EPA Superfimd
Record of Decision;
PB96-963810
EPA/ROD/R02-96/277
November 1996
Hopkins Farm Site,
Ocean County, NJ
9/27/1996
-------
DECISION DECLARATION
RECORD OF DECISION
«
HOPKINS FARM SITE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Hopkins Farm Site
Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision presents the selected no further action remedy for the Hopkins Farm
Site, in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The remedy was developed in
accordance with the requirements of 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.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs with the selected remedy. A
copy of their concurrence letter can be found in Attachment 1. The information supporting this
remedial action decision is contained in the Administrative Record for this Site, the index of
which is Attachment 2 to this document.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the
Hopkins Farm Site. The removal of chemical and industrial waste materials from the Site by the
Potentially Responsible Party in 1992 and 1994 was successful in remediating the principal
threats associated with the Site.
The major components of the no further action remedy are:
• Implementation of a monitoring program involving ground water, surface water
and sediment sampling to confirm that any residual contamination remains below
levels of concern. Samples will be collected and analyzed for volatile organic,
semi-volatile and inorganic compounds for the first year on approximately a
quarterly basis. The monitoring program may be modified based on sampling
results collected during the first year. . .,
• Visual inspection of the Site in order to monitor and maintain the revegetated
areas to insure that the planted species survive or are replaced, as needed. Swamp
pink plants present on the Site will also be qualitatively monitored.
-------
• 'Continuation of the Well Restriction Area by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, for a minimum of five years, to ensure the protection
of area drinking water supplies.
DECLARATION
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
determined that no further remedial action is necessary to ensure the protection of human health
and the environment at the Hopkins Farm Site and the response at this Site is complete.
Therefore, the Site now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction Completion List. A five year
review will be not performed at this Site since no contaminants remain on-Site above health-
protective levels, and such levels allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Jeanne M. Fox, Regional) Adjmmistrator / Date /
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency \Region 2
/
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
HOPKINS FARM SITE
1. INTRODUCTION
This Decision Document presents the preferred no further action remedy for the Hopkins Farm
Site located in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The selected remedy for the Site
was chosen in accordance with the requirements of 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 of 1990. This decision document serves to explain the
factual and legal basis for selecting the no further action remedy for this Site.
The information supporting the no further action remedy is contained in the administrative record
for this Site. This Decision Document includes a Decision Declaration, Decision Summary, and
a Responsiveness Summary.
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the Hopkins Farm Site is located approximately one-quarter mile north of State Highway Routes
528 and 539, on the east side of Route 539, in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
(Figure 1). It is located on Block 48, Lot 16 in Plumsted Township and is privately owned. The
Site property consists of approximately 57 acres, of which less than one acre was previously used
for disposal of waste materials. The Site is bordered on the west by Route 539 and on the other
sides by undeveloped, wooded lots. The southwest portion of the Site property is a farm field
and the northeast portion, where waste dumping occurred, is wooded. Access to the Site is by an
unimproved, dirt road which enters the property at its southern corner along Route 539. Access
to the field is via a dirt road off of Pinehurst Road. The area surrounding the Site is rural-
residential. The nearest residence is located approximately 500 feet southeast. Over 200
residences are located within a 1 mile radius of the Site.
The Site property is divided approximately in half by a fresh water stream, which is an unnamed
tributary to Lahaway Creek. The stream flows from south to north along the eastern Site
boundary and turns to flow westward along the northern Site boundary before it joins Crosswicks
Creek approximately two miles downstream. The stream is three to five feet wide and . .,
approximately six inches deep. Marshy areas are present along the stream valley. An
exceptional value wetland has been identified in the vicinity of the stream and supports a number
of colonies of swamp pink (Helonias bullata). a federally listed threatened plant species. The
-------
Site topography in the central portion of the Site slopes eastward to the wetlands and stream.
Waste dumping was observed along this slope. A narrow ditch (also referred to as a swale) runs
along the toe of the slope and channels water toward the stream.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Hopkins Farm Site was allegedly used to dispose of chemical wastes from the Thiokol
Corporation during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Investigations by the Ocean County Health
Department, Plumsted Township representatives and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) began in 1980 and led to the installation of six groundwater
monitoring wells in June of that year. Chemical analyses were performed on two groundwater
samples and one soil sample during that investigation. Contaminants detected in the ground
water included organic chemicals such as ethylbenzene, toluene and benzene. Traces of
pesticides were also detected. Inorganic chemicals detected in the ground water included
antimony, arsenic and chromium. The soil sample contained the contaminants ethylbenzene,
toluene and benzene.
An unnamed stream and wetland area are adjacent to the area formerly used for waste disposal.
These wetlands lie in a valley approximately ten feet lower than the surrounding ground surface.
A portion of the wetland area forms a swale which drains surface water runoff from the upland
area of the Site into the stream. Evidence of waste dumping such as laboratory glassware, rusted
pails, chemical materials and household wastes were found on the western bank of the
stream/wetland valley and, also, in a small depression in the upland area, west of the valley.
Most of the industrial waste was found in the central area of the Site and consisted of a rubbery,
tar-like material that covered the bottom of what appeared to be a natural depression. The
depression was ringed with five-gallon pails, laboratory glassware, small patches of industrial
waste and other debris.
In November of 1982, NJDEP inspected the Site and scored it according to the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). Based on this ranking, the Site was included on the National Priorities List on
September 1, 1984.
As a precaution, to protect any new potable wells from potential groundwater contamination
from the Site, in 1987, NJDEP established a Well Restriction Area (WRA) involving the
Hopkins Farm and surrounding properties within approximately 2,000 feet of the Site, based on
hydrological estimates of the potential extent of any groundwater contamination. The WRA
advised that any new wells to be installed on the restricted properties be drilled at least 150 feet
deep. This would insure that the wells would be located in the Lower Kirkwood and Lower
Manasquan Formations, which is an aquifer separate from the upper, potentially contaminated
one.
Page - 2 -
-------
In July 1986, NJDEP issued a directive to Morton Thiokol, Incorporated (MTI, now Morton
International, Inc. (Mil)) requiring the company to pay NJDEP for the cost of a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. On December 3, 1987, NJDEP and MTI
entered into an Administrative Consent Order (Order) in which MTI agreed to comply with this
directive.
In January 1987, Acres International Corporation was contracted by NJDEP to perform the RI/FS
to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to recommend cleanup
alternatives. The RI was performed in two phases from 1987 through 1991. The results of the
RI/FS are summarized in the May 1991 RI Report and the February 1992 FS Report which are
included in the Administrative Record for this Site and are summarized later in this document.
Based on the findings of the RI, on August 23, 1991, NJDEP entered into another Order with
MIL Under the terms of this Order, Mil agreed to perform a Removal Action at the Site to
remove surficial waste materials. The removal action was performed in two phases and included
the excavation and off-Site disposal of waste materials and contaminated soils. A detailed
description of the Removal Action is included in the December 1994 Final Summary Report,
Surface Waste and Subsurface Soil Removal Program which is included in the Administrative
Record and is summarized later in this document.
4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
Throughout the RI/FS process, representatives from NJDEP have attended meetings concerning
the Site. The first public meeting was held in March 1987 to brief interested parties and discuss
the RI/FS process. Fact Sheets were distributed by NJDEP.
Since this initial meeting, NJDEP has participated in a subsequent meetings to update the
community on the progress at the Site. Over the course of the RI/FS and Removal Action,
numerous correspondences and discussions have taken place between NJDEP, Plumsted
Township officials, the Plumsted Township Environmental Committee, property owners,
building developers, and the Ocean County Health Department and potential home-buyers.
The Administrative Record is a comprehensive collection of all records relating to the selection
of the no further action remedy for the Site. An information repository has been established at
the New Egypt Library, NJDEP offices in Trenton, as well as EPA offices in New York City.
The Index to the Administrative Record is Attachment 2 to this Decision Document.
A Proposed Plan which presented the preferred no further action remedy was released to the
public for comment on July 25,1996. The notice of availability of this document was announced
by means of a newspaper advertisement in the Asbury Park Press on July 25, 1996. Notices •
were also mailed to the area residents and other concerned parties identified for this Site; A
public comment period was established from July 25, 1996 to August 23, 1996, during which
Page - 3 -
-------
time EPA and NJDEP welcomed any verbal and/or written comments or questions on the
proposed no further action remedy.
•
In addition, a public meeting was held, during the public comment period, on August 6. 1996 at
the Plumsted Township Municipal Building. At this meeting, representatives from EPA and
NJDEP presented Site background information and the rationale for the proposed no further
action remedy and answered questions about the Site. Responses to significant comments and
concerns received during the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is Attachment 3 to this document.
5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
The RI performed at the Hopkins Farm Site was conducted in two phases from 1987 to 1991.
The RI included: a geophysical survey; a soil gas survey; waste material investigations; soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling; and a qualitative health and environmental
risk assessment. Note that the findings of the RI are reflective of Site conditions in 1991, prior to
the removal of waste materials and associated soils. The results, of the RI are presented here to
provide a historical perspective of the Site and to provide a basis for comparison of current Site
conditions. The Site conditions described in the RI Report are not, for the most part, reflective of
current Site conditions. Current Site conditions are described in the Removal Action section of
this Decision Document.
The results of the RI are summarized as follows:
5.1 Hydrology
Geotechnical analysis of deep soil borings indicates that the Site is underlain by recent
sand or fill deposits up to four feet thick. In the stream valley, recent deposits consist of a
two foot thick layer of organic soils over up to six feet of sand. The next formation
. encountered is the Cohansey Sand/Upper Kirkwood Formation with a thickness of 26 to
32 feet. Underlying the Cohansey Sand/Upper Kirkwood Formation is the Lower
Member of the Kirkwood Formation which is 13 to 18 feet thick and consists of silty
sand to sandy clay. Underlying the Kirkwood Formation is the Lower Manasquan
Formation composed of sand to sandy clay, at depths of 47 to 53 feet. The Vincentown
Formation was encountered at depths of approximately 85 feet and consists of extremely
dense sands. The Lower Kirkwood and Lower Manasquan Formations are thought to
form a composite aquitard below 40 to 50 feet, discouraging any transfer of contaminants
to deeper aquifers. Due to its density, the Vincentown Formation is also considered a
confining layer, incapable of carrying significant water flow, to a depth of 100 feet.
Below the Vincentown Formation is the Wenonah-Mount Laurel Formation. Figure 2
shows the geologic cross section of the Site. No potable wells were located downgradient
within one-half mile of the Site. The residents in the area obtain their drinking water
from private wells, most of which are screened in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel Formation.
— - 4 -
-------
5..2 Waste Materials
Three general types of industrial waste material were found on the Site including: grey-
green, tar-like material; reddish brown to black, tar-like material; and a yellow to light
brown solid with a vesicular texture. Some laboratory glassware, rusted five-gallon pails
and household trash were found mixed with the waste. The waste materials were found
to contain hazardous organic chemicals including: methylene chloride; acetone;
chloroform; 2-butanone; trichloroethene; benzene; toluene; xylenes; phenol; bis(2-
chloroethoxy) methane and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Inorganic chemicals were also
detected including arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, cyanide, copper .and zinc.
The industrial waste material had been dumped over the edge of an embankment and
down onto a low lying area. The waste dumping occurred over an. area of less than an
acre in size. Surrounding this central area, was an area containing various waste
materials, including industrial and household wastes. Industrial wastes observed at the
Site included glassware, metal containers, rubbery masses, and foam-like material.
Household wastes were found mixed in with the industrial waste.
5.3 Soils
Analytical results from a total of 13 soil samples were presented in the RI Report.
These samples included three surface soil samples (from a depth of zero to two feet) and
soil samples collected from a variety of depths from borings installed during monitoring
well construction.
Two of the three surface soil samples were collected in the area of disposal. The other
sample was taken from a background location. A number of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including acetone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, vinyl acetate and benzene were
detected. The semi-volatile organic compounds phenol. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane,
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and benzo(a)pyrene were
detected. In addition, the pesticides 4,4'-DDT, Endosulfan Sulfate, and Endrin Ketone
were detected in these samples at low levels. Several inorganic compounds were detected
at elevated levels.
Of the subsurface soil samples, the levels of total VOCs ranged from 3.6 parts per billion
(ppb) to 4,380 ppb. The VOC contaminants detected at the highest levels were acetone,
methylene chloride, and vinyl acetate. A number of semi-volatile compounds including
benzo(a)pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and phenol as well as several inorganic
compounds were also detected at elevated levels in some of the subsurface soil samples.
Table 1 lists the compounds and their concentrations detected in the soil. Some '
additional compounds were detected in the subsurface soil as compared to the surface
soil. Analytical results from all soil samples were compared to existing New Jersey Soil
-------
Action Levels and presented in the 1991 RI Report, which were guidelines recommended
for site cleanups by NJDEP. Only one soil sample located in the central area of the Site
exceeded these guidelines. The inorganic compounds antimony, copper and lead were
noted to exceed the 1991 New Jersey Soil Action Levels established for these
compounds.
