United States
- Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-84/005
June 1984
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Krysowaty Farm Site, NJ
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/ROD/R02-84/005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION:
Krysowaty Farm Site, NJ
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
j Washington, D.C.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
06/20/84
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Krysowaty farm is located on a 42-acre tract of land in Hillsborough Township,
New Jersey. The disposal of chemical wastes at the site was reported to have occurred
between 1965 and 1970. An estimated 500 drums of paint and dye wastes were dumped,
crushed and buried at the site. In addition to drums, other wastes including demo-
lition debris, tires, automobiles, bulk waste, solvents, waste sludge and other
materials were disposed at the site.
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site is excavation and
off-site disposal of contaminated soils and wastes at a facility approved for PCBs and
monitoring of existing on-site wells semi-annually for a period of 5 years. A
permanent alternative'water supply will also be provided to potentially affected
residences as part of the remedial action. The capital cost for the selected alterna-
tive is $2,164,014 'and the O&M costs for the project, which include water usage cost
(20 year present worth) and post closure envirionmental monitoring, are $145,698.
Key Words: Alternate Water Supply, Ground Water Contamination, Ground Water
Monitoring, Cost/Benefit, Excavation, Remnant' Contamination,
Capping, Ground Water Monitoring, PCBs, TSCA Requirements
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Croup
Record of Decision: ?
Krysowaty Farm Site, NJ
Contaminated media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants: paint, dye, solvents,
pesticides, inorganics
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
None
21. NO. OF PAGES
48
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
None
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
ROD BRIEFING ISSUES
Site; Krysowaty Farm, Hillsborough, New Jersey
<*
Region; II
AA, OSWER
Briefing Date; June 15, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Krysowaty farm is located on a 42-acre tract of land in
Hillsborough Township, New Jersey. The disposal of chemical wastes at
the site was reported to have occurred between 1965 and 1970. An esti-
mated 500 drums of paint and dye wastes were dumped, crushed and burjud
at the site. In addition to drums, other wastes including demolition
debris, tires, automobiles, bulk waste, solvents, waste sludge and
other materials were disposed at the site.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site is
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and wastes at a
facility approved for PCBs and monitoring of existing on-site wells
semi-annually for a period of 5 years. A permanent alternative water
supply will also be provided to potentially affected residences as paru
of the remedial action. The capital cost for the selected alternative
is $2,164,014 and the O&M costs for the project, which include water
usage cost (20-year present worth) and post closure environmental
monitoring, are $145,698.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
1. Although monitoring did not indicate . Alternate
that existing water supply wells were Water Supply
contaminated at this time, the remedy . Ground Water
included the provision of an alternative Contamination
water supply for ground water uses . Ground Water.
potentially affected by migration of Monitoring
waste from the site. Fractured bedrock
conditions make it difficult or impos-
sible to track movement of contami-
nation toward water supply wells.
While water supply wells were to be
sampled periodically, there was a
potential for episodes of contami-
nation to escape detection, resulting
in risks to water users. Upgrading
-1-
-------
Krysowaty Farm, New Jersey
June 15, 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
the monitoring system would mitigate,
but not eliminate, the possibility
that contamination would be detected.
In addition, installation of a water
supply system was estimated to be
slightly less expensive than an
upgraded monitoring effort; if co,n-
tamination were actually detected,
this cost difference would increase.
Extension of the existing municipal
water supply system and service con-
nections to affected residents is the
most reliable and cost-effective
source of an alternate water supply.
The cost differential between a 6-inch
water line, which will meet State
requirements, and an 8-inch water
line, which may be required by the
water purveyor, will not be Federally
funded.
There is no assurance that all contami-
nation will be excavated. Remnant
contamination could have migrated into
the 30 feet of fractured bedrock under-
lying the site. Excavation will
include the first 6 inches of bedrock
which is practical with common excava-
tion equipment. Deeper excavation
would become technically impractical
and marginal costs would rapidly
increase with respect to benefits from
additional contaminant removal. Also,
deeper excavation could potentially
open fissures and compound problems
associated with any remnant contami-
nation. Potential problems due to
remnant contamination will be
addressed by ground water monitoring
at the site.
KEY WORDS
Alternate Water Supply
Cost/Benefit
Excavation
Remnant Contamination
-2-
-------
Krysowaty Farm, New Jersey
June 15f 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS * KEY WORDS
4. Possible on-site remedies, which . Capping
included capping in place and construe- . Ground Water Monitoring
tion of an on-site landfill, were . PCBs
rejected due to locational factors. . TSCA Requirements
These factors include difficulty of
monitoring migration of contaminated
ground water in fractured bedrock, and
the fact that the site was inconsis-
tent with TSCA requirements for
disposal of PCB-containing wastes.
-3-
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site
Krysowaty Farm, Hillsborough, New Jersey
Documented Reviewed
I am basing my decision on the following documents describing
the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for
the Krysowaty site:
- Krysowaty Farm Remedial Investigation Report and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS, March 1984)
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Description of Selected Remedy
- Excavation and removal of waste disposal area
- Transport and disposal of waste to approved hazardous waste
disposal facility
- Provision of permanent alternative water supply for
potentially affected residences
- Monitor onsite wells, semi-annually, for five year period
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have detrmined that the
excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil and waste,
provision of a permanent alternative water supply for affected
residences, monitioring of onsite wells, and sampling of offsite
soils at the Krysowaty Farm site is a cost-effective remedy and
provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, and
the environment. The State of New Jersey has been consulted and
agrees with the approved remedy.
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for use at other sites. In addition, the off site trans-
port, storage, destruction, treatment, or secure disposition is
more cost-effective than other remedial action, and is necessary
to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.
/'Date' 7 Lee M. Thomas, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Krysowaty Farm Site
Hillsborough, New Jersey
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Krysowaty Farm site is located on a 42-acre tract of
land in Hillsborough Township, Somerset County, New
Jersey, near the Village of Three Bridges (Figure 1-1).
The property consists of a northeasterly ridge, with
stream valleys to the northwest and southeast. The site
is located just south of the South Branch of the Raritan
River in Hillsborough Township, in the extreme western
section of Somerset County. The property is identified
as Block 5, Lot 7 on local tax maps. Elevations at the
site range from approximately 130 to 200 feet above mean
sea level. Slopes range from 7 to 20 percent.
The disposal area (approximately 0.5 acres) appears to
be a partly filled, semi-perennial stream channel ravine
situated at approximately 74847'00" west longitude and
40°30'00" north latitude. This stream drains into the
South Branch of the Raritan River. Primary land use of
adjacent property is agricultural and residential.
Scattered woodlots, an oval-shaped marsh/meadow area,
corn fields and pastureland are located immediately
downslope of the site.
The nearest residences are located along Three Bridges
Road, which parallels the South Branch" of the Raritan
River. The closest of these residences is located
approximately 900 feet to the northeast of the site
(Figure 1-2). Occupants of more than 50 residences,
which are within 2500 feet of the site, depend on private
wells of varying depths and construction for their
potable water supplies. Currently, twelve residences
north of the site are supplied with bottled water because
of the possibility of contamination from the site.
The Krysowaty Farm site is located in the Triassic
Lowlands section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Bedrock at the site is the Triassic Brunswick Formation,
which is covered by a thin mantle consisting of less
than six feet of red silt and decomposed siltstone. Local
topography is strongly influenced by rock structure.
Stream valleys tend to be linear and parallel the strike
of the rocks. Valleys and hills are especially well-
developed along northeasterly trends. Fracture orientation
causes a secondary valley development oriented northwest.
Generally, the Brunswick Formation dips northwestward and
derives its permeability from fractures.
-------
-2-
Groundwater flow occurs along the fractures or joint faces
Which have been correlated to well yeilds in the area.
