United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-84/011
September 1984
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Spence Farm Site, NJ
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/ROD/RO2-84/011
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION:
Spence Farm Site, NJ
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
'2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
J. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Jashington, D. C. 20460
3. RECIPIENT . SION NO.
5. REPORT DA '
DQ/-U1/fl4
6. PERFORMING • GANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
•
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACT
The Spence Farm is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Town of New
gypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The total area investigated is
^proximately 83 acres, of which 30 acres are stream valleys and swamp lands. Waste
xsposal occurred at scattered locations throughout a 20 acre low-lying wooded area
Ijacent to two adjoining tributaries to Crosswicks Creek. Dumping of hazardous was
i drums, bulk and free-flowing liquid form occurred during 1961 to 1967. Contamin
sund at the site included organic and inorganic compounds. The organic compounds
ound onsite are specialty and research chemicals and are not priority pollutants.
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site includes: removal
md off-site disposal of all drums and lab packs to a RCRA facility; excavation and off-
,ite disposal of visibly contaminated soil to a RCRA facility; sediment control during
xcavation and sampling efforts, and monitoring of on-site wells, annually, for.a five
ear period. Capital cost for the selected alternative is estimated to be $845,500
nd the five-year O&M ground water monitoring costs are estimated to be $95,300.
-------
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
Site; Spence Farm/ New Jersey ••
Region: II
AA, OSWER
Briefing; September 27, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Spence Farm is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of
the Town of New Egypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New
Jersey. The total area investigated is approximately 83 acres, of
which 30 acres are stream valleys and swamp lands. Waste disposal
occurred at scattered locations throughout a 20 acre low-lying
wooded area adjacent to two adjoining tributaries to Crosswicks
""-»ek. Dumping of hazardous wastes in drums, bulk and free-flowing
jid form occurred during 1961 to 1967. Contaminants found at the
v included organic and inorganic compounds. The organic corn-
Bounds found onsite are specialty and research chemicals and are not
priority pollutants.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site
includes: removal and off-site disposal of all drums and lab packs
to a RCRA facility; excavation and off-site disposal of visibly
contaminated soil to a RCRA facility; sediment control during
excavation and sampling efforts, and monitoring of on-site wells,
annually, for a five year period. Capital, cost for the selected
alternative is estimated to be $845,500 and the five-year O&M ground
r monitoring costs are estimated to be $95,300.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
This ROD authorizes the Phase I remedy of . Direct Contact
limited excavation to eliminate the threat . Excavation
of direct contact from the site. The extent . Ground Water
of contamination and the potential for ground Contamination
water contamination will be determined dur-
ing the Phase I remedial action. A supple-
mental ROD for site closure and additional
remedial actions, if necessary, will be
initiated upon the completion of Phase I.
-1-
-------
Spence Farm, New Jersey
September 27, 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
A decision was made to approve a ROD for this . NDD
site instead of an NDD because there were no . ROD
substantive areas for negotiation and the cost
of the remedy is relatively low.
-2-
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
S_i_te
Spence Farm, Plumsted, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alter-
natives for the Spence Farm site.
- Immediate Removal of Contained Material Spence Farm,
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., May 1984.
- Spence Farm Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS), Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., August
1984.
Staff summaries and recommendations.
Responsiveness Summary dated September 1984.
D^s_cr_iption of Selected Remedy
- Removal and off-site disposal of all drums and
lab packs at a RCRA 264 facility
Excavation and off-site disposal visibly of contaminated
soil at a RCRA 264 facility
- Sediment control during excavation and sampling efforts.
- Monitor on site wells, annually, for a five year period
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
nsation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
ngency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the
val of containerized waste and contaminated soil to a secure^
.jjzardous waste facility visibly to be the selected remedial
alternative for the Spence Farm site. It has been determined
that the implementation of this alternative will provide adequate
protection of public health, welfare and the environment. The
State of New Jersey has been consulted and agrees with the proposed
remedy.
"^ I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for use at other sites. In addition, the removal of
contaminated materials to a secure hazardous waste facility is
more cost-effective than other remedial action alternatives, and
is necessary to protect public health, welfare, and the environment,
-------
The State and EPA will include additional saraplir o
determine the potential contact of contamination with s Dund
water. A supplemental Record of Decision will be prepared
for approval of the future remedial actions.
Date Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Spence Farm Site
Plumsted, New Jersey
Site Location and Description
The Spence Farm site is located approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of the Town of New Egypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean
County, New Jersey. The site is approximately 700 feet north of
New Egypt-Lakewood Road (County Route 528) and 4,000 feet east
of Moorehouse Road and occupies portions of Lots 10, 14 and 15,
Block 74 in Plumsted Township. Waste disposal occurred at
scattered locations in a 20 acre low-lying wooded area adjacent
to two adjoining tributaries to Crosswicks Creek. A vicinity
map and site location map are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
The area consists of gently rolling farmlands which range
in elevation from 125 to 150 feet above mean sea level. The
'••?!*•' are cut by forested and heavily overgrown stream valleys
form a dendritic pattern The total area investigated is
imately 83 acres of which approximately 30 acres are stream
s and swamp lands.
The drainage area for the stream system crossing the site
is approximately 0.48 square miles and is situated within the
Delaware River Basin. Downstream from the site the stream joins
another small stream which flows west into Crosswicks Creek in
New Egypt.
The Spence Farm site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
which covers portions of eastern and central New Jersey. This
unconsolidated geological formation overlies bedrock comprised
of early Paleozoic to Precambrian metamorphic geniss and schist.
The unconsolidated beds generally strike northeast-southwest,
although shallower units strike in a more easterly direction.
•jits dip and thicken toward the southeast at dip angles
ig from about 10 feet per mile at the top to approximately
i^ij feet per mile at the bottom of the unconsolidated sequence. '
Many of the units vary in composition from where they outcrop to
downdip locations.
The Spence Farm site is in the outcrop area of the Kirkwood
Formation, one of the major aquifers in the Coastal Plain sequence,
Two lithologic members make up the Kirkwood; an upper unit con-
-si-sting of light gray to yellow-brown, fine quartz sand and a
lower unit consisting of dark brown, fine to very fine sand and
silt containing some glauconite. Muscovite, ilmentite and lignite
are common minerals to both members. The Kirkwood Formation,
which ranges in thickness from 40 to 100 feet in the oubcrop
area, has an average dip of 22 feet per mile in the southeastern
direction and strikes N 60°E. Downdip, this formation thickens
to over 500 feet at the coast. The Kirkwood aquifers are the
-------
•=• - - 2' --.-._•--.-.
most heavily developed of the Coastal Plain aquifers i ;cean
County.
