United States
Environmental Protection
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA.ROO R0282006
August 1982
c/ERA
—^_^^^___^^^__^__
Superfund
Record of
Lipari Landfill, NJ
-------
TECHNIcKt REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the revene before completing/
EPA/ROD/R02-82/006
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Lipari Landfill, NJ
7. AUTMOH(S) '
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
01 M Street, S.W.
ashington, D.C. 20460
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
08/03/82
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACT
The Lipari Landfill occupies approximately six acres in the Township of Mantua,
ioucester County, New Jersey. Between 1958 and 1971, the landfill has been used
ir the disposal of household waste, liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes, and
•.her industrial materials. Best estimates indicate that approximately 3 million
illons of liquid wastes have been disposed at the site. Ground water and surface
ter contamination has been the primary concern at the site.
The selected cost-effective alternative inovlves a 360° cutoff wall with a cap
•er a 16-acre area during the first operable unit; the second operable unit will
nvolve installation of ground water collection wells and treatment of the ground
.•ater within the slurry wall. The total cost for design and implementation of
;he cutoff wall and cap in addition to further evaluation related to the collection
and treatment of leachate is estimated to be $1,769,150.
7 KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Record of Decision
Lipari Landfill, NJ
Contaminated? media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants: phenols, benzene, toluene
methylene chloride
It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
None
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thit ptgtl
None
c. COSATi Field.'Group
26
22. P«'CI
EPA r*» J2BO-1 (R«v. 4-77) Previous COITION i» O»»OL«T«
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{Please read Instructions on the reverte before completing;
1. REPORT NO. '2. .
EPA/ROD/R02-82/006
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Lipari Landfill, NJ
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
j.S. Environmental Protection Agency
01 M Street, S.W.
ashington, D.C. 20460
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
5. REPORT DATE
08/03/82
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Reoort
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
*
ABSTRACT
The Lipari Landfill occupies approximately six acres in the Township of Mantua,
loucester County, New Jersey. Between 1958 and 1971, the landfill has been used
-r the disposal of household waste, liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes, and
-.her industrial materials. Best estimates indicate that approximately 3 trillion
illons of liquid wastes have been disposed at the site. Ground water and surface
ter contamination has been the primary concern at the site.
The selected cost-effective alternative inovlves a 360° cutoff wall with a cap
•er a 16-acre area during the first operable unit; the second operable unit will
nvolve installation of ground water collection wells and treatment of the ground
.-ater within the slurry wall. The total cost for design and implementation of
;he cutoff wall and cap in addition to further evaluation related to the collection
and treatment of leachate is estimated to be $1,769,150.
,7 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Record of Decision
Lipari Landfill, NJ
Contaminated" media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants : phenols , benzene , toluene
methylene chloride
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
None
20. SECURITY CLASS (Ttlit pt&l
None
C. COSATi Field. Group
26
32. P"'CI
EPA f*r» 2220-1 (*•». 4-77) Previous COITION is
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site; LiPari Landfill Site, Pitman, New Jersey
Analysis Reviewed; I have reviewed the following documents de-
scribing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alterna-
tive at the LiPari Landfill Site:
- Draft Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Remedial Action
Alternatives LiPari Landfill, Radian Corporation, July
1982
- Draft Environmental Information Document for Remedial
Actions at the LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey, »Radian
Corporation, July 1982
- Preliminary Engineering Study, LiPari Landfill, Pitman,
New Jersey, Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc., May 1982
- Abatement Alternatives - Uncontrolled Chemical Leachate
Discharge from the LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey,
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. October 1980 revised December
1980
- Technical considerations For The Selection Of An Abatement
System At The LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey,
R.E. Wright Associates, September 1981
- Staff summaries and recommendations
-------
-2-
Description of Selected Option;
- Phase I:
Emplacement of a 360" cutoff wall with cap over 16 acres
(.enclosed area would include the six acre landfill and
the 10 acre contaminated area between the landfill
and Chestnut Branch).
- Phase II:
Installation of ground water collection wells (located
both within the contaminated zone and waste body itself)
Treatment of the ground water contained within the slurry
wall.