5.4 Ground Water
Seven monitoring wells were installed and sampled during the RI. Of these wells, five
are considered shallow wells and two are deep wells. The shallow wells are screened to
monitor the uppermost 10 feet of the shallow, unconfmed water table of the upper zone of
the Cohansey Sand/Upper Kirkwood aquifer. The two deep wells are set to screen the
bottom of the water table portion of the Cohansey/Upper Kirkwood aquifer and are
screened to a depth of.40 feet (MW-1D) and 45 feet (MW-2D). Figure 3 indicates the
location of the existing groundwater monitoring wells. At the beginning of RI activities
in 1987, the six wells which were installed in 1980 were deemed unsuitable for
groundwater sampling, as they had not been secured with protective casings and some
wells were missing caps. These six wells were used, however, to provide supplemental
groundwater elevation data, and they were later sealed.
Based on water level measurements, the direction of shallow groundwater flow was
determined to be east to northeasterly. Shallow groundwater discharge to the stream on
the Site was evidenced by the upward gradient observed in the two deep wells. The depth
to ground water from the ground surface ranges from 11.5 feet in the upland portion of
the Site to approximately the land surface in the stream valley. Regional groundwater
flow direction in the deeper portion of the Kirkwood/Cohansey aquifer system is
generally eastward.
There were two rounds of groundwater sampling performed during the RI. These rounds
are referred to as Phase I and Phase II sampling.
RI Phase I - Ground Water Sampling - January 1988:
Seven VOCs were detected at low levels. However, it should be noted that different
VOC compounds were identified at different wells, thereby indicating the absence of a
VOC plume. Total VOC concentrations ranged from non-detect in three wells (MW-1S,
MW-2S and MW-2D) to 41.8 ppb in well MW-5S. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, a semi-
volatile organic compound, was detected in three wells. A number of inorganic
compounds were also detected in the wells. Most of the contamination was detected in
shallow wells. One contaminant was detected at minimal levels in one deep well. The-
analytical results of the wells which were sampled during Phase I of the RI are presented
in Table 2.
Page - 6 -
-------
RI Phase II - Ground Water Sampling - Mav 1990:
Four VOC compounds which were detected in Phase I were again detected in Phase II
(carbon disulfide, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and xylene), and four additional VOCs
were detected in Phase II at low levels. The semi-volatile compound; bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in both phases of sampling. All contaminants detected
in ground water were compared to New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Standards and this
comparison was presented in the RI. Only one compound, tetrachloroethene, exceeded
its standard of 1 ppb. Tetrachloroethene was detected in MW-2D at an estimated level of
3 ppb, and in MW-1S at an estimated level of 1 ppb. This did not exceed the Federal
Drinking Water Standard of 5 ppb for this compound. Resampling of these wells was
performed and the samples were analyzed for VOCs. Tetrachloroethene was not detected
in the additional samples, however, carbon disulfide and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were
detected at levels of 2 ppb and 7 ppb, respectively. This exceeds the current NJ Specific
Ground Water Quality Criteria standard of 2 ppb for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and there is
no standard, at this time, for carbon disulfide. The analytical results of the wells which
were sampled during Phase II of the RI are presented in Table 3.
5.5 Residential Wells
Two residential wells were sampled in January 1988. Both were upgradient of
groundwater flow from the Site. No potable wells were located downgradient within one-
half mile of the Site. No organic or inorganic contaminants were confirmed to be present
in these wells at levels above established drinking water standards.
5.6 Surface Water and Sediments
The stream located on the Site, an unnamed tributary to Lahaway Creek, is typically three
to six feet wide and six inches deep. It flows year round and is fed by groundwater
seepage. A ditch that occasionally holds standing water is located at the Site. During
Phase I of the RI (January 1988), three surface water and sediment samples were
collected from the stream: upstream, downstream and adjacent to the Site. A surface
water and sediment sample was also collected from the ditch. During Phase II of the RI
(May 1990), one surface water and sediment sample was taken from the on-Site ditch.
No industrial waste was ever observed in the stream, but waste material as well as visible
sediment contamination was observed in the ditch. Additional sediment sampling was
performed in 1992, after the first phase of the Removal Action was performed at the Site
(that data is discussed in the Removal Action section, below).
No VOCs were detected in Site surface water samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
reported in the upstream surface water sample at an estimated level of 30 ppb. A
pesticide, methoxychlor, was detected in a downstream sample at a level of 9 ppb. A
number of contaminants at elevated levels were detected in the surface water sample from
the ditch. Tables 4 through 7 summarize volatile and inorganic compounds detected in
the surface water during Phase I and Phase II of the RI.
Page • 7 -
-------
In the May 1991 RI report, the risk to ecological receptors via contact with and/or
ingestion of surface water was estimated by comparing contaminant levels detected in the
stream and ditch surface water to the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). For
VOCs, none of the AWQC were exceeded in the stream or ditch. In the stream, no
inorganic AWQC were exceeded. In the ditch, six contaminants in the standing water
exceeded AWQC for acute and/or chronic exposure. These contaminants are: cadmium,
copper, lead, silver, zinc, and mercury.
Two VOCs, one semi-volatile compound and six inorganic compounds were detected in
stream sediment. A greater variety and higher concentrations of contaminants were
detected in ditch sediment. No sediment standards were available for comparison,
however, the levels of contaminants in sediment were compared to the New Jersey Soil
Action Levels in the RI Report. Stream sediment samples did not exceed any New Jersey
Soil Action Levels. However, ditch sediment samples did exceed the guidelines for lead.
Note that contaminated ditch sediments were later excavated and removed from the Site
for disposal. Tables 8 through 11 summarize the volatile and inorganic compounds
detected in the stream and ditch sediments during Phase I and Phase II of the RI.
* , •
5:7 Air . . '
Ambient air monitoring for organic contamination was performed at the Site during the
RI. No contamination was detected during the monitoring program. A faint odor was
noticeable at the Site, mostly near the exposed waste. The inability to detect the odor
with instruments may be attributable to either its inorganic nature or limitations with the
sampling equipment. Since the chemical wastes at the Site have been removed, the odor
problem has been mitigated.
5.8 Removal Action
Based on the findings of the RI, on August 23, 1991, NJDEP entered into an Order with
Mil. Under the terms of this Order, Mil agreed to perform a Removal Action at the Site
to address surficial waste. The Removal Action was performed in two phases and
included the excavation and off-Site disposal of waste material, and underlying
contaminated soils.
The data collected during and after the removal action, as described below, forms the
basis for the no further action remedy presented in this document.
Removal Action - Phase I - July/August 1992 Excavation:
Prior to the initiation of excavation activities, additional sediment samples were collected
from the on-Site ditch to further define the extent of contamination. Activities included
excavation, sampling and appropriate off-Site disposal of waste materials and* associated
soils in and around the area of disposal, including impacted soils in the ditch. The extent
of waste materials was discovered to extend approximately three to five feet below grade.
-------
During Phase I of the Removal Action, 841.95 tons (565 cubic yards) of waste material
were excavated and transported off-Site for treatment by stabilization and then disposal in
a hazardous waste landfill due to elevated levels of lead.
f
Upon completion of the Phase I excavation, soil samples were collected to determine if
any additional excavations were necessary. From this data, NJDEP identified as
contaminants of concern all compounds detected at levels above NJDEP Soil Action
Levels, which are used as guidelines for soil cleanup. The contaminants of concern
included: bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; cadmium; selenium; and 1,2-dichloroethane. In
addition, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane was identified at elevated concentrations, although
no cleanup standard was available for comparison. Based on the elevated concentrations
of these contaminants of concern it was determined that additional excavations were
necessary. NJDEP recommended that Mil take additional measures to mitigate the
potential spread of contaminants remaining in Site soils to the adjacent wetlands and
ground water. Mil agreed to excavate and properly dispose of additional soils in a second
phase of the Removal Action.
Removal Action - Post Phase I Sampling - November 1992 and January 1993:
After these contaminants of concern were identified by NJDEP, Mil collected additional
groundwater, surface water, sediment and soil samples in November 1992 and January
1993.
Soil samples collected after the Phase I removal action defined areas of soil
contamination which were addressed in Phase II of the removal action. The highest
levels of soil contamination were determined to be in the center of the former disposal
area of the Site. These data are presented in Table 12.
The groundwater sampling performed after completion of the Phase I Removal Action
indicated some elevated levels of contaminants primarily in the center of the former
disposal area of the Site. NJDEP Class HA Water Cleanup Standards were exceeded for
the following compounds: 1,2-dichloroethane; benzene; chloroform; methylene chloride;
toluene; bis(2-chloroethyl) ether; cadmium; tetrachloroethylene; and selenium.
Contaminants were detected at three sample locations at elevated levels and most of the
elevated levels of these contaminants were detected in one groundwater sample from a
shallow well. This data is presented on Table 13, Post Phase I Excavation Ground Water
Data and denoted under location by "H-2".
Surface water and sediment sampling was performed in conjunction with the Removal
Action. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether, cadmium and selenium were detected in one of the two sediment samples collected.
The other sediment sample did not contain any contaminants. Table 14 presents a
summary of the sediment sampling which was performed during the removal activities.
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, and cadmium were detected in
-------
surface water samples. The level of cadmium detected in the surface water sample
exceeded established criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Table 15 presents a
summary of the surface water sampling which was performed after the Phase I removal
action.
%
Removal Action - Phase II - June 1994 Excavation:
Phase II removal activities were initiated in June 1994 and resulted in the excavation and
off-Site disposal of 599.45 tons (450 cubic yards) of subsurface soils which Post Phase I
sampling indicated were contaminated. These soils were classified as non-hazardous and
were disposed of at an off-Site landfill. Phase II included soil excavation down to and
within the saturated zone in impacted areas. Since the soil was excavated down to the
saturated zone, no post-excavation soil samples were collected from the bottom of the
excavation. A number of soil samples taken around the edges of the excavation during
the Removal Action confirmed that the full extent of lateral contamination had been
addressed. Only two contaminants were detected in wetland areas outside the area of
excavation, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and selenium. The levels of these contaminants
detected were below New Jersey Soil Action Levels established for protection of humans
from direct contact rjsks.
Removal Action - Post Phase II Sampling - 1995:
In 1995, two additional groundwater monitoring wells (referred to as HF-MW-6S and
HF-MW-7D) were installed at the Site. The purpose of these wells was to provide for a
more detailed evaluation of the extent of groundwater contamination at the Site after the
excavation of waste materials and impacted soils. Two rounds of groundwater sampling
were then performed at all nine of the on-Site wells. These sampling events took place in
May and July of 1995. None of the groundwater samples collected after completion of
the second phase of the Removal Action had contaminants at levels that exceeded federal
drinking water standards. The results of the groundwater analyses are discussed in detail
in the Site Risk Summary section of this document, below, and shown on Table 16.
6. SITE RISK SUMMARY
The May 1991 RI Report included a Public Health and Environmental Assessment. This
assessment provided a qualitative assessment of the health effects associated with the Site as it
existed prior to the Removal Action. At that time, industrial waste and debris were present at the
Site and hazardous substances had been detected in waste material, soil, ground water, surface
water, and sediment. The conclusions of this assessment can be found in the May 1991 RI
Report, which is part of the Administrative Record for the Site. These conclusions are not
presented in this document, as they are no longer relevant based on current Site conditions.
In 1992 and 1994, a two-phased Removal Action was performed at the Site, as describe'cf above,
which included the excavation and off-Site disposal of the waste materials, debris and
contaminated soils at the Hopkins Farm Site. This Removal Action was performed by Mil,
Page -10 -
-------
under NJDEP oversight. The risks once posed to human health or the environment by these
materials no longer exist. In July 1996, EPA completed a document titled "Baseline Risk
Assessment" for the Hopkins Farm Site (Risk Assessment). This Risk Assessment evaluated
risks posed by any residual contaminants currently present at the Site.
6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
EPA's July 1996 Baseline Risk Assessment for the Hopkins Farm Site evaluated human
health risks associated with both current and future land uses, were there to be no further
remedial actions taken. Risks were evaluated based on potential human exposure to
contaminants currently present in Site soil, sediment and ground water. To be most
protective of human health, the baseline risk assessment assumed that the Site would be
• developed for residential use in the future. This is based on the current use of property in
the area of the Site as rural-residential.
The data used in the baseline risk assessment were collected during and after the Removal
Action performed at the Site. During the second phase of the Removal Action in 1994,
all waste materials and contaminated soils were excavated below the water table and
properly disposed of at an off-Site facility. Soils around the limits of excavation, as well
as stream surface water and sediment were sampled and analyzed. The results of the
analysis of the soils and sediment, as well as groundwater sampling performed in nine
groundwater monitoring wells in 1995, were evaluated as part of the human health risk
assessment. Contaminants present in stream surface water were evaluated in the
ecological assessment.
