United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-90/108
September 1990
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
M&T DeLisa Landfill, NJ
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/108
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
.SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
&T DeLisa Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/20/90
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Conlract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 132-acre M&T DeLisa Landfill site is northwest of the city of Asbury Park in Ocean
Township, New Jersey. The 39-acre M&T DeLisa landfill was operated with a State permit
from 1914 until 1974. After the landfill was closed, a private company constructed a
shopping mall on 30 acres of the landfill. The developer took control measures to
tect against the generation of landfill gases and leachate. Although landfill gas
' generated at the site and slightly elevated levels of VOC accumulation were detected
the northern edge of the mall, sampling and analysis indicate that the landfill is
not the source of detectable levels of VOCs in the mall. The developer installed storm
drainage from the parking lot to protect Deal Lake Brook, which is the nearest surface
water and is immediately south of the mall. Onsite surface water and ground water are
not used as sources of potable water. Site investigations and historical research on
site activities revealed no evidence to indicate that the landfill was used for
hazardous waste disposal. There are no contaminants of concern affecting the site,
therefore, this is a no action Record of Decision (ROD).
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - M&T DeLisa Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminant: None
b. Mentifiera/Open-Ended Terms
C. COSAT1 Reid/Group
II). Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
48
22. Price
(Se« ANSI-239.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/108
&T DeLisa Landfill, NJ
st Remedial Action - Final
_
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes a no further action scenario.
Although no significant contamination is present at the site, EPA recommends that
environmental controls be implemented, including continued surface and ground water
monitoring, restricting possible future use of onsite ground water, continued sampling
and monitoring of the leachate collection system, replacing a gas vent, sealing cracks
in building floors and walls in contact with subsurface soil, improving detention ponds
leading into Deal Lake Brook, venting of the north corridor area of the mall, and
periodic indoor and outdoor air monitoring. EPA has determined that such actions will
not be implemented under the authority of the Superfund program, and responsibility for
the site has been transferred to the State. There are no costs associated with this no
action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
M & T DELISA LANDFILL
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
M & T DeLisa Landfill
Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This document presents the decision selected for addressing the M & T DeLisa Landfall
Site in Ocean Township, New Jersey (the Site), which was determined in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(CERCLA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances,
Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document summarizes the
factual and legal basis for this determination and is based on the administrative record
for this Site which is comprised of the documents listed in the attached index.
The Stale of New Jersey concurs with this decision.
SUMMARY OF RATIONALE FOR NOT TAKING ACTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the M & T
DeLisa Landfill Site should be addressed under the authorities designated to close and
monitor solid waste landfills. This determination is based upon a review of historical
documentation which did not reveal any past disposal of hazardous waste at the Site,
the results of the remedial investigation (RI) which demonstrate that the landfill is not
a source of significant concentrations of any hazardous substances, and a conservative
assessment of risk attributable to the release of hazardous substances, from the landfill
which indicates that the current risk posed by the Site is within an acceptable range.
Upon completion of the RI, it became evident that the conditions at the Site do not
warrant remedial action under CERCLA. Accordingly, an evaluation of remedial
alternatives, as described by CERCLA, was not appropriate for the Site. Therefore, an
evaluation of remedial alternatives has not been conducted.
-------
Although remedial action under CERCLA is not warranted, EPA recommends that
environmental controls be implemented and maintained at the Site to address
potential problems associated with solid waste disposal. EPA has determined that
such actions should not be handled under the auspices of the Superfund program.
Since the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulates solid
waste landfill activities in the State of New Jersey, EPA is transferring responsibility
for the Site to the NJDEP's Division of Solid Waste Management for future action.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
EPA has determined that it is not appropriate to use CERCLA statutory authority to
remediate this Site. Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 (RCRA) is the Federal
statute pertaining to solid waste landfills. RCRA and its regulations address among
other things, the post-closure monitoring requirements for landfills. NJDEP is
authorized to regulate solid waste landfill closures and post-closure ground water and.
surface water monitoring requirements for landfills in New Jersey. By issuing this
Record of Decision, EPA is formally transferring responsibility for the Site to NJDEP -
for future action.
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Regional/Administrator
^
I
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
M&T De Lisa Landfill Site
Monmouth County, New Jersey
USEPA Region II
HRS Score: 32.27
NPL Rank: 865
ROD
Date Signed: September 20, 1990
Remedy: NO ACTION
The Site will be transferred to the solid waste program of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). NJDEP may
develop and implement actions as appropriate for post-closure
landfill activities. EPA recommends that environmental controls
be implemented by NJDEP to address potential solid waste issues..
Capital Cost: NA
O&M/year: NA
•Present Worth: NA
Lead
Primary Contact: Lance R. Richman, P.G., (212) 264-6695 (USEPA)
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP):
Equitable Real Estate Investment Management, Inc.
PRP Contact: Mr. Michael Rodberg, Esq., (201) 992-8700
WASTES
Type: municipal solid waste
Medium: groundwater and air
Origin: private landfill for municipal waste
Estimated Quantities: Landfill covers approximately 39 acres
-------
AU^ 2 I i9S3
Record of Decision for the M&T DeLisa Landfill site,
Monmouth County, New Jersey
Richard Caspe, Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
Constantine Sidaroon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
Attached is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the M&T DeLisa
Landfill Site located at Ocean Township, in Monmouth County, New
Jersey.
Lance R. Richman, P.G. is the Regional Project Manager for this
Site.
This is an EPA lead site. The Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management Inc., the potentially responsible party for the Site,
contracted Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., to conduct the remedial
investigations, under Administrative Orders on Consent issued by
EPA in November of 1983 and March of 1988.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has
reviewed the ROD and supporting documents and concurs on this no
action determination. Both the ROD and Proposed Plan were reviewed
in-house by the Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch (RCRA), Office
of Ground Water Management, Environmental Impacts Branch, Air
Compliance Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, NJ Compliance Branch
(Superfund), Program Support Branch (Superfund), and ATSDR.
The 30 day public comment period for the Proposed Plan ended on
July 27, 1990. EPA received two written letters in response to the
plan. The public meeting was held on July 12, 1990. The meeting
was well attended. Comments received during the public comment
period are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
EPA's decision is as follows.
This Site should be handled under the authorities designated
to close and remediate municipal landfills. An evaluation of
remedial action alternatives, as described by CERCLA was not
appropriate for this site. NJDEP is authorized to regulate
municipal landfill closures and post-closure monitoring in New
Jersey. For this reason, EPA is referring this Site to the
NJDEP for further action. Current State statutes also
regulate post-landfill closure ground water and surface water
monitoring requirements for municipal landfills.
-------
This decision is identical to the one proposed in the Proposed
Plan, which EPA submitted to the public in June of 1990 (see
Attachment).
NJDEP's Division of Solid Waste Management has indicated that it
will accept authority for the Site as soon as it is deleted from
the National Priorities List (NPL) . Upon the execution of this
ROD, EPA will commence rulemaking to delete the Site from the NPL.
Attachments
bcc: R. Caspe, ERRD
R. Basso, NJCB
N. DiForte, N-NJCS
D. Finn, ORC
-------
STATE OF NEW JErtSEV
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUDITH A. YASKJN. COMMISSIONS
cv *o:
TRKNTOV V J f)R62V."02
(•4k
SEP 171990
Mr. Ccnstantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
USEPA - Region II
26 Federal Pltza
New York, KY 10278
Dear Regional Administrator Sidamon-Iristoff:
Re: Record of Decision
K & I Delisa Landfill
Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jtraey
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) haa reviewed the
Record of Decision (ROD) and other documents relevant to Che M&T Dellsa
Superfund Site including the Final Remedial Investigation Report dated March
3C, 1990, the Draft/Final Endangerment Ajseeement dtted February 16, 1990,
and the Draft Feaaibility Study Report dated April 26, 1990.
In the ROD, EPA declares that the aalaction of the "no action" alternative
constitute! the final action at the aite under Federal and State auapices of
the Superfund Program. EFA will formally tranafer responeiblllty for the
cite to NJDEP for future action under New Jereey'a authority to regulate
solid waate landfill cloaure and poat-cloaure activities.
The ROD states that although there is no significant contamination due to
the release of hazardoua aubatancee vhieh are attributable to the Site,
there • are environmental controla which nay be implemented to address
potential solid waste issues, including:
Continued monitoring of surface and groundwater;
Modification of the property deed to restrict the possible future use
of on-aite ground water;
Continued aampling, operation and maintenance of the existing leachate
collection system;
Replacement of vent No. 25 and continued use and maintenance of all
on-slte gae vents;
et
-------
Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Record of Decision - M 6 T Deliea Landfill
Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Page 2
Sealing of cracks in building floors and walls of the Seaview Square
Mall (Mall) which are in contact with subsurface soil;
Improvement and maintenance of the detention ponds leading into Deal
Lake Brook;
Maintain current poeitive pressure operation of the Mall heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system;
Vtnting of the north corridor area of the Mall; and
Periodic indoor and outdoor air monitoring.
NJDEP hereby concurs with EPA's selection of the "no action" alternative and
will accept responsibility for the site pursuant to the New Jersey Solid
Waste Management Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant there to, once
the Site has been delisted from the National Priorities List (NFL).
If you have any questions regarding this natter please contact, Dennis Karc,
Assistant Director, Responsible Party Cleanup .Element at (609) 633-0719.
.Sincerely,
Enclosure
X •:. •*A'^
4udith A. Yatkin ' /
/'
-------
Decision Summary
M & T DeLisa Landfill Site
SITE DESCRIPTION
The M & T DeLisa Landfill site (Site) is located in the southeastern corner of
Monmouth County, northwest of the City of Asbury Park in Ocean Township, New
Jersey (see Figure 1). The 132-acre Site is bounded on the west by Route 18, on the
south by Route 66, on the east by route 35, and on the north by an industrial park
located off Sunset Avenue (see Figure 2). The parcel contains three major building
complexes, the Seaview Square Mall complex (Mall), the Seaview Movie Theater
complex, and the Acme Supermarket, each of which is surrounded by a paved parking
area. The only wooded portions of the parcel are located in the southeast corner of
the Site, south of the Route 35 mall access road.