A gradual formational contact exists between the finer sands
of the Kirkwood Formation and the coarser sands of the underlying
Manasquan Formation, the target depth for termination of monitor
wells in the remedial investigation. Even though both formations
have geologic similarities, noticeable differences, such as the
larger grain size, increased glauconite content and the fossil-
iferous and calcareous nature of the sediments, distinquishes
the Manasquan from the Kirkwood. Additionally, the Manasquan
is generally considered an aquitard even though in localized
areas the upper unit of the Manasquan may be more permeable
than the Kirkwood. . . .
Beneath the Manasquan Formation are the Vincentown Formation,
Hornerstown Sand, Red Bank Sand, Navashink Formation and Mt. Laurel-
Wenonah Formation. The Vincentown and Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Formations
are considered major aquifers.
Site History
Spence Farm was historically an agricultural/woodland site.
From approximately 1961 to 1967, portions of the site were used
for the dumping of hazardous wastes in drums, bulk and free-flowing
liquid form. In 1980 the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, with assistance from Ocean County Officials, identified
Spence Farm as a hazardous waste site. Currently, the majority
of the Spence Farm site is used for agricultural purposes while
some steeper sloped, less accessible areas remain woodland.
Previous site studies included soil borings, monitor-well
installations, and soil, ground water, surface water and air
monitoring. Soil borings consisted of drilling 11 wells to
depths of 2.5 to 37 feet. Monitor wells were then installed at
these sites between June 5, 1980 and September 8, 1980 and were
constructed with 2-inch diameter PVC casing and screen.
A single sample of waste found at the Spence Farm site was '
taken on April 17, 1980 by the NJDEP. The analysis of this
sample indicated the presence of 2,4 dichlorophenol.
A limited amount of ground water, surface water and air
samples were collected at the Spence Farm site in 1980. The
analytical data generated from these samples was used to expand
-thfe data base for the site.
A Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was completed for the.
Spence Farm site in March 1982. Subsequently, the NJDEP filed a
Cooperative Agreement application with the USEPA to cover the
costs to complete a detailed RI/FS for the site. In 1982, $288,000
of Federal funds were approved for the Spence Farm RI/FS.
-------
Upon approval of Federal monies the State of New Jersey
proceeded to procure a consultant to undertake the work necessary
to complete the RI/FS. Elson T. Killam Associates was selected
as the State's consultant. Work on the RI/FS was initiated in
November 1983. A draft RI/FS report was completed in August
C>. .. it Site Status
The investigation program undertaken as part of the remedial
investigation phase included the following activities:
1. An electromagnetic induction terrain conductivity
survey of the site
2. An emanation flux detection survey
3. Construction and sampling of 16 monitoring wells
4. Excavation of 15 test pits and collection of 9 soil
and 6 waste samples
5. Collection of 1 sediment and 3 surface water samples
6. Collection of 6 potable well samples
he results of these remedial investigative activities
te that:
astes were disposed of at the site by surface dumping
rather than by burial;
0 Most waste containers were opened intentionally or have
rusted and the contents dispersed;
0 Principal contamination is found in waste containers
and soils, with limited contamination of ground water
and surface water;
0 Most organic pollutants found were not priority pollutants
(only minor concentrations of priority pollutants were
^ound ) ; and
of available data on toxicity for these non-priorityv
'ganic pollutants indicates that the compounds with the
^reatest potential for adverse health and environmental
effects were found in soil rather than in water.
A more detailed discussion of the remedial investigative
results is noted below:
"Srbund Water Sampling and Results
All sixteen newly constructed monitor wells were sampled as
part of the investigative program. All organic compounds detected
were generally in the concentration range of from 10 to 50 ppb.
Two volatile organic compounds were detected, neither of which
-------
are priority pollutants. No acid-extractable organic- re
found in any of the samples. Of the base extractable anics
detected, only two are priority pollutants; di-n-octyi :ithalate
being detected at MW-1S, ID (Dup) and MW-8 and bis (2-t .rnylhexyl)
phthalate being detected at MW-3S, MW-4D, and MW-6S. As a result
of the random dumping at this site the organic compounds identified
in the ground water samples are almost entirely different from
those compounds found in the test pit, split-spoon and stream-
sediment samples.
There was also a significant change in the concentrations
of inorganic priority pollutant compounds. Though present in
almost all ground water samples, very low concentrations of
mercury (approximately 0.0004 mg/1) and zinc (approximately 0.10
mg/1) were the only inorganic compounds found aside from three
exceptions. Phenols were detected at MW-5, arsenic at MW-8 and
chromium at MW-9. These occurrences of contamination at MW-5,
the site upgradient well, and MW-8, which was located in an area
thought to be uncontaminated, were not anticipated and appear to
be the results of high background levels.
The six potable water samples that were collected from the
potable wells at the six private homes within one-half mile
radius were found to be free of organic contamination. The
only compounds detected were mercury and zinc in concentrations
approximately equal to those in the ground water and surface
water samples. Of the two, mercury was found in all potable
samples.
Surface Water Sampling and Results
The flows of streams on the Spence Farm site are partially
maintained by the discharge of ground water near and at the
stream channels. As such, surface water throughout the site is
the recipient of water first entering the cycle as recharge.
Thus, the three surface water samples are important for defining
the water quality at the end-point of its underground migration
and also at the point where the surface water eventually leaves
the study area. *
The results of the chemical analyses j.~ ste that the
surface contamination water at all three ;. , ::tions sampled is
virtually free of priority pollutants. Each sample contained
mercury and zinc at concentrations well below drinking water
standards. The sample from the stream at the site boundary,
SW"2, had the lowest levels of both elements. The same sample
contained no detectable organic compounds even though the sample
of the tributary to the main stream, SW-1, contained up to 25
ppm of 1-chlorodecane and the sample at the main stream at the
site boundary, SW-3, contained 10 ppm methylbenzene; botji base-
extractable organics. Methylbenzene was the only compound of
the four found in the surface water which has not been identified
in any of the soil and water samples.
-------
Test Pit Soil Sampling and Results
The soil samples obtained in the test pits contained the
highest concentrations of contaminants found on the Spence Farm
site. These samples are considered to be adjacent to the source
as they were collected at depths not exceeding 5 feet below grade.
