PB97-963812
EPA/541/R-97/103
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Global Sanitary Landfill OU 2,
Old Bridge Township, NJ
9/29/1997
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Global Landfill Super-fund Site
Township of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the second operable unit at the
Global Landfill Superfund Site, developed in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq., and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), as amended, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This
decision document serves to explain the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this
second operable unit of the Site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs with the selected remedy. A
copy of their concurrence letter can be found in Appendix D. The information supporting this
remedial action is contained in the Administrative Record for the Site, the index of which can be
found in Appendix E to this document.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Global Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent
and substantial endangermeht to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action described in this document represents the second of two planned operable
units for the Site. It involves monitoring the ground water of the Upper Water-bearing Zone
(UWZ) and Lower Water-bearing Zone (LWZ) in areas where contamination is present, as well
as removing contaminated sediments from a location close to the southeastern portion of the
landfill and placing them on top of the landfill mound before it is capped. A previous decision
document (Record of Decision, September 1991) has addressed the capping of the landfill in
accordance with State and Federal requirements.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Quarterly testing of new and existing on-site wells to monitor the extent of natural
attenuation of contaminants in the UWZ and the LWZ.
• Annual reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected ground-water remedy.
• Placement of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) which would also act as a Well
Restriction Area (WRA) for both the UWZ and the LWZ in areas where contaminants
were detected.
• Localized removal of contaminated wetland sediments from the southeastern portion of
the Site.
• Placement of these sediments on top of the landfill before it is capped.
• Annual ecological monitoring for five years after operable units one and two are
implemented.
• Five-year reviews of the Site pursuant to CERCLA and to determine whether any further
action is needed to protect ground-water quality.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site. However, for OU-2, treatment of
the excavated sediments was not found to be practicable due to the small volume and low levels
of the contaminants involved. This action, together with operable unit one, constitutes the final
remedy for the Site.
Because the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the Site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Jeanne M. Rex "f '/~ ^ / Date '
RegionajXdminis
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
GLOBAL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP, MIDDLESEX COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Secflpna Page No.
Site Name, Location, and Description — I
Site History and Enforcement Activities 2
Highlights of Community Participation 3
Scope and Role of the Second Operable Unit 4
Summary of Site Characteristics 4
Summary of Site Risks '.. 8
Description of Alternatives 12
Ground Water Alternatives 13
Sediment Alternatives 15
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 16
Selected Remedy 21
Statutory Determinations 22
Documentation of Significant Changes 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A • Figures
Appendix B - Tables
Appendix C - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix D - NJDEP Letter of Concurrence
Appendix E - Administrative Record Index
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Global Landfill site (the "landfill" or the "Site") is located in the drainage basin of
Cheesequake Creek in the Town of Old Bridge, New Jersey. The study area includes the 58-acre
Global Landfill and the surrounding surface waters, wetlands, and nearby residential areas. The
Site location is shown in Figure 1 and a Site plan is presented in Figure 2.
This Record of Decision (ROD) is for the second part of the site cleanup, known as the second
operable unit (OU-2). It deals with the ground water, adjacent wetlands and other aspects not
covered by the first operable unit (OU-1). The Record of Decision (September 1991) for OU-l
sets forth the remediation plan for the landfill itself.
The landfill is situated along a tidal marsh approximately three-quarters of a mile southeast of the
intersection of Emston Road and Route 9. It is bordered to the northeast, southwest, and
southeast by wetlands. The landfill is located approximately 300 feet southeast from the base of
a 100-foot escarpment that forms the northwestern boundary of the wetland portion of the
Cheesequake Creek drainage basin.
The landfill proper consists Of a 51 -acre mounded fill area and a 6.5-acre filled extension area.
The mounded fill rises to over 100 feet above the surrounding wetlands. The 6.5-acre extension,
located along the northwest slope of the main fill area, lies approximately 85 to 90 feet lower
than the main fill mound. An active 42-inch gas pipeline, owned by the Transcontinental
Pipeline Company, has been rerouted so that it now lies outside the 6.5-acre extension area. The
landfill has not been capped, although a sandy soil cover of unknown thickness has been placed
over the landfill. Vegetative cover has eroded in places, forming gullies and exposing waste
material across the filled area. Seeping and ponded leachate have been frequently observed at the
Site.
Residential areas, including, apartment complexes and single family homes, lie to the west,
northwest, and north of the Site with the nearest house lying less than 500 feet from the site, and
major apartment complexes from 900 to 2,400 feet away (Figure 1). The area immediately
northwest of the landfill is frequented during periods of good weather by users of recreational all-
terrain vehicles and motorbikes. The surrounding wetland areas are infrequently used for duck
hunting and crab and clam trapping. Based on the findings of a Stage 1A Cultural Resources
-1-
-------
Surrey, prehistoric cultural resources potentially exist within undisturbed portions of the Site,
particularly those areas northeast of the landfill overlooking the wetlands. Cheesequake Creek,
lying approximately 900 feet southeast of the Site, is commonly used for recreational boating and
waterskiing. Cheesequake State Park is located east of the Site on the southeast bank of
Cheesequake Creek. The Garden State Parkway passes within 3,000 feet of the Site to the
northeast. Hooks Creek Lake, located within Cheesequake State Park, is less than one mile from
the landfill.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Global Landfill Site was used primarily for solid waste disposal from approximately 1968 to
1984. The landfill was operated by Global Landfill Reclaiming Corporation and was permitted
to accept waste classified by the State of New Jersey as ID-10 (Municipal Waste), ID-13 (Bulky
Waste), ID-23 (Vegetative Waste) and ID-27 (non-hazardous industrial waste).
In April 1984, a slope failure occurred on the southeastern side of the landfill adjacent to tidal
wetlands. The failure caused the opening of a fissure approximately 60 feet wide, 600 feet long,
and 40 feet deep. Approximately 1.5 acres of tidal wetlands were impacted by the slope failure.
A court order was issued on April 27,1984, requiring Global to cease operations. The court
order was issued in response to the sideslope failure, and Global's noncompliance with accepted
landfill operating procedures. The order required that a remedial plan for the slope failure be
developed along with a closure plan in compliance with N.J.S.A. 13:15-100 et seq. and N.J.A.C.
7:26-2.9.
Global Landfill Reclaiming Corporation was ordered to establish an escrow account for closure
of the landfill, and on April 23,1986, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County,
appointed an Administrator to oversee the closure fund. Later in 1986, the Administrator of the
closure fund authorized the consulting firm of E.T. Killam Associates of Millburn, New Jersey,
to conduct an investigation at the Site. A slope stability study was performed which showed that
the sideslopes adjacent to the wetlands generally did not meet acceptable safety levels.
Witnesses alleged that large numbers of drums containing hazardous waste were disposed of at
the landfill. These allegations led to an exploratory excavation in the 6.5-acre extension area by
Killam Associates in March 1988. Drums of hazardous waste were encountered during the
excavation.
In June 1988, Global Landfill was proposed for inclusion in the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List and, in March 1989, the Site was officially placed on
the list As the first step of a site cleanup, Killam Associates was authorized by the court
designated Administrator and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (N JDEP)
to conduct a Feasibility Study (FS) for closure of the landfill. The purpose of the FS was to
evaluate alternatives for on-site remediation. The final version of the FS report was submitted in
February 1991 by Killam Associates, and centered on engineering controls relative to landfill
capping.
•2-
-------
A ROD for OU-1 was signed by EPA, with the concurrence of NJDEP, on September 11, 1991,
and included slope stabilization and capping the landfill, in addition to leachate and gas
management systems. The remedial design for OU-1 will be completed after the ROD for OU-2
is executed.
In June 1991, NJDEP completed negotiations with a group of potentially responsible parties (the
PRP Group), resulting in the funding of the OU-2 RI/FS by the PRP Group in accordance with
New Jersey Spill Act Directives. Further negotiations with the owners, operators and the PRP
Group resulted in the entry of consent decrees in 1992 and 1993. In accordance with these
decrees, the PRP Group will be funding and constructing the OU-1 remedy. In March 1991,
NJDEP's contractor, URS Consultants, Inc., finalized the work plans and initiated a comprehen-
sive RI/FS of the Site to study the landfill's impact on the ground water, surface water and
wetlands.
Subsequent to the signing of the November 15,1993 Consent Decree for the implementation of
the OU-1 remedy, the PRP Group retained Golder Associates, Inc. to do the design work. This
work began with a Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) which was submitted in December of 1994.
The PDI included the installation of settlement monuments and inclinometers, as well as in-situ
and laboratory testing of the landfill's surface soils. It also included ground-water modeling. The
PDI Report concluded that the landfill was settling at a rate in excess of 1-foot per year and
recommended a phased approach to the placement of the cap. Following that approach,
geotechnical monitoring points were installed in the fall of 1996 to monitor the behavior of the
landfill and the underlying meadow mat and semi-confining layer due to additional loadings of
grading fill. Over a three month period, June to August 1997, 25,000 cubic yards of fill were
placed on the 10-acre plateau of the landfill. This material, which will be compacted and
vegetated, will provide valuable monitoring data as well a base layer for the final cap.
During 1994 and 1995, the PRP Group held extensive discussions with Transcontinental Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) about relocating its gas transmission line which traversed a portion
of the Site to be capped. These negotiations resulted in Transco relocating 1,000 feet of 42 inch
gas main north and west of the landfill. At the request of the NJDEP, the PRP Group
implemented an additional ecological investigation of the adjacent wetlands. This study was
conducted between October 1995 and May 1996.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Task Group on Global Landfill and the Sommers Brothers Property Sites (the Task Group),
formed in 1987, was composed of representatives of the NJDEP, the New Jersey Department of
Health (NJDOH), local officials from Old Bridge Township and Sayreville, especially the Old
Bridge Environmental Commission, and concerned residents. With funding appropriated from
the New Jersey legislature, the Task Group met frequently over a seven year period and issued
two comprehensive reports. These reports included discussions on community soil sampling,
-3-
-------
pediatric health examinations, community demographic profiles, and an outreach/education
program. The Task Group was an integral part of the Global Landfill investigative team and a
strong advocate for the local community. The Task Group has been dissolved whereas the Old
Bridge Environmental Commission is still active.
The Proposed Plan for the Global Landfill Site was released for public comment on January 9,
1997 by NJDEP. This document was made available to the public in the administrative record
information repositories maintained at the Old Bridge Municipal Building, the Old Bridge Public
Library and the Sayreville Public Library. The Remedial Investigation (RI), dated June 1992, a
Feasibility Study (FS), dated March 1995, and the Addendum to the FS, dated December 1996,
were previously put in the repository. A public comment period on the Proposed Plan was held
from January 9, 1997 to February 7, 1997.
A public meeting was held on January 23,1997. At this meeting, representatives from URS and
NJDEP presented a summary of the remedial investigation and preferred remedy, and answered
questions about problems at the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. A
response to the comments received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD (Appendix C). This decision document
presents the selected remedial action for the second operable unit at the Global Landfill
Superfund Site, developed in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 9601, et seq., and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), as amended, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The decision for this Site is
based on information contained within the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
The NJDEP, in consultation with EPA, organized the remedial work into two planned actions,
which are referred to as operable units (OUs). This ROD addresses OU-2 for the Site, which
relates to contaminant migration from the landfill into ground water, surface water, sediment, and
soil. The principal threats associated with the Site relate to leaching of contaminants from the
landfill into the Upper Water-bearing Zone. The landfill also poses a threat to the neighboring
wetlands when leached contaminants are transported to the wetlands surface water and
sediments. The overall objective of this action is to contain contaminants at the Site, and
maintain exposure within levels protective of human health and the environment. This represents
the final remedy for the second operable unit as well as the Site.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A series of field investigations, collectively referred to as the RI, were completed in March 1995.
An "Additional Ecological Investigation" prepared by the PRP Group was completed May 1996.
The overall objective of the RI was to determine the nature and extent of contamination
associated with the entire Site including the landfill. The RI included sampling of surface and
-4-
-------
subsurface soils, leachate, surface water, sediments, ground water, and landfill gases. The
purpose of the sampling program was to chemically characterize the Site, and assess its impact
upon human health and the environment. The following describes the sampled media, detected
contaminants and the contaminant transport mechanisms from the landfill.
Hvdrogeologv
The Site lies in the floodplain adjacent to Cheesequake Creek, a tidally influenced stream which
flows toward Rahtan Bay approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the landfill.
The Site hydrogeology encompasses a mounded fill layer underlain by a saturated, organic-rich
meadow mat (referred to as Upper Water-bearing Zone (UWZ)), a clayey silt semi-confining unit
referred to as Amboy Stoneware Clay, and Old Bridge Sand aquifer (referred to as Lower Water-
bearing Zone (LWZ))., The meadow mat and Amboy Stoneware Clay are thickest in the
southeast portion of the Site, thinner in a northwesterly direction, and absent under the northwest
comer of the filled area. The thickness of the UWZ varies from 0 to 25 feet, while the bottom of
the LWZ is approximately ISO to 200 feet below sea level. The UWZ ground water is
designated as Class in-B, and is not suitable for potable water due to salinity and total dissolved
solids (TDS) levels. A Class III-B area is defined as an area where salinity and TDS regularly
exceed 3,000 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L respectively. The Old Bridge Sand aquifer, a municipal
water supply source, is semi-confined where the Amboy Stoneware Clay is present Upgradient
in the northwestern portion of the landfill, the Old Bridge Sand aquifer becomes a single uncon-
fined, water table aquifer. Horizontal flow direction in both the UWZ and LWZ is generally to
the southeast However, under present conditions, shallow ground-water flow close to the
landfill is radial, away from the landfill mound.
The nearest municipal wells drawing from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer are located approxi-
mately one mile north (upgradient) of the landfill, with additional supply wells being located
approximately two miles east (sidegradient) of the Site. There are no residential wells near the
landfill. Since there are no residential or municipal wells downgradient of the landfill, there is no
significant current risk from this Site to the public water supply. While potential future risk is
unknown,- the installation of the OU-1 remedy will allow natural attenuation to gradually
improve the water quality of the UWZ and, in turn, the LWZ as well. During this recovery
period the State will not allow any new wells in the downgradient area.
Hooks Creek Lake, which is used for recreation, and its replenishing well are located in
Cheesequake State Park, approximately one mile southeast of the landfill. At the time that the RI
was issued (June 1992), it was believed that the Hooks Creek Lake well collected ground water
from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer (LWZ). A well log provided by NJDEP in October 1993
shows the well to be screened in the Farrington Sand aquifer, which is separated from the Old
Bridge Sand aquifer by clayey geologic units approximately 130 feet thick. Based on this
information, it is not likely that contamination from Global Landfill will migrate to the Hooks
Creek Lake well.
-5-
-------
Water
Ground-water monitoring wells were installed during the OU-2 RI at nine locations to character-
ize ground-water quality at the Site. Samples were collected from these 9 wells and IS existing
onsite monitoring wells from OU-1 (Figure 3). Most of the ground-water wells are located
around the base of the landfill and in the 6.5-acre extension area. In addition, two wells are
located upgradient of the Site which serve as background wells.
The ground- water analytical data are summarized in Tables 1 to 5. The UWZ shows extensive
contamination from the landfill. Contaminants include: VOCs (benzene, chlorobenzene, total
xylenes), semi- VOCs (n-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), pesticides (aldrin,
dieldrin, alpha- and gamma-chlordane and 4, 4'-DDE), PCBs (Aroclor-1242,-1248, and -1254),
metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and
sodium), and inorganic compounds (ammonia and chloride), at concentrations which exceeded
the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Ground-water Quality Standards (GWQS). MCLs
are Federal or State standards established to protect drinking water, and GWQS are State
standards to protect aquifers. In contrast to the UWZ, only limited contamination has migrated
into the lower Old Bridge Sand aquifer (LWZ), which is separated from the UWZ within the
footprint of the landfill by the (low permeability) Amboy Stoneware Clay, which pinches out
below the northwest perimeter of the landfill. On-site ground- water monitoring for a period of
over two years shows organic and inorganic contamination restricted to primarily one of the ten
LWZ wells, monitoring well MW-5D, located in the southwest part of the landfill base. This
suggests that a hydrogeologic link may exist between the UWZ and the LWZ. Exceedances of
ground-water quality criteria for organics (VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), metals (alumi-
num, iron, and manganese), and inorganics (ammonia) were all limited to MW-SD.
SoU
Subsurface soil samples were collected from seven borings completed as wells and from ten soil
borings. The samples were collected m the 6.5-acre extension area of the landfill (see Figure 3)
and at locations around the landfill perimeter, and indicated the presence of low-levels of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals as summarized in Table 6. All areas of subsurface soil
exhibiting contamination which may impact the ground water will be covered by the landfill cap
as part of OU-1.
S official soil samples collected from five locations (Figure 3) in the northern sections of the
landfill also indicated the presence of VOCs, PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals as
summarized in Table 7. Contamination was essentially limited to surficial soils within the 6.5-
acre extension area to be covered as part of the ROD for OU- 1 .
-------
Leachate
Leachate seep samples were collected from five locations (Figure 3) and the detected
contaminants included VOCs, PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, metals, and inorganics. New
Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria were exceeded for one PAH (chrysene), one phthalate ester
(bis (2-ethylhexy 1) phthalate), six pesticides (heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, endrin, alpha-
chlordane, gamma-chJordane, and gamma-BHC), four metals (arsenic, lead, manganese, and
mercury), and two other inorganics (cyanide and ammonia) (Tables 8 and 9).
Surface Water
Surface water from ten locations (Figure 4) including samples from tributaries of Cheesequake
Creek located on the east side of the landfill, and wetlands near the landfill (east, south, and west
sides), exhibited low concentrations of organic and inorganic chemical constituents, most of
which were also detected in leachate and shallow ground-water samples. Exceedances of NJDEP
Surface Water Quality Criteria for three pesticides (4,4-DDE, alpha- and gamma-chlordane),
three metals (arsenic, manganese, and mercury) and cyanide, were limited to two frequently
sampled locations, both situated adjacent to the landfill. Maximum concentrations of ammonia
(a leachate constituent) were also detected adjacent to the landfill (Tables 10 and 11).
Sedimepj
Sediment sampling was initially conducted at ten locations (Figure 4) in 1991 to determine
whether contaminants from the landfill were entering the adjacent wetlands and streams, either
from overland through leachate seeps or underground via the Upper Water-bearing Zone. Thirty-
six organic compounds (e.g., VOCs, PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, PCBs) and 21 metals
were detected at varying concentrations in the samples (Table 12); a number of these chemicals
were also identified at reference locations. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and fluoranthene (a PAH)
were detected at the highest concentrations (3100 parts per billion (ppb) and 930 ppb, respec-
. lively.)
A Supplemental Remedial Investigation was conducted in 1995. Samples were collected to
identify and determine the potential ecological risk from sediments at the Site (Figure 4). The
number and distribution of detected organic compounds and metals were similar to the 1991
results even though different locations were sampled. Distinct chemical characteristics (i.e.,
more organic compounds, significantly higher ammonia concentrations, and lower metals
concentrations as shown in Table 13 ) as well as ecological effects (i.e., acute toxicity measured
through a sediment bioassay) were reported for sediments from one sample collected in a
leachate seep located at the base of the landfill on the southeastern side.
An Additional Ecological Investigation was conducted by the PRPs in 1996 (Figure 4). Organic
compounds (mainly PAHs), metals, and ammonia were detected at sediment sampling points
generally located closer to the landfill (Table 14). Compared to the previous sampling results by
-7-
-------
URS in 1995, the organic compounds were lower, whereas the metals were at slightly higher
concentrations. Ammonia levels in the 1996 samples were higher than the levels detected in the
1995 samples, except for the leachate seep in the southeast portion of the landfill. This seep
location, sampled only in 1995, had the highest ammonia concentration and was found to have a
toxic response in the sediment bioassay.
Landfill Gas
Landfill gases collected in samples at the ground surface contained several VOCs, hydrogen and
mercaptan sulfide, and methane (Table 15). Ambient concentrations of these compounds
reaching trespassers and in nearby residential areas were estimated to meet air quality standards,
as determined by a computer model of local air flow and pollutants from the landfill.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks
associated with current and future conditions in the different media impacted by the Site. The
baseline risk assessment evaluates whether human health and ecological risks could result from
the contamination at the Site if no remedial action were taken. The analysis assists in evaluating
whether remediation is necessary.
