United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
PB93-963804
EPA/ROD/R02-92/174
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-92/174
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Tide and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/28/92
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Tasti/Work Unit No.
11. ContrecqC) or Grsnt(G) No.
(C)
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
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963804
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 200-acre Kin-Buc Landfill consists of several inactive disposal areas and is
located in Edison Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial and commercial, with some residences within 2 miles north of
the site. No drinking water supply wells are located within a 2-mile radius of the
site. The Kin-Buc site includes three landfill mounds: Kin-Buc I, Kin-Buc II
(directly north of Kin-Buc I), and Mound B (southwest of Kin-Buc I and adjacent to the
Raritan River). Additionally, the low-lying Edmonds Creek/Marsh area is situated
between Kin-Buc I and the adjacent Edison Landfill and a wetlands area. Portions of
the Kin-Buc site lie within both the 100-year floodplain of the Raritan River and a
coastal zone. From 1947 to 1977, Kin-Buc accepted industrial and municipal waste,
including solvents, waste oils, paint sludge, cyanides, metal stripping wastes, and
paint thinners. An estimated 70 million gallons of liquid waste and at least 1 million
tons of solid waste were disposed of at Kin-Buc between 1973 and 1976 alone. As a
result of an oil spill in 1976, EPA conducted an investigation of the property. In
1980, clean-up activities were initiated under the Clean Water Act and included
removal, treatment, and disposal of leachate and drummed waste. Also in 1980, Kin-Buc
(See Attached Page)
NJ
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Kin-Buc Landfill,
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: sediment, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, xylenes); other organics (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides);
metals (arsenic, lead)
b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
86
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/174
Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
was ordered to cap Kin-Buc I and II. A 1988 ROD addressed source control remediation in
mounds I and II, the low-lying area, and Pool C as OU1. This ROD addresses a final
remedy for OU2 consisting of the sediment and groundwater in the Edmonds Creek wetlands
area, Mill Brook/Martins Creek, Mound B, and the low-lying area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the sediment and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; and metals,
including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedy for this site includes excavating 2,200 cubic yards of sediment with
PCB levels above 5 mg/kg, using excavation methods selected to control surface water flow
and minimize impact to wetlands, dewatering, consolidating, and disposing of sediment
within the OU1 containment area; actively restoring 1.36 acres of wetlands in Edmonds
Creek/Marsh using a program developed during the RD stage; maintaining the Mound B cover,
allowing natural attenuation to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels in
the ground water, and performing long-term ground water and surface water monitoring. A
contingency remedy will be implemented to provide for offsite disposal of sediment at a
chemical waste facility if EPA determines that disposal of OU2 sediment in the OU1
containment area will delay construction of the OU1 remedy. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $4,314,900, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$67,100.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific excavation goals for sediment are
based on EPA's evaluation of bioavailability, Office of Water Methods, and remediation
goals at other Superfund sites and include PCBs at 5 mg/kg. EPA believes that a
PCB-driven remedial action will also effect reduction of the other contaminants onsite,
such as metals and PAHs.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCA TION
Kin-Buc Landfill
Edison Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
STA TEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Kin-Buc Landfill site,
which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This
decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy concurs with the
selected remedy. The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in
the administrative record for this site.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Kin-Buc site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected response action represents the second of two planned operable units for the
Kin-Buc site. A landfill containment system including a slurry wall, extension of the existing
cap, and leachate collection and treatment will be implemented as part of the first operable
unit, in accordance with the Record of Decision signed in 1988. This second action will
address contamination found outside of the containment system, in particular, sediments
contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Edmonds Creek wetlands located
to the east of the landfill mounds. These sediments have been found to pose unaccept-
able threats to human health and the environment.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy for the second operable unit include the
following:
D excavation of approximately 2200 cubic yards of sediments
containing PCBs at levels greater than 5 parts per million;
D consolidation of the excavated sediments within the Operable
Unit 1 containment system;
D restoration of wetlands areas impacted by the excavation of
contaminated sediments; and
D long-term monitoring of ground and surface water to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
The selected remedy will reduce ecological and human health risks caused by the uptake
of PCBs from sediments into local aquatic species such as fish and crabs. However,
because this remedy will involve on-site containment of contaminated sediments, long-term
management and controls will be necessary.
DECLARA TION OF STA TUTORY DETERMINA TIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate, and
is cost-effective. It utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. However, treatment
of the principal threats of the site was not found to be practicable, since the small volume
of sediments which exceeded the remediation goal of 5 ppm could not be cost-effectively
treated. Therefore, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the site within the
first operable unit containment system, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the first operable unit remedial action to ensure that the selected
remedies continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff x£
Regional Administrator y
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Site name: Kin-Buc Landfill
Site location: Edison Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
MRS score: 50.64
ROD
Selected remedy: Sediment Removal and Consolidation in On-Site Containment
Capital cost: $3,537,000
O & M cost: $67,100 (annual)
Present-worth cost: $4,314,900
LEAD
USEPA
Primary Contact: Alison Barry, (212) 264-8678
Secondary Contact: Janet Feldstein, (212) 264-0613
Main PRPs: Kin-Buc, Inc. (Transtech)
SCA Services (Waste Management NA)
WASTE
Waste type: PCBs
Waste origin: landfill leachate
Estimated waste quantity: 2200 cubic yards
Contaminated medium: wetlands sediment
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Kin-Sue Landfill
Edison Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
Human Health Assessment 8
Ecological Risk Assessment 10
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 12
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 13
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 17
SELECTED REMEDY 23
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 25
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Kin-Buc Landfill, located at the end of Meadow Road, Edison Township, Middlesex
County, consists of several inactive disposal areas which cover approximately 200 acres.
The Kin-Buc site is located within an industrial and commercial area of Edison Township,
Middlesex County, which is zoned for light industry. Figure 1 indicates the site location.
The site is bordered on the south by the Edison Landfill, on the east by the wetlands and
the inactive ILR Landfill, on the west by the Rarrtan River, and on the north by the Edison
Salvage Yard and a chemical manufacturing plant. The Edgeboro Landfill is located across
the river from the Kin-Buc and Edison landfills. The Heller Industrial Park, a light-industrial
and commercial complex, is located approximately one-half mile to the northeast of Kin-
Buc. Some residences are located approximately between one and a half and two miles
to the north of the site. No drinking water supply wells, municipal or private, are located
within a two-mile radius of the site. Upstream of the site, the City of New Brunswick
withdraws water from the Lawrence Brook, a tributary of the Raritan River which enters the
river from the west.
The site includes three landfill mounds, the 14-acre Low-Lying Area situated in between
Kin-Buc I and the Edison Township Landfill, as well as the Edmonds Creek/Marsh area.
Kin-Buc I is the largest of the landfill areas, covering 30 acres with a maximum elevation
of 93 feet. Kin-Buc II, the smaller mound immediately north of Kin-Buc I, covers 12 acres
at a maximum elevation of 51 feet. Mound B is located along the shoreline of the Raritan
River to the west of Kin-Buc I, and consists of approximately nine acres at an average
elevation of 15 feet. The 14-acre Low-Lying Area in between Kin-Buc I and the Edison
Landfill has an elevation ranging between 10 and 25 feet, of which approximately 10 feet
is fill material and refuse. The locations of these features are illustrated in Figure 2.
Portions of the site, including the Edmonds Creek wetlands, the Pool C area, the eastern
end of the Low-Lying Area, the mouth of Martins Creek, and the southern end of the
Mound B area fall within the 100- or 500-year floodplain.
The Edmonds Creek wetlands consist of approximately 50 acres of tidal wetlands which
border the landfill mounds on the east. The wetlands are drained by Edmonds Creek,
which discharges to the Raritan River southeast of the Edison Landfill. A small channel
connects Pool C, a tidal pool on the southeastern edge of Kin-Buc I into which oily
leachate from Kin-Buc drains, to Edmonds Creek, and allows contaminants from the landfill
to discharge into the creek and the surrounding wetlands. Because the marsh and
Edmonds Creek are tidally influenced, with a maximum elevation of 4 feet above mean sea
level, contaminants and sediments are regularly redistributed in response to tidal
fluctuations and storm events. Edmonds Creek also receives drainage from the ditch
between the Low-Lying Area and the Edison Landfill. On the northwestern side of Kin-Buc
I and II, the Mill Brook/Martins Creek system flows past the site and discharges to the
Raritan River at Mound B. This stream system receives runoff from the Kin-Buc mounds
as well as upgradient sources, and is tidally influenced in the vicinity of Mound B.
-------
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Kin-Buc Landfill began operating as early as 1947, accepting municipal, industrial, and
hazardous waste. Between 1971 and July 1976, Kin-Buc Inc. operated the site as a state-
approved landfill for industrial (solid and liquid) and municipal wastes. Hazardous wastes
were disposed in the main landfill mound, Kin-Buc I, as well as in Kin-Buc II. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, on the basis of owner-operator records,
that approximately 70 million gallons of liquid waste and at least one million tons of solid
waste were disposed of at Kin-Buc between 1973 and 1976. However, in 1976, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) revoked Kin-Buc's
permit to operate because of violations of both state and federal environmental statutes.
EPA's involvement with the site began in 1976 during investigation of an oil spill at the site
which revealed discharge of hazardous substances from the facility. EPA filed initial
charges against the owner-operators in 1979, under such statutes as the Water Pollution
Control Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under a 1980 partial settlement, Kin-Buc Inc. (and not the
other defendants) agreed to install a landfill cap and initiate a long-term monitoring
program, but not to remediate the site or control the further migration of contaminants in
the area. Therefore, in 1980, EPA began cleanup activities under Section 311(k) of the
Clean Water Act, collecting aqueous and oily leachate from the Pool C area for treatment
and disposal. In 1981, the site was placed on the Superfund National Priorities List.
When negotiations with the owner-operators for additional remediation failed, EPA issued
a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), requiring a removal
program, a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), implementation of a
remedial action, and operation and maintenance of that selected remedy. Between 1982
and 1988, an RI/FS was conducted by the owner-operators for the site. This investigation
determined that the Kin-Buc I and II landfill mounds were the source of hazardous
constituents in the surrounding environment. In 1984, EPA also sent information request
letters under CERCLA Section 104(e) to over 400 potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
identified on the basis of Kin-Buc records as generators of wastes disposed of at Kin-Buc.
Under a 1987 Consent Decree, EPA recovered $5,000,000 in past oversight and response
costs from approximately half of these generators.
On the basis of the RI/FS conducted by the owner-operators, a remedy for the site was
selected in a Record of Decision signed in 1988. The Record of Decision divided the site
into two remedial phases known as operable units: Operable Unit 1 consists of the Kin-Buc
I and II mounds, as well as portions of the Low-Lying Area and Pool C, while Operable Unit
2 includes adjacent areas impacted by contaminant migration from the landfill. The
Operable Unit 1 selected remedy was intended to provide source control for the landfill
mounds and includes:
-------
D maintenance and upgrading of the Kin-Buc I cap, and installation of a
RCRA Subtitle C cap on the remainder of the source area, consisting of Kin-
Buc II, the Pool C area, and portions of the low-lying area between Kin-Buc
I, the Edison Landfill and Pool C;
D installation of a circumferential slurry wall to bedrock on all sides of the
source area;
D collection and off-site incineration of oily phase leachate;
D collection and on-site treatment of aqueous phase leachate and ground
water from within the slurry wall, in order to ensure the integrity of the slurry
wall containment system, with discharge of treated water to the Raritan River;
D periodic monitoring;
D operation and maintenance; and
D an additional RI/FS to determine the nature and extent of off-site
contamination associated with the site (Operable Unit 2).
The owner-operators are currently performing the design of this remedy. EPA anticipates
that construction of this remedy will begin during the summer of 1993.
The additional RI/FS was conducted by the owner-operators under amendments to the
initial Unilateral Administrative Order issued in 1986 and 1990.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan for the second operable unit were released to the
public for comment on July 15,1992. These documents were made available to the public
in the administrative record file at the Superfund Records Center at EPA's Region II office
in New York City, and the information repository at the Edison Free Public Library, 340
Plainfield Avenue, Edison, New Jersey. The notice of availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in the Home News on July 15, 1992. The public comment
period on these documents was held from July 15,1992 to August 14,1992.
On August 4,1992, EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy conducted a public meeting at the Edison Township Municipal Building, to inform
local officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to review current and
planned remedial activities at the site, and to respond to any questions from area residents
and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public
comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This is the second of two operable units planned for the Kin-Buc site. The Record of
Decision issued in September 1988 for Operable Unit 1 selected source control measures
intended to prevent the further migration of contaminants from Kin-Buc I and II landfill
mounds, the Pool C area, and adjacent portions of the Low-Lying Area between Kin-Buc
I and the Edison Landfill. The ROD also called for a second supplemental investigation of
surface-water and ground-water contamination emanating from the site, as well as in the
wetlands adjacent to the landfills, and Mound B. This investigation, Operable Unit 2, has
focused on evaluating the nature and extent of
4 ground-water contamination in the Low-Lying Area and Mound B,
f wetlands contamination in the Edmonds Creek/Marsh system, and
4 surface-water contamination in Edmonds Creek and Mill Brook/Martins
Creek.
The second operable unit remedy, as described in this document, is intended to address
the contaminated sediments found in the Edmonds Creek marsh area. The primary goal
of this remedy is to reduce the risks to human health and the environment caused by the
uptake of contaminants from sediment into the aquatic food chain. The selected alternative
for the second operable unit, in conjunction with the first operable unit containment system,
will address all remaining concerns associated with the migration of contaminants from the
landfill. Long-term monitoring of the ground water in the Operable Unit 2 study area, and
of the Raritan River, will be conducted to confirm the expected performance of the
Operable Unit 1 containment system.
EPA is the lead governmental agency for the Kin-Buc site, and NJDEPE is the support
agency.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Wehran Engineering Corporation performed the second Remedial Investigation for the
owner-operators between August 1989 and July 1990. The following section describes the
results of the Rl.
Environmental Setting
The Operable Unit 2 study area consists of Mound B, the Low-Lying Area, Edmonds
Creek, Mill Brook/Martins Creek, and the wetlands associated with Edmonds Creek. Both
Mound B and the Low-Lying Area are known to contain refuse; however, no additional
information regarding the nature or origin of the refuse is available. Boring logs indicate
that the primary components of the fill are municipal and household refuse and debris.
Mound B received a cap in 1982, which consisted of clay and sand layers. The Mound B
area includes a variety of dense grasses, as well as Phragmites communis and eastern red
-------
cedar, although portions of the Mound B cap are barren of vegetation. Cover soils were
placed over the Low-Lying Area during the landfilling operation. The Low-Lying Area
supports a scrub-shrub vegetative community, including sumac, eastern red cedar, and
black cherry shrubs. The wetlands vegetative community is dominated by Phragmites
communis. with Spartina alterniflora. commonly found along drainage channels and in
areas of lower elevation. Narrow-leaved cattails (Typha angustifolia) dominate the less
saline reaches of the marsh. Although no areas of the Operable Unit 2 study area support
extensive forest communities, a variety of deciduous forest species are found in the Mill
Brook/Martins Creek area, and along a former railroad bed which constitutes the upper
bound of the Edmonds Creek marsh.
Wildlife identified at the site include invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and
mammals. Fiddler crabs were the most abundant species of invertebrate, although blue
crabs and grass shrimp were also observed. Mummichogs were the most frequently
observed species of fish in Edmonds Creek and Martins Creek, although the type of
sampling equipment used did not permit collection of larger species of fish from these
streams. Turtles and terrapins were observed in Edmonds Creek and the Raritan River.
