PB97-963813
EPA/541/R-97/104
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Higgins Disposal Site OU 1
Kingston, NJ
9/30/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Higgins Disposal Site
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1997
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Higgins Disposal Site
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's selection of a remedial action to address groundwater contamination at
the Higgins Disposal Site, in accordance with the requirements of the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9601-9675, and to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part
300. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for the Site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) concurs with
the selected remedy for groundwater remediation. However, the NJDEP does not
concur with EPA's position of no further action for the soils. A copy of the
concurrence letter can be found in Appendix IV. The information supporting this
remedial action is contained in the Administrative Record for the Site, the index
of which can be found in Appendix HI to this document.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Higgins Disposal
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD,
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy represents the first and only planned remedy for the Higgins
Disposal Site. It addresses both contaminated groundwater and threats to
downgradient receptors. The additional removal of contaminated soils and other
materials will be the subject of a separate action.
-------
The selected remedy includes the following components:
• Remediation of contaminated groundwater to Federal and State Maximum
Contaminant Levels and also to groundwater quality standards promulgated
by the State of New Jersey.
• Installation of on-site wells for the extraction of the contaminated
groundwater.
• Conveyance of the extracted groundwater via a pipeline to the Higgins
Farm Superfund Site for treatment, with discharge to surface water.
• If necessary, the on-site groundwater treatment system at the Higgins Farm
Site will be enhanced through the addition of granular activated carbon.
• Connection of the ten neighboring residents on Laurel Avenue who use
private well water to a public water supply. Public water would also be
provided to the Higgins family. This would be accomplished through the
extension of the existing Elizabethtown Water Company pipeline.
• Implementation of an environmental monitoring program to ensure the
overall effectiveness of the remedy.
• Five-year reviews of the Site pursuant to CERCLA.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies
with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. This action constitutes the final remedy for the Site.
Because the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
ox I / Date
Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Higgins Disposal Site
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 6
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 12
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 1 8
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 19
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 24
SELECTED REMEDY 32
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 33
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I FIGURES
APPENDIX II ' \BLES
APPENDIX III ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV STATE LETTER
APPENDIX V RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX VI ADDITIONAL COST INFORMATION
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Higgins Disposal Site (Site) is located in a rural area on Laurel Avenue
(Kingston-Rocky Hill Road) in Kingston, Franklin Township, Somerset County,
New Jersey (Figure 1). The Site is 37 acres in area, and is bordered by Laurel
Avenue and the Trap Rock Industries' Kingston Quarry. This quarry mines rock
known as diabase. The Millstone River and the Delaware and Raritan Canal are
located within a half mile to the southwest, while Route 5 1 8 is approximately one
mile north-northeast of the Site. The Higgins Farm Superfund Site is located
approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Site.
Approximately 1,300 persons reside within one mile of the Site. The Site is
located in a Research-Office-Laboratory zoning district on the Franklin Township
zoning map. However, there is also agricultural activity within three miles of the
Site which includes crop cultivation for sod, animal feed, and fruits and
vegetables grown for human consumption.
Within a three-mile radius of the Site, groundwater is used as a drinking water
source. Within this radius, there are approximately 179 private wells in Franklin
Township, Somerset County; approximately 51 private wells in South Brunswick,
Middlesex County; and the Rocky Hill Municipal Wells in Somerset County.
A residence and two businesses currently exist on the Site; the Hasty Acres
Riding Club (horse stables and riding facilities) and a vehicle repair garage. As
shown on Figure 1, the Higgins residence is located on the west side of the
property off of Laurel Avenue. A barn (stable) and several sheds are located in
the north central section of the property. East of the barn is a vehicle
maintenance building. A large indoor equestrian center is located in the central
portion of the property. A waste transfer station and compactor shed are to the
south of the indoor equestrian center. An inactive landfill is located southeast
of the transfer station. Numerous old vehicles and roll-off containers are
scattered along the access road to the landfill. Two ponds are located in the
northern part of the property. Additionally, the Dirty Brook and an unnamed
brook are located along the northern and southern property boundaries,
respectively. There are also three minor wetland systems located in the
northwestern and southern sections of the Site, which have a cumulative acreage
of less than 0.5 acre.
-------
The Site is relatively flat with minor topographic relief. The highest elevation
is approximately 120 feet above mean sea level, and occurs near the center of the
Site. From the center, the surface topography slopes downward to the north
toward Dirty Brook, and downward to the south toward the unnamed brook.
Storm water drainage generally follows the surface topography, as there are no
stprm sewers to redirect the flow. The two ponds at the north end of the property
receive overland stormwater flow from portions of the property, and discharge
into Dirty Brook.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site History
From the 1950's through 1985, Higgins Disposal Services, Inc. operated as a
residential, commercial, industrial and construction waste disposal service. The
operation included a transfer station and compactor, an underground storage tank,
a truck storage area, a shop and garage for truck repair, an area for container
storage and a landfill. As described below, solid waste containing hazardous
substances were disposed in several locations on the Site.
In 1982, Higgins Disposal Services, Inc. came to the attention of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) when the landfill and waste
transfer station were discovered to be operating without appropriate permits.
NJDEP issued an Administrative Order to the company in October 1982 requiring
compliance with State landfill and transfer station regulations.
In 1985, the owner of several residences on Laurel Avenue contacted the Franklin
Township Health Department (FTHD) and the NJDEP because of medicinal
tasting tap water. Sampling of these wells by the FTHD and the NJDEP revealed
the presence of various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). NJDEP investigated
the area to determine the source of the tap water contamination and Higgins
Disposal Services, Inc. was identified as one of the potential source areas. All
residences on Laurel Avenue without access to the public water supply were
notified by NJDEP or FTHD to use bottled water and/or to install a whole-house
point source filter system. In 1986, NJDEP also instituted an Interim Well
Restriction Area in this location (i.e., the State restricted the installation of wells
for potable use) and began negotiations with the Township and the water company
to install a waterline. Such negotiations continued unsuccessfully until
approximately 1993, It should be noted that eight of the eleven residences on
Laurel Avenue have whole-house point source filter units. Three residences do
not have such units; however, analysis of their water did not indicate a need for
-------
these units. Currently, there is a 12-inch diameter water line that runs along
Laurel Avenue, but ends approximately 500 feet south of the residential
properties.
The Site was proposed to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) on June
24, 1988. In August 1990, the Site was added to the NPL which made it eligible
for funding under the Superfund remedial program. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) initially performed a Removal Assessment at the Site
to determine if any emergency response actions were warranted prior to
implementation and/or completion of long-term remedial investigation field work
and study.
In October 1990, as part of the Removal Assessment, EPA's Environmental
Response Team (ERT) collected shallow soil and pond sediment samples from
selected areas across the Site that were easily accessible to customers of the
Hasty Acres Riding Club. The only immediate problem found was in the
Beginners' Riding Ring. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in the
range of 1.2 to 47 parts per million (ppm) in the surface soil of the ring. This
contamination is believed to have been the result of the movement of PCB-
contaminated soil from the indoor riding ring subsequent to a fire inside the
indoor riding ring, in which lighting with PCB ballast dropped to the ground.
EPA restricted access to the ring and then excavated and disposed of 765 tons of
PCB-contaminated soil. The contaminated soil was shipped to a Toxic
Substances Control Act permitted landfill in Grandview, Idaho. No other easily
accessible surface locations on the property were found to pose an immediate
health concern.
In the spring of 1990, EPA began a Remedial Investigation (RI) to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site. In the spring of 1993, during the
course of the RI field work, an additional removal action was initiated upon
discovery of buried waste in a field on the property, south of the landfill.
Initially, only drums were discovered (as EPA had conducted a survey using a
probe which could detect metal). Upon test pit excavation work, laboratory
glassware and plastic containers were discovered in addition to the drums. The
test pits confirmed the presence of hazardous substances in containers and soil
in several locations on the Site which were largely near the surface and in areas
in an active portion of the Hasty Acres Riding Club. Because this contamination
posed a significant threat of potential exposure to the riders and horses, the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommended
immediate placement of warning signs and immediate access restrictions.
Therefore, the first phase of this removal action was the placement of warning
signs and a fence to prevent access to this area. This fence was erected in May
1993.
-------
The second phase of this removal action was another subsurface survey using
different instrumentation to search for additional non-metallic buried waste as
well as other buried waste not discovered during the first metallic survey. This
survey was conducted in the summer of 1993. After analysis of the results. EPA
excavated areas of known and suspected burial in April, 1994. Some locations
were found to be clean, while others contained a great deal of buried waste;
corroded and leaking containers as well as glass bottles and vials, some empty
and some containing material.
By October 1994, approximately 3,200 containers and 850 tons of contaminated
soil (other than the soil from the Beginners' Riding Ring) had been excavated and
transported off-site for disposal at permitted disposal facilities. In addition, to
ensure that all areas used to bury waste were identified, additional test trenching
activities were planned. Additional trenching areas were selected through biased
and random sampling techniques. Biased sampling locations were selected based
upon visual observations, information on past dumping practices revealed through
an eyewitness account, through the patterns discovered during the excavation
work, and information from historical aerial photographs of.the Site. Random
locations were selected using a random number generator table and grid system.
This additional test trenching was initiated in November 1994. Nine trenches
were excavated to a depth of eight feet. No waste materials were encountered in
any of these trenches.
During excavation of one additional test trench along a vegetated fence line,
additional buried waste (a 55-gallon drum, two 5-gallon plastic lab jugs, a 40
milliliter (ml) vial, and a bag of resinous white material) was encountered. This
waste appeared to similar to the wastes previously excavated. In late November
1994, additional excavation work was initiated as part of EPA's removal
activities. Work continued dependent upon weather conditions throughout 1995
and 1996, and an approximate total of 7,000 containers and 12,000 tons of
contaminated soil to date have been excavated and shipped for off-site disposal
at a permitted disposal facility.
Post-excavation sampling in the summer of 1996 revealed the presence of
additional waste containers near the previously defined edge of the landfill. In
order to supplement the investigatory work that was performed during the RI and
to confirm whether or not hazardous substances were present in the landfill, a
more comprehensive investigation of the landfill area was performed in the fall
of 1996. This investigation revealed laboratory containers, drums and a
compressed gas cylinder within the landfill area. Based on these investigatory
activities, EPA believes that the landfill contains an estimated 16,200 cubic yards
of solid waste mixed with hazardous substances. Additionally, an estimated
8,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil lies beneath the landfill itself. EPA is
-------
planning another removal action to excavate and properly dispose of the material
in the landfill. It should be noted that the removal of both the material from
within the landfill and any underlying contaminated soil is an activity which is
separate from the selected remedy described in this document.
Enforcement Activities
EPA issued Notice Letters to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) on November
1, 1988, which offered the PRPs an opportunity to conduct or finance removal
activities, the RI and the Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and the remedial design and
remedial action at the site. EPA again offered the opportunity to PRPs to
undertake these response activities by issuing Special Notice Letters on March
27, 1989. Notice Letters were also issued on March 28, 1990 (for conducting or
financing removal activities, the RI/FS, and the remedial design and remedial
action), August 28, 1992 (for performance of removal activities), March 16. 1994
(concerning EPA's decision not to offer the PRPs the opportunity to perform
removal activities), and September 20, 1996 (providing information concerning
EPA's remedial and removal activities). No PRPs came forth to conduct or
finance response activities, or to reimburse EPA for its costs in response to those
letters.
In May 1997, EPA met with several PRPs and is currently pursuing the option of
having a PRP perform removal activities associated with the landfill.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report, the Proposed Plan and supporting documentation were made
available to the public in the administrative record file at the Docket Room in
EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York and the information
repositories at the Mary Jacobs Memorial Library (64 Washington Street, Rocky
Hill, New Jersey) and the Franklin Public Library (485 DeMott Lane, Somerset,
New Jersey). The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was
published in the Home News and Tribune on May 1, 1997. The public comment
period which related to these documents was initially held from May 1, 1997 to
May 30, 1997.
-------
On May 20, 1997, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Franklin Township
Municipal Building. The purpose of this meeting was to inform local officials
and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to review planned remedial
activities at the site, to discuss and receive comments on the Proposed Plan, and
to respond to questions from area residents and other interested parties. Based
upon a request by the community at the public meeting, the public comment
period was extended to June 30, 1997.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during
the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which
is appended to this Record of Decision (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This is the first and only operable unit at this Site. The primary objectives of the
selected remedy are to capture and treat the bulk of groundwater contamination
found on the property, to limit potential future off-site migration of
contamination, and to protect potential users of groundwater through extension
of (and connection to) municipal water service.
Many residents in the vicinity of the Site, as well as the residents on the Site
depend on groundwater as a potable water source. Although most residents on
Laurel Avenue have installed household carbon treatment units, there remains
the potential for contaminated groundwater to migrate to other residential wells.
Exposure to the contaminated groundwater could pose a threat to residents who
currently utilize groundwater as their potable water supply or residents who will
utilize groundwater in the future. Therefore, action is necessary to restrict
migration of contaminants and to protect nearby groundwater users.
Under a separate removal action, EPA is planning to remove and dispose of
highly contaminated source materials found in the on-site landfill. Aside from
this action, EPA believes that exposure to Site soils, surface water, and sediment
does not pose a significant risk. Therefore, EPA has determined that no further
action is considered necessary for soils, surface water and sediment.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
RI field work commenced in October 1992. The purpose of the RI was to
accomplish the following: identify the nature and extent of contaminant source
areas; define contamination of groundwater, soils, surface water and sediment;
characterize Site hydrogeology; and determine the risk to human health and the
environment posed by the Site. The work was conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
under contract to EPA.
The results of the RI can be summarized as follows.
Hydrogeology & Groundwater Contamination
The geology of the Site is characterized by unconsolidated material (e.g., sand)
underlain by fractured bedrock. The region surrounding the Site is underlain by
sedimentary and igneous rocks of the late Triassic-early Jurassic Age Newark
Supergroup and late Cretaceous and Quaternary age sediments. Bedrock in the
region consists of sedimentary units of the upper Lockatong Formation and lower
Passaic Formation of late Triassic age and intrusive igneous diabase of early
Jurassic age. The Site itself is underlain by unconsolidated overburden deposits
ranging in thickness from approximately 15 feet to approximately 84 feet. These
deposits vary in composition from clayey silt to sand. Below the overburden is
a thick unit of red siltstone interpreted as the red beds of the Lockatong
Formation. An apparent graben structure (i.e., an area that has subsided between
two geologic faults) occurs along the center of the Site in a north-south
orientation.
As described above, the Site is relatively flat with the highest elevation
occurring near its center. From the center, the surface topography slopes
downward to the north toward Dirty Brook, and downward to the south toward the
unnamed brook. Storm water drainage generally follows the surface topography,
as there are no storm sewers to redirect the flow. The two ponds at the north end
of the property receive overland stormwater flow from portions of the property,
and discharge into Dirty Brook. Both the Dirty and unnamed brooks discharge
to the Delaware and Raritan Canal.
Groundwater in the area is classified by the State as Class II-A, which indicates
that groundwater is suitable for potable water supply at current levels of water
quality and conventional treatment. Groundwater occurs both in the sandy
overburden and in the underlying fractured bedrock aquifer. Regionally,
groundwater flow is to the southwest towards the Delaware and Raritan Canal and
the Millstone River.
-------
On the Site, the depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 4 to 56 feet
below ground surface. As described below, groundwater in both the overburden
and the fractured bedrock is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, or
VOCs (e.g., chloroform, tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) and inorganics
(e.g., lead, copper and chromium), although semivolatile organic compounds, or
SVOCs (e.g., 1,2-dichlorobenzene), pesticides (e.g., 4,4'-DDE) and PCBs were
likewise detected. Groundwater in the overburden flows west, northwest and
southwest away from the landfill and buried waste disposal areas. The general
flow direction is apparently influenced by the pumping of the Higgins' residential
well except to the south of the waste disposal areas (Figure 2). Groundwater flow
in the bedrock is affected by bedrock fractures; however, in the shallow bedrock
flow is likewise influenced by the Higgins' residential well (Figure 3).
The Higgins' residential well has been in operation since 1993, is at least 300
feet deep, and pumps approximately 4 to 5 gallons per minute. Prior to 1993, the
Higgins utilized a different water supply well which would have had a different
effect on the hydrology (since it was set in a different location on the property).
The current residential well does not pump at a constant rate over a constant
period of time. Its pumping is dependent upon the various and changing needs
of the Higgins' household and the Hasty Acres Riding Club. Therefore, its level
of influence on the hydrology underlying the Site varies over time.
EPA collected groundwater samples from eighteen monitoring wells installed on
the Site. Of the 65 chemical constituents detected in groundwater underlying the
Site, 34 of the chemicals were detected in concentrations that exceed the New
Jersey groundwater quality standards. The most significant exceedances occur
for VOCs, where 17 of the 21 VOCs detected exceed the standards. For example,
chlorobenzene was detected at a level of 3,100 parts per billion (ppb), while the
standard is 4 ppb; trichloroethene was found at 2,200 ppb, and the standard is I
ppb. Other exceedances occur for 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
which are SVOCs. These chemicals, were respectively found at levels of 1,800
ppb and 89 ppb, while the respective standards are 600 ppb and 75 ppb. Other
exceedances occurred for three pesticides and eleven metals (e.g., arsenic was
found at 35.5. ppb while the standard is 8 ppb; lead was detected at 115 ppb while
the standard is 10 ppb). Table 1 provides a summary of the groundwater data
collected from on-site monitoring wells.
Chemicals detected in the groundwater beneath the Higgins' property were also
detected in neighboring residential wells(see Figure 4 for residential sampling
locations), some present above Federal and State s. For example, Table 2
provides the results of residential sampling performed on August 10, 1993.
8
-------
Concentrations of VOCs as high as 26 ppb carbon tetrachloride, 200 ppb
tetrachloroethylene and 22 ppb 1,1,2-trichloroethane were found in the samples.
The VOCs and SVOCs detected in the groundwater are similar to those chemical
constituents detected at the drum/container disposal areas and therefore are likely
to have been derived from the drum/container disposal source area.
In summary, 1) Contaminants found in groundwater underlying the Site have also
been found in wells on other residential properties. The pattern of contamination,
along with the natural regional shallow groundwater flow regime suggests that
the source of these contaminants is the buried waste area on the Site; 2) Water
level data obtained from the on-site overburden and bedrock monitoring wells
during the RI field work indicate that the current Higgins' supply well influences
groundwater flow on the Higgins' property. Therefore, it is likely that only a
limited migration of organic and inorganic contaminants has occurred since the
operation of this Higgins' well (1993); and 3) EPA's past and planned removal
actions have removed and will continue to remove the source of contamination to
the groundwater (the buried waste and associated contaminated soil).
Indoor Riding Ring Surface Soil
Seven surface soil samples (six samples plus one duplicate sample) were
collected at six locations in the indoor riding ring (see Table 3). Of the samples
collected, VOCs were detected in all seven samples. For example, acetone was
found to vary from 6 to 9 ppb, while tetrachloroethene varied from 5 to 22 ppb.
SVOCs were detected in all samples except one, with diethylphthalate being
detected at 1,100 ppb and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons being found at
levels ranging from 1.0 to 2.9 ppm. PCBs were found to vary from 0.18 to 7.5
ppm, while metals were detected in all the samples. Examples of metals which
were found include: chromium (ranging from 5 to 12 parts per million, or ppm);
arsenic (ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 ppm); and copper (ranging from 18 to 33 ppm).
As described below, the results of the Risk Assessment indicate that the potential
contaminant exposure to indoor surface soils is less than or within EPA's
acceptable risk range.
-------
Outdoor Soil
Surface Soil
Outdoor surface soil samples were collected at 52 locations (see Figures 5 and 6)
in four main areas. Twenty samples were collected in the area of the landfill,
eleven samples (10 samples plus one duplicate sample) were collected in the area
of the transfer station, eight samples were collected in the area of the vehicle
maintenance building, and fifteen samples (including one duplicate sample) were
collected from open field areas of the Site. A summary of the analytical results
can be found in Table 4.
In general, VOCs were found in approximately 15 percent of the samples, with
acetone exhibiting the highest VOC concentration at 0.16 ppm. SVOCs were
found in approximately 94 percent of the samples, with total polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons detected at levels as high as 301.6 ppm. Pesticides were found in
approximately 67 percent of the samples (with 4,4'-DDD having the highest
concentration at 0.33 ppm), while PCBs were found in approximately 72 percent
of the samples with the highest concentration at 22 ppm.
The concentrations of the contaminants in outdoor surface soils are generally low
and may have been distributed across the Site by mechanical means (e.g., wind,
tractor) rather than direct deposition (e.g., dumping of waste as in the fields used
for waste burial). As explained in the risk assessment section, below, the results
of the risk assessment indicate that the risk from exposure to outdoor surface
soils is less than or within EPA's acceptable risk range. However, because of one
elevated and anomalous detection of lead, 13 additional soil samples in the
transfer station area were taken in the fall of 1996. The highest
concentration of lead detected in the thirteen samples was 69.2 ppm, well below
the Federal screening level (and State Soil Cleanup Criteria) of 400 ppm. Arsenic
was also deemed problematic in this area by NJDEP because of one detection of
33.8 ppm during the RI sampling event, which is above the State's criterion of 20
ppm. The highest concentration of arsenic found in the fall 1996 sampling event
was 3.9 ppm, well below the State's criterion.
10
-------
Subsurface Soil
Numerous chemical constituents were detected in the subsurface soils at the
various sampling locations (see Table 5). Overall, it appears that the metals are
ubiquitous, as virtually every subsurface sample detected the same metal
constituents in the same relative range of concentrations. For example, aluminum
was found to vary from 1,230 to 78,000 ppm, while iron ranged from 6.09U to
57,500 ppm. The subsurface borings in the landfill had the highest detection of
VOCs and SVOCs. For example, acetone was detected at 0.54 ppm; 1,1,1-
trichloroethane was found at 58 ppm; the vinyl chloride level was determined to
be 0.27 ppm; carbazole was present at 0.21 ppm; and 4-methylphenol was found
at 18 ppm. Few VOCs or SVOCs were detected in the location with the
underground storage tank (UST) and in the monitoring well borings. As an
example, acetone was detected at 0.095 ppm, while methylene chloride was found
at only 0.004 ppm.
It should be noted that subsequent to the RI, the landfill was found to contain
significant amounts of hazardous substances mixed with solid waste. As
indicated previously, the landfill contents and any underlying contaminated soil
will be excavated and disposed of through a separate removal activity.
Surface Water
Twelve surface water samples were collected. The samples were taken from Dirty
Brook, the unnamed brook, the on-site ponds, and from the Delaware and Raritan
Canal (see Table 6). The majority of the chemical constituents detected in the
surface waters were metals. For example, aluminum was detected at 8,200 ppb;
arsenic was present at 5.2 ppb; beryllium was found at 0.55 ppb; chromium was
present at 25.6 ppb; copper was detected at 22 ppb; and lead and manganese were
found at 15.4 ppb and 1,830 ppb, respectively. In addition, VOCs (e.g.,
trichloroethene at 1 ppb), SVOCs (e.g., bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at 3 ppb) and
a pesticide (e.g., gamma chlordane at 0.02 ppb) were found in surface water.
11
-------
Sediments
Thirteen sediment samples were collected from Dirty Brook, the unnamed brook,
the 6n-site ponds, and from the Delaware and Raritan Canal. Table 7 provides a
summary of the analytical data. VOCs (such as acetone at 0.044 ppm and
methylene chloride at 0.004 ppm), SVOCs (e.g., 2-butanone at 0.012 ppm and bis
(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at 0.055 ppm) and pesticides (such as aldrin at 0.0059
ppm and gamma-chlordane at 0.0098 ppm) were detected. The majority of the
chemicals detected were metals. Examples of metals found in sediments include
aluminum at 31,600 ppm, arsenic at 9.6 ppm, beryllium at 1.2 ppm, chromium at
164 ppm, copper at 122 ppm, lead at 39.8 ppm, manganese at 1,130 ppm and zinc
at 106 ppm. This is consistent with the range of metals detected elsewhere on the
Site.
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 Site conditions. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the human health and ecological risk which
could result from the contamination at the Site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
To perform a Human Health Risk Assessment, the reasonable maximum human
exposure is evaluated. A four-step process is then utilized for assessing site-
related human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identification— identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
Exposure Assessment— estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g.,
ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed.
Toxicity Assessment— determines the types of adverse health effects associated
with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure
(dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization —
summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) assessment of
site-related risks.
12
-------
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which
would be representative of Site risks (see Table 8). The evaluation identified
numerous contaminants of concern in the various media (outdoor surface soil,
indoor surface soil, outdoor subsurface soil, air, surface water, sediment, and
groundwater). For example, contaminants of concern selected for groundwater
included: acetone; benzene; carbon tetrachloride; chlorobenzene; 1,2-dichloroe-
thane; toluene; 1,1,2-tetrachloroethane; xylenes; vinyl chloride; several
pesticides; manganese; mercury; arsenic; chromium; lead; and nickel. Several
of the contaminants of concern listed above are known or suspected of causing
cancer in animals and/or humans. The baseline risk assessment then evaluated
the health effects which could result from exposure to contamination as a result
of various exposure pathways including: 1) ingestion of chemicals in soil;
2) dermal contact with chemicals in soil; 3) inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from soil; 4) inhalation of chemicals sorbed to respirable particulates
released from soil; 5) dermal contact with chemicals in groundwater; 6) ingestion
of chemicals in groundwater; 7) inhalation of chemicals in groundwater
volatilized to air; 8) dermal contact with chemicals in surface water; 9)ingestion
of chemicals in surface water; 10) dermal contact with chemicals in sediment;
11) ingestion of chemicals in sediment.
In the exposure assessment, the potential for human exposure to the chemicals of
concern, in terms of the type, magnitude, frequency, and duration of'exposure, is
estimated. The assessment is made for potentially exposed populations at or near
the property considering both the current situation and potential future
conditions. Since residential and commercial activities take place on the
property currently, all of the exposure scenarios evaluated are regarded as
"current" scenarios that will continue in the future. Please see Table 9 for a
listing of exposure pathways.
Six potential receptors were identified: 1) stable employees; 2) garage
employees; 3) clients or visitors of the Hasty Acres Riding Club; 4) landscape or
utility workers that may occasionally work on the property; 5) residents (both
on-site and neighboring residents); and 6) trespassers. Adult and child age
groups are included in client/visitor and resident populations. Exposure intakes
(doses) were calculated for each receptor for all pathways considered.
Potential carcinogenic risks are evaluated using the cancer slope factors
developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors (Sfs)
have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification
Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals (see Table 10). Sfs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day) , are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects a conservative estimate of the risks
calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the
risk highly unlikely.
13
-------
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound
individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10'4 to 10 "6 to be acceptable. This
level indicates that an individual has not greater than approximately a one in ten
thousand to one in a million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-
related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under the specific
exposure conditions at a site.
The risk characterization showed that cancer risks associated with the
groundwater pathways exceed EPA's acceptable risk range for both adults and
children. For example, the estimated cancer risk associated with ingestion of
groundwater is 3x10° (i.e., three in a thousand) for an adult resident, 1x10 "U-C-.
one in a thousand) for a child resident, 6x10'4 (i,e, six in ten thousand) for garage
employees and 9xlO"4 (i.e., nine in ten thousand) for stable employees. The total
cancer risk posed by groundwater, from all pathways considered, is 5x10° (i.e.,
five in a thousand) for adults and 2xlO"3 (i.e., two in a thousand) for child
residents. Tetrachloroethene, vinyl chloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethene,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, arsenic, beryllium and PCBs are the predominant
contributors to the estimated cancer risk. As indicated previously, eight of the
eleven residences have whole-house point source filter units which, if properly
maintained, prevent the ingestion of VOCs and further mitigate the potential for
human exposure via inhalation of VOCs through household use. Three residents
do not have such units, but analysis of their water did not indicate a health risk.
