United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/035
September 1986
£EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Price Landfill, NJ
(Second Remedial Action)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleau read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO2-86/035
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Price Landfill, NJ
Second Remedial Action
5. REPORT DATE
September 29, 1986
>. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR1SI
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Price Landfill (also known as "Price's Landfill Number One" and "Price's Pit") is a
26-acre site located in Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville City, Atlantic Counifcy, NJ
approximately six miles northwest of Atlantic City, NJ. The relatively flat site is
located within the 11,600-acre watershed of Absecon Creek. Land use in the immediate
area consists of residential properties, small business properties, sand and gravel
excavations, and undeveloped rural lots. Price landfill was originally a sand and
gravel excavation operation owned by Mr. Charles Price, which ceased operating in 1968
when the pit was excavated to within approximately two feet of the water table. In
1969, the facility became a commercial solid waste landfill and in May 1971, began
accepting a combination of both drummed and bulk liquid waste. Some liquid wastes were
poured directly into the landfill from open tank truck spigots. Other waste was buried
in 55-gallon drums, some of which were punctured or opened prior to disposal. An
estimated 9.1 million gallons of chemical wastes were disposed of at the site. In 1980,
residential wells in the area were found to be contaminated with volatile organic
compounds, and the Atlantic County Health Department recommended that their use as a
potable water supply be discontinued. As an interim measure, potable water was provided
from tank trucks and, in December 1981, 37 affected residents were connected to the New
Jersey Water Company (NJWC) System. During the summer of 1982, EPA and the State of NJ
(See Attached Sheet)
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Price Landfill, NJ
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw, sw
Key contaminants: VOCs, organics,
inorganics, TCE, sludge
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis Report!
None
21. NO. OF PAGES
157
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tills page)
None
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
EPA/ROD/RO2-86/035
Price Landfill, NJ
Second Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
implemented initial remedial measures to assure against the contaminant
plume reaching the Atlantic County Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA)
public water supply wellfield. These measures included the construction of
an interconnection with the NJWC system, redevelopment of three ACMUA
production wells, installation of granular activated carbon filtration
units, and implementation of a water conservation program. In September
1983 EPA issued a Record of Decision based on the results of a 1982 RI/FS.
The selected option included: abandonment of the ACMUA existing upper and
lower Cohansey aquifer water supply wellfield; relocation and replacement of
the ACMUA wellfield and transmission facilities to provide a 13.5 million
gallon per day capacity; consideration, in addition to the wellfield
relocation, of plume management, source control, and ground water treatment
alternatives. EPA began negotiations in 1984 with identified potentially
responsible parties. Meetings and court appearances were held with EPA, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the potentially
responsible parties, resulting in a tentative $17.15 million cash settlement
for past and future costs. The primary contaminants of concern include:
VOCs, organics, inorganics, and TCE.
The selected remedial action includes: installation of a security fence
around the landfill site; installation of ground water extraction wells
adjacent to the landfill to control the contaminant source; installation of
ground water extraction wells hydraulically downgradient from the landfill
to abate the contaminant plume; construction of a ground water/leachate
pretreatment facility at or near the site; construction of a force main to
the ACMUA interceptor system; extraction of contaminated ground water,
followed by pretreatment, and ultimate disposal and treatment at the ACMUA
waste water treatment plant; quarterly monitoring of ground water quality
for approximately 25 years; construction of a landfill cap at the conclusion
of the ground water extraction process. The estimated capital cost is
$9,050,000 with annual O&M for years 1-5 of $1,010,000 and $255,000 for
years 6-25.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site Price Landfill, Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville,
Atlantic County, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents,
which describe the analysis of :cost-effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for the Price Landfill site:
- Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for Price Landfill,
Camp Dresser and McKee, February 1985;
- Evaluation of Long-Term Remedial Action Alternatives, Price
Landfill, Camp Dresser and McKee, April 1983;
- Staff summaries and recommendations;
*
- Responsiveness Summary, September 1986;
- Documents prepared and transmitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection by potentially responsible parties, and governmental
responses to them.
