PB94-963838
EPA/ROD/R02-94/233
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Jackson County Township
Landfill Site, NJ
9/26/1994
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site;
Site name: Jackson Township Landfill Site
Site location: Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
HRS score: 38.11 (August 8, 1982)
Listed on the NPL: December 1, 1982
Record of Decisiont
Date signed: September 2fc, 1994
Selected remedy: No Action.
Lead;
NJDEP Enforcement
Primary Contact: Joseph Gowers, (212) 264-5386
Secondary Contact: Kimberly O'Connell, (212) 264-8127
Main PRPs: Jackson Township, (908) 928-1200
Waste;
Contaminated Media: Limited groundwater contamination existed at
the site (chlorobenzene, lead). Levels in groundwater have
declined over time due to natural attenuation. Contaminants were
not found above levels of concern in soil boring samples collected
from the site.
Waste origin: Municipal Landfilling
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
JACKSON TOWNSHIP, OCEAN COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
PREPARED BY:
NJ. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM
BUREAU OF FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SEPTEMBER 1994
-------
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT 1
DECISION SUMMARY 3
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 17
USEPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE 18
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 19
FIGURES (1 to 3) r; 28
TABLES (1 to 8) : 31
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
Site Name and Location
Jackson Township Landfill Site
Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document, prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) as lead agency, presents the selected remedy for the Jackson Township
Landfill Site. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act of 1986
(SARA), the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
New Jersey Public Law 1993, c.139 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B), and the Pinelands Protection Act
(NJ.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seg.). This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this site. This decision is based on the administrative record for
this site. The attached index identifies the items that comprise the administrative record.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), support agency for this site,
concurs with the selected remedy and has provided a concurrence letter to that effect which
is attached to the responsiveness summary section of this document.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This Record of Decision (ROD) sets forth the selected final remedy for the Jackson
Township Landfill Site. The ROD addresses all environmental media and all operable units
at the Site. The selected remedy is "No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring".
The selected remedy requires a five year review to assure complete compliance with
CERCLA. This five year review will require documentation to confirm that the chosen
remedy provides adequate protection of human health and the environment. This review
will include ground water sampling and air monitoring.
This remedy complies with the NJDEP Ground Water Quality Standards, the Technical
Regulations for Site Remediation, and the New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993, c.139 (NJ.S.A.
58:10B) regulations. The levels of compounds and elements in the soils are consistent with
the NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria as outlined in the NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria dated
February 3, 1994.
-1-
-------
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The No Further Action remedy has been selected based on the results of the Baseline Risk
Assessment, which has shown that no further action is necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
Consistent with CERCLA requirements, a review will be conducted within five (5) years
after execution of the ROD to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. In accordance with CERCLA, the NCP
and state requirements, NJDEP has determined that no further action is.necessary to ensure
protection of public health and the environment at the Jackson Township Landfill Site.
NJDEP has determined that its response at this site is complete. Therefore, the site now
qualifies for inclusion on the "Construction Completion List".
Further Action Under New Jersey State Requirements
The New Jersey Solid Waste Regulations, NJ.A.C. 7:26-2 et seq.. require that sanitary and
solid waste landfills must be closed in accordance with a NJDEP approved solid waste
landfill closure plan. The Jackson Township landfill will be closed as specified in a NJDEP
approved solid waste landfill-closure ph
Signature
~ —
Richard J. Gimello, Assistant Commissioner
Site Remediation Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Date
-2-
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
Site Name. Location, and Description
The Jackson Township Landfill Site is located off Lakehurst Avenue in Jackson Township,
Ocean County, New Jersey. The property is situated in a regional reserve known as the
Pinelands. The Pinelands area is designated by the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A.
13:18A-1 et seq. The property is approximately 135 acres referenced as Block 32, Lot 61;
Block 35, Lots 1 to 11, 21 to 27, and 31 to 37; Block 36, Lots 2, 3, and 23 to 31; Block 37,
Lots 2, and 4 to 11; and Block 38, Lots 2 to 13. Of this area, approximately 20 acres were
previously used for the disposal of various liquid, semi-liquid, and solid wastes. The site is
surrounded by residential dwellings to the north, south, and west. To the east, the landfill
borders large sand piles and a quarrying operation. Figure 1 identifies the location of the
site.
The landfill soils are comprised almost exclusively of sand. This is attributed to the previous
owners activities - ilmenite mining. Ilmenite, an iron black opaque -ore of titanium, was
used as a source for paint pigments. Ilmenite mining consisted of dredging, extracting a
sand slurry, dewatering, separation of the ore-bearing sand and the extraneous materials,
and then final processing. Approximately 96% of the sand is returned, although without the
fine ilmenite particles. This operation was conducted for eleven years, at depths estimated
to be 40 feet below the undisturbed property surface. This process leaves soil (sand) which
is extremely porous as a result of the mining operations.
The geology/hydrogeology at the site consists of sands which grade to silty sand and clay at
increasing depth within the major water bearing formation, the Cohansey Formation. The
Cohansey Formation has two integral water bearing zones in the area of the landfill, the
Upper and Lower Cohansey Formation. Ground water flow in the Upper Cohansey is
generally in a south-south-west direction. Lower Cohansey Formation water flow is
generally toward the south.
Site History and Enforcement Activities
The Glidden Corporation owned the property until Jackson Township purchased it in 1972.
Jackson Township began accepting municipal wastes at the landfill in April 1972 under state
permit to receive sewage sludge, septic tank wastes and solid wastes. Landfill operations
commenced in the western portion of the property with the landfill accepting bulk liquid and
semi-liquid coffee wastes, household refuse, tree stumps, miscellaneous construction debris,
junked cars, and liquid septage. According to landfill records, the average liquid disposal
rate was approximately 8,000 gallons per day. Much of the liquid waste contained Volatile
Organic contaminants such as methylene chloride. In 1977 there were multiple complaints
-3-
-------
associated with the use of area ground water. Complaints included water quality problems
including clarity, taste, and smell, as well as rashes, digestive tract irritation, and other
medical problems alleged to have been caused through ground water use. Analysis ordered
by the NJDEP concluded that a segment of the Cohansey aquifer and several domestic wells
had been contaminated by hazardous substances disposed of at the Jackson Township
Landfill. In 1978, NJDEP ordered Jackson Township to stop disposing of liquid wastes at
the landfill. The NJDEP used Spill Fund monies to provide bottled potable water to
residents impacted by the contamination. In 1980, a citizen lawsuit resulted in a municipal
water system extension to properties affected, or potentially affected by the contaminants
disposed of at the landfill. Individual septic systems remain.
The landfill was closed by order of the Superior Court of New Jersey in February 1980. The
NJDEP filed a Verified Complaint requesting injunctive relief, statuary penalties, damages
and costs against Jackson Township by authority of the Solid Waste Management Act
(N.J.S.A. 13:lE-l.et. sea,.) and the water quality legislation set forth in NJ.S.A 23:5-28. This
complaint was amended in June 1982 to include additional regulatory violations.
In December 1981 and February 1982, sampling of twenty-two monitoring wells and eight
domestic wells was performed. Sample analysis found that contamination was not detected,
concentrations were below the method detection limits, or that established criteria were only
slightly exceeded. In April and December of 1982, the NJDEP sampled seventeen shallow
and deep monitoring wells at and in the vicinity of the landfill. With the exception of one
deep well (well #207D), all organic compounds sampled for were either not detected or
were detected below method detection limits. Inorganic compounds were detected in
several wells but rarely exceeded established criteria. Further sampling in 1985 revealed
similar results, again with one deep well showing isolated organic contamination, and several
instances of inorganic contaminants.