Immediately south of the Mall and located on the Site is the most southern arm of
Deal Lake Brook which flows from west to east to Deal Lake. Storm drainage from
the parking lots and adjacent roadways discharge into detention ponds that feed into
Deal Lake Brook.
The three uppermost geologic formations underlying the Site are (in descending
order): the Kirkwood Formation - consisting of alternating layers of sand, silt and clay
that are discontinuous both laterally and vertically, the Manasquan Formation (which
is locally known as the Shark River Marl) - consisting of a low permeability, clayey
sand, and the Vincentown Formation • consisting of a fine to medium grained sand.
Based on the low yield of the aquifer from on-Site monitoring wells, the Kirkwood is
not considered to represent a major viable source of potable water in the vicinity of
the Sire. Based on information obtained from test borings, the Shark River Marl is at
least thirty-five (35) feet thick at the Site and is considered a confining layer that
separates the overlying Kirkwood Formation from the underlying Vincentown
Formation. The Vincentown Formation is expected to represent a viable source of
potable water in the vicinity of the Site. Nine (9) water supply wells are believed to
be screened in this formation within approximately one mile of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIWnES
The Site consists of 132 acres of which the former M & T DeLisa landfill occupied
approximately 39 acres. The landfill was in operation from 1941 until 1974 under a
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) permit. Records of
landfill operations are limited. There is no documented evidence which demonstrates
that the landfill was used for the disposal of hazardous wastes. Available information
-------
indicates that the landfill was used for the disposal of refuse.
The landfill was closed in 1974 in accordance with NJDEP requirements of the time.
After closure an investigation of the landfill area was undertaken by Woodward-
Gardner and Associates, Inc., for the Goodman Company, who subsequently
constructed the Mall on 30 acres of the 39-acre former landfill for Equitable Real
Estate Investment Management, Inc., the present owner of the Mall property.- The
report recommended control measures to protect against the possible impact of gas
and/or leachate generation from the landfill and described other measures that would
be needed to provide a stable soil for the construction of the proposed buildings.
These recommendations were incorporated into the design and construction of the
MaD which was completed in 1977 (see Site Characterization).
Pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent of November 1983 and March 1988,
between EPA and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Fred C.
Han Associates, Inc. was retained to conduct a remedial investigation on the Site in
accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. The objectives of the remedial investigation
were to characterize the nature and extent of any contamination associated with the
Site, to identify off-site contamination and its impact on public health and the
environment, and to determine whether there is a need for remedial measures to
protect human health and the environment. The remedial investigation was conducted
under two distinct investigatory programs. The initial investigation was completed in
June of 1984, while the supplemental remedial investigation was completed in
January of 1989. Additional indoor and outdoor air monitoring results were
submitted in December of 1989, and the final remedial investigation report was
submitted in March of 1990.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In accordance with the public participation requirements set forth in Sections 113 and
117 of CERCLA, the following activities were conducted. The Remedial Investigation
Reports, the Endangerment Assessment, the Proposed Plan and other documents which
comprise the administrative record for this site were released to the public for
comment on June 18, 1990. These documents were made available to the public at
the EPA Docket Room in Region II and at the Neptune Township Public Library in
Neptune Township, New Jersey. On June 28, 1990, EPA published a notice in the
Asburv Park Press which contained information relevant to the public comment period
for the Site, including duration of the public comment period, date of the public
meeting, and availability of the administrative record. The pubb'c comment period
began on June 28, 1990 and ended on July 28, 1990. In addition, a public meeting
was held on July 12, 1990, where representatives from EPA and the NJDEP answered
questions regarding the Site and the decision under consideration. Responses to the
-------
significant comments received during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is pan of this Record of Decision.
SCOPE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This declaration of "no action" constitutes the final action at the Site under Federal
and State Superfund Programs. This "no action" decision is based upon a review of
historical documentation which did not reveal any past disposal of hazardous waste at
the Site, the results of the RI which demonstrate that the landfill is not a source of
significant concentrations of any hazardous substances and a conservative assessment
of risk attributable to the release of hazardous substances, from the Site which
indicates that the current risk posed by the Site is within an acceptable range. After
the Site is transferred to the sob'd waste program of NJDEP, NJDEP may develop and
implement actions as appropriate for post-closure landfill activities.
Although there is no significant contamination due to the release of hazardous
substances which are attributable to the Site, EPA recommends that environmental
controls be implemented to address potential solid waste issues. They include:
o continued monitoring of surface and ground water;
o modification of the property deed to restrict the possible future use of
on-site ground water;
o continued sampling, operation and maintenance of the existing leachate
collection system;
o replacement of vent number 25 and continued use and maintenance of
all on-site gas vents;
o sealing of cracks in building floors and walls in contact with subsurface
soil;
o improvement and maintenance of the detention ponds leading into Deal
Lake Brook;
o maintain current positive pressure operation of Mall heating, ventilation
and air conditioning system;
o venting of the north corridor area of the Mall; and
o periodic indoor and outdoor air monitoring.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION
With the building of the Mall, a number of construction elements were implemented
to provide environmental controls, i.e., refuse movement, gas control, and leachate
control. These are summarized below:
Refuse Movement. The refuse material was found to.be unsuitable for building
support, therefore, the refuse material situated under the planned Mall was removed.
The refuse was excavated down to the underlying soils. Then it was placed in areas
already containing refuse. The area excavated was replaced with clean fill which was
capable of supporting the buildings. The result was that the buildings are constructed
within a low permeability bowl-shaped soil configuration composed of the naturally
occurring Shark River Marl material beneath the Mall and the 3 to 10 foot thick clay
barrier installed during construction to prevent landfill gas migration to the buildings.
Landfill Gas Control. The mall construction implemented three measures to control
the potential movement of landfill gas into the Mall. The first was the installation of
the clay barrier discussed above. The second was the construction of passive control
vents, consisting of perforated horizontal collection pipes located in the refuse
attached to vertical pipes open to the atmosphere, which provide a preferential
pathway for landfill gas migration and help prevent horizontal migration into the
buildings. The last measure was to limit the permeability of the Mall's utility
corridors (which contain sanitary sewers, electrical wiring, etc.) by placing all utility
lines within one narrow corridor, replacing refuse in this corridor with clean soil, and
compacting the soil to reduce permeability. Utilities which could not be placed within
this corridor were enclosed in concrete.
Leachaie Control. Leachate is generated when rainfall infiltrates into the ground and
percolates through refuse material, or when ground water moves horizontally through
the refuse. Four measures were implemented to minimize leachate generation:
modifications to the storm water collection system, construction of a leachate
collection system, installation of a clay barrier, and covering the surface of the landfill
with pavement. The manner in which these measures were implemented is described
below:
o The storm water collection system was designed to keep storm water separate
from leachate by, 1) using the parking lot as a low permeability cap over the
refuse to reduce infiltration of precipitation and collect storm water runoff, 2)
constructing catch basins and storm drain pipes as close to the surface as
possible, and 3) constructing storm water pipes designed to be impermeable to
leachate infiltration.
o A leachate collection system consisting of a perforated pipe within a gravel
-------
trench situated to intercept groundwater/leachate moving toward Deal Lake
Brook was also installed; the liquid is then collected in a tank arid discharged
to a municipal waste water treatment plant.
The clay barrier, which was installed between the refuse and clean soil fill, acts
as a barrier to groundwater/leachate flow, preventing it from migrating to or
under the Mall buildings.
The surrounding parking lot acts as a low permeability cap thereby reducing
the volume of rainwater which is available for leachate generation.
Remedial Investigations
As discussed earlier, Fred C. Hart and Associates under contract by the owners of the
Mall (the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States) conducted two
environmental investigations, one in 1984 and more recently in 1988, both under EPA
oversight. The remedial investigations CRTs) characterized the nature and extent of
ground water, surface water, and air contamination attributable to the release of
hazardous substances from the site. The activities conducted under the investigations
and a discussion of the results are presented below.
A hydrogeologic investigation was conducted to determine on-site geologic and
hydrologic conditions and to evaluate impacts on local groundwater quality. A total
of 7 monitoring wells and one boring were installed. All were logged by a field
geologist to verify the geology of the area. The monitoring wells were then sampled
along with 4 private drinking water wells in the area to obtain water quality data.
The results of the hydrogeologic investigation are as follows:
1. The geology in the area consists of the Kirkwood Formation, Shark River
Marl and Vincent own Formation (Figure 3). The Kirkwood Formation which is
under pan of the Site has a maximum thickness of 74 feet at monitoring weD
MW-6D and gradually pinches out to the south where it is estimated to be only
4.5 feet thick in monitoring well MW-1. Hydraulic conductivities (a measure of
the ability of fluid to move through a porous media under force) in the
Kirkwood Formation are somewhat variable and range from 1.6 x 102 to 7.6 x
105 cm/sec. The heterogeneity of the Kirkwood Formation at the Site, caused
by the deposition of silts and clays of low hydraulic conductivity within the
formation, reduces the hydraulic conductivity and yield which causes the aquifer
to be less suitable for use as a potable water supply at the Site. Below the
Kirkwood Formation and the landfill refuse is the Shark River Marl, a
continuous clayey, silry formation. The extensiveness of the Shark River Marl
(an average of 35 feet underlying the site) combined with its low hydraulic
-------
conductivity drastically reduces the potential for contaminant transport between
the upper Kirkwood Formation and the deeper Vincentown Formation. The
Vincentown Formation, which exists under confined conditions, is used in the
area as a potable water supply.
2. Groundwater flow in the Kirkwood aquifer is to the southeast towards Deal
Lake Brook. It appears as though the brook is an expression of the
groundwater table and that the shallow groundwater flow is intercepted by the
brook.
3. In 1984, lead and arsenic were detected in unfiltered monitoring wells in
samples in concentrations above regulatory levels (i.e., 230 and 68 part per
billion respectively). However, subsequent sampling efforts (both filtered and
unfiltered) did not detect significant concentrations of metals. The highest
concentration of lead and arsenic detected in post-1984 sampling were 42.8,
and 13.8 part per billion (ppb), respectively, which are below federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 50 ppb.