Numerous bird species were observed at the site. A large community of muskrats is
supported by the Edmonds Creek marsh area, and were also observed in Mill
Brook/Martins Creek. Smaller mammals in the Edmonds Creek marsh consist largely of
the house mouse and the Norway rat. No federal endangered or threatened species were
observed at Kin-Buc, although several New Jersey threatened and endangered species
were observed either on the site or in the vicinity of Kin-Buc; these are the northern harrier,
the osprey, the great and little blue herons, and the yellow-crowned night heron.
Geology and Hydrogeology
The Kin-Buc site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of Triassic Age, the Brunswick
Formation and the Lockatong Formation. These formations consist chiefly of siltstone,
mudstone and shale, and occur at depths ranging between 25 and 46 feet below the OU
2 study area. A sand-and-gravel unit, representing Recent Raritan River channel fill,
overlies the bedrock locsiiy at an average thickness of 16 feet. Within the Operable Unit
2 study area, a layer of organic-rich clay and silt known as "meadow mat" overlies the
sand-and-gravel deposit at an average thickness of 7 feet. A refuse layer of varying
thickness (between 7 and 24 feet) overlies the meadow mat deposit throughout the OU 2
study area. The refuse contains relatively old waste materials, such as household and
municipal solid waste, debris, white goods (household appliances), industrial wastes and
fill materials. This layer is overlain by a thin (between 1 and 9 feet) layer of cover soil.
All four stratigraphic units are water-bearing, although only the bedrock unit is regionally
extensive and used for water supply. In the refuse layer, ground water flows radially from
the Kin-Buc I mound toward the Pool C area, the Edison Landfill, and the Raritan River, and
is not tidally influenced by the river. The underlying meadow mat layer acts as a semi-
confining layer; its fine-grained organic-rich matrix exhibits very low permeability, indicating
that ground water does not readily flow in this unit either vertically or laterally. The sand-
and-gravel unit is in direct hydraulic contact with the river, and is therefore affected by tidal
-------
influences. At low tide, ground water in this unit flows across the site from southeast to
northwest. At high tide, this flow is reversed when ground water flows from Mound B
toward the Low-Lying Area. However, net flow is west, towards the river. Ground water
flows in the bedrock unit towards the south. However, in the Operable Unit 2 study area,
where bedrock is directly overlain by the sand-and-gravel unit, bedrock flow is tidally
influenced, causing a general oscillation of flow in the Mound B and Low-Lying areas.
Vertical gradients within the four units indicate that net discharge from these units is to the
Raritan River, either directly or indirectly. The refuse and sand-and-gravel units discharge
directly into the Raritan River at high and low tides, respectively, while the bedrock unit
discharges upward into the sand-and-gravel unit, from which ground water discharges to
the river.
Contaminants were found in the refuse unit leachate, as well as in ground water from the
sand-and-gravel unit and, at very low levels, in the bedrock aquifer. Leachate in the refuse
unit contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs), base-neutral/acid extractable
compounds (BNAs), metals and pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Table
1 shows the maximum concentrations of contaminants in the leachate. These constituents
appear to have originated within the Kin-Buc I and II mounds and have migrated toward
Mound B and the Raritan River to the west, and towards the Edmonds Creek marsh on the
east. The sand and gravel unit contains similar VOCs and BNAs as were found in the
refuse unit, although at lower concentrations. Table 2 indicates the maximum levels of
contaminants in this unit. These constituents also appear to have migrated from the landfill
mounds. The bedrock unit contains very low levels of VOCs, as illustrated in Table 3,
which may also be attributed to migration from Kin-Buc I.
Sediment
Sediments in the Edmonds Creek/Marsh system contain PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and metals. PCBs were found, at concentrations less than 10 parts per million
(ppm) in most parts of the marsh, although portions of the Edmonds Creek channel
contained concentrations which ranged up to 81 ppm, and areas immediately adjacent to
Pool C exhibited concentrations between 100 and 290 ppm. Table 4 indicates the range
in concentrations observed during the investigation. PCBs identified were predominantly
Arochlors 1248 and 1254. Distribution of these contaminants indicate that PCBs are
attributable to Pool C via the connecting channel to Edmonds Creek. PAHs and metals
were found throughout the marsh, Distribution patterns were less clear regarding PAHs
and metals in the sediments; other man-made sources of PAHs and metals in the vicinity
of the site have most likely contributed to the distribution of these constituents in the study
area. However, certain metals and PAHs are highest in areas also characterized by high
levels of PCBs. Figure 3 indicates the levels and distribution of PAHs in the Operable Unit
2 study area. Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the distribution of arsenic, copper, lead and
nickel throughout the study area. Only one sample from Mill Brook contained PCBs, and
the level observed was significantly below the detection limit. No site-attributable patterns
of metals of PAHs were observed in sediment samples from Mill Brook/Martins Creek.
-------
Wehran also conducted a supplemental sediment sampling program which further refined
the extent of PCB contamination in the Edmonds Creek wetlands sediment. The report
confirmed the findings of the Rl that low levels (less than 1 ppm and 10 ppm respectively)
of PCBs and PAHs are present in the marsh. Metals were observed at higher levels in the
vegetated areas of the Edmonds Creek marsh than in the stream channels which transect
these wetlands, but distribution patterns are not related to Pool C or elevation within the
marsh.
Surface waters in Edmonds Creek did not appear to be affected by site-derived contamina-
tion.
Biota
PCBs and metals were detected in resident wildlife collected in Edmonds Creek/Marsh, Mill
Brook/Martins Creek, and the Reference Area (a similar area, located across the Raritan
River from the site, which is intended to represent local background conditions). Tables
5 summarizes data from tissue analysis. The highest concentrations of PCBs were
detected in fiddler crabs and small fish from the Edmonds Creek/Marsh area, while elevat-
ed levels of cadmium were observed in muskrat kidneys from the lower end of Edmonds
Creek and Mill Brook/Martins Creek.
EPA conducted supplementary biological sampling in 1990 and 1991. In July 1990, EPA
collected sediment and fiddler crab tissue samples from Edmonds Creek, Martins Creek,
and an upstream reference location. The samples were analyzed for PCBs, semivolatile
organics, and cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury and zinc. The results indicated that
bioaccumulation of PCBs, chromium, copper and zinc was evident in the fiddler crabs.
EPA also collected samples of muskrat tissues during the October 1990 through January
1991 period, but found no evidence of PCB bioaccumulation in muskrat livers. However,
the study did show bioaccumulation of metals in these samples, although a specific source
of metals contamination could not be ascertained, since distribution of metals throughout
the OU 2 study area did not point to a single source. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the
results of these studies.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health
and the environment associated with the Kin-Buc Landfill site in its current state. The Risk
Assessment focused on contaminants in the sediment, ground water, surface water, and
fish which are likely to pose significant risks to human health and the environment. The
summary of the contaminants of concern (COC) in sampled media is listed in Table 8 for
human health receptors. Tables 9,10 and 11 provide a statistical summary of the data for
all three media, including the frequency-of-detection, mean concentration, and the 95
percent Upper Confidence Limit (UCL).
-------
Human Health Assessment
EPA's baseline risk assessment identified ieveral potential exposure pathways by which
the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the site under current and future
land-use conditions. Exposures to sediment, surface water, ground water, and fish were
assessed for both potential present and future land use scenarios, such as residential and
recreational land use. A total of eight exposure pathways were evaluated, using
reasonable maximum exposure assumptions. The baseline risk assessment evaluated the
health effects that could result from exposure to contamination as a result of ingestion of
ground water, ingestion of fish, dermal contact with sediments during recreation, inhalation
of chemicals volatilizing during showering, dermal exposure to shower water, dermal
absorption and ingestion of surface water during recreation, and ingestion of sediment
during recreation. These pathways were evaluated separately for children and adults.
Certain pathways were eliminated on the basis of the existing landfill cap or existing site
characteristics, such as the air pathways. It should also be noted that the site is not
currently used for residential purposes and only for limited recreational use (i.e., fishing in
the vicinity of the site). Current and past land use is primarily light-industrial and
commercial. In addition, since there are no private or public drinking water wells located
within the area of contaminated ground water or downgradient of the site, there is no
existing mechanism for human exposure to the contaminated ground water. However, for
the purposes of evaluating all possible risks associated with the site, EPA considered
potential future residential scenarios involving ground-water consumption and current recre-
ational exposure scenarios such as fishing and swimming.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and
noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. It
was assumed that the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus,
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with exposures to individual
compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses).
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of milligrams per kilogram per
day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to
be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking
water) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the
particular medium. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds
within a particular medium that impact a particular receptor population.
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects
to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
8
-------
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium
or across media. The reference doses for the compounds of concern at the site are
presented in Table 12. A summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these
chemicals for individual exposure pathways is found in Table 13.
It can be seen from Table 13 that the His for noncarcinogenic effects from ingestion of fish
(reasonable maximum exposures) are 20 and 7.19, for children and adults, respectively.
For ingestion of ground water, the His for noncarcinogenic effects are 6.13 and 5.42,
respectively. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects may occur from these pathways evaluated
in the Risk Assessment. The noncarcinogenic risk was attributable to several compounds
including PCBs, vinyl chloride, chlorobenzene, arsenic, antimony, beryllium, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, 4,4'-DDT, and manganese.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by
EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed
by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs,
which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The
term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF.
Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SF for the
compounds of concern are presented in Table 12.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual
lifetime cancer risks of between KT* to 10"6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
individual has not greater than approximately a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a
70-year period under specific exposure conditions at a site. The potential cancer risk from
ingestion of fish from the site during a lifetime is 1.31 x 10"1 for an adult and 1.1 x 10"1 for
a child. The potential carcinogenic risk for ingestion of the most contaminated ground
water at the site by an adult during a 70-year lifespan is 6.6 x 10**, and by a child, 2.3 x
10"4. These risk numbers can be interpreted to mean that 1.31 out of ten adults are at an
excess risk of developing cancers because of their regular consumption of contaminated
fish during their lifetime, or that 6.6 people out of ten thousand are at an excess risk of
developing cancer because of their regular consumption of ground water from the site
during their lifetime. These risks exceed the acceptable risk range for carcinogens of 10"4
to 10"6. A summary of cancer risks associated with the chemicals of concern for various
exposure pathways appears in Table 13.
The estimated total risks for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens are primarily due to the
ingestion of contaminated fish from the site and secondarily to the ingestion of contaminat-
ed ground water by potential future residents at the site. These estimates were developed
by taking into account various conservative assumptions about the likelihood of a person
being exposed to these media. However, in reviewing both the baseline risk assessment
and the site conditions, EPA concluded that the location and characteristics of Kin-Buc
-------
preclude any current exposure to contaminated ground water at the site. Furthermore,
EPA believes that it is highly unlikely that humans will ever use the ground water underlying
this site, given the historical and current land use in this area of Edison Township. The
proximity of the Edison Landfill immediately to the south of Kin-Buc and the defunct ILR
Landfill on the eastern side of the Edmonds Creek wetlands limit the future development
of this area for residential purposes. In addition, ground-water modeling conducted during
the FS indicates that natural attenuation will gradually reduce contaminants to acceptable
levels after the source control measures provided by Operable Unit 1 are implemented.
Since it is highly unlikely that any exposure pathways will exist in the foreseeable future,
EPA does not believe that there are any actual or plausible potential site risks associated
with ground water which would justify active response measures to reduce contaminant
concentrations in ground water.
In summary, ingestion of fish from the site constitutes a risk to human health, since both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks exceed the acceptable levels. Other plausible
exposure pathways present risks that are within or below EPA's allowable range.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Potential risks to the environmental receptors associated with the Kin-Buc Landfill site were
identified in the ecological risk assessment. The ecological risk assessment identified fish
found in Edmonds Creek and the Raritan River and benthic invertebrates such as fiddler
crabs found in the Edmonds Creek marsh as those receptors most threatened by the site
contaminants under current site conditions. The major site-related risks to aquatic life are
posed by PCBs in sediments in the area adjacent to Pool C and Edmonds Creek, since
fish and crabs come into direct contact with sediments or may ingest other species which
have accumulated contaminants through the food chain.
EPA, through its contractor, evaluated the potential ecological impacts to fish, wildlife and
plants in the wetlands from chemicals of concern detected in sediments and surface
waters. These chemicals include a variety of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides and metals.
Potentially affected biota include fiddler crabs, mummichogs (small fish), large birds such
as herons and hawks which feed on smaller fish and mammals, muskrats and other small
mammals (mice, Norway rats) found in such environments. The ecological risk assessment
included an evaluation of sediment samples from the Operable Unit 2 study area. Tissue
samples from key species captured in corresponding locations were collected in order to
determine the extent of bioaccumulation relative to contaminant levels in sediment. The
ecological risk assessment concluded that the major site-related risk to aquatic life is from
exposure to PCBs in sediments in the vicinity of Pool C and the connecting channel, and
portions of Edmonds Creek. Organics in surface waters do not appear to pose a threat
to aquatic life at the site. Although several metals were elevated in species and sediments,
those levels appear to reflect regional inputs and/or natural sources. Metals are present
in levels of concern in the vicinity of Pool C and portions of Edmonds Creek, although
distribution patterns do not indicate that Kin-Buc is the sole, or even primary source of
metals contamination. Mammals do not appear to be at risk from PCBs or metals,
although elevated levels of cadmium, chromium and lead were observed in muskrat
10
-------
tissues. Marsh plants may also be at risk from exposure to arsenic, copper and lead, but
uncertainties associated with plant toxicity information preclude establishing risks in this
case.
Sediments contaminated by PCBs and metals can serve as a source of PCB and metals
contamination in fish and benthic invertebrates. The literature data indicate that levels
present in Edmonds Creek fish samples may pose adverse effects in these species,
although the effects of elevated body-burden levels in fiddler crabs are unknown. Both fish
and fiddler crabs can be a food source to large birds such as the great blue heron.
Estimated dosages did not exceed the toxicity reference values for this species, but a high
level of uncertainty is associated with these estimates and the possibility of adverse effects
cannot be dismissed for this or other predatory bird species occurring in the site area.
Threatened and endangered species, such as the great blue heron, the little blue heron,
the yellow-crowned night heron, the northern harrier, and the osprey, have been observed
on or near the Kin-Buc site during the Rl.
EPA has determined that no remediation will be required for surface or ground water in the
study area, based on the available data and the unlikely possibility that the ground water
will be used for human consumption. However, exposure pathways involving the ingestion
of contaminated fish will continue to pose a threat to human health without active
remediation of the contaminated sediments which act as the source of contaminants to fish
and fiddler crabs. In addition, the ecological risk assessment indicates that contaminants
are being taken up into the food chain via various aquatic species which come into contact
with the sediments. Bioaccumulation of PCBs through this pathway may adversely impact
these species as well as species which feed on them, including threatened and
endangered birds.
Therefore, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may
present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare or the environment.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such
assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources
of uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution
of chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the
actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error can stem from several
11
-------
sources including the errors inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the
matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an
individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time
over which such exposure would occur, and the models used to estimate the concentra-
tions of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and
from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity
of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative
assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As
a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations
near the site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative evaluation
of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the Risk
Assessment Report.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment;
they specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure route(s), receptor(s), and
acceptable contaminant level(s) for each exposure route. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.
EPA has developed remedial action objectives for the wetlands sediments which are
intended to reduce risks to human health via ingestion of contaminated fish and to the
environment via bioaccumulation of contaminants in aquatic species. Although the general
remedial objectives for this site include reduction of risks associated with metals and PAHs
in the wetlands sediments, EPA chose to develop numerical cleanup goals only for PCBs.