Packer testing has shown that permeabilities at the site are
moderate to very low, generally less than 10~5 cm/sec. Packer
tests, visual inspection of rock cores, and hydrogeologic
observations during drilling at the site indicate that the
bulk of the formation examined comprises a single muIticomponent
groundwater flow system. Groundwater is strongly influenced
by horizontal flow at near-surface depths. A small component
of this shallow system flows into a deep regime. This deeper
regime is predominantly influenced by vertical flow in its
upper portion. Near the base of the deeper aquifer, the
horizontal component becomes more significant.
An estimated 500 drums of paint and dye wastes and unknown
materials were allegedly dumped, crushed and buried at the
site. The State of New Jersey confirmed the presence of
hazardous waste during a test pit excavation and sampling of
approximately 20 to 30 crushed metal drums. In addition to
drums, other wastes including demolition debris, tires,
automobiles, bulk waste, solvents, waste sludge and other
material were disposed at the site.
SITE HISTORY
The farm was owned by the Krysowaty family of Hillsborough
for about 60 years, until the death of Mr. William Krysowaty
in 1976. The property is currently owned by Mr. Nicholas
DiGeorgia of Franklin Township, who is planning to use the
land for a tree nursery.
During the period of July 1977 through November 1979, several
medical complaints (e.g. contact dermititis, dizziness, and
nausea during bathing, miscarriages, neurological disorders)
relating to well water quality were registered by residents
in the area of the site (Three Bridges Road). All complaints
were registered to the Town Health Department independently,
without prior knowledge of the existence of the disposal site.
Eyewitness accounts and an affidavit alleged the specific
location and nature of dumping activities on the Krysowaty
Farm site. The disposal of chemical wastes at the site was
reported to have occurred between 1965 and 1970. Estimates
are that 500 drums and unknown volumes of waste solvents and
sludges were involved. Other materials are also buried and
partially exposed at the site. Disposal activities, involving
the deposition and mechanical crushing of drummed material,
took place without the knowledge of regulatory authorities.
-------
-3-
A test pit excavation by the State of New Jersey uncovered
20 to 30 rusted and crushed drums with adjacent soil
contamination. A composite sample of the drummed waste
residue was obtained and analyzed. A list of the major
organic and inorganic chemicals detected in the composite
sample from the excavation, leachate and on-site shallow
wells are presented in Table 3-1.
Following the verification of hazardous materials disposal,
the Township of Hillsborough commissioned a consultant
(Betz, Converse and Murdock) to undertake a hydrogeologic
study of the Krysowaty Farm site. Work commenced on the
drilling of groundwater monitoring wells onsite during
February 1982. According to the Township Health Officer,
on February 26, 1982, the consultant notified the Township
that they had confirmed that toxic wastes from the site
had entered the groundwater system which flowed directly
toward the private well supplies of 12 homes which lie
between the dump site and the nearby river (South Branch
of the Raritan) . On February 27, 1982, the Township, in
consultation with the State of New Jersey, issued a drinking
water advisory to discourage the use of private well water
for drinking, cooking and bathing purposes. The Township
established a temporary alternate supply of (bottled)
water for 12 residents along Three Bridges Road as a pre-
cautionary measure until additional data could be collected.
In April 1982, the consultant issued a report containing,
in part, the following conclusions:
"hazardous chemical waste, including benzidine, benzene,
hexacholorbenzene and other known or suspected carcinogens
are buried at the site; hazardous waste constituents...
are being released from the disposal site; groundwater
and surface water quality is being degraded by hazardous
waste constituents; a plume of contaminated groundwater
is travelling in rock fractures in a generally north to
northeast direction toward residences along Three Bridges
Road; heavy metals are present in the residential well
water samples obtained by NJDEP and the presence of
organic compounds is suspected..."
Several of the consultant's preliminary findings could not
be replicated by subsequent EPA sampling. However, due to
the complexity of the site and the toxic nature of the wastes
found at the site, these preliminary assessments/investigations
were utilized to place the Krysowaty Farm Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL).
-------
-4-
In December 1982, EPA and the State of New jersey signed a
State Superfund Contract to undertake a remedial investigation
and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Krysowaty Farm Site. Since
March 1983, the State of New Jersey has monitored 13 selected
residential wells on a quarterly basis. Residents in twelve
homes downgradient of the site have been receiving bottled
water since February 1982.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Characterization and Extent of Buried Waste Materials;
Drums, bulk chemicals, refuse, automobiles, and other wastes
were identified at the site. The State of New Jersey excavated
a test pit in the ravine disposal area and uncovered 20 to 30
drums from which they collected a composite waste sample.
Following is a summary of contaminants found in the composite
drum sample (NJDEP, 1981):
Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Benzidine
Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
4-Bromophenol phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Bis( 2-chloroethoxy)ether
Pentachlorophenol
4,4-DDE
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Naphthalene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Table 3-1 depicts chemical constituents encountered during
various investigations at the site as well as their respective
concentrations. Based on topographic analysis, power auger
borings and magnetometer survey, the extent of buried waste
material is estimated to be approximately 0.5 acres and the
average thickness of the material is estimated at 5 feet. The
resulting in-place volume of waste material is approximately
4000 cubic yards.
The waste materials in the disposal area contain contaminants
(e.g. PCBs, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
ethylbenzene, xylene, benzidine, pentachlorophenol, chlorobenzene)
that are associated with significant health risks as determined
by the consultant's evaluation of their respective toxicity,
concentrations encountered, and probability for exposure
(RI/FS, March 1984). Specifically, these contaminants pose a
threat to the public by direct contact and by virtue of the
contaminants' contact with the groundwater which serves as a
local water supply source.
-------
-5-
Characterization and Extent of Contaminated Soil and Sediments:
Figure 3-4 and 3-5 graphically portray the concentration range
for some of the chemicals found in the soils sediments, surface
water, and groundwater during the RI/FS (March 1984) at the
Krysowaty Farm Site.
A variety of organic compounds were identified in soil and
sediment on-site during the remedial investigation RI/FS
(March 1984). There was not a consistent pattern of distribution
of the contaminants; each compound appeared to have a unique
distribution in the soil and sediment. Approximately 40
different compounds were identified. Compounds detected in
three or more samples were:
"Base Neutral Compounds
-n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
-bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
-fluoranthene
-benzo(a)anthracene
-benzo(a)pyrene
-benzo(b) fluoranthene
-benzo(k) fluoranthene
-chrysene
-phenanthrene
-pyrene
"Volatiles
-tetrachloroethene
-ethylbenzene
-toluene
-methylene chloride
"Pesticides
°Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
-Aroclor - 1221 and 1260
Samples located in the stream valley near the waste contained
base-neutral compounds in addition to those listed above in
concentrations in excess of 40 parts per million, and PCB 1221
concentrations in excess of 300 ppm. Base-neutral compounds
were found (3317 ppb) in a sediment sample taken at the
furthest downgradient sample location.
-------
-6-
Although concentrations of individual compounds do not show
discernible patterns, the concentrations of Hazardous Substance
List (HSL) compounds do give an indication of the extent of
contamination.
The distribution of the organics in soil and sediments indicates
an elevated concentration adjacent to the suspected waste area.
Progressing topographically downslope, contamination by
organics decreases away from this waste source. The subtle
trend of decreasing concentration away from the buried materials
is probably the result of transport by surface runoff and
shallow groundwater flow.
Selected inorganic parameters in soil and sediments are also
the highest from samples near the suspected waste source.
Their distribution away from the source may be a result of
normal background distribution and not of contaminant migration.
It can be estimated that 1.3 acres of soil and sediment may be
affected by contamination immediately downslope of the burial
site. The contaminants in these downgradient soils off site
do not pose a risk to public health based upon the consultant's
evaluation of their respective carcinogenicity, toxicity,
concentrations encountered, and probability of exposure
(RI/FS, March 1984) .
Geology and Hydrogeology;
Bedrock at the site is the Triassic Brunswick Formation,
which is predominantly a reddish-brown, fractured, vuggy
siltstone. The upper 20-30 feet has a higher frequency of
fracturing than the lower unit. The rocks strike approximately
N55°E, and dip 7 to 15°NW. Major fracture orientations are
N45°E and N50°W. The residual soil is a red silt, which is
less than 6 feet thick (Figure 3-10).