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification- identifies the contaminants of concern at
the different affected media based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence,
and concentration. Exposure Assessment-estixaaiea the magnitude of actual and/or potential hu-
man exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment—deter-
mines the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relation-
ship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of advene effects (response). Risk
C/ujrocreriza/ion-summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) assessment of the risks to human
health from the contaminated media. An evaluation of the uncertainty surrounding the quantita-
tive estimate is useful for making risk management decisions.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which would be
representative of Site risks. The toxicity profiles of the potentially carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic chemicals that were detected in one or more environmental media at the Global
Landfill during the RI sampling are presented in Tables 16 and 17. Results from the RI sampling
at the Global Landfill Site indicate that surface soil, leachate, ground water, and air have
detectable concentrations of a combination of VOCs, PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, PCBs,
metals, and other inorganics. Contaminants detected in subsurface soils were not considered in
-------
this risk assessment since exposure to this medium is not expected in current or future land-use
scenarios because the landfill is going to be capped and there will be no risk of direct contact.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected for consideration in the ecological risk
assessment and are not considered media of concern with respect to human health because of low
frequencies of detection, concentration of contaminants, and limited exposure frequencies.
To evaluate human health risks in the quantitative assessment, the following seven (7).exposure
pathways were selected for detailed evaluation under current land-use conditions: (1) dermal
contact with soil; (2) ingestion of soil; (3) inhalation of fugitive dust; (4) dermal contact with
leachate seeps; (5) inhalation of airborne chemicals; (6) and (7) ingestion of, and dermal contact
with, Hooks Creek Lake surface water. Hooks Creek Lake is replenished by a supply well and as
such is the only downgradient receptor of the ground water. With the exception of the inhalation
pathways, exposure doses were based on contaminant concentrations occurring at the Site,
Exposure concentrations for the inhalation pathways were determined based upon monitoring
data as well as analytical models. The risk assessment evaluated exposures to teenage trespassers
who may come on the Site, adults and children residing in nearby apartment complexes, and
adults and children swimming in Hooks Creek Lake. Combined total risk was determined for the
three age groups of receptors (i.e., children, teenagers, and adults). On the basis of current and
future land-use information, residential development of areas adjacent to the Site is possible.
The first ROD included source control measures that will mitigate risk in the future land-use
scenario in relation to the landfill itself.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual lifetime excess carcino-
genic risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6 (e.g., a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess
cancer risk) and a maximum health Hazard Index (which reflects noncarcinogenic effects for a
human receptor) equal to 1.0. (A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates a potential of
noncarcinogenic health effects.)
Results of the baseline risk assessment are shown in Tables 18 through 23 and indicate that the
media tested under OU-2, i.e. soil, surface water, leachate and airborne contaminants fall within
EPA's acceptable risk range. The cumulative carcinogenic risks to children, teenagers, and adults
were estimated to be 1 x Ifr7,3 x 10-s, and 2 x Ifr7, respectively.
The total chronic Hazard Index, which measures long-term noncancer risk for the Site, was esti-
mated to be 0.9. Dermal contact with leachate was the major contributing pathway, with a
Hazard Index of 0.5 (well below the hazard index of 1.0). The subchronic or short-term Hazard
Index of 0.7 was below the acceptable exposure limit of 1.0
The UWZ is designated as Class III-B, and it is not suitable for potable water due to salinity and
TDS levels. The LWZ, a drinking water aquifer, is separated from the UWZ by a clayey silt
semi-confining unit at the Site which appears to have prevented migration of contaminants into
the LWZ. The absence of residential and municipal wells within a one-mile radius of the site
ensures the safety of the public water supply. As noted earlier, the Hooks Creek Lake well was
initially believed to draw ground water from the LWZ.- It was subsequently determined that this
-9-
-------
well is screened in the deeper Fanington Sand aquifer which is not currently impacted by
contamination from Global Landfill. The physical separation of the two aquifers, which is
significant, indicates that the original conclusion about Hooks Creek Lake was not valid and that
the landfill should have no impact on this well. Therefore, the overall health risks associated
with the Site would be smaller. Additionally, the human health risk will be reduced by
implementing the ROD for OU-1.
Capping the landfill will, over time, effectively reduce the ground-water level in the area, thereby
diminishing the downward movement of water which previously may have allowed
contamination to reach the Old Bridge Sand aquifer. Sampling and modeling, which will be
done during the design phase, will estimate how much time it will take to reduce the downward
movement of ground water in the area. Leachate collection will reduce surface water and
sediment contamination. These components of the OU-1 remedial action as required by the 1991
ROD will progressively abate any current risks, which are already relatively low. However,
limited exceedances of MCLs in one well screened in the LWZ suggests a potential future threat
to this aquifer.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Under the direction of the NJDEP and EPA, an evaluation was performed by URS in 1995 to
assess the potential for ecological risk associated with Site-related contaminants detected in
estuarine sediments or shallow ground water near the landfill. Also, an additional Ecological
Investigation was conducted by Colder Associates for the PRP Group in 1996 to further assess
the potential for Site-related adverse ecological impacts on adjacent wetlands, and to confirm the
findings of the 1995 URS study.
A four-step process, very similar to that used in human health assessment, was utilized for
assessing Site-related ecological risks: Problem Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration and fate; identification of contaminants of concern, receptors,
exposure pathways and known ecological effects of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints
for further study. Exposure Assessment - a quantitative evaluation of contaminant release,
migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways and receptors; and measurement or
estimation of exposure point concentration. Ecological Effects Assessment - literature reviews,
field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological
receptors. Risk Characterization - measurement or estimation of both current and future adverse
effects.
The following parameters were used to assess the ecological significance of sediment and
shallow ground-water contamination at the Global Landfill Site: (1) comparison of contaminant
concentrations in sediments to ecologically-based screening values (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52); (2) results of
whole-sediment laboratory toxicity tests; and (3) estimation of potential effects through the food-
chain transfer route, based on contaminant concentrations in fiddler crab tissue.
i
-10-
-------
It was assumed that chemicals identified in the background sediment samples occur at
concentrations representative of the entire Cheesequake Marsh. For all rounds of sediment
samples taken, the concentrations of chemicals detected in the Site-related samples were
compared to the background samples as well as to applicable ecologically based screened values,
in order to identify contaminants of concern. In general, measured concentrations of
contaminants in sediments only moderately exceeded screening guidelines, which indicated the
potential for adverse effects. These exceedances formed the basis for the more rigorous
investigations in 1995 and 1996.
Acute and chronic toxicity was measured through two rounds of laboratory toxicity tests (five
sediment samples collected for the URS assessment in 199S, and seven sediment samples
collected for the Colder Associates assessment in 1996). Most of the sampling locations were on
the east side of the landfill where there are known leachate seeps. Test results from the leachate
seep area on the southeast side of the landfill indicated acute toxicity, measured by zero
survivability of two species of test organisms, amphipod marine scuds (Amptlisca abdita) and
polychaete sand worms (Neanthes arenaceodentata). The toxicity was attributed to ammonia,
which is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms, and was .detected in the 1991 and 199S leachate
seeps samples at concentrations one order of magnitude above background levels. There was
good survivability and growth in sediments collected from the other four 1995 test locations, and
from the seven 1996 test samples, namely, greater than 80 percent in 1995 and greater than 90
percent in 1996.
Food chain transfer effects were estimated for sediments that exceeded sediment criteria using a
quantitative hazard quotient approach, for representative mammalian and avian receptors
(muskrat, raccoon, and cattle egret, respectively). Contaminants were measured in crab tissues at
three 1995 locations: at the landfill, downgradient of the landfill, and at the background location.
The exposure pathway was ingestion of plant and animal tissue. Crab tissue concentrations were
used directly as animal tissue exposure point concentrations. Sediment concentrations were the
basis of calculating plant tissue contaminant concentrations.
Results of the ecological risk assessment indicate potential risk to benthic macro invertebrates
directly exposed to the lyachatff-^n^nrinflt^ sediments in the Jmm^fote vicinity of the learhate
seep on the southeast side of the landfill. Ammonia, a leachate constituent, has been identified
as the primary cause of potential toxicity. No other measurable risks are attributable to shallow
ground water. The ROD for OU1 includes leachate control measures that will mitigate future
adverse effects associated with leachate discharge. Actual or threatened release of hazardous
substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangennent to public health, welfare, or the
environment
-11-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This is the second of two operable units, or remedial actions, planned for the Site and addresses
existing and potential problems related to contaminated ground water and sediments, the two
principal potential threats to human health and the environment posed by hazardous substances
migrating from the landfill
While the LWZ (a drinking water aquifer) poses no risk to human health at the present time,
limited exceedances in MCLs in one well suggest a potential future threat to this drinking water
aquifer is possible. Therefore, the more contaminated UWZ needs to be monitored along with
the LWZ, to confirm that the landfill cap (OU-1 remedial action) will, over time, effectively
reduce the ground-water level in the area, and consequently diminish the downward movement
of water which previously may have allowed contamination to reach monitoring well SD (MW-
5D) in the LWZ.
Obfectivea
Remedial Action Objectives for OU-2 are specific goals to protect human health and the environ-
ment.
The following Remedial Action Objectives were established for the media of interest for OU-2:
(1) Protect the potable Old Bridge Sand aquifer (LWZ) from contamination present in the
Upper Water-bearing Zone;
(2) Protect the wetlands from contamination present in the Upper Water-bearing Zone; and
(3) Prevent adverse ecological impacts from contaminated wetland sediments.
The above objectives were addressed in part by the remedial actions selected in the first ROD (a
landfill cap, and a leachate collection and treatment system for OU-1). This second ROD (OU-2)
addresses all three remedial objectives with respect to ground water and sediments.
Alternatives
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environ-
ment, be cost effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal
element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances:
The FS Report and the Addendum to the FS Report evaluated a number of remedial alternatives
for addressing ground-water and localized sediment contamination at the Global Landfill Site.
-12-
-------
Two of these remedial alternatives, No Action and Limited Action, were considered on a site-
wide basis. No Action and Limited Action were the only remedial action alternatives developed
for ground water based on assessments which demonstrated no immediate risk to the drinking
water aquifer, or surrounding wetlands, from the contaminants in the UWZ. This was
substantiated by the fact that monitoring from 1988 to 1993 showed no further degradation of the
LWZ. For clarity, the various FS alternatives have been reduced to six alternatives, as follows:
two alternatives addressing ground-water contamination (no action and limited action); and four
alternatives addressing sediment contamination (no action, limited action, and two
removal/disposal options).
Periodic ground-water monitoring associated with the OU-1 landfill closure will include a series
of new and existing wells located around the landfill perimeter to be used to determine the
landfill's impact on the wetlands and the Upper Water-bearing Zone. The wells on the north side
of the landfill would provide background information, whereas the wells on the remaining three
sides would be used to monitor the quality of ground water beneath the Site. Monitoring of the
ecological receptors of the Cheesequake Watershed in the vicinity of the landfill would include
biological tissue analysis, chronic bioassays, and chemical analysis on sediments.
The estimated capital cost operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and net present worth cost
for each alternative discussed below are provided for comparison. The estimated construction
time frames do not include the time to procure contracts, negotiate with potentially responsible
parties, nor the time needed to perform the design work, which would vary depending on the
alternative.
Because all of the following alternatives would result in contaminants remaining on-site,
CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at least every five years to assure that the remedies
selected continue to be protective of human health and the environment In addition, NJDEP
would require that a Classification Exception Area (CEA) be designated for the Upper Water-
bearing Zone and the Lower Water-bearing Zone where contaminants have been detected. The
CEA will also act as a Well Restriction Area (WRA). A CEA covers the area where
contamination is present and is based on the data from the Site. Modeling or data extrapolation
can be used to predict th&time frame for natural attenuation to return Site conditions to
background levels, and, therefore, the length of time the CEA and WRA have to be imposed.
These requirements - CEA and WRA - are set forth in State laws which will be implemented and
enforced by NJDEP.
-13-
-------
GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative GW-1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: None
Estimated 0 & M Cost every 5 years: $30,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $65,000
Construction Time: None
The Superfund program requires that a "No Action" alternative be considered as a baseline for
comparison of other alternatives. Under this alternative, no further action would be taken to
address ground-water contamination at the Site. No environmental monitoring activities would
be performed other than five-year reviews to determine if ground-water contamination has
spread. A CEA would be established at the Site to restrict ground-water use of the UWZ and the
LWZ where contaminants were detected. The CEA would also act as a WRA. This alternative
would not be a "true" no-action scenario since it includes the establishment of CEA and WRA at
the Site in accordance with NJDEP requirements for sites where contaminated ground water has
migrated off-site. The present worth cost estimate above reflects the cost to perform six 5-year
reviews over a 30-year period.
Alternative GW-2: Limited Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $30,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 120,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $522,000 (5 years)
$1,520,000 (30 years)
Estimated Construction Time: One Month
Estimated Implementation Time: 5 to 30 Years -
As part of the Ground-water Limited Action alternative, ground-water quality would be tested on
a quarterly basis over a period of 5 to 30 years using new and existing on-site wells to monitor
whether attenuation of contaminants in both the UWZ and LWZ actually occurs. Under OU-1,
the landfill will be capped thereby reducing the ground-water level under the Site and thus
reducing the downward movement of water which previously may have allowed contamination
to reach the LWZ. Ground-water monitoring would serve a dual purpose since it is also required
for OU-1. A detailed ground-water monitoring system was not stipulated in the first ROD,
recognizing that additional remedial actions would likely be taken as part of OU-2. At that time,
a more effective monitoring system could be put in place, which would fulfill the needs of the
entire Site. Under Alternative GW-2, ground-water test wells would be used to monitor the
change in contaminant levels in the UWZ after the landfill cap is in place. In addition, the
monitoring system would track the contaminants in the LWZ. The information gathered by this
monitoring system would be used to determine if the LWZ (which is a drinking water aquifer) is
being impacted and whether further action needs to be taken.
-14-
-------
Several rounds of monitoring data from 1988 through 1993 have shown the LWZ ground water
to be contaminated at one location only, i.e., around the monitoring well MW-5D. The
contaminant levels at this well have remained essentially the same over the entire duration of
monitoring. Capping of the landfill will significantly reduce the infiltration rate, thereby
diminishing the downward movement of water which may have previously allowed
contamination to reach the LWZ. Ground-water use for both the UWZ and LWZ would be
restricted at the areas where contaminants were detected by designating a Classification
Exception Area (CEA) which shall also act as a Well Restriction Area (WRA). This alternative
also includes five year reviews. The need for ground-water remedial action would be re-exam-
ined at these 5-year intervals. Although it is possible to decrease the sampling frequency and
parameters after the 5-year reviews, the cost estimate conservatively assumes quarterly sampling
over a 30-year period, and four new wells are included for possible replacement of-the existing
ones over time.
SEDIMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative SD-1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: None
One 5-Year Review: $49,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $35,000
Estimated Construction Time: None
Under this alternative, no further action would be taken to address localized sediment
contamination in wetlands at the Site. No environmental monitoring activities would be
performed other than a five-year review to determine if contamination in the wetlands has spread.
The present worth cost estimate above reflects the cost to perform one five-year review.
Alternative SD-2: Limited Action
Estimated Capital Cost: None
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $201,000
Estimated Construction Time: None
Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years.
The Sediments Limited Action alternative would consist of an annual sediment monitoring pro-
gram comparing sediment contaminant concentrations to ecologically based screening values.
This monitoring program would track environmental conditions over a five-year period in the
wetlands adjacent to the landfill.
-15-
-------
Alternative SD-3: Sediment Removal and Disposal
Alternative SD-3A: Localized Removal and On-site Consolidation Under the Landfill Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $622,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $823,000
Estimated Construction Time: 1-2 Years
Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years
This alternative provides for the removal of up to an estimated 5000 cubic yards of contaminated
wetland sediments that may be affected by the leachate seep area adjacent to the southeast side of
the landfill. The precise delineation and volume of contaminated sediments to be excavated
(while minimizing the loss of valuable wetlands) will be determined during the remedial design.
The volume will be determined by the area of visibly stained non-vegetative sediments directly
adjacent to the leachate seep and to a depth necessary to reestablish new wetland vegetation.
Standard excavation or dredging methods would be utilized. Once removed, sediments would be
dewatered and placed on the landfill prior to the installation of the landfill cap. The excavated
area would be backfilled, graded and revegetated, and sediment control measures would be taken
to prevent future erosion, in order to regenerate affected wetlands. During the design phase, a
post-remediation monitoring program will be developed which will include an ecological sam-
pling program similar to that performed during the supplemental remedial investigation. In
addition to the required review after five years, monitoring and review of results will be
performed annually for five years after the remedies for both operable units are in place. The
results of this ecological monitoring program will be considered in determining the effectiveness
of the remedies in protecting the wetlands and aquatic systems surrounding the Site.
Alternative SD-3B: Localized Removal and Off-site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,142,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $1,343,000
Estimated Construction Time: 6 Months
Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years
This alternative is identical to Alternative SD-3 A in terms of sediment removal and dewatering.
However, the stockpiled sediments would be transported off-site to an approved hazardous waste
facility. Wetland mitigation and post remediation monitoring and five-year review would be the
same as under Alternative SD-3A.
-16-
-------
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSTS OF A
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine
evaluation criteria, namely, overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance
with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume, short-term effectiveness, implem-
entability, cost, agency support, and community acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are described below.
• Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each
pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
• Compliance with applicable or relevant and, appropriate requirements (ARARs^ addresses
whether .or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate re-
quirements of other federal and state environmental statutes and requirements or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals
have been met.
• Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated perfor-
mance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
• Sh6rt-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may. be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
• Implementabilitv is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
• Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present
worth costs.
• State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS reports and Pro-
posed Plan, NJDEP concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternatives.
• Community acceptance summarizes the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report. Responses to the public comments
are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary of this ROD (Appendix C).
•
-17-
-------
The two categories of contaminated media (i.e., ground water and sediment) are evaluated sepa-
rately utilizing the above criteria. A discussion of these evaluations is presented below.
Ground Water Remediation Alternatives
A comparison of the ground-water remediation alternatives follows:
• Qverail Protection of Human Health and the ^nyirgnment
Alternative GW-1 (No Action) would provide limited protection by the inclusion of a CEA to
reduce the potential for future exposure to contaminated ground water. Alternative GW-2
(Limited Action) would provide added protection of human health by monitoring the levels of
contaminants in the ground water. As explained before, ground water does not, at present, pose
any risk to human health or the environment, based on the human health risk and ecological
assessments. Should there be any change in this situation, the monitoring program under
Alternative GW-2 would be most effective in tracking any such trend.
• Compliance With ARARs
The three types of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulations (ARARs) used through-
out this evaluation include chemical-specific ARARs which are the criteria used in meeting
water quality standards; location-specific ARARs which restrict activities because they are
located within sensitive areas such as wetlands or floodplains; and action-specific ARARs which
are part of the remedial action such as discharge criteria for ground water.
Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 will both attain compliance with ARARs through natural
attenuation. While GW-1 and GW-2 rely on the same mechanism for improvement, the Limited
Action alternative (GW-2) is pro-active in that it can detect potential problems with the cap or in
the UWZ which can be corrected before it impacts the natural attenuation process for the LWZ
and the attainment of ARARs. There are no location or action-specific ARARs for these two
alternatives. .
• Long-Tenn Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative GW-1 would be minimally effective in protecting human health and the environment
from any future risk associated with the potential contamination of the LWZ aquifer by
restricting the UWZ with a CEA. Alternative GW-2 would be consistent with the long-term
effectiveness goals for the Site by providing periodic monitoring and a CEA on ground-water
use. This level of monitoring would act like an early-warning system alerting the Agencies to
immediate changes in the conditions of the ground-water. Conversely, the 5-year review under
Alternative GW-1 can only document conditions years after the fact The ground-water moni-
toring programs would be used to resxamine the need for ground-water remediation on a timely
basis should that prove necessary.
•
-18-
-------
• Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would not, by themselves, decrease the toxicity, mobility or
volume of contamination in ground water from the UWZ. However, Alternative GW-2"would
more rigorously monitor the expected improvement in these parameters as a result of imple-
menting OU-1.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative GW-1 would not have any adverse short-term impacts. Alternative GW-2 would
have minimal short-term impacts associated with the installation and sampling of monitoring
wells; however, these can be minimized through proper engineering controls and monitoring
techniques.
• Implementability
Both alternatives are implementable from an engineering perspective. Each alternative utilizes
commercially available products, monitoring techniques, and services. The technical and
administrative requirements of implementing Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 are minimal.