PCBs are clearly site-derived, whereas PAHs and metals may be derived from other
sources in the area. In addition, the levels of cadmium, chromium and lead measured
aquatic and terrestrial species did not appear to constitute significant risks to these
species. PAHs were not observed in any species sampled. Finally, areas subject to reme-
diation for PCB contamination also contain high levels of PAHs and metals, such that a
PCB-driven remedial action will effect reduction of these other contaminants.
EPA's remediation goal for PCBs in wetlands sediment is 5 ppm. This goal reflects several
different contributing factors: EPA's evaluation of bioavailability, based on application of
the Interim Equilibrium Partitioning Method developed by the Office of Water; biological
effects data from literature studies; and remediation goals for PCBs in sediment at other
Superfund sites. EPA also considered competing factors such as the technical feasibility
of full remediation and the desire to minimize, as much as possible, the impact of invasive
remediation techniques on the existing wetlands, which currently support a variety of plant
12
-------
and animal species. Application of the 5 ppm cleanup goal to the sediments in the
Edmonds Creek marsh provides for removal of PCBs that exceed the level EPA has
determined to be adequately protective of resident wildlife. Removal of these sediments
also reduces risks associated with the PAHs and metals which accompany PCBs in the
connecting channel and the vicinity of Pool C, portions of Edmonds Creek, and the
northern area of the marsh. The total volume of sediments to be excavated is approxi-
mately 2200 cubic yards, and involves approximately 1.36 acres of the Edmonds Creek
wetlands. This area is shown in Figure 8.
As discussed above, under the Summary of Site Risks, EPA did not develop remedial
action objectives for ground water or surface water. The implementation of source control
provided for in the Operable Unit 1 remedial action will be sufficient to prevent further
migration of contaminants into the environment. Contaminants which have already
migrated into the ground water will be gradually reduced by natural attenuation to
acceptable levels. Although significant impacts to the Raritan River are not suggested by
current data, the future migration of contaminants from Kin-Buc will decrease following
construction of the OU 1 containment system. In addition, EPA has determined that there
are no current or plausible future exposure scenarios which could pose a risk to human
health.
(
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost-effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent
solutions, alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of
treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.
The information presented in the Rl and Risk Assessment was used to prepare a Feasibility
Study. The FS provides a detailed evaluation of various options, referred to as remedial
alternatives, which address the environmental problems identified at the site. Detailed
descriptions of these remedial alternatives may be found in the Draft Final FS Report
available in the administrative record file. The following alternatives passed through a
development and screening process which is also described in the FS Report.
This Record of Decision evaluates in detail, six remedial alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with the Kin-Buc Landfill site. The time to implement reflects only
the time required to construct or implement the remedy, as well as the time required to
design the remedy and procure contracts for design and construction.
The numbers in parentheses correspond to the numbering used in the FS Report to identify
each alternative or subalternative.
13
-------
Alternative 1-No Further Action
Capital Cost: $0
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: $61,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $938,900 (on a 30-year basis)
Time to Implement: between 7 and 82 years
The Superfund program requires that the No Action alternative be considered as a baseline
for comparison of other alternatives. Under this alternative, no remedial activities would be
conducted in any portion of the Edmonds Creek Marsh OU 2 study area. The source of
contamination to the Edmonds Creek Marsh would be contained by implementation of the
OU 1 remedy which includes a slurry wall, cap, and extraction and treatment of leachate
and ground water within the slurry wall. Under this alternative, the 5 ppm remediation goal
would be achieved, to the extent possible, through natural sediment burial and diffusive
partitioning into the water column. A sediment dynamics model for estimating vertical
sediment burial rates was applied to provide a rough estimate of the timeframe during
which natural recovery of the wetlands would be expected to occur. The model was
applied using the overall average PCB concentration in the wetlands (7.1 ppm), the
average concentration exceeding the 5 ppm goal in the wetlands (77 ppm) and the
maximum concentration (300 ppm) outside the OU 1 slurry wall. The model indicated that
a concentration of 5 ppm would be achieved within 7 years, 55 years and 82 years, respec-
tively. A sediment sampling program would be undertaken every 6 months to determine
the rate at which burial of PCBs is taking place. This data would be reviewed periodically
to evaluate changes in PCB concentrations over time. A 30-year monitoring program was
used for costing purposes. There are no federal or state ARARs associated with this
alternative, since the no action alternative does not involve any remedial activity in existing
wetlands. Given the level of uncertainty in the model's results, the actual time required to
reach compliance with the preliminary remediation goal of 5 ppm may exceed the
estimated timeframe. To confirm the effectiveness of the OU 1 containment system, a
ground water and surface water monitoring program will also be implemented. Present
worth costs associated with this alternative include the monitoring program estimated over
30 years.
Alternative 2A (3A)-Sediment Removal and Consolidation in On-Site Containment
Capital Cost- $3,537,000
Annual O&M Cost-$67,100
Present Worth Cost-$4,314,900
Time to lmplement-3 years
Under this alternative, soils and benthic sediments containing PCBs in excess of 5 ppm in
the Edmonds Creek.marsh, creek, and areas adjacent to Pool C would be removed,
dewatered and placed within the OU 1 on-site containment system. The total volume of
sediment, as indicated in Figure 9, is estimated to be approximately 2200 cubic yards,
14
-------
based on the total estimated area which exceeds the cleanup goal (approximately 1.36
acres) and an excavation depth of one foot. Containment of excavated sediment would
be provided within the OU 1 containment system. Supernatant from dewatering would be
disposed of off site in compliance with the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) governing PCB disposal. Prior to excavation, additional surface sampling for
PCBs would be conducted in areas previously identified as exceeding 5 ppm PCBs, as well
as in the area east of Pool C, in order to refine the actual areas for excavation. Sampling
would also be conducted at depth in selected locations to confirm the vertical extent of
contamination. Engineering methods for controlling surface water flow, such as tide gates
or temporary earthen dams, and to reduce impact to wetlands, such as hydraulic dredging
or dragline dredging, would be utilized during excavation. Excavated areas would be
restored by active revegetation with any of several marsh species. This alternative would
meet ARAfls requiring mitigation or restoration of disturbed wetlands, as well as chemical-
specific ARARs associated with PCBs (TSCA), and meet the site-specific remediation goal
of 5 ppm PCBs. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions are not applicable to consolidation
within the Area of Contamination (AOC), so testing for RCRA characteristics would not be
required. Additional studies of surface water and biota will be necessary to design a
restoration/mitigation program for the Edmonds Creek Marsh. Present worth and O&M
costs for this alternative also include a ground-water and surface-water monitoring
program, estimated over 30 years.
Alternative 2B (3B)-Sediment Removal and Off-Site Disposal
Capital Cost--$5,168,000
Annual O&M Cost-$67,100
Present Value Cost--$5,945,900
Time to lmplement-3 years
This alternative is the same as Alternative 2A, Sediment Removal and Consolidation On-
Site, except that the excavated sediments would be land disposed off site in a chemical
waste facility in accordance with TSCA requirements governing disposal of PCB-
contaminated soils. Prior to disposal, the sediments would be dewatered. The supernatant
would be disposed of off site in a TSCA facility. Sediments would be tested to determine
characteristicity for metals prior to disposal, so that compliance with RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions is ensured. Present worth and O&M costs include a ground water and surface
water monitoring program, estimated over 30 years.
15
-------
Alternative 2C (3C)~Sediment Removal and On-Site Treatment
Capital Cost-$6,225,000
Annual O&M Cost--$67,100
Present Worth Cost-$7,002,900
Time to lmplement-4 years
This alternative is the same as Alternative 2A except that the excavated sediments would
be treated on site to reduce PCB concentrations to below 5 ppm, using one of the
following processes: solvent extraction, thermal extraction, or chemical dechlorination.
Excavated sediments would be tested to determine whether they are RCRA characteristic
due to metals content during predesign. A stabilization/solidification stage would be added
prior to disposal in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions if the sediments are
characteristic wastes. Depending on costs, disposal would be either on site in an OU 2
containment system, or off site in a commercial disposal facility. A pilot-scale treatability
study would be necessary in order to design a full-scale treatment train. Use of an on-site
treatment system would require additional site preparation to accommodate the trailer and
other equipment. Although no consolidation will be required prior to treatment, the system
would have to meet ARARs for air pollution controls or TSCA requirements for disposal of
a residual waste stream from the thermal and solvent extraction processes. This alternative
involves higher costs per unit of sediment because of the treatability study and mobiliza-
tion/demobilization costs associated with treatment equipment. Additional ARARs, as
described in Table 12, involve requirements for wetlands mitigation/restoration. Present
worth and O&M costs also include a ground-water and surface-water monitoring program,
estimated over 30 years..
Alternative 3 (4)-Sediment Capping with Stream Relocation
Capital Costs-$4,956,000
Annual O&M Costs--$114,100 (year 1)
$104,100 (year 2)
$ 96,100 (years 3-5)
$49,100 (years 6-10)
$46,100 (years 11-30)
Present Worth Cost-$5,907,900
Time to lmplement-4 years
This alternative would involve in-situ capping of sediments which exceed the 5 ppm cleanup
level for PCBs, either with clean sediments or a single layer synthetic membrane cap.
Portions of streams containing or immediately adjacent to contaminated sediments would
be re-routed through a new channel dug parallel to the old channel in uncontaminated
sediments, Excavated clean sediments would be used to fill in the former stream channel,
burying the contaminated sediment. Any remaining exposed sediments which exceed 5
ppm and those adjacent to Pool C would be covered by a single layer synthetic membrane
cap. A sampling program to further refine the actual areas for removal and identify the new
stream channel would be necessary. This alternative would also require a hydrologic study
1.6
-------
of Edmonds Creek/Marsh in order to design the new stream system. Vegetation control
would be required to prevent regrowth of marsh plants through the capped portions. The
cap and protective berms would displace approximately 5.9 acres of wetlands, and there
would be long-term impacts to the remaining wetlands associated with maintenance of the
containment system. Mitigation of wetlands would be required. Engineering methods to
reduce impacts to the wetlands during construction would be utilized. RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions are not applicable to consolidation within the Area of Contamination, so metals
testing for characteristicity will not be required. Higher O&M costs reflect the maintenance
costs associated with capping, as well as higher wetlands mitigation costs. Present worth
and O&M costs include a ground-water and surface-water monitoring program, estimated
over 30 years.
Alternative 4 (S)-Sediment Containment in Vicinity of Pool C by Capping and Slurry
Wall to Meadow Mat, Remaining Sediment Consolidation, Limited Stream Relocation
Capital Costs~$4,706,000
Annual O&M Costs--$110,100 (year 1)
$103,100 (year 2)
$ 96,100 (years 3-5)
$ 50,100 (years 6-10)
$49,100 (years 11-30)
Present Worth Cost-$5,686,900
Time to lmplement-3 years
This alternative would require excavation of soils and benthic sediments exceeding the 5
ppm cleanup level. These sediments would be dewatered and placed within an on-stte
containment unit constructed in the vicinity of Pool C, which is the most highly contaminat-
ed area of OU 2. This area would be encompassed by a slurry wall to the meadow mat
layer, extending out from the OU 1 slurry wall. The resulting contained area would be
separate from OU 1 but located on the perimeter, and would receive a single-layer
synthetic membrane cap similar to the OU 1 cap. Construction of this containment unit
would require relocation of a portion of Edmonds Creek. The area subject to removal is
approximately 0.94 acres, although sampling would be done during the predesign phase
to refine the extent of excavation and after excavation to confirm compliance with the
cleanup level. This alternative would require a hydrologic study of Edmonds Creek in order
to determine the effects of the tidal cycle on the remedial action. The alternative may also
involve compatibility testing to determine the composition of the slurry/backfill mixture used
for the wall, and a subsurface boring program to obtain the geologic information necessary
to the design. A wetlands mitigation program would be required to compensate for the
wetlands area lost. Liquid from dewatering would be sent to an off-site disposal facility in
accordance with TSCA requirements. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions are not applicable
to consolidation within the AOC. Higher costs reflect higher maintenance costs associated
with capping and the slurry wall, as well as wetlands mitigation. Present worth and O&M
costs reflect a ground water and surface water monitoring program, estimated over 30
years.
17
-------
Because Alternatives 1, 2A, 3, 4 and possibly 2C would result in contaminants remaining
on the site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. The five-year
review for Alternative 2A would be accomplished by the five-year review also required for
the Operable Unit 1 remedy. If justified by the review, additional remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative was assessed
utilizing nine evaluation criteria as set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria were developed to address the requirements
of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are factored into remedy
selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important, and must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institu-
tional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements of federal and state environ-
mental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify the
major trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness
of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated
performance of a remedial technology, with respect to these parameters, that a
remedy may employ.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals are
achieved.
18
-------
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the
present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment
period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations
with the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community
acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted
above follows.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
With the exception of the No Further Action alternative, all of the alternatives will prevent
the further migration of contaminated sediments, reducing human health risks associated
with ingestion of contaminated fish and environmental risks associated with uptake of PCBs
and other contaminants from sediment into the aquatic and terrestrial food chains.
Therefore, all of these alternatives except the no action alternative will provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment through containment of contaminated
sediments or a combination of treatment and containment. All active response actions will
impact the wetlands and Edmonds Creek during construction. Alternatives 3 and 4 will
involve permanent ecological impacts in the Edmonds Creek marsh, since they include in-
situ containment and stream relocation.
Modeling of sediment burial rates indicates that maximum PCB concentrations could take
as long as 82 years to decline through burial to the 5 ppm cleanup goal. Since EPA's
ecological and human health assessments have indicated that the contaminated sediments
currently pose a risk to human health and the environment, the no action alternative will
not provide sufficient protection within a reasonable timeframe.
o Compliance with ARARs
The applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for the Operable Unit 2 remedial
action are listed in Table 14. Portions of the study area lie within the 100- and 500-year
floodplains, and the remedial objectives for this site require response action within the
19
-------
Edmonds Creek wetlands area. Therefore, a variety of state and federal wetlands and
floodplain regulations will be ARARs for the remedial action at the Kin-Buc site.
Although EPA has established a cleanup goal of 5 ppm for PCBs in the sediments, there
are no chemical-specific ARARs for sediments in the Edmonds Creek/Marsh area. All of
the alternatives will comply with the action/location-specific ARARs for remedial activities
in wetlands and floodplains, although certain alternatives require compliance with a greater
number of ARARs. Alternatives 2B and 2C involve off-site disposal and on-site treatment
and disposal, respectively. Both of these actions constitute "placement" (removing the
waste from the area of contamination prior to land disposal) of a potential RCRA charac-
teristic waste. Sediments for these alternatives must be tested to determine whether they
are characteristic RCRA wastes prior to any disposal; if they are characteristic because of
their metals content, additional treatment (solidification/stabilization) will be required prior
to disposal. All treatment residues must be disposed of in accordance with either TSCA
or RCRA depending on their constituents. All alternatives involving dewatering of sediment
must also comply with TSCA requirements for disposal of the supernatant. Alternatives 3
and 4 call for in-situ containment and stream relocation. Since these alternatives will
involve greater displacement and have permanent ecological impacts compared to Alterna-
tives 2A, 2B or 2C, a greater degree of mitigation/restoration will be required to satisfy both
state and federal ARARs.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1, No Further Action, does not provide for long-term protection of human health
and the environment, since it will not prohibit the migration of contaminants into the aquatic
and terrestrial food chains for a significant period of time, nor can the effectiveness of
natural sedimentation rates be evaluated with a high degree of confidence. Alternative 2A
provides adequate protection by removing the source of contaminants, the sediments, from
direct contact with the wetlands and placing them within the OU 1 containment system,
which is equivalent in specifications to a chemical waste landfill. Alternative 2B is similar
in that it provides for containment of the source materials, but removes the excavated
sediments from the site completely, to a commercial chemical waste land disposal facility.