In December 1982, the landfill was included on the National Priorities List of Superfund
sites.
In 1983, the NJDEP approved the landfill closure plan submitted by Jackson Township
consultants Fellow, Read and Associates Inc., in a series of documents dated between June
1,1982 and October 19,1982. However, the implementation of the approved closure plan
was postponed pursuant to a 1988 Order for Consent Judgement pending the remedial
investigation conclusion.
In 1985, the NJDEP issued a New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit
(NJPDES). This permit was issued in order to monitor the ground water affected by the
site.
In 1988, the NJDEP and Jackson Township reached an agreement dictated by the Superior
Court of New Jersey Chancery Division. This agreement is part of the administrative record
and is referred to as the Judicial Consent Order (JCO). Pursuant to this JCO, Jackson
-4-
-------
Township was to reimburse the NJDEP for Spill Fund monies spent by the NJDEP totalling
$110,000. The JCO also required Jackson Township to arrange and fund an investigation
and remediation of the landfill.
In 1989, the NJDEP and consultants to Jackson Township conducted a preliminary
investigation of the site. Throughout 1989 and 1990, a Remedial Investigation was
conducted in which air, surface water, ground water and soil studies were performed under
the NJDEP and the USEPA guidance in accordance with the CERCLA and the NCP.
The NJDEP and USEPA approved the final Remedial Investigation in 1991. Jackson
Township contracted Marc Associates, Inc. to conduct the Risk Assessment in 1991. Marc
Associates, Inc. subcontracted the task to RAM TRAC, Inc.
RAM TRAC submitted a draft Risk Assessment in May 1992." This document and
subsequent re-drafts were unacceptable. Therefore, the NJDEP required Jackson Township
to re-contract the Risk Assessment phase to another company. In May 1993, Industrial
Compliance Corporation Inc. submitted a draft Risk Assessment which was approved by the
NJDEP and the USEPA in July 1993. Ground water sampling and air/gas monitoring was
conducted again in October 1993. Results from this sampling fully support the No Further
Action remedial selection.
Following the approval of the Risk Assessment, the NJDEP has been working with Jackson
Township to fulfill Solid Waste Landfill closure requirements.
Highlights of Community Participation
The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), for the Jackson
Township Landfill site were forwarded to the public repositories in February 1994. The
Proposed Plan was released to the public for comments on March 3, 1994. These
documents were made available to the public for review at the NJDEP office (Trenton, New
Jersey), the Jackson Township Municipal Complex (Jackson, New Jersey), and the Ocean
County Library (Toms River, New Jersey). The notice of availability for these documents
was published in the Tri-County News on March 3, 1994. The Asbury Park Press also
published unofficial notification during the week of February 27, 1994. A public comment
period on the documents was held from March 3, 1994 to April 1, 1994. In addition, a
public meeting was held on March 23, 1994. At this meeting representatives from the
NJDEP presented the preferred remedy and answered questions about the site. A response
to comments received during this period and the public meeting is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD.
Scope and Role of Response Action
The selected remedy for the site under the Superfund Regulatory Program is No Further
Action.
-5-
-------
This remedy is based on the fulfillment of all previous actions to minimize the potential for
exposure of humans and the ecological receptors to contaminants. This determination was
made because:
o The No Further Action remedy complies with the New Jersey regulations - NJDEP
Ground Water Quality Standards (NJ.A.C. 7:9-6 et sea,.), the Surface Water Quality
Standards (N.J.A.C.7:9B jet seq.). the Technical Regulations-for Site Remediation
(N.J.A.C. 7:26E), and New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993, c.139 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B).
Further, the remedy satisfies the policy and parameters outlined in the NJDEP Soil
Cleanup Criteria guidance.
o Based on the BRA, there is no current or future risk to public health greater than
the carcinogenic risk range of 10"4 to 10~6, or the non-carcinogenic Hazard Index
criteria of one (1) established by USEPA which is not directly attributable to
indigenous compounds. The risk is also acceptable pursuant to Public Law P.L. 1993,
c.139 which requires the risk to be no greater than 1 x 10"*. Therefore, based on the
BRA, there is no unacceptable current or future risk to human health.
o An ecological evaluation was conducted which concluded that current and future site
conditions do not pose a risk to the local ecological community.
o The entire site is surrounded by security fencing which restricts unauthorized access
to the site.
o Private potable wells in the area potentially affected by previous site disposal are on
a public water supply system.
o Ground water modelling and historical ground water sampling and analysis have
demonstrated that ground water quality is in compliance with the New Jersey Ground
Water Quality Standards and is improving due to natural attenuation.
Summary of Site Characteristics
A. Ground Water
A hydro-geologic study of the site during the RI field investigation was performed in 1987
and included the drilling of borings through the Upper and Lower Cohansey Formation, and
the collection of soil samples to evaluate site stratigraphy and contaminant concentrations.
Monitoring wells were installed through some of these borings in the Upper and Lower
Cohansey Formations. The Lower Cohansey wells were screened just above the Kirkwood
Formation. Ground water samples were collected from twenty-two (22) ground water
monitoring wells at and around the site. These wells were analyzed for Target Compound
-6-
-------
List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL) parameters. Figure 2 identifies the locations of the
ground water monitor wells. Five (5) compounds were detected above the New Jersey
Ground Water Quality Standards. These compounds were: chlorobenzene (29 ug/L),
aluminum (3340 ug/L), iron (100,000 ug/L), lead (47.9 ug/L), and manganese (327 ug/L).
Over several years of sampling, it has been determined that overall, contaminant
concentrations in the ground water have declined due to natural attenuation. As noted in
a subsequent section of this document, risk levels associated with .these compounds were
determined to be within the required contaminant exposure risk level range established by
the USEPA of 1 x KT4 to 1 x 10"6. In accordance with USEPA guidance documents and the
BRA, there is no current or future unacceptable risk to public health or the environment
related to ground water exposures as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks section of this
ROD. The New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993, c.139 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B) risk level of 1 x 10"6
is exceeded due to indigenous compounds and not contaminants emanating from the landfill.
NJDEP analysis of ground water samples taken from monitoring wells located downgradient
of the site property line has revealed that there is consistency in the compounds detected
and the levels at which those compounds were detected between compounds found at the
site, upgradient of the site, and downgradient of the site. From this analysis, the NJDEP
has determined that the Jackson Township Landfill Site is not a significant source of ground
water contamination.
B. Surface Water
Surface water sampling was conducted in the Ridgeway Branch and the Obhanan-Ridgeway
Branch, both tributaries to the Toms River located approximately 4500 feet south of the
deposited liquid wastes. A total of four samples were taken, one upgradient, one
downgradient of the site, one within the area most expected to be impacted by the disposal
practices at Jackson Township Landfill in the Ridgeway, and one sample adjacent to the
middle sample near the intersection of the Ridgeway and Obhanan-Ridgeway branches.
Samples were analyzed for Target Compound List compounds plus thirty additional
compounds.
