PB94-963841
EPA/ROD/R02-94/236
March 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Dayco Corp./L.E. Carpenter Co.
Wharton Borough, NJ
4/18/1994
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
I.E. CARPENTER/ DAYCO CORPORATION SITE
WHARTON BOROUGH
MORRIS COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
Prepared by:
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Site Remediation Program
Bureau of Federal Case Management
April 1994
-------
L. E. CARPENTER SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration Statement for the Record of Decision 1
Decision Summary 3
Glossary 25
Responsiveness Summary 27
Appendices
Appendix A Discharge Numbers
NJ Ground Water Quality Standards A-1
Appendix B Soil Remediation Cleanup Goals A-4
Figures
Figure 1 Location Site Map
Figure 2 Map showing contaminated area
Figure 3 Areas of Concern
Figure 4 Alternative #4 Schematic
Tables
Table 1 Chronology of Investigative Remedial Activities
Table 2 Potential ARARs and TBCs
Table 3 Risk Assessment Summary
Table 4 Remedial Technologies Evaluated
Table 5-1 Summary of Technical Screening for Soil
Table 5-2 Summary of Technical Screening for Ground Water
Table 6 ARARs Compliance Summary
Table 7 Preliminary Cost Estimates
-------
Declaration Statement for the Record of Decision
L. E. Carpenter Site
Site Name and Location
L. E. Carpenter / Dayco Corporation
Wharton Borough, Morris County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the L. E. Carpenter Co./
Dayco Corporation site (hereinafter L E. Carpenter site or site), in Wharton Borough,
Morris County, New Jersey, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (CERCLA) by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) and New Jersey Public Law 1993, Chapter 139. This decision
document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present
an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The ROD addresses all contaminated media at the site including the soil and ground water.
The selected remedy is "Ground Water Treatment with Reinfiltration/Soil Bioremediation".
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Floating product/ground water extraction system installation and operation.
Remediation via biological treatment of extracted ground water.
Excavation and consolidation of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) contaminated
soils into soil treatment zone.
Reinfiltration of a portion of treated ground water (with added oxygen and nutrients)
into the unsaturated soil treatment zone via perforated piping to allow in situ
bioremediation of contaminated soils.
Recirculate a larger portion of treated water within the capture zone. Remaining
treated ground water will be discharged into a deeper aquifer in accordance with
ground water discharge criteria.
-1-
-------
Provide vegetative soil cover for the area of ground water infiltration system.
Spot excavation and disposal of soils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
lead and antimony where levels exceed the soil cleanup levels in locations other
than the east soils area designated as the disposal area. Excavation and disposal
of disposal area sludge/fill, which may inhibit in situ treatment.
Environmental use restrictions on property.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This 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 that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their principal element.
This remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site while the remediation
is in process. Therefore, a review may need to be conducted pursuant to CERCLA every
5 years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment until the soil remediation
goals and ground water quality standards are met.
Signature Date
Lance Miller, Assistant Commissioner
NJDEPE
-2-
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
L. E. Carpenter Site
Wharton Borough, New Jersey
1. SITE DESCRIPTION
The L E. Carpenter Co. / Dayco Corporation site (hereinafter L. E. Carpenter site or site)
is located at 170 North Main Street, Borough of Wharton, Morris County, New Jersey. The
site occupies approximately 14.6 acres northwest of the intersection of the Rockaway River
and North Main Street. The Rockaway River borders the site to the south; a vacant lot lies
to the east; a compressed gas facility (Air Products Inc.) borders the site to the northeast.
Residential properties are located on the northwestern side of the site, separated by Ross
Street. Facility operation ceased in 1987. Presently the western portion of the site is used
as warehouse space, the eastern portion is access restricted by a fence.
The Rockaway River provides recreational value (fishing, swimming and boating) from the
Washington Forge Pond through to the Route 46 Bridge located in Dover Township. This
section is currently classified as trout maintenance by NJDEPE.
Shallow ground water in the general vicinity of the site is not used as a potable water
supply nor is it hydraulically linked to the city water supply wells. Potable water is supplied
by the Wharton Borough Water Department. A search of available well records indicate
that there are no private wells or public community water supply wells in the general area
of the site.
The Borough of Wharton encompasses an area of approximately 2 square miles, with a
population of approximately 5400 (Census data, 1990). The town of Dover, Mine Hill
Township, Rockaway Township, Jefferson Township, and Roxbury Township are in close
proximity of Wharton Borough. Approximately three quarters of the borough is zoned
residential whereas the remaining is zoned commercial industrial.
2. SITE HISTORY
L E. Carpenter manufactured vinyl wall coverings from 1943 to 1987. The manufacturing
process involved the generation of waste solvents including xylene and methyl ethyl ketone,
the collection of solvent fumes via "smog hog" condensers, the collection of particulate
matter via a dust collector and the discharge of non-contact cooling water to the Rockaway
River. From 1963 to 1970, waste material relating to the manufacturing operations were
disposed of into an on-site impoundment. The active production of vinyl wall coverings
ceased in 1987. Since that time, the portion of the facility east of the rail road tracks has
been inactive and access restricted by a fence. The buildings west of the rail road tracks
have been subleased as warehouse space and manufacturing operations.
-3-
-------
NJDEPE conducted soil and ground water sampling on August 18, 1980 and March 3,
1981. Sampling results indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds, base neutral
compounds, metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, NJDEPE observed
immiscible chemical compounds floating on the ground water table.
In response to the findings indicated from the sampling efforts, in 1982 L E. Carpenter and
NJDEPE entered into an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) which Carpenter agreed to
delineate and remove soil and ground water contamination at the site. On February 24,
1983, an Addendum was added to the 1982 AGO to clarify its provisions.
In April of 1985, LE. Carpenter was listed on the National Priorities List (Superfund). On
September 26, 1986, the NJDEPE and Carpenter entered into and Amended AGO which
superseded the previous Orders. Under the terms of the Amended 1986 AGO, L E.
Carpenter initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
3. ON GOING OR COMPLETED REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
L. E. Carpenter implemented several remedial programs which have addressed some
sources of contamination discovered at the site. In 1982, L. E. Carpenter removed
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of sludge and soil from a former surface impoundment;
excavated and removed starch drying beds; instituted, and has continued, a ground water
monitoring program in 1984; and initiated a passive recovery system for the floating
compounds on the ground water table. The passive recovery system has been upgraded
twice, most recently in October 1993 to maximize its efficiency. In 1989, an extensive
asbestos removal was completed in former Buildings 12, 13 and 14. These buildings were
razed in January 1992. All underground and inactive aboveground storage tanks were
decommissioned and removed from the facility in 1990 and 1991 pursuant to NJAC 58:10A.
Table 1 summarizes chronology of investigation and completed remedial activities.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show site location; areas of contamination; and areas of study.
4. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The following documents were made available to the public for review:
Revised Report of Remedial Investigation Findings (June 1990)
Supplemental Remedial Investigation (November 1990)
Baseline Risk Assessment (January 1992)
Bioremediation and Soil Flushing Treatability Study Report (July 1992)
Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report (September 1992)
Rockaway River Sediment Ecological Assessment (March 1993)
Final Feasibility Study (October 1993)
-4-
-------
The RI/FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the L E. Carpenter site were released to the
public for comment on December 1, 1993. These documents were made available to the
public in both the administrative record and an information repository maintained at the
Wharton Borough Municipal Building and the Wharton Public Library. The notice of
availability for these documents was published in the Daily Record on December 1, 1993.
A public comment period on the documents was held from December 1,1993 to December
31, 1993. In addition, a public meeting was held in the Borough of Wharton on December
8, 1993. At this meeting, representatives from NJDEPE, L. E. Carpenter and Roy F.
Weston Inc., L E. Carpenter's consultant, answered questions about problems at the site
and the remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments received
during this period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD.
A public meeting was held on June 28, 1989 in Wharton Borough which informed the
public of the initiation of the RI/FS at the site. The community expressed concerns
regarding suspected "satellite" dumping locations which are presently being investigated
by the potential responsible party. NJDEPE also held a meeting with local officials on June
5, 1992 to brief them on the progress of the site investigation.
5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
SOIL
To facilitate remedial investigations, the site was divided into three areas of study based
upon former operations, specifically Area I, Area II, and Area III.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show site location; areas of study; and areas of contamination which
are applicable to the following discussion.
Area I is bounded by former Buildings 12, 13, and 14 and extends northeast along the
railroad Right-of-Way (ROW), east across the site to include the drainage ditch and which
is part of the Air Products property, across to the adjacent property approximately 500 feet
north east into the Wharton Enterprises property to encompass the abandoned sewer line,
and along the Rockaway River to the steel penstock. Shallow soil samples were collected
in approximately 26 locations. Deep soil samples were collected from a depth immediately
above ground water (2 to 8 feet below ground surface (BGS)) at 63 locations.
Shallow soils indicate levels of bis (2-ethyl-hexyl) phthalate (DEHP) at concentrations up to
15,000 ppm. Three surface soil samples collected at the Wharton Enterprises property
indicated levels of PCBs up to 45 ppm. Metals, specifically antimony and lead, were
detected at the southeast perimeter of former Building 13 and south of monitor well MW-9.
at concentrations up to 413 ppm and 2230 ppm respectively.
Analysis of deep soil samples indicate levels of DEHP in concentrations up to 30,000 ppm
in the area extending from former Buildings 13 and 14 in the west to the terminus of the
-5-
-------
abandoned sewer line in the east, and from the drainage ditch in the north to the
Rockaway River in the south. VOCs, namely xylene at levels up to 460 ppm, and
ethylbenzene up to 43 ppm were also detected. Lead and Antimony were detected at
concentrations of 765 ppm and 423 ppm respectively.
Area II encompasses the western edge of Building 15 to the western edge of former
Buildings 13 and 14 and the northern edge of Building 15 to the Rockaway River. A total
of nine (9) shallow soil samples and four (4) deep (directly above the water table) were
collected. Results indicate no contamination above the NJ soil cleanup criteria with the
exception of one soil sample which indicated the presence of lead at a concentration of
2230 ppm.
Area III encompasses Buildings 2, 8 and 9, which border Ross Street and the Washington
Forge Pond. A total of 18 shallow and 21 deep soil samples were collected. Area III deep
soils investigation indicated elevated levels of base neutrals (BNs), mainly DEHP, at
concentrations at 6,302 ppm west of Building 8. Shallow soil sampling results indicated
concentrations of PCBs from non-detect (ND) to 2.9 ppm in the starch drying bed area at
the northern portion of the site. Elevated levels of Antimony were found at a concentration
of 828 ppm adjacent to the loading dock at Building 9.
GROUND WATER
Results of the ground water investigation at the site have determined that the extent of
contamination is located in Areas I and II and restricted to the shallow aquifer which flows
in a northeasterly direction, towards the Air Products drainage ditch. Ground water
contamination exists in both a floating product and dissolved phase and has migrated onto
the neighboring property, Wharton Enterprises. The predominant volatile organic chemicals
are xylene at levels up to 120,000 ppb, and ethylbenzene at levels up to 26,000 ppb. The
predominant base neutral is DEHP in concentrations from ND to 62,000 ppb. The existing
floating product is being reduced using an on site passive recovery system. Metals, such
as Arsenic and Antimony were detected in some of the ground water samples at
concentrations up to an estimated concentration of 21.3 ppb and 540 ppb respectively.
ROCKAWAY RIVER AND AIR PRODUCTS DITCH
As part of the Remedial Investigation, surface water and sediment samples were taken to
determine possible site impacts on the Rockaway River and sediments located adjacent
to the river and the Air Products drainage ditch.