• Cost
The estimated present worth costs for the ground-water alternatives are $65,000 for Alternative
GW-l (No Action), and $1,520,000 for Alternative GW-2 (Limited Action) for a 30-year period.
For the first five years, the respective costs would be $22,000 and $522,000.
• State
NJDEP concurs with the selected ground-water alternative presented in this ROD.
• Communit
A Public Comment Period was held from January 9,1997 through February 7, 1997 to obtain
verbal and written comments on the preferred remedies. With some exceptions the ground-water
remedy was well received by. the public. The comments and responses to the comments/
questions submitted to NJDEP during the Public Comment Period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix C).
-19-
-------
Sediment Remediation Alternatives
A comparative analysis of the sediment remediation alternatives follows:
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SD-1 would not be protective of human health and the environment. Alternative
SD-2 would provide limited protection from exposure to the contaminants by monitoring the
contaminated sediments left on-site. Alternatives SD-3A and SD-3B provide the most direct
protection to human health and to the environment, through localized removal and either on-site
or off-site disposal.
• Compliance With ARARs
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for sediment, however, based on the results of the
ecological risk assessments, sediments directly adjacent to the leachate seep on the southeast side
of the landfill appear to pose a risk to ecological receptors. From an ecological perspective,
leachate constituents appear to be the primary risk drivers. The leachate discharge will cease
subsequent to the implementation of the OU-1 remedy (leachate collection system). Therefore,
excavation will be limited to those areas of visibly stained, non-vegetated sediment directly
adjacent to the leachate seep. This will ensure removal of sediments containing the highest
concentrations of contaminants while minimizing impacts to adjacent vegetated wetlands and
will facilitate the revegetation of barren areas.
The Site is within the coastal zone as defined by the State of New Jersey, and a Coastal Zone
Management Plan consistency determination needs to be prepared for the Site. The
determination is expected to be prepared during the remedial design phase. The OU-2 project
area is potentially sensitive to the discovery of cultural resources particularly the area northeast
of the landfill overlooking the wetlands. However, the sediment remediation will be designed
and constructed to minimize the disturbance of areas identified as wetlands and to comply with
the requirements of Executive Order No. 11990 for the Protection of Wetlands and the New
Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. Before beginning remedial activities, an assessment of the
remediation in the wetland area would be performed to determine the potential impact and
mitigation measures to be taken. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetlands mitigation or
restoration will be developed.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SD-1 would not effectively nor permanently provide environmental protection.
Alternative SD-2 would afford limited environmental protection by monitoring the
contaminated sediments left on-site. Alternatives SD-3A and SD-3B would permanently remove
contaminated sediments from affected wetlands, although both alternatives would require a five-
year review and monitoring program to confirm their effectiveness.
-20-
-------
• Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Waste remains on-site under Alternatives SD-1, SD-2 and SD-3A; thus there is no reduction in
toxicity or volume. However, the mobility of the contaminants is significantly reduced by
placing the material on the landfill which will then be capped (Alternative SD-3 A). Waste would
be transferred off-site to a licensed hazardous waste facility under Alternative SD-3B; this would
likely result in reductions in toxicity, mobility or volume, based on the treatment and disposal
methods used by the regulated off-site facility.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2 would not have any short-term effects. Alternatives SD-3A and SD-
3B would result in some unavoidable damage to wetlands during the removal of contaminated
sediments. Excavation, transport, and disposal of collected sediments could result in short-term
risks to workers. However, these risks would be minimized through appropriate engineering
controls, a comprehensive Site health and safety plan, and a Site-specific contaminant monitoring
program.
Risks under Alternative SD-3A would be limited to the Site during the brief construction-related
activity whereas the potential for risks beyond the site boundary increases during the transpor-
tation phase of off-site disposal under Alternative SD-3B. However, these risks would be mini-
mized through appropriate engineering controls, a comprehensive site health and safety plan, and
a site-specific contaminant monitoring program.
• Implementability
There would not be any significant technical and administrative problems associated with imple-
menting the review and monitoring programs under'Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2. On-site
disposal alternative SD-3 A would have to be carefully scheduled to allow contaminated
sediments to be disposed in the landfill before the cap construction is completed. Off-site
disposal (Alternative SD-3B) would require compliance with the procedures and regulations
which govern transportation and the receiving hazardous waste facility.
• Cost
The estimated present worth costs for the sediment alternatives range from $35,000 for Alter-
native SD-1 (No Action) to $1,343,000 for Alternative SD-3B (Removal and Off-site Disposal).
• State Ac.ce.ptan.ee.
NJDEP concurs with the selected sediment remediation alternative presented in this ROD.
-21-
-------
Communit
A Public Comment Period was held from January 9, 1997 through February 7, 1997 to obtain
verbal and written comments on the preferred remedies. With some exceptions, the sediment
remedy was well received by the public. Comments and responses to the comments/questions
submitted to NJDEP during the Public Comment Period are included in the Responsiveness
Summary (Appendix C).
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the results of the RI/FS reports, and after careful consideration of the remedial alter-
natives, NJDEP and EPA have selected Alternatives GW-2 (Limited Action) and.SD-3A
(Localized Removal of Contaminated Sediments With On-site Consolidation Under the Landfill
Cap). These alternatives provide the best balance among the remedial alternatives considered
with respect to the evaluation criteria. The RI/FS reports should be consulted for more detailed
information on the remedial alternatives.
The selected alternative for ground water, GW-2, consists of ground-water quality monitoring
over a 30-year period, and includes a review of the need for further action (e.g., ground-water
extraction, treatment, and disposal) at 5-year intervals and the establishment of a Classification
Exception Area (CEA) at the Site. This alternative would ensure that contamination in the Upper
Water-bearing Zone does not pose any threats to human health or the environment. The
estimated present worth cost is $ 1 ,520,000 for 30 years of ground-water monitoring.
The selected alternative for sediments, SD-3A, provides for localized removal of contaminated
sediments and on-site disposal under the landfill cap, restoration of the excavated area, and
mitigation of any wetland impacted by the remedy. The contaminated sediments will be most
likely removed after the installation of the leachate system provided under OU-L, so that there
will be no recontamination of the restored wetlands. With regard to mitigation of wetlands, the
OU-1 ROD specifies that wetlands impacted as a result of non-compliance with past permitting
requirements, the sideslope failure in 1984 (approximately 1.5 acres), and any encroachment due
to remedial construction activities will be mitigated in accordance with appropriate State and
Federal regulations. This alternative also includes a long-term monitoring program for wetlands
and aquatic systems potentially affected by site-related contamination. Alternative SD-3 A is the
lowest cost alternative (estimated present worth cost of $823,000) which satisfies the remedial
action objectives for on-site wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, the volume of sediments
was assumed to be 5,000 cy; the actual quantity of contaminated sediments to be removed will be
determined more accurately during the design phase, based on areas of visibly stained, non-
vegetated sediment directly adjacent to the leachate seep.
In summary, the selected alternatives are believed to provide the best balance among the alterna-
tives with respect to the criteria used to evaluate alternatives. Therefore, based on information
-22-
-------
available at this time, NJDEP and EPA believe the selected alternatives would provide overall
protection of human health and the environment, and would be cost-effective.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this Site. However, in OU-2, treatment of
the excavated sediments was not found to be practicable due to the small volume and low levels
of contaminants involved. This action does not constitute the sole remedy for the Site.
Previously selected remedial measures address the remaining principal threats posed by the Site.
A brief, site-specific description of how the selected remedy complies with the statutory
requirements is presented below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment This will be ensured by
quarterly sampling the ground water and monitoring the extent of contamination. The
establishment of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) which also would act as a Well
Restriction Area (WRA), as required by NJDEP, additionally assures protection of human health.
Localized removal of visibly stained, non-vegetated sediments from the area adjacent to the
landfill at the southeastern portion of the Site will protect ecological receptors from exposure to
the contaminated sediments. The chemical of concern is ammonia, as shown in the 1995
ecological study. Thejsediment removal will result in some unavoidable damage to wetlands
during the removal of contaminated sediments. Excavation, transport, and disposal of collected
sediments could result in short-term risks to workers. However these risks will be minimized
through appropriate engineering controls, a comprehensive site health and safety plan, and a site-
specific contaminant monitoring program. The annual ecological sampling program that is part
of the selected remedy, will monitor and evaluate the conditions at the Site. A regular as well as
the required 5-year review of the ground-water and ecological program will evaluate whether
further action is needed.
>
Presently the cumulative risk posed to human health, associated with OU-2, is within EPA's
acceptable carcinogenic risk range of 10*4 to 104 and below the acceptable Hazard Index of 1.0
(Hazard Index measures long-term noncancer risk from the site).
The combination of the landfill stabilization berm, gas and leachate management systems, and
perimeter security fence, as specified in the OU-1 ROD, would reduce Site risks by limiting tile
off-site migration of contaminants, restricting access to the Site, protecting wetlands and surface
waters from leachate discharge and reducing the spread of contamination in the ground water.
-23-
-------
Compliance with ARARa
The selected Limited Action ground-water alternative is expected to achieve compliance, over
time, with the chemical-specific ARARs, (i.e., MCLs and GWQS), determined for the Site,
through natural attenuation. Further, this alternative is pro-active in that it can detect potential
problems with the cap or in the UWZ which can be corrected before they impact the natural
attenuation process for the LWZ and the full attainment of ARARs. There are no location- or
action-specific ARARs for this alternative.
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for sediments, however, sediments directly adjacent to
the leachate seep on the southeast side of the landfill appear to pose a risk to ecological receptors.
Therefore, excavation and on-site disposal of these sediments will ensure removal of sediments
containing the highest concentrations of contaminants while minimizing impacts to adjacent
vegetated wetlands and will facilitate the revegetation of barren areas.
The Site is within a coastal zone as defined by the State of New Jersey, and the OU-2 project
area is potentially sensitive to the discovery of cultural resources especially those areas northeast
of the landfill that overlook the wetlands. However, the sediment remediation will be designed
and constructed to minimize the disturbance of areas identified as wetlands and to comply with
the requirements of Executive Order No. 11990 for the Protection of Wetlands and the New
Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. Before beginning remedial activities, an assessment of the
remediation in the wetland area will be performed to determine the potential impact If
necessary, a detailed plan for wetlands mitigation or restoration will be developed and
implemented.
Cost-Effectiveness
Of the alternatives which most effectively address the principal threats posed by the Site, the
selected remedy affords the highest level of overall effectiveness proportional to its cost Based
on the information generated during the FS, the estimated present worth cost of the ground-water
and sediment alternatives, respectively, is $1,520,000 and $823,000. This assumes the ground-
water monitoring is conducted over a period of 30 years, whereas the ecological monitoring of
the wetlands is required for only 5 years following implementation of both operable units.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternate treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable by providing the best balance among the nine
evaluation criteria. The selected ground-water and sediments remedies provide the best balance
of trade-offs among the evaluated alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
-24-
-------
The selected ground-water alternative of Limited Action is consistent with the long-term
effectiveness goals for the Site by providing systematic monitoring and a CEA on ground-water
use and monitoring the expected reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume of contamination as a
result of implementing the OU-1 remedy. This level of monitoring would act like an early-
warning system alerting the Agencies to immediate changes in the conditions of the ground
water. The ground-water monitoring program would be used to reexamine the need for ground-
water remediation on a timely basis should that prove necessary.
The selected ground-water alternative will have minimal short-term impacts associated with the
installation and sampling of monitoring wells which can be minimised through proper
engineering controls and monitoring techniques. It is implementable from an engineering
perspective, since it utilizes commercially available products, monitoring techniques, and
services. Its technical and administrative requirements are minimal.
The selected sediment alternative of Localized Removal and On-site Disposal would
permanently remove contaminated sediments from affected wetlands, and would require a five-
year review and monitoring program to confirm its effectiveness. Although the displaced
material would remain on-site under this alternative, the toxicity level in mat relocated sediment
would be greatly reduced. Also, the mobility of the residual contaminants would be significantly
reduced since the material would be placed on top of the landfill which will then be capped
During the removal of contaminated sediments some unavoidable damage to wetlands could
occur. Excavation, transport, and disposal of collected sediments could result in short-term risks
to workers during the brief construction-related activity. However, these risks would be
minimized through appropriate engineering controls, a comprehensive site health and safety plan,
and a site-specific contaminant monitoring program. The sediment alternative would have to be
carefully scheduled to allow contaminated sediments to be disposed on top of the landfill before
the cap construction is completed.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The remedies selected in both operable units utilize permanent treatment technologies to the
extent practicable. For example, in OU-1, the landfill gases and leachate will be collected and
treated appropriately either on-site or off-site. However, in OU-2, treatment of the excavated
sediments was not found to be practicable due to the small volume and low levels of
contaminants involved. The ground-water and ecological monitoring called for under OU-2 will
determine whether or not an active treatment system will be required at some point in the future.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Global Landfill site was released to the public in January 1997. This
Proposed Plan identified the preferred alternatives for management of contaminant migration
from the landfill into ground water and neighboring wetlands. NJDEP reviewed all written and
-25-
-------
the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-26-
-------
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
-------
MORGAN
ACCESS
ROAD
HOOKS
CREEK
LAKE '
MAOiSOI^l
PARK
SOMMER
5)/ BROTHERS ,
/ SITE
STATE
SKY TOP ARTS.
OAK TREE VILLAGE
LONDON TERRACE APT3.
PARKWOOO VILLAGE APTS
NIEUW AMSTERDAM APTS.
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
-------
42" « GAS
PIPELINE
WETLAND /
'J-t 'A • f, If
LEGEND
UNFINISHED
LEACHATE
POND
GENERAL AREA OF SEDIMENT REMEDIATION
(ACTUAL LIMITS TO BE DETERMINED
DURING DESIGN)
— •••— WATER
• • • WETLAND
• ======== ACCESS ROAD
' APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
—-*--- EXISTING CONTOURS
URS 1
CONSULTANTS. MC. I
LANDFILL
SITE PLAN
400 0 400
SCALE IN FEET
| FIGURE 2
-------
LEGEND
UNFINISHED
LEACHATE
PONO
'*&*&*
GENERAL AREA OF SEDIMENT REMEDIATION
(ACTUAL LIMITS TO BE DETERMINED
DURING DESIGN)
WATER
==™=r= ACCESS ROAD
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF LANDFILL
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE (SSJ
SOIL BORING LOCATION (BJ
MONITORING WELL LOCATION (MW_)
LEACHATE SEEP SAMPLE (LS_I
400
400
SCALE IN FEET
lO
ffl
°?
u
URS
CONSULTANTS INC
1
I
SOIL AND WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3
-------
AC 9732B
JA35226\CAD\90 M.6OO 7/S/9T-2 RAL
LEOEMD
LIMIT OF FILL BASED ON
ELECTROMAGNETIC SURVEY
LIMIT OF FILL (INFERRED!
NORMAL TIDAL LIMIT
(SURFACE ELEVATION LESS THAN 4' ASL.I
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT (19911 (SO.)
SUPPLEMENTAL SEDIMENT (1994) ISD-HJ
A SEDIMENT (19951 ISD95_|
BIOASSAY WATER SAMPLE (19951
CRAB SAMPLE (1994)
STREAM GAUGE LOCATION |SG_|
800
800
SCALE IN FEET
SEWMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES
-------
?^ior
i
GLOBAL LANDFILL
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUND WATER
BASED ON 1991 RI DATA
PARAMETER
Acetone
Carton Duulfide
Benzene
2 - Hexanone
Toluene
ChlorobenzeiM
Ethylbenzene
Toul XyteiMS
Vinyl Chloride
1.2 - Dichlorocthene (Total)
Trichloroethene
TOTAL TVOS
Phenol
1 ,4 - Dichlorabenzene
1.2 • Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2 • Chloroisopropyl)ether
[sopnofone
2,4 . Dimethvlpnenol
Naphthalene
2 - Metfaylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
.Anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
n • Nitrowdiphenvlanune
'henemhrene
Di - n - butylphthalate
:1uoranthene
*vrene
Ba(2 • Ethvlhexvl)phthalau
5i - n • octylphthalate
ienzoic Acid
delta • BHC
gamma - BHC (Undane)
Aldrin
Dieldnn
4.4' • DDE
alpha - Chlordanc
gamma • Chlordane
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor- 1254
TOTAL PCBt
TOTALTTO(4)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
tanuro
beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
~hromiurn
Cobait
Copper
ran
Lead
Magnaium
TYPE
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PCB
PCS
PCB
PCB
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
TTO
TTO
rro
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
rro
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TTO
TVOS
TVOS
TVOS
IJWZ
Avertfc
Detected
Concentration
107
9
47
61
4
755
43
112
47
34
11
2
2
3
47
167
33
24
2
17
4
50
19
1
3
0.7
6
0.8
0.116
0.054
0.761
0.14
0.121
0.096
0.24
10
21
4
34
1.600
1.036
30
9
294
2
1
62.069
38
41
19
15.966
34
66.103
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
290
23
200
61
7
5.300
120
440
200
34
17
2
2
3
79
900
61
82
5
47
6
50
48
1
7
I
15
0.8
0.18
0.054
1.9
0.14
0.15
0.096
0.32
10
22
3.7
35.7
7,840
3.240
34
29
811
2
2
145.000
112
180
. 39
48,800
125
224,000
LWZ
Detected
Concentntloti
taiMWSD
5
2
150
3
6
6
1 1(0.0002 Ib/hr)
8
5
188
1.560
132
5,860
38
5,330
2
3.100
Ground • Water
Quality
Criteria
700
800
0.2
1.000
50
700
1.000
0.08
70
1
4.000
75
600
300
100
100
300
400
2,000
300
7
300
200
3
100
0.2
0.002
0.002
0.1
0.01
0.01
002
0.02
0.02
0.02
200
2
0.02
2,000
0.008
4
100
1.000
300
5
J'JJJMVQPHaTAflM
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
GLOBAL LANDFILL
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUND WATER
BASED ON 1991 RI DATA
PARAMETER
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Pouuium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cvanide
Ammonia, as N (ppm)
BOD 5 (ppm)
Chloride (ppm)
COD (ppm)
Cr-Hex (ppb)
MBAS(ppm)
NO3-NO2 (ppm)
Sulfale (ppm)
TDS(ppm)
TOC(ppm)
Total Phenol* (ppb)
pH
Specific Conductivity (umho)
TYPE
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
METH
MET
MET
MISC.
M1SC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
MISC
uwz
Average
Detected
Concentration
754
0.54
70
200.505
5
985.918
15
158
29
258
33
2,009
519
27
0.44
1
61
3.682
250
93
5.99
8.759
••^UuBDOOi
Detected
Concentration
i960
0.87
197
692.000
11
3,010.000
33
343
92
924
74
6.810
1.410
290
1.15
1.39
115
9,950
938
416
6.6
20,000
LWZ
Detected
Coaceatmioei
uiMWSD
374
41.1
3.670
29.700
219
1.61
45
91.7
•.
187
2.2
3.31
268
Grand - Water
Quant?
Criteria
50
2
100
50
50.000
5.000.
200
0.5
. 250
05
10
250
500
6.5-8.5
NOTES: I. Ail coRcenntion are in M8/L (ppb) except where opted otherwise.
2. *"T-gr • ""••n'""Tn •* *•«*•* ~i 4J**T •"« •!r''"*'1ig —"fty—• —
matyta ii not detected m the pnmary umpte.
3. Maxmutn V^H niR'*1"1* u bated OB all ^trtf^'
4 Organic* not elsewhere la&victaUy limited are included in the limitation for TTO.
jmjjog reaoaryMi and dUDltcatai.
UWZ • Upper Water. beanm Zone.
LWZ • Lower Water - bearing Zeoe.
• Exceed) moct Brmaeat gnxad-vnur quality cntena(i.e., N.J.A.C. 7 X Graund Water Quality
Standante for Clan U-A Ground Waten (Apnl 19.1993X EPA S22-R-9440I for FedenU MCU
or NJ.A.C. 710 fof New Xenoy MCU. Revised New Jeney MCU hew been cubliahed in the
New leney Reamer of 11/11/96 for the fotowmjcbeoucala and are included « Interim Specific Ciitou:
CartMB diwlCde, chkrobeoBDe. total xrleaea. 1.2 - dicfatonMneae, and aapbthalem).
MCL - Maxunure r
-------
TABLE 2
ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
ANALVFE
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
Benzene
2-Hexanone
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Phenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-MethylnapUialene
Acenaphthene
Anthiacene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoiene
n-Nilrosodiphcnylamine
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalale
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
bis(2-Ethyttexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
TYPE
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
NO.