Alternative 2C provides the greatest degree of permanence by requiring treatment of the
sediments to remove or destroy the contaminants. In-situ containment in the wetlands,
such as described in Alternatives 3 and 4, may be the least effective over the long term
because of the technical difficulty of constructing and maintaining containment in this
environment. In addition, unlike Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C, contaminants will remain in
the wetlands. Maintenance of containment structures-cap, slurry wall-will have long-term
effects on the hydrology of the wetlands as well as on the plant and animal species which
inhabit the wetlands. Construction of Alternative 3 is expected to result in a greater loss
of wetlands acreage (5.9 acres) than Alternatives 2A, B, and C (1.36 acres), or 4 (2.67
acres). All alternatives, except Alternatives 2B and 2C, will result in contaminants remaining
on-site and will be subject to a regular five-year review. However, containment in the OU
1 landfill will be more protective and provide more long-term effectiveness than either
containment in a much smaller unit constructed (in the area adjacent to Pool C) or in-situ
20
-------
containment in the wetlands, since OU 1 includes a slurry wall constructed to bedrock as
well as leachate and ground water control. All alternatives except No Action will provide
reduction in risks associated with the sediments, but only Alternative 2C will not require
long-term monitoring or maintenance.
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Only Alternative 2C addresses the principal threats (PCB-contaminated sediment containing
more than 5 ppm PCBs) by treatment. All available treatment technologies for PCBs can
be expected to meet the remediation objective of 5 ppm PCBs through either removal of
PCBs via solvent extraction, or thermal destruction of organics. Treatment would therefore
effect a reduction in toxicrty, mobility and volume of contaminants. None of the other
alternatives involve treatment of the principal threats. Although dewatering may remove
some percentage of the total mass of PCBs in the sediment, this process is not expected
to result in significant reduction since PCBs adsorb to sediments. Residuals will remain
after either thermal treatment or solvent extraction; these will be disposed of off-site in a
chemical waste facility.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness denotes the length of time it takes for the remedy to become
effective, as well as the adverse impacts that implementation of the remedy may have on
human health or the environment. The No Further Action alternative is not considered
effective in the short-term, since it would allow continued migration of contaminants in the
wetlands, and provides no immediate protection of human health or the environment.
Alternatives 2A, and 2B could be completed within approximately three years, compared
to a longer implementation time for Alternatives 2C (four years), 3 and 4 (at least four
years). Therefore, Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C would involve fewer short-term impacts to
the wetlands during construction. Alternatives 3 and 4 also involve construction of a
permanent containment system in the wetlands, as well as permanent relocation of the
Edmonds Creek stream channel. This construction would result in more short-term
impacts to the wetlands than construction of Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C, due to lengthier
implementation times and the more complex and invasive nature of the remedies.
Construction of Alternative 3 is expected to result in a greater loss of wetlands acreage (5.9
acres) than Alternatives 2A, B, and C (1.36 acres). Construction of Alternative 4 would
result in impacts to 2.67 acres of wetlands, although only .94 acres represent excavated
sediment. These features would result in both short- and long-term adverse impacts to
resident wildlife, including mammals and aquatic species, in the wetlands. All alternatives
would involve adverse impacts to the wetlands, either through containment of contaminated
sediment or excavation of sediment which exceeds the remedial objective of 5 ppm PCBs.
Mitigation of these impacts will be required, either in the form of .active restoration (revege-
tation by marsh plants) of disturbed areas, or replacement of areas which will be
permanently disrupted. Use of temporary surface water controls and specialized
21
-------
excavation methods and equipment can reduce the amount of sediment remobilized during
excavation as well as impacts to the wetlands.
Minimal health risks to workers are anticipated for implementation of Alternatives 2A, B and
C. Removal of sediment may result in a potential exposure pathway for on-site workers,
although use of protective equipment can mitigate health risks to these workers. Off-site
disposal presents some degree of risk to workers and off-site communities relative to on-
site disposal, since it involves transportation of potentially hazardous materials. On-site
treatment will transfer contaminants to additional media (air, liquid), requiring additional
controls to reduce exposures of on-site workers and to prevent migration off site of these
residuals.
o Implementability
All of the alternatives are considered implementable. Alternative 1, No Further Action, is
the easiest to implement since it requires only periodic monitoring to evaluate natural
recovery. All alternatives depend on additional hydrologic and biota studies to minimize
impacts due to construction and maximize restoration of the wetlands. On-site disposal
of sediments in OU 1 depends on the design and construction schedule for the OU 1
remedial action; placement of the excavated sediment within OU 1 must be coordinated
to avoid delays in implementation of the OU 1 remedy. Off-site disposal depends on the
availability of a disposal facility and on the results of hazardous classification testing, since
the sediments will have to be solidified prior to disposal if they are characteristic wastes.
Treatment of wastes on the site is technically implementable, but the small volume of
sediments to be treated (2200 cubic yards) may not warrant performance of a pilot-scale
treatability study and mobilization of equipment designed for much larger volumes of soil.
In addition, the treated wastes will have be tested to determine if they are RCRA
characteristic based on metals content. If they are characteristic, the sediments will have
to be solidified prior to any land disposal since treatment will only be effective for PCBs and
other organic compounds. Alternatives 3 and 4 require long-term maintenance and
operation of the containment systems, which include control of vegetation and surface
water flow, as well as maintenance of a cap and/or slurry wall in a wetlands environment.
o Cost
A summary of cost estimates for all alternatives evaluated appears in Table 15.
The No Further Action alternative is the least costly, with a present worth cost of $938,900
which includes long-term ground water and surface water monitoring. The present worth
costs of Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C are, respectively, $4,314,900, $5,945,900, and $7,002,-
900. Present worth costs for Alternatives 3 and 4 are $5,907,900, and $5,686,9000,
respectively.
It should be noted that the O&M costs for Alternatives 3 and 4, estimated over thirty years,
far exceed those associated with Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C: $189,000 for Alternative 3 and
22
-------
$188,000 for Alternative 4, as compared to $23,000 for each of the previous alternatives.
These O&M costs reflect relatively high maintenance costs for containment structures such
as caps and slurry walls, including control of vegetation and burrowing animals, over an
indefinite period of time. The most expensive remedy is Alternative 2C, because of the high
unit cost associated with on-site treatment of the sediments. On-site sediment treatment
is not usually implemented for volumes of waste smaller than 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards
because of the costs associated with equipment mobilization/demobilization and
performance of treatability studies. The high cost of Alternative 2B derives from the high
unit costs associated with land disposal in a commercial chemical waste facility. Alternative
2A, which provides for on-site disposal of the sediment in OU 1, is the second least
expensive option, since it uses the containment system currently in design as part of the
OU 1 response action. All estimated costs include a long-term surface-water and ground-
water monitoring program.
o State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with EPA's preferred alternative, 2A.
o Community Acceptance
In general, both officials and community residents expressed support for Alternative 2A.
A more detailed discussion of community concerns is presented in the Responsiveness
Summary.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the
alternatives, and public comments, both the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy and EPA have determined that Alternative 2A is the most
appropriate remedy for Operable Unit 2 of the Kin-Buc site.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
D Excavation of approximately 2200 cubic yards of sediments
with PCB levels that exceed the remedial action objective of 5
ppm total PCBs;
D Disposal and containment of the excavated sediment within the
OU 1 slurry wall and cap;
Q Active restoration of the approximately 1.36 acres of excavated
wetlands, according to a restoration program which will be
developed during the design phase, in the Edmonds Creek
Marsh, as well as mitigation of impacts caused by remedial
activities;
23
-------
Q Long-term monitoring of ground water underlying Mound B and
the Low-Lying Area, surface water in Edmonds Creek, and the
Raritan River adjacent to Mound B; and
Q Maintenance of the Mound B cover.
By excavating contaminated sediments, the preferred alternative will prevent the further
bioaccumulation of PCBs and metals in aquatic and terrestrial species residing in the
Edmonds Creek Marsh, thereby reducing ecological and human health risks associated
with the Kin-Buc Landfill. Disposal of the excavated sediment in the OU 1 containment
system will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment. Although
this alternative does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment, EPA concluded that
the costs and implementability of available treatment technologies did not justify selection
of Alternative 2C, given the small volume of sediment with relatively low concentrations of
PCBs. Alternative 2B did not provide more protectiveness than 2A, despite considerably
greater costs. The preferred alternative will have fewer short-term impacts to wetlands in
comparison to Alternatives 3 and 4, which involve stream relocation and some degree of
in-situ containment in the marsh, thereby reducing the subsequent mitigation requirements.
Alternative 3 would involve disturbance of a significantly greater area of the wetlands
compared to Alternatives 4, 2A, 2B, or 2C. Few long-term adverse impacts on plants or
wildlife are anticipated with 2A, 2B, or 2C, since the remedial action will not involve any
permanent changes in the wetlands environment, unlike Alternatives 3 and 4. With respect
to cost, Alternative 2A is the least costly of the active response measures. With respect
to compliance with ARARs, Alternative 2A is expected to satisfy all of the action- and
location-specific ARARs described in the FS. A wetlands restoration/mitigation program
will be developed during the design phase and implemented after excavation of the
contaminated sediments. No RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions are potentially applicable
to this action, because consolidation within the same area of contamination does not
constitute "placement." Finally, Alternative 2A will take approximately three years to
implement, as compared to at least five for Alternatives 3 and 4. A shorter timeframe will
lessen impacts to wildlife species and encourage more rapid restoration of the marsh.
EPA has determined that ground water underlying Mound B and the Low-Lying Area does
not currently pose a risk to human health, and is not expected to pose such a risk.
Ground water in this area is not a source of potable water and is prevented from further
migration by discharge to the Raritan River. EPA believes, with a high degree of certainty,
that ground water underlying the site will not be used for drinking water in the foreseeable
future. However, because contaminants already present in the ground water will continue
to discharge to the Raritan River for an extended period of time, both the ground water and
the river water will be monitored to ensure that the preferred alternative is protective of
human health and the environment.
»
As part of the OU 2 selected remedy, no further remedial action will be taken to reduce
ground-water contaminant concentrations or to control leachate in the refuse layer. The
source of Kin-Buc contributions to the contamination in these areas will be eliminated after
construction of the OU 1 remedial action, which includes a slurry wall and cap. Natural
24
-------
remediation or attenuation, involving natural process such as degradation, dispersion and
dilution, will gradually reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels in the sand
and gravel aquifer and in the refuse layer. Contaminants in the bedrock aquifer are already
at acceptable levels. Contaminant transport modeling for both the Mound B and Low-Lying
areas was conducted as part of the Feasibility Study to determine how long natural
remediation would take to achieve this reduction. Results indicate that levels of contami-
nants drop most rapidly in the Low-Lying Area (MCLs may be attained within 50 years) and
less quickly within the Mound B area. However, over time, compliance with federal and
state ground-water quality standards will be achieved.
Maintenance of the Mound B cap will continue. As discussed above, a comprehensive
ground water monitoring program will be implemented to track changes in ground water
quality over time, using existing monitoring wells installed during the OU 2 Rl. These wells
will be sampled regularly. During each periodic review of the remedy, EPA will determine
the need to continue monitoring, based on the collected sampling data. A river water
sampling and analysis program will also be implemented in order to monitor the Raritan
River water quality adjacent to the site. Although current data does not indicate impacts
due to Kin-Buc, this issue will continue to be evaluated over time, as part of the periodic
reviews.
EPA and the NJDEPE believe that the preferred alternative is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with federal and state requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. The
selected alternative achieves the ARARs more quickly, or as quickly, and at less cost than
the other options. Therefore, the selected alternative will provide the best balance of trade-
offs among alternatives with respect to the evaluating criteria. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. However, since the contaminated sediments could not be cost-effectively
treated due to the small volume of material excavated, the preferred alternative does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy with
respect to source control. Because this action will result in contamination remaining on
site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. This review will be
conducted as part of the OU 1 review, since the contaminated sediments will be
consolidated within OU 1. If justified by the review, EPA will revise the remedial decision
as necessary.
Contingency Remedy
If, during the design process for this operable unit, EPA determines that disposal of the
excavated sediment in OU 1 will delay the construction of the OU 1 remedy, EPA may
change the preferred alternative to Alternative 2B, which differs from Alternative 2A only in
the disposal of the excavated materials at an off-site chemical waste facility. The following
description of how the selected remedy meets the CERCLA 121 statutory determinations
also applies to the contingency remedy, except where noted.
25
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences.
These specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this site must comply
with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established under
federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected
remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource-recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment
that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
wastes, as available. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these
statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected alternative provides for protection of human health and the environment by
removing the source of PCB contamination, thereby- reducing the volume of contaminated
sediments in the wetlands from which PCBs and other contaminants migrate via
bioaccumulation into resident biota such as fish and fiddler crabs. The excavated sediment
will be consolidated within the Operable Unit 1 containment system, which will prevent
future releases into the surrounding environment. Because this remedy involves removal
of a limited portion of the marsh, approximately 1.36 acres, short-term and long-term
impacts to the wetland are expected to be minimal. In addition, a shorter timeframe for
implementation of the remedy will lessen impacts to wetlands biota and encourage more
rapid restoration of the wetlands ecosystem. No permanent alteration of the wetlands will
result from implementation of the remedy. Active restoration of excavated areas will reduce
any long-term impacts.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy is expected to comply with all ARARs, as described in Table 3. There
are no chemical-specific ARARs for the sediment medium. However, the remedy is
designed to comply with all action- and location-specific ARARs that pertain to activities in
wetlands, coastal areas, and floodplains, including design and implementation of a
wetlands mitigation program and restoration of excavated areas of the marsh. The
remedial activity will comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Any
dewatering liquid derived from sediment consolidation will be disposed of in accordance
with TSCA requirements. Potential RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions do not apply to
consolidation of contaminated materials within the area of contamination. Should EPA find
it necessary to change the selected remedy from Alternative 2A to Alternative 2B, the
excavated sediments will be tested to determine whether they constitute RCRA characteris-
tic hazardous wastes prior to removal from the site. If the sediments are RCRA
26
-------
characteristic, RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions will apply, and treatment such as
solidification or stabilization will be utilized prior to disposal.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy has been determined to provide the greatest overall long-term and
short-term effectiveness in proportion to its present worth cost, $3,637,000, when
compared to equivalently protective alternatives, such as Alternatives 2B and 2C.
Alternatives 3 and 4 were determined to be less effective and more costly.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the second operable
unit action at the site. EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides the best
balance of trade-offs in terms of the five primary balancing criteria, including state and
community acceptance, although the selected remedy does not involve reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The selected remedy provides the greatest
long- and short-term effectiveness, is easily implementable, and provides the greatest cost-
effectivness compared to Alternatives 2B and 2C.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the preference for treatment as a principal element,
since treatment of the contaminated sediment did not provide greater effectiveness, or risk
reduction and resulted in disproportionately higher costs because of the small volume and
relatively low levels of contaminants of concern observed in the sediments.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The costs described in the Proposed Plan did not include the comprehensive ground-water
and surface-water monitoring program as described in the Selected Remedy section.
Present worth costs of this program are estimated at $677,900, based on a 30-year time
period. Annual O&M costs are estimated at $44,100. These costs have been added to
the costs reported in the Proposed Plan, resulting in the higher present worth and O&M
costs which appear in the Description of Alternatives and Comparative Analysis
sections.