The other receptors/exposure routes, which include exposure to soils, sediment
and surface water, have total estimated cancer risks within or below EPA's
acceptable risk range.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based
on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake
(Reference Doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects (see Table 11). RfDs, which
are expressed in units of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are
estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe over
a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium (i.e., the hazard quotient equals the
chronic daily intake divided by the RfD). The HI is obtained by adding the
hazard quotients for all compounds within a particular medium that impacts
particular receptor population. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential
exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media.
14
-------
For chronic health effects (non-carcinogenic), the hazard indices for the stable
employee, garage employee, adult and child residents, and adult and child
neighboring residents exceeded the EPA risk criterion predominantly due to
ingestion and dermal contact with groundwater. For example, the HI for adult
residents exposed to groundwater was estimated to be 90, and the HI for child
residents exposed to groundwater was estimated to be 200.
Adult and child clients/visitors had His of less than one for all exposure routes
indicating that adverse non-carcinogenic effects are not likely (e.g., exposure to
indoor ring and outdoor surface soils).
Exposure to soils, sediments, and surface water was determined not to pose a
significant threat to human health. A summary of the calculated hazard indices
and cancer risks are provided in Table 12.
In summary, the Human Health Risk Assessment concluded that exposure to
groundwater, if not addressed by the selected remedy or one of the other active
measures considered, may present a current or potential threat to public health or
welfare, as groundwater is used for drinking purposes on and in the vicinity of the
Site.
Ecological Risk Assessment
As part of the Ecological Risk Assessment, a qualitative and/or semi-quantitative
appraisal of the actual or potential effects of a hazardous waste site on plants and
animals, constitutes an ecological risk assessment. A four-step process is
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 concentrations. Ecological Effects
Assessment - literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking
contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Character-
ization - measurement or estimation of both current and future adverse effects.
The environmental evaluation (see Table 13) focused on how the contaminants
would affect the Site's natural resources. Natural resources include existing flora
and fauna at the Site, surface water, wetlands and sensitive species or habitats.
Minor wetlands systems have developed on the Site, and two constructed farm
ponds are located in the northern portion of the Site. Federally listed threatened
or endangered species were found not to be likely to inhabit the Site. However,
15
-------
the Higgins' property does provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The
current use of the property as an equestrian center and grazing area for horses
limits wildlife use somewhat to smaller species of birds and mammals which
thrive in open pasture with available cover limited to hedgerows. Several species
of waterfowl are also known to utilize the ponds.
As explained below, contaminants detected in surface water, sediment and surface
soils at the Site present a potential risk to those species which utilize the
property on a long-term basis. Of particular concern are: aluminum (surface
water); dieldrin and DDT (sediment) and; lead (surface soil).
The chemicals of concern selected for the environmental risk assessment include:
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); several pesticides; aluminum; antimony;
cadmium; chromium; copper; iron; lead; manganese; mercury; nickel;
selenium; silver; thallium; and zinc. The following ecological exposure
pathways were evaluated: 1) Fish and wildlife ingesting aquatic and hydrophytic
vegetation can be exposed to contaminants which have been taken up from
sediments and water; 2) Direct contact with water and sediments can occur during
feeding and nesting activities of waterfowl and on a constant basis for fish and
other aquatic organisms inhabiting open water areas of the wetlands; and
3) Terrestrial wildlife (including horses) may also be exposed to contaminants via
ingestion of surface soil, water and vegetation.
Specifically with regard to horses, it appears that antimony, lead, PCBs and zinc
present a possible concern to horses ingesting soil from the property. Aluminum
in the surface water also presents a possible concern. However, it should be
noted that the effects of aluminum on the development of laboratory animals are
controversial. Some studies have reported effects, while others have not.
The risk assessment concluded that there is the possibility of toxic effects on
wildlife species and horses. These effects would be predominantly due to metals
and pesticides, However, these potential effects are considered to have minimal
ecological significance for the following reasons: 1) The presence of elevated
levels of pesticides is probably due to previous agricultural land use at the
property; 2) The impact on wetlands is negligible due to their small size and low
functional value; 3) No threatened or endangered species or significant habitat
are affected by contamination, since none are known to occur on the property; 4)
No apparent effects from contamination were observed ; 5) Habitat is limited on
the property due its relatively small size and its active use by humans and grazing
by horses; and 6) Although the horses are allowed to graze in the fields, most of
their diet is composed of commercial feed and hay.
16
-------
Uncertainties
The procedures and estimates used to assess risks, as in all such assessments, are
subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
• environmental parameter measurement
• fate and transport modeling
• exposure parameter estimation
• toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven
distribution of chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is
significant uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry
analysis error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an
individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the
period of time over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to
humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties
in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are
addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the baseline risk assessment
provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Site, and it
is highly unlikely to underestimate those actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative
evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is
presented in the RI report.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
17
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment. These objectives are based on available information and standards
such as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-
based levels established in the risk assessment. The potential exposure routes
and risks associated with contaminated groundwater at the Site were evaluated in
the risk assessment.
The following remedial action objectives were established for the Higgins
Disposal Site:
(1) To capture and treat the contaminated groundwater at the Site for the
purposes of restoring the aquifer to the most stringent Federal and State s
(MCLs) and promulgated State groundwater quality standards;
(2) To control the migration of the contaminated groundwater for the purpose
of limiting future off-site migration; and ,
(3) To minimize the potential for direct exposure of the populace to the
contaminated groundwater.
As stated previously, groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the fractured
bedrock aquifer system is extremely complicated. Defining the precise location
of fractures conveying contaminants which have already migrated off of the
property and removing all contaminants from bedrock fractures might not be
feasible. Therefore, the groundwater remediation goal is to capture and treat the
bulk of the contamination on the property to restore the aquifer to s and to limit
future contaminant migration off of the property to the extent practicable, given
the complicated nature of Site geology.
Numerical values for Federal and State MCLs and State groundwater quality
standards can be found in Table 14. ,
It should be noted that some surface soil samples exceeded State of New Jersey
Soil Cleanup Criteria for PCBs and arsenic. There was one exceedance (7.5 ppm)
of the PCB standard (.49 ppm) out of seven data points in the indoor riding ring
and there were two exceedances (26.3 ppm and 32.2 ppm) of the arsenic standard
(20 ppm) out of 8 samples in the maintenance building area. However, EPA re-
sampled the soil in the maintenance building area in the fall of 1996 which
indicated no exceedances of the arsenic standard. Even based on the samples with
the exceedances, the risk assessment illustrated that the risk from
ingestion/inhalation of these surface soils was within EPA's acceptable risk
18
-------
range. Therefore, EPA recommends no further action for the soils. From
NJDEP's perspective, however, the soil exceedances from the first sampling
event during the RI, must be addressed by remediation or by institutional controls
such as a Declaration of Environmental Restriction (DER).
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121(b)(l), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), mandates that a remedial action
must be protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121 (b)( 1) also
establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ, as a principal
element, treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at
a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial
action must attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants, which at least attains ARARs under federal and
state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA § 121(d)(4), 42
U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
EPA's FS Report evaluated, in detail, five remedial alternatives for addressing
the threat to the drinking water supply located in the vicinity of the Site. Cost
and construction time, among other criteria, were evaluated for each remedial
alternative. The time to implement a remedial alternative reflects the estimated
time required to construct the remedy. The estimates do not include the time to
negotiate with potentially responsible parties, prepare design documents, or
procure contracts.
The remedial alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost:$0
Estimated Annual O & M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $102,600
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$43,200
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$723,503
Estimated Implementation Period: None
19
-------
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as
a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
The no-action alternative does not provide treatment or containment of
contaminated groundwater. Under this alternative, contaminated groundwater
could potentially migrate off of the Site, possibly reaching human and ecological
receptors (i.e., residents using well water). Long-term monitoring would be
conducted, including tap water sampling and sampling of groundwater to monitor
contaminant concentrations remaining on the property and migrating off of the
property. It should be noted that the annual O&M costs are more expensive in the
first five years since monitoring well sampling would be performed quarterly
during that time frame, and then annually thereafter.
Since this alternative may result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative 2: Limited Action: Utilization of Existing Supply Well and Carbon
Filtration System
Option 2A: Maintain Residential Carbon Treatment Systems
Estimated Capital Cost: $6,300
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $106,100
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$46,700
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$769,205
Estimated Implementation Period: 3 months
Option 2B: Connect Residences to Public Water
Estimated Capital Cost: $381,750
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $85,640
Estimated Annual O&M Cost(Years 6 - 30): $26,240
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$914,321
Estimated Implementation Period: 18 months
Alternative 2 involves utilizing the Higgins' existing water supply well for
groundwater extraction; it would be pumped at the usual rate for their domestic
and business uses, approximately 4-5 gallons per minute (gpm) during various
staggered time intervals (i.e., pumping would be dependent on the needs of the
residents and businesses on the Site). The existing carbon filtration systems
would be maintained for groundwater treatment. Groundwater on the property
20
-------
would be monitored utilizing the bedrock monitoring wells and the Higgins'
water supply well would be monitored via tap water sampling.
Under this alternative, one of two options would be implemented to provide a
potable water supply for the eleven Laurel Avenue residences described earlier.
Option 2A consists of maintaining the existing carbon filtration systems at the
residences (which are probably either carbon or Culligan units) and installing
treatment systems at the three residences which do not currently have treatment
systems. This option would also include annual monitoring of the tap water. It
should be noted that the party implementing this remedy (i.e., either the
Government or the PRPs) would be responsible for the expenses associated with
these activities. Option 2B consists of connecting the Laurel Avenue residences
to public water. Tap water sampling would not be necessary in this case. Under
this option, costs for public water would be the responsibility of the residents.
Since this alternative may result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction System/Treatment at Higgins' Farm
Option 3A: Maintain Residential Carbon Treatment Systems
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,400,200
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $204,100
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$144,700
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$3,270,000
Estimated Implementation Period: 20 months
Option 3B: Connect Residences (including Higgins) to Public Water
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,763,400
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $177,200
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$117,800
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$3,330,000
Estimated Implementation Period: 20 months
Alternative 3 involves the installation of new extraction wells and piping the
groundwater to the Higgins Farm Site for treatment and disposal. As previously
discussed, the Higgins Farm Site is another Superfund site, located in close
proximity to the Higgins Disposal Site. Both of these sites are owned by Clifford
and Lizbeth Higgins. Furthermore, the two sites have similar groundwater
21
-------
contamination. A 100 gpm waste water treatment plant (WWTP) is currently
under construction at that Site and is expected to be operational by the end of
1997.
Approximately 10 gpm would be conveyed to the Higgins Farm WWTP. A pump
station and pipeline would be constructed to convey the extracted water. The
pipeline would be located within existing pipeline easements situated between the
Higgins Farm and Higgins Disposal Sites. It is estimated that approximately
14,000 linear feet of pipeline would be necessary. Currently, the following
treatment systems are available at the Higgins Farm WWTP: flow equalization,
precipitation/clarification), filtration, air stripping, ion exchange and pH
adjustment. If necessary, the Higgins Farm WWTP would be enhanced with
additional granular activated carbon contactors. This may be necessary because
the concentrations of SVOCs are higher at the Higgins Disposal Site than at the
Higgins Farm Site, and the treated groundwater would be discharged to an on-site
pond, which then discharges to Carters Brook. Since the discharge is to a surface
water body, it would be necessary to achieve discharge levels established in
accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under the
Clean Water Act.
As in Alternatives 1 and 2, groundwater on the property would be monitored
utilizing the bedrock monitoring wells. Under this alternative, one of two options
would be implemented to address the potable water supply for the Higgins and
Laurel Avenue residences. Option 3 A consists of maintaining the existing carbon
filtration systems a.t the Higgins' and the Laurel Avenue residences (residences
without systems would be supplied with the systems). The Higgins would be
assured of a water supply (in case their well were to go dry due to the pumping
of the extraction wells) by diverting water from the new extraction wells to their
water storage tank. This option would also include monitoring of the tap water.
Option 3B consists of connecting the Higgins' and the Laurel Avenue residences
to public water. No tap water sampling would be necessary in this case.
It should be noted that costs and implementation times for both options have been
revised from the information presented in the spring 1997 Proposed Plan. The
revised costs reflect the installation of the pipeline in the current easement
locations, and also reflect the additional O&M costs that would be spent at the
Higgins Farm WWTP associated with treating the additional 10 gpm flow (such
as additional chemicals used in the treatment process and additional sludge
disposal). Overall, these additional costs represent an increase of approximately
1.1 million dollars in the present worth of Options 3A and 3B.
22
-------
It is anticipated that implementation of the groundwater extraction and
conveyance system would occur once the landfill is addressed through the
planned removal activities. Removal of this source of groundwater contamination
will allow the remedy to be optimally designed, based on actual residual
contaminant levels in the groundwater. However, connection of the Higgins and
the Laurel Avenue residents to public water is expected to occur in as
expeditiously as practicable.
Since this alternative may result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction System/On-Site Treatment & Disposal
Option 4A: Maintain Residential Carbon Treatment Systems
\
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,118,175
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $307,300
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$247,900
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$4,146,146
Estimated Implementation Period: 4 years
Option 4B: Connect Residences to Public Water
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,493,625
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 1 - 5): $282,200
Estimated Annual O&M Cost (Years 6 - 30):$222,800
Estimated Total Present Worth Value:$4,239,026
Estimated Implementation Period: 4 years
Alternative 4 mainly differs from Alternative 3 in that a new WWTP would be
built on the Higgins Disposal property as opposed to building a pipeline from the
Higgins Disposal property to the Higgins Farm property. This new WWTP would
include flow equalization, precipitation/clarification, filtration, air stripping,
carbon adsorption, ion exchange, and pH adjustment. Since the treated
groundwater would be discharged to a surface water body (i.e., the Dirty Brook),
it would be necessary to achieve discharge levels established in accordance with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under the Clean Water Act.
Therefore, the treatment system would be designed to meet the anti-degradation
criteria for Dirty Brook; for each chemical, the most stringent value between the
New Jersey Ambient Surface Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) and the Federal
AWQC.
23
-------
Under Options A and B, the Higgins would be supplied with the treated water
from the new WWTP. Groundwater on the property would be monitored utilizing
the bedrock monitoring wells. No tap water sampling at the Higgins' household
would be necessary since their water supply, coming from the new WWTP, would
already be monitored as part of the WWTP's operation and maintenance program.
Option 4A also consists of maintaining the existing carbon filtration systems
(and installing three new systems at the residences currently lacking them) at the
neighboring Laurel Avenue residences. Annual tap water monitoring at these
residences would be required.
Under Option 4B, the other Laurel Avenue residences would be hooked up to
public water. No tap water sampling would be necessary in this case.
It is anticipated that implementation of the groundwater extraction and treatment
system would occur once the landfill is addressed through the planned removal
activities. Removal of this source of groundwater contamination will allow the
remedy to be optimally designed, based on actual residual contaminant levels in
the groundwater. However, connection of the Higgins and .the Laurel Avenue
residents to public water is expected to occur as expeditiously as practicable.
Since this alternative may result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in CERCLA §121, 42
U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial
alternatives pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9) and EPA's OSWER
Directive 9355.3-01. The detailed analysis consisted of an assessment of the
individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative
analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each alternative against those
criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important and must be satisfied
by any alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
24
-------
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether
or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed
through each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all
of the applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant and appropriate
(pertaining to situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a
Superfund site such that their use is well suited to the site) requirements
of federal and state environmental statutes and requirements or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to
identify the major trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy
to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time, once cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude
and effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage the risk
posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to a
remedial technology's expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment
that may be posed during the construction and implementation periods until
cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and
the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public
comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
25
-------
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS
reports and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or has
identified any reservations with the selected alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the
alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors
of community acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and
opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation
criteria noted above follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would not protect human health or the
environment because there would not be any immediate reduction in risk or in the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminants. Natural attenuation to reduce
the contaminant concentrations to Federal and State s would take many years and
the bedrock contamination might never achieve the remedial requirements. The
volume of groundwater contaminated would also increase with time, due to the
continued migration of contaminants. In addition, surface water would continue
to receive discharges of contaminated groundwater from the aquifer. Although
most residents have tap water treatment systems, the maintenance of the systems
cannot be guaranteed under the no-action alternative. Therefore, there could be
human exposure to contaminated groundwater, presenting an unacceptable risk.
Alternative 2, limited action, affords some protection of human health since an
alternative potable water supply would be ensured by either providing city water
to the residents or by maintaining the tap water treatment systems. However,
because the extraction system utilized in this alternative is the Higgins' supply
well, which only pumps according to the needs of the Higgins' household and the
Hasty Acres Riding Club, the full or necessary amount of contaminated
groundwater will not be extracted from the aquifer (as in Alternative 1).
Therefore, contaminated water will likely continue to migrate into other portions
of the aquifer system and increase the volume of contaminated groundwater. In
Alternative 2, there would be minimal reduction in risk and in the toxicity;
mobility, or volume of the contaminants. Natural attenuation to reduce the
contaminant concentrations to Federal and State s would take many years and the
bedrock contamination might never achieve the remedial requirements. Surface
water would also continue to receive discharges of contaminated groundwater
from the aquifer.
26
-------
Conversely, Alternatives 3 and 4 provide protection of human health and the
environment by actively and continuously controlling contaminant migration, as
well as by providing a potable water supply (as in Alternative 2).
Compliance with ARARs
Federal and State drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels, or
MCLs) and the promulgated State groundwater quality standards are chemical-
specific ARARs for the Site (see Table 14). Federal MCLs were selected as the
remedial requirement for groundwater remediation except when more stringent
State MCLs and groundwater quality standards exist, in which case the State
requirement was selected. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to meet chemical-
specific ARARs in groundwater as neither involves active, continuous
remediation methods. The limited pumping of the Higgins' well and natural
flushing of groundwater may eventually result in achievement of ARARs in
groundwater. The time frame is unknown, but would be expected to take many
years. The active extraction system required under Alternatives 3 and 4 would
provide the best possible remediation system for the groundwater contaminant
plume. The groundwater extraction scheme in Alternatives 3 and 4 would create
a capture zone far more extensive than utilizing the Higgins' water supply well.
The system under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be designed to create a capture zone
encompassing the entire Site. It would allow less contamination to migrate off-
site and extract a greater volume of contamination. It must be emphasized that
this groundwater contamination problem exists in a fractured bedrock aquifer and
extraction of contaminated groundwater from such aquifers is often difficult.
Additionally, removal of contaminants to achieve the MCLs in such situations is
also difficult. However, highly fractured zones were encountered during RI work
and the hydrologic modeling and aquifer tests performed during the RI indicate
that properly placed extraction wells would create a larger capture zone than
currently exists due to the Higgins' water supply well and such a system would
be able to achieve significant decreases in contaminant levels over time. The
time frame for Alternatives 3 and 4 to achieve compliance with chemical-specific
ARARs in the underlying bedrock aquifer is undetermined. Removal of the
landfill, which is a continuing source of groundwater contamination, is critical
for achieving ARARs and remedial action objectives. However, because Alterna-
tives 3 and 4 are aggressive, active approaches to attaining ARARs in the aquifer,
utilizing more wells and extracting a greater volume of contaminated water,
greater decreases in contaminant levels can be expected in significantly less time
compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
27
-------
As discussed above, Alternatives 3 and 4 include surface water discharge of
treated groundwater. The preliminary discharge criteria for Alternative 3 were
developed for the Higgins Farm WWTP (see Table 15). Like that WWTP, the
discharge criteria for a new WWTP under Alternative 4 would be based on
prevention of degradation of the receiving water body. The selected discharge
requirements are generally the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (FAWQC)
under the Clean Water Act. However, for those compounds for which the
laboratory analytical detection limit (MDL) is greater than the FAWQC,
compliance with the FAWQC will be shown through measurements meeting the
lowest MDL available through EPA contract laboratory program. In addition, for
certain compounds, an anti-degradation based value may be applicable. This is
due to a Clean Water Act requirement to minimize degradation of existing water
quality (i.e., the discharge limit should not be higher than the ambient
concentration in the stream). The discharge from the groundwater treatment
system will be designed to meet the FAWQC and the anti-degradation limit.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to achieve other ARARs including the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for treatment facilities, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for off-site transportation of
any residual materials, and the New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste
Regulations and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). In addition,
the operation of the treatment system in Alternatives 3 and 4 will comply with
Federal and State air standards.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not remove or contain contaminants in the
groundwater in a continuous or active manner. Contaminants would likely
continue to migrate and increase the volume of contaminated groundwater. The
no action and limited action alternatives are not considered to be effective over
the long-term because contaminated groundwater, other than that captured via the
Higgins' supply well, remains on-site and is likely to continue to migrate off of
the Higgins' property. These alternatives will require long-term monitoring and
sampling.
Although some contamination may remain in fractures at the end of the
remediation time period, Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to be generally
effective in providing cleanup of the aquifer.
»
Options A and B under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 provide a potable water supply for the
residents. Option B, provision of a waterline and hookups to the public water
system, is a more permanent remedy whereas Option A requires long-term
28
-------
maintenance of carbon filters to ensure potable, drinkable water. Therefore,
Option B provides greater long-term effectiveness and permanence than Option
A.
Since all of the alternatives may result in hazardous substances remaining at the
Site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not provide for any active, continuous mechanisms for
the total containment, removal, treatment, or disposal of contaminated
groundwater. Alternatives 1 and 2 rely on the limited pumping and extraction of
groundwater dependent upon the water usage needs of the Higgins' household and
the Hasty Acres Riding Club to promote reduction in mobility or volume.
Because of the carbon filter on the Higgins' supply well, there would also be
some reduction in toxicity. However, due to the limited effect of the Higgins'
well, contaminants would continue to migrate to off-site areas as well as into
deeper fractures of the bedrock resulting in an increase in the volume of
contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to more effectively reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of contaminants in the groundwater through treatment. Due
to the nature of fractured bedrock, some contamination may remain in the
interconnecting fractures of the bedrock and may continue to migrate. However,
the amount would be significantly less than under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide limited protectiveness in the short-term. However,
since Alternative 1 only requires sampling and Alternative 2 only requires
sampling and maintenance, they could essentially be implemented immediately.
However, under these two-alternatives, groundwater may continue to migrate off
of the Higgins' property which continues to present a risk to those residents
utilizing the aquifer for potable water.
The time required to implement Alternative 3 is estimated to be 20 months.
During this time, the risks are estimated to be the same as for Alternative 1.
Upon system startup, this alternative will immediately begin to further limit
groundwater contaminant migration. However, due to the nature of the fractured
29
-------
bedrock and the difficulty in remediating contaminated groundwater within these
fractures, specific time frames for remediation of the groundwater cannot be
determined.
The time required to implement Alternative 4 is approximately four years since
building a waste water treatment plant is more complex than building a pipeline
and making minor modifications to an existing waste water treatment plant.
During this time, the risks are estimated to be the same as for Alternatives 1, 2,
and 3. Upon system startup, this alternative will also immediately begin to limit
groundwater contaminants from migrating. However, as with Alternative 3, the
nature of the fractured bedrock and the difficulty in remediating the contaminated
groundwater within these fractures renders it difficult to specify a time frame for
remediation of the groundwater.
It is anticipated that implementation of the groundwater extraction and
conveyance and treatment components of Alternatives 3 and 4 would occur once
the landfill is addressed through the planned removal activities. Removal of this
source of groundwater contamination will allow the remedy to be optimally
designed, based on actual residual contaminant levels in the groundwater.
However, connection of the Higgins and the Laurel Avenue residents to public
water is expected to occur as expeditiously as practicable.
Implementability
Minimal effort would be required to perform the sampling under Alternatives 1
and 2. The wells to be used for sampling already exist. The pipeline, pump
station, and potential treatment plant modifications proposed under Alternative
3 involve standard construction practices and based upon discussions with the
designers of the Higgins Farm WWTP, capacity for contaminated groundwater
from Higgins Disposal will be available. However, Alternative 3 will also
involve coordination with local authorities as well as private property owners
since access to easements would be required for both the installation and
operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Alternative 4 involves standard
construction practices and would be technically easily implementable, although
space to construct such a facility at the Higgins property is limited.
The extraction wells proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 can be designed and
installed relatively easily. The effectiveness of the groundwater pumping will
be dependent upon the placement of the extraction wells in productive fracture
30
-------
zones. Information obtained during the RI indicates some very productive zones.
However, it must be noted that it may not be possible to pump all of the
contaminated groundwater from the fractured bedrock. If necessary, further
remedial measures, such as installing additional wells can be easily implemented.
Maintenance of the carbon filters under option A of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is
also easy to implement. Installation of the public water pipeline extension and
connections (option B) is also a simple engineering task, but would require
coordination with local officials.
Cost
The present-worth costs are calculated using a discount rate of 8 percent. The
estimated capital, annual O&M, and present-worth costs for each of the
alternatives are summarized below.
Aite*ttft£hFft -
>
1
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B
Capital Cost
$0
$6,300
$381,750
$1,400,200
$1,763,400
$1,118,175
$1,493,625
Operation and
Maintenance Coat
$102,600 (Years 1-5)
$43,200 (Years 6-30)
$106, 100 (Years 1-5)
$46,700 (Years 6-30)
$85,640 (Years 1-5)
$26,240 (Years 6-30)
$204,100 (Years 1-5)
$144,700 (Years 6-30)
$177,200 (Years 1-5)
$117, 800 (Years 6-30)
$307,300 (Years 1-5)
$247,900 (Years 6-30)
$282,200 (Years 1-5)
$222,800 (Years 6-30)
Present-
.Worth Cost
$723,503
$769,205
$914,321
$3,270,000
$3,330,000
$4,146,146
$4,239,026
For purposes of this analysis, calculations were based upon the assumption that
the alternatives will have a 30-year useful life.
31
-------
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey does not concur with EPA's position of no further action
for the soils. The State of New Jersey does concur with EPA's selected remedy
provided that EPA remediates any hazardous substances that could contribute to
exceedances of the NJDEP groundwater standards (i.e., the landfill).
Community Acceptance
EPA solicited input from the community on the remedial alternatives proposed
for the Higgins Disposal Site. While the community was supportive of that
portion of the remedy consisting of extension of existing public water, the
community expressed concerns with regard to the groundwater extraction and
conveyance system. The attached Responsiveness Summary addresses the
comments received during the public comment period.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the results of the RI/FS, the requirements of
CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, EPA has
determined that Alternative 3B is the appropriate remedy for the Site, because it
best satisfies the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, and the NCP's
nine evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9). This
remedy is comprised of the following components:
• Remediation of contaminated groundwater to Federal and State Maximum
Contaminant Levels and also to groundwater quality standards promulgated
by the State of New Jersey.
• Installation of on-site wells for the extraction of the contaminated
groundwater.
• Conveyance of the extracted groundwater via a pipeline to the Higgins
Farm Superfund Site for treatment, with discharge to surface water.
• If necessary, the on-site groundwater treatment system at the Higgins Farm
Site will be enhanced through the addition of granular activated carbon.
32
-------
• Connection of the ten neighboring residents on Laurel Avenue who use
private well water to a public water supply. Public water would also be
provided to the Higgins family. This would be accomplished through the
extension of the existing Elizabethtown Water Company pipeline.
• Implementation of an environmental monitoring program to ensure the
overall effectiveness of the remedy.
• Five-year reviews of the Site pursuant to CERCLA.
