100023-
100033
Report: Fried Industries
Report on Forward
100034-
100035
100036-
100036
Planning Activity, prepared by Roy F. Weston,
Inc., June 1985.
Report: RCRA Sampling Inspection Enforcement
Request. Fried Industries. 11 Fresh Ponds Road.
East Brunswick. New Jersey, prepared by Mr. Joseph
V. Cosentino, Environmental Scientist, Source
Monitoring Section, U.S. EPA Region II, May 17,
1985.
Application #76-65, Unichem Corporation -
Resolution Recommending Favorable Action By the
Township of East Brunswick Zoning Board of
Adjustment, December 21, 1965.
Report: Fried Industries. East Brunswick.
Middlesex County. New Jersey, (no author cited),
(undated).
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports
P. 100037- Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site. Site
100050 inspection Report.prepared by Chief Inspector,
Mr. Joseph V. Cosentino, Environmental Scientist,
U.S. EPA Region II, December 1, 1983.
1.3 Preliminary Assessment Reports
P. 100051- Report: Preliminary Site Assessment. Fried
100079 Industries. Inc.. East Brunswick. New Jersey.
prepared by Mr. Christopher S.E. Marlowe, Region
II, Technical Assistance Team, Heston/SPER
Division, August 1984.
-------
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
P. 100080-
100106
100107-
100112
100113-
100120
P.
100121-
100123
P.
100124-
100146
Fax Cover Sheet from Mr. Richard J. Spilatore,
Water Pollution Control Unit, Department of
Health, County of Middlesex, New Jersey, to Mr.
Tom Porucznik, Remedial Project Manager, Central
New Jersey Remedial Action Section, U.S. EPA
Region II, re: Chemical samples from 1989-1992,
Fresh Ponds Road and Dutch Road, East Brunswick,
May 5, 1993. Attached are: Report: Report of
Volatile Organic Analysis, prepared by Garden
State Laboratories and Sample Summaries and
Analysis Reports.
Letter to the Martin Residence, from Mr. Richard
J. Spilatore, Water Pollution Control Unit,
Department of Health, County of Middlesex, New
Jersey, re: results of testing performed on the
Martin's water supply, October 26, 1988. Attached
are Sample Summaries and Analysis Reports,
November 25, 1988.
Memorandum to Mr. John S. Frisco, Chief, New
Jersey Remedial Action Branch, from Mr. Douglas W.
Johnson, Project Manager, Northern New Jersey
Remedial Action Section, through Mr. John V.
Czapor, Chief, Northern New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, re: attached document concerning the
recent activities at the Fried Industries Site,
December 17, 1985. Site Investigation and
Determination of Imminent Risk Report attached.
Transmittal Slip to Janet from Mr. John E. La
Padula, On-Scene Coordinator, Response and
Prevention Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, re: the
attached report, November 28, 1984. Report:
Report of Analysis, prepared by Princeton Testing
Laboratory, November 5, 1984.
Report: Site Analysis. Fried Industries. East
Brunswick. New Jersey, performed by Mr. Peter M.
Stokely, Imagery Analyst, The Bionetics
Corporation, July 1984.
-------
p.
100147
100175
Memorandum to Mr. Robert N. Ogg, Chief, Hazardous
Waste Site Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr.
Walter E. Mugdan, Chief, Waste and Toxic
Substances Branch, Office of Regional Counsel,
U.S. EPA Region II, re: Fried Industries - Site
Inspection by EPA, April, 23, 1984. Report:
Enforcement Requested Sampling Investigation.
Fried Industries, pppjennhftr 1-2. 1983. prepared by
P.
100176
100179
P.
100180
100181
Mr. Joseph V. Consentino, Environmental Scientist,
Source Monitoring Section, U.S. EPA Region II,
April 10, 1984.
Letter to Mr. Philip Fried, President, Fried
Industries Inc., from Ms. Harriet Zivin, Sanitary
Inspector, Solid Waste and Noise, Department of
Health, County of Middlesex, New Jersey, re:
results of a meeting with Middlesex County
Utilities Authority, March 14, 1984. Report:
Report of Analysis, prepared by Princeton Aqua
Science, March 5, 1984, attached.
Letter to Mr. Walter Mugdan, Chief, Waste and
Toxic Substances Branch, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region II, from Ms. Susan
Schneck, Sanitary Inspector, Township of East
Brunswick, Department of Health, Environment and
Welfare, re: enclosed laboratory results from a
sample of septic sludge taken from Fried
Industries, November 1, 1983. Report: Report
of Analysis, prepared by Princeton Testing
Laboratory, October 13, 1983, attached.
Report: Report of Analysis . prepared by Princeton
Testing Laboratory, October 13, 1983.
Letter to Mr. John Runyon, Business Administrator,
from Mr. Laszlo Szabo, Director, Department of
Health, County of Middlesex, New Jersey, re:
Ground Water Contamination at Dutch Rd. & Fresh
Pond Rd., August 3, 1983. Report: Report on Water
Samples, prepared by New Jersey Laboratories, July
29, 1983, attached.
1.6 Correspondence
P. 100202- Memorandum from Mr. Douglas W. Johnson, Project
100202 Manager, Northern New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, to File, re:
Telephone Conversation with Captian Louis Ruotolo,
East Brunswick Police Department concerning the
Fried Industries Site, March 6, 1986.
P.
P.
100182
100190
100191
100201
-------
100203-
100203
100204-
100204
P.
100205-
100205
P.
P.
100206-
100206
100207-
100218
P. 100219-
100221
P. 100222-
100222
Letter to Mr. Bertram E. Busch, East Brunswick
Municipal Attorney, of Busch & Busch, from Ms.
Janet C. Feldstein, Environmental Engineer, Site
Investigation and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA
Region II, re: National Priorities List - Status
of Fried Industries, April 30, 1985.
Memorandum to Mr. Richard Walka, Chief, Solid
Waste Branch, AWM, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr.
Walter E. Mugdan, Chief, Waste and Toxic
Substances Branch, Office of Regional Counsel,
U.S. EPA, Region II, re: request for another RCRA
Inspection (including Sampling) at Fried
Industries, Inc., April 9, 1985.
Memorandum to Mr. David Weill, Administrator, from
Mr. L. Mason Neely, Finance Director, re:
discussion which took place on March 27, 1985
concerning Fried Industries and the Task Force
recommendations, March 28, 1985.
Memorandum of Record from Mr. David P. Weill,
Administrator, re: EPA's announcement that Fried
has been selected for the Interim Superfund
National Priorities List, October 2, 1984.
Letter to Mr. John H. Runyon, Business
Administrator, Office of the Administrator, from
Mr. William K. Beckman, P.E., Senior Hydrologist,
Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., re:
Elaboration on the Threat of Contamination to East
Brunswick Water Supply Wells from Fried
Industries, Inc., March 8, 1984.
Letter to Captain Louis Ruotolo, Special
Enforcement Section, Department of Public
Saftey, Division of Police , from Mr. Sidney Fox,
CPG, Vice President, Leggette, Brashears & Graham,
Inc., re: Threat of Contamination to East
Brunswick Water Supply Wells from Fried
Industries, Inc., January 16, 1984.
Letter to Ms. Susan Schneck, Sanitary Inspector,
Township of East Brunswick, Department of Health,
Environment and Welfare, from Mr. Alexander A.
Lach, P.E., Chief Engineer, Middlesex County
Utilities Authority, re: disposal of liquid
industrial wastes from Fried Industries, November
14, 1983.
-------
100223- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
100224 Industries, Inc., from Mr. Laszlo Szabo, Director,
Department of Health, County of Middlesex, New
Jersey, re: Septic System Located on Block:308.19
Lot:20.03 in East Brunswick Township, September 2,
1983.
100225- Letter to Resident, from Mr. Laszlo Szabo,
100225 Director, Department of Health, County of
Middlesex, New Jersey, re: participation in the
sampling program, September 1, 1983.
100226- Memorandum to Mr. Bernard G. Mihalko, .Deputy
100226 Director, from Ms. Susan Schneck, Sanitary
Inspector, Township of East Brunswick, Department
of Health, Environment and Welfare, re:
Groundwater Monitoring, Fried Industries, August
11, 1983.
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 200001- Report: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
200003 Region II. Pollution Report POLREP No. 2.
prepared by Mr. Robert L. Harris, OSC, Response
and Prevention Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, January
21, 1986.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 200004- Letter to Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial Project
200020 Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Mark D.
Moese, Ph.D., Site Manager, Ebasco Services
Incorporated, re: Results of Drum Sampling Effort
and Need for Response Action at the Fried
Industries Site, July 27, 1989. Results of the
Drum Sampling investigation are attached.
P. 200021- Memorandum to Addressees listed from Mr. Robert L.
200021 Harris, On-Scene Coordinator, Response and
Prevention Branch, re: On-Scene Coordinator's
Final Report, Emergency Removal Action, Aqueous
Wastes Contaminated with Toluene and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons, Fried Industries, Inc., May 12,
1987.
-------
200022- Report: OSC Report. Disposal of Aqueous Waste.
200065 Fried Industries. Inc.. prepared by Ms. Laura
Amend, Technical Assistance Team, Weston/SPER
Division, May 11, 1987.
200066- Report: Fried Industries - NPL Superfund 5itef
200083 Sample Collection for Hazardous Classification
Observations, prepared by U.S. EPA Region II
Technical Assistance Team, (undated).
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300001- Memorandum to Mr. Tom Porucznik, Remedial
300024 Project Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial
Action Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr.
Richard Spear, Chief, Surveillance and Monitoring
Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Fried Industries
Site Stream Bioassessment, August 17, 1993.
Report: Stream Bioassessment. Boer Brook. New
Jersey. Fried Industries Site. August 2, 1993.
P. 300025- Letter to Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial Project
300025 Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Mark D.
Moese, Ph.D., Site Manager, Ebasco Services
Incorporated, re: Fried Industries Site - Results
of Residential Well Sampling conducted in
November, 1988, June 14, 1989.
P. 300026- Letter to Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial Project
300027 Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Mark D.
Moese, Ph.D., Site Manager, Ebasco Services
Incorporated, re: Fried Industries Site - List of
Residential Wells to be Sampled, October 7, 1988.
List of properties attached.
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300028- Report: Final Work Plan. Phase II Remedial
300144 Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fried Industries
Site. East Brunswick. New Jersey, prepared by
Ebasco Services Incorporated, September 1991.
-------
P. 300145-
300154
P. 300155-
300293
Letter to Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial Project
Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Frank
Messina, Remedial Investigation Leader, Ebasco
Services Incorporated, re: Fried Industries Site -
Phase II Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study - Summary of Analytical Program, April 26,
1991. Tables re: Draft Work Plan attached.
Report: Draft Work Plan. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Fried Industries Site. East
Brunswick. New Jersey, prepared by Ebasco Services
Incorporated, June 1988.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300294-
300795
P. 300796-
301236
301237-
301494
301495-
301706
301707-
302126
Report: Final Phase II Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume I of II. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, ARCS II Program, September
1993.
Report: Final Phase II Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume II of II. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, ARCS II Program, September,
1993.
Report: Final Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume I of IV. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, REM III Program, August
1990.
Report: Final Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume II of IV. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, REM III Program, August
1990.
Report: Final Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume III of IV. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, REM III Program, August
1990.
302127
302139
Report: Final Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report. Fried Industries Site. East Brunswick. New
Jersey. Volume IV of IV. prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, REM III Program, August
1990.
-------
3.5 Correspondence
P. 302140- Letter to Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, United
302140 States Senate, from Mr. Constantine Sidamon-
Eristoff, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region
II, re: The East Brunswick Council Resolution
(#9223), asking EPA to secure an existing fence
and/or retain a 24hr. guard for the Fried
Industries site, May 7, 1992.
P. 302141- Letter to Honorable Bill Bradley, United States
302141 Senate, from Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region II, re:
The East Brunswick Council Resolution (#9223) -
Response to Township's letter dated March 25,
1992, May 7, 1992.
P. 302142- Letter to Ms. Elizabeth H. Kiss, Municipal
302149 Clerk, Township of East Brunswick, from Mr. John
S. Frisco, Deputy Director for New Jersey
Programs, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, re: Response to letter dated March 2,
1992 concerning an East Brunswick Township Council
Resolution (#9223) requesting EPA to secure the
existing fence and/or retain a guard for the
Fried Industries site, April 22, 1992. Attached
are: 1. Letters and a Memorandum concerning this
matter and 2. The Resolution Requesting EPA to
Secure Fried Industries site, March 23, 1992.
\
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.2 Feasibility study Work Plans
P. 400001- Fried Industries Site, List of Technologies for
400022 Preliminary Screening, (undated).
P. 400023- Fried Industries Site, List of Alternatives for
400028 Preliminary Screening, (undated).
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400029- Report: Final Feasibility Study Report. Fried
400248 Industries Site, East Brunswick. New Jersey.
prepared by Ebasco Services Incorporated, ARCS II
Program, September 1993.
8
-------
4.4 Proposed Plan (SOP, POP)
P. 400249- Plan: Final Field Operations Plan for Phase II
400498 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Fried
Industries Site. East Brunswick. New Jersey.
prepared by Ebasco Services Incorporated,
September 1991.
P. 400499- Plan: Draft Field Operations Plan fFOPl for
400683 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Fried
Industries Site. East Brunswick. New Jersey.
prepared by Ebasco Services Incorporated, June
1988.
4.6 Correspondence
P.
400684-
400685
P.
400686-
400686
P. 400687-
. 400689
Letter to Mr. Keith Moncino, Project Officer, U.S.
EPA Region II and Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial
Project Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial
Action Section, U.S. EPA Region II, 'from Mr. Dev
R. Sachdev, PhD, PE, ARCS II Program Manager,
Ebasco Services Incorporated, re: Fried
Industries site, East Brunswick, New Jersey, Final
Feasibility Study Report, September 9, 1993.
Acknowledgement of Receipt, attached.
Letter to Mr. Mark D. Moese, Ph.D., Site Manager,
Ebasco Services Incorporated, from Mr. Thomas J.
Porucznik, Remedial Project Manager, Central New
Jersey Remedial Action Section, U.S. EPA Region
II, re: confirmation to delay the submission of
the draft Feasibility Study (FS) Report, Feb. 13,
1990. ... ...
Letter to Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Remedial Project
Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Mark
D. Moese, Ph.D., Site Manager, Ebasco Services
Incorporated, re: Fried Industries site - Major
Issues Raised at Alternatives Screening Meeting,
February 12, 1993
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.4 Consent Decrees
P. 700001- Consent Decree, Civil Action No. 86 - 1207 May 26,
700010 1987.
-------
7.7 Notice Letters and Responses - 104e's
P. 700011- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
700021 Industries, from Mr. George Pavlou, Acting
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Supplemental
Request for Information for the Fried Industries
Superfund site, August 23, 1993. Attached are: 1.
Instructions for Supplemental Request for
Information, 2. Supplemental Request for
Information, 3. A signed Certification of Answers
for Supplemental Request for Information, and 4.