Although the metal concentration data from the initial round of sampling was
not confirmed by subsequent sampling, EPA used this data in the risk
assessment to provide a conservative evaluation of risk.
A surface water and sediment sampling effort was conducted to determine the
potential impact of hazardous contaminants from the Site on surface water bodies in
the vicinity. In 1984, samples were collected at on-site drainage areas, points where
surface water runoff from the Site entered surface water bodies, and sediment
deposition areas. At each surface water sampling location, a sediment sample was
also collected. In addition to surface water/sediment sampling, storm drains and the
leachate collection tank were sampled. In 1988, the sampling locations were modified
based upon a better understanding of drainage patterns and flow directions. The
1988 sampling effort included four locations along Deal Lake Brook.
Surface water and sediment samples taken from the detention ponds and Deal Lake
Brook in 1984 showed low to undetectable levels of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). In a number of samples, levels of iron, copper and other non-hazardous
metal were found in excess of secondary Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards.
While these metals in high enough doses can effect health, the secondary SDWA
standards are based upon aesthetic water quality impacts such as the hardness and
taste of the water. The reddish coloration of the stream is most likely attributable to
the presence of these metals and in particular the iron content.
Although collection of leachate seep samples were planned, seep samples were not
taken because seeps were not observed during sampling events. Instead, soil samples
were taken in areas where staining indicated a possible previous seep location. The
-------
only VOC found in the soil samples was methylene chloride (a common laboratory
contaminant). In addition, metal concentrations were within the range'of those
typically found in natural soils.
Aqueous samples were collected from Site storm drains. These drains receive storm
water runoff from the mall parking lots. Lead was detected in one sample at 600
ppb. Methylene chloride was the only VOC detected.
Both the liquid and sludge present in the leachate tank were sampled. With respect
to the liquid samples, no VOCs were detected. Iron and manganese, which are not
hazardous substance under CERCLA, were at concentrations of up to 56 ppm and 0.19
ppm, respectively. The secondary SDWA MCL for iron is 0.3 ppm while manganese is
0.05 ppm. Low levels of a number of metals were also detected in sludge from the
leachate collection tank including copper, nickel, zinc, lead and some chromium.
Methylene chloride and phthalates were also detected in sludge samples in 1984 but
were not found in subsequent samples collected in 1988.
Air quality investigations were conducted during the RI in November/December of
1983, June of 1984, August of 1988, January of 1989, and October of 1989. The
October 1989 effort, was performed by EPA. Samples were collected at all outdoor
vents and indoors in all accessible areas of the lower levels of the Mall buildings.
Outdoor vent sampling was done at the vent openings and at a distance of 50 meters
from the vents. The sampling found some VOCs, methane, and carbon dioxide being ;
liberated by the vents. Although indoor sampling found slightly elevated levels of
VOCs along the northern edge of the Mall, no concentrations of VOCs above what
would normally be expected in an indoor space were found.
Upon completion of the investigations, the following conclusions were reached.
o Groundwater quality in the local shallow Kirkwood aquifer immediately
underlying the Site and in direct physical contact with landfill materials,
does not appear to have been significantly impacted by hazardous
substances. Due to the absence of any significant water quality
degradation in the shallow Kirkwood aquifer, together with the laterally
extensive presence of the Shark River Marl which locally serves as a
confining layer below the Kirkwood aquifer, groundwater quality in the
deeper Vincentown aquifer is not anticipated to be at risk as a result of
past disposal practices at the Site.
o No VOCs or pesticide/PCB compounds were detected above laboratory
method detection limits during either sampling round in groundwater
samples from private potable wells. Only one semi-volatile compound,
di-n-octylphthalate, was detected during the 1988 round of sampling,
-------
and it was below levels of concern. Several metals, including copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc, were also present below SDWA standards in
potable water samples collected during the. 1984 sampling effort.
o Surface water and sediment samples collected did not find any significant
environmental quality degradation due to the presence of hazardous
substances at the down-gradient surface water locations.
o Although landfill gas is being generated at the Site, and there is evidence
of slightly elevated levels of VOC accumulation along the unventilated
northern edge of the mall, the sampling and analysis of specific VOC
target compounds, such as benzene, toluene, and xylene, did not indicate
a definitive pattern of gas infiltration. Therefore, it was determined that
the landfill is not the source of detectable levels of VOCs in the Mall. In
addition, concentrations of VOCs in the Mall are not outside the range of
VOC concentrations typically found in other public and private indoor
spaces.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
An endangerment assessment was conducted by EPA to determine the baseline risk
(an evaluation of the potential threat to human health and the environment in the
absence of any remedial action) due to the release of hazardous substances that may
be attributable to the Site. The assessment began with selecting indicator chemicals
which would be representative of Site risks. Sixteen indicator chemicals were chosen;
they were: arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
zinc, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and xylene. EPA has developed two acceptable intake
levels for non-carcinogens, 1) Acceptable Intake for Sub-chronic exposure (AlS)-the
highest human intake of a chemical that does not cause adverse effects when exposure
is short term, and 2) Acceptable Intake for Chronic exposure (AlC)-the highest human
intake of a chemical that does not cause adverse effects when exposure is for a life
time. For carcinogens, EPA has also developed Carcinogenic Potency Factors-the
excess lifetime risk due to a continuous lifetime exposure to one unit of carcinogen
concentration (Table 1). Chemicals were selected for each media to ensure that
plausible exposure routes were evaluated. Then environmental fate and transport
mechanisms were evaluated for each of the indicator chemicals. The following seven
exposure routes were assessed (Table 2): 1) inhalation of indoor (Mall) air, 2)
inhalation of air directly from gas vents both at the exhaust and 3) at 50 meters from
the exhaust, 4) ingestion of surface water sediments, 5) ingestion (consumption) of
fish, 6) ingestion of surface water, 7) ingestion of ground water from monitoring
wells. Since surface and groundwater are currently not a source of potable water on
the Site and the gas vent openings are situated on poles approximately 15 feet off the
8
-------
ground, these exposure pathways were assessed only under future use scenarios.
Consistent with EPA guidance, consumption rates for each indicator chemical were
completed for the seven exposure routes using an average body mass of 70 kilograms
(154 Ibs) for an adult over a 70 year life-span. Sub-chronic exposures were calculated
for consumption for 30 days of the indicator chemical at its maximum detected
concentration (Table 3). Chronic exposure calculations were based on consumption of
the geometric mean chemical concentration (average detected concentration level).
Both future and current use scenarios were evaluated'.
The results indicate that the only media posing a potential risk above EPA guidelines
to human health is groundwater under a future use scenario (Table 2). Current use ,
scenarios for groundwater and all other media demonstrate risk values within an,
acceptable range. Both hazard indices and cancer risks were summed to develop the
cumulative hazard index and the cumulative cancer risk, respectively, to account for
additive exposures. The resulting cumulative hazard indices are 4.23 for sub-chronic
exposure, and 0.75 for chronic exposure; cumulative lifetime cancer risk was
calculated to be 5.87 x 10"4 for an individuals lifetime excess carcinogenic risk. Under
current use scenarios, the lifetime cancer risk calculates to 1.77 x 10s, with
cumulative hazard indices of 1.11 for sub-chronic exposure and 1.88 x 102 for chronic
exposure. Current Federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are a maximum health
hazard index equal to 1.0 for chronic and sub-chronic, non-carcinogenic risk and an
individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 1.0 x 10*4 to 1.0 x 10*.
The endangerment assessment identified arsenic as the only chemical in the
groundwater that may cause its risk levels to exceed Federal guidelines in the future
groundwater use scenarios (i.e., if potable water wells were drilled on Site in the
Kirkwood aquifer there may be an unacceptable risk to users of that water). This
finding is based on the conservative assumption that the arsenic concentrations found
in the unfiltered groundwater samples are representative of groundwater quality in .the
Kirkwood aquifer. EPA believes that the levels of arsenic in samples from ground
water monitoring wells are not representative of actual concentrations in the ground
water because arsenic was detected only in unfiltered samples' (arsenic tends to adsorb
onto particles which immobilize the element). EPA believes that the actual risk from
arsenic is acceptable for the following reasons: 1) arsenic was not detected in any off-
site potable wells, 2) concentration levels in all filtered monitoring well samples are
below Safe Drinking Water Act standards and are comparable to background levels,
and 3) by including the arsenic concentration levels from unfiltered samples in the
future use scenarios in the risk assessment, a conservative estimation of future
potential risk was obtained (5.66 X 10"4) which resulted in a risk value which only
marginally exceeded EPA's target risk range (ie., 10"4 to 107).
Furthermore, EPA believes that the use of the Kirkwood aquifer at the Site is a very
remote possibility due to the limited aquifer thickness and low hydraulic conductivity.
-------
Therefore, EPA believes that the portion of the Kirkwood aquifer underlying the Site is
not an adequate source of water for a private well. However, as a precautionary
measure, EPA recommends modifying the property deed to restrict the possible use of
on-site groundwater.
In EPA's opinion, the threat to human health and the environment from hazardous
substances attributable to this Site is minimal. This conclusion is based on the Site
history and operations, the overall environmental setting and analytical data.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FINDINGS
In December of 1982, the Site was proposed for the Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL). The Site was officially added to the NPL in September of 1983.
Upon the completion of the remedial investigation, it became evident that this Site
should be handled under the authorities designated for closure and post-closure
activities at solid waste landfills. This conclusion is based in part upon a review of
historical documentation which did not reveal any past disposal of hazardous waste at
the Site, the results of the RI which demonstrate that the landfill is not a source of
significant concentrations of any hazardous substances. Contaminants found at the
Site are indicative of solid waste landfills. Unlike typical CERCLA sites, the landfill is
not releasing significant concentrations of CERCLA hazardous substances. Therefore,
an evaluation of remedial alternative, as described in CERCLA, was not appropriate for
this site.