In a majority of the test pits, contamination by individual
organic compounds ranged from a low of 11 ug/kg (ppb) to a high
of 22,000 ug/kg and generally averaged about 1500 ug/kg. Similarly,
individual inorganic compounds ranged from 0.01 ug/g to 220 ug/g
with an average of about 10 ug/g. Two observations stand out
from the test pit results. First is the near absence of volatile
organics. Methylene chloride, which was found only at Test Pit
9, was the only volatile organic compound detected that is on
the list of priority pollutants. Methyl-oxirane was found at
Test Pits 4, 7, and 11 and alkylethylester carbonic acid was
found at Test Pits 7 and 9. These two compounds were identified
through a library search of 40 non-priority pollutant peaks
shown by the mass spectrometer analysis and were the only volatile
organics detected.
The second observation is the general absence of organic
ity pollutants in the test pit soil samples, apart from the
ride exception noted earlier. Of the priority pollutant
„_...,--/lie contaminants, methylene chloride was the only compound -
detected. In addition, 60 organic compounds were detected either
through acid or base extraction techniques and identified through
a library search. The concentrations of compounds identified in
this manner are only estimated.
The results of a soil sample from Test Pit 2A, located near
the main disposal area, was an exception to the other soil sample
results. Twenty-one volatile organics, seven from the priority
pollutant list and fourteen from the library search, were detected
in this sample in individual concentrations ranging from 15 ug/kg
to 2800 ug/kg and averaging about 500 ug/kg. Acid and base
stable organics were found in concentrations ranging from
3 ug/kg to 1,300,000 ug/kg. All 20 acid and base extractable
>unds were identified through the library search and only 3 *
were found at other test pit locations. Inorganic compounds
were detected at Test Pit 2A in concentrations from 0.31 ug/g to
350 ug/g.
In summary, Test Pit 2A turned up the most heavily contami-
nated soil. There is a general absence of priority pollutants
.and volatile organics in the test pit soil samples. Those organics
which have been detected and identified with the library search
are rarely found at more than one test-pit location.
-------
. - - - - V "~ "•"• - — • "~* •"• """ - .._=_.
Split Spoon Soil Sampling and Results
After the test pit samples, the split-spoon samples contained
the largest concentrations of contamination. The soil zone
sampled by split-spoon is considered the next step removed from
the initial contaminant sources. Shortly after the start of
dumping at Spence Farm, the saturated soils likely retained or
adsorbed a portion of the contaminants being carried by the
ground water. However, the ground water now has significantly
lower contaminant concentrations than the soils. Therefore,
these soils may be acting as secondary sources of contamination
if the ground water is able to leach compounds from the soil
matrix.
The split-spoon samples were similar to the test pit samples
in that of the thirty seven organic compounds identified, only
three were priority pollutants. Methylene chloride, the only
volatile organic priority pollutant, was detected in all split-
spoon samples. The other two priority pollutants, found only
at Site MW-1, were base extractable organics. Although five
additional volatile organic compounds were identified with the
library search, there was a general absence of these compounds
compared to the relatively large number of acid and base extract-
able compounds found. Also, the highest levels of contamination
were found at MW-1 near the main waste disposal area. In general,
individual organic compounds were detected in concentrations
ranging from 6 ug/kg to 12,000 ug/kg. Inorganic compounds included
on the priority pollutant list were found at all locations. The
concentrations of inorganic compounds ranged from 0.01 ug/g to
32 ug/g.
The most notable difference between the split-spoon samples
and the test pit samples is that, with the exception of a dozen
or so compounds, entirely different organics have been detected
in the two sample types. Also worth noting is the unexpected
presence of contamination in a deep sample from MW-8, which was
drilled across the stream from the known disposal areas and in a
location thought to be uncontaminated.
Stream Sediment Sampling and Results
One stream-sediment sample was obtained where the main stream
flows out of the study area. The chemical analysis showed this
sample to be very similar to the split-spoon samples. Namely,
methylene chloride was the only priority pollutant and only volatile
-organic compound detected in the sample. Also, the types and
distribution of acid and base extractable organic compounds and
inorganic compounds were about the same.
Discussion of Remedial Investigation Results •
The main factor governing the quality of soil and water at the
site is that there is no major accumulation of wastes acting as a
single source of contamination. Thus, there is no discrete contam-
-------
7
inant plume to locate and quantify in terms of contaminant
concentrations and rate of migration. The situation at Spence
Farm is one of random dumping over the entire wooded area of the
site. Table 1 includes a summary of waste materials identified
on-site during remedial investigative activities.
Of the many compounds which have been identified, few are
found in more than one sample of a particular sample type while
fewer still are in different types of samples. Though it is
expected that some degree of breakdown has occurred in the organic
compounds, this phenomenon does not entirely explain why certain
compounds are found in the shallow soils of the test pits,
different compounds in the split-spoon samples and still different
compounds in the ground water.
Although volatile organics are the most mobile organic
compounds in ground water, they were not found in significant
quantity at this site. This implies that either these compounds
were not disposed of or that the dumping practices terminated
time ago and most of the volatiles have had time to dissipate.
inversely, almost all of the numerous organic compounds
.ed at the site were identified through the acid or base-
.,i act ion process. The fact that these processes are required
to remove the compounds from the soil matrix indicates that, under
neutral conditions, moving ground-water will leach out only minor
amounts of these tightly held compounds. The stability of these
organic compounds in the soils is borne out by the relatively
large number and concentration of compounds detected in the soil
samples while the ground water sample contained only a few organics
in low concentrations.
Of the organic compounds found on-site, few are priority
pollutants. This means that most of the compounds used in this
evaluation were identified through a library search of 40 non-
priority pollutants peaks shown by the mass spectrometer analysis
* '' estimated the associated concentrations.
organic compounds were the only contaminants that were *
to the various types of samples. This indicates a general
in inorganic compounds as water moves further from the
source compounds. Anomalous inorganic compounds were found in
three ground water samples. These elements might be expected
in on-site or downgradient samples considering the concentrations
found in the soils on-site. However, on-site sources at Spence
Farm cannot be the source of mercury and zinc in the upgradient
monitor well, the upstream surface-water sample and potable water
samples. Furthermore, these concentrations are within the
background levels for this area, which tend to be unusually high.
-------
In summary, although there are locations where r itively
high concentrations of contamination have been found . the soils,
only a few compounds having low concentrations have bc-=;n detected
in the ground water. It is in this mobile medium that contami-
nation is of greatest concern. Although a large portion of the
ground water discharges into the surface streams, some leaves
the study area as underflow and a portion probably moves downward
as leakage to the Vincentown Formation.
Table 1 includes a summary of waste materials identified
on-site during remedial investigative activities. Table 2
includes the results of all analytical sampling data obtained
during remedial investigative activities.