OF
SAMPLES*
IS
IS
IS
12
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
12
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
12
13
13
11
14
NO
OF
DETECTIONS**
3
3
7
1
5
8
7
8
1
2
1
1
2
6
2
4
4
3
2
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
1073
93
474
61
398
754.5
43
III 99
34
105
2
3
47
1665
33
24
22
17
4
SO
18.7 .
1
3
07
6
08
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION^
290
23
200
61
7
5300
120
440
34
17
2
3
78
900
60
82
5
46
6
50
48
I
6
1
10
0.8
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
U-MW15S-GW
U-MW14S-GW
U-MW15S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW15S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MWI5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MW12S-GW
U-MW12S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW2S-GW
U-MW6S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW3S-GW
U-MW12S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not detected in the primary sample (cone, in ppb).
+•*• - Maximum concentration among all detections including reanalyses and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
• - Number of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
••• - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or teanalyscs (Mi
laximum I detection per location).
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
ANALYTE
della-BHC
ganuna-BHC (Lindane)
Aldnn
Dicldxin
4,4'-DDE
alpha -Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-I242(ppb)
Aroclor- 1248 (ppb)
Aroclor-I254(ppb)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
TYl'li
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
15
15
15
13
15
15
15
15
IS
IS
13
14
NO
OF
DETECTIONS* •
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
13
5
14
14
1
6
15
II
II
8
14
14
15
13
2
12
IS
5
IS
10
13
6
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
0 116
0054
0761
0 14
0121
0096
024
10
205
3.7
10359
295
88
293.8
1.7
1.48
620693
384
41 03
1863
15965.7
34.06
661027
753.8
0.54
70.4
200504.7
4.6
985918
15.04
157.8
293
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
018
0054
1.9
0.14
015
0.096
032
10
22
3.7
3240
344
288
799
1.7
1.9
145000
112
180
379
48800
125
224000
2960
087
197
673000
10.7
3010000
326
307
92
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
U-MW8S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MWI5S-GW
U-MW8S-GW
U-MWI4S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MW12S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MWI5S-GW
U-MW8S-GW
U-MWIOS-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MW8S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW10S-GW
U-MWI5S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MW8S-GW
U-MW1A-GW
U-MW4S-GW
U-MW6S-GW
U-MWI5S-GW
U-MW4S-GW
U-MWIA-GW
U-MW15S-GW
U-MW8S-GW
U-MWI2S-GW
U-MWI3S-GW
U-MW5S-GW
U-MWI4S-GW
U-MW3S-GW
U-MWI4S-GW
* - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not delected in the primacy sample (cone, in ppb)
+ + • Maximum concentration among all detections including reanalyses and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
* - Number of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
•• • Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or reanalyses (Maximum I detection per location).
Reference:
URS Consultants. Inc., June 1992.
Table 4-8. Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landlill Site. Old Hridge. New Jersey
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETER ANALYSIS
OF SHALLOW GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Ammonia, as N
BODS
Chloride
COD
Cr-Hex
MBAS
NO3-NO2
Sulfate
TDS
TOCD
Total Phenols
MINIMUM
0.09
ND
986
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
65
1 05
5.0
MAXIMUM
924
74
6810
1380
290
1.15
1.39
115
9950
938
416
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
25796
33 14
2008.89
51861
150
0.44
10
61.21
3681 73
249.5
9338
UNITS
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ND - Not Detected
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not detected in the primary sample.
Reference;
URS Consultants, Inc., June 1992. Table 4-9, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 4
ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUND,WATER SAMPLES
FROM THE LOWER AQUFIER
ANALYTE
Vinyl Chloride
Carbon Duulfidc
1 1 -Dichkif oethane
1.2-Dichlorocthenc (Total
Tnchloroelhene
[ten/My.
TeUacbioroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
BcnzoicAcid
Diethylphlhalate
bis(2-e»ylhexyl)phthalile
Endrin
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
me
VOC
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
PEST
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
$ '
9
9
9
4
NO
OF
DETECTIONS**
7
4
9
9
4
5
1
7
4
9
8
4
9
1
9
1
4
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
3
2
09
6
6
S
1
4
ISO
5
1
8
O.I
350
25
35.7
7511 1
132
118
7.1
7300
23
25084
107
559
6lftl8
62
20965.6
62
915
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION*-*
3
2
09
6
6
S
1
S
ISO
5
8
01
1560
66
. 132
23800
386
377
7 I
27000
52
8720
374
164
18600
62
41700
62
219
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
MWSA
MWSA
MWSA
MWSA
MWSA
MWSA
MWISO
MW6D.7D
MWSA
MWSA
MW2A
MWSA
MWI4D
MWSA
MW2A
MWSA
MWI4D
MW4A
MWSA
MW7D
MW2A
MWISD
MWI4D
MWSA
MW4A
MW8D
MWI4D
MWI4D
MWISD
MWSA
+ - Does noi include reanalyscs or duplicate* unless analyle is not delected in Ihe primary simple (cone, in ppb).
++ - Maximum conccnti alion among all detections including rcanalyscs and duplicates (cone, in ppb)
• - Numbcf of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
•• - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and mmncialcd duplicate or icaiuilyscs (Maximum I dcUxtion pet location)
. UK.. June 19*. T*b 4-11. T* 1 Kepor, Rcmedud Invention « the GUI Und,,.. Sue. O,U U..%c. New
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETER ANALYSIS
OF LOWER AQUIFER GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Ammonia, asN
BODS
Chloride
COD
Coliform-T
Cr-Hex
MBAS
NO3-NO2
Sulfate
TDS
TOC
Total Phenols
MINIMUM
ND
ND
134
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
64
0966
ND
MAXIMUM
1 61
45
917
14
ISO
ND
ND
26
132
214
114
9
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
0.78
25
435
129
150
ND
ND
2
12 1
1367
4.7
75
UNITS
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppm
ppm
PPm
ppm
Ppm
ppb
ND - Not Detected
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not delected in the primary sample
Reference;
URS Consultants. Inc., June 1992. Table 4-13, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey.
-------
TABLE 6
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
' • ANALYTE
Metnylene Chloride
Acetone
2-Butanone
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Xytenei
Dibcnzofuran
Diethvlohthalate
Fluorene
Phenamhrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
autylbenzyiphthtUto
3£nzo(a)ftnthncen0
2tuyseoe
Bis (2-ethvlhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-ocrylphthlatt
3enzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (k) Fluoranthene
3enzo (a) pyrene
Ideno ( 1 ,2.3-cd) pvrene
Jibenz (aji) antbncene
3enzo (g,h,i) peiylene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
Senzoic acid
Naphthalene
2-Metnylnaphthalenc
Acenapnthene
Acenaphthvlene
4.4--DDE '
indosulfan 0
4.4'-DDD •
Endosulfan Sulfate
4.4--DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1254
TYPE
vot
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
voc
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PCB
PCB
"FILLED' AREAt-M-
NO OF
SAMPLES'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO. OF
DETECTIONS"
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
8
6
S
8
9
5
5
8
7
5
7
S
7
3
3
0
5.
1
2
4
3
I
1
MAX.DET
CONC. ~
4
860
12
200
26
260
93
140
340
350
420
1600
320
6700
890
1800
10000
890
1800
59000
61000
500
220
860
460
89
410
130
76
.83
75
480
97
17
130
200
270
7.9
8.9
820
2*1
"SOIL" AREA"*
NO OF
SAMPLES*
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
• 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 .
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
NO. OF
DETECTIONS"
0
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
3
6
5
0
4
4
2
0
3
2
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAX. DET.
CONC. ~
100
3
34
100
52
150
ito
60
79
210
55
55
52
43
39
45
.
•
«.:«*.!•»«• I O'n««> •«)!
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Arsenic
Ban urn
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iran
Lead
Magnesium
KXmigMMMO
Mercury
Nickel
fouttsum
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TYPE
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
"FILLED- AREAt-M.
NO. OF
SAMPLES'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
NO. OF
DETECTIONS"
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
1
10
10
4
5
9
10
10
MAX.DET.
CONC. -M.
17100
19
244
62
J.I
32700
744
131
2090
81600
2730
10200
826
0.09
1020
873
3.0
3.1
1470
62.5
9580
-SOIL' AREA-
NO OF
SAMPLES'
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
NO OF
DETECTIONS"
7
7
7
5
4
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
0
4
7
2
3
6
7
6
MAX. DET
CONC —
5460
8
39
056
1 0
363
33
77
153
19300
172
278
104
10
656
0.6
0.93
427
358
55 1
Number of primary samples «nrliidtn| duplicate*.
" Maximum cooeentraboo ameai aU dsacBom including dupncsm (i
for orjanict and ppm (at inorfaaics).
'* Detection tmoo| any sample at a to
areinppb
(maximum 1 detection per locanoa).
—•- Includes th« followraf *~*tr*'T
MW3; MW11; MW12. MWI4; MW15, BU B2; B4fc B9-. BIO.
— Include* the feUowmf teaaear
MWIO. MW13; B3R; B3; B6. B7; M.
URS Coiuultama, Inc., June 1992. Table 4-1. Task 3 Rtport R»m«W In»«Kii^K««m«G»oe^LjuidfiOSrt». Old Bhdfa, N«w Jwwy.
-------
TABLE 7
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Acetone
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Benzoic Acid
Diethylphlhalate
n-Nitrosodiphenylanune
Phenanlhrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalale
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracenc
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethyhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzoOOfluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeoo( 1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Bcnzo(g,h,i)perylenc
4.4'-DDE
4.4'-bbD
alpha-Chlordane
ganuna-Chlordane
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
TYPE
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
PEST
PEST
PEST
PCB
PCB
PCB
. NO
OF
SAMPLES*
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO.
OF
DETECTIONS**
3
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
47
27
58
100
53
310
140
160
465
145
470
5785
610.25
44633
505
590
20560
1980
1100
340
1100
1400
193
1400
19
19
42
73
480
190
180
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
99
27
100
100
53
310
140
160
800
180
470
1300
1300
910
770
910
40000
3700
1100
340
1100
1400
300
1400
19
19
42
73
480
190
• 180
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
SS-2
SS-2
SS-
SS-
SS-
SS-
SS-4
SS-4
SS-
SS-
SS-4
SS-
SS-
SS-
SS-
SS-
SS-2
SS-
SS-
SS-
ss-
ss-
ss-
SS-
SS-
SS-
ss-
ss-
SS-2
SS-2
SS-I
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyle is not detected in the primary sample (cone, in ppb)
+ + - Maximum concentration among all detections including reanalyses and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
• - Number of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
•* - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or reanalyses (Maximum I detection per location).
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TYPE
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
NO.
OF
SAMPLES*
S
S
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
NO.
OF
DETECTIONS"
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
I
4
5
1
1
3
S
5
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCEN TRATIONS+
5496
42
4912
453
082
198958
8506
123
15926
14326
126
994 8
15682
0.14
8635
2576
064
087
31423
19 54
860.9
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
9500
7.3
109
21
12
5280
364
495
748
33400
204
3340
380
014
322
408
064
087
714
34
4050
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
SS-5
SS-1
SS-2
SS-2
SS-1
SS-1
SS-2
SS-2
SS-2
SS-2
SS-5
SS-2
SS-2
SS-1
SS-2
SS-2
SS-2
SS-2
SS-2
SS-1
SS-2
+ . Docs not include rcanalyses or duplicates unless analytc is not detected in the primary sample (cone, in ppb)..
41 - Maximum concentration among all detections including reanalyscs and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
• - Number of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
•• - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or rcanalyses (Maximum 1 detection per location).
Reftrtntt:
URS Consultants. Inc., June 1992. Table 4-2, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 8
ANALYTES DETECTED IN LEACHATE SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Benzene
2-llexanone
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Bthylbenzene
Total Xylenes
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 .2-Dichlorobenzcnc
Isophorone
2.4-DiinethyIphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenapthylene
Acenaphthene
Lhbenzoturan
Fluorene
n-Nitrosodiphenylam
Phenanlhrene
Anthracene
Di-a-butylphthalate
Fluoranihene
Pyrene
Chrysene
bis(2-Elhyhexyl)phth
IYPI-:
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SKMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
NO
OF
SAMPLES'
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
3
Dt-n-octyiphtnalate |ShMl| 5
NO
OF
DETECTIONS"
4
3
3
5
4
5
1
4
2
2
3
5
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCEN1HAT10NS+
21 5
16.0
20
550.8
1163
2130
14.0
163
40
20
52.3
252
70
0.4
11.5
9.5
14.0
6.0
230
33
1.0
3.6
26
0.7
300
1.3
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
71
30
3
2600
360
880
14
27
5
2
72
48
10
04
18
13
18
6
25
5
1
10
6
1
34
3
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
LS-I
LS-2,3.5
LS-4
LS-4
LS-4
LS-4
LS-5
LS-5
LS-I. 2
LS-4
LS-5
LS-5
LS-5
LS-3
LS-3
LS-3
LS-4
LS-3
LS-3
LS-2.3,4,5
LS-5
LS-5
LS-5
LS-3
LS-5
+ - Docs not include reanalytes or duplicates unless •nilyte is not detected in the primvy sample (cone, in ppb).
++ - Maximum concentration among all detections including reaiulyses and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
•- Number of primary sample* excluding reaiwh/scs and duplicates.
•• - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or reanalyses (maximum I detection per location).
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
ANALYTES DETECTED IN LEACHATE SAMPLES
ANALYTE
dclta-BHC
gamma-UHC (Lindan
Aldiin
Heplachlor Epoxide
Endtin
Endosulfanll
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aluminum
Arsenic
Banum
Cadmium
Cakium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
TYPE
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
MET
MET
Mb I
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
. 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO
OF
DETECTIONS"
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
4
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
0091
035
023
0.28
031
0.042
on
06
1705
214
424
2.9
71500
104
284
77.0
22660
102
61440
250
03
89
473000
3.5
30
1630000
36.9
239
358
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
0091
071
032
0.28
042
0042
0127
06
2310
347
543
4
89500
175
32
82.2
41400
225
87300
387
0.3
134
548000
4
3
201000TT
894
453
106
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
LS-4
LS^t
LS-5
LS-5
1^^
LS-5
I.S-2
LS-5
LS-5
LS-5
LS-3
LS-1
LS-5
LS-5
LS-5
LS-1
LS-I
LS-1
LS-4
LS-3
LS-1 .5
LS-4
LS-5
LS^
LS-5
CS-4
LS-5
LS-1
LS-1
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless tmlyle is not detected in the primary sample (cone, in ppb).
++ - Maximum concentration among all detections including reanalyses and duplicates (cone, in ppb).
• . Number of primary samples excluding reanalyses and duplicates.
•• - Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate or reanalyses (maximum I detection pet location)
Reference:
URS Consullanti. Inc., June 1992. Table 4 - 3. Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge. New Jasey
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETER ANALYSIS
OF LEACHATE SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Ammonia, as N
BODS
Chloride
COD
Cr-Hex
MBAS
NO3-NO2
Sulfate
TDS
TOC
Gross Alpha Radiation
Gross Beta Radiation
Total Phenols
MINIMUM
144
560
1780
1040
ND
0.250
0.118
111
5060
319
43
123
57
MAXIMUM
635
137
3340
2840
10
0.394
25.2
47.3
7720
603
64
289
167
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
265
115
2494
1476
10
0318
72
31 6
6010
444
51
205
98.4
UNITS
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
pc /liter
pc./liter
ppb
-I- - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not detected in the primary sample.
Reference;
URS Consultants, Inc., June 1992 Table 4 - 4, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 10
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Toul Xyknes
Ikn/otc Acid
Naphthalene
Accnaphlhcne
DibenzoCuran
Diethylphlhatale
Fluoreoe
Hhenanlhiene
FliAOffanlhcnc
Uulylbouylphlhatale
tua(2-«Uwlhexyl)phinalaie
di-a-oclyiphlhalale
fali/0( h)(|lM}ff aUllhCflC
Indent* U.3-cd)pyiene
benzfl(g,b.i)penrlene
della-BHC
M'-DDE
alpha-CUwdanc
ffanuna-Chlardane
TYPE
VOC
vex:
VOC
VOC
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
SfcMt
SEMI
SEMI
SEMI
PEST
TBF
PEST
PEST
lUGIHlDE
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO
OF
DETECTIONS'*
0
0
0
0
3
I
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
23
if?
1
06
1
14
1
1
1
-
LOW TIDE
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO
OF
DETECTIONS**
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
6
0
0
0
i
i
AVERAGE OF
DETEC1T-D
CONCENTRATIONS*
2
17
2
16
7
3
2
2
2
2
2
170
0011
0022
0025
0030
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCKN1 RATIONS
2
17
2
16
7
3
2
2
2
2
2
170
2
1
1
1
0011
0022
002S
0030
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
SW-gL
SW-81.
SW-8L
SW-8L
SW-7L
SMV-8L
SW-8L
SW-8L
SWSII
SW-8L
SW-8L
SW-8L
SW-5H
SW-9L
SW4H
SW-SI1
SW-SH
SW-5H
SW-6L
SW-6L
SW-6L
SW4L
»- Docm no* include reaoalyte* of duplicate
«•• Maximum Goacoauabim anoM aU det
t unless analytc u no* delected ia Ike primaiy sample (cooc. ia ppb).
clioas including raanalyitt aad duplirales (COM. ia ppb).
NumbdoTpi
apto fftrliidiag iraatlyie* i
••. i^.i~-».
•( aay «UB(4e al a locatioa i*rH*im pruaaiy aamplo and i
ipbcale at lunalyici (Maximum I dclotlion pet loutioa)
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
boa >
Ixnd
lufafliwnun
MmttVUtttt
Macury
Nickel
1 Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
TYPE
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
rat
MET
MET
MET
'MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
HIGH TIDE
NO.
OF
SAMPLES*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
IB
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO.
OF
DETECTIONS'*
4
10
10
1
10
0
IB
10
0
10
1
10
2
2
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
424
496
46r7
157560
72
17079
492744
1634
169685
40
4564860
4755
2075
LOW TIDE
NO.
OF
SAMPLES*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
in
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO
OF
DETECTIONS"
8
7
9
10
10
2
s
1
10
3
10
10
2
10
0
10
6
2
1
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
1587
425
634
79.9
144370
35.2
78
87
5675.5
501
366681
4853 -
038
324
151453
3384560
1565
35305
142
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
10500
666
154
175
244000
40.4
120
87
30100
127
625000
1190
038
324
269000
40
7340000
452
675
288
LOCATION
OF MAXIMUM
DETECTION
SW-IOII
SW-6L
SW-8L
SW-3II
SW-6L
SW-6L
SW-6L
SW-61.
SW-IL
SW-61.
SW-61.
SW-JII
SW-2II
SW-61.
SW-61.
SW-IL
- Doei not include reaaalyaM or duplic
» • Maximum cooccntnikw MO* aM
•Number of
•tytc u not detected in the primary laatple (cone.
(caaalyMi and dypncalai (cow. in ppb).
I any amok at a
Detected in Ike bacfctroaw* Mattel (SW-IOH. SW-IOL)
u.
sample and aimriited dunlif ale or reaaaryaat (Maiimiim I
pei location).
KcfcrtlKc:
URS CmiMtllaata. Inc.. June 1992. Table 4 - 6. Talk 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at tbe GloUJ Landfill Site. Old Hodge. New ieney
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETER ANALYSIS
OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Ammonia, as N
BODS
Chloride
COD
Coliform-T
Cr-Hex
MBAS
Salinity
NO3-NO2
Sulfate
TDS
TOCD
Total Phenols
HIGH TIDE
MINIMUM
040
3.0
800
343
80
ND
0.050
ND
010
152
236
14
5
MAXIMUM
276
41
14100
1600
80
ND
0 112
7.5
0717
2050
27500
601
13
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
646
84
9567
455
8
ND
0072
45
0358
12828
14996
11 16
9
LOW TIDE
MINIMUM
0187
3.0
77 1
32
250
ND
0045
ND
0214
272
275
1.85
5
MAXIMUM
246
85
11200
749
250
ND
0190
5.5
1 88
1580
22000
173
42
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
3895
22.1
6608
272
250
ND
0.091
36
073
9509
12446
3375
19
UNITS
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppm
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ND - Not Detected
+ - Does not include reanalyses or duplicates unless analyte is not delected in the primary sample.
