PB94-963834
EPA/ROD/R02-94/255
September 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Rockaway Township Wellfield,
Rockaway, NJ,
10/5/1993
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
Rockaway Township Wellfield
Rockaway Township, New Jersey
II
28.9 (June, 1983)
ROD
Date Signed
Remedy
Operating Unit Number
Capital cost
Construction Completion
0 & M in 1993
Present worth
October 5, 1993
Pump and treat ground water; replace
the existing township air stripper with
a new one
OU-1
$991,000 (In 1993 dollars)
To be estimated during remedial design
$661,149
$9,848,895 (5% discount rate and 30
years of O & M assumed)
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement
EPA/State/PRP
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Main PRP(s)
PRP Contact
Remedial
State
Mary Lou Parra, NJDEPE
Ron Rusin, USEPA
Thiokol Corporation
Ken Ford
(609) 984-0980
(212) 264-1873
(801) 629-2200
WASTE
Type
Medium
Origin
Est. quantity, cu.yd
VOCs (TCE, TCA) and inorganics
Soil and ground water
On-site disposal of contaminants to
soil (probably rocket engine
degreasing)
To be determined by separate operable
unit
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLFIELD
Name and Location
Rockaway Township Wellfield
Rockavay Township, Morris County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
ground water contamination at the Rockaway Township Wellfield
site, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision
is based on the administrative record for the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Rockaway Township Wellfield site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy presented in this document addresses the current and
future threats to human health and the environment associated
with the contaminated ground water at the Rockaway Township
Wellfield site. It provides for the restoration of the
contaminated ground water to the more stringent of the federal
and New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) and the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards.
A subsequent decision document is planned to evaluate the need
for remediation of the contaminant sources.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extraction of contaminated ground water and restoration
of the aquifer to the more stringent of the federal and
New Jersey MCLs and New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards;
-------
-2-
Treatment of the extracted ground water to levels
attaining the more stringent of the federal and New
Jersey MCLs and New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards;
Reinjection of the treated ground water to the extent
needed to promote ground water restoration, with
discharge of any surplus to the public water supply;
Replacement of the deteriorated air stripping treatment
system at the Rockaway Township Wellfield; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
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 technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element. Subsequent actions
may be necessary to address contaminant sources at the site.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
William J. Jiuszyhsk^ P.E. Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLPIELD
Site Name, Location, and Description
The Rockaway Township Wellfield Site is located in Rockaway
Township, Morris County, New Jersey. Rockaway Township is
situated in the center of Morris County, approximately 10 miles
north of Morristown and 20 miles northwest of Newark in the
north-central portion of the State.
The site, located north of Interstate 80, includes a 185-acre
area which lies in the center of a Y-shaped valley in an
otherwise hilly area of the New Jersey Highlands (Figure 1). The
area has been developed by commercial business and light industry
including service stations, restaurants, a hotel, plastic
manufacturers, truck/transit companies, and commercial office
complexes.
Near the center of the site is the Rockaway Township Wellfield
which serves as the source of potable water for approximately
12,000 residents in Rockaway Township. The wellfield consists of
Municipal Wells 4, 6 and 7 (PW4, PW6 and PW7) which are located
on the northeast side of Green Pond Road, south of Meadow Brook,
and west of the New Jersey Transit railroad tracks. At present,
PW7 and/or PW6 are continuously pumped at a rate of approximately
1.2 million gallons per day (mgd), while PW4 is not utilized
within the wellfield system.
These municipal wells are situated in glacial sediments which
have been deposited in a large bedrock valley. The "valley fill"
has a thickness of up to 200 feet near the center of the Beaver
Brook valley and primarily consists of sands and gravels, with
abundant cobbles and boulders. Within the sands and gravels,
prominent lenses of clay and boulder zones occur. The Rockaway
Township production wells are screened in sand and gravel
deposits at a depth of 130 feet to 160 feet below the ground
surface. Prior to the construction of the municipal wells in the
mid to late 1960s, the predominant direction of ground water flow
in the aquifer was thought to be south-southwest.
Water levels measured in monitoring veils throughout the study
area indicate that the cone-of-depression from the wellfield
dominates local ground water flow. Within the local area, ground
water flows toward the wellfield and is thought to be recharged
by natural precipitation falling on the study area, ground water
drainage along the valley walls, ground water flowing from areas
upgradient of the site, and infiltration from surface streams.
Rockaway Township overlies a designated sole source aquifer. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates
areas as sole source aquifers under the Safe Drinking Water Act
to protect principal drinking water sources.
-------
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Water samples collected from the wellfield in late 1979 and early
1980 indicated the presence of trichloroethene (TCE) and other
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Township installed an
activated carbon adsorption treatment system as a result of
detecting the contaminants. In October 1980, the treated water
developed an unpleasant taste and odor. Analysis showed it to be
contaminated with methylene chloride, di-isopropyl ether, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether. On October 10, 1980, the Township
declared a water emergency and advised residents to avoid
consumption of the water. An air stripper was subsequently
installed at the site for additional treatment. Presently, the
only treatment system in operation is the air stripper. However,
the Township uses carbon adsorption tanks when the air stripper
is taken out of operation for repairs. The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) then undertook an
industrial survey to identify potential sources of these
hazardous substances. The survey, along with additional
information, revealed that hydrocarbon products were present in
the ground water at a Shell Station and Town and Country Station
(presently Exxon), which are both located within the western
portion of the study area. On August 16, 1982, NJDEPE requested
that EPA consider this site for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The site was
subsequently placed on the NPL on September 1, 1983.
In June 1986, Morton Thiokol Inc., Shell Oil Co. and the Town and
Country Gas Station were issued Directives by NJDEPE to pay for a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). In May
1987, an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) was executed between
Morton Thiokol, Shell Oil and NJDEPE. The Town and Country Gas
Station did not comply with the Directive. Based on the
information from the Phase I RI investigation, NJDEPE determined
that it was necessary to conduct an additional investigation
(Phase II RI) . In April 1989, Directives were again sent to the
Town and Country Gas Station, Shell Oil Co., Morton International
and Thiokol Corp. (Morton Thiokol had split into Morton
International and Thiokol Corp.) that would require them to pay
for the Phase II RI. Although Town and Country again failed to
respond to the Directive, Shell Oil Company, Thiokol Corp. and
Morton International did comply with the Directive for the Phase
II RI.
Highlights of Community Participation
A Community Relations Plan (CRP) was developed to ensure the
public opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions,
including site analysis and characterization, alternatives
analysis, and remedy selection.
A meeting was held in April 1987 to provide residents and local
officials with an update on past activities and to inform the
-------
public of the scope of work for the RI/FS and other activities
planned for the site.
The RI and FS reports, which addressed the ground water
contamination, were released to the public in June 1993. A
Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's and NJDEPE's preferred
remedial alternative, was released on June 30, 1993. The
documents were made available to the public at information
repositories maintained at the Rockaway Township Free Public
Library, Rockaway Township, New Jersey; at the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Trenton, New
Jersey; and at the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
New York, New York. The administrative record for the site is
also located at each of these locations. A public comment period
was held from June 30 through August 30, 1993. A public meeting
was held on July 14, 1993 to present the findings of the RI/FS
and the Proposed Plan, and to solicit public input. The issues
raised at the public meeting and during the public comment period
are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of
this Record of Decision (ROD).
This ROD presents the selected remedial action for the Rockaway
Township Wellfield site, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Super fund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The selection of the remedy described in
this ROD is based upon the administrative record.
Scope and Kola of Action
This document addresses remediation of contaminated ground water
at the Rockaway Township Wellfield site. It includes remedial
alternatives which address contaminated ground water and focuses
on the protection of human health and the environment. Since the
information obtained during the Phase I and II remedial
investigations did not fully identify source areas of
contamination, potential source remediation will be addressed as
a separate operable unit. This operable unit focuses on the need
to remediate the contaminated ground water in the shallow and
deep aquifers.
Summary of Site Characteristics
The Phase I and II RI was conducted at the Rockaway Township
Wellfield site to define the site geology and hydrology, define
the nature and extent of ground water contamination, examine
potential migration routes by which contamination would reach the
wellfield, and to identify potential sources of the
contamination.
The Phase I investigation initiated in 1987 consisted of a site
background investigation, aerial photography and site mapping,
-------
monitoring well installation, soil boring and subsurface soil
sampling, in-situ permeability testing, borehole geophysical
logging, surface water and sediment sampling, soil gas sampling
and ground water sampling. The Phase II investigation completed
in April 1991 included a supplemental monitoring well
installation and sampling program (as summarized in Tables 1 and
2, only limited inorganic contamination was detected in the
ground water during Phase I, therefore, only 1 suspect well was
sampled for inorganics during Phase II), a seismic refraction
survey to further define the bedrock configuration at the site,
an investigation of a degreasing pit (located in Thiokol Building
12), further investigation of business and industries located
upgradient of a monitoring well which exhibited odors, and a Risk
Assessment to evaluate the potential of human health and
environmental impacts. The following information briefly
describes the results of the Phases I and II RI.
Within the valley, bedrock is overlain by sand and rock. Coarse
glacial deposits in the valley serve as a highly productive water
source for Rockaway Township. Production wells PW-7 and/or PW-6
pump a yearly average of 1.2 mgd and are screened in the deep
aquifer. The study area contains only a shallow and deep
aquifer. Both aquifers are classified as Class 2A aquifers.
The shallow aquifer does not extend over the entire site. The
shallow ground water flow discharges to surface water bodies,
such as Beaver Brook, and to the deep aquifer. The deep aquifer
underlies the entire site area. Ground water flow within the
deep aquifer is radially inward towards the Rockaway Township
Wellfield. Ground water flow in the deep aquifer is believed to
be influenced by the pumping of the municipal wells within a 1900
foot radius. Based on ground water elevations determined during
the RI, any potential deep aquifer contamination originating from
the Denville Technical Park would be captured by the Township
Wellfield.
To describe the occurrence and distribution of chemicals present
in ground water, the site has been divided into three areas of
concern as indicated on Figure 2. These areas are defined by
potential sources and by the types of contaminants found in
ground water underlying these areas. Dividing the site in this
manner also allows an evaluation of the contaminant impact from
suspected source areas. These areas are described below.
GROUND WATER AREA 1
Ground Water Area 1 is the south central portion of the site,
encompassing most of the Denville Technical Park. Analytical
results from 20 wells (shallow and deep) were obtained from Area
1 (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). Chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected
in the shallow aquifer at concentrations exceeding the
promulgated Federal and New Jersey Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) which have been developed to protect drinking water, and
the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS). The State
-------
and Federal MCLs and GWQs are indicated in Table 5. MCLs are
enforceable standards based primarily on health risks. The MCLs
indicated as follows are State MCLs unless otherwise stated.
Specifically detected were methylene chloride at a high of 140
parts per billion (ppb) (MCL-2 ppb) and trichloroethene at 120
ppb (MCL-1 ppb). Analytes other than chlorinated hydrocarbons
detected in the shallow aquifer within Area l included the
pesticide dieldrin at a concentration of 0.02 ppb (GWQS-0.03 ppb)
and silver at 65 ppb (MCL-50 ppb); both were only detected during
the Phase I RI. The detection of dieldrin was the only detection
of a pesticide at the site. Also, arsenic (MCL-50 ppb) was
detected at an average value of 9.8 ppb in the Phase I RI but was
not detected in Phase II. Antimony was found in only one sample,
at 67 ppb (GWQS-20 ppb). The secondary standards for manganese,
detected at 2,470 ppb (GWQS-50 ppb), aluminum detected at 2,920
(GWQS-200 ppb), and iron detected at 50,300 ppb (MCL-300 ppb)
were also exceeded. Secondary standards are not health based
standards, but are established to regulate taste and odor
characteristics.
The deep aquifer in this portion of the site exhibits the highest
degree of organic contamination within the entire study area.
All veils, except one deep well sampled in this area, had at
least one VOC detected. The highest concentrations of the
compounds detected (Phase I or Phase II) which exceeded the State
MCLs or GWQS in the deep aquifer include trans-1,2 dichloroethane
(1,2 DCA) at 190 ppb (GWQS-2 ppb), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)
at 40 ppb (MCL-2 ppb), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) at 120 ppb
(MCL-10 ppb), trichloromethane (TCA) at 93 ppb (MCL-26 ppb),
vinyl chloride at 9 ppb (MCL-2 ppb), TCE at 7,300 ppb (MCL-1
ppb), carbon tetrachloride at 11 ppb (MCL-2 ppb), and chloroform
at 17 ppb (GWQS-6 ppb).
GROUND WATER AREA 2
Ground Water Area 2 relates to the western portion of the site,
which encompasses five companies that were evaluated as potential
sources of contamination in Area 2. Fourteen wells (shallow and
deep) were sampled in Ground Water Area 2. These wells generally
contained low to moderate concentrations of TCE, TCA, and their
breakdown by-products, as well as low to high concentrations of
gasoline constituents (See Table 6).
The shallow aquifer is present in the northern and southern
portions of this area, but is absent from the central portion of
the area. Only one monitoring well was installed in the shallow
aquifer and VOC concentrations were below detection limits in the
well.
The eight VOCs detected above the State MCLs in the deep aquifer
during the Phase I and II investigations included TCE at 56 ppb
(MCL-l ppb), methylene chloride at 35 ppb (MCL-2 ppb),
tetrachloroethene (PCE) at 4 ppb (MCL-1 ppb), benzene at 43 ppb
-------
(MCL-1 ppb), toluene at 1,600'ppb (MCL-1,000), ethylbenzene at
1,900 ppb (MCL-700 ppb), and xylenes at 1,300 ppb (MCL-44 ppb).
Two gas stations, Shell and Exxon, were evaluated during the RI.
At Shell, the Phase I veils contained 43 ppb benzene (MCL-1 ppb),
1,200 ppb ethylbenzene (MCL-700 ppb) and 1,600 ppb toluene (MCL-
1,000 ppb). The Phase II results at the Shell station showed
only xylenes at 35 ppb (MCL-44 ppb). The decrease at this
station is probably due to a soil vapor extraction system
installed by Shell Oil. The Exxon station was not sampled during
the Phase I RI; results of the Phase II RI revealed the presence
of ethylbenzene at 1,900 ppb (MCL-700 ppb) and xylenes at 1,300
ppb (MCL-44 ppb).
GROUND WATER AREA 3
Ground Water Area 3 encompasses the northeast portion of the
site. Both the deep and shallow aquifers are present in this
portion of the site. Five monitoring wells were completed in the
shallow aquifer and three in the deep aquifer. The three highest
concentrations of VOCs detected in the shallow aquifer during the
Phase I and II investigations were PCE at 7.3 ppb, TCE at 2.8 ppb
and benzene at 3.2 ppb (Table 7). All were above the State MCLs.
The highest detected VOC in the deep aquifer during the Phase I
and II investigations was methylene chloride at 150 ppb (MCL 2
ppb).
TOWNSHIP WELLFIELD AREA
Untreated ground water from Municipal Well PW-6 and Test Well P-7
was collected and analyzed in Phase I, but only Municipal Well
PW-7 was sampled in both Phase I and Phase II. During the Phase
I RI, PW-6 contained TCE at a concentration of 300 ppb (MCL-1
ppb); P-7 contained TCE at 130 ppb, TCA at 8.9 ppb (GWQS-2 ppb)
and 1,2-DCE at 6.8 ppb (MCL-2 ppb); PW-7 was found to contain TCE
at a concentration of 51 ppb and TCA at 15 ppb (Table 2).
Concentrations decreased in the Phase II investigation to 38 ppb
TCE and 4 ppb TCA. 1,1-DCA was also detected in the Phase II
sampling at a concentration of 1 ppb.
SURFACE WATER/BENTHIC SEDIMENT SAMPLES/SUBSURFACE SOIL
Three surface water and stream sediment samples were collected
during the Phase I investigation and five subsurface soil samples
were collected during the Phase II investigation. Of the three
surface water samples taken, TCE was detected in one sample at
4.2 ppb. The sample was collected in the marshy area near the
outfall of a drainage pipe within the Denville Technical Park.
Lead was detected at a concentration of 4.4 ppb, which was
slightly above chronic Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(3.2 ppb). However, there was a high degree of contamination
within the blanks leading to uncertainty about the actual
concentration of lead present in the surface water.
-------
Stream sediment samples were obtained from approximately the same
locations as surface water samples. Compounds detected in the
sediments (marshy area) in the Denville Technical Park included
TCE at 2 ppb and TCA at 19 ppb. Fluor an thene (900 ppb), chrysene
(420 ppb) and pyrene (800 ppb) were also detected, but may be the
result of runoff water from adjacent asphaltic roads. The
highest concentrations of contaminants detected in sediment
samples taken from Beaver Brook were phenol (0.4 ppb), antimony
(95 ppb), beryllium (2 ppb), lead (54 ppb), nickel (44 ppb),
pentachlorophenol (920 ppb), arsenic (20 ppb), silver (11 ppb)
and cyanide (0.8 ppb).
Compounds detected in the subsurface soils (vadose zone) at four
test borings locations within the Denville Technical Park were
PCE at 2 parts per million (ppm) and TCE at 51 ppm. Both
compounds were detected only once in the ten samples collected
and analyzed.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
the human health and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risks
The reasonable maximum human exposure is evaluated. A four-step
process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks
for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification
- identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration. Exposure Assessment - estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and
duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well water) by which humans are potentially exposed.
Tozicity 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 Characterisation - 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 began with selecting contaminants of
concern which would be representative of site risks (Table 8).
Site-related contamination is present in ground water, soil,
surface water and sediment. However, soils, surface water and
sediments were found to have little potential for human health
risk because of the unlikeliness of human contact. Surface soil
contamination was infrequent and of low concentration, such that
direct contact with contaminated soil was determined to be an
exposure pathway of little significance. Continuous exposures
-------
over long periods of tine would have to occur to result in a
significant health risk and this situation is unlikely. A
summary of the pathways considered and those that were considered
complete, is provided in Table 9. The contaminants found in each
of the three areas and each of the two aquifers (Deep and
Shallow) were evaluated separately.