The current condition of scattered drums, lab packs and
surface waste material pose a serious threat to the public and
the environment. The priority pollutant contamination contained
in these items provides a potential for harm for those who come
in direct contact with these materials. Detrimental impacts to
the local environment may also result from the release of contam-
inants from those containers currently intact. The migration of
contaminants into local ground water and surface water could
seriously harm these resources. Therefore, in order to prevent
the threat posed by the on-site waste material it is recommended
that these materials be removed to a secure hazardous waste
treatment facility.
The focus of soil removal is on those species which are
priority pollutants or which are listed in Subpart D, Section
3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Potential criteria for removal include:
0 An order of magnitude above detection limit for
individual species using EPA Methods 624 and 625
(detected limit approximately 10 ppb)
0 A level of 500 ppb in soil of any single volatile
species, based on ten times the NJDEP water quality
criteria
0 A level of 1 ppm in soil of total priority pollutants
and RCRA Section 3001 pollutants
Initial estimates of the extent of soil removal under each
criterion can be based on results of remedial investigaion soil
-analyses. The most stringent criterion (ten times detection
limit or approximately 100 ppb for individual pollutants) would
require excavation and reburial of material at depths ranging
from 26 feet (Well No. 9) to 42 feet (Well No. 8). It is estimated
that the resulting volume of excavation would be approximately
373,000 cubic yards, with 58,000 cubic yards for disposal.
-------
. _1I_-I" ......... 9 - ....... ._ _. __.
For the second approach, based on 500 ppb of any pollutant
(ten times the NJDEP criteria), the levels of excavation would
be similar, that is, 373,000 CY excavated and 58,000 removed for
disposal.
For the third possible crierion, i.e., 1 mg/kg of total RCRA
Section 3001 pollutants, the extent of removal would be much
reduced based on data resulting from the remedial investigation.
Only the monitoring Well No. 1 soil sample (I1 depth) showed
total RCRA pollutants in excess of this criterion. Therefore,
approximately 1,000 cubic yards would require removal under this
criterion.
Al . ternati_ye_s_ Eva 1 u at ion
After assessing the priority pollutant and non-priority
pollutant data generated during the remedial investigation
activities, it can be seen that no surface water or ground water
quality criteria are violated as a result of waste disposal at
the Spence site. The control objectives are first to limit or
* ? iminate pollutant migration from soil erosion and surface
~f and second, to limit or eliminate direct contact. Because
>jotic nature of the non-priority organic contaminants a
,• control objective could not be developed.
initial screening of alternatives can be done based on
cost, effectiveness and acceptable engineering practice. The
most significant pathways with the potential for adverse impacts
on public health and the environment are first, to limit or
eliminate pollutant migration and second, to eliminate direct
contact. The candidate remedial actions identified in the National
Contingency Plan are presented in Table 2.
The screening of remedial alternatives developed in response
to the results of the field investigation indicates that remedial
action will be necessary to mitigate the threat to public health,
welfare or the environment. Source control actions which would
lef~- the migration of stream sediment and measures to eliminate
c ontact will be required. For this reason the "No Action"
c.. . „ ,ive was not considered in the detailed evaluation of s
alternatives.
SEE INSERT A.
The following remedial action alternatives were developed
foe B more detailed analysis of e!8ectiveness and cost.
-------
9a~
INSERT AT A.
The alternative of closing the site in accordance %,
RCRA, without the removal of any waste off-site for dir% ^1, was
eliminated during the initial screening of alternatives. This
alternative did not significantly lessen the migration contam-
ination through ground water already in contact with so .e
materials. In addition, the scattered disposal of drunu ;~nd lab
packs would require the extensive capping of the site, however,
the discrete removal of the drums, lab packs, and visibly contam-
inated soils would be significantly lower in cost, as well as
•ore environmentally secure, and will facilitate capping the
emaining contaminated soils.
I . /jA f i ^\
INITIALS
-------
__1T=±:_^; _ _,.._. ....... . . ... 10 . ^....
Alternative 1 - Waste and soil removal, dam and pond for sediment
control, fencing and direct access control and ground water
monitoring.
Alternative 2 - Waste and soil removal, berms along stream for
sediment control, fencing and ground water monitoring.
Alternative 3 - Waste and soil removal, berms along stream
and site perimeter, fencing and ground water monitoring.
Alternative 4 - Waste and soil removal, site regrading and
surface restoration, berm along site perimeter, and ground
water monitoring.
Alternative 5 - Removal of both waste and contaminated soil,
and site restoration.
Alternative 6 - Construction of on-site landfill to RCRA and
NJDEP landfill specifications, site restoration and, ground
••*ter monitoring.
ne cost-effective alternative is defined as the lowest
Iternative that is technologically feasible and reliable
ich effectively mitigates damage to and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare and the environment.
The following evaluation of the six remedial action alter-
natives will consider their present worth cost as well as their
effectiveness in controlling direct contact and sediment
migration.
Alternative #1: This alternative would include removal of
contaminated waste and soil from the site and the construction of
a permanent dam across the stream below the perimeter of the site
approximately 560 feet downstream of the confluence of the two
streams flowing through the site, as shown in Figure 3.
The total drainage area of these streams is approximately
-. u acres. Designing the basin to contain a 100 year storm ••
event would require the construction of a dam 150 feet wide .and
approximately 10 feet high. The pond created during a 100 year
storm event would have a volume of approximately 685,000 ft^ and
depth of approximately 5 feet at the dam. The basin will have an
emergency overflow riser pipe and will be dewatered by the use of
subsurface drains.
The effects of this dam will only be realized during storm
events when a pond will be created as a result of the excess
inflow entering the basin. The area behind the dam will be
relatively calm where the sediment transported by the sbream
will settle out. After the storm event occurs, the level behind
the dam will slowly drain. Preliminary calculations indicate a
volume of approximately 61,000 ft-* of soil will accumulate
annually. Therefore, the periodic excavation of this sediment
will be required.
-------
-"— — : '- 11 - " ""•• - -—-- ....-—-.-.-
The sediment yield of 61,000 ft 3 will not all be delivered
to the dam. For sandy soils, approximately 18 percent of the
sediment yield will occur at the dam, with the remainder being
deposited upstream of the pond area. Therefore, the annual
sediment yield will be approximately 11,000 ft3, or 400 CY.
Removal of sediments is recommended every 15 years.
Alternative t2; This alternative includes the removal of contam-
inated waste and soil from the site as well as the construction
of berms along the banks of the streams flowing through the
site. These berms would prevent the surface runoff passing
through the site from carrying contaminated soil into the stream.
The upgradient of the berm will be graded so that the surface
runoff will be directed towards a sediment basin where the
contaminated soil will settle out.