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 a 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, and the pathways (e.g., ingestion of contaminated well
water) by which humans are potentially exposed. "Toxicity Assessment" determines the
types of adverse health effects associated with the chemical exposures and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response). "Risk Characterization" summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure
and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-one million excess cancer
risk) assessment of site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which would
be representative of risks at the Hopkins Farm Site. A summary of the contaminants of
concern are listed in Table 17. Because relatively few contaminants were detected in Site
soils, sediments and ground water, all of the detected contaminants were consixde*red
potential contaminants of concern. These contaminants included acetone, chloroform,
Page-11 -
-------
trichloroethylene, benzene, toluene. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, cadmium, chromium,
selenium and lead and other compounds.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the human health risks posed by the Site by
comparison of identified contaminants of concern to established Federal and State
drinking water standards and EPA's Soil Screening Levels Guidance, as appropriate.
Based on the current residential use of the area surrounding the Site, the risk assessment
evaluated residential exposure scenarios for exposure to potentially Site-related
contaminants in surface soils, sediments and ground water.
For ground water, a total of 13 contaminants were detected. Table 16 summarizes the
analytical results for groundwater samples collected at the Site. The levels detected for
12 of these compounds were below both Federal and State drinking water standards
established for these compounds. The other compound, bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, was
detected at a maximum level of 1 part per billion. EPA lacks sufficient data to generate
an estimate of the toxicity of this compound, and there are no established Federal or State
drinking water standards or guidelines established for this compound. However, bis(2-
chloroethoxy)methane was detected rarely and at very low levels and is not thought to
present a risk at this Site. Furthermore, the Well Restriction Area that is in place around
the Site would prevent any resident from coming into contact with this contaminant in
drinking water.
In Site soils and sediments, a total of five compounds were detected during the Removal
Action in a total of six samples. Three of these contaminants, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether,
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane, and cadmium, were only detected in one of the six samples.
Bis(2-emylhexyl)phthalate was detected in four out of six samples, and selenium was
detected in five out of six samples collected. The levels of these contaminants were
compared to levels established in EPA's Soil Screening Guidance. Table 18 summarizes
the analytical results for soils and sediments samples collected at the Site. The Soil
Screening Guidance has been developed by EPA as a tool to help standardize and
accelerate the evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils at Superfund sites. Generic
Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) are risk-based comparison values for protection of ground
water and contact with soils that are derived from equations combining conservative
exposure scenarios and toxicity values obtained from EPA databases. Generally, at sites
where contaminant levels are below SSLs, no further action or study is warranted.
Maximum levels of contaminants detected in soils and sediments were compared to their
SSLs in EPA's Baseline Risk Assessment. With the exception of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether,
no SSLs were exceeded. The concentration of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether in a single sample
at the Site exceeded the generic SSL for protection of ground water. However, this
compound was not detected in ground water at the Site. The estimated concentration of
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether was considerably below the SSL for ingestion of soil atict the low
concentration of this compound is unlikely to be of concern at the Site.
Page -12 -
-------
In summary, the Baseline Risk Assessment concluded that the levels of compounds
detected in ground water, soils and sediments at the Hopkins Farm Site, evaluated under
conservative scenarios for exposure to humans, did not present significant risks to human
health.
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
A flora and fauna survey was conducted at the Site during the RI in May 1990 by NJDEP.
The goal of the survey was to compile a Site inventory of plants and animals, and to
identify any rare and endangered species or their habitat. Details regarding this survey
are presented in the RI Report. The RI Report indicates that no rare or endangered
species were identified at that time.
In May 1992, during a visit to the Site to evaluate potential requirements for restoration
related to the ongoing Removal Action, Mil's consultant observed swamp pink (Helonias
buMata). Swamp pink is a federally listed threatened plant species. The species is listed
as endangered by the state of New Jersey. Based on this finding, modifications were
made to plans for the second phase of the Removal Action to provide monitoring of water
levels around the swamp pink colonies and to assure the protection of the plants.
As all known waste, debris and associated soil contamination has been addressed in the
Removal Action performed atthe Site, the primary media of concern in evaluating
ecological risks were determined to be the surface water and sediment in the stream.
There is not a direct route of exposure to groundwater contamination by ecological
receptors. Prior to the Removal Action performed at the Site, standing water and
sediment associated with the ditch had elevated levels of contaminants in them and
presented an ecological risk. However, since these risks have been mitigated by the
removal of all contaminated materials, this area is not considered to pose any current
ecological risks.
Analytical data collected during the RI and the Removal Action involving sediment
samples were compared to sediment screening values to evaluate any ecological risk that
these sediments may pose. The screening values that were used for comparison were
included in the "Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment
Quality in Ontario" (D.Persaud, et al.). The contaminant levels detected in these samples
are not significantly elevated. However, the concentrations of copper and zinc in one
sediment sample collected in 1992 exceeded the screening levels for these compounds.
Removal activities which were performed from 1992 through 1994 included the
excavation of soil in the area where these contaminants were detected.
Surface waters in the stream and ditch were sampled between 1992 and 1993 ('between
the two phases of the Removal Action). Surface water was found to be impacted in a
limited manner by previous waste disposal at the Site. During this sampling event, only
-------
three compounds were detected in surface water samples in the stream and/or ditch.
These compounds are: bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane; and
cadmium. After this sampling event, additional contaminated soils, which are the likely
source of any surface water contamination in the stream, were excavated and removed'
from the Site. The level of cadmium detected in one surface water sample exceeded
established standards for protection of aquatic life. However, based on the fact that after
this sample was collected additional contaminated soils were removed from the Site, it is
believed that surface waters at the Site do not currently pose a significant ecological risk.
This will be verified with additional sampling. Furthermore, since all known areas of soil
contamination have been removed from the Site in the second phase of the Removal
Action, it is believed that there is not a future risk posed to ecological receptors at the Site
from surface water.
Based on the evaluation of data collected at the Site, the actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the Hopkins Farm Site are not considered to present a current
or potential threat to public health or the environment. Additional environmental
monitoring of surface water, sediments and ground water will be performed to verify
these findings.
6.3 Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such
assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources
of uncertainty include the following:
• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
• environmental parameter measurement;
• exposure parameter estimation; and
• toxicological data.
Uncertainty in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an
individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of
time over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure. In this assessment,
uncertainty in the exposure assessment was addressed by conservatively assuming that
the Site will be developed for residential use in the future. In addition, the assessment
assumes that the well restriction will be lifted and that potential future residents will use
ground water as a source of potable water.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans
and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the
toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions about the toxicity and exposure parameters throughout the
-------
assessment. The assessment has utilized a conservative approach to estimate contaminant
concentration and exposure scenarios at the Site. As a result, the Risk Assessment
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Site, and is highly
unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health and ecological risks, including
quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways,
can be found in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
7. EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF THE 'NO FURTHER ACTION' REMEDY
The no further action remedy will involve no further remedial action at the Site. The Removal
Action performed by Mil and completed in 1994 has effectively removed the source of
contamination. The human health risk assessment performed for the Site has indicated that the
Site, as it currently exists, poses no unacceptable risks to human health. A qualitative
environmental assessment was also performed which indicated no contaminants currently present
at the Site pose an ecological risk warranting an action at this time.
Two groundwater sampling events in 1995 have indicated that ground water does not pose an
unacceptable risk. This finding will be confirmed through long-term monitoring. Since the
ground water underlying the Site is a drinking water aquifer, EPA has determined that it is
appropriate to perform long-term monitoring to confirm this conclusion. Sediment and surface
water in the stream were sampled prior to and during the Removal Action at the site and were
not determined to pose a risk warranting an action. However, long-term monitoring will be
required to confirm this conclusion.
As part of the no further action remedy, the long-term monitoring program will consist of
collecting ground water, surface water, and sediment samples. These samples will be analyzed
for VOCs, semi-volatile, and inorganic compounds for the first year on approximately a quarterly
basis. The monitoring program may be modified based upon sampling results collected during
the first year. Currently, EPA and NJDEP do not believe that additional groundwater monitoring
wells will be required for the purpose of the sampling program. However, if the results of the
initial rounds of sampling indicate that additional wells are necessary, then they will be installed.
In addition to monitoring for chemical contamination, qualitative monitoring of the revegetated
area will be conducted to insure that the planted species survive or are replaced, as needed. The
swamp pink plants will also be qualitatively monitored.
The long-term monitoring program will be performed on a periodic basis initially. Based on
EPA's evaluation of the data, the frequency of sampling may be modified thereafter. The
monitoring would then either be terminated, continued periodically, or other action considered.
If monitoring indicates that contaminants are present at levels similar or lower than level's
currently present at the Site over time, it is likely that the sampling frequency would be reduced,
and when appropriate, the sampling program terminated. If monitoring reveals that
_ -15 -
-------
contamination at the Site increases so that an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment develops, an appropriate action can be initiated at any time during the monitoring
period to address the risks.
Restoration of the Site has already taken place as part of Removal Action activities. After
removal of contaminated soils, the Site was backfilled with clean soil from an off-Site source.
Final surface contour grades were established to restore the Site to what was believed to be
natural grades existing prior to waste disposal. The wetland areas and wetland/upland transition
areas which were impacted by the Removal Action were replanted with approved species. The
Site restoration planting will be monitored and maintained throughout the period of long-term
monitoring.
Under the no further action remedy, the existing Well Restriction Area is expected to continue in
effect for the Hopkins Farm Site throughout the monitoring period. This will prevent human
contact with the shallow ground water by advising any persons drilling new potable wells to
install the wells to a depth of at least 150 feet deep. The Well Restriction Area may be modified
by NJDEP depending on the results of groundwater monitoring data.
The present worth cost of the monitoring program is estimated to be $417,000.
The no further action alternative for the Site has been developed based on the findings of the RI
Report, the Risk Assessment Report and data collected during and after the completion of the
Removal Action. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment and is cost-
effective.
8. NJDEP ACCEPTANCE
NJDEP concurs with the no further action remedy. NJDEP's Letter of Concurrence is
Attachment 1 of this Record of Decision.
9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
A summary of the comments received during the public comment period is provided in the
Responsiveness Summary which is Attachment 3 to this Decision Document.
10. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
There are no significant changes from the recommended no further action remedy presented in
the Proposed Plan.
Page-16-
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
NJDEP LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
of
Christine Todd Whitman Department of Environmental Protection Robert C. Sh:nn. Jr.
(Tovprnor •
2 ? ,;,:
Ms. Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Subject: Record of Decision
Hopkins Farm Site'
Plumsted Township, Ocean County, Mew Jersny
Dear Regional Administrator Fox,
A Record of Decision (ROD) has heen prepared by the United Scaces Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) , in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) , as amended by che Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) for the Hopkins Fann Site Ln Plumsted Township, Ocean County. The State.
of New Jersey has reviewed the ROD and concurs with the selected "No Further
Action" alternative*. Ic should be noted that USEPA employed Federal Soil
Screening Levels as part of the rciraedy se.lecLion process r.o evaluate risks posed
by sita soils. These Levels are still under review by the Department, however,
based on our. evaluation of the data we concur with the remedy.
The selected remedy includes long Cerra monitoring of the ground water, surface
watcsr, And sediments. The vegetation planted on the site from & previous Removal
Action will also bo. monitored aiul/or replacp.d ro ensure ic becomes established
in order to protect the endangered Swamp Pink plants in the adjacent wetland.
The State of New Jersey appreciates the opportunity to participate in chis
decision making process and looks forward to future cooperation with USEPA.
Commissioner
ental Protection
Nrw /frffy it »n L'qu&l Opportunity Employer
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
HOPKINS FARM SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and other Information
P. 100001-
100040
P.
100041-
100065
Hazardous Ranking System Package, Hopkins Farm,
Plumsted Township, New Jersey, June 15, 1983.
Report:Hopkins Farm. Plumsted Township.
undated.
1.6 Correspondence
P. 100066- Notice re: proper listing of Hopkins Farm as a
1-00066 National Priorities Site, July 31, 1995.
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 200001- Letter to Mr. Mark Godfrey,"principal
200079 Environmental Specialist, NJDEPE, From Mr. Nicholas P.
Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer, Morton
International, re: enclosed Wetlands Mitigation' Plan,
June 26, 1992. (Attachment.)
P. 200080- Plan:Soil Removal Work Plan. Hopkins Farm
200116 Site, Plumsted Township. New Jersey, prepared for
Morton International, Inc., prepared by Conestoga-
Rovers & Associates, Inc., September 2, 1993.
P. 200117- Plan:Revised Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
200134. Hopkins Farm Site. Plumsted Township. Ocean County.
Jersey, prepared for Morton International, Inc.,
prepared by" CH2M Hill, October 1993.