The baseline risk assessment quantitatively evaluated the health
effects which could result from exposure to contamination as a
result of ingestion of untreated ground water by residents and
inhalation of volatile organic chemicals by residents while
showering with untreated ground water. The toxicity criteria
utilized to conduct the risk assessment are presented in Table
10. For the carcinogens, risk is represented in terms of an
individual likelihood of developing cancer as a result of
exposure to a carcinogenic chemical present in the exposure
media. The future use of the untreated ground water cancer risk
and Hazard Index (noncarcinogenic effects) for a human receptor
for Areas 1, 2, 3 and the Township wells are estimated to be as
follows (See Tables 11 and 12 for more detail):
AREA 1 CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX
Deep Aquifer 2xlOJ 40
Shallow Aquifer 4x10"* 10
AREA 2 CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX
Deep Aquifer SxlO* 1
AREA 3 CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX
Deep Aquifer 3x10'* <1
Shallow Aquifer 9x10* <1
Township Wells CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX
6X101* <2
Current Federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are a maximum
Health Hazard Index equal to or less than 1 and an individual
lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 10*4 to 104 (one
in ten thousand to one in a million).
As can be seen, the carcinogenic risk associated with
contaminants present in the Area 1 deep aquifer, 2xlOJ, is
outside the cancer risk range. This risk is primarily associated
with the ingestion of ground water contaminated with TCE (IxlO"3).
The carcinogenic risks associated with the ingestion of ground
water from the Area 1 shallow aquifer, 4x10"', were at the high
end of the acceptable risk range. The significant contributors
to this risk were vinyl chloride, methylene chloride and arsenic.
The risks associated with carcinogenic contaminants present in
the other areas were all within the acceptable risk range.
The Hazard Index value of 40 for the Area 1 deep aquifer greatly
exceeded the Hazard Index value of 1 for acceptable exposures.
TCE was the major contributor to the noncarcinogenic risk posed
8
-------
by ingestion of this ground water. The Hazard Index associated
with the Area 1 shallow aquifer ground water was at a value of
10, which is also well above the maximum Health Hazard Index of 1
for acceptable exposures. The major contributors in this
instance were antimony, arsenic, and manganese. With the
exception of the Township wells, risks associated with
noncarcinogenic contaminants present in the other areas were all
at acceptable levels. The Hazard Index of 2, calculated for the
ingestion of ground water at the Township well, only slightly
exceeded the acceptable value. TCE was again the primary
contributor to this slightly elevated risk.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The reasonable maximum environmental exposure is evaluated. A
four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological risk for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Problem Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of
concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological
effects of the contaminants and selection of endpoints for
further study. Exposure Assessment - a quantitative evaluation
of contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of
exposure pathways and receptors, and measurement or estimation of
exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment -
literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking
contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological receptors.
Risk Characterization - measurement or estimation of both current
and future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with evaluating the
contaminants associated with the site in conjunction with the
site-specific biological species/habitat information. As noted
above, surface water and sediment samples were collected from
Beaver Brook and the marsh. No significant impacts are expected
to aquatic organisms based on surface water concentrations of the
chemicals of potential concern. There is some potential for
adverse impacts to sensitive species from exposure to lead which
was slightly above chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria
concentrations in the brooks and the marshy area. All other
organic and inorganic chemicals in the surface water are at
concentrations below those likely to impact aquatic communities.
In the sediment of the brooks and the marshy area, cadmium,
silver, and zinc were present at only slightly elevated
concentrations. Arsenic concentrations in the brooks were also
only slightly elevated. Because the concentrations of these
metals were only slightly elevated, potential impacts are not
likely to be significant. Sediment toxicity data was not
available for aluminum, cobalt, manganese, and vanadium.
Both terrestrial (e.g., northern goshawk, bald eagle) and aquatic
(e.g., wood turtle, bog turtle) species of special concern are
unlikely to be adversely impacted at the Rockaway Township
-------
Wellfield site because of their mobility and large habitat range,
their limited routes of contact with the surface water and
sediment, and the low concentrations of the chemicals of
potential concern in these media.
After performing the ecological exposure assessment and an
evaluation of the concentrations of the chemicals of concern, it
was concluded that adverse impacts to ecological receptors within
the Rockaway Township Wellfield site are unlikely based on the
data collected.
CONCLUSION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Rockaway Township Wellfield site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect
human health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available information, applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), and risk-based levels established in the
risk assessment.
Only the remediation of ground water contamination is addressed
in this first operable unit ROD. Specific remedial objectives
are as follows:
o Prevent potential human exposure to contaminants in the deep
aquifer ground water which pose a carcinogenic risk to human
health in excess of ICT* to 10* and/or which have a Hazard
Index greater than 1.
o Prevent potential human exposure to contaminants in the
shallow aquifer ground water which pose a carcinogenic risk
to human health in excess of 10*4 to 104 and/or which have a
Hazard Index greater than 1.
o Restore of water quality of the shallow and deep aquifers to
appropriate Federal and New Jersey water quality standards.
The goal for the restoration of contaminated ground water is to
achieve the most stringent of the promulgated Federal and State
MCLs and the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply with
other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery
10
-------
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances. The FS report evaluates in
detail five remedial alternatives for addressing the ground water
contamination associated with the Rockaway Township Wellfield
site.
The estimated capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) cost,
and net present worth cost for each alternative discussed below
are provided for comparison.
These alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
Estimated Capital Cost: -0-
Estimate Annual O&M Cost: -0-
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost for monitoring: $124,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: Single event occurring after
5 years
The No Action alternative provides the baseline alternative
required by CERCLA for purposes of comparison with other remedial
alternatives.
The components of Alternative 1 include monitoring and site
review. Existing monitoring wells at the site would be sampled
once at the end of five years to monitor contaminant migration in
the aquifer system. It is assumed that the review would be
conducted approximately five years after the ROD, and would
include sampling a total of approximately 35 wells for the
Contract Laboratory Program/Target Compound List/Target Analyte
List (CLP TCL/TAL) analysis. The CLP TCP/TAL includes analysis
of both VOCs and metals.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEM IN THE DENVILLE TECHNICAL
PARK (AREA 1)
The main components of Alternative 2 include extraction of
contaminated ground water in the Denville Technical Park (Area
1}, on-site treatment and discharge of treated water.
Alternative 2 also includes institutional controls, monitoring
and site reviews. It is estimated that 39 water samples would be
analyzed send-annually for CLP TCL/TAL analysis for a period of
30 years with periodic reviews. However, the specific number of
wells to be sampled and analytical parameters would be determined
during design and subsequent operation. A formal site review
would be conducted at approximately five year intervals during
remediation. Seventeen extraction wells are estimated with a
total extraction rate of 370 gallons per minute. Under
Alternative 2, there is one extraction option, five treatment
options and five disposal options. Since the three main
components of Alternative 2 (Extraction/Treatment/Discharge) are
11
-------
evaluated separately, the selected options must be added to
determine the total cost for Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - EXTRACTION COMPONENT (DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK)
Two sets of present worth costs for extraction, treatment, and
discharge options are presented. One estimate assumes that a
future decision is made to remove the source of groundwater
contamination, reflecting a remediation time frame of 6 years,
while the other assumes that the source area is not remediated,
reflecting a remediation timeframe of 30 years. These estimates
can be made since the general areas of contamination at the
Denville Technical Park are known. The time during which the
system would be in operation depends mostly on the extent of
residual contamination remaining at the source areas. Once the
areas are more clearly identified and remediated, ground water
remediation time is estimated to decrease from 30 years to 6
years. This ROD proposes that the source areas be further
delineated and that alternatives for remediating the source areas
be evaluated as a separate operable unit.
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $450,000 $450,000
Estimated Annual O&H Cost: $391,900 $391,900
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost: $5,450,000 $2,100,731
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
The extraction system would consist of an estimated 17 pumping
wells with submersible pumps for each well and associated piping.
The wells would collectively extract ground water at a rate of
approximately 370 gallons per minute (6PM). The exact number of
extraction wells, their locations and rate of extraction would be
determined during design. Extracted water would be piped from
each wellhead to a central treatment plant and treated to reach
ARARs. The treated water would be transferred via piping for
disposal according to the selected disposal option.
* The costs and implementation timeframes in the "Future Source
Removal" column for the (above and below) remedial alternatives
listed above and below are for present informational purposes;
the implementation timeframes represent the decrease in operation
time required for extraction if the source areas delineated and
remediated. Remediation of the contaminated soils is not within
the scope of this ROD, but will be addressed as a separate
operable unit.
12
-------
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE 2 - AIR STRIPPING - DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (WT-1)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $149,200 $149,200
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $35,000 • $35,000
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost: $689,000 $327,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
Air strippers transfer volatile ground water contaminants from
the extracted ground water to the gas phase. The costs provided
for this option assume a unit sized for the 370 GPM flow rate
estimated for the ground water extraction system at the Denville
Technical Park. The existing air stripper at Rockaway Township
Treatment Plant meets emission control requirements, however, the
system proposed for the Denville Technical Park may not meet
acceptable VOC emission standards. Although preliminary
estimates indicate that VOC emissions from the proposed ground
water extraction system would be slightly below the ARARs set by
NJAC 7:27, under actual operating conditions, it is possible that
without off-gas treatment the air stripper may not meet these
ARARs. The determination of whether emissions controls are
needed would be based on influent data obtained from pump tests
during design of the system. The costs associated with off-gas
treatment are included in Option WT-2 presented below.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - AIR STRIPPING WITH OFF-GAS TREATMENT USING VAPOR
PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION OR CATALYTIC OXIDATION TREATMENT -
DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (WT-2)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $220,000 $220,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $145,000 $145,000
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost: $2,450,000 $960,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
This ground water treatment option uses air stripping similar to
Option WT-1 but also includes treatment of off-gases. The
addition of off-gas treatment to the basic air stripper would
assure that air emission requirements are met. Treatment of
residuals such as spent carbon would be regulated, transported
and disposed of in accordance with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
13
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2 - POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT - DENVILLE
TECHNICAL PARK (WT-3)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,430,000 $1,430,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $197,700 $197,700
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost: $4,470,000 $2,420,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
Powdered activated carbon treatment is an innovative but
demonstrated biological remediation process using activated
sludge in conjunction with powdered activated carbon. Because
the compounds adsorbed to the activated carbon are recycled with
the sludge, they have a much longer system retention time,
allowing a greater degree of biological degradation. Treated
water would then be discharged by one of the discharge options
evaluated below. Treatment of residuals such as spent carbon
would be regulated, transported and disposed of in accordance
with RCRA.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - UV OXIDATION TREATMENT - DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK
(WT-4)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $657,000 $657,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $289,000 $289,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $5,110,000 $3,260,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation is a relatively new technology for
cleanup and destruction of organic compounds in ground water.
Commercial applications using hydrogen peroxide and ozone as the
oxidant have been developed. In this process, ultraviolet light
reacts with hydrogen peroxide and/or ozone molecules to form
hydroxyl radicals which break down organic contaminants. Treated
water would then be discharged using one of the discharge options
evaluated.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - AQUEOUS PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT -
DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (WT-5)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $68,900 $68,900
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $148,300 $148,300
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $2,350,000 $822,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 6 years
This ground water treatment option uses aqueous carbon to adsorb
and remove the organic compounds from the water stream. The
influent water would be filtered through a series of carbon beds.
The precipitate would be discharged as filtered water using one
14
-------
of the discharge options. The spent carbon slurry would then be
transported off-site to be regenerated.
DISCHARGE OPTIONS
ALTERNATIVE 2 - TREATED WATER PUMPED TO THE DENVILLE WATER SUPPLY
FACILITY FROM THE DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (Discharge Option 1)
The cost for design and construction of Discharge Option 1 is
estimated to be $171,000. The O&M costs associated with this
option are minimal. This cost estimate does not include any fees
that may be charged by the Town of Denville for tie-in to its
water distribution system. This option involves pumping the
treated water, via pipeline, to the Denville Water Supply
Facility for subsequent use by its customers. The ground water,
once treated, will meet the Federal and State drinking water
standards.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - TREATED WATER PUMPED TO THE ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP
TREATMENT PLANT FROM THE DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (Discharge
Option 2}
The cost for design and construction of Discharge Option 2 is
estimated to be $67,000. The O&M costs associated with this
option are minimal. The estimated cost does not include any fees
that may be charged by Rockaway Township for tie-in to this water
distribution system. This option involves pumping the treated
water, via pipeline, to the Rockaway Township Treatment Plant for
subsequent use by its consumers. The ground water, once treated,
would meet the Federal and State drinking water standards.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - TREATED WATER DISCHARGE TO AN ON-SITE
INFILTRATION BASIN - DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (Discharge Option 3)
The cost for design and construction of Discharge Option 3 is
estimated at $67,000. The O&M costs associated with the option
are minimal. A series of gravel-filled trenches with central
drainage pipes would be installed downgradient of the Denville
Technical Park to maintain the flow of ground water to the
Rockaway Township Wells. The trenches would allow water pumped
into the drainage pipe to infiltrate into the ground. Ground
water reinjection could also include injection wells; however,
for costing purposes, reinjection trenches in the form of a leach
field is representative of the reinjection system.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - TREATED WATER PUMPED TO A POTW FACILITY FROM THE
DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (Discharge Option 4)
The cost for design and construction of Discharge Option 4 is
estimated to be $218,000. The O&M costs associated with this
disposal option are minimal. The estimated cost does not include
any fees that may be charged by the Publicly Owned Treatment
15
-------
Works (POTW) facility for tie-in to its sever system. The fees
for treatment by the POTW would be substantially higher than
discharge to the Rockavay Township or Denville Township Water
Treatment Facility. This off-site discharge option involves
discharging treated ground water to a POTW facility located in
the Town of Boonton approximately six miles east of the site.
The ground water would be discharged into existing sewer lines
near the Denville Technical Park.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - TREATED WATER POMPED TO SURFACE WATER FROM THE
DENVILLE TECHNICAL PARK (Discharge Option 5)
The cost for design and construction of Discharge Option 5 is
estimated to be $44,000. The O&M costs associated with this
option are minimal. This option involves pumping the treated
water from the treatment plant directly into the adjacent stream,
Beaver Brook. Prior to discharge, ground water would be treated
to levels which attain New Jersey surface water discharge
limitation requirements.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - AIR SPARGING WITH SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION; and
ALTERNATIVE 4 - UPGRADE EXISTING WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
These alternatives, as presented in the Feasibility Study, were
deleted from further consideration as viable alternatives in the
Proposed Plan and this ROD for the following reasons: 1)
Alternative 3 involves remediation of the contaminated soils,
however, source area remediation will be addressed as a separate
operable unit; and 2) Alternative 4 is based on the existing
system operating for another five years. The Rockaway Township
Water Department has estimated that the existing treatment system
has a useful life of less than one year.
ALTERNATIVE 5 - REPLACE EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM - (ROCKAWAY
TOWNSHIP TREATMENT PLANT)
No Source Removal *Future Source
Removal
Estimated Capital Cost: $254,000 $254,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $366,849 $366,849
Estimated Net Present Worth Cost: $5,650,000 $3,850,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years 15 years
The intent of Alternative 5 is to replace Rockaway Township's
deteriorating water treatment system (air stripper) with a
similar type system, with similar capacity. According to the
Rockaway Township Water Department, the existing air stripper is
experiencing extensive corrosion damage and is only expected to
last an additional year. With Alternative 5, the existing
treatment system would be replaced since the existing air
stripper is near the end of its useful life. The continued
16
-------
operation of this treatment system is necessary to maintain the
quality of Rockaway Township's drinking water; the existing
treatment system also remediates the aquifer as it extracts and
treats the ground water for drinking water purposes. Alternative
5 entails the same monitoring program and site reviews to those
discussed in Alternative 2.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
CRITERIA
The alternatives noted above were evaluated using criteria
derived from the NCP and CERCLA, as amended by SARA. These
criteria relate directly to factors mandated by CERCLA, as
amended, in Section 121, including Section 121(b)(1)(A-G). The
criteria are as follows:
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. 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.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements fARARs) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of
other federal and state environmental statutes and requirements
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and
the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met.
4. Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment
is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement a particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs, and net present worth costs.
17
-------
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS reports and Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes
or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS
reports. Responses to public comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary of the ROD.
The following is a comparative analysis of the alternatives based
upon the evaluation criteria noted above.
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
All remediation alternatives with the exception of Alternative 1
(No Action) would provide protection of human health and the
environment by eliminating the significant threat posed under the
potential future use scenario, i.e. ingestion and inhalation of
contaminants by residents. Alternatives 2 and 5 provide
protection through treatment of extracted ground water.
Alternative 2 provides protection through treatment of ground
water extracted from the most contaminated portion of the aquifer
near Denvilie Technical Park. This system would intercept a
majority of the contamination flowing toward the Township wells.
All water treatment options would adequately protect human health
and the environment provided that required effluent standards are
met and air emissions do not exceed the standards set by state
and federal agencies. WT-1 (Air Stripping), without off-gas
treatment, may emit more VOCs into the atmosphere than the other
treatment options, thus exposing the surrounding community to
more airborne contamination.
All five discharge options offer protection to human health and
the environment because, with the exception of discharge to a
POTW, the ground water would at a minimum be cleaned up to
drinking water standards and would no longer pose a significant
threat to human health. However, if the discharge to a POTW were
selected as the disposal alternative, the treated water would not
be required to meet drinking water standards. If the surface
water discharge option was selected, the discharge criteria could
be more stringent than drinking water standards.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that remedies for
Superfund sites comply with federal and state laws and
regulations that are applicable and legally enforceable.
Remedies must also comply with the requirements of laws and
regulations that are not applicable, but are relevant and
18
-------
appropriate. Applicable requirements are defined as cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state lav that specifically address
a hazardous substance, pollutant, remedial action, location, or
other circumstance at a Superfund site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements are defined as substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal
or state law that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or
circumstance at a Superfund site, address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the Superfund site
that their use is well suited to the particular site.
EPA has divided ARARs into three categories to facilitate their
identification:
Action-specific ARARs are usually technology or activity
based requirements or limitations on actions or conditions
involving specific substances.
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health or risk-based
numerical values or methodologies used to determine
acceptable concentrations of chemicals that may be found in
or discharged to the environment.
Location-specific ARARs restrict actions or contaminant
concentrations in certain environmentally sensitive areas.
Examples of areas regulated under various federal laws
include floodplains, wetlands, and locations where
endangered species or historically significant cultural
resources are present.
Alternatives 2 and 5 are similar in that they both would
remediate contaminants in the aquifer to MCLs and GWQS.
Alternative 1 would not attain ARARs in any reasonable amount of
time since it is a no-action alternative. Under Alternative 5,
the replacement treatment system would result in treated water
which meets drinking water standards prior to distribution. Each
of the discharge options under Alternative 2 would meet ARARs.