The surface water sample analytical data confirmed that no site related compounds were
detected above the promulgated Federal or State Surface Water Quality Criteria. Based
on the amount of contamination found in the stream, the NJDEP and USEPA have deter-
mined that the contaminants in the Ridgeway Branch cannot be solely attributed to the
Jackson Township Landfill but also to the use of septic tanks and naturally occurring com-
pounds indigenous to the region. Figure 2 identifies the locations of the surface water
samples.
-7-
-------
C. Surface/Subsurface Soil
Nine (9) individual soil borings were installed, Six (6) of these borings were installed in the
former landfill area. The remaining three (3) borings were installed in areas known to be
inactive areas of the site. The samples were analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, inorganic chemicals, and total petroleum
hydrocarbons. No contaminants were found to exceed the NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria
dated February 8, 1994. Figure 3 identifies the locations of the surface/subsurface soil
samples.
D. Sediment
Sediment samples were collected at points corresponding to the surface water samples.
Contaminant concentrations appeared to be similar upgradient, and downgradient of the
site. In accordance with the NJDEP "Guidance For Sediment Quality Evaluations" criteria
and human "and health based parameters calculated in the BRA, none of the compounds
detected were determined to be above the guidance criteria or at concentrations of concern
as determined in the BRA. The "Summary of Site Risks" section of thisJROD incorporates
further information on the compounds detected and the associated exposure risks. Figure
2 identifies the locations of the sediment samples.
E. Air
Air samples were taken surrounding the landfill and in areas of disposal. This sampling
revealed that methane was almost exclusively confined to areas of disposal. The levels were
determined to be acceptable and below concentrations of concern. No other volatile organic
compounds were found to be emanating to the atmosphere from the landfill. The low level
of methane found is most likely due to the porosity of the landfill cover and the age of the
disposed material. It has been concluded that methane easily exits the disposal areas with
limited restriction. This limited restriction, combined with the relatively rapid
decomposition of the solid wastes, particularly sewerage, has allowed for methane
production to dissipate quickly over time.
Summary of Site Risks
Based upon the results of the RI, a BRA was conducted to estimate the risks to human
health and the environment associated with current and future site conditions under
hypothetical reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The BRA estimated the human
health and ecological risks which could potentially result from the site if no further remedial
actions were taken.
-8-
-------
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A four step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario:
o Hazard Identification-identifies the chemicals of concern at the site based on several
factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
o 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.
o 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).
o 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.
Hazard Identification
Chemicals of concern were selected based upon the frequency of detection in each medium
(e.g., soil, ground water, surface water and sediment), adequacy and representativeness of
the analytical results, toxicity, comparison to site or area-specific background concentrations,
and comparison to lab results for blank samples. The chemicals of concern for each
medium include metals (including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
chromium, cobalt, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and vanadium), volatile organic
compounds (including acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, chlorobenzene, freon-1,1,3 and
toluene), semi-volatile organic compounds (including 1,2,4-trichlobenzene, 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 4-
chloroanaline, 4-methylphenol, acenaphthene, acenapthylene, anthracene, benzoic acid,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzyl phthalate, chrysene, di-n-butyl phthalate,
diethylphthalate, fluoroanthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene), pesticides (DDT
and TPHC), and a polychlorinated biphenyl compound (arochlor-1242). A summary of all
contaminants detected in all ground water monitor wells, surface water, soil and sediment
is provided below and in greater detail in Table 1. Table 2 provides a summary of the depth
of the monitor wells associated with the site.
-9-
-------
CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
METALS
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SILVER
VANADIUM
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACETONE
BENZENE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
FREON-LU
TOLUENE
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
U-D1CHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DlCHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROANALINE
4-METHYLPHENOL
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAFTHYLENE
GROUND
WATER
yes
ye*
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
SOIL
y«
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
y«
yes
yes
y«
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
SEDIMENT
yes
yes
yes
yes
-
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
SURFACE
WATER
yes
yes
yes
yes
-10-
-------
CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
ANTHRACENE
BENZOICAQD
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
iTAJpROANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
PESTICIDES-
DDT
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
(TPHC)
POLYCULORINATED BIPHENYL COMPOUND
AROCHLOR-1242
GROUND
WATER
yes
SOIL
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
SEDIMENT
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
SURFACE
WATER
Exposure Assessment
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the chemicals of concern were
estimated quantitatively through the development of hypothetical exposure pathways. These
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to chemicals of concern based
on the current uses and potential future uses. The assumptions for exposure frequency and
duration and the equations to calculate exposure concentrations along with the resulting
exposure point concentrations using the reasonable maximum exposure scenario are
presented and discussed in the BRA.
Under current site conditions, exposure to chemicals of concern might potentially occur via
inhalation, ingestion and direct contact with surface soil, and ingestion, inhalation (as a
result of showering) and direct contact with ground water. Off-site exposure to chemicals
of concern from the Jackson Township Landfill were calculated by studying the surface
water and sediments and by evaluating direct contact with surface water, as well as ingestion
and direct contact with sediment.
-11-
-------
Populations which are potentially exposed to surface water, surface soil, sediment and air
under current site conditions considered in the BRA include current off-site residents,
trespassers, future on-site recreational populations and future residents. Off-site residents
were assumed to inhale chemicals of concern which are incorporated in dust particles,
volatile chemicals of concern which could be released during showering/bathing, as well as
drink from local wells which would be assumed to be contaminated with chemicals of
concern. In addition, children were assumed to be exposed to sediment and surface water
during play. A trespasser was assumed to inhale chemicals of concern in air-borne dusts and
to be directly exposed to chemicals of concern in surface soil through direct contact and
ingestion. A future on-site resident was assumed to inhale air-borne dust particles
containing chemicals of concern and from ingestion of soil and ground water
(showering/bathing and drinking), and inhalation of volatile chemicals of concern released
during showering/bathing. Children were evaluated by calculating future on-site use. These
children were assumed to be exposed to chemicals of concern in the soil through ingestion,
inhalation of air-borne particles and direct contact. A summary of all potential exposure
pathways for all media is included in Table 3.
Toxicity Assessment
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) and reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by USEPA
for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks which may result from exposure to carcinogenic
chemicals of concern at the site and for indicating non-carcinogenic adverse health effects
from chemicals of concern at the site, respectively. The BRA presents and discusses these
numerical factors used for the calculation of human health risks at the site. A reference
calculation of exposure point concentrations of the chemicals of concern in ground water,
surface water, soil, and sediment is included in Tables 4 through 7.
Cancer Potency Factor • (Also known as slope factor) is a quantitative assesmenl of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing) chemicals. Cancer potency factors (CPFs) are expressed in unit* of milligram*
per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day)"' and are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an
'upper-bound* estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The upper-
bound reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CPF.
Reference Doses (RfDs) - Developed by EPA to indicate the potential for advene health effects, these are estimates of daily exposure
levels for humans expressed in units of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day) which are thought to be safe over a lifetime
(including sensitive individuals).
Hazard Index (HI) • a quantitative criteria used to assess the non-carcinogenic adverse health effects which occur as a result of site-related
exposures to chemicals of concern. A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exist for non-carcinogenic adverse health
effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures.