P. 200135- Plan:Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the
200206 Hopki,ns Farm Site in Plumsted Township. Ocean County.
New Jersey, prepared for Morton International, Inc.,.
prepared by r.e. wright environmental, inc., January
1995.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 200207- Report: Biological Assessment. Hopkins Farm
200350 Site. Plumsted Township. Ocean County. New Jersey. June
1992. (Attachment: Report: Preremedial
Sampling/Classification and DisposalPlan for'Properties.
in Plumsted and Jackson Townghips. New Jersey, prepared
for Morton International, Inc., prepared by IT
-------
Corporation, December 9, 1991.
P. 200351- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, P.E., Site
200542 Manager, NJDEPE, Division of Publicly Funded Site
Remediation, Bureau of Site Management, from Mr.
Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer.
Morton International, Inc., re: enclosed Hopkins Farm,
Wilson Farm, Gravel Pit Sites, Analytical Report for
Sediments Sampling, August 10, 1992.(Attachment:
Report: Preremedial Sampling/Classification Results for
the Lesser Three Sites in Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. New Jersey, prepared for Morton
International, Inc., prepared by IT Corporation, 4/92.)
P. 200543- Report: Supplemental Soil and Groundwater
200597 Investigation Report. Volume I. Text. Tables.Figures
and Appendices A Through C. Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted
Township. New Jersey, prepared for Morton
International, Inc., prepared by Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates, Inc., March 1993.
P. 200598- Report: Biological Assessment. Hopkins Farm
200612 Site. Plumsted Township, Ocean County. New Jersey.
prepared for Morton International, Inc., prepared by
CH2M Hill, October 1993.
P. 200613- Report: Final Summary JReport. Surficial Waste
200668 and Subsurface Soil Removal Program, Hopkins Farm Site.
Plumsted Township. New Jersey. Volume 1 -Text. Tables,
Figure. Plans, prepared for Morton International, Inc.,-
prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc.,
December 1994.
P. 200669- Report: Final Summary Report. Surficial Waste
202324 and Subsurface Soil Removal Program. Hopkins Farm Site,
Plumsted Township. New Jersey. Volume 2 - Appendices A
- L. Appendix M (1 of 2) prepared for Morton
International, Inc., prepared by Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates, Inc., December 1994.
P. 202325- Report: Final Summary Report. Surficial Waste
204331 and Subsurface Soil Removal Program. Hopkins Farm Site.
Plumsted Township. New Jersey. Volume 3 - Appendix M (2
of 2). Appendices N - O prepared for Morton
International, Inc., prepared by Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates, Inc., December 1994.
P. 204332- Report: Preliminary Site Activities Summary
204530 Report. Hopkins Farm Site - Plumsted Township. Ocean
County. New Jersey, prepared for Morton International,
Inc., prepared by r.e. wright environmental, •-vac., May
1995.
-------
P. 204531- Report: Field Report. Groundwater Sampling.
204588 Morton .- Hppkins Farm Site. Plumsted Township, New
Jersey, prepared for Morton International, Inc.,
prepared by RECRA Environmental, Inc., May 1995.'
P. 204589- Report: Field Report, Groundwater Sampling,
204622 Morton - Hopkins Farm Site. Plumsted Township. New
Jersey, prepared for Morton International, Inc.,
prepared by RECRA Environmental, Inc., July 1995.
P. 204623- Report: Hopkins Farm, Plumsted Township, Ocean
204644 County, New Jersey. Baseline Risk, Assessment. prepared
for U.S. EPA, Region II, June 1996.
2.7 Correspondence
P. 204645- Letter to Mr. Clifford G. Day, Field Supervisor,
204645 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from Mr. Robert W.
Hargrove, Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: determination of federal
endangered/threatened species or critical habitats
present in the vicinity of the Hopkins Farm National
Priorities List Site, December 12, 1990.
P. 204646- Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief,
204650. Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Clifford G. Day, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, re: response to request for
information 'on the presence of federally listed and
proposed endangered and threatened species within the
study area of the proposed Hopkins Farms National
Priorities List Site in the Plumsted Township, Ocean
County, New Jersey, January 15, 1991. (Attachments: 1)
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species in New
Jersey, 2) Candidate Species in New Jersey.)
P. 204651- Letter to Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff,
204652 Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Nancy L. Zerbe, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm - Interim Removal
Action, October 3, 1991.
P. 204653- Memorandum to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Environmental
204653 Engineer, Southern New Jersey Section II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Ms. Shari Stevens, Coordinator,
Biological Technical Assistance Group, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Biological Technical Assistance Group (STAG)
Meeting, December 10, 1991.
P. 204654- Memorandum to Mr. Raymond Basso, Chief, New
204657 Jersey Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region'11, from
Ms. Donna Hasemen, Industrial Hygienist, Administrative
Management Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Review of
-------
Health and Safety Plan for Hopkins and Wilson Farms
Removal Action, March 24, 1992.
P. 204658- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Morton
204677 International, Inc., from New Jersey Natural Resource
Conservation Program, re; Remedial Activities; Wilson
Farm; Plumsted Township; Hopkins Farm; Plumsted
Township; Gravel Pit; Jackson Township, May 15, 1992.
(Attachments: 1) Cover Sheet: Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan for Properties in Plumsted and Jackson
Township. New Jersey, prepared for Morton
International, Inc., prepared by IT Corporation, April
1992; 2) Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Morton
International, Inc., from Mr. Chuck Collins, Erosion
Control Specialist, New Jersey Natural Resources
Conservation Program, re: Remedial Activities; Wilson.
Farm; Hopkins Farms Gravel Pit; Blocks - Various/ Lots
- Various; Plumsted Township & Jackson Township, June
8, 1992; 3} Plan: Soil Erosion_and Sediment Control
Plan for Properties in Plumsted and Jackson Township.
New Jersey., prepared for Morton International, Inc.,
prepared by IT Corporation, April 1992; 4) Figure 3:
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Hopkins Farm),
February 1992.) '
P. 204678.- Letter to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
204679 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp,
Senior Environmental Engineer, Morton International,
Inc:, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean
County, NJ, Wetlands Issues, June 9, 1992.
P. 204680- Letter to Mr. Satvinder Singh, NJDEPE, Division of
204723 Coastal Resources, Engineering Support, from Mr.
Nicholas Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer, Morton
International, Inc., re: attached Hopkins Farm CERCLA
Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ, LURP #:
1523-92-0004.1, Stream Encroachment Permit Application,
June 26, 1992. (Attached: Stream Encroachment Permit
Application Package.)
P. 204724- Letter to Mr. R. Witte, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
204724 Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer,
Morton International, Inc., re: Hopkins Farm CERCLA
Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ, Biological
Assessment, June 26, 1992.
P. 204725- Letter to Mr. Clifford G. Day, Field Supervisor,
204726 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from Mr. Robert w.
Hargrove, Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: presence of a federally listed
threatened species, Hellonias bullata (swamp'p'ink) , on
the Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County,
New Jersey, June 30, 1992.
-------
P. 204727- Memorandum to Mr. Raymond Basso, Chief, New Jersey
204731 Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief, Environmental Impacts
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm, July
14, 1992. (Attachments: 1) Letter to Mr. Robert 'W.
Hargrove, Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Clifford G. Day, Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, re: concurrence with
EPA's conclusion that the planned remedial action for
the Hopkins Farm site is not likely to have an adverse
effect upon the federally listed threatened species,
swamp pink (Helonius bullata); 2) Letter to Mr. Gary
Adamkiewicz, Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer,
Morton International, Inc., re: Hopkins Farm Site,
Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ, Wetlands Issues,
June 9, 1992.)
P. 204732- Letter to Mr. Robert Witte, U.S. EPA, Region II,
204733 from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental
Engineer, Morton International, Inc., re; Hopkins Farm
CERCLA Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ,
Amendment of Biological Assessment, July 23, 1992.
P. -204734- Letter to Mr. Clifford G. Day, Supervisor, U.S.
204736 Fish and Wildlife Service, from Mr. Robert W. Hargrove,
Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
amendment to EPA's Biological Assessment for the
threatened swamp pink (Hellonians bullata) at the
• Hopkins Farm Site, in Plumsted, New Jersey, July 28,
1992.
P. 204737- 'Letter to Mr. Robert Witte, U.S. EPA, Region II,
204738 from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental
Engineer, Morton International, Inc., re: Hopkins Farm
CERCLA Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ,
Amendment 2 of Biological Assessment, July 28, 1992.
P. 204739- Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief,
204740 Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Clifford G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, re: amendment tp EPA's Biological Assessment
for the federally listed threatened plant, swamp pink
(Hellonians bullata,) , at the Hopkins Farm Site, in
Plumsted, New Jersey, August 14, 1992.
P. 204741- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204742 NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
Southern New Jersey Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Hopkins Farm Site, September 10, 1992.
P. 204743- Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief,
-------
204744 Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Clifford G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, re: August 25, 1992 visit to the Hopkins Farm _
National Priorities List (NPL) site in Plumsted, OceanJ
County, New Jersey, September 23, 1992. ™
204745- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Environmental
204754 Engineer, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re: attached Hopkins
Farm Site Post-Excavation Sampling Results, October 8,
1992. (Attachment.)
204755- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204756 NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
Southern New Jersey Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: comments on Work Plan for additional sampling at
the Hopkins Farm site dated October 21, 1992, October
• 29, 1992.
204757- Letter to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
204757 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site
Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm Site, October 30,
1992.
204758- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Environmental
204759. Engineer, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
.Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm
Site, Work Plan for Additional Post-Excavation
Sampling, November 2, 1992. ,
204760-. Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior Environmental
204761 Engineer, Morton International, Inc., 'from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm
Site, Soil Erosion Control, November 24, 1992.
204762- Memorandum to Addressee List, from Mr. Robert W.
204764 Hargrove, Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Final Habitat Surveys for the
Threatened Swamp Pink and Knieskern's Beaked-Rush at
Various NPL Sites in New Jersey, February 18, 1993.
(Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief, Environmental
Impacts Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Clifford
G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, re:
formal concurrence with EPA's final Habitat Survey
Report, January 22, 1993.)
204765- NJDEPE Comments on the "Soil Removal Work Plan" by
204767 Conestoga-Rovers, for Morton International, Inc., dated
March 1993.
204768- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager',
204774 NJDEPE, from Mr. Samuel Jung, Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates, Inc., re: attached Soil Removal Work Plan:
-------
P. 204778-
204779
P. 204780-
204781
Response to NJDEPE Comments, Hopkins Farm Site,
Plumsted Township, New Jersey, June 30, 1993.
(Attachment.)
204775- Letter to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
204775 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, -Site
Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm, Soil Removal Work
Plan, July 8, 1993.
204776- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Environmental
204777 Engineer, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manger, NJDEPE, re: Soil Removal Work
Plan, Hopkins Farm Site, CRA Response to NJDEPE
Comments, August 2, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manger, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted
Township, New Jersey, September 17, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior
Environmental Engineer, Morton International, Inc.,
from Mr. Michael Burlingame,...Site Manager, NJDEPE, re.-
Hopkins Farm Site, Soil Removal Work Plan, Dated
September 1993, September 20, 1993. (Attachment:
NJDEPE Comments on the "Soil Removal Work Plan" by
Conestoga-Rovers, for Morton International, Inc., dated
September 1993.)
204782- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204783 NJDEPE, from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior
Environmental Engineer, Morton International,Inc., re:
Hopkins Farm Site, Soil Removal Work Plan, October-5,
•1993.
204784- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204785 NJDEPE, .from Mr. Clifford G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, re: Revised Soil Removal Work
Plan, October 20, 1993.
204786- Memorandum to Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief,
204786 Southern New Jersey Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. John Filippelli, Chief, Environmental Analysis
Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm Site,
Wetlands Mitigation and Biological Assessment, November
15, 1993.
204787- Letter to Mr. Mark Godfrey, Principle
204788 Environmental Specialist, NJDEPE, from Mr. Nicholas P.
Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer, Morton
International, Inc., re: Hopkins Farm CERCLA'S'ite,
Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ, LURP # 1523-92-
0004.1 & 1523-92-0004.3, Notice of Additional Activity,
-------
November 30, 1993 .
P. 204789- Letter to Mr. Satvinder Singh, NJDEPE, from Mr.
204790 Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer,
Morton International, Inc., re: Hopkins Farm CERCLA
. Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean County, NJ, LURP # 1523-
92-0004.1 & 1523-92-0004.3, Notice of Additional
Activity, December 1, 1993.
P. 204791- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204792 NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted
Township, New Jersey, December 30, 1993.
P. 204793- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior
204795 Environmental Engineer, Morton International, Inc.,
from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re:
Hopkins Farm Site, Biological Assessment and Wetlands
Mitigation Plan, January 5, 1994. (Attachment:
Facsimile transmission to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site
Manager, NJDEPE, Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted
Township,' New Jersey, December 30, .1993.)
P. 204796- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204799- NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
.U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted
Township, New Jersey, January 28, 1994. (Attachment:
EPA Comments on the Draft Hopkins Farm Ground-water
Monitoring Plan dated November 1993.)