Description of Selected Remedy
- Installation of a security fence around the landfill site;
- Installation of groundwater extraction wells adjacent to the
landfill to control the contaminant source;
-Installation of groundwater extraction wells hydraulically
downgradient from landfill to abate the contaminant plume;
- Construction of a groundwater/leachate pretreatment facility
at or near the site;
- Construction of a force main to the Atlantic County Utilities
Authority (ACUA) interceptor system;
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater, followed by pretreatment,
and ultimate disposal and treatment at the ACUA wastewater
treatment plant;
- Quarterly monitoring of groundwater quality for approximately
twenty-five years;
- Construction of a landfill cap at the conclusion of the ground-
water extraction process.
-------
-2-
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and the National oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300), I have determined that the groundwater extraction
and treatment remedial action at the Price Landfill site is
a cost-effective remedy and provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and the environment. The State of New
Jersey has been consulted and agrees with the selected remedy.
In addition, this action will require future operation and
maintenance activities to ensure the continued effectiveness
of the remedy. These activities will be considered part of
the approved action and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a
period of one year. Further, a tentative settlement has been
reached between EPA and the potentially responsible parties
which includes funding of the Remedy with provision for
operation and maintenance. 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.
Date' Christopher J. Daggtett
Regional Administrator
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Price Landfi.ll
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Price Landfill (also known as "Price's Landfill Number One"
and "Price's Pit") is a 26-acre site located adjacent to Mill
Road in Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville City, Atlantic
County, New Jersey and is approximately six miles northwest
of Atlantic City, New Jersey (see Figure 1). The legal
description of the site is Block 36A, Lots 3 and 6, of Egg
Harbor Township and Block 190, Lot 3, of Pleasantville City.
The relatively flat site is located within the 11,600-acre
watershed of Absecon Creek. The major surface waters in the
vicinity include the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities
Authority (ACMUA) reservoirs, Absecon Creek, and Conover Run.
The principal aquifers are the fCirkwood, which begins at
approximately 260 feet below the ground surface and is about
600 feet thick near the landfill, and the Cohansey, which
unconformably overlies the Kirkwood throughout the area. The
Kirkwood aquifer consists mainly of sand, silt and clay, and
the Cohansey is primarily unconsolidated sand with some
gravel and notable amounts of clay. Both ground and surface
waters near the landfill flow in a generally easterly direction,
toward the Atlantic Ocean. Land use in the immediate area
consists of residential properties, small business properties,
sand and gravel excavations, and undeveloped rural lots.
SITE HISTORY
Price Landfill was originally a sand and gravel excavation
operation owned by Charles Price, which ceased operating in
1968 when the pit was excavated to within approximately two
feet of the water table. In 1969, the facility became a
commercial solid waste landfill and in May 1971, began accepting
a combination of both drummed and bulk liquid waste. Initial
listings of wastes consisted of industrial chemicals, sludges,
oil, grease, and septic tank and sewer wastes. Some of the
liquid wastes were poured directly into the landfill from
open tank truck spigots. Many other wastes were buried in
55-gallon drums, some of which were punctured or opened prior
to disposal. It has been estimated that 9.1 million gallons
of chemical wastes were disposed of at the site.
In 1980, residential wells in the area were found to be contam-
inated with volatile organic compounds and the Atlantic County
Health Department recommended that their use as a potable water
supply be discontinued. As an interim measure, potable water
was provided from tank trucks and, in December 1981, thirty-seven
affected residences were connected to the New Jersey Water Company
(NJWC) system. From January 1982 through May 1983, a remedial
-------
-2-
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was undertaken by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at Price Landfill.
During the summer of 1982, as the RI/FS was being prepared, EPA
and the State of New Jersey implemented several initial remedial
measures at the ACMUA water treatment plant in the event that the
contaminant plume reached the ACMUA public water supply wellfield.