-12-
-------
Risk Characterization
Under current Federal guidelines, excess carcinogenic risk from contaminant exposure
within the range of 10"4 to 10"6, calculated over the individual's lifetime is considered
acceptable. This can be interpreted to mean that an individual may have a one in ten
thousand to a one in a million increased chance of developing cancer as a result of a site
related exposure to a carcinogen using standard exposure conditions. As a requirement of
New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993, c.139 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B), the risk must be limited to 1 x
10"6 and the non-carcinogenic effect shall not exceed a Hazard Index of one (1.0).
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that the soils and ground water at the
site do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health. The calculated excess lifetime cancer
risks for soil exposure, using the reasonable maximum exposure, ranged from 9.9 x lO"8 (less
than ten additional cancers per one hundred million persons over a lifetime) for the adult
resident lifetime cancer risk associated with off-site inhalation of site soil to 5 x 10"6 (five
additional cancers per one million persons) for the hypothetical future child resident lifetime
cancer risk.associated with direct exposure to on-site soil. These calculated risk numbers are
within the USEPA's range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 106, however, New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993,
c.139 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B) defines an acceptable risk to be no greater than 1 x 10"6. The Risk
Assessment calculated three separate scenarios for which the risk was above the one per
million New Jersey requirement. In researching the reasons for risk in excess of New Jersey
requirements, it was determined that two compounds were responsible. These were arsenic
and arochlor-1242. According to the Remedial Investigation report, there was only one soil
sample which showed arsenic levels high enough to cause the excess cancer risk. This was
soil sample ID (approximately 20 feet deep) which had 4.7 mg/kg of arsenic reported. This
is well below the NJDEP soil cleanup criteria of 20 mg/kg. Arochlor 1242 was also
detected in only one sample (at approximately 3 feet deep) at 0.46 mg/kg. This is below
the NJDEP soil cleanup criteria of 0.49 mg/kg.
Three scenarios were evaluated to determine human health risk. These were as follows:
The future adult resident scenario evaluates the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
direct exposure to on-site soil. The cancer risk was determined to be 3 x 10"6, where 53%
of the calculated risk was due to arsenic and 40% due to arochlor-1242.
The future child resident scenario evaluates the lifetime cancer risk associated with direct
exposure to on-site soil. The cancer risk was determined to be 5 x 10"6 (as noted above),
where 56% of the calculated risk was due to arsenic and 28% of the calculated risk was due
to arochlor-1242.
The last scenario evaluated was for that of the future on-site recreational child. The cancer
risk was determined to be 2 x 10"6 where 47% of the risk was due to arsenic and 28% due
to arochlor-1242. Although the risk for a direct contact to soil exceeds the acceptable
-13-
-------
NJDEP health risk level (one in one million) a result of arsenic in soil, the arsenic level was
clearly determined to be characteristic of the regional natural background levels. The
NJDEP and USEPA have determined that there is no unacceptable quantified cancer risk
calculated for all potential exposure scenarios associated with surface water, ground water,
or sediments.
Current federal guidelines and New Jersey Public Law P.L. 1993, cJ39 (NJ.S.A. 58:10B)
define acceptable exposures for non-carcinogens as a maximum health Hazard Index of 1.0.
A hazard index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the exposure level exceeds the
protective level for that particular chemical.
After calculating hazard indices for both child and adult receptors of each of the media
(ground water, surface water, sediment and soils), only one type of receptor in one medium
was determined to be potentially at risk. The hazard index for the future adult resident
drinking ground water was calculated to be 1.73. Over 90% (1.59) of this hazard index was
due to antimony. Antimony was detected in two of twenty two ground water monitoring
wells. The first, well number 202, is considered up gradient of the disposal areas. The
other ground water monitor well, well 302, is located off-site and side-gradient of the site.
Well 302 is therefore outside the area which would be impacted by disposal on site. In
addition, antimony was not detected in any of the soil samples taken on or in the vicinity
of the landfill. Antimony was detected in the blank sample associated with the samples
from Well 302. (Blank samples are laboratory provided samples which are taken to the site
and are exposed to all aspects of the sampling. Contamination evident in blank samples are
usually the result of sampling/analytical error and are not associated with the site.) It is the
NJDEP's conclusion that the antimony in samples collected from these wells is not
indicative of the landfill operation, but is more likely due to regional natural background
levels, or the result of laboratory or field sample contamination.
The results of the BRA indicate that the current and potential future risks, both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, associated with the chemicals of concern for all media
at the site are within or below acceptable levels. The risks that are prevalent at the site are
on the property and are attributed to naturally occurring substances. Table 8 represents the
summary of human non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks for current and hypothetical
future site conditions.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
Through the use of the USEPA's guidance document; The Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund - Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual and its supplements, impacts to
the ecology of the site and its surroundings were identified and estimated. This was
performed through a four-step process based on maximum contaminant exposure scenarios.
The steps are: Problem Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant release,
migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways,
-14-
-------
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 Owraaerizflf/o/j-measurement or estimation of both current and future
adverse effects.
The objective of the environmental assessment was to evaluate the potential environmental
effects that the landfill has had on the local ecology. The assessment was a qualitative
appraisal of the actual or potential effects associated with the existence of the landfill. A
number of State, Federal, and Local government agencies, private organizations, and local
experts were contacted to obtain information on the flora, fauna, aquatic biota, historical
water quality data, soils, topography, and listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species
in the area of the site. The environmental assessment evaluated the following nine criteria:
wetlands/water resources; floodplains; presence of endangered and threatened
species/critical habitats; cultural resources; wild and scenic rivers; wilderness areas;
significant agricultural lands; coastal zones; and coastal barriers.
As determined from this evaluation of the site, no visual evidence of. impacts on plant or
animal species was determined for the site or wetland areas surrounding the site. No
federal or state listed endangered species were observed on the site, although some listed
or endangered species have been recorded as being in the area. The most likely exposure
pathways for the flora were determined to be uptake via water and sediments in the
wetlands in the vicinity of the site. The most likely exposure pathways for fauna were
determined to be ingestion of surface water and sediment in the wetlands, and dermal
adsorption from water in the wetlands.
Surface water runoff from the site is minimal to non-existent due to the nature of the soils.
To further assess potential ecological impacts, surface water and sediment quality data for
samples obtained from the off-site stream, were compared to state and federal ambient
surface water quality criteria and state sediment criteria. These criteria were developed to
be protective of ecological systems. This comparative assessment showed that the
constituents detected in surface water samples were below the applicable criteria and that
the constituents detected in surface water samples were found at concentrations typical of
background concentrations in the area, particularly in light of the regional use of septic
systems for the disposal of residential sewage.
The NJDEP and USEPA have determined that the disposal practices and resulting releases
at this site have not resulted in impact and degradation to any of the nine criteria and
therefore the Jackson Township landfill site does not appear to be impacting the local
ecological community.
-15-
-------
Description of the "No Further Action" Remedy
The NJDEP has selected the No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring remedy
for the Jackson Township Landfill Site. This remedy will result in contaminants remaining
on-site, therefore, a review will be conducted within five years after signing the Record of
Decision to ensure that no further action continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. Based on the findings of the Remedial Investigations and the
Risk Assessment, the NJDEP and the USEPA have concluded that conditions at the site
pose no current or potential threat to human health and the environment. The NJDEP and
the USEPA recommend "No Further Action" under the Superfund program for the Jackson
Township Landfill site because of the following:
o Based on the Risk Assessment, soil contamination poses no risk above the USEPA
acceptable carcinogenic risk range. While the NJDEP carcinogenic risk range was
exceeded, the exceedence was based on the existence of Arsenic at 4.7 mg/kg, below
the NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria of 20 mg/kg.
o The Hazard Index calculated for the site exceeds the NJDEP and USEPA criteria
based solely on antimony in the ground water. According to on^site data, the source
of the antimony is likely from natural deposits.
o NJDEP Ground Water Quality Standards are exceeded in only a few instances in the
ground water at the site with no contamination at the property boundary line
consistently higher than wells upgradient of the site. Based on multiple ground water
sampling events extending from 1981 to 1993, it has been determined that
contaminant levels are decreasing through natural attenuation.