URS Consultants. Inc.. June 1992. Table 4 - 7, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 12
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Methylcne Chloride
Acelooo
Cuban Diiulfide
2-BuUnone
CMorobenzene
Benzoic Acid
Accnaphthytene
Ac£nftphlhcnc
Didhylphlhtklc
4-CWorophcnyl-phenyl Ether
AnlhfMene
Di-n-twIylpbduUle
rHIQVttMMBO
Pyraw
Cteywm
butf-EfcybexyOiiMttbte
BcazoQc)fliMna4MM
BgozoMpyraio
tad«o(I.2.3-c«»)pyTeoe
Bcazo
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
ANALYTICS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Anonc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cafciuu
dBQBlAMD
CobaJt
Comer
rr
Iraa
Lead
KUogMCM
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
S^httww
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TYPE
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
NO
OF
SAMPLES*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NO
OF
DETECTIONS*'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
10
10
8
10
10
8
3
10
10
8
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS*
11932
326
433
163
226
2669.4
4597
9.32
96.19
32050
103.33
4963.1
127.91
0.76
22.7
2790.2
364
233
1 47)8.17
5403
308.72
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION**
24000
901
683
28
49
7660
669
173
188
53000
142
8330
251
1.3
39.3
5270
6.6
3.2
44300
112
890
LOCATION
OK MAXIMUM
DETECTION
SD-9
SD-9
SD-9
SD-9. 10
SD-6
SD-6
SD-IO
SD-IO
SD-9
SD-IO
SD-3
SD-9
SD-IO
SD-9
SD-IO
SD-9
SD-9
SD-7
SD-6
SD2
SD-6
« . Doc* not include fonilym or duplicate* unlct* analyle u not detected in the primary umple (cone, in ppm)
» » - MUUBUOI coDccnUalioB tmoag all detection* including reanalyze* tad duplicate* (cone, in ppm)
•- Nunbcr of piiiniry aanplc* ucludinf icaaalyic* tad duplicate*.
•* - Drtffrtion imou; any tanok at a linrMtim Jacludrng prinaiy uaapk and *«t~-H"> duplicate Of reanalyic* (Maximum I dcteclioa pet localion).
Mi(SO-IO)
Rtftfrxt:
URS CoarallanU. Inc.. June 1992. Table 4 • 5, Talk 3 Report: Remedial bvotiplioo at the Global Landfill Site. Old Bridge. New Jcncy.
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS
Sample ID
Dale Collected
Matrix
Percent Solids
Lab Sample ID
Parameter UNITS
Methytene Chloride ug/Kg
Acetone ug/Kg
Chtorobenzene ug/Kg
Naphthalene ug/Kg
2-Methytnaphthalene . ug/Kg
Acenaphthene ug/Kg
Dfeeruofuran ug/Kg
Diethytphthalate ug/Kg
Fkiorene ug/Kg
Phenanthrene ug/Kg
Anthracene ug/Kg
Carbazole ug/Kg
Dt-n-butylphthalate ug/Kg
Fluorantnene ug/Kg
Pyrene ug/Kg
Butylbenzylphthalale ug/Kg
Denzo(a)aiMliiacene ugn\g
ChryMne ug/Kg
B»(2-etnyhe>ryt)phtha»ate ug/Kg
BenKXbJfluoranthene ug/Kg
Benzo(k)nuoranthene ug/Kg
Benzo(a)pyrene ug/Kg
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene ug/Kg
Benzo(Q,h.l.)perylene ug/Kg
DieUrin ug/Kg
4.4--DDE ug/Kg
Endhn ug/Kg
4.4'-DDD ug/Kg
4.4--DDT ug/Kg
Endrtn Aldehyde ug/Kg
Aroctor-1242 ug/Kg
Aroctoc-1248 ug/Kg
Arodor-1254 ug/Kg
Arodor-1260 ug/Kg
Aluminum mg/Kg
Arsenic mg/Kg
Barium mg/Kg
Beryftium mg/Kg
Calcium mg/Kg
Chromium mo/Kfl
CLASS
voc
voc
voc
SVGA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
SVOA
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PCS
PCB
PCB
PCB
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
SD-9-II
06/14/94
SEDIMENT
348
0545003
ND
R
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29 J
ND
87 J
ND
ND
R
190 J
180 J
42 J
79 J
120 J
R
120 J
100 J
120 J
73 J
70 J
43 JP
28
22 P
ND
20 P
ND
ND
72 J
220
140
22.000
67.3
61 4 B
1.6 B
R
77.1
SD-ll-3
06/16/94
SEDIMENT
471
0545017
6 J
R
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
82 J
20 J
ND
R
190 J
180 J
ND
100 J
140 J
190 JB
140 J
120 J
150 J
67 J
53 J
ND
ND
ND
9:3 P
9.5 P
ND
ND
39 J
96
55 JP
18.600
665
561 B
1.2 B
R
77.5
SD-II-BG
06/15/94
SEDIMENT
23
0545016
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
90 J
ND
ND
ND
220 J
200 J
ND
88 J
130 J
R
130 J
120 J
130 J
77 J
.ND
ND
13 JP
ND
69 JP
ND
NO
ND
100 J
NO
100 NO
20.300
356
52 3 B
NO
R
632
SD-IIELS
06/15/94
SEDIMENT
406
0545015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
36 J
ND
100 J
ND
ND
R
330 J
300 J
ND
130 J
190 J
R
180 J
130 J
150 J
67 J
52 J
NO
NO
27
ND
18
ND
ND
89
220
190
17.600
47.4
49 2 B
13 B
R
763
SD-II-L
06/14/94
SEDIMENT
646
0545004
ND
R
10 J
25 J
32 J
100 J
100 J
NO
160 J
470 J
100 J
97 J
R
420 J
290 J
NO
65 J
R
R
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
82 P
ND
NO
53 P
140
ND
63
27 J
966
69
299
ND
4230
190
Only positive resuto are reported.
-------
TABLE 13 (continued)
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS
SO-H-BG
06/15/94
SEDIMENT
00
23
0545016
SD-H-3
06710/94
SEGMENT
0.0
471
0549017
SO-9-U
06/14/94
SEGMENT
00
348
0545003
Sample ID
DateCotocled
Maliu
Depth
Percent Solid*
Lab Sampto ID
Parameter
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
ma/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
Chromium
Coball
lion
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
MMCUIV
Niclwt
Polauium
mg/Kg
mg/KQ
mo/Kg
ma/Kg
mgWg
S*MM
Sodwm
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Oganic Carton
Total O
Ammonia
Ammonia
SO-i-FB-1
OW10M
WATER
OMS029
Zinc
Total Organic Carbon
SD-U-ELS
06/15*4
SEQUENT
0.0
40.6
0545015
R
763
87
168 B
32.900
246 S
S.7M
172
1.2 N
23.4
SD-IIL
06/14/94
SEDIMENT
00
646
0545004
4230
190
NO
65 B
SD-lll
06/14*4
SEOMENT
00
646
0545004
ND
ND
ND
NO
25.800 ND
5.2 S
460
873
NO
NO
R R
25 BS NO
1.6 B NO
9.750 672
70.3
162
81 B
166
90.200 73.800
84.700 72.900
0180
0432
43530
43.360
ND
1450
NO
NO
NO
3590.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
116 B
124
1.22
Data Qualiftara:
ND -NotDetected
B • For 1Mb*- Value t* above immanent detection Biral but below CRQL
For otg»nte»-Con»«uenl to delected In method fatook
J -Eitameted but below CROL
N -Semptohec^plkeoiioiw
P •DMerenc* in duel column analysis «>25%
R • R»)»rtnJ bated on QC deviation
8 *VeluaqMtM
-------
January t&6
Matt* SEDIMENT
TABLE 14
SUMMARY Of DETECTIONS
Global lamM
849-6183
NOAA
SadnMrt
Crtarta
ERL
600
66S
NA
261
364
NA
NA
NA
4022
ERM
5100
2600
NA
1600
2600
NA
NA
NA
44792
—
Paiametei
Fkioianlhana
Pyiana
BtlytwnzytpMhalaia
ean«Ha)An1hracaM
Clvyaana
btett-EthytttaxyttPnlhalato
Banio
-------
January 1996
Matrix SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
GtobaUanoT*
Semfcctatftts
943-6 \ 63
NOAA
Sediment
Cnterla
ERL
600
665
NA
261
3M
NA
NA
NA
4022
ER-M
5100
2600
NA
1600
2800
NA
NA
NA
44792
Parametei
FluorenlheM
Pyiena
ButyfcenzytphttttMe
Betuo(a)Anthracene
Chfytene
bls(2-Elhylwxyl)Phtnalate
Beiuo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)rkMnjnnant
ToUIPAH
Sample Port
SD9S04
tab ID. 765494
Data Sampled «V17/i5
Rea*
120
690
dual
J
J
Sample PoW
SD9544FD
Lab ID 765495
Dale Sampled 10/17/95
RMUl
—
Qua!
—
Sample PoM
SD95-05
Lab ID 765899
DateSampted 10/18«5
RMUl
120
120
64
71
400
375
Qual
J
J
J
J
J
Sample Point
Lab ID
Date Sampled:
RMUl
Qual
Sample Point
lab ID
Date Sampled
Retuft
Qua!
Notts:
Un«» we In u0/ko
ER-L In&catM EHectc Range - Low
ER M IndtcatM Edecto Range -
Crterta derived horn NOAA Technical Memorandum (NOS OMA 52. Table 70)
•The Potential lot Btotogtel Effecto of Sediment Sorbed Contwnlrants Tetled In
the National Status and Tfonds Program' (NOAA. 1991). Some vetun Mlhet
levtud In 1995 (Long, el el.. 1995).
NA Mfcalec not applicable - ER-L « ER-M not ettabtahtd
DeflnMtonofQualWei*:
J - Reported VWM to quantitatively qualified at etnmated
N - Anatyle tentetMly UenUAed AMumed to bopesent m Mmpte
— Indicate* not delected
Data quaWtore ate not applicable to Total PAHs. Total DDT. w Total PCBs
Total DDT to the sum of DDT and la derivative*
-------
January 1996
Matrix; SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
Global lam**
PeslicUes / PCB»
943-6163
NO
AA
Sediment
Criteria
ERL
22
1
158
NA
227
ERM
27
7
461
NA
180
Paiameler
4.4--DOE
4.4-ODT
Total DDT
Arodor-1254
Total PCBis
Sample Point
SD9^RF1
lab ID 765897
Dale Sampled 10/16/95
ResuR
47
—
47
45
45
Qua!
J
—
J
Sample Point
SD9S-RF2
Lab ID: 765696
Data Sampled: 10/16/95
Retul
9.3
4
133
—
_
Qua!
J
JN
—
—
Sample Point
SO9S-01
Lab ID: 765491
Date Sampled: 10/17/95
Rest*
—
—
—
66
68
Qua!
—
—
—
J
Sample Point
SD9542
Lab ID: 765492
Date Sampled 1 (VI 7/95
Resul
77
• —
77
64
64
Qua!
J
_
J
Sample Point
SD9S03
Lab ID: 765493
Dale Sampled: 10/17/95
Rest*
91
_
91
58
58
Qua!
J
__
J
Not««:
Units are In ugfeg (dry weight)
ER-L Indicate* Effects Range • Low
ER-M ndteates Effects Range - Median
Criteria derived from NOAA Technical Memorandum (NOS OMA 52. Table 70)
•The Potential lot Btatogfcat Effects ol Sedment Sorbed Contaminants Tested In
(he National Statin and Tiends Program* (NOAA, 1991). Some values further
revised In 1995 (Long, el al. 1995).
NA bideale* not appkcabto • ER-L or ER M nol established
DeDnMlonofQuallHMs:
J - Reported value to quantiatlvely qualified aa estimated
N - Anaryte tentatively ktenUfled Assumed to be present m sample
— Indlcales not detected
Data quatfteis are nol applicable to Total PAHs, TolaJ DDT. or Total PCBs
Total DDT Is the sum ol DOT and K* derhnrtlves.
GulJer Assoi.Ulet
C'9*
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
Global LandM
Pesticides / PCB*
—
NOAA
Sediment
Cfrteiia
ERL
22
1
158
NA
227
ERM
27
7
461
NA
180
.... - . _ -
Parameter
4.4 DDE
4.4 DOT
Total ODT
Aioctor-l2S4
Total PCB»
Sample Point
SD9504
Lab ID 765494
Dale Sampled 10/17/95
Rest*
15
—
15
180
180
Qua!
J
—
J
Sample Point
SDB5-04FD
Lab ID: 765495
Dale Sampled: 10/17/95
Raw*
—
—
—
100
100
Qua)
—
—
—
J
Sample Point
SD95-05
Lab 10: 765899
Dale Sampled 10/18/95
Rest*
—
—
—
88
86
dual
—
—
—
J
Samp* Point
Lab 10:
Date Sampled
Rest*
Qua!
Sample Point
Lab 10:
Dale Sampled
Resui
Qua)
Notts:
Urals are In mftQ (drvwalghl)
ER-L McatM Enacts Rang* - Low.
ER-M Indicate* Elfacte Rang* •
Criteria derived from NOAA Taehnfcal Mamoranduro (NOS DMA 52. Table 70)
•Tha Potential tor BMtogteaJ Effect* of S«*nant Soibed Contamaianta Tntadbi
MM National SMu» and Trands Program.- (NOAA. 1991). Sonw vates lUrthar
revaad In 1995 (Long, at al.. 1996)
Dafinttton ol QuaUHaf a:
J - Raportad vafcia to quanttattvety quaMed as animated
N - AnaJ»to tantattvety UantMad. Ataumad to be pf aaanl In Mmpta
— hdjcatea not datedad
Data ojuaMara are not applicable to Total PAH>. Total DDT. or Total PCBs
Total ODT la the aum of DOT and la derivatives.
-------
January 1996
MatiU SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
Global LandfM
TAL Metals/Cyanide
943-6163
NOAA 1
Sediment
Criteria
ER-L
NA
82
NA
NA
NA
61
NA
34
NA
467
NA
NA
IS
209
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
150
NA
ERM
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
370
NA
270
NA
218
NA
NA
71
516
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
410
NA
•
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryttum
Calcium
Chromium
Cob*
Copper
lion
Lead
Magnesium
Mangan**«
Meicury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Sample Port
SD95-RM
Lab ID: 765900
Date Sampled: 10/16/95
ResuB
17700
435
472
14
1690
744
96
163
33200
173
6080
IBS
14
269
3610
45
11
9180
663
168
—
Qua!
J
J
—
Sample Point
SD95-RF2
Lab ID: 765901
Dale Sampled: 10/18/95
Rest*
17600
41
492
1.4
2650
841
155
214
26200
241
6890
151
1.6
44.7
3920
7.6
1.7
14900
71
248
—
Qual
J
J
—
Sample Point
SD9S01
Lab ID: 765496
Data Sampled: 10/17/95
Rest*
15600
. 341
55
16
2120
661
89
141
32500
172
5010
166
.87
236
3210
33
1.5
12500
744
222
1.9
Qual
J
J
J
Sample Point
SD9542
Lab 10 765500
Date Sampled: 10/17/95
Rest*
15200
42.3
51 t
1.6
2230
636
119
155
29600
176
5600
183
.85
33
3290
5.5
.9
14300
734
224
—
Qua!
J
J
—
Sample PoW
SD9543
Lab ID: 765501
Dale Sampled: 10/17/95
Resul
12200
364
347
15
2120
407
23
657
24700
125
4770
292
.66
38
2750
41
84
14100
526
263
—
Qual
J
J
—
Notes:
Units are In mo/kg (dry weight)
ER-L Indicate* Effect* Range - Low
ERM Indicate* Effect* Range
Criteria derived from NOAA Technical Memorandum (NOS OMA 52. Table 70)
•The Potential for Biological Effect* of Sedknent-Sorbed Contaminant* Tested In
the National Status and Trend* Program * (NOAA. 1991) Some value* further
revised In 1995 (Long, at al.. 1995)
OeRnMlonolQuaWieta:
J - Reported value I* ojuannlatlvely ojuakfwd as estimated
N - Anatyte tentatively Identified Assumed to be present In sample
— Indicates not detected.
Data qualifiers are not appHcabta to Total PAHs. Total DDT. or Total PCBs
Total DDT Is the sum of DDT and Us derivatives
Acsoclalcs
1*4})* *'
-------
SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (conUnu*d)
SUMMARY OF DETECTION*
OWNHmdM
9*14163
NO
Cf»
ERL
NA
82
NA
NA
NA
61
NA
34
NA
467
NA
NA
15
200
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
150
NA
^A
mart
Nta
ER44
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
370
NA
270
NA
216
NA
NA
71
516
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
410
NA
Paivnatai
AhMrinum
Aiaanfc •
BaAa*
BM>Mum
CafcfcMi
Ctaomkm
Cabal
Coppai
Icon
laad
MaBMtlum
Uanginiia
Mnctay
NKfcat
PateMhan
Satenkan
Sfear
Sttlhan
Vanadum
Zinc
Cyantta
Samp
lab ID
DalaSampt
Raai*
11600
50.5
623
17
3870
504
346
754
36200
127
6080
2220
—
451
3520
7
67
26800
607
301
—
la PaM
765602
a* torn/to
Owl
J
— .
J
—
Samp
QIKW
Lab ID
OatoSanvli
Raw!
0960
57.5
503
IS
3130
555
342
625
37600
106
6050
1760
—
41.4
3030
6.3
. —
23100
786
272
3.3
la PaM
786603
wt. 10/17/05
Quat
J ,
—
—
J
J
8U
UbH>:
Data San**
Ram*
13000
36.6
371
16
1530
516
8
121
34200
147
3880
105
J2
23.4
2180
40
63
6200
686
246
21
la PaM
o-oo
765902
id \QI\M6
Qua)
J
J
J
Samp
Lab ID:
Data Samp*
Raaial
•'
la PaM
Ml:
Qua!
•
Sampl
Lab ID
Date San**
Reu*
lePahl
Qual
NaU«:
IMMUon ol QuHMtet •:
ER-t MKUNN EflKt* Rang* -
ER44 Mfc«to Eltate RMO* -
Cttaite «tartMd feoro NOAA TwtaKHl Mi
Th* PotartM to BHto0lc^ Eltocto •! S^kmrt-Si
•w Naboral SUtu* MM! Timcto Pfogmm ' (NOAA. 1001) 8«M
(•WMd ki 1885 (lonfl. •! tf. 1905)
NA MIMIM Ml tvttat* - ER4.« ER-M not
JNOS OMA 52. T«tt» 70)
itMd Cotenlninto Ttstod hi
(Ma nmMlin V* not •ppicjbte to Toul PAHs. ToUl DOT, 01 loui PCB»
ToW DOT to t» turn ol DOT and l» dMtwttM*
I '*y* tl
-------
January 1996
Malm SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
Global Landli
ln«0inlc (raBcatoie
943^183
NO
Sedt
Crt
ERl
~NA
NA
AA
rntnl
erta
ERM
NA
NA
Parameter
Ammonia- Nitrogen
Total Oi 0anfc Carbon
Sample Point
SD9SRF1
Lab ID 765908
Date Sampled: 10/16/95
RMU!
194
20900
Owl
Sample PoM
SD9S-RF2
Lab ID: 765907
Dale Sampled: 10/18/95
Rest*
354
29900
Quit
Sample PoH
SD9S41
Lab ID: 765512
Dale Sampled: 10/17/95
Resut
156
23000
Qual
J
Sample Point
SD95-02
Lab ID: 765518
Date Sampled: 10/17/95
Ren*
24900
Qual
— -
Sample Point
SD95-03
Lab ID: 76SS17
Dale Sampled 10/17/95
Rest*
115
38400
Qual
Notes:
Unto ate in mo/ho (dn; weight)
ER-L Indicale* Effect* Range - Low
ERM Indicate* Effect* Range-Median
Ci**rt* derived from NOAA Technical Memorandum (NOS DMA 52. Table 70)
•The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment Sorbed Contaminant* Tested In
the National Status and Trends Prooiam.* (NOAA. 1991). Some values further
revned In 1995 (Long, el el. 1995).
NA Mtotfes not applicable • ER-L or ER-M not established
DoBnMon of Quatiflef a:
J- Reported value Is quantitatively qualified as et unatc.l
N - Anatyte tantaUvery (denuded. Assumed to be | lesenl In sample
— Indicates not detected.
Data quaHDers are not applicable to Total PAHs. otal L IT. or Total PCBs
Total DDT Is the sum of DDT and Is derivatives
-------
January 1996
SEDIMENT
TABLE 14 (continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS
Global LandM
Inorganic Indfcatois
943-6163
NOAA
Sediment
Criteria
ERL
NA
NA
ER-M
NA
NA
Parameter
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Organic Cajbon
Sample Point
SD95-04
1 ab IO: 765518
Date Sampled: 10/17/95
Resut
163
64500
Qua!