Response to Supplemental Request for Information.
P. 700022- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
700039 Industries, from Mr. George Pavlou, Acting
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Supplemental
Request for Information for the Fried Industries
Superfund site, March 3, 1993, with attachments.
P. 700040- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
700051 Industries, Inc., from U.S. EPA, re: Notice to
Responsible Party under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, Dec. 26, 1985. Several letters
attached.
P. 700052- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
700054 Industries, from Mr. William J. Librizzi,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Notice Letter
regarding potential liability for the Fried
Industries Superfund Site, April 30, 1985.
P. 700055- Letter to Mr. William J. Librizzi, Director,
700055 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
EPA Region II, from Mr. John Gatarz, re: Response
to June 4, 1984 Request for Information letter,
June 25, 1984.
P. 700056- Letter to Mr. David Rogers, Hazardous Waste Site
700056 Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Samuel V.
Convery, Jr., of Samuel V. Convery, Jr., P.A.,
Attorneys at Lav, re: Response of Fried
Industries, Inc., to Request for Information, June
14, 1984.
10
-------
p.
700057-
700057
700057A-
700057B
700058-
700086
Letter to Mr. William J. Librizzi, Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
EPA Region II, from Mr. Samuel V. Convery, Jr., of
Samuel V. Convery, Jr., P.A., Attorneys at Law,
re: Request for Information - Fried Industries,
June ll, 1984.
Letter to Mr. & Mrs. John Gatarz, from Mr. William
J. Librizzi, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Request
for Information, June 4, 1984.
Letter to Fried Industries, from Mr. William J.
Librizzi, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Request
for Information for Fried Industries, (undated).
Attached are: Response to the Request for
Information for Fried Industries, Inc., and
Company Invoices.
7.8 correspondence
P.
700087-
700087
700088-
700089
700090-
700091
700092-
700093
Memorandum to File, from Mr. Robert Carr, re:
Fried Industries Superfund Site, Consent Decree
U.S. v. Philip Fried, President, November 30,
1989.
in
Handwritten Letter to Mr. Samuel V. Convery, Jr.,
of Samuel V. Convery, Jr., P.A., Attorneys at Law,
from Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
Industries, Inc., re: Mr. Fried's vacating the
Premises, November 2, 1989.
Letter to Mr. Samuel V. Convery, Jr., of Samuel V.
Convery, Jr., P.A,, Attorneys at Law, from Mr.
Robert 6. Carr, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office
of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region II, re:
Credibility of Client's Statement - Fried
Industries, circa November 2, 1989.
Letter to Mr. Robert G. Carr, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA
Region II, from Mr. Philip S. Fried, President,
Fried Industries, Inc., re: Update on Mr. Fried's
activity at Fried Industries, Inc., October 5,
1989. Newspaper article attached.
11
-------
P. 700094- Memorandum to Mr. Robert G. Carr, Assistant
700098 Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, .U.S.
EPA Region II, from Ms. Lisa Peterson, Office of
External Programs, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Fried
Industries Mailing List, September 2, 1988.
Agreement Concerning On-Site RI/FS Activities at
Fried Industries, Sept. 2, 1988, attached.
P. 700099- Letter to Mr. Phillip Fried, President, Fried
700101 Industries, Inc., from Mr. William J. Librizzi,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Section 107
Notice of Fried Industries Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study, April 30, 1985.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 AT8DR Health Assessments
P. 800001- Report: Health Assessment for Fried Industries.
800013 East Brunswick. Middlesex County. New Jersey.
prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service,
August 3, 1990.
8.2 Toxicogical Profiles
P. 800014- Memorandum to Mr. Tom Porucznik, Remedial Project
800077 Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Ms. Joan S.
Dollarhide, Associate Director, Superfund Health
Risk Technical Support Center," Chemical Mixtures
Assessment Branch, re: Toxicity Information for
Multiple Chemicals (Fried Industries/East
Brunswick, New Jersey), May, 27, 1993. Risk
Assessment Issue Papers attached.
8.3 Correspondence
P. 800078- Letter to Mr. David R. Ross, from Mr. Tom
800079 Porucznik, Remedial Project Manager, Central New
Jersey Remedial Action Section, U.S. EPA Region
II, re: Response to request for a copy of the
final version of the ATSDR Health Assessment,
April 16, 1992. Appendix attached.
12
-------
P. 800080-
800080
Memorandum to Mr. Tom Porucznik, Remedial Project
Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Arthur
Block, Senior Regional Representative, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public
Health Service, re: transmittal of Fried
Industries - Final Health Assessment, March 11,
1992.
10.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION
10.1 Comments and Responses
P. 10.00001- Letter to the Honorable Jim Courter, House of
10.00006 Representatives, Congress of the United States,
from Mr. Christopher J. Daggett, Commissioner,
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, re: response letter concerning the
Fried Industries Site, November 17, 1989. Letters
attached.
P. 10.00007- Letter to Honorable James Courter, House of
10.00010 Representatives, -Congress of the United States,
from Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E., Acting
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region II, re:
response concerning the proposed cleanup of the
Fried Industries, Inc., Superfund site, November
9, 1989. Letter attached.
10.2 Community Relations Plan
P. 10.00011— Plan: Final ^•ff'^i^nity Relations Plan Fried
10.00032 Industries Site. Middlesex County.. New Jersey.
prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Federal
Programs Corporation, February 12, 1988.
10.3 Public Notices
P. 10.00033- Public Notice: "Representatives from the U.S.
10.00033 EPA Invite you to attend a Public Meeting to
Discuss the Proposed Clean Up of the Fried
Industries Superfund Site in East Brunswick, New
Jersey", prepared by U. S. EPA Region II,
September 21, 1993.
P. 10.00034- Public Notice: "Fried Industries Superfund Site
10.00034 Public Meeting, Tuesday, September 21, 1993 - 7:00
P.M. , East Brunswick, New Jersey" prepared by
U.S. EPA Region II, September 21, 1993.
13
-------
P. 10.00035- Public Notice: "U.S. EPA announces Proposed
10.00035 Remedial Alternatives for the Fried Industries
Superfund Site, East Brunswick, New Jersey",
prepared by U.S. EPA Region II, September 21,
1993.
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 10.00036- Fact Sheet: Fried Industries Site. Superfund
10.00037 Update. October 1992.
P. 10.00038- Fact Sheet: Fried Industries Site. Superfund
10.00039 Update. March 1992.
P. 10.00040- Fact Sheet: Fried Industries Site. Superfund
10.00043 Update. December 1989.
P. 10.00044- Press Release: "EPA To Hold Public Meeting on
10.00044 Fried Industries Superfund Site,1* for release
August 9, 1988.
P. 10.00045- Fact Sheet: Fried Industries Site. Superfund
10.00048 Update. EPA to Conduct Loncr-Term Investigation of
the Fried Industries Site. August 1988.
10.9 Proposed Flan
P. 10.00049- Plan: Superfund Proposed Plan. Friedlndustries.
10.00060 Township of East Brunswick. New Jersey.Middlesex
County. New Jersey, prepared by U.S. EPA Region
II, September 9, 1993.
10.10 Correspondence
P. 10.00061- Letter to Mr. Robert Soboleski, Bureau Chief,
10.00061 Bureau of Site Management, State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy,
from Mr. Doug Garbarini, Chief, New Jersey
Superfund Branch I, re: Revised Draft Proposed
Plan for Fried Industries, August 20, 1993.
P. 10.00062- Letter to Mr. Tom Porucznik, Remedial Project
10.00067 Manager, Central New Jersey Remedial Action
Section, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Marcedius T.
Jameson, Site Manager, Bureau of Site
Management, State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, re: Fried
Industries site, Draft Proposed Plan, August 16,
1993. NJDEPE Comments on Fried Industries Site
Draft Proposed Plan, attached.
14
-------
P. 10.00068- Memorandum to Addresses Listed, from Mr. Doug
10.00080 Garbarini, Chief, New Jersey Superfund Branch I,
re: Draft Proposed Plan for the Fried Industries
Site, Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex
County, New Jersey, July 19, 1993. Plan:
Superfund Proposed Plan. Fried Industries.
Township of East Brunswick. Middlesex County. New
Jersey, prepared by U.S. EPA Region II, August
1993, attached.
P. 10.00081- Letter to Mr. Edward Putnam, Assistant Director,
10.00081 Division of Publicly Funded Site Remediation,
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, from Mr. Doug Garbarini,
Chief, New Jersey Superfund Branch I, re: Draft
Proposed Plan for the Fried Industries Superfund
Site, July 19, 1993.
15
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
SENT BY:SITE REMEDIATION ; 6-23-94 ; 2=10PM ; FAX # 609 633 2360-212 2641 9331 ;# 2/ 3
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND ENERGY
CHWOTNETOOD WHITMAN June 23 J99A ROBERT C.SWNN, JR.
Ms. Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, New York 10278-0012
Dear Ms. Fox:
Subject: Fried Industries Superfund Site
The Department of Environmental Protection and Energy has evaluated
and concurs with the selected remedy for the Fried Industries
Superfund site as stated below:
"The selected remedy represents the first and only planned
operable unit for the Fried Industries site. It addresses
contaminated surface soils on the site and ground water
contaminated in the underlying shallow deep aquifers".
The major components of the-selected remedy include the following:
excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of
approximately 9OO cubic yards of surface soil
contaminated with arsenic;
excavation and off -site treatment and disposal of
approximately 2,700 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
volatile organics;
extraction of ground water contaminated with volatile
organics from the bedrock aquifer and shallow aquifers,
with on-site treatment and discharge to surface water;
and
appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Should it be necessary to discharge to Lawrence Brook, EPA would
need to submit an appropriate permit application in order for the
Department to determine the limitations for Lawrence Brook.
New Jersey Is An Eirual Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper
-------
Robert t.
Department
Protection
eioner
of Environmental
& Energy
«TJ/dfh
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Fried Industries Site
Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FRIED INDUSTRIES
EAST BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into four sections and
an Appendix as described below:
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW; This section briefly
describes the objectives and the format of the
Responsiveness Summary for the Site.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This
section provides the history of community concerns and
interests regarding the Site.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:
This section summarizes the oral comments presented to
EPA at the September 21, 1993 Public Information
Meeting, and provides EPA's responses to these
comments.
IV. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: This section contains
written comments received by EPA during the public
comment period, as well as EPA's written responses to
those comments.
APPENDICES: The Appendices Section contains one
comment letter received from the public during the
comment period, the attendance sheet from the public
information meeting, and the transcript of the public
information meeting.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a
public comment period, from September 9, 1993 through
October 8, 1993, to provide interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) reports, and on the Proposed Plan, for
the Fried Industries Superfund Site (the Site) located in the
Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey.
EPA held a Public Information Meeting at 7:00 P.M., on
September 21, 1993, in the East Brunswick Municipal Complex
Senior Center, to outline the remedial alternatives described in
the Proposed Plan (and in the FS), and to present the EPA and New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE)
-------
Preferred Alternatives for remediating the contaminated surface
soil and groundwater at the Site.
This Responsiveness Summary summarizes the oral comments
presented to EPA at the public information meeting, the written
comments submitted by citizens during the public comment period,
and EPA's responses to these oral and written comments. EPA, in
consultation with the NJDEPE, selected the final remedy for the
Site only after reviewing and considering all public comments
received during the public comment period.
The remedy to clean up the surface soil and groundwater at the
Site was selected by the EPA Region II Administrator and is
documented in this Record of Decision (ROD). EPA will issue a
press release to notify interested citizens that a remedial
decision has been made. The ROD, including this Responsiveness
Summary and the other Site-related documents that EPA used to
select the remedy, will be placed in the information repository
located in the Reference Section of the East Brunswick Township
Library for public review.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
EPA community activities are designed to ensure that the local
public is provided with information about site activities, has
input to decisions about Superfund actions, and is kept well-
informed about the progress of these actions. EPA initiated
community relations activities for the Fried Industries Site via
community interviews, conducted in June 1987, with local
officials and interested residents of Middlesex County. These
interviews were conducted to aid EPA in developing a community
relations plan tailored to the needs of the community affected by
the Site.
In order to inform local residents and officials about Site
activities, a Public Information Meeting was held in the East
Brunswick Courthouse on August 18, 1988, to review the proposed
RI activities. In order to update residents and local officials
on Site activities, a public availability session was held in the
East Brunswick Public Library on March 4, 19.92. In addition, the
Phase II RI report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the Site
were discussed at a public information meeting held on
September 21, 1993.
The major concerns expressed by the public during the remedial
investigation at the Site focused on groundwater contamination,
potential health effects from contaminated water, financial
responsibility for the cleanup costs, site security, and delays
in getting on to the actual cleanup. Major questions and
concerns that were raised during the September 21, 1993 public
meeting are summarized in the following Section (Section III).
-------
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:
Prior to the September 9, 1993 through October 8, 1993 public
comment period, several residents and local officials expressed
concern over the apparent lack of security at the Fried
Industries Site and also the amount of time that had elapsed
since the discovery of hazardous materials on the Fried
Industries property. However, the most significant concern
expressed by citizens and Township officials was the potential
threat to municipal wells, and to the Farrington Lake public
water supply, from migration of contaminants in the groundwater.
Furthermore, many Township residents believe that they should be
reimbursed by any Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for the
costs they incurred in connecting to the Township's public water
supply.
Concerns raised during the public information meeting, held on
September 21, 1993 to discuss the selected remedy, are addressed
and summarized below.
1) COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern that
contaminants from the Fried Industries Site would be left in
surface soils and could potentially migrate in the
groundwater to the Milltown Reservoir or the Raritan River.
They asked if volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are still
found on-site, and if fish in the Milltown Reservoir or in
ponds on the Fried Site have absorbed contaminants that
could present a health hazard to someone eating the fish.
RESPONSE: Based on the results of the RI/FS, it would take
a number of years for the plume of VOCs-contaminated
groundwater to reach surface waters if no remedial
activities take place. Because of the relatively high
volatility of some of the contaminants, much of the VOC
contamination has dissipated from the surface soil.
According to the Risk Assessment, the VOCs still remaining
in the subsurface soil are present in concentrations that do
not pose significant threats to human health and the
environment. Similarly, concentrations of VOCs found in
pond sediments and the pond surface water do not pose any
significant threat to human health. As a result, eating
fish taken from the large pond on the Fried property does
not pose any appreciable health risks. It should be noted,
that some soils which contain higher concentrations of VOCs
will be excavated to accelerate the timeframe for
remediating VOCs-contaminated groundwater.
2) COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern that arsenic
contamination in the soil doesn't dissipate over time, and
wanted to know how EPA intends to dispose of this
contaminant.
-------
RESPONSE: EPA intends to excavate and remove surface soils
where high concentrations of arsenic contamination were
discovered. After excavation and transportation to an EPA-
approved off-site facility, the arsenic-contaminated soil
would be stabilized. Stabilization is a process in which
the excavated soil is mixed with chemicals and water,
becomes bound within a solid matrix, and thereby immobilizes
the arsenic. The stabilized soil would then be transported
to an EPA-approved landfill for final disposal.