EPA has concluded that conditions at the Site do not warrant remedial action under
CERCLA. It has been determined that the current Site conditions do not exceed EPA's
acceptable risk range. In order to ensure that in the future the conditions at the Site
will continue to be protective of human health and the environment, EPA recommends
that environmental controls be implement and maintain at the Site to address
potential problems associated with solid waste disposal. EPA has determined that
such actions should not be handled under the Superfund program. Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended by the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1980 (RCRA) is the Federal statute concerning solid waste landfills,
and post-landfill closure monitoring requirements. NJDEP is authorized to regulate
sob'd waste landfill closures and post-landfill closure ground water and surface water
monitoring requirements in New Jersey. Current State statutes regulate post-landfill
closure ground water and surface water monitoring requirements. For this reason,
EPA is transferring this Site to the NJDEP for future action.
Although current site conditions do not exceed EPA's acceptable risk range, this "no
action" decision does not constitute a finding that in the future the conditions at the
Site will continue to be protective of human health and the environment without
10
-------
proper maintenance and adherence to post-closure requirements for solid waste
landfills.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There have been no significant changes in the decision as described in the Proposed
Plan. '
11
-------
TABLE 2
Protectiveness Summary
Health Only
Medium
Current Use Future Use
Soil
Air
stream sediment ingestion
gas vent air
gas vent air at 50 meters
indoor air
Water
2.79 X 107 2.79 X 107
NA1 2.23 X
9.05 X 10" 9.05 X 10"
1.74 X 10s 1.74 X 10s
ground water from monitoring wells NA' 5.66 X 10'"
surface water NA1 9.52 X 10'
Biota
fish ingestion
1.59 X 10" 1.59 X lO"
All MEDIA
1.77 X 10s 5.87 X
Nc current exposure pathway.
-------
Seavlev
Square Mall
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
SEAVIEW SQUARE MALL
ASBURY PARK. NEW JERSEY
-------
PROPCK1Y UNE
SITE SKETCH MAP
SEAV1EW SQUARE MALI.
ASBUHY PARK. NEW JERSEY
-------
SOt/THEAST
MONTH WEST
A'
9 Z
FMMJNE »
GENERAUZEO GEOLOGlCAt.
CROSS-SECTION A - A'
•EAV«W •OUANC MAlt
. M.J.
-------
- —TABLE 1 -
RELEVANT INDICATORS OF TOXICITT
Carcinogenic
CHE".::A: *1S Ale Potency Factor
(«8/m3) («g/kg/d4y) ("B/irJ) l/(*g/kg/day)
Jnjestior Route
A-se-.ic :.OOE-B3 _ _ l.DOE-03 _1.80E+OC
Ra-1ur ~~ " S.COE-C2 " " S.1DE-C2 ~r _ T>
C-'cr.-.jrr 2.50E-C2 5.00E-03 ' ' 0
CoSPe' 3.70E-02 3.70E-02 0
I-oi 00 0
Let: 00 0
Ka-.;aiese S.ODE-C: 2.00E-C1 0
Me-c.-y 3.DOE-0* 3.00:-0< 0
*::ie* 2.00E-C2 2.00E-D2 0
l.'-'-icKs-oe^iie 9.00E-C1 9.00E-D2 0
Tr-.:-':-3e:ie-,e 0 0 J.10E-02
Zm: 2.00:-:: 2.00E-01 0
Be*.:eie 0
Cz-sc- Te:"a:-'c-ide C
C'::-:':- 0
*e:-/e-.e C-'e-ioe 0 3.00E»0:
To'ueie 0 2.00£»D:'
1 . 1 , l->i:*'e-Mtrieie 3.00E»OC
•'-.:•' :-5«:ie"-e 0
Xy-eies C 3.0DE-C1
0
C
0
0 3.00E-00
0 2.0DE»0:
3.00E-01
C
C 3.00E-C1
2.90E-C2
J.SOE-O:
8.10E-02
1.40E-C2
0
0
1.70E-OE
0
Ze-os re;*ese*.t univ»i Title or intpplicible d
-------
TABLE 2
Protectiveness Summary
Health Only
Medium
Current Use Future Use
SoH
Air
stream sediment ingestion
gas vent air
gas vent air at 50 meters
indoor air
Water
2.79 X 107 2.79 X 10:
NA1 2.23 X
9.05 X 10" 9.05 X 10"
1.74 X 10s 1.74 X 10s
ground water from monitoring wells NA! 5.66 X 10"*
NA; 9.52 X 107
surface water
Biota
fish ingestion
1.59 X 106 1.59X106
All MEDIA
1.77 X 105 5.87 X
: No current exposure pathway.
-------
TABI.R 1
Ground Water
(monl tor Inp, wells)
SlfMMARY STATISTICS FOR MONITORtNG DATA
Ground Wnlrr
(pnt.Hhle WP! t n )
Surface Water
Sediments
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methylene Chloride •
Nickel
1,1, 1-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Zinc
Geometric
Mean
11.01
152.23
26.93
14.49
18504.40
6.96
122.45
0.15
31.55
114.66
Max Imum
68.00
399.00
222.00
102.00
301000.00
230.00
603.00
1.70
146.00
500.00
Geomet r Ic
Menn
("P. /I.)
2.93
145.29
2.93
14.73
4170.00
5.01
73.41
0.15
11.70
109.63
Notei Blank spaces are shown for
Maximum
(tiR/l.)
5.00
354.00
5.00
73.50
4170.00
64.00
124.00
0.88
20.00
650.00
Geometric
Mean
(UR/I.)
p
1
3.62
lb.8*
4316. B6
2.7*
78. 3«
0.12
2.98
11.02
5.72
3.0*
45.47
compounds not detected
(continued)
Ma x 1 mum
(UR/I.)
' ' 10.00
25.00
5070.00
100.00
'• 84.40
0.40
2.50
i
I 20.00
1
90.00
14.00
170.00
Geometric Maximum
Mean
(mp, /kg) (mg/kR) 1
4.22
50.09
lo. si
7.18
i
11189.40 ^
34.58
14.39
0.09
2.46
1
i
32. Ob
8.50 '
1 |
2il.OO I
35.00 ,
47.80
i
woo. oo ; '
llo.oo i '
239.00
0.20
1
i ;
I
6.50
• '' 1
lift. 00 '
.. _- i
•
i
'
i
I
'
1
•
-------
TARIF 1 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR MONITORING DATA
COMPOUND
ACFTONE
flfMUMF
RRIWIIIICNI OR OMT INANE
2'R'IIANONE
CARRON Dl Sill FIDE
CARRON If IB Arm OR IDE
CHIOROREN/FNE
CHIOROTIHANE
CHIOROIORMJ
CHI OR OHM MANE
DIRRCMOMF THANE
.4-OICHIOROWEN7ENE
2-DICNLOHOBE N/l NE
1 icHlORnniFlUnROME INANE
.1 01 CW OR Of INANE
,2-DICNiCMOE INANE
.2-DICNIOROF.THENE (TOTAL
TRANS- 1.2-OICHlOROETHENE
DICNIOROOIFLUOROMETHANE
ETNVIRENHNE
META ETHYL TOLUENE
HFPIANE
RE KANE
ISORUIYIENC
ISOPROPYL NEN7ENE
MflN»l ETHYL KEIONE
MEIHYLENE CHLORIDE
PENIANE
TROPE NE
S TYRE HE
112 J-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1EIRACNIONOEIHENE
TOIM HE
1.1.1- IRICHLOROETHANE
1.1.2-IRICNlOROE IHANE
TRICNIOROETHENE
TRICHIOROFIUOROMEIMNE
VINYL CHI OK IDE
MVIENE (TOTAL)
MP-NVLENE
O-KYLENE
mnnood
r.roMitRic:
Ml AN
(tK|/m1)
H.6
.1. 7
1.7
2.1
t.B
2.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.9
2 4
2]l
6.0
4.9
1.1
1.1
1.9
2 T
2.6
1.7
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.5
4 ]
1.5
AIR
MAN
»«iq/«rt)
190000.0
B10.0
79.0
1107.5
270.0
160.1
41.0
220.0
12.5
2000.0
4110.0
96.0
1265.1
9500.0
750.0
71.7
104.2
440.0
670.0
260.0
25.0
18.2
1100.0
19.6
17.8
475.6
79.5
189.0
167.0
INDOOR
GEOMETRIC
Mf AN
5.5
1.1
o.n
1.4
2.2
O.fl
1.7
1.1
2.0
1.0
1.9
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.0
2.t
1
M
!
1.6
1.0
1.1
4.1
3.6
0.9
1.0
2.9
1.6
1.7
'
AIR
M
("I
1
1
t
1
•
1
t
|
1
I
1
j
,
(
[
1
1
i
I
1
1
I
1
i
i
. i
t
i
....i.
AN
197.11
5.9
2.0
15.7
10.6
2.0
10.0
16.1
11.0
2.0
24.9
26.7
1.5
5.0
3.5
10.9
2.5
29.9
61.1
4.3
7.0
14.
192.
58.
2.
3.
77.
10.
26.5
.;: •<
• •'•. !i
BLANK SPACES HE PRESENT EITHER NO ANALYSIS PERFORMED OR UNAVAILABLE
I :
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE M&T DELISA LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1
II PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS 2
A. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 2
B. PROPOSED PLAN AND FUTURE SITE
ACTIONS 5
C. SITE HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS 8
D. GENERAL'COMMENTS 10
III RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 12
IV. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITY
CHRONOLOGY 14
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) community relations policy and guidance and the
public participation requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
the EPA Region II office held a public qonunent period from June
28, 1990 to July 28, 1990, to obtain comments on the Proposed
Plan for the M&T DeLisa Landfill Superfund site (the Site) in
Ocean Township, New Jersey. The Site covers 132 acres of which
approximately 39 acres consisted of a private solid waste
landfill which operated from 1941 to 1974. Currently the Seaview
Square Mall Complex is located on the Site. On July 12, 1990,
EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) held a public meeting to receive public comments on the
Proposed Plan. Approximately 30 community residents and
interested persons attended the meeting. Copies of the Proposed
Plan were distributed at the meeting and placed in the
information repositories for the Site.