P. 204800- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior Environmental
204804 Engineer, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Draft Groundwater
Monitoring Plan, February 25, 19-94. (Attachment:
NJDEPE Review Comments on the Draft "Groundwater
Monitoring Plan", Hopkins Farm Site, by Advanced
Pollution Technologies, dated November 1993.)
P. 204805- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204809 NJDEPE, from Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief, Southern
New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan, October 1994,
Hopkins Farm Site, Plumsted Township, New Jersey,
December 14, 1994. (Attachment: EPA Comments on the
October 1994 Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the
Hopkins Farm Superfund Site.)
P. 204810- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior Environmental
204812 Engineer, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins'•Farm
Site, Ground Water Monitoring Plan, December 23, 1994.
(Attachment: NJDEPE Comments on "Groundwater Monitoring
-------
Plan", Hopkins Farm Site, by APT, dated October 1994.)
P. 204813- Letter to Ms. Kimiko Link, Project Manager, U.S.
204823 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site
Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm Site, First Round
Groundwater Samples, September l, 1995. (Attachment:
Memorandum to Mr. Steve Macgregor, Technical
Coordinator, Bureau of Environment Evaluation and Risk
Assessment, NJDEPE, from Mr. Karanvir S. Kaushal,
Research Scientist, Quality Assurance Section, Bureau
of Environmental Measurements & Quality Assurance, re:
Review of the Analytical Data Package for Hopkins Farm
Submitted by RECRA Environmental Inc., August 29,
1995.)
P. 204824- Letter to Ms. Kimiko Link, Project Manager, U.S.
204824 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site
Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm Site, Groundwater
Monitoring Plan, February 24, 1995.
P. 204825- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204826 NJDEPE, from Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief, Southern
New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Hopkins Farm
Site, January 1995, February 24, 1995.
P. 204827- Letter to Ms. Kimberly.0'Connell, Chief, Southern New
204828 Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re:
Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Hopkins Farm Site,
January 1995, March 7, 1995.
P. 204829- Letter to Mr. Nicholas Klumpp, Senior Environmental
204829 Engineer, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm
Site, Groundwater Work Plan, March 14, 1995.
P. 204830- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
204923 NJDEPE, from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior
Environmental Engineer, Morton International, Inc., re:
Hopkins Farm CERCLA Site, Plumsted Township, Ocean
County, NJ, Groundwater Sample Analytical Results, June
9, 1995. (Attachment: analytical data summary sheets.)
P. 204924- Letter to Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief, Southern
205008 New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE re:
attached summary raw data sheets for the July 1995
second round of ground sampling at the Hopkins Farm
Site, September 12, 1995. (Attachment: data.)
• .•> j
P. 205009- Letter to Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief, Southern
205020 New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
-------
from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE re:
Hopkins Farm Site, 2nd Round of Groundwater Sampling,-
October 20, 1995. (Attachment: data.)
P. 205021- Memorandum to Ms. Kimberly O'Connell, Chief,
205022 Southern New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA.
Region II, from Ms. Shari Stevens, Coordinator,
Biological Technical Ass.: stance Group, re: Biological
Technical Assistance Group Review, Hopkins Farm, June
5, 1996.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300001- Report:Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wi
300369 Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey. PD-12B. Final
Remedial Investigation Report - JHopkins Farm. Volume I
of.II.' prepared for NJDEPE, prepared by ACRES
International Corporation, May 1991.
P. 300370- Report:Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wilson
300383 Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel P'i't. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey. PD-12B. Final
Remedial Investigation Report - Hopkins Farm. Volume II
of _II f, prepared for NJDEPE, prepared by ACRES
International Corporation, May 1991.
3.5 Correspondence
P. 300384- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
300387 NJDEPE, from Mr. Thomas K. Uzzo, Environmental
Engineer, Southern New Jersey Compliance Section, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Hopkins Farm draft Phase I RI
Report Comments, June 23, 1988.
P. 300388- Memorandum to Mr. Joseph P. Cowers, Project Manager,
300389 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Roland Hemmett, Chairman,
Biological Technical Assistance Group, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Biological Technical Assistance Group (STAG)
Meeting, December 13, 1990.
P. 300390- Letter to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
300409 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site
Manager, NJDEPE, re: Hopkins Farm Draft RI Report,
Dated October 1990, January 29, 1991. (Attachment:
NJDEP Response to USEPA Comments on the Hopkins Farm
Site Draft Remedial Investigation by ACRES
International, dated October 1990.)
.• **
P. 300410- Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager,
300411 NJDEPE, from Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
-------
U.S. EPA, Region II, re: EPA's comments'on the revised
Final Remedial Investigation (RI) report, dated May
1991, August 8, 1991.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001- Report:Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
400173 Plumsted Township. New Jersey, Contract No. S87118, PD-
14B. Final Feasibilty Study Report - Hopkins Farm.
prepared for NJDEPE, prepared by ACRES International
Corporation, February 1992.
4.6 Correspondence
P. 400174- Memorandum to Mr. Gary Adamkiewicz, Project Manager,
400175 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Roland Hemmett, Chairman,
-Biological Technical Assistance Group, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Biological Technical Assistance Group (STAG)
Meeting, April 30, 1991.
P. 400176- Letter to Ms: Kimberly O'Connell, Chief, Southern
400178 New Jersey Superfund Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, NJDEPE, re:
Hopkins Farm Superfund Site, Present Worth Analysis of
No Further Action Alternative, July 5, 1996.
(Attachment: cost calculations.)
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001- Administrative Consent Order In the Matter of the
700008 Gravel Pit, Hopkins Farm and Wilson Farm Waste Disposal
Sites and Morton Thiokol, Inc., dated December'3, 1987.
P. 700009- Administrative Consent Order of Morton International,
700014 Inc., In The Matter of the Gravel Pit, Hopkins Farm and
Wilson Farm Waste Disposal Sites: Morton International,
Inc., dated August 20, 1991.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
P. 800001- Memorandum to Mr. Fred Cataneo, U.S. EPA, Region
800007 II, from Mr. William Nelson and Ms. Denise Johnson,
ATSDR Regional Representatives, Department of Health &
Human Services, re: attached working draft Health
Assessment for Hopkins Farm, Ocean County, Plirtnsted
Township, New Jersey, August 26, 1988, September 7,
1988. (Attachment.)
-------
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 1000001- Plan:Community Relations Plan for Hazardous
1000011 Waste Site Remedial Action. Hopkins Farm, Plumsted
Township, Ocean County. October 1986.
Several documents comprising the Administrative Record file for the
Wilson Farm Site, which are highlighted on the attached index, are
hereby incorporated into the Administrative Record file for the
Hopkins Farm Site.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DECISION DOCUMENT
HOPKINS FARM SITE
OVERVIEW
This is a summary of the public's comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Plan and
related documents for the Hopkins Farm Site and EPA's and NJDEP's response to those
comments.
In accordance with the public participation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act as amended (CERCLA), EPA, in conjunction with
NJDEP, held a public comment period from July 25, 1996 to August 23,1996 to provide
interested parties the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan and documents contained in
the Administrative Record for the Hopkins Farm Site.
During the public comment period, EPA and NJDEP held a public meeting on August 6,1996 at
7:00 pm at the Plumsted Township Municipal Building to discuss the results of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Removal Actions and to present the preferred no
further action remedy. No oHactions to the no further action remedy presented in the Proposed
Plan were raised at the publk .meeting. Public comments received during the public meeting are
documented in this Responsiveness Summary.
During the public meeting, residents supported EPA's no further action alternative but also had
some concerns which focused primarily on: ® resale value of properties near Superfund Sites; (D
length of time the monitoring wells would remain on the Site; (D the Well Restriction Area; and
® the schedule for deleting the Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This section
provides the history of community concerns and interests regarding the Site.
II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
AGENCY RESPONSES: This section summarizes the oral comments, as well as
written comments, received by EPA and NJDEP at the public meeting and during
the public comment period. ..,,
-------
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE HOPKINS FARM SITE: This section
provides information regarding the location of the Administrative Record
repositories.
I. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
Officials from Plumsted Township were present during the initial inspection of the Site by
NJDEP and the Ocean County Health Department in 1980. Over the course of the Site
investigation and subsequent removal actions, numerous discussions and exchanges of
correspondence have taken place between NJDEP and the Plumsted Township officials, the
Plumsted Township Environmental Commission, the Ocean County Health Department, building
developers, property owners and potential home buyers. Since people in the area rely solely on
private residential wells to provide drinking water, the concerns expressed by the members of the
community have generally focused on the potential for contamination of ground water in the
vicinity of the Site and the Well Restriction Area imposed by NJDEP on properties around the
Site.
II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
Comments raised during the Hopkins Farm Site Public Meeting held on August 6, 1996, as well
as written comments received during the public comment period, and EPA's and NJDEP's
responses are summarized below:
IIA. Summary of Verbal Questions and Responses:
Resale Value of Property Issues:
Comment: Several citizens asked how the monitoring wells, which are located on the
property, will affect the ability of the property owner to transfer or sell the property.
Response: It has been determined that long-term monitoring is warranted in order to
provide additional assurance that there is no contamination at the Site and to determine if
any residual contamination is detected over time. The ground water will be sampled
periodically throughout this time. If no elevated levels of contaminants are detected, the
wells are expected to be sealed at the completion of long-term monitoring. EPA may
propose that the Site be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) during long-term
monitoring. Once the Site is deleted, it would not require any deed restrictions because
the waste was removed. In the event the property is sold, EPA will still require access to
the area of the property where the monitoring wells are located during the period of long-
term monitoring. EPA and the property owner can usually work out an amicablfe'access
agreement, but at times when an agreement cannot be reached, EPA can get access via a
court order. In the event of a transfer of property, the attorney for the property owner and
-------
EPA's attorney could discuss the issue in further detail. EPA does not get involved in the
legalities of the buying or selling of the property.
Comment: A citizen asked if EPA makes a final decision and everything is positive,
could somebody feasibly build a house, meeting State and Township requirements, in
November.
Response: Yes, a home could be built on the property. However, at this time, a NJDEP
Well Restriction Area is in place and would advise the owner that any new well to be
constructed on the property should be drilled to a depth of at least 150 feet. In addition,
EPA will continue to collect data from the existing on-Site monitoring wells at the
Hopkins Farm Site for several years. Since long-term monitoring will be on-going, EPA
would require access to the area of the property where the monitoring wells are located
from any new owner. EPA and the property owner can usually work out an amicable
access agreement. In the event of a planned transfer of property, the attorney for the
property owner and EPA's attorney should discuss the issue in farther detail.
Comment: A citizen, who is a potential home buyer iri Plumsted Township, expressed
concern over the information which realtors and the media have provided him with
respect to Superfund sites in the town.
Response: EPA encourages the public to contact EPA with any questions related to any
Superfund site or environmental issue. Realtors often provide information to potential
homebuyers to make them aware of Superfund sites located in the area. EPA encourages
the public to contact local officials, NJDEP or EPA personnel for further information. In
addition, EPA schedules community meetings and public availability sessions to inform
the public about activities on-going at Superfund Sites. As for media coverage, EPA
spoke with a reporter from the Asbury Park Press before the public meeting about an
article on the Hopkins Farm Site. EPA routinely places a public notice of all public
meetings in local papers to notify the community of upcoming meetings; the notices
include EPA and NJDEP points of contact whom the public can contact for additional
information.
Comment: Several citizens asked if realtors can directly contact NJDEP or EPA.
Response: A realtor can refer the potential buyer to local officials, as well as EPA or
NJDEP staff, for additional information pertaining to a Superfund site or can contact EPA
or NJDEP directly.
General Comment: Ms. Vicky Wilbur of the Ocean County Planning Board stated that
there is an Ocean County Potentially Hazardous Site Map available from her office. The
number is 929-2054. It is also available by municipality. The map lists the location of
all Superfund sites, landfills, and other known or suspected hazardous sites in the area.
-------
Monitoring Well IssuesL.
Comment: What is the monitoring schedule? Who will be responsible for the monitoring?
Response: The responsible party (Morton International, Inc.) at the Hopkins Farm Site
has funded the cleanup of this Site and is expected to conduct the long term monitoring.
EPA is expected to enter into a legal agreement with Morton to conduct the long-term
monitoring. EPA is estimating sampling on approximately a quarterly basis for the first
year and then the data will be evaluated to determine the frequency of sampling
thereafter. If contamination is not detected, the frequency of sampling may be reduced to
once or twice a year. In addition, surface water and sediment samples will be collected
and evaluated on a periodic basis.
Comment: A citizen asked if the property owner can be notified when the monitoring
wells will be sampled and if EPA can provide the results to the owner.
Response: EPA will notify the property owner of the'scheduled sampling dates and will
provide the results in a timely manner.
General Superfund Issues.:
Comment: A citizen asked how many Superfund sites are located in Plumsted Township.