In addition, the residuals generated under treatment options WT-
2, WT-3, and WT-4 would be handled, transported, and disposed or
regenerated (WT-5 only) in accordance with ARARs. Therefore,
each of the alternatives and associated options, with the
exception of Alternative 1, are similar in their level of
compliance with ARARs as each would fully comply with ARARs.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Alternatives 2 and 5 would provide effective long-term protection
since contamination in the ground water would be remediated
effectively to ARARs by the treatment systems. Alternative 1, no
19
-------
action, would not provide any long-tern effectiveness and
permanence.
All five water treatment options provide permanent treatment of
the VOC contaminants in the extracted ground water.
All the discharge options evaluated are effective long-term
solutions for disposal of the treated ground water. However,
discharge options 1, 4, and 5 do not discharge treated water to
the Rockaway Township Treatment Plant or reinject it back into
the aquifer. These methods, therefore, affect the current water
supply allocations for Rockaway Township in the following ways.
Water extracted from the aquifer and not replaced would increase
the drawdown at the existing township pumping wells; this might
force a change in the directional flow of the aquifer. In this
case, contaminated ground water from the adjacent Rockaway
Borough Super fund site could be drawn toward the municipal
drinking wells. Quantification of this effect would require
ground water modeling of the Rockaway Township Wellf ield site and
the Denville Water Supply Facility during design.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Under Alternative 1, no action, the existing treatment system
would run until the end of its useful life, which has been
determined to be approximately one year. Continued operation of
the Rockaway Township Treatment Plant is required to meet
drinking water standards. As its useful life is expected to
terminate within a year, Alternative 1 would provide the least
reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants.
Alternative 5 reduces the toxicity and volume of the contaminants
by providing continued operation of the Rockaway Township
Treatment Plant air stripper, while also ensuring a potable
supply of water. Alternative 2 allows for treatment of the most
contaminated area of the Denville Technical Park. This would
reduce the mobility of the contaminants, thereby reducing the
volume of contaminants reaching the existing Rockaway Township
Treatment Plant. The Alternative 2 extraction system captures a
more highly contaminated portion of the contaminant plume than
Alternative 5. However, Alternative 2 does not ensure a potable
supply of water to those currently using water supplied by the
Rockaway Township Treatment Plant.
All of the water treatment options for Alternative 2 are capable
of removing the VOC contaminants from the ground water and would
provide similar levels of reduction of the toxicity and mobility
of the contaminants. However, some water treatment options would
produce a waste residual. Water treatment options WT-2 (Air
Stripping with Vapor Phase Carbon) and WT-5 (Aqueous Phase
Carbon) would create spent carbon that would need to be sent off
site for regeneration. WT-3 (Powdered Activated Carbon
Treatment) is primarily a biological process, a residual sludge
20
-------
would be generated that would be required to be sent off site to
a permitted facility or incineration unit. The two water
treatment options that generate no residuals are WT-1 (Air
Stripping) and WT-4 (UV Oxidation). WT-4 provides the greatest
overall reduction in toxicity followed by WT-3, WT-2 and WT-5.
WT-2 through WT-5 provide similar reduction in mobility of
contaminants. WT-2 through WT-5 also provide similar reduction
in the volume of contaminants in the aquifer.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Alternatives 1 and 5 are least disruptive to the current
operations and existing use of the land. Alternative 1 does not
require any modifications or additions to the existing system,
but would also provide no additional degree of effectiveness.
Alternative 2 would be somewhat disruptive to the current
operations and existing conditions since this alternative
involves the construction of wells, pump houses and treatment
units. Alternative 2 requires water treatment and disposal
facilities. Construction of these facilities may require
interruption of traffic and could interfere with existing
facility operations. Overall construction time for these
alternatives is about two years.
All five water treatment options and discharge options are about
equal in construction time and short-term effects on the
surrounding community.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 are readily implement able and can be
implemented within a short time frame. All water treatment
options are commercially available and use common materials for
construction and operation. Options WT-2 and WT-5 are available
from several sources and would be easier to implement than Option
WT-3 which is produced by only one or two manufacturers.
All discharge options would be fairly easy to implement using
standard construction equipment. The major concern with
Discharge Option 1 (Discharge to the Denville Water Supply
Facility) is that it would take some additional time to
construct. Obtaining a right-of-way may be more difficult for
Option 2 (Treated Ground Water to Rockaway Water Supply) because
of a required railroad crossing. A similar potential
right-of-way and access problem may occur with the construction
of the leach field (Option 3).
COSTS (30 Years of Treatment)
The costs of each of the alternatives, not including discharge
costs, are summarized below. Figures are provided for capital
cost, annual O&M and present worth based upon a 5 percent
21
-------
discount. The "Total Cost" figures for each of the Alternative 2
Options include the costs for the extraction portion of the
remedy, ($450,000 in capital costs and $391,900 in annual O&M for
a total present worth cost (5%) of $5,450,000).
GROUND WATER
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1, No Action
Alternative 2 (WT-1) , Air
Stripping
Alternative 2 (WT-2) , Air
Stripping with Vapor
Phase Carbon
Alternative 2 (WT-3),
PACT
Alternative 2 (WT-4) , UV
Oxidation
Alternative 2 (WT-5) ,
Aqueous Carbon Phase
Treatment
Alternative 5, Replace
Existing Treatment System
CAPITAL
COST
$149,200
$220,000
$1,430,000
$657,000
$68,900
$254,000
ANNUAL
O&M
$124,000
$35,000
$145,200
$197,700
$289,000
148,300
$366,849
PRESENT
VALUE 5%
$689,000
$2,450,000
$4,470,000
$5,110,000
$2,350,000
$5,650,000
TOTAL
COST
$124,000
$6,139,000
$7,900,000
$9,920,000
$10,560,000
$7,800,000
$5,650,000
The costs for each of the Discharge options for Alternative 2 are
as follows:
Discharge Option 1
(Treated Water Pumped to the Denville Water Supply Plant) -
$171,000
Discharge Option 2
(Treated Water Pumped to the Rockaway Township Treatment Plant) -
$67,000
Discharge Option 3
(Discharge to on-site Infiltration Basin/Leach Field) - $67,000
Discharge Option 4
(Discharge to POTW) - $218,000
Discharge Option 5
(Discharge to Surface Water) - $44,000
It should be noted that operation and maintenance costs
associated with the discharge options are minimal and are not
included in the costs shown.
22
-------
The No Action Alternative which consists of a single sampling
event and review at the end of five years, is the least expensive
with a present worth cost (PWC) of $124,000. Alternative 2
consists of a combination of extraction/treatment/discharge
technologies for remediation of the Denville Technical Park. The
PWCs (treatment and extraction) for Alternative 2 are $6,139,000
for Air Stripping (WT-1); Air Stripping with vapor phase carbon
(WT-2) is $7,900,000; Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (WT-3)
is $9,920,000; UV Oxidation (WT-4) is $10,560,000 and Aqueous
Phase Carbon Treatment (WT-5) is $7,800,000.
The least expensive discharge option evaluated as part of
Alternative 2 is Discharge Option 5 (Discharge to Surface Water)
at $44,000 followed by Discharge Option 2 (Treated Ground Water
to Rockaway Water Supply Plant) and Discharge Option 3 (Discharge
to On-Site Infiltration Basin/Leach Field) which are both
estimated at $67,000. Discharge Option 1 (Treated Ground Water
to Denville Technical Park) is estimated at $171,000 and the most
expensive Discharge Option is Discharge Option 4 (Discharge to
POTW) at $218,000.
The PWC of Alternative 5 (Replace Existing System) for 30 years
of present worth cost treatment is $5,650,000 and includes the
monitoring and review program (the present worth cost excluding
the monitoring and review program would be $1,881,895).
POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT COSTS
As noted above, there were some infrequent detections of
inorganic contaminants during the RI. Although the levels found
did not pose a significant problem, there is some concern that
during the implementation of a remedy higher, more frequent
levels of inorganic contaminants may be present above MCLs (or
GWQS) or at levels which could interfere with the operation of
any treatment system which might be constructed. The Rockaway
Township Water Authority has not experienced a metals problem at
the on-site treatment system. However, even with this historical
information, it is not known whether treatment for inorganics
would be required to prevent fouling of the air stripper, or to
ensure that the quality of the groundwater meets MCLs and GWQS.
Therefore, additional sampling will be done during the design
phase of the treatment system to determine whether inorganics are
of concern. If necessary, any extraction/treatment system
selected would be modified to include pretreatment of the
inorganics to prevent fouling of the organic treatment system or
achieve MCLs or GWQS for inorganics in the aquifer. The increase
in present value cost for pretreatment of inorganics could range
from $678,400 for 6 years of treatment to $1,141,800 for 30 years
of treatment at the Denville Technical Park. The cost figure
shown for 6 years of treatment represents the estimated decrease
in treatment time if the contaminated soils are identified and
23
-------
remediated. Source area remediation is planned under a separate
operable unit.
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State of New Jersey agrees with and supports the selected
remedy presented in this ROD.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Issues raised during the public comment period and at the public
meeting held on July 14, 1993, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of this ROD. Comments received
during the public comment period indicated that the local
residents were generally satisfied with the preferred alternative
for the cleanup of contaminated ground water. The community did
express its preference that the treated ground water be utilized
as potable water rather than reinjected back to the aquifer.
Upon review of these comments, EPA and NJDEPE have determined
that no significant changes to the remedy, as it was originally
identified in the Proposed Plan, are necessary. However, as
noted below, the remedy has been modified to accommodate the
community's preference for utilization of the treated
groundwater.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of
the alternatives, and public comment, both NJDEPE and EPA have
determined that the combination of Alternatives 2 and 5 will
constitute the remedy for the Rockaway Township Superfund site.
The components of the selected remedy are: Alternative 2
Extraction and Treatment Option WT-2 (Air Stripping and Off-gas
Treatment) at the Denville Technical Park, in combination with
Alternative 5 (Replace Existing Rockaway Township Treatment
System). The present worth cost of this remedy is $9,848,895,
which represents a capital cost of $991,000 and a present worth
O&M cost of $661,149. A breakdown of the cost items for the
remedy is presented in Tables 13, 14 and 15. If the second
operable unit source control investigation reveals that source
remediation is deemed to be necessary, the cost would decrease
because the extraction and treatment time necessary to remediate
the aquifer would be reduced. In addition, if it is determined
during design that emission controls are not needed to meet
appropriate standards, Treatment Option WT-1 (Air Stripping
without emission controls) would be used in place of WT-2 at
reduced costs.
Alternative 2 will allow ground water remediation of the most
contaminated portion of the plume in the Denville Technical Park
area, thereby reducing the contamination emanating from the
Denville Technical Park to the Rockaway Township Well field.
24
-------
Replacement of the existing air stripper through implementation
of Alternative 5, is necessary since the existing system is
experiencing extensive corrosion damage which is jeopardizing the
quality of the Township's drinking water. The continued
operation of the Rockaway Township Treatment Plant is also
necessary to capture and remediate the residual contamination
already on its way to the wellfield.
The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan entailed
discharging treated water from the system at the Denville
Technical Park to an on-site infiltration basin or leach field
(Discharge Option 3). However, based on public comment, the
discharge alternative has been revised to permit the utilization
of treated water. Any water not necessary to promote the
restoration of the aquifer may be used for potable purposes by
being pumped via pipeline to the public water supply.
To avoid any confusion regarding Alternative 5, the specific
components of this alternative are as follows:
The selected alternative at the Rockaway Township Wellfield
specifically requires replacement of the deteriorating air
stripper (not the existing carbon adsorption system).
The new air stripper to be installed at the Rockaway
Township Wellfield will have capacity similar to the
existing system.
The replacement air stripper at the Rockaway Township
Wellfield does not entail air emission controls because past
performance of the existing air stripper has met air
emission standards.
Determination as to whether any existing equipment can be
used as part of the new air stripper system at the Rockaway
Township Wellfield will be made during design of the new
system.
The costs for operation and maintenance were based on
estimates from the Feasibility Study. The annual costs
projected for operation of the new system will be revised
once actual costs have been determined.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedial
design and remedial action phases for the site. These activities
are described below as follows.
An analysis will be made during the remedial design to
ensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas will be
mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated ground water
could be discharged to wetland areas to help offset any
dewatering effects created by the ground water extraction.
25
-------
Ground water modeling will be performed to evaluate the
hydrologic effects of the remedy.
Since the remedial action will occur within the 500-year
floodplain, a floodplain assessment will be conducted during
the remedial design.
In summary, the selected alternative is believed to provide the
best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to
the criteria used to evaluate alternatives. Therefore, based on
information available at this time, EPA and the State of New
Jersey believe that the selected alternative would provide
overall protection of human health and the environment, would
comply with ARARs, and would be cost effective. This action
would utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Remediation Goals
The goal of the selected remedy is to restore the ground water to
the more stringent of the New Jersey MCLs, Federal MCLs and the
New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards within the zone of
capture of the Rockaway Township Wellfield, which includes the
Denville Technical Park. This operable unit will remediate
contaminants present in the deep and shallow aquifers and provide
safe drinking water for Rockaway Township residents. Based on
information obtained during the RI, EPA and NJDEPE believe that
the selected remedy will achieve this goal.
It may become apparent, during implementation or operation of the
ground water extraction system, that contaminant levels have
ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher
than the drinking-water standards over some portion of the
contaminated plume. In that case, the performance standards
and/or the remedy may be re-evaluated.
The selected remedy will include ground water extraction for a
period which is presently estimated to be 30 years (but which,
depending upon the degree of contaminant reduction achieved, may
ultimately be a longer or shorter period), during which the
system's performance will be carefully monitored on a regular
basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected
during operation. Modifications may include any or all of the
following:
Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup
goals have been attained.
Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation.
Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into ground water.
26
-------
Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the contaminated plume.
During the performance of the long-term monitoring, NJDEPE and
EPA may determine that the remedial action objective has been
met. Periodic monitoring will be used to reassess the time frame
and the technical practicability of achieving cleanup standards.
Upon meeting all remedial objectives, .including those which may
be specifies under the second operable unit, or determining that
the Site has been sufficiently purged of contaminants so that
public health is no longer threatened by contaminants at the
Site, EPA will initiate proceedings to delete the Site from the
NPL.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on CERCLA, as amended, and
the regulations contained in the NCP. EPA's primary
responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake remedial
actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Additionally, several other statutory requirements
and preferences have been established. These specify that, when
complete, the selected remedy must comply with ARARs, unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The remedy must also be cost
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, there is a preference for remedies which
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous wastes as their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the remedy
selected for the Rockaway Township Wellfield site meets these
requirements and preferences.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment
through the extraction and treatment of contaminated ground
water. The extraction and treatment of the contaminated ground
water will eliminate the threat of potential exposure to
contaminated ground water through the ingestion of ground water
or inhalation of volatile contaminants while using the ground
water for showering.
There are no anticipated short-term adverse impacts associated
with the selected remedy which cannot be readily controlled.
While no cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy, any
environmental impacts associated with site-related contaminants
or remedial activities will be addressed in the remedial design.
27
-------
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for the aquifer will be
achieved via the extraction and treatment of groundwater.
Action- and location-specific ARARs will be complied with during
implementation of the remedy. The specific ARARs for the
selected remedy are listed below.
Action-specific ARARs:
• Federal Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements for Off-
site Waste Transport (40 CFR Part 262)
• Department of Transportation (DOT) Rules for Hazardous
Materials Transport (49 CFR Part 268)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land
Disposal Restrictions Material Response (29 CFR Parts
1904, 1910, 1926)
• Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR Part
131)
• Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
(40 CFR Part 50)
• New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Levels (NJAC 7:10)
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and
143)
• New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act Standards for
Groundwater (NJAC 7:9-6; NJAC 7:14 A-6:15)
• New Jersey Water Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NJAC 7:14A)
• New Jersey Air Pollution Control (NJAC 7:27-5, 13, 16
and 17)
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (40 CFR
122 and 125)
• Standards for Hazardous Waste Transporters (40 CFR 263)
• Noise Pollution (NJAC 7:29-1)
28
-------
Chemical-specific ARARs:
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), MCLs and MCL Goals (40
CFR Part 141)
• Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR Part
131)
• Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
(40 CFR Part 50)
• New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Levels (NJAC 7:10)
• New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act Standards for
Groundwater (NJAC 7:9-6; NJAC 7:14 A-6:15)
• New Jersey Water Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NJAC 7:14A)
• New Jersey Air Pollution Control (NJAC 7:27-5, 13, 16
and 17)
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (40 CFR
Parts 122 and 125)
• Standards for Hazardous Waste Transporters (40 CFR Part
263)
• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (40 CFR Part 61)
Location-Specific ARARs
• Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
40 CFR Part 50
• 40 CFR Part 6 Appendix A (Regulations for implementing
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands)
• Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344
COST—EFFECT1VEN£SS
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost. The estimated present worth cost of the selected
remedy is $9,848,895, which represents capital and annual O&M
costs of $991,000 and $661,149, respectively.
29
-------
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. The
extraction and subsequent treatment of ground water will
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the ground water.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference calls for remedies that employ treatment
as a principal element. The selected remedy entails extraction
and treatment of contaminated ground water at the site and,
hence, satisfies the preference for the treatment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan. However, there was one minor
change to the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan entailed discharging treated water
from the system at the Denville Technical Park to an on-site
infiltration basin or leach field (Disposal Option 3). However,
based on public comment, the discharge alternative has been
revised to allow for the utilization of treated water. Any water
not necessary to promote the restoration of the aquifer may be
used for potable purposes by being pumped via pipeline to the
public water supply.
30
-------
t
?
I
N
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP
WELLFIELD
AREA OF
INVESTIGATION
BASE MAPS ARE U.SG.S. 7 !/2-MINUTE
QUADRANGLE MAPS, DOVER AND
BOONTON, DATED' 1954, PHOTOREVISED' »86.
[FIGURE
NEW JERSEY COWimENT OF
H
-------
•
1im )f~.~ «••"* '"-iTf . *"•**• ni-m '•**** "•*•* "***»
' W~X;^.^^^<;>t^ v
s, > \\ O^:^V>-< \V\. ' T^!'"^^*^
iN^**%~C'~ >^'.J£r •'•% •"''•' -• '.' "n ~1^'' :iR^
MUNICIPAL
wen w-s
l *•••!.• •\>^-^;
>-*.
•«• >.
EXISTWM
I// (P EKMTINO I
WELL
~»l~i
^»i
hr V«.
^••••' '.
,'V
•//
•r
"•^ - //
^/
#
MONITORINO WELL INSTALLED FOR
PHASE I INVESTIGATION. »91
MONITORINO WELL INSTALLED FOI
PHASE It INVESTIGATION. U9O
.APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEE
GROUNOWATER AREAS
MW-WSjg-^.-l ,
/ ' ^MW-MOB '
;/ / vv--^..