Air Products Drainage Ditch
The Air Products Drainage Ditch borders the L. E. Carpenter property on the north eastern
portion of the property. The standing water located within the ditch eventually leads into
the Rockaway River or percolates into ground water during periods of low water table.
Sediment sample results indicate detectable levels of Total Base Neutrals and Metals. The
predominant BN was DEHP found in concentrations from ND to 520 ppm. The
-6-
-------
predominant Metals were arsenic at concentrations up to 25.7 ppm, chromium at
concentrations up to 34.7 ppm, lead at concentrations up to 503 ppm, mercury at
concentration up to 21 ppm, and zinc at concentrations up to 336 ppm. Surface water
samples indicate elevated levels of Volatile Organic Compounds. The predominant volatile
organic compound was xylene at a detected concentration of 44 ppb.
Rockaway River
The Rockaway River borders the site from the south western portion up through the
eastern portion. Sediment sampling results indicate elevated levels of Total Base Neutrals
and Metals in samples on the eastern portion of the site. The predominant BN was DEHP,
found in concentrations from 1.6 ppm to 76 ppm. The predominant Metals were antimony
at concentrations up to 718 ppm, copper at concentrations up to 711 ppm and lead at
concentration up to 339 ppm. Surface water samples indicated volatile organics at trace
levels, below the Surface Water Quality Standards.
6. SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
Based upon the results of the Remedial Investigation, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future site conditions. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the potential human health and ecological risk which
could result from the contamination at the site if no remedial action were taken. Site risks
are expressed in exponential terms when estimating the cancer risk. Excess lifetime cancer
risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with the cancer potency factor. These
risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1x10'6 or 1E-
6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10'6 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an
individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions
at a site.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium
is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from
the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's reference dose).
By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a
given population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple
contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment
Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that
intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks
calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer
risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
-7-
-------
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation
and uncertainty factors have been applied.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects.
RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure
levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that is not likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking
water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies
or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the
use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors help ensure
that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to
occur.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a
conservative estimate of reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification-
identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on several factors such as toxicity,
frequency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure >4ssessmenf--estimates the
magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of
these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., drinking 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.
The baseline risk assessment selected site related contaminants of concern based on
frequency of detection, toxicity and comparison to background levels. These contaminants
included DEHP, antimony, PCBs, methylene chloride, benzene, ethylbenzene, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chromium (hexavalent), 1,1 -dichloroethane, 1,1 -dichloroeth-
ene, tetrachloroethene, tricholoroethene, toluene, xylene, arsenic, lead, nickel. All of the
above contaminants, except lead, antimony, ethylbenzene, xylene, and nickel are known
to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected to be human carcinogens. The
chlorinated solvents such as 1,1,-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene,
tricholoroethene, are considered to be off-site related from the Air Products property and
are above ground water quality standards.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which could result from exposure
to contamination if no action is taken to remediate sources of contamination as a result of:
* the ingestion, inhalation and skin contact with surface soil;
* ingestion, inhalation and skin contact with ground water
-8-
-------
* incidental ingestion and skin contact with stream sediments;
* incidental ingestion and skin contact with surface water; and
* the consumption of contaminated animals (fish) from the Rockaway River.
Ground water is not currently used as a potable source at or within a 1 mile radius of the
site. Therefore, human health risks associated with ingestion, inhalation and skin contact
with contaminated ground water represents the hypothetical future use by a resident living
on or directly adjacent to the site and using the ground water as a potable source.
Table 3 summarizes the risk estimates evaluated in the Risk Assessment.
Summary of Health Risks
Through a quantitative assessment of exposure pathways for the contaminants of concern,
specific health risk levels were calculated to enable an evaluation of potential health risks
for human receptors. The risk of cancer from exposure to a chemical is described in terms
of the probability that an individual exposed for an entire lifetime (70) years will develop
cancer. The carcinogenic risk, then, is a function of the estimated average daily intake
over a lifetime and the cancer slope factor (SF) for the chemical of concern. Under the
present use scenario, workers were assumed to spend 25 years at a job on site, therefore,
an exposure duration of 25/70 years was used. In the future use scenario for resident
exposures, carcinogenic risk was calculated based on the assumption that the resident is
spending 30 years in one house, located within the site boundary. This represents 6 years
of exposure as a child and 24 years exposure as an adult, therefore, exposure durations
of 6/70 years and 24/70 years were used to calculate child and adult carcinogenic risk,
respectively. Exposure duration considered in the child wader/swimmer scenario was
based on a 6 month exposure per year over 6 years. Thus exposure durations of 6/12
months and 6/70 years were used. The quantitative health risk evaluation identified the
following potential health risk for each media:
Soil
A cancer risk of 8.2 x 10'" was established for an on-site employee; a cancer risk of 2.6 x
10"5 for a trespasser; and a cancer risk of 1.9 x 10"3 for a hypothetical future resident who
is exposed to soil via incidental ingestion, inhalation and skin contact. The Hazard Index
(HI) which reflects non carcinogenic effects for a human receptor was estimated to be 11
for an on-site employee, 2.1 for a trespasser, and 79 for a future resident.
Ground Water
A cancer risk was established for a hypothetical future resident for the ingestion, inhalation,
and skin contact with ground water from the shallow, intermediate and deep zones who
uses well water as a sole potable water source over a lifetime. The risks calculated are 4
x 10"*; 1.3 x 10"4; 4.0 x 10'4; for shallow, intermediate and deep ground water respectively.
The Hazard Index which reflects non-carcinogenic effects for the hypothetical future
resident which ingests, inhales or has dermal contact with the ground water, was estimated
-9-
-------
to be 413 for shallow ground water, 4.4 for intermediate ground water and 6.2 for deep
ground water. The carcinogenic and non carcinogenic risk for both intermediate and deep
ground water have been determined to be an over estimation of the true conditions of the
site because DEHP was only found to exceed the Ground Water Quality Standards in one
well in each respective aquifer.
In the intermediate ground water, DEHP and arsenic exceeded the 10"6 carcinogenic risk
levels and exceeded a HI of 1.0. DEHP was detected in one well (MW-12! at 77 ppb)
above the Ground Water Quality Standard. Arsenic was detected in 1 of 14 samples
below the Ground Water Quality Standard.
In the deep ground water, DEHP and 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) exceeded carcinogenic
risk levels and/or a HI of 1.0. Each compound was detected in only 1 of 10 samples. 1,2-
DCA was detected as an estimated value and is below the Ground Water Quality Standard.
The DEHP concentration has only been reported in one deep well (MW-11d at levels of ND,
3600 ppb and 820 ppb) in the area were ground water contamination is the highest. Since
DEHP has only been detected at levels which exceed the Ground Water Quality Standard
in one well, deep ground water does not warrant remediation, unless further studies
conclude otherwise.
River Sediments
A cancer risk of 7.9 x 10"6 was established for a wader/swimmer who incidently ingests
river sediments or through skin contact. The Hazard Index which reflects non-carcinogenic
effects for a human receptor was estimated to be 0.32. An assessment of the Air Products
drainage ditch determined that the ditch is inaccessible to the trespasser and too shallow
to be used for wading and swimming. The potential risks due to exposure to these
sediments are negligible. Thus the sediment samples taken at the drainage ditch were not
included in this evaluation. Any potential contamination from the sediments will be
captured by the proposed ground water recovery system.
River Surface Water and Fish Ingestion
A total carcinogenic risk of 2.1 x 10'7 was established for dermal contact of river surface
water. A carcinogenic risk of 5 x 10"8 was established for the incidental -ingestion of river
water by waders and swimmers The Hazard Index which reflects non-carcinogenic effects
for a human receptor was 0.013.
A total carcinogenic risk of 6.3 x 10'4 for consumption of fish (by both child and adult) was
developed. The Hazard Index which reflects non-carcinogenic effects for a human receptor
was estimated to be 1.6 (child). However, arsenic was the only identified carcinogenic
substance present in surface water. Arsenic was detected in two of four of the surface
water samples from the Rockaway River at an estimated value. These estimated (J) values
were used in the baseline risk assessment. The risk estimate is based on consumption of
a large amount (54 g/day) of fish caught from the river. It was further assumed that
consumption occurred daily over a 30-year period. This approach results in a conservative
-10-
-------
overestimation of risk. Based on available information and the conservative evaluation,
control of fish consumption does not appear to be warranted.
Conclusion
These calculated health risks represent a reasonable maximum exposure which represent
a summation of the chemical-specific risks associated with each medium being evaluated.
EPA has established a carcinogenic risk range for cleanup of contaminated sites of 1 x 10~4
to 1 x 10~6 excess cancer risk and a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for non-carcinogenic
risks. N.J.P.L 1993 c139 requires that any proposed remedy must meet the cleanup
criteria of 1 x 10'6 for each contaminant and a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for non-
carcinogenic risks. The more conservative 1 x 10"6 is used for achieving final remediation.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
the proposed alternative may present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare
or the environment.
Based on the scenarios presented, the contaminants identified in soil and shallow ground
water exceed the acceptable risk established by NJDEPE of 1 x 10'6 and the EPA target
risk range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6 for carcinogenic risk and the Hazard Index of 1.0. Other
scenarios that exceed the hazard index; fish consumption, intermediate and deep ground
water exposure, do not indicate a need for remediation based on NJDEPE evaluation (see
discussions under Ground Water and River Surface Water and Fish Ingestion on pages 9
and 10).
Estimated risk levels presented in the Risk Assessment (presented in section 5) were used
to identify the primary soil contaminants. Potential risk due to exposure to soil
contaminants results from ingestion of, inhalation of, or dermal contact with the soil.
Exposure via each of these potential pathways would be eliminated if direct contact with
the soil was prevented. The present indoor operations of the tenants at the site and any
probable future use scenarios do not create a significant risk of direct soil contact by on-
site workers, and the site is fenced to prevent trespassing.
If contact with the contaminated soil is not precluded, specific locations on site would have
to be remediated. Hypothetical future residential use (using 95 % limit concentrations)
resulted in estimated carcinogenic risks exceeding 1x10'6 or HI exceeding 1.0 for DEHP,
Aroclor 1254, methylene chloride, benzene, ethylbenzene, five PAHs, antimony, and
chromium (assuming hexavalent). Ninety percent of the carcinogenic risk was attributed
to DEHP, which was found in approximately 90% of the soil samples collected.
However, based on the historical industrial use of the site, non residential use scenarios
are more appropriate for estimating potential risks and identifying soil areas requiring
remediation. To ensure nonresidential use of the site in the future, an environmental use
restriction will be imposed. As discussed below, not all contaminants on Table 8 need to
be addressed as part of the selected remedy herein.
-11-
-------
Compliance with the soil cleanup criteria is determined using the following policy: Data
generated within an area of concern, excluding any samples from a "clean" buffer zone, is
what is being utilized for compliance averaging. An area of concern as first identified may
be reduced or expanded based on site investigation sampling events. Only those samples
which lie within the modified area of concern can be utilized for compliance averaging. The
sample collection shall be from discrete six inch (6") intervals, unless poor sample recovery
or other filed logistical problems occur. Samples from different depth intervals are not
averaged together to determine compliance with applicable remediation criteria.
Once it has been determined which samples may be utilized for compliance averaging, the
following represents NJDEPE policy on determining compliance, which incorporates using
(1) arithmetic mean and 2) the multiplying factor. The arithmetic mean of the concentration
of contaminant in all soil samples from the same depth interval in an area of concern must
be less than or equal to the applicable soil cleanup criteria for that contaminant. The
multiplying factor is dependent on the soil cleanup criteria. No single sample can exceed
the applicable soil cleanup criteria for that contaminant by more that the following factors:
1) if the applicable soil cleanup criteria is ten (10) ppm or less, then the individual soil
samples cannot exceed the soil cleanup criteria by more than a factor of ten (10) and
cannot exceed a total of fifty (50) ppm; 2) if the applicable soil cleanup criteria is greater
that ten (10) ppm but less that or equal to one hundred (100) ppm, then the individual soil
samples cannot exceed the soil cleanup criteria by more than a factor of five (5) and
cannot exceed a total of two hundred (200) ppm and; 3) if the applicable soil cleanup
criteria is greater that one hundred (100) ppm, then the individual soil samples cannot
exceed the soil cleanup criteria by more than a factor of two (2).