The Brunswick Formation derives its permeability predominantly
from fractures. Groundwater flow occurs along these fractures
or joint faces. Packer testing has shown that permeabilities
are moderate to very low, ranging from 10~4 to 10~8 cm/sec,
and are generally less than 10~5 cm/sec. Packer tests, visual
inspection of rock cores, and hydrogeologic observations during
drilling indicate that the bulk of the formation examined
comprises a single, multicomponent groundwater flow system.
A small component of this shallow system flows into a deeper
regime. This deeper regime is predominantly influenced by
vertical flow in its upper portion. Near the base of the
deeper aquifer, the horizontal component becomes more significant
-------
-7-
In the vicinity of the wastes, the top of the water table was
within the waste or very near this elevation during the site
investigation. Seasonal fluctuation will cause the water
table to rise during wet periods; thereby permitting contact
of the waste with the water table. Seeps at the base of the
wastes may be discharge points for the shallow portion of the
groundwater system. The water table slopes towards the seeps
and has a configuration similar to the surface topography.
Very shallow groundwater flows predominantly parallel to the
surface drainage, until it reaches the seeps or other discharge
points. A small component of this shallow groundwater system
flows vertically into the deeper groundwater flow system. Groondl-
water flow in this system is nearly vertical and downward with a
slight northward component (Figure 3-14). This occurrence was
indicated by comparison of the water levels in wells 901,
904 and 905, which are all finished at approximately 75 feet
of elevation. The magnitude of the vertical gradient decreases
at depth, so that groundwater flow becomes more nearly
horizontal. Such a change in hydraulic gradient would be
necessary for the deep groundwater to discharge at the Raritan
River. Based on the low elevations at the river, this is the
most likely point of groundwater discharge. The Raritan is
also the destination for regional surface water drainage.
The shallow and deep groundwater flow systems described above
are not isolated, but interact with one another. A small
quantity of the water in the shallow system, directly under
the site, enters the deep system. Some of the water which
discharges from the shallow system at the seep reinfiltrates
and enters the deep system. Shallow groundwater is determined
to be contaminated, as evidenced by elevated concentrations
of several organics in the analyses of leachates and shallow
wells. Toluene and carbon tetrachloride are obvious
contaminants, with concentrations up to 750,000 ppb.
Ethylbenzene and xylene (total) are present in concentrations
up to 13,250 and 3,500 ppb, respectively. Some results are showm
in Table 3-1, others are included in Appendix C (RI/FS, March
1984).
Conductivity anomalies were detected by Electromagnetic Profile
(BMP) studies at all depth intervals, 0-25, 0-50, and 0-100
feet. Near-surface anomalies and water levels indicate shallow
groundwater movement eastward toward the marsh area. Anomalies
at deeper zones may suggest a subtle shift toward the west
and northwest as indicated by analysis of groundwater in
boring W-1, which is located within this boundary. Deep
groundwater flow is moving northwestward toward existing
-------
-8-
residences. There are 50 residences within 2500 feet of the
site which are dependent upon private wells utilizing the
deep groundwater system for their potable water. It was
determined that 22 homes could potentially be affected by
contaminated groundwater migration to the residential wells
because of their location downgradient from the site.
Based on testing performed during the remedial investigation,
residential wells were not found to be contaminated by organic
compounds, although low levels of contamination have been
found in some groundwater monitoring wells located immediately
offsite. A health risk assessment performed by the consultant
indicates that, under the present circumstances, there would
be no adverse health effects on the local population from the
use of the local aquifer if no changes in groundwater quality
were to occur. Nevertheless, twelve (of the twenty-two
potentially affected) residences are currently supplied
bottled water under a Township drinking water advisory as a
precautionary measure.
Characterization and Extent of Surface Water Contamination:
Some surface water contamination has been detected. This
data indicates the contamination is limited to the site itself
and the intermittent stream bed in the ravine downgradient.
As discussed in the health risk assessment (RI/FS, March 1984),
at the observed concentrations and expected exposure rates,
the contamination does not pose any hazard to the public or
wildlife. It is not known whether the contaminant levels
encountered during the remedial investigation represent
a worst case situation because little is known about the
type and quantity of waste disposed or the present condition
of containers which may hold waste. If the wastes remain, a
potential exists that the surface waters will transport
contaminants to the marsh area downgradient and the Raritan
River.
-------
-9-
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement activity is not anticipated in the near future
for the Krysowaty Farm Site. The results of the investigation
into potentially responsible parties are as follows:
Owner at time of disposal:
The alleged dumping occurred in 1965-1970. The owner of the
property at the time and the person responsible for the dumping,
William Krysowaty, is deceased. His estate was liquidated; no
assets are available from the estate to pay for clean-up.
Current Owner:
The current owner purchased the property at its assessed value
through an estate sale. He had no knowledge of the dumping at
the time of purchase. The property currently has little, if
any, value; remedial action will simply return it to its assessed!
value.
Generators and Transporters:
At this time, no generators or transporters have been identified.
Investigation into the source of the material is continuing for
the purposes of possible cost recovery. It is questionable that
these efforts will be successful, since the person responsible
for the dumping is deceased and there are no written records
whatsoever.
-------
-10-
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
During the feasibility study, alternatives were developed in
order to meet a set of site-specific remedial action objectives.
These objectives were:
°To ensure public health and safety
°To protect the quality of local ground and surface water
°To preserve local land use by preventing the migration of
contaminants to nearby agricultural and residential lands
°To ensure that the remedial actions are technically feasible
and cost-effective.
A preliminary list of remedial technologies was developed
based on the assesssment of site conditions (Table 4-1).
These technologies were run through an initial screening using
technical feasibility, costs, and environmental/public health
impacts as criteria for evaluation (Ri/FS, March 1984).
Following the initial screening, chemical treatment of soil,
solidification, insitu treatment and bioreclamation were
removed from further consideration due primarily to high cost,
unproven technology status and waste compatability problems.
Whereas similiar problems were considered complicating factors
for groundwater control and treatment technologies, geologic
conditions at the site were considered the most limiting
factors discouraging the application of these technologies at
the Krysowaty Farm site. The fractured bedrock geology of
the Brunswick Formation does not provide a reliable foundation
to isolate the waste from the environment through the use of
grout curtains or slurry walls. Furthermore, because much of
the bedrock underlying the site is relatively impermeable,
except for open fractures, technologies employing active
groundwater pumping were considered impractical since there
is no assurance that all contaminated groundwater could be
affected by pumping.
After completion of the initial screening of technologies, a
detailed evaluation of technologies was conducted in order to
recommend a cost-effective alternative.
-------
-11-
The following six remedial action alternatives were developed
for a more detailed analysis of effectiveness and cost
measures:
1. No Action
2. Cap waste - collect and treat groundwater - monitor
groundwater
3. Excavate waste - dispose by incineration - monitor
groundwater
4. Excavate waste - dispose onsite - monitor groundwater
5. Excavate waste - dispose offsite - monitor groundwater
6. Excavate waste - dispose offsite - alternate water supply-
monitor groundwater
The cost-effective alternative is the lowest cost alternative
that is technologically feasible and reliable and which
effectively mitigates or minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the
environment. The candidate technologies were rated according
to several measures of effectiveness and cost.
The critical components of effectiveness measures were
determined to be:
o Technology Status
o Risk and Effect of Failure
o Level of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable
o Ability to Minimize Community Impacts
o Ability to Meet Relevant Public Health & Environmental Criteria
o Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements
o Time required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation
o Acceptability of Land Use After Action
The following evaluation of the six remedial action alternatives
will consider the effectiveness of each alternative to meet
these critical components.