J
J
Sample Point
SD9S-04FD
Lab ID: 765519
Dale Sampled: 10/17/05
Rest*
2.92
23700
Qual
J
J
Sample Point
SD95-05
Lab IO: 765906
Date Sampled: 10/18/95
Resul
134
24400
Qual
J
Sample Point
Lab ID:
Date Sampled:
Rest*
Qual
ample Point
lab ID
date S .inpted
ResiK
Qual
Reference: Colder Associates. March 19%.
Additional Ecological Investigation, Global Landfill, Old BridgeTownship, New Jersey"
Table 2
Note*:
Unteareki mg/kg (dry weight).
ER-L Indicate* Effect* Range - Low.
ER M Indicates Effects Range •
Citerla denVed (torn NOAA Technical MemonMidum (NOS OMA 52. Table 70)
The Potential for Bwtogteal Effects of Sedknent-Sorbed Contaminants Tested In
Ine National Status and Trends Program.' (NOAA. 1B8I) Some values further
revised hi 1995 (Long, et al. 1996)
NA Indicates not appfccaMe • ER-L or ER-M not established
DaHnlUonofQuaMflers:
J - Reported value Is quenUattvcty qtiatfted as estimated.
N - Anelyto tentatively Identified. Assumed to be present In sample
— Indicates not detected
Data ojuakfters are not applicable to Total PAHs. Total DDT. or Total PCBs
Total ODT Is the sum of DDT and to derivatives
-------
TABLE IS
COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN LANDFILL GAS SAMPLES
HIGH PRESSURE EVENT LOW PRESSURE EVENT
TYPE
# OF
SAMPLES*
VOC o
VOC 8
VOC
VOC
8
8
VOC o
VOC 8
VOC 8
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
GC
GC
GC
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
GC 8
SULF 8
H OF
DETECTIONS**
AVERAGE OF MAX # OF
DETECTED CONC + CONC .-H- DETECTIONS**
850 850 2
3 1177
3 23
-
o
2
0
0
1
7
3
6
6
7
8-
7
1295
260
655
170
4845
1700
6807
11975
2640
169
49 1
71
i< <
3000 5
•17 i
2
AVERAGE OF
DETECTED CONC +
630
1040
75
47
1 34
2100 4 734
I 79
i
260 2
1400 7
250 2
13000 7
3300 5
22000 8
46000 7
8500 . 6
25.2 8
71.4 8
418 7
30.5 8
1160 8
1420 ' 7
44
128
849
79
5400
2560
6780
14026
3032
87
305
37
285
660
547
MAX
CONC++
700
2700
75
62
34
2300
79
44
250
1600
140
17000
43000
18000
37000
7000
21 5
707
483
359
1160
870
SULF 8 3 <>•*<•
ANALYTE
CMor
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Trans-1,2-Dichloroeth
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
M&PXylenes
O-Xylenes
Oxygen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Methane (%)
Carbon Dioxide (%
Hydrogen Sulfide
Mercaptan Sulfidc I SULK IB i -> . _„. ,
-t- - Does not include duplicates unless analyte is not detected in the primary sample (cone, in ppb unless otherwise noted).
••-»• - Maximum concentration among all detections including duplicates (cone, in ppb unless otherwise noted)..
- Number of primary samples excluding duplicates.
- Detection among any sample at a location including primary sample and associated duplicate (maximum I detection per location)
• *
R
UR
,,
.14.
-------
TABLE 16
TOXIC1TY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Chemical
I.l-Dichloroelhane
1,4-DicJuorobenzene
4,4'-DDE
4.4--DDD
AJdrin
alpha-CNordane(l)
Kamma-Chlordajte(l)
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo (•) anthracene (2)
Benzo (•) pvrene
Benzo (b) Huonnlhene (2)
Benzo (k) Fkraranthene (2)
Beryllium
Bis (2-clhylhexyl) phthtUie
ButYlbenZYtphthalalc
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachlonde
Chloroform
Chrv»eoe(2)
Difaenz («Ji) anthracene (2)
uunma-BHCCLindine)
Hertachlor
Hcxavalcnt Chromium
Slope Factor
Inhalation
(mt/krdavJM
-
_
—
_
I7E+OI
I3E+00
I3E+00
I2E-06
2.4E-09
6.IE+40
6.IE+40
6IE+00
6.IE+00
8 4E+00
—
_
6 lEtOO
43E-09
66E-09
6IEtOO
6IE+00
_
37E-07
4IE-OI
Oial
(mg^g-dayr-l
-
24E42
3.4E-OI
24E-OI
I7E+OI
I3E+00
I3E+00
I.4E-09*
2.9E-02
II.5E+00
II5E+00
II5E+00
II 5E+00
43EHK)
I.4E-02
_
—
I.3E-01
61E-03
H5E+00
II3E+00
I.3E400
4JE+00
-
Weight-of-Evidcnce
Inhalation
C
C
B2
NA
B2
B2
B2
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
NA
Bl
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2-C
B2
A
Oral
C
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
A
82
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
ND
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2-C
B2
ND
Tumor Site
lflh*l*lioa
NA
NA
NA
NA
Liver
IJvcr
Liver
Respiratory
Leukemia
Rapintory
Rctpiratory
Respiratory
Respiratory
Lung
NA
NA
NA
Liver
Liver
Respiratory
Respiratory
NA
Liver
Lung
Oral
Hemangiosarcoma
l.i ver
Uver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Skin
Leukemia
Stomach
Stomach
Stomach
Stomach
Tumon
Liver
NA
NA
Liver
Kidney
Stomach
Stomach
Liver
Liver
NA
Reference/Source
Inhalation
HEAST
MEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
Oral
IIEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IIEAST
IIEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IIEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IIEAST
IRIS
HEAST
Dale Recorded
Inhalation
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
FY91
Oral
KY9I
FY9I
1/92
1/92
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
FY91
FY9I
FY9I
9/91
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
1/92
FY9I
-------
TABLE 16
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Chemical
Indeno ( 1 ,2,3-cd) pyrcne (2)
Isophorone
Lead
Mclhylene Chloride
Nickel
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PCBi
Slyrcnc
Tertachloroethene
Trichlorodhene
Vinvt Chloride
Slope Factor
WiaJatkw
{a&t+yr-l
6.IE+00
_
_
I.3E-IO
84E-OI
_
_
20E-03
1SE-IO
I7E-02
24E-08
Oral
(mg/kg-dayVM
II5E+00
4IE-03
_
75E-03
_
4.9E-03
77E+00
3.0E-02
3.IE-02
I.IE-02
I.9E+00
Weighl-of-Evidence
IrtSalaUgn
B2
C
B2
C
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
Oral
B2
C
B2
C
NO
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
TuotOfSjte
Inhalation
Respiratory
NA
NA
Kidney
Respiratory
NA
NA
Leukemia
Leukemia, Liver
Lung
Liver
Oral
Stomach
Kidney
NA
Kidney
NA
Bladder
Liver
Lung
Liver
Liver
Lung
Reference/Source
fataUUoa
IIEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IIEAST
HEAST
IIEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
Oral
IIEAST
IRIS
IIEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IIEAST
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
Dale Recorded
Inhalation
FY9I
FY9I
FY91
1/92
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
FY9I
Oral
FY9I
1/92
FY9I
1/92
FY9I
4/90
1/92
FY91
1/92
1/92
FY9I
(I) - Slope Factors are obtained for the chemical chlordane.
(2) - Toxkily values for Benzo(a)pyrene were used for all
carcinogenic PAHi when data were otherwise
unavailable.
NA-Not Applicable
NO-Not Determined
IRIS • Integrated Ride Information System. Dale indicates last update by EPA.
Access to IRIS was March. 1992
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Dale indicates the fiscal year they were published.
• - Calculated from oral unit risk of S.OE-OS ug/LA-1
Reference:
URS Consultants, Inc., June 1992. Table 7 - 22, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 17
TOX1CITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Chemical
Critical EBecl
JK_
MB.
Swbcfcnmc
Oral
RFD
Owl
Chmotc
Oral
Reference/Sour oe
Subctoamc
Onl
Chronic
Oral
DtfcRccofded
l*ti«0
1.1
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FY»I
4M4I
HE-PI
8W
IW
HEAST
HEAST
IMS
MO
ND
HEACT
HEAST
HEAST
ram
NO
HEAST
FT»I
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
J".
IQt-M
NA
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
(0
ND
4JE-C
NO
40C-01
I HEAST
IHEAST
ND
HEAST 1 HEAST I
FYtl
NO
HEAST
HEAST
»«t-05
MEAST
HEAST
IMS
fY»l
tmm
HEAST
HEAST
NO
NoUfcat
HEAST
HEAST
ND
IQt-01
NO
ltC-04
NA
HEAST
HEAST
sw-a
HE-04
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
NO
4«*«0
NO
NA
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IMS
in
NO
4M-M
NO
IW
HEAST
HEAST
ND
ND
set-M
HEAH
HEAST
HEAST
IMS
rnt
10E-M
NO
HEAST
HEAST
HUS
FTtl
FYtl 1X1
IKKO
NO
!«•*!
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IMS
NO
NO
NO
HEASt
HEAST
HEAST
ICMI
J22S23L.
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
ND
HO
10E-64
HEAST
FY9I-I/M
>0t-07
JOJ-OI
HEAST
HEAST
FY9I ««l
ND
NO
NA
HEAST
IMS
FV«I
I HA I
HEAST | HtAST I HEAST I HfcAST
ND
I0i«
-------
TABLE 17
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGEN1C EFFECTS
_g£C_
Jffi.
_ES_
Old
RFD
Critic*! Elba
Oraic
Oral
RcfcreBCt/Souroe
Otl
Omow
Ortl
DileRwuded
MnMiaii Oitl
ND
IJi-U
NO
NO
Blood, Sta
W
.If)
vn
NO
J2_
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
NO
MA
NA
HEAET
IMS
FYti-yii
NO
»«•«*
Jfi,
IOC-II
NA
NA
»W
HEAST
IRIS
FV»I
NO
JJO_
IM-tl
NA
HEAST
HEAST
FV9I
FYtl -Ml
NO
NO
IMwr.U.
NA
WAIT
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FV»I
FYtl
NO
NA
HEAIT
HEAST
Fttl-Wl
NO
NO
NA
HA
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
rv»i
rrti-un
1M4U
i*s««e
HEAST
HEAST
IMS
IRIS
NO
NO
NA
U~.h4ter.IM
NA
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
FYtl
Fltl-MI
NO
NO
HEATT
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
FYtl
NO
NO
101-04
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
FYtl
JSL
MA
HEAST
HEAST
IUS
FYtl-Mi
NO
Mt-M
NO
50S04
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
IK-01
\m
)OC-0)
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
NO
!«•«*
NO
7M-C1
NA
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NA
CM
CMS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
^iT-^M
NO
NO
NO
JH-OI
H-*-"
IK-OI
IIE-04
HEAST
2L
itf-OJ
IM-M
I4E4J
lM-04
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
tit 41
ttc-n
tM-U
HEAST
HEAST
DUS
NO
NO
49M3
tlinmilBW
HEAST
ice -M
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
FYtl
Fttl
hH«<»n
NO
HO
NA
HEAST
-------
TABLE 17
TOX1CITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGEN 1C EFFECTS
JffiL
Owl
jffi.
JEE.
Onl
RFD
Critical Effort
Subchronic
Orrf
Chronic
Oral
Refertnce/Souroo
Oral
Chronic
Oral
Due Recorded
Oril
UUS
J2.
MO
**««
HEAST
HEAST
HIAST
UUS
tm-vn
NO
NA
NA
HEAST
HEAST
HCAST
HIS
FYVI-l/n
- HO
t-OI
MO
IK-O
MA
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
ttIS
FT»I
Fvtt-un
S1MI
J1MI
IM-tl
CXi.Eyn.MQM
OH, Em. M
-------
TABLE 18
CANCER RISK FROM MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
ADULT TRESPASSER AND RESIDENT
TOTAL PATHWAY CANCER RISK
V
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SOU,
—
DIGESTION
0?
SOIL
-
INHALATION
09
FUGITIVE
DUST
8E-08
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
LEACHATE
~
INGEST10N
OF
SURFACE
WATER
7E-08
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
IE -08
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
IE- 12
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
2E-07
Reference:
URS Consultants, Inc.. June 1992. Table 7 - 39, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 19
CANCER RISK FROM MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
CHILD TRESPASSER AND RESIDENT
TOTAL PATHWAY CANCER RISK
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SOIL
—
INGEST10N
OF
SOIL
—
INHALATION
: ""OF"^'."
FUGITIVE
Vf>D;!)ST; r
4E-08
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
LEACHATE
-
INGEST1ON
OF
SURFACE
/:; WATER, v;
1E-07
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
7E-09
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
6E-13
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
1E-07
Reference:
URS Consultants, Inc.. June 1992. Table 7 - 40, Task 3 Report. Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 20
CANCER RISK FROM MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
TEENAGE / ADULT TRESPASSER
TOTAL PATHWAY CANCER RISK
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SOIL
2E-05
DIGESTION
OF
SOIL
8E-06
INHALATION
• -;;':".-v OF':'K"." '
FUGITIVE
&u>T
3E-08
DERMAL
CONTACT
r^wmr-.
LEACHATE
9E-08
WGESTION
:V-.::--;orr":--
SURFACE
WATER -;
-
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
-
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
7E-14
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
3E-05
Reference:
URS Consultants. Inc., June 1992. Table 7-41, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jei:,c)
-------
TABLE 21
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX FOR MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
ADULT TRESPASSER AND RESIDENT
TOTAL PATHWAY CHRONIC HAZARD INDICES
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SOIL
—
INGiSTlON
OF
SOIL
-
INHALATION
or
FUGITIVE
DUST
2E-01
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
LEACHATE
—
DIGESTION
Of
SURFACE
WATER
1E-03
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
4E-04
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
2E-05
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
2E-01
Reference;
URS Consultants, Inc., June 1992. Table 7 • 42, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site. Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 22
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX FOR MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
TEENAGE / ADULT TRESPASSER
TOTAL PATHWAY CHRONIC HAZARD INDICES
DERMAL
CONTACT
WfTO
SOUL
9E-02
INGCST10N
OF
SOIL
4E-02
INHALATION
OF
FUGITIVE
OUST
3E-01
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
LEACHATE
5E-OI
INGESTION
OF
SURFACE
WATER
-
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
-
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
2E-05
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
9E-01
Reference;
URS Consultants. Inc., June 1992. Table 7 - 43, Task 3 Report: Remedial Investigation at the Global Landfill Site, Old Bridge, New Jersey
-------
TABLE 23
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX FOR MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
CHILD TRESPASSER AND RESIDENT
TOTAL PATHWAY CHRONIC HAZARD INDICES
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SOIL
—
DIGESTION
OF
SOIL
—
INHALATION
Of
FUGITIVE
DUST
7E-01
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
LEACHATB
—
DIGESTION
OF
SURFACE
WATER
5E-03
DERMAL
CONTACT
WITH
SURFACE
WATER
9E-04
INHALATION
OF
AIRBORNE
CHEMICALS
6E-06
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
CANCER
RISK
7E-01
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LAiNDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
I. OVERVIEW
From January 9,1997 through February 7,1997, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) held a public comment period to obtain verbal and written comments from
citizens, elected officials, and other interested parties for the preferred remedy proposed by
NJDEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Operable Unit 2 (OU-
2) at the Global Landfill Superfund Site located in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County.
This Responsiveness Summary provides highlights of community involvement and NJDEP
community relation activities at the Site during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) and Public Comment Period. In particular, the document summarizes community
relations, legal questions and technical concerns pertaining to the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan
expressed by residents, local officials, and other interested parties. NJDEP noted that the OU-1
ROD, signed in 1991, dealt with the landfill itself (i.e. cap, gas management, and leachate
collection/treatment).
At the Public Meeting held on January 23,1997, NJDEP formally presented its preferred .
alternatives, addressing the ground water and sediments impacted by Global Landfill. The
preferred remedial alternative for ground water, GW-2, consists of ground-water quality
monitoring over a 30-year period, and includes a review of the need for further action (e.g.,
ground-water extraction, treatment, and disposal) at 5-year intervals and the establishment of a
Classification Exception Area (CEA) at the Site. This alternative would ensure that
contamination in the Upper Water-bearing Zone does not pose any threat to human health or the
environment. The preferred alternative for sediments, SD-3A, provides for localized removal of
contaminated sediments and on-site disposal under the landfill cap, restoration of the excavated
area, and mitigation of any wetland impacted by the remedy. This alternative also includes long-
term monitoring of wetlands and aquatic systems potentially affected by Site-related
contamination.
Written comments received during the Public Comment Period focused on concerns with the
ground water affecting the health of people exposed to low levels of contaminants that have
migrated into the ground-water aquifer, frequency of ground-water monitoring data review,
components of the ecological monitoring program, time-frame of implementing the OU-1
remedy, and investigating the Sommers Brothers site. Answers to the written comments are
presented in this document.
C-l
-------
II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES
Verbal comments made during the January 23, 1997 Public Meeting are summarized below,
followed by responses from the lead agency (NJDEP). Responses to written comments
submitted by the Old Bridge Township Environmental Commission (OBEC), Councilman-at-
Large Edward Testino, the Superintendent of Cheesequake State Park Susan Herron, citizens
Rim Sharma and Katherine Kiernan, and Golder Associates on behalf of the Global Landfill
Potentially Responsible Party Group (the "PRP Group") appear at the back of this
Responsiveness Summary. Copies of the written comments received, along with the resolution
passed by the Township of Old Bridge, are attached as an Appendix of this document.
COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC MEETING ON JANUARY 23,1997
1) A resident asked why the Site is not posted as contaminated ground if contamination of
any sort exists there, and why access to the Site is not restricted by either fencing or
security patrol. Children and adults visit the Site continuously, all terrain vehicles
(ATVs) have been observed there, and, adolescents gather, all of which may be
dangerous. If the signs are posted in an appropriate manner, then the Town is obliged to
enforce them.
«
Signs warning of contamination were posted at Global Landfill, and reinstalled several
times over the years to replace stolen or broken ones. Metal signs were installed one and
a half years ago, and the installation was supervised by the NJDEP Site Manager. In
addition, two barrier gates, one chain link and a second heavier metal swing gate, have
been installed at the access road to restrict access to the Site. Historically, signs have
been removed by vandals several weeks after installation. Extensive fencing, and Site
security will be provided as part of the Operable Unit 1 remedy.
2) A speaker inquired what types of tests were made during the Ecological Study on fish,
crustaceans, wildlife.
During the 1991 Remedial Investigation, contaminant levels in sediments among ten
sample locations exceeded sediment quality guidelines, indicating the potential for
adverse ecological effects. To further investigate this concern, an Ecological Risk
Assessment was conducted in 1994 as part of the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Rigorous Site-specific testing was conducted at four locations and two reference
locations in Cheesequake Creek Melvin 's Creek, and an unnamed tributary to determine
whether actual impacts had occurred or are probable. In addition to sediment chemical
analyses, fiddler crab tissue and sediment toxicity testing was conducted; mathematical
models, based on actual fiddler crab data, were used to measure food chain effects on
higher birds and mammals. The study concluded that no acute or chronic risk to
ecological receptors was indicated, with the exception of the localized sediment
contamination in the leachate seep area. The adverse impacts observed at this location
C-2
-------
are attributable to ammonia in the landfill leachate and this area is scheduled for
remediation.
In order to verify the findings of the Supplemental study, an Additional Ecological
Evaluation was conducted in 1995 using five new sample locations that were generally
closer in proximity to the landfill than the 1994 locations, approximating a "worse-case "
scenario. Again, sediment chemistry and sediment toxicity testing was performed, as well
as a survey of the bottom-dwelling invertebrates in the marsh channels. This study
confirmed the findings of the 1994 study, i.e., that no impacts are observable or likely
from the discharge of ground water to the marsh, with the exception of the leachate seep
area.
3) A speaker asked if trees and shrubbery on the cap will compromise its integrity because
their roots can provide openings for rainwater.
After the cap is constructed, it will be vegetated with grass to hold the soft cover (the last
component of the cap) in place, but shrubbery and trees will not be planted As part of
the cap maintenance, any shrubberies and trees that accidentally take root will be
removed routinely.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (4 through 12) WERE POSED BY EDWARD
TESTING, A RESIDENT AND COUNCILMAN OF OLD BRIDGE
4) Where is the contaminated deep well located? Is its contamination linked to Global
Landfill and were the drums found at the same location?