Further Action Under State Regulations
The NJDEP is confident that the "No Further Action" remedy under the Superfund
program is protective of human health and the environment. Pursuant to the 1988 Order
for Consent Judgement, the final landfill closure would be postponed until remedial
investigations were concluded. In addition, State regulations require closure of the Jackson
Township Landfill site. The final closure of the Jackson Township Landfill site will be
conducted in a manner consistent with the NJDEPE Solid Waste landfill Closure
requirements thereby satisfying all necessary regulatory requirements for the Jackson
Township Landfill.
Documentation of Significant Changes
There is no change from the Preferred Remedy described in the Proposed Plan and the
selected remedy described in this ROD. •
-16-
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
JACKSON TOWNSHIP. OCEAN COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
1. Order of Consent Judgement (OCJ) issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Ocean County to Jackson Township and Kenneth Wickham to be
enforced by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP),
1988.
2. Preliminary Investigation Summary Report for the Legler Landfill, Jackson Township,
Ocean County, New Jersey prepared by Fellow, Read & Associates, Inc. June 8,
1989.
3. Phase 1 Remedial Investigation Summary Report for the Jackson Township Landfill,
Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. Submitted November 30, 1990
revised via addendum dated May 1, 1991.
4. Cotnmunity Relations Plan for Jackson Township Landfill Site, NJDEP, April 1989.
5. Risk Assessment Report, Industrial Compliance, July 15, 1993.
6. Proposed Plan, NJDEP, March 1994.
7. March 23, 1994 Public Meeting Proceedings Transcript, L.B.S., Inc., March 1994.
-17-
-------
USEPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
:'
-18-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
JACKSON TOWNSHIP, OCEAN COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
Comment Period: March 3, 1994 through April 1, 1994
-19-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OUTLINE:
This Responsiveness Summary is Divided into the following sections:
A. Overview
B. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
C. Summary of Comments Received During the Public Meeting and Comment Period
and NJDEP Responses
D. Community Relations Activities at the Jackson Township Landfill Superfund
Site
-20-
-------
A. OVERVIEW
This is a summary of the public's questions and comments regarding the Proposed Plan for
No Further Action under the Superfund Guidelines at the Jackson Township Landfill Site and
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) responses to those
comments.
The public comment period extended from March 3, 1994 through April 1, 1994 and
provided interested parties the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan and the
Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment (RI/BRA) Reports for the Jackson Township
Landfill Site. On March 23, 1994 at 7:00 PM, during the comment period, the NJDEP held
a public meeting at the Jackson Township Municipal Building to discuss the reports and
preferred remedy.
On the basis of information contained in the Rl and BRA Reports, NJDEP and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended No Further Action under the
Superfund Program for the Jackson Township Landfill Site.
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
The Jackson Township Landfill property is situated in a regional reserve known as the
Pinelands. The Pinelands area is designated by the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A.
13-.18A-1 et sea.
Prior to 1972, the Glidden Corporation carried out ilmenite (very common black mineral iron
titanate) mining activities at the site for eleven years before selling the property to Jackson
Township. The township commenced landfill operations in the western portion of the
property in April of 1972. The landfill accepted bulk liquid and semi-liquid coffee wastes,
household refuse, tree stumps, construction debris, junked cars and liquid septage. The
Jackson Township Landfill is surrounded by various residential housing developments.
Community concern about the water led to testing in 1977 by the township which concluded
that several domestic wells had been contaminated by landfill activities. NJDEP ordered
Jackson Township to stop disposing of liquid waste in 1978. In response to the concerns of
the public, the landfill was closed by court order in 1980. In 1980, a citizen lawsuit resulted
in a municipal water system extension to the affected properties. Sampling in 1981, 1982
and 1985 indicated only isolated contamination in wells in the vicinity of the landfill.
The landfill was included on the National Priorities List of Superfund sites in December of
1982. In 1988, NJDEP and Jackson Township entered a Judicial Consent Order requiring the
township to fund an investigation and remediation of the landfill. In 1989 and 1990, the
Remedial Investigation was conducted by Fellows, Reed and Associates. In 1991, MARC
Associates was retained by Jackson Township as a consultant and to continue with the Risk
Assessment and the Remedial Investigation.
-21-
-------
Presently, the revised closure plan is being developed, and will be reviewed by NJDEP. Once
the plan is completed and implemented the landfill will be officially closed.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND NJDEP RESPONSES
Concerns raised during the Jackson Township Landfill Superfund Site Public
Meeting held on March 23,1994 and during the public comment period from March 3,1994
through April 1, 1994, are summarized below. The comments are grouped in the following
categories:
- Potable Wells and Site Monitoring Well Issues
- Responsibility for Closure Costs
- Other Questions and Issues
POTABLE WELLS AND SITE MONITORING WELL ISSUES:
1. What are the safety precautions/procedures/regulations for well sealing?
As elaborated in subchapter 9. NJAC 7:9-9.1, the NJDEP may order the
decommissioning of any well due to abandonment, improper maintenance,
contamination, and/or well construction in violation of any provision of NJAC 7:10-12
Pursuant to these regulations the NJDEP requires property owners or well owners to
submit information to register an inactive well. In order for a well to be registered as
inactive, an owner shall hire a New Jersey licensed master well driller to inspect it.
2. Will monitoring wells be sealed as part of the closure?
As part of the Superfund Regulations the Jackson Township Landfill will be re-
eva'uated in five years to insure that the final alternative is protective of human health
and the environment and has resulted in no further contamination. At that time the
MJDEP will determine whether all of the remaining "monitoring" wells will be sealed
according to New Jersey well closure requirements.
-22-
-------
3. Will residential wells be sealed as part of the closure?
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:10-10.1 ej sea., residential wells should not be used at
residences which are supplied with public water unless they are permitted for such
use. Residential wells may be used for non-potable purposes provided the physical
connection is consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:10-10.1 et sea. The NJDEP has delegated
the enforcement of these regulations to the counties. There are no restrictions on the
use-of ground water in the Legler area.
4. There is an indication that there are monitoring wells now along the Ridgeway Branch.
Will they remain there through the closure procedure?
Yes. The monitoring wells will remain for at least five years.
5. Where ts the data on these monitoring wells?
The data is in the Remedial Investigation Report, November 30th, 1990. This report
is available at the following locations:
Jackson Township Municipal Building
RD 4, BoxlOOO
Jackson, NJ 08527
(908)928-1200
Ocean County Library
101 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08753
(908) 349-6200
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Community Relations - 6th floor
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-3081
6. Is there going to be ground water monitoring on the whole site?
Yes. According to the Superfund guidelines there will be "ground water" monitoring
on the site during at least the next five years.