3) COMMENT: A resident commented that since his well is
115 feet deep, it seems logical that surface contamination
from the Site would be present in his well and asked if his
well would become clean after the arsenic-contaminated soil
at the Site was removed.
RESPONSE: EPA initially assumed that problems with area
drinking water wells were the result of contamination from
the Fried Industries Site. However, data obtained during
the remedial investigation clearly shows that groundwater in
the immediate vicinity of the Site flows in a direction away
from these wells. The contamination in these wells does not
come from the Fried Industries Site, but from some other, as
yet unidentified, source. Therefore, the cleanup of the
Fried Industries Site should not have any effect on the
quality of water from these local deep bedrock wells. In
addition, EPA has received data from the Middlesex County
Department of Environmental Health (MCDEH) that indicates
wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site that were
formerly contaminated, currently exhibit very low, if any,
levels of contamination.
4) COMMENT: A resident wanted to know the origin of
contaminants detected in his well, supposedly contaminated
with detergents such as those manufactured by Fried
Industries.
A) EPA RESPONSE: The substances referred to were most
likely not detergents, but solvents such as ethyl benzene
and chloroform. EPA is not certain of the origin of these
contaminants. However, recent information provided by
NJDEPE suggests that the contamination may have originated
from the nearby Middlesex County Parks Department facility
where a leaking underground storage tank problem may have
existed in the past. A suggestion was made that concerned
residents call the MCDEH to have their wells re-tested.
B) NJDEPE RESPONSE: During the investigation of the Fried
Site, it was discovered that, in 1990, while removing
underground storage tanks, a leak of 4,000 gallons of
gasoline was recorded at the nearby Middlesex County Parks
Department facility. It is unknown how long these tanks may
-------
have been leaking. The area has since been paved over. The
Middlesex County Parks Department recently developed a
proposed clean-up plan.
C) MCDEH RESPONSE: It has also been found that, on
occasion, local septic systems, and substances that may have
been dumped into them, can be the source of contamination in
area wells. The MCDEH has not tested wells in the area for
about a year, but will test anyone's well free of charge
upon request.
5) COMMENT: A resident asked if beryllium that was found at
the bottom of the ponds on the Fried Industries Site, will
be remediated.
RESPONSE: EPA's investigation included a Risk Assessment
to determine the potential risks to public health and the
environment from each substance of significance. Beryllium
was detected in the pond sediments, but it does not present
a level of risk to public health or the environment that
requires remedial action.
6) COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern that EPA's
investigations may not have been comprehensive enough to
allow EPA to state the Fried Industries Site is not
responsible for the residential well contamination found in
the vicinity of the Site and that EPA did not install
monitoring wells that are as deep as local wells.
RESPONSE: Prior to the Rl, general area hydrogeological
information indicated that groundwater on the Fried property
flowed toward Fresh Ponds Road. Based on this groundwater
flow configuration, contamination was considered to be a
result of Fried Industries activities. EPA completed a
comprehensive, two-phase RI at the Site, and determined that
contaminated residential wells in the area are upgradient,
hydrogeologically, from the Fried Industries Site, meaning
that the groundwater flow is not in the direction initially
supposed, but rather is flowing away from these wells.
Therefore, EPA is confident that contaminants from the Site
do not flow towards these bedrock wells.
7) COMMENT: A resident asked what contaminants were detected
in the contaminated on-site groundwater and what the
contaminant level was at the leading edge of the groundwater
plume.
RESPONSE: Several contaminants were detected, including
benzene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride.
Vinyl chloride is most likely the chemical at the forward
edge of the groundwater plume because it is a very fast
moving compound in groundwater. The groundwater plume
-------
defined by vinyl chloride is presently confined to an area
entirely within the Fried property boundaries. Vinyl
chloride was detected at a concentration of less than one
part per billion (ppb) at Well #10-D, located at the leading
edge of the plume, which is below the EPA-established
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
8) COMMENT: A resident asked about State of New Jersey
standards for vinyl chloride in groundwater and whether the
vinyl chloride will sink as it migrates with the
groundwater.
RESPONSE: The State of New Jersey's groundwater quality
standard for vinyl chloride is 0.08 ppb, while the federal
standard is 2.0 ppb. Vinyl chloride is present in
concentrations that are too low to form a separate liquid
phase, but will continue to migrate with the groundwater.
9) COMMENT: A resident asked if the on-site drainage is
surface or subsurface.
RESPONSE: The drainage being addressed is primarily surface
drainage. There are a number of marshes and swamp areas on
the Site as well as a large pond. Two-thirds of the Site is
considered wetlands, and the Site is drained by several
streams that flow into Lawrence Brook, a tributary of the
Raritan River.
10) COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA was going to remove
structures and storage tanks located on the Site.
RESPONSE: EPA concluded that the structures comprising the
building complex do not pose any significant threat to human
health and the environment. However, during the remedial
action, it will be necessary to demolish these structures in
order to facilitate the use of heavy equipment, minimize
impacts on wetlands areas, and enhance the safety of
laborers working at the Site. The underground storage tanks
and tank car still remaining on-site will be investigated
during the design phase to determine if their contents,
and/or any associated soil contamination, should be removed.
11) COMMENT: Several residents commented about the potential
volume of soil to be excavated at the Site and asked if EPA
intends to restore the areas of contaminated soil that will
be excavated and removed.
RESPONSE: EPA intends to remove approximately 900 cubic
yards (cy) of arsenic-contaminated surface soil from the
Site. In addition, approximately 2,700 cy of VOC-
contaroinated soil will also be removed. After completing
the excavation, clean fill material will be transported to
-------
the Site and used to fill-in the excavated areas. Enough
clean fill will be used to restore the excavated areas to
the existing topography.
12) COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that the proposed
cleanup may have some additional effects not considered by
EPA, such as the creation of major truck traffic problems in
the residential area in the vicinity of the Site.
RESPONSE: EPA is aware of the limited access available to
trucks and heavy equipment. During the specific engineering
design of the remedy, EPA will discuss issues relating to
potential traffic routes, safety, security, and contingency
plans with the public and representatives of the Township.
Through careful planning, the impact of remedial
construction activities on the community will be minimized
as much as possible.
13) COMMENT: Several residents asked if EPA was influenced in
its selection of remedial alternatives and the selected
remedy by potential future uses of the Site. Questions were
also raised about the Site's possible future uses. A
resident stated that residential, park, or passive
recreational uses may be desirable.
RESPONSE: The area surrounding the Fried Industries Site is
primarily residential, so there is a high potential for
future residential use of at least part of the Site
property. Therefore, future residential use of the property
was considered in the Risk Assessment; remedial
alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
developed which would allow residential use of the property
in the future. Since most of the Site is considered to be
wetlands, the number of potential future residences may be
limited. The Site is still owned by Mr. Fried, and EPA does
not intend to assume ownership of the property in the
future. If ownership reverts to the Township, perhaps
passive recreation may be a more appropriate use.
14) COMMENT: A resident asked if it was possible to drill
further through the bedrock and find another groundwater
aquifer.
RESPONSE: EPA's investigation of the Site geohydrology
indicates there is no groundwater aquifer below the deep
bedrock aquifer.
15) COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern about the time
needed to clean up the Site, that EPA may be wasting time,
and that clean up actions may not be instituted.
RESPONSE: A No Action alternative is included in all of
-------
8
EPA's Proposed Plans, normally for comparative analysis
only. In the case of Fried Industries, EPA will be
undertaking remedial work based on the risks associated with
potential future ingestion of groundwater volatile organics
(VOCs), dermal contact with VOCs, and inhalation of VOCs, as
well as ingestion of arsenic-contaminated surface soil. The
preparation of a detailed engineering design and the
completion of remedial work does take time.
16) COMMENT: A resident asked when EPA would begin Site
remediation.
RESPONSE: For the Fried Industries Site, the estimated time
required from the start of the remedial design, through
design completion, to the beginning of the remedial action,
is approximately two and one-half years.
17) COMMENT: A resident asked about EPA's experience with
groundwater pump and treat systems, the effectiveness of
these systems on contaminants, and the rate of success using
this technology.
RESPONSE: EPA is using this remediation technology at
numerous sites. Each system is specifically designed based
on the hydrogeological conditions and contaminants
encountered at the site. During the remedial design stage,
the details of well locations, well depths, pumping rates,
and the on-site water treatment process system will be
determined. At other sites, the effectiveness of pump and
treat systems vary, based on local site conditions and the
cleanup levels required.
18) COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA would have protective
measures in place on the Site while excavating to prevent
volatilization of on-site contaminants.
RESPONSE: EPA selects a site remedy and formulates the
design for cleanup of a site in coordination with NJDEPE to
ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect on-
site workers and to prevent potential airborne migration of
hazardous substances that might pose a threat to the health
of nearby residents. These measures would be implemented to
ensure compliance with various Federal and State
regulations. The specific protective measures to be used at
the Site during the remedial action will be determined
during the remedial design.
19) COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA considered the use of
bioremediation as part of the Fried cleanup.
RESPONSE: Bioremediation of the groundwater and/or surface
soil were eliminated from further consideration as remedies
-------
during the Feasibility Study screening process. The
bioremediation process is only effective for certain types
of organic compounds. Due to the variety of organics
detected in the soil and groundwater at the Fried Industries
Site, and the wide range of concentrations present,
bioremediation would not be practical. Furthermore, some of
the compounds found at the Site are not biodegradable, so
additional treatment, such as air stripping or carbon
adsorption, would be needed in addition to a bioremediation
process.
20) COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that air stripping
may not be adequate to remove lower-level concentrations of
volatile contaminants.
RESPONSE: EPA and NJDEPE proposed carbon adsorption for the
groundwater remedy at the Site, although air stripping would
have served equally well in removing the volatile
contaminants. EPA and NJDEPE proposed the carbon adsorption
system based on costs.
21) COMMENT: A resident asked about the potential problems with
establishing who is responsible for the contamination at the
Site.
RESPONSE: Mr. Phillip Fried has been identified by EPA as
the only PRP. Since Mr. Fried is financially unable to fund
the cleanup, the remedial design and remedial action will be
funded by the Superfund.
22) COMMENT: Several residents asked about the total costs of
cleaning up the Site, whether the Superfund program will
have sufficient funds to complete the cleanup, and if local
or state officials could aid in moving the cleanup along
more expeditiously.
RESPONSE: EPA's total expenditure to date, including the
Removal Action, both phases of the remedial investigation,
and the Feasibility Study, is approximately $4.5 million.
It is estimated that it will cost approximately $11 million
to implement the selected remedy and complete the Site
cleanup. Local and State officials do not control the
federal funding process. EPA has not had much of a problem
funding remedial designs or remedial actions in the past.
However, many Superfund sites nationwide are currently
reaching the remedial design and remedial action stages.
Although EPA does not currently foresee any problems with
the funding of the remedial action at the Fried Site, EPA
cannot guarantee that funds will be available since EPA's
annual budget is contingent upon Congressional approval. In
cases where the availability of funds is limited, EPA
prioritizes the funding of sites based upon risk posed by
-------
10
the site, i.e., those sites which pose the greatest risk
receive funding first ("worst sites first").
23) COMMENT: A resident suggested that EPA spend less than the
projected $11 million on cleanup of the Site to standards
that would permit future residential use, and instead,
conduct the cleanup of the Site to lesser standards and
create a park in the area for neighborhood residents with
excess funds.
EPA Response: The Superfund law was not written by Congress
to allow that kind of decision or expenditure. EPA's
actions are based on risks to public or the environment, and
site remediation activities must be designed to meet
specific Federal and State standards for cleanups. Under
the Superfund, funds are allocated for protecting the public
health and the environment from contaminated Superfund
sites, and cannot be made available for other expenditures.
24) COMMENT: A resident expressed concern with the quality of
the air on and near the Site.
RESPONSE: Based on data obtained during the initial
investigation (Phase I RI), there are no indications of any
problems with air quality on, or in proximity to, the Site.
Any potential air pollution problems were eliminated when
the drums, containers, laboratory chemicals, and other
above-ground sources of contamination were removed during
the Removal Action completed in February 1992.
25) COMMENT: A resident asked if the Site was accessible by
area residents since soil contamination is a major concern.
RESPONSE: The Site property is presently accessible to
those who choose to trespass on the property. However, the
entire building complex and immediate area, which present
physical hazards, are enclosed by a security fence. During
the Removal Action completed in 1992, a large number of
drums and vessels containing concentrated chemicals were
removed from the Site for off-site treatment and disposal.
At that time, in addition to the fence that still remains,
EPA placed guards on the Site to restrict access to areas
posing significant risks to human health and the
environment. Once the Removal Action was completed, there
was no need to restrict access because the risk of exposure
to significant levels of contamination was eliminated. The
guards were consequently removed.
26) COMMENT: A Resident asked what was the vertical profile of
contaminants in the groundwater?
RESPONSE: The vertical profile of the groundwater
-------
11
contamination was not investigated because the saturated
thickness of the upper aquifer was limited. All the shallow
aquifer wells were screened the full vertical depth of the
aquifer, so the whole aquifer was sampled. Also, wells were
dug into the bedrock aquifer to collect groundwater samples
over the full vertical depth of bedrock. Thus, it was not
possible to differentiate contaminant concentrations in the
bedrock aquifer on the basis of depth.
27) COMMENT: A resident asked what was the expected path of the
contaminated water plume, and why does EPA expect that the
plume will migrate as far as predicted?
RESPONSE: The path of contaminated groundwater migration is
to the north-northeast. EPA has not determined how far the
plume will ultimately migrate. At the present time, the
data indicates that the contaminated groundwater plume still
lies well within the boundaries of the Site property. Based
on the potential risk of drinking contaminated groundwater
under a future use scenario, EPA and NJDEPE selected a
groundwater alternative to remediate the plume of
contaminated groundwater.
28) COMMENT: A resident asked whether the rubble pile
contributed to the surface soil contamination found at the
Site?
RESPONSE: The rubble pile consists mostly of highway
dividers, barriers, and other highway construction debris.
The rubble pile does not contribute to the contamination
problems at this Site.
IV. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:
A letter, dated September 28, 1993 (Appendix A), was submitted
during the public comment period. The following is a summary of
the written comments in this letter, and EPA's responses to those
comments.
1) COMMENT: What is the risk if the Site were left as it is?
If the risk is high, why can't the contaminated soil be
excavated immediately?
RESPONSE: The Risk Assessment evaluated the risk to
residents for various exposure scenarios. The carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic risks caused by ingestion of, contact
with, and inhalation of volatile organics from the
groundwater exceeded acceptable health based levels. There
were also localized areas at the Site which contained
arsenic-contaminated surface soil at levels which were of
significant concern to EPA and NJDEPE. Since the Risk
-------
12
Assessment indicated that health based levels, groundwater
quality standards, and MCLs were exceeded, EPA and NJDEPE
have determined that remedial action is necessary. The
remedial action should commence in about two and a half
years.