These measures included the construction of an interconnection
with the NJWC system, redevelopment of three ACMUA production wells,
installation of granular activated carbon filtration units, and
implementation of a water conservation program. On September 20,
1983, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) based on the results
of the initial RI/FS. The selected option included:
- Abandonment of the ACMUA existing upper and lower
Cohansey aquifer water supply wellfield;
- Relocation and replacement of the ACMUA wellfield and
transmission facilities to provide a 13.5 million
gallons per day (mgd) capacity;
- Consideration, in addition to the wellfield relocation, of
plume management, source control, and groundwater treatment
alternatives.
A second RI/FS, described below, was conducted in 1984 to comply
with the 1983 ROD. As the RI/FS was progressing, EPA began
negotiations for the implementation of the recommended remedy
with identified potentially responsible parties. Approximately
twenty-three separate meetings and court appearances were held
with representatives of EPA, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), and the potentially responsible parties,
resulting in a tentative $17.15 million cash settlement for
past and future costs. A public meeting to present the
recommended remedy was held in July 1986.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Field Investigation Program
The field investigation activities conducted as part of the most
recent remedial investigation were performed, under a cooperative
agreement with EPA, by the NJDEP, through its contractor, Camp
Dresser and McKee (COM). The investigation included the install-
ation of 22 additional groundwater monitoring wells and six soil
borings during the spring of 1984. This program was preceded by
a geophysical survey, employing both seismic refraction and
ground penetrating radar, to better identify the boundaries of
the landfill and assist in selecting locations for the monitoring
wells and soil borings (see Figure 2). The soil borings were
used to better define the geology at the site.
-------
-3-
Four-inch diameter stainless steel casings and screens were in-
stalled at each well location. The majority of the wells were
placed in cluster formations, with several wells penetrating
into the lower Cohansey Formation..
Groundwater sampling was conducted at 55 locations (22 new
wells; 33 existing). An additional 17 blanks and duplicates
resulted in 72 samples being analyzed for priority pollutants.
Existing Contamination :
The previous monitoring data, plus data collected during the
most recent RI/FS, indicated that there are considerable quanti-
ties of hazardous waste contaminants in the groundwater system
adjacent to Price Landfill. The most recent sampling and
analysis for groundwater contamination indicated the presence
of benzene, cadmium, chloroform, dichloroethylene, lead, 1-2-
transdichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and
acetone in the upper Cohansey Formation. Total volatile organics
(TVO) concentrations range from* 40 to 50 parts per million
(ppm) near the landfill in the shallow depths of the upper
Cohansey Formation. TVO concentrations range from 10 to 1000.
parts per billion (ppb) in the deeper areas of the aquifer,
with the plume extending almost one mile from the landfill (see
Figure 3 and Table 1) and tending to move in an east-northeasterly
direction.
Status of Remedial Activities
The preliminary remedial activities associated with Price Landfill
focused on the relocation of the ACMUA wellfield from its former
site approximately 0.7 miles east of the landfill. The original
wellfield consisted of four shallow (upper Cohansey) and six
deep (lower Cohansey) production wells, pumping at approximately
13 mgd.
The relocated wellfield, which consists of nine production wells
and was completed in December 1985, is located approximately
two miles northwest of the landfill, on the northern shore of
the western ACMUA reservoir. Each of the nine new production
wells is screened in the lower Cohansey Formation at depths of
up to 200 feet and has a pumping capacity of approximately
1.5 mgd.
The relocation of the ACMUA wellfield represented the initial
phase of the proposed remedial action to alleviate potential
public health impacts resulting from groundwater contamination
in the area of Price Landfill.
-------
-4-
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The initial RI/FS, which led to the September 20, 1983 ROD,
considered fifteen remedial alternatives. Those alternatives
were screened on the basis of preliminary modeling results,
cost estimates, and an evaluation of technical and institutional
considerations. Five alternatives were screened out at that
initial stage. The ten remaining alternatives were evaluated for
the non-cost criteria of reliability, feasibility of implemen-
tation, operation and maintenance, environmental impact, and
safety concerns. It was determined that the ACMUA water supply
wellfield should be relocated and that further environmental
data should be collected to evaluate source control and plume
management alternatives. Additionally, the treatability of
Price Landfill leachate in the Atlantic County Utilities Authority
(ACUA) wastewater treatment plant was to be determined.