Declarations; Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and
the National Contingency Plan, I have determined that the con-
tainment and treatment strategy for the LiPari Landfill site is
a cost-effective remedy, and that it effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to, and provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and the environment. I have also determined
that the action being taken is appropriate when balanced against
the need to use Trust Fund money at other sites.
The collection and treatment of the contained contaminated ground
water'ls desirable in order to improve the reliability of the
containment. The associated costs are based upon utilization of
a local publicly owned treatment works (POTW) without signifirant
-------
-3-
pretreatment. The proper evaluation of the treatment system is
being conducted by a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA). I have determined that it is necessary
to proceed with the installation of the slurry wall and cap
concurrent with the final treatability evaluation of the leachate
with the existing treatment process at the POTW. I will make a
future decision on the necessary groundwater pretreatment proc-
esses after completion of the technical analysis and evaluation
which will determine the compatibility of the leachate with the
existing treatment processes of the local POTW.
Rita M. Lavelie
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
AUG 3 1982
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site: LiPari Landfill Site, Pitman, New Jersey
Analysis Reviewed: I have reviewed the following documents de-
scribing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alterna-
tive at the LiPari Landfill Site:
- Draft Cost-Ef fectivejiess Assessment of Remedial Action
Alternatives LiPari Landfill, Radian Corporation, July
1982
- Draft Environmental Information Document for Remedial
Actions at the LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey, Radian
• Corporation, July 1982
- Preliminary Engineering Study, LiPari Landfill, Pitman,
New Jersey, Betz, Converse, Murdoch, Inc., May 1982
- Abatement Alternatives - Uncontrolled Chemical Leachate
Discharge from the LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey,
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. October 1980 revised December
1980
- Technica/1 considerations For The Selection Of An Abatement
System At the LiPari Landfill, Pitman, New Jersey,
R.E. Wright Associates, September 1981
- Sta^fLf summaries and recommendations
-------
-2-
Description of Selected Option;
- Phase I:
Emplacement of a 360* cutoff wall with cap over 16 acres
(enclosed area would include the six acre landfill and
the 10 acre contaminated area between the landfill
and Chestnut Branch).
- Phase II:
Installation of ground water collection wells (located
both within the contaminated zone and waste body itself)
Treatment of the ground water .contained within the slurry
wall.
Declarations; Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and
the National Contingency Plan, I have determined that the con-
tainment and treatment strategy for the LiPari Landfill site is
a cost-effective remedy, and that it effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to, and provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and the environment. I have also determined
that the action being taken is appropriate when balanced against
the need to use Trust Fund money at other sites.
The collection and treatment of the contained contaminated ground
water is desirable in order to improve the reliability of the
containment. The associated costs are based upon utilization of
a local publicly owned treatment works (POTW) without significant
-------
-3-
pretreatment. The proper evaluation of the treatment system is
being conducted by a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA) . I have determined that it is necessary
to proceed with the installation of the slurry wall and cap
concurrent with the final treatability evaluation of the leachate
with the existing treatment process at the POTW. I will make a
future decision on the necessary groundwater pretreatment proc-
esses after completion of the technical analysis and evaluation
which will determine the compatibility of the leachate with the
existing treatment processes of the local POTW.
Rata M. Lavelle
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
' :c-v
-------
LiPari Landfill Remedy Approval
Briefing Sheet
Purpose of this briefing is to obtain AA approval for the
remedy recommended by the Region and the State for the
LiPari Landfill site. A "Record of Decision" has been
prepared to document the approval.
LiPari Landfill occupies approximately six acres. Between
the period 1958 and 1971, the Landfill received household
waste as well as liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes and
other industrial wastes and materials for disposal. Best
estimates indicate approximately 3 million gallons of liquid
wastes have been disposed at the site.
Groundwater and surface water contamination is the primary
concern at LiPari Landfill. Rabbit Run, Chestnut Branch
and Alcyon Lake are shown to be contaminated. Strong vola-
tile chemical odors are evident at the on-site leachate
seeps.