2) COMMENT: Why can't EPA eliminate the fence and the
hazardous substances warning signs?
RESPONSE: Township officials requested as much security as
EPA was able to provide under the Superfund law, and
specifically requested the presence of warning signs to
alert people to the presence of hazardous substances. The
fence was installed around the central building complex to
keep trespassers out of the structurally unsafe buildings
and to provide an added measure of protection from exposure
to any remaining hazardous substances.
3) COMMENT: How can EPA assure people they should not fear the
Site?
RESPONSE: Based on the information EPA has collected, and
on the results of the Risk Assessment, it is evident that
the type, amount, locations, and concentration of
contaminants present at this Site do not currently present a
significant threat to human health under existing uses of
the Site. In addition, warning signs have been posted on
and around the Site. However, there are public health and
environmental risks which do need to be addressed,
especially if the land is to be used for residential uses in
the future. This is not an unlikely scenario, since the
majority of the land surrounding the Site is used for such
purposes.
4) COMMENT: Groundwater cleanup, via the selected remedy, may
take thirty years. The writer asked that EPA get off the
Site as soon as possible so the neighborhood can return to
normal.
RESPONSE: As indicated previously, EPA must implement the
selected remedy to prevent unacceptable risks from several
exposure pathways caused by the contaminated groundwater.
To clean up the groundwater to a level which meets all
applicable EPA and NJDEPE standards may take up to thirty
years. During the remedial design, additional data related
to the bedrock aquifer may provide a better estimate of time
required to complete the groundwater cleanup.
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Citizen Comment Letter
APPENDIX B: Attendance Sheet for Public Information Meeting
APPENDIX C: Transcript of Public Information Meeting
-------
APPENDIX A
CITIZEN COMMENT LETTER
-------
105 Fern Road
East Brunswick. NJ 08816
September 28. 1993
Mr. Thomas Porucznik, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 711
New York. NY 10278
Dear Mr. Porucznik:
I am sorry I missed your meting on September 21, 1993.
I have an interest with others in the property adjoining Fried and have
been very familiar with the Fried Site.. We have examined the EPA reports and
understand the actual area of land affected is a very small part of the entire
tract. We were also impressed with past statements by EPA officials that one
would have to eat dirt for days in order to become ill.
The point is what is the risk from leaving the site alone? If great what is
wrong with digging out the dirt promptly and either replacing it or extending
the existing pond? The neighborhood has had a pall cast over it and the ques-
tion is whether this should become permanent
Why can't you take down the fence and horrid warning signs? If the site
is not a toxic avenger, what can you do to assure the neighborhood and the
world that the site is not a Love Canal but a place where there should be no
fear?
So, we must strenuously object to the thirty (30) year program you
espouse. We implore you to get out of there as soon as possible-s^-the neigh-
borhood can get on with life. , .._.... ..__.. *"*
I would like to know when you will be having another meeting so we can
get some answers.
Very
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET
-------
D.8. EPA, Region 2
BIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC MEETING, FRIED INDUSTRIES 6UPERFUND SITE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
EAST BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY
Please print your full nas,e and address clearly, 00 that ve can
add you to our nailing list.
NAKE
r- /=> /«=
-i ,-ft^ /r O
ADDRESS
"7
//
Ad 5.
//
v / r
-------
APPEKDIX C
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK
THE MATTER OF:
FRIED INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND
SITE PUBLIC MEETING
Transcript
of
Proceedings
East Brunswick Municipal Complex
Senior Center
2 Jean Walling Civic Center Drive
East Brunswick, New Jersey
Tuesday, September 21, 1993
BEFORE:
ANN RYCHLENSKI, Community Relations
Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region 2
CHARLES TENERELLA, Section Chief,
Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region 2
TOM PORUCZNIK, Project Manager,
U.S. EPA, Region 2
MARK MOESE, EBASCO
PAUL MARSENISON, Superfund, U.S. EPA,
Reg ion 2
RUTHANNE UNGERLEIDER, C.S.R.
LICENSE NO. XI01634
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2 LINCOLN HIGHWAY, SUITE 405
EDISON, NEW JERSEY 08820
(908) - 494 - 9100
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX
SPEAKER
Ann Rychlenski
Charles Tenerella
Tom Porucznik
Mark Moese
David Ross
Joseph Romero
Aldo Cresti
Anthony Girinzo
Dan McGowan
Anthony Riccobono
Sandy Hobart
Marcelias Jameson
Mr. Spillatori
Larry Schrager
Charles Bruno
Robert Chozick
3
8
12 , 26
17
29
30
36
41
50
54
60
67
73
75
88
91
'SCHULMAN, ClCCARELLl & WlEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. RYCHLENSKI: Good evening.
I want to thank you all for coining out
here tonight. My name is Ann Rychlenski,
and I'm a Community Relations Coordinator
with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
Tonight we are holding a
meeting here to discuss EPA's proposed
plan to clean up the Fried Industries
Superfund site right here in East
Brunswick. Before we get into the meat
of the meeting I just want to tell you a
couple of things: Back there is a table
with some sign-in sheets. Please sign in
and please print your name and your full
address so that we can keep you on our
mailing list.
There are handouts out there
also. We have handouts that will
chronicle all of the presentations that
are given here tonight so you can follow
along with the slides as they go on.
We also have copies of the
proposed plan so you can take a good look
at it in more detail, and we also have
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meeting agendas so you can see what's
coining up as we go along.
.'• 1 s o , you probably noticed that
we have a stenographer here tonight.
This lady is here to take a transcript of
this meeting. We are taking public
comment, that's why we have a
stenographer here. So whatever questions
or comments that you ask tonight will be
going onto a formal record and those
questions or comments will be answered in
a document that we call the
responsiveness summary that EPA puts out
after receiving all of the comments
regarding this proposed plan. So in
order to get a clear transcript and to
make certain that we answer all of your
questions propr.rly, if you would please,
if you do have a question, hold them
until the end of the meeting and then
please stand and speak clearly and please
give your name so that our stenographer
can get everything down accurately.
We do.have a public comment
period on the proposed plan. And as I
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned, we take comments here, but we
also take written comment. We have a
public comment period that ends on
October 8, 1993. So if you want to write
your comments regarding our proposed plan
tonight, you can do so. Make sure that
everything is postmarked by the end of
business on October 8th, and you can send
your comments to Tom Porucznik, who is
the Project Manager, and Tom's name and
address appear in the proposed plan back
there. So make certain that you do get a
copy.
In addition, we do have an
information repository here. Now,
information repositories are established
for every Superfund site by EPA so that
you can examine all of the documents that
are pertinent to the site. There are an
awful lot of documents that are involved
with every Superfund site, most of them
are highly technical and rather complex.
They cannot all be presented here,
however, we always have the)t\ available to
the public for the public's examination
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if you want to copy pages and take a look
at it at information repositories. And
we do have one, in fact, right here at
the East Brunswick Library. If you go to
the reference desk and ask for the
documents on the Fried Superfund site,
I'm sure the reference librarian will be
happy to point you in the right
direction.
I just want to go into what our
agenda is here tonight and I will
introduce everybody up here, along with
me, from EPA.
We're going to go into an
overview of the Superfund process, just a
little bit about how Superfund works and
what it's all about. That's going to be
given by Charlie Tenerella. Charlie is a
Section Chief with Superfund at Region 2.
Then we're going into the site
history, background, what's happened out
at Fried, how it got the way it is.
That's going to be given by Tom
Porucznik. Tom .is the Project Manager
for the Fried site for EPA.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then we're going to talk about
the summary, exactly what it is that we
found out there during the course of our
remedial investigation and the
feasibility study that we do, and there
will also be a description of the
different alternatives for cleanup that
we looked at. The person that's going to
do that is Mark Moese, he's with EBASCO,
and EBASCO is EPA's contractor on this
site .
Then we're going to go back to
Tom and Tom will present EPA's proposed
plan or exactly how it is that we propose
to clean up the site and then we'll go
into questions and answers. As I said,
please hold all your questions until the
end.
In addition, we have here Paul
Marsenison. Paul is also with EPA. He's
a Project Manager and he's been working
on Fried, as well, along with Tom. So
you got two very well qualified folks
here to talk about the site and answer
your questions and let you know what we
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
found out there.
I would also just like to
acknowledge some folks that are here.
There's a gentleman here, Stan Orcheski,
Middlesex County Planning Board; and then
Mr. Spillatori, he's with the Middlesex
County Department of Environmental
Health.
Do we have anybody here from
New Jersey DEPE?
(No response.)
MS. RYCHLENSKI: Anybody else
here from any state agencies or local
agencies?
MR. RICCOBONO: Tony Riccobono,
town councilman.
MS. RYCHLENSKI: Thank you for
attending.
So hold your questions until
the end and I'm going to turn this on
over to Charlie.
MR. TENERELLA: I see a lot of
familiar faces here. We had an
availability about a year ago I think. I
think a lot of you were there, so we'll
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
try to keep out presentation short
tonight and then we'll go into questions
and answers and maybe get more done that
way since the group is pretty small.
I quickly wanted to run over
the Superfund process and where we are in
the process now for those of you who
don't understand it.
Way back when any site is
looked at for inclusion on the National
Priority List to be a Superfund site for
national attention by US EPA, sites are
discovered, there's an initial
investigation and evaluation of the site
aspects, and between that and the
placement on the NPL or soon afterwards,
if necessary, a removal action. Anything
that has to get off the site pretty
quickly because we think it's a severe
hazard, an imminent hazard that has to be
removed quickly, will be done.
At Fried Industries, as many of
you know, that was done a couple of years
ago. There was _a rather intensive
removal action at Fried Industries to get
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
roost of the free-standing chemicals out
of the manufacturing operation there.
That's been completed.
After that, any site on the
NPL goes through a remedial investigation
phase. At Fried Industries that's taken
quite a bit of time because of some
differences in terms of groundwater flow
in this area and additional information
that we collected over the last couple of
years .
The remedial investigation has
been completed and, also, something we
call the feasibility study, which gives
us some ideas about how to clean up the
site. From the feasibility study we
select an option that we feel is the best
one for cleaning up the site and we
present that in the proposed plan, which
you have copies of tonight, and have a
public meeting and public comment period,
which we're doing now, before EPA goes
ahead and issues its formal record of
decision for the site. That will occur
in the next couple of months.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Once we issue our record of
decision, that's our legal document and
our formal government approval to, in
Fried's case, to spend government money
to design the remedy and then actually
implement the remedy.
You can see from just the
listing in this chart that a lot of the
work in the Superfund program that gets
to a site cleanup has already been done.
From the record of decision, which is our
important document that says this is
exactly how we want to do the cleanup,
we'll go to a design, which is the
preparation of the plans and
speculations, do a bid package, and then
after go to construction and then there
may be a long-term operation and
maintenance phase. In fact, there will
be here at Fried. After that the site is
completed and delisted from the Superfund
program from the National Priorities
List.
It's a long process. We have a
lot of complaints that it takes a long
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time to clean up a Superfund site since
the program was initiated in 1980. We
found it's very difficult, a lot of this
is very cutting-edge technology, the
kinds of risk decisions that we have to
make are very difficult to make and
sometimes just the contractual and legal
problems that we get involved in on sites
it takes a considerable amount of time.
That's the unfortunate aspect of the
program that's a reality.
Tom is now going to go into the
site history and the remedial
investigational briefly on what's
occurred there.
MR. PORUCZNIK: My name is Tom
Porucznik, I work within the Superfund
program along with the other fellows here
except Mark. You have maybe heard this
before, but let me, just like I said,
give you a very brief overview.
The site itself is roughly
rectangular in shape and occupies
approximately twenty-six acres located
along Fresh Ponds Road. The address is
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 Fresh Ponds Road. Of course, it's in
Middlesex County and East Brunswick
Township, New Jersey.
There's an entrance over here
to the site. This is a dirt road which
you can access the site from Fresh Ponds
Road. That's the primary access and the
only access, actually.
The site itself is comprised of
a building complex over here, where most
of the activity at the site took place.
You also have a number of marshes and
swamp areas, such as this here and here.
You also have a large pond. And, in
fact, two-thirds of the site is
considered wetlands.
There are three principal
drainage areas at the site. One is this
swamp area here, which drains along this
side and down in this direction toward
Lawrence Brook. This large pond also
drains -- in fact, all three drain into
Lawrence Brook, but this one here drains
like so and joins in with this previously
mentioned one and then Bog Brook, along
SCHULMAN, CICCAR]
:GMANN
-------
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this edge here. They all drain into
Lawrence Brook, which ultimately leads to
the Raritan River.
The history of the site is as
follows: Philip Fried operated for
approximately twenty-four years before he
ceased operations, and that was about
1988. He was involved in the manufacture
of a number of products, including
industrial strength detergents, floor
finishing products, adhesives, algicides
and also antifreeze products. When he
operated there were a number of
activities that resulted in contamination
at the site, one of them was discharging
processed"waste onto the grounds in this
area. Also, pumping material from the
warehouse that was often flooded right
onto the grounds. Improper handling and
storage of drums. Also, leaking drums
and rinse water were discarded and
laboratory equipment, chemicals, were not
properly labeled and they were not, you
know, the housekeeping practices were
very poor, as well as several processing
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and septic tanks located in the immediate
vicinity of the buildings.
In 1983 along Fresh Ponds Road
a number of hoires, apparently, had taste
and odor problems in their residential
wells. The County and the Township took
some samples and, in fact, it was
corroborated there was a problem. Five
of those homes, in fact, had chloroform
and up to two hundred fifty parts per
billion in the residential wells.
Since that time the Township
has placed them on public water supply.
In December 1983 ten agencies
in cooperation with the County and in
cooperation with the Township descended
upon Fried and did an extensive survey
and investigation of the site and
determined that, yes, there was
contamination of the site and that
ultimately lead to the site's listing on
the National Priority List. It
ultimately was finalized on the Priority
List in June of 1986.
That brings us up to where EPA
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
16
2
3
^
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got involved with the remedial
investigation phase, and at this point
I'd like to turn the talk over to Mark
Moese.
A VOICE: Quick question.
When you said drainage, all
that drainage, how much of the drainage
is surface drainage, how much of the
drainage is subsurface?
MR. PORUCZNIK: I'll answer
this question, but I'd like to refrain
from answering any further ones until the
end of our discussion.
All that I discussed just now
is all surface drainage. Again, this is
a surface marsh and it drains along this
seam here, which at times runs dry.
There's also a pond which drains across
the site in this direction, leading up
somewhere in this area. Then, of course,
here, Bog Brook, coming on this end of
the site, and that merges with the other
two, which ultimately flow into Lawrence
Brook and then to the Raritan River.
Again, those are all surface
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
waters that I discussed.
MR. MOESE: What I'd like to do
is briefly go over the wcrk which EBASCO
has performed at the site as part of the
remedial investigation and then go into
the discussion on the feasibility study
that was performed.