According to the National Contingency Plan, a total cost
estimate for remedial action must include both construction
and annual operation and maintenance costs. Construction
costs and operation and maintenance cost were estimated for
the alternatives under consideration (Table 5-1). For operating
and maintenance cost, a "present value" analysis was used to
convert the annual costs to an equivalent single value.
Operation and maintenance costs were considered over a 20 year
period; a 10 percent discount rate and 0 percent inflation
rate were assumed.
-------
-12-
Altemative 11; the "No Action" alternative was eliminated.
Contamination has been demonstrated onsite and immediately
offsite. Direct contact with exposed drums and contaminated
onsite soil presents a public health hazard because the site
is accessible.
It has been demonstrated that the waste in the disposal area
is in contact with the groundwater at least seasonally,
therefore, the transport of contaminants to the shallow
groundwater system would continue if no action is taken.
Simarily, contaminants discharging at the seep located at
the bottom of the disposal fill area, as well as surface
runoff, can result in transport of contamination offsite
through farm and pasture lands into an adjacent watercourse,
the Raritan River. A health assessment (RI/FS, March 1984)
of the types and concentrations of waste found at the site
reveals a significant health threat is posed by exposure to
the waste through direct contact. Whereas a lesser health
threat is posed by the types and levels of contamination
identified downgradient of the disposal area, the potential
would remain for discharge of more hazardous materials from
the disposal area if no action is taken. It is not known
whether the contaminant levels encountered during the remedial
investigation represent a worst case situation because little
is known about the type and quantity of waste disposed or
the present condition of containers which may hold waste.
The remaining mitigation alternatives under consideration for
the Krysowaty Farm site involve both onsite and offsite
actions. Onsite remedial action is required to address the
hazards (i.e. direct contact and contact with the local drinking
water aquifer posed by wastes in the disposal area). Offsite
action is required to: 1) fulfill the need for post-closure
monitoring to address the migration of any fugitive contamination
plume generated during, or remaining after, onsite work is
completed, and 2) ensure that the 22 potentially affected
residences immediately downgradient of the site, including
the 12 which are currently provided with an alternative
(bottled) water supply under a drinking water advisory issued
by the Township and the State of New Jersey, be provided with
a potable water source.
Alternative #2; the "Cap waste-collect and treat groundwater-
monitor groundwater" alternative involves: 1) the construction
of a French drain system immediately downgradient of the
disposal area to: a) lower the water table and thereby prevent
its contact with the wastes, b) collect runoff to prevent
migration of contaminants c) treat collected ground and
surface water; 2) Cap the entire disposal area (0.5 acres) with
fill and synthetic liner; and 3) monitor onsite wells and
offsite residential well to track remnant contaminant migration
and/or ensure adequate drinking water quality.
-------
-13-
The various technologies used in the development of this
alternative are well established and are considered common
engineering practices. However, a failure (e.g. inadequate
interface with fractures bearing contaminants) of the system
could result in the migration of contaminants into the area
surface waters and groundwater. Although the chance of fail-
ure is small, the environmental and health risks are of concern
because of site conditions which are unfavorable to siting a
landfill at this location. In particular, the fractured
bedrock will make a failure difficult to detect.
Failure of the cap could result from erosion due to high
topographic relief at site. Such a failure could result in
the release of contaminated groundwater or could permit the
instrusion of surface water into the capped areas and thus
allow the vertical flow of contaminants into the groundwater.
PCB's were found in several soil and sediment samples taken
at, and downslope of, the site. Concentrations ranged up
to 340 ppm. PCB wastes are regulated under the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA). Many of the other substances
found at the site are regulated under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Although most of con-
taminated material at the site does not contain PCB's, the
precise location of PCB disposal is not known. Separation
of the PCB material from the other wastes at this site would
require such extensive sampling that it would be impractical.
Limited excavation and disposal of the PCB material was,
therefore, not considered. Since the landfill siting requirements
under TSCA are more stringent than those under RCRA, the
in-place alternatives will be evaluated with respect to TSCA
requi rements.
Allowing the dump site to remain in-place would violate the
spirit of several technical siting requirements for PCB
landfills given in 40 CFR Section 761.75(b). The regulations
require that a landfill shall be located in thick, rela-
tively impermeable formations such as large area clay pans.
Groundwater recharge areas should be avoided and there should
be no hydraulic connection between the site and standing or
flowing surface water. The bottom of the liner or in-place
soil barrier should be at least 50 feet from the historical
high water table. In addition, the site should be located in
an area of low to moderate relief to minimize the potential
for erosion. Moreover, PCB wastes should be segregated from
organic solvents in the disposal area. All of these techni-
cal requirements would be violated by implementation of an
in-place alternative at the Krysowaty Farm site.
-------
-14-
The threat of the wastes remaining on the site and the potent-
ial of its migration to public drinking water supplies would
cause a high degree of community concern. There is strong
pressure at the state and local level to clean up the site.
An in-place alternative would be strongly protested.
The design and implementation of a groundwater monitoring
program is proposed to partially address this offsite concern
by tracking any migration of groundwater contaminants from
the site. This program would involve the utilization of
existing (or establishment of a new system of) monitoring wells
to detect any contaminant plume in the groundwater and assure
the health of nearby residents. Several monitoring sceneries
were examined in the RI/FS report and are highlighted in
Table 5-2. The options presented involve the sampling of
residential wells and existing onsite monitoring wells. The
costs associated with these options, for various monitoring
periods were also examined (Tables 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4).
Based on existing information, a program to sample 8 existing
monitoring wells and 22 residential drinking water supplies
lying within the area northeast to west-northwest of the site
was proposed. The sampling frequency would initially be monthly
for 6 months during remedial onsite activities and then
quarterly for twenty years thereafter. The samples would be
analyzed for the 129 priority pollutants.
The probability of failure of this monitoring program is
directly dependent upon the number of wells in the monitoring
network, since the possibility of not detecting a contaminant
plume in fractured rock increases as the area between well
borings increases. The frequency of sampling in the
fractured Brunswick Formation will also affect the reliability
of any monitoring program because of the way groundwater
passes through the fractures intermittantly.
Should this system fail to detect a contaminant plume and
should the plume reach residential wells downgradient, signif-
icant health risks may result.
The proposed monitoring will neither clean up any groundwater
contamination nor isolate the residents from contacting it.
The monitoring program can only serve as a warning system for
contaminant migration. Inherent to monitoring programs are
problems associated with delays in obtaining critical data
and adequacy of frequency in sampling or location of monitoring
wells.
-------
-15-
Based on the types and levels of contamination found in the
shallow groundwater system during the investigation, the
health risk for a population ingesting this contamination
was not considered significant (RI/FS, March 1984). However,
additional risks are associated with the unknown character of
wastes leaked below the site and the fact that the recent
investigation may not be representative of a worst-case
situation discharge from the site (e.g. rupture of additional
drums or influence of wetter seasons on character of discharge).
The monitoring of wells, in itself, should not affect resident's,
daily lives. If contamination is noted in the monitoring or
drinking water wells, further remedial actions may be required.
The remaining Alternatives #3,4,5, and 6 under consideration
all involve the excavation of the waste disposal area. Based
on topographic analysis, power auger borings and magnetometer
investigations, the extent of the disposal area is estimated
to be approximately 4000 cubic yards. Sampling results show
that the contamination is spread throughout this volume in
a random pattern. The wastes in the disposal area contain
contaminants (e.g. PCB's, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate, ethylbenzene, xylene, benzidine,
pentachlorophenol, chlorobenzene) that are associated with
significant health risks, as determined by an evaluation of
their respective carcinogenicity, toxicity, concentrations
encountered and probability of exposure to man and the environment
(RI/FS, March 1984) .
Implementation of the excavation component of Alternatives
#3,4,5, and 6 would involve excavation of the waste material.
The area to be stripped will first be cleared of vegetation,
and stumps and roots will be grubbed. The waste and contaminated
soils, including the first 6 inches of bedrock, will be removed
for final disposal. The excavated areas will be covered by a
layer of backfill and then topsoil, which will be revegetated.