The locations were indicated on a poster board map of the Site during the meeting. The
deep well, MW-5D, with the only evidence of elevated contaminants in the lower aquifer,
is located along the southwest perimeter of the landfill. The same contaminants were
also detected in the Upper Water -bearing Zone (UW7) and are coming from the landfill.
The 6.5 acre extension area, where the drums were found, is located across the northwest
perimeter of the Landfill.
5) What types of metals or hazardous items were detected at that well and can one drink the
water from that well.
Chlorobenzene, an organic compound, was detected in that deep well (MW-5D) at 140 to
240 ppb, which are the highest detections amongst deep wells. At these levels, the
ground water would exceed the drinking water standards and cannot be used for
drinking. Several metals were also detected in this well. However, since the same metals
were detected at the same levels in other monitoring wells including the background
wells, the landfill is not necessarily the source of all these metals.
C-3
-------
6) Is the clay layer separating the UWZ from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer a natural layer or
was it put there by the landfill owners?
The organic/clayey silt layer, referred to as the Amboy Stoneware clay, is a naturally
occurring layer that separates the UWZ from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer beneath the
filled area and pinches out below the northwest perimeter of the landfill. This relatively
impermeable clayey silt layer is a barrier between the UWZ and the Old Bridge Sand
aquifer such that any contamination tomingfrom the landfill would be transported
through the UWZ and discharge into the wetlands.
7) Does the Old Bridge Sand aquifer run under the Town of Old Bridge?
The Old Bridge Sand aquifer extends over a large area including the Town of Old
Bridge.
8) What is the time schedule for sediment remediation? When will the cap be installed?
As stated in the Proposed Plan, the responsible parties are designing the OU-1 remedy,
which includes the cap and the leachate system.. As part of this process, Transco has
already relocated its gas line. The decisions regarding OU-2 impact their design for
OU-1. As soon as the Proposed Plan for OU-2 is finalized into the ROD, the
responsible parties will complete the design for the cap construction, leachate collection
and gas venting. The exact schedule for design completion and construction is not yet
determined. It is believed that the design would take at least 1 to 1.5 years to complete,
with construction starting right after that. Sediment removal will be sequencedfollowing
installation of the leachate collection system so as to avoid recontamination of the
wetlands.
9) It was stated that the remedial actions have already gone past the selection of ground-
water pumping and treatment alternative. When was that decision made? Is this decision
based on acceptable levels for human health?
The ground-water pumping and treatment alternatives were evaluated and screened out
during the Feasibility Study. The decision was based on the fact that there was little
impact on the receptors as determined through the human health risk assessment (HRA).
The HRA considered such factors as who drinks the ground water, how many times
people come to the Site, what they might touch or eat, how far away they are, etc.
Additionally, the risk assessment also included ecological receptors in the neighboring
wetlands. Sampling included various locations adjacent to the landfill and others
further away. The farthest sampled location was Cheesequake State Park,. Both the
C-4
-------
human health and ecological assessments showed little impact on receptors from the
ground water at the Site. Additionally, the ecological evaluation of the Site showed little
impact on the wetlands from the sediments with the exception of the one leachate seep
area at the southeastern portion of the Site.
10) Has any ground-water testing been done further away than just the immediate Site area,
maybe wells that are in places like the one on Throckmorton Lane?
A well survey was done during the Rlto identify the nearest potential user of ground
water from the Lower Water-bearing Zone (LWZ). The well survey looked for wells in
all four directions from the landfill, and found no residential wells in the area. Off-site
wells are selected based on regional and localized predominant ground-water flow
directions as well as potential connection with the aquifer underlying the Site. On this
Site, the UWZ does not migrate beyond the adjacent wetlands where it recharges the
surface water. Two background wells upgradient of the landfill were installed and
sampled during the RJ/FS, and found to have no impact from the landfill.
The nearest municipal wells drawing water from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer are at least
a mile away as well as being upgradient (approximately one mile north of the Site).
There is also another clean well between the landfill and the closest municipal well. The
closest supply well (i.e., the Hooks Creek Lake replenishing well) is downgradient
approximately two miles to the east of the landfill. The Hooks Creek Lake well was
tested during the RI/FS and found to be screened in (drawing water from) the deeper
Farrington aquifer, not in the LWZ (Old Bridge Sand aquifer).
The well on Throckmorton Street is upgradient from Global Landfill and does not draw
any ground water impacted by the landfill It was therefore not sampled. Drawing water
from that well would not exert an influence on ground water at the landfill because of the
large distance. If this upgradient well is part of a municipal supply system, then the
municipal supply system itself, not necessarily the well, is sampled and analyzed on a
frequent basis as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
\
11) Who will finance the selected remedial alternative? Will money be available in the
future, say five or ten years down the road, if contamination continues to reach into the
lower aquifer?
The funding for the remediation is coming from settlements with a number of parties,
including the owner and operator of the Site, and a number of transporters and
generators. The PRP Group will be implementing the ROD for OU-1. Once the ROD for
' OU-2 is signed, the NJDEP will request that the PRP Group assume responsibility for
this Operable Unit (OU-2) also.
If a determination is made after monitoring and/or five year reviews that further action is
C-5
-------
required, the Department will once again negotiate with the responsible parties to take
further remedial action. If negotiations fail. State monies could be used. The State
could take legal actions to force the responsible parties to fund -nv action. Glc'- il
Landfill will remain a Superfund Site for as long as the five-year reviews are required to
verify a decreasing contamination trend at the Site. This means that the Site is eligible
for federal Superfund, and/or State Spill Fund, and Bond Act monies, should that be
necessary.
12) Are there any other concentrated sources of contamination, besides the drums that have
already been removed, that warrant removal?
The geophysical investigation that was performed as part of the RI did not identify any
other concentrated sources of contaminated waste drums that warrants removal. It is
possible that other concentrated sources are located within the 100 foot high landfill.
The leachate system is included as part ofOU-1 to collect and treat concentrated
contamination in the ground water. If any drums corrode and start leaking in the future,
it will be detected by the ground-water monitoring. An evaluation will be made at that
time to address any ground- water contamination that warrants further treatment in the
future. i
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (13 through 19) WERE POSED BY MS. BLANCHE
HOFFMAN, MEMBER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
13) More specific information on the reasonable exposure model used in the RI/FS, the
specific chemicals used in the human health risk and ecological assessment, and the risk
model calculations is requested.
The Health Risk Assessment Report (1992) provides a detailed description of the
procedures, calculations and assessment. Instead of going into these highly technical
issues, NJDEP will send the appropriate report pages to Ms. B. Hoffman, and a full copy
of this Report to the Environmental Commission. The report is also available at the
information repositories in Old Bridge and Sayreville.
14) What is the chemical composition of the sediments? s
The sediments in the tidal marsh are silt and clay with significant natural organic
content. Volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and PCBs have been detected at low
concentrations. The observed distribution of the exceedances (compared to USEPA
Sediment Quality Criterion Values) in the sediments indicate that not all the elevated
concentrations are attributable to the Global Landfill Heavy metals are within the same
order of magnitude in sediments close to and away from the landfill The sediments at
the toe of the landfill show contamination as a result of the landfill leachate, and will be
excavated and placed on top of the landfill before it is capped.
C-6
-------
15) What is the unfinished leachate pond that is shown on the Site plan?
Before the landfill was formally closed in 1984, plans were developed for a leachate
collection system. The unfinished leachate pond was part of this leachate collection
system. The pond is now abandoned and overgrown with vegetation.
16) When can the township expect to have the landfill capped? It's been 13 years!
After the ROD for this OU-2 is signed, negotiations with the responsible parties will take
place. The design of the required features is expected to take approximately a year.
Construction of the cap will follow which will probably take more than a year for
completion since it will be done in phases. However, the security features (e.g., fencing,
sign posting) can be implemented without waiting for the design to be completed.
17) Once this ROD is signed could representatives of the responsible parties meet with the
township and discuss these plans and schedule?
Once the responsible parties sign on to implement the ROD for OU-2, they will be
working in close contact with the Township and will keep the Township informed.
18) The Environmental Commission used to get quarterly reports with analytical data which
has now stopped. Why?
All the sampling and monitoring work completed to date has been summarized in the
reports for the Site. Ground-water quarterly monitoring has not been done in the last
two years and is the reason for the Environmental Commission not getting any quarterly
reports. A database of multiple quarterly monitoring events from 1988 to 1993 has been
established and shows that the conditions at the Site have not changed, NJDEP will
forward copies of any report it receives to the Environmental Commission.
19) Where will the collected leachate go to?
The collected leachate will be taken off-site to a licensed waste management facility,
suitable for that type of waste.
C-7
-------
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (20 through 23) WERE POSED BY MR. NELSON
INGLESIA, OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER
20) What is to assure the township that the contaminated sediments, which will be excavated
and placed on top of the landfill under the cap, will not eventually go down again into the
ground water?
Once the contaminated sediments are excavated, they have to be dewatered and then
spread on top of the landfill before installation of an impermeable cap. No surface water
or rain will percolate through the sediments to mobilize the contaminants through the
landfill. Even if this happens, the contaminated water will be collected by the leachate
system^ Nonetheless, the sediments to be removed contain mainly ammonia, which will
volatilize as soon as the sediment is excavated and spread on top of the landfill. So the
sediments when placed under the cap will not cause any ground-water problem even if
rain water percolates through them.
21) Was the purpose of OU-2 to prevent possible ground-water contamination?
The purpose of OU-2 was to look at the ground water and adjacent wetland surface
water and sediments. Extensive sampling from a number of studies has shown no
significant impacts from the ground water that reaches the wetland areas, nor is any
contamination in the ground water from the landfill expected to reach any public supply
wells. As part of the remedy for OU-2, the contaminated sediments will be removed and
the ground water will be monitored to ensure that conditions are not worsening.
Monitoring data results will be reviewed regularly. At a minimum, every five years the
Site remedies will be assessed for effectiveness. Appropriate action will be taken in the
event that the monitoring data shows that the remedies chosen for the Site are ineffective.
22) What will happen if additional contamination is revealed while removing the 5,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediments?
The design will have provisions to handle additional contaminated sediments if
encountered during remediation. The design excavation plan will include specifications
on areas to be excavated, confirmatory sediment sampling as welfas control of water,
leachate or rainwater from the excavation. Please note that the quantity of 5,000 cubic
yards for the sediment excavation is only an estimate, and could be significantly less.
The installation of the stabilization berm might overlap with the small area of the
contaminated sediments and further decrease this quantity.
23) How will the Township know whether the implemented remedy is working or not?
A reporting schedule with NJDEP or the PRP Group, and the Township will be
established to ensure that the Township is kept informed.
C-8
-------
THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS (24 through 27) POSED BY COUNCILMAN
REGINALD BUTLER GOLDRICH
24) What is the time frame of capping the landfill?
As mentioned earlier, the construction of the landfill cap and other components ofOU-1
will commence once the final design is completed - approximately one year from now.
The construction phase of the combined remedy (OU-1 andOU-2) will take another two
years beyond that.
25) What type of monitoring has been going on since the landfill closure in 1984?
A series of wells have been installed both in the shallow and deeper ground-water
aquifers, and multiple rounds of ground-water monitoring samples have been collected.
Surface soil samples were collected from the area between the landfill and nearby
housing complexes. Several rounds of sediment samples from around the landfill and as
far away as Cheesequake Park have been collected Surface water samples to determine
the landfill's impact on Cheesequake Creek and its tributaries were collected. Air
sampling and modeling were conducted to ensure the quality of air reaching nearby
residential areas. In addition, geophysical work was done to investigate what may have
been buried in the landfill. Two detailed ecological studies were completed in order to
assess the ecological impacts posed by the leachate and ground water discharging into
the wetlands.
26) When the landfill was closed in 1984, some health studies were done in reference to the
people living in the area. Are there any data as to what the health studies unveiled?
The Global Task Force received a grant from the Legislature to work with the
Department of Health to determine whether a full epidemiological study was required.
The study concluded that an epidemiological study was not necessary.
27) Does the water from the landfill itself flow throughout the Old Bridge Township?
No. water from the landfill flows away from Old Bridge Township and its supply wells.
Moreover, the Old Bridge water supply wells are periodically tested by the township and
have shown no signs of contamination. These supply wells will continue to be tested by
the township in the future.
C-9
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
A. Letter from Ms. Ritu Sharma
An East Brunswick High School student inquired why it has taken such a long time for
any action to begin at Global Landfill and why ground-water monitoring will last thirty
years.
Since Global Landfill was placed in the National Priorities List (March 1989), several
studies were conducted to insure the most efficient way of remediating the Site. To
facilitate this, the Site was divided into two Operable Units (OU): OU-1 and OU-2. The
first one, OU-1, addressed landfill capping, stabilization berm, leachate collection and
gas collection. A ROD for OU-1 was signed in September 1991. OU-2 addresses
contamination emanating from the landfill to the ground water and neighboring
wetlands. An RI/FS study, two ecological risk studies and an effluent limitation stream
study were completed under OU-2 in preparation for the second ROD to be signed. All
this takes time, while ensuring that the selected remedy is technically sound and cost-
effective.
Ground-water alternative GW-2 (Limited Action) provides for ground-water monitoring
for a period of up to thirty years with five-year reviews to be performed in between. The
monitoring period of thirty years is an estimated time frame. If the five year reviews
show a decreasing trend of ground-water contamination at the Site, the monitoring
schedule can be modified accordingly. Conversely, additional remedial measures could
be implemented if conditions do not improve after the remedy is constructed.
B. Comment from Ms. Katherine Kiernan
1) Ms. Kiernan, a South Amboy resident, suggested that the landfill capping must move
forward and ground-water monitoring should start as soon as possible.
After the ROD for this OU-2 is signed, the design for OU-1, part of which is the landfill
capping, will be finalized within a year or eighteen months Ground-water monitoring
can start as soon as negotiations with the PRPsfor OU-2 are finalized and Alternative
GW-2 is implemented.
C. Comments from Ms. Susan Knauf. Old Bridge Environmental Commission
1) Ms. Susan Knauf, Vice Chair of the Environmental Commission, urged that design and
construction of the Remedial Action provided under the ROD for OU-1 should start
without any further delay.
The OU-1 remedial design will be completed in a year or eighteen months following the
C-10
-------
signing of the ROD for OU-2 so as to incorporate common elements and ensure
compatibility. Construction will ensue immediately thereafter.
2) NJDEP is encouraged to investigate the Sommers Brothers site, which neighbors Global
Landfill. This, however, should not cause further delay in the implementation of the
remedial action for Global.
Afield inspection of the Sommers Property \vas performed in 1986 by NJDEP which
identified several different areas with drums. These drums were subsequently removed.
Between March of 1987 and September of 1989, NJDEP performed a site assessment at
the property. In 1990 a limited ground-water investigation of the site was conducted
which indicated ground-water contamination from volatile organic compounds. The site
has been prioritized by the NJDEP based upon the existing sampling data. Due to its
relatively low Remedial Prioritization Score it is currently awaiting assignment to a
NJDEP case manager.
The Sommers Brothers site will not affect the implementation of the remedies for the
Global Landfill • .
3) Table 1-1 of the Final FS cites "0" instead of "ND" for the non-detected analytes.
Comment will be incorporated and a revised Table 1-1 showing a blank for non-detects
is included in the ROD as Table 1.
D. Comments from Ms,. Susan Herron. Cheesequake State Park Superintendent
1) Ms. Susan Herron, the Cheesequake State Park Superintendent, expressed concern
regarding the toxicity of the crabs examined at the Site, and requested removal and off-
site disposal of the contaminated sediment. Additionally, Ms. Herron requests testing of
the Farrington aquifer to determine Global Landfill's influence on it.
Based on two detailed ecological studies that were performed at the Site, a relatively
small sediment area was found to be severely impacted by landfill leachate. This area is
on the southeast side of the landfill and contained high concentrations of ammonia, a
leachate constituent, which caused zero survivability of these organisms. The sediments
from that area will be removed and placed on the landfill before it is capped (sediment
alternative SD-3A). This alternative is more effective in that the ammonia, the
contaminant of concern, will readily vaporize during the excavation and drying process.
Contaminants were measured in crab tissues at three locations in the 1995 study: at the
landfill, downgradient of the landfill, and at a background location. In general, the
contaminant concentrations in the crab tissues taken from the two locations closest to the
Site exceeded those detected in the crabs from the background location. In addition, a
C-ll
-------
qualitative visual inspection was made of the crabs collected in the field. The inspection
included notations of the condition, health, behavior, and reproduction of the crabs.
Based upon these observations, the 1995 study concluded that the reported
concentrations of contaminants in the tissue samples did not appear to be causing any
deleterious effects to the crabs. Based upon the results of the 1991 remedial
investigation, and the 1995 study, EPA determined that representative mammalian and
avion receptors (muskrat, raccoon, and cattle egret, respectively) were not adversely
effected by the contaminant concentrations in the crabs.
During the RI study, a health risk assessment was performed which determined that
swimming in Hooks Creek Lake does not pose any risk above acceptable regulatory
levels. For the Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA), it was assumed that ground water
from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer replenishes the supply well for Hooks Creek Lake. It
was later confirmed that this well is actually screened in the deeper Farrington aquifer
and not connected to the Old Bridge Sand aquifer. Risk levels to human health while
swimming in the lake are expected to be even lower than alluded to in the HRA.
E. Comments from Mr. Edward Testing. Councilman-at-Large. Old Bridge Township
1) Councilman-At-Large Edward Testino commented on the possible risks that low level
ground-water contamination can pose on human health and requested that every possible
precaution is taken to protect the community from health problems caused by landfill
contaminants.
The only monitoring well screened in the Old Bridge Sand aquifer, that has shown to
have significant organic contamination, is well MW-5D on the southwest side of the
landfill. Multiple rounds of ground-water monitoring data have shown that the level and
location of contamination has not changed. Considering that the ground-water flow
direction in the Old Bridge Sand aquifer is to the south-southeast, this contaminated
water is not expected to impact the Town of Old Bridge supply wells which are north and
north-west of the site. Long-term monitoring of the ground water, which will be
performed under the Limited Action Alternative (GW-2), will verify this. The monitoring
data and the five-year reviews will indicate if further ground-water remedial action will
be required in the future.
F. Comments from Colder Associates. Inc. for the Global Landfill PRP Group
1) Colder Associates, on behalf of the PRP Group, requested flexibility for annual reviews
of the ground-water monitoring data and adjustment of the ground-water monitoring
program accordingly. Additionally, they suggest that the ecological monitoring program
should focus on visual assessment of the restored wetland and not include monitoring of
other areas as described in the Proposed Plan.
C-12
-------
The ground-water monitoring data will be periodically assessed to determine the
frequency of sampling needed over the long-term, and the ground-water monitoring
program will be adjusted accordingly. However, the objective of the ecological
monitoring program is to assess wetlands and aquatic systems potentially affected by
Site-related contamination, not just those portions affected by the excavation of
sediments. Further, the ecological monitoring program data will be compared to the
data developed in the 1994 and 1995 ecological studies to determine if there is
improvement in the condition of the wetlands and aquatic systems, or if additional
remedial measures may be required. Therefore, the scope and methodology of the
ecological monitoring program will need to be consistent with that of the earlier studies.
As a result, EPA does not plan to limit the program to a visual assessment of the restored
wetland.
G. On January 27,1997 the town council of Old Bridge passed a resolution in support
of the remedy selected by the NJDEP and EPA to address the environmental
concerns of Operable Unit 2 for Global Landfill.
C-13
-------
T
^ » c-.^di
-------
. Wat-US'
J f ft
A>r~4
J> /
LL&Ld +1)
£tl (•'.
^W4-
a-
'> ..^ C
'.-• ^U '
.' «•• •;z.' as)
_
""/•• f.Tt-LL-! t.,tL I"i LL-L-LL.fii'
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION V. ^^-57 •/ MIDDLESEX COUNTY NJ
(908) 721 - 5600 '^
TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
Blanche D. Hoffman, Chair Jim Merle
Susan E. Knauf, Vice Chair Ernest Schmitz
. Cindy Bell Robert f. Sommers
Dr. George R. Koehler Gary Szetc
Martin Lyons
February 6, 1997
Township Council
Township of Old Bridge
One Old Bridge Plaza
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
RE: Global Landfill Remediation
The Environmental Commission of the Township of Old Bridge has since its inception been an
advocate for the environment. It's stated mission is to infuse the concept of environmental protection
into all aspects of governmental decisions and to educate others of this tenet. In all cases, the
protection of human health and the environment is the main objective.