Over the course of the work on
the site during the remedial
investigation EBASCO has conducted many
and numerous types of tests and collected
many samples. We started out doing a
geophysical survey of the site looking
for buried material, evidence of buried
drums and so forth. We then ended up
going through a soil gas survey to try to
define hodge podge or areas of soil
contamination on the site.
Based on these first two tests
we ended up collecting two hundred and
ninety-eight soil samples on the site for
chemical analyses. These were comprised
of surface soils, soils from test
borings, subsurface soils, as well as
monitoring well soils, soils from
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI "& WIEGMANN
-------
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drilling the monitoring wells.
In addition, we collected ten
samples from'the taps of homes along
Fresh Ponds Road and Dutch Road during
the course of this investigation.
Based on the geophysical
surveys we excavated nineteen test pits
at various locations around the site
looking to determine what the EBASCO
anomalies may have been that we
discovered. We did a well inventory to
examine the usage of groundwater in a
five-mile radius from the site. NJ DEPE
just this past summer did a brief
investigation, I believe it was in July,
of soil concentrations of contaminants or
other compounds in and around the Fried
site. EPA's Edison branch came out and
did what is known as a stream rapid
bio-assessment to try to determine the
impact of the Fried Industries site on
Bog Brook and the other drainage areas in
and around the site.
From the monitoring wells which
we installed on the site we collected two
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
groundwater samples, we collected one
hundred air samples during the course of
this investigation for chemical analyses,
sixty-six surface water samples from the
various brooks and streams and the pond,
forty-nine sediment samples, seventeen
wipe samples in the building where we
would go in and collect contamination off
the walls in the building. We performed
an aquifer pump test, which was used to
try to characterize the groundwater
characteristics for the aquifer so that
EPA would try to choose an alternative
during the feasibility study. We
examined and re-examined the impacts of
the contamination on the site flora and
fauna on the site. In addition, part of
the remedial investigation is a risk
assessment, both the human health and an
ecological risk assessment.
The risk assessment evaluated
health risks to people from groundwater,
surface soils, subsurface soil, surface
water, sediment, the ingestion of fish
from the streams and ponds, anything that
SCHULMAK,ClCCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
20 i
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was found in the air was looked at, as
well as if the town or a contractor we-
to build homes on the site, if any of the
subsurface contamination would leak into
the basements of these buildings and
cause a potential problem.
Based on the risk assessment it
was determined that there was an
unacceptable risk to the levels of
contamination found in both the bedrock
groundwater and the shallow aquifer
groundwater at the site, and although the
soils indicated risks within EPA's risk
range, both EPA and NJ DEPE had concerns
about the elevated concentrations of
arsenic at some specific locations in the
surface soil and are proposing with DES
and the proposed plan to help remediate
those areas.
Based on this we're looking at
contaminants of interest for the site and
the site soils. We have some volatile
organics at some locations and arsenic in
the groundwater. The primary problem is
due to the volatile organic compounds.
SCHULMAK,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
21
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the building and tanks and so forth,
there ere some concerns as of this
moment.
Based on the levels of the
contamination found in the site soils,
these are the areas that during the
feasibility study we're looking at for
remediation purposes. This one here,
this location here, here, here, and part
of here are arsenic contamination areas.
Where this one, this one, and part of
this one, again, are volatile organic
contamination areas.
Also, as a result of the
remedial investigation the areas within
here is the suspected or known area of
the surface water aquifer contamination
from the surficial aquifer with the
bedrock aquifer being assumed to be
somewhat similar, but not as well-defined
as of this time, with groundwater flow
going off to the northeast off of the
site.
The next part of the work that
was performed by EBASCO was to do the
SCHULMAN," CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feasibility study.
The first stage of the
feasibility study is to screen and
examine technologies and process
materials on how to clean up the
contamination of interest at the site.
This slide here is for soil, I'll show
you another slide next for groundwater.
EBASCO considered everything
from no action, from not doing anything
further at the site. Using limited
action, institutional controls, which is
to just post warning signs, maybe put a
fence up and have reviews of the
contamination levels every five years.
Containment of the soil contamination was
examined through use of several capping
methods, either soil, clay or synthetic
membranes, however, it was felt, at least
with the capping alternative, the capping
technologies, that it wouldn't have been
effective for this site because it would
not have reduced the leachate of
contamination to groundwater from the
soils. Removal of the soil is generally
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one that would be to excavate it off OUL
of the areas.
Several ways of treating the
contaminated soils was looked at.
Incineration, oxidation, soil washing,
using microbes for biodegradation
processes or vitrification of the soil.
A lot of these were not
considered any further after this because
they're just not technically feasible to
do it at this location.
With the groundwater, again, we
were required to look at no action,
limited action alternatives, and then
went into other site specific methods as
containment, using sheet piling or slurry
walls of some sort to try to contain the
upper aquifer groundwater or the bedrock
groundwater, how.ever, due to the fact
that there's, obviously, some sort of a
connection between the upper aquifer and
lower aquifer these would not be
technically feasible to try to contain
that at this point in time.
Extraction, dewatering and
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pumping of the aquifers, this would be
presumed acceptable for the bedrock
aquifer, The results of the aquifer
pumping test, which was done during the
remedial investigation, showed that it
would not be an appropriate method to do
for the surficial aquifer.
Treatment of the groundwater,
everything from air stripping, chemical
precipitation, carbon adsorption was
considered, source control. This was to
look at specific areas of soil on the
site that may be high and then treatment
of that soil and then disposal of both
the water and/or the soil. We looked at
either sending the water to a local waste
water treatment plant, which we called
the local facility, they would not accept
the treated or untreated water, or
sending it off to a TSD facility, or just
discharging the treated water to the
nearby surface water.
The alternatives which we
looked at in depth in the feasibility
study of the soils were no action,
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
limited action, institutional controls.
We examined excavation of the arsenic
contaminated soil on site, stabilization
of that material on site, and then
disposal of that material on site once
we're finished.
The cost range is anything
from, you know, forty thousand dollars to
about seven hundred thousand dollars.
For groundwater we also
examined no action, limited action
alternatives, and then the other final
alternative for groundwater was the
pumping and treatment of the groundwater
with limited source extraction of some of
the highly contaminated volatile soils
and then treating that groundwater with
one of two options, either just using
activated carbon or air stripping the
groundwater.
Again, the cost estimates range
from forty thousand to about twelve
million dollars for these alternatives.
What I'd like to do is turn
this back over to Tom to discuss the
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 '
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EPA's alternatives.
MR. PORUCZNIK: Starting with
the list of the summary of remedial
alternatives that Mark just indicated to
you, you can see that there are four for
soil and three basic alternatives for the
groundwater.
In the proposed plan that we
handed out tonight, on Page 9 you'll
notice that there are a number of
evaluation criteria. These evaluation
criteria are the criteria used to assess
these remedial alternatives. And after
we complete the assessment, which can be
found in the feasibility study, by the
way, which is located in the repository
in the East Brunswick Library, this is
what we came up with. It's actually a
combination of two, as you saw from the
previous list, one involving surface soil
and the other for groundwater. That
involves the excavation of nine hundred
cubic yards from areas of elevated
arsenic contamination. We would take
that material off site and stabilize it
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
off site with ultimate off-site disposal.
That is alternative SC-4.
That's what we designated it as in your
proposed plan.
Similarly, for the groundwater
we chose alternative GW-3. That involves
extraction of groundwater from the
bedrock aquifer and collection of
groundwater from the shallow aquifer.
The combined stream would be treated via
metal precipitation, followed by organic
treatment using activated carbon. The
treated water would then be discharged to
surface water and that surface water
would be the Lawrence Brook River system.
Included in this alternative we
also decided to excavate approximately
twenty-seven hundred cubic yards of
material, of soil that is, from areas
where there's very high concentrations of
volatile organic contamination. That
also would be treated off site and
disposed of. That would be, most likely,
through incineration.
That's, basically, the
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
preferred alternative that EPA has come
up with in conjunction with New Jersey
DEPE. That's what we bring before you
today for comment.
MR. TENERELLA: Well, that
summary is the selected alternative t
we have in our proposed plan. Before
make our record of decision on that ti.
is a comment period and we are now
available for questions on the remedy c
the remedial investigation or any other
questions you might have on the site.
We'd like to take them one at a time a*
remind you that we have a stenographer
So please identify yourself.
There will be a transcript
this record in the official
administrative record of the site.
needs to have your name and any otht
identifying criteria, like a public
official or whatever you might be, th
we'll answer the questions one at a t.-
We'll also stay as long as we need to '
answer any questions. So don't fear a: ;
lack of time.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROSS: David Ross, East
Brunswick. The address is on the sign-in
sheet.
In the SC-4, does that include
the removal of those buildings back there
and the underground tanks?
MR. PORUCZNIK: It will
include -- first of all, we have to take
a look at those tanks. The buildings
themselves will probably not be removed
based on risk. We may remove them
because they may be a threat to the
actual remedy. In other words, when
bulldozers and heavy equipment get in
there we may have to move the buildings
and obstructions out of the way.
MR. TENERELLA: As we go on in
our cleanup a reminder is, we don't own
the Fried Industries site, Phil Fried
still does own the property. So we will
go in on the site and clean up
environmental hazards, hazards to public
health. Anything that is an eye sore,
for example, is-'not something that we'd
be normally eligible to just clean up.
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI &' WIEGMANN
-------
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The structural integrity of
some parts of the building are a little
bit questionable, so when we have heavy
equipment there we may have to take them
down just for the safety of the workers,
but that wouldn't be the intent of the
cleanup.
MR. ROMERO: Joseph Romero,
East Brunswick .resident and member of the
Environmental Commission.
I have to leave in about five
minutes for something else. That's my
problem, but I'm sorry about that. I
just have some questions. Some may be
relevant and some may not be.
Nine hundred cubic yards
doesn't sound like a heck of a lot in
relation to what has been described as
the problem. And I was here at the
previous hearing, so I just would like to
comment on that.
MR. TENERELLA: .One of the
reasons it took us so long to do our
remedial investigation, in fact, for
those of you who have some familiarity of
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the site over time, it's been a couple of
years and, actually, it's been put into
two phases, there was some question as to
what we might find on the site because of
the erratic kinds of activities that
might have been performed either in the
buildings or surrounding the buildings.
That's why the removal action for this
site -- that's why we went in and took
out the tanks and concentrated chemicals,
vials and bottles of different chemicals
in the building. It was such a concern
for us. And that alone took over a year
or so to complete.
That's all been done. We
wanted to make sure that we didn't have
any kinds of concentrated chemicals that
might have been spilled around the
building. We thought we might have some
other problem areas, and it turned out,
based on our risk calculations for the
problems we had remaining after removal
took place, that the major problem was
from arsenic in the soil. One single
very specific problem with one chemical,
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one metal, arsenic. That's why you see
just those small concentrated areas
removing the arsenic in the soil.
The VOCs, which show up in the
soils, also didn't show up in the
groundwater. We want to protect the
groundwater supply.
The one slide that you did see
that Mark put up had a big sort of blob
on it. It didn't really have a real
clear sense of the groundwater flow. It
didn't appear well on the projection, but
it's in the notes'.
The groundwater flow is not
going, as I think some of you are aware
now, is not going toward Fresh Ponds Road
as we had originally assumed when we did
our early investigation, but, rather, --
MR. MOESE: Northeast.
MR. TENERELLA: So we're doing
a groundwater protection based on
probably industrial activity on the site
that caused those kinds of chemicals to
spill into the soil and then hit the
groundwater. There is no risk in the
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
soil from the VROs or the volatile
organic chemicals that v» found there,
but it will be quicker in terms of a
remedy and more efficient to take a
certain amount of concentrated soil with
VOS out before we start or concur with
starting our groundwater pump and treat
remedy, and that's why we're taking that
additional soil.
The real thermal kinds of
activities are associated with the hot
spot, and that's what we see remaining on
the site. That's after a quite extensive
study to make sure we don't have any
surprises on the site.
MR. ROMERO: Just a couple more
questions. I think you answered one of
them, which is who owns the site. I take
that to be Fried.
MR. TENERELLA: He owns it now.
MR. ROMERO: I don't know how
he comes to deserve to continue to own
the site, but maybe that's off the point
of this meeting. But the following
question which I want to ask is, to what
SCHULMAN , CICCARELLI &~"WIEGMANN
-------
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
extent are your alternatives influenced
by what kind of use this site might be
put to in the futur~, that's a question;
and •_ h e n , are they influenced at all; and
then the following question is, what uses
would this site have in the future?
MR. TENERELLA: The assumptions
we made based on the surrounding area is
that it would be for residential use just
because the surrounding area is mostly
homes and not industrial, just because
it's zoned that way now. So our
assumptions were for the most rigorous
cleanup, which for us would be a
residential criteria, and that's what
we're us ing.
Now, Phil Fried owns the site
right now. Whether he would continue to
own it because of lack of payment of
taxes or something like that is another
question. EPA would not take ownership
of the site at any time in the future.
It wouldn't be our site other than just
take responsibility for the cleanup of
the property. The property would,
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
theoretically, be able to revert back to
tax rolls if the Town took it over for
nonpayment of taxes in the future.
The reality in terms of it
being a residential cleanup for our
criteria purposes is different from the
reality that it's sitting in a wetland.
In fact, half of these buildings are
sitting in water. It made it a little
difficult for us to get around on the
site. There's a very high water table on
the site and it probably wouldn't be easy
to construct houses on a large part of
the site. In fact, that was the problem
we had in setting up our remedies. One
of the reasons we're doing a lot of
off-site work is, we don't have a lot of
dry land, basically, to establish a set
of treatment systems on the site and
still be able to stage on the site.
There's not enough room that's dry, and I
think that's going to be a problem
realistically for land use on the site
too.
MR. ROMERO: Could the site be
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
used for passive recreation?
MR. TENERELLA: Yeah.
MR. ROMERO: Like fishing and
boating and whatever?
MR. TENERELLA: Yeah. With
some assumption that Phil Fried is not
continuing for one legal reason or
another to own the site I suspect that
would make an excellent use of the site,
and the kind of remediations we're doing
will allow for that.
MR. CRESTI: Aldo Cresti. I
live on Fresh Ponds Road, Number 24.
You mentioned the product
industrial cleaners, like floor cleaners
and kinds of detergents. Those 'things
are all water soluble. Now, these were
manufactured less than thirteen years ago
on the site.
MR. PORUCZNIK: Up to '87.
MR. CRESTI: It has been
raining since then, so none of the stuff
has been washed away. Is there a
possibility that so much of the stuff has
been left behind in the surface?
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PORUCZNIK1: That was only
some of the materials. He also produced
algicidas, also produced adhesives and
other materials too. Also, there was a
lot of drums that were found on site,
twelve hundred that were removed during
the removal action that contained a
tremendous array of chemicals. There was
a lot of different chemicals and they
weren't all water soluble, believe me.