In March 1980, a feasibility study was initiated by R.E.
Wright Associates through Clean Water Act, Section 311
funding. R.E. Wright Associates completed a second report
in September 1981 wherein the previous conclusion was revised,
and a two phase approach was recommended.
Phase I: Slurry wall containment with cap
Phase II: Further evaluation to collect and
treat encapsulated contents.
EPA held a Public Meeting in November 1981 wherein the Agency
made an announcement of the consultant's recommendations,
EPA's Region II concurrence and possible schedule for con-
struction initiation by Spring of 1982.
In January 1982, the consultant to the responsible parties
(Betz, Converse and Murdoch), submitted a new alternative
clean-up plan to the EPA proposal. EPA Region II, EPA/ORD,
and-Jladian, Inc. subsequently initiated a cost-effective
analysers of alternatives, including the responsible party's
alternative and the preparation of an Environmental
Information Document to comply with CERCLA requirements.
-------
The Radian Corporation completed their cost-effectiveness
evaluation on remedial alternatives studied previously
by R.E. Wright, 1980; 1981; and Betz, Converse and Murdoch
1982 as well as a no action alternative. Nine alternatives
were initially considered highly/cost-effective and were
evaluated further in the Environmental Information Document
(July 1982) :
Million
360° Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres ) /Collect 2.0
with we lls /Treat at POTW
Upgradient Deflection wall with Cap (6 acres) 1.2
- Upgradient Deflection wall with Cap (6 acres)/ 1.7
Collect with wells/Treat at POTW
360" Cutoff wall with Cap (6 acres) 1.0
360* Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres) 1.5
360* Cutoff wall with Cap (6 acres)/ Collect 1.4
with wells/Treat at POTW
Collect with wells/Treat at POTW 0.4
Deflection wall/Upgradient Drain/Cap (22 acres) 2.1
Deflection wall/Upgradient Drain/Cap (22 acres)/
Collect with Wells/Treat at POTW 2.5
Further evaluation of these alternatives by EPA staff
at both the Region and Headquarters level, with technical
assistance provided by the zone contractor (Camp, Dresser,
& McKee) and information contained in the Environmental
Information Document, has led to the further elimination
of alternatives as environmentally unacceptable except for
the following three:
-------
Million
360s Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres)/
Collect with wells/treat at POTW 2.0
360" Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres) 1.5
Deflection wall/Upgradient Drain/Cap 22 acres/
Collect with wells/Treat at POTW 2.5
This has led to the selection of one alternative as the most
cost-effective, environmentally sound remedial action. £t
is: The 360* cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres).
The recommended alternative action, however, includes in
addition to the encapsulation of the 16 acre site, active
groundwater control through collection and treatment at
a local POTW to enhance the reliability of the encapsulation.
Additional evaluation to assure the compatibility of the
leachate with the existing treatment processes of the local
POTW need to be conducted prior to proceeding with the second
phase (collection and treatment). The total cost for design
and implementation of the cutoff wall and cap in addition to
further evaluation related to the collection and treatment
of leachate has been estimated at $1,769,150.
Another public meeting was held on July 23, 1982. The
Region described the remedy and addressed concerns raised
by the public.
The "Record of Decision" certifies that:
The selected remedy is the cost-effective remedy
for the site.
Off-site disposal of the leachate is under investi-
gation as a cost-effective approach for that portion
of the project.
Monies are available in the Fund to finance the remedy.
-------
The following actions are required to move the project into
construction:
Prepare Record of Decision Region
Begin Design Phase HSCD/Region
* Preparation of Bid Package
and safety plan for wall
construction
• Complete treatability study
Prepare Action Memo
(for construction) HSCD
- Approve Action Memo AA, OAWER
Prepare State Superfund Contract Region/State
Sign State Superfund Contract AA, OSWER/State
Prepare IAG with Corps HSCD
- Complete and Award Construction
Contract Corps
Begin Construction Corps
-------
Remedial Implementation Alternative Selection
LiPari Landfill Superfund Site
Township of Mantua
Gloucester County, New Jersey
July 30, 1982
History
The LiPari Landfill occupies approximately six acres in the
Township of Mantua, Gloucester County, New Jersey. A stream
known as Chestnut Branch flows in a north-westerly direction
along the northern and northeastern borders of the landfill.