Approximately 3,600 linear feet of berms would be required
to isolate the stream as it flows through the site as shown in
Figure 4. The total drainage area tributary to and including
the site is approximately 120 acres. The berm on the south bank
would have tributary to it a drainage area of approximately 25
acres while the berm on the north bank would have approximately
95 tributary acres. Designing the respective basins (north and
south) to withhold a 100 year storm event would require basins
with volumes of approximately 220,000 ft3 and 46,000 ft3 respec-
tively. Each basin would be designed with an emergency overflow
riser pipe and will be dewatered by the use of subsurface drains.
The effects of the berm will be to prevent the contaminated
soil from entering the stream and leaving the site. Preliminary
calculations indicate that the basins on the north side of the
stream will remove annually approximately 3,600 ft3 of soil. The
south side basin will annually remove approximately an additional
1,080 ft3 of soil. Periodic excavation of this sediment every
15 years is recommended.
Alternative t3;
This alternative is similar to alternative 2 with the addition
of a second system of berms around the perimeter of the site as
indicated in Figure 5.
The addition of the perimeter would prevent upland runoff from
flowing over the site, by directing it to a point further down-
stream. This alternative would require approximately 6800 linear
"feet of smaller berms to isolate the site. This is in addition to
the approximately 3,600 linear feet of the berms required to isolate
the stream as it flows through the site. Therefore, the total
drainage area tributary to the site would be greatly reduced. The
north side berm would have a drainage area of approximately twenty
seven acres. The south side would have a drainage area of approxi-
mately nine acres. The respective basins required to withhold a
100 year storm event would have volumes of approximately 53,000
ft3 and 21,000 ft3. Each basin would be designed with an emergency
-------
overflow riser and will be dewatered by the use of subsurface
c'vr-'nsT" with the construction of a perimeter berm, there is a
tion in size required for the sedimentation basins.
S_ .rly, the amount of sediment removed prior to entering the
stream is also reduced. Preliminary calculations indicate that
the basin on the north side of the stream will remove annually
approximately 33 ft3 of soil. The south side basin will remove
approximately 15 ft3 of soil annually. With this small quantity,
removal of sediment should not be required over the thirty year
planning period.
Alternative t4: This alternative would include removal of contami-
nated waste and soil from the site and the construction of a
temporary dam for sediment control during construction, regrading
of areas of high slope and covering with native (uncontaminated)
material, construction of a site perimeter berm for runoff control
and site restoration.
The greatest source of runoff contaminated soil is the
embankment area marking the transition from upland to wetland
rreas. The slope of this embankment area ranges from approximately
4 ~> 1 to approximately 3 to 1. To regrade the slope to 4 to
:over with one foot of uncontaminated material will require
.mately 6 cubic yards of excavation per linear foot of
In addition, the slope will require clearing and grubbing
(approximately 12.8 acres) before regrading and will reqiure
surface restoration after regrading for the area shown in Figure
6. To further minimize erosion, the site perimeter berm (6800
L.F.) described in Alternative 3 will be incorporated. The final
stage of construction will be the removal of the temporary sediment
control dam.
Alternative »5;
This alternative would involve the removal of contaminated
waste and soil (which exceeds 10 times detection limit or approx-
imately 100 ppb for an individual pollutant) from the site. The
contaminated soil subject to migration and exceeding the more
stringent removal criteria includes both surface soil and ^
contaminated subgrade soils. The removal of these soils for
off-site disposal would entail temporary dam construction, well
pointing and excavation of approximately 373,000 cubic yards of
materials, of which approximately 58,000 cubic yards would require
off-site disposal. This would be followed by replacement, regrading
and surface restoration of uncontaminated soils, and by removal
£f, the temporary dam and well point system.
Alternative f6;
is alternative includes the construction of an onj-site
lity controlled landfill to contain waste materials,
... .-...mated soils and sediments. This landfill would be placed
in an upland area near the contaminated area to remove contaminated
material from the floodplain. In addition, to RCRA criteria
-------
... - - - - -13 •--•—.. .- — --—- . _
NJDEP landfill criteria for new construction were use n
development of the design. These additional criteria iclude
double, rather than single, lining and specifications ror surface
cover and drainage layers.
The RCRA landfill configuration is shown in Figure 7, with
the disturbed area and tentative landfill locations shown in
Figure 8. The landfill design includes site regrading, a double
bottom layer for leachate control, surface sealing using a clay
cap and new monitoring wells.
Excavation and removal of contaminated surface and subsur-
face soils will require excavating approximately 373,000 CY of
soil, of which 58,000 CY would be placed in the landfill. This
excavation will require well pointing to lower the ground water
sufficiently for removal of contaminated materials at an averaca
depth of 15 feet below grade. For sediment control the temporary
dam would also be required for this option.
Community Relations
A public meeting was held by the NJDEP on February 7, 1984,
to discuss the initiation of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) for the Spence Farm site. Notification of the
meeting was accomplished through press releases sent to all
newspapers listed in the Farm Community Relations Plan and
mailings to all parties listed in the "Contacts" section of the
plan. An information package, includin: : >*enda, fact sheet,
overview of the Community Relations Pro;,; . ? , Superfund sites,
and the steps involved in a major hazardous waste site cleanup,
was given to all attendees at the beginning of the meeting. The
meeting was attended by approximately 30 people in addition to
local Township officials and NJDEP representatives. After the
initial presentation by the contractor, Elson T. Killam, the
meeting was opened for public discussion. There were four
questions asked by citizens with regard to testing of the ground
water. The state officials responded to these inquiries.
A second public meeting was held by NJDEP on August 16, *
1984, to discuss the results of the RI/FS. An information package
including the agenda and fact sheet were provided to to the approx-
imately 30 people who attended. The contractor outlined the
objectives, scope of work, results and conclusions of the RI/FS.
Six alternatives were discussed. The contractor's recommended
alternative included; removal of drums, lab packs and contaminated
--soil, site regrading and surface restoration and berming the
perimeter of the site. Numerous questions were raised by the
public regarding the proposed remedial alternative. The NJDEP
officials were able to respond adequately to all concerns raised
by the public. »
-------
_ ,'J T ,4
AM _- --: -.-
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was available
for public review and comment, beginning on August 17, at three
locations: the Ocean County Library in Toms River, the Plumsted
Tc-".ship Municipal Building, and the NJDEP's Hazardous Site
Mitigation Administration in Trenton. There were two letters
received prior to the conclusion of the twenty-one day comment
period.