'• —.NJBEP-Z1^^^-.
.X
^^«
. .T***^^"**4* '
;,. •• ^^vSftu.— . y „,:
if, "".^^S:—.^ *'• 4
o too too
SCALE IN FEET
\ REFERENCE'
' \OATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY. MARCH 14
1987 BY AERIAL DATA REDUCTION!
CONTOUR INTERVAL' 2 FT.
/r^^-ii?rV' -1 .".'^ -' '".'/R?1"""^^
flafrr V- .S ., '. -? ,.|fe^ -^
"
w
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PBOttCTIOH AND ENERGY
«f> WELLFKLD SITE, MORRIS CO. NEW
KAISER CHGINEERS
PITTS0URCH. PA
| FIGURE 2
GROUNOWATER AREAS
DATE: NOV. 6, 1991
SCALE AS NOTED
OR..K.O.
OWC. MO.
-------
TABLE 1
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELL-FIELD SITE
Compound MW-1S MW-2S MW-6S MW-7S MW.8S MW-16S KJDEP*2
Volatile Organlcs ue/1)
1,1,1-Trichloroetbane S2
Tetrachbroetbene 7J
TrichJoroethene Z8J
Vinyl chloride L2J
Toluene 1.7J
Benzene 323
PCB/Pestirides (ug/I)
Dieldrin .02J
Lead 3.4
Antimony , 67
Arsenic 93
Silver • 65.0
Note:
J denotes to estimated value
Monitoring wells sampled March 2-9,1988 by ICF
Only detections are presented Blank spaces indicate below detection limits.
-------
VdrtBeOrmitafBtH
TtfcMoraethme
1,1-CNctitoioclhcM
Tdrachloroethene
M.I-Triehtoroeihme
tnm-U-DfcMoroeiheM
CMbon letrKMaride
Oilmofuiiii
MttbytenecMorMe •
CMorotihane
DdttCflC
TMucne
EUqUwoKM
TABIf 2
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN THE DEEP AQUIFER
PHASE I INVESTIGATION
ROCKAWAV TOWNSHIP WELLFIELO SITE
She!
MW.1D MW-3D MW-3D MW-6D MW^D MW-9D MW-IIS MW-HD MW-I4D MW-KD MW-IOP WeH PW^ PW-7 P-7
161
1?
40
9.9
14
4?
93
12
8.9
l«0
24
\1
4.31
350
3JI
190
II
3.4J
*2
211
7300
«.4
43
1JU/ZI1
II1
10'
M1
.91'
300 SI 130
15 &9
431
1600
1200
Lead
Mcfcuiy
43
8.0
3.9
fcf .J-.
rioics
«» Amiytial ICMIIU from NJDEP ttrnping M MW-I8D, Aprl 1988
AM rthen torn Mirdi 2-9.1938 nmpling bjr ICF
Onlf detedlom are praotted. Btank §pw» IndcMe below detection faita.
-------
TABtE 3
AREA I
fHASC I AND II ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY
ROCKAWAV TOWNSHIP WELUIELD SITE
VtaylCMMide
MethyfeM ChtaiMt
AfCMMM
1.1-DicblonwlkeM
l.l-D»cMon>e«kMC
UBBi-1.2 DkMaroelhc*e
1.2-DkUanedae (TaUl)
CkkNofom
l.t.l-TricI*mclhMM
CiCMTclncMonde
"nUUomtOttme
1.1,2 TricfcloroeUNK
Bemoan
EtlQPibCflOMBf
Toluene
XykaaCTouO
2tkuMM
TetndiVmctkMe
DKfcfafc
Silver
rhttel
RMte">
DL-U
NO
NA
DL-40
DL-14
DL-190
NA
DL-J.4
DL-«I
DL-U
ounoo
NO
DL-4J
DL-I2DO
DL-MOO
NA
NA
DL-M
DL4.92
DU47JO
rkMell
RMfC10
DL-»
DL-I»
OL-140
DUI8
DL-I»
NA
DL-I2B
DL-17
OL-42
OL-9
DL-39M
DL4I
DL-I
OL-I9W
OL-IJ
DL-I3W
DL-2
DL4t
NA
DL
NJSDWA
SUU&U4
10
U
-
It
-
1*
!•
-
2*
10
1.0
2.0
1.0
-
-
44
-
1*
-
SO
MW-tS
3*8
57
47.0
4/91
1401
IJ
MW-4O
3*S
40
14
12
NA
91
47
4/fl
18
10
NA
5
17
42
21
27
12
MW-9D
aw
39
4.SJ
1*0
24
4/VI
201
741
401
MW.IIS
3A8
190
NA
S.4J
S.3J
II
310
4/»l
NA
1201
35J
9J
3201
MW
W
21
•I2O
4/>l
11
IJ
MW-I4O
am
*-2
4)
«.2
7300
M
4791
3900
MW.
I«S
am
0.02J
MW.
20D
4/91
7)
41
41
2001
21
MW.
2ID
4/91
91
221
11
31
21
11
170
21
V
4/91
44J
141
1201
191
NJOpI
4/91
NJDET2
m
am
UJ
21
««P
4^1
211
11
21
K^glO
4/M
11
Hole
M VOC MMkMN MW-TS, MW-7D, MW-ltD, NIDEN
i M» VOC tfrtMttaM MW02D, KAB5
DL> Dacota Ib*
NA > Not AMlyxe4
N1SDWA • No* Icnqr 3Me DiMi^ WMtr A
(1}
(2)
BUak ifum hdicMe
J— Estimated value
-------
TAILE 4 .
PHASE II SAMPLING StJMNARf
INORGANIC CHEMICALS ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS
ROCKAWAY KMNSHIP WELlf IELD SITE
IJEll NUMBER
SAMPLE NUMBER
SAMPLE TYPE
DATE SAMPLED
UNIT
NW-6S
MC-OM20
FILTERED
4/5/91
MB/I
NU-6S
ROC-CW-120
UNrilTElEO
4/5/91
U9/I
NW-6S
ROC-CU-1U
UNFILTEREO
4/5/91
Uf/l
M
ROC-Ctf-U)
UNFIITEREO
4/5/91
INORGANICS
AIU»lf*M
Aricnlc
C*lcli«
OirtMliM
Cotelt
Copper
Iron
Lewi
Itognnlui
Mercury
Nickel
Sodlui
VMMdlUi
line
6.6 J
70.5 J
64600 J
24900 J
30700 J
2270 J
8.S J
2620 J
18500 J
4.6 J
1200
9.5 J
194 J
76500 t
8.4 J
56.9
50500
5.0
34000
0.2 J
31.1 J
1J.OJ
19500 t
12.9 J
61.2
2920 J
13.6
124 J
69200 4
0.5 J
10.2 J
40.7 J
46600 J
6.7
32500 J
2470 J
22.9 J
3200 J
18800 J
17.5 J
188 J
2.1 J
79.0 J
9.7 *
42.3 J
39.4 J
1.5 J
49.5 J
ti Concentration MtlMted
•Itnk «p*ces Indicate concentration*
are below analytical detection Unlit.
-------
Table 5
CHEMICAL SUMMARY AND
ARARS FOR GROUND WATER
TfcrpiCto-
10106
THcUorotthtne
LUftcfebreeitaae
i,!,|'Tffcfe>oraa&tK
IMttfetoreeifeese
W.nttlaronbcttftRtT)
diaraahasc
^•iM^^^^^^^w
^^btOFQcQKfl)
Ibhicae
Kytaeocttl)
Ettytteattac
Atttoee
MtsbytCBi CUsroc
OraoB Tctnaionu
VoylCttndt
114 Y
9*
6
1000
40
700
1
700
SO
2
5
100
ttO.0 90$ 4 • SO
ftithftoif
1/17 OJJ 0-2 J - - J03
Sfttr
Ancafc
Uatf
Maapane
/Vwirnm
von
1/17
4717 .
1/17
8/10
SM
23
SM
ts.o
134
67.0
6.7
2470.0 J
2920.0 J
50300.0
65.0
9.8
€7.0 *
S.6
15803 J
2060.0
S0461.0
50
50
10 »
50
50 »
50-200*
300 <
50
50.
«
50
.
«.
-
8
20
10
SO
200
300
• IWutf «to»alJri&»teB«hi!»(ix,tbe«»ofettorofoTm,toTtmaefetarome^^
• ToulXytoa.
» EtnmDBe&ul Prottcjoo Aftoty {EPA). 1991. Nwtail Prifivy XM&ki&t Wt»r RcfulaUaes; Fail Hide. F«ber»]
JUpier, VaL 56. No. 20, Wttoodiy, Jtnutiy 30,1991.
-ToulPCBt • .
• IfcB wcnve k tectf OB ee^hc ODpta et^y s&6 don av totiade dnpiieucs.
a •
• » Vt^ert UK KJDEPE Pnioiai OuciUatiao Itoft (POL) k Baaertally ti|her ihu tbc NJDEPE propcted
duaap undvd tbt POL fecteao Sto duaup sa&dvtL
* •tropoiel
-------
TABU 6
AREA1
PHASE I AND II ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLF1ELD S1TK
(All mltttt to i«/l)
Compound Detected
Vinyl Chloride
Meihytene Chloride
Acetone
U-DicMoroeihene
M-Dicbloroethane
tran*-l.2-dicfilaroetbene
1.24ichtaraeihene (Toul)
CMarofonn
I.l.l-Tricfalaroetbwie
Cartna Teuachtaride
Trichtoroeihene
1.1,2 Tricttaroelhim
Benzene
ElhylbenxeoB
Toluene
Xyleocs (Tout)
ZHcunone
TeiracMoroethine
CMoroeUwne
Diddrin
Silver
Phase 1 3/88
Range"'
DL-t.2
ND
NA
DL-40
DL-14
DL-190
NA
DL-5.4
DL-93
DL-II
DL-7300
ND
DL-43
DL-1200
DL-1600
NA
NA
DIM
DL4>.2
DL47.0
Phace 114/91
Range")
DL-9
DL-150
DL-140
DL-18
DL-IO
NA
DL-120
DL-17
DLr42
DL-9
DL-39OO
DLrl
DL-I
DL-1900
DL-12
DL-1300
DL-2
DL-19
SO
NJSDWA
Slandvdt
2.0
ZO
-
2,0
-
1.0
10
-
26
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
-
•h*
44
-
1.0
MW-5DB
3/88
9.9
17
4/91
U
IU
MW-8D
3/88
41
8.9
4/91
21
MW-IBD
3/88
IAI
4/88
II
0.9J
20
4
10
4/91
23J
21
MW-26S
4/91
41 .
21
MW46D
4/91
56
MW-
27D
4/91
35J
21
Shelly
3/88
51
21
61
43J
1200
1600
4/91
41
61
3SJ
EK^.2
4/91
1900
1300
lf_AA4
fKNK
Phue I omptet wWi no VOC detecUom - MW^S, MW^D, MW4S, MW-ITO, MW-18S
PhMeUumpktwithDoVOCdctecUom - MW-I8S, Hiberaw Diner
DL • Detection Umft
NA • Not Analyzed
NJSDWA - New Jeney Sute DrinUnf Water Act Sunchrdi
ND • Not Detected
• No Standard* Haw Been Pramulfaled
J - Estimated value
(I) Sftewtde
(2) MonMon Deep Aquifer
Blank ipoes Indicate cancan
talk
Ktow detection In
-------
TABLE 7
AREA 3
niASE I AND II ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
ROCKAWAY TOWNSIIir WELLFIELD SITE
Compound Detected
Vinyl Chloride
Melhyfcne Chloride
Acetone
1,1-DicMoroeihene
1,1-DicMoroclhane
irans-l^-Dkhtoroethene
1,2-Dkhloraeibene (Total)
Chloroform
M.I-TrichloroelhMe
Carbon TciracMoride
1,1,2 TriehtaroeUiane
Benzene
GthylDcnzcoc
Toluene
Xyfcnes (Total)
2Hennone
Tetracnloroeiluoe
Dieldru
Silver
Phase rRange'"
DL-IJ
NO
NA
DL-40
DH4
DL-190
NA
DL-S4
DL-93
DL-II
DL-7300
ND
DL-43
DL-1200 •
DL-1600
NA
NA
DL-24
DL4X2
DD-67.0
Phase U Range1"
DL-9
DL-150
DL-140
DL-18
DL-IO
NA
DL-120
DL-17
DL-42
DL-9
DL-3900
DL-I
DL-I
DL-1900
DL-12
DL-1300
DL-2
DL-19
NA
DL
NJSDWA Standards
2.0
2.0
-
2.0
-
1.0
10
-
26
2.0
1.0
2.0
IJ)
-
-
44
-
1.0
-
65
MW-IS
3/88
1.71
7J
MW-1D
a/as
4^1
MW-2S
3/88
zai
3^1
u
4/91
26J
MW-2D
3/88
4/91
I50J
I40J
*
3.7J
MW-3D
3/88
Z6J
4/91
IVEX W-3OT
4/91
461
Note: Lablott Pbtw Uumple from MW-IS.
Ptuve II lampte CramMW-3D conudoed no VOC at
DL-DetecUonUnai
NA • Not Analyud
NJSDWA • New Jeney Slate Drinkkif Water Act Standards
ND - Not Delected
- No Standards Haw Been Promulgated
J - Estimated value
detection Hmiu.
(I) SMewMe
(2) Moniion Shalow Aquifer
Analytkal Result* bom MW-23S and MW-25S were below detection NroMi
Blanks tpace* indicate caocentnukxtt betow detection hmiu
-------
TABLE 8-1
CKOUNDUATER ME CONCENTRATIONS USED TO CALCULATE RISKS
THE CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT THE tOOCAUAY TOWNSHIP UELLF1ELO SITE
Upper 75th
Confidence LiaHt
Arithmetic en the Arithmetic Naxisui IME
Hell Crei*>/CheBicel (•) Ntan Mean Detected Value
DEEP MUNGRADIENT • AREA 1
Organic*:
Acetone 7.1 9.* 21 9.4
Benzene 1 MC 11
Carbon tetrachlorlde 3.9 S.1 11 5.1
Chloroform 4.7 6.5 35 6.5
•i-n-butylphthalate 8.9 U 42 U
1.1-Oiehloroethane 3.6 4.6 U 4.6
1.1-Diehloroethene 5.5 8.1 40 0.1
1.2-Diehloroethene (tout) 23 120 120 120
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 22 130 120 120
2-Hexanone 2 MC 22
Nethylene Chloride MA MC 100 100
letreehloroethene 6.9 13 40 13
Toluene 3.2 3.8 12 3.8
1.1.1-Triehloroethane 15 47 93 47
Trichloroethene S10 210,000 7,300 7,300
Vinyl Chloride 5.5 6.1 9 6.1
Xylenes (total) 2 DC 22
Inorganics:
iMB (dissolved) 3.2 6.4 S.3 5.3
SHALLOW OOWCRADIENT - AREA 1
Orgsnics :
Oilorefora
•i-n-fautylphthalate
Weldrin
Methylene Chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics:
Alunirui (total)
Antieany (dissolved)
Arsenic (total)
•ariun (total)
Calciun (total)
ChroniifA (total)
Cobttt (total)
Copper (total)
Iron (total)
Uad (total)
Negnesiin (total)
Hanganese (total)
•ickel (total)
Potassiue (total)
Silver (dissolved)
SoditM (total)
Vsnadiw (total)
Zinc (total)
1
4.6
0.02
MA
2.8
1.2
MA
35
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
19
MA
MA
MA
MC
MC
MC
MC
3.9
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
NC
MC
MC
MC
NC
MC
MC
MC
1
4.6
0.02
140
5.2
1.2
2.060
67
11.6
159
72,850
5.5
9.3
48.8
48,450
5.9
^•152
2,570
27
3,200
65
19,150
15.2
124.6
1
4.6
0.02
140
3.9
1.2
2,060
67
11.6
159
72,850
5.5
9.3
48.8
48,450
S.9
33,250
2,570
27
3,200
65
19.150
15.2
124.6
M« • Mot applicable, since there «as only one sample.
aX » Not calculated due to the aawll nafeer of sanplt*.
Ca) Mo chaaicali of concern Mere Mlectad for the Shallow Ooungraditnt • ATM 2
Concentrations in a«/L.
-------
TABLE 8-2
etCUOUATER BC CWCENTIUTIpNS USED TO CALCULATE I IKS
*C* THE CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCEM AT THE tOCOUAT TOWNSHIP UELLFIELC SITE
Upper 95th
Confidence Uoit
Arithmetic •> tht Arithmetic NaxlM ME
Hill Grote/Chaaical <•) Mean Mean Detected Value
DEEP DOUMUADIEKT - AREA 2
Organic*:
•enxene 7.9 20 45 20
H-n-twtylphthelate 3.7 • HC 4.3 4.3
I.VDiehtoroethane 2.7 3 55
1.2-Oiehloroethene (total) 2.7 S 43
Ethylbenzene 250 82,000 1.900 1.900
tetrachlorotthene 2 K 22
toluene B6 1,000 1,600 1.000
1.1.1-Trichlereethane 3.2 4.4 9.9 4.4
1,1.2-Trichloroethene 2.9 3.5 6 3.5
TricMoroethene 15 B7 56 56
lylenet (total) 140 2,400 1.300 1.300
KEF DOWCftADIEKT • AKEA 3
Organfcc:
Acetone 73 NC 1(0 140
8is(2-Ethxlhexrt)phthalate HA K 61 61
Methylene Chloride U RC 150 150
Tetrachtoroethtne 1 MC 11
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 2.5 ' 2.6 2.6 2.6
Inorganic*:
lead (di**otved) «A MC 4.3 4.3
SHALLOW DOUNGKAD1ENT • MEA 3
Organic*: •
•eniene 2.6 2.6 3.2 2.8
Tetrachtoroethene 3.7 12 7.3 7.3
Toluene 1.7 NC 1.7 1.7
Irlchloroethene 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6
Inorganic*:
lead (ditcotved) M K 3.4 3.4
MUNICIPAL WELLS
Organic*:
1,1-eicMeroethane 1 NC 11
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene 3.9 100 6.8 6.8
1.1,1-TricMoroethane 12 52 18 18
Triehloroethene 160 1.300,000 300 300
•A • Dot applicable, since there Me* only one Maple.
K • Met calculated due to the Mall tutor of Maples.
(a) Mo chenicil* ef concern Mere selected for the Shallow Oowneradlent • Area 2 group.
Concentrations in 09/1.