Response: There are five Superfund sites in Plumsted Township; the Hopkins Farm Site;
the Goose Farm Site; the Wilson Farm Site; the Spence Farm Site; and the Pijak Farm
Site. Of these sites, Hopkins Farm, Wilson Farm, Spence Farm and Pijak Farm are
expected to be deleted from the NPL in the near future. There is a groundwater pumping
and treatment plant currently operational at the Goose Farm Site. In addition, the
following non-NPL sites are located in the vicinity of Plumsted Township: the Gravel Pit
and the Friedman Property.
Comment: Several citizens asked what 'deletion' means.
Response: Once a site is placed on the NPL, that makes it eligible to be cleaned up using
federal dollars or through EPA's enforcement program, where the responsible parties pay
for the cleanup. There is a certain path which a site goes through, which includes a
remedial investigation, feasibility study, evaluation of remedial alternatives, the actual
cleanup, post remedial monitoring and then deletion. Sites are deleted after a cleanup is
complete or after EPA determines that no cleanup is necessary. In order for a site to be
deleted from the NPL, EPA must first propose the deletion and solicit public 'comment for
this action, and pending the evaluation of public comment, the site is formally deleted
and is no longer considered a Superfund site. A site which is deleted from the NPL
-------
remains eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site
would warrant such action. The majority of sites located in Plumsted Township are
expected to be deleted in the near future.
Comment: A citizen asked how many Superfund sites are on Route 539.
Response: Both the Hopkins Farm Site and the Goose Farm Site are located on Route
539.
Well Issu£SJ
Comment: A citizen asked when the well restriction will be lifted.
Response: The wel-1 restriction will remain in place in order to perform monitoring on a
periodic basis. The type of well restriction in place at the Hopkins Farm Site is not
actually a restriction in a legal sense, but it is an advisory. When a person applies to
NJDEP for a permit to drill a well on a property within 2,000 feet of the Site, NJDEP will
notify the property owner that there is a potential for contaminated ground water and
would suggest the well be drilled 150 feet deep into the deeper aquifer. In addition,
Ocean County requires that private wells be tested when any property changes hands or a
new well is installed. There are approximately 22 different compounds that are
commonly found at these types of sites that are tested for in order to get a certificate of
occupancy.
Comment: A citizen asked what the definition is of shallow and deep wells.
Response: At the Hopkins Farm Site, there are shallow wells which are screened across
the water table, which is at a depth of approximately fifteen to twenty feet. The deeper
wells are approximately forty feet deep.
General Comment: Mayor Ronald S. Dancer stated that EPA and NJDEP have done a
"good job" in keeping the public informed about issues pertaining to Site-related
activities and thanked EPA and NJDEP for being accessible to the residents who had
questions or concerns regarding the Hopkins Farm Site.
IIB. Summary of Written Comments and Responses:
During the public comment period, one party submitted written comments to EPA
regarding the Hopkins Farm Site Proposed Plan. These comments are summarized and
responded to as follows: . .,
-------
Long-Term Monitoring:.
Comment: The commenter questioned EPA's strategy for long-term ground water,
surface water and sediment monitoring, in light of the minimal risk associated with the
Site.
Response: A long-term groundwater, surface water and sediment sampling program is
warranted at the Site, even though the source has been removed, to confirm the
effectiveness of the Removal Action and in order to determine if any residual
contamination is detected.
Two groundwater sampling events, conducted in May and July 1995, have indicated that
ground water does not pose an unacceptable risk. However, since the two sampling
events occurred within a short timeframe, EPA believes that additional monitoring is
necessary to evaluate the ground water to confirm the effectiveness of the Removal
Action. Since the ground water underlying the Site is a drinking water aquifer, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to perform long-term monitoring.
Sediment and surface water in the stream were sampled prior to and during the Removal
Action at the Site and were not determined to pose a risk warranting an action. The level
of cadmium detected in one surface water sample exceeded established standards for
protection of aquatic life. However, based on the fact that after this sample was collected
additional contaminated soils were removed from the Site, it is believed that surface
waters at the Site do not currently pose a significant ecological risk. Long-term
monitoring will be required to confirm this conclusion.
The long-term monitoring plan currently being considered by EPA is quarterly sampling
of ground water, surface water and sediment for the first year and evaluation of that data.
Based upon the review of the first year's data, the frequency of sampling may be
modified by EPA. If monitoring indicates that contamination at the Site is decreasing, it
is likely that the sampling frequency would be reduced. If monitoring reveals that
contamination at the Site increases so that an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment develops, an appropriate action can be initiated at any time during the
monitoring period to address the risks.
Comment: The commenter stated that a five year review is not required for this Site since
no hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain on-Site, but does indicate
that if long-term monitoring is performed, it should be performed in a limited manner.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that a five year review is not necessary, but
EPA requires that long-term monitoring be performed to confirm that no confanlinants
remain on-Site. Monitoring will be performed on a periodic basis initially. Based on
EPA's evaluation of the data, the frequency of sampling may be modified thereafter. The
-------
groundwater monitoring would then either be terminated, continued periodically, or other
action considered. If monitoring reveals that contamination at the Site increases so that
an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment develops, an appropriate action
can be initiated at any time during the monitoring period to address the risks.
HI. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE HOPKINS FARM
SUPERFUND SITE
• NJDEP prepared a Community Relations Plan in October 1986.
• NJDEP has established information repositories at the following locations:
New Egypt Library
10 Evergreen Road
New Egypt, NJ 08533
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Central File Room
CN413
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Records Center - 18th Floor
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
The repositories contain a comprehensive collection of records relating to the Site which
comprise the Administrative Record. The index to the Administrative Record is
Attachment 2 of the Record of Decision.
• Throughout the RI/FS process, representatives from NJDEP attended meetings
concerning the Site. The first public meeting was held in March 1987 to brief
interested parties and discuss the RI/FS process. NJDEP distributed Fact Sheets.
• NJDEP has participated in subsequent meetings to update the community on the
progress at the Site. Over the course of the RI/FS and Removal Action, numerous
correspondences and discussions have taken place between NJDEP and potential
home-buyers, Plumsted Township officials, the Plumsted Township
Environmental Committee, property owners, building developers, and the Ocean
County Health Department.
• On August 6, 1996, NJDEP and EPA held a public meeting at the Plurasted
Township Municipal Building to discuss the Site investigations and present the
Proposed Plan for the no further action remedy. Approximately 18 people
-------
attended. A transcript of the meeting can be found in the record repositories listed
above.
A public comment period was held from July 25, 1996 to August 23, 1996.
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
FIGURES
-------
Ocean
County
NEW JERSEY
•^HOPKINS |j
fl
SOURCE: Hoqjtrom Mop
i_r
1/2
I mil<
( Aoorox. Scale )
tRA
SITE LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM SITE
Plumsted Township, NJ
FIGURE 1
-------
S£
MONITORING .
WELL PAIR
HF-MW-IS ft ID
MONITORING
WELL PAIR
HF- MW - 2S 8 2D
MONITORING
WELL HF-MW-4S
(PROJECTED 40 FT. E)
UNOIFFERENTIATED
/"RECENT DEPOSITS
RECENT ALLUVIUM
O
c:
8
UPPER KIRKWOOD FORMATION /
COHANSEY SAND (UNDIFFERENTIATED)
«o LOWER KIRKWOOD FORMATION
LOWER MANASOUAN FORMATION
VINCENTOWN FORMATION
20
SCMt"lt"
NW
MONITORING
WELL HF-MW-5
-1- 20
mi! I NEW
M\ I ENVI
JERSEY DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL P_ROTECTM
HOPKINS FARM SITE HI/ FS
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
SITE
-------
.arts /
'jru /
'iris '
tis FARM SIIL
Plumstod T-jrtnship. I!J '
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
TABLES
-------
O3
r
PI
JLE1
HOPKINS FARM SITE
TAHGF.T ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES
(Presented in ihe May 1991 Remedial Investigation Report)
CHEMICAL
V01.ATI1.E ORGAHIC COMPOUNDS
Acetone*
nenzene*
Dromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform*
Chloromcthane
Methylene Chloride*
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
vinyl Acetate
Xylenea (Total)*
FREQUENCY
OF DETECTION
3/12
6/12
1/12
2/12
1/12
1/12
5/12
1/12
5/12
9/12
3/12
CONTRACT REQUIRED
QUANTITATION LIMITS
SF.MI -VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Denzo (a) Pyrene
nis (2-Chloroethoxy) Methane*
Ilia (2-EthylhexyH Phthalate*
4, 6- Pi n it. ro- 2 -Methyl phenol
Phenol*
f'Kf.TIClDF.S
Alrlrin
4,4' DDT
Kn
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY TABLE OF TARGET,ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER SAMPLES
(PHASE I: JAN 1988)
(DATA REPORTED IN UG/I.)
Monit, orinq Well
Volatile Ornanic Compounds
Carbon Di sul fide
2-Outanone
1 , 1 , 1 -Tr ichloroethane
Vinyl Acetate
2-tlexanone
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
Semi- Volati le
Organic Compound?
his (2-Ethylhexyl ) Phthalate
MW-1S
230D
MW-1D
4.3J
MW-2S
MW-2S Dup
•
1900JD
MW-2D
MW-3S
19JB
MVJ-4S
10.5J
10.9J
•
MW-5S
6.6
29.9
5..1
91J
Cd
r
Notes:
1. Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations. :'
2. No data entry indicates the following: no detectable concentration; or data were rejected' or negated.
See Appendix C for complete QA Summary tables, for target and non-target organic compounds.
»
3. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
<1 i) iniiicat.es the presence of the compound in the method blank.
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY TAUI.K OF TARGET ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER SAMPLES
(PHASE I I: MAY 1990)
(DATA REPORTED TN UG/M
Monitorinq Well
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1 -Dichloroethane
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Styrene
Tel rachloroethene
Xylene (Total)
Semi- Volatile
Organic Compounds
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
Di-n-butylphthalate
His (2-cthylhexyl )ph thai ate
MW-1S
U
MX-10
U
U
.
MW-2S
10J
2J
MW-2D
2J
U
20
15
3J
4.9J
1
MW-3S
28JB
MW-4S
MW-5S
60J
2J
22JB
NotC5:
). Quantities listed indicate detectable concent rations.
0 tlo data entry indicates the following: no detectable concentration; or data were rejected or neqatcd.
r,cc Appendix C for complete QA Summary tablen. Cor target and non-target organic compounds.
'3 .1 indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
\
4 II indicates the presence of the compound in the method blank.
-------
TABLES
SUMMARY TABLE OF TARGET ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER SAM?:.£3
(SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING EVENT: JANUARY 1991)
(DATA REPORTED IN UG/L)
Monitoring Well
MW-1S
MW-1S Due
MW-2D
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon Disulfide
2.0J
Motes:
1. Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations.
2. No data entry indicates the following: no detectable concentration o:
data were- rejected or negated.- See Appendix C for complete sursr-ary
tables for target and non-target organic compounds.
3. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA validation.
4. 3 indicates the oresence of the compound in the ~.etr.cd biar.!-:.
SUMMARY TA3L£ OF TARGZT ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER SAMPLES
(SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING EVENT: ~EERUA=.'r 1591)
(DATA REPORTED IN UG/L)
Monitoring Well
MW-1S
MW-1S Duo
MW-2D
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
TABLE 3
-------
. TABLE 4
SUMMARY 7A3LE 0? TARGET ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IN STREAM AND DITCH WATER SAMPLES
(PHASE I: JANUARY 1988)
(.DATA REPORTED IN UG/L)
Samole No,
Volatile Orcanic Corr.oo'jnds
Methylene Chloride
1, 2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
4 -Methyl- 2 -Pent a none
Total Xylenes
Semi-Volatile Orcar.ic Co-ncur.ds
Bis (2-Chioroethyl) ether
Sis (2-Chioroethoxy) methane
5i3 (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Pesticides
Methoxychlor
Stream
sw-i
30J
Ditch
SW-2
I9J3
2J
2J
6J ...
3J
250
1 50
300
Stream
SW-3
Scream
S'«-4
1
: C
1.' Qcar.tities listed i.-.dicate detectable concentracior.s .
2. No data entry indicates the following: no detectable concentratic
or data were rejected or negated.
See Appendix C for complete QA Summary tables, for target and non-
target organic compounds.
3. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
•*. 3 indicates the presence of the compound in. the method blan*.
TABLE 4
-------
TABLE 5
SO>~ARv TA3LE Of TARGET ORGANIC CCMPCC'NDS
IN DITCH WATER SAMPLE (PHASE II: MA?, 1950)
_ ' (CATA REPORTED IN UG/L) _
Sample Mo.
SW-55
volatile Organic Compounds
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethene
Xylene (Total)
Semi-Volatile Orcanic Compounds
Bis(2-chloroethyl)methane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzyl.alcohol
Bis(2-chloroibsopropyl)ether
4.8J
U
U
1J
168
6J>-
99J3
BJ
Notes :
1. Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations.
2. No data entry indicates the following: no detectable concer.tratior
or data were rejected or negated.