The selection of this remedy is based on the comparative analysis of the
alternatives discussed above and provides the best balance of tradeoffs with
respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
It is anticipated that implementation of the groundwater extraction and
conveyance system will occur once the landfill is addressed through the planned
removal activities. Removal of this source of groundwater contamination will
allow the remedy to be optimally designed, based on actual residual contaminant
levels in the groundwater. However, connection of the Higgins and the Laurel
Avenue residents to public water is expected to occur in as expeditiously as
practicable.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As was previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(l), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), mandates
that a remedial action must be protective of human health and the environment,
cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Section 121(b)(l) also establishes a preference for remedial actions
which employ treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at
a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial
action must attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and
state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA §121(d)(4), 42
U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy
meets the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621.
33
-------
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment in terms of both
the extraction and treatment systems. By controlling contaminant migration on
and off of the Site and supplying potable water from the public water system,
exposures would be prevented at the Site and neighboring Laurel Avenue
receptors. However, it should be recognized that the contamination is in a
fractured bedrock system, and the possibility exists that some of the
contamination that has already migrated into the deep fractures may not be able
to be extracted and may continue to migrate. However, the extraction system
would be designed to contain the plume of contamination and actively extract the
greatest amount of contaminated water possible.
In addition, the effluent from the groundwater treatment system at the Higgins
Farm Site would meet surface water discharge requirements that are considered
to be protective of human health and the environment.
Furthermore, by providing a permanent, alternative source of potable water
through extension of the existing water line, the selected remedy protects human
health through elimination of residential exposure to contaminated groundwater.
Compliance with ARAfts
The selected remedy will be designed to achieve compliance with the chemical-
specific ARARs for the discharge to surface water at the Higgins Farm Site, and
would be designed to attempt to meet ARARs for remediation of all of the
contaminated groundwater. It is possible, however, that due to the nature of the
fractured bedrock, all groundwater standards may not be achieved (i.e.,
contaminated groundwater that has already migrated into deep fracture zones).
However, for contaminated groundwater in the overburden (i.e., the
unconsolidated deposits above the bedrock) and in a substantial part of the
fractured bedrock, this alternative is expected to achieve ARARs.
The selected remedy will also be designed to meet other chemical-specific,
action-specific and location-specific ARARs, as discussed under Summary of
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives, above, and as provided in Table 16.
34
-------
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective as it has been determined to provide the
greatest overall long-term and short-term effectiveness in proportion to its
present worth cost, $3.3 million. Alternative 4, which would require construction
of a new WWTP, would cost approximately $900,000 more than the selected
remedy. While the selected remedy is more expensive than the no action and
limited action alternatives, the selected remedy achieves far greater protection
of human health and the environment. Furthermore, while the selected remedy
is more expensive than Alternative 3A, it provides a permanent potable water
supply rather than relying on long-term maintenance of carbon filters.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner
for the Higgins Disposal Site. Furthermore, the selected remedy provides the
best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. The selected remedy utilizes treatment to reduce levels of
contamination in groundwater to achieve ARARs, to the extent practicable.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released to the public in May 1997. This Plan
identified Alternative 3B as the preferred alternative to address the groundwater
contamination at the Higgins Disposal Site. Upon review of all comments
submitted, EPA revised the costs associated with Alternatives 3A and 3B. As
previously described, the present worth of Alternative 3A increased from
$2,181,322 to $3,270,000, while the present worth of Alternative 3B increased
from $2,241,712 to $3,330,000. However, it should be noted that the overall
intent of the selected remedy did not change from the Proposed Plan.
35
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE I
HIQQN8 DISPOSAL
KINGSTON, NEW JERSEY
HIGGINS DISPOSAL PLAN
-------
MAWTENANCE
BULDMQ
fOOOR
EQUEBTRAN
HOQMffPEfiCENCe
STATION/
COMPACTOR
HK3GIN8 DISPOSAL
KINGSTON. NEW JERSEY
FOTBrnOMETTIC COKTaJtj^-3HALjXyWBJLa
-------
FIGURE 3
sou
MAJWTENANCE
BULDNQ
STATION/
COM*ACTOR
MW-102D MONTOHNQWeLL
EXBTOQ
XJRCB ABUL PHOTOGRAPH KA886-01 24-30O (MARCH 24
HlQQtNS DISPOSAL
KINGSTON. NEW JERSEY
FOTBmOMETHC CONTOUR MAP -
-TEST STATIC COOTONB -
wema
-------
FIGURE
-------
FIGURE 5
t MAINTENANCE
BLSLDINO
INDOOR
EQUESTRIAN
i CENTER
TRANSFER
! STATION/
COMPACTOR
LANDFU.
RQURE2-«
i FORDETAt.
9 SURFACE 9OL
FS-1 SAMPLE LOCATIO^
— FENCE
_ EXtSTNQ
SOURCE AEHAL PHOTOGRAPH KAS86-OT 24-30O (MAflCH 21
HtGGlNS CXSPOSAL
KINGSTON, NEW JERSEY
SURFACE 8OL SAMPUNQ LOCATTONB
-------
FIGURE 6
PROPERTY
UNE
MAINTENANCE
BULDNQ
INDOOR
EODESTTVAN
CENTER
TRANSFER
STATION/
COMPACTOR
. SOLSAMPLE
LS-1 LOCATION
EXBTNO
BULONQ8
24-3012 (MARCH 25.1986)
SOURC& AERWL PHOTOGRAPH
20
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
KINGSTON. NEW JERSEY
SOL 8AMPUNQ LOCATIONS
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMAUY OK iikOUNUWAl LH DATA
CHEMICAL
VOLATlUt OHUANICS
Acctt.
ttmitmm
CMtwDUuiede
CiitoaTcincUondi
CkloralKaiaM
[^krafcm
, , ni^.i___i
1.2-OkyoracAiM
I.I Dkfcloroetha*
Ijn-llirr— •-—(•— •}
Ij-DicUaiapapH*
•AyfeCMW
.tflhylaM Chloride
1 1 J.? Trn*-Wnfirrkirf
ranchkmMihcBt
lakttM
I.l.l-Tnchkifactluac
I.U-TntMworA-iti
rikkloraabiH
VMytChloridi
KytaM(Toul)
iUU-VOLATIU OKUANICS
,u(2-Eikylhuyl)|ifck*l*u
l-CUoraf*e*al
1 ,2-Oickteiobcimc
OiokylplMlMUw
!-MofayUu(ihUutcac
tVfaWau
phaoi
KOUNDI
Ficqucncy of Kjnge of
DCKUIOB Cn»f4-«niiio«»
W»
4/14 17-40
3/14 6-910
2/14 4-23
) / 14 46-160
3/14 1) - 3100
t / 14 10 - 1700
7/14 4-69
6/14 9-1400
5/14 1-190
7/14 11-770
0/14 NO
0/14 NO
2/14 4-330
6/14 4-460
9/14 11-560
3/14 ) - 41
6/14 13-560
7/14 7-11
9/14 6 - 2200
1/14 61
2 / 14 13 - )3
0/13 ND
1/13 39
2/13 1-4
2 / 13 6-41
3/13 3-920
2/13 2-5
1/13 7
1/13 19
1/13 3)
1/13 »
IIIUiilNS DISPOSAL
KOUNO 2
Ficqucacy of R«a«e of
Ocuciio* CuMcamuau
<(••/!>
1/15 5
2/15 35-100
2/13 2-3
5/15 37-150
3/15 16 - 2500
13/1) 1 - 1600
1/13 1-37
1/15 1 - 1200
7/1) 1-32
(/I) 2-660
1 / 13 1
0/15 NO
1/15 240
5/1) 11-420
10/15 2-490
2/1) 11-43
5/1) 42-190
1/15 6-13
10/15 1 - 1)00
11 1) 9-53
1/15 4)
1/14 6
0/14 ND
0/14 ND
1/14 (9
2 / 14 420 - IWO
0/14 NO
0/14 NO
1/14 44
0/14 NO
0/14 NO
SUMMARY
Ftequcacy of
DcteclwM Hciccnl
(XciMCIKC
5 / 29 17%
5/29 - 17%
4 / 29 14%
10 / 29 )4%
6/ 29 21%
21 / 29 72%
15 / 29 52%
14 / 29 41%
12 / 29 41%
15/29 52%
1/29 3%
0/29 0%
3/29 10%
1 1 / 29 31%
19 / 29 66%
5/29 17%
II / 29 3«%
15 / 29 52%
19 / 29 66%
3/29 10%
3/29 10%
1/27 4%
1/27 4%
2/27 7%
3/27 11%
5 / 27 19%
2/27 7%
1/27 4%
2/27 7*.
1/27 4%
1 / 27 4%
BACKGROUND-
frequency of Hja(C of
Oclctlioo CuatcnUHMMu
(P«/1)
O/ 4 NO*
0/4 NU
I / 4 7
0/4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
I/ 4 4
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NO
I / 4 4
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NU
'0/4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
0/4 NO
U/ 4 NU
0/4 NU
0/4 NU
NJGW
SKlKMUd
(H«1>
700
1
2
4
6
70
2
2
lOc
1
700
2
2
1
1.000
30
3
1
5
40
30
40
600
74
600
5.000
30*
4.000
9
* Interim specific criteria
-------
SUMMAKV OF UHOUNUWATtU DATA
IIIUCINS UISTUSAL
OUNU2
(Uogeof
l'«frTf«M«a^i«l«
Wl»
SUMMARY
Frequency of
Peietlion Pcrccnl
IXvur elite
BACKGROUND*
Frequency of lUnge of
. Uciefliun ConceiiuatHMU
(MH^>
4%
7%
7%
7%
4%
1%
7%
7%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
TABLE 1 (Continued)
O/ )
O/ 4
01 4
01 4
01 4
I / 4
01 4
O/ 4
O/ 4
01 4
01 4
01 4
01 4
I / 4
NL>
NU
Nl)
NU
NO
002
NL>
NU
NU
NU
NO
NU
NU
J.I
004
002
0.2
02
OS
05
0.1
0.1
O.t
04
04
02
OS
97 » • VM20O
II 4
Ji • I)
11 1 • til
l» - 64
11-11
22UUO . 41IUU
14 - 4140
20 1 - VI 4
6i - 114
IJV • UMJUU
4 • Ml
I04OU • SI7UO
I«V • IMU
021
IJ7 • •>!>
4720 • li7UU
Nl)
200
20
a
20
0.008
4
too
1.000
300
10
SO
2
100
SO
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY Qt CKUUMtWATKK DATA
HICCINS DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL
Ulva
ROUND 1
Fiujuucy of RM|C of
D«t< 1MB CaMOUMMM
0/11 ND
11 / 11 IOMO - M4U
» / 11 4-111
ii / ii 14 - 111
ROUND 2
Ff cqimcy of Rjuft of
ftf^lllfr* fjM^^y^M^f
(|t(/1)
1/14 4 >
11 / 14 I*M - I12BM
11/14 >1 • 2U
1/1 1.1 - l»6
SUMMARY
DcuctiOM Pcfvcoi
OuutOKC
1 / IT 4%
U/ 11 MM
W/ 17 14%
IS / U »4%
BACKGROUND-
Frequency of RM«C of
0/4 ND
4 / 4 JOIOO . IOIUU
1/4 1 1 . 2«S
2/4 4» • 1VO
NJGW
S4MVlMd
so.ooo
5.000
i baa MW-104
Round 1
§ ttd not nckut* MW- »06S end MW-10/S
USEPA SOMA«USe>A S*» (Mtkng «M» Ad
MCL - Muuwii CoiMMnMl UMl
PMO. • piopoiiB M»rtnum Conmnininl U»«l
•MCL - Swand«v Mufcwn ConumraM Uw*
•|MMCL - PropoMd S«un CntMKN I A C
-------
TABLE 2
RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
Location
81
(Unfiltered Sample)
85
(Unfiltered Sample)
95
(Unfiltered Sample)
i
Chemicals Detected
Chloroform
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Sodium
Chloroform
Calcium
Copper
Sodium '•
Lead
Zinc
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Chloroform
ltltl-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
l»2-DkhIoroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaiie
U^Trichloroethane
Calchun
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
Lead
Concentration (ppb)
2
7000
10
207
7000
1.7
10000
28
8000
3.8
501
0.3
0.7
1.7
36.0
1.2
11.0
10.0
0.4
9.9
2.2
2.9
24000
169
133
11000
19000
3.8
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Location
102
(Filtered Sample)
104
(Unfiltered Sample)
110
(Unfiltered Sample)
Chemicals Detected
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Sodium
Zinc
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Sodium
Lead
Zinc
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Lead
Zinc
Concentration (ppb)
2.7
0.6
0.9
10000
12
95
10000
138
0.3
2.7
8000
22
84
8000
3.5
219
10000
152
258
5000
43
10000
10.9
84
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Location
82
(Unfilteied Sample)
121
ruggins property
(Filtered Sample)
-o
Chemicals Detected
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1 ,1-Trkhloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dtchloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethytene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Diisopropylether
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Potassium
\fa0iMwliim
Sodium
Lead
1,1-Dichloroethane
Os 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dtchloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 1 2-THchlon>rthfliMf
Calcium
Copper
l^fafiMtfiinn
Sodium
Zinc
Concentration (ppb)
29
10
12
37
98
26
0.3
3.3
76
200
230
200
22
12
20
25000
141
232
11000
11000
20000
5.5
0.5
1.0
30
0.2
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.4
3.6
1.5
43000
91
17000
16000
2880
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Location
122
(Unfiltered Sample)
87
(Unfiltered Sample)
Chemicals Detected
Chloroform
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Zinc
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dkhloroethane
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Cis 1,2-Dkhloroethylene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
l.ltZ-Trichloroethane
Calchim
Copper
Sodium
Lead
Concentration (ppb)
0.6
13000
9000
8000
189
2.8
0.9
0.6
1.9
96
5.6
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.9
13000
42
7000
5.2
-------
SUMMARY
CHEMICAL
VOLATILE ORGAMCS
Acetone
Chloroform
1 , 1 2 J-Tetnchloroethine
fanchlbreetherM
Toluene
TABLE 3
OF INDOOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
Frequency
2 / 6
4 / 6
I / 6
4/6
I / 6
CoacHtrtttoM
0.006-0.009
0.001-0.002
0003
0005-0.022
0.001
SEMI-VOLAT1LE ORCANICS
Diethylphth«U»
tPAHs(toul)
PESTICIDES
Aid-in
ilph*-8HC
deiU-BHC
4.4--ODE
Jieldrin
"n^lfttMlfin tulfiitt
Hepttchtor
HepttcWocepoxide
PCB«(tottl)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
AnciuQ
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
iron
Ittd
VUnfUMM
Mercuiy
NklMt
Pouumum
Sodium
ViiMdium
Una
1 / 6
3 / 6
3 / 5
4/6
1 /
1 /
2 /
1 /
1 /
2 /
3 /
6/6
2 / 6
4 1
6 /
6 I
6 /
6 /
6 / 6
6 / 6
6 / 6
6 / 6
1 / 6
4 / 6
5/6
4 / 6
6 / 6
6/6
1.1
1 .-Z9
0.013-0.034
0.0019-0.0064
0.0021
0.016
0.021-0.029
0.0012
0.00061
0.027 - 0.037
0.18.-7J
3320-5860
1.3-1.5
26-30
0.6. IJ
2490*5740
5-12 :
18-33
5360-8520
15-73
787-1SSO
76-131
0.4
5-6
699-1100
572-761
11-17
84-245
NA: NotAvtiteMi
tPAHi tottlPolycyctioAraMiioKydracMtaM
PCBt PoJyehlofuuued Biphenyto mixtura
-------
VOLATUXOfcCANICS
t (IBttl)
.UJ
KykM(Mri)
BHC
I.4--DDD
1.4- ODE
1.4 DOT
WUI-210401
:AL
1
>
»
SAMICS
t»
LAMtflLLAftKA
ttugtal
•WqpMMCy MMMVMMP
(•ft**)
2 / M ULW-t.1*
i / la* a AM
I r *v •••^
• j M m
r JV IVf
11 1ft ft^m
1 *• * HV*
1 / M 0*1
0 / M ND
0/10 ND
It M ft MM AA1A
/ JV PJP» • IUIM
1 / M MIS
0/20 ND
0 / M ND
» 1 10 OOM-U
4 / M MM -14
t / M OJB4-44
1 / 10 OOM
0 / 10 ND
1 / 10 OOtt
1. M«««(
tnq/itfty Co^c
/ 10 NO
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 0411-0.17
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 NO
/ 10 ND
/ 10 ND
/ 10 NO
/ 10 ND
/ 10 0.0)7 - 0.12)
/ 10 041* -0.601
0/10 NO
1 ./ 10 000021
0 / ( NO
1 / 4 OUOO4I
0/10 NO
1 / * OUU61-0.II
0/1 NO
1 / 10 0000*6
1 / 10 0.001
1 / 10 O.UUU) 0 UU064
0/7 NO
OUTDOOR SS
SUMMARY*
OuvncAtc
7 / 41 I)K
1/41 *K
1/41 IK
1/41 1%
1/41 IK
1/41 IK
1/41 IK
4/41 IK
1/41 4K
1/41 .IK
1/41 IK
16 / 41 )4K
7 / 41 I)K
11 / 41 1)K
1/41 IK
1/41 IK
1/41 4K
1/41 IK
1/41 2K
1/41 IK
1* / 41 UK
4i / a »4K
1/4* IK
) / 11 liK
1/1) 6K
1/11 4K
6 / 1) I7K
21 / 11 67V.
1 / 16 JOV.
II / 14 W».
1/16 IK
II / 11 47V.
* / 41 ItK
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
SUMMARY OP OUTDOOR SURFACE SOILS DATA
CHEMICAL
•ate
lutmittohy*
Irp^l-T
lluri fcjLM mfkKufa
4flVjoMycttiv
Cb(ttkl)
INORGANICS
.^-^.1_
fl !<•:•. !•)
Ancatc
>vw*
taytea
J4CMB
:ka*MM»
PiliiH
nnnm
lie*
.4*4
•hMMMM
!«•«•>
•^••••^J
teftd
iekUMI
i4w
IhrfM
k/ *••*••
ZlK
LANDFILL AREA
Ban* °f
fnyney rimim^nnm
(•«*•)
1 / 11 0.014
1 / 11 OXXMI
1 / 14 0.07
0/17 ND
0 / II ND
1* / 20 OM5-22
20 / 20 4400-17409
0 / 20 ND
20/20 I4-27J
20 / 20 444-174
20 / 20 . Oa-l-S
t 1 20 0.49-J
20 / 20 7I2-2SMO
20/20 74-41.1
20/20 2.1-51.5
20/20 I6.t-l77
20 / 20 79JO-4JMO
20 / 20 I7J-22I
20 / 20 S40- 14700
5 / i 262-MI
l« / 20 OM-41.1
20 / 20 .44-M4
20/20 M7-4220
1 / It 2J
10/20 1-1.4
20 / 20 WJ-4710
0/20 ND
20 / 20 11.7 -M.4
20 / 20 3*4-107
UlCGINSDISrOSAL
fHANSrtUCtTAnON
ban of
Fnquejcy Cnum**mm
<"•*•)
1 / 4 0401- 0.015
1 / 6 0.01
1 / • 0.0021
0/1 - ND
0 / J ND
» / 10 0.11-1.7
10/10 I220-1UOO
2 / 10 10.1 -IU
10 / 10 1.3-13.1
10 / 10 1S.» -III
10 / 10 0.22-1
4 / 10 I.I- 1.2
10 / 10 2170-45200
10 / 10 IS.? -42.1
10 / 10 4.1-224
10 / 10 l».l-l»l
10 / 10 11200 31100
10 / 10 11.* -11)00
10 / 10 2100 -15400
10 / 10 112 -ISM
10 / 10 0.1 J -2
10 / 10 14-125
10 / 10 7*2-2500
0/10 ND
4 / 10 1.4-24
10 ./ 10 IIO-4OO
0/10 ND
10 / 10' 20-17.5
10 / 10 79.1-711
MAINTENANCE GARAGE
ftMttof
FfHfMCBCy CoftMBttlftlOQC
(•**«>
5 / t 0.0002-0.01
1 / 1 0.0007
1 / 1 0.0077
0/5 ND
0/7 ND
1 / 1 . 0021-014
/ 6750- IUOO
/ ND
4-32.2
21.5-207
0.33-2.3
0.42-6.4
2470-64100
16.4-57.7
1.2 -14.1
/ 4.* -417
/ 16000-45500
/ 154-1460
/ 555-21100
/ 71.4 • 114
/ 0.05 - I.I
/ S-2«
/ 574 - 16*0
/ U
/ 2 7.»
/ 517-924
/ 0.15-0.47
/ 21.4 - 16
/ 24.3 642
FIKUVTASTURK AREAS
ftatcof
Frequency Ca»nn»»iiiniii
(-**»)
1 / 1 0.00031
0/10 ND
0/10 ND
1 / 10 • 0.00054
1 / 10 0.0016
22 / 41 0.04-2.1
10 / 10 9490-17000
0/10 ND
10 / 10 1.6-6
10 / 10 50.2 191
10 / 10 042 0.96
0/10 ND
10 / 10 950-2440
10/10 11.6 -21 7
10 / 10 4.1 -114
10 / 10 11.6 -Ma
10 / 10 IUOO -20200
10 / 10 19.9-16.5
10 / 10 162-2300
10 / 10 145-59*
9 / 10 0.07-0.1
10 / 10 6.7-14.1
10 / 10 330-1210
2 / * 0.11 -1.7
1 / 10 0.17-2.7
10/10 71.1 - 347
0/10 ND
10 / 10 19.1 -16.1
10 / 10 36.1-65.1
OUTDOOR SS
SUMMARY*
Frequency Paccu
Occuncncc
10 / 31 32K
1/17 1*
1/41 7%
1/15 IK
1/13 J*
51 / II 72%
48 / 4S 100%
2 ./ 4» 4K
41 / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
15 / 4» UK
41 / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
41/41 100%
41 / 41 100%
4t / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
11 / 13 100%
46 / 41 96%
41 / 41 100%
41 / 41 100%
4/46 9%
30 / 4t 63%
41 / 41 100%
4/41 1%
41 / 41. 100%
41 / 41 100%
ND:
HA:
cPAtfa
If Alfa
Not Detected
OMdoa Svfecc Soil Snowy
. rotycycfa
•;c4 xi.s
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF OUTDOOR SUBSURFACE SOIL DATA
HICCINS DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL
VOLATILE ORCANICS
kGClOtKB
teazcM
•BtfAMMM
:•*>»• Tetncktonfc
~>lllll*im»«
Morafom
.1 nirMnnm*»M
.2-DJJcUMIMIlMM (lOttl)
:i>,auiin
4c*ytaHCUamk
UtacktocoMfccM
fokiON
1,1,1-TnchloroclkM*
rhcWoiMikCM
tftyickton*
KybMttJOttl)
iKMJ-VOLATIU ORCANICS
atf-EihylbuyljpkitaliM
Dotual*
t.4-D«rtli>lpfctto«
t-MrtkylpkMol
t-Mdhytknol
toMcUanphMol
"*e»o»
:PAH(
fAHi
LANDFILL BORINGS
AND TEST PIT SAMPLES
Frequency Rucc of
of OmrmnlHTfli
Detect m«
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
SUMMAMV Of tMTI WH>R StOMJWAd SOIL UATA
HICCIN5 IMKfQBAL
LANW1
ANDTOTtlTIAMflCS
AUA
»wt»i*
r HIMHIIIIM
NO
0.0011
0.0029
000012
00011-002
NO
OOOOM .
00002* -001
OJOOU-0042
NO
NO
0.004*
NO
000022
NO
24
19*00-17100
1.4-47
JO.I-OM
0.90 - 1.1
NO
Ml - HMO
24 Ml
11-174
99 • M 1
-17100 2*200
49 • 12.1
2170 - 7110
ttOJUT
WILL!
H+irirr
of
0 / 7
0 / 7
0 / 7
0/7
0 / *
0 / 7
0 / 7
0 / t
0 / 7
• / 7
0 / 7
• / 7
0 / 7
• / 7
0/7
0 / 7
7 / 7
* / *
* / 7
* / 7
2 / 7
J / 7
* / »
7 / 7
4 1 7
7 / 7
7 / 7
4 / 7
OUNC
OUNCS
ftMCCOf
(•jAjJ
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
UtO-49400
2.2 -11
4l7-»4»
. 041-44
0.9-1.9
I02-M20
»J-«7*
12 • M *
29-407
|llOO-»7WO
0»-li2
6*1 • 11100
SUMMABY *
fnqfirwKlf
or r
Drtcuwa Of,
2 / 21
2 / 29
1 / 10
2 / 26
5 / 25
2 / 27
4 / 10
7/27
9 / 27
1 / 10
2 / 29
2 / 29
1 / 10
1 / 21
1 / 10
1 / 10
1 M / 10
1 21 / 2»
21 / 10
21 / 10
11 / 10
26 / 10
26 / 27
27 / 10
29 / M
10 / 10
27 / 27
2* / M
CICCH
CMMW*
7%
7%
1%
t%
20%
7%
11%
26%
11%
1%
7%
7%
1%
4%
17%
27%
100%
97%
91%
70%
41%
•7%
96%
90%
97%
100%
100%
•7%
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
SUMMARY UK OUTDOOR SUBSURFACE SOIL DA 1 A
IIIUCINS DISrOSAL
CHEMICAL
bttlUAACtC
itcicury
4ickcl
*'T1lllftT*'*ft
fr rraiufn
iUvct
iudium
rhiluum
lac
LANDFILL BORINGS
AND TEST riT SAMPLES
Frequency Rug e of
Of C*OttCCMlSltQfll
DctrciKio (IOC/IK)
19 / 19 21 - 79$
) / 19 0.11-0.4
II / 19 6 575
II / 19 «5)-25IO
13 / 19 0.7-2.9
1 / 19 1-6.7
II / 19 102-47)0
} / 19 0.4«-l.l
II / 19 14-111
U / 16 IS 6 -Ml
USTARCA
Frequency Hinge of
of Conccmraiions
Detection (tni/kg)
4 / 4 2S6-494
1 / 4 0.19
4 / 4 161 -US
4/4 775 - 1060
0/4 NO
4 / 4 1.6-37
4 / 4 212-367
2 / 4 O.S6-0.64
4 / 4 37 7- $6.4
2/2 27-70
MONITORING
WELL BORINGS
Frequency Range of
of Concculnuuitt
OcieUion (mg/kt)
7 / 7 216-2210
0/7 ND
7 / 7 4-SJ4
6 ' 7 416-lltOO
0 ' 6 NU
1/7 22
S / 7 3S.3-2IO
2 / 7 1.3-1.7
7/7 23-19$
6/6 19-11
OUTDOOR SB
SUMMARY •
Frequency
Uf PCKCIU
Dcietiiuu Occunciicc
30 / JO 100%
4 / 30 13V,
29 / 30 97%
21 / 30 70%
13 / 29 45%
13 / 30 43V,
20 / 30 67V.
9 / 30 )U%
It 1 30 97%
24 / 24 100%
ND: Nan Detected
NA: Nat AvuUbk
• Bucd OB Ike Mil Frequency of Detection foe luOAli banag tuupki. leu pu samples. UST ue* bonmj simples, mil manUunnK well bocuif uniplcs
•• Birttmimil uaytei i»ckiae WB-IOIs i«d WB I09«
••• NJDEFE.I993 Divutoaof Scicuce ud Hescarck
cPAFb cwuoojcnic Polycydic AnMRMic HyikocartMns
if AlU loul Polycyclic AroeoHtc Hydracubomt
PCBs FatycUoruMol BipUnyb nuture
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARV UK SURFACE WATER DA 1 A
CHEMICAL
VOLATILE ORCANICS
I'richlarorcihcoc
»EMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
t>is(2-Elhylhexyl)pblh«J«te
PESTICIDES
lamma-Chlardanc
INORGANICS
AluminuiD
Arsenic .
iarium
ieryUium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
100
Lead
vtagncsium '
tongancse
Mickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
dine
DIRTY BROOK
' (upUrtMi)
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Detection (mg/1) .