-------
tAILE
6-3
SHOUEt ROOM MR COMCEHTAATIOKS ASSOCIATED WITH GROUNDUATER ME CMCEVTIAT10NS
ftOOAUAT TOWNSHIP UEUFIELD SITE
Del I Croup/ChOBical (a)
BEEP BOWCRAOIEIIT • AREA 1
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon totracMorlde
Chloroform
1.1-Cichloroethene
1.1-Bichloroethene
1.2-Bichlorotthane (total)
2'Nexanone
Methylone Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1.1,1-Triehtoroethane
Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
lylene* (total)
SRALUV DOUNGKAPIENT • AREA 1
Chloroform
Bieldrin
Hethytone Chloride
1.1.1-TrieMoroe thane
Vinyl Chloridt
BEEP BOWKCRADIEirr - AREA 2
Benzene
1,1-Dichlorottnane
1,2-eichloreethent (total)
ithylbenzene
Tttrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1.1-Trfdiioroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xy lanes (total)
BEEP BOWraUDIEITT • AREA 3
Acetone
Metttylone Chloride
Tetrachloreethene
I.I.VTricbloroethene
SKAUflU BOWN6RADIEHT • AREA 3
Benzene
Utrachloroethene
Toluene
Tridilorocthant
HJNICIMI ICllS
1.1-Bichloroethene
traw-1,2-DIehleroethene
1,1.1-Trichloroethone
Trichloroethene
BJC Cencantratten
in Shower Water
9.4
1
S.I
4.*6
8.1
120
2
100
13
3.8 .
47
7300
'2
1
0.02
uo
3.9
1.2
20
3
3
1900
2
1000
4.*
3.5
56
1300
UO
ISO
1
2.6
2.8
7.3
1.7
2.6
1
6.8
18
300
Average Air
Concentration For
Total Shower
exposure (os/o3)
1.15E-02
6.11E-03
2.48E-02
3.3SE-02
2.58E*02
4.72E-02
6.921-01
1.93E*03
5.73E-01
6.UE-02
2.20E<02
2.421-01
3.721*01
4.15E-02
1.10E-K
5.15E-03 ,
3.28E-06
S.02E-01
2.01E-02
8.16E-03
1.22E-01
1.6BE-02
1.73E-02
1.05E«01
9.44E-03
5.79E*00
2.26E-02
1.56E-02
2.86E-01
7.13E+00
1.71E-01
8.59E-01
4.72E-03
1.34E-02
1.71E-02
3.45E-02
9.83E-03
1.33E-02
5.61E-03
3.86E-02
9.26E-02
1.93E*00
(a) •« chaBicala of concern were oelactod for the Shallow Powneradtont • Aroa
-------
TAMC 9
•OTCNflM tWOSWM MTNUm MM l« MKUUMV tOMSNIP VEUriClO SITC
NechanlOB) of Weteese end
Tronoport for Chealcols Potential
iHpDOurO Nedlua of Potential Coneom tRpoetire Point Ktccptore
eourceo, troniaort (lecklne Mter resident! (•)
through tho aquifer treatoxnt aysteM)
ttbeurfeee toll fceteese fron on-olto On-ilte few *Kpeeted;
oourcoo possibly persons
perfomlno
OReovotlono
•urfoco Motor/ Vlochorfo fro* oround- Ofstto otreoM (b) Current or
•VQlMflflV iHlww vlnUTv PVVlOVfnV
fe^tlW^S^^ fcAftoWoo^^BB V^hOkfr Ut I C •«
FWfflow^V •"'•T»"*w^W ••••% Wl •* I W
toutee of Cxpoeure Co«platot Ouontltotlvely Cvotusted
Ingeitlon. frfwlotlon Too InoMtlon of drinking uster;
of voUtlles, dcrool Intiatotlon of volotltes lAllo
CWn ftCt MfOWC^fny
•lonlflcsnt contoct Ho Not applicable
unlikely
VtfMl CQtltMt TM VWW* cJ^OMIPM 6T9 •XpCCtCO
to bt Iraltnlf lc«nt Thoro to currently no us* of untreated troundwster ot tho site, ond ouch use Is not anticipated In tho future, therefore, toceptota oro hypothetical.
fDf nlNoHl OXPOOUTOO Ot tnO MsM^flAff OI^OO OPO flOt OXpCCtOv*
-------
TABLE 10-1
ORAL TOXICITT CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENT I At CONCERN
ROCKAUAT TOWNSHIP UELLFIELO SITE
Cheaicit
Orfinics:
Acetone
Benzene
Sis(2-ethylhexyl >phthalate
Carbon tetraehloride
Chlerefera
•i-n-butylphthal»te
1,1-Diehleroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-0ichlorocthene
total 1,2-Oiehloroethene
(M cis-1,2-0ichleroethene)
•itldrin
Ethylbenzene
2-Nexanene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
toluene
1.1,1-Triehleroethane
1,1,2-Triehloroethane
TricMerocthene
Vinyl chloride
lylenes (total)
Chronic RfO
Cag/kg-day)
CSafety Factor] (a)
1.00E-1 t 1,000]
•••
2.00E-2 (1,000]
7.00E-4 f 1.000]
1.00E-2 11,000}
1.00E-1 [1,000]
1.00E-1 11,000]
9.00E-3 11,000]
2.00E-2 11,000]
1.00E-2 O.OOO]
S.OOE-5 tlOO]
1.00E-1 [1.000]
...
e.OOE-2 [100]
1.00E-2 [1,000]
2.00E-1 [1,000]
9.00E-2 [1,000] (e.d)
4. OK -3 [1,000]
7.35E-3 [1,000]
...
2.00E*0 [100]
lexicological
Cndpoint
for RfO
Kidney/liver
...
Liver
Liver
Liver
Mortality
Kidney
liver
Liver
•eawtology
Liver
liver/kidney
•••
Liver
Liver
Liver/kidney
Liver
din. ehem.
Liver
...
CNS/acrtality
IfD
Source
IRIS
*••
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
•EAST
IRIS
IRIS
RZAST
IRIS
IRIS
• »»
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
KEAST
IRIS
HA
...
IRIS
Slope
Factor
<«g/kg-dey>-1
...
2.90E-2
1.40E-2
1.30E-1
6.10E-3
• ••
• ••
6.00E-1
...
1.60E*1
• ..
7.SOE-3
S.10E-2
...
...
5.7DE-2
1.10E-2
1.90E*0
...
USEPA
Weight-of-
Evidence(b)
0
A
•2
•2
•2
...
C
c
0
•2
0
...
•2
•2
0
D
C
12
A
0
Slope
Factor
Source
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
tartanics:
Aliainua
Antiaeny
Arsenic
Bariui
Cadiiui (water)
Cadsiua (food)
Calciui
QiroaiuB (as Chroaiui VI)
.Cobilt
Copper
Iron
lead
Nagnesiu*
Manganese
Rickel (as nickel soluble salts)
Potass iu>
Silver
Scdiui
Vanadiua
line
...
4.00E-4 [1,000]
3.00E-4 O)
7.00E-2 O)
S.OOE-* (101
1.00E-3 [101
...
5.00E-3 DOOJ
...
3.70E-2 (11 (g>
...
...
...
1.00E-1 [1]
2.00E-2 OOO] (e)
..»
S.OOE-3 O)
***
7.00E-3 [100] (c)
2.00E-1 [10] (0
...
Bleed cheat.
Skin
> BP
Kidney
Kidney
...
CHS
...
61 .rrit
...
•**
...
CMS
« Body weight
...
Argyria
...
liver/kidney
Anasia
... .
IRIS
IRIS 1.7
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
... .
IRIS
... .
•EAST
... .
... .
... .
IRIS
IRIS
... .
IRIS
«•> .
KEAST
HEAST
..
..
58*0 (f) A
..
• -
..
..
.•
.-
..
«.
..
.«
.-
..
--
..
..
s
.
.. ••
(a) Safety factors are the products of uncertainty factors and codifying factors. Uncertainty factors used to develop
reference doses generally consist of aultiples of 10, Kith each factor representing • specific area of uncertainty
in th* data available. The standard uncertainty factors include the following:
• A 10-fold factor to account for the variation in sensitivity eaong the Banters of the huean population;
• A 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in txtrapelating aniMt data to the case of nueans;
• A 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from less than chronic ROAELs to chronic HOAEls; and
• A 10-fold factor to aceoutt for the uncertainty in extrapolating fro» LOAELs to NOAELs.
Modifying factors are applied at the discretion of the reviewer to cover ether uncertainties in the data.
Cb) USEPA weight of Evidence classification schcre for carcinogens: A--Hunan Carcinogen, sufficient evidence from
epideaielogical studies; 12—Probable Kuaan Carcinogen, inadequate or no evidence frea epideaiological studies end
adequate evidence from enia»t studies; C—Possible Muaan Carcinogen, United evidence in anieals in the absence of
huMn d*t«; and D--Not Classified ac to huaan carcinogenicity.
(e) Under review by RfO/RfC Workgroup.
(d) Rased en route to route extrapolation.
(e> The oral RfO, Mhile still available on IRIS, is being reconsidered by the RfO/RfC Work Croup.
Slope factor is based on a unit risk of SE-S (ug/D-1 which has been proposed by the risk aiinieant forum and scheduled
for revinv (SAI). The oral unit risk was converted to 1.7S
-------
TABLE . 10-2
INHALATION TOXICITT CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (a)
ROCXAUAT TOWNSHIP UELLFIELD SITE
Reference Concentration
Chearical (RfC) («o/a3)
(Safety Factor] (b)
Acetone
•enzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1.1-Oichloroethane
1,1-DieMoroethene
trans-1,2-0ichtoreethene
total 1,2-Oichlereetnene
Cieldrin
Cthylbenzene
2*Hexanone
Methylene chloride
Tet r ach 1 or oetfiene
Toluene
1, 1,1 -Tried lor oe thane
1.1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichleroethene
Vinyl chloride
lylenes (total)
...
...
...
s.ooE-i n,oooi
...
...
...
...
1.00E*0 DOO)
*.*
S.OOE*O now
...
2.00E*0 C1001
i.ooE«o n.oooi (o
...
...
...
3.00E-1 1100J
Toxicelogical
Endpoint RfC
for RfC Source
... ...
... ...
... ...
Kidney BEAST
... ...
... ...
... ...
K^.^ 1 JW^^MV* ff • 1 C
vwio^wnt IK*«
... ...
liver HEAST
... ...
CHS/irrit HEAST
) Liver HEAST
... ...
... ...
... ...
CNS/resp. HEAST
Unit USEPA Unit
Risk Weight-of- Risk
(ug/«3>-1 Evidence (c) Source
8.30E-6
1.SOE-5 (d)
2.30E-5
...
S.OOE-S
...
...
4.60E-3
...
...
4.70E-7
5.20E-7 (e)
...
...
1.60E-5
1.70E-6 (f>
8.40E-5 (e)
0
A
12
•2
...
C
...
...
12
0
...
12
12
0
0
C
12
A
D
ISIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
Ca) Inhalation twicity criteria are presented only fer these eheaieals which are ef concern in the shower scenario,
i.e., those chemicals likely to volatilise from water into air.
(b) Safety factors are the products of uncertainty factors and Modifying factors. Uncertainty factors used te develop
reference eases generally consist of sultiples of 10, with each factor representing a specific area ef uncertainty
in the data available. The standard uncertainty factors include the following:
• A 10-fold factor to account for the variation in sensitivity aseng the swfeers ef the human population;
• A 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating aniaal data to the case ef huaans;
• A 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from less than chronic HOAELs to chronic HOAEls; and
• A 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from LOAELs to HOAELS.
•edifying factors are applied at the discretion of the reviewer to cover other uncertainties in the data.
(c) USEPA Height of Evidence classification schene fer carcinogens: A--Human Carcinogen, sufficient evidence fron epidem-
ielogieal studies; R2--Probeble Human Carcinogen, inadequate or no evidence fron epidemiologies! studies and adequate
evidence from mini studies; C—Possible Hunan Carcinogen, liaited evidence in enioals in the absence ef hunan oata;
and D--Not Classified as to hunan carcinogenic!ty.
(d) An absorption factor ef *OX is used te calculate the unit risk for carbon tetrachloride fron its slope factor.
(e) Verified; workgroup concurrence on final data base, and IRIS input pending.
(f) The unit risk for trichlereethene is based on a Metabolized dose.
(O Under review by RfC/RfC workgroup.
ROTE: IRIS • Integrated Risk Information System, Septenber 1991
•EAST « Health Effects Assessment Sumary Tables. FT 1991
... B Hot inf omit ion available.
-------
TABLE 11-1
POTENTIAL I1STS ASSOCIATED WITH DIGESTION OF CKOMDUATER IT
•TPOTKET1CAL tESIOENTS (0-30 TRS.) AT THE ROCttUAT TOWNSHIP WELLFIELD SITE (•)
DEEP DOWCRADIENT UELLS • AREA 1
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
ME
Chronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
Slope
factor
-1
Weight of
Evidence
Class (b>
tME
Upper lou
Excess Life
Cancer I
Organics:
lenient
lisC2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetreehloride
Chlorofona
1.1-Diehloroethene
Hethylene chloride
letrachleraethene
Triehloroethene
Vinyl chloride
TOTAL
Organies:
Acetone
•is<2-ethy(hexyt)phtha(ete
Ctrben tetrechloride
CMeroforsi
Bi*n-butylphthalate
1,1-Oichloroethane
1,1-Oichloroethene
trans-1,2-0 ichloroethene
1,2-Oiehloroethene (total)
Hethylent chloride
Tttrachloreethene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
Trichloreethene
Xytenes (tout)
Inorganics:
Cadaiin
MZAftC INDEX
1.6E-05
2.0E-03
e.3E-os
1.1E-04
1.3E-04
1.6E-03
2.1E-04
1.2E-01
9.9E*05
2.9E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-01
6.1E-03
O.OE-01
7.5E-03
5.1E-02
1.1E-02
l.9E*00
A
•2
•2
12
C
•2
•2
12
A
3.6E-W
4.6E-03
1.9E-04
2.51-04
5.5E-OA
1.7E-04
3.1E-04
4.6E-W
4.6E-03
3.8E-03
4.9E-04
1.4E-04
1.BE-Q3
2.M-01
7.6E-05
2.0E-04
1E-01
2E-02
71-04
11-02
1E-01
1E-01
9E-03
2E-02
1E-02
«-02
1E-02
2E-01
9E-02
7.3SE-03
2E«00
tl.OOO)
n.oooj
tl.OOO)
11,000}
(1,000]
tl.OOO)
(1.000)
tl.OOO)
o.ooo)
(100)
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1,000)
(1.000)
(100)
SE-04 (10)
Kichey/Uver
Kvtr
Liver
llvtr
HorttKty
Hohey
Liver
Liver
NtMtOl.
liver
Liver
Liver/kidney
liver
Liver
CNS/mort»lity
Kidney
5E-07
3E-05
1E-05
6E-07
IE-OS
TE-05
1E-05
1E-03
2E-04
2E-03
Checfcsli Exhibiting
•oncurcinogenic Effects
ME
Chronic Daily
Intake (CD I)
(•g/kg-dty)
Reference Dote
(«g/kg-day)
(Uncertainty Factor) (e)
Twicological
Endpoint for
IfD (d)
RNE
CDltRfD
Ratio
4E-03
2E-01
3E-01
2E-02
SE-03
2E-03
3E-02
2E-02
SE-01
6E-02
SE-02
TE-Oi
2E-02
4E»01
4E-05
4E-01
(a) Risks are calculated for those chenicals of potential concern with to*)city criteria.
it net presented due to lack of toxic!ty criteria.
Cb) USEPA Height of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
A riak for 2-nexanone
fcnan carcinogen based on adequate evidence froa huwan studies;
Probable hunan carcinogen based en liaited hunon data;
Probable human carcinogen be««d on inadequate evidence from hunan studies and adequate evidence from
aniaal ttudies;
Possible hunan carcinogen based on limited evidence frca aniaal studies in the absence of
lumn studies;
Not classified as to hunan carcinogenicity;
Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for huaans.
(Al
(113
02)
to
(D)
tE)
(c) Uncertainty factors represent'the eaount of uncertainty in extrapotitlon froa the available data.
(d) A toxicological endpoint is a chnical's toxic effect or the organ east sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect.
If the RfD MS based on a study in which an endpoint MS not identified, then an effect, organ or organ systao
known to be affected by the chemical is listed.
-------
TABLE 11-2
POTENTIAL IIS£S ASSOCIATED WITH tNCESTION OF GROUNOUATEt IT
BTPOTHET1CAL KESIDENTS (0-30 TRS.) AT THE lOCtAUAT TOWNSHIP UELLF1ELO SITE (•>
SHALLOW DOUNCftAfilENT • AREA 1
OMBfcal* Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
•ME
Chronic Dally
Intake (CDI)
<*B/kg-dey>
Slope
Factor
0.1E-03
1.6E»01
7.5E-03
1.9E»00
1.8E+00
Reference Dose
(ng/kg-day)
tUncertainty factor] (c)
•2
B2
•2
A
A
Toxieological
Endpoint for
IfD (d)
IE- 07
SE-06
2E-05
4E-05
SE-06
' *E-04
INE
DI:(tfD
Ratio
Organic*:
Oilorofom
Di-n-buiylphthalete
tieldrin
Mcthylene chloride
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
Inorganic*: .
Antieony
Arsenic
Bar i on
Chrani us
Copper
Manganese
•ickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
BA2ARO INDEX
3.8E-05
1.TE-04
7.6E-07
5.3E-03
I.SE-04
2.5E-03
4.4E-04
6.0E-03
2.1E-04
1.9E-OI
9.8E-02
1.0E-03
2.5E-03
S.SE-04
4.7E-03
1E-02 tl.NO)
u-01 n.ooo]
SE-OS noo:
6E-02 (100]
9E-02 11,000]
4E-W tl.OOO]
3E-W (3]
7E-02 (3]
(500]
(11
(1]
(300]
(31
(100]
[10]
5E-03
3.7E-02
1E-01
2E-02
5E-03
7E-OJ
2E-01
Liver
Mortality
Liver
liver
Liver
Blood chaa.
Skin
Increased BP
CHS
CI irrit.
CMS
Decreased body wt.
Argyria
Liver/kidney
Anemia
AE-03
2E-03
2E-02
9E-02
21-03
«»00
1E»00
9E-02
4E-02
SE-02
• 1E»00
5E-02
5E-01
BE -02
2E-02
> 1 (1£»01)
ta) liskt are calculated for those chnicals of potential concern with toxicity criteria. The following
chemicals of potential concern are not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: aluninun, calciun,
cobalt, iron. lead. Magnesium, potassiuv, and sodium.