One letter was received from Mr. Brandenburg of B&D Realty
in Lakewood. Mr. Brandenburg stated that Alternative 5 (complete
removal) is his choice for remedial action. With respect to
Alternative 5, it is NJDEP's opinion that both the recommended
alternative and Alternative 5 provide the same degree of
protection to the public health and environment in that they
equally eliminate the chances of exposure to substances found
at the site. Since the recommended alternative is less costly
than Alternative 5, it is currently the alternative that is
being recommended by the State.
A second letter was received from Mr. Edward C. Laird, Esq.,
r-ttorney for Morton-Thiokol. This letter included comments
rning the technical feasibility and detailed implementation
e various facets of the recommended alternative. The
nts, that are directly related to the first phase of the
k^-commended remedial alternative, have been considered in this .
Record of Decision Document and the NJDEP's response is included.
in the responsiveness summary.
Consistency With Other Environmental Laws
The final recommended remedial alternative for Spence Farm
will require the removal of the hazardous waste and visibly
contaminated soil. These materials will be manifested for
transport from the site to a secure facility in accordance with
RCRA requirements. The benefits of reducing direct contact of
**>.& residual contaminants and the migration of these contaminants
the stream far outweigh the minimal impacts on the floodplain.
JDEP Bureau of Floodplain Management will require the
incorporation of specific environmental specifications into the '
cleanup plan to minimize the impacts on the floodplain. The
cleanup contractor will be required to obtain a Stream Encroachment
Permit from the NJDEP prior to the initiation of any work in the
floodplain area. A floodplain management assessment is included
as Attachment 1.
-Enforcement
The State of New Jersey and EPA have identified Morton-
Tn^, .ol, Inc., and Dayton Hopkins (landowner) as a potentially
responsible party. Notice letters were sent by the Stabe to
the PRP's on March 18, 1982. This resulted in a meeting with
Thiokol on July 7, 1982, to discuss its role in undertaking
the site clean up.
-------
Further correspondence resulted in Thiokol submit' jg two
proposals for conducting a modified RI/FS. These proposals were
rejected by EPA on January 16, 1983. A second Notice Letter was
sent to Thiokol on March 18, 1983 indicating the State would be
responsible to perform the RI/FS.
The State of New Jersey and EPA Region II have designated
this site as a State enforcement lead. Currently, the State of
New Jersey is negotiating an Administrative Consent Order with
Morton-Thiokol, Inc. for the clean up of this site. The
recommended remedial actions included in this Record of Decision
will be incorporated by the State into the Administrative Consent
Order. There will be a negotiation period of no greater than 60
days following the signing of this ROD. If New Jersey is
unsuccessful in these negotiations EPA will likely issue a §106
Order for the selected remedy and later pursue a Cost Recovery
Action against Morton-Thiokol.
Recommended-Alternative
According to 40CFR Part 300.68 (j), cost-effectiveness is
described as the lowest cost alternative that is technically
feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes
damages to and provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare and the enviornment. A cost comparison of remedial
alternatives is presented in Table 3. The evaluation of the six
remedial alternatives leads to the conclusion that Alternative
#4 is the most cost-effective.
Of the remaining alternatives, the initial three were all
found to have slightly lower present worth cost. However operation
and maintenance costs were significantly greater for all three
alternatives. In addition, the permanent loss of forest
(approximately 15 acres) and wetland (approximately 0.5 acres)
areas are common to all these alternatives. Furthermore,
contamination would remain on site in the surface water sediment,
for the initial three alternatives.
Alternatives 5 and 6 would result in the permanent loss of
forest and wetland areas. These two alternatives were also far
more costly than the recommended alternativec
The components of Alternative #4 are technically feasible
and reliable and when combined, provide adequate protection of
public health, welfare and the environment. The removal of
-Gofttainerized wastes and visibly contaminated soils to a secure
hazardous waste management facility is a reliable remedial measure.
The regrading of the site in conjunction with placing clean fill
will effectively control direct contact with residual contaminants.
The construction of a temporary dam during excavation activities
will eliminate the off-site migration of contaminants. The
monitoring of existing on-site wells for a period of five years
-------
16
after the completion of the remedial action will evaluate for
the possible migration of contaminants from the site, thereby,
ensuring the effectiveness of the remedial action.
The Agency and the State of New Jersey have decided to
proceed with the recommended alternative as a multiphase remedial
action. Phase T will consist of: The excavation of surface
waste material and visibly contaminated soil; the transportation
and off-site disposal of the excavated materials; the monitoring
of ground water for a five-year period: and the further sampling
and analysis of soils and stream sediments. The additional
sampling will be conducted to establish the design criteria for
the next phase of the remedial action. Sediment control measures
will be taken during excavation and sampling efforts. Based on
the results of the sampling and analysis effort, Phase II will
consist of site regrading and closure, ground water monitoring
and if necessary, additional excavation of contaminated soils
and/or sediments and the off-site disposal of this material.
The following listed figures respresent a cost estimate for
•oposed actions. Cost sharing for project implementation
Federal and 10% State on capital costs and the first year
monitoring costs. The remaining four years of monitoring
, .,*:.o will be borne by the State of New Jersey.
Cost Summary for Recommended Remedial Alternative #4
Remedial Measure Capital Present Worth Total Cost
Component CpJliL 5^LJ?**?. PrJe_s_?rl
Waste Removal & Disposal $ 493.500 — $ 493.500
Ground water Monitoring — 95,300 95.30U
Sampling and Analysis 350,000 — 350.000
TL^L COST $ 843,500 $ 95,300 $ 938 ,800y
-------
JL7.
Operation and Maintenance
Upon completion of all remedial actions, monitors of the
site will be necessary to evaluate the migration of any contami-
nants into the local ground water.
Future Actions
Schedule Date
- Final Record of Decision ' September 1984
- Continue negotiations with October-November 1984
Morton-Th iokol
- Amend Cooperative Agreement December 1984
(if necessary)
- Initiate Design (if necessary) February 1985
- Complete Design (if necessary) August 1985
-------
--SPENCE JASM T-
:._r~ \
0£L
PENNSYLVANIA
\FIGURE 1
YORK
-------
------ -FIGURE 2 __r-±:r-z.
SPENCE FARM
NEW EGYPT, NEW JERSEY
REGIONAL SITE LOCATION MAP
SCALE IN FEET
IAU M*'S T-i*T £1
1000 0 1000 »000
X -
LEOOETTE. •RAeHEAHS * ORAHAM. INC.
-------
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF POND
DURING
TORM
FIGURE 3 - ILLUSTRATION-OF ALTERNATIVE #1
SPENCE FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
DAMMING WITH STREAM PONDING
SCALK: I" = I ,J(JU'±
SOI KlIK: L'.S.C.S. TOPO MAPS
Eteon T. KHtom A«»octet 0'O4l
-------
LOCATION «P
BERMS
FIGURE 4 - Illustration of Alternative #2
SC.M.K: I" = I ,_'(><)'*
SOI-RI:I:: I'.s.c.s. TOPO MAI'S
SPENCE FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
BERMS ALONG STREAM
Ctoon T. JCBIam A»x>cl«t»». inc.'