0/1 NO
•
0/1 ND
0/1 ND
NA NA,
0 / ND
/ 00285
/ 000045
0 / ND
/ 17.9
/ 00086
/ 00023
/ 0.0123
/ 3.89
/ 00055
/ 589
NA NA
0 / ND
1 / 2.62
0 / ND
1 / 89
I / 00098
NA NA
I1IGCINS DISPOSAL
DIRTY BROOK
(opposite pood outfall)
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Detection (Big/1)
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.00002
1 / 1 159
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.0355-0.0427
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
2/2 16.7-25 6
1 / 2 00144
1 / 2 00035
1 / 2 00154
2 / 2 646-93
2/2 00018-0.0063
2 / 2 6.12-9.82
1 / 1 1.83
1 / 2 0.0087
2 / 2 2.72-29
1 / 2 0 0024
2 / 2 6.65-974
1 / 2 00176
1 / 1 0.0307
NORTH POND
Frequency Kauge of
of Coo ceo in! ion 5
Detection (mg/l)
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.003
0/2 ND
1 / 1 0369
1 / 2 0.0026
2 / 2 0.0214-0.0409
1/2 0.00055
0/2 ND
2 / 2 153-208
1 / 2 0.0178
1 / 2 00052
1 / 2 0.022
2 / 2 0.639-8.1
I / 2 0.0084
2 / 2 648-7 25
1 / I 00317
I / 2 00097
2 / 2 243-309
0/2 ND
2 / 2 564-946
1/2 00222
0/1 ND
SOUTH POND
Frequency Range of
f ^» t
ol ^onccntrBtionsi
Detection (rug/1)
1 / 2 0.001
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 1 0268
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.0231-00267
0/2 ND
1 / 2 00011
2 / 2 15-175
1 / 2 00031
0/2 ND
| / 2 0007
2 / 2 0732-1 94
2 / 2 0.0022-001
2 / 2 7 85-8 5
1 / 1 0358
0/2 ND
2 / 2 3.07-3 19
0/2 ND
2/2 8 1-108
I / 2 00035
0/1 NU
UNNAMKD BROOK .
Frequency Range ul
f f*
Detection (nig/I)
0/2 NU
0/2 NU
0/2 NU
1 / 1 82
1 / 2 00052
2 / 2 0.0551-0138
0/2 NU
1 / 2 00014
2 / 2 176-267
2/2 0 0028-0 025b
1/2 00106
2 / 2 0.004 l-00l2y
2 / 2 205-178
2/2 0004I-OOI54
2/2 626--/5I
1 / 1 1 76
0/1 NU
2 / 2 202-265
0/2 NU
2/2 7 17-965
2 / 2 00032-00209
1 / I OOH2I
ND: Not Delected
MA: Nul Analyzed
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY UK SKUIMEN T DATA
IHUUIMS DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL
VOLATILE ORCANICS
Acetone .
2-Uutanone
Mclhylenc chloride
SEMI-VOLATILE ORCANICS
)i*(2-l-lhylhexyl)phllulaie
iPAHs
cPAHs
PESTICTOES/PCBs
AlOnn
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dicldrin
Endosulfan 1
lindrin
Endrin aldehyde
lleptachlor
PCBs
DIRTY BROOK
(upstream)
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Uetcciion (rag/kg)
0/2 NO
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.368-0.657
2 / 2 0.2274.439
0/2 ND
1 / 2 00088
1 / 2 0.0098
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.0019
0/2 ND
DIRTY BROOK
(opposite pond outfall)
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Detection (rng/kg)
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.004
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.4124.999
2 / 2 0.132-0.427
0/2 ND
1 / 2 00029
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/1 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.007
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.131
NORTH POND
Frequency Range ol'
of Concentrations
Detection (ing/kg)
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.013
1 / 2 0.22
2/2 0046-0095
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.0036-0.006
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.0032
0/2 ND
0/1 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.17-0.32
SOUTH POND
Frequency Kuiige of
of Concentration*
Detection (ing/kg)
1/2 0044
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 O.OSS
2 / 2 0314-0.687
2 / 2 0.064-0.297
/ 2 0.0059
/ 2 0.0088
/ 2 0.0019
/ 2 0.0023
/ 2 0.0071
0/1 ND
1 / 1 00028
0/2 ND
0/1 ND
1 / 2 0.0057
0/1 ND
2 / 2 0.46-0.92
UNNAMED BROOK
Frequency Kungc ol
of Continuation.
Detection (ing/kg)
1 / 2 0016
1 / 2 0012
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
2 / 2 0.626-1.79
2 / 2 121-381
1 / 2 00024
1 / 2 00022
0/2 ML)
1 / 2 0011
2 / 2 0017-0031
1 / 2 00073
2 / 2 0.015-0019
1 / 2 00036
1 / 2 0.0084
0/2 ND
0/2 ND
1 / 2 0.184
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OK SEDIMENT DATA
HIGtilNS DISPOSAL
CHEMICAL
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
iarium
icryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
riercury
Nickel
Potassium
ielenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
line
OTHER
Cyanide
•^•••— •——••—••••
DIRTY BROOK
(upiircam)
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Detection (mg/kg)
2 / 2 9300-12700
2 / 2 2.7-3.5
2 / 2 $0.2-52.8
2 / 2 0.44-0.52
0/2 ND
2/2 4070-4740
2 / 2 49.8-54.3
2 / 2 18.4-20
2 / 2 52.3-41.7
2/2 21800-23000
2 / 2 117-121
2 / 2 7500-7590
2 / 2 445-497
0/2 ND
1 / 1 37
2 / 2 1090-1290
1 / 2 0.76
0/2 ND
2 / 2 202-387
0/2 ND
2 / 2 43.6-54.1
2 / 2 54.2-61.7
0/2 ND
^•l^K^MMI^BM—MI
DIRTY BROOK
(opposite pood outfall)
Frequency Range of
of • Concentrations
Detection (mg/kg)
2 / 2 6050-31600
2 / 2 3-8.6
2 / 2 35.6-117
2 / 2 0.35-0.78
1/2 1.4
2 / 2 2530-5520
2/2 38.1-164
2 / 2 12.5-32.8
2 / 2 33.3-122
2 / 2 20800-53000
2 / 2 9.6-15.9
2 / 2 4550-11700
2 / 2 266-777
0/2 ND
1 / 1 64
2 / 2 783-1220
1 / 2 0.46
2 / 2 0.85-2.1
2 / 2 141-481
0/2 ND
2/2 301-116
2 / 2 36.8-86.8
0/2 ND
NORTH POND
Frequency Range of
of Concentrations
Detection (mg/kg)
2 / 2 7990-9620
2 / 2 2.8-5.4
2 / 2 54.9-647
2 / 2 098-1
1/2 13
2/2 1350-1610
2 / 2 23.3-258
2 / 2 10.2-1 1.6
2 / 2 20.2-632
2 / 2 20300-23300
2 / 2 145-23.7
2 / 2 2560-2710
2 / 2 158-420
1 / 2 . 018
1 / 1 14.2
2 / 2 497-758
1 / 2 0.87
0/2 ND
2 / 2 72-156
1/2 1
2 / 2 40.5-41.3
2 / 2 41.1-84.6 ,
0/2 ND
SOUTH POND
Frequency Kangc of
of Concentrations
Detection (nig/kg)
2 / 2 7810-10100
2 / 2 3.4-4.7
2 / 2 62-668
2 / 2 0.47-0.78
0/2 ND
2 / 2 1720-3170
2 / 2 17-201
2 / 2 7-8.5
2/2 21.5-30.5
2 / 2 15400-16300
2 / 2 262-319
2 / 2 1770-2460
2 / 2 315-359
2 / 2 0.06-0.29
1 / 1 12 3
2 / 2 412-542
1/2 06
0/2 ND
2 / 2 139-463
1 / 2 0.48
2 / 2 29.2-34.7
2 / 2 70.7-89.4
'1/2 7
UNNAMED BROOK
Frequency Kangc ol
of C'ouccnlrulion:>
Detection (nig/kg)
2/2 1 (MM)- 15500
2/2 9.5-9.6
2 / 2 108-115
2 / 2 11-12
0/2 ND
2 / 2 5070-53JO
2 / 2 26.1-333
2 / 2 13.3-142
2 / 2 31.2-341
2 / 2 23700-23800
2 / 2 8.7-39.8
2 / 2 5170-5490
2 / 2 776-1130
0/2 ND
1 / 1 213
2 / 2 1480-1050
1 / 2 082
0/2 ND
2 / 2 143-279
1 / 2 0.82
2 / 2 44-498
2 / 2 86.8-106
0/2 ND
ND: Not Detected
-------
TABLE 8
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
U1GG1NS DISPOSAL
Chemical
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acetone
Benzene
2-Bulanone
Carbon DisulAde
Carbon Teirachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
l.l-Dichloroelhane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroelhenc
1 ,2-Dichloroethcne (lolal)
Ethylbenzenc
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methylene chloride
1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroclhane
Tetrachloroethenc
Toluene
1,1.1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroeUiane
Trtchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xyknes (total)
Outdoor
Surface
Soili
X
ND
X
•
•
ND
•
ND
ND
ND
•
ND
ND
ND
•
X
ND
ND
•
•
ND
Indoor
Surface
Soils
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Outdoor
Subsurface
Soils
X
X
X
ND
•
X
X
•
ND
ND
X
X
ND
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
• •
X
Outdoor Surface
and Subsurface
Soils
X
•
X
ND
•
•
X
•
ND
•
•
•
•
X
•
X
X
-
*
X
•
Indoor
Air1
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Outdoor
Air1
X
X
X
•
•
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
Sediment
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ground
Water
X
X
ND
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
.
ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
UIGG1NS DISPOSAL
Outdoor ' ' ~ " ~ ' " '
Surface
Ckcaucal
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
bis(2-Ethylbcxyl)phlnalalc
Buiylbcn/ylphlhalatf
Caibazole
1 ,2-Dichloiobcn/cnc
1 l-Dichlorobcnzcnc
1 .4-Dichloi obenzenc
DieihylpblhaUie
tPAMs (total)
iPAHs (total)
PESTICIDES/rCB*
Mdiin
alpba-BHC
beia-BHC
delu-BHC
alpha-Cblofdane
gamnu-CbiOfdaae
4.4--DDD
4 4'-DDE
44'-DDT
Dieldnn
Endosulfan II
t*fido5uUafl suliaie
Eudrin
ilcpuchtof
llepuclilor epoxide
Mctlioxycblot
PCBs(loul)
Soib
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
.
ND
ND
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indoor
Surface
SotH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
ND .
X
.ND
X
X
ND
X
Outdoor
Subsurface
Soib
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
:
ND
X
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
.
.
ND
X
X
Outdoor Surface
and Suhflurfnr t
Soils
X
X
X
*
ND
•
ND
X
X
.
m
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indoor
Air1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
ND
X
ND
X
ND
X
Outdoor
Air1
X
X
X
X
ND
X
ND
X
X -
•
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
•X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Water
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sediment
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
ND
ND
X '
ND
ND
X
Ground
Water
X
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
-------
TABLE '8 (Continued)
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
HIGG1NS DISPOSAL
Chemical
INORGANICS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Outdoor
Surface
Soib
.
•
•
X
•
X
•
X
•
.
.
X
'
Indoor
Surface
Soib
ND
•
ND
X
•
*
•
X
•
ND
ND
ND
'
Outdoor
Subsurface
Soib
ND
•
X
. •
•
X
•
X
•
•
X
X
Outdoor Surface
and Subsurface
Soib
•
•
•
•
•
X
•
X
•
•
X
'
X
Indoor
Air1
ND
•
ND
X
.
•
•
X
•
ND
ND
ND
Outdoor Surface
Air1 Water
ND
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X ND
X
X
ND
X ND
Sediment
ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
Water
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
ND
NOTES:
I
X
ND
Based on soil and/or soil gas analyses
Delected, but not selected as a chemical of potential concern
Selected chemical of potential concern
Not Detected
Not Analyzed
cPAHs Carcinogenic polycyclic aroinalic hydrocaibons
tPAHs Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBS Polychlorinated biphenyls mixture
IAllM(.»XIS
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
Potentially Eloosed
Population
Exposure Route, Medium,
and Einoiure Point
Pathway Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection
or Eicluiton
Stable Employees
tngestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in surface sod
from the field/pasture areas.
Yes
Stable employees may come into
contact with contaminated soil in (he
vicinity of their work areas during
daily activities.
Maintenance Garage
Employees
Ingesuon of and dermal
contact with chemicals in
surface soil from the landfill.
maintenance garage, and
transfer stance areas.
Yes
Maintenance garage employees may
come into contact with contaminated
soil in the vicinity of their work areas
during daily activities.
Stable and
GarsflB
Employees
Inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from the landfill.
transfer station, and UST areas.
Yes
Employees may inhale volatile
chemicals released from
• contaminated sod.
Stable and
Maintenance Garage
Employees
Inhalation of chemicals on
respirable parttculates released
from outdoor surface soil.
Yes
' Employees may inhale f/mta
respirable parnculates dispersed in
air from mechanical and/or wind
erosion of surface soil
Stable Employees
• Stable and
Maintenance Garage
Employees
tngestion of. dermal contact
with, and inhalation of
chemicals in surface soil from
the indoor riding area.
UURS&QQ Ot flOQ QCoVDstt
contact with chemicals in
subsurface soil
Yes
No
Stable employees may be exposed to
contaminated soil during daily
activities in the indoor nding area.
The nature of the workers'
responsibilities would not routinely
subsurface sou.
Stable and
Maintenance Garafi
Employees
fagesuon of. and dermal
contact with chemicals in
ground water.
Yes
Employees may be exposed to
chemicals in ground water during
daily activities.
Stable and
Maintenance Garage
Employees
fagesaon of and dermal contact
with chemicals in surface water
No
The nature of the workers'
responsibilities would not routinely
cause exposure to contaminated
surface water and sediment
Tractor Operators
Inhalation of chemicals on
respirable parnculates released
from outdoor surface soil
Yes
Tractor or other heavy equipment
operators may inhale contaminated;
respirable particulates mado
airborne by mechanical erosto^L
p
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
HIGGCSS DISPOSAL
Potentially Ezposed
Population
Ciposnn Route, Median,
and Einoiurt Point
Pathway Selected for
Evaluation?
Reasea for Selection
Clients/Visitors
Ingestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in surface soil
from the field/pasture areas.
Yes
Regular clients and visitors may be
exposed to contaminated surface soil
in these areas.
Clients/Visitors
Inhalation of volatile chemicals
. released from the landfill.
transfer station *"^ UST areas.
Yes
Regular clients and visitors may
inhale volatile chemicals released
from contaminated soil.
Clients/Visitors
Inhalation of chemicals on
respirable particulates released
from outdoor surface soil
Yes
Regular clients and visitors may be
exposed to contaminated respirible
parucuhues dispersed in air from
mechanical and/or wind erosion of
surface soil
Clients/Visitors
Clients/Viators
Ingestion of. dermal contact
with, and inhalation of
chemicals in surface soil from
the indoor riding area.
Ingestion of sad dermal
"rxitact ™"'h i-h«^r»i«-«i« jn
subsurface soil
Yes
No
Regular clients and visitors may be
exposed to "n*lt*inir*t*''* soil while
using the indoor riding area.
Regular clients and visitors would
not be exposed to contaminated
subsurface sod.
Clients/Visitors
Ingestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in ground
water.
No
Regular clients and visitors are
unlikely to routinely come in contact
*'^ Bound water
during site visits.
Clients/Visitors
Ingeitton of and dermal cnmaiif
with chemicals in surface water
and sediment.
No
Swuuuing nr the two oo-ste ponds
is not permitted.
Trespassers . Ingestion of and dermal contact
wim chemicals in surface sctl;
inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from the landfill
transfer union, and UST areasv
ipfialjtMjfl cf rfrgmiMU rm
respirable particuUtes released
from surface soiL
Yes
• Contaminated itwdis may be
encountered by trespassers.
Trespassers Ingestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in surface water
Yes
Anecdotal evidence suggests that
trespassers have used the on-site
ponds as swimming holes.
p:\SOOI210\nfiatrublK6-9
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
Potentially Exposed
Pooulatfc>B__
Exposure Route, Medium,
and Einosure Point
Pathway Selected for
Evaluation?
Reatoo for Selection
or Exclusion
Residents
Residents
Neighboring
Residents
Neighboring
Residents
Recreanonists
Ingestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in soil.
Ingestion of, dermal contact
with, and inhalation of
chemicals in ground water.
Inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from the landfill,
transfer station and UST areas;
inhalation of chemicals on
respirable particulates released
from surface soil
Ingestion of, dermal contact
with, and inhalation of
chemicals in ground water.
Ingestion of dermal contact
with chemicals in surface water
and
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Landscape/Utility
Workers
Landscape/Utility
Workers
Ingestion of and dermal contact
with chemicals in surface and
subsurface soils.
Dermal contact wim and
inhalatum nf ffnfUIJCalS 01
ground water.
Current and future residents may be
exposed to contaminated surface and
subsurface soils.
Current and future residents may be
exposed to contaminated ground
water.
Volatile chemicals and contaminated
respirable particulates may be
transported to residential areas.
Neighboring residents with private
wells may be exposed to
r/mtMujflut^ 0ound water.
Surface water and sediment may be
encountered by Recreauonisu in
Dirty Brook and the unnamed brook.
Contaminated soils may be
encountered throughout the site
during excavation activities.
Depth to groundwater is greater than
6 feet, thus workers would not
routinely come into contact with
contaminated ground water during
excavation activities.
p:
-------
TABLE 10
TUXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIICCINS DISPOSAL
Chenikiil
VOLATILES
Acetone
Bcnzcoe
2-BuUDOoc
Carbon duulfide
Chlatobenzenc
ChlorofanD
1 ,2-Dtchlarodhanc
I.l-Didilofq«lhmc
co- 1 ,2-UicMororthene
uaaa-ODkfalaoetbeac
Ethyabmccne
Mdbyleae Chloride
1 . 1 .2.2-TeUachlor uethanc
TcUachloioelhcnc
ORAL EXPOSURE
Slay* Factor
-
2.9E-02
-
I.3E-OI
NA
6 IE-OS
9.IE-02
6.0E-OI
-
7KOE-02
7 JE-03
2.UE-OI
S.2E-U2
Evidcwc
ClauiBcaliua
D
A
D
B2
D
B2
C
B2
C
0
-
D
C
B2
C
U2
Type of ('tamer
-
Leukemia
-
Liver
llcnuagMUfcoma
Cir cublory lyrtem
-
-
Kidney
liepaloccilular adrcnuaias and carci-
oonui
llepatucellcular
caiciouma
-•
- •
Inhatbiioo
-
-
"££
Otal
Gavagc
Cavage
Oial
-
Oial.diel
(Javage
--
SK Sounc
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IR1S;HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. HEAS 1
IRIS. HEAS I'
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IK IS
ECAO
|>.UUM>l2ll)\fitiiul\ublc 623
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIICCINS DISPOSAL
Ctonk*!
Toluene
l.l.l-TncUoraUunE
1.1.2-Tncfatorodhine
Thrhlnrorthrm
Vinyl cUandc
Xylcoa
SKMI- VOLATILE*
AftntfMme
Acaupblbykac
AUtftnoK
Benzo(»)ulhTMcne
ftn.fop.jfluyj.nF^.111
HniTflfk tfliKif irth*"-
Bcnzot&tMb'ayfe'*
Beruo(i)pyrCQe
bu<2-«l»«ylheicyl)|)h«h»l»le .
Uulylbeiuyl phlloUu
Cibuok
Chryicne
Stey* Fatter
(SF>
rm|/k»-4»y)'
-
-
J.7E-02
1.IE-02
I.9E+00
-
• -
-
-
-
7.3E*00
I.4E-02
-
2.0E-02
-
ORAL
Wdfkmtf-
EvUcwc
CUiiin<->
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES. POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIICCINS DISPOSAL
OtcmKal
Dibau|*>J»nU»*cene
Dibnanhino
U Dicfetoobenicn*
I.J DtctOarobcazcac
DidhylphdiibUi
Fluor aahcne
rluarcac
ln
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TUXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIIGCINS DISPOSAL
ORAL EXPOSURE
Chunk*!
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDT
DieUriu
Enrtoailfanll
£nfrmirim luUitt
Endrin
Hcpucblor
Hfnf viidff cpoxKfe
Metboxychlor
PorydOonnatadbHihcaYl.
INORGANICS
Antimony
Ancatc
Beryllium
'"rtnpTTi
U»onuuro(lll)
U*d
Mtn&tnac
Macury
Slope F»ctor
(SF)
(»e*|-
Or«l
Ural, diet
Oral, diet
*"
Oial.diel
_
Oral
-
Oral
• Oral
-
-
-
'
—
SK Sourer
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; IIEAST
IRIS. HtAST
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS. IIEAST
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIICC1NS DISPOSAL
ORAL EXPOSURE
Stope Factor
(SF)
EvUoKC
CbuUkaUmi
Typt of Caacer
SKBuii
SK Source
Nickd
Selenium
Silver
D
D
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
HICCINS DISPOSAL
INHALATION EXPOSURE
Chemical
VOLATILE ORCANICS
Acetone
Benzene
2.Buuaoae
Cuban DwUfide
Cuban Tcutchlonde
CHH-*.— —•
CtUorolorm
1 l-Oicbloroethaae
1.2-Okhlaroclbine
1 | .DicUoroctbtnt
en- 1.2-DicnlaroetheM
Uant-U-Dtcnlaroclhcac
Hcucnlorobuudicne
Elhythcnzcne
Mctbykne cnloridc
1 . 1 .2.2-TeUacfalof orthane
Teuachloroelhene
Toluene
Slope Factor
(SF)
•
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IIIGCINS DISPOSAL
INHALATION EXPOSURE
Chemical
I.l.l-Trirhkroclhanc!
TricUorodbcaB
Vinyl Chloride
Xyleaet
SCMI-VOLAT1LBS
Accaiptahene
Acouiphlhylene
AnlhfM-fnr
BeaM(i)wlh(*c«w
Bcozo(b)0uonnlheae
Bcnzo(k)auaraalbcae
Bcnzolth.i)pcrvleac
Beato|«|pyreae
bu(2-Elhylhcxyl)pblhalalc
Bulylbaul phihtUle
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibau|*.h|*filhfaccnc
Dibcfuoiuian
|.2-Dicbiufubcacciie
SloBc Factor
(SK)
6.0E-03
29K-01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
61EKX)
-
-
.
-
--
-
--
Weigh* -of-
EvUoKe
CbuUkaltoB
D
C
B2
A
D
-
D
D
B2
B2
B2
D
B2
U2
C
B2
B2
U2
D
U
TypeofC*ncer
Liver
Liver
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Resptf dory Uacl
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
SKBuis
Gavtgc
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
'
IrfuUtton
--
-
-
--
--
•-
SF Source
IRJS.HtAST
lltAST
tCAO
lltAST
IRIS
IRIS; lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS; lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS
lltAST
IRIS
IRIS, lit AS 1
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS. lltAST
IRIS
IRIS
623
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
IUGGINS DISPOSAL
INHALATION EXPOSURE
ChcmkBl •
1 i DtrMur"!-*™*""
1 ,4-Didtlorateazcne
Utdhylprilhalau
fittonattm
Fluorcne
lndmoil.2.3-cd|pyrci>c
1 MrthYln"rti*lirUl"
Ntphlhakoe
Plwaanlbfcae
Pyrcac
PESTICIDES/PCB*
Aldnn
alfha-BHC
bcU-BHC
ddu-BHC
CMi]rihiK.|. BMmM)
4.4--DOO
4.4' DDE
4.4--DDT
Oicldrio
Endamltan II
==============================
(SF)
. -
-
-
-
-
__
-
-
-
-
6.3E+00
I.86E+00
-
I3EHJO
_
3.4E-OI
!6lEiOI
=======================
Wct(hl-of-
EvMOKt
CUuitkatkm
B2
D
D
D
B2
_
D
D
D
B2
m
C
D
B2
U2
U2
U2
B2
*"
Ty** of C:«iccr
_
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
Liver
Liver
Liver
-
Liver
-
- '
Liver
Liver, hcpalocclluUr carcinomas
SFBuis
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oral.did
Oral, did
Oral, did
--
Onl.did
'-
-
Oral
Ural. OKI
_
SF Source
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; IIHAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
p.MWO 111 OWlfuulUablc
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
HICC1NS DISPOSAL
Chewkal
KmViiiilfin •"><•>•
Enikia
Htpucfalor
MMboxychlw
INORGANICS
Amimony
Ancnic
Beryllium
Ctrtmium
Omnium (111)
Lttd
KtonpneM
Mercury
Nickd(*olublcMlU)
S^ffnim^
Silver
Ttullium
VmAdiufn
StoftFacter
(SF)
^•|%|-4ai)'
-
4.6E+00
-
-
JOEtOI
«.4EHM
6.lEtOO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
INHALATION EXTOSUHE
WdcM-«t
EvMcw:*
OMilArBthm
D
82
D
B2
-
A
B2
Bl
-
B2
D
D
-
D
O
-
TypeofCiuccr
-
Liva
-
-
Respiratory
Lung lumors
Ropictlory
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
-
StUute
-
Octldict
-
-
Inhalaljao
IrfuUtiuo
l^fa.l.luw.
-
'
-
-
-
'
--
-
SK Source
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS
1KIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEASr
p.MIOOl 2IOVi
-------
TABLE 10 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL CAKC1NOCEN1C EFFECTS
INHALATION EXPOSURE
r^—^,
Sfept Factor
EvUoK*
TjvcafCMMcr
SFButo
S* Source
-NotAviibblc
A - HunaaCifcinoyn
B2 -Prob^k Hunan CMcinogcn
C -PonJbk Hunan Cwcinogin
D • Hog fJMiifirtttff M to twm
UUS - bricpated Ri* lofiwaMiaa 8y«cai (USEPA diu but) (USEPA, 199 J).
HEAST - H
ECAO
tf Sunmcy T«bki (USEPA, 1994).
CriMtii md AiiriMBU Office (USEfA. 199)).
f>.UUMI2iO\tifiM|\ubk.
-------
TABLE 11
TOXIUTY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCAKCINOCENIC EFFECTS
BIGGINS DISPOSAL
cw^
VOLATILE*
Acatooa
_•
2-ButaMM
CartnoMnd|landa
<*****.>
qOonfeni
U-DicUotoalMM (cit It uam)
OtfwfcRID
• ' '
t.OE-01
3.0E44
6.0E-OI
IOE-01
74E-04
2.0E4U
I.OE-02
I.OE4II
. 3.IE-OI
>OE-03
90E-OJ
ORAL EXPOSURE
Cisr
Lew
—
Low
Medium
*«-
Lw
CrMkal
EOact
toacucd bver aodluikwy vwa^U
2-**-.-,--*-
DwrMaed bial birth waigM
FaUltoxiaty/matfimiatMp*
"-*M*'-ta«"
-*•—*- .
Livailaiaaa
RID
Oral
^
Dirt
Qavaga
Oral
Oral
Oral
RID
Saawc*
IRIS
ECAO
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
ECAO
IRIS. HEAST
IIEAST
Victor
1000
3000
3000
100
1000
1000 for HAS
1000
1000
1000 for HAS
1000
1000
fc<- -*'fk.!M —
IffVlMMiyVIK
Factor
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXKTTY VALUES: rOTENTIAL NONCARC1NOUENIC EFFECTS
HICCINSDUrafiAL
•
Charted
~,2-0*-o«-*~
Uav-U-DidOaroalkcM
-— '
•
TctttcMoroalfccM
TohMM
1.1.1-TncbtaroeihaM
II? TricMoraeihaM
Thditoioobcaa
Vinyl ddoride
J«jjvleoei(loul)
ChnrtcttlD
IOE-02
20E-02
IOE-01
2E-04
6.0E-02
IOE-02
2.0E-01
-
4.0E-03
6E-03
-
2.0E+00
ct!5"
-
Low
Low
»*.