27
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location
Figure 2 - Site Base Map
Figure 3 - Distribution of PAHs in Sediment
Figure 4 - Distribution of Arsenic in Sediment
Figure 5 - Distribution of Copper in Sediment
Figure 6 - Distribution of Lead in Sediment
Figure 7 - Distribution of Nickel in Sediment
Figure 8 - Total PCB concentrations with Areas Exceeding 5 ppm
Figure 9 - Sediment Removal Areas for Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C
-------
me vi oustY EXCAVATED
SOURCE:
TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM 2000
1954 NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J.
I9S4 SOUTH AfceOY, N.J./N.Y.
1955 PLAINTIELD, N.J.
1956 PERTH AieOY, N.J./N.Y.
U.S.C.S QUADRANGLES T.S MIN. SERIES
Wthtpn Engineering Cerperolien
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
KIN-BUC LANDFILL
EDISON. NEW JERSEY
3x5"
OR1GINAL
-------
LOW
LYING
AREA
\
aiiiOB40*.r«.MOirio HAY rtAi MSC HIP
•61
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2
-------
r- 4th DHAMAGE CHANNEL
r- \3rd DRAMAOE\HANNEL
— Mtf ORAMftGE CHANNEL
EDISON\
>O.S ppm - 0.95 3
f?i9l PAH 1.0 ppm -
PAH 11 ppm - 20 ppm
PAH 21 ppm - 60 PP"-
no,;.. Q\ ....-
umapif \fV .-''"] ' '
* - ** ' I
500 ; 0
DISTRIBUTION OF PAHs IN SEDIMENTS.
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2
?CU: io«406.m .HT.iriG CilSI IN SCDIMN
lnx.t HSOMoi :
-------
-------
— 4lh DRAimGtvCHUtCL • J
~-\3H OMMNAGC OWWCL > /
sr.3
LtAourc sioutt rfcam
NG \^..,:'
KIN-BUG I • ":
A SEDItCNT SAkPLING LOCATION
30.1 CONCENTRATION tMg/Kg)
U UNDETECTED
DATA REJECTED IN ACCORDANCE
DISTRIBUTION OF COPPER
IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
-------
4lh ORAINAGC CHAMCL
3rd ORAINAGC CHAMCL
I Vnd ORAINAGC CHAMCL
,\ i— 11KOHAI NAGl, CHAWCt
a \ T A N
DATA REJECTED IN ACCORDANCE
DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD
IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
-------
-------
' n ,i,v£:;
NAMED DITGH
CRABLC UNIT I PROPOSED
URRY WALL ALIGNMENT
.KCN FROM OU.I.ERE-FINAL
OSURE DESIGNtOCTOBER..
PROXIMATE LIMIT
KCN FROM WETLANDS
LI NEAT I ON MAP. (SHEET
OF 31
EXISl
1EACHATE
me SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1.36 TOTAL PCB» IN mg/kg IPPW:
O.U.2. AREAS EXCEEDING
SPPM (DRY WEIGHT)
SURFACE WATER GAUGE
.LJUIT OF POOL C
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
WETLANDS (SEE NOTE 21
EXISTING ELECTRICAL TOW{=
PROPOSED OPERABLE UNIT
SLURRY WALL ALIGNMENT
(SEE NOTE II
Wehion Engineering Coipoiolion
KIN euc> INC.-
KIN-BUC LANDFILL
OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
IrOISON TOWKHIP. UIDDLGSCI COUNK. «• Jl
ISCtl
TOTAL PCS CONCENTRATIONS HITH
APPROKIMAtt OISIRI8UTION Of O.U.2
ARCAS CXCtCOINC 5 PPM PCBl IN SCQIUCHTS
-------
UNNAMED DITCH
APPROXIMATE
OF WETLANDS
0.89
COMTMIINAttO KOIUCNT
EKCttoiHS ami TO ac Ktovto
IStt NOTC II
LIMIT or
ncuwes IMC NOTE 31
narosio OPOUBLC UNIT i
»M.L M.ICNCNT
IXC NOTC tl
HISTINB CLCCTNICM. TOKR
APPROXIMATE LIMIT
OF WETLANDS
CONTUIINATCO MOIICNT TAKCM
SfCCT 2 Of J» TOTM. PCB CONCCNTKATIONS
APPItOHIUATC DIS1RIBUTIONS OT MCAS
DING smt rcss IN SCOIICNT.
.Bit UNIT i pnofosto aunur WALL
•CNT IAKCN rpou ooi me-r INN.
IRC DtSICN IHPRIL
ALT.
SEDIMENT REUC
IN ON-SITE C
DISPOSAL, At.
RE
EXIST!
I.EACHAT
IXIMAIt LIMIT OT KTLWOS TAKCN rKOU
iM>$ OCLINCATION MAT. ISHECT I Of 31
Wvhton Cnginttfing Corporolion^
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
Table 1 - Contaminant Concentrations in Leachate
Table 2 - Contaminant Concentrations in Sand and Gravel Unit
Table 3 - Contaminant Concentrations in Bedrock Aquifer
Table 4 - Summary of Sediment PCB Data
Table 5 - Compounds Detected in Biota (RI/FS Report)
Table 6 - Compounds detected in Rddler Crabs (EPA/Adams et al., 1990)
Table 7 • Compounds Detected in Muskrats (EPA/Charters et al., 1991)
Table 8 - Chemicals of Concern by Media, Human Health Assessment
Table 9 - Ground-Water Data Statistical Summary
Table 10 - Surface Water Data Statistical Summary
Table 11- Sediment Data Statistical Summary
Table 12 - Critical Toxicity Values for Oral and Inhalation Routes
Table 13 - Summary of Risks by Exposure Pathway
Table 14 - Potential Location/Action-Specific ARARs
Table 15 - Summary of Cost Estimates
-------
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(REFUSE) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Table 1
Compound
Volatile Organiu (pg/C)
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
Base/Neutral-Acid '
Intractable* (fig/()
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
22 J
1,200
62 J
550 J
83
610
400
U
U
5J
U
U
17J
15
Low-Lying
Area
31,000 J
16,000 J
51.000 BJ
9.500 J
13,00 J
2.200
120
4J
2J
18
200
7J
130
110
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
Std$0)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSW
NA
5
1,000
100
700
10.000
NA
NA
NA
75
600
NA
NA
. NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2<3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOWA
Mas («>
NA
1
NA
4
NA
44
NA
NA
600
NA
600
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards «)
700
1
1,000
5
700
40
4,000
40
600
70
600
100
100
30
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards <«
700
0.2
1,000
5
700
40
4,000
40
600
75
600
100
100
NA
10.7/92 09406 «
-------
r oy
Table E-1
KIN-BUG OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(REFUSE) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Acenaphthene
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamme
Anthracene
di-n-Butylphthatate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylberuylphthalate
bis (2 EthylhexyOphthalate
Pestkidei/PCBs (fig/()
4,4'-DDE
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
Total Metals (tty/f)
Aluminum
Antimony
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
11
21
10
7J
2J
7J
4J
3J
U
U
U
U
U
2,020
34.48
Low-Lying
Area
4J
2J
6J
110
2J
13 J
12 J
11J
19 J
520 B
0.71 J
20 J
6.3 J
83,000 EJ
U
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
Stds
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
0.5
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards «
400
5,000
300
20
2,000
900
300
200
100
30
0.1
*
*
NA
20
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards <«
400
5,000
300
7
2.000
900
300
200
100
3
0.1
**
*•
50-200
2
-------
Table!
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2TE ASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(REFUSE) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Dissolved Metals (pg/t)
Antimony
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
1B.3
745 EJ
U
3BNJ
19.4
U
59,600
1,170 SJN
1.510
1.3
134
1.7 BMW
U
673,000 EJ
32.4 J
U
Low-Lying
Area
170
2,400
4.8 B
B6.3
390 J
823
503.000
2,490 *J
4,610
2.0 NJ
576 EJ
1.6 BW
7.1 B
617,000
18,100
20.8 B
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsU)
50
1.000
NA
10
50
NA
NA
50
NA
2
NA
10
50
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLS<»
50
2,000
NA
5
10
NA
300
50
50
2
100"
50
50
NA
5,000
NA
•»
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2»)
50
1,000
NA
10
50
1,000
300
50
50
2
NA
10
50
50,000
5.000
NA
SDWA
MCLS<«>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards (»
8
2,000
20
4
100
NA
NA
10
NA
2
100
50
20
NA
5,000
20
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards <«
0.02
2,000
0.008
4
100
1,000
300
5
50
2
100
50
20
50,000
5,000
2
10.7/92.09406 F9
-------
Page 4 of 5
Table E-1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(REFUSE) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Other Inorganics (my/()
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
19.7
621
U
U
8.2 B
U
50,000
21.4
1,520
U
132
U
U
674.000 EJ
R
323
low-Lying
Area
170
2.400
1.7 B
86.3
390
4.2 B
503.000
2490
4,610 E
2N
576 E
1.6 BW
7.1 B
333.000
74.9 EJ
400
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
50
1.000
NA
10
50
NA
NA
50
NA
2
NA
10
50
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLStt)
50
2.000
•4 '
5
10
NA
300
50
50
2
NA
50
50
NA
5.000
NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2<«
50
1.000
NA
10
50
1,000
300
50
50
2
NA
10
50
50.000
5.000
0.5
SDWA
MCLSW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards
8
2.000
20
4
100
NA
NA
10
NA
2
100
50
20
NA
5.000
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards («>
0.02
2,000
0.008
4
100
1,000
300
5
50
2
100
50
20
50.000
5.000
0.5
10.7/92 09406 fj
-------
Table E-1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(REFUSE) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Cyanide
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
--
2.6
3.370
Low-Lying
Area
0.184
0.34
2.380
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLS(2)
200
10
NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2W
0.2
10
500
Nat. Back.
SDWA
Mas w>
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards <»
0.2
NA
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards W
0.2
10
500
Motes:
NA No Standard Available
Combined total of PCBs shall not exceed 0.05 pglt
Combined total of PCBs shall not exceed 0.02 ug/l
40 CFR Part 264.94 (Table 1 - Maximum Concentration of Constituents for Groundwater Protection)
**
(1)
(2)
40 CFR Part 141.11 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals), 40 CFR Part 141.12 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic
Chemicals), 40 CFR Part 141.61 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Contaminants), 40 CFR Part 141.62 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Inorganic Contaminants), and 40 CFR Part 143.3 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels)
(3) NJ.A.C. Part 7:9-6.6 - Groundwater Quality Criteria
(4) N J. Safe Drinking Water Act "A-280 Amendments" (N.J.A.C Part 7:10-16.7 - Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for hazardous contaminants)
(5) 24 NJ.R. 373 (a) Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites - Proposed New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:26 D, February 3.1992
(6) 24 NJ.R. 193 (a) Groundwater Quality Standards- Proposed Repeal and New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:9-6, January 21.1992
U = Result less than instrument detection limit (IDL).
B = Result between IDL and contract required detection limited (CRDL).
N = Spiked sample recovery not within control limits
W = Post-digest spike recovery furnace analysis was out of 85-115 percent control limit, while sample absorbance was less than 50 percent of
spike absorbance
S = Reported value was determined by the method of standard additions (MSA).
J = Concentration is estimated.
R = Data rejected in accordance with validation criteria
* = Duplicate analysis not within control limit
10.7/9? 09406 f 9
-------
Table E-2
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(SAND & GRAVEL) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Table 2
Compound
Volatile Organks fyig/()
Vinyl Chloride
Acetone
1 , 1 -Dichloroet hane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) *-
Trichloroethene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Teuachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
Base/Neutral-Acid
f xrracf ab/es fyjg/f )
Phenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
46
230 J
13
93
4J
220
U
U
28
260
82
120
U
0.8 J
20
130
Low-Lying
Area
U
U
18
U
26
17 J
140
86
570
23
57
290
3.100
U
U
0.3 J
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSO)
2
NA
NA
NA
5
5
NA
S
1,000
100
700
10,000
NA
600
NA .
. NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2<»>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.500
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSW)
2
NA
NA
10
1
1
NA
1
NA
4
NA
44
NA
600
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards"
2
700
70
m
NA
1
400
1
1,000
5
700
40
4.000
600
100
30
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards*)
0.08
700
70
(71
1
0.2
400
0.4
1,000
5
700
40
4,000
600
100
NA
* CIS - 1,2 dichloroethene - 70ug/l (MCL)
trans - 1,2 dichloroethene - 100ug/l (MCL)
10.7/92.09406.F9
-------
Page 2 of 4
Table E 2
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(SAND & GRAVEL) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthane
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine( ' >
di-n-Butylphthalate
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
di-n-Octylphthalate
Total Metik(tjg/()
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
U
10
4J
5J
U
4J
U
0.5 J
200 JB
U
60.200 EJ
53.7 BJ
40.5
978
4.2 B
U
88.5 J
260 B
233000
Low-Lying
Area
U
U
2J
U
0.3 J
4J
1J
0.5 J
. U
0.5 J
26,300
52.1 B
15
1.620
4.4 B
2.6 B
76.6 J
178
112.000
ARARS
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
1.000
NA
10
50
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
50-200
6
50
2.000
4
5
100
1300
300
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2<»
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
1,000
NA
10
50
1,000
300
SDWA
Mas «
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standard*"
7,000
400
5,00(i
aoo
20
900
200
100
30
100
NA
20
8
2,000
20
4
100
NA
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards**
7,000
400
5.000
300
. 7
900
200
100
3
100
50-200
2
0.02
2,000
0.008
4
100
1.000
300
-------
Table E-2
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(SAND & GRAVEL) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Dissolved Metals (fig/t)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
52.7 JN
6.670
U
109
1.5 JBN
2.260.000
230
R
1,220
23
614
LIB
3.9 B
18.4 B
191.000
4.8
6.670
92.2
U
Low-Lying
Area
32.8
3.6SO
0.21
90.1 J
1.5 JBNW
4.000.000
438 J
86.1 B
44.9 B
27.5
416 J
U
9.6 B
6.9 B
46.300 J
4.6
3.260
38.4 B
1.6 BN
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
50
NA
2
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
1,000
NA
50
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
10
SDWA
MCLS«)
50
50
2
. 100
50
NA
5.000
50-200
NA
50
2.000
NA
10
NA
300
50
50
NA
50
State
NJACStds
Class
GW20)
50
50
2
NA
10
50.000
5.000
NA
NA
50
1,000
NA
10
1.000
300
50
50
NA
10
SDWA
MCLS«>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards"*
10
NA
2
100
50
NA
5.000
NA
20
8
2.000
20
100
NA
NA
10
NA
100
50
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards"
5
50
2
100
50
50,000
5.000
50-200
2
0.02
2.000
0.008
100
1.000
300
5
50
100
50
10 7/92 09406 f 9
-------
Page 4 of 4
Table E-2
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
(SAND & GRAVEL) WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Sodium
Zinc
Other Jnoryanks (mg/f)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
2,320.000
80.1 EJ
272
0.27
7.680
Low-Lying
Area
3.610.000
66.4
15
0.24
12.800
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOWA
MCLSW
NA
5.000
NA
10
500
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2W
50.000
5,000
0.5
10
500
Nat. Sack.
SOWA
MCLS<«>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards"
NA
5.000
NA
NA
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards*
50.000
5.000
J
0.5
10
500
Notes:
NA No Standard Available
(1) 40 CFR Part 264.94 (Table 1 - Maximum Concentration of Constitutents for Groundwater Protection)
(2) 40 CFR Part 141.11 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals). 40 CFR Part 141.12 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic
Chemicals). 40 CFR Part 141.61 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Contaminants), 40 CFR Part 141.62 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Inorganic Contaminants), and 40 CFR Part 143.3 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels)
(3) N.J.A.C. Part 7:9-6.6 - Groundwater Quality Criteria
(4) N.J. Safe Drinking Water Act "A-280 Amendments" (N.J.A.C. Part 7:10-16.7 - Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for hazardous contaminants)
(5) 24 NJ.R. 373 (a) Cleanup Standards for Contaminanted Sites - Proposed New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:26 D. February 3,1992
(6) 24 NJ.R. 193 (a) Groundwater Quality Standards - Proposed Repeal and New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:9-6, January 21.1992
(7) GW Standards for 1,2-Dichloroethene are 10 ug/f cis-, 100 ug/f trans-.