See Appendix C for complete QA Sunauary tables, for target and r.on-
target organic compounds.
3. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
4. 3 indicates the presence of the compound in the method biar.x.
5. Sample is from same location as SM-2.
TABLE s
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY TA3LE 0" TARGET INORGANIC COMP
IN STRZAM ANT) DITCH WATER SAMPLES
(PHASE I: JANUARY 1938)
_ (DATA REPORTED IN UG/L)
Samole No.
HSL Inorcanica
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Stream
SW-1
24.0
1415
305S*
772
5841
Ditch
SW-2
44 .4NS
0.5
101
49.0
3273
3110N
0.9N ....
110
21495
24270
115
28228
34
9337SE-
3498
461
7640
Stream
SW-3
Is 32
24C
270
4729
Stream
SW-4
152S
757
373
2010
1. N indicates spike samples recovery is not within control limits.
2. S indicates a value determined by method of standard addition.
3. E indicates a value escijr-ated or not reported due to the preser.ee c
interference.
4. * indicates duplicate analysis not within control limits.
5. No data entry indicates that no detectable concentration was found.
T « F> T T~ f
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY TA3LE OF TARGET INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IN DITCH WATER SAMPLE (PHASE II: MAY, 1990)
(DATA REPORTED IN UG/L)
:
Samole So.
HSL Inorcanics
Alu.-ninu.-n
Antimony
3arium
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron-
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
J/anadium
Zinc
SW-54
19700
120UJ
190J
32.0
28300
13. OJ
1050J
65800CJ
2220J
7250J
422
0.95
99.0
50. OJ
7.44J
5 . 3 J
6170J
56 .0
4300
Nocea :
1. No data entry indicates that, r.o detectable concentratisr. was fov
2. U indicates the value is below the contract detection limit.
3. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
4. Same location as SW-2.
TABLE 7
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OFGET ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IN STREAM AND DITCH SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(PHASE I:. JANUARY 1988)
(DATA RFI»OUTF.n IN UG/KG)
Sample No.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Uenzone
Toluene-
Semi volatile Oroanic Compounds
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Di a (2-Chloroethoxy)methane
3-Ni t roani 1 ine
Oi-n-Butylphthalate
St ream
SD-1
5217JB
.St ream
SD-I RE
See
Note 5
Ditch
SD-2-1
3354JB
20J
91.J
3696J
1112.1
38103J
Ditch
Dup.
SD-2-2
See
Note 6
2132
1385
Ditch
Dup.
SD-2-2RE
See
Note 7
Stream
sn-3
St ream
sn-o
68JU
notes:
1 .
2.
3.
4.
'j.
6.
1.
Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations.
No data entry indicates the following: no detectable concentration; or data were rejected 'or negated.
See Appendix C for complete QA Summary tables, for target and non-target organic compounds.
J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
II indicates the presence of the compound in the method blank.
Resampled from SD-1 site. Analyzed for VOAs only. All data are rejected due to excessive holding time.
Duplicate SD-2 sample. All VOA data are rejected due to excessive holding time.
Uesampling of SD-2 duplicate. Analyzed for VOAs only. All data are rejected due to excessive holding i. i mo
H
>
C3
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY TABLE Or TARGET ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
IN DITCH SEDIMENT SAMPLES (PHASE II: MAY, 1990)
(DATA REPORTED IK UG/XG)
S a mole No.
Volatile Orcranic Comoounds
Acetone
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Mechylene chloride
Semi-Volatile Oraanic Conoounds
Bis (2-chlorqethoxy) methane
Di-n-butylphthalate
3is (2-ethylhexyl) phthaiate
SD-54
140J
U
7J
6J
4J
7J
18J
59J
250J
220J
SD-5 Duo4
t
25
22CJ
1. Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations.
2. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
3. No data entry indicates that no detectable concentration was fcur
4. Samole is from si.T.e location as SD-2.
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY TA3LE C~ TARGET INORGANIC COMPOUNDS AN3 PHENOLS
IN STRZAM AND DITCH SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(PHASE I: JANUARY 1983)
(DATA REPORTED IN HG/KG)
Samole No.
HSL Inorganics
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Phenol
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Stream
SD-1
6.1
3.8SN
9600
290£*
Dicch
SD-2
0.1
8.2
19.3
15 .4N
86.4
1600
410
2120S*
1160
Ditch
SD-2 duo
12.3
28.5
22.3N
100
2500
980
4690E*
915C
Stream
SD 3
2.9
0.1
333.5
753
Stream
SD--;
10. SS
13.3
0.2
535.9
378 .1
335.6
1. S indicates a value determined by method of standard addition.
2. N indicates spike samples recovery is not within control limits.
3. £ indicates a value estimated or not reported due to the presence of
interference.
4. • indicates duplicate analysis not within control limits.
5. No data entrv indicates that r.o detectable concentration was four.d.
F 10
-------
TABLE 11
A?.Y TABLE OF TARGET INORGANIC CCMPCuNOS .-JO ?HE.V.'CLS
N DITCH SEDIMENT SAMPLES (PHASE II: MAY, i=9C)
(DATA REPORTED IN UG/KG1
S a mole No .
HSL Inorcanics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Ditch
SD-5
730J
2.5J
2.6J
7.6J
4860J
69. OJ
73.8J3
6.3J
63. OB
2.0J
19.7J3
0.33UJ
Ditch
SD-5 Duo
3380J
22.5
9.4J
121
53500J3
.. 327J
123J3
113J
26.SJ
4.2J
0.92
0 . 37J
5 . 1J
333J3
C.74J
1. Quantities listed indicate detectable concentrations.
2. J indicates data qualified as a result of QA data validation.
3. 3 indicates the presence of the compound in the rr.ethod biar.x.
4. U indicates the value is below the contract detection lirr.it.
5. No data entrv indicates that no detectable concentration was found.
TAP! P 1
-------
ILE 12
SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES: NOVEMBER 1992 TO JANUARY 1993 SITE INVESTIGATION (NON-AQUEOUS SAMPLES)
Stmplt Number
D*tc S*i*pltd
Location
S476I-1I0492-S/-54 S476I-110492 SJ 55 S476I-IKM92-5/-56
11/4/92 11/4/92 11/4/92
5-02(0-6") Duplicate of S-S4 b-05 (0-6")
VoUtilct
w
r
w
1,2-Dichloroctrune
1,2-Dichlaropropirte
Benzene
Chloroform
Elhylberuene
Tcirachloroeihyktne
Toluene
Tniu 1,2-DichlonMMhylenc
TrlcKkiroet hy lene
Xylene(loUl)
B4»a-Ch)oroeihyl) el her
Ui»(2-ChloroelhoKy) melhinc
Chciunlhrcne
LM-n-burylphltuUte
Ruonnlhene
Cyrene
01«(2-Elhylhevyl) phlluUlc
Ult(2-ChloroUopropyl)cllM.T
Inorganic Compound*
/ Mettlt (»&'k&)
V
Antimony
Cadmium
Selenium
V0)
NIX490)
N CM 490)
IS.IKM
NIX490)
NfX490)
540
130.000(1)
14,000
ND(870)
NIXB70)
NLX870)
NCHU70)
NrH«70)
ND(H70)
160)
150000(1)
17.000
NDdlOO)
NDdlOO)
NCK 1 100)
NIX HIM))
NDdlllO)
220 J
NIX 1100)
560
20.IXXX 1 )
770
5U|
2HO|
NfX4HI»
N(X4HO)
520
250|
NIXI.3)
1.3
5.1
NOd.7)
NfXI.7)
58
096
NIX0.5)
N1X0.5)
(I) Reported from Dilution I
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES; NOVEMBER 19W TO JANUAKY 1993 SITE INVESTIGATION (NON-AQUEOUS SAMPLES)
Sample Number
Dale Sampled
Location
S«76I-OI1393-S/-4S S476I-01I39J-S/-M S4761-OI1393-S/-67 S4761-0/H93-S/-6J S476I-012I9) i/-72
1/13/W 1/13/9J J/I3/9J l/n/93 |/2|/9j
8-1(0-6") B-KV-12") B-3fl2"-18") B-4 & B-5 (36" - 48") 11-10(0-12")
VolaHUt
CO
r
w
1^-Dichloroetlune
1,2-Dichloro propane
Benzene
Chloroform
Elhylbenzene
Tetrichloroethylene
Toluene
Trans 1^-CHchlonxHhylciie
Trichloroethylene
Xyfene (lotal)
Scmhiolartltt Qtf/tf)
Inorganic Compound*
-' Mitilt (mtlkt)
NCH8.4)
13
6.2 J
NCX8.4)
24
46
330
NDtB.4)
29
160
ND<6)
NCX6)
NCK6)
NCK6)
NCX6)
35 J
12
NLX6)
NCX6)
21
16
NCX7.I)
NCX7.I)
NCX7.I)
30
23
76
8.3
NCX7.J)
88
NCH6.3)
NCX6.3)
41
NCH6.3)
7.1
26
15
NCX6.3)
NCK63)
33
NCXB.O)
Nrxao)
NCKB.U)
NCXflO)
NLH80)
NIX80)
NLH80)
NIX8.II)
NLX80)
NCX80)
DI»<2-Chloroelhyl)elher
Blt<2-Chloroelhoi(y) methane
DirthylphlhaUle
Phenanlhrena
CM-n-butylphlhaUta
Ruoranthen*
Pyrene
BI»(2-Elhylnexyl) phlhaUtc
Bii(2-ChloroUopropyl)e
NCX390)
ND<390)
NIX390)
NCH390)
40 J
NDO90)
NLX4IO)
560
. NCX4IO)
NCH4IO)
50)
NCX41U)
NCH4IO)
57 J
NCH4IO)
NCX410)
NCK410)
NCH4IO)
NDMIO)
NCH4IO)
NLX4IO)
NCM410)
52 J
NCX4IO)
NCH530)
NIX530)
ND(530)
NCH530)
NIX530)
NIX530)
NIX530)
NIXS30)
NLX530)
Antimony
Cadmium
Selenium
NCX083)
NfX»83)
N 1X0.83)
NIX0.6)
NCX0.6)
NtXO.6)
NCX07)
NCK0.7)
1.5
NIX063)
NCX0.63)
NIX0.63)
Nixoan
NLXDBI)
13
(I) Reported frum Dilution
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTE& NOVEMBER 19W TO JANUARY 1993 SITE INVESTIGATION 1NON-AQUEOUS SAMPLES)
'>*mplt Nvmbfr
DtU Stuff It
Locution
S47«-OI2193-S/-T3 S*76l-0!2I93-S/-75 S4761-012193-S/-79
I/2J/93 I/2I/9J I/21/9J
DuplU*U of $-72 fMl(0-«0") 11-3(6"-30")
S4761-OI2293-SH5
1/22/93
I/-2 <3" - 48")
VoUHlit fa/kg)
II
W
r
w
U-DkhJoroetham
1,2 DtchJoroprop*ne
Benzene
Chloioform
Eihylbenzen*
TetnchloroeihyleiM
Toluena
Tratu 1,2-Dichiorodhylene
TiichlaroethykfM
Inorgank Compound*
(m^lkg)
ND(7.9)
ND<7.9)
ND(7.9)
NW7.9)
NM7.9)
NCK7.9)
ND(7.9)
ND(7.9)
NCX7.9)
ND(7.9)
NCKI5)
NCK15)
ND05)
ND(I5)
NCKI5)
NCKI5)
ND(15)
NCXI5)
NCKI5)
NCX15)
NCX8.0)
NUH80)
NCXa.O)
NW8.0)
59
NDroclhyl) cthar
Bl»(2-€hkm>ethoxy) mcitune
DiethylphthnUu
Pheiunihicrw
Dl-n-burylphttuUle
FluoranlheM
Pyrena
Bl*(2-Elhylhejcyl) phltuUle
Dl*(2-ChloiDl*opropyl)e«ner
ND(530)
ND(530)
NCX530)
NW530)
ND(530)
NLX530)
ND(530)
66|
ND(530)
NCX1000)
NCH1000)
NIX 1000)
NCHIOOO)
NCH1000)
NCXIOOO)
NDiiOOO)
120)
NCHIOOO)
NCX520)
3^00
MX520)
87 J
740
ISO)
120 j
2,000
NCH520)
530.000(1)
59^00
ND<7800)
NCH7800)
ND(78<)0)
NCH7BOO)
NCX7WW)
NCH7800)
NCH7800)
Antimony
Cadmium
Selenium
ND«179)
ND(tt79)
U
NIXI.5)
NIX 1.5)
3.2
NEX08I)
NCHOBI)
1.7
NW2.4)
3.8
5.1
(1) Reported from Dilution
-------
TABLE 13
D*t>
1+cmtUm
SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANAiYTES : NOVtMBEl im TO |ANUAR Y lt»J SITE INVESTIGATION (AQUEOUS SAMfLES)
WI7«MI«S92-S/-S7 IV«7*I 11*5*7 S/«J W47«I-II0S9Z S/ S« IV<7*I II*S« $f S»
II/V92 II/V91 II/VM II/VW
NIDC
I.I.I TridOorortfuinr
IJ DkMorocttun*
CMofuform
Etfoyre0iB0w
Mrtt»yi»*(
THrKMororthytcm
TatiMM
Tnwv 13 Dkhlororthylem
Xyltm (total)
r
w
OJ
30
2
I
ft
TOO
1.000
too
40
10
Nora
300
30
300
ND(SO)
ND(SO)
NIXSO)
ND4SO)
ND(SO)
NfXSO)
NIXSO)
NW50)
NIXSO)
NDtSO)
NIXSO)
NCXSO)
NfXSO)
NCMSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
».I«XI)
240
220
NIXSO)
340
NfXSO)
1.500
67 1
NIX 100)
NDtSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NfXSO)
2S|
NOISO)
78
4 l|
20
NDO3)
NIXI3)
NIX 13)
HI
NCHI2)
NIXI2)
NIXI2)
NIXI2)
240.000(1)
23.000(1)
NIXIS)
N(XIS)
, NIXIS)
703
160
NIX 14)
NIXI4)
36|
Antimony
Cxknlum
0020
0004
0050
0012
0010
N1X0005)
0011
N1X0005)
NIX0005)
I
0000
NIX001B)
007?