The four remedial alternatives considered by the current RI/FS
for implementation at Price Landfill reflect the recommendation
of the 1983 ROD. The individual remedial alternatives are:
1. No action (minimal action)
2. Plume abatement
3. Containment wall with plume abatement
4. Containment wall with plume abatement and flushing
Computer Modeling
Computer modeling was utilized as a tool to simulate the
effectiveness the four remedial action alternatives in mitiga-
ting contamination emanating from the landfill. The horizontal
grid geometry used in the modeling is shown in Figure 4.
A five layer representation of the stratigraphy of the area, as
shown in Figure 5, was used for the vertical geometry. Detailed
simulations were made for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The accelerated
flushing alternative (4) was not independently simulated, since
its off-site characteristics were the same as those of Alternative
2. Flushing of the unsaturated zone within the landfill was
not simulated (as described in Alternative 4).
In each case, the alternatives were evaluated over a time span
of 20 years, beginning at 1984, under the assumption that the
landfill would continue as a contaminant source for at least
that period. It should be noted that the relocated ACMUA
wellfield was coming on-line during the modeling effort and
that the original ACMUA wells were being taken out of production
as the relocated wells were brought into operation. Thus, all
alternatives were evaluated for a pumping scenario where the re-
located ACMUA wells were pumped at a design rate of 1.5 mgd each,
and all other ACMUA wells were off-line. The piezometric heads
in the lower Cohansey under this alternative are shown in
Figure 6.
-------
-5-
It is noted that the cone of influence from these new wells
does not encompass the landfill; a "saddle point" in the flow
field in the lower Cohansey aquifer exists just to the north
of the landfill. The flow fields in the upper Cohansey aquifer,
where most of the contamination is found, are toward the east
and northeast. In all of the simulations, no movement of
contaminants toward the new wellfield was noted.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative 1 - No Action (minimal action)
Remedial Alternative 1 includes no remedial action at Price
Landfill beyond closure and a groundwater monitoring program.
Based on computer modeling, the effects of pumping the relocated
ACMUA wellfield at 13.5 mgd north of the reservoir are pronounced
in the lower Cohansey, as shown in Figure 6, which indicates
that a groundwater divide is formed along a northeast-southwest
transect slightly north of the landfill. While this divide is
located in the lower Cohansey only, it provides a partial
barrier to inhibit contaminant migration toward the new well-
field should contaminants break through the mid-Cohansey clay.
The key features of the projected plume after 20 years are shown
in Figures 7 and 8. The plan view shows that the plume would
continue to travel to the east and northeast, but that it would
be roughly confined at its eastern boundary by Conover Run and
Absecon Creek. The cross-section shown in Figure 8 indicates
that the plume would continue to move down through the upper
Cohansey clay as it moves away from the landfill, travel along
the lower zone of the upper Cohansey and then begin to move
upward through the upper Cohansey clay (intermediate lenses)
as the gradients toward Absecon Creek dominate the flow field.
Upward movement through the upper Cohansey clay (intermediate
lenses) is quite slow, hence the concentrating of contaminants
near Absecon Creek and along the lower reaches of Conover Run.
This upward movement would be different from that which would
be observed under past pumping operations, where the plume
would have continued to move downward through the mid-Cohansey
clay to the lower Cohansey zone and would have contaminated the
ACMUA production wells (at the original wellfield location).
The limits of the plume shown in Figure 7 indicate the region
in which contaminants would be expected to be found.
In general, under Remedial Alternative 1, the whole area between
the landfill and Absecon Creek/Conover Run would be underlain
by a plume of contaminated groundwater. The discharges of this
groundwater would be to surface water in these streams and to
the adjoining marshlands.
-------
-6-
Both zones of the upper Cohansey sands would remain contaminated,
as would the upper Cohansey clay. Some movement of contaminants
into the mid-Cohansey clay is possible, but, based on the model
results, it does not appear that it would penetrate the lower
Cohansey Formation itself.
It should be noted that groundwater sampling"has shown that the
major contaminant constituents throughout plume include benzene,
chloroform, 1,2-transdichloroethane, and tetrachloroethylene.