Methylene chloride may be attributable to some extent to laboratory contamination since
it was commonly detected in blank samples. Methylene chloride was also detected in
samples of fill material collected from the disposal area. The arithmetic average
concentration (15.9 mg/kg) of methylene chloride in soil samples is below the NJ non
residential soil cleanup criteria (210 mg/kg) and the maximum concentration (310 mg/kg)
did not exceed two times the standard. Therefore, remediation of methylene chloride
contaminated soils is not required.
Benzene was detected in 6 of the 97 soil samples. The arithmetic average concentration
of benzene (2.85 mg/kg) is below the NJ nonresidential soil cleanup criteria (13 mg/kg)
and the maximum concentration (34 mg/kg) does not exceed the cleanup criteria by a
factor of five. Therefore, remediation of benzene in site soils is not required.
For each of the five PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthrene/
benzo(k)fluoranthrene, chrysene, and indeno(1,2,3,c,d)pyrene) the arithmetic average
concentration did not exceed the NJ soil cleanup criteria, and the maximum concentration
did not exceed the cleanup criteria by a factor of 10.
Toxicity values are not available to calculate risks due to lead, which was found in every
soil sample collected, including background samples. Several hot spots of lead were
detected. Excavation of lead hot spots which exceed the NJ non residential soil cleanup
-12-
-------
criteria of 600 ppm will be conducted.
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the ecological assessment is to identify and estimate the potential
ecological impacts from the release of contaminants on the aquatic resources in the
Rockaway River, which is adjacent to the site.
The technical guidance for the performance of this risk assessment comes from several
sources, including the Endangerments Assessment Handbook (EPA, 1986a); Ecological
Risk Assessment (Urban and Cook, 1986a); and the Interim Final Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Volume II Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989b).
The ecological risk assessment focused on the potential impacts that site related
contamination may have on the aquatic resources of the Rockaway River. The ecological
assessment evaluated whether aquatic organisms were adversely exposed to contaminants
at concentrations in the sediments based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) sediment-sorbed contaminant data. Comparison of surface water
contaminant concentrations in the Rockaway to the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC),
which are developed to be protective of 95% of all aquatic species, indicated the
contaminant levels may potentially pose a threat to aquatic life. Comparison of
contaminant concentration in the Rockaway River to the Surface Water Quality Criteria
indicated that levels are below the daily maximum level for each contaminant. In order to
supplement the findings of the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, LE. Carpenter
conducted a community level biological assessment of the species in the Rockaway River
sediments. The objective of the biological assessment was to evaluate whether
contaminants detected in river sediments have adversely impacted the benthic
macroinvertebrate community of the Rockaway River. The assessment concluded that
historical operations on-site and current conditions of the site do not appear to be
impacting the biological community in the sediment or aquatic species of the Rockaway
River.
The results of a site-wide habitat survey and direct field observations were compared to the
National Heritage Program data base. The comparison indicates that the on-site habitat
does not support threatened or endangered species.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
7. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL AL TERNA TIVES
CERGLA 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
-13-
-------
treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances. N.J.P.L 1993 c139 requires that the development, selection, and
implementation of any remediation standard or remedial action shall ensure that it is
protective of public health, safety, and the environment. Permanent and nonpermanent
remedies are allowed, however, permanent remedies are preferred over nonpermanent
remedies. The NJDEPE shall not require a person performing a remedial action to
implement a permanent remedy, unless the cost of implementing a nonpermanent remedy
is 50 percent or more than the cost of implementing a permanent remedy.
The L E. Carpenter Final Feasibility Study Report (FS) includes a preliminary screening of
all potentially applicable technologies, followed by the elimination of inappropriate or
infeasible technologies. The resulting number of technologies are then developed into
remedial alternatives. The FS summarizes the preliminary identification of remedial
technologies and process options for each of the environmental media which needs to be
addressed. However, the number of potentially applicable technology types and process
options are reduced by evaluating the option with respect to technical implementability,
effectiveness and cost. The following are those remedial alternatives which were
considered to be the most effective and technically implementable to address the
contaminated media at the site.
Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the preliminary remedial alternatives and the summary for
technology screening of soil and ground water.
These alternatives are:
1. No Action
2. Institutional Controls
3. Ground Water Treatment/Containment
4. Treated Ground Water with Reinfiltration/Soil Biodegradation
5. Excavation/On-site Soil Washing/Bioslurry Treatment/Treatment of Ground Water
6. Soil Excavation/Thermal Treatment/Treatment of Ground Water
A brief description of each of the remedial alternatives is provided below:
Alternative 1: No Action
The Superfund program requires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a
baseline for comparison of other alternatives. Under the no action alternative, no additional
remedial actions would be initiated beyond passive recovery of the floating product as
specified in the 1986 Amended AGO. The no action alternative would be appropriate if the
potential endangerment is negligible or if implementation of a remedial action would result
in a greater potential risk. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site in excess of health based levels, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every
five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or
treat the waste.
-14-
-------
(Alternative #1 continued)
Capital Cost: $ 0.00
O&M Cost: $ 79,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 1,215,000
Time to Implement: Immediate
Alternative #2: Institutional Controls
The alternative involves a filing of Declaration of an Environmental Restriction with the
county recording officer pursuant to N.J.P.L 1993 c139, Section 36(2); ground water use
restriction; an expanded ground water monitoring program; maintenance of existing site
fencing and; continuation of passive recovery of floating product. The deed notations
would be written to restrict future use of the property to non-residential use due to the
presence of contaminants above NJDEPE's residential standards. Ground water restriction
involves designation of local ground water sources as nonpotable with delineation of a
corresponding well restriction area. The expanded monitoring program requires installation
and quarterly sampling of a sentinel well on the Air Products property. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site in excess of health-based levels,
CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the waste.
Capital Cost: $ 50,000
O&M Cost: $ 90,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 1,434,000
Time to Implement: Four months
Alternative #3: Ground Water Treatment/Containment
This alternative involves the following remedial actions; soil cover for DEHP contaminated
soil; spot excavation and offsite disposal of isolated metal and PCB contaminated surficial
soil; active immiscible product recovery; above ground biological treatment and carbon
polishing of ground water; recirculation of a portion of extracted ground water within the
capture zone; discharge of remaining extracted ground water to a deep aquifer. A soil
cover would be designed to allow natural precipitation to infiltrate into the vadose zone soils
to allow natural attenuation of soil contaminants to continue. The cover would mitigate the
threat of direct contact, ingestion, inhalation or erosion of soil contaminants. Hot spot
excavation and off-site disposal of metal and PCB contaminated soils, which exceed the
soil cleanup criteria, would be performed. Contaminated soil which do not meet the land
disposal requirements (LDRs) designated for off-site disposal would need to be treated
prior to disposal. Phase I of the ground water remedial strategy requires active recovery
of floating product prior to startup of the aerobic biological treatment system. Extracted
ground water will be treated through an oil/water/solids separator. Ground water will be
extracted then treated by an above ground biological treatment system with a portion of
-15-
-------
it recirculated within a capture zone. The levels of contaminants in the ground water will
be expected to meet a performance standard to indicate that contamination in the ground
water is being reduced. Remaining treated ground water will be discharged via reinjection
into a deeper aquifer at levels in compliance with the site specific discharge criteria which
can be found in Appendix A. The water being discharged to the deep aquifer will be
polished by granular activated carbon after biological treatment to assure compliance with
site specific discharge criteria. The biological treatment system would include equaliza-
tion/nutrient mix tank, bioreactor vessel, effluent polishing treatment, and vapor phase
granular activated carbon (GAG) treatment for volatile organics. Institutional controls would
be required because this alternative may result in contaminants remaining on-site in excess
of the NJ residential soil cleanup criteria. A site review every 5 years is required pursuant
to CERCLA until health based levels are met. If justified by the review, remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the waste.
Capital Cost: $ 5,716,562
O&M Cost: $210,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 8,944,000
Time to Implement: 33 months
Alternative #4: Treated Ground Water with Reinfiltration/Soil Biodegradation
Alternative 4 consists of the following components; extraction of contaminated ground
water, above ground enhanced biological treatment and the addition of oxygen and
nutrients and possibly a surfactant prior to reinfiltration of ground water to the shallow
aquifer zone within the treatment basin. Biological treatment will occur after all immiscible
product has been removed through an active removal system (Phase I). Phase II would
incorporate extraction of ground water, treatment and discharge to three distinct areas.
Reinfiltration of some treated ground water (to maximum amount possible) with added
oxygen and nutrients and possible surfactants will percolate through the unsaturated zone
soils through an infiltration system to aid in soil in situ biological activity. A larger portion
of the treated water will be recirculated within the capture zone. The levels of contaminants
in the recycled treated ground water will be expected to meet a performance standard to
ensure that contamination in the ground water is being reduced. The remaining water
would be treated and discharged into a deeper aquifer at the discharge criteria found in
Appendix A. The ground water treatment system may also include GAC treatment which
can be converted to carbon adsorption (or other polishing technology) as contaminant
concentrations diminish. The infiltration system will be covered by a soil cover to limit
contaminant migration; limit direct contact with contaminated soil, and protect the system.
In-situ biological activity is designed to clean up soils, to the remediation levels found in
Appendix B, with microbes which would degrade organic contaminants adhering to soil
particles. Laboratory scale treatability studies were conducted to assess the feasibility of
bioremediation of soils at the site. Results indicated that a combination of bioremediation
and soil flushing is technically feasible and can achieve remediation goals for site
contaminants. Hotspot excavation and disposal of isolated soils located outside the
treatment zone would be performed. Next, excavate and dispose of "disposal area" fill
which may prove inhibitory to in situ treatment. Soils to be disposed of off-site would meet
-16-
-------
all applicable RCRA treatment and disposal criteria. Institutional controls would be required
because this alternative may result in contaminants remaining on-site in excess of the NJ
residential soil cleanup criteria. A site review every 5 years is required pursuant to CERCLA
until health based levels are met. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the waste.
Figure 4 shows a schematic of the ground water treatment with reinfiltration.
Capital Cost: $ 8,452,000
O&M Cost: $ 210,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $ 11,020,000
Time to Implement: 36 months
Alternatives: Soil Excavation/On-site Soil Washing/Bioslurry
Treatment/Treatment of Ground Water
Alternative 5 consists of the following components: excavation of contaminated soil, on-site
soil washing of excavated organic contaminated soils; and placement of the cleaned soil
back on-site; off-site disposal of some metal and PCB contaminated soil and excavation
and disposal of "disposal area" sludge/fill; treatment of ground water through above
ground biological treatment after immiscible product has been removed through active
recovery system as explained in Alternative 3. The soil will be treated by soil washing which
would separate coarse fraction soils from fine fraction soils. Soil washing would provide
scrubbing action to the coarse soils. The fine fraction soils would then be treated
biologically in a bioslurry treatment by destroying the organic contaminants. The scrubbing
action of the soil washing technology would remove any leachable organics and metals
contained in the soils. Process wash water will be treated prior to recycling in the soil
washer. All ground water process treatments described in Alternative 3 are included in this
alternative. On site treated waste would be subject to land disposal restrictions (LDRs)
because soil cleanup criteria is higher than the LDRs for some relevant contaminants.