(b) USEPA Wight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
town carcinogen based en adequate evidence frea huaan studies;
Probable huoan carcinogen based on United hunan data;
Probable hiran carcinogen based on inadequate evidence fro huaan ttudies and adequate evidence from
animal studies;
Possible ninan carcinogen based en tianted evidence fre* aniswl studies in the absence of
kunan studies;
•ot classified as to human carcinegenicity;
Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.
(Al
(61J
R2]
K]
(D!
(CJ Oneert»inty factors represent'the anount of uncertainty in extrapolation from the available data.
(d) A lexicological cndpoint is a cheaicat's toxic effect or the organ aest sensitive to a cheaicat's toxic effect.
If the IfD was based on a study in rfueh an endpoint was net identified, then an effect, organ or organ system
known to be affected by the chenical it listed.
-------
TABLE 11-3
POTENTIAL IISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INCESTIOM OF GftOUNDUATE* IT
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTS (0-30 TIS.) AT THE IOCUUAT TOWNSHIP WELLFIELD SITE
DEEP OOUNttADIENT WELLS • AREA 2
CtMricals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Efftets
ME
Chronic Daily
Intake (COD
(•B/ko-day)
Slop*
Factor
-1
Weight of
Evidence
Class <•)
IKE
Upper lound
Excess lifeline
Cancer Risk
Organic*:
Qenzcne
Tetraehloreethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Iriehloroethtne
TOTAL
Organic*:
Oi-ft-butylphthatate
1,1'8ichloroethane
1,2-OieMoroethene (total)
Cthylbenzene
Tatrschloructliens
Toluene
1,1,1-Triehloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloreethane
Trichloroethene
lylenes (total)
•AZARD INDEX
3.3E-04
3.3E-05
5.71-05
9.1E-04
2.9E-02
S.1E-02
S.7E-02
1.1E-02
A
12
•2
1.6E-M
1.1E-04
1.1E-K
7.21-02
7.6E-OS
3.8E-02
1.7E-0*
1.3E-M
2.1E-03
4.9E-02
. u-01 n.ooo]
1E-01 t1.0003
1E-02 O.OOO]
1E-01 C1.000)
U-02 11.000]
2E-01 n.OOOl
9E-02 tl.OOOJ
4E-03 tl.OOO:
7.3SE-03
2£»00
11,000:
nooj
Mortality
Kidney
Nentol.
liver/kidney
Uvtr
Liver/kidney
Liver
Clin. chea.
Liver
CKS/a»rtality
9E-06
2E-06
3E-06
IE-OS
*•»••
2E-05
Chomieals Exhibiting
lloncsrcinogenic Effects
tME
Chronic Daily
Intake (COD
(•S/kg-day)
lef erence Dose
IKE
DI:tfD
Ratio
2E-OJ
1E-03
1E-02
7E-01
8E-03
2E-01
2E-03
3E-02
3E-01
2E-02
1 (1E«00)
(a) USEPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
[A] MIMA carcinogen based on adequate evidence fren hmn studies;
til] Probable tivnan carcinogen based on liaited hUMn data;
O21 Probable huaen carcinogen based on inadequate evidence froo huaan studies and adequate evidence from
aniMl studies;
ICI Possible huMn carcinogen.based on tteited evidence frca anievl studies in the absence of
bun studies;
Q] Mot classified as to (nnn carcinogenicity;
IE] Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for huaans.
Cb) Uncertainty factors represent the anoint of uncertainty in extrapolation froo the available data.
(c) A toxicologies! endpoint is s chemical's toxic effect or the organ a»st sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect.
If the IfO us* based en a study in which an endpoint uas net identified, then an effect, organ or organ system
known to be affected by the chemical Is listed.
-------
TABLE 11-4
POTENTIAL IISCS ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTJON Of CtOUNDUATEK IT
HYPOTHETICAL IESIDENTS (0-30 TKS.) AT THE tOCKAUAT TOWNSHIP WEUriELO SITE (•)
DEEP DOUNGRADIEIIT • AREA 3
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
WE
Chronic Daily
Intake (COD
(•B/kg-day)
Slope
Factor
<«g/kg-day>-1
Weight of
Evidence
Class (b)
ME
Upper lound
Excess Lifetie*
Cancer lisk
Organic*:
•is(2-ethylhexy()phthalate
Dethylene chloride
Tttrachtorotthene
TOTAL
9.9E-04
2.4E-03
1.6E-05
1.4E-02
T.SE-03
5.1E-02
12
12
K
1E-05
2E-05
BE-07
SE-05
Cheat c* Is Exhibiting
•oncarcinogenic Effects
•WE
Chronic Daily
Intake (CD!)
(•g/kg-day)
tef erence Dose
(•g/kg-day)
Uncertainty factor) (c)
Toxicological
Endpcint for
ftfD (d)
(WE
CD! :tfD
tatio
Organic*:
Acetone
•is(2-ethylhexyt )pnthalate
Mcthylene chloride
Tet raeh 1 oroethene
1,1,1-lrichleroethane
M2ARD INDEX
5.3E-03
2.3E-03
5.TE-03
3.BE-05
9.9E-OS
1E-01 t 1,000]
2E-02 t 1,000}
6E-02 (1001
1E-02 (1,000]
9E-02 (1.0001
ridney/liver
liver
liver
liver
liver
5E-02
1E-01
9E-02
4E-03
IE -03
< 1 (SE-01)
(a) lisks arc calculated for those chemicals of potential concern with toxicity criteria. A risk for lead is
not presented du« to lack of texicity criteria.
(b) USEPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
(A) Muaen carcinogen based on adequate evidence from human studies;
tB1} Probable human carcinogen based on lisrited human data;
(B21 Probable human carcinogen based on inadequate evidence free human studies and adequate evidence from
animal studies;
(C) Possible human carcinogen based on lisrited evidence from aninet studies in the absence of
hunin studies;
(Dl Hot classified as to human carcinogenicity;
(E3 Evidence of nonctrcinogenieity for humans.
(c) Uncertainty factors represent the amount of uncertainty in extrapolation from the available data.
(d) A toxicological endpeint is a chemical's toxic effect or the organ most sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect.
If the tfo was based on a study in which an endpoint MS not identified, then an effect, organ or organ system
known to be affected by the cheaical is listed.
-------
TAKE 11-5
POTENTIAL ItSCS ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF CKOUNDUATER IT
•YPOTNETlCAl RESIDENTS (0-30 TIS.) AT THE ftOCUUAY TOWNSHIP UELLFIELC SITE (•)
SHALLOW OOWGtADlEKT • AftEA 3
CheBicats Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
ME
Chronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
CBB/kg-day)
Slope
factor
-1
Weight of
Evidence
ClMS (b)
RME
Upper found
Cxcess Lifeline
Cancer lisk
Organic*:
Yetrech i oroethene
Trichloroetfcane
TOTAL
Organic*:
Toluene
Trichloroetaene
MZA0 INDEX
*.6£-05
1.2E-04
4.2E-05
2.9E-02
5.1E-02
1.1E-02
A
12
•2
2.8E-0*
6.SE-05
9.9E-05
1E-02 11,000}
2E-01 11,000]
7.35E-03 (1,000}
liver
Liver/kidney
Liver
IE-06
6E-06
5E-07
BE-06
Chwicals Exhibiting
•oncareinegenic Effect*
INE
Chronic Daily
Intake (CD I)
<«g/kg-day>
leferenct Dote
<*«/kg-day}
CUncartainty Factor] (c)
Toxicological
Cndpoint for
tfD (d)
WE
CDUIfD
•atio
3E-02
3E-W
1E-02
< 1 (4E-02)
A risk for lead ia
Ca) tiskf are calculated for hose chemicals of potential concern «ith toxielty criteria.
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria.
Cb) CSEPA Height of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
[A] fcJBn carcinogen based en adequate evidence from himn studies;
DJ1] "rebable hunan carcinogen based on limited hunan data;
(B21 Vrebable hunan carcinogen based on inadequate evidence from hunan studies and adequate evidence from
aniwl studies;
1C] Possible hunan carcinogen based on Han ted evidence freei aniMl studies in the absence of
kuun studies;
DI Bet classified as to hinen carcinogenicity;
IE] Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for huwns.
(c) Uncertainty faetora represent the amount of uncertainty in extrapolation from the available data.
(d) A lexicological endpoint is a chenicil's toxic effect or the organ test sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect.
If the tfC IMS based on a study in which en endpoint Mas not identified, then an effect, organ or organ system
known to be affected by the cheaical is listed.
-------
TABLE U-6
POTENTIAL I1SCS ASSOCIATED WITH DIGESTION OF CROUHDUATER IT
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTS (0-30 TRS.) AT THE tOCKAUAT TOWNSHIP WELLMELO SITE
MUNICIPAL WELLS
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
Organics:
Trlchloroethene
TOTAL
Cheaicals Exhibiting
•aneareinogenie Effects
RME
Chronic Daily
Intake (COD
4.9E-03
RHE
Chronic Daily
Intake (CBl)
(•9/kg-day)
Slope
Factor
-1
1.1E-C7
Reference Dose
tUncertainty Factor) (b)
Height of
Evidence
Class (a)
K
lexicological
endpoint for
RfO (c)
RME
Upper Bound
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
SE-05
SE-OS
RME
Ratio
Organics:
1,1-OiehIorpethane
trans-\,2-Diehloroethene
1,1,1-Triehloroethane
Trichloroethene
•AZAftD INDEX
3.BE-05
2.6E-W
6.BE-04
1.1E-02
11-01
2E-02
9E-02
7.3SE-03
tl.OOO]
11,000]
11,000]
tl.OOO]
Kidney
Liver
Liver
liver
1E-02
8E-03
2E«00
> 1 (2E»00)
-------
TABLE 11-7
POTENTIAL I1SCS TO HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTS (0-30 T«S.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF CHEMICALS
WHILE SHOWERING WITH CJtOUKDUATEft AT THE ROCtAUAY TOUNSHIP UELLFIELD SITE (•)
DEEP MMUADIENT - AREA 1
Oteaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
Senzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorofora
1,1-Oiehloroethene
Nethylene chloride
Tetrads 1 oroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Shower Rooa Air
Concent ret ion
<«g/a3)
6.11E-03
2.48E-02
3.35E-02
4.72E-02
5.73E-01
6.UE-02
3.72E*01
4.1SE-02
Unit
Risk
(ug/e3)-l
6.30E-06
1.SOE-OS
2.30E-05
5.00E-05
i.TDE-07
5.20E-07
1. TOE -06
•.40E-05
Weight of
Evidence
ClaSS (b)
A
12
12
C
12
12
12
A
Upper Sound
Excess Lifeline
Cancer Risk (e)
2.46E-07
1.80E-06
3.73E-06
1.UE-05
1.31E-06
1.55E-07
3.06E-04
1.69E-05
TOTAL
3E-04
Chemicals Exhibiting
•encarcinogenic Effects
1.1-Oiehleroethane
Nethylcne chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichleroethene
lylenes ttotel)
ShoMer loo* Air
Concent retion
(«8/«3)
2.5BE-02
5.73E-01
2.20E-02
2.&2E-01
1.10E-02
Chronic RfC
<«g/«3>
CUncertainty factor)
5.00E-01 t1,000]
3.00E+00 [100]
2.00E»00 tlOOJ
1.00E*00 tlfOOOl
J.OOE-01 1100}
Toxicelogical
Endpoint for
*fC (d)
Kidney
Liver
CNS/irrit.
Livar
CKS/rcsp.
Concentretion:
RfC Retio (e>
5.83E-04
2.16E-03
1.24E-W
2.7AE-03
4.15E-W
TOTAL
< 1 (6E-03)
la) tisks are tileulited only for chemicals of potential concern Mhich readily volatilize. The following chemicals are
not presented due to leek of inhalation toxicity criteria: acetone and 1.2-diehloroethene (total).
(b) EPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
CA]
D1]
D21
Ntmn carcinogen based on adequate evidence froo huaen atudies;
• Probable huwn carcinogen based on liaitad huun data;
* Probable huaan carcinogen based on inadequate evidence froa hia«n studies and adequate evidence from aninal
studies;
CC] • Possible huian carcinogen based en liaited evidence froa anieal studies in the ateence of huoen
studies;
Ol • Not classified as to huMn carcinogenicity;
(E) • Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for hunans.
(c) Carcinogenic risks are calculated by Multiplying the shower rooa air concentration by the wit risk and by endifying
factors to adjust for shower time (0.28 hrs/24 hrs), exposure frequency (350 days/365 days), and exposure duration
(30 yrs/70 yrs).
(d) A texicological endpoint is a chemical's toxic affect or the organ test sensitive to a cheaical's toxic effect. If
the RfC Mas based on a study in yhich an endpoint was not identified, then an affect, organ or organ systeo known to
be affected by the chemical is listed.
(c) The ccncentration:RfC ratio is calculated by dividing the (hewer room air concentration by the RfC and aultiplying
by factors to adjust for shower tin (0.28 hrs/24 hrs) and exposure frequency (3SO days/365 days).
-------
TABLE .11-8
POTENTIAL I1SKS TO HYPOTHETICAL USIDEKTS (0-30 TIS.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF CHEMICALS
WHILE SHOWER IMC KITH CtOLNOhUTEt AT THE IOCKAUAY TOWSHIP UELLF1EL0 SITE (•)
SHALLOW OOUNOADIEHT • AREA 1
Chemicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
Chloroform
Oieldrin
Methylene chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Shower loon Air
Concent ration
Ug/«3)
5.15E-03
3.28E-06
8.02E-01
8.16E-03
Unit
2.301-05
4.60E-03
4.701-07
8.40E-05
Weight of
Evidence
Class (b)
•2
12
•2
A
Upper land
Excess Lifetiae
•Cancer lisk (c)
5.74E-07
T.31E-M
1.83E-06
3.32E-06
TOTAL - — -« eE-06
Cheaicats Exhibiting
Noncarcinogenic Effects
Hethylene chloride
1,1,1-Trichieroe thane
Shower lean Air
Concentration
(•g/ofl)
6.02E-01
2.01E-02
Chronic IfC
(•g/efl)
Uncertainty factor]
3.00E*00 C100)
1.00E»00 11,0003
Toxicologieal
Endpoint for
IfC (d>
Liver
Liver
Concentration:
IfC latio (e)
3.02E-03
2.27E-W
TOTAL -- •- -- < 1 (3E-03)
(a) lisks art citculatad only for chearicals of potential concern *tich readily volatilize.
(b) EPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
(A3 * Mtiun carcinogen based en adequate tvidenet froai hiaen ttudias;
tBI] • Probable huaan carcinogen based on liaiited htnan data;
3EJ • Probable huwn carcinogen based on inadequite evidence fro* husan itudies and adequate evidence from anieal
studies;
tCl « Possible hman carcinogen based on Italted evidence fro* ania»l studies In the absence of huNan
studies;
ID) • Not classified as to huaan carcinogenicity;
(E3 * Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for huaans.
(c) Csrcinogenic risks are c» I tula ted by aultiplying the shower roost air concentration by the unit risk and by sBdifying
factors to adjust for shower tis* (0.28 hrs/24 hrs). exposure frequency (350 days/365 days), and exposure duration
(30 yrs/70 yrs).
(d) A texicetegical endpoint is a chamieat's toxic effect or the organ amt sensitive to a ehoBJcal's toxic effect. If
the KfC MS based on a study in which an endpoint was not identified, then an effect, organ or organ systan known to
be affected by the chemical is listed.
(e) The cencentraticn:RfC ratio is calculated by dividing the shower recta air concentration by the IfC and aultiplying
by factors to adjust for shower tiac (0.2B hrs/24 hrs) and exposure frequency (350 days/365 days).
-------
TABLE 11-9
•OTENTIAL RISKS TO HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTS (0-30 TIS.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION Of CHEMICALS
WHILE SHOUEtlNG KITH UOUNDUATEfi AT THE ROCKAUAY TOWNSHIP MELLFJELD SITE (•>
DEEP DOUNUADIENT • AREA 2
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
Benzene
Tetrachloroethent
t,1,2-Triehloroe thane
Trichloroethene
Shower Roc* Air
Concentration
C«g/a3>
1.221-01
9.UE-03
1.S6E-02
2.00E-01
Unit
8.30E-06
S.20E-07
1.60E-05
1.70E-06
Weight of
Evidence
Class (b)
A
B2
C
•2
Upper Bound
Excess Lifetisc
Cancer Risk (c)
4.91E-06
2.3AE-08
1.21E-06
2.36E-06
TOTAL
8E-06
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Noncarcinogenic Effects
1,VOicMoroethane
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
Xylenes (total)
Shower ROOB Air
Concentration
(acj/a3)
1.6BE-02
1.0SE»01
5.79E»00
2.26E-02
7.15E*00
Chronic BfC
(•g/sfl)
(Uncertainty factor]
S.OOE-01 tl.OOO]
1.00E*00 OOO]
2.00£»00 [100]
1.00E+00 11,000]
3.00E-01 (100)
lexicological
Endpoint for
tfC (d)
rfohey
Pevelopnent
C«/irrit.
Liver
CHS/reap.
Concentration:
RfC Katie (e)
3.80E-06
1.19E-01
3.27E-02
2.56E-CK
2.69E-01
TOTAL
1 (4E-01)
The following eha*icals are
(a) Hats are calculated only for chem'cali of potential concern which readily volatilize.
not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: 1,2-dichlorocthtne (total).
(b) EM weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
(A) * Hunan carcinogen based on adequate evidence from huaan studies;
Blj • *robable hunan carcinogen based on I tailed hunn data;
D21 * Probable hunan carcinogen based on inadequate evidence froa human studies and adequate evidence froa aniaal
studies;
[Cl • Possible huMn carcinogen based en liaited evidence froa aniaal atudies in'the aeaencc of ouwn
studies;
(D] • Not classified as to huaan carcinogenicity;
IE) • Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for hunans.
(c) Carcinogenic risks are calculated by multiplying the shower roon air concentration by the unit rick and by modifying
factors to adjust for shower tiae (0.28 hrs/24 hrs). exposure frequency (350 days/365 days), and exposure duration
.(30 yrs/70 yrs).
(d) A texicologicsl endpoint is a ehoaical's toxic effect or the organ Most sensitive to a chenical's toxic effect. If
the RfC was based en a study in which an endpoint was not identified, then an effect, organ or organ system known to
be affected by the chenical Is listed.
(e) The coneentrstion:RfC ratio is calculated by dividing the shower room air concentration by the RfC and aultiplying
by factors to adjust for shower tiac (0.28 hrs/24 hrs) and exposure frequency (350 days/365 days).