Each of these compounds has an :unacceptably high lifetime carcino-
genic risk in drinking water when ingested. From a public
health objective, no part of the aquifer between the landfill
and Absecon Creek could be considered safe for drinking.
Alternative 2 - Plume Abatement
Remedial Alternative 2 is based on a plume abatement system
consisting of shallow and deep groundwater extraction wells
located east of the landfill. A series of shallow wells along
Mill Road near the landfill, serving as source control wells,
would be screened in the upper portion of the upper Cohansey
aquifer (layer 5 in Figure 5) and pumped at a combined rate
of approximately 200,000 gallons per day (gpd). These wells
would serve to mitigate migration of contaminants from the
landfill in the aquifer. The wells would extract groundwater
having a TVO concentration fluctuating to as high as 50 ppm.
These shallow wells would continue to pump for an estimated 25
years, which is the estimated time that the landfill will
continue to be an active source of contamination.
In addition, a series of deeper wells would be located further
hydraulically downgradient from the landfill and screened in
the contaminant plume, above the mid-Cohansey clay (layer 3 in
Figure 5). These wells, serving as plume abatement wells, would
pump at a combined rate of approximately 1.1 mgd and extract
groundwater having an average TVO concentration of 1 ppm. These
deeper wells would continue to pump for a period of approximately
five years, which is the estimated time it will take to extract
the majority of the contamination (to 10 ppb, or less) once
the source of additional contamination to the groundwater has
been controlled. After that time, they would be removed from
service.
The model predicted piezometric heads resulting from the implemen-
tation of this alternative are shown in Figures 9 and 10, where
the cone of influence of the wells in both zones of the upper
Cohansey aquifer is delineated. The predicted TVO concentrations
in layer 3 at year 5 and layer 5 at year 20 are shown in Figures
11 and 12. The concentrations in the groundwater extracted
from the shallow wells are expected to range from 30 ppm to
500 ppb over this time period and stabilize as these wells begin
to fully extract the leachate from the landfill.
-------
-7-
Concentrations in the upper zone of this formation (layer 5)
are anticipated to remain at about 50 ppm in the vicinity of
the extraction wells along Mill Road. The contaminated zone is
intended to be controlled, however, and is not expected to
continue to move away from the landfill. These concentrations
would remain as long as the landfill continues as a source of
contamination.
It is worth noting that small quantities of contamination would
seep to Absecon Creek and Conover Run under this alternative.
This contamination would come from areas of the plume which have
already moved far downgradient of the landfill and are outside
the zone to be controlled by the extraction wells. As in the
no action (minimal action) alternative, contaminants from both
zones of the upper Cohansey aquifer would move toward Absecon
Creek and Conover Run under the revised ACMUA pumping conditions.
The seepage to the Creek, Run, and adjoining marshes would be
at concentrations of -less than 10 ppb but would continue through-
out the 20-year time period simulated.
The lower zone of the upper Cohansey aquifer should be monitored
periodically, and the wells shut down once the concentration of
TVO drops below a value of 10 ppb (see discussion in "Consistency
With Other Environmental Requirements" section). Based on the
modeling simulations, it appears feasible to shut down the deeper
wells after pumping for five years. The upper zone wells,
adjacent to the landfill, would have to remain in operation as
long as the landfill continued to serve as an active source of
groundwater contamination.
The extracted groundwater would undergo treatment prior to dis-
charge to either Absecon Creek or the ACUA wastewater treatment
plant. Landfill closure and a groundwater monitoring program
would also be required. Treatment, closure, and monitoring are
discussed later.