U = Result less than instrument detection limit (IDL).
B = Result between IDL and contract required detection limited (CRDL).
N = Spiked sample recovery not within control limits
W = Post-digest spike recovery furnace analysis was out of 85-115 percent control limit, while sample absorbance was less than 50 percent of
spike absorbance
S = Reported value was determined by the method of standard additions (MSA).
J = Concentration is estimated. -
R = Data rejected in accordance with validation criteria
-------
Table 3
Table E-3
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER (BEDROCK)
WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Volatile Organic* 0/9/0
1,1-Dichlorocthane
1,1,1 -Trichtoroethane
Benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
( 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene)
Base/Neutral-Acid
Exrraclab/es(pg/0
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
di-n-Butylphthalate
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
u
u
1.3
0.3 J
U
1.2
1.1 J
5.4
0.8 J
0.2 J
U
0.7 J
4J
1J
Low-Lying
Area
1.3
1.3
0.25 J
0.7 J
1.6
1.7 J
U
7.5
U
4.4 J
0.6 J
U
U
0.9 J
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSI2)
NA
200
5
1.000
5
100
700
10,000
NA
75
600
70
NA
NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2U)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLS«)
NA
26
1
NA
1
4
NA
44
600
NA
600
8
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards^)
70
30
1
1,000
1
5
700
40
600
70
600
9
20
900
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards^)
70
30
0.2
1,000
0.4
5
700
40
600
75
600
9
7
900
10 7/92.09406 f 9
-------
Page 2
Table E-3
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER (BEDROCK)
WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Pyrene
Butylbenzytphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-Octytphthalate
Tot*/ Metals (w/0
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
U
2J
U
22B
41.200
32 B
21
814
2.3 B
U
906
116
S2.100
20.3 NJ
2,350
432
2.480,000
Low-Lying
Area
0.1 J
0.4 J
788
O.SJ
24,500
36.7 B
68.9 S
1,310
2.3 B
4.5 B
60.5
58.5
31.000
14 NJ
4,960
130
3.060.000
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
1.000
NA
10
50
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCISU)
NA
NA
NA
NA
50-200
6
50
2.000
A
5
'10
NA
300
50
50
100
NA
State
MJACStds
Class
GW2«>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
1.000
NA
10
50
1.000
300
50
50
NA
50.000
SDWA
Mas w
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards**)
200
100
30
100
NA
20
8
2.000
20
4
100
NA
NA
10
NA
100
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards!')
200
100
3
100
50-200
2
0.02
2,000
0.008
4
100
1,000
300
5
50
100
50.000
-------
Table E-3
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER (BEDROCK)
WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Zinc
Diftolved Metals (pg/f)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Oc her /norganics fmg/f )
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Operabl
Maximum Co
Mound B
208
u
36.5 B
1.6 B
425
2U
3D
3.5 B
12.300 J
1UNWJ
2.120 J
0.2 UNJ
277 J
2,400,000 J
15.4 B
17.3
B Unit 7
unn f.
ncentrations
Low-Lying
Area
98.6
37.2 B
45.8 B
49.4
797 J
2U
4.6 BJ
15.8 B
16.400
5 UNJ
4.590
0.2 U
92.7
3,210.000 JE
42.8 J
70.1
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsO)
NA
NA
NA
50
1.000
10
50
NA
NA
50
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSU)
5,000
50-200
NA
50
2.000
5
10
NA
300
50
50
2
NA
NA
5.000
NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2U)
5.000
NA
NA
50
1,000
10
50
1,000
300
50
50
2
NA
50,000
5,000
0.5
SDWA
Mas («)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Cleanup
Standards^)
5,000
NA
20
8
2.000
4
100
NA
NA
10
NA
2
100
NA
5.000
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards^)
5.000
50-200
2
0.02
2,000
4
100
1,000
300
5
50
2
100
50,000
5,000
0.5
10 7/92 09406.F9
-------
Page 4 of 4
Table E-3
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER (BEDROCK)
WITH CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Compound
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids
Operable Unit 2
Maximum Concentrations
Mound B
0.1
8,500
Low-Lying
Area
0.21
12.500
ARARs
Federal
RCRA
StdsW
NA
NA
SDWA
MCLSW)
10
NA
State
NJACStds
Class
GW2<»
10
500
Nat. Back.
SDWA
MCLSM)
NA
NA
TBCs
State
NJDEPE
Proposed 6W
Cleanup
Standards(S)
NA
NA
NJDEPE
Proposed GW
Quality
Standards*')
10
500
Notes:
NA No Standard Available
(1) 40 CFR Part 264.94 (Table 1 - Maximum Concentration of Constituents for Groundwater Protection)
(2) 40 CFR Part 141.11 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals), 40 CFR Part 141.12 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic
Chemicals), 40 CFR Part 141.61 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Contaminants), 40 CFR Part141.62 (Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Inorganic Contaminants), and 40 CFR Part 143.3 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels)
(3) N J.A.C. Part 7:9-6.6 - Groundwater Quality Criteria
(4) N.J. Safe Drinking Water Act "A-280 Amendments" (N J.A.C. Pan 7:10-16.7 - Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for hazardous contaminants)
(5) 24 N J.R. 373 (a) Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites - Proposed New Rules: NJ.A.C. 7:26D. February 3,1992
(6) 24 NJ.R. 193 (a) Groundwater Quality Standards - Proposed Repeal and New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:9-6, January 21,1992
U = Result less than instrument detection limit (IDL).
B = Result between IDL and contract required detection limited (CRDL).
N = Spiked sample recovery not within control limits
W = Post-digest spike recovery furnace analysis was out of 85-115 percent control limit, while sample absorbance was less than 50 percent of
spike absorbance
S = Reported value was determined by the method of standard additions (MSA).
J = Concentration is estimated.
-------
Page 1 of 16
Table 4
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs(ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)**
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS" •*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS"*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M12C
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M13C
3.51
7.32%
48
0.28
1.4
7.3
0.61
3.1
16
M12S
0.84
6.73%
12
0.26
1.3
6.7
0.56
2.8
14
M12N
2.87
6.95%
41
0.27
1.4
6.9
058
2.9
15
M13N
1.92
7.85%
24
0.30
1.5
7.8
0.65
3.3
17
M13S
0.77
8.00%
10
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
MIC
U
6.96%
U
0.27
1.4
7.0
0.58
2.9
15
M2C
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M3C
U
7.18%
U
0.28
1.4
7.2
0.60
3.0
15
MIS
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
•" - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990.
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area.
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g - mg/kg - parts per million (pom)
-------
Page 2 of 16
Tablet
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Cotton (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)**
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS—
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M1N
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M2S
1.63
8.00%
20
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M2N
0.69
0.0122%
5656
0.0005
0.002
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.03
MSN
1.34
5.02%
27
0.19
1.0
5.0
0.42
2.1
11
M3S
1
6.30%
16
0.24
1.2
6.3
0.52
2.6
13
M4C
0.94
8.00%
12
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M5C
4.6
8.00%
58
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M6C
U
6.96%
U
0.27
1.4
7.0
0.58
2.9
15
M4N
U
6.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M4S
0.89
8.00%
11
0.31
1.6
8.0
•
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * -Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g • mg/kg » parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 3 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Cartoon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)**
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS"*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
MSN
0.84
8.00%
11
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M5S
1.16
8.00%
15
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M6N
2.97
8.00%
37
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M6S
1.11
8.00%
14
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M7C
U
0.231%
U
0.01
0
0.23
0.02
0.10
0.49
M8C
12
4.76%
252
0.18
0.93
4.8
0.39
2.0
10
M9C
1.49
8.00%
19
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M10C
11.3
8.00%
141
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M11C
U
0.372%
U
0.01
0.07
0.37
0.03
0.16
0.80
M7N
3.46
8.00%
43
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8% '
are considered to be 8%
•* - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
*** - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg « parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 4 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUG OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL RGBs 8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg » parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 5 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)•
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS' "
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS"*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M22C
0.44
2.98%
15
0.12
0.58
3.0
0.25
1.2
6.4
M23C
0.31
8.00%
3.9
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M15C
4.36
2.54%
172
0.10
0.50
2.5
0.21
1.1
5.4
M16C
1.71
3.33%
51
0.13
0.65
3.3
0.28
1.4
7.1
M17C
29.7
3.44%
863
0.13
0.67
3.4
0.29
1.4
7.4
M18C
U
3.52%
U
0.14
0.69
3.5
0.29
1.5
7.5
M19C
0.51
2.80%
18
0.11
0.55
2.8
0.23
1.2
6.0
M20C
2.54
4.35%
58
0.17
0.85
4.3
0.36
1.8
9.3
M21E
2.88
5.70%
51
0.22
1.1
5.7
0.47
2.4
12
M21W
3.48
5.00%
70
0.19
1.0
5.0
0.41
2.1
11
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
" * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
*" * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg » parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 6 of 16
Tablet
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)**
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* • *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* "
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M22E
2.5
6.52%
38
0.25
1.3
6.5
0.54
2.7
14
M22W
0.24
6.91%
3.5
0.27
1.3
6.9
0.57
2.9
15
M23E
1.7
7.34%
23
0.28
1.4
7.3
0.61
3.1
16
M23W
1.42
6.02%
24
0.23
1.2
6.0
0.50
2.5
13
M15E
4.7
5.56%
85
0.22
1.1
5.6
0.46
2.3
12
M15W
106
8.00%
1325
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M16E
1.36
4.20%
32
0.16
0.82
4.2
0.35
1.8
9.0
M16W
9.9
4.64%
213
0.18
0.90
4.6
0.38
1.9
10
M17E
4.7
3.32%
142
0.13
0.65
3.3
0.28
1.4
7.1
M17W
1.3
5.67%
23
0.22
1.1
5.7
0.47
2.4
12
Notes
' - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990.
revised May 11991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg » parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 7 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA. NORMAUZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOQ* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* • •
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS*"
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M18E
1.55
6.04%
26
0.23
1.2
6.0
0.50
2.5
13
M18W
4.2
5.82%
72
0.23
1.1
5.8
0.48
2.4
12
M19E
0.43
5.48%
7.8
0.21
1.1
5.5
0.45
2.3
12
M19W
5.3
3.66%
145
0.14
0.71
3.7
0.30
1.5
7.8
M20E
0.54
4.80%
11
0.19
0.94
4.8
0.40
2.0
10
M20W
0.29
1.76%
16
0.07
0.34
1.8
0.15
0.74
3.8
SD-6
1.9
1.86%
102
0.07
0.36
1.9
0.15
0.78
4.0
SD-7
U
2.30%
U
0.09
0.45
2.3
0.19
0.96
4.9
SD-8
U
2.16%
U
0.08
0.42
2.2
0.18
0.90
4.6
SD-9
U
0.895%
U
0.03
0.17
0.89
0.07
0.37
1.9
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC - Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990.