«—
-
Low
-
Medttan
ORALEXrOSURE
CrtUcal
EOcd
bccoatocril
J^d^^kal-.
Liver aad kidney uwtctfy
i
Liver loxicdy
HcpaUtfoxidly. wctfM tain
Chaofci io liver and kidney
-
Clioicil dwnitty abcralioni
Liver and Kidney
- .
Hyperacbvity. dtueiicd body
RID
Oavage
WaUr
Oral
Oral, diet
. Oral
Oavaga
Oavaft
'
0,aUdK,
-
Gavage
RID
SMTC*
HEAST
UUS
UUS
HEAST
IRIS
UUS; HEAST
IRIS
UUS
IRIS.HEAST
ECAO
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
IRIS
UKcrtafary
Factor
3000
1000 for H.A.S
1000 for H.A.S
1000
IOOCorH.A
1000 for H.A.S
1000 for H.A.S
'
1000
3000
-
100
Factor
-
1
. 1
I
1
1
-
1
-
1
. p:\TOI2IO
611
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCAKCINOCENIC EFFECTS
HICCINS DISPOSAL
ORAL EXPOSURE
O-tal
SEMI VOLATILES
Accruphthene
AccaaphthyleDC
Anthracene
ikau(a)anlluaccnc
Bouo(a)pyrene
Bcruo(k)nuofaMhene
Ben^frerylene
bis(2-«ihylbcxyl)|)hlhaUlc
Uulylbouyl probable
Capote
Chrytcnc
CknxdcRID
6.0E-02
-
30E-OI
-
-
-
20E-02
2.0E-OI
-
-
CoBfitfCBKC
Level
Low
-
Low
-
-
-
Medium
Low
-
••
Critical
Effect
Hepalotoxicily
-
Subchronic Unicily
-
-
-
Infreaicd liver weight
Increased liver weight
--
-•
RID
Bull
0,.,
-
Gavage
-
-
-
Oral
Did
-•
--
RID
Source
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
• IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; IIEAST
IRIS; IIEASI
UncertaiBly
Factor
3000 for II.A.S
-
3000 for ILA.S
-
--
-
1000 tor HAS
1000 loi HAS
•-
•-
Mudifyinf
Factor
1
•-
1
--
-
--
1
1
•-
-
p:\KOU 121 OviluulU'blc 621
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITV VALUES: fOTtNTUL NONfAKCINUCfcNIC mtCTS
UICCINSMSKBAL
C*-c-
ota******
DibouobnB
l.2-DKMarak(BMaB
|J|O.,M >,„..
— "~ '
-—
FhMtcoc
Ucaa|l.2.3-cd|pyi«M
24**yfa***.
N.*h*«
H»-*~ .
Pyicnc
CkiM^WD
-
4E-03
90E-02
_
»OE-OI
4.0E-02
«Ot-OJ
-
-
«Mn
-
3.0E-02
UM!
-
Uw
Uw
-
u.
Uw
Urn
.
-
-
••
Uw
CfWol
Ufa*
-
iu*«,.M»
UvctcOKU
-
DwrcwalpowtiMMc. food
liNidbdf
Deacwcd crydxocyw count and
-
-
-
-
KifoeycdM*
HID
-
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICHY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCAKCINOCENIC EFFECTS
HIGCINS DISPOSAL
Ckeajkal
PESTICIDES
PulychluhiuUcd BiphenyU
Aldhn
alph»-UIIC
beuBHC
dclU-UHC
4.4' ODD
4.4'-UOE
4.4--DDT
Dickfain
bndosullan II
bnilosulUn tullaU
Endim
_ ,-. =s^=
Chronic KID
(•(^C^ajr)
2E-0)
3.00E-0)
-
-
6.00t-05
3E-03
7E-04
5E-4
Jt-05
2t-4
--
3t-04
ORAL EXPOSUUE
C(M|UCMC
Uvd
-
Medium
-
-
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
-
-
Medium
Critical
Eflect
Immune Syrian Uuicily
Liver
-
-
Liver
Low body weight-
Mild liver ind bcpiik leuom
Liver lesions
Liver, hepatic lesioni
Kidney EffecU
-
Mild rmliilogitil cllecli
=======
KID
Bub
-
Oral.diel
-
-
Onl.dicl
Oral, diet
OtaldKJ
Diet
Oial.diel
Ural
<*.il. lilCl
RID
Source
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS. IIEAST
IRIS. HEAST
iris, beast
IRIS
ECAO
ECAO
IRIS
IRIS
tlbAST
IKIS
IRIS
Uncertainly
Factor
300
1000
-
--
1000
10.000
10.000
100
100
1000
100
Modifying
Factor
-
1
' -
--
1
-
1
1
1
p UJOO1210\i ifuuliubk 621
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TUXIC1TY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCAKCINOCKNIC trrECTS
HIGCINS DISPOSAL
CtMtuI
Hepucfakv
Hcpuchlar cpoxidc
Mdboxyddor
INORGANICS
Antimony
Ancaic
Beryllium
f*^Ani|»fft
Chromium III
Uad
Manganese
Macury
Chronic Kfl>
(•(/kc-tey)
•JE-04
I.3E-OJ
5EJ
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
iOE-03
S.OE-04 (water)
lOE-03(food)
lOEtOO
-
1 4E-OI (food)
5.0E-03 (water)
3.UE-04
OtfBfl^CiMft
Level
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Hit*
Low
'
-
-
OHALKXrOSUHK
Critical
Effect
Liver
t~^T"~* Liver weight
Eccoivc Lou of Littera
Longevity. Mood glucote. and
cfaoleftcrol
HypcrpigmcnUlioQ, kcr«in»it and
pauiMe vaicuUf
oornplicitioitt
No advene eflccls
Significaol prolcioitfia
No adverse cffffit obtcrved
_
CNScllecte
Kidney elleds
KID
Bob
Oral, diet
. Oral,diet
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
-
Oial
Oral
KID
Source
IRIS, IIEAST
IR1S;IIEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS
UK AST
=====
UaccrtaiMy
Factor
300
. 1000
1000
1000
3
100
10
100
--
1
1000
P^JU^ a
Modityiaf
Factor
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
-
1
=
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOX1CITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NONCARCINOCEN1C EFFECTS .
II1GCINS DISPOSAL
Ctoafcal
Nicfcci(tolubic utu)
Selenium
SUver
TfaaUium
Vanadium
ChrwkRID
(a*,***;)
2.0E-02
30E-03
5.0E-03
-
70E-03
CeolbtaK*
Uvd
Medium
High
Low
-
-
ORAL EXPOSURE
CriUul
eOcd
Oecreaacd body ami organ weigba
dinir al KlcnoAtf
Atgyiia
.
-
RID
Bull
Oral
Epidemiology
oudy
Oral
-
Oral
KID
Source
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IIEAST
Uocertai«ly
V*rtor
300
3
3
-
100
Mu4Uytec
Factor
1
1
1
-
'-
p.WUOl 210\riluul4.il>lc 621
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NON-CAKCINOGENIC EFFECTS
HICCINS DISPOSAL
INHALATION EXPOSUHK
ffir*"f
VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzene
2-BuUnanc
CartMaduulfidc
C«U,uu.d*>n*
CM-mMtn-
Cblutaluna
l.l-DicMoroflh«im
1.2-DKfclaioelbMe
l.l-DKUuioctbcne
cu-1.2 UKotoKMtfaeoc
UMM-M DicUuioelbcDB
tibyttaucm
Mdbykne ctOaiMk
1 1 1 7 -Ttlir-lJin"Tt(""*
Tfti friU'MiM'ih^iK
'I'ulucac
,...,.**»..*-
CkmfcKJD
VWcillititaliBBV
-
paring
2.9E-OI
29E-01
-
JOE-OJ
I0t-0l
IOt-02
-
-
- _ •
2.9E-OI
I It-OI
-
°.£r
-
-
Low
-
'
-
-
Low
-
-
-
Low
Medium
-•
CriUcrf
-
-
UeacucdfcUltMfth
Feul laikiiy
-
Livar MM! kidney cOcctt
Ki.tacyd.nw
OirtifxnlnJinil tttd. Uva tat
-
-
-
UevdupDenul laucdy
~~L
-
KID
•Mh
-
-
lnt-UiM»
lrfrlHr~n
-
Mirliltim
llrfulAliflO
-
-
•
-
IfitMblMlO
llduleltlUCl
"
KID
IRIS, lib AST
IRIS
IRIS
IIEAST
IRIS. HtAST
HtAST
IRIS. IIEAST
HtAST
tCAO
IRIS. HtAST
IRIS; IIEAST
IRIS. HtAST
IRIS
IKIS. lit AS 1
Ik IS. lit AS 1
IKIS. Ill AS 1
IKIS
IKIS. Ill AS 1
Uaccrtataly Fac-
tor
-
••
1000
1000
-
10.000
1000
1000
•-
--
-
300
300
MffffM
-
3
--
.. .
:
--
--
-
i
i
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NON-CAKCINOCENIC EFFECTS
HIGCINS DISPOSAL
1.1.2-TrKhlwodbaac
TrknlafodhenB
Vinyl chloride
Xykncs(IQUl)
SEMI-VOLATILES
Accnapblhene
Acxfupbhyknc
Anlhraccnc
Bcnio(a)tnlhraccQe
Bcaco(a)pyicne
Beozo(b)fluaraBlhcne
Bemo(k)fluo«MHhe«>e
BouoUJ>.i)py«eM
bii(2-«lbylhuyl)phlblalc
ButyttKtuylphttiaUlc
Caibuolc
*
Chryxac
Uibau(*.h>inlhra4xne
Uibauoluian
U-Uichkxabciucnc
1.3-Uichltxubciucnc
_
CfcroakKfD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
_
_
-
-
-•
"
40E-02
========
INHALATION EXPOSURE
CaadUcacc
Lcvd
-
- •
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
_
-
-
.
-
Critical
Mitel
-
-
- •
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
Ueacivcil body weigh! gain
— • "**^ ^~
HID
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
„
-
_
InluUlKxi
..
— —
KID
SUM re*
HKAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IKIS. HEAST
IRIS, lit AST
IRIS, lit AST
IRIS. IIKAST
HEASI
IRIS, lit AST
==
UaKcrtainly fr'ac-
-
-
- -
-
--
--
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
..
--
^
1000
„
^^ —..,... 1 - I_^J— •
Mudifyini
Factor
-
-
-
--
'
•-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
__
•-
__
•• • -
u iliiul\tjbk 621
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITV VALUES: POTENTIAL NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
H1CCINS DISPOSAL
1 A I\.£ fti t-myi-|1-rfiT-r Hff
UwtylpratuUle
Hoortrmbcoc
Huorcne
lndcoo(l.2.3-cd)pyicae
2MHhvlnaflhlhalfflii
NiptUlukne
Phcnanlhfcne
Pyrcac
FESTICIDES/PCB*
PolvcfaloftnAicd biptotnylt
Aldria
•Iptu-BHC
beU-BHC
ddu-BHC
aUordtnttilptc^-™-")
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDE
M'-DDT
II UicUkui
CkTMtcRID
2.3E-I
-
-
-
—
-
'
'-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
~
:
CamHttntt
Lcvri
•
-
-
-
_
-
-
•
^
-
-
-
-
_
.
-
-•
-
INHALATION EXPOSURE
Critical
gifeci
Mukigcnenlioa liver
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Liva.diel
-
-
-
Liver
-
-
•-
HID
Bub
laraUlioa
-
-
-
'
-
-
.
-
-
On!
-
-
-
Oc«ldiet
-
-
-
._
••
RID
Source
HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IR1S.HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IKIS. HEAST
Uncertainly Fac-
tor
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-•
„
MwUfytac
Factor
_
-
-
--
-
• •-
' -
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-•
p:\KUOI2l
021
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
HltiCINS DISPOSAL
{•VfipAcgl
Endow If an uilfale
Endru
llcpuchlor
MM* •s4kijw aMtnlraX*
MetboicydUor
INORGANICS
Antimony
Ancnic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium III
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
CfcttMicHID
(aaf/kf-a}ayl
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I4K-05
86E-OS
pending
-
--
-
-
ConaUtace
Level
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Medium
-
-
-
-
~
INHALATION EXPOSURE
Critical
tiffed
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
lacrcued prevalence of rapi-
ralory lympKxni and ptycbo-
irKtfnr diilurttnTn
Neuroloxictty
-
-
-
--
KID
Bub
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
.
Inhalation
Inhalation
-
--
' --
--
'
RID
Sourc*
-
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IfUS.IIbAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HtAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS; HbAST
IRIS; HEAST
IRIS. HEAST
IRIS, lit AST
IKIS. Ill-AST
Uncertainty Fac-
tor
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
300
30
-
-
-
--
--
Modifyinc
Factor
-
-
-
-
-
•-
-
--
-
1
-
•-
--
-•
•-
p VKOO121 U\| il iiuHublc 021
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
TOXICITY VALUES: POTENTIAL NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
II1CCINS DISPOSAL
INHALATION EXPOSURE
ChnMfcKtD
CoaMcacc
Level
CrMkil
Effect
KID
RID
Modifytat
Notes:
HbAST
IRIS
ECAO
UF
MF
H
A
S
Not Available
Hcakb Eflectt Assessment Summaiy Tables (USEPA, 1994).
Integrated Risk Information System (USEPA, 1994).
Environments*! Catena and Assessment Office (USEPA. 1994).
Uncertainty Factor, to account for inter- and inUaspeciea extrapolation and extrapolation from aubcbronic to chronic exposures.
Modifying Factor, to account for uncertainty in the lest program.
Variation in Human Sensitivity
Animal to Human Extrapolation
&om Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) to No Observed Advene Effect Level (NOAEL)
p Ah 0012
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES AND CANCER RISKS
HICCUSS DISPOSAL
EXPOSURE POPULATION ~~
AND PATHWAY
TRACTOR OPERATOR
Inhalation of Respirable Particulates from Outdoor Surface Soils
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
STABLE EMPLOYEE
Ingestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
Ingestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
STABLE EMPLOYEE
Ingestion of Indoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Indoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals from Indoor Surface Soils
riihiluijut 4tf U^jULirftHlA PftrtifulaUl fvnm Ifuiiuw ^iirimjv *w\ilm
Ingestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
GARAGE EMPLOYEE
Ingestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
Ingestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
ADULT CLIENT/VISITOR
Ingestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
ADULT CLIENT/VISITOR
Ingestion of Indoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals from Indoor Surface Soils
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
CHILD CUENT/VISTTOR
Ingestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
CHILD CLIENT/VISITOR
Ingestion of Indoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Indoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals from Indoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Respirable Particulates from Indoor Surface Soils
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
HAZARD
INDEX
4E-06
4E-M
6E-02
3E-OI
5E-03
4E+01
8E-HX)
SE+OI
.
5E-01
8E-01
5E-10
1 P^4 '
4E+01
8E+00
SE+01
2E-01
2E-OI
4E-03
3E+01
6E+00
3E+4H
2E-02
3E-02
5E-04
4E-OJ
1E-OI
7PJH
*C^f t
2E-10
gCJYt
OC*^/f
41-01
4E-02
3E-02
2E-03
7E-01
3E-01
3E-OI
7E-10
3E-06
6E-01
CANCER
RISK
IE-08
1E-08
4E-06
5E-06
5E-05
9E-04
3E-04
IE-OJ
3E-OS
4E-05
3E-I3
CkC nrt
9E-04
3E-04
IE-03
6E-05
IE-OS
3E-OS
6E-04
2E-04
9E-04
3E-07
4E-07
9E-07
2E-0*
2E-06
4E-I4
2E.IO
*K* t V
6E-04
7E-07
5E-07
3E-06
4E-M
5E-06
1E-06
1E-I3
6E-IO
9E-0*
woi-aiwoi
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES AND CANCER RISKS
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
EXPOSURE POPULATION
AND PATHWAY
HAZARD
INDEX
CANCER
RISK
ADOLESCENT TRESPASSER
Ingestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contact with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
ADOLESCENT TRESPASSER
Ingestion of Surface Water
Dermal Cooact with Surface Water
Ingestion of Sediment
Dermal Contact with Sediment
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
LANDSCAPErtnTLITY WORKER
(ngestion of Outdoor Surface Soils
Dermal Contict with Outdoor Surface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
LANDSCAPE/UTILITY WORKER
Ingestion of Subsurface Soils
Dermal Contact with Subsurface Soils
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
ADULT RESIDENT
Ingesrion of All Surface and Subsurface Soils
Dermal Contact with All Surface and Subsurface Soils
Ingestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals in Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
CHILD RESIDENT
Tngestion of AH Surface and Subsurface Soils
Dermal Contact with All Surface and Subsurface Soils
'ngestion of Ground Water
Dtrmal Contact with Ground Water
Inhalation of Voiatila *Tyn*'Ti*t in Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
ADULT NEIGHBORING RESIDENT
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
Ingestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals in Ground Water
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
CHILD NEIGHBORING RESIDENT
Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals
tngestion of Ground Water
Dermal Contact with Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals in Ground Wanv
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
5E-02
SE-02
5E-04
IE-01
4E-03
4E-02
3E-03
4E-03
SE-02
3E-02
9E-03
6E-04
4E-4H
IE+00
2E-03
6E-04
1E-HM
9E-02
IE-01
8E-MM
1E+01
4E-01
9E+41
9E-OI
2E-OI
5E-06
8E-07
9E-07
6E-06
3E-08
4E-07
8E-08
6E-08
4E-07
2E-08
IE-07
9E-08
2E-HH
2E+00
6E-03
8E+01
IE+01
4E-01
9E-KI1
3E-02
2E+01
2E+00
IE-07
IE-07
6E-03
9E-06
3E-03
6E-04
2E-03
SE43
4E-05
3E-06
IE-03
2E-04
IE-03
IE-03
IE-04
3E-03
6E-04
2E-03
SE-03
6E-05
IE-03
2E-04
IE-03
2E-03
-------
TABLE 12 (ConCinued)
SUMMARY OP HAZARD INDICTS AND CANCER RISKS
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
EXPOSURE POPULATION
AND PATHWAY
HAZARD
IND1X
CANCER
RISK
RECREATIONALIST (Dirty Brook)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water 6E-04
Ingestioa of Sediment SE-03
Dermal Contact with Sediment 3E-03
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDtX/CANCIR RISK: 9E-03
RECRlAnONALIST (Unnamed Brook)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water 1E-01
Ingestion of Sediment 7E-03
Dermal Contact with *~*~~» 3E-03
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANC1R RISK: 1B41
iE-09
2E-07
3E-08
3E-07
IE-OS
4E-07
4E-08
4147
• Adult Resident Cancer Risks an 30 year expoaurea,
24 yean adult exposure plus 6 yean child exposure
KBI-UMOI
-------
•
Compound of
PolcBliftl
Concern
Atdrin
— .
Antimony
Cadmium
Cttardane
Cfcrauum
C«ppet
Dieldrm
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IIIGGINS DISPOSAL
Eliding Condition
Exceeds Ml mi USEPA AWQC.
laxiatydaU.
Exccab furtace (oil background ud or tl toikdy data.
Excccdi NJ and USEPA AWQC.
Exceeds surface mil background and oral toxicity data.
Exceeds NJ and USEPA AWQC.
Exceeds NJ AWQC
tRM
Exceed! NJ and USEPA AWQC.
Exceed! sediment background and NOAA EK-L
Exceeds tuiface Mil background aod Of al loibcay data.
Exceeds KM? Seduneoi Uuuklinc Value and NOAA
ER Land tRM
PoteitU! Ritk Level Bated on HM-
•rdQuotkaU
Pouifak coocen m tettunat
Probabk concern to wildbfe in imiace watct
vrt mdirnnil Poninlc oonccra to honct in
•urfacc water
Probabk caavcro la wildlife in surface uib.
Poaiibfe concern to honta in uufacc jmb
Pocubk coocon ia nirface wala.
No concern in wriace aoils.
PouiUe concero in uufacc water
PoauMe cooLem in lurface walct
and acduncnL
PoaaiMe concctn in Hiriacc wattr.
mtonml and uufacc uib.
Piubable concern in scdunaa.
ComnKnU
Compound known to biuaixumuUu<:. but cmxetkil
sediment cntet wn m
only one sample
UbHfiiloui compound; not expected to bionugnify
in bod chaira. ruk likely lu be lower Uwn IIQt
lugged.
Only detected in 2/48 surface toil umplo.
cue likely to be lower than IIQ uiggeds
Only flight etrrrrtance of AWQC
Only delected in one wirtace water
sample
Did not exceed USEPA AWQC.
Only 1 ennxdance in 9 tedunem umplet.
Background unlillcred uuiace water umple also
exceeded criteria, filtered urnpld
did not exceed cnlcna.
Only 2 tnvrnUm'rt in 9 kcdunenl miiptn
Uiily 1/48 Mirtace MII| vuiiplo exceed tjcncril HIC-
IMX Mil ruckgruuiul level*
Kuk likely, based on lieujuawy ul'iklection Jnj
number ul cxceoluicck.
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
H1GGINS DISPOSAL
Compound of
Potential
Coacera
DDE, ODD. DDT
fi*ir'lf«-
Eaxtrai
ban
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Existing Coaditic*
f i. r^p c~i^-~« n-.i^i^. MIL- «~< Mf>A A
ER-LandER-M
Exceeds mrface Mil background and aril loxkity dau.
Excec* EaP Sediment Guideline Value.
EueediNOAAER-l.
Eweedt NJ and USEFA AWQC
Exceed NJ and USEPA AWQC.
t tceah NOAA tR-L ud wdmxK
Uttpnunrt
ttcccd* onl kuucity d*U md wrCaoc toil
turttgounil
Ejwccd> NOAA E»-L tod MdiuMB*
bM^voMd.
Exccedi write* ioil bKkyQund ind « *1 uukily diu.
Euecdi NOAA ER-L and Kdincnl backpouod.
PoUatUI Risk Level Based on Hu-
•rdQajotkati
DOE and DDO. PootUc concern in tofc-
roenL DDT: Probable concern in Mdancnt
DDE. ODD aad DDT: No cancan in Uf-
bceiaiL
Pouibk cuncan in teduncnl.
Prababk cootcra in MdincaL
Pooibk cooccm ia cuffuc water.
PauiMe concent in turfacc waier and loli-
taoaaod Poaaibk concern to honaiamf •
bccua.
Paaibfe cancan ia surface water.
PooiMc conucra in tekrami and
aurbccnil*.
Pouiblc concern in tedimcnl.
Coaiincol*
•cdimenl.
Only detected in 2/9 solution saniplet.
Only *f*«^^fif in 2/9 sediment iamp exceeded crne~
rion.
Only 2 fuccrdaikei in 9 icdiaicnt umpla; com-
pound ia camudered ubufjUoui
Surfarc t^il concentralwoa exceeded U S toil back-
tjouod in only ) of 411 uniolet.
Only V \ 1 nnH»t
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
HIGGINS DISPOSAL
Compound of
Potential
Concern
FCBa
PAH.
Selenium
Silw
Zinc
EuUiagCoodUion
ER-LwdER-M.
Excenk ufbcc toil Uckgrouod aod ««l louuiy diU.
EiCMdiNOAAER-L
EicMdt mfMe «oil bw4vouml «nVor oral Kuicily
diU.
ttanab uaftot tail b«ftipn»ior1
Ewmh NJ tod USEFA AWQC.
Eiocedt NOAA ER-L and Mduno* Uck^ound
Excccdi uirfux nil hMkffouod
Eiccedi HMf*cc iod bactpouod wd ««J toiicily chu.
PoUnlUI Risk Level Based on tiai-
•rd Quoticnl*
fottihlf cooccni to Mdnm&.
Pnoibk cowcm to wildbfc and bones in
UtffnMils.
PtKubk cancan a icdiaMBi.
No caaccra in urtkcc utb.
No oaaccra in wrfue §oib.
Probable coocero ia niftcc water.
Puuiblt concern n tedium.
No cuacera ia turfitce taib.
Pactibk caaccni lo wildlife tad hones ia
•urbcetoib.
CammenU
Kilt. Ukdy in kedimenl and wriaLc «uik
due to betftency of detection and
Dumbct vtticrrittnn
Low number ofenceedancen in sediment pel cum-
pauad Chryicac delected in unly l/VtcduneM
sainplcs.
Low frojuency of detection; compound
4rtf^»4 below of al toxicity data
Only detected in one nwtacc wtlct sample.
Duly 1 euccdancc in 9 sediment samples. Ruk
likely to be knvet than Hq vitffU
Low fteujucocy of detection.
All samples below genoal Mufaue soil
backpound kveb; risk likely lo be less
than HU uiKKCtu
N«4a:
EqP - Equilibrium Partitioning Method for defivmg Sediment Guideline Values
AWQC - Ambient Wtt*r Qu«lUy Cidcn
NOAA ER-L - National Oceanic tad Aunosphaic Adroinuuauao'i Eflecu King* - Low
NOAA ER-M - National Oceanic tod Atmospheric Artminhtftlinn's Eflecu Range -Median
HQ-HujrdQualKal . .
-------
TABLE
Ground Water and Surface Water ARARi - Higftin* Dbpoml
VoUlile Ogantc Compounds (ug/l)
Acctcmo
1 ten/one
:«rtx« Diwiride
:artw.Te»achlonde
^hkvabenuiM
Jhlorofan.