Institutional controls would be required because this alternative may result in contaminants
remaining on-site in excess of the NJ residential soil cleanup criteria. A site review every
5 years is required pursuant to CERCLA until health based levels are met. If justified by
the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the waste.
Capital Cost: $19,872,000 to $32,191,000
O&M Cost: $205,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $34,000,000
Time to Implement: 39 months
Alternative #6: Soil Excavation/Thermal Treatment/Treatment of Ground water
Alternative 6 consists of excavation of contaminated soils greater than the soil cleanup
criteria and destruction of the constituents via thermal treatment by incineration. Under this
alternative, two options (A and B) are considered. Option A provides for an on-site
-17-
-------
incinerator, for example a rotary kiln incinerator, to thermally treat the contaminated soils.
In Option B, all soils are transported off-site to a commercial RCRA permitted incinerator
for treatment. Option A allows for potential backfilling of the excavation with stabilized
incinerator ash. Option B allows the excavated area to be backfilled with clean fill. Under
either option, treatment of soils must meet LDR for off or on site disposal. Option A
requires various state permits for water, air, and wetlands disturbance. Option B would
require meeting Federal DOT transportation and RCRA requirements. All ground water
process treatments described in Alternative 3 are included in this Alternative. Institutional
controls would be required because this alternative may result in contaminants remaining
on-site in excess of the NJ residential soil cleanup criteria. A site review every 5 years is
required pursuant to CERCLA until health based levels are met. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the waste.
OPTION A
On site incineration via Rotary Kiln
Capital Cost: $ 43,991,000
O&M Cost: 205,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $46,000,000
Time to Implement: 45 months
OPTION B
Off site incineration
Capital Cost: $ 85,140,000
O&M Cost: $ 205,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $88,000,000
Time to Implement: 30 months
8. SUMMARY OF COMPARA TIVE ANAL YSIS OF AL TERNA TIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative was assessed
against the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria, as described below:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether or not
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
Alternative #1, no action, would not be protective of human health and the
environment. Current levels of DEHP and PCBs in the soil and DEHP, xylene and
ethylbenzene in ground water pose an unacceptable risk. By restricting access and
ground water usage, Alternative #2 provides greater protection, but not to the future
on-site worker and potential contact with contaminated soil. In addition, the potential
-18-
-------
for off-site migration of contaminated ground water is likely. Therefore, Alternative
#2 is not considered to be protective of human health and the environment.
Alternative #3 through #6 involve ground water treatment and reduction of soils
contamination and reduce the potential for further off-site migration of contaminated
ground water. Alternative #4 provides the potential for in situ treatment through the
infiltration of oxygen and nutrients into the subsurface. Therefore, Alternative #4
would be more protective with respect to ground water contamination than the other
alternatives. Alternatives #3 and #4 preclude direct contact with surface soils
through the installation of a soil cover and are considered protective nonpermanent
remedies. In Alternatives #5 and #6, contaminated soil is excavated and treated
either on-site or off-site to residential standards and are therefore permanent
remedies. The flushing of soil via ground water extraction will aid in the removal of
soil contaminants in the unsaturated zone. Should institutional and engineering
controls be implemented, then Alternative 3 through 6 are equally protective of
human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of federal and state environmental statutes and other
requirements or provides grounds for invoking a waiver.
Alternatives #1 and #2 would not meet the 1 x 10"6 NJ remediation standard at the
L E. Carpenter site nor the NJ Ground Water Quality standards. Alternatives #3
through #6 employ bioremediation for ground water treatment. Bioremediation of
target organic compounds will attain ARARs. Under Alternative #3, soils containing
DEHP in excess of the remediation goals would remain for a period subject to
natural attenuation. In situ bioremediation is effective for treating organic
contaminated soils under Alternative #4 and therefore is expected to meet soil
remediation goals which are protective based on a cancer risk level of 1x10"6.
Alternatives #5 and #6 are also expected to meet remediation goals but would be
required to meet Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). Alternatives #3 through #6 will
need to meet LDRs for some hot spot removal actions, where applicable. Wetlands
mitigation for Alternatives #5 and #6 would be required to limit the negative impacts
of excavation (and associated disruptions including increased siltation to the
Rockaway River and possible disturbance of downstream wetlands) of large
volumes of soil. All alternatives would meet the air requirements. Each alternative
is anticipated to meet action and location specific ARARs at the site except for
Alternatives #1, #2 and possibly #3 since soils containing DEHP in excess of the
cleanup criteria would remain on site for a period subject to natural attenuation.
Table 6 summarizes how each alternative meets each identified ARAR.
Appendix B summarizes the soil remediation goals
Appendix A summarizes the NJ Class II-A Ground Water Quality Standards
-19-
-------
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup criteria have been met.
Alternatives #1 and #2 offer limited long-term effectiveness and permanence since
contaminated media will remain untreated, with the exception of immiscible product
collection. The potential of migration of contaminated ground water exists.
Alternatives #3 through #6 offer long-term effectiveness through the ground water
treatment component, although long-term maintenance and ground water monitoring
are required. Alternative #3 will not be as effective in reducing vadose zone soil
contamination as a potential long-term contaminant source, thus extending the time
required for ground water treatment. Alternative #3 can provide long term
effectiveness as long as the soil cover was properly maintained and institutional
controls are in place. Alternative #4 minimizes site soil contaminants remaining
through in situ treatment of the soil, Alternative #5 by excavation, removal and
treatment of soil containing contaminants, and Alternative #6 through excavation
and thermal treatment of contaminated soils at the site. Long-term maintenance of
the soil cover will be required for Alternatives #3 and #4. Alternatives #4 through
#6 permanently remove contaminants from the soil, however, all would require a
use restriction on the property.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
Alternatives #1 and #2 do not meet this criteria because no active treatment, other
than product recovery is implemented. Alternative #3 offers contaminant reduction
through the active recovery of floating product and treatment of ground water and
remediation of isolated hot spot surface soils. Some contaminants would leach from
saturated soils into the ground water and also be extracted. However, much of the
soil contamination would not easily leach into ground water, and would rely on
natural remediation and attenuation processes.
Alternative #4 would offer additional contaminant reduction by employing in situ
treatment. Alternative #5 offers similar contaminant reduction via soil washing and
subsequent biological treatment of the soil slurry. The soil washing step on
Alternative #5 reduces the volume of soil to be treated by removing the relatively
clean, coarse soils prior to treatment. Alternative #6 reduces the toxicity of the soil,
with minimal volume reduction. Metals in the ash may need to be fixated to reduce
mobility. The ground water recovery and extraction system will be designed to
control the migration of immiscible product and ground water contaminants.
-20-
-------
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
from any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation period until cleanup criteria are
achieved.
Alternative #1 will not have any short-term adverse affect because no construction
or treatment is required. Alternative #2 achieves a degree of protection in a
relatively short period of time and would result in minimal short-term impacts with
its implementation. Alternatives #3 and #4 are anticipated to have the greatest
short-term effectiveness. Some paniculate emissions during the cover installation
is anticipated, however, dust control methods should reduce this risk. Furthermore,
most of the soil contamination is in the subsurface. Alternatives #5 and #6 offer a
lower degree of short-term effectiveness due to the intrusive soil removal activities.
During excavation activities, wetlands disturbances are expected due to disruption
of the existing topography, and increased siltation and sediment loading.
Alternative #6 would also require that the ground water collection system be
temporally dismantled during the excavation due to well destruction as their
supporting soils are removed.
Implementabilitv
Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
Alternatives #1 and #2 are the simplest alternatives to implement from a technical
standpoint since the passive recovery system is already in place. The ground water
remediation set forth in Alternatives #3 and #4 offer a relatively high degree of
implementability. Both alternatives offer a combination of well established, readily
available construction methods and innovative technology which may require
additional design coordination. Alternative #4 involves several additional design
considerations because of the in situ soil treatment. Such consideration would
include the infiltration system, rate of treated ground water recycling allowable for
site hydraulics, and the reactivity (both desorption and biological degradation) of
contaminants adsorbed to the site soils.
Major limitations are associated with the implementation of Alternatives #5 and #6
due to the combination of immiscible product recovery, ground water extraction and
soil removal. Any soil (not including hot spot) removal conducted during the
product recovery and ground water extraction would be severely hampered by the
collection piping between the wells and the central collection points, as well as the
wells themselves. The implementation of Alternatives #5 and #6 cannot begin until
all immiscible product is removed, which may be several years. On site incinerators
are usually not well received by the community and the approval process may delay
the implementation of Alternative # 6A.
-21-
-------
Alternative #1 's present worth cost is approximately $1.2 M. The primary component
would be to maintain the passive recovery system until all immiscible product had
been removed. Alternative #2's present worth cost is approximately $1.4 M. The
primary component would be to maintain institutional controls, passive recovery
system and ground water monitoring program. Alternative #3's present worth cost
is $8.9 M. The primary components are hotspot removal, maintenance of soil cover,
institutional controls and ground water remediation using bioremediation. Alternative
#4's present worth cost is $11.0 M. The primary components are hotspot removal,
bioremediation of ground water and soil. Alternative #5 present worth cost is $34
M. The primary components are hotspot removal, soil washing, and bioremediation
of ground water. Alternative #6A's present worth cost is $46 M. The primary
components are hotspot removal on-site soil incineration and bioremediation of
ground water. Alternative #6B's present worth cost is $88 M. The primary
components are off-site soil incineration and bioremediation of ground water.
Table 7 summarizes Preliminary cost estimates estimated for each alternative.
EPA Acceptance
EPA concurrence indicates whether the federal regulatory agency concurs,
opposes, or has no comment on the selected remedy.
Pursuant to the EPA/State Pilot Agreement dated December 1992, EPA concurrence
on this ROD is not a prerequisite to NJDEPE selecting a remedy. However, EPA's
comments on the Proposed Plan and the ROD do not raise any objections to the
selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance assesses the public comments received on the RI/FS
report, Baseline risk assessment, Final FS report, and Proposed Plan.
Community concerns/comments received during the public comment period and
the public meeting on December 8, 1993, are included in the responsiveness
summary, together with NJDEPE responses, which is a part of this ROD.
Community concerns/comments received indicate that the community accepts the
preferred alternatives identified in the Proposed Plan and selected in the ROD
herein.
9. SELECTED REMEDY
Based on an evaluation of the various alternatives and after consideration of public
comments, NJDEPE has selected Alternative #4 (treatment of ground water with
reinfiltration and soil bioremediation) as the remedy for the L. E. Carpenter site because
-22-
-------
it best satisfies the requirements of N.J.P.L 1993 c139, CERCLA and the NCR's nine
evaluation criteria for the remedial alternatives.