MR. CRESTI: Then you mentioned
volatile organic compounds. Typically,
if they're volatile, they'd be going away
in the air. You still find them?
MR. PORUCZNIK: Yes, especially
when you go down deeper into the soil.
You're correct when you mention that a
lot of the volatiles have dissipated from
the surface soil, maybe the top two,
three, four feet, but when you go deeper
it's still found there in significant
amounts.
MR. CRESTI: What I'm driving
at is, as the ppnd exists now I see
people fishing. Evidently the fish must
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be living. Also, the Raritan River, do
we find traces of the chemical all the
way down to those sites?
MR. PORUCZNIK: I think what
you were referring to a second ago, this
pond over here, remember that this pond
is really upstream. In other words, the
pond flows in this direction, and all the
drainage flows really away from the pond.
So you really don't have any significant
cross contaminations coming from here to
here. There is a little bit flowing in
this direction here, but, really, this is
sort of like an isolated system almost
over here to a certain extent.
MR. CRESTI: If you go down to
Milltown, this water drains into
Milltown.
here?
problem?
MR. PORUCZNIK: You mean down
MR. CRESTI: Right.
Again, people do fish. Any
MR. PQ'RUCZNIK: Correct me if
I'm wrong, Mark, but based upon the
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information that we found in the remedial
investigation, there's only very, very
small quantities of contamination,
especially organics, down here. In the
future, if we do not do anything, the
groundwater -- do you remember the plume
that was shown up on the screen before,
the blue plume?
The blue plume is actually
groundwater contamination and it's the
extent of something like this. That will
continue to drive in this direction and
the groundwater plume and groundwater
table are being pinched out and upwards.
It will eventually enter the surface
water, but at this point it hasn't yet in
significant quantities whatsoever. I
don't know when, but maybe several years
from now, maybe ten years from now
contamination will reach there in very
significant quantities.
Am I correct?
MR. MOESE: Yes.
MR. CRESTI: Also, how about
the arsenic compounds which you
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned? Arsenic is a metal, it's not
going to go away. When you take it away
where does it go? Where do we put it?
MR. PORUCZNIK: In this
particular case what we decided to do is
to remove it off site and stabilize it.
That's a process by which, in this case,
arsenic is sort of put in some kind of a
matrix and it's unable to move, it's
unable to ie mobile, for that matter, or
to be in contact with anybody. So it's
taken off site, also, and will be
disposed of appropriately so that it
can't be of any danger to anyone.
MR. TENERELLA: There are
approved landfills, industrial landfills,
that will accept that kind of material
once it's stabilized, which is just to
fix the arsenic in place. It's not like
we take it in someone else's backyard and
dump it there.
MR. CRESTI: The arsenic
concentration is stable, it's not
changing over several years? It's still
around the same concentration as it was
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
originally?
MR. MARSENISON: .Right. The
arsenic will never go away. The
stabilization is really like a concrete
block. The soil is mixed in, and it
looks like a concrete block, and then
we'll dispose of it in that landfill and
it just stays there.
MR. CRESTI: Once that gets
removed the earth around it is going to
be clean?
MR. MARSENISON: Right.
MR. GIRINZO: Anthony Girinzo,
12 Fresh Ponds Road.
My well is a hundred and
fifteen feet deep. We found all this
stuff in my well. I had originally
sampled and gave it to Mr. Sabo in
Middlesex County when all this started.
MR. PORUCZNIK: That's back in
1983 you mean?
MR. GIRINZO: Yeah, even before
that.
I can-'t understand why if it
got back into my well, which I live
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
across the street from Fried, a hundred
and fifteen feet down, why it couldn't be
in that pond because that pond is spring
fed and all the water tables down there.
It's got to be, I would imagine, getting
into that pond because if that pond
cleared up, then my well should be
cleared up, no?
MR. TENERELLA: Two comments on
that: First, on a risk basis, Mark, I
don't remember what the risk analysis was
on the samples.
MR. MOESE: Very low.
MR. TENERELLA: The samples
were very low.
MR. MOESE: Very low.
MR. PORUCZNIK: There is some
contamination, but it's very, very small.
MR. TENERELLA: Unlike what you
would drink.
There's a difference between
contaminants in terms of edible fish and
drinking water. I'm not sure we
considered the pond's water drinkable for
that reason.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
43
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, we were surprised because
of the kinds of problems we saw in homes
along Fresh Ponds like yours. There was
an assumption because of the activity at
Fried that the groundwater flow and the
general flow in this whole area is that
way, from, say, Fried toward your house,
that must have been the cause. So our
initial remedial investigations were
directed to an assumption of groundwater
flow towards Fresh Ponds Road.
The initial investigations
proved us wrong and that in the general
area the flow is that way, but
specifically around Fried the flow is up
away from you.
MR. GIRINZO: Yeah, but that
has nothing to do with the underground
waters.
MR. MOESE: Bedrock also.
MR. PORUCZNIK: Let me show you
what Charlie just said.
Again, originally the
groundwater, based upon all the
information we have from the USGS and
SCHULMAU, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
44
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
also, I think, some Ic.al studies, I
think it was Leggett and Shears, I forget
the name, they indicate that groundwater
flows in this direction, however, we
found in the small area of the Fried
Industries site that the groundwater does
not flow in this direction, it flows in
this direction. Roughly paralleling
almost the surface water drainage flows
in this direction.
The bedrock aquifer also is a
few degrees off, but they're basically
both flowing in this direction, away from
these homes.
MR. GIRINZO: Now, is there a
chance in the future of our wells
clearing up after we get this arsenic
out?
MR. TENERELLA: Not from Fried
Industries.
Just like in doing our
investigations, as we disprove even our
assumptions that your problems were
caused by Fried-Industries, the cleanup
at Fried Industries isn't going to solve
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
45
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your problems now because, obviously,
there's a source of contamination that's
hitting your wells that's not Fried.
MR. GIRINZO: It's not?
When I originally took my well
for testing I had it done by New Jersey
Dairy Labs. They told me what was in the
water before I knew what Fried was
making, and it was the same thing, it was
industrial detergent, all purpose
cleaners, stuff like that. That's what
New Jersey Labs told me. I didn't even
know what Fried was making. I knew what
he was making before I went down to talk
to him.
MR. PORUCZNIK: May I ask you a
question? Just out of curiosity, have
you had your well sampled recently?
MR. GIRINZO: No.
MR. PORUCZNIK: The reason I'm
asking that, we have some data from local
sources that does indicate that there's
far less contamination and a lot of wells
that were contaminated don't even have
any contamination anymore. I would
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
46
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suggest maybe contacting maybe the
Township or the Middlesex County
Department of Environmental Health maybe
to look into that a little further. That
would be one possible alternative.
MR. TENERELLA: Some of the
contaminants that were found are
relatively common in industrial use or
industrial debris or things like that.
It could be coming from another kind of
an operation. You still get the same
kind of chemicals.
Very clearly, and, again, it
took us a while to figure that out
because the assumptions we made are the
assumptions you're making, Fried
Industries is not the source of
contamination.
MR. GIRINZO: You're talking
groundwater. Now, you can stand in my
front yard and you can tell that
groundwater is not going to flow to my
house because Fried is not directly above
me. I can look at it and --
MR. PORUCZNIK: Isn't your well
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
47
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a hundred and twelve feet deep?
MR. GIRINZO: A hundred and
fi fteen.
MR. PORUCZNIK: I guess what
you were referring to before is surface
grade?
MR. GIRINZO: I'm not talking
about surface.
MR. PORUCZNIK: What I'm
saying, just because your house appears
to be higher up than Fried, that doesn't
mean that you couldn't have it flow.
That's not the case.
MR. GIRINZO: I'm saying it
could. I'm saying once you get down a
hundred and fifteen feet, like at the
bottom of my well, my water table that
I'm on and the water tables that he might
be contaminating could be all level, on
the same table.
I'm not educated in this field,
but I'm using just a little bit of common
sense. If he's dumping it, it's washing
through and it's going down a hundred
feet or washing into a table that may be
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
48
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
streaming into mine, I'm going to get it.
MR. TENERELLA: That is what we
analyzed. In fact, Mark, do you remember
the exact well locations and the kind of
readings you were getting to show the
trend?
MR. MOESE: We had installed
right here, right at the corner, a
shallow well and a deep well. The deep
well was drilled at approximately fifty
to fifty-five feet beneath the bedrock.
Same thing with the well here, which is
5D. We have another one back here, which
is 14D; and another one over here, which
is 10D. Well ID has low concentrations,
some benzene. 5D is clean. Nothing.
MR. GIRINZO: How deep is that
one?
one.
MR. MOESE: Same as the other
MR. GIRINZO: Fifty-five feet?
MR. MOESE: Fifty-five feet
beneath the bedrock.
So you're talking, probably, at
that point along Fresh Ponds Road, I
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
49
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we had twenty feet of sand before
we hit the clay, so you're looking at
seventy-five to eighty-feet deep.
A VOICE: Isn't it possible
that if you drill ten feet more that you
could have broke through the so-called
bedrock into another groundwater aquifer?
MR. MOESE: Not with the
geology that you have on the site.
This well, 14D, which is behind
the building, is highly contaminated.
10S or 10D, I should say, has low levels
of contamination.
Again, 5 here has nothing. So
it's basically, you know, based on the
well water elevations of these wells, it
indicates the bedrock does flow -- it's a
couple degrees off from the surficial
aquifer, but almost north, northeast.
MR. GIRINZO: You can
understand where we're coming from. I
had my well tested. They told me there
is an industrial detergent in your water.
I went down to .talk to Mr. Fried. He
hands me a bottle of it. "Here, try one
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
50
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of my products." I said, "I don't need
it, I've been drinking it."
MR. PORUCZNIK: I'd just like
to mention one other thing.
I kjiow, again, I had some data
given to me from Middlesex County
Department of Environmental Health.
Although it may not involve your
particular health, it does indicate that
in that general area that the homes that
were contaminated at one time do seem to
have, if any contamination remaining,
very low levels.
So I was going to say that
maybe you should, you know, contact
Middlesex County Department of Health and
see -- I don't know what the scenario is
to maybe have your well retested, if you
have to do it yourself or if they do it
as part of a testing routine or procedure
every few years, but check with them and
see. I think the first step would be to
retest the well first and see whether or
not you still have contamination.
MR. McGOWAN: Dan McGowan.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
51
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You told this gentleman that
Fried Industries is not the reason why
his well was polluted with the detergent.
Now, if Fried Industries wasn't, then who
was? Where did he get these liquid
detergents, like anti-freeze and the
other chemicals you talked about?
MR. PORUCZNIK: First of all, I
don't think it was detergent. . I think
the contamination that was present was
ethyl benzene, benzene. Going back to
1983 I think we're talking about
chloroform in those five homes.
Again, I know what you're
trying to say. If it's not Fried, then
who is it?
We're not sure, to be honest
with you, right now because we have been
.primarily involved with Fried and Fried
is a problem onto itself, however, there
are other possibilities. I'd like to
name one. It's just a possibility but
it's been cleaned up. That particular
facility is the Middlesex County
Department of Parks.
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
52
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's a possibility. We do
understand that going back several years
ago that there was a problem with their
storage tanks and it's been fixed since
then, but it is possible that at one time
they could have been the source. Again,
I emphasize could have been the source.
We don't know for sure because we're
involved with Fried right now. It's
possible maybe it would be a good idea to
talk to New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection & Energy about
that when you get a chance.
MR. McGOWAN: You also talked
about if you were going to clear the
groundwater system; and if you were not,
the contaminants were going to continue
into the Milltown Reservoir where they
fish and all that.
What happens in five years
when, say, that contamination goes into
the Milltown Reservoir and where they
drink and where they fish and what
happens if the problem becomes worse
instead of taking care of it now, instead
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
53
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of wasting another five years on
research?
MR. PORUCZNIK: I'm not sure
what you mean by "the Milltown
Reservoir."
MR. TENERELLA: You mean if
once we do our remedy if there's still a
problem?
MR. McGOWAN: You said we might
not clean it up. You said if we clean
this up.
MR. TENERELLA: I think what
Tom was suggesting to you is that in our
choices one of the choices we have is not
to take an action. And the problems that
we have are potential problems for the
future as the groundwater moves,
therefore, we will take an action here as
opposed to not taking an action.
MR. McGOWAN: Then you're still
wasting another five or six years.
MR. TENERELLA: No, we are
deciding now to take that action because
of that potential. In addition to that
we have something called a five-year
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
54
12
1
2
T
-*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
review at all our Superfund sites once we
take our action. If something is not
working quite well, if we're not getting
our chemicals out or there's still risk,
we'll go back and review the site again.
MR. RICCOBONO:. Tony Riccobono.
How soon do you think you could
start remediation at the site?
MR. TENERELLA: What's been
happening lately is the design turn
around, I'd say, is about two to
two-and-a-half years. In terms of
getting all the plans and specs and
everything in order in the design. Fried
Industries right now, 'because Phil Fried
is not a major company, we don't have any
major costs involved to establish their
liability for cleanup.
MR. RICCOBONO: You don't have
the litigation problems that you would
normally.
MR. TENERELLA: Exactly. And
that's pretty clear with us right now.
So we'll go ahead in funding it
under the Superfund program for redesign
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
55 I
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and then remediation. Because of the
scale of remedy here it will probably go
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
bidding for the design. We're going to
have to wait. We're at the end of our
fiscal year right now. We're coming to
our decision on Fried with the record of
decision sometime in the fall, I guess,
now. The next concern would be
appropriations.
MR. RICCOBONO: I was just
going to say, how is your funding at this
point in time? That's another question.
MR. TENERELLA: I'm not sure
what's going to happen in this next
fiscal year on funding. In past years we
have not had a problem funding our
designs or our actions immediately when
we needed to. We're not sure yet if
we're going to have a problem this coming
year. So that's a little bit of an open
question right now.
MR. RICCOBONO: How would this
site fit in with your other sites, the
fact that it can be remediated, you can
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get a good remediation, you can stop it
from reaching the streams and whatever?
How would it affect it that way?
MR. TENERELLA: Over the years
it's taken a long time on a number of
Superfund sites to do the remedial
investigations to determine the cleanups.
A lot of those sites, including Fried,
have now gone through that pipeline and
are backing up into design and
construction and we're seeing a problem
nationally in terms of the amounts of
money available for design and
construction for the first time. In past
years there was plenty of money in those
pots available because a lot of sites
weren't hitting that area yet. Now all
of a sudden there's a glut of sites
hitting that area.
MR. RICCOBONO: Is there any
possibility of local officials or state
officials to try and move things along?
I mean, we have an environmental
vice-president now.
MR. TENERELLA: We're hoping
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
57
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we won't come to a point where we
have to make those kind of choices among
sites in terms of on a risk basis which
one is going to go into design first.
Right now we're sort of at a wait-and-see
attitude in the agency. We never had a
problem like this before. We're just a
little hesitant to promise that
everything is going to be fine this year.