I^DtdOometen^totaU..,.*; M»
l.l-DMMon>dh*M
1.2-McMaroctMrw
l.l-IMchlaroctene
Metiylenc Chloride
1.1.2,2-TetracNrodhanc
Tetrachloroethene
rohiene
I.l.l-Tnchkodtiane
l.l.2-TricMruc«MM
t* Trfcliia «A i i i
ncMOfcviano
Vinyl Chloride
Xytcnes (total)
M«x Cunc IVkxIud
in (iniu-iJ W«lur
4C
910
2)
160
1.100
1.700
7711
6'J
1.400
I
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued)
Crwiml Water mad Surface Water ARARi - Higgbu DUposal
Inorganics (ug/t)
Aluminum
AntMtooy
Ancnic
Danum
Ikrylnum
radnMMi
:atcium
rhraniuiii
:ouu
Topper
Iron
lx«i
Magnesium
llanganae
Nkkd
Patouium
Uktmtm
Silver
Sodium
Vimdium
/40C
Max. Com. DcVxIcd
ndruundWtlcr
69.300
15.1
»S.S
1.090
13 1
5-1
93,000
1.690
103
177
165.000
US
65.400
10.300
341
23.600
45
42
132.000
263
337
Nl Surface
Wafer Criteria"1
12.2
0.0170
2.000
10
160
J
516
10
164
Federal Surface
Water Criteria'"
17
14
13
00077
0.025
II
232
300
02S
50
31.45
4J GW
Standards ft)
200
20
l
2.000
20
4
100
1.000
300
10
50
100
50
50.000
5.000
Ml Drinking
Water MCU1"
Federal Drinking
Water MCI. sm
6
V
2,000
4
5
100
. 50
flotet:
(I) NJ AC 7:9-4
(2) EI»A 440/5-46-001
(3) N.J.A.C. 7*6
(4) NJ AC 7:10-16
(5) 40 OR 141
(6) Blank - No ARAK
I*igc2uf3
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued)
Crwnd W.lcr M* Surface Water ARAR* • Hfeghu Dtoacul
Ftobadc/PCBi
AUrin
Uphe-IUIC
Mto-DIIC
fcfca-WIC
gMMM-BIICdJndMe)
ilpha-CMordaM
IMMM-CUonlMM
4.4--DDE
4.4--DOD
4.^-DDT
EfldOWllMl
lleptocMor
IkplKUwepoxide
PCB*
Muc. One Detected
inOnwadWiler
O.I
0097
0.041
0.04
00)4
0.064
Oil
021
OOU
001)
0.0))
006
0.041
0.57
NJ Surface
Witar Criteria'"
OOOODS
0.00)91
0.1)7
20
0000277
0000277
OOOOSU
0000132
OOOOSM
OOS6
000020S
0000103
0.000244
Federal Surface
Water Crikaia'"
1)
0)4
OM
OM
016
0.004
0004
14
00017
O.OQM
0014
•tfj- GW
jtandflrHr. <*)
0.04
602
020
0.20
OM
OK)
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.40
0.40
0.20
050
NJDratmf
Water MCI.»M'
O.SO
Federal Driokip«
Water MCI. a'*1 '
02
2
2
04
0.2
OS
Nofca:
0) N.J.A.C. 7*4
(2) EPA 440/S-tD-OOI
()) N.J.A C. 79-6
(4) N J A.C. 7:10-16
(5) 40CFRI4I
(6) BUf* - No ARAR
-------
TABLE 15
nnex
PM OOOHAMni TOflflBMCS W*n»
OiemdWMr
(N/D
(IBQ
tanat
(ARAX}
(ARAM)
PAWQC
(M^>
CAIAR*
(H/9
(MDt)
Ul/0
WMOtOffuk*
U>
ND(L0)
UOQA
SJOO
U
LO
u
LO
NDO-0)
Dinlfi*
10
to
10
3J
M
0»
U
U
1.1000
000
LO
ND(1.0)
310
19
NO 0-0)
ZOtofonlMM
xs
NO (10)
u
LO
ND(10J
Cb-U-DfefctaMMlttM
1&0
1MOO
LO
ND(LO)
10
ND(LO)
mo
030
LO
KD(LO)
100
1UOO
0057
LO
ND(LO)
U-Diddanpfepca*
OM
S.TOO
on
LO
0
>»*
ND(LO)
14
JtDOB
LO
ND(LO)
110
LO
NOOO)
tUJ-T
M
woo
017
LO
roo
00
LO
ND(LO)
n^oo
KJOO
LO
13
UU-TmtiUomthu*
M-
LO-
NDOO)
Ul-TdcUamnkiM
1UBOO
XMO*
LO
ND(LO>
LU-TifchtomttttM
uooo
9/0*
LO
2100
17
LO
ND(LO>
u
turn
LO
ND(LO)
10
LO
NDO«)
(mil)
111
LO
10
aim
NDOO)
100
LI
10
NO (IB)
10
NO (U»
Source: Hlggina Farm ftW) (9/92)
-------
TABLE 15 (Continued)
OfOMdWmr
(M/0
ra
SWQf
(MA)
(IBQ
(ARAR)
(ARAR)
FAWQC
Of/0
(ARAR)
OoriP
(H/0
1O
J.WIO
too
NDOOO)
UMMcfttaetaaoM
10
TO
400
no
NDOOO)
1O
40»
100
ND(IOO)
a»
10
ND(10)
ND
14
10
Dhtty) pfcUiliii
to
410
10
410
SJ
U
tfr
ND(W)
44
to
NDO-0)
030
oo
to
ND(tO)
to
4J
to
to
ND(10)
*4>
10
ND(U)
4.9
to
ND(tO)
to
NDOJ0)
!£
14
to
ND(tO)
Ut-TMUonbowM
LT
104
ND(104)
to
ND(tO)
Xf
to
ND(14)
U100
10OO
U104
10
N0(94>
urn*
TT3
a?
SJ
0007*
to
14
ND04)
1UO
104
ND004)
104
NDOOO)
1.130*
14
104
NDOOO)
4J90
3000*
1004
4J90
tu
ao
0*
114
J7JDOO
SJOOOO
ND (10004)
— _ JO*
104
Source: Higglna Fan BOD (9/92)
-------
! TABLE 15 (Contiaue_d)
/UtCK TO SUVACI WATER
Compoywl
GfowtfWaiw
DMWMdi*
&ufaca Water
N)
04/1)
(TBQ
NJPDE*
(M/Q
(AKAR)
CARAR)
PAWQC*
CM/I)
(ARAR)
DcuaioB
LWI*
(MOD
Ami.
tfrwiMi
Oomf
Nictal
U4
J1.45I
200
ND(ZXO)
Vanadium
1.49OO
100
14.4
Zinc
111.0
47
204
292
Now:
Tfca foOoofat co«K«ntioa»l pvtatnr UmiM
ate b*
bSMtetWattr
BOD
N1AC704.L
COD
31
BOD^ODnttotoOJ.
TDS
M
NIACTM.
TSS
23.900 ppm
I,* 100
Tmubflity (taint «m itttrnot* U>« ability ol a tnttnxat t>a«a ID am iiot Baitt.
of NJTOES Puvit Tow
i to Low
•New Jtncy Surfac* Watar Quality Standard* MAC T.9-4 for FWJ.NT Watam
*New Jtmy FoOuu« Diitfcatp Eliminaiion Syaem lUptlaiioM MAC EMA, Appeadh F. Vatuea tor 1
Efllaeu LimtuiiOM.
•FManlAmbiMt Watar Quality Critaria. Quality Oritaria tor Wattt. May 1,1917. EFA440/MMOL
From Tows Ruto*.
*MDL* an best avuiabk Contna Labentory frogna aaalytial method denctio* imk. (F»ei SgparAi
CoocntniiOB Water for Organia Aaalyiit (6/91) and Supetftmd Aa«lytic«l Matfcods tor Low Coectmmio* Water «br In nrpaiii Aaalyaa (10/91)].
•Aati^cfmdation pal it bated e» the maraum coneeauwiOB detacttd m Mifaca wenr. U coetamaaai «e> act detaaad ia wrtan war or if
detected bdo» the onihod detectio* limit. Ike MDL it the art di|mdtiioe. |D*L
•Muana Valud for Prauctioa of Aquatic Lite.
tMauBm Values to taMriM of rtoaMe Water Sepptfei.
•FMenl AabieM Water Quality Criteria; aofrfhorfey poDmaMa.
•pH dtptaaui eriwrioB. Value gt«w baaed w a pH of U to 9.0,
— Vatoa aw avtilabH.
ND • MM Dcicncd
a. VakMi
Source: Hlgglna Fan ROD (9/92)
-------
TABLE 16
ARARs
Requirement
NJ Groundwater Quality Standards
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations
NJ Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations
NJ Surface Water Quality Standards
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations
NJ Air Pollution Control Act
NJ Flood Hazard Control Act
NJ Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act Regulations
Executive Order 1 1990
Farmlands Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended
Federal Department of Transportation Regulations
New Jersey Water Supply Management Act
New Jersey Endangered Species Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Regulations
New Jersey Well Drilling Licensing Act
New Jersey State Register of Historic Places
State Freshwater Wetlands Regulations
Federal Wetlands Regulations
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations
Clean Air Act Regulations
Source
N.J.A.C. 7:9-6
40CFR 141
N.J.A.C. 7:10
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4
33U.S.C. 1251 eisfifl.
40 CFR 122-125
N.J.A.C. 7:14A
N.J.A.C. 7:27
N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50
N.J.S.A. 4:34-1
42 USC 6901 £1 sefl.
N.J.A.C. 7:26
36 CFR Part 800
40 CFR Part 6, Subpart A
7 USC 4201 £1 5£fl.
49 CFR 171-179
Subtitle C
N.J.S.A. 58A
N.J.S.A. 23:2A-2
40 CFR Part 302
N.J.S.A. 58:4
N.J.S.A. 13:18-15.128
N.J.A.C. 7:7A
40 CFR Part 230
29 CFR 1910
40 CFR Part 50
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
DISPOSAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD PILB
INDEX OF DOCDMBHTS
1.0 8ITB IDENTI7ICXTIOB
1.2 Notification/Sit* Inspection Reports
p. 100001- Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Sit at
100022 Site Inspection Report. Biggins Disposal, prepared
by Marge Kostenowczyfc of NUS Corporation, April
15, 1983. .
3.0 REMEDIAL IHVESTIGATIOH
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
p. 300001- Report: Field Sampling Plan tor Hiorqins
3Q0277 Disposal Services. Town oft Kingston. Somerset
county. New Jersey, prepared by Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., December 1992. .
p. 300278- Report: Quality Assurance Project Plan for
300427 Biggins Disposal Services. Town of Kingston.
Somerset County. Mew Jersey, prepared by Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., December 1992.
3.2 sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody forms
p. 300428- Report: Quick turnaround Method Data Spreadsheet.
300493 prepared by EA Laboratories, March 17, 1993.
p. 300494— Addendum* Table 6—1 Add^nflUB ftM3-Y^-^cal Procedure
300495 Sample Container Preservation and Holding Time
Requirements Hiacrina Disposal S^e. prepared by
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
3.3 Work Plans
p. 300496- Report: Health And Safety Plan for Hiaoina
300639 Disposal Services. Town of Kingston. Somerset
County . New Jersey . prepared by Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., December, 1992. .
p. 300640- Report: Work Plan for Hiaaina Disposal Services.
300843 Town of Kingston, Somerset County. New Jersey.
prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., December 1992.
-------
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 community Halations Plans
p. 1000001- Report: CfllTOnmni^V Relations Plan for Hiaaii\g
1000031 Disposal Services . Town of Kingston. Somerset
County. New Jersey, prepared by Malcolm Pimie,
Inc., December 1992.
-------
HIGQINS DISPOSAL 8XTB
ADMINIBTRATrTB RECORD TILB UPDATE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SXTBrlDENTIfXCATXON
l.i Background - RCRX aad othar Information
P.
P.
100023-
100078
100079-
100085
P.
P.
100086-
100086
100087-
100094
P. 100095*
100102
Potentia Hzardous
Aaaaaanenti f Kingston
prepared by Mr. Barry L. Kalians, Malcolm Plrnia,
Inc., May 12, 1986.
Report:
Sampling Eptaod* Report.
5>Tviea Tnc. . 121 l
Hiina
Kinston.
Count. Nav
Jun
1986. praparad by Naw Jarsay Dapartnant of
Environmantal Protection (NJOEP) , Division of
Hazardous Wasta Managamant, Buraau of Sita
Asaassmant, July 8, 1986.
Praliminary Assassmant Raviav Fora, Kingston
Rasidancas, praparad by Mr. Jamas Ippolito, July.
17, 1986.
Lattar to Mr. John Carlano, Haalth Officar,
Franklin Township Haalth Dapartaant, from Mr.
Stavan Niaswand, Chiaf , NJDEP, Buraau of Safa
Drinking Watar, ra: attachad summary of th«
rasults of analysis of vatar samplas collactad on
April 26, 1986, from 10 potabla walls in -Franklin
Township (Somarsat county) , August 7, 1986.
(Attachmant: Summary, Potabla Watar Sampla
Analysis Rasults for Tan Non-Public Walls,
Franklin Township (Somarsat County), August 6,
1986.)
Lattar to Mr. John Carlano, Haalth Officar,
Franklin Township Haalth Dapartmant, from Mr.
Barkar Hamill, Acting Chiaf, Buraau of Safa
Drinking Watar, NJDEP, ra: .attachad summary of
tha rasults of analysis of watar samplas collactad
on August 12, 1986, from nina potabla walls in
Franklin Township (Somarsat County), Hovambar 25,
1986. (Attachmant: Summary Potabla Watar Saapla
Analysts Data From Nina Non-Public Walls in
Franklin Township, Soraar sat County, Novamb«r 25,
1986.)
-------
P. 100103- Memorandum to Mr. Al Pleva, HSMS I, Bureau of Site
100114 Assessment, NJDEP, from Kathleen M. Grimes,
Research Scientist III, Quality Assurance Section,
NJDEP, re: Quality Assurance Review Summary of
Higgins Disposal Sampling June 26, 1986: ETC
Numbers M7174-M7183, January 2, 1987.
(Attachments: 1. Evaluation of Analytical Data
Report Package for Nev Jersey Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Division of Hazardous
Site Mitigation, CN 028, Trenton, NJ 08625, Review
of the Higgins Disposal for the PA/SZ and HRS,
January 2, 1987; 2. Memorandum to Mr. David J.
Shotwell, Chief, Bureau of Field Operations,
Division of Hazardous Waste Management,. NJDEP,
from Ms. Nancy B. Spence, Chief; Mr. Floyd A.
Genicola, Environmental Scientist I, NJDEP; Dr.
Kenneth Lin, Research Scientist XX, Quality
Assurance Section, NJDEP, re: Quality Assurance
Review of Higgins Farm Site Total Dioxin and Total
Furan Data Packages, March 16, 1987; and 3.
Memorandum to Ms. Carol Graubert, Technical
Coordinator, Bureau of Site Assessment, NJDEP,
from Mr. Thomas A. Jackson, Office of Quality
Assurance, NJDEP, re: Quality Assurance Review -
Higgins Farm/S-R Analytical Incorporated Samples
SR12821-1 through SR12821-11 - June 1986.)
P. 100115- Transmittal form (with attachments) to Linda
100137 Comerci, Northern N.J. Compliance, U.S. EPA,
Region XX, froa Chris Mallery, Northern Bureau of
Regional Enforcement., NJDEP,. re:. Biggins/Laurel
Ave., Franklin Township, Somerset County,
forwarding the following attachments: 1.
Directive to Mr. Higgins; 2". Letter to Health
Dept.; 3. 1982 Administrative Order to Biggins;
4. Malcolm Pirnie Report; and 5. Maps, April 13,
1987. v
P. 100138- Letter to Ms. Carol Garubart, Bureau of
100140 Planning and Assessment, NJDEP, froa Mr. Randall
Vieser, Elizabethtown Water Company, re: two
copies of the well log for Grover Avenue Well,•
November 18, 1987. (Attachment: Compliance
Evaluation Inspection Public Community Water
Supply, February 4, 1987.)
P. 100141- Site Inspection Review Form, Kingston Residences,
100152 prepared by Ms. Joyce Haraey, March 9, 1989.
(Attachments HRS Cover Sheet and Groundwater Route
Work Sheets, July 11, 198t.)
-------
P. 100153- Letter to Mr. Perry Katz, Chief, New Jersey
100193 Compliance Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. '
Melinda Dover, Chief, Bureau of Federal Case
Management, NJDEP, re: letter of June 19, 1989,
Higgins Disposal Service, July 18, 1989.
(Attachment: Ground Water Analysis - Monitoring
_ Well Report, April 10, 1989.)
P. 100194- Monitoring Results - Tracking Form,'Higgins
100223 Disposal Service, Inc., NJPDES NO. NJ0067270,
Sampling Period: 12/88 - 2/89, undated.
(Attachment: Monitoring Well Report, April 10,
1989.)
P. 100224- Dredge Spoil Site (D & R Canal, Laurel Avenue
100326 Stockpile Site) package containing Maps and Ground
water Analysis - Volatile organic* Reports and
Monitoring Well Report.
1.2 Notification/Bite inspection Reports
P. 100327- Memorandum (with attachment) submitted by Ms.
100341 carol Graubart, Environmental Specialist, NJDEP,
re: attached Site Inspection Report, Higgins
Disposal Service, 121 Laurel Avenue, Kingston,
Somerset County, Site Inspection, conducted by
NJDEP representatives on June 26, 1986.
1.3 Preliminary Assessment Reports -
P.
100342-
100362
Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Executive Summary,
prepared by Ms. Marge Kostenowczyk, NUS
Corporation, April 15, 1983. (Attachment: Report:
Potential Hazardous Waat« Sifce. Sife*
T «•
Location and
prepared by Ms. Marge Xostenowczyk,
NUS Corporation, February 22, 1983.
1.4 Site Investigation Report
P. 100363- HRS Cover Sheet & Package, prepared by Mr. -Kenneth
100405 Kloo, November 18, 1986.
P.
p.
p.
100406-
100427
100428-
100456
100457-
100473
HRS Cover Sheet
Kloo, November
HRS Cover Sheet
Kloo, November
t
1« f
fc
is,
Raparfes Site TMB
Package,
1886.
Package,
1986.
prepared
prepared
'
by
by
Mr.
Mr.
Kenneth
Kenneth
Action Rataort. ICinaatan
&v«nu« .
Frankl in
Township T
-------
p.
p.
p.
100474-
100477
100478-
100525
100526-
100721
Count.
Jeraayr prepared by Mr.
Robert Raisch, NJDEP, March 25, 1988
* Kingston Bagidaneoa
Avanua.
Franklin Townahin^ Somerset. N.J
EPA ID i
r prepared by Robert Raisch, HSMS III,
NJDEP, June 1988.
Kingston Residences Attachments (Maps 1-74
other attachments A - J), .undated.
Higgins Disposal Service, 121 Laurel Avenue,
Kingston, Somerset County, New Jersey, References
A through Y, undated.
2.0 REMOVAL R28FONSB
2.2 Sampling aad Analysis Data/Chain of Custody To
P.
P.
P.
P.
P. 200001-
200191
200192-
200264
200386-
200565
200566-
200571
Memorandum to Mr. George Prince, EPA/ERT Work
Assignment Manager, from Mr. Charles McCusfcer,
REAC Task Leader, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Biggin*
Disposal - Soil Sampling, Work Assignment f 2-442
- Trip Report, November 9, 1990.
Report: Soil and Sadimanfc Sampling. Higgina
Disposal. Franklin Township. M»v Jaraayr prepared
by Roy F. Weston, Inc./REAC, prepared for U.S.
EPA/ERT, December 1990.
200265- Report:
200385 Burtgd
Reort "Ceohaieal
Hazardoua
Contatnaira
Piaal
Pyanklin Tovnaht. Mav
r 1933 . prepared by Roy F. Weston,
Inc. /REAC, prepared for U.S. EPA/ERT, September
17, 1993.
»
Ensco Waste Material Data Sheets, No. 408939.
through 408944, prepared by Mr. Michael Ferriola,
On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region ZZ,
October 21, 1994. (Attachment: Attachment B: Haz-
Scan Drum Inventory, prepared by Mr. Michael
Ferriola, OSC, U.S. EPA, Region ZZ, November 11,
1994.)
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, Stats of New .
Jersey, Manifest No. 1, Facility: Ensco
Environmental Services of GA, Inc., Transporter:
Nappi Trucking Co., Generator: U.S. EPA, Region
ZZ/Higgins Disposal, Mr. Michael Ferriola, on-
-------
P. 200572-
200578
P. 200579'
200604
P.
P.
P.
Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region II, November
11, 1994.
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, State of New
Jersey, Manifest No. 2, Facility: Ensco
Environmental Services of GA, Inc., Transporter:
Nappi Trucking Co., Generator: U.S. EPA, Region
II/Higgins Disposal, Mr. Michael Ferriola, On-
Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region II, November
11, 1994.
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, State of
Arkansas, Facility: Ensco, Inc., Transporter: Haz
Mat Environmental Group, Generator: U.S. EPA,
Region II/Higgins Disposal, Mr. Michael Ferriola,
On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region II,
November 15, 1994. (Attachments: 1. Letter to Mr.
Richard Jakucs, from Wastex Industries, Inc., Re:
analytical results obtained for Sample I.D.
AB37776, October, 25, 1994; 2. Letter to Mr.
Richard Jakucs, from Wastex Industries, Inc., re:
analytical results obtained for Sample I.D.
AB37777, October 25, 1994} and 3. Letter to Mr.
Richard Jakucs, from Wastex Industries, Inc., re: •.
analytical results obtained for Sample I.D.
AB37778, October, 25, 1994.
Data Package: Removal Data 6 Manifests prepared
by Accredited Laboratories, prepared for
Westinghouse Remediation, December 22, 1994.
•
200657- Report: Preliminary Trip Report^ Soil Sampling at
200810 tha Higgina Piapoaal Site. Franklin TWP.r tfov
jaraay. April 139S. prepared by Roy F. Weston,
Inc./REAC, prepared for U.S. EPA/ERT, April 7,
1995.
200811- Report: Preliminary Trip P.gpoirfcf Soil Sampling and
200905 Padiati,en Survey. Higgina Disposal Sit*. Franklin
TWP. . KW j«ra«y. April 193*. prepared by Roy F.
Weston, Inc./REAC, prepared for U.S. EPA/ERT,
April 24, 1995.
200605*
200656
P.
200906
201150
•Report:
Final Tri
Soil Samlin and
Radiation Survey,. Higgina Piapoaal Site.
TWP.. New Jersey, May 199S. prepared by Roy F.
Weston, Inc./REAC, prepared for U.S. EPA/Ear, Kay
4, 1995.
P. 201151— Report: Trip Reportf Soil Sampling.
201513
Piapeaal Site. Kingston. New Jeraevl
-------
prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc./REAC,
prepared for U.S. EPA/ERT, February 29, 1996.
2.7 Correspondence
P. 201514- Memorandum to Mr. Richard Salkie, Associate
201515 Director for Removal and Emergency Preparedness
Program,. ERRD, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. John
Frisco, Deputy Director for New Jersey Programs,
ERRD, U.S. EPA, re: Request for a Removal Action
at the Higgins Disposal Service Site, Franklin
Township, Somerset County, New Jersey, March 31,
1993.
P. 201516- Memorandum to Mr. George Prince, U.S. EPA/ERT Work
201524 Assignment Manager, from Mr. Stewart K. Sandberg,
Project Manager, REAC Cincinnati, ret Preliminary
Results of Field Work at the Higgins Disposal
Site, W.A. I 4-905, July 21, 1993.
3.0 Remedial Investigation
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plaas
P. 300844- Plan: Sampling and Analysis Plan TTT.
300857 .Disposal Sita. Kingston, Sotnarsafc County. Mav
Jarsay. prepared by Roy F. West on, Inc. , prepared
by Roy F. Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA,
Region II, October 13, 1992.
P. 300858- Plan: Sampling QA/OC WorV Plan. Hiiyyina Disposal.
300884 Biggins Disposal Confcaninafcad Soil Pila. prepared
by U.S. EPA, Region II, TAT and Roy F. Weston,
Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II, December
20, 1994.
3.3 work Plans
P. 300885- Plan: WorV Plan tor Prun Excavation. Higgina
300908 Disposal Site,. Kingston. Somerset. County. Nav
jaraayr prepared by Westinghouse Remediation
Services, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region IX,
February 11, 1994.
3.4 Remedial Investigation
P.
91— Mile Mi lit own
300909* Report: 6.
301006 Pipalina TTpatiraam yaetltfetaa Temporary
gypanalon and Work Spaea Xraaa. Phaaa T Ht
and Arehaaalogteal Survayr prepared by Th*
a t.ibarrtv
-------
p.
p.
p.
p.
301007-
301064
301065*
301149
301150*
301539
301540
302006
Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger 6
Associates, inc., prepared for Transcontinental
Gas Pips Lins corporation, March 1992.
Report: Final Wetland Delineation Report.
Disposal Servieea. Town of Kino-afcon. Soneraefc
county f New Jeraey. prepared by Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, June 1996.
Report : Final Stage IX Xrehaeelogieal Survey.
Higgina Disposal Servieea. fovn of Kingston.
Somerset geunty, nmv j«ra«yf prepared by Malcolm
Pirnis, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, July 1996.
Report : Final Pan^dial Tnv««fcio;«tien Bapoyb
Diaoaal S«rviea«i . Town of
County f Nav Jersey f prepared by Malcolm
Pirnie, inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, August 1996.
- Report:
Final RtMnadial Tnvaafctqafcion
TT .
Semeraefc Count.
J«yg«i.
_ _ _ prepared by
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA,
August 1996.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Report
P. 400001- Report: Final T*ei
400137 Disposal
Sfeud
Hiina
Toun of 1Cinagton
Count
Jar««y. prepared by Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, August 1996
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 10.00032 Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List,
10.00062 prepared by U.S. EPA, Office of Communications and
Public Affairs, December 1989.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER
-------
SEP-29-9? 15=47 FROM- SITB REMEDIATION ID B»S7?787S& PACE.
nf Jfofci 3)erB«]|
l
-------
3BP-29-3T I9>«7 FROM. 31-TB. REMEDIATION
ID-*
PACT-
NJDEP concurs that the selected remedy for ground water is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with requirements that are legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective.
NJDKP docs not concur with JiPA's conclusion of no further action for soils because
there are levels of PCB's, PAI I's and some metals in (he soils tliat exceed our soil
cleanup guidelines; for a residential setting. Although these levels may not require an
active remediation, EPA has failed to recognize the need to implement a Declaration of
Environmental Restriction (DER) at a minimum as warranted by NJSA 58.10-B.
The State of New Jersey appreciates the opportunity to participate in the decision making
process of the Superfund program.
Sincerely,
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
HIGGINS DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the following sections:
I. Overview: This section discusses EPA's preferred alternative for remedial action.
II. Background: This section briefly describes community relations activities for the Higgins
Disposal Site.
III. Public Meeting Comments and EPA Responses: This section provides a summary of
commenters' major issues and concerns, and expressly acknowledges and responds to all
significant comments raised at the public meeting.
IV. Response to Written/Internet Comments: This section provides a summary of, and
responses to, comments received in writing and through the Internet during the public comment
period.
V. Written/Internet Comments: This section provides copies of all of the written/Internet
comments received. In addition, a copy of the transcript of the public meeting is likewise
included.
I. OVERVIEW
At the initiation of the public comment period on May 1, 1997, EPA presented its preferred
alternative for the Higgins Disposal Site located in Franklin Township, New Jersey. The selected
remedy includes extraction of contaminated groundwater with conveyance of this groundwater
via a pipeline to the Higgins Farm treatment plant. In addition, neighboring residents including
the Higgins' will be connected to public water through extension of the existing Elizabethtown
Water Company's pipeline. Furthermore, environmental monitoring will be performed in order
to evaluate the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction system.
II. BACKGROUND
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and the Proposed Plan for the Site
were made available at the EPA Superfund Document Center at EPA's Region II office in New
York City, at the Mary Jacobs Memorial Library in Rocky Hill, New Jersey and at the Franklin
Public Library in Somerset, New Jersey. The notice of availability for these documents was
published in the Home News and Tribune on May 1,1997. The public was given the opportunity
to comment on the preferred alternative during the public comment period which began on May
1 and concluded on June 30, 1997. In addition, a public meeting was held on May 20, 1997 at
the Franklin Township Municipal Building. At this meeting, representatives from EPA answered
-------
questions concerning the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. It should be
noted that the public comment period originally was to have ended on May 30, 1997. However.
in response to a request made during the public meeting, the comment period was extended to
June 30, 1997. Responses to comments received during the comment period, including the
public meeting, are provided in this Responsiveness Summary.
III. PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS AND EPA RESPONSES
The questions and comments raised during the public meeting can be grouped into the following
categories:
A. EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3 B)
B. Issues Regarding the State-Owned Laurel Avenue Site
C. Other Issues and Comments
Questions or comments are summarized in bold, followed by EPA's response.
A. EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3B)
Members of the audience asked for specific details of the proposed pipeline that will
convey groundwater from the Higgins Disposal Site to the Higgins Farm Site.
Questions concerned the composition of the pipeline, the effects of blasting from the
nearby quarry, the location of the pipeline and whether the pipeline pumping
system will operate on suction or pressure.
EPA Response: Specific details of the pipeline material, the effects of blasting and the
pumping system will be evaluated in the detailed design of the remedy.. The pipeline will
be designed to withstand the blasting associated with quarry operations, and to shut down
in the event of a pipeline failure.