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g « mg/kg » pans per million (pom)
-------
Page 8 oil 6
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SO- 10
U
0.634%
U
0.02
0.12
0.63
0.05
0.27
1.4
SD-11
U
0.386%
U
0.01
0.08
0.39
0.03
0.16
0.83
RR1
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
RR3
1.27
3.94%
32
0.15
0.77
3.9
0.33
1.6
8.4
RR4
U
2.02%
U
0.08
0.39
2.0
0.17
0.84
4.3
RR5
U
2.22%
U
0.09
0.43
2.2
0.18
0.93
4.8
RR6
U
2.02%
U
0.08
0.39
2.0
0.17
0.84
4.3
RR7
3.3
1.95%
169
0.08
0.38
1.9
0.16
0.82
4.2
RR8
0.57
2.53%
23
0.10
0.49
2.5
0.21
1.06
5.4
M24C
4.1
0.88%
466
0.03
0.17
0.88
0.07
0.37
1.9
Notes
' - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC •= Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg » parts per million (pom)
-------
Page 9 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs(ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* "
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS"*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
M24N
28
8.00%
350
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
M24S
2.4
4.08%
59
0.16
0.80
4.1
0.34
1.7
8.7
PC-01
2.2
7.14%
31
0.28
1.4
7.1
0.59
3.0
15
PC-02
290
8.00%
3625
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-03
12.4
8.00%
155
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-04
560
2.80%
20000
0.11
0.55
2.8
0.23
1.2
6.0
PC-OS
3.42
6.00%
43
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-06
730
8.00%
9125
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-07
11.1
8.00%
139
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-08
2.26
8.00%
28
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
" * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g « mg/kg - parts per million (pprn)
-------
Page 1
Tablet
KIN-BUG OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs(ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOQ* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS***
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS***
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
PC -09
1.65
8.00%
21
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
PC-10
100
8.00%
1250
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-12
0.22
5.08%
4.3
0.20
1.0
5.1
0.42
2.1
11
SD-13
0.9
1.24%
73
0.05
0.24
1.2
0.10
0.52
2.7
M25C
300
3.98%
7538
0.15
0.78
4.0
0.33
1.7
8.5
CD1
U
3.26%
U
0.13
0.64
3.3
0.27
1.4
7.0
CD2
U
3.36%
U
0.13
0.66
3.4
0.28
1.4
7.2
CD3
U
3.32%
U
0.13
0.65
3.3
0.28
1.4
7.1
UD1
U
1.24%
U
UD2
U
1.84%
U
0.05 0.07
0.24
1.2
0.10
0.52
2.7
0.36
1.8
0.15
0.77
3.9
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g • mg/kg « pans per million (ppm)
-------
Page 11 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUG OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)"
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS' **
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS-**
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SD-1
U
2.70%
U
0.10
0.53
2.7
0.22
1.1
5.8
SD-2
U
2.81%
U
0.11
0.55
2.8
0.23
1.2
6.0
SD-3
U
0.251%
U
0.01
0.05
0.25
0.02
0.10
0.5
SD-4
U
0.231%
U
0.01
0.05
0.23
0.02
0.10
0.49
SD-5
0.096
2.66%
3.6
0.10
0.52
2.7
0.22
1.1
5.7
RR9
U
4.55%
U
0.18
0.89
4.5
0.38
1.9
10
RR10
U
5.06%
U
0.20
1.0
5.1
0.42
2.1
11
SD-1-1
0.13
8.00%
1.6
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-1 -2
0.27
8.00%
3.4
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-1 -3
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
• * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g • mg/kg » pans per million (ppm)
-------
Page izin 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)•
NORMALIZED PCBs (UO/gOC)* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* "
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS'"
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SD-1-4
0.25
8.00%
3.1
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-1-5
0.29
8.00%
3.6
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-1-6
0.2
4.94%
4.0
0.19
1.0
4.9
0.41
2.1
11
SD-1-7
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SO- 1-8
0.37
5.995%
6.2
0.23
1.2
6.0
0.50
2.5
13
SD-1-9
0.43
8.00%
5.4
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-1-10
0.2
8.00%
2.5
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-1
0.37
8.00%
4.6
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-2
0.76
8.00%
10
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
•' - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g » mg/kg » parts per million (pom)
-------
Page 13 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBS (UQ/g)
Total Organic Cartoon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* •
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS"*
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SD-2A-3
0.32
8.00%
4.0
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-4
0.41
8.00%
5.1
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-5
0.72
8.00%
9.0
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-6
0.24
8.00%
3.0
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2A-7
0.28
6.915%
4.0
0.27
1.3
6.9
0.57
2.9
15
SD-2A-8
0.35
7.656%
4.6
0.30
1.5
7.6
0.63
3.2
16
SD-2A-9
0.57
8.00%
7.1
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
A-9DUP
2.19
8.00%
27
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-1
0.044
8.00%
0.6
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g - mg/kg - pans per million (ppm)
-------
Page 1
4W1<
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA. NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL RGBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Carbon (%)*
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* "
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS'"
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SD-2B-2
1.58
8.00%
20
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-3
0.34
6.65%
5.1
0.26
1.3
6.6
0.55
2.8
14
SO-2B-4
2.7
8.00%
34
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-5
0.08
8.00%
1.0
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-6
0.48
4.91%
10
0.19
1.0
4.9
0.41
2.1
11
SD-2B-7
0.097
8.00%
1.2
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-8
0.25
8.00%
3.1
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SO-2B-9
0.133
8.00%
1.7
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-2B-10
0.86
8.00%
11
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
Notes
• - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
* * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC - Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g - mg/kg * parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 15 ol 16
Tablet
KIN-BUG OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA, NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs(ug/g)
Total Organic Cartoon (%)•
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOQ* *
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* * *
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS—
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g sediment)
SD-2B-11
0.16
8.00%
2.0
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-3-1
0.59
8.00%
7.4
0.31
1.6
8.0
•
0.66
3.3
17
SO-3-2
U
0.963%
U
0.04
0.19
1.0
0.08
0.40
2.1
SD-3-3
U
0.235%
U
0.01
0.05
0.23
0.02
0.10
0.50
SD-3-4
0.16
7.065%
2.3
0.27
1.4
7.1
0.59
3.0
15
3-4-DUP
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-3-5
0.32
5.26%
6.1
0.20
1.0
5.3
0.44
2.2
11
SD-3-6
0.31
4.66%
6.7
0.18
0.91
4.7
0.39
1.9
10
SD-4-1
0.63
6.335%
10
0.25
1.2
6.3
0.53
2.6
14
Notes
* - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
• * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC = Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
* * * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC = Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at each location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Landfill Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g - mg/kg - parts per million (ppm)
-------
Page 16 of 16
Table 1
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 R1/FS
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PCB AND ORGANIC
CARBON DATA. NORMALIZED DATA AND CRITERIA
LOCATION
TOTAL PCBs (ug/g)
Total Organic Caibon (%)•
NORMALIZED PCBs (ug/gOC)* •
LOCATION-SPECIFIC FRESHWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS* **
Lower (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Mean (ug PCBs/g seolment)
Upper (ug PCBa/g sediment)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC SALTWATER
CRITERIA EQUIVALENTS*"
Lower (ug PCBs/g sedfcnent)
Mean (ug PCBs/g sediment)
Upper (ug PCBs/g seolment)
4-1DUP
0.43
8.00%
5.4
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-4-2
0.34
4.19%
8.1
0.16
0.82
4.2
0.35
1.8
9.0
SD-4-3
U
0.2705%
U
0.01
0.05
0.27
0.02
0.11
0.58
SD-4-4
U
8.00%
U
0.31
1.6
8.0
0.66
3.3
17
SD-4-5
0.12
2.99%
4.0
0.12
0.58
3.0
0.25
1.2
6.4
SD-4-6
0.37
4.39%
8.4
0.17
O.B6
4.4
0.36
1.8
9.4
Notes
• - Total Organic Carbon (OC) values reported as >8%
are considered to be 8%
• * - Total PCBs (ug/g) x Fraction OC - Normalized PCB concentration
(compare with established freshwater or saltwater criteria shown in Table 2)
•* * - Criterion (ug PCBs/gOC) x Fraction OC - Total PCB equivalent
(compare with total PCBs at bach location)
Source: All data from Draft Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Kin-Buc Landfill Operable Unit 2 (October 1990,
revised May 1991) and Draft Supplemental Sediment
Sampling Program for the Edmonds Creek/Marsh Area,
Kin-Buc Land)* Site Operable Unit 2 (April 1991)
Units: ug/g • rug/kg - parts par mWion (ppm)
-------
Table 2
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 RI/FS
SUMMARY OF USEPA PCB SEDIMENT CRITERIA
FRESHWATER
Lower
Mean
Upper
SALTWATER
Lower
Mean
Upper
3.B7 ug PCBs/g OC
19.5ugPCBs/gOC
99.9 ug PCBs/gOC
8.29 ug PCBs/g OC
4l.8ugPCBs/gOC
214 ug PCBs/g OC
Notes
OC « Organic carbon
Source: USEPA, 1988. Interim Sediment Criteria
Values for Nonpolar Hydrophobia Organic
Contaminants. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Criteria and Standards Division.
Washington, D.C.
-------
Table 5
tAllf l-7a. Compound* Detected In Hot* at Kln-luc II Site (data lro» Ucttran 19VU).
IO
at
OrganlM/
CoapomJ
HuMlchot
PCB't:
-------
Table 6
tabU 1-7b. Coapounda detected In tiddler crabs at Kin-Hue II (fro* AdMM at •!. 1990).
Saaplaa *»• ccwpmltta «f Mlee only.
Compound
PCff.li iDO/ko)
•roclor 1248
without carapace
ftroclor 12)4
Arocler 1260
Natal •: (a«/kg>
cadalua
ckraailua
coppar
line
A. CONONOS
-------
Table 7
. :c!«oouno$ cetectea in musRrat liver at Kin-Sue i! sue ano
s Soutn *iver reference sue (from Charters et ai. 1591).
A. -:MONOS :SE-< - -::AL
.smnouno
"EAN
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
S:UTH RIVES
"£AN ""AXIMUM
"2s: ,^/ng)
iroeior 1216
iroci-or 1221
Iroclor 1232
-rocior 1242
iroeior 124ff
iroeior 1254
Arocior 12SO
3esticides: (mg/kg)
a ipn* OBC
teta 6HC
jaima 3HC
selta BHC
*eotacn)or
*'dnn
:ndosuifan suifate
"etnoxycnlor
£-oosuifan i
Eroesuifan i!
jieldrin
-eotacnior eooxict
:OT
:co
30E
M«taU: (mg/kg)
Coeper
Juvenile males
Juvenile Females
Adult Hales
Adult Females
Lead
Juvenile males
Juvenile Females
Adult Males
Aault Females
Manganese
Juvenile males
Juvenile Females
Adult Males
Adult Females
Zinc
Juvenile males
Juvenile Females
Adult Males
Adult Females
0/61
0/61
0/61
0/61
0/61
0/61
0/61
2/2*
2/24
2/24
1/24
1/24
1/24
1/24
1/24
16/16
18/18
13/13
13/13
16/16
18/18
13/13
13/13
16/16
18/18
13/13
13/13
16/16
18/18
13/13
13/13
NR 0.004
NR 0.017
NR 0.005
NC 0.007
NC 0.007
1C 0.003
NC 0.004
NC 0.020
18.52
24.19
18.79
16.90
0.47
0.32
0.50
0.48
2.98
3.50
2.64
2.38
41.18
41.95
40.67
39.05
:/16
0/16
3/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
3/16
3/16
1/16
7/16
10/16
1/16
1/16
10/16
4/4
1/1
4/4
6/6
4/4
1/1
4/4
6/6
4/4
1/1
4/4
5/6
4/4
1/1
4/4
6/6
1.2E-03
5.0E-05
3.3E-04
5.0E-05
2.4E-04
1.6E-04
4.0E-05
8.18
NC
8.98
7.83
0.16
NC
0.20
0.20
_ 1.77
NC
1.20
1.77
28.25
NC
20.23
19.00
*.4E-02
2.9E-04
i.lE-01
9.0E-05
1.4E-02
1.9E-04
1.3E-04
•
14.00
•
•
•
0.18
•
*
•
2.40
*
•
•
11.00
*
•
NC - Not Calculated.
NR - Ndt reoorteo Because geoeatric
. * - Onl y means reported.
wean exceeded max i BUB value.
POOR QUALITY
28
-------
. Table
TABLE 1-7
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN CHOSEN FOR EACH MEDIA
AT THE KIN-BUC SUPERFUNO SITE
OPERABLE UNtT 2
COMPOUND SEDIMENTS SURFACE WATER GROUND WATER
VOCS:
BENZENE X X
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE X X
1.2-DICHLOROETHENE ' X
VINYL CHLORIDE X
XYLENE
PAHS:
NAPHTHALENE X X
PHTHALATES:
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PKTHALATE X
PESTICIDES/PCBs:
4.4--DDT X
PCBs X X (1)
METALS:
ANTIMONY XXX
ARSENIC X X X
BARIUM X X
BERYLLIUM X X
CADMIUM X X
MANGANESE XXX
NICKEL X X
VANADIUM XXX
NOTE:
This table presents the contaminants of concern for f* human hearth evaluation of the Kin-Sue RA.
Noli thai al of fta contaminants selected above wit be evaluated for all of *• pathways in which Ihey were
detected, fat example: cadmium was selected for ground water and for sediments although it wiU also be evaluated
tor surface water. Because the air pathway involves votatlaHon. cadmium wM not be evaluated tor air.
(1) • Although PCS* were not detected in sand and gravel wels during the Rl. they were detected in fte refuse
layer monitoring wells. Due to their potential for advene health effect*, tfwy wet* retained for analysis during
tfie Rl at OP-2.
-------
Table 9
GROUND-WATER OATA'$TATiSKOAL SUMMARY
15-J«n-92
VOCs (mg/L)
Vinyl Chloride
Cnloroetnane
Acttont
:*rOon Oisulfide
l.:-0ichloroetriane
1.2-Diehloroetnene (total)
Tricnloroetnene
Benzene
i-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetracnloroetnene
"ol uene
Chlorooenzene
ithyl benzene
Total Xylenee
BNAt (mg/L)
Phenol
2-Chloroonenol
1.3-Oichlorobenzene
1.4-Otchlorobenzene
1 . 2-Oi cnl orobenzene
2-*ethyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2.4-Otmethylphmnol
Benzoi e Acid
4-Chl oro-3-*ethyl phenol
N-mtroiociphtnylannne (1)
PAH* (mg/L]
Naphthalene
2 -Kethy 1 naohtha 1 ene
Ac«naontn*n«
Tluortnc
Phcnantnrtnt
Flouranthcra
Pyr«ni
Phthalatts (ng/L)
OUthylphtha'att
01-n-outylphtnalaU
Butyl btrizy 1 phthal ata
bii(2-Cthylhuy1 )Phthal*tt
Oi-n-OctylphthaUt«
Total Nt«1< (mg/L)
AliMnnui
Antimony
Arsenic
Bant*
Beryllium
Cadilui
Caleiui
Chromium
Cobalt
Iro»
Umd
NMmwimn
Nleul
Petanlum
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadi urn
Zinc
MAXIMUM
*.60E-02
2.70E-02
2.30E-01
2.90E-02
1.80E-02
i.SOE-01
5.SOE-02
2.80E-01
1.40E-01
8.60E-02
5.70E-01
1.30E-M)0
8.20E-02
2.90E-01
3.10E*00
S.OOE-03
9.00E-03
1.10E-02
5.00E-03
1.10E-00
1.30E*00
3.60E-02
1.50E*01
7.50E-02
S.OOE-03
1.30C-01
1.40E-02
l.OOE-02
S.OOE-03
9.00E-04
3.00E-04
l.OOC-03
4.00E-03
S.OOC-03
S.OOE-04
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
6.02E*01
S.37E-02
4.0SE-02
1.62E*00
4.40E-03
2.ME-03
2.ME*«Z
8.8SE-02
S.07E-OZ
2.60E-01
2.33W2
5.27E-02
4 84E*02
i.04E*Ol
1.09E-01
1.23E*OZ
2.SOE-03
«.OOE*03
1.76E-01
4.38E-01
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
7.87E-03
5.96E-03
2.67E-02
S.26E-03
3.57E-03
1.32E-02
6.24E-03
3.80E-02
1.07E-02
6.93E-03
4.06E-02
B.22E-02
1.43E-02
2.71E-02
1.98E-01
4.81E-03
5.20E-03
S.30E-03
4.49E-03
7.S8E-02
8.63E-02
7.94E-03
9.S9E-01
1.31E-02
4.5SE-03
1.13E-02
S.4SE-03
S.2SE-03
S.OOE-03
4.80E-03
4.SOE-03
4.09E-03
4.61E-03
3.S3E-03
3.67E-03
1.79E-02
4.38E-03
9.80E*00
2.9SE-02
1.26E-02
S.S5E-01
l.UE-03
1.19E-03
1.28E*02
l.SBE-02
1.15E-02
4.94E-02
5.07E*01
i.oec-02
2.30E*02
2.9BE*00
3.14E-02
6.81E»fll
7.83E-04
1.89E*03
3.89E-02
7.80E-02
SSX UPPER ?9EOUENCf
CONFIDENCE LIMIT
1.20E-02 2/23
7.30E-03 2/23
5.1SE-02 4/23
8.47E-03 5/23
S.19E-03 2/23
2.89E-02 4/23
1.12E-02 4/23
7.12E-02 IS/23
2.26E-02 3/23
1.44E-02 2/23
9.22E-02 16/23
1.98E-01 10/23
2.53E-02 7/23
S.47E-02 12/23
1.99E-01 1/16
4.81E-03 1/16
S.20E-03 1/20
S.30E-03 1/20
4.49E-03 3/20
7.S9E-02 2/16
8.64E-02 2/16
7.94E-03 3/16
9.60E-01 3/16
1.31E-02 3/16
4.S5E-03 2/20
1.13E-02 4/19
5.45E-03 1/20
S.2SE-03 1/20
5.00E-03 1/20
4.80E-03 1/20
4.SOE-03 2/19
4.09E-03 4/20
4.61E-03 3/21
3.S3E-03 11/21
3.S7E-03 6/20
1.79E-02 4/20
4.38E-03 3/21
1.70E*01 18/18
3.S4E-02 19/22
1.70E-02 21/22
7.14E-01 23/23
1.S9E-03 8/23
1.40E-03 3/23
1.S7E-02 22/22
2.66E-02 8/23
1.67E-02 11/23
B.29E-02 14/19
7.27E*01 23/23
l.ME-02 17/23
2.86E-H32 23/23
4.12E*00 23/23
4.59E-02 IS/23
B.12E-H11 23/23
1.04E-03 2/23
2.29E«43 23/23
6.0SE-02 18/23
1.29E-01 14/20
-9-
-------
Conoouna
21-Jan-92
Table 10
WATER DATA STATISTICAL SUMMARY
MAXIMUM ARITHMETIC ?5X UPPER
MEAN ::NFIOENCE LIHIT
VOCs (mg/L)
"ethyl tn§ Chlonoe
1.2-Dienlrottfwnt (total)
2-9ut4non«
Senztnt
*ttr«enloro«tntni
"slutnt
Chlorooenzene
• thyl btnztna
Styrtnt
Xyltnt (tot«1)
BNAs (mg/L)
'henol
N-Ni trosodiphtnyl unint
PAHs (mg/U
JUphtnaltnt
2-Ntthylnaphthalint
Phtha1at«s (mg/L)
Di-n-&utylphtnal«tt
Ptstieidts/PCSs (mg/L)
4'.drin
1.4' -DOT
Aroclor 1254 •
Mttals (mg/L}
Aluflrinifl
Antimony
Ar«nie
8«r1tn
BtrylliM
C«1eivji
ChroBiui
Cobalt
Coopar
Iron
LMd
MagnasiUB
Hangintu
Mtrcury
Nicktl
Potass iua
Sodiua
VanaOiiA
Zinc
C/amd*
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.20E-OZ
5.70E-02
2.00E-03
l.OOE-03
3.10E-01
5.30E-02
6.00E-04
6.00E-01
B.OQE-03
4.00E-03
1.30E-02
l.OOE-03
l.OOE-03
4.90E-OS
1.60E-04
3.30E-04
2.4T£*01
4.82E-02
7.00E-03
3.46E-01
1.90E-03
l.S4E*02
1.20E-01
2.20E-01
1.33E-01
5.41E»01
4.72E-02
4.S5E*02
7.90E-01
1.10E-04
4.07E-01
1.43E-HJ2
4.19E-03
1.52E-01
3.97E-01
2.22E-02
2.46E-03
2.46E-03
S.SBE-03
6.S1E-03
2.46E-03
2.13E-03
2.62E-02
6.27E-03
2.3SE-03
4.84E-02
S.30E-03
4.90E-03
S.80E-03
4.60E-03
4.60E-03
2.68E-OS
S.B5E-OS
4.B7E-04
3.03£*00
1.99E-02
2.18E-03
9.71E-02
B.OOE-04
7.05E-H)!