-23-
-------
7. Will there be guidelines set for testing the monitoring wells?
The guidelines will be the same as in the initial sampling. See section 2-6 of the 1990
Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report for limits and parameters taken during the sampling.
8. Was the Antimony found in filtered or unfiltered samples?
Antimony was found in the unfiltered samples.
9. Is the Jackson Township Site having an impact on the Shady Oak Trailer Parks water
supply {located East of the landfill), or is Shady Oak's water supply, namely three wells, a
separate issue that needs further investigation by the township, county or NJDEP?
Shady Oak is on public water supplied by municipal wells located near the mobile home
park. Sampling performed in October 1993 by the NJDEP because of a resident
complaint revealed that no contaminants have been found above the MCL standards.
In previous permit required sampling, one well had been found to have a slightly higher
level of Nitrate, and is no longer in use. Nitrate is a commonly occurring compound
in the Pine Barrens.
10. If these water conditions did not come from the landfill site, then where did these
conditions come from?
According to previous sampling in October 1993, there is no contamination in the
Shady Oak Trailer Park's water supply.
11. If the contamination is from the landfill, will we find higher levels of these pollutants in
the future?
Based on ground water sampling done in 1981, 1982, 1985, 1990 and 1993 the
NJDEP has determined contaminant levels are dropping significantly at the Jackson
Township Landfill. This historical sampling has led the NJDEP and USEPA to conclude
that the contaminant sources at the landfill are abating. This decrease in contaminant
concentration is due to natural attenuation. The 1993 Baseline Risk Assessment
determined that the contaminant levels in the ground water in 1990 did not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
12. It was my understanding that the Legler section of wells were all ordered to be sealed
by the state during the Legler investigation in the late 1970's and early 1980's. This
apparently was overlooked and never enforced. Many of these wells are 4" cased wells into
the Cohansey Formation, however, there are at least six double cased wells which go into the
-24-
-------
Englishtown Formation at depths of over 550'. If the ground water was as contaminated as
first alleged, the residents who were awarded the 15.6 million dollars should have had these
wells sealed.
A thorough search at NJDEP and Ocean County files have revealed that no such order
was issued by the state, county or township however, the residents were advised not
to use their wells. Most residents chose to cap their wells. Several residents are
known to have sealed their wells. There is no record of anyone on public water using
a well for potable purposes.
Residents using public water supplies are free to use private wells provided they meet
all of the requirements of NJAC 7:10 - 10:1 et sea. Specifically those requirements
which protect the public water supply from an unapproved source. These regulations
mandate residents to obtain a permit. Permits are renewed .annually on April 1st of
each year. This is in.NJACx7:9-9:1 (refer to question 1). For NJDEP information on
•these permits,:public water supply requirements, or private ground water well
; requirements, please feel free to write the:
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
CN 426
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
13. One ruling which I believe was made that as residents sold their property they would be
responsible for sealing their wells.; I do not believe this is being enforced.
As stated in the response to the previous question (#12) no such requirement could
be found in the public records. The requirements to seal wells is specified in NJAC
7:9-9.1,7:10-12 et seq. or pursuant to requirements stipulated by the Ocean County
or Jackson Township. Potable wells are under the jurisdiction of the counties and
townships.
14. The private wells not only pose a threat to future residents who may not realize these
wells exist but also if there is any contamination left in the area "it opens up a possible channel
to aquifers which are being used as potable supplies to residents not supplied with public
water.
In the ground water investigation, numerous analyses have been done over the last
several years (See question #11) both up and down gradient of the site. These
sampling events have revealed no contaminants above the promulgated Federal and
State water quality criteria which pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment.
-25-
-------
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLOSURE COSTS:
1. There is no estimate on the amount of money the closure will take, and since it is a
Jackson Township funded project (at taxpayer cost), is there community input as to the
amount of money spent when you're essentially calling it a clean landfill?
There is money budgeted for the closure of the'Jackson Township Landfill site. If
there is a hearing regarding this budget it will be made known through a public notice
similar to that provided for the Proposed Plan hearing.
2. How can I request a hearing for the closure under the Solid Waste Permit Procedure?
Unless the existing closure plan is changed or modified in any way a hearing will not
take place. Since "No Further Action" under the Superfund Program is the proposed
plan a hearing usually is not held. If there is a change a hearing will be held by the
DEPE's Division of Solid Waste Management. Hearings are public noticed and notices
will be sent to participants in the proposed plan public meeting and residents who have
provided comments.
OTHER QUESTIONS AND ISSUES:
1. Is there a fence currently around all four sides of the landfill?
Yes.
2. Where did the contamination go?
Based on multiple sampling events and detailed studying of the site-related conditions,
the DEPE has determined that a vast majority of the contamination has dissipated due
to the nature of. the contaminants, biodegradation, movement*of .ground water, or
physical properties of the site and its surroundings. The NJDER believes that most of
the contamination has naturally attenuated.
3. Will the landfill be re-opened?
No. Jackson Township is required to close the landfill under the NJDEP Solid .Waste
Management Act.
-26-
-------
4. There was an incident in Brick Township where combustible gas was found off-site due
to the frozen ground and cold temperatures. Two firemen were called to a house where a
combustible gas formed in an off-site basement. This happened because of the cap that was
put on the landfill. People were told to move and construction was stopped. I don't want to
see this here. What is being done to be sure the incident doesn't happen again?
Currently methane has not been found to travel off the Jackson Township Landfill Site.
NJDEP has determined that this is due to the make up of the-on- site soil which allows
the gas to percolate unobstructed. The Final Closure Plan from the Division of Solid
Waste will address this issue in detail in order to satisfy the solid waste regulation
requirements, NJAC 7:26-2A.9.
5. Is there a time limit to close the landfill and what will be the time
limit? Will it take five years?
Yes. There will be a time limit on the final closure plan. The exact time frame can not
be set, it is expected that Jackson Township will be requesting DEP approval of a
revised closure plan. The initial closure plan of March 23, 1983 is pending until
revisions from Jackson Township authorities are approved. Once approved, the landfill
closure plan will detail a regulated closure schedule.
6. What are the extra space plans for the future?
The Deputy Mayor of Jackson Township stated they (Jackson Township) have no
plans for the site. Jackson has no plans for low-income housing, parks, or a golf
course. Some time in the future there will be some utilization for the property but not
any of the three uses mentioned. Based on the findings at the Remedial Investigation
and the Baseline Risk Assessment, the NJDEP and USEPA have limited authority under
the Superfund regulations to limit Jackson Township use of this property.
7. Why is a RCRA type action not considered an ARAB action under the Superfund Actions
and why have you decided to split them?
Jackson Township Landfill has never been a RCRA hazardous waste site but is a solid
waste landfill. Jackson Township Site is under Superfund Regulation which means
RCRA is an ARAR under that regulation, however, because no hazardous waste was
found, a solid waste landfill closure is appropriate.
D. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
NJDEP established information repositories at the following locations:
-27-
-------
Jackson Township Municipal Building
RD 4, BoxlOOO
Jackson, NJ 08527
(908)928-1200
Ocean County Library
101 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08753
(908) 349-6200
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Community Relations - 6th floor
401 East State Street
-Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-3081
NJDEP prepared a Community Relations Plan (April 1989)
NJDEP held a public meeting in Jackson Township to discuss the Initiation of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study on September 5, 1989.