Public comments received during the comment period are
documented and summarized in this Responsiveness Summary.
Section II presents a summary of questions and comments expressed
by the public at the July 12 public meeting. All questions and
comments are grouped into general categories, according to
subject matter. Each question or comment is followed by EPA's or
NJDEP's response.
-------
II. PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
This section contains questions and comments presented at
the July 12, 1990, public meeting. Comments contained in this
section are grouped according to subject discussed.
A. Remedial Investigation Findings
1. An environmental consultant for the Deal Lake Commission
presented the Commission's comments on the Rl. In general,
the Commission believes that the Sit* has a significant
impact on Deal Lake, and that EPA should further investigate
potential effects of the Site on biota in the lake. The
Commission's specific comments included the following:
The RI includes very little sampling of nutrient
concentrations associated vith leachate discharging
into Deal Lake. A 1983 EPA Clean Lakes Diagnostic
Feasibility Study had concluded that Deal Lake Brook,
downstream of Beaview Square Mall, consistently
contained ammonia and nitrogen at levels at least 10
times greater than those measured in other streams in
the area. The Deal Lake Commission believes that EPA
should investigate this.
The Deal Lake Commission believes that the landfill is
leaching into the lake and perhaps increasing the rate
of eutrophication. The portion of the lake near the
Site has had an extremely high concentration of algae
and other types of aquatic life, which the Commission
feels can be attributed to the landfill.
The Deal Lake Commission is concerned about the
potential effects of metals in the lake. Independent
observations of orange-brown floe, caused by iron
precipitation, an indication of leachate running into
surface water, were made in Deal Lake Brook near the
Mall. In addition, sediment seep samples that were
collected down-gradient from the Site during the RI
contained some of the highest concentrations of metals
found. The Commission is concerned that, although the
RI concluded that the metal concentrations in the lake
(copper in particular) do not pose a risk to humans,
they may accumulate and be toxic to aquatic life in the
lake.
EPA Response: EPA is recommending further monitoring and the
maintenance of some of the environmental controls that were
put in place during construction of the mall. However, it
is necessary to distinguish between activities that.EPA can
-------
implement under Superfund and those that must be -taken under
other environmental laws and regulations. CERCLA, the
Superfund law, mandates that EPA respond to releases of
hazardous substances. That limits the actions that the
Agency can take under Superfund. EPA cannot address the
potential effects of non-hazardous substances, such as
nutrients in the lake, nitrogen, and iron precipitation,
which are outside of the scope of CERCLA. Consequently, EPA
has requested that NJDEP assume the lead for future site
activities connected with the Site.
2. The consultant for tbe Deal Lake Commission asked whether
any bio-assays vere conducted during the risk assessment to
study chronic effects on biota.
EPA Response: No, the endangerment assessment did not
include any such studies. The endangerment assessment
examined potential health-based risks to humans from
potential exposures to Site substances. These include
ingestion of fish from the pond. Since the risk
attributable to the Site from consumption of fish is within
an acceptable range, EPA believes there is no need to
perform bioassays under the auspices of the Superfund
program.
3. A Congressional aide asked whether the arsenic found in veil
vater at the Site during the RI could indicate that
agricultural chemicals and pesticides vere disposed at the
Site during the 1950s.
EPA Response: EPA has no records of disposal of pesticides
in the landfill. In addition, samples were analyzed for the
presence of pesticide compounds. No pesticide compounds
were found.
4. The Congressional aide referred to the RI results vhich
detected arsenic in unfiltered veil samples but not in
filtered samples and asked vhether the conditions of both
tests vere the same. Be also asked vhether any further
testing had been conducted to confirm the results of these
tests.
EPA Response: Both filtered and unfiltered samples were
taken under the same conditions and from the same bailer. A
groundwater sample retrieved from a monitoring well is
immediately split into two samples at the well site. The
unfiltered sample goes directly into a sampling bottle; the
filtered sample is poured into a sampling bottle through a
pre-cleaned barrel filter unit with a disposable 0.45 micron
membrane filter disk. We were unable to confirm the levels
of arsenic found in our 1984 sampling event in our
subsequent sampling efforts in 1988. We are aware Of no
-------
other sampling efforts.
5. One area resident asked whether there it any risk to
fishermen who eat fish caught in Loch Harbor (Deal Lake).
EPA Response: EPA evaluated risks to human health from
consuming fish attributable to hazardous substances
emanating from the Site as part of the risk assessment. The
findings are that any risks associated with consuming fish
potentially affected by the Site are within the range that
EPA has determined to be acceptable.
6. A local official expressed concern that EPA does not know
what is in the landfill because its contents were not tested
during the RI.
EPA Response: No systematic sampling of the refuse material
was done by EPA. However, during the design phase for
construction of the Mall, 58 test borings were drilled, most
into the landfill material. The test borings disclosed the
refuse fill to consist of layered brown to black sand with
paper, rags, wood, metal, concrete, and assorted organic
material. Approximately 800,000 cubic yards of refuse
material was excavated for construction of the Mall. There
was no evidence during these excavations or the test borings
of the presence of hazardous substances. EPA in subsequent
investigations collected samples from the formation
underneath the refuse in the landfill. Hazardous substances
were not detected in significant concentrations in these
samples. No borings were drilled through the clay liner
surrounding the Mall. It was decided not to puncture the
clay to preserve its integrity as a barrier to leachate
flow.
7. A resident asked whether the RI investigated the presence of
aromatic hydrocarbons at the Site, because State-conducted
testing downstream from the Site, along Fairmont Avenue,
found the presence of aromatics whose source is unknown.
EPA Response: Samples collected during the RI were analyzed
for a long list of substances, including aromatic
hydrocarbons; none were found on or associated with the
Site.
8. A Monmouth County official asked whether groundwater samples
had been collected south of Route 66 and stated that the
County had sampled storm drains there and had found ground
water with a leachate-like appearance and elevated chloride
levels.
-------
EPA Response: One potable well PW-D located next to Route
66 on the south side of the highway was sampled in our 1984
sampling event. We detected no hazardous organic compounds
in our sampling. Several metals were detected in this well
in unfiltered samples. EPA did not test for chlorides. It
should be noted that located south of Route 66 is the
Neptune Municipal Landfill which may potentially impact
surface water bodies in the area.
B. Proposed Plan and Future Site Actions
1. The consultant for the Deal Lake Commission stated that the
Commission feels that, although the State is fully capable
of overseeing proper closure activities, EPA should remain
involved with the project to ensure that all environmental
impacts associated with the Bite are addressed. Be also
suggested that EPA take some steps to pre-treat leachate
before its release into Deal Lake and suggested that EPA
modify a series of detention basins on the Beaviev Square
Mall site for this purpose.
EPA Response: (Developed from EPA response at the meeting)
EPA based its decision to refer this site to NJDEP upon a
review of historical documentation which did not reveal any
past disposal of hazardous waste at the Site, the results of
the RI which demonstrate that the landfill is not a source
of significant concentrations of any hazardous substances .
and a conservative assessment of risk attributable to the
release of hazardous substances, from the Site which
indicates that the current risk posed by the Site is within
an acceptable range. With respect to improving the design
of the detention basins, EPA is recommending that NJDEP
investigate the series of detention basins to determine if
modification is warranted.
2. A Congressional aide stated that the selected alternative
vould involve delisting the M&T Delisa Landfill Site from
EPA's National Priorities List (NFL) and place it under
state jurisdiction. Be asked how the State will be able to
fund the required activities and when the State NJDEP vould
be able to address the Site. Be expressed concern that EPA
could be shifting responsibility to the State, knowing the
State could not effectively deal with the Site.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) Solid waste landfill closure will be a State
responsibility. The State of New Jersey does not have
funding to give to municipal landfills for closure, but
requires the owner of record to provide financial assurances
and fund any activities required for proper landfill closure
and long-term maintenance. State regulations require a
-------
post-closure maintenance period from 30 years after the
landfill has closed. Since the landfill was closed in 1975,
this would mean that post-closure activities at the Site
would have to be conducted until the year 2005. The State,
however, has the latitude to require monitoring activities
for a longer period of time; conversely, if the monitoring
indicates that no problems are occurring, such as no surface
or ground water contamination or methane gas migration, the
State could decrease the time that post-closure monitoring
would be required.
3. A Congressional aide expressed concern that Federal and
state money has been used to address the nutrient content of
Deal Lake and its biological effects. He stated that the
source of the leachate that is adding nutrients to the lake
should be identified and prevented from entering the lake
before it creates these problems.
EPA Response: EPA agrees, however, CERCLA is not the
appropriate vehicle to address all non-hazardous contaminant
sources to Deal Lake.
4. Several meeting attendees asked what portion of the
projected costs of future actions the one responsible party
who has been identified will have to pay and vhat their role
vill be in these actions. One person asked EPA to identify
the responsible party.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) The responsible party is the current property
owner, in this case Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management, Inc. The State is still determining how it will
ensure that the responsible party complies with State
landfill post-closure regulations. NJDEP has the authority
to require the property owner to monitor the Site and
maintain the leachate collection, monitoring well, and gas
vent systems until such time as the State is completely
satisfied that the landfill does not pose a potential
threat.
5. A local official asked vhat the State's position is on
transferral of responsibility for the landfill from EPA and
several meeting attendees asked vhat specific actions the
State vill take at the Site in the next 10 to 15 years.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) The State concurs with EPA's recommendation to
transfer responsibility of the landfill to NJDEP. The State
is proposing that monitoring of the Site is more appropriate
than remedial action. Therefore, the cost of the proposed
actions will be less than remedial response. The identified
responsible party will be involved in conducting and/or
-------
paying for the proposed monitoring actions although the
exact mechanisms that NJDEP will use to ensure that the
responsible party complies with requirements have yet to be
decided. However, the kinds of post-closure actions that
the State has the authority to require the landfill owner to
take are similar to the controls that are currently in
place; the parking lot serves as an impermeable cover and
the Site has leachate control and gas venting systems. In
addition, NJDEP has the authority to require the owner to
maintain these systems for a 30-year period, which in the
case of the Site would be some time in the early part of the
next century.