Alternative 3 - Containment Wall with Plume Abatement
Remedial Alternative 3 consists of a combination of groundwater
extraction wells and the installation of a containment wall to
provide for the control of the contaminant source. Under this
alternative, there would be three clusters of groundwater ex-
traction wells; two (shallow and deep) located in the area of
the contaminant plume and the third (shallow) situated within
the perimeter of the containment wall. The wells located within
the area of the contaminant plume would include a series of
deep wells which would pump at a combined rate of approximately
1.1 mgd for an estimated five years to extract groundwater con-
taining an average TVO concentration of 1 ppm. Shallow wells,
adjacent to the landfill and near Mill Road, would pump at a
combined rate of approximately 100,000 gpd for an estimated
five years to extract groundwater having a TVO concentration of
up to 50 ppm. The wells which would be located within the
confines of the containment wall would pump at a combined rate
of approximately 160,000 gpd for an estimated period of 25
years.
-------
-8-
There are two options for the construction of a containment
wall at Price Landfill. The first option is a deep wall, keyed
into the mid-Cohansey clay at a depth of approximately 150
feet, to control those contaminants which have migrated downward.
The second option consists of an intermediate depth, "hanging"
wall constructed to a depth of approximately 80 feet. This
could effectively provide a barrier to prevent the horizontal
distribution of contamination emanating from the landfilled
material. Although the hanging wall would not be keyed into
any clay layer, it would be placed through a group of clay
lenses which are located 50 to .80 feet below the ground surface.
In this option, pumping from within the containment wall would
be critical, since the clays at the bottom of this intermediate
wall are neither thick nor continuous.
The information collected during the field investigation program
indicated that the mid-Cohansey clay layer, extending continuously
at a depth of about 150 feet below the landfill, cannot be readily
identified from field observation based on physical characteristics
such as color and texture. Therefore, because of the 150 foot
depth of this clay and the difficulty in identifying it, it may
not be possible to structurally tie the deep wall into the
impermeable formation which would be necessary to lend integrity
to the containment wall system. Additionally, with a deep wall
design, it becomes necessary to extract groundwater from multiple
elevations in order to maintain the desired inward hydraulic
gradients. Pumping would be required from both above and below
the intermediate clay lenses noted above. Simultaneous pumping
from these locations would serve to complicate the remedial design
and possibly compromise its effectiveness.
It should be noted that the proposed 150 foot deep wall would also
require the application of a clam shell crane bucket to excavate
the trench for the containment wall. This construction procedure
is much more time consuming than the normal installation (for
shallow walls) using traditional backhoe equipment. Operating
at these extreme depths may not be technically feasible and might
result in the installation of an inferior containment system.
The application of vibratory beam technology may be appropriate,
but again, the extreme depths dictate against selection of the
deep wall.
Finally, although costs are not explicitly considered in this
phase of analysis, they would be expected to rise disproportion-
ately for the installation of a deep wall relative to any
pfejected improvements in source control. Therefore, the 150
foot deep wall was excluded from further consideration.
The 80 foot deep containment wall considered would serve to iso-
late a major portion of the contaminant source from the adjacent
hydrogeologic regime. Some contaminants have already migrated
vertically below the landfill site, but the available data
suggest that contaminant concentrations are more representative
of groundwater plume quality (1 ppm) than of leachate quality
-------
-9-
(approximately 50 ppm). Therefore, given the relatively dilute
contaminant levels at depths greater than 50 to 80 feet, plus
the acknowledgement that contaminants at this level will be
captured by the plume abatement system, the 80 foot deep wall
could suffice as a source control measure.
The modeled results of this control alternative for both the
source and plume are shown in Figures 13 and 14, where the
concentrations in layers 3 and 5 at five years are shown. It is
noted that, although some of the existing contamination continues
to move to the lower reaches of Conover Run, the pumping system
would remove the bulk of the present plume within a five year
period, and, since the source would be contained within the
containment wall, no further pumping outside the wall beyond
that time would be required. The exact shut down date should
be determined based on the results of groundwater monitoring.
The control/extraction pumping within the containment wall
would have to continue until all, or effectively all, of the
source material is removed.
The extracted groundwater would*undergo treatment prior to dis-
charge to either Absecon Creek or the ACUA wastewater treatment
plant. Landfill closure and a groundwater monitoring program
would also be required. Treatment, closure, and monitoring-are
discussed later.