Another stream, Rabbit Run, flows in a northwesterly direction
and borders the western area of the landfill. Rabbit Run enters
Chestnut Branch at a point on the northern border of the landfill.
Chestnut Branch flows into Alcyon Lake approximately 1000 feet
downstream from the landfill.
For 13 years running from 1958 to 1971, the owner, Mr. Nicholas
LiPari, began accepting and disposing of waste at the LiPari
Landfill. The landfill has been inactive since 1971, and a
portion has been and is now used for a fruit orchard. The top
of the landfill rises approximately 40 feet above the Chestnut
Branch. The land surface slopes from an elevation of 134 mean
sea level ("msl") down towards both Rabbit run and Chestnut
Branch where the elevation of this northern border is 120 feet
msl.
Occupied homes are located just across the edge of the northeastern
border of the landfill site on the opposite side of Chestnut Branch.
During the years between 1958 and 1971, the owner, Mr. LiPari,
accepted and disposed of household waste as well as liquid and
semi-solid chemical wastes, and other industrial wastes and materials
\
The hazardous wastes dumped at LiPari Landfill were generated by
Rohm and Hass Company from its Bristol, Pennsylvania plant; Owens-
Illinois, Inc. from its Pitman, New Jersey plant and Owens-Corning
Fiberglas, Inc. from its Barrington, New Jersey plant.
The hazardous wastes dumped at the landfill by the generators and
haulers have percolated into the groundwaters under the landfill.
The wastes^have leached out the embankments of Rabbit Run and
Chestnut Branch further contaminating the surface waters which
run into these respective streams. Hazardous wastes leaching
from the landfill have contaminated the Chestnut Branch, Rabbit
Run and Alcyon Lake and continue to contaminate these bodies of
water.
-------
-2-
Current Status
The LiPari Landfill has been inactive since 1971. The main
routes for contaminant migration from the landfill are ground
water and surface water. Leachate seeps are visible along the
landfill esc'rapement adjacent to Chestnut Branch, east of the
landfill area and along Rabbit Run. Ground water and surface
water contamination has been documented. The presence of BCCE
in fish from Alcyon Lake has also been reported. Local residents
have complained about the presence of odors they attribute to
the landfall.
The cost-effectiveness evaluation prepared by Radian Corporation
(July 1982) reviewed the previous feasibility studies of
R.E. Wright (1980, 1981) and Betz, Converse and Murdoch (1982).
Radian evaluated 32 possible_aJJLernative remedial actions, of
:ermined to be highly cost-effective options:
Estimated Cost
Total
Capital O&M
360° Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres)/
Collect with wells/Treat at POTW
- Upgradient Deflection wall with Cap
(6 acres)
Upgradient Deflection wall with Cap
(6 acres)/Collect with wells/ Treat
at POTW
360* Cutoff wall with Cap (6 acres
360* Cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres)
360° Cutoff wall with Cap (6 acres)/
Collect with wells/Treat at POTW
-Collect with wells/ Treat at POTW
Deflection wall/Upgradient Drain/
Cap (22 acres)
Deflection wall/Upgradient Drain/
Cap (22 acres)/Collect with Wells/
Treat at POTW
1.8m
1.2m
1.4m
985k
1.5m
1.2m
210k
2.1m
2.3m
180k
273k
180k
iaok
273k
-------
-3-
After giving careful consideration to the cost-effectiveness
and Environmental Assessment of each alternative and "evaluating
comments we have received, the Region recommends that the con-
tainment, active groundwater control alternative be implemented
at the site (Attachment A). A letter from the State of New
Jersey concurring with the approach is enclosed as Attachment B.
Considerations leading to the need for collection and treatment
of the encapsulated leachate include:
1. Undefined long term integrity of the slurry wall.
2. Collection of the leachate contents will lower the
internal head/ minimizing infiltration through the
underlying clay and the potential for contamination
of the Kirkwood Aquifier, a drinking water supply.