0011
0008
NIXOOT6)
Antimony
0020
0004
0050
N1X0005)
0014
NIX0005)
NIX0005)
0019
NIX0005)
NIXOOIfi)
0015
nirvi
Nrxaon
OOT7
oos«
(I) RrparlcdhocnOlluHan
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMA.V 0, DmCTID ANACTOS = NOVEM.« .«.• TO .ANUA.V .m sm INVESTIGATION IAQUEOUS SAMfttS,
^«. ,,^,.s,«, umi.iMsn.sMi wiMi.nm.sf4i cm»i«i»W ciw*i4iii«-sM»
W47«i nts»2 s; M w«7ti n»s«
II/V91 Il/Wl
II-I If-tl") II S *
u/vn
C*V«7*l-»III»J-$/
iai/«
H-*
H
>•
W
r
w
»^
* i
V*
„ NIXSO) NW50) NCX50)
M.,TrtdJ«oe*-n« » JJW^ ^^ ^^
uwchio^th^. i NWO) NW50) ND. |^_ — 431 1^*1 • >F »
•M20la,oHSo.,)«0-~ Nc~ ^I() Nw(w Nd|l0
Pluaiai* w wrMIII J'l NIXII)
BMl^^.rOpN^UU 3» NW NW||| NW1U
BbO-CWafotoopfopy l)«««o Jl"
NIXSO) NIXSO)
NIXSO) NtXSO)
NtXSO) NfXSO)
NfXSO) NfXSO)
NfXSO) NIXSO)
NIXSO) NtXSO)
NtXSO) NIXSO)
Kirwc nv
NfXSO) NIXSO)
NfXSO) NfXSO)
NIXSO) NtXSO)
NfXIO) NIXIO)
NtXIO) NtXIO)
NfXIO) .. NtXIO)
NtXIO) NIXIO)
NtXIO) NIXIO)
NIX50)
NIX50)
NtXSO)
NtXSO)
NtXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIX50)
NfXSfl)
NIXSO)
NtXIO)
NIXIO)
NfXIO)
NtXIO)
NIXIO)
Antimony
C*dn>li«n
SdcNum
M««-U U«^*^»»»*' f-rf1*
Anttmonf
Ce
No< laird
Nollatrd
Nul InlcJ
NfXOOtlS)
NIXOOOS)
NIXO(DS)
Nolteslrd
NolleMrd
No( Inlrd
NIXOOf>S)
NIXO (in)
NIXOUrt)
(I) Rrpoclol hoc* Dilution
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY Of DETECTED ANALYTES : NOVEMBER IM1 TO |ANUARY mj SITE INVESTIGATION (AQUEOUS S AMTLESI
IS/ 71 CtV47«l4lll»J Sf 74 CW47*l-4>l2lfJ-Sf 7* GtV47*l-*12l9.»-S|-7« GtV47«l-«l2l*J SJ
l/JI/»
I/2I/M
III* or- -42")
I/ll/W
H IIK«" TT-)
I/2I/M
H 12 or- -«o
I/2I/JJ
H
to
CW474I -OI2I»I $
l/21/f.)
r,roclh«ne
Benaene
CMorolom
Eltvyfbcnivnc
M.HtrkneCMorld*
<» A ft .LI
TollMW
Trant 1 J Dtddorocthylenc
XyteneOotd)
BMI a*»orlhyl) ctha
BM3 CMoorthoxy) mrthMie
nuoicn*
BU7 Elhylhc«rl) phlhaUlc
BUG CHorotoopt 0|>y l)rtha
Antfmonjr
Cwbnlum
Srlrrtum
MrUb: UiUli«^fw«^ (<"f 'U
AnH^oo
C^knliMn
SdcHiiai
30
2
1
6
TOO
3
1
1.000
100
40
10
None
300
30
300
0020
0004
0050
0020
0004
aoso
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NottetcU
Not laird
NuHeXrd
NIXOOOS)
NIXOOOS)
NIXOOOS)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NfXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIX 10)
NIXIO)
Nat taled
Not toted
Nutlertcti
NIXOOOS)
NIXOOOS)
NIXOOSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
• NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
Not IcHcd
Not laird
Not lotrd
Nixooas)
NIXOOOS)
NIXOOIO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NtXSO)
NIXIO)
NIXIO)
NIX 10)
U|
NIXIO)
Nat tested
Not laird
Nti! lated
NIXOOUS)
NIXOODS)
N(XOU)S)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NfXSO)
NfXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
131
NIXSO)
NIXS 0)
NIXIO)
130
NIXIO)
NfXin)
,-•
1
N4 loir J
NIXOO.B)
NIMOrtM
Nixnratsi
(I) KtfWf led hcxn IXIutlon
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMAIY Or DETICTOD ANALYTtS : NOVEMBER mi TO JANUA1Y IWJ SITl INVESTIGATION (AQUEOUS SAMTLES)
D-t.
MWIS
OtyHcmU *f GW-»2
NfDCJTC
MfUU U~4UtotvrJ (mffU
Antimony
Cadmium
Sdfrium
0020
0004
0050
Nrxoons)
NiXOOnS)
Nrxoons)
NfXQOOS)
NIXOOOS)
I/U/9J
MW IS
NCXOOK)
NrXOOOS)
Nrxooos)
CW47«I4IU*J SfM
I/U/M
II 2 64" - 77")
2
p^
W
M
I.I.I TrVchiororthMW
Bcraen*
Chlomlonn
ClKylbenzm*
Mrthftcnc Chlodd*
Toluen*
Trara U Okhkxorthylcnc
Xftcm (total)
BI«Q OJotorthyO rtha
Bua-CNotorihoiiy) mrthwe
Fluavtntt
Mid Ethy»>e»yl) ph«h»Ul«
DUO CNof ottapropyDcthcr
M/UU. DiM«lM4 (nif/U
Antimony
C*cbnltan
SHa^tun
30
2
1
t
70)
3
1
1.000
100
40
10
None
300
30
300
0020
0004
0050
NIXSO)
NCXSO)
NIXSO)
NWSO)
NIXSO)
NIXS 0)
ND(SO)
Nrxso)
NOtSO)
Nrxso)
Nrxn)
Nrxm
NIXII)
NIXID
Nrxit)
Nollaitd
Nol lalcd
Nollcalcd
NCXSO)
NfXSO)
NCXSO)
NIXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXSO)
NfXSO)
NIXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXIO)
NCXIO)
NCXIO)
NCXIO)
NIX 10)
Nallc^rd
Mounted
Nol lolcd
NCXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NIXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXSO)
NCXIO)
. 48|
NCXIO)
NCXIO)
NCXIO)
Not Idled
Nol Idled
39|
210
49
l»l
NO (SO)
S6
160
20
36|
NCXII)
46
NCXII)
NoMertcd
Nol le*«d
Nol lalnl
NfXOOltt)
COM
Nixomis)
II) Hrpottcd ham Dilution
-------
TABLE 14
DITCH AND STREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLING (11/4/92) DATA
(FROM FINAL SUMMARY REPORT DATED DECEMBER 1994)
CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/KG
Sample ID
Location
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,2-dichlo roe thane
1,2-dichloropropane
benzene
chloroform
ethylbenzene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trans 1,2 dichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
xylene
SEMI-VOLATILES
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethory)methane
diethylphthalate
phenanthrene
di-n-butylphthalate
fluoranthene
pyrene
bis(2-ethylheiyl)phthalate
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
METALS
antimony
cadmium
selenium
S476M10492-SJ-51
SS-2 (0-6")
S476I-110492-SJ-53
SS-1 (0-6")
ND(6.l)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(6.1)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND (17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND(17)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND(400)
ND (400)
300 J
850 J
ND(llOO)
ND(llOO)
ND(llOO)
ND(llOO)
ND(llOO)
ND(llOO)
230 J
ND(0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND(O.S)
ND(3.4)
5.5
2.5 .
J = CONSTITUENT WAS DETECTED BELOW THE QUANTIFICATION LEVEL (ESTIMATED VALUE)
ND( ) = NOT DETECTED AT QUANTIFICATION LIMIT STATED IN PARENTHESES.
TABLE 14
-------
TABLE 15
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING (11/4/92) RESULTS
( FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND GROUNDWA TER INVESTIGATION REPORT Dated March 1993)
CONCENTRATIONS IN n&\
Sample ID
Location
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
benzene
chloroform
ethylbenzene .
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trans 1,2 dichloroethylene
methylene chloride
xylene
SEMI-VOLATILES
bis(2-cbloroethyl) ether '
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
fluorene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
METALS
antimony
cadmium
selenium
W476M10492-SJ-50
SW-2
W476M10492-SJ-52
SW-1
ND(S.O)
ND(S.O)
ND(5.0)
ND(S.O)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(S.O)
ND(S.O)
ND(5.0)
ND(S.O)
ND(S.O)
ND(S.O)
ND(S.O)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND(S.O)
2.3 J
ND (10)
ND (10)
ND (10)
ND (10)
25
100
ND(ll)
ND(ll)
ND(ll)
not tested
not tested
not tested
not tested
37
not tested
J = CONSTITUENT WAS DETECTED BELOW THE QUANTIFICATION LEVEL (ESTIMATED VALUE)
ND() = NOT DETECTED AT QUANTIFICATION LIMIT STATED IN PARENTHESES.
TABLE 15
-------
TABLE 16
HOPKINS FARM SITE
Summary of Analytical Results for Ground Water
Contaminant (Sample Location)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone (HF-MW-2D)
Chloroform (HF-MW-2S)
Trichloroethylene (HF-MW-5S)
Benzene (HF-MW-5S)
Toluene (HF-MW7D-GW2)
Tetrachloroethylene (HF-TB-GW2)
Chlorobenzene (HF-TB-GW2)
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Maximum
Concentration (ug/1)
44
0.6
0.5
0.2 .
0.14
0.14
0.063
Federal Standard/
Action Level
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane (HF-MW-2S) 1
Metals
Chromium (MW-ID)
Lead (MW-2S)
Manganese (MW-1D)
Mercury (MW-6S)
Zinc (MW-2S)
11.9
4.0
53.6
0.24
110
indicates a Secondary Standard (primarily aesthetic)
EPA's action level for lead in drinking water
100
5
5
1,000
5
100
100
15*
50*
2
5000*
State Standard/
Action Level
700
6
1
1
1000
1
4
100
10
50+
2
5000*
Risk-Based
Concentration
3700
0.15
1.6
0.36
750
1.1
39
180
180
3.7
11,000
-------
TABLE 17
HOPKINS FARM SITE
Contaminants of Concern
Soils and Sediments
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Bis (2-Chloroethyl) ether (SS-1)
Bis (2-ChIoroethoxyl) methane (SS-1)
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate (SS-1)
Metals
Cadmium (SS-1)
Selenium (H-11)
Ground Water
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane
Metals
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
TABLE 17
-------
TABLE 18
2
to
5
*^
oo
Contaminants (Sample Location)
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Bis (2-Chloroethyl) ether (SS-1)
Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane (SS-1)
Bis (2-Ethylhexy) phthalate (SS-1)
Metals
Cadmium (SS-1)
Selenium (H-ll)
HOPKINS FARM SITE
Summary of Analytical Results for Soils and Sediments
Detection
Frequency
1/6
1/6
4/6
1/6
5/6
Maximum
Concentration
300 ug/kg*
850 ug/kg*
230 ug/kg*
5.5 mg/kg
3.2 mg/kg
EPA
Soil Screening
Level
0.4 ug/kg
46,000 ug/kg
8 mg/kg
5 mg/kg
* indicates an estimated result
------- |