The various technologies utilized to excavate material are
common and well established. Removal of the waste would
eliminate a very large percentage of the source contamination.
However, there is a risk that not all contamination can be
practically excavated. The remedial investigation identified
that as much as 30 feet of fractured bedrock underlies the
disposal area (RI/FS, March 1984). These fractures could
provide a haven for remnant groundwater contamination.
Resistivity studies during the remedial investigation were
suggestive of potential contaminant migration between 25 and
100 feet, but confirmation could not be obtained from the
existing sampling points. Removal of the first 6 inches of
bedrock is practical with common excavation equipment.
Deeper excavation, however, would become increasingly difficult.
The marginal costs for excavation would rapidly increase with
respect to benefits derived from any additional contaminant
removal. Futhermore, deeper bedrock excavation could potentially
open fissures and compound problems associated with any remnant
contamination which could exist.
-------
-16-
Implementation of excavation will result in remediation of most
aspects of the site except for any contaminated ground water and
offsite surface contamination downgradient from the site.
Although the potential for deep ground water contamination may
persist, the excavation should eliminate the contamination of the
shallow ground water and seeps. Offsite soils will be sampled by
the State followed by an analysis of the need for additional
remedial action. The ability of excavation to minimize
community impacts would be high since the source of contamination
would be removed. Following revegetation, the potential
land uses should be the same as the predisposal and surrounding
land uses.
Alternative 13; "Excavate waste - dispose by incineration -
monitor groundwater" involves excavation of the disposal area
(described above), high temperature destruction of contaminated
soils in a rotary kiln incinerator and monitoring of onsite
wells and offsite residential wells.
A typical soil incineration system would include the batch
feeding of solids into the incineration unit, incineration of
soils, disposal of residue, and air pollution control. The
system proposed for Krysowaty Farm would include the use of
three mobile rotary kilns operating at a continuous feed rate
of 2 tons per hour each. At this rate, the entire amount of
contaminated materials could be detoxified within 5 months.
The resultant material would be considered non-hazardous and
could remain onsite.
Technology status for rotary incineration is established. The
installation and operation of the treatment area may require
compliance with technical requirements under RCRA. In add-
tion, it may be necessary to address other federal and state
requirements for air and water discharges. Operation of the
incinerators, soil handling equipment, traffic associated
with fuel and other supplies will increase noise levels in
the residential/ agricultural area and adversely affect the
community.
A ground water monitoring program would be required to address
any remnant contamination remaining after excavation. The
monitoring program proposed to address this concern would be
similar in scope to the program described in Alternative #2,
except the duration of monitoring would be reduced to 5 years
because the source of wastes would no longer be located
onsite. The effectiveness of a monitoring program was previously
described in Alternative #2; however, additional risk of failure
could be associated due to the shorter term of the monitoring
-------
-17-
proposed herein.
Alternative 14; "Excavate waste - dispose onsite - monitor
groundwater" involves excavation of the disposal area (des-
cribed above), construction of a secure onsite hazardous
waste landfill, and ground water monitoring of onsite wells and
offsite residential wells (described under Alternative 12).
Whereas the technology for constructing and operating a secure
hazardous waste facility is developed, the characteristics of
Krysowaty Farm are inappropriate for locating such a facility,
as previously discussed. In fact, construction of a PCB
landfill at this site would violate TSCA siting requirements
for such landfills. Thus, a landfill on this site would not
be considered adequate to protect public health and the environment
Beyond physical limitations of the site, the construction of
a hazardous waste landfill would be delayed because New
Jersey has no regulations for siting such a facility within
its boundaries.
To address any remnant contamination after excavation, and
to back up the onsite disposal faciltiy monitoring, a monitoring
program (described in Alternative #2) has also been considered
for this alternative.
Alternative 15; " Excavate waste - dispose offsite - monitor
groundwater"Involves excavation of the disposal area (des-
cribed above), transportation of waste to an approved hazardous
waste disposal facility, and groundwater monitoring of onsite
wells and offsite residential wells (described above in Alter-
native #3).
Offsite disposal involves loading the excavated waste (approx-
imately 4000 cubic yards) onto large-capacity hauling trucks
and transporting it to an approved waste disposal facility.
Since wastes would be disposed in a properly sited facility,
less risk is associated with implementation of offsite
disposal than onsite disposal. It is estimated that four
months would be required to remove the waste from Krysowaty
Farm and dispose offsite.
Excavation and offsite disposal would meet all public health
and environmental criteria except for any remnant contamination
left after onsite action is completed. The effectiveness of
the groundwater monitoring program described in Alternative #3
was considered to address this concern. No legal or institutional
requirements are expected to complicate implementation of this
alternative. Aside from the annoyance of increased (short-term)
vehicular traffic during removal, the public is expected to
react favorably to removal of the waste from the residential/
agricultural community.
-------
-18-
Altemative 16; "Excavate waste - offsite disposal - alternative
water supply-limited groundwater monitoring" involves excavation
of wastes and offsite disposal in a secure landfill (described
above in Alternative 5) and provisions for an alternative
water supply source to the 22 homes which lie immediately
downgradient from the site. This alternative combines the
attributes of source excavation and offsite disposal with
provision of a reliable potable supply to potentially affected
groundwater supply users immediately downgradient of the
site, in addition, limited groundwater monitoring will be
undertaken to ensure that any remnant groundwater contamination
does not pose on environmental threat further downgradient
(e.g. Raritan River).
Alternatives 12,3,4, and 5 have incorporated a groundwater
monitoring program to address potential problems of remnant
contamination after onsite remedial action. As identified in
the discussion above in Alternative 12, there are several
risks and short-comings associated with implementing a monitoring
program in a fractured geologic system such as the Brunswick
Formation at Krysowaty Farm. Efforts to minimize these risks
by improving the design of the monitoring program would
involve the collection of additional data costing as much as
$400,000 or more. However, the complexity of the geology at
Krysowaty Farm may continue to thwart this study effort. To
date, a minimum of $500,000 has already been expended in an
attempt to understand the complex hyrogeologic system of the
Krysowaty Farm site.
Wastes in the disposal area contain contaminants which pose a
significant health threat. At best, an adequate monitoring
program will only track the progress or arrival of contamination.
The fractured bedrock poses special problems which create a
unique situation at this site. It is possible that contaminants
could migrate through fractures and evade detection. Also,
under these circumstances, it would be difficult to purge
the contaminants by groundwater pumping.
As pointed out in the discussion under Alternative
#2, additional risks are associated with the unknown character
of wastes leaked into fractures below the disposal area
during, or left after, onsite remedial action is complete. If
contamination is noted under any monitoring program, further
remedial action may be required. Alternative #6 incorporates
the provision of an alternative water supply to protect
groundwater supply users immediatly downgradient of the site
against the health risks associated with remnant contamination
and the uncertainty surrounding the adequacy of monitoring
to address these health risks. A limited monitoring program
involving the 8 existing onsite wells is proposed to address
the environmental risks any remnant groundwater contamination
may pose further downgradient (e.g. discharge of the regional
groundwater system at the Raritan River) .
-------
-19-
Several alternative water supply technologies including:
1) extension from an existing municipal supply, 2) a newly
developed supply (well), 3) individual treatment at each
residential wellhead and 4) bottled water were evaluated to
determine the most cost-effective means to provide residents
with a reliable potable supply. The screening process identi-
fied that extension of the existing municipal supply and
individual well treatment were the least cost alternatives.