Alternative #4 consists of two Phases which include the following components: extraction
of contaminated ground water, above ground enhanced biological treatment and the
addition of oxygen and nutrients and possibly a surfactant prior to reinfiltration of ground
water to the shallow aquifer zone within a treatment basin. Phase I includes biological
treatment which will occur after all immiscible product has been removed through an active
removal system. Phase II would incorporate extraction of ground water, treatment and
disposition to three distinct areas. Reinfiltration of some treated ground water (to maximum
amount possible) with added oxygen and nutrients and possible surfactants will percolate
through the unsaturated zone soils through an infiltration system to aid in soil in situ
biological activity. A larger portion of the treated water will be recirculated within the
capture zone. The levels of contaminants in the treated ground water will meet
performance standards. The performance criteria shall be the least stringent of 95%
removal for each parameter or an effluent limit equal to the higher of the ground water
quality standard or PQL for the parameter. Should site specific conditions prove that such
removal is not reasonably attainable, the effluent level for the discharged water to be
recycled will be based on the Best Available Technology (BAT) for the treatment system
discussed herein. The remaining water would be treated, monitored and discharged into
a deeper aquifer at the following site specific discharge criteria for the major contaminants
found: ethylbenzene at 350 ppb; toluene at 500 ppb; xylenes (total) at 20 ppb; bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate at 30 ppb; n-decane at 50 ppb; di-n-octylphthalate at 50 ppb; 1-ethyl-3-
methylbenzene at 50 ppb; n-nonane at 50 ppb; 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene at 50 ppb; 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene at 50 ppb; 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at 50 ppb; Antimony at 20 ppb; Arsenic
at 8 ppb; all discharge criteria which apply to this site, including the above referenced
contaminants can be found in Appendix A of this ROD. Upon determination that the ground
water discharge has met the criteria for compounds which are not to be site related (i.e.,
the chlorinated solvents detected in the off site wells such as 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene) and for those compounds which
repeatedly indicate non-detect in the sampling rounds, monitoring will no longer be
necessary. Such a change in the monitoring requirements must be requested of and
approved by NJDEPE. The major contaminants listed above may not be deleted from the
monitoring parameter list. The ground water treatment system may also include GAC
treatment which can be converted to carbon adsorption (or other polishing technology) as
contaminant concentrations diminish. The infiltration system will be covered by a soil
cover to limit contaminant migration; limit direct contact with contaminated soil; and protect
the infiltration system.
In-situ biological activity is designed to clean up soils with microbes which would degrade
organic contaminants adhering to soil particles. Laboratory scale treatability studies were
conducted to assess the feasibility of bioremediation of soils at the site. Results indicated
that a combination of bioremediation and soil flushing is technically feasible and can
achieve remediation goals for site contaminants. The addition and specific amount of
oxygen, nutrients and surfactant will be determined during design. Hotspot excavation and
disposal of isolated soils located outside the treatment zone would be performed. Soils to
-23-
-------
be disposed of off-site would meet all applicable RCRA treatment and disposal criteria.
Institutional controls would be required because this alternative may result in contaminants
remaining on-site in excess of the NJ residential soil cleanup criteria. A site review every
5 years is required pursuant to CERCLA until health based levels are met. If justified by
the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the waste.
10. STA TUTORY DETERMINA TIONS
Under their legal authorities, NJDEPE's and EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites
is to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection 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 this site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
standards established under State and Federal environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost effective and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment 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 as their principal
element.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
State and Federal requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for the remedial action (see Table 2 which lists ARARs and TBCs), and is cost
effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable for this site. This remedy will require a Declaration of
Environmental Use Restriction be placed on the property. The soil remediation goals are
protective of ground water. Ground water will be remediated to meet the NJ Ground Water
Quality Standards which are protective of human health. Because this remedy will result
in hazardous substances remaining on the site until the health based cleanup criteria are
met, a review will be conducted every five (5) years after commencement of the remedial
action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Phase I of the ground water treatment system will be to actively remove the immiscible
product from the ground water. After the floating product is removed, Phase II of the
system will extract and treat ground water and reinfiltrate treated ground water back into
the soils to allow for in situ biodegradation. This alternative will degrade some waste
completely, and most residuals remaining from incomplete degradation will be at or below
the cleanup criteria. Surfactant addition, microbial activity and the increased rate of ground
water flow through the treatment zone may mobilize sorbed contaminants. The
mobilization of sorbed contaminants is a significant step in the biodegradative process.
The other treatment options (soil washing or incineration) are projected to provide a shorter
remediation time period when compared to in situ biological soil treatment, but are
significantly more costly and more difficult to implement. The total cost for Alternatives #4,
-24- .
-------
#5 and #6a and #6b are $11,020,000.00, $34,000,000.00, $46,000,000.00, $88,000,000.00
respectively. Pursuant to N.J.P.L 1993 c139, the NJDEPE shall not require a person
performing a remedial action to implement a permanent remedy, unless the cost of
implementing a nonpermanent remedy is 50 percent or more than the cost of implementing
a permanent remedy. The least costly of the non permanent remedial alternatives
evaluated is $8,944,000, the least costly of the permanent remedies is $34,000,000. It
would cost more than 50% to implement a permaent remedy. Alternative #4, a
nonpermanent remedy which provides additional contaminant reduction that Alternative #3,
meets the selection requirements pursuant to N.J.P.L. 1993 c139.
The selected alternative will contribute to achieving the ARABS, at a significantly lower cost
with minimal disturbance to the surrounding neighbors and community than the other
options. The selected alternative will provide the best balance of trade-offs among all the
alternatives with respect to the CERCLA nine evaluation criteria. NJDEPE has selected
treated ground water with reinfiltration/soil biodegradation as the remedial alternative
because it will be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs,
will utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, will be cost effective, and will create the least amount of disturbance to
the surrounding community during the remediation process. The selected remedy will also
meet the statutory preference for the use of treatment as a principal element to the
maximum extent practicable.
11. DOCUMENTA TION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There is no change from the Preferred Remedy described in the Proposed Plan and the
Selected Remedy described in this ROD.
-25-
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines the technical terms used in this Record of Decision. The terms
and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often defined in the context of
hazardous waste management, and apply specifically to work performed under the
Superfund program. Therefore, these terms may have other meanings when used
in a different context.
Administrative Consent Order: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA or the
State and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Under the terms of the Order, the
PRPs agree to perform or pay for site studies or cleanup work. It also describes the
oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options that the government may exercise
in the event of non-compliance by the PRPs. This Order is signed by the PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Ambient air: Any unconfined part of the atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is of
sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other purposes.
The water contained in the aquifer is called ground water.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is used
to refill an excavated area.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and/or break them down (biodegrade)
into nonhazardous components.
Bioslurry: A form of bioremediation which occurs in an above ground unit.
Carbon adsorption/carbon treatment: A treatment system in which contaminants are
removed from ground water and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing
activated carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains
contaminants.
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a
structure, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
EPA/State Pilot Agreement: An agreement entered into by the EPA and NJDEPE which
delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of each Party as they relate to the
conduct of the oversight of this site or project.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
-26-
-------
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Soil Washing: A cleanup process which removes contaminants and/or fine soil particles
to which they are adsorbed by contacting soil particles with reagents that consist of a
water/surfactant or water/solvent solution.
Thermal Treatment: Cleanup technologies which rely upon relatively high temperatures
to either destroy organic contaminants or separate them from natural materials.
Incineration and Rotary Kiln Incineration are examples of "Thermal treatment".
Use Restriction: A form of institutional control in which a notice is filed with the office of
the county recording officer, in the county in which the property is located, to inform
prospective holders of an interest in the property that contamination exists on the property
at a level that may statutorily restrict certain uses of or access to all or part of that property,
a delineation of those restrictions, a description of all specific engineering or institutional
controls at the property that exist and that shall be maintained in order to prevent exposure
to contaminants remaining on the property, and the written consent to the notice by the
owner of the property. Use restrictions are filed as DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTRICTIONS.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroethylene,
benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic chemicals
are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their volatile
nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to humans.
Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and wide spread industrial use,
most are commonly found in soil and ground water.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or ground water and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be either
coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and fresh)
water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater. Coastal
wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
-27-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
L. E. CARPENTER & COMPANY 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 Agency Responses
D. Community Relations Activities at the L. E. Carpenter & Company Site
-28-
-------
A. OVERVIEW
This is a summary of the public's comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Plan
for Remediation at the L E. Carpenter & Company Superfund Site and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy's (NJDEPE) responses to those
comments.
The public comment period extended from December 1,1993 through December 31,1993
and provided interested parties the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan and the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Reports for the L. E. Carpenter &
Company Site. On December 8, 1993 at 7:00 PM, during the comment period, the
NJDEPE held a public meeting at the Wharton Borough Municipal Building to discuss the
results of the RI/FS and to present the preferred remedy.
On the basis of the information contained in the above referenced documents, NJDEPE
has selected the following remedy for the L. E. Carpenter & Company Site: Biological
treatment of ground water with reinfiltration and soil bioremediation.
B. BA CKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOL VEMENT AND CONCERNS
Community concerns were first expressed to NJDEPE representatives at the June 28,1989
public meeting and focused on alleged past dumping of materials by L. E. Carpenter at
other locations in and around Wharton. In response to these concerns, NJDEPE held a
follow-up meeting and tour of the suspected "satellite" dumping locations on July 19, 1989.
Currently, NJDEPE is continuing investigations at three of these sites.
The community has also raised issues regarding conditions and appearances of buildings
on the L. E. Carpenter property and future use of the site. Congressman Dean Gallo tours
the site annually and has expressed concerns related to the impact of past site activities
on the Rockaway River. L E. Carpenter has repaired or demolished some site buildings
and the public seems satisfied with current site conditions. Sediment studies in the
Rockaway River adjacent to the L. E. Carpenter site did not indicate an impact on the
biological community from past or current site activities.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
Concerns raised during the L. E. Carpenter & Company Superfund Site Public Meeting held
on December 8, 1993 are summarized below. No written comments were received during
the comment period which extended from December 1, 1993 through December 31,1993.
Comment 1: Mayor Harry Shupe of Wharton Borough stated that it was the
Borough's position that anything less than the preferred alternative
would not be acceptable, and asked if L. E. Carpenter has to proceed
-29-
-------
with alternative number four (the number of the preferred alternative
in the proposed plan) or something more extensive.
NJDEPE Response: L E. Carpenter will be given the opportunity to implement
remedy number four or something more extensive. If they do
not, NJDEPE and USEPA will use public money to implement
the preferred alternative and then proceed against L. E.
Carpenter for triple damages for the cost of that alternative.
Alternative number four is the minimum that would occur at this
site.
Comment 2: Mayor Shupe asked how long it will take to implement the
remediation.
NJDEPE Response: Alternative number four would take approximately 36 months to
implement. We will sign a record of decision in about two
months. We hope to proceed with hot spot removal by the
summer of 1994. The design for the removal and treatment of
ground water should take about two years.
D. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE L. E. CARPENTER & CO. SITE
NJDEPE established information repositories at the following locations:
Wharton Borough Municipal Building
10 Robert Street
Wharton, NJ 07885 Phone # (201) 361-8444
Wharton Public Library
1519 South Main Street
Wharton, NJ 07885 Phone # (201) 361-1333
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection And Energy
Bureau of Community Relations
401 East State Street, CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone # (609) 984-3081
Contact: Doreen Gordon
NJDEPE prepared a Community Relations Plan (January 1989)
NJDEPE held a public meeting in Wharton to discuss the initiation of the RI/FS on June
28, 1989.
NJDEPE held a briefing in Wharton to update local officials on the progress of site
investigations on June 5, 1992.
-30-
-------
NJDEPE held a public comment period from December 1,1993 to December 31,1993 and
a public meeting in Wharton on December 8, 1993 to discuss the Proposed Plan for Site
Remediation.