3. Current cost estimates indicate that the reliability
of the encapsulation action can be enhanced at a
reasonable cost, thereby providing additional assurance
for protection of public health and the environment.
Recommended Alternative
Section 300.68-(j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (FR
31180; July 16, 1982) states that the appropriate extent of
remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection of the
remedial alternative which the agency determinates is cost-effec-
tive and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and
provides adequate protection of public health, welfare or the
environment. Based on our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
of each of the proposed alternatives, the comments received from
the public, our technical consultants, and information/comments
from the State, we have determined that the two phase: Phase I,
360* cutoff wall with Cap (16 acres) encapsulation, in conjunction
with Phase II, collection wells and treatment at the local POTW
strategy identified in the cost-effectiveness report meets the
NCP criteria.
The encapsulation, collection and treatment option entails the
specific activities identified in Attachment C. The cost break-
down for this remedial alternative is listed below.
-------
-4-
Activity . Estimated Costs
Phase I;
Preparation of Detailed
Design $ 100,000
Cutoff wall and cap
Construction $1,589,150
Treatment Feasiblity
StAidy $ 80,000
TOTAL $1,769,150
Phase II:
Collection and treatment
construction $ 209,120
POTW disposal and operation
and maintenance $ 91,250 per year
Proposed Action
We request your approval of the Encapulation, Collection and
Treatment option as the remedial action alternative for LiPari
Landfill. In addition, we request the allocation of $1,769,150
for the Phase I project activities as indicated above which
includes associated engineering costs.
Tentative Schedule 1982
Final opportunity for private
party clean-up mid August
' *-*"*^
State/EPA sign Superfund
State Contract . late August
Complete design of slurry wall
and cap October
-------
-5-
Receive bids, award contract,
and begin construction (Phase I) November
Complete treatability study
(Phase II) December
If you'have any questions, please contact Robert Ogg at (212) 264-
2647.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Remedial Implementation Alternative Selection
LiPari Landfill Superfund Site
Township of Mantua
Gloucester County, New Jersey
EPA has completed the following remedial Superfund activities at
the LiPari Landfill site located in Gloucester County, New
Jersey:
Activities
Date Completed
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Public Meeting
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
of Alternatives
Fence Isolation of the Site
Draft Environmental Information
Document
Public Meeting
October 1980,
December 1980 revised
September 1981
November 1981
July 1982
July 1982
July 1982
July 23, 1982
Region II has reviewed the information presented in each of these
reports and given careful consideration to the comments received
from the State of New Jersey, our technical consultants and the
public. Based on our review, Region II has determined that the
following actions at the site are cost-effective, environmentally
sound, and effectively mitigate and minimize damage to and provide
adequate protection of public health, welfare or the environment.
-------
Action
Phase I
Containment Design
Waste Containment
Construction
Collection and Treatment
Feasibility Study
Estimated Cost
$ 100,000
$1,589,150
•1
$ 80,000
$1,769,150
Date
Jacqueline E. Schafer
Regional Administrator
-------
STATS CF NEW JSSSSY
or s.NviacNME.sTAL /»*CTECT:CN
DIVISION O7 HAZARD MANAGEMENT
orricr or TWK
en »»*
TWCNTOM. N«» J««»«CT
July 16, 1982
Mr. Robert Ogg
USE? A - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, Mew York
10007
Dear Robert:
As you requested during your July L5, 1982, meeting with Anthony
Farro of this Div-.sion, we have reviewed your general conceojL
the final remedia.. action plan for the Lipari landfill. According
to your representation to Mr. Farro, EPA's conceptual plan includes:
1) The construction of a.360 degree cutoff
wall with clay cap over 16 acres (the
enclosed area would include the six acre
landfill and the 10 acre contaminated area
between the Landfill and .Chestnut Branch) .
2) The installation of groundwater collection
wells (located, both within the contaminated
zone and the waste body itself).
3) The transport of contaminated graundwater,
.collected under #2 above after primary
. treatment on site if necessary, co a public
owned treatment works (?OTV) for final
treatment and discharge.