-------
TAILE 11-10
POTENTIAL IISCS TO HYPOTHETICAL tESIOENTS (0-30 TIS.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF CHEMICALS
WHILE SHOCKING WITH CROWDUATEt AT THE WCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLF1ELD SITE (•)
DEEP DOUNOUC1ENT • AtEA 3
Cheaicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Shower Boon Air
Concentration
B.59E-01
4.72E-Q3
Unit
lisk
4.70E-07
5.20E-07
Weight of
Evidence
Class (b>
12
•2
Upper Bound
Excess lifetlae
Cancer Bisk (c>
1.ME-06
1.19E-OB
TOTAL
TOTAL
2E-06
OteaiceU Exhibiting
•oncarcinogenic Effects
Nethylene chloride
1,1. 1-Trichloroe Went
Shower Boca Air
Concentration
(•g/a3)
B.59E-01
1J4E-02
Chronic IfC
C»»/tfl>
(Uncertainty factor)
3.oot»w now
1.00E»00 11,0003
Texicological
Endpoint for
IfC (d)
Liver
Liver
Concentration:
tfC tatie (e)
3.24E-03
1.52E-04
< 1 (3E-03)
fa) lisks are calcuteted only for chemicals of potential concern which readily volatilize. The following cheaicals are
net presented due to lack of inhalation toiicity criteria: acetone.
Cb) EPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
[A] • Ntaan carcinogen based en adequate evidence froa huav) itudit*;
BU • Probable h^wn carcinogen based en limited htawn data;
O2] • Probable hoaan carcinogen based on inadequate evidence fro* hUHn studies and adequate evidence fro* anisal
studies;
tCl • Possible hunan carcinogen based on United evidence frc* aniasl studies In the absence of huaan
Studies;
(D) • Net classified as to hunan careinogenicity;
(E] • Evidence of nencarcinogenicity for hueans.
(c) Carcinogenic risks are calculated by eultiplying the shower roan air concentration by the unit risk and by codifying
factors te adjust for shower tiae (0.28 hrs/24 hrs), exposure frequency (350 days/365 days), and exposure durstion
(30 yrs/TO yrs).
(d) A lexicological endpeint ts a chemical's toxic effect or the organ eost sensitive te a chemical's toxic effect. If
the IfC wit based on s study in which an endpeint MS not identified, then an effect, organ or organ system known te
be affected by the chemical is listed.
(e) The concent ration: KfC ratie is calculated by dividing the shower room air concentration by the KfC and aultiptying
by factors to adjust for shower tie* (0.28 hrs/24 hrs) and exposure frequency (350 days/365 days).
-------
TABU 11-U
POTENTIAL IISCS TO HYPOTHETICAL IESI0ENTS (0-30 YIS.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF CHEMICALS
WHILE SHOWERING WITH CftOUHDUATER AT THE tOOAUAY TOWNSHIP WELLMELO SITE (•)
SHALLOW MUNGftADlENT • AREA 3
OMMicals Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effects
•enzene
Tet raeM oroethene
Trichloroethene
Shower Idea Air
Concentration
(•g/afl)
1.71E-02
3.45E-02
1.33E-02
Unit
• isk
8.30E-06
5.20E-07
1.70E-06
Weight of
evidence
Class (b)
A
12
12
upper Sound
Excess Lifetime
Cancer lisle (c)
6.88E-07
8.69E-08
1.10E-07
TOTAL ~ — -• 9E-07
Chontcats fcoMbiting
Nencarcinogenic Effects
Toluene
TOTAL
Sttoucr toon Air
Concentration
(•S/B3)
•.83E-03
«
Chronic IfC
(•g/afl)
(Uncertainty factor]
2.00E*00 tlOOJ
—
Twicotogical
Cndpeint for
IfC (d)
CNS/irrit.
• »
Concentration:
RfC tatie Probable hunan carcinogen based en inadequate evidence free hunen studies and adequate evidence fron aniMl
studies;
CO » Possible huMn carcinogen baaed on lifted evidence from aniavl studies in the •teence of huMn
studies;
PI • Net classified as to hua»n carcinogenicity;
tEl * Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for hunans.
CO Carcinogenic risks are calculated by swltiplying the shover rocn air concentration by the unit risk and by aedifying
. factors to adjust for shoner tie* (0.28 hrs/24 hrs), exposure frequency (3SO days/365 days), and exposure duration
(30 yrs/70 yrs).
id) A toiicologiol endpoint it a cheaicat's toxic effect or the organ tcrtt e«raitive to a ehenical's toxic effect. If
the IfC MBS based on • study in Mhich an endpoint Mas not identified, then an effect, organ or organ systen known to
be affected by the chemical is (iated.
(e) The concentratiomRfC ratio is calculated by dividing the shower roan air concentration by the IfC and aultiplying
by factors to adjust for shower tisc (0.28 hrs/24 hrs) and exposure frequency (350 days/365 days).
-------
TABLE 11-12
POTENTIAL IISTS TO HYPOTHETICAL KStOEHTS (0-30 TIS.) ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF CHEMICALS
WHILE SKOVEEUG WITH GtOUNDUATER AT THE MCKAUAT TOWNSHIP UELLF1ELO SITE (•)
MUNICIPAL WELLS
Cheaictls Exhibiting
Carcinogenic Effect*
TriehloreetlMne
TOTAL
Shower loot Air
Concentration
t.53E«00
Unit Weight of
•isk Cvidenee
(U9/«3)-1 Cl«*» (b)
1.70E-06
**
12
Upper loin*
Excess Lifeline
Cancer tisk (c)
1.26E-05
IE-OS
Otaeicals Exhibiting
Manure inogenic Effects
1,1-Oiehloreethane
1.1,1-Trichloroe thine
Shower lee* Mr
Concentration
(•8/«5>
5.61E-03
9.26E-02
Chronic tfC
(MB/MS)
Uncertainty fwtor]
S.OOE-01 11.0003
1.00E*00 11,000]
Taxicolegical
Indpoint for
IfC
Kidney
liver
Concentration:
tfC titie (0
1.27E-04
1.05E-03
TOTAL
< 1 (IE-OS)
(•) tisks ere calculated only for cheaicate of potential concern which reed 11 y volatilize. The following eheaicalc are
not presented due to Uck of inhalation toxicity criteria: tranf1,2-diehloroethene.
Cb) EPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Effects:
[A] • Hintn urcinogen based en adequate evidence fre* huaan studies;
[SI] • Probable human carcinogen bated en Hailed husan data;
02] • Probable ttuaan carcinogen based on inadequate evidence fre» huevt studies end adequate evidence from anise, L
studies;
tC) • Possible feueen carcinogen based en lien led evidence fraa anisstl studies in the absence of hu*en
studies;
D] • Not classified as to hucan earcinogenicity;
[EJ • Evidence of noncsrcinogenicity for hunans.
(c) Carcinogenic risks are calculated by Multiplying the shower rooa air eoncentretion by the unit risk end by Modifying
factors to adjust for shower tine (0.28 hrs/24 hrs). exposure frequency (350 days/365 days), end exposure durition
(30 yrs/70 yrs).
(d) A toxicolegical endpoint is e chemical'* toxic effect or the organ east sensitive to a cheaiical'a toxic effect. If
the IfC was based on a study in which an endpoint was not identified, then en effect, organ or organ system known to
be affected by the cheaical is listed.
(e) The concent r»tion:lfC ratio is calculaied by dividing the shower rooa air concentration by the IfC end Multiplying
by factors to adjust for shower tie* (0.22 hrs/24 hrs} and exposure frequency (350 days/365 days).
-------
TABLE -12
CUMULATIVE I1SCS ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF OtOLMDUATEK IT HYPOTHETICAL tESIDENTS
HCCAUAT TOWNSHIP yELLFIELD SITE
tothMy
IngMtion of Cnkffdwattr
MtaUtfon Mhflt Shout ring
TOTAL CAHCEt ItSC
•MfcMty
Inatctien of CreundMtttr
MwUtfon MhUt Shoutrine
OMJLATIVE HAZARD INDEX
FOR EACH TARGET OKGAN (•)
• Canc«
An
WtlU
2E-03
SE-04
2E-0
MtfM^k^lMM
•oncni
An
9~t>
Writs
> 1 Clivtr)
« 1
» 1 (livir)
r tfsk Out to All C
M 1
Shallow
IfclU
4E-04
4E-06
AE-O*
ir lUkOu* to All
H 1
StotloM
tolls
» 1 (blood eho«.)
> 1 (skin)
» 1 (CMS)
« 1
» 1 (blood cMn.)
> 1 (skin)
> 1 (CMS)
tarfcaU
AHM 2
WtlU
a-os
••06
•**••
SI-OS
OMB! eats
ATM 2
WtlU
> 1 Ufwr)
< 1
» 1 (ttvtr)
An
ttelTs
K-05
2E-06
• *»••
SE-OS
An
WtlU
« 1
« 1
« 1
uS
Shallow
WtlU
al-06
«E*07
• »»••
9E-06
wS
•hallOH
WtlU
< 1
« 1
< 1
Municipal
WtlU
X-05
IE-OS
tfE-05
Mwticlpat
WtlU
» 1 (Uvtr)
< 1
» 1 (Hvtr)
(a) Htztrd indicts grtattr than 1
in aartnthttts.
by texiceloolctl tndpoint. Texicelogfctl «nfeointa art ahown
-------
TAKE 13
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE 2
fUMP AND TREAT SYSTEM
tOCKUMY TOWNSHIP UELIF1ELO FEASIBILITY STUDY
ITEM
1. fXUACTION SYSTEM •
1. fetw Extraction Vtlls
2. Subnersfble Puisx
3. Systaa controls end electrical
cormctions
Subtotal:
11. MATE* TREATMENT SYSTEM
III. INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS
1. Public Awareness/Education Program A
CretrdMater uaa Restrictions
Subtotal:
IV. UWC TERK MOK1TOK1NS 1 REVIEW (30 YEARS)
1. S«nf*ennu*l CreindMter Monitoring
2. Ptriodic Rcvieit*
Subtotal:
Quantity Capital
Cost
17 Walls «174,548
17 Puapt S27.812
Lwp SUB S28.061
•330,400
Annual
0« N
•3,400
•11,100
•14,500
•33,000
133,000
•• J9 <222,70e
•^ (20,000
«242,7«6
Present Worth ef
Annual Oi* Costs
5* Discount 10S Discount
•52,300
•170,600 .
•222,900
832. 100
•104,600
•ISc.TOO
•3,424,500
855,400
83,479,900
•2,100,000
831,000
•2,131,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL <263,400
•290,300 «3,TM,»00 S2,267,700
•tilth and Safety
Sid Centingcner
Scapt Centingeney
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
NrBfttlnf 1 Ugil
Scrvlets During Censtruetfen
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST
tngfnmins t Design
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL •tESEKT HORTN
ROTE: Cost asttett MSUM
Capital
$x
1$J
1SX
£
10X
OIK
$1
1SX
15X
K SO-ywr B»rlerf ef aptratfen fa
•13,170
•39,510
S39.510
S355,»0
•17,780
•35|560
•408.000
840,890
•450,000
•14,515
•43,545
•43,545
•391,900
IT tka axtraetfen vd tra
•185,140
8555,420
S555.420
•4,998,800
•5,450,000
itaant •ystan.
•113,385
•340,155
•340,155
S3, 061,400
•3,510,000
• Cost for celltetfon and diacharft piping to fea Ineliriad irfth Oiapesat Cpttom.
Monitorirc Parted ef 30 Yean:
39 Mtar M^les aaai-innuaUy.
•" Revievs • t • 5 yr. 10 yr. IS yr. » n.
»* 30
-------
TABUS 14
COST ESTIMATE SUHHMT
GMXINDHATER TREATMENT OPTIOH9
WT-1 - AIR STRIPPING WITH VAPOR PHASE EXTMCTIOff
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WEUFIELD FEASIBILITY STUDY
ITEM
t.
• •>•«
11.
AIR 8TRimm TOMER WITH OPP CMS TREATMENT
t. Alt Stripping Tower
O*M (eerbon. power, eMlntenenee)
a. Oft-Om Syetea)
3. EqatpaMnt Delivery and Bat-ay
.4. Pvll-TtM 8yetee> Operator
9. Carbon Regeneration
•oktaUlt
TREATED HATER OUOMMt
1. Monthly irtleent Baavllne.
ftaMotali
Quantity Capital Annual
Coat 0 * H
•43.573 93. (00
•(1.100 94.033
92(.000
920.000
900,000
•132, (71 9100,433
•2.400
•2.400
Preaent Worth of •
Annual O*H Coata (30 yra.)
91 Dlacount 101 Dlaeount
•33.100
•(1.300
•319.700
•1.229.000
•31.900
•30.100
•19(.100
•734.100
•1.0(7,100 •1,012,400
93(,900
•3(,900
921.WO
922.000
• Preeent Worth of *•
• Annual OCM Coata (3 yra.)
SI Dlaeount 10Z Dlacount
•13.(00
•17. (00
•90.100
•340.400
•4(9.700
•10,400
•10.400
•19. (00
•13.400
•70.000
•303.300
•411.100
•9.100
99.100
MM
•110.033
•1.704.0M
•1.043.000
•4(0.100
•420.200
•eattfi and 8>faty
•Id Contlntancy
Scope Contingent)?
Capital MM
It 11
131 131
ISt 131
CUOBtRUCf 14W TOTAL
roMUtlfkj « Local 31
Sarvleaa Durlnc Coaatraetloai lot
TOTAL tHrUMeNTATIOII COST
Inclnaarlac * Dealt*
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TVTAL PUSfifT MURTfl
• Proa ant worth baaed an •
•* Preaant worth baaed on •
w«
elaanup klaw of 30 yeara. Aaau
aleanup tiaw ot 3 yaara. Aaauai
91.917 •1,109
•19,901 9l(.(20
•19.901 91(.(20
•173.800 9143.200
90,(90
•17.300
•199,900
•19.990
9220,000
aa no aonrea raawel
a aourea raamval.
•17.040
•233. (00
923). (00
•2.232.200
92,430,000
•10.430
•130.730
•13(,730
•1.3(9.000
91.390.000
•4.901
•72.013
072.013
•(20.900
•4.202
•(3.030
•(3.030
•330,300
••30.000
•770.000
-------
TABLE 15
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVES
REPLACE EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLF1ELD FEASIBIUTY STUDY
ITEM
L LONG TERM MONITORING & REVIEW (30
YEARS)*
1. Semi-annual Groundwater Monitoring
2. Periodic Reviews
Subtotal:
u. iNsrramoNAL ACTIONS
1. Public Awareness/Education Program &
Groundwater Use Restrictions
Subtotal:
HI. REPLACE AIR STRIPPING UNIT
1. Air Stripping Tower
2. O&M (carbon, power, maintenance)
3. Equipment Delivery and Set-up
4. Part-Time System Operator
Subtotal:
Quantity Capital Annual
Cost O&M
$33,000
$33,000
$97,730
$8,140
$25,000
$20310
$122,730 $28540
Prtsont Worth of
Annual O&M Costs
5% discount 10% discount
$172,100 $100,100
$319,700 $196,100
$491,800 $296,200
CONSTRUSTIONAL SUBTOTAL
ANNUAL O&M
Capital O&M
Health and Safety 5% 5%
Bid contingency 15% 15%
Scope Contingency 15% 15%
CONSTRUCTIONAL TOTAL
Permitting & Legal 0%
Services During Construction 10%
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST
Engineering & Design 10%
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
$155,730
$ 28£40 $491,800 $296,200
$7,787 $13387 $198,585 $121.360
$23,360 $40,761 $595,755 $364,080
$23,360 $40,761 $595,755 $364,080
$210,236 $124,049 $1,881,895 $1,145,720
$21,024
$231,300
$23,130
$254,000
$2,135,895 $1,399,720
•The long term monitoring and review costs presented in the feasibility study are not included in this cost estimate since these
costs are included in Table 13, pump and treat system cost estimate.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLFIELD 8UPERFUND SITE
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following
sections:
A. Overview
B. Summary of Comments Received During the Public Meeting and
Agency Responses
C. Summary of Written Comments Received During the Public
Comment Period and Agency Responses
D. Appendices
A. OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of public comments
and concerns regarding the remediation of the Rockaway Township
Wellfield Superfund Site.
The public comment period extended from June 30, 1993 through
August 30, 1993 to provide interested parties the opportunity to
comment on the Proposed Plan, Remedial Investigation (RI) report,
Feasibility Study (FS) report and other supporting documents for
the Rockaway Township Wellfield Superfund Site. During the
comment period, the Hew Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) held a public meeting on July 14,
1993 at 7:00 PM at the Rockaway Township Municipal Building, to
discuss the results of the RI/FS and to present the preferred
alternative for remediation.
On the basis of information contained in the RI/FS and supporting
documents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
selected the following remedy for the Rockaway Township Wellfield
Superfund Site:
- Extraction of contaminated ground water and restoration
of the aquifer to the more stringent of the federal and
New Jersey MCLs and New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards;
Treatment of the extracted ground water to levels
attaining the more stringent of the federal and New
Jersey MCLs and New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards;
Reinjection of the treated ground water to the extent
needed to promote ground water restoration, with
discharge of any surplus to the public water supply;
-------
Replacement of the deteriorated air stripping treatment
system at the Rockaway Township Wellfield; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Comments received during the public comment period focused
primarily on 1) the cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) of
the existing ground water treatment system; 2) the cost of the
entire remediation program for the Rockaway Township Wellfield
site and who will pay for it; 3) the effectiveness of the remedy;
and 4) possible alternate sources of potable water.
B. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING AND
AGENCY RESPONSES
Concerns raised during public meeting for the Rockaway Township
Wellfield Superfund site held on July 14, 1993 are summarized and
addressed below.
1. Comment: Concern was expressed that if the treated water is
discharged to an area beyond the cone of influence of the
Township wellfield, there may be a net loss of water supply
to the aquifer which could affect the ability of the
Township to meet supply demand. If the reverse happened,
and the cone of influence extended up to 2,000 feet away
from the wellfield area 1, the Technical Park, then the
effect might be to discharge clean, treated water back
through the Technical Park where it could again absorb
contaminants that might be in soils under the Technical Park
and bring them back to the wellfield.
Based on these concerns, the following suggestion was made
for consideration: If the treated water meets appropriate
standards, it may be best to direct it to the Township water
supply, providing that doing so would not adversely effect
neighboring communities.