We're hoping that it will pass through
and we'll have a sufficient amount of
money. One advantage for Fried right now
is we don't have litigation issues. That
will simplify the timing problem of
getting it into design with the Corps.
We'll at least get it into that process a
little quickly.
MR. RICCOBONO: The nine
hundred cubic yards, is that a fixed
figure, is it an arbitrary figure, would
you go beyond that if necessary?
MR. TENERELLA: We'll probably
lock into a tighter figure during design,
but it won't vary too much from that
figure.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
58
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. RICCOBONO: The ponds and
the fish, you said fish were tested, how
did they show up?
MR. MOESE: No, we didn't do
tests on the fish. What we did was, we
assumed bio-accumulation of the fish of
the contaminants in the water and the
sediments. The chemicals that were found
in the sediments were both naturally
occurring metals and what-have-you and it
didn't pose a problem to a person eating
fish from the pond.
MR. RICCOBONO: You referred to
beryllium at the bottom of the ponds, in
the sediment of the ponds. Did you do
anything for the removal of that or not?
MR. PORUCZNIK: No. I believe
that the beryllium was a principal
contaminant, but at the same time didn't
present any risk that required remedy.
MR. TENERELLA: Our risk
figures are pretty conservative. I mean,
for cancer risk, for example, it's one in
a million, around that range, when we
would consider taking an action. And we
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
59
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have something called a hazard index for
non-cancer risks and they're pretty low.
That allows for those kinds of
assumptions where the data might be a
little imprecise to make sure if we're
going to error at all, we're erroring to
the side of public health or
environmental protection as opposed to
making a decision that's not protective
enough. If we tend to be guilty of
anything in our risk management
decisions, it's to be more careful than
less careful in case there's some
variance in the data.
MR. RICCOBONO: With your air
sampling did you see any problems off
site?
MR. MOESE: No.
MR. RICCOBONO: None at all?
MR. MOESE: Those were
collected prior to the drums being
removed from the site in 1989 and '88.
MR. RICCOBONO: Your
disturbance of the site, you'll take all
the proper precautions?
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI T~ wIEGMANN
-------
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOESE: We have to during
our work.
MR. RICCOBONO: Thank you.
MR. HORBAT: Sandy Horbat. I
teach environmental science. I'm
Chairman of the Environmental Commission
in East Brunswick.
When you talk about removing
the cubic yardage at the bottom, the
excavation is twenty-seven hundred cubic
yards. I'm assuming that's also soil,
but it's partly groundwater.
Twenty-seven hundred cubic yards is a
measurement for solids usually.
MR. MOESE: Soil.
MS. HORBAT: But in this case
that's one way to treat the groundwater,
by removing that soil.
MR. TENERELLA: We're removing
the soil as a principal source of
groundwater. Sometimes it's easier to
pump harder and get the groundwater and
other times it's easier to take the soil
out, it's more effective to treat. In
our discussions with the New Jersey DEPE
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
61
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we came to a determination that in this
case soil removal is the way to go for
the parts of the VOCs and it will
increase the efficiency and decrease the
time available to do the pump and treat
system in the groundwater after it.
We didn't want to mislead you
that it was a risk basis, unlike the
arsenic. The arsenic removal of soils is
a risk basis. We want to get those
portions of soils out because of levels.
In the VOC removal it's to effectuate the
cleanup of the groundwater. It doesn't
mean if someone is out there touching the
ground in that area where there's VOCs or
something there's a problem.
MR. HORBAT: As you remove this
stuff and I guess in most cases you're
talking about taking it off site, it's
going to remain off site, do you have any
obligation to replace that amount of
ground that you're removing?
MR. TENERELLA: It depends on
the site, whether we bring in clean fill,
whether that's needed or whether we just
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
62
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
redevelop topography that's there.
Basically, reconfigure the site a little
bit.
It depends on the site.
MR. MOESE: We included fill.
MR. HORBAT: The contaminants
that you talk about are also the
contaminants that we hear mentioned in
wells and so on and so forth. What's the
general density of those contaminants?
Would you say they're greater than water
or less than water; and if you drop these
contaminants into water, will they tend
to sink to the bottom or will they
continue to float on the top?
Did you make any
generalization? Would some of them be
more dense, some of them less dense?
MR. RICCOBONO: Most of them
are more dense.
MR. HORBAT: More dense?'
MR. RICCOBONO: Right.
MR. HORBAT: You have to
realize that there's a lot of people that
hear you saying that Fried is not the
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
63
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cause of this contamination in wells. I
don't know what the average depths of
these wells are. I mean, I hear one man
saying a hundred and fifteen. Do you
.know?
A VOICE: Two hundred.
MR. HORBAT: I don't know if
anybody else has any data on wells, maybe
you guys know, but to me there's a lot of
people that may just never believe you
unless you go down a hundred and fifteen
feet or two hundred feet and check down
there.
I personally believe that maybe
you're missing something. You can sit
here and say that the data that you
collected does not indicate that Fried is
contaminating, but you're also talking to
me mainly about surface water, surface
water that has become groundwater and
maybe has gone down only to the eighty
feet that you tested.
You know, for you guys to sit
there with fair assurances that Fried is
not the contaminant site of these wells,
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
64
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I just don't see how you can because you
only have one well that's close to the
road and it's only eighty-five feet deep
according to what you just said.
MR. MARSENISON: You have to
remember, though, that even though they
may be lighter or heavier than water, the
groundwater gradient is still away from
those wells. There's no way those
contaminants can move upstream.
MR. HORBAT: There may be
breaks in the bedrock that link one
aquifer into another aquifer.
MR. MARSENISON: The bedrock is
all one aquifer until you —
MR. GIRINZO: But it's all
sugar sand out there.
MR. MARSENISON: It's all
fractured bedrock. It's all
interconnected. There's no way you can
move up gradient, it has to go down.
MR. GIRINZO: Once you get down
a hundred and fifty feet there is no up
and down, right.?
MR. MARSENISON: Absolutely
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
65
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there is. There always is. If you think
about a stream, if the stream is flowing
in one direction, no matter how far down
you go in the stream it's still flowing
in the same direction.
MR. GIRINZO: I'm not
criticizing what you're saying or saying
you're wrong, but what's to say that a
hundred and fifteen or two hundred feet
down that stream is not running in the
opposite direction across our wells?
It's kind of obvious we all came up with
the same results, the same contaminants.
MR. TENERELLA: If this area --
for example, there are two aquifer
systems in the area. If this area had
three aquifer systems, then your analogy
would be correct, that we sampled the top
one and the middle one and you're talking
about a lower one which is going this
way, where the middle one is going the
opposite way.
That's possible if you had
three, but in this case we only had two
aquifer systems. Once you hit a defined
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
66
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aquifer the flow is stable in a
direction. Once you have a stream the
water flows in a given direction. Same
thing in aquifer segments in discreet
aquifers. So here we know we have two.
There's another site that I
work on that I have four. So I have four
zones in the aquifer all operating
different ways. Very confusing and we
see that kind of situation happening, but
that's very unique. Here it's two.
That's how we're sure about the aquifer
and the flow of that in the direction of
that lower aquifer here going away from
the site.
When we first did our remedial
investigations we made the same
assumptions you did, that the general
flow in the whole area is toward Fresh
Ponds Road. You got contaminated wells
and we got Fried Industries, A plus B,
sitting there. Not a problem. When we
started looking at the area -- that's
what took so long. It was almost three
million dollars, which is quite a lot of
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
67
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
money for a remedial investigation for a
site of this scale and size. One of the
reasons was, groundwater was assumed to
flow one way and we provided that it was
going the other way. That's why we're
very confident with it now, but it took
us some time to make sure we were
comfortable with that. We didn't come to
that decision very lightly because it
took us a number of years.
MR. RICCOBONO: Tony Riccobono
again, town councilman.
I think what I'm hearing here,
though, is you came down to solve our
problem, you found the Fried site, you're
fixing that. That's nice, but what about
my problem?
I think that's what I'm
hearing. Nobody is using those wells,
thank God, but what about my problem?
MR. GIRINZO: At our own
expense
MR. JAMESON: Marcelias Jameson
from New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
68
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
When we were taking a look at
the problem with Fried we found no
connection between the home across the
street and the Fried property. As we
walked along the street we saw there was
another building besides there, that's
the Department of Parks building. County
Parks Department. And we were noticing
that there was fairly new pavement and it
looked like some work had been done
there. We started checking around. We
come to find out they have underground
storage tanks. It's gasoline. So we did
some additional checking with their
underground storage tank program, which
is called BUST. We come to find out in
'90 there was a recorded leak. That was
recorded by the Department of Parks.
The Department then went out
and did a leak test on the tanks, found
that the tanks were not sufficiently
sealed, pulled those out, and at the time
they were pulling them out a leak did
occur. About four thousand gallons of
gasoline.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
69
15
1
2
r
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That may not be your current
problem, but what we're saying is, I
don't know how long those tanks were
there. "I don't know how long those tanks
were underground. So it's a possibility
that they leaked sometime in the past.
But the situation now is that the
underground storage tank program is
handling it. As a matter of fact, there
is a plan put together by the County of
Middlesex Department of Parks to
remediate that problem.
Now, if you say you're finding
gasoline-type products in your wells --
A VOICE: Industrial detergent.
MR. JAMESON: -- I can't
answer that, but what I can say is, that
is one additional situation that could be
occurring. Now, there may be others.
MR. RICCOBONO: It could be
occurring, but he'd like to find out
where it came from in the first place. I
think he'd like to see that so he can
feel comfortabl.e and I think he has the
right to do that.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
70
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JAMESON: What we're trying
to do is give as much information as
possible.
MR. RICCOBONO: We're not going
to stop at Fried. We found that it's not
Fried, let's see what's happening next.
MR. JAMESON: The health
department is probably your next option,
and you might want to get your wells
checked again. Also, I'll give you the
number and name and you can contact the
underground storage tank program.
MR. GIRINZO: We received a
letter last week from the County. They
want to come and do tests on the wells in
our yards. Is that you?
MR. JAMESON: No, we're with
the state. The health department has
their own.
MR. McGOWAN: You talked about
how you disagree with this man's
statement that it could be from Fried's
chemicals that's contaminating wells, but
then you're refusing to even go check it.
The other man's over there is
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
71
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
. 17
18
19
20
21
22
23'
24
25
two hundred feet deep. Why not dig a
well two hundred feet deep or how deep
the deepest well is across the street and
then decide for yourselves and then you
can tell these homes, "Okay, Fried
Industries is not contaminating your
wells, it's some other place"? You go to
the County Parks and check out the
underground tanks then.
It sounds like you spent so
much money now, why not spend a little
more to re-assure what these people were
drinking before is not from Fried and not
the chemicals that he was dumping?
MR. TENERELLA: We've done the
tests we felt that are necessary. I
don't know if anybody here can give you a
better analogy and explain to you why we
think technically or why we're sure of
ourselves. We've done enough tests on
the groundwater to be very comfortable --
MR. McGOWAN: Why not be
positive?
MR. TENERELLA: As positive as
one could be scientifically in terms of
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
72
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the data we've taken.
I don't know how to answer your
question any more than that. There is
nothing to point for us in terms of the
scientific evidence that we've collected,
and that's after two remedial
investigation cycles because of our own
questions along that line to say that
there's a problem in the wells. We tried
to explain this aquifer system to you in
terms of how groundwater flows and why
you can make those scientific judgments.
I'm not sure how else to convince you.
We can't just go out and spend money
because someone says, "I don't like what
I heard scientifically, spend some more
money."
I don't understand the
question, I guess, or the problem you're
having with it.
MR. McGOWAN: These people are
not sure whether their wells are being
contaminated by Fried or not. You say
it's not, but then, again, your wells are
only eighty-five feet deep; whereas,
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
73
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their wells are two hundred, a hundred
and fifteen feet.
Why not go to that point and
re-assure, spend a little more of the
taxpayer's money, and then it would
satisfy the homeowners. It also would
save you money in the long run. If
private testing is done and it was from
Fried, then it might save you a lot more
.money in the end.
MR. PORUCZNIK: I'd like to
mention one thing. Maybe mention Dick
Spillatori. He sent me some data about a
year or two -- about a year ago.
Apparently, the County has tested a lot
of the wells in this general vicinity and
there may not even be a problem now.
Maybe, Dick, do you mind if I
refer that to you to maybe say a
statement on that?
MR. SPILLATORI: Right now we
haven't tested in that area at least for
a year. Anyone that would be interested
in having their wells tested we'd be more
than happy to send someone out to do the
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
test i ng.
What we found on several
occasions is that a lot of times the
cause of some of the contamination
problems could be one septic system and
what could have been dumped into it in
terms of a cleaner. Sometimes they have
alter organics or volatile organics in
those type cleaning agents which could
contribute to the problem. I say could
because anything could contribute to a
problem.
MR. PORUCZNIK: What I had in
mind, though, remember you sent me a
package on wells based on data in '90,
'91, '92? I was trying to compare those
similar wells to the data we took in '89.
MR. SPILLATORI: I don't know
the numbers in terms of the
concentration. I could find those
figures out.
As I mentioned, anyone that has
a well that's not in use or used for
irrigation, we'd be happy to test it.
That's free of charge. You just have to
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & W~l EGMANN
-------
75
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
call our office.
MR. SCHRAGER: Larry Schrager,
40 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick.
On the diagram where you showed
the groundwater contamination plume --
MR. PORUCZNIK: The one that
was blue?
MR. SCHRAGER: Yeah, the one
with the blob overlying the site.
What was the contaminant?
MR. TENERELLA: How did we
define the plume by contaminant?
MR. SCHRAGER: What was the
contaminant that you used to define the
plume? You have multiple contaminants.
MR. PORUCZNIK: There was a
number of contaminants that we used to
define the plume, benzene, toluene,
soluene, 111 trichlorethane.
MR. SCHRAGER: What was the
contaminant that defined the plume that
you drew?
MR. MOESE: It's not a single
contaminant. I.t' s based on, basically,
what we found. Either the upper aquifer
SCHULMAN,C1CCARELLI& WIEGMANN
-------
76
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would intersect the surface water or it,
basically, reduced to almost nothing at
that point.
MR. SCHRAGER: At the leading
edge of the plume then what is the
contaminant?
MR. MOESE: I believe it was
most likely vinyl chloride that may have
already reached 10S or 10D. It's a very
fast moving compound in groundwater.
MR. SCHRAGER: 10D is a deep
well?
MR. MOESE: Yes.
MR. SCHRAGER: Was the
concentration higher in the deep well
than in the surficial well?
MR. MOESE: No, 10D was
probably one or two parts per billion,
which is well below EPA's NCL level.
MR. SCHRAGER: Ten or two --
MR. MOESE: One or two
micrograms per liter.
MR. SCHRAGER: So either equal
or twice the st.ate limit for that
contaminant?
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
77
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOESE: The Jersey
groundwater quality standards for vinyl
chloride is point zero eight, the federal
is two. The maximum observed in the
surficial aquifer is five hundred parts
per billion.