After requesting the'review of this plan by the appropriate, interested
Divisions within the Department, I can report to you that the Department
is in gen_aral agreement with the conceptual plan stated above; provided,
of course, thY POTW involved is satisfied that it has the capacity to
receive and satisfactorily treat, as necessary, the contaminated ground-
water transported to it under item #3 above. Consequently, if we find
that the POTW is not a satisfactory treatment facility for the coataainatad
groundwater, another treatment method will be utilized.
continued . . .
-------
Mr. Robert Ogs ?aga 2
RE: Lipari Landfill 7/15/32
As you know, we expect co execute a Superfine Agreement to izplecer.:
this remedial action by aid-August. Recent discussions betveen~DI?"
and EPA have convinced =e that this is also your agency's intention.
I am confident that, with continued cooperation, we can refine this
conceptual plan into a detailed reredial action expeditiously and
accomplish our goal.
STATION
Diractor
eja
cc: G. Tyler, Asst. Commissioner
J. Vemam
T. Farro
D. Mack
G. King
-------
ATTACHMENT C
360° CUTOFF WALL WITH CLAY CAP [SIXTEEN (16) ACRES];
COLLECT WITH WELLS; TREAT AT POTW
Phase I
Deflection/Encapsulation System
A 360° cutoff wall with clay cap over the landfill area (6-acres)
and the contaminated area (10-acres) between the landfill and
Chestnut Branch to isolate the source of leachate as proposed in
the Wright report (November 1980) involves:
" installation of an impermeable slurry wall
around the entire affected 16-acre area, and
* installation of an impermeable cap over the
16-acre area.
360* Cutoff Wall Over 16-Acres Area. A 360° slurry wall as shown
in Figure 1 will completely isolate the entire area (16-acres)
from the groundwater flow system. The cutoff wall would be in-
stalled vertically from the ground surface downward to a location
2 to 3 feet into the Kirkwood clay. It was estimated that an
average slurry wall depth of 30 feet would be required throughout
most of the affected area, with as much as 50 feet in depth
along western perimeter of the disposal area. The slurry trench
would be installed to achieve a maximum permeability of 1.0 X
10~7 to 1.0 X 10"^ centimeters per second.
Bentonite Clay Cap Over the Landfill. A bentonite clay cap over
the entire area (16-acres) will minimize infiltration of rainwater
into the area. The installation of a cap would include regrading
the 16-acre area, disking bentonite SG-40 at 1.5 Ib/ft2, compaction,
12 inches cover and seeding.
Phase II
Collection System
The well design for this option is based on the following assumption
• „••«-.
• The" cutoff wall and clay cap completely isolate the
system from ground water and surface recharge; and
The cutoff wall is able to withstand a significant
gradient between the ground-water system and the
enclosed area, which is subject to pumping.
-------
-2-
The well field needed to remove the contaminated ground water
from within the 16 acre enclosed area is located throughout
the waste and plume areas.
Ten wells, spaced as shown in Figure 1 could theoretically
remove all of the enclosed ground water within 1 year. This
assumes a .pumping rate of 10 gpm/well continuously. Since there
is no recharge, however, the wells will dewater before the entire
volume can be pumped out. It will be necessary, at some point,
to reduce the pumping rate and maintain maximum yield. The
ability to remove all contaminated fluid and the associated
pumping time needed are exponential functions. It will be cost-
effective -to remove only a portion of the total fluid volume,
perhaps 80%. Based on this, the following pumping rates are
suggested:
First Year: All wells @ 10 gpm/well until drawdown
is near maximum. (Estimate 6-3 months)
Reduce all wells as needed to maintain
maximum yield. (2-3 gpra or less)
Second Year: Continue pumping at reduced rates until
a satisfactory amount of fluid has been
removed.
At 10 gpm/well for 6 months and 3 gpm/well for an additional
year, approximately 86% of the contaminated fluid would be
recovered.
Treatment Systems
The collected leachate is currently planned to be routed to the
Gloucester County Utilities Authority (GCUA) wastewater treatment
plant. This is a 16.5 MGD modified contract stabilization plant.