-31-
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE CRITIERIA
AND
GROUND WATER QUALITY STANDARD
L E. CARPENTER SITE
COMPOUND
Organic Compounds
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate
n-Decane
Di-n-octylphthalate
1 -Ethyl-3-methylbenzene
n-Nonane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Heptane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
NEW JERSEY GROUND
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS* (ppb)
700
1000
40
30
100"
100
100"
100"
100"
100"
100"
4
30
70
2
10
100
100"
100
30
DISCHARGE CRITERIA
(ppb)
350
500
20
30
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2
15
35
2
5
50
50
1
15
A-1
-------
Trichloroethene
1,1,2Trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
[2-Butanone]
Butylbenzylphthalate
n-Butylbenzene
1,2-Diethybenzene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-buytlphthalate
Isopropylbenzene
[Cumene]
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
1 ,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene
Phenol
2-Nitrophenol
2,4 Dimethylphenol
Inorganic Compounds
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
1
20,000""
2
700
300
100
100"
100"
5000
900
300"'
30""
20
100
4000
100"
100
20
4
100
1000
10
2
100
1
10,000
2
350
150
50
50
50
2500
450
150
15
20
50
2000
50
50
20
2
50
500
10
1
50
A-2
-------
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
50
40
5000
20
8
25
20
2720
20
8
Interim Generic Criteria pursuant to NJAC 7:9-6.7(c}6
Interim Specific Criteria pursuant to NJAC 7:9-6.7(c)
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
L. E. CARPENTER SOIL REMEDIATION GOALS
Contaminant
Organic Compounds
Arclor 1254 (PCB)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Inorganic Compounds
Antimony
Arsenic
Lead
Non Residential Direct
Contact Soil Cleanup
Criteria (mg/kg)
2.0'
210
10,000
1000
1000
1000
340
20
600
Impact to Ground Water
Soil Cleanup Criteria
(mg/kg)
100
100
100
100
500
10
340
*
*
Baeed upon the enactment of a Declaration of Environmental Restriction on the Wharton Enterprices property.
A-4
-------
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1
TO PENNSYLVANIA
TO NEW YORK
ROUTE 80
E. CARPENTE
SITE
WASHINGTON
FORGE
POND
LE. CARPENTER SITE
WHARTON, NJ.
SITE LOCATION
-------
^^*,:<>.' ,ป \V::'?A "'-,,' 'A.;."';',''',',. ,'*
LE. Carpenter Site Map Showing
Contaminated Areas
-------
LEGEND
MM^B INVESTIGATION AREA BOUNDARY
PROPERTY LINE
UNDERGROUND PIPING
FENCE
* FORMER PRODUCTION WEIL
WEHRAN ENGINEERING MONITOR WELL INSTALLED
A 1980. RETROFITTED WITH GCOMON CAS DIS-
~T~ PLACEMENT SAMPLERS BY GEOENCINEERING 1983
(MW-t TO MW-5)
.A. GROUNDWATCR TECHNOLOGY MONITOR WELL
" INSTALLED 1983 (MW-6 TO MW-10)
A GEOENGINEERING MONITOR WELL INSTALLED 1989
T (MW-tl TO MW-I8)
CEOENCINEERING PIEZOMETER INSTALLED 1989
(CEI-1 TO GEl-J)
STORAGE TANKS
NOTES:
I. GENERAL SITE PLAN WAS BASED ON AND AOAPIEO FROM DRAWINGS
REFERENCED IN FIGURE I.
2. UNDERGROUND PIPING, STORAGE TANKS, FORMER STARCH DRYING BEDS.
RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AND TRANSFORMER LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
1. REFER TO FIGURE I FOR TANK INVENTORY SUMMARY.
4. SEE FIGURE I FOR FULL BASE DRAWING DETAILS
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC.
WHARTON ENTERPRISES, INC.
L.E. CARPENTER AND CO.
WHARTON. NEW JERSEY
AREA OF CONCERN
0 60' 120'
t
Approximole Scale
From Original by GEOENGINEERING
-------
OFF SITE DISPOSAL
EXTRACTED
PRODUCT
NITROGEN
PHOSPHOROUS
MICRONUTRIENT
EXTRACTED
GROUNDWATER
PRODUCT
WATER
SEPERATOR
WATER
FEED .
ABOVE GROUND
BIOREACTOR
TREATED
WATER
CARBON
POLISHING
TREAMENT
ZONE
RECYCLED
STEP
CAPTURE
ZONE
RECIRCULATED
EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
ALTERNATIVE 4: GROUNDWATER TREATMENT WITH REINFILTRATION
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CHRONOLOGY OF INVESTIGATIVE AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
DATE
1982
1982
1984
1989
August 1989
Sept. 1989
January -
March 1991
March 1991
June 1991
June 1991
ACTIVITY
Remediation of
surface impoundment
Remediation and
closure of starch
drying beds
Installation of
groundwater
monitoring system
and immiscible
product recovery
wells
Initiation of passive
recovery of floating
product
Completion of
remedial
investigation
Supplemental
remedial
investigation
Asbestos removal
Decommissioning
and tank closure
Additional sediment
sampling
Additional
groundwater
sampling
Installation of
recovery wells
DESCRIPTION
Excavation of 4,000 cubic yards of sludge and contaminated
soils from former surface impoundment.
Excavation and removal of starch drying beds.
Installation of a network of ten groundwater monitoring wells
used to monitor extent of groundwater contamination and free
product thickness. Five of the wells were equipped with
skimmer pumps to recover floating product.
Passive recovery system utilizing skimmer pumps in
monitoring/recovery wells began operation.
Completion of a soil gas survey, test pit and soil sampling,
monitoring well installation and sampling, air sampling, and
stream sediment and surface water sampling.
Additional sampling of soil, test pit installation, surface water
sediment, and background soils/sediment.
Building 12, 13, and 14
Decontamination and excavation of 16 storage tanks in
accordance with NJDEPE approved Closure Plan.
Collection of seven sediment samples from the Rockaway River
including two from upgradient locations.
Sample collection from MW-13s and MW-S3i to confirm
presence/absence of phthalate compounds. Also included
installation and monitoring of MW-21 on Wharton Enterprises.
Installation of three additional recovery wells as part of the
enhancement of the immiscible product recovery system.
-------
DATE
Sept. 1991
Dec. 1991 -
January 1992
January 1992
February
1992
Sept. 1992
January -
February
1993
March 1993
ACTIVITY
Decontamination and
decommissioning of
structures in
Buildings 13 and 9
Demolition of
Buildings 12, 13, 14
Disposal area
investigation
Installation and
sampling of
additional
groundwater wells
Ecological
Assessment of
Rockaway River
Well Point
Installation
Gamma Logging
Program
DESCRIPTION
Decontamination and dismantling of former process piping,
tanks, etc. in Building 13; decontamination of building 9
interior.
Buildings 12, 13, 14 razed.
Installation of nine test pits in order to investigate and delineate
the aerial extent of a former disposal area.
Installation and monitoring of four new shallow groundwater
wells; two on Air Products property and two on Wharton
Enterprises property.
Collection of sediment samples at six location to characterize
Rockaway River environments upstream, adjacent to and
downstream of L.E. Carpenter and evaluate potential biological
impairment.
Installation of twenty-three temporary well points to further
delineate extent of floating product at site.
Geophysical logging via down-hole natural-gamma ray logging
of thirty-four wells, well points and piezometers to develop a
better understanding of site stratigraphy.
-------
TABLE 2
POTENTIAL ACTION AND LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
AND TBCs FOR THE L.E. CARPENTER SITE
Relevant and Appropriate
To Be Considered
ACTION-SPECIFIC
RCRA-40 CFR 261, 263, 264
RVRSA policy prohibiting discharge from groundwater remediations
NJ. P.L. 1993 c!39
NJDEPE DWR Order No. 60-Groundwater Cleanup Criteria
NJAC 7:14A-6 - Additional Requirements for Discharges to Groundwater
NJAC 7:14A - New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NJAC 7:27 - Air Pollution Control
NJAC 7:26 - New Jersey Hazardous Waste Regulations
NJAC 7:14A-5 - Requirements for Wells Infiltrating Liquid Wastes
NJAC 7:14A-12 and 13 - Wastewaier Treatment Requirements
NJAC 7:9-9 - Sealing of Abandoned Wells
NJAC 7:9-7 - Well Installation
NJAC 7:26E - Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
NJAC 7:9-6 - Ground Water Quality Criteria
EPA document EPA/450/1-90-002
EPA document EPA/450/3-87-017
Required pretest protocol
Protocol - continuous emission monitors DEQ
Guidelines for review of application for toxic substances
emissions
Equipment compliance with NJ Air Pollution Control
Regulations
Technical Guidance Study EPA/450/4-90-014
Guidance on Ambient Air Monitoring. EPA/450/4-89-015 and
EPA/450/4-90-005
Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series EPA /62S/6-
86/012, EPA/625/6-S9/OI9. and EPA/625/6-89/021
EPA Seminar Publication: Requirements for Hazardous Waste
Landfill Design. Construction, and Closure
Draft RCRA Guidance Document: Landfill Design, Liner
Systems and Final Cover PB87-157657
Guidance on Delisting NPL sites, OSWER directive 9320.2 - 3A
OSWER Directive 9234.1-06: Applicability of LDRs to RCRA
and CERCLA Groundwater Treatment Reinjection
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
POTENTIAL ACTION AND LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
AND TBCs FOR THE L.E. CARPENTER SITE
Relevant and Appropriate
To Be Considered
LOCATION-SPECIFIC
Treatment facility location:
In 100-year Flood Plain - 40 CFR 18
In Lowlands - Executive Order 11988
NJAC 7:13 - Flood Hazard Area Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act:
NJAC 7:7E-3 - Flood Plains, Wetlands, Endangered Species/Habitat
NJAC 7:2-11 - Description of Natural Areas of State
Wetlands:
Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A-1)
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act
New Jersey's threatened plant species list
-------
Risk Batimatei - Curreri Conditions
TABLES
L. B. CARPENTER A COMPANY
RECEPTOR
On-Site Worker
Trespasser
Wader/Swimmer
Child/ Adult
Toxrcmr
ASSESSMENT
HI
CA
HI
CA
HI
CA
HI
CA
SOIL
Insertion
Inhalation
Denial
11
sxia4
2.1
2.6xl05
NA
NA
NC
NC
SEDIMENTS
Iteration
Dermal
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.32
7.9X106
NC
NC
SURFACE WATER
Ingeatioo
Dermal
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.013
2.1xl07
NC
NC
FISH INQESTION <*)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.6
6.3X104
' Calculations are based at the upper 95% confidence limit
HI = Hazard Index (Noncarcinogenic)
CA = Cancer Risk (Carcinogenic)
NC = Not Calculated
Risk Estimate! - Future Condition
Current Conditions are based on:
(a) no current groundwater use
on-site
RECEPTOR
Hypothetical
Future
Resident
TOXICirY
ASSESSMENT
HI
CA
SHALLOW
GROUNDWATB
R
logcation
Inhalation
Dermal
413
l.SxlO2
INTERMEDIATE O
GROUNDWATER
Ingeation
Inhalation
Dermal
4.4
1.3X104
DEEpO
GROUNDWATB
Rlngestion
Ubalation
Dermal
6.2
4-OxlO4
SOIL
79
1.9xl03
SEDIMENTS
Ingeation
Dermal
.32
7.9X106
SURFACE
WATER
iQgCfltlOfl
Dcnnu
.013
2.1xl07
FISH
INOESnoN
1.6
6.3X104
Future Conditions are based on: assumptions of future groundwater use on-site at levels comparable to overall site groundwater quality
(*) Based in available information and the conservative risk evaluation, control of fish consumption and remediation of intermediate and deep ground water does not seem warranted.