' •«! Hydraulic EnginMr.
^
-------
fAPPROX
(LOCATION
FIGURE 5 - ILLUSTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE #3
SCAI.II: I" =
| .JOO't
.S. TOPO M\I>S
SPENCE FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
PERIMETER BERMS
Cl»on T. KHtom A«»oc»«t«», inc. '
Environmenti! and Hydraulic
JT »t***H
-------
"FIGURE 6 - ILLUSTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE
SCALE: 1" = i
: l-.s.C.S. TOPO M\HS
Pi ,,Mcrr SPENCE
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP NEW JERSEY
SITE ^GRADING 6 -ESTCRATION
A—
-------
FIGURE 7 - Sk< f RCRA Landfill
I
if-
NEW SURFACE
ELEVATION
ORIGINAL
SURFACE
ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
2' CLAY CAP
MINIMUM 5% SLOPE TO DRAIN
TO LEACHATE
HOLDING TANK
UNDERDRA1N (TYP.)
SPENCE FARM j j
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY :
ON-SITE *
SECURE LANDFILL ' ;
gtoon T.
A«»octot»». Inc.
wiMnlal and Hydraulic
lltM
-------
ARPROXIMA
LonrrjON o
PORARY
FIGURE R - ILLUSTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE #6
SCALE: I" = 1,200 '±
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. TOPO MAPS
SPENCE FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LANDFILL
-------
=^=^====r_-;.. Table 1 ;•-
Summary of On-Site Waste Materials
Estimate of Drummed Material
Site IDrums Drums Intact
TP 1A 10 1
TP 2-2A 200 10
TP 2-B 20 14
TP « 50 1
T? 10 0
TP 10 40 20
Scattered 100 0
T30 "46
Laboratory Packs & Small Drums
Site Numbe r
T» 2-2A <1000
<1000
<2000
other Surface Material
Site Numbe r
TP 2-2A 30cy
TP 2B 5cy
Total 35cy
Other
One Empty 10,000 gallon tank
-------
Elton T. Klllam Associates, Inc.
0
TABLE 2
Screening of Alternatives
SPENCE FARM
Remedial
Action
Need For
Action?
Acceptab
Effective-
Cost? ness?
1 e
Engineering
practice?
I. Emissions Control
A. Air Emissions Control
1. Pipe Vents N
2. Trench Vents N
3. Gas Barriers N
4. Gas Collection N
5. Overpacking Y
B. Surface Water Controls
1. Surface Seals Y
2. Diversion/Collection
a. Dikes & Berns Y
b. Ditching Y
c. Chutes Y
d. Levees Y
e. Seepage Basins Y
f. Sediment Basins Y
g. Terracing Y
C. Groundwater Controls
1. Impermeable Barriers N
2. Permeable Treatment N
3. GW Pumping N
4. Leachate Control N
D. Contaminated
Sewer Lines N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-------
\
€l«on T. Klllam A»»oclat««, tec.
TABLE 2
SPENCE FARM
OS.
Remedial
Action
Need For
Action?
II. On Site Treatment
A. Direct Treatment
1. Biological
2. Chemical
3. Physical
am. Soil/Sediment
;ineration
t Air Oxidation
.xjlidification
<•». Ecapsulation
5. In-Situ Treatment
III. Other Control Technology
A. Removal for Off-Site
Treatment or Disposal
B. Provision of Alternative
U-* - — f *
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Water Supply
C. Relocation
D. Other
curing Site
itoring
aundwater
-face Water
I. .Air
N
N
Y
Y
N
A c c_e_p
Cost? ness?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
10
"7^-:""*""^;%,; j~?v!ryS-*t?£*%?£
-------
ro
Alternative
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Control Effectiveness for
Present Worth Costs Objective Sediment Groundwater Access
Capital DIM Total - Soils Control Control Control
1. Permanent DM S 747,140 1251,520 S 998,600 1 ppm LT 100* LT 100X LT 1001
2. Ber« along
StreM S 863.870 S213.775 S 1,077.460 1 ppm LT 1001 LT 100X LT lOOt
3. Bern along
Stream i Per-
meter $ 849.760 1159,960 S 1,009,660 1 ppm LT 100% LT 100S LT 100*
4. Rear«ding t
Restoration S 1,144,400 $105,430 $ 1,250,830 1
S. Complete Removal
t Restoration S27.453.820
ppm lOOt LT 1001 LT lOM
S27.453.820 100 ppb 1001 100X •'.{«
6. On-SHe La/d-
flll S 8.882,520 $336,000 S 9,218,530 100 ppb 100* 100*
100*
Adverse Environmental
Effects
Permanent Loss of Forest
A Wetland, Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Slte
Permanent Loss of Forest
A Wetland. Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Site
Permanent Loss of Forest
& Wetland. Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Slte
Temporary Loss of Wetland
Permanent Loss of Forest
t Wetland, GroundMater
Movement
Permanent Loss of Forest
Wetland. Farm Lands, Ground*
Mater Movememt
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Spence Farm Site
New Jersey
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
I. Purpose
The purpose of this addendum is to-
1. Review Executive Order No. 11988, May 24. 1977, 42 F.R.
26951 entitled Floodplain Management:
2. Review applicable statute referred to in the Executive
Order as required•
\
3. Review the proposed Remedial Alternative as it relates
to -the floodplain-
4. Summarize the review and describe any technical
requirements necessary to comply with (1) and (2)
above.
II. Introduction
A Remedial Investigation/Fresibility Study (RI/FS) was
prepared by Elson T. Killam Associates, for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), to determine
the extent of contamination on-site and to evaluate remedial
alternatives. The Spence Farm site is approximately 700 feet
North of New Egypt-Lakewood Road and 4,000 feet east of
Moorehouse Road in Plumsted Township. Waste disposal occurred
at scattered locations in a 30 acre low-lying wooded area
adjacent to two adjoining tributaries to Crosswicks Creek.
The random dumping of hazardous wastes via drums and
o packs has resulted in numerous areas of contamination. ^
investigative activities indicated a majority of the drums
dumped at the site were intentionally opened or rusted
through and their content dispersed. This has resulted in
many areas of contaminated surface soils along the stream
banks.
At all times, the stream flow is below the areas of soil
contamination. However, during times of high flow scouring
of the stream bank can result in the migration of contaminants
into the waterway. Also, precipitation runoff can carry the
contaminants from the low-lying areas into the stream.