Analysis of these option shows that municipal water supply extension
is the most reliable and least prone to risk or failure (RI/FS
Appendix G). Therefore, this alternative would involve a
17,000 foot pipeline extension from the Elizabethtown Water
Company's 16 inch water main [located on U.S. Route 202 near
the South Branch of the Raritan River] to the 22 homes (Figure
1-3) immediately downgradient of the site.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
On March 1, 1983 EPA held a scoping meeting at the Hillsborough
Municipal Building to make a public presentation of the remedial
investigation and feasibility study work plan for the Krysowaty
Farm Site. Notification of the meeting was accomplished through
newsreleases and Township mailings (Attachment 1). Attachment 2
is a list of attendees from the meeting. In general, the public
welcomed the involvement of EPA after two years of local and state
government investigation of the site. The overriding emphasis of
the public comment was toward cleanup action in lieu of additional
study work. Twelve residents were on bottled water because of the
threat posed by the site. Many residents voiced their views that
the obvious remedial solution for Krysowaty Farm was removal and
establishment of a permanent water supply. Therefore, suggestions
were made to not waste monies on additional studies, but rather
begin the obvious remediation immediately.
On March 13, 1984, EPA made the draft Remedial Investigation Report
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) available for public comment at
select locations (e.g. Township Library, and Health Office). In
addition, the Agency established a 65 day public comment period
which ended May 17, 1984. On March 20, 1984, a public meeting was
held in the Township Municipal Building. Notification of the
meeting was handled by a Township mailing. No attendance list is
available from this meeting however, many residents who attended
the scoping meeting were again in attendance. EPA and NUS
Corporation made a presentation on the RI/FS findings and recommend-
ations. The RI/FS had recommended excavation and removal of waste
disposal area onsite with follow up monitoring of onsite and offsite
(residential) wells for an indeterminant period. EPA specifically
requested public input on the number of years monitoring should be
maintained after the onsite remedial actions was completed. Follow-
ing the EPA/NUS presentation, Township Council members expressed
their concern that, beyond excavation and removal (which was fully
endorsed) a reliable alternative water supply source to affected
-------
-20-
residents be provided. Comments were raised regarding the adequacy
of the consultants understanding of the geologic system underlying
the dump site, the sufficiency of one year's quarterly sampling of
residential homes to establish the absence of contamination or
threat of contamination, and the adequacy of the risk assessment
data base and conclusions.
Concern was raised for the adequacy of monitoring to address the
potential unknowns regarding migration pathways through the geology
underlying the site and the contaminants which may remain after
site remediation. The council members found it unjustifiable to
accept monitoring instead of an alternate water supply at roughly
the same costs. The Township Engineer submitted a revised cost
estimate of $500,000 for providing 22 residents with an alternative
water supply.
The residents present at the meeting endorsed the excavation and
removal aspects of the proposed remedial action. In general, the
affected residents (receiving bottled water) as well as others from
the Township and neighboring communities were in support of a
permanent alternative water supply to ensure a reliable potable
source and eliminate the psychological stress caused by the
uncertainties associated with monitoring. At least one resident
was opposed to the provision of a water line to the area. This
resident felt the quality of her water was good and there was no
need to replace it.
A responsiveness summary for all comments received during the
public comment period is attached (Attachment 3).
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The final recommended remedial alternative for Krysowaty Farm
will require that excavated materials be manifested for transport
from the site to a secure landfill in accordance with RCRA and
TSCA requirements. The material to be removed will be visible,
contaminated soil (down to and including the first six inches of
bedrock within the disposal area, as defined by magnetometer and
topographic analysis) crushed and buried drums and other debris
contaminated by contact with the wastes. PCB contamination at
Krysowaty Farm did not exceed 500 ppm; therefore, disposal of
contaminated soils will occur in a landfill approved to receive
PCB's in accordance with TSCA. If soils are encountered with PCB
levels over 500 ppm, these soils will be incinerated as per TSCA
requirements. Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act will be
the responsibility of the water purveyor. The recommended monitor-
ing of the onsite wells for five years following removal of the
wastes is not inconsistent with RCRA requirements for detection
monitoring.
-------
-21-
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
According to 40 CFR Part 300.68(j), cost-effective is described
as the lowest cost alternative that is technically feasible and
reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damages
to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare,
and the environment. Evaluation of the six suggested remedial
alternatives leads to the conclusion that ALTERNATIVE »6 is the
most cost-effective.
The components of Alternative 16 are technically feasible and
reliable, and when combined, provide the greatest level of pro-
tection for public health, welfare and the environment. Excava-
tion and offsite disposal of contaminated soils and wastes to a
secure hazardous waste management facility is a well established
and reliable technology. The removal of wastes from the resident-
ial/agricultural setting will minimize public health threats
posed by direct contact with the waste as well as minimize the
release and continued degradation of the surface and groundwater
immediately offsite. The monitoring of existing onsite wells for
a short term following excavation will evaluate the migration of
any remnant contamination and thereby ensure the effectiveness of
the onsite remedial action. The provision of permanent alternative
water supply to the potentially affected residences located down-
gradient will ensure the protection of public health by preventing
use of local aquifer which may currently be. contaminated, or
become contaminated as a consequence of onsite remedial action
due to the fractured system.
Of the remaining alternatives, four (alternatives 1,2,4,and 5)
were found to be significantly deficient in their ability to
minimize actual or potential hazards at the site. In particular,,
onsite alternatives 2 and 4 were not considered appropriate
because they were inconsistent with TSCA regulations for the
siting of PCB landfills. The deficiency in alternative 5 was
the inability to assure, with a high level of confidence, that
the monitoring system would be sufficient to ensure that groundwater
users would not be exposed to contaminated drinking water. By
providing an alternative water supply, alternative 6 provided a
higher degree of certainty of safe drinking water at a marginally
lesser cost. However, the cost for alternative 5 assumes that
no contamination is detected in the deep aquifer. If contamination
were detected, the monitoring costs for alternative 5 would be
significantly greater. Alternative 3 was rejected because the
cost is significantly higher than the cost for alternative 6.
None of the alternatives address existing offsite contamination
downgradient from the waste disposal area. This is not believed
to pose a significant risk. However, the State will conduct
further sampling in this area and a final determination of the
need for further action will be made at a later date.
-------
-22-
The following activities are recommended for approval:
Onsite
"Excavation and removal of the waste disposal area (approxi-
mately 4000 cubic yards)
"Transport and disposal of waste to nearest approved hazardous
waste disposal facility
°Monitoring onsite wells for 129 priority pollutants, semi-
annually, for a period of 5 years.
Offsite
"Provision of an alternative water supply to potentially
affected residents (approximately 22 homes).
The following listed figures represent a cost estimate for the
proposed actions. Cost sharing for project implemetation is 90%
Federal and 10% State on capital costs. Water usage costs will be
borne by the individual residential consumers. Post-closure
monitoring costs will be borne by the State of New Jersey.
-------
-23-
Cost Summary for Recommended Remedial Alternative 16
Individual Remedial Measure
Components
Costs
Capital O&M Total
Excavate waste - regrade 77,114 - 77,114
Offsite disposal 1,518,000 - 1,518,000
Water Line Extension 568,900* 52,800** 621,700
Monitor Groundwater Onsite 92,898*** 92,898
2,164,014 145,698 2,309,712
Total Project Cost $2,309,712
Federal Share (90% Capital Cost) 2,078,741
Detailed Design (Estimated Cost) 160,000
Total Federal Obligation $2,238,741
Footnotes;
* a 6" water line will meet State requirements and provide affected
residents with an adequate replacement potable supply. An 8"
water line may be required (by the purveyor) at a capital cost
of $681,200. The cost differential between these water lines
will not be federally funded.
** This O&M cost (52,800) reflects water usage cost (20 year
present worth) to be borne by the residential consumer.
*** This O&M cost (92,898) reflects post-closure environmental
monitoring which the State of New Jersey has agreed to undertake.
-------
-24-
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
During, and subsequent to, onsite remedial actions (excavation),
a limited monitoring of the site will occur to evaluate the
migration of contaminants offsite into the local groundwater
system. There are eight monitoring wells located onsite (surrounding
the disposal area) which penetrate the upper and lower reaches of
the underlying aquifer. These wells will be sampled for the 129
priority pollutants on a semi-annual basis, for a period of five
years. Estimated costs for this monitoring is presented in Table
5-4. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
has agreed to finance and undertake this effort (Attachment 4).