Average flows currently run at approximately 14-14.5 MGD with
peak flows of 18-19 MGD (GCUA, May 18, 1981). The predicted
leachate pumping rates are relatively low (28,000 - 144,000
gal/day). The hydraulic capacity of the plant and the collection
system are adequate for treatment of the leachate. The main
trunk line is designed for 24.1 MGD. In addition, GCUA is
planningJto expand plant capacity in the near future (GCUA, May
17, 1981"). -Operational parameters and performance data for the
GCUA are summarized in Table 3-6. A sewer line tie-in across
Chestnut Branch would be necessary.
-------
-3-
Approximately 10-12% of the wastewater flow at GCUA is from
industrial contribution with 8% contributed by Shell Chemocal
Company (GCUA, May 18, 1981). Preliminary contacts with the
plant general manager and operations manager indicate that the
plant can handle this waste stream; however, GCUA will require a
certified laboratory report characterizing the leachate and will
perform their own laboratory tests to determine the potential
effects of the wastes on the plant.
The predicted performance of the GCUA plant in treating LiPari
leachate is presented in Table 3-7. influent concentrations are
based on combining the GCUA average flow of 14.5 MGD with the
predicted high leachate pumping rate. Removal efficiencies were
estimated from plant data for the conventional pollutants and a
review of the literature for organic species. A full scale
treatability study is currently underway to assure the compatibility
of the leachate to the treatment system.
-------
WLSS2HAI2S nS
Qqerattlanal Parasasars
Average flew - 14. j iiCD
Tocal aeracicn casJc voiuaa • 2.76 z 10s gallons
Total Hisad Liquor 7olacila Suaoasdad Solida 02.7SS) uadar aaraclaa -
42,000 - 65,000 Ib
ags •» 5-7
?arforaanea Dasa
lafluear fag/L) Sffluear fag/L)
160 - 200 . 8-15.
350-400 ' . . 20-50
t
200 - 220 - 6-12
-------
Parameter
HOD
»:«»
''lienol
lls-2-(chloro-etl,yl)
ether
lo-2- (chloro-ethoKy)
• mcthntie
'Mizcne '
'Incite
'•yl Benzene
Uiylene Chloride
Z-DJcliloroethone
"noed on mass balance: (J
• - -i_
^••centratlon of ^ganlc B
<;««orences: 1) Stamondla
2) Patterson
3) Tabok, 19
4) CCMIA, May
rrr====rz=r — — _
Influent l/ „ ===r=^-
(-i?L) (^7TTm^~-^~r~~ i
~ __^__^^___ (,17d^r RJvnI
203 - 228 i» n, ~
Z/H 10.2 - 11.4
W-4U .».!.„.,
90
••«--«3 «.«o,-o.oo6 ..„_..„ ^
«•"-••« ...„-..!„ 3,,.2105 8o
•'•» - ».'» ».„„ . 1-50 2Jg m
°-°2-0-04 "'""--o-ou a.,,.,,,. ,„
••» - -.4, 0.0,3 . 0.003 , , _ w ^
-••«-.« o.oo,.0.ou 0.36_1M M
'•«-•» 0-007, 0,36 0,3. ,,6 ,o
••--.» ..«-..« ,.„.„.„ ?o '
^"^^^^^^mf^^
-- i» «. innuent „„„ „.._„ to be o
. 1979
, 1981
01
10, 1981
L"'
M
— -^^^^ — — - in
M
Ir i
Reference 2/ M
• *!
r^
4 .
4
1, 2, 3
2, 3
, 1
2, 3
2. 3
3
2, 3
2
2
i —
/
<
-------
S
T4Q
-re ACT*
CUtotf Wall
Iccaflcrr
Qlffuaa- Laacttat* Seeca^a
20(1
CoHactrwit&. Wells/ Traat air
-------
t3tt
IS ACT*
CUtoffWaJf
Frapcsa*! r
5 Weil Lccat: err
2CC
4CQ
CdHeefr with Wells/Treat at POTW
------- |