1.19E-02
4.97E-02
5.25E-02
8.0SE*00
6.61E-03
1.47E«02
2.94E-01
6.23E-05
9.10E-02
5.77E*Ol
1.26E«03
1.49E-02
8.BOE-02
6.82E-03
2.54E-03
2.54E-03
6.80E-03
1.53E-02
2.54E-03
2.S4E-03
7.57E-02
1.44E-02
2.66E-03
1.4SE-01
5.92E-03
S.UE-03
7.45E-03
5.43E-03
5.43E-03
3.07E-05
7.62E-05
S.14E-04
6.88E*00
2.98E-02
.17E-03
.59E-01
.09E-03
.60E*01
.08E-02
.NE-02
.48E-02
.74£*01
.40E-02
.40E*02
.48E-01
.ME-05
.66E-01
.45E*Ol
.12E*03
.88E-02
.61E-01
.70E-03
:/i3
:/i3
:/i2
3/13
:/i3
3/13
:/i3
2/13
1/13
3/13
1/10
1/10
:/io
1/10
i/10
:/i3
:/i3
1/13
13/13
6/13
7/13
13/13
4/13
13/13
S/13
6/13
11/11
13/13
10/13
13/13
13/13
1/13
12/13
13/13
13/13
5/13
6/13
2/13
10
-------
Table 11
<:N- 3UC OP£RA8l
Ccmoouna
SEDIMENT DATA STATISTICAL SUMMARY
! MAXIMUM ARITHMETIC 5SX UPPER -REOUE.1CY I
j MEAN ::NFIO£NCE LIMIT
Ae.tm. VOCS (m"k9)
Acetone
Ciroon OtJulfide
2* vUttnoriQ
:enzene
's'uene
CMcrooenzene
Ethyl benzena
Xylene (total)
BNAs (mg/kg)
"..4-Dichlorooenzene
senzoic acid
Oibenzofuran
N-Ni trosoai phanyl ami ne
2-Chloropnanol
PAH» (mg/kg)
Naonthalene
2-Metnyl naphtha! ana
Acenaontnylana
Acen«onthene
^ uorena
?henantnrene
Anthraeena
Huorantnene
Pyrtne
SenzoUlanthraetnt
Chrysene
Stnzoi 6 ) f 1 ueranthana
Benzo(tc fluoranthene
Btnzofajpyrene
Indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene
TOTAL PAHS:
Phthalatai (mg/kg)
Oiethylphthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalata
bisU-EthylhexylJphthalate
Oi-n-octylpntnalate
Pest1eides/PCBs (mg/kg)
Aroclor-1242
A roc lor- 1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
TOTAL PCS:
totals (mg/kg)
AliMima "
Antlaany
Artante
Bart«
BtrylHtB
CattWot
Caldia
ChroBiiai
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Laad
Nagnasiin
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potass iun
Selenit*
Silver
f — -At ^^
aodiuB
Vanadii* 1
Zinc j
9.20E-01 4.70E-02
l.SOE-02 3.09E-03
1.30E»00 6.86E-02
1.20E-01 7.62E-03
4.00E-02 3.73E-03
3.10E-01 :.76E-02
1.60E*01 3.07E-01
1.60E«01 3.33E-01
1-90E-01 1.38E-02
8.80WO 6.40E-01
1.60E-01 1.23E-02
1.20E*fll 2.52E-01
1-40E-02 1.53E-01
1.50E«00 3.22E-01
3.90E-H30 3.67E-01
1.35E-MJO 1.87E-01
2.60E-KJO 3.77E-01
1.50MO 3.14E-01
1.40W1 S.76E-01
1.20E*00 1.75E-01
2.90E«01 9.72E-01
? $0r*ni a 9oe HI
t. 301*0 J 3.29t*01
}.20|*00 2:71£.01
1.30E*00 3.04E-01
1.60E*00 3.77E-01
9-OOE-01 1.92E-01
}-50£»CO 2.77E-01
l.SOE-HM 2.26E-01
l.SOE*00 2.53E-01
5.40E*Oi 3.38E*00
i-fSH1 »-«c-oi
«-fSI<*fll 1-22E*00
2-50E«« 5.55E*Ol
8.70E-HW 3.46E-01
f -?OW2 1.16E«01
2.90E-H32 5.37E*00
1-30|*« 1.78E*«0
3.60E*00 1.93E-01
7.30E*02 1.68E-HJ1
f fff*24 1.5»E*04
2.53E*01 6.26EHW
2.S7E*02 S.30E*01
f-7«^2 7.33£*01
2.20E*00 1.19E*00
2-94WI {.,51^5
1.71E+04 2.41£*03
1.17E*02 S.9«E*01
5-J«Wl 1.76E«01
4.41W2 1.28E*02
S 9SE*Aa 9 »9t*jJ
a.*9K^v« <.Kt*O4
3.72M2 1.08E+02
8.93E*03 5.42E*03
7.04E*«2 l.S3E*02
3.40E+00 7.9SE-01
J-2f!22 4-3«*«
7.99E*03 3.04E*03
l-W^fll 1.4SE*00
7.50£*00 1.41£*00
1.69E+04 3.37E*03
».76E»01 4.7«E*01
6.S2E*02 2.16E*02
-11 -
3.55E-02
3.76E-03
1.36E-01
1.30E-02
S.30E-03
3.20E-02
9.08E-01
9.34E-01
2.35E-02
1.14E*00
1.98E-02
7.11E-01
1.65E-01
3.87E-01
4.66E-01
2.35E-01
4.54E-01
3.75E-01
8.85E-01
2.20E-01
1.63E»00
1.47£*00
3.19E-01
3.5SE-01
4.41E-01
2.31E-01
3.25E-01
2.73E-01
3.07E-01
4.80E«00
1.46E-01
2.89E*00
1.31E*02
6.94E-01
2.49E*01
1.02E*01
3.6SE«00
2.S8E-01
3.02E*01
1.79E*04
7.16E*00
6.37E*01
8.S6E*01
1.33E*00
2.10E«00
3.12E*03
6.55EH31 .
2.06E-HI1
1.4SE*02
3.17E«04
1.28E-HJ2
6.0«E*03
2.17E*02
9.54E-01
4.95E«fll
3.43E*03
2.05E*00
t T9r^wt
1 • / 1 t*VO
4.41E*C3
S.29E*01
2.46E*02
3/53
«/53
• / 3J
15/52
7/53 j
4/53 1
7/53
3/53
13/53
6/52
29/49
6/52
7/52
4/52
13/96
24/96
14/97
25/96
10/96
13/97
32/97
26/97
47/96
46/97
14/97
16/96
28/97
18/97
22/97
16/96
93/97
15/52
10/52
36/94
24/50
13/129
56/129
81/146
10/130
111/147
51/51
8/93
37/78
50/51
47/51
6/93
48/48
51/93
49/51
51/93
51/51
51/80
49/49
51/51
30/93
51/93
51/51
21/51
•kA 4*B>
23/76
48/48
50/51
35/77
-------
2t-Jen-92
Table 12
TARLE 4-1
CRITICAL 10KICI1V VALUES fOR MAI AND INHALATION ROUTES
CHEMICAL
lenient CC)
Carbon Dlsuiflds CMC)
Chlorobaruena (NO
1,2-DlcMoroethene CMC)
Vinyl Chloride (C)
Kyltrw (DC)
Naphthalene CMC)
bls(2-Ethylhe«yl)phthaUte (NC)
bls(2-Ethylh«Myl)pMhatate (C)
•CIS (C)
4.4* -DOT (NC)
4.4' -DOT (C)
Antlswny (NC)
Arsenic (NC)
Arsenic (C)
•arlua (NC)
ReryllluB (NC)
•eryllluMC)
CadvJua (NC)
Mantenese (NC)
Nickel (NC)
Vanadlua (NC)
(C) - Carcinogen
(NC) • Noncarclnoffcn
BFaT
RfO •
(•g/kg-day)
NA
I.OOE-01 (1)
2.00E-02 (1)
9.00E-03 (1)
NA
2.00E«00 (1)
4.00E-01
2.00E-02 (1)
NA
NA
5.00E-04 (1)
NA
4.00E-04 (1)
1.00E-03
NA
7.00E-02 (1)
S.OOE-01 (1)
NA
5.00E-04 (1)
I.OOE-01 (1)
2.00E-02 (1)
7.00E-OS
Sf ••
t/(*«/li«-day)
2. 906-02 (1)
NA
NA
NA
2.30E«00 (1)
NA
NA
NA
1.40E-02 (t)
7.70E«00 (1)
NA
3.40E-01 (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
•NA
4.30E«00 (1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
RIC •
(•9/kg-day)
NA
3.00E-03
6.00E-03 (1)
NA
NA
9.00E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
y«» Au»il*HI*
sr ••
1/(«g/kg-day)
2.90E-02
NA
NA
NA
2.94E-0!
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.40E-01
NA
NA
5.00E.01
NA
NA
8.40E«00
NA
NA
NA
NA
• Reference Dose/Reference Concentration
•• Carcinogenic Slope Meter
(1) Values obtained fro* IRIS (1990). All other values obtained fro* HEAST M90.
-------
Table 13
20-Feb-M
SUMMARY OF RISKS BY EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Route
of
Exposure
RESIDENTIAL
ADULT
Ground water
Innalafion
Ingastion
Abiorpbon
TOTAL
CHID
Ground water
Inhalation
(ngeetton
Absorption
TOTAL
RECREATIONAL
ADULT
Sedimentt
Ingection
Absorption
TOTAL
Surface Water
Ingaction
Ateorption
TOTAL
TOTAL RECREATIONAL:
CHILD
Sedimenti
Ingeetton
AbBorptton
TOTAL
Surf ace Water
togeeton
Ateorpton
TOTAL
TOTAL RECREATIONAL:
RSHK3ESTON
ADULT
CHILD
Nonearcinogenic
Hazard
Index
3.77E-02
5.37E+00
8.42E-03
5.42E+00
1.06E-01
«.01E«00
1.UE-02
6.13E+00
^91E-03
5.ME-03
0.9BE-03
1.43E-03
4.37E-04
1.87E-03
1.08E-02
4.89E-02
i75E-02
7.ME-02
2.41 E-02
3.74E-03
^TBE-02
1.04E-01
7.10E400
201E*01
Caranogenic
Rh*
6.54E-06
6.3BE-04
1.9BE-05
6.65E-04
S.48&06
2.15E-04
•.46E-06
2JBE-04
2.12E-06
3.45E-05
3.73E-05
S.3SE-06
4.03E-07
4.57E-07
3.78E-05
1.42E-05
5.01 E-OS
6.43E-05
2.70E-07
1.04E-06
1J1E-06
6.96E-05
1J1E-01
1.11E-01
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 14
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
POTENTIAL LOCATION/ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs FOR REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
Potential Regulatory
Compliance Requirement
Regulatory Citations
• Facility Closure Requirements
(Solid and hazardous waste)
• New jersey Solid Waste Management Act
N.J.S.A. 13: IE-let seq.
• New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations N.J.A C. 7.26-1 et seq.
• Disruption of Solid Waste
• New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act
N JS.A. 13:IE let seq.
• New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations
N.J A.C. 7:26-2A.8J
• Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Land Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR 268 1 26850
• Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
40 CFR Part 76 let seq
• Stream Encroachment
• New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control Act
N.JSA. 58;16A-50etseq.
• New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control Regulations
N.J.A.C7:13-1etseq.
• Waterfront Development
New Jersey Waterfront Development Law
N.J.S.A 12:5-3
New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources Coastal Permit
Program Rules N.J.A.C. 7:7-1 etseq.
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA)
NJ.S A. 13:19-1 etseq.
• Wetlands
Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
33 U.SC. 1251 etseq (section404)
Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program Regulations
33 CFR 320-330
EPA Regulation for Disposal of Dredge and Fill Materials
40 CFR 230
Migratory Bird Treaty Act 50 CFR 10
New Jersey Wetlands Act (of 1970)
N.J.S.A. 13:9 A-1 etseq.
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA)
N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 etseq.
New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources Coastal Permit
Program Rules N.J.A.C 7:7-1 etseq.
• Air Quality
• New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act
N.J.A.C. 26:2 C-9.2 etseq.
• New Jersey Bureau of Air Pollution Control Regulations
N.J.A.C. 7:27-let seq.
• Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
N.J.S.A. 4:24-1 etseq.
10 7 92 09406 F9
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 14 cont'd
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
POTENTIAL LOCATION/ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs FOR REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
Potential Regulatory
Compliance Requirement
Regulatory Citations
• Cultural Resource
Identification/Coordination
• National Historic Reservation Act
16 U.S. C. Section 470 et seq.
• Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties
36 CFR Part 800
• Rare and Endangered Species
Coordination
• Endangered Species Act (of 1973)
16 U.S.C.. Section 1531 et seq. (50 CFR Part 402)
• New Jersey Division of Fish. Game and Wildlife Regulations
N.J.A.C. 7:25-1 et seq. •
• Wildlife Coordination
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (of 1934)
16 U.S.C. Section 661 et seq. (40 CFR Pan 122.49)
• New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife Regulations
N.J.A.C. 7:25-1 et seq.
• Hazardous Waste Accumulation and
Management
• Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
40 CFR Part 761 et seq.
• Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Land Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR 268 1-268.50
• New Jersey Solid Waste Managment Act
N.J.S.A 13: IE et seq
• New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations N.J.A.C. 7:26-9 et seq.
t DOT Rules for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials,
49 CFR Parts 107.171.172 and 178
The following ARARs have also been identified for remedial activity
at the Kin-Buc site:
1 The Coastal Zone Management Act
16 USC 1451 Section 307 (c) (1).
2 The National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for PM 10 of 150 /^/m3 (24 hour average)
10 7 92 09406 f9
-------
T?ble 15
KIN-BUC OPERABLE UNIT 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
EDMONDS CREEK AND MARSH
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
Alternative
1. No Further Action
3A. Sediment Removal and
Consolidation in On-Site
38. Sediment Removal and Off-
Site Disposal
3C. Sediment Removal and
On-Site Treatment
4. Sediment Capping with
Stream Relocation
S. Sediment Consolidation and
Containment in Vicinity of
PoolC
Capital Cost
($000)
-
3.537
5,168
6.225
4.956
4,706
Annual O&M
Cost
($000)
17
23yr1-5
23yr1 -5
23yr1-5
70yr1
60yr2
52yr3-5
Syr6-10
2yr11-30
66 yr 1
59yr2
52yr3-5
6yr6-10
Syr 11 -30
Present Value
Cost*
($000)
261
3.637
5,268
6,325
5.230
5,009
* Using present worth factors for 5% before taxes and after inflation for 30 years
10 7 92 094% F9
-------
|