6. A local official asked whether EPA would be able to take
action if, some time in tbe future/ monitoring indicated
that a hazardous waste problem exists at the MtT Delisa
Landfill site. Be stated that he is concerned that leachate
may only have been minimized and the spread of contamination
slowed by the liner and the parking lot, but that in the
future leachate may overflow from the landfill and start to
move into the environment.
EPA Response: At the public meeting, EPA stated that if the
post-closure monitoring reveals that a problem exists, the
Site could be renominated to the NPL. After renomination,
EPA could then take actions. If an emergency situation
occurs where an imminent threat to human health or the
environment occurs, EPA can take removal actions to protect
people in the area and mitigate the hazardous substance
release. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 300.425 (e) (3), "sites
deleted from the NPL are eligible for further Fund-financed
remedial actions should future conditions warrant such
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site
deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL
without application of MRS." Consequently, the site would
not have to be renominated to the NPL.
7. A local official noted that some of the concerns voiced at
tbe meeting seem to be outside of the scope of the Buperfund
program, and asked whether the State could address them if
it assumes responsibility for the Site. The official also
asked whether NJDEP could require the Site owners to
implement additional measures to prevent damage to Deal
Lake.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) If the State determined that there was a need to
redesign some of the existing environmental controls, the
State has the authority to require the owner to take the
additional actions. The property owner could be required to
conduct monitoring of soil, sediments, and other
environmental media to determine if a potential problem
-------
exists. NJDEP also may involve other authorities within the
State, such as the Soil Conservation District, if an issue
falls within their jurisdiction.
8. A local official asked, if the Site remains under EPA
jurisdiction, whether NJDEP would be able to address
concerns that would be outside the scope of the Superfund
program.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) The NJDEP Division of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) cannot; it does not have jurisdiction for sites listed
on the NPL. The SWM cannot have exercise authority to
require any remediation or control until completion of the
CERCLA remedial process. However, other divisions within
NJDEP may have the authority to respond to specific
problems, under other state laws and regulations such as the
New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act or the Water
Pollution Control Act.
C. Site History and Current Status
l. One local official asked whether records are available on
past disposal practices at the Mil DeLisa landfill or
whether EPA knows what substances were disposed these.
EPA Response: There is very limited information available
on the types of wastes that were disposed in the landfill.
EPA knows that construction debris and refuse were disposed
of at the Site, but has no record of hazardous substances
being disposed there.
2. A resident commented that it is impossible to know what
substances were disposed in the landfill because it was very
casually run when it was in operation and allowed
unrestricted access at all time.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) EPA and the State realize that there is no
information on exactly what was disposed at the Site. Based
on investigations, however, there are no indications that
any large quantity of hazardous substances was disposed of
there. If any releases of hazardous waste occur in the
future, monitoring conducted as part of the State
post-closure program should detect them and allow remedial
action to be taken.
3. A local official asked whether the landfill was privately
owned during its period of operation.
-------
EPA Response: The landfill was privately owned, but EPA
believes that municipal waste was disposed of there.
4. Several meeting attendees asked about the leachate
collection tank currently operating at the Bite. Questions
asked included whether the tank is tested periodically,
whether the tank will be tested if MJDEP assumes
responsibility for the site, and how large the tank is.
EPA Response: (Partially developed from State response at
the meeting.) The tank is not tested periodically; it was
tested twice during the RI. If the State assumes
responsibility for the Site, it will ensure that all systems
present, including the leachate collection tank, are
monitored and properly maintained; however, under State
regulations regular testing of this kind has not been done
in the past.
5. Several meeting attendees asked whether the practice of
periodically emptying the leachate collection tank into the
Ocean Township sanitary sewer is safe, whether the treatment
plant can effectively remove harmful substances from the
leachate, and whether the Township is notified when water
will be dumped.
EPA Response: Periodically emptying the leachate collection
tank into the sewer should not have a negative effect on
sanitary operations. The volume of leachate in the tank is
only a minor fraction of the volume of waste typically
treated. The Ocean Township Sewerage Authority indicates
that approximately 10,000 to 30,000 gallons per day of
leachate discharge into the sanitary sewer from the leachate
collection tank. Guidelines and limitations for the
discharge of effluent from the waste-water treatment plant
are are set in the facility's permit.
6. The consultant for the Deal Lake Commission asked whether a
portion of the landfill lies north of Ring Road and whether
that portion of the landfill is unpaved. A local official
asked whether a considerable amount of water was entering
the landfill by this route.
EPA Response: A portion of the old landfill, approximately
9 acres, does lie north of Ring Road and is not paved. Some
water is entering the landfill in this manner. It is not
possible to entirely prevent water from entering the
landfill, however, leachate generated by this water is being
collected in the leachate collection system.
7. A local official asked whether the mall would have been
allowed to be built or would have been built differently if
the M&T DeLisa landfill had been identified as a Superfund
-------
site at the time.
EPA Response: The protective environmental measures
constructed have been effective in controlling environmental
degradation by the landfill. EPA has no reason to believe
that they are not working. The RI has shown that there are
no detectable levels of air contaminants within mall
buildings that can be attributed to the landfill, which was
a major concern. The parking lot appears to be acting as an
impermeable cover that prevents infiltration of rainwater
which would create more leachate. The leachate that is
generated is being collected. Capping and leachate
collection are standard technologies used in landfill
closure. Because EPA1s concern is that the existing control
measures continue to be properly maintained, EPA is
recoininending to NJDEP that the air vents, leachate
collection and monitoring systems, and surface water
monitoring be continued.
8. A local official asked whether the M&T Delisa landfill is
currently a Superfund site, and if so, does that mean that
sufficient environmental problems were present to make it
eligible for the list. He also asked where the Site is
ranked on the NPL.
EPA Response: Yes, the M&T Delisa landfill is currently on
EPA's NPL.. When EPA initially evaluated the Site in 1983,
there were indications of possible environmental
contamination and sufficient numbers of people who used the
ground water who were potentially at risk to warrant further
study. Therefore, the Site was placed on the NPL.
Subsequently, after the RI was completed, EPA concluded that
the Site could safely be deleted from the list. Sites on
the NPL are assigned a numerical score, but the score is an
indication of the numbers of people who are potentially
affected and the types and amounts of substances that are
present on the site rather than of their relative potential
hazard. The Site is currently ranked in the low range of
the 109 sites in New Jersey that are on the list.
D. General Comments
1. One commenter asked why the Administrative Record file for
the Site was placed in the Neptune Library instead of the
Ocean Township Library.
EPA Response: EPA contacted the librarian at the Ocean
Township Library, but was informed that the library did not
have sufficient space to accommodate the Administrative
Record for the Site. The file was placed in the Neptune
Library because it had the available space and is located
10
-------
closer to the Site than other possible facilities, such as
the Ft. Monmouth Federal Depository.
2. A Monmouth county official stated that leachate in the area
of Steinbeck's parking lot is bypassing the leachate
collection system. Be added that saaples that the County
has collected in the area have contained high levels of
ammonia and asked that the leachate collection system be
repaired.
EPA Response: Data gathered during the RI indicates that no
significant contamination from hazardous substances is
attributable to the Site. While some leachate may be
bypassing the collection system, our data indicates that the
impact of hazardous substances is negligible. Currently,
EPA does not believe that the leachate collection system
should be redesigned, however, NJDEP has the authority to
require modifications if any are determined to be necessary.
3. A resident commented that aromatic hydrocarbons detected in
surface vater on Fairmont Avenue have a gasoline odor and
oily appearance and, although their source has not been
found, appear to be in line with the landfill.
EPA Response: (Developed from State response at the
meeting.) At the present time, NJDEP believes that the
source of these substances is not connected with the Site.
Currently, a NJDEP investigation is proceeding under the
Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (ECRA) to
determine the source of the contaminants observed in the
area of Fairmont Avenue.
4. A local official asked in vhich directions the aquifers
potentially affected by the Site flow.
EPA Response: Results from tests conducted during the RI
indicate that in the vicinity of the Site, the Kirkwood
aquifer flows to the southeast toward Deal Lake Brook, and
the deeper Vincentown aquifer flows to the east-southeast
toward Deal Lake. These aquifers may have different flow
patterns in other areas.
5. The consultant for the Deal Lake Commission stated that the
Commission has received Federal, State, and local government
funds to dredge sediment from the area of Deal Lake that is
affected by metal runoff from the landfill. The Commission
is concerned that the sediments they dredge may contain
metal concentrations that exceed landfill disposal standards
and would need to find alternative disposal sites, thereby
increasing the cost of the dredging. For that reason, the
Deal Lake Commission feels that EPA involvement should
continue.
11
-------
EPA Response: Contaminants found at the Site are indicative
of solid waste landfills. Unlike typical EPA Superfund
sites, the landfill is not releasing significant
concentrations of CERCLA hazardous substances. Although
remedial action under CERCLA is not warranted, EPA
recommends that environmental controls be implemented and
maintained at the Site to address potential problems
associated with solid waste disposal. Current State
statutes regulate post-landfill closure ground water and
surface water monitoring requirements. For this reason-, EPA
is transferring this Site to the NJDEP for future response
action. EPA has the authority to address the Site at any
time if EPA believes that the Site posses an imminent threat
to human health or restore the site to the NPL if warranted.
A local official asked NJDEP whether it has assumed
responsibility for other landfills in the State.
Response: (Developed from State response at the meeting.)
The State has not assumed responsibility for a closed
landfill that has been delisted from the NPL. However,
NJDEP is responsible for overseeing nearly 270 other
municipal and private facilities in New Jersey.
III. Response to Written Comments
Dr. Stephen J. Souza of Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., on
behalf of the Deal Lake Commission/ objected to any conclusions
made by the EPA or NJDEP that the Site has not or does not
continue to impact the water quality and biota of Deal Lake. Dr.
Souza/ also on behalf of the Deal Lake Commission/ believes that
EPA should continue to list the Site as a Superfund sit* and that
EPA should not relinquish responsibility or supervision of the
Site to the NJDEP. Be based his objections to the Proposed Plan
on the following.