-------
TABLE 4
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED FOR THE L.E. CARPENTER SITE
Environmental Media
General Response
Actions
Remedial Technology Types
Process Options
Soil/Sediment
No Action
Institutional Controls
Containment
Removal
Treatment
Disposal
No Action
Restricted access
Surface runoff controls
Capping/covering/consolidation
Excavation
Physical treatment
Chemical treatment
Thermal treatment
Biological treatment
In-situ treatment
Landfill
Fencing deed restriction
Regrading, drainage ditches, and silt fencing
Soil, clay, asphalt, concrete, or multimedia liners
Excavation
Soil washing, stabilization, supercritical fluid extraction
Wet air oxidation, supercritical water oxidation
On-site incineration, off-site incineration, low-temperature
thermal treatment
Solid phase treatment/composting, slurry bioremediation
Bioreclamation, soil flushing, in situ volatilization,
electromagnetic heating, vitrification
On-site, off-site
-------
TABLE 4
(Continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED FOR THE L.E. CARPENTER SITE
Environmental Media
General Response
Actions
Remedial Technology Types
Process Options
Groundwater
No Action
Institutional Controls
Containment
Collection
Treatment
Disposal
No Action
Restricted use
Alternate water supply
Point-of-use treatment
Subsurface diversion
Floating product collection
Groundwater collection
Physical treatment
Chemical treatment
Biological treatment
In situ treatment
Groundwater discharge
Monitoring
Deed restriction
Public water hookup, bottled water
Carbon filters
Slurry walls, grout injection, sheet piling, electroosmosis
Product recovery wells, interceptor trenches
Extraction wells, interceptor trenches
Liquid phase separation, air stripping, steam stripping,
carbon adsorption, membrane separation, resin adsorption
UV/chemical oxidation, high-energy electron beam
Aerobic, anaerobic, spray irrigation, artificial wetland
Biodegradation, permeable treatment beds
To POTW, to surface water, to groundwater
-------
Table 5-1
Summary of the Technology Screening for Soil
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
No Action
No Action
Will not significantly reduce the risk to human
health or the environment within the foreseeable
future
No further implementation
required
Minimal
Deed & Permitting Restrictions
Effectively limits future-use risk scenario and Implementable
prevents potential exposure pathways
Low
Surface Runoff Controls
Regrading, Drainage Ditches,
and Silt Fencing
Reduces soil migration via erosion
Readily implemented
Low capital and O&M
Clay, Soil, Asphalt, Concrete, 01
Multimedia Liners
Prevents exposure to and migration of soil
contaminants. Reduces leaching of contaminants
to groundwater from percolated rainwater.
Readily implemented (pavement
currently covers 42% of the
site)
Low to moderate capital
and O&M
Excavation
Excavation
Removes contaminated soil
Readily implemented although
structures and activity at the
site may hinder implementation
Moderate to high capital
-------
Table 5-1
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Physical Treatment
Well-suited for high-permeability soils. A
multistage process could extract organics and
inorganics. Useful in reducing soil volume for
subsequent treatment steps.
Applicable primarily to metals. Not well suited
for organic contamination unless proprietary
additives are used. Some leaching of
contaminants possible. Does not reduce
contaminant volume.
Potentially effective for DEHP
Laboratory testing required
Land disposal restrictions may
apply. Would require treata-
bility and performance tests.
Technology in developmental
phase. Would require
ireatability tests.
Moderate capital and
O&M
Moderate capital, low to
moderate O&M
High capital and O&M
Chemical Treatment
Thermal Treatment
Supercritical Water Oxidation
Low-Temperature Thermal
Treatment
Effective only for organics at high concentration
Effective only for organics at high concentration
Effective destruction of organics. Metals remain
in ash.
Effective for volatile organics. Less effective for
DEHP.
Applicability to soil slurry is
unproven. Would require
treatability tests.
Applicability to soil slurry is
unproven. Would require
treatability tests.
Mobile/transportable units
available. Local opposition to
on-site treatment anticipated.
Pilot tests required to confirm
effectiveness.
High capital and O&M
High capital and O&M
High capital and O&M
High capital, moderate
O&M
-------
Table 5-1
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Biological Treatment
Solid Flute
Treatment
Convorint
Slurry
Bioremediation
Potentially effective for organics. Metals remain
in soil.
Removes readily degradable organics
Space constraints and VOC
emissions make it infeasible
Moderate capital, low
O&M
Laboratory or pilot-scale tests High capital, moderate
would be required for DEHP O&M
Effectiveness hinges on oxygen distribution.
Native microbes effective in degrading organic
contaminants of concern.
Nonuniform permeability hinders solvent contact.
Not effective for DEHP. Effective for volaliles.
Better semivolatile volatilization than ISV, but
not effective for DEHP
Permeability and nonuniformity of soils impairs
vitrification. Stabilizes metals.
Treatability testing performed.
No excavation or delisting
required.
Contaminant migration needs to
be controlled. Can be
implemented in combination
with insitu bioremediation.
Readily implementable
Readily implementable.
Potential flammability hazard.
Implementable
Moderate capital and
O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
High capital and O&M
High capital and O&M
-------
Table 5-1
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Isolates contaminants to inhibit leaching. No
contaminant reduction.
Isolates contaminant to inhibit leaching. No
contaminant reduction.
Space limitations, and land use
prohibitions. Future liability.
Subject to RCRA restrictions.
Future liability.
High capital, low O&M
Low capital, low O&M
-------
Table 5-2
Summary of (he Technology Screening for Groundwater and Immiscible Product
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
No Punter Action
Monitoring
Institutional Controls
Deed Restriction, Public Water
Hookup, or Point of Use
Treatment
Would not reduce the extent of contamination
Prevents use of contaminated water. No
contaminant reduction.
No further implementation Minimal
required
Readily implemented Low
Effective in reducing migration of floating
product. Bedrock is too deep to form a complete
groundwater barrier. Can reduce extraction of
clean groundwater.
This technology has proven to be ineffective in
soils with varying permeability.
Effective in reducing migration of floating
product. Bedrock is too deep to form a complete
groundwater barrier.
Unclear how floating product would be affected
Readily implemented
Readily implemented
Boulders in the overburden
make installation impractical
Unproven technology. Field
testing required.
Moderate capital, low
O&M
Moderate capital, low
O&M
Moderate capital, low
O&M
Low to moderate capital,
high O&M
-------
Table 5-2
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Imptementability
Cost
Effectiveness would be increased if used in
combination with pump and treat technologies
Effective in permeable soils for floating product
and groundwater
Also effective for floating product and shallow
groundwater, but less flexible than extraction
wells.
In operation at the site since
May 1984. E1PRS currently
operating.
Extracted groundwater would
require treatment and
permitting
Readily implemented
Low incremental capital
and O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
-------
Table 5-2
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Supercritical Fluid Extraction
Effective for organics, as long as suspended
solids concentrations are not excessive
Effective for VOCs and could be used to reduce
total organics mass loading prior to further
treatment for DEHP.
Effective for VOCs. Unlikely to be effective for
DEHP.
Effective for higher molecular weight compounds
and metals. Substantial pretreatment and
maintenance requirements. Not durable.
Retained only if metals removal becomes
necessary.
May be effective for DEHP.
Can be tailored to inorganics or organics. Not
effective for concentrated contaminants.
Retained only if metals removal becomes
necessary.
Effective on water/organic mixtures. Separated
products would require further
treatment/disposal.
Readily implemented
Readily implemented. Would
require treatment and per-
mitting of off gases.
Readily implemented
Moderate capital, high
O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
High capital and O&M
Membranes subject to fouling High capital and O&M
and degradation.
Technology in developmental High capital and O&M
phase
Treatability test required
Readily implemented
High capital and O&M
Low capital and O&M
-------
Table 5-2
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Chemical Treatment
Effective for concentrated organics, some metals,
and floating product. Not effective for dilute
contaminants.
Effective for organics and some metals
Effective for concentrated organics. Not effective
for floating product or dilute contaminants.
Effectiveness similar to other oxidation type
treatment. Works for both dilute and
concentrated contaminants.
Treatability test required
Treatability test required
Treatability test required
Very high capital, high
O&M
High capital and O&M
High capital and O&M
Several years away from High capital and O&M
commercial availability
Biological Treatment
Removes readily degradable organics.Treatabilily
study indicated effective for DEHP, xylenes, and
ethylbenzene
Removes degradable organics. Susceptible to
upsets. Reported to be unsuitable for DEHP.
Removes volatiles and readily degradable
organics. No DEHP removal.
Removes organics. Not effective for metals or
PCBs.
Treatability study indicated
favorable implementability.
Laboratory and pilot-scale tests
would be required
Problems with VOC emissions
and space constraints
Moderate capital,
moderate O&M
High capital, moderate
O&M
Low capital and O&M
Problems with VOC emissions Low capital and O&M
and space constraints
-------
Table 5-2
(continued)
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Effectiveness
Itnplementability
Cost
In Situ Treatment
Groundwater Discharge
Similar to aerobic degradation in an activated
sludge system. Potentially effective on
contaminants sorbed to soil.
Effective only for organics in shallow
groundwater for short duration
Effective. Could use existing outfall to drainage
ditch.
RVRSA not accepting discharge from GW
remedialions
Tile fields, injection wells, well points, or
infiltration galleries would be effective.
Laboratory or pilot-scale tests
required. Treatability study
indicated favorable
implementability.
Readily implemenlable
Would require pretreatment
and permitting procedure
Would require pretreatment
and permitting procedure
Would require pretreatment,
and permitting procedure, and
demonstration of containment.
Moderate capital and
O&M
Moderate capital and
O&M
Low
Low
Low
-------
TABLE 6
ARARs COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
1
No Action
2
Institutional Controls
3
Groundwater
Treatment
4
Groundwater
Treatment with
Reinfiltration
5
Excavation/On-Site
Soil
Washing/Bioslurry
Treatment
6
Excavation/
Thermal
Treatment
Chemical-Specific
Groundwater
Soil
RCRA Toxicity Characteristic
(Treated Soil, Used Carbon)
MCLs and NJ
Class II-A
cleanup
standards'
exceeded
New Jersey draft
cleanup criteria*
exceeded
NA
MCLs and NJ Class
II-A cleanup
standards exceeded
New Jersey draft
cleanup criteria
exceeded
NA
Expected to meet
New Jersey
proposed cleanup
standards
exceeded
NA
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Coarse soil may
require additional
treatment
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Expected to meet
Action-Specific
Clean Closure (40 CFR
264.111)
Closure with Waste in Place (40
CFR 264.228)
Solid Waste Disposal (40 CFR
241.200-212)
NA
Will not meet
NA
NA
Will not meet
NA
NA
Will not meet
Will meet
(disposal of used
activated carbon)
Will meet
NA
NA
Will meet
NA
See Alternative 3
Will meet
NA
Nonhazardous
residuals will be
disposed off
site/on site
dependent on
analyses.
' New Jersey draft cleanup criteria are not ARARs but are TBCs.
-------
TABLE 6
ARARs COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
(Continued)
NPDES (40 CFR 122-125) and
NJPDES NJAC 7:9-4.1 et seq.
and NJAC 7:15 A-5)
Ambient Water Quality
Standards (CWA 402 (a)(l))
Air Emissions (from
Excavations) (NJAC 7:27-16)
1
No Action
NA
NA
NA
2
Institutional Controls
NA
NA
NA
3
Groundwater
Treatment
Permit
requirements for
surface water
discharge will be
fulfilled.
Compliance will
occur by meeting
NPDES
limitations
NA
4
Groundwater
Treatment with
Reinfiltration
Permit requirements
for groundwater/
surface water
discharge will be
fulfilled.
See Alternative 3
NA
5
Excavation/On-Site
Soil
Washing/Bioslurry
Treatment
See Alternative 3
See Alternative 3
Will meet
6
Excavation/
Thermal
Treatment
See Alternative 3
See Alternative 3
Will meet
Location-Specific
RCRA Location of TSD Facility
in 100- Year Floodplain (40
CFR 264.18)
Floodplain Management -
Evaluate Potential Effects of
Actions, Avoid Adverse Impacts
(40 CFR 6, App. A)
State Siting Standard for New
Incineration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Will meet
Will meet
NA
Will meet
Will meet
NA
Will meet
May require
exemption for low-
lying area near
Wharton Enterprises.
NA
Will meet
See Alternative 5
Expected to meet
substantive
requirements
-------
TABLE?