MR. SCHRAGER: So that's six or
seven times the state limit?
MR. MOESE: Right, with the
quantitation limit being five.
MR. SCHRAGER: Being five?
MR. MOESE: Being five parts
per bill ion.
MR. SCHRAGER: You mentioned
you were surprised that you found
groundwater flow coming upward toward Bog
Brook. Now, that groundwater flow is,
presumably, not carrying vinyl chloride.
Is the vinyl chloride sinking?
MR. MOESE: No, it would still
follow the groundwater flow.
MR. SCHRAGER: What I'm trying
to get to is, what is the vertical
profile of the contaminants and do you
have a breakdown?
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I imagine these reports are
very voluminous and thorough, but of the
different contaminant plumes because to
show us an amalgam of the plumes really
doesn't tell us about what's happening
with the different chemicals and the
chemistry of the area.
This plume is a result,
presumably, of maybe twenty or thirty or
more years of disposal on the site and
the extent of the plume is, basically,
within the site. Now, of course, that's
rebutted by some people in the audience
and, certainly, I'm sure it will be
something that you look at later on. But
if the plume has remained within the
confines of the site, what is the
tracking over time of where the plume
will be and why do you presume that the
plume will travel as far as it is if that
plume diagram that you're showing is
accurate?
It seems either the plume
diagram should be much larger or the
assumptions about the remedial effort are
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
79
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
overstated.
MR. MOESE: I think what's
important to point out here is, what
happens is, as you go north along the
site you no longer have an upper aquifer.
Well, 10D is out in almost the northern
most corner of the site. There is no
surficial aquifer there. When we
drilled, we drilled through probably six
feet of sand before we hit clay. In that
six feet of sand, at the surface of the
clay there may have been a little
moisture in the sand.
bedrock?
MR. SCHRAGER: When did you hit
MR. MOESE: I'd have to check
the logs. I don't remember off the top
of my head how deep bedrock was, but it's
definitely closer than it is over this
portion of the site.
What happens is, bedrock rises
as you get out in this area. It's
relatively deep, here and it's shallow
here. The upper aquifer thickness at
well 7S from surface to clay is six feet.
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
80
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRAGER: So it's
presumable, actually, that there could be
motion along the interface of the
surficial system and the shale below, and
that might explain why some of the people
on the opposite side of Fresh Ponds
Road --
MR. MOESE: We have bedrock
wells on the site.
MR. SCHRAGER: Well, you
described the contour, the upper surface
of the bedrock, to me.
MR. MOESE: But the bedrock
flow is still north, northeast.
MR. SCHRAGER: That's flow in
the bedrock, not at the interface. And
if he's picking up at a hundred and
fifteen feet --
MR. MOESE: The interface of
the sands and --
MR. SCHRAGER: -- and the
surficial aquifer.
MR. MOESE: You have up to
thirty feet of clay in some areas here of
thickness between the surficial aquifer
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
81
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the soil.
MR. SCHRAGER: We also know
that the bedrock aquifer is contaminated.
MR. MOESE: Well, underneath
the building area you do have a fairly
thin level of clay, which either was
reached during the clay mining operations
or it could have traversed the clay
somehow.
clay.
MR. SCHRAGER: Fractures in the
MR. MOESE: Fractures in the
clay.
It's still not going to -- I
mean, the wells here that were screened
are screened right on top of the clay at
these locations.
MR. SCHRAGER: Your shallow
wells.
MR. MOESE: Yeah.
We see no contamination over
here at all. I mean, these wells are
perfectly drinkable in the surficial
aqui fer.
MR. SCHRAGER: Are they
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
82
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yielding good amounts of water?
MR. MOESE: Well, just during
the purging I think we had up to
twenty-five, thirvy gallons a minute at
well 4S, which is right here.
MR. SCHRAGER: A shallow well.
well.
MR. MOESE: Yeah, a shallow
MR. SCHRAGER: I don't want to
get involved in an involved discussion,
and I certainly could. There's a wealth
of material that's been collected. I am
concerned that it's a very large
undertaking that you're proposing and I
think there may be some side effects that
the full scale cleanup option does not
take into account for the residents; and
that is, there's a lot of traffic. Four
thousand cubic yards is not a lot of
trucks, but could be between a hundred
and two hundred trucks. It could turn
out, instead of four hundred yards you're
going to take out eight thousand yards or
ten thousand yards.
It starts adding up to a lot of
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
83
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traffic. There's concerns about the
roadway.
One of r-:y other questions is,
who do you consider to be most egregious
and why?
I know that there were
children --
MR. TENERELLA: Your questions
are getting so long it's hard to give you
definitive answers. Can we take these
one at a time and carefully?
Let's start with the remedy and
burden on truck traffic.
We're well aware of that.
We're well aware there's limited access
in and out of this area and it's a
relatively residential area. That's a
down side.
No more than in terms of trucks
coming in in residential and construction
of building homes, but truck traffic,
heavy equipment, that's going to happen.
We recognize that in any
residential area where we have to do a
Superfund site and remediation. What
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
84
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we'll do in design is come back to the
Town during the detailed design
activities to discuss things like traffic
route, safety, security, contingency
plans for the site and those kinds of
things. We're very aware of those things
even when we select those kinds of
remedies and we're looking for other
alternatives to get around that where we
can, and where we have to do excavation,
limit the area where we excavate, limit
truck traffic, reschedule.
A lot of that detail we don't
put into our record of decision other
than the conceptual remedy, but,
certainly, the design activities, we'll
be back again to discuss those.
MR. SCHRAGER: Is the site
still accessible to people in the area?
MR. TENERELLA: If they really
want to get on it, sure.
MR. SCHRAGER: Because it seems
like if soil contamination is one of your
great concerns --
MR. TENERELLA: We don't have
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
85
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an acute problem anymore. We did at one
point and that's why we did the removal
action. That's why we had guards on the
site for a while. Once the high
concentrated chemicals in the facility
were removed, that burden was removed,
and all the problems now are long-term
chronic or chronic potential as opposed
to some kind of acute problem when we had
the chemicals there.
MR. SCHRAGER: It would be nice
if instead of spending eleven million
dollars in cleanup and getting a site
that someone will put a new residential
development on, spending a little less
and perhaps finding a park or creating a
park in the nearby area for all those
people that seem so fond of this area.
MR. TENERELLA: The burden of
Superfund is not to remediate.
MR. RICCOBONO: I don't think
that's their problem.
MR. SCHRAGER: We all are
contributing our taxes to government,
obviously. Not to make a social comment
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLl & WIEGMANN
-------
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on government, but there are benefits
being derived from changing our choices;
and one of them is, if we see that the
route of contamination in this case seems
to be centered so much around the soil
and we know that the site is used by kids
and adults and fishermen, et cetera, that
it seems that a more beneficial use might
be to try to do a cleanup in the way that
preserves some funds to provide these
people with an alternative to the place
they have been going to now, which the
EPA has decided is hazardous to one's
health.
MR. TENERELLA: The Superfund
law has not been formulated by Congress
to allow that kind of expenditure and we
operate under the law as it's structured
by Congress. There's no allowance for
doing something like that in the law. if
you want to suggest that to your
Congressman for modification to the law,
by all means.
You have to recognize that EPA
operates under a strict scripture of the
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Superfund laws passed by Congress and
regulations that reflect that, and part
of that is a very realistic concern by
Congress that Superfund sites cost a lot
of money to clean up and there has to be
some reality in terms of the kinds of
money that are spent with our biggest
concerns being protection of public
health and protection of the environment.
And where we can get someone else to pay
for it, the companies that are
responsible, to make sure that happens,
and where that doesn't happen, to be
careful where we can in expending public
funds. Unfortunately, with this
particular cleanup, especially, it's
going to be funded by public funds. The
cleanup decision doesn't change. Whether
the public pays or EPA pays, the policies
are set.
It would be nice if we could
take some money and do other options,
that's true in all of government, but
that's not how government works in any
case, to shift money between programs
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
88
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like that.
MR. BRUNO: Charles Bruno from
East Brunswick.
What kinds of experience have
you had in pump and treat systems like
those pump and treat systems when you
have volatile organics, heavier organics?
Pump and treat you're going to
be removing the water. Are you going to
come back and watch it later on and get
what's still attached to the soil?
MR. TENERELLA: Pump and treats
are relative technology. Pump and treats
are still going on in a lot of sites
right now.
MR. BRUNO: What's the rate of
success on it? I followed some of it and
some of it has not been very successful
because you have materials that are not
water soluble, they're floating on the
top or bottom. Who's to say when you're
pumping the water out how much of these
materials you're going to get?
MR. TENERELLA: Depending on
the geology of the site and design, the
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
89
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pump and treat system will be designed to
compensate for some of that site by site.
The biggest question along that line
normally is how effective will a pump and
treat be over the long run in terms of
getting down to groundwater that's
dr inkable.
MR. BRUNO: I don't know how
you evaluate it. I'm not familiar with
exactly how you tested it to find out
whether this process is going to work.
I'm not privy to that information. I
just want to know, did you evaluate it
that way?
MR. TENERELLA: Conceptually.
In design we'll have to get into detail
in terms of well locations, pumping
rates, where the wells will actually be
located in terms of depth, those kinds of
things. We'll be pumping and then
treating the water at a plant and then
surface discharge in the area.
MR. BRUNO: When you do the
excavation of th.e volatile soil are you
going to have something to prevent
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
90
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
volatilization to occur?
MR. TENERELLA: Yes. Depending
on the kinds of levels that we're seeing
and, again, in design one of the things
that we do when we are doing our site
cleanups is, we have to coordinate all of
our designs very close, not only the
selection of the remedy, but the design,
with the Department of Environmental
Protection & Energy. It might consist of
protections for the workers who are right
there working with their head in it, or
if there's a potential for any kind of
volatiles going off site at any kinds of
levels that would create any kinds of
difficulty to the public, then we'll
start different containment procedures.
MR. BRUNO: The investigation,
I know he mentioned aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation. I don't know to what
extent this was studied. I wonder what
the outcome was on tests along those
terms?
MR. TENERELLA: In terms of the
exact treatment we'll use?
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
91
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BRUNO: Bioremediation in
regards to soil or groundwater treatment.
MR. TENERELLA: In terms of
treating those alternatives?
MR. MOESE: Generally, it was
ruled out from the feasibility study at
the time because it's evenly proven for
certain types of organic compounds. With
the range of organics that we have in the
soil or the groundwater at these
locations we didn't feel it was going to
be feasible for this site.
MR. BRUNO: Maybe when you did
the original feasibility study, but at
this time I know that the B-text products
and also your algae and hydrocarbons
would be in groundwater.
MR. MOESE: Well, what I could
do, I have my feasibility study lead
right here, who's behind you. He helped
write the feasibility study.
MR. CHOZICK: Basically, there
were no feasibility tests on this
particular site.. As you pointed out,
yes, bio has been shown now to be
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
92
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
effective for B-text compounds and some
of the other compounds on the site. The
difficulties, biotreatment is still
relatively new technology, particularly
in these applications. So you're
hesitant to jump right into it on these
sites.
There are some compounds on
this site that aren't biodegrading, so
you need a treatment subsequent to the
bio anyway. Also, the concentrations on
the site were fairly low, which causes
problems in biotreatment. So since you
would need to have either air stripping
or carbon downstream anyway and the
concentrations are so low, it's much more
practical to just do that treatment
alone.
MR. BRUNO: I thought it was
more difficult on air stripping to remove
1o wer concentrations.
MR. CHOZICK: Actually, they
opted for the carbon, it indicates,
probably also for that reason, but air
stripping would get down to treated
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLl & WIEGMANN
-------
93
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
levels.
so far?
A VOICE: How much has it cost
MR. TENERELLA: Everything on
the site so far?
A VOICE: Yes.
MR. PORUCZNIK: We spent
approximately three million dollars on
the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, including both phases.
I believe it was approximately
one-and-a-half million dollars for the
removal action. So the total would be
roughly four-and-a-half million dollars
of just EPA funding.
MR. TENERELLA: That's not a
lot of money relative to other Superfund
sites, but that's a lot of money relative
to the size of this site and the scale of
it. One-and-a-half million dollars of a
small industrial, site like this is a lot
of money, but there was a lot of material
to pull out. The remedial investigation,
up to three million, is also pretty high
for a site of this size.
SCHULMAN,CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
94
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A VOICE: You project eleven
million to finish the job?
MR. PORUCZNIK: Yes, that's our
estimate right now, and that's for the
implementation.
MR. TENERELLA: And that's low
in terms of the average for Superfund
cleanups in New Jersey. Average cleanup
cost in New Jersey runs something around
twenty, twenty-five million now. An
average site. This is below average in
terms of the scale of the cleanup.
MR. SCHRAGER: Larry Schrager.
You mentioned the extent of
soil contamination. You showed a diagram
with a number of boxes and rectangles
around certain areas. Are those for the
cumulative thirty-seven hundred yard
excavation?
MR. MOESE: Yes.
MR. SCHRAGER: And you had one
pile to the far northeast section of the
site. It says, if I'm reading it
properly, "Rubble Pile."
MR. MOESE: That's next to it.
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That, actually, would be, if you're
looking at the figure, to the right of
it. This is sort of in between it. The
rubble pile you're looking at is right
here, in this area. The excavation area
is actually here.
MR. SCHRAGER: Oh, so the
rubble pile was not contributing in your
estimation to the surface contamination?
MR. MOESE: No, that was all
Jersey barriers and such, highway
dividers in that rubble.
MR. SCHRAGER: It sounds like
the total cost for the cleanup might run
around fifteen million dollars plus. I
just thought it was interesting that the
approximate cost for building a
state-of-the-art landfill is about five
hundred thousand dollars an acre and the
Fried site fits right in with that, five
thousand dollars an acre for a sanitary
landfill. It's a little upsetting --
MR. TENERELLA: This would not
be defined as a-sanitary landfill. It
would be designed as a hazardous waste
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
landfill if we had to do that here.
Plus, the area would then have to be
restricted for future development.
MR. SCHRAGER: I'm not
suggesting that this become a sanitary
landfill, I'm just pointing out for the
same five hundred thousand dollars an
acre we build sanitary landfills.
MR. TENERELLA: What I'm going
to suggest, I'm not sure if there's
anymore questions that are of a general
nature, if we want to get into very
technical questions, some other people
may not be interested in them, is that we
would stay and answer questions, more
detailed questions, if you have them.
Does that seem amenable to
everyone?
That would break into a more
informal session up here. If you have
some further questions, we'd be happy to
stay.
Thank you very much for coming
(Proceedings concluded.)
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
-------
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
I, RUTHANNE UNGERLEIDER, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State
of New Jersey, certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate transcript of the proceedings,
on the date and place hereinbefore set forth.
RUTHANNE UNGERLE^DER, C.S.R.
LICENSE NO. XIO1/634 "
SCHULMAN, CICCARELLI & WIEGMANN
------- |