1. Water quality samples collected from Deal Lake Brook (at the
Route 35 overpass) during a 1983 study of Deal Lake bad
ammonia-nitrogen concentrations 10 times higher than that
measured in other streams not effected by landfill
activities. Associated with this leachate was a floe/
apparently caused by iron/ that formed a matt along the
upper reaches of Deal Lake Brook. Until the leachate
collection system is redesigned to intercept all leachate/
this problem will persist and the lake's water quality and
biota will continue to be impacted.
EPA Response: An extensive sampling effort was done during
the RIs of 1984 and 1988. From those studies, we found low
to non-existent levels of hazardous substances in Deal Lake
12
-------
Brook. Our conclusion was that the Site was not releasing
significant concentrations of hazardous substances which
would result in degradation of Deal Lake Brook or Deal Lake.
Contaminants such as ammonia and iron are indicative of
solid waste landfills. Unlike typical CERCLA sites, the
landfill is not releasing significant concentrations of
CERCLA hazardous substances. At the present time, EPA does
not believe that the leachate collection system should be
redesigned, however, NJDEP has the authority to require
modifications if any are determined to be necessary.
The DSEPA's sampling program to investigate sediment
contamination vas inadequate. The data cannot be used to
statistically verify that no environmental risk exists to
Deal Lake Brook or that Deal Lake has not been impacted by
heavy metals that migrated from the landfill. In addition/
the sample collection technique (sediment scoop) would not
be effective in obtaining sub-surficial sediments since
there vas a tremendous influx of soil from the Site during
construction between 1975-1979. Nucb of the disturbed
contaminated soils could be actually belov the surficial
samples collected in 1984 or 1989. Therefore/ the data may
in fact be non-representative of actual levels of sediment
contamination. A corer or a penetrating dredge appears to
be a more appropriate sampling method given the Site's
history of soil erosion. As such/ the DSEPA's conclusion
that no impact has occurred to the sediments of Deal Lake
Brook or Deal Lake should be reconsidered. At a minimum/
additional sampling/ using appropriate sampling techniques/
should be conducted of the sediments of Deal Lake and Deal
Lake Brook.
EPA Response: EPA believes that the sampling technique was
appropriate to determine contaminant levels in stream
sediments. One would expect to see contamination, if
present, reflected in current stream sediments. The
tremendous influx of soil during the late 1970's mentioned
above may actually dilute levels of contaminants, while the
normal depositional process nay concentrate then. EPA has
recommended to NJDEP that they continue monitoring the
surface water to be sure that contamination does not enter
the brook.
The environmental risk assessment did not include any actual
analysis of tissues from organisms residing in the sediments
or waters of Deal Lake or Deal Lake Brook. The conclusion
of no potential risk associated with the consumption of fish
from Deal Lake is not fully substantiated. At a minimum,
actual tissue samples from plants/ benthos/ and fisb should
be analyzed.
13
-------
EPA Response: EPA believes that a full scale bio-
assessment, while possibly appropriate to define levels of
bio-contamination in Deal Lake, would not be useful in
defining contamination attributable to hazardous substances
from the Site that may have affected biota. Our sampling of
ground and surface water indicates that no significant
hazardous substances are impacting local surface water
bodies. It is reasonable to conclude from this data that
biota is not being affected by hazardous substances
attributable to the Site. EPA's risk assessment evaluated
the potential risk associated with bio-accumulation in fish
from contaminants attributable to the Site. This evaluation
indicated a low potential risk, below federal risk levels,
for consumption of fish by humans.
4. The D8EPA failed to consider the us* of storm-water basins
located in the Sea View Square Mall Bite/ upstream of Deal
Lake Brook, as a means of passively treating leaebate that
bypasses the leachate collection system. The basins would
need to be regraded and retrofited with new outlet control
structures.
EPA Response: EPA will incorporate this suggestion into our
recommendations to the NJDEP.
5. Approximately 25-30% of the Bit* is not capped. Rainfall
continues to percolate through these non-capped sections and
create leachate. Thus the landfill can not be considered to
be properly closed. Actions should be mandated by the USEPA
to properly cap the remaining sections of landfill in order
to alleviate leachate contamination problems.
EPA Response: Areal photographs of the landfill indicate
that it was roughly 39 acres in size, the Mall and
surrounding parking lot cover approximately 30 acres of the
landfill (77%). The landfill was operated from 1941 until
1974 with a permit from NJDEP, and was subsequently closed
before the construction of the Mall. The 9 acres which are
not covered by the mall, have been cleared, graded, capped
with natural soils, and re-vegetated. Under NJDEP
regulations at the time, the landfill was properly closed.
EPA believes that the present leachate collection system is
performing adequately to reduce the flow of leachate into
Deal Lake Brook.
Mr. John J. lannone, P.E., of Fred c. Hart Associates, Inc., on
behalf of the Equitable Real Estate Investment Management/ Inc./
indicate their concurrence with the Proposed Plan.
14
-------
IV. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITY CHRONOLOGY
The Remedial Investigation Reports, the Endangerment
Assessment, the Proposed Plan and other documents which
comprise the Administrative Record for this Site were
released to the public for comment on June 18, 1990. These
documents were made available to the public at the EPA
Region II Docket Room in New York City and at the Neptune
Township Public Library in Neptune Township, New Jersey.
On June 28, 1990, EPA published a notice in the Asbury Park
Press which contained information relevant to the public
comment period for the Site, including duration of the
public comment period, date of the public meeting, and
availability of the administrative record.
The public comment period began on June 28, 1990 and ended
on July 28, 1990.
EPA issued a press release on July 3, 1990, to announce the
availability for comment of the Proposed Plan.
A public meeting was held on July 12, 1990, where
representatives from EPA and the NJDEP answered questions
regarding the Site and the decision under consideration.
Approximately 30 people attended, including citizens,
elected officials, and representatives of the potentially
responsible party.
15
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
M & T DeLisa Landfill Site
Ocean Township, New Jersey
EPA
Region 2
JUNE 1990
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the preferred
alternative for addressing potential air, surface
water, and ground water contamination at the
M & T DeLisa Landfill site (Site) in the Ocean
Township of Monmouth County, New Jersey.
This document is issued by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
lead agency for site activities, and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), the support agency.
Only after the public comment period has
ended and the information submitted during
this time has been reviewed and considered
will EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, make a
decision as to what action(s) to take at this
Site.
srrt BOUVDAHY
N
Figure 1
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of
our public participation responsibilities under
Section I17(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). This Proposed Plan
summarizes information that can be found in
greater detail in the remedJal investigations
conducted by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.,
for the Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management, Inc., under Administrative
Orders on Consent issued in November of
1983 and March of 1986 and other
documents contained in the administrative
record file for the Site.
In addition, EPA has conducted an
endangerment assessment which was
completed in February of 1990. This
document evaluated data from the remedial
investigations and other information regarding
potential ricks to public health and the
environment from the Site. The
endangerment assessment is used to
determine the baseline risk attributable to
hazardous substances that may be released
from the Site (i.e., the risk posed by the Site
before any actions to mitigate the
contamination are taken).
EPA and NJDEP encourage the public to
review these and other documents in the
administrative record in order to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the Site and
the related Superfund activities conducted to
date. The administrative record file contains
the information upon which a decision will be
based. The file is available at the following
locations:
-------
Neptune Township Public Library
25 Neptune Blvd.
Neptune Township, New Jersey
and
U.S.E.P.A. Region II
Emergency & Remedial Response
Division File Room
26 Federal Plaza 29th Floor
New York, New York 10278
EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, may modify
this Proposed Plan based on new information
or public comments. Therefore, the public is
encouraged to review and comment on this
Proposed Plan.
SFTE BACKGROUND
The Site is located in the southeasiern corner
of Monmouth County, northwest of the City of
Asbury Park in Ocean Township, New Jersey.
The 132-acre Site is bounded on the west by
Route 18, on the south by Route 66, on the
east by Route 35. and on the north by an
industrial park located off Sunset Avenue (see
Figure 1). The parcel contains three major
building complexes, the Seaview Square Mall
complex (Wall), the Seaview Movie Theater
complex, and the Acme Supermarket, each of
which is surrounded by a paved parking area.
The only wooded portions of the parcel are
located in the southeast corner of the Site
and sooth of the Route 35 mall access road.
Immediately south of the Mall and located on
the Site lays the most southern arm of Deal
Lake Brook which flows from west to east to
Deal Lake.
The former M & T DeLisa landfill, which was
covered with a natural soil cap supporting a
moderate growth of vegetation, occupied
approximately 39 acres of the 132-acre Site.
The Mall and Its parking areas cover
approximately 30 acres of this former landfill.
The landfill was in operation from 1941 until
1974 under a NJDEP permit. After the landfill
was closed in 1975 an investigation of the
landfill area was undertaken by Woodward-
Gardner and Associates, Inc., for the
Goodman Company, who developed the
parcel for Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management, Inc., a present owner of the
Site. The results of the investigation were
detailed in a report which recommended
control measures to protect against the
possible impact of gas and/or.leachate
generation from the landfill and described
other measures that would be needed to
provide a stable soil for the construction of
the proposed buildings. These
recommendations were incorporated into the
design and construction of the Mall which
was completed in 1977.
The elements of Mall construction which were
implemented to provide environmental
controls, which include refuse movement, gas
control and leachate control, are summarized
below:
Refuse Movement. The refuse material was
found to be unsuitable for building support,
therefore the refuse material situated under
the planned Mall was removed. The refuse
was excavated down to the underlying Shark
River Marl. Then it was placed in areas which
already contained refuse. The area excavated
was replaced with clean fill which was
capable of supporting the buildings. In
addition 3 to 10 foot thick clay side walls
(liner) were installed during construction to
prevent landfill gas migration into the
buildings. The result was that the buildings
are constructed within a low permeability soil
configuration composed of a naturally
occurring confining layer, the Shark River
Marl, beneath the Mall and the clay side liner.