With regard to the pipeline location, EPA acknowledges that the location proposed in the
Feasibility Study must be revised based on current locations of the easements. The
Feasibility Study proposed a conceptual pipeline alignment, within both the
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation and the Sun Pipeline Company easements,
which crossed through Trap Rock property. However, information provided during the
public comment period indicates that these easements have been relocated outside of the
active mining zone to the edge of Trap Rock property. Using easement information
provided to EPA during the public comment period, the Agency has recalculated the costs
-------
for implementing the selected remedy (which are provided in Appendix VI). While the
present worth of the remedy has been recalculated to be approximately $3.3 million
dollars (as compared to the original present worth calculation of approximately $2.2
million dollars), the remedy nevertheless provides the best balance of trade-offs among
alternatives with respect to EPA's evaluation criteria.
2. The attorney representing the owners of the Site commented that there is
insufficient information to select a remedy. Areas in which the attorney noted
uncertainties include the hydraulic characteristics at the Site and surrounding area,
the relationship between on-site groundwater and regional groundwater flow, the
pipeline location and the groundwater model.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the majority of these comments, in that the Agency
believes sufficient information has been gathered to make a sound decision with regard to
the selection of a remedy.
The results of EPA's investigatory activities (which were performed in accordance with
established technical procedures) reveal that chemicals detected in the groundwater
beneath the Site were also detected in neighboring residential wells. Additionally, the
pattern of contamination along with the groundwater flow regime suggests that the source
of these contaminants is the buried waste on the Site. In addition, operation of the on-site
production well is known to influence groundwater flow underneath the Site.
Based on the information collected during EPA's investigation, a groundwater model was
used to develop a conceptual design which would be sufficient for remedy selection
purposes. This conceptual design (i.e., pumping groundwater from a known area of
contamination) has been successfully implemented at other Superfund sites in New Jersey
in which contamination exists in fractured bedrock. It should be noted that the
conceptual design will, by necessity, be refined during the detailed design of the remedy.
During the detailed design, actual well location(s) and extraction rate(s) will be
determined.
With regard to the proposed pipeline route, information obtained during the public
comment period was used to determine a revised location and re-estimate costs.
However, the preferred alternative with the revised pipeline location still provides the
best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to EPA's evaluation criteria.
-------
3. Members of the audience expressed concerns with the placement of the pipeline
near the quarry and near residential property. Furthermore, concerns were raised
regarding possible pipeline failure, and what entity would be responsible in the
event of such an occurrence. In addition, the attorney representing the owners of the
Site requested that EPA investigate the possibility of conveying the extracted
groundwater to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
EPA Response: As discussed above, EPA has determined that Alternative 3B provides
the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to EPA's evaluation
criteria. Responsibility in the event of pipeline failure will depend on the circumstances
of the accident. If the failure were the result of either a design, construction or operation
and maintenance error, then the party responsible for these activities (whether it be the
Government or potentially responsible parties) may be held responsible. Conversely, if
the accident were the result of activities performed by an outside party/then that party
may be held responsible for the pipeline failure.
With regard to the possibility of conveying groundwater to a POTW, EPA has met with
representatives of the Stony Brook Regional Sewage Authority. At this meeting, EPA
was informed that the Authority would consider a request by the Agency to accept
groundwater from the Site. However, during the meeting, the participants agreed that
some form of pretreatment of the groundwater would probably be necessary. In addition,
the method by which the groundwater would be conveyed to the POTW was likewise
discussed. The Authority indicated construction of a pipeline to the nearest sewer
system, which is located outside of Franklin Township, would require the approval of the
municipalities that own the sewer system. As an alternative to construction of a pipeline.
the Authority indicated that trucking the wastewater to the POTW would be more
implementable, since municipal collection systems would not be used. Under this
scenario, truckloads of the pretreated groundwater would need to be routinely sampled for
priority pollutants (such as volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, pesticides, PCBs and
metals).
EPA has calculated the cost of conveying pretreated groundwater by trucks to the POTW.
The cost analysis assumes that a 30,000 gallon holding tank would need to be erected on
the Site, and that approximately 14,000 gallons of groundwater would need to be trucked
each day, six days a week (on the seventh day, the groundwater would be stored in the
holding tank). The groundwater would be pretreated using carbon canisters, and
sampling of the pretreated groundwater would need to be performed on a monthly basis
for at least the first year of operation. The cost information, which is provided in
Appendix VI, indicates that the present worth of this alternative is approximately 4.7
million dollars, as compared to approximately 3.3 million dollars for the preferred
alternative of piping groundwater to the Higgins Farm Site. The costs of conveying
groundwater to the POTW, combined with the aforementioned difficulties associated
with implementing such an alternative, renders this suggestion impractical.
-------
4. Members of the audience expressed concerns with regard to linking both the
Higgins Farm and Higgins Disposal Sites by the pipeline. Questions arose as to
whether the cleanup at Higgins Farm would be delayed by treatment of
groundwater from Higgins Disposal, and if Higgins Farm would still be considered a
Superfund site if that Site was cleaned up, yet groundwater was still being conveyed
to it from Higgins Disposal. Additionally, a member of the audience asked if the
treatment system at Higgins Farm could operate with only the 10 gallon per minute
flow from Higgins Disposal.
EPA Response: EPA does not anticipate the cleanup of Higgins Farm to be delayed by
the addition of the 10 gallon per minute flow from Higgins Disposal. Since
contamination at both sites occurs within fractured bedrock, specific time frames for
cleanup of these sites is difficult to determine. However, it is expected that the Higgins
Farm Site could be deleted from EPA's National Priorities List once it is cleaned up, even
if the treatment plant was still receiving groundwater from Higgins Disposal. In the event
that the Higgins Farm Site were to be cleaned up prior to Higgins Disposal Site, the
treatment system may require some modification in order to treat groundwater at the
lower flow rate.
5. A member of the audience expressed concern that by allowing groundwater to be
conveyed to the Higgins Farm treatment system from the Higgins Disposal Site, then
the possibility exists that the treatment system will be used to treat water from other
sites.
EPA Response: EPA will not bring wastewater from other Superfund sites to the Higgins
Farm treatment system. Since both sites are owned by the same party (i.e., Clifford and
Lizbeth Higgins), are in close proximity to each other and exhibit similar groundwater
contamination, the preferred alternative can be readily implemented. It should be
remembered that the Higgins Farm treatment system was designed to treat specific
classes of contaminants. Treatment of groundwater other than the groundwater from
Higgins Farm or Higgins Disposal could possibly require extensive modifications of the
treatment system, which may be cost-prohibitive. In any event, no such action is
contemplated by EPA.
6. A member of the audience asked where the groundwater extraction wells would be
located. A member of the audience also asked whether the extraction system would
draw in contamination from locations off of the Site.
-------
EPA Response: The specific locations of the groundwater extraction wells will be
determined during the detailed design of the remedy. It is currently anticipated that the
extraction system would be placed on the Site, near the location of the source of
groundwater contamination. With regard to the potential of drawing in contamination
from off-site locations, EPA does not anticipate this situation to occur, since the
extraction system will be operating at a low pumping rate (only enough to capture
contaminated groundwater at the Site). However, it should be noted that in order to
determine the effectiveness of the extraction system, a groundwater monitoring system
will be developed and implemented as part of the remedy.
7. A member of the audience asked how the air emissions at the Higgins farm
treatment plant would be affected by the additional groundwater from Higgins
Disposal.
EPA Response: The Higgins Farm treatment system is designed to treat 100 gallons per
minute of contaminated groundwater. It is expected that the 10 gallons per minute flow
from the Higgins Disposal Site will not adversely impact the air quality in the vicinity of
the Site. Any such air emissions would have to comply with Federal and State
requirements.
8. A member of the audience asked how contracting for the remedy would occur.
EPA Response: If the remedy is implemented by the Government, then contracts would
be awarded competitively, in accordance with Federal and EPA acquisition regulations.
9. A member of the audience inquired as to the course of action that will be taken if the
remedy is not successful. Another member of the audience asked if the public will
be able to review performance data for the remedy.
EPA Response: When the remedy is implemented, monitoring will be performed to
determine the remedy's effectiveness. Once this data is determined to be valid, it will be
sent to the information repositories (i.e., the Mary Jacobs Memorial Library, the Franklin
Public Library and EPA's Superfund Document Center) and made available for public
review. In addition, EPA will perform a formal review of the remedy every five years.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that the selected remedy is performing as
expected. Depending on the effectiveness of the remedy, it is possible that other
alternatives could be considered in the event that the remedy was found to be ineffective.
However, it must be stressed that EPA anticipates that the selected remedy will, in fact,
be effective.
6
-------
10. A member of the audience asked if the parties holding the easements necessary for
location of the pipeline have consented to access.
EPA Response: EPA has contacted these parties with regard to access for installation of
the pipeline. However, to date, access has not been secured. Access to these easements
will be secured by the entities responsible for implementing the remedy, whether it is the
Government or the potentially responsible parties (also called "PRPs").
11. Members of the audience commented on EPA's proposal to connect residents to
public water. While the audience was supportive of EPA's proposal, they asked if it
was possible to shorten the time frame to implement this portion of the remedy. A
member of the audience also recommended that EPA should connect residents to
public water and not address the remaining groundwater contamination.
EPA Response: EPA will ensure that connection of the residents to public water be made
a priority, and that the time frame for implementation of this portion of the selected
remedy is not dependent upon implementation of the groundwater extraction and
conveyance system. With regard to the recommendation that the groundwater extraction
and conveyance system not be implemented, EPA is mandated by law to address
contamination that poses a threat to human health and the environment. As described in
the March 8,1990 Federal Register (Vol. 55, No. 46, Page 8732), EPA's Superfund
program uses EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy as guidance when determining the
appropriate remediation for contaminated groundwater at Superfund sites. The goal of
EPA's Superfund approach is to return usable groundwaters to their beneficial uses
within a time frame that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site.
Through its investigation, the Agency has documented that there are unacceptable risks to
human health resulting from groundwater contamination. Therefore, EPA is compelled
to implement measures to address this contamination.
12. A member of the audience asked if the remedy could be delayed until performance
of the Higgins Farm treatment plant is ascertained.
EPA Response: Since start-up activities of the Higgins Farm treatment system have
commenced, EPA anticipates that the performance of the system will be known prior to
implementation of the remedy. Therefore, at this time, it is not necessary to delay the
remedy based on performance of the Higgins Farm treatment system.
-------
13. A member of the audience inquired as to the time frames for remediation through
implementation of Alternative 3B versus continued use of the on-site production
well.
As stated previously, time frames for cleanup of contaminated groundwater in fractured
bedrock are difficult to predict. Nevertheless, it is expected that the preferred alternative
of continuous extraction of the groundwater beyond the current condition of intermittent
pumping will reduce the time frame for cleanup of the groundwater.
B. Issues Regarding the State-Owned Laurel Avenue Site
1. Members of the audience had numerous questions concerning the State-owned
Property on Laurel Avenue, which may be a potential source of groundwater
contamination. These questions include the following:
Is water withdrawn from this property for use?
Can this property and Higgins Disposal be addressed at the same time?
Where is the contaminated groundwater migrating?
What is the status of the investigation of the property?
Can the property be placed on EPA's NPL?
Is there information on this property in the information repositories for the
Higgins Disposal Site?
EPA Response: Based on available information, water is not withdrawn from the Laurel
Avenue Site for use. Since the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has
responsibility for this Site, EPA has provided the information that it has collected to the
State and has also advised the State that the property may be a source of contamination.
Due to the fact that the property is currently not listed on EPA's NPL, Federal remedial
funding cannot be used to clean up the property. However, EPA is currently evaluating
the existing information to determine whether a preliminary assessment and a site
inspection is appropriate for the property. At the present time, EPA has not evaluated the
direction of contaminant migration from this property. Furthermore, since the property is
not listed on the NPL, it cannot be remediated by the remedial action selected for the
Higgins Disposal Site. In order for a site to be placed on the NPL, it must be evaluated,
or ranked. If the site were to exceed the minimum ranking criteria, then it could be
placed on the NPL.
With regard to the public availability of information about this property, information
which EPA obtains concerning this property will be provided to the information
repositories for public review.
-------
O. Other Issues and Comments
1. A member of the audience asked if a community working group had been
established for the Site.
EPA Response: While such a group has not been established for this Site, EPA can
organize a Community Advisory Group, should there be sufficient public interest.
2. A member of the audience asked when will the selection of the alternative be made,
and whether that will happen before or after the close of the comment period.
Another member of the audience asked if the public will be able to comment on the
final location of the pipeline. A third member of the audience asked if the PRPs will
be allowed to present their own remedy.
EPA Response: Selection of a remedy is made after the close of the public comment
period, and all comments have been evaluated. During design and construction of the
remedy, EPA can provide updates to the public, in the form of presentations and fact
sheets. Information of selection of a final pipeline location will be provided to the public.
While it is possible that EPA will ask the PRPs to perform the remedy, the Agency will
not agree to these parties presenting a remedy to the public which differs from the
selected remedy.
3. A member of the audience asked if there would be additional public participation
should EPA not select Alternative 3B (i.e., the preferred alternative).
EPA Response: The Agency is not required to solicit public comment if one of the other
remedies described in the Proposed Plan is chosen. However, if the Agency were to
select an alternative not described in the Proposed Plan, then the public would be
afforded an additional opportunity to comment.
4. A member of the audience asked if residential property values are considered in the
remedy selection process.
EPA Response: Residential property values are not directly considered in the selection of
a remedy. However, comments from residents who are concerned about their property
values and who prefer a specific remedy are considered in the selection process.
-------
5. A request for an extension of the public comment period was made during the
public comment period.
EPA Response: As described previously in the ROD, EPA extended the public
comment period to June 30,1997.
6. A resident inquired as to whether the Proposed Plan needed to be reissued, since it
contained inaccurate information pertaining to costs associated with the preferred
alternative.
EPA Response: Although EPA has slightly revised the costs of the preferred alternative
based upon the information obtained during the public comment period, the preferred
alternative still represents the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect
to the evaluating criteria (including cost). Therefore, reissuance of the Proposed Plan is
not necessary.
7. Several questions were raised pertaining to the size and location of the on-site
treatment plant associated with Alternative 4.
EPA Response: The Feasibility Study provides an estimated size of 70 feet by 30 feet. It
should be noted that a more accurate specification of the size of the treatment plant would
be developed during a detailed design. In addition, the final location of the treatment
plant would likewise be determined during the detailed design after consultation with the
property owners.
8. A member of the audience asked if the residential carbon filters have been effective
in preventing exposure to contamination in the groundwater.
EPA Response: Based on the results of EPA sampling, the carbon filters have been
found to be effective.
9. A member of the audience asked if the effects of blasting at the quarry have an
effect on the area hydrogeology and in the existing wells.
EPA Response: Since blasting at the quarry occurs at random intervals, it would be
difficult to evaluate the effect of blasting on the hydrogeology of the area. However, it
must be recognized that the existing water supply well on the Site continues to be
productive in spite of the blasting.
10
-------
10. A member of the audience asked for information pertaining to the source of the
public water.
EPA Response: Public water is provided by the Elizabethtown Water Company.
Elizabethtown Water Company primarily obtains this water from the Raritan River.
However, water can be obtained from the Delaware and Raritan Canal.
11. A member of the audience asked if there is a plan for the Department of Health to
monitor the residents to see if there are effects from the Site.
EPA Response: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is the
agency that would oversee any public health monitoring and epidemiologic studies. In
addition, ATSDR performs public health surveys at Superiund Sites. Individuals with
specific health concerns as they pertain to the Site should contact ATSDR at 290
Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
12. A member of the audience commented that there were area residents who did not
receive the Proposed Plan. Recommendations were made by the audience to update
the mailing list for the Site.
EPA Response: Efforts are made to ensure that the mailing list is current and as
complete as possible. However, mailing lists can become outdated. The situation is
exacerbated by the fact that instances occur in which people attend public meetings yet do
not provide the Agency with their names and addresses. Several suggestions made during
the public meeting to keep the mailing list current (such as contacting the Board of
Adjustments and the Board of Elections) are appropriate and will be used to update the
mailing list.
IV. RESPONSE TO WRITTEN/INTERNET COMMENTS
Questions and comments received during the public comment period, in writing and through the
Internet, can be grouped into the following categories:
A. Non-PRP Comments Concerning EPA's Preferred Alternative (3B)
B. PRP Comments Concerning EPA's Preferred Alternative
As before, questions or comments are summarized in bold, followed by EPA's response.
11
-------
A. Non-PRP Comments Concerning EPA's Preferred Alternative (3B)
1. Several commenters recommended that EPA investigate conveyance of groundwater
to a nearby POTW.
EPA Response: This issue was raised at the May 20, 1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A.3, above.
2. A commenter urged the Agency to immediately connect the Laurel Avenue residents
to public water. Another commenter wrote that the Residents should decide
themselves whether they should have public water.
EPA Response: As discussed in III. A. 11, EPA will ensure that connection of resident to
public water is made a priority and is not delayed by implementation of the groundwater
extraction and conveyance system. While the Agency will extend the existing water main
to affected residents, it should be noted that individual residents will be given the
opportunity to decline connection to the water main.
3. A resident living in the vicinity of Higgins Farm asked how the air emissions at the
Higgins farm treatment plant would be effected by the additional groundwater from
Higgins Disposal.
EPA Response: This issue was raised at the May 20, 1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A.7, above.
4. Several commenters suggested trucking the extracted groundwater to Higgins Farm,
instead of using a pipeline.
EPA Response: Upon receiving this comment, EPA calculated the cost of conveying the
extracted groundwater by trucks to the Higgins Farm treatment plant. The cost
information, which is provided in Appendix VI, indicates that the present worth of this
alternative is approximately 4.2 million dollars (as opposed to the present worth of EPA's
preferred alternative, which is approximately 3.3 million dollars). The increase in cost of
trucking over the cost of the Alternative 3B, combined with the increased truck traffic at
Higgins Farm, makes implementation of a trucking alternative impractical.
12
-------
5. One commenter asked what the responsibilities would be of entities other than EPA
(such as the NJDEP or the PRPs) if EPA transfers the project to these entities prior
to completion of cleanup. The commenter further asked if the public would be
notified of this transfer.
EPA Response: Currently, EPA has the responsibility of implementing the cleanup
activities at the Site. Should activities in the future be implemented by other parties,
these entities would be legally required to implement the remedy selected in this ROD.
Since it is EPA's intention to periodically update the public on the status of the cleanup.
the public will be informed as to whether parties other than EPA become responsible for
implementing cleanup activities.
6. A commenter asked how people who did not attend the public meeting will be
notified of errors in the preferred alternative.
EPA Response: As discussed in III.C.6 above, EPA believes that any errors in the
preferred alternative that was presented in the Proposed Plan do not change the fact that
Alternative 3B represents the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the Agency's
evaluation criteria. Therefore, there is not a need to reissue the Proposed Plan or to
provide additional public notification beyond the issuance of this ROD.
7. A commenter recommended that, as a precaution in the event of a pipeline leak, a
pumping system operating on suction be used to convey groundwater from the
Higgins Disposal Site to the Higgins Farm Site.
EPA Response: As described in III. A.I, above, the details of the piping system will be
determined during the detailed design. Furthermore, the system will have sufficient
controls to evaluate whether leakage occurs in the pipeline system and to minimize any
leakage that may occur.
8. Several commenters expressed concern for the integrity of the pipeline due to the
blasting that occurs at the quarry.
EPA Response: As explained in III .A.I, the pipeline will be designed to withstand the
effects of blasting that occurs at the quarry.
13
-------
9. A representative of the quarry commented that since his company installed the
existing water line on Laurel Avenue, then it should be reimbursed for any use of it.
EPA Response: The issue of reimbursement is between the company operating the
quarry and the water company. It should be noted that the company operating the quarry
would not receive reimbursement from EPA.
10. A commenter asked where in the treatment system at Higgins Farm would carbon
contactors be installed.
EPA Response: It is anticipated that carbon contactors would be installed as a finishing
step following the existing treatment system at Higgins Farm.
11. Several commenters indicated preferences for alternatives other than 3B. One
commenter suggested that no action be taken. Another indicated that the existing
production well on the Site is treating groundwater and that the public is not at risk.
A third expressed a preference of Alternative 2B over Alternative 3B, while a fourth
commenter preferred the construction of a small treatment plant on the Site.
EPA Response: The Agency believes that additional cleanup activities beyond the
current intermittent pumping of the on-site production well is necessary to protect human
health and the environment. As described in the Proposed Plan, the four alternatives
presented to the public were compared to each other using EPA's evaluation criteria.
With regard to the comment concerning the construction of a "small" treatment plant on
the Site, it must be noted that the size of the plant described in the Feasibility Study was
determined based on the need for treatment processes that would treat the groundwater to
levels that would render the groundwater suitable for discharge to surface water.
Additionally, in lieu of installing a pipeline, the Agency also considered trucking the
extracted groundwater to the Higgins Farm Site or to a POTW. Based on all of the
information to date, Alternative 3 B is considered by EPA to be the most cost-effective
protective remedy to address groundwater contamination at the Site.
12. One commenter informed EPA of the existence of benzene-contaminated
groundwater at the Six Mile Run Reservoir Site, and that the State of New Jersey
has leased an 80 acre portion of this site to Clifford Higgins since 1966.
Furthermore, the commenter inquired as to whether testing of this property should
be performed as an element of activities associated with the Higgins Disposal Site.
14
-------
EPA Response: EPA will be contacting the commenter to obtain additional information
about the groundwater contamination at the Six Mile Run Reservoir Site. This
information will be used by EPA to determine whether a preliminary assessment and a
site inspection is necessary. It is not anticipated that this work will be performed as an
element of activities associated with the Higgins Disposal Site.
13. One commenter was concerned about the decrease in property values due to the
installation of the pipeline.
EPA Response: As described in III.C.4 above, EPA does not directly consider property
values in the selection of a remedy. Since the pipeline would be located largely within
pre-existing easements, property values are not expected to be negatively influenced by
implementation of the remedy.
14. A commenter asked if the State-owned house at 82 Laurel Avenue could be able to
tie into the proposed water line extension. This commenter also inquired as to the
logistics for tie-in, and whether the water line would be sized sufficiently for
installation of fire hydrants.
EPA Response: The house at 82 Laurel Avenue would be allowed to tie into the water
line extension. Logistical and technical issues (such as the size of the water line) would
be resolved during the design of the water line extension.
15. One commenter asked if the additional groundwater from Higgins Disposal will
delay cleanup of the Higgins Farm Site.
EPA Response: This issue was raised at the May 20, 1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A.4, above.
16. A commenter discussed the possibility of delaying the remedy until performance of
cleanup at the Higgins Farm Site can be ascertained.
EPA Response: This issue was raised at the May 20,1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A. 12, above.
15
-------
17. A commenter inquired as to when EPA would determine that the cleanup was
ineffective, and if the Agency consider other alternatives at that point.
EPA Response: This issue was raised at the May 20, 1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A.9, above. Effectiveness will be periodically evaluated during
implementation of the remedy. Depending on the effectiveness of the remedy, it is
possible that other alternatives could be considered in the event that the remedy was
found to be ineffective. However, it must be stressed that EPA anticipates that the
selected remedy will, in fact, be effective.
18. An individual commented that the EPA should require the installation of filters for
those residences on Laurel Avenue which do not have these systems.
EPA Response: As described in the Proposed Plan, the analysis of the water from these
residences did not indicate a health risk. Therefore, it is not necessary to require the
installation of filtration units.
19. A commenter inquired as to the direction of flow for the receiving water for the
Higgins Farm treatment plant discharge, and if testing of the discharged water will
occur.
EPA~Response: The treatment plant at Higgins Farm discharges to a pond, which then
discharges through an unnamed tributary to Carters Brook. Prior to discharge, the
effluent is monitored for a variety of organic, inorganic and conventional pollutants in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
20. A commenter asked if EPA had performed an investigation to determine if wastes
were improperly disposed at areas other than the Higgins Farm and Higgins
Disposal Sites.
EPA Response: EPA has conducted and continues to conduct an investigation to
determine the identities of PRPs at both Sites. Due to the lack of detailed business
records, it is difficult to determine the extent of off-site disposal.
16
-------
21. The representative of the quarry commented that EPA, in its groundwater model,
assumes that the quarry uses a large quantity of groundwater for its mining
activities. This person further states that the quarry does not use groundwater as
part of its operations, and that any assumption by EPA that the quarry influences
groundwater flow is incorrect.
EPA Response: The use of groundwater in the quarry's process was never inferred from
the model. The idea that the quarry itself may create a groundwater sink, however, was
incorporated into the model. This was due to several observations from the groundwater
modeling effort. The main observation is that the amount of drawdown necessary to
create the groundwater potentiometric heads that were actually observed in the field can
not be recreated solely by pumping from the residential wells.
The amount of water removed from north of the Site to create the observed drawdown
was approximately 35,000 gallons per day. When this amount of water is compared to
the size of the quarry, it does not indicate a prolific aquifer. However, it does not
preclude the quarry from being a stress on the aquifer. When 35,000 gallons per day is
spread over the available seepage faces of the quarry, it is possible that the seepage would
not even be observable. Whether or not the quarry uses water in their operations, the
quarry still represents a sink in the aquifer system and does not change the results of the
modeling.
22. The representative of the quarry commented that the quarry is situated in the
vicinity of the Lockatong Formation, to which the NJDEP has assigned a
permeability rating of "poor". The commenter recommends that EPA should
reexamine the groundwater modeling calculations to determine if the model's
assumptions are consistent with this type of formation.
EPA Response: As indicated in IV.A.21 above, the 35,000 gallons per day removed
from north of the Site, compared to the size of the quarry, does not indicate a prolific
aquifer. Consequently, EPA believes that the groundwater modeling assumptions are
consistent with the geologic characteristics of the area.
23. The representative of the quarry inquired as to whether EPA factored into its
groundwater model the usages represented by the supply wells "outlined on Page 1-
10 of the Plan".
17
-------
EPA Response: The Agency assumes that the "plan" which is referenced to is actually
the Feasibility Study. As described in IV.A.21 above, the model is based on conditions
observed during actual groundwater monitoring. Therefore, observable stresses (and,
consequently, the sources of those stresses) on the aquifer have been factored into the
groundwater model.
B. PRP Comments Concerning EPA's Preferred Alternative
The questions and comments can be grouped into the following categories:
I. Comments by a Specific PRP
II. Comments by the Attorney Representing the Owners of the Site
As before, questions or comments are summarized in bold, followed by the Agency's response
I. Comments by a Specific PRP
One of the PRPs for the Site provided numerous written comments on the Proposed Plan,
hydrogeologic investigations/RI, risk assessment, FS and groundwater model. Although these
comments have been summarized below, the complete set of comments will be placed in the
administrative record/information repositories. Please note, however, that EPA's responses that
are provided below represent responses to all of the PRP's comments.
A. Proposed Plan Comments
1. Selection of a groundwater remedy is premature, since Removal actions have not yet
been completed. The commenter further notes that the role of natural attenuation
needs to be understood.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees. Groundwater at the Site is contaminated at levels which
are above health-based standards, and there is currently a risk to human health from
drinking contaminated groundwater. The. types of contaminants and general migration
pathways have been determined, and the available data indicates that the contamination
can be extracted from the aquifer. The complex site hydrogeology has been investigated
and characterized in accordance with accepted scientific and engineering practices.
While it is believed that upon removal of the final source area there will be no additional
contamination of the aquifer by the Site, the removal activities will have no effect on the
contamination currently present in the groundwater.
-------
With regard to natural attenuation, the data collected through the groundwater
monitoring effort do not suggest that natural attenuation mechanisms are effective at
preventing risks to human health. From the 1950's through 1985, the owner operated a
landfill and waste transfer station at the Site. The present contaminant levels in the
groundwater, which exceed health-based levels, are not expected to degrade any taster
than the contaminants which presumably first entered the groundwater 4 decades ago.
While EPA disagrees that selection of a remedy is untimely, the Agency does believe that
implementation of the groundwater extraction and conveyance system should be deferred
until the removal action is completed. Once the removal action is completed, additional
data can be collected for the purpose of optimizing the detailed design of this system.