In the course of the many years in which Global Landfill, its Site Investigative work, the Preliminary
Assessment, the Remedial Investigation, the Health Assessment and the many rounds of
groundwater monitoring, the Commission has been an active participant in the process conducted
under the coordination of the NJDEP, the lead agency. We have participated with the New Jersey
Department of Health and ATSDR on the health and demographic study on the effects of the
landfill. We have read every report submitted to the Township and attended every public hearing
or meeting on the subject Unfortunately, the same can not be said for members of the Council or
the administration staff.
We also would like to take this opportunity to cite for the record that the members of the
Commission are not only dedicated volunteers of the Community, looking out for the best interests
of the community, but are also dedicated professionals crossing the many lines of technical
disciplines needed to plan, implement, evaluate and recommend solutions to environmental matters.
We are comprised of both civil and chemical engineers, naturalists, conservationists, chemists and
quality assurance professionals.
We feel this is important because we believe the comments made by three members of the Council
were both inappropriate and ill advised. To claim that the primary driving force behind the remedial
alternative recommended by the DEP and EPA is cost driven is inaccurate and downright wrong.
ONt OLD BWDCt PIAZA • OLD BRIDGE. N.J. 0*857 • |90« 731 • MOO
-------
Nine criteria are used in the evaluation of alternatives, and for those that took the time to read the
reports rather than draw an opinion before all the facts are known, they would know that.
One might ask, why on the council agenda for the January 26 meeting prepared before the actual
presentation of the report by DEP, did the person making the resolution already decide to oppose the
plan? It had not even been read. We believe their comments have served no one - not the persons
making the statements, not the DEP, not the Department of Health, not the Environmental
Commission, and certainly not the Township residents in the vicinity of this site.
The Environmental Commission believes no one would be served by delaying the implementation
of the proposed alternative any longer. No further site characterization is needed. The monitoring
plan proposed is designed to evaluate any changed conditions. We are incredulous that anyone
would expect a "guarantee" of the effectiveness of any solution. We oil know that even engineering
designs are planned with certain tolerances using assumptions of risk. We all also know that even
after anything is built, be it a bridge or a dam, structural integrity tests are required over the life span
of that structure. That's why such things are inspected. The monitoring plan follows the same
premise.
We would welcome sitting down with Township staff and the Council to discuss these issues. We
do not, however, want to make this a political forum. It must be predicated on the assumption of
open dialog, not preconceived ideas. Communicating risk and understanding risk is difficult for us
all, for the scientists and engineers who more clearly understand the quantitative nature of the
process, but are often ill prepared to put that information into terms that lay people can understand
to the populace who desperately want a world with zero risk. We all count on the politicians and
technical personnel to move beyond the fay and work together on a solution, not a criticism of
other's solutions, while offering none of their own.
Additionally, no matter how you decide on any plan, no one, even us, even the DEP, even you.
cannot discount that cost will always enter the picture as a factor. But, nowhere in the plan
developed by DEP has cost been the deciding factor to the exclusion of the protection of the
environment and human health.
We would like to see the Council consider the Commission's opinion for what it is, and at least,
before playing to the media and public by being naysayers to a technical plan supported by the
Commission afford the Commission the opportunity to discuss your concerns with us first.
In conclusion, however, we are grateful that 5 members of the Council approved the resolution to
move DEP's plan forward.
Sincereh
Blanche D. Hoffman, Chair Susan E. Knauf, Vice
cc Mayor Cannon
Jack Coughlln, Administrator
Nelson Iglesias, P.E.
-------
17549
S 281 166 6249
Chrininr lodd Whitiun
Governor
of JCefo 3)er0ry
Department ol EaviionmcnUI Protection
Roborl C. Slunn, Jr.
Con\mi»»iontt
Cheesequake State Patk
Matawan,NJ 07747
(908)566-2161
TO: Donald Kakas, Supervisor
Bureau of Community Relations
FROM: Susan Herron, Superintendent
Cheesequake State Park ,
DATE: February 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Plan for Ground Water and Sediments at the
Global landfill Supcrfund Site
As Cheesequake State Park is in very close proximity to the Global Landfill, 1 would like
to express my concern for the proposed clean-up of the site. 1 am particularly concerned with the
loxicrty of the crabs examined at the site. As one of the advertised recreational features of
Cheesequake State Park is Ashing Wfl crabbing in the Cheesequake Creek, 1 would like to request
that all clean-up efforts involve removal of contaminated sediment from the site and the sediment
be disposed of off-site. People are ingesting the fish and crabs from this area on a dairy basis And
they need to be assured that there will be no further pollutants released into the creek area.
Last year Cheesequake State Park pumped over a million gallons of water from the
Harrington Aquifer into Hooks Creek Lake. 1 don't see any plan to test the Harrington Aquifer on
a regular basis in the future to determine if there is seepage from the Old Bridge Sand Aquifer.
This aquifer is separated from the Farrington Aquifer by only 130 feet of mud. Thousands of
people swim in Hooks Creek Lake each year.
Cheesequake Stale Park has over 230,000 park visitors each year. How many people
have been exposed in one way or another to the toxicity of the Global Landfill Superfund Site
during the past thirteen years while clean-up activities were stalled? It is time to proceed and
clean this site up to the fullest extent.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call me ai
(908)566-2161.
c:
Paul Scdor
New frnry ii in £qujj Opportunity I mployet
Recyeted f»per '
-------
January 17,1997
Page Two
Accordingly, as an elected representative of the people of Old Bridge Township Middlesex
County, I must demand that the NJDEP take every possible precaution to protect our
community, if there is even the remotest possibility that the contaminants caused by the
landfill can result in health problems. 1 believe steps must be taken to eliminate the
contaminants at the source.
I thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide your agency with my comments and
objections. I look forward to the hearing on this matter and urge you to adopt a more
aggressive remeadiation plan,
Very truly yours,
WARt> TESTING
ET*cmv
cc: Governer Christine Todd Whitman
Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr.
Assemblyman Joseph Azzolina
Assemblywoman Joann H. Smith
Mayor Barbara Cannon
Old Bridge Twp. Town Council
Speaker - Assembly Office
President • Senate Office
-------
EDWARD TESTING [/ l^j '£] n Reply to:
Councilman -at-large \* ' hl> ~ /.? -/ 204 Route 34
(908)721-5600 '^^-if^i^'^J Old Bridge Township
Ext 2252 S^L*rr^X Matawan, New Jersey 07747
^sJLS*^ (908) 525-9000
TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
January 17,1997
Donald L. Kakas, Supervisor
Bureau of Community Relations
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
CN-413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 .
Re: Global Landfill Contamination
Dear Mr. Kakas:
As Councilman-at-Large for the Township of Old Bridge, I strongly object to the plan for
dealing with Global Landfill Contamination, I have serious concerns about the contaminated
water in the aquifer and wetland sediments at the Global Landfill Superfund Site and the plan
being proposed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to address the
problem. Global Landfill was placed on the National Priorities List of Superfund Sites in
1989.
As I understand, the plan being proposed by the DEP only requires monitoring of the aquifer
wells and no real remeadiation to prevent further contamination. Citing a well as only
slightly contaminated and concluding, therefore, the same is not a risk to human health is
unacceptable to me. On behalf of myself and my constituents, I do not believe that the DEP
can guarantee that these contaminants will not affect the health of people exposed to low
levels in drinking water or the air or further contamination of these precious resources will
not occur.
As you may well know, studies were done by the New Jersey Department of Health and the
Massachusetts Department of Health on the chances of toxic effects as a result of low level
contaminated water. The studies suggested there is a geographic pattern in low level
contaminated drinking water related to a slight elevation in the occurrence of leukemia. A
California study related chemicals in the water to an increase in certain birth defects
(congenital hear malformation) and low birth weight."
ONE OLD BRIDGE PLAZA • OLD BRIDGE. N.J. 08857 * (908)721-5600
-------
OoUtor Associates Inc.
' 305 Fellowship Roaa. Suite200
Mt. laurel. NJ USA 08054
Tel: (609) 273-1110
Fax (609) 273-0778
February 6,1997 Project No.: 943-6183
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Community Relations
Site Remediation Program
CN413
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0413
Attn.: Donald J. Kakas, Supervisor
RE: COMMENTS ON THE SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN
GLOBAL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 2
Mr. Kakas:
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the Superrund Proposed Plan dated
December, 1996 for the Second Operable Unit at the Global Landfill (Site) located in Old Bridge
Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. These comments are submitted by the members of
the Global Landfill PRP Group (Group) who have entered into a Consent Decree (Civil Action
No. 92-1546 dated November 15,1993) for implementation of the selected remedy for Operable
Unit No. 1 (OU-1) at the Global Landfill.
In general, the Group supports the conclusions drawn from the Proposed Plan and preferred
alternative for sediment and groundwater remediation. Specifically, the Proposed Plan
recognizes the implementation of the OU-1 remedy and the inter-relationship with OU-2. The
preferred alternative complements the selected remedy for OU-1 (e.g. capping, leachate
collection) and provides for an effective Site-wide remedy that is consistent with the minimal
risk posed by the Site. The Group, however, has several specific comments regarding the
preferred remedy for groundwater and sediment as outlined below.
Groundwater
The Group generally supports the preferred alternative for groundwater which includes
monitoring and establishment of a Classification Exception Area. There were no unacceptable
risks identified for either the upper or lower water (Old Bridge Sand) zones. The RI/FS did not
identify any residential or municipal wells downgradient of the Site. One well was identified
approximately one mile downgradient of the Site which is used to replenish Hooks Creek Lake.
However, there is no direct connection to the Site since this well is screened in a lower geologic
unit (Farrington Formation) and separated from the Old Bridge Sand by approximately 130 feet
of clayey geologic units. The Proposed Plan also recognizes the benefits resulting from the
implementation of OU-1 to further reduce the overall risk. The majority of the Site is underlain
by a clayey silt semi-confining unit separating the upper water zone and the Old Bridge Sand.
The OU-1 cap will reduce water levels in the upper water zone mitigating the potential
downward migration of groundwater to the Old Bridge Sand and enhancing upward gradients
from the Old Bridge to the upper water zone.
The monitoring program described in the Record of Decision (ROD) should be, sufficiently
flexible to allow for its design during the Remedial Design stage and subsequent refinement over
the monitoring period based on the results obtained. Since the leachate seeps will be mitigated
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection February 6,1997
Donald J. Kakas. Supervisor ^ 943-6183
as a source to the wetlands as pan of OU-1, ecological monitoring should account for the inter-
relationship with monitoring of the upper water zone and not be redundant The Proposed Plan
indicates quarterly monitoring for a minimal period of 5 years from new and existing wells. The
ROD should allow flexibility for annual reviews to provide for adjustments in the monitoring
program as the data is collected.
Sediment
The Group generally supports the preferred alternative for sediment which comprises localized
sediment excavation and relocation onto the landfill prior to.placement of the cap. The timing of
sediment excavation will need to be sequenced with leachate seep management and cap
construction. The Group also supports that the determination of the extent of sediment removal
at the specific seep will be determined during the remedial design based on visual criteria. The
ecological risk assessment did not identify any adverse impacts to ecological receptors with the
exception of benthic organisms at a single discrete leachate seep. The Preferred Remedy will
address the sediment impacted by this leachate seep. The Proposed Plan also recognizes the
benefits from implementation of OU-1 as a source control to further reduce the overall risk by
mitigating leachate generation and leachate seeps.
However, the Group does not agree with the ecological monitoring program suggested in die
Proposed Plan that "... will include an ecological sampling program similar to that performed
during the remedial investigation" (p. 15), and "... would include biological tissue analysis,
chronic bioassays, and chemical analysis on sediments" (p. 13). The landfill began operations
nearly 30 years ago and has been under investigation since its closure over 12 years ago.
Extensive investigations have been conducted as pan of the Remedial Investigation,
Supplemental Remedial Investigation and Additional Ecological Investigation to determine the
nature and extent of contamination in the wetlands and the ecological risks posed by the landfill.
As previously stated, the only unacceptable risk identified was to benthic invertebrates as the
result of a single discrete leachate seep. Implementation of the OU-1 remedy and the preferred
OU-2 alternative will mitigate this risk by removing the impacted sediment
As demonstrated by the extensive investigations already conducted, the only area posing an
unacceptable ecological risk is readily identified by visual inspection and a key objective of the
remedy is to re-establish wetland vegetation. Monitoring should therefore focus on visual
assessment of the restored wetland in accordance with standard wetland assessment procedures.
Monitoring of other areas, which the Proposed Plan acknowledges currently pose no
unacceptable ecological risk, is unnecessary and inappropriate.
The Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan.
Very truly yours,
COLDER ASSOCIATES INC. .
^Senior Project Manager and Associate
RJI/lrl
G:'PROJKTS»4J.«m\PPCCOMMS.DOC
cc: Global Landfill Technical Committee
-------
ROSE-MARIE SARAONO (908) 721-5600. EXT. 221
TOWNSHIP CLERK. RMC FAX: (908) 607-7944
ia>rnt BYRNES TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
DEPUTY CLERK ONE OLD BRIDGE PLAZA
OLD BRIDGE, N J. 08857
March 11,1997
New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection
CN413
Trenton, NJ. 08625
RE: Global Landfill
Gentk
Enclosed please find a copy of the Resolution approved by the Township Council at their
meeting of January 27,1997 regarding the above referenced matter.
*
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE
• / ' • '
R^se-Marie-Saracuip
Township CleA
RMS.-VO
Enc.
-------
it flUsalUefc, by the Township Councilor the Township of Old Bridge. County of
Middlesex. New Jersey, that:
WHEREAS. Global landfill was ordered closed in 1984 after a side slope failure destroyed
adjacent wetlands; and . . J
WHEREAS, Global Landfill has been declared a superfund site; and
WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey has been studying and evaluating closure options since
1987; and
WHEREAS, the State of New Jersey has an agreement with responsible parties to fund the
closure; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of the contamination at the site showed that discharge of
contaminated shallow ground water to the wetlands would not have significant adverse ecological
impact; and
WHEREAS, the proposed foreclosure plan would incorporate a leachate collection.
2nd disposal system to further mfaiimiM any, ecological imptri. and
WHEREAS, the deeper Old Bridge aquifer was found to be slightly contaminated at one
monitor well location but not sufficient to present a significant risk to human health; and
'»
WHEREAS, users of the deeper Old Bridge aquifer are suppliers of water who are required
to perform frequent water quality tests to determine the presence of any contaminants; and
WHEREAS, the findings inflate- that conditions at die site do not pose a risk to human
hratth; and
WHEREAS, the DEP proposes to require a clean-up of the side slope failure which
destroyed wetlands, an impervious cap to reduce leschate, collection and txesimeB system to reduce
leachaie discharge into the environment and to uwaH nwmtorii^ wells to omiinttlly awwitor the
shallow ground water and deeper Old Bridge aquifer, and
d»
of • ntotam ftfotety pHMd M •
of te Tinmhip Caartl of te
Township of Old Badam.
J«au*Jy/27. 1997
/L
Urt oft
-------
It j&gSOlUed, by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge. County of
Middlesex. New Jersey, that:
WHEREAS, a gas collection system will be installed to reduce exposure to landfill gases-
and
WHEREAS, the preferred plan will require quarterly ground water monitoring and total
reviews every five yean for a period of up to 30 yean; and
WHEREAS, any negative results from this monitoring would require additional action; and
WHEREAS, any such action will be die responsibility of die DEP; and
WHEREAS, die New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will advise the
Township of the results of die monitoring on a quarterly basis; and
WHEREAS, to reject this alternative would delay il» ckaa-up and capping of die landfill,
exposing the individuals and die environment in die area to greater risk; and
WHEREAS, die Old Bridge Township Erraronmental Commission supports the DEP plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE FT RESOLVED that the Township Council of die Township of
Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, Stale of New Jersey die Council supports the DEP proposed plan
to nMfEti ground water ^rtt wetlands ***fiiT¥rint at Global t-**ytf^B foiMrft11** Site;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge.
County of Middlesex; State of New Jersey that the DEP is urged to take ;*««••««• action to
complete this project to prevent further contamination, for the safety of die residents and children
in the immediate area who may access the site; and
(j^^*«eW «4^ 4b»ll*^M^^B Mt a^ A «^^A ^
CVnUy wm roUWIf w V* • W
of to Tnwaihif Cornet at to
Jflftotfv 27. \Wf
/**L /%**. T5#
-------
APPENDIX D
NJDEP LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
Ul-Oiti. l\Litil l/l.li t\A* , U'AI ui • u-UirtiU i I .tA "• uuu wui_ i-uo'- i i.4.i. ^u i 10 JO • T
of
CHmtin* Todd Whi»m«o Department of Environment*! Protection Robert C. Shinn. Jr.
September 18. 1997
He. Jeanne_M. Fox
Regional' XSministrator
USEPA - Region II
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
Dear Ms. Fox:
RE: Global Landfill Superfund Site
Operable Unit #2
Record of Decision Concurrence Letter
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEF) has reviewed the
attached Record of Decision (ROD) and concurs with the selected remedy for
Operable Unit #2 (OU2) for the Global Landfill Superfund Site outlined below.
The selected remedy represents the second and final operable unit for the Site.
It consists of ground water quality monitoring and localized removal of
contaminated sediments with on-site disposal under a landfill cap. The previous
ROD for Operable Unit #1 (OU1). signed in 1991, addressed on-site soils by
specifying that a modified hazardous waste landfill cap, and A leachata and gas
collection system be installed at the Site.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
ground water quality monitoring for up to thirty (30) years
establishment of a ground water Classification Exception Area (CEA) per
NJDEP regulations
localized removal of contaminated sediments and on-site disposal under the
OU1 cap
annual ecological monitoring for five (5) years after the GUI and OU2
remedies are implemented
restoration of wetland areas impacted by the OU1 and OU2 remedies
five (5) year reviews to assess effectiveness of site-wide remedies.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at
(609)292-1250.
Attachments
JtetyOtdPtptr
-------
APPENDIX E
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
INDEX TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
GLOBAL SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
SEPTEMBER 1997
1) Remedial Investigation Report (Task 3), 3 Volumes, June 1992
prepared by URS Consultants, Inc.
Vol. I - Report & Appendix A
Vol. II - Sampling Report, Appendices B-M
Vol. Ill - Sampling Report, Appendices N-S
2) Effluent Limitation Stream Study Report, August 1993
prepared by URS Consultants, Inc.
3) Cultural Resources Investigation, Phase LA Report, February 1994
prepared by Jay R. Cohen.
4) Letter of Acceptance of the Phase IA Report by the State's Historic Preservation
Officer, March 25, 1994.
5) Final Feasibility Study Report (Task 7), March 1995
prepared by URS Consultants, Inc.
6) Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, March 1995
prepared by URS Consultants, Inc.
7) Additional Ecological Investigation, base report dated January 1996, with revised
pages inserted May 1996, prepared by Colder Associates Inc.
8) Addendum to the Feasibility Study Report, December 1996
prepared by URS Consultants, Inc.
9) Superfund Proposed Plan for Global Landfill (OU-2), December 1996, prepared
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
10) Transcript of the Proceedings of the Public Meeting in Old Bridge Township on
January 23, 1997, prepared by J&J Court Transcribers, Inc.
11) Record of Decision for Global Landfill (OU-2), and the Responsiveness
Summary, September 1997, prepared by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name : Global Sanitary Landfill
Location/State : Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
EPA Region : II
HRS Score (date): 45.92 (June 1988)
Site ID # : NJD063160667
ROD
Date Signed: 9/29/97
Operating Unit Number: OU-2
Construction Completion: July, 2000
Remedies:
Capital cost:
O&M:
Present worth:
A. sediment removal B. groundwater monitoring Total
$622,000 $30,000
$49,000 /yr. $120,000/yr.
for the first 5 years for 30 years
(At discount rate of 7%)
$823,000 $1,519,000
$652,000
$169,000/yr.
$2,342,000
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement:
EPA/State/PRP:
Primary contact (phone):
Secondary contact (phone):
MainPRP(s):
PRP Contact (phone):
Remedial
State
Luis Sanders (609-292-1762)
Edward Finnerty (212-637-4367)
DuPont, Browning Ferris, et al.
n/a
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
ammonia, organics
sediment
contaminants migrate from the landfill
up to 5,000 cu.yd.
------- |