Landfill Gas Control. Three measures were
implemented to control the potential
movement of landfill gas into the Mall. The
first was the installation of the clay liner
discussed above. The second was the
construction of passive control vents, which
consist of perforated horizontal collection
pipes located in the refuse attached to vertical
pipes open to the atmosphere, which provide
a preferred pathway for landfill gas migration
and help prevent horizontal migration into the
buildings. The last measure was to limit the
permeability of the Mall's outer utility corridors
(which contain sanitary sewers, electrical
wiring, etc.) by placing all utility lines within
one narrow corridor, replacing refuse in this
corridor wrth clean soil, and compacting the
soil to reduce permeability. Utilities which
could not be placed within this corridor were
-------
enclosed in concrete.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Leachate Control. Leachate is generated
when rainfall infiltrates into the ground and
percolates through refuse material, or when
ground water moves horizontally through the
refuse. Four measures were implemented to
minimize the generation of leachate: surface
capping of the landfill, modifications to the
storm water system, construction of a
leachate collection system, and installation of
a clay liner. The manner in which these
measures were implemented is described
below:
o The Mall buildings and surrounding
parking lot, along with the natural soil
covering remaining on undisturbed
portions of the landfill, act as a low
permeability cap reducing the volume
of rainwater which is available for
leachate generation.
o The storm water system was' designed
to keep storm water separate .from
leachate by, 1) using the parking lot
as a low permeability cap to provide a
barrier between storm water runoff
and leachate, 2) constructing catch
basins and storm drain pipes as close
to the surface as possible, and 3)
constructing storm water pipes which
are designed to be impermeable so
that the storm water collection system
would not act as a conduit for
leachate migration.
o A leachate collection system
consisting of a perforated pipe within
a gravel trench situated to intercept
ground water/leachate moving toward
Deal Lake Brook was also installed;
the liquid is then collected and
pumped to the sanitary sewer system
for treatment at the municipal waste
water treatment plant.
o The clay liner, which was installed
between the refuse and clean soil fill,
acts as a barrier to ground
water/leachate flow, preventing It from
migrating to or under the Mall
buildings.
Pursuant to Administrative Orders on Consent
of November 1983 and March 1988, between
EPA and Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management, Inc., Fred C. Hart Associates,
Inc., was retained to conduct a remedial
investigation at the Site. The objectives of the
remedial investigation were to characterize the
nature and extent of any contamination
.associated with the Site, to identify migration
of contamination and its Impact on public
health and the environment, and to determine
whether there is a need for remedial
measures to protect human hearth and the
environment. The remedial investigation was
conducted under two distinct investigatory
programs. The initial investigation was
completed in June of 1984, while the
supplemental remedial investigation was
completed in January of 1989.
The investigations evaluated air, surface
water/sediment, and ground water quality.
The air quality investigations were conducted
in November/December of 1983, June of
1984, August of 1988, January of 1989, and
October of 1989. Samples were collected at
all outdoor vents and in all accessible indoor
areas of the lower levels of the Mall buildings
The surface water/sediment sampling effort in
the initial investigation included six sampling
locations. Due to updated information on
surface water flow, three further areas were
sampled in the second investigation. With
respect to the ground water investigation a
total of 7 ground water monitoring wells were
installed to determine the geologic and
hydrologic conditions underlying the Site.
These wells were then sampled along with 4
private domestic water supply wells located
within one-half mile of the Site to determine if
the landfill has impacted the local ground
water.
Upon completion of the investigations, the
following conclusions were reached.
o The three uppermost geologic
formations underlying the Site are (in
descending order): the Kirkwood
Formation - consisting of alternating
layers of sand, silt and clay that are
discontinuous both laterally and
vertically; the Manasquan Formation
-------
(which is locally known as the Shark
River Marl) - consisting of laterally
extensive, low permeability, clayey
sands and silts; the Vincentown
Formation - consisting of a fine to
medium grained sand which
represents a viable source of potable
water in the vicinity of the Site.
Qroundwater quality in the local
shallow KJrkwood aquifer immediately
underlying the Site and in direct
physical contact with landfill materials,
does not appear to have been
significantly impacted by the Site.
This conclusion is based on the
following. Arsenic was detected in
unfittered on-site monitor wells only,
with the arsenic being found in up-
gradient as well as down-gradient
locations. In a subsequent round of
sampling no'significant concentrations
of arsenic were found either on or off
the Site.
Due to the absence of any significant
water quality degradation in the
shallow Kirkwood aquifer, together
with the laterally extensive presence of
the Shark River Marl which locally
serves as a confining layer below the
Kirkwood aquifer, groundwater quality
in the deeper Vincentown aquifer is
not anticipated to be at risk as a
result of past disposal practices at the
Site.
Surface water and sediment samples
collected did not Find any significant
environmental quality degradation at
the down-gradient surface water
locations.
Although landfill gas is being
generated at the Site, and there is
evidence of slightly elevated levels of
volatile organic, compounds (VOCs)
inside the Mall along the unventilated
northern edge, the landfill itself is not
a source of detectable levels of VOCs.
Concentrations of VOCs in the Mall
are not outside the range of VOC
concentrations typically found in other
public and private indoor spaces.
SUMMARY Of SITE RISKS
An endangerment assessment was conducted
by EPA to determine the baseline risk
attributable to the hazardous substances that
may be released from the Site. The
assessment began with selecting indicator
chemicals which would be representative of
the Site risks. Chemicals were selected for
each media to ensure that all potential
exposure routes could be evaluated. Then
environmental fate and transport mechanisms
were evaluated for each of the indicator
chemicals. The following six exposure routes
were assessed: 1) inhalation of indoor air, 2)
inhalation of air from gas vents both directly
from the exhaust and at 50 meters from the
exhaust, 3) ingestion of surface water
sediments, 4) ingestion (consumption) of fish,
5) ingestion of surface water, 6) ingestion of
ground water from monitoring wells and from
local potable wells. Current as well as future
risk scenarios were evaluated. Conservative
consumption rates and exposure scenarios for
each indicator chemical were used for the six
exposure routes.
The endangerment assessment indicates that
their is no current risk that is attributable to
the Site. The endangerment assessment
identified arsenic as the only chemical in the
ground water that may causes its risk levels
to exceed Federal guidelines in the future
groundwater use scenarios. That is if potable
water wells were drilled on Site, in the
Kirkwood aquifer there may be an
unacceptable risk to users of that water.
Furthermore, EPA believes that the use of the
Kirkwood aquifer at the Site is a very remote
possibility due to the limited aquifer thickness
and low hydraulic conductivity. Therefore,
EPA believes that the portion of the Kirkwood
aquifer underlying the Site is not an adequate
source of water for a private well. This
finding is also based on the conservative
assumption that the arsenic concentrations
found in the unfittered ground water samples
are representative of ground water quality in
the Kirkwood aquifer. EPA believes that the
levels of arsenic in samples from ground
water monitoring wells are not representative
of actual concentrations in the ground water
because arsenic was detected only in
unfirtered samples (arsenic tends to adsorb
onto particles which immobilize the element)
-------
EPA believes that the actual risk from arsenic
is acceptable for the following reasons: 1)
arsenic was not detected in any off-site
potable wells, 2) concentration levels in all
filtered monitoring well samples are below
Safe Drinking Water Act standards and are
comparable to background levels, 3) and by
including the arsenic concentration levels from
unfiftered samples in future use scenarios in
the risk assessment, a conservative estimation
of future potential risk was obtained
(5.7 X 1CT4) which resulted in a risk range
which onry marginally exceeded EPA's target
risk range (ie., 10^ to 107). EPA believes that
this is a very remote possibility due to the
limited aquifer thickness and tow hydraulic
conductivity on the Site.
The results indicate that the only media
posing potential unacceptable risk to human
hearth is consumption of ground water from
unfiltered monitoring wells in future use
scenarios. Given the current Site conditions,
the cumulative lifetime cancer risk for this Site
• is within Federal guidelines for acceptable
exposures.
Thus the current threat to human health and
the environment from this Site is minimal.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FINDINGS
In December of 1982, the Site was proposed
for the Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL). The Site was officially added to the
NPL in September of 1983.
Although there is no significant contamination
which is attributable to the Site, there are
environmental controls which need to be
implemented and maintained. Such actions
are not within the jurisdictional authority of
CERCLA.
Upon the completion of the remedial
investigation, it appears this Site should
instead be handled under the authorities
designated to close and remediate municipal
landfills. Therefore, the remedial attemative
selection process to describe and select a
remedial action as mandated by CERCLA,
was not appropriate for this site. Subtitle D of
the Resources Recovery and Conservation Act
of 1976 as amended by the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1980, is the Federal statute
concerning municipal landfills, and its
regulations address post-landfill closure
monitoring requirements. NJDEP is
authorized to regulate municipal landfill
closures and post-closure monitoring in New
Jersey. For this reason EPA is referring this
Site to the NJDEP for further action. Current
State statutes also regulate post-landfill
closure ground water and surface water
monitoring requirements for municipal landfills.
COMMUNITY FIOLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NJDEP rely on public input to
assure that the action selected for each
Superfund site considers the needs of the
local community, in addition to being an
effective solution to the problem. To this end,
this Proposed Plan is being distributed to the
public for comment. The public is therefore
encouraged to review and comment on all
aspects of the plan.
Written and verbal comments on the plan, the
remedial investigation documents and the
endangerment assessment will be welcomed
through July 28, 1990.
The comments and EPA's responses to those
comments will be documented in a
Responsiveness Summary. The
Responsiveness Summary will be appended
to the subsequent Record of Decision (ROD)
which formally documents the decision for the
Site.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Lance R. Richman, P.G.
Regional Project Manager
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 747
New York, New York 10278
A public meeting will be held in the upstairs
room of the West Park Recreation Center on
July 12, 1990 at 7:00 p.m., to present the
details of the remedial investigation,
endanqerment assessment and the proposed
plan. The West Park Recreation Center is
part of the Ocean Community Pool and
Tennis Complex, located on West Park
Avenue between Highway 35 and Whale Pond
Road in Oakhurst, New Jersey.
------- |