SCHEDULE
- There is no enforcement action for this site
- Final Record of Decision (ROD)
- Amend State Superfund Contract
- Award IAG for Design and Construct
- Start Design
- Complete Design
- Start Construction
- Complete Construction
Date
June 15, 1984
June 30, 1984
June 30, 1984
August 1, 1984
December 1, 1984
March 15, 1985
July 30, 1985
FUTURE ACTIONS
Since the waste will be removed and disposed offsite in a secure
hazardous waste facility, and downgradient residents will be
isolated from any remnant contamination by provisions of an
alternate water supply, the significant health threat posed by the
Krysowaty Farm Site will be mitigated. The fugitive contamination
remaining after onsite remedial action can no longer threaten
human health but it may pose an environmental hazard downgradient.
Regional groundwater discharges to the Raritan River. To date,
no contamination has been identified; however, the State of New
Jersey has agreed to sample the existing onsite monitoring wells
to evaluate this potential hazard. Furthermore, additional sampling
of the contaminated soils downgradient from the disposal site
will be undertaken to assess the need for future remedial action.
-------
KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS
Fiqure 1-1 Vicinity Map
1-2 Residence Location Map
1-3 Potentially affected residences
3-4 Selected Organic Chemical Distribution
3-5 Selected Priority Metal Distribution
3-10 Geologic Cross Section
3-14 Schematic Diagram of Groundwater Flow
Table 3-1 Data Summary of Previous Investigations
4-1 Potential Remedial Action Technologies
5-1 Alternative Remedial Action Cost Summary
5-2 NUS Monitoring Scenarious and Cost
5-3 EPA Monitoring Program (no water supply)
5-4 EPA Monitoring Program (with water supply)
-------
-\ «~
RAND MCNAU.Y a COMPANY. USED BY PERMISSION
ALL MIGHTS RESERVED.
y '
VICINITY MAP
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE, HILLS BOROUGH TWP.NJ
NO SCALE
A Hattburton Company
-------
»I»MI -J\
RESIDENCE LOCATION MAP
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE .HILLSBOROUGH TWP..NJ
SCALE: l"> 300'
I NAtmt. NMMM m. t> NANCV i.
IA MfM«.ciMM.ct coNWNcc t.
n«NH. M.NCLM .
! MMCIIUM.
Mil*,
M riKM*. WN. I.
! MfU..CAM. T. MM K.
II KAMI.
ir M««M.
MCfT.MOMt ». «* ».
« UKMtTf. CttM* >»>
(.COM
4« IAM«I«T. WIVW ». CMMim A
MtM.MMM.* A* «.«.
MOf M«NM ON «
r twNM*. NMNOLM rwtimi ML
r« t*«n«. can a MMN
r« »c«tt. «IO«M MAN r.
UNM. CMtrcmriMi
MM.IUNM. MNM« . MMTVMM
! MNfN.CNMH,t* «. V.V.
II M*CII*. HAM «. MMC* .
II HICMIN. tCMW rMNH 4 MNMII* I.
It COtM*N.M«HT .» «
14 MMTM. nMHBlIN . »* I.
It MM4MM . tllLUN
It rm.tM.MVN) L. NOHCIN
If RANMN. tAMMIt «Lt*
FIGURE 1-2
-------
MMMt. MMM M. MMCV t.
MCMa.CNMlCt MMHMCt I.
ntM*. wtMtM
MMLMM.
MM.lt.
mcM«. MI. t.
MIL. CM* t. MU *.
Mi.
FWIMf.
Mcrr.MMN . JIM r
UNUtt. l«TMt«
. fMMWC r. MMU1C
l«««l«f , MVW r CMM.fH 4
C*MI. MMM.V 4. .«.
WA. MCMOta* MILWM H.
VAM.CMN. .' !
K»it. !» .« r.
I. MWM.C t. KMIVMM
MBtM.CNMN.Ct *. ».».
f. MaM . MMKf .
. KM? imum 4 MNMV t.
at . MN.
.IM . *MI I.
.UtlUN
m.f«M.»«*N> t. MOMIM
MM. MIMtl »l«*
FIGURE 1-3
RESIDENCE LOCATION MAP
KRYSOWATY B»RM SITE . HILLSBOROUGH TWP..MJ
SCALE: !" SOO'
- Potentially Affected Residences
-------
FLUORANTHENE
HS(2 ETHVLHEXVL) PHTHALATE
BENZO(A) ANTHRACENE
BEN20(A)PYRENE
BEN20 IB) FLUORANTHENE
BENZO (K) FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
PHENANTHRENE
N-NITROSOOIPHENVLAM1NE
PESTICIDES
TE TRACHLOROE THEME
ETHYLBENZENE
PCB-I22I ANOI26Q
PYRENE
TOLUENE
LEGEND
a
L"
i
1
"
_» 1 a . » . »
1 L_^_J
f
<
I
I
i
a
,
"
. » A _» A A_»^
J
1
0
1
a
i
i
J
,
1 i_j i i 1 1 i
. «« .»**>
_ 1
i
* * < *
> SOL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLE
SURFACE WATCH SAMPLE
GAOMOWATER SAMPLE
10
00 COO 10,000
CONCENTRATION (PARTS PER BILLION)
00,000
ipoo.ooo
SELECTED ORGANIC CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE. HILLSBOROU^H TWP.NJ
FIGURE 3-4
MUS
CXDRRDRATDN
A Halliburton Company
-------
CMROMUM
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
SILVER
SILVER
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
SELENUM
MERCURY
MERCURY
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
LEAD
01
SOL OR SEDIMENT SAMFU
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
IO
K> no
CONCENTRATION (PARTS PER BILLION)
COO
lOflOO
FIGURE 3-5
SFI ECTED PRIORITY METAL DISTRIBUTION
KRYSQWATY FARM SITE. HILLSBORQUGH TWR^NJ
Hallibt^kompaay
-------
NORTHWEST
220
220
MTERBEDDED GRAY.RED.GREEN, AND YELLOW
SLTSTONE , SANDSTONE . AND LIMESTONE
GROUND SURFACE
BROWN-RED SILTSTONE
SANDY NEAR TOP
BROWN-RED
SILTSTONE.
OCCASIONALLY
FOSSIL -
(FERGUS
BROWN -RED SLTSTONE , VUGGY
SANDY
SILTSTONE
BROWN-RED
SILTSTONE.
VUGGY
MAROON
SILTSTONE WITH
GREEN VEtIS
AND BLEBS
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION N*2
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE, HILLSBOROUGH TWR,NJ
SCALE l"= 40'VERT, I"= KX)' HORIZ . "
FIGURE 3-IO
AHalNburtonCompan>
-------
-GROUND SURFACE
ZONE I PERMEABILITY MODERATE -WATER TABLE
INFLUENCED BY RAMFMLL
ZONE 2 LOW PERMEABILITY
(gkORECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW
X^AND COMPONENT VECTORS
1 HYPOTHETICAL WELL (HATCHURES
MMCATE MOMTORINO ZONE)
-^DMECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW*
f WATER TABLE
?l WATER LEVEL M HYPOTHETCAL WELL
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN CROSS SECTION
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE. HILLSBOROUGH TWP.t NJ
FIGURE 3-14
V1IMUS
LJoaRPORAnDN
A Halliburton Company
-------
1AIMF 3-1
SUMMAHV or PREVIOUS
SUflf ACF AND GHOUNDWAIFn ANALYSES
KIIYSOWAIV FAIIM Slit
Parameters toolil
Xylenes (total)
[ lliylhoniRfie
N NiltosCMliinelliylamine
Beiwifline
OirhlofObeniene (tnlal)
llenachlotoheniftiie .