The Remedial Investigation and the Risk Assessment were completed in 1993.
NJDEP held a public meeting in Jackson to discuss the recommended alternative of No Further
Action under the Superfund Program on March 23, 1994.
-28-
-------
LAKEHURST NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STAT
SITE LOCATION MAP
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
JACKSON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
0 5,000 0,000 Ft.
==j i 1
SCALE (APPROX.)
SOURCE'-
HAGSTROM MAP OF
OCEAN COUNTY, N J
FELLOWS,READ 8 ASSOCIATES INC. FIGURE I OATEM. 3090
-------
JACKSON TWP LANDFILL '.
SD-I
sw-i
A
— V
Af"
SD-2 )
S^2'/ASD-3
(^ SW-3
3°6 RIDGEWAY BRANCH
BRANCH
SCALE l" = 1000
LEGEND
S MONITORING WELLS SAMPLED
o MONITORING WELLS NOT SAMPLED
S-SHALLOW
D-DEEP
R-REPLACED
A SURFACE WATER
AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE
SD-SEDIMENT .SAMPLE
SW-SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
DATE'il 30 90
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
JACKSON TOWNSHIP. NEW JERSEY
FELLOWS, READ AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY
FIGURE 2
CURRENT
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
-------
DORATHY'S LANE
POSSIBLE LIQUID
DISPOSAL PIT
JACKSON TWP
LANDFILL
DATE'll • 30-90
LEGEND
SOIL BORING LOCATION
SCALE I =600
JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
JACKSON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
FELLOWS, READ AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY
FIGURE 3
SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
-------
Table 1
Summatyof the Chemicals of Interest and Range of Detected Concentrations
Chemical
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene
Car-bond isulfide
ChJorobenzene
Freon- 1,1,3
Toluene
Semi-volatiles
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-MethyInaphthaIene
4-Chloroaniltne
4-MethylphenoI
Acenaphthene
Acenapthylene
Anthracene
Benzoic acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene. .
Pesticides/TPHC
Aroclor-1242
DDT
TPHC
Groundwater Surface Water Soil
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/kg)
0.008-0.44
.
0.013-0.033 - . 0.017
0.008-0.029
0.011-0.021
0.006
0.29
0.25
- 031
035
- . 0.08
""0.13
0.072
0.066-0.19
0.14-3.4
0.099-0.78
r - 0.12-2.2
0.001-0.005 -
0.019-0.13
0.12
0.17
0.032-0.12
.
0.46
.
0.0512-1.21
Sediment
(mg/kg)
0.011-0.014
0.048-0.24
-
-
0.034-0.048
-
-
-
-
.
0.11-0.5
0.059
0.05-0.056
0.18-0.53
. 0.4-2.2
059-1.7
0.47
.6.2-9.1
0.053
1-1.5
0.34-0.79
0.92-0.99
-
0.086
-
-------
Table 1 (cont'd)
Chemical
MeU Is/Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
'Vanadium
Ground water
(mg/L)
0.057-3340
0.032.-0.034.
0.0068-0.107
-
0.0062-0.0313
•
0.0037-0.0479
-
.
-
0.0062-0.0098
Surface Water
(mg/L)
0.03598-0.434
;
0.0017-0.0241
-
0.00305-0.0072
-
-
-
.
0.0019-0.0078
-
Soil
(mg/kg)
309-22.900
1.4^.7
1-V4
0.79
4.3-73.2
3.8 .
5
1.7-65.2
0.23-0.27
9-37.9
1.7,74.8
Sediment
(mg/kg)
328-1170
14.4-18.8
3.7-19.4
-
4.3
.
5.5
14.M4.1
-
.
2
. 4.5-7.8 .
- not a chemical of interest for reasons described in Sections 2.2,23,2.4, and 2.5 or because of lack of
detection
-------
I
•fable 2
Uell
UD-1
UO-2
WO-3
101-R
102
202
2060
210
213
214
301S
301D
302S
302D
303S
"J03D
304S
304D
305S
3050
306S
306D
Date
Installed
11/17/82
11/18/82
11/22/82
8/15/90
9/18/80
7/24/81
8/06/81
7/31/81
8/24/81
8/06/81
7/29/90
7/24/90
7/10/90
7/19/90
7/06/90
7/20/90
7/17/90
7/25/90
7/19/90
7/26/90
7/24/90
7/30/90
Ground
Surface Elev.
(Ft.1 AHSL
,6
7
103,
120.
126.0
124.00
120.08
119.5
121.0
,7
,3
124,
119,
117.4
93.6
94.0
96.4
96,
83,
83,
'89.
89
82
82,
75,
,5
1
,5
,7
.6
.4
.2
.5
CUOUNDWATKK MONITOIUNC WLLL CONSTKUCT10N DATA
JACKSON TOUNSHII' UNDKII.I.
75.3
Depth
Drilled
(Ft.)
80
80
72
40
60
52
52
52
52
52
21
67
23
70
17
65
27
70
19
63
18
60
Screen
Depth
(Ft.) •
45-65
39-59
44-64
32-47
55-60
45-50
45-50
41*46
40-45
43-48
6-21
57-67
8-23
60-70
2-17
55-65
12-27
60-70
4-19
53-63
3-18
50-60
Setting
Elev.
(Ft.) AMSL
\
38.71-58.71
60.52-80.52
61.6-81.6
93.57-103.57
58.08-63.08
69.56-74.56
70. 8-75. .58
70.71-83.71
74.45-79.45
69.07-74.07
73.09-88.09
26.84-36.84
73.34-88.34
26.35-36.69
65.13-80.13
18.95-28.79
62.96-77.92
19.92-29.92
63.42-78.42
23.42-33.42
57.63-72.53
15.59-25.59
Top of
Casing
(Ft.) AMSL
105/71
121.52
127.60
126.57
120.08
121.56
122.58
126.71
121.45
119.07
96.09
95.84
98.34
98.39
85.13
85.79
91.92
91.44
84.42
84.42
77.63
77.59
Depth to Top (1)
of Screen from
Top of Casing
(Ft.)
4 7.00
41.00
46,00
32.00
57.00
47.00
47.00
43.00
42.00
45.00
8.00
59.00
10.00
62.00
5.00
57.00
14.00
62.00
6.00
51.00
5.00
10.00
Length
of Screen
(Ft.)
20OO
20.00
15.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
5,
5.
5,
5.
5.
5,
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
AMSL - Above Mean Sea Level
Ft. - Feit
(I) Highest Point of PVC Cosing
-------
Table 3
Potential Exposure Pathways
Potentially Exposed Exposure Medium, Route,
Population
and Exposure Point
Pathway
Selected for
Examination?
Reason far Selection or Exclusion
Currait Off-Site
Residents
Current Tre*p
Groundwatcr
Ingestion of ground water No
from local wells located
off-site
Inhalation of volatile No
chemicals released during
showering/bathing.
Dermal absorption of
chemicals in groundwater No
during
showering/bathing
Soil
Inhalation of particulate Yes
phase chemicals released
on-site
Sediment
Incidental ingestion • Yes
while at play
Dermal contact with Yes
sediment while at play
Surface Water
Dermal contact with Yes
water while at play
Soil
Incidental ingestion of Yes
site soils
Dermal contact with site Yes
soils
Inhalation of particulate Yes
produced on-site
Nearby residents are supplied
with public water.