Response: Existing information indicates that withdrawing
the water from within the vicinity of the Technical Park and
then recharging it in the same general area would probably
not affect the amount of water available to the Township
wells. However, the remedy will be designed such that any
significant adverse effects could be mitigated. The remedy
will also be designed to minimize the potential for
recontamination of treated ground water.
Based on public comments, the selected remedy now provides
that any surplus treated ground water that is not needed to
promote ground water restoration, will be discharged to the
public water supply system.
-------
2. Comment: A series of questions were asked concerning the
appropriate location of the vellfield and the steps that
could be taken to protect it: Why do we have a vellfield
right in the midst of an industrial area? Shouldn't we be
protecting the wellfield with building restrictions?
Shouldn't we stop using herbicides in the area? Shouldn't
we do something about Townships' master plans? What is the
good of cleaning up the site if more dirt will be coming in?
Response: NJDEPE responded that the Department's
responsibility was to conduct a study to identify and
address the problem of the current well field that is being
affected by contamination and that locating water supply
wells is a Township decision.
The Mayor of Rockaway Township responded that 1) each
municipality prepares its own master plan and zoning
regulations and that the Technical Park is in Denville, not
Rockaway Township; and 2) the wells for Rockaway Township's
water supply were installed many years before problems of
contamination (such as the problems focused on in this
study) were ever thought of.
3. Comment: The comment was made that the money spent on the
remedial action being discussed might be better spent on
looking for another source of drinking water. Water in the
"mine area" was suggested as a possible alternate source.
Response: NJDEPE responded that as far as the option of
looking for other sources of drinking water is concerned,
that can be done by any municipality. The intent at this
site, is to clean up the ground water through extraction and
treatment of contaminated ground water.
The Mayor of Rockaway Township responded that as far as the
"mine water" is concerned, it is not public property, so the
Township doesn't have access to it. In addition, the "mine
water" would also require treatment, which would be very
expensive. The Township actually has conducted a search
throughout the area for other water sources, and those that
exist would be very expensive to treat to drinking water
quality.
-------
4. Coalment: The problem with the air stripping component of
your plan is that you put the compounds back in the air and
then the rain comes down and they go back into the ground
again. Is air stripping preferable in this case to using
activated carbon?
Response: The treatment system that was selected is air
stripping, a process in which air removes VOCs from the
water. The remedy includes a provision for treatment of the
air containing the VOCs if the levels warrant such
treatment. If necessary, the air itself will go through a
carbon adsorption system to remove the VOCs. Therefore, the
remedy would not discharge VOCs into the air above levels of
concern. If the concentrations of VOCs in the air stripper
emissions are below applicable air quality standards, off-
gas treatment will not be required. As such, the potential
exists for low level VOCs to be discharged to the
atmosphere. Because of the nature of the contamination at
this site, the use of an air stripping technology to treat
the extracted ground water is preferable to a carbon
adsorption technology.
5. Comment: What are the levels of these compounds now and
will this particular system work for these particular
compounds at the present levels and at levels that will
exist 10 or 20 years down the line?
Response: Concentrations currently found are as high as
7,000 parts per billion (ppb) of trichloroethene (TCE). All
of the remedial options that were discussed, including the
ground water pump and treat system, were evaluated and
considered feasible for addressing such levels of
contamination. It is not anticipated that levels will
significantly increase over time.
C. Comment: With regard to the air stripper to be located in
area l, the area of concern, do you have an idea where it is
going to be located yet or would that be taken care of
during the engineering design stage?
Response: The actual location of the treatment system, as
well as other physical aspects of the remedial approach,
will be determined during the remedial design.
7. Comment: Is it correct to say that the 370 gallons of water
a minute being discussed with regard to the pumping and
recharge of the water is just a concept — that the details
will be worked out during the engineering design?
Response: Yes, operating parameters will be developed
during the remedial design.
-------
8. Comment: Would it also be true that if the amount of
chemicals being removed by the air stripper turned out to be
lower than expected that consideration would be given to the
option of not having off-gas treatment?
Response: Yes, off-gas treatment will only be included if
it is warranted.
9. Comment: What is the total cost going to be, and who will
pay the cost, and when? What will the effect be on
residents and industries in Rockaway Township?
Response: NJDEPE responded that the cost was $13,617,000,
and was projected over a 30-year period. [Based upon
further review of the costs associated with the remedy, and
in response to comments, the present worth cost is now
estimated to be approximately $9,849,000.]
As far as payment is concerned, NJDEPE and EPA first pursue
parties responsible for the contamination to implement
remedies or pay the costs of remediation. Should the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) decline the
opportunity to implement and/or fund the remedy, the federal
government would entirely fund the remedial design, and fund
90 percent of the cost of the construction and operation of
the facility for the first 10 years of response action. The
State of New Jersey would be required to fund the additional
10 percent of the construction and operation for the first
10 years, and would be responsible for assuring the O&M of
the remedial system thereafter. If the federal and state
governments were required to fund the remedy because the
PRPs declined to do so, the governments would seek to
recover costs from the PRPs.
The Mayor of Rockaway Township responded that the cost of
remediating the site should have no effect on the municipal
tax rate, either for industry or for residents.
10. Comment: The economic study doesn't seem to include the
sale of the treated water and it seems ludicrous to treat
half a million gallons a day to drinking water standards and
then to reinject it in the ground when we have two
municipalities very close by that are using drinking water
and could get an economic benefit from that half-million
gallons a day. Has that been considered in making this
recommendation? In this case it is being reinjected within
several hundred feet of where it is being pumped out again
and treated again.
Response: The preferred alternative presented in the
Proposed Plan entailed treated water from the system at the
Denville Technical Park to an on-site infiltration basin or
-------
leach field. However, based on public comment, the
discharge alternative has been revised to allow for use of
the treated water. The remedy now calls for reinjection of
treated ground water to the extent needed to promote aquifer
restoration, with discharge of any surplus to the public
water supply.
11. Comment: Is the estimate of O&M costs for the existing
treatment system over 30 years offset by the income from
selling water to the residents of Rockaway during that 30-
year period?
Response: No. That cost estimate was based on the total
estimated cost, regardless of who would pay for it.
12. Comment: So replacing the existing system would not
necessarily be a cost to the taxpayers?
Response: As noted above, EPA and the State of New Jersey
would first seek to have PRPs implement or fund the remedy.
If the PRPs declined, EPA and the state would share the
costs of the remedy and then seek to recover costs from the
PRPs.
13. Comment: With regard to the existing air stripper at the
municipal wells, did you talk to the Township officials to
get an idea of their operating cost when you put your cost
estimate together?
Response: NJDEPE's consultant based its O&M estimate on
discussions with the companies that actually manufacture air
stripping systems.
The Mayor of Rockaway Township added that the Township
provided a report concerning the Township's costs for
operating its air stripper to NJDEPE.
14. Comment: With regard to the 30-year cost analysis, is it
correct that is a present value analysis?
Response: Yes.
15. Comment: What did you use for the discount rate on money
when you did that analysis?
Response: The amounts presented at the public meeting were
at the five percent rate. The FS report includes estimates
at both the five percent and ten percent discount rates.
-------
16. Comment: An attorney representing one of the PRPs asked who
received notice letters from EPA about the public meeting.
Response: NJDEPE indicated that it did not have that
information at the public meeting. [EPA has not yet issued
CERCLA Notice Letters to PRPs for the Rockavay Township
Well field site. EPA had sent letters, along with a copy of
the Proposed Plan, to parties that it believed might have an
interest in reviewing the proposed remedy, and encouraged
them to do so.]
C. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
The following comments and responses pertain to written
correspondence received during the comment period.
1. Comment: Regarding Disposal Option 3, will the estimated
discharge of 532,000 gallons of treated water per day into
the aquifer beyond the Rockavay Township Well field capture
area reduce this critical water supply?
Response: Existing information indicates that withdrawing
the water from within the vicinity of the Technical Park and
then recharging it in the same general area would probably
not affect the amount of water available to the Township
wells. However, the remedy will be designed such that any
significant adverse effects could be mitigated.
2. Comment: With regard to Disposal Option 3, treated ground
water discharged downgradient of the Denville Technical Park
might in fact be drawn towards the Township wellfield. This
may result in a potential to recontaminate treated water as
it re-enters the Denville Technical Park.
Response: The remedy will be designed to minimize the
potential for recontamination of treated ground water.
Actual discharge location(s) will be determined during the
remedial design. In addition, the remedy provides that any
surplus treated ground water not needed to promote aquifer
restoration will be discharged to the public water supply
system.
3. Comment: Treatment costs associated with the O&M of the
proposed replacement air stripper should continue to be paid
for by the responsible parties and that stipulation should
be explicit in the Proposed Plan.
Response: The purpose of the Proposed Plan was to present
the preferred remedial alternative for the site, not to
direct any particular party to implement the remedy.
-------
However, PRPs will be offered the opportunity to implement
or fund the remedy.
4. Comment: Thiokol has provided technical input during the
RI/FS by providing comments on the reports. Thiokol has met
with NJDEPE on several occasions to discuss the RI/FS.
Finally, Thiokol has conducted its own studies at the
Denville Technical Park to supplement the RI/FS. Reports on
the studies have been provided to the NJDEPE for inclusion
in the Administrative Record.
Previous comments on the first draft FS were sent to NJDEPE
in a letter from Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA),
consultants for Thiokol. Many of these comments on the
first draft were not adequately addressed in the Final FS.
Response: The information submitted by Thiokol has been
included as part of the Administrative Record for the site.
This information will also be considered during the design
of the remedy.
5. Comment: The ROD should acknowledge the need to evaluate
sources of TCE/TCA to the Rockaway Township Wellfield
through a long-term ground water monitoring program.
Response: The selected alternative entails a long term
monitoring program. It is estimated that ground water
samples will be analyzed for a period of 30 years, combined
with periodic reviews. The specific number of wells to be
sampled and the analytical parameters will be determined
during design and subsequent operation.
6. Comment: It is recognized that the Township air stripper
requires replacement. However, the Proposed Plan is unclear
relative to this scope of work. The ROD should state the
following:
1) the replacement applies only to the air stripper and
does not apply to the carbon system;
2) the air stripper will have a similar capacity as the
current system (i.e., 900 gallons per minute (gpm));
3) the replacement air stripper should not have air
emission controls;
4) the replacement of controls, pumps and affiliated
equipment will only be required where appropriate; and
5) the annual cost for operation of the Township air
stripper was estimated and should be revised to reflect
actual experience of Rockaway Township.
8
-------
Response:
(1) The selected alternative at the Rockaway Township
Wellfield requires replacement of the deteriorating air
stripper, not the existing carbon adsorption system.
(2) The new air stripper to be installed at the Rockaway
Township Wellfield will have similar capacity to the
existing system.
(3) It is not anticipated that the replacement air stripper
at the Rockaway Township Wellfield will require air
emission controls because past performance of the
existing air stripper has met air emission standards.
However, the actual need for emissions controls will be
determined during the remedial design.
(4) Determination of any existing equipment to be used as
part of the new air stripper system at the Rockaway
Township Wellfield will be determined during design of
the new system.
(5) The costs for O&M were based on estimates from the FS.
The costs projected for operation of the new system
will be revised once actual costs have been determined.
7. Comment: The Proposed Plan conceptually identifies a long-
term monitoring program which involves 39 wells analyzed
semi-annually for 30 years for Contract Laboratory
Parameters (CLP), Target Compound List (TCL) and Target
Analyte List (TAL) parameters. This program goes far beyond
what is necessary to monitor the remedy. Instead, the ROD
should require a monitoring program involving approximately
one-half the monitoring wells which should be monitored
annually for VOCs using SW 846 protocols for the following
reasons:
1) First, the 39 monitoring wells were installed over a
large area in an attempt to identify contamination from
unknown sources. At this stage, the selection of wells
should be oriented to known and potential sources of
contamination. This goal can be accomplished with
approximately one-half the number of monitoring wells.
2) Second, TCL/TAL parameters are used under EPA guidance
when the type of contamination is unknown. This effort
has already been conducted under the RI. The Proposed
Plan stated on page 7 that TCE is the primary chemical
of concern. Hence, the monitoring program should focus
upon VOCs.
-------
3) Third, CLP protocols are designed for RI programs where
the nature of contamination is to be defined and
decisions are made on two or three sampling rounds.
Remedial programs involve situations where the
contaminants of concern are known and analysis is done
repeatedly. In these situations, Level III analysis is
appropriate using SW 846 methods. EPA guidance manual
(Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities Development Process, EPA/540/6-87/003, March
1987) identifies that Level III data provides similar
quality of results but reduces the rigorous QA/QC
procedures associated with CLP (Level IV) procedures.
Table 4-3 of the manual identifies that Level III
procedures are suitable for engineering design and
monitoring during implementation. Table 4-4 of the
manual specifically excludes Level IV (CLP)
requirements from long term monitoring programs
associated with remediation.
4) Fourth, semi-annual monitoring is redundant given the
slow rate of ground water movement. Changes in ground
water chemistry occur slowly and can be effectively
monitored on a reduced frequency, such as an annual
basis.
Our investigation (CRA, 1993) determined that ground
water migrates at approximately 36 ft/year which means
the ground water will be sampled every time it advances
18 ft for a semi-annual round versus 36 ft for an
annual round. Hence, semi-annual monitoring will
develop redundant data.
Response: The ROD presents only a conceptual monitoring
program. The specific parameters (such as those discussed
in the comment) will be developed during the remedial design
and may be modified during implementation depending on the
results obtained during the estimated 30 years.
8. Comment: The ground water extraction system is based on 17
pumping wells, each pumping at 22 gpm. The conceptual
design is based on a hydraulic conductivity (K) of 2.3 x 10'2
centimeters per second (cm/sec.) (FS, Appendix B) which was
based on single well response tests conducted during the RI.
CRA conducted two short term aquifer pumping tests which
demonstrated a K value on the order of 10"3 cm/sec. It was
also estimated, based on these tests, that a capture width
of 400 feet could be established with a single extraction
well compared to the 80-foot capture width per well
presented in the FS.
The total pumping rate is also overestimated due to a higher
K value. The above study demonstrated that capture at the
10
-------
Denville Technical Park can be achieved at a total pumping
rate of less than 100 gpm.
Given the above, the conceptual design should be amended
during the remedial design in order to account for field
conditions.
Response: The conceptual design presented in the FS report
was based on data obtained during the RI. Additional field
investigations will be performed during the remedial design
and will be used to develop the remedial system operating
parameters.
9. Comment: The Proposed Plan includes air treatment on the
air stripper due to a potential exceedance of a New Jersey
guideline for TCE emissions (0.1 pounds per hour (Ib/hr)).
The FS (Appendix D) estimated 0.09 Ib/hr of TCE based on a
flow rate of 165 gpm and a TCE criterion and the air
discharge emission rate is expected to be well below TCE air
standards since the flowrate was overestimated.
Given the above, air treatment should not be required.
Response: As stated in the ROD, the determination of
whether emissions controls are needed for the air stripper
to be located at the Denville Technical Park would be based
on data obtained during the remedial design. The
information will indicate whether on not treatment of the
emissions is necessary. Until the actual emissions can be
determined, the possibility of air treatment cannot be
excluded.
10. Comment: Three alternatives are discussed for the
management of treated water. Comments on each alternative
are as follows:
1) Infiltration Basins
The Proposed Plan required the disposal of treated
water using an infiltration basin. The feasibility of
an infiltration basin is questionable since no soil
infiltration testing was conducted. It should also be
recognized that the use of an infiltration basin could
create operation problems due to potential clogging of
the system and potential down-time due to maintenance.
2) Beneficial Reuse (Municipal Supply)
It is recommended that treated water be considered for
municipal supply. This alternative would beneficially
use a resource rather than wasting it. At the public
meeting, the Township stated a preference to use the
water for municipal supply.
11
-------
Another benefit of municipal supply is the reduction in
water demand at the Township wells so that the demand
on the aquifer remains constant and the available water
supply increases.
3) surface Water Discharge
This alternative is a practical alternative for
management of low flowrates (i.e., less than 100 gpm).
The expected pumping rate does not represent a
significant draw on the aquifer. Hence, it may be more
practical to discharge treated water to Beaver Brook
during the period of remediation should municipal
supply or infiltration become difficult to implement.
Given the above, it is recommended that an objective
evaluation of all three alternatives be conducted
during the remedial design and the appropriate
alternative be implemented.
Response: The preferred alternative presented in the
Proposed Plan entailed discharge of treated water from the
system at the Oenville Technical Park to an on-site
infiltration basin or leach field. However, based on public
comment, the discharge alternative has been revised to allow
for the utilization of treated water. The remedy provides
that any surplus treated ground water not needed to promote
aquifer restoration will be discharged to the public water
supply system. Potential operational problems associated
with the reinjection or reinfiltration of treated water will
be considered during the remedial design.
11. Comment: The Proposed Plan provides an estimate of $13.6
million based on the following:
* Alternative 2 - (Pump and Treat) $ 5.45 million
* Discharge to Infiltration System $ 0.07 million
* WT2 (Air Stripping with Off Gas Treatment) $ 2.45 million
* Alternative 5 (Replace Township Stripper) S 5.65 million
TOTAL S 13.62 million
This cost is grossly overestimated for the following reasons:
1) Alternative 2 assumes 17 extraction wells when
approximately 3 wells are required. The Proposed
Plan is based on single well response tests (See
Section D);
2) WT2 assumes 370 gpm when the required pumping rate
should not exceed 100 gpm (See Section C);
12
-------
3) Alternative 2 assumes TCL/TAL monitoring when only
VOC monitoring is required (See Section C);
4) Monitoring costs are double-counted since
monitoring has been included in both Alternative 2
and 5; and
5) WT2 assumes that air treatment is required based
on a potential exceedance of 0.1 Ib/hr TCE which
is based on an assumed high ground water
extraction rate. Air treatment is likely not
required.
If the factors affecting the cost are adjusted,
the overall cost of the remedy should be less than
$5 million.
Response: The cost estimates presented in the FS report and
the Proposed Plan were based on assumptions which may be
conservative. The costs were intended to be used for
comparing alternatives and options. Better cost estimates
will be developed during the remedial design. The "double
counting" of monitoring costs due to the presentation of
Alternatives 2 and 5 in their entirety has been noted. The
cost estimate presented in the ROD has been adjusted to
include only one long-term monitoring program. That
resulted in an estimated present worth cost of approximately
$9,849,000.
13
-------
D. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Proposed Plan
Appendix B: Public notice which appeared in The Daily
Record
Appendix C: Public meeting transcript
Appendix D: Written comments submitted during the
public comment period
Appendix B: Index to the administrative record
developed for the site
14
------- |