Figure 1 shows the general location of the remedial* activity.
Currently the slope in this area of the stream ranges from
1.5: 1 to 3: 1.
lfftJUWHfl:,l'.n-l
-------
_ — * _
-2- •-"
A Flood Insurance Study for Plumsted Township
completed in March 1981, and the Flood Insurance R Maps
were published in March 1982. Based on this study appears
that the low-lying areas of the Spence Farm site are within
the 100 year floodplain. However, it should be noted that
the actual location of the 100 year flood was not determined
from the flood insurance study.
III. Proposed Site Remedial Action —
The selected remedial action for the Spence Farm site
includes the removal of drummed material and lab packs and
adjacent contaminated soil. After additional samples are
taken to determine the extent of soil contamination, clean
fill material will be placed in area where removals have
occurred. The clean soil will be graded to its original
condition prior to the removal action.
IV. Flood Plain Regulatory Requirements
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management, an applicable executive agency shall provide
leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of
flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human
safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. In
addition, it is necessary to evaluate the potential effects
of any action that may be taken in a floodplain and to
assure that potential harm is minimized.
The following agencies would be involved in any floodplain
management efforts:
0 United States Environmental Protection Agency
0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
0 Federal Emergency Management Agency
0 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
As a responsibility under the cooperative agreement between
.he USEPA and the NYSDEC the appropriate agencies and concerned
roups will be kept abreast of proposed design and construction
activities.
The EPA in conjunction with the NJDEP has determined that
the proposed activities for the site are the most practical
options available in light of current funding limitations and
technical constraints. It is not expected that working in the
low-lying area will have any major or long-term detrimental impacts
on the floodplain, since the majority of the work will be temporary
sediment control measures. *
-------
Flood Hazard Assessment
Part of the future recommended remedial action for the Spence
F site includes the removal of contaminated soil along the
t . . channel and thus involved working in the floodplain. The
benerits of reducing direct contact of the residual contaminants
and the migration of these contaminants into the stream far
outweigh the minimal impacts on the floodplain. The NJDBP Bureau
of Floodplain Management will require the incorporation of specific
environmental specifications into the cleanup plan to minimize
the impacts on the floodplain. In addition, the cleanup contractor
will be required to obtain a Stream Encroachment Permit from the
NJDEP prior to the initiation of any work in the floodplain area.
-------
o /«
.'•9*
AVENUC
(Ak-chertoi
-90
SCAI.K: I" = ,,.,„„,,
SOMKCK: ...s.c.-.s. TOTO MAMS
FIGURE 1
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP^ NEW- JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS
-------
. T* •— UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGcttCV
. » -"" -----—: WASHINGTON. D.C. 204CO
SEP 28
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Remedial Action for the
Spence Farm Site, New Jersey - Record of Decision^
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Directo
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
The attached Record of Decision (ROD) is presented for your
ization of remedial action at the subject site. We are
^ your approval for the excavation and off-site disposal of
arums, lab packs, and adjacent soils in accordance with RCRA.
We are also recommending the sampling and analysis for possible
soil and ground water contamination, in order to determine the
extent of contamination and the possible need for further excava-
tion. A supplemental ROD will be developed for site regrading
and closure, as well as excavation if additional action is
determined to be necessary.
Funding is included in the FY-85 SCAP for the remedial design
of the above cited remedial activities.
•ent
-------
f j±^\ -- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION *GENC
— -_ -" WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 —-— -
" " . - _ .
OFUCfc O-
=-_LIL> WASTE AND
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Record of Dec is ion /for Approval of Remedial Action
Spence Farm Siter, New Jersey
/ 7 _
PROM: /Francis J. Biros', DiTrector
CERCLA Enforcement Division,
Office of WasXe Programs Enforcement (WH-527)
TO: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548E)
The Record of Decision for the Spence Farm Site,
New Jersey has been reviewed by my staff.
I Concur
I Do Not Concur
I Concur With the
Attached Conditions
Date
Comments:
-------
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY —
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM
TO
Record of Decision
Spence .Farm
Christopher J. Dagge^t
Regional Administrator
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Reponse (WH-562A)
This is to provide you with the draft Record of Decision (ROD)
prepared by my staff for the Spence Farm site in the State of
New Jersey.
The ROD document reflects Region II's recommendations for remedial
action at the Spence Farm site. Our recommendations were developed
based on the results of a remedial investigation and feasibility
study performed by Elson T. Killam, Associates, Inc. for the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
acifically, we agree with the recommendations presented by the
i*JDEP. They recommend the removal of all drums and lab packs and
the discolored soil surrounding these surface wastes. These
hazardous wastes will be removed to a secure hazardous waste
disposal facility. Following this phase of the cleanup, further
testing of soil will be performed to determine whether additional
soil should be removed. The NJDEP has agreed to monitor the
groundwater by sampling the existing on-site wells, annually, for
a five year period.
The proposed action, I feel, is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act and the National Contingency Plan to
provide adequate protection of public health and environment.
Also, the recommended action has been discussed with the NJDEP,
' they concur with the proposed remedy.
>
ou have any questions regarding the attached Record of Decision,
not hesitate to contact me.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
DEC - 3 1984
• WAb I t
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Authorization to Proceed with Remedial Action
for the Spence and Pijak Farm Sites, New Jersey
- Records of Decision
William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director - - — If
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548) (J Ju\.
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
The attached Records of Decision (RODs) were presented for
your authorization of remedial action at the subject sites. We
submitted these RODs with only verbal concurrence from the Office
of General Counsel (OGC) for your approval on September 27, 1984.
?he RODs were signed three days later pending final OGC review.
The final concurrence from OGC has been recently received,
and includes some minor revisions in the wording of the final
RODs. These changes are not substantive in nature and only
provided minor clarification, with the exception of a one para-
graph addition to each ROD.
Your initials on the one paragraph inserts for each ROD
will serve as your concurrence to the amended RODs and will
allow the release of these documents.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICEOF
nr-T O n I.-". -«rrn.tor
UUi 0 (J li..J:; ""CeNBRAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
FROM: Lisa K. Friedman
Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste & Emergency
Response Division (LE-132S)
7F,CT: Records of Decision for Spence
and Pijak Farms
v.e have reviewed the records of decision for these sites.
We have noted a few recommended changes, in addition to
changes made by your staff.
I understand that these RODs were previously signed, but
that new copies will be produced incorporating our and your
staff's changes. We recommend that you re-sign and date the
RODs, to avoid any issue of whether you have ratified changes
made subsequent to the original signing.
Attachment
------- |