2. EPA has not developed a conceptual model of the Site, and the proposed remedy is
based upon an incomplete understanding of Site conditions.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees. A conceptual model was established for this Site and is
documented, in great detail, in the RI Report. EPA actually prepared its first conceptual
site model in 1990. EPA collected a broad breadth of information of the Site (such as
data collected previously be the NJDEP and the State/local health departments) as well as
reviewing the available published technical literature on the geology and biology within
the region of the Site. This first conceptual Site model is detailed in the work plan for the
RI/FS. EPA subsequently improved its understanding of the Site through the RI,
collecting data on the groundwater, soils, surface water, sediment and air. EPA
investigated the adjacent quarry and contacted State geologists (who are experts on the
area's structural geology) to gain a better understanding of the local and regional geology
and hydrogeology.
Upon completion of the RI, the conceptual Site model was completed since the sources of
contamination were identified, the types of contaminants present and the affected media
were defined, the routes of migration of the contaminants were defined and the human
and environmental receptors were identified.
EPA anticipated that the hydrogeology of this Site would be extremely complex.
Therefore, the Agency installed 18 on-site monitoring wells, prepared soil boring logs
from the wells, performed geophysical work to help define bedrock fractures and joints,
collected soil samples and ran tests to determine the characteristics of the soil, ran aquifer
pumping tests, collected two rounds of groundwater sampling and water level
measurements, sampled on-site surface water bodies and monitored off-site wells. In
19
-------
addition, discussions with experts on bedrock geology in the local area and utilization of
published literature on the geology and hydrology of the area all served to derive EPA's
model of the site hydrogeologic system. EPA used the best available scientific
techniques to define the hydrogeologic system and predict contaminant transport in the
bedrock environment.
EPA expects the proposed extraction wells to yield sufficient amounts of groundwater to
make the remedy viable. The majority of monitoring wells which EPA installed yielded
sufficient volumes of water for sampling while a few did not, revealing the heterogeneity
of the hydrogeologic system. EPA conducted an aquifer test on the better yielding
monitoring wells to gain a better understanding of the hydrology of the aquifer and to
gain information on possible pumping rates for extraction purposes. It must be stressed
that actual, current extraction of groundwater from an on-site well and the pumping test
performed by EPA demonstrate that groundwater can be efficiently extracted from the
Site in order to remediate groundwater contamination.
3. EPA's presumptive response strategy requires a more thorough characterization of
site conditions coordinated with response actions. Furthermore, other remedial
processes such as enhanced in-situ treatment or natural attenuation, should have
been evaluated in the FS.
EPA Response: EPA's RI/FS work was completed before completion of the Agency's
guidance on groundwater presumptive remedies. Although EPA was working proactively
to eliminate sources of contamination through its removal authority, the Agency did not
make a determination to utilize a presumptive remedy for groundwater, or to implement
an interim action. During the course of the RI/FS, EPA found that the on-site production
well was serving in a manner similar to an interim action, in that a portion of the
contaminated groundwater was being contained.
f
Although Alternative 1 was not identified as such, it should be noted that this alternative
described a monitored natural attenuation remedial action. Furthermore, EPA screened
out in-situ and containment technologies during the FS screening phase because of the
type of the complex, fractured bedrock geologic environment, and the uncertainties
associated with such an environment. Therefore, the Agency believes that it developed
an appropriate set of remedial alternatives as mandated by the NCP.
20
-------
4. EPA's Proposed Plan does not evaluate the factors limiting restoration potential.
EPA Response: EPA did evaluate the factors limiting restoration potential and was
extremely forthright to the public in its report about the limitations. Page 16 of EPA's
Proposed Plan states:
"It must be emphasized that this ground water contamination problem exists in a
fractured bedrock aquifer and extraction of contaminated ground water from such
aquifers is often difficult. Additionally, removal of contaminants to achieve the
MCLs in such situations is also difficult. However, highly fractured zones were
encountered during RI work and the hydrologic modeling and aquifer tests
performed during the RI indicate that properly placed extraction wells would
create a larger capture zone than currently exists due to the Higgins' water supply
well and such a system would be able to achieve significant decreases in
contaminant levels over time. The time frame for Alternatives 3 and 4 to
achieve compliance with chemical-specific ARARs in the underlying bedrock
aquifer are undetermined. However, because Alternatives 3 and 4 are aggressive,
active approaches to attaining ARARs in the aquifer, utilizing more wells and
extracting a greater volume of contaminated water, greater decreases in contami-
nant levels can be expected in significantly less time compared to Alternatives 1
and 2."
It is EPA's position that the Agency adequately evaluated the factors limiting restoration
potential.
5. Implementation results of the groundwater pumping system at the Higgins farm
Site should be considered.
EPA Response: This comment was raised at the May 20, 1997 public meeting, and is
discussed in III.A.12, above. However, the Agency must also respond to the PRP's
written statement that "very low well yields were observed upon startup" at the Higgins
Farm treatment plant. Since the PRP has not reviewed information pertaining to start-up,
and since the PRP toured the Higgins Farm treatment facility only during the initial
phases of start-up, it cannot with accuracy make this statement. As previously indicated,
once performance data is determined to be representative of Site and operating
conditions, it will be made available for public review through transmittal to the
information repositories.
6. Comments to (and public perception of) EPA's preferred remedy for groundwater
contamination confirm that sufficient data do not exist to permit identification of a
final remedy for groundwater.
21
-------
EPA Response: EPA believes that it has adequately addressed public comments on the
preferred remedy during the May 20, 1997 public meeting and in this Responsiveness
Summary. As detailed in these responses, EPA maintains that there is sufficient
information for the selection of a groundwater remedy.
Bi Technical Comments on the Hydrogeologic Investigation/RI
1. The RI does not adequately characterize the site geology and hydrogeology.
EPA Response: Extensive soil borings, soil sampling, sediment sampling, groundwater
sampling and other investigative activities were performed as documented in the RI
Report. The field work was conducted and the data collected in accordance with EPA's
work plan. The work conducted and the data collected is sufficient to characterize the
site for the purposes of the RI.
The PRP's written comment of whether or not the prominent structure crossing the Site is
truly a graben is academic. Whether it is a graben or a series of normal faults, a structural
feature is present which exerts an influence on the preferential movement of groundwater.
As stated in the RJ report, the regional direction of groundwater flow is to the southwest
toward the Delaware & Raritan Canal and the Millstone River. Localized flow within the
Site is affected by fracture orientation. Data from previous investigations was used in the
evaluation of groundwater flow. However, the monitoring wells used in the previous
investigations were improperly constructed, with well screens crossing both the
overburden and bedrock zones. Therefore, the water level data from these wells is not
representative of either formation.
Information on the construction of the on-site production wells is not available.
However, according to the Higgins', this well is much deeper than the old well, and as
such will create a steeper cone of depression and greater gradients to influence
groundwater flow toward the well. This is consistent with groundwater contour maps
generated for the Site. A true "static" groundwater table condition could not be achieved
because the production well could not be turned off. The option of turning off the well
was explored; however, this was not feasible since there is a need to water the horses
boarded there, and there was not a practical alternative water supply source.
The limited water level drawdown effect observed when pumping monitoring well 105D
is as expected. Well 105D was designed as a monitoring well, not as a test pumping well.
Even though it is a bedrock well, it was fitted with a screen to keep the well open
following a collapse of the borehole walls. It is also a shallow well, less than 100 feet
deep, which limits the available drawdown, the sustainable pumping rate and the radius
of influence. Furthermore, the pumping test conducted on monitoring well 105D was of
22
-------
short duration, and is not reflective of the long-term effect seen in the newer on-site
production well. This newer production well has a definite influence on local
groundwater flow patterns as evidenced by the water level data collected and the
groundwater contour maps developed for the RI.
2. The RI does not adequately characterize the distribution or movement of
contaminants in groundwater.
EPA Response: The regional groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, toward the
homeowner wells. Although the influence of the on-site production well, the fracture
orientation and geological structures will affect the localized flow conditions, the
groundwater contamination has clearly migrated toward the homeowners. The
contamination of homeowner wells may have occurred from Site sources prior to the
installation of the newer on-site production well. It should be noted that the occurrence
and movement of contaminants north of the landfill within the Site are a product of the
localized, rather than regional, conditions.
As described previously, static conditions cannot be evaluated since the on-site
production well is needed to water the horses. Furthermore, since (as described above)
there were deficiencies in the previous investigations, comparison of current groundwater
data to prior investigations will not provide additional useful information.
In summary, EPA strongly believes that a conceptual model for groundwater flow has
already been developed and is described in the RI Report.
3. The RI does not discuss the effectiveness of pumping in addressing groundwater
contaminants.
EPA Response: It should be noted that the effectiveness of groundwater pumping is
described in the FS Report. Although the PR? predicts that pumping will not be effective
in influencing groundwater movement, the PRP essentially recognizes in its comments
that the on-site production well is influencing groundwater. The performance of this
well, which was not intended or designed to capture the contaminant plume, indicates that
a groundwater recovery system is feasible. A series of properly designed and located
recovery wells will be even more effective in capturing the plume and controlling
groundwater movement. As stated above, monitoring well 105D was never intended, nor
was it designed, to be a recovery well. Rather, it is a standard monitoring well which,
when used for pumping, displays the expected low efficiency.
23
-------
C. Technical Comments On the Risk Assessment
1. A conceptual model is needed for groundwater to understand the relationship
between chemical of concern (COC) sources, constituent transport, potential
exposure points, and potential receptors.
EPA Response: A conceptual model for groundwater has already been developed. Since
groundwater from off-site residential wells is impacted and the on-site production well
has the greatest influence on the flow characteristics of groundwater underlying the Site,
groundwater exposure was evaluated to examine the following scenarios in the absence of
remedial action and natural attenuation and degradation processes:
the possibility of residual (i.e., following removal of the likely sources)
contamination reaching the on-site production well; and
the possibility of residual contamination reaching private, off-site wells should
operation of the on-site production well cease
The intent of this evaluation was to indicate whether the groundwater pathway posed
sufficient risk to warrant evaluation in the FS.
2. Many of the potential risks estimated for groundwater exposures are excessive,
reflecting unrealistic assumptions and inappropriate models.
EPA Response: The Agency's risk assessment guidance was followed in the preparation
of the risk assessment for this Site. This guidance included the 1989 EPA document
entitled Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part AV Interim Final. In addition, the 1991 document entitled RisJs,
Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health. Supplemental Guidance
"Standard Default Exposure Factors" was likewise used. The exposure pathway analysis,
exposure models and exposure parameters and assumptions were established by EPA in
consultation with the Agency's consultant and the NJDEP.
3. Exposure concentrations for COC's should be adjusted to account for COC's
detected in Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples.
EPA Response: Per EPA 's previously-cited Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final, during data
validation, chemicals regarded as common laboratory contaminants were retained in the
groundwater data sets only if detected in concentrations greater than ten times that in
corresponding blanks. Acetone was selected as a chemical of potential concern based on
24
-------
frequency of detection. Although detected infrequently, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
selected as a chemical of potential concern based on detection at a concentration equal to
Federal and State MCLs. It must be stressed that neither of these chemicals posed
unacceptable risks.
4. Risk associated with exposure to background conditions should be separated from
site-related risks.
EPA Response: Per EPA guidance, comparison of average concentrations in
groundwater from the monitoring wells to average concentrations in groundwater in
monitoring well MW-109 selected as representative of background was used as a
criterion to select inorganic chemicals of potential concern. While the detection of
pesticides in groundwater may be related to past farming practices, they nonetheless
contribute to potential exposures and risks from potable use of the groundwater.
Although data from MW-109 were included in the dafa set to compute the 95% UCL
concentrations to best characterize average chemical concentrations underlying the Site,
the pesticide chemicals of concern were not detected in groundwater from MW-109.
It should be noted that two Superfund guidance documents (Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund [RAGS], 1989, and Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment,
1992) address background issues in detail. Both documents discuss statistical methods for
evaluating site versus background concentrations, but nowhere is it stated, or implied,
that if site-related concentrations are significantly greater than background, that an
additional step should be taken to discount the exposure contributed from background.
5. Exposure concentrations for certain COCs appear to be elevated by the presence of
COCs sorbed to particulate.
EPA Response: The concentrations represent the total values for the contaminants of
concern. These values include both dissolved and suspended contamination because the
samples were unfiltered. The use of unfiltered groundwater data is consistent with EPA's
risk assessment guidance.
6. COC concentrations used to evaluate groundwater exposures should reflect
conditions at current exposure points and predictive analysis for future conditions.
25
-------
EPA Response: As discussed previously, the approach for performing the groundwater
evaluation was based on the fact that groundwater from private, off-site wells is
impacted. The exposure point concentrations are not based solely on data from
monitoring wells with locations biased to source areas. The overall approach for deriving
exposure point concentrations was to use data from the entire monitoring well network.
over depth (i.e., data from overburden and bedrock wells combined and over time) to
compute average chemical concentrations representative of groundwater underlying the
Site.
The PRP's written comments indicate that the use of on-site monitoring well data to
estimate current risks from groundwater exposures misrepresents actual exposure
conditions. The PRP cites the following passage from RAGS, 1989: "it is most
appropriate to use groundwater sampling data as estimates of exposure concentrations
when the sampling points correspond to exposure points, such as samples from a drinking
water tap." However, the section (6.5.2) from RAGS that contains the aforementioned
quote also states: "most of the time, data from monitoring wells will be used to estimate
chemical concentrations at the exposure point."
Additionally, the PRP also states in its comments that the use of current on-site
monitoring well data to estimate future risks from groundwater exposures is also expected
to misrepresent future exposure conditions. Once again, the PRP cites RAGS, 1989:
"groundwater monitoring data are often of limited use for evaluating long-term exposure
concentrations because they are generally representative of current site conditions and not
long-term trends." This same section (6.5.2) of RAGS also discusses the complexities
inherent in modeling exposure concentrations in groundwater. The final paragraph in
section 6.5.2 states: "if groundwater modeling is not used, current concentrations can be
used to represent future concentrations in groundwater assuming steady-state conditions.
This assumption should be noted in the exposure assessment chapter and in the
uncertainties and conclusions of the risk assessment."
The PRP further comments that the Risk Assessment fails to address the effectiveness of
the existing point-of-use wellhead treatment systems or the interim Well Restriction Area
designated by NJDEP in 1986 (which serves as an institutional control to prevent
potential exposures) on future exposure to affected groundwater. Note, however, that
EPA, in a response to comments on the National Continency Plan (Federal Register,
3/8/90 Page 8709), states: "one specific objective of the baseline risk assessment is to
provide an analysis of baseline risk (i.e., the risks that exist if no remediation or
institutional controls are applied to the site)."
26
-------
D. Technical Comments on the Feasibility Study
1. The PRP commented that
Alternative 2 should be considered a viable alternative;
If the 10 gallons per minute flow of groundwater were to be treated on-site, a
less complicated and costly treatment system may be appropriate:
Other appropriate remedies could be considered for the Site, including
natural attenuation and other existing or newly identified alternatives.
EPA's Response: These comments have already been addressed in various locations of
this Responsiveness Summary. Please see Sections IV.A. and IV.B.I.A for the applicable
responses.
E. Technical Comments on the Groundwater Modeling
1. The PRP comments that the modeling is not sufficient to provide the technical basis
for the selection of the preferred alternative, or to comment on the feasibility of
groundwater extraction and treatment.
EPA Response: As clearly stated in Appendix A of the FS Report, the groundwater
modeling effort was conducted to provide an order of magnitude assessment of the
different remedial alternatives and was not intended as a design tool. The input of the
model was based on pumping tests, slug tests and observed heads from the remedial
investigation, as well as several assumptions about regional groundwater flow. The
parameters of most importance, hydraulic conductivity, anisotropy and aquifer thickness
were based on field observations where available. EPA recognizes the inherent
limitations of such a model and discusses these limitations at length in the appendix.
Even when the limitations and assumptions are considered, the results of the modeling
show that a reasonable number of appropriately placed extraction wells can capture the
groundwater contamination. The exact number, placement and pumping rate of such
wells is not a conclusion which can be drawn from the modeling effort and should be
based on testing and additional modeling during the detailed design.
With regard to the influence of the nearby quarry, this issue has been discussed elsewhere
in this Responsiveness Summary.
27
-------
II. Comments by the Attorney Representing the Owners of the Site
The attorney representing the Site's owners provided numerous written comments, most of
which have been addressed elsewhere in this Responsiveness Summary through responses to
similar comment raised by other parties. Provided below are response to those comments which
EPA believes have not yet been addressed.
1. Many relevant facts and conclusions that should have been made readily available
to the public for review and comment and included in the Proposed Plan were only
included in the RI/FS, and were not provided for consideration and comment by the
public.
EPA Response: Page 3 of the Proposed Plan clearly states that the RI/FS, Proposed Plan
and supporting documentation were available for public review. During the public
comment period. EPA placed the RI/FS in three locations for public comment. These
locations include the Mary Jacobs Memorial Library in Rocky Hill, New Jersey; the
Franklin Public Library in Somerset, New Jersey; and EPA's Superfund Document
Center in New York, New York. Therefore, the public has had the opportunity to review
and comment on all of the relevant facts and conclusions which support EPA's selection
of a remedy for this Site.
2. How can the Agency propose a groundwater remedy without having current
groundwater data?
EPA Response: EPA believes that the groundwater data collected during the RI (the
most recent sampling event being May of 1994) is sufficient for the purposes of remedy
selection. The Agency anticipates that additional groundwater monitoring data will be
collected for the purpose of optimizing the design of the groundwater extraction system.
3. What human exposure to contaminated groundwater at or from the property will
exist if the residences on Laurel Avenue are connected to a public water supply
system?
EPA Response: EPA is charged with the responsibility of preventing risks to human
health and the environment. As described in the March 8,1990 Federal Register (Vol.
55, No. 46, Page 8732), EPA's Superfund program uses EPA's Groundwater Protection
Strategy as guidance when determining the appropriate remediation for contaminated -
groundwater at Superfund sites. The goal of EPA's Superfund approach is to return
usable groundwaters to their beneficial uses within a timeframe that is reaonable given
the particular circumstances of the site. While connection of the residences on Laurel
Avenue will eliminate the risk to these receptors (and the next removal action will
28
-------
presumably remove the remaining source of groundwater contamination), residual
contamination present in the groundwater will continue to pose a potential threat to
receptors, especially if there are current or future residents who choose not to connect to
the water line. Therefore, EPA maintains that active remediation of the groundwater is an
appropriate action for this Site.
4. Does the start-up testing being performed at the Higgins Farm treatment plant
indicate whether the quantity or quality of the groundwater from the Higgins
Disposal Site can be treated?
EPA Response: The start-up testing data that has been collected to date is being
evaluated by EPA to determine the performance of the treatment system with respect to
contamination at Higgins Farm. As described in the Proposed Plan and the FS Report, it
is expected that the Higgins Farm treatment plant will be able to treat the relatively small
flow from Higgins Disposal, with the possibility that carbon contactors may need to be
added to the treatment system.
29
-------
APPENDIX VI
ADDITIONAL COST INFORMATION
-------
TABLE • I
COST ANALYSIS
CAPITAL COSTS
lUun
Oii*.ul
Sm
Op tea
• »i ( wnponcM
EuitcliM Sytura
Itatmnt Sytmrt
NmpSttiiM
KpriM
SccniMf EunmMi
loldint TuA
Fiflkct
rwkan
talftalSTriHyMt
iampMtSiryunl-S
hMUkMiOM u> HifliM' Fin*
li>rn«n » Ifcl*^ I«*1M«»»*_
WMcr Main ExttnkM
ray W«« Coancclio* F«c
taMClMMCMMCCIIOM
'•*•• !>••- 1 i «i
Aknmivc 1
t
t
t
1
t
i
t
t
t
i
$
i
t
t
i
t
i
Maou|t
CwMtncy (50*1 1
TOT Al| f
AkcnMivt]
CKWMf
iMciAvmtt
licMMmSytmn
»
I
t
i
i
t
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
«.x»
Akcnulnt
W-nS^*,
•M Uteri Amwe
f
I"
t
t
t
i
t
t
i
i
t
t
t 2)1.000
t 1.000
1 11.500
I
AtttiMinl
[mint
TIUMCM
Syuan
f 41.150
1
t M.ado
1 Ml.OOO
i 70.000
i 3.000
-
10.000
10.000
•
-
.
4.100
Ahcmuivt WH«
S«wl» M ItiniM
•dlMiclAMMt
t 41. 2M
%
t 40.006
t 691,000
i M.OOO
t 5.000
.
-
5O.OOO
2)5.000
1.000
10.150
AkaMliM4
ElHIMt TfCMKM
SytKim/navitft
WHO la, ll«i«a
t 41.150
1 700.000
J
S
t
1 - '
t
1
t
t
t
»
»
t
1
I 4.200
AhailMntWan
SiWhrlollittlM
•rfLMclAMMt
» 41.250
t 700.000
t
»
t
i
-
-
-
2)5.000
1.000
11.500
Aban*i« -5* • mck lo II fm»
tRMlMf
riCWMM
SyMam
S 41.250
i
t 5.000
t 50.000
t 145.000
» 50.000
t 10.000
f
t
I
t 4.2UO
AtttfMliv* W^la
s>n>irioiiitti' • UUCk W SIP
l:klslwf
IfMHWM
Syncinl
k 4I.1SO
1
t 5,000
t 50.000
1 145.000
t 50.000
( 47.01)0
t 64.000
i 5O 000
t
t
$
t 4.200
AHeiMlivt Wuci
•wnity 10 lliMim
•n4 1 Hud A*»«MC
1 41.150
t
I 5.000
t 50.000
t 145.000
f 5O.OOO
f 47.000
t 64.000
t 50.000
t
I 115.000
t 1.000
1 10.150
t
:
! 4.100 1 1 1J4.JOO
i; l.iwlt iJJ.lio
I U**|« 1IIJM
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ( Vn IS)
rMDonR^bcmM
r^Wwf Manila ing
•kc«krfC«mi««iiMi
:>ra> riM DiKtwt* Smpli«t
:nbM Rcfhcnara
.k«M«4Optmof
fnjMnrn SyHtM MMMCMIKC
rtowih
>AMUttftcc
Shrift *OMV«|
MMTwka
iMctMf
tlMHMM Svftto Dnclwic S»n(lM|
t J9.MO
1
t » 400
»
i
t
t
t
t
i
i
i
1
i
79JOO
21.400
•
l.SOO
•
•
-
.
•
•
T9.1OO
-
».IM
-
110
-
-
-
•
•
9D.4W 1 I.IIS .MO
4M.T15 1 M?.MO
I.4M.II* f I.7M.4W
T4.MO
J.OOO
11.400
5.000
11.000
J.MO
10.000
M.OOO
20.000
( 10.000
I
79.100
5.000
5.000
11.000
•
10.000
20.000
20.000
t 20.000
•
i
t 745.45*
t 171.715
t I.IIUM
79.200
2I.WO
10.000
1.200
95.000
40,000
20.000
-
10.00*
I 11.000
991.750
497.175
I.491.M*
79.200
-
10.000
-
91.000
40.000
20.000
-
20.000
f 11.000
f M5.4M
i 152.715
1 4St.2M
79.200
5.000
21.400
5.000
11.000
1.5OO
10.000
, 20.000
20.000
20.000
15.000
144.000
547.MO
171.100
11I.4M
79.200
. 5.000
5.000
11.000
10.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
15.000
146.000
-
I 456.450
1 lit 115
t i4}4.74*
$ N.200
t 50.W
t 21.400
105.100
15.000
146.000
•
( 701.600 1
t 154.100 1
S I*6!.9M|
/
79.100
5.000
105.100
15.000
146.000
M.4O | i 2H,li» |
P«IC i or i.
-------
TABLE B-l
COST ANALYSIS
ANNUAL Of ERA TtON AND MAINTENANCt COSTS (Vn «-M)
C«tlC
MmtfHtl
• SMMN
"iTHo"
bun*!
^
ANtnMltvt Wiirt
Elhu*
Kr WMct
AMeimine 6"
Syttain
AkclMInt WiKt
1.000
11.400
21.400
11.4
11.4UO
•OTirUnlDhOggSaMiin
irao
TI55o
10.000
TEono
11.000
l.JOO
i.wo
J.500
lS|BCTll>
10.000
M.OOO
M.OOO
KMthn ft*
f M.OOO
10.000
M.OOO
M.IUU
JAM Tola
11.000
IracLut
l«*uoo
t 11.000 I . 11.000 »
L
ntESCNT WORTH ANALYSIS
AWMltaMfCtl
• OH
ICvMlCom
ITRWM W«* W OM CMB fim 1 • !»
PKVM W«* oTOM Cua tin *-»)
| TOTAL rratM W*cM
S
f «0»»JJ
1 111.111
f Tt4,MO
1
f , OOD
f 411.617
I 1J9.1T9
1 MI.HOIt I.400.MO
t Ml.77«li 114.911
I I90.MJ|1 I.05MM
t I.7A1.400II 1. 111.100
S 707.101 1 1 I.1M.9M
S 111,116 If l.tOI.OIl
1 1.491.600 II 41I.MO
t I.IM.T41II I.417.7U
f i.6ll,6M|i 1.1J0.91J
1 111.40011 614.700
S I.MO.lllIt 1.492.076
I l.oil.Ml It- 1.199.614
t t.Okl.900 1
t 1.191.646 1
f 1.119.611 1
S H*JM|t 9N^«|l IJTMMIt IJIMNIf 4,IWtW|l . 44 MM* II 4,l«*^M|f 4.1M.«M|t 4JM.tM|f MM,*** |
1 \ 3 \ t 1 '5- 1 6' 1
-------
LE
A&iht
iy»'
•""
poo
P\P£_ 4 7.*
-------
IRNI
r. ..... Of
a M
X y X
Of=
...x.
.__ ._ _. _ JREL&L^5-. .fe. T^-QOd.
-------
S~3a78£
;*Sx. __£t_ ±vt*MZpatu*tet. •*
; /<***f 7.- 3 ggxsa
-------
MAUQOUV4
PIRJNIE
MALCOLM MM*. MC
fffnn!jS??j*V«.-ji«..«i WH»
CHKD.
~
\
4rytmk*&fc ^^^t>-uhiA^ V\wfe*^
-------
•UMCT
•/jo To
PGOUrr^Kff UST
•55S"
bJOiavJ
^<&Mft-f**frik-
-$•
rsrr^iu?
OIK«CUOM««I>
-------
-------
1RNI
CHKD.frj&4&.ogn.
„
I
' /
WXV
• PfL2- -
2.0 poo
* 4S(P
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Name: Higgins Disposal Site
Location: Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
EPA Region: 2
HRS Score (date): 35.73 (11/86)
Site ID #: NJD053102232
ROD
Date Signed: September 30, 1997
Remedies: 1)Groundwater extraction, conveyance via a pipeline to
the Higgins Farm Superfund Site for treatment and discharge to
surface water. 2)Connection of residents to public water supply.
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Capital cost: $1,763,400 (in 1997 dollars)
Construction Completion: by September 2001.
O & M: $177,200/yr (in 1997 dollars)
Present worth: $3,330,000 (8.0% over 30 years)
Remedial/Enforcement: Remedial
EPA/State/PRP: EPA
Primary contact: James S. Haklar (212) 637-4414
Secondary contact: Lisa Jackson (212) 637-4380
Main PRP(s): Site owners Clifford and Lizbeth Higgins, and
generators including FMC Corporation, Princeton Gamma-Tech
and EG&G Princeton Applied Research Corporation.
PRP Contact: No contact designated.
WASTE
Type: Volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, pesticides,
metals
Medium: Groundwater
Origin: Contamination due to on-site disposal of wastes
containing hazardous substances.
Est. quantity: Not applicable.
------- |