4 Oinmoplu-nyl Plienyl Ether
nis|2-ChkMoelliyoiiv)Ftilhalale
Oietliylphlhalate
riiHNaiilliene
Bis(2 - Clrtoi oelhyo>y|Elher
PenucMofophenol
4.4 ODE
nulyl Oeniyl Phihl.ile
flis(2 -CMofoelhyllElher
Naphthalene
He>achlococycloheiiane
Toluene
Carbon Telrathloiide
Iron
Phenols (total)
Copper
Octane
lead
Cyanide
Benzene
Nickel
7m.:
Meictify
Composite!1)
Waste
Sample leachale
891.000
305.000
300.000
100.000
86.000
42 000
42.000
32.000
21.000
20.000
15.000
14.500
4.570
4.000
2.000(2)
1.000(2)
23
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
13.250
3.500
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
750.000
750.000
18.550
389
206
175
33
15
ND
NO
NO
NO
K-l
55
80
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
266
ND
NO
31
10
NO
26
30
NO
NO
NO
NO
TPW-2
190
140
<50
NO
<50
<50
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
<50
<50
NO
350
NO
NO
26
<50
NO
<50
290
6
60
150
<2
TPW-I
NO
-------
lAOU 3-1
SUMMARY Of PREVIOUS
SUItf ACE AIM! CRUUMDWA1ER ANALYSES
PAGE HMO
Parameters lopbl
liaitjdirlilnioethytene
Oi|ihoiiol Hydrotenejs
Di-N-Bulyl PMhalala
4 Dimethyl Phenol
Bis|2-Elbyl Iteiyl) Phlhalala
Irlchloroelhvtene
Slytene
Benjoluran
Chromium (total)
Heptane
Methylene Chloride
Compiisilel'1
Waste
Sample
NU
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NU
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ISO
90
NA
K-l
NO
Nt)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
80
NO
NA
IPW-2 IPW-I
W-
W-I-B W-I-C W-I-D SW-I SW-2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
20
NO
NA
23O
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
2
6
9
9
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
10
690
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
4
875
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2700
12
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
00
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
<20
NO
NA
NO Not Delected; IIUs is because ilher the compound was 1101 repotted
as e lesl lesull CM it was iii conrenlialions belo* delectable limits
NA Not Analyietl
(I) Sample Description (Fot tocaliotis see fiyure 3-1)
Composite Waste Sample - Collecled by NJOEP on July 6. 1981
twenty to Iliuty diums weia excavated and a composite sample was taken liom ten diums
leachale - Collecled by NJOEP on November 29. 1979 leachate from a pond downgradlenl ol Ihe site
K-l - CoUecled by NJOEP on November 29. 1979 Groundwaler discharge at a site probably located al
NUS sample point K-l
-------
TAME 3-1
SUMMARY or rnrvmus
sunr ACE AND GIIOUMDWAIER ANAIVSES
PAGE limit
TPW-t - Collected by EPA on April 23. 1982. leachate lioin shallow lest pll wall ! sit*.
TPW-2 - Collected by NJOEP on December 8. 1980 learhate liom shallow lest pll well at site.
W-I-A - Collected by NJOEP on August 18. 1982 Deep wall In W-l
W-I-B - Collected by NJDEP on Saplamn«r 2. 1982 Shallow wall In W-l
W-l C - Collacled byN3Mr«n SapUmbar 2. 1982 Shallow well In W-l
W-I-O - Collacled by EPA on August IS. 1082 Deep well In W-l
SW- I - Collected liy BCM on Match 12. 1982 Suffice wnlet sample appionimalely 40 leal liom the site
SW-2 - Collected by BCM on Match 12. 1982 Suilace water sample approximately 230 lael downgradient on the site.
SW-3 - Collected by BCM on March 12. 1982. Surface water sample approximately 1200 feel downgrailienl of the site.
Results lor the BCM data were reported in |ig/g. and detection limits ranged from 10 ug/*g to 100 pg/g
11) Delectable Umlt Is 3.000 pant per billion (ppb)
-------
TABLE 4-1
KRYSOWATY FARM SITE
POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
1 Disposal Technologies
Onsite Disposal
Offsita Disposal
Incinaration
Chemical Treatment of Soils
2 Offsite Technologies
No Action Offsite
Municipal Water Une Extension
Satellite Water Supply System
Individual Well Treatment
Bottled Water
3 Onsite Technologies
No Action Onsite
Excavation
Solidification
In-situ Treatment
Groundwater Control: Qroundwater Pumping
Groundwater Control: Impermeable Barriers
Groundwater Treatment: Permeable Treatment Beds
Groundwater Treatment: Bioreclamatlon
Surface Water Diversion
Groundwater Collection
Fencing
Capping
Contaminated Water Treatment/Disposal
Compiled by NUS Consultants
Pittsburgh, Pa. 1984
-------
Table 5-1
Remedial Alternative Capital Cost 0+M* Total
1. No Action
2. Cap-Collect and Treat GW - 255K 2861K
Monitor (20 years) 1267 4.38M
3. Excavate-incinerate - 4100
Monitor (5 years) 765 4.87
i. Excavate-Disposal onsite - 663 473
Monitor (20 years) 1267 2.40
5. Excavate-Dispose offsite- 1595
Monitor (5 years) 765 2.36
3. Excavate-Disposal Offsite- 1595
Alternative W.S.-Monitor 569 (53) 2.31t
(5 years) 93
JOperation and Maintenance cost (20% contingency) for proposed
durations, present worth
;) water user charge 20 year present worth. To be paid by local
residents.
tRecommended Cost-Effective Alternative
-------
Table 5-2
MONITORING SCENERKJS WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SCHCDUIES *
Enisling New
Monhoflng Monitoring Residential Operation and maintenance costs (20% contingency)
WeMs to be Walls 10 be WeUs 10 be loc Proposed Durations. Present Woilh
Sampled Each Samptod Each Sampled Each Constiucllon ConsKucllon Annual I 3 5 10 20
Quaftar Quart ar Ouanaf TUna Costs Cosl Yaat Yaais Yaaft Ya«ri Yaaft
8-11 aharnallng - - 82.600 82.600 246.500 375.700 609.000 843,800
8-22 - - 124.000 124.000 370.000 564.100 914.300 1.266.800
8 8 II alternating 2 months S 118.800 121.300 121.300 362.000 551.800 894.400 1.239.200
8 8 22 2 months » 118.800 163.3OO 163.300 487.300 742.800 1.204.100 1.668.300
* Compiled by NUS Consultants, Pittsburgh, Pa. 1984
-------
Table 5-3
EPA Proposed Monitoring Program
(No Alternate Water Supply)
Sampling: 8 on site monitoring wells
22 off site residential wells
Frequency: monthly for 1/2 year during on-site remedial action
quarterly for 4 1/2 years following on-site remedial
action
Parameters: 129 Priority Pollutants
Costs:
Capital $0
0+M 5 year Period
(20% contingency) Present Worth $764,660
Basis:
Annual cost for 4-quarterly samples
(from NUS Table 5-2) $124,000
Cost per quarterly sample run 31,000
Monthly sampling for 1/2 year . 186,000
Quarterly sampling for 1/2 year 62,000
Quarterly sampling for 4 years 389,217
Subtotal 637,217
20% Contingency 127,443
Total $764,660
-------
Table 5-4
EPA Proposed Monitoring Program
(with Alternate Water Supply)
Sampling: 8 on site monitoring wells
Frequency: semi-annual
Parameters: 129 Priority Pollutants
Costs:
Capital
O+M 5 year Period
(20% contingency) Present Worth
$0
$92,898
Basis:*
labor (8 hrs/well)
living
travel
analytical report
analysis
shipping
Per Run
5 yr
Total O+M Cost
Semi Annual
2560
450
51
500
6200
450
present worth
20% Contingency
5120
900
102
1000
12400
900
77,415
15,483
92,898
*prepared fr6m cost estimate developed by NUS Consultants
(RI/FS, Appendix F March 1984)
------- |