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 1
NO ACTION
Unit Price
Estimated Material Estimated
Description Quantity Unit and Labor Amount
No capital costs are associated with Alternative 1.
Note:
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent
to -30 percent.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 2
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Description
Deed Notation
Additional Monitoring Well
Fstirnated
Quantity
1
Unit
Lump sum
Well
Unit Price
Material and
Labor
$35,000
$5,000
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$5.000
$40,000
$10.000
Total
$50,000
Note:
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 3
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Description
Deed Notation
Phase I Wells: extraction/monitor well'0
Phase I Wells: recirculation well
Phase n Wells: extraction/monitor well0'
Phase II Wells: recharge well
Phase U Wells: discharge well
Treatability Testing
Permit Applications
Groundwater Treatment System
Soil Cover
Hot Spot Excavation
Hot Spot Transport & Disposal
Estimated
Quantity
.
tor well0' 4
ill 4
itorwell0' 6
5
1
-
-
u0)
3.5
1,100
10> 1,100
Unit Price
Material
Unit and Labor
lump sum $35,000
each $15,000
each $10,000
each $20,000
each $15,000
each $25,000
lump sum $100,000
lump sum $60,000
lump sum $443,000
acre $28,300
cu. yd. $23
cu. yd. $2,095
Subtotal
Engineering, Construction Management (25%)
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site Services(10%)
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total
Rounded to
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$60,000
$40,000
$120,000
$75,000
$25,000
$100,000
$60,000
$443,000
$99,000
$25,000
$2.305.000
$3,387,000
$846,750
$338.700
$4,572,450
$1.143.112
$5,715,562
$5,716,000
Notes:
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
(l) - Includes pumps and controllers.
ro - Includes treatment building, utility hookups, clarifier, equalization tank, fixed film submerged aerobic
bioreactor, granular activated carbon (GAC) beds for effluent polishing, GAC vapor phase treatment, and
associated pumping and piping.
O) - Includes post excavation sampling - assumes incineration as disposal method for costing purposes.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 4
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT WITH REINFBLTRATION
Estimated
Description Quantity
Deed Notation
Phase I Wells: extraction/monitor well01 4
Phase I Wells: recirculation well 4
Phase n Wells: extraction/monitor well'" 6
Phase n Wells: recharge well 5
Phase n Wells: discharge well 1
Phase n reinfiltration network 50,000
Treatability Testing
Permit Applications
Groundwater Treatment System0'
Nutrient/Hydrogen Peroxide
Addition System
Soil Cover 3.5
Hot Spot Excavation 1100
Hot Spot Transport & Disposal0* 1,100
Hot Spot Excavation (Deep Soils) 1130
Hot Spot Disposal (Deep Soils) 300(4)
Unit
Unit Price
Material
and Labor
lump sum
each
each
each
each
each
sq. ft.
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
$35,000
$15,000
$10,000
$20,000
$15,000
$25,000
$10
$100,000
$70,000
$443,000
lump sum
acre
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
$42,000
$28,300
$23
$2,100
$28.5
$3,470
Subtotal
Engineering, Construction Management (25%)
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site Services(10%)
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total
Rounded to
Notes:
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$60,000
$40,000
$120,000
$75,000
$25,000
$497,000
$100,000
$70,000
$443,000
$42,000
$99,000
$25,000
$2,305,000
$32,000
$1.041.000
$5,009,000
$1,252,250
$500.900
$6,762,150
$1.690.538
$8,425,688
$8,452,000
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
(l) - Includes pumps and controllers.
c> - Includes treatment building, utility hookups, clarifier, equalization/nutrient mix tank, fixed film submerge
aerobic bioreactor, granular activated carbon (G AC) beds for effluent polishing, GAC vapor phase treatment,
and associated pumping and piping.
o) - Includes post excavation sampling - assumed incineration as disposal method for costing purposes.
<4) - Due to nature of waste, assume materials to be drummed for shipment. Remaining 830 cu. yd. consolidated
within CAMU.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 5
EXCAVATION/ON-SITE SOIL WASHING/BIOSLURRY TREAIfMENT*
Description
Deed Notation
Phase I Wells: extraction/monitor well10
Phase I Wells: recirculation well
Site Preparation (Staging/Equip. Area)
Treatability Testing
Permit Applications
Groundwater/Washwater Treatment
System
On-site Laboratoryฎ
Bulk Excavation
Bulk Treatment/Disposal
Hot Spot Transport & Disposal 0)
Site Restoration (Backfill/grading)'4'
Phase n Wells: extraction well(1)
Phase n Wells: recharge well
Phase II Wells: discharge well
litor well10
'ell
ip. Area)
fmAnt
UUCUv
JO)
ling)'4'
J<"
1
Estimated
Quantity
.
4
4
4,200
-
-
.
8
31,500
31,500
300
3,150
6
5
1
Unit Price
Material
Unit and Labor
lump sum $35,000
each $15,000
each $10,000
sq. ft. $24
lump sum $360,000
lump sum $70,000
lump sum $565,000
months $40,000
cu. yd. $15.40
cu. yd. $263.5 to
$495
cu. yd. $3,470
cu. yd. $5.70
each $20,000
each $15,000
each $25,000
Subtotal
Engineering, Construction Management (25%)
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site Services (10%)
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total
Rounded to
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$60,000
140,000
$100,000
$560,000
S;70,000
$565,000
$220,000
$485,000
$8,300,000 to
$15,600,000
$1,041,000
$180,000
$120,000
$75,000
$25.000
$ll,776,000to
$19,076,000
$2,944,000 to
$4,769,000
$1,177,600 to
$1.<>07.600
$15,897,600 to
$25,752,600
3,974,400 to
$6.438.150
$19,872,200 to
$32,390,750
$19,872,000to
$32,1.91,000
Notes:
- This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
<" . Includes pumps and controllers.
ฎ - Laboratory to provide post excavation analysis, post treatment analysis, and verification of suitability of material for
backfill.
0) - Assumes material excavated from waste disposal area not suitable for soil washing process.
<4) - Assumes all soil except fines (assumed 20% by volume) are suitable for backfill after treatment.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 6A
EXCAVATION/THERMAL TREATMENT (ON-SITE INCINERATION
Estimated
Description Quantity
Deed Notation
Phase I Wells: extraction/monitor well01 4
Phase I Wells: recirculation well 4
Site Preparation (Staging/Equip. Area) 9,170
Treatability Testing
Permit Applications
Groundwater Treatment System
On-site Laboratoryฎ 20
Bulk Excavation 31,500
Incinerator Permitting/Trial Burn
Thermal Treatment 31,500
Site Restoration (Backfill/grading)0' 31,500
Phase n Wells: extraction well" 6
Phase n Wells: recharge well 5
Phase n Wells: discharge well 1
Unit
lump sum
each
each
sq. ft.
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
months
cu. yd.
lump sum
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
each
each
each
Unit Price
Material
and Labor
$35,000
$15,000
$10,000
$24
$100,000
$20,000
$425,000
$50,000
$15.4
$2,000,000
$675
$6.4
$20,000
$15,000
$25,000
Subtotal
Engineering, Construction Management (25 %)
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site Services(10%)
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total
Rounded to
Notes:
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$60,000
$40,000
$220,000
$100,000
$20,000
$425,000
$1,000,000
$485,000
$2,000,000
$21,263,000
$201,000
$120,000
$75,000
$25.000
$26,069,000
$6,517,250
$2.606.900
$35,193,150
$8.798.288
$43,991,438
$43,991,000
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
0) - Includes pumps and controllers.
ฐ* - Laboratory to provide bum characteristic analysis, post excavation analysis, post treatment analysis (including PCDD
and PCDF analyses), and verification of suitability of material for backfill.
ฐ> - Assumes incinerator ash and oversize material suitable for backfill.
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE: ALTERNATIVE 6B
EXCAVATION/THERMAL TREATMENT (ON-SITE INCINERATION)
Estimated
Description Quantity
Deed Notation
Phase I Wells: extraction/monitor well"1 4
Phase I Wells: recalculation well 4
Site Preparation (Staging/Equip. Area) 4,600
Instability Testing
Permit Applications
Groundwater Treatment System
Bulk Excavation 31,500
Waste Characterization Analysis 45
Transportation to Incineration 31,500
Off Site Thermal Treatment 31,500
Site Restoration (Backfilling/grading) 31,500
Phase n Wells: extraction well(l> 6
Phase n Wells: recharge well 5
Phase n Wells: discharge well 1
Unit
Unit Price
Material
and Labor
lump sum
each
each
sq. ft.
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
cu. yd.
each
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
each
each
each
$35,000
$15,000
$10,000
$24
$100,000
$20,000
$425,000
$15.4
$1,200
$125
$1,950
$15.45
$20,000
$15,000
$25,000
Subtotal
Engineering, Construction Management (25%)C)
Mobilization, Demobilization, Site Services(10%)ra
Subtotal
Contingencies (25%)
Total
Rounded to
Notes:
Estimated
Amount
$35,000
$60,000
$40,000
$110,000
SIX), 000
$20,000
$4:25,000
$455,000
$54,000
$3,938,000
$61,425,000
$487,000
$1:20,000
$75,000
125.000
$67,399,000
$51)9,000
$2D3.100
$68,111,600
$17.027.900
$85,1:59,500
$85,1.10,000
This cost estimate is considered an order of magnitude estimate with an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
(I) - Includes pumps and controllers.
C) - Cost factors applied to subtotal less transportation and thermal treatment costs since these factors are applicable to on-
site services.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Site ID # :
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedies:
L. E. Carpenter/Dayco Corporation
Wharton Borough, Morris County, New Jersey
II
46.13 (April 1985)
NJD002168748
April 18, 1994 (signed by NJDEPE under
USEPA/State Pilot Agreement)
Ground water treatment with re-infiltration;
soil off-site disposal and in situ
bioremediation
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Construction Completion: 36 months
Capital cost:
O & M:
Present worth:
LEAD
$ 8,452,000
$ 210,000
$11,020,000
(in 1993 dollars)
(in 1993 dollars)
(7.1% discount rate,
30 years O & M assumed)
Remedial: N.J. Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Primary contact: Christina H. Purcell (609)-633-1455
Secondary contact: Sharon Jaffess (212)-637-4396
Main PRP: L. E. Carpenter Co.
PRP Contact (phone): Christopher R. Anderson (216)-589-4020
WASTE
Type: volatile organics, base neutral compounds, metals, PCB, PAH
Medium: soil, groundwater
Origin: manufacture of vinyl wall coverings from 1943 until 1987
Estimated quantity: 14.3 acre site includes 2230 cu.yds. soil to
be excavated and disposed off-site; also 20 wells for
extraction and 50,000 sq. ft. reinfiltration network
-------
Note on Superfund Record of Decision (ROD)
L. E. Carpenter Site
Wharton Borough, Morris County/ New Jersey
The L. E. Carpenter site is part of the USEPA/State Pilot agreement
program wherein the State is given full authority to produce a
CERCLA quality cleanup at the site. The Record of Decision (ROD)
signed April 18, 1994, is the first formal ROD under a pilot
agreement with USEPA to eliminate duplicative government agency
review. Pursuant to the Pilot agreement "Support agency
concurrence on lead agency RODs is not required". All USEPA
comments regarding this ROD have been addressed and incorporated.
The USEPA decision not to concur on the ROD should not be construed
to mean that USEPA disagrees with the remedy proposed j'.n the ROD or
with the rationale described in the ROD. The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection has selected Biological Treatment of
ground water with reinfiltration and soil bioremediation as the
remedy for the L. E. Carpenter Site. This selected remedy best
satisfies the requirements of the NCP's nine evaluation criteria
for the remedial alternatives. A site review will be conducted
every five years of execution of the ROD until health based levels
are met.
------- |