The site is not vegetated. This
allows site soils to be entrained by.
the wind.
Children may play in streams
receiving site runoff
Children may play in streams
receiving site runoff
Children may play in streams
receiving site runoff
Persons may be exposed to soil
during unauthorized activities at
the site
Persons may be exposed to soil
during unauthorized activities at
the site
The site is not vegetated. This
allows site soils to be entrained by
the wind. ~
-------
Table 3 (conf d)
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Medium, Route,
and Exposure Point
Pathway
Selected for
Examination?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Future On-Site
Re*ident»
Future On-Site
Residents (cont'd)
Future On-Site
Recreational
Population
Soil
Incidental ingestion of Yes
site soils
Dermal contact with site Yes
soils
Inhalation of paniculate Yes
produced on-site
Groundwater
Ingestion of groundwater Yes
from on-site wells
Inhalation of volatile
chemicals released during Yes
showering/bathing.
Dermal absorption of
chemicals in groundwater
during Yes
showering/bathing
Soil
Incidental ingestion of Yes
site soils ,
Dermal contact with site Yes
soils
Inhalation of participate Yes
produced on-site
Future use of site groundwater
cannot be absolutely precluded for
the hypothetical future on-site
resident.
Children at play may ingest soil
Children at play may contact soil
Children at play may inhale, dust
particles
-------
Table 4
Exposure Point Concentrations for Groundwater
Chemical
Volatile*
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Semi- Volatile*
Diethylphthalate
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Chromium
Lead-
Vanadium
Arithmetic
Mean
Concentration
(m*/L)
0.00520
0.00425
0.00495
0.834
0.0167
0.0417
0.00787
0.0113
0.00399
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mR/L)
0.033
0.029
0.00500
3.34
0.034
0.107
0.031
0.048
0.010
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Concentration
fmR/L)
0.00650
0.00502
0.00597
1.58
0.0182
. 0.0696
0.0114
0.0288
0.00468
Reasonable
Maximum
Exposure
Concentration
(ms/L)
0.00650
0.00502
0.00500
1.58
0.0182
0.0696
0.0114
0.0285
0.00468
Table 5
Exposure Point Concentrations for Surface Water
Chemical
Metal*
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Arithmetic
Mean
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.298
0.0134
0.00409
0.00335
0.00338
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(tng/L)
0.434
0.0241
0.007
0.004
0.00780
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Concentration
(mg/L)
286
12.4
0.0112
0.0120
0.0390
Reasonable
Maximum
Exposure
Concentration
(mg/L) .
0.434
0.0241
0.00657
0.004
0.00780
-------
Table 6
Exposure Point Concentrations for Soil
Chemical
VOIalliCv
Acetone
Carbon disulftde
Toluene
Freon 1,13
Semi-Volatilci
12,4-TrichIorobenzene
I^-Dichlorobenzene
13-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-DichJorobenzene
2-MethylnaphthaIene
4'ChJocoaniIine
Acenaphthene
Benzoic acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyI) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Fluorahthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pe»dcide»/TPHC
Aroclor-1242
TPHC-
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Cyanide >
t A~JJ
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Arithmetic
Mean
Concentration
(me/ke)
0.0365
0.00407
0.00337
0.00553
0.196
0.192
0.196
0.198
0.180
0.184
0.180
0.814.
0.880
0206
0268
0.145
0.183
0.186
0.175
0.0930
0270
2518
1.01
8.57
0.105
19.9
1.1
0.643
11.4
0.0800
6.04
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(rr\a/^ef\ •
irc>K/*KJ
0.440
0.017
0.006
0.021
0-290
0.250
0310
0350
0.080
0.130
0.072
0.190
3.40
.0.780
. 2200
0.130
0.120
0.170
0.120
0.460
121
22.900
4.70
44.0
0.79
732
3.80
5.00
652
027
37.9
95%-Upper
Confidence
Limit
Concentration
* /• \
(mg/ke)
0.0646
0.00524
0.00399
0.00800
- 0.213
0.205
0213
0.218
0.205
0.197.
0208
.154
3.42
0397
0372
0.289
0.198
0.197
0.207
0.136
0.476
4797
1.42
.18.6
0.129
39.1
131
0.818
222
0.104
112
Reasonable
Maximum
Exposure
Concentration
(me/ke)
0.0646
0.0050
0.00399
0.00800
0.213
0.205
0.213
0218
0.080
0.130
0.072
0.190
3.40
0397
0372
0.130
0.120
0.170
0.120
0.136
0.476
4797
1.42
18.6
0.129
39.1
131
0.818
222
0.104
112
Vanadium
9.77
74.8
16.0
16.0
-------
Table 7
Exposure Point Concentrations for Sediment
Chemical
Volatile*
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Semi- Vola tiles
4-Methyiphenoi
Acenaphtnylene
Anthracene
Benzoic acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Quysene
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesticide*
4,4'-DDT
Metal*
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Chromium
Cyanide
Silver
Vanadium
Arithmetic
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.00925
0.131
0.00725
0.271
0395
0.309
1.03
1.18
0.845
0.413
7.85
0.291
0.670
0.493
0543
0.0566
682
14.6
8.78
2.25
2.09
1.24
3.79
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.014
0.240
0.007
0500
0.059
0.056
0530
2.20
1.70
0.470
9.10
0.053
150
0.790
0.990
0.086
1170
18.8
19.4
430
550
2.00
7.80
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.0289
464,000
0.0142
2.91
0.497
35.1
294
9.09
553
0546
10.0
- - 28.8
6.89
1.15
1.90
1.05
3920
41.2
106
10.0
109
3.11
164
Reasonable
Maximum
Exposure
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.014
0.240
0.007
0500
0.059
0.056
0530
2.20
1.70
- 0.'470
9.10
6.053
150
0.790
0.990
0.086
1170
18-8
19.4
4JO
550
2.00
7.80
-------
Table 8
Summary of Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risks for Current and
Hypothetical Future Site Conditions
Potentially Exposed Population Exposure Media, Pathways, and Points Hazard Lifetime
of Exposure Index* Cancer Risk'
Current Off-Site Residents ~
Soil
• Inhalation of dust transported off- 1.4E-3 IE-7
site
Sediment
• Incidental ingestion while at play" 2.2E-2 2E-7
• Dermal absorption while at play 8.1E-2 7E-7
Surface Water
• Dermal absorption while at play 4.5E-4
Current Trespasser
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 5-8E-3 3E-7
• Dermal absorption 2.3E-2 2E-7
• Inhalation of dusts 1.7E-9 3E-9
Future On-Sitc Adult Resident
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 1.2E-2 2E-6
• Dermal absorption 2.0E-2 8E-7
• Inhalation of dusts 1.4E-3 IE-7
Groundwatcr
• Ingestion 1.4E+0
• Dermal absorption while 3.5E-1
showering/bathing
• Inhalation of volatile chemicals 8.5E-3
released during showering/bathing
Future On-Sitc Child Resident
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 1.1 E-l 5E-f»
• Dermal absorption 4.5E-2 40-7
• Inhalation of dusts 2.MI-H 5E-K
Future On-Sitc Recreational
Child
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 3.7E-2 2E-6
• Dermal absorption 3.6E-2 3E-7
•_ Inhalation of dusts 4.0E-9 7E-9
'Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case risk estimates
------- |