Alternative 4 - Containment Wall with Plume Abatement and Flushing
Remedial Alternative 4 consists of the installation of a contain-
ment wall and groundwater extraction wells similar to those for
Remedial Alternative 3. The flushing provisions of this altern-
ative would involve treating contaminated groundwater, as it is
pumped from the extraction wells, and re-injecting part of the
treated water into the landfill. The treated water would acceler-
ate the solubilization and transport of contaminants within the
confines of the containment wall. Theoretically, the source
itself is gradually removed by accelerating the natural process
of contaminant transport from the landfill, and collection of
the leachate generated.
The modeling simulations of the off-site characteristics of this
alternative are the same as those described under Remedial Alter-
native 3. No separate modeling was performed regarding the flush-
ing of the unsaturated zone within the landfill because, as dis-
cussed below, the alternative was removed from further consider-
ation.
The technological feasibility of this system is questionable
with regard to the efficacy of the proposed induced flushing
plan. For example, a typical municipal landfill has a heteroge-
neous composition related primarily to the variation in the
physical dimensions, bulk density, and degradability of waste
-------
-10-
materials disposed of. Wastes disposed of at Price Landfill could
have included demolition debris, domestic waste, bulk appliances,
and other heterogeneous materials. The geophysical investigation
conducted prior to drilling indicated anomalous areas of either
bulk metal or conductive liquids. This factor, plus the incon-
sistent nature in which the wastes were compacted and covered,
results in nonuniform void spaces within the landfilled materials.
The net effect is that when water (precipitation or artificially
injected water) infiltrates into the unsaturated zone, it has a
tendency to seek a path of least resistance and, therefore,
"short-circuit" through the landfill. This phenomenon results
in preferential solubilization in some areas and tends to com-
promise the effectiveness of an induced flushing system. The
nonuniformity cannot be defined adequately enough to estimate
the level of reliability of flushing. In addition, to adequately
ensure that no contamination would escape from the landfill,
pumping would be required both above and below the intermediate
clay lenses previously described. Simultaneous pumping from
these locations would complicate the remedial design and possibly
compromise its effectiveness. Therefore, the induced flushing
concept was removed from further consideration based upon
issues of technical feasibility.
EXTRACTED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Each proposed remedial alternative, with the exception of the
no action (minimal action) alternative, included a provision
for the on-site treatment of contaminated extracted groundwater
prior to its discharge to either the surface waters of Absecon
Creek or to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA)
wastewater treatment plant. The treatment operations and
processes could be modified depending on the quantity of flow
being treated, the characteristics of the influent flow, and
the discharge criteria.
The specifications for groundwater treatment were established
during both a 1982 pilot scale physical-chemical treatability
study and a 1984 bio-treatability study which assessed the
compatability of the Price Landfill groundwater/leachate with
the biological processes of the ACUA wastewater treatment
plant. The results of these treatability studies indicated that
five treatment alternatives exist, based on consideration of
flow volumes, contaminant concentrations in the various influent
streams, discharge criteria, and the nature of the treatment
processes. The individual treatment process alternatives are
identified in Table 2.
-------
-11-
Physical/Chemical On-Site Treatment
The physical/chemical on-site treatment process is designed to
treat the extracted groundwater prior to discharge to Absecon
Creek. Individual treatment steps include pH adjustment, air
stripping to remove volatile organics, off-gas treatment with a
dehumidifier and vapor phase carbon adsorption, and final treat-
ment of the effluent with sand and granular activated carbon
(GAC) filtration. The schematic diagram for this system is
shown on Figure 15.
A review of Figure 15 and Table 2 indicates that there are several
options regarding the distribution of influent to the proposed
physical/chemical treatment system. These options arise from a
consideration of both the associated remedial alternatives
(plume abatement or containment wall with plume abatement) and
a decision on whether to air strip the entire quantity of ex-
tracted groundwater or only the more concentrated (50 ppm total
volatiles), low volume flows.
Air Stripping/Lime Pretreatment
The air stripping/lime pretreatment system is intended to treat
the extracted groundwater prior to discharge to the ACUA waste-
water treatment plant. The individual unit operations are similar
to those for the physical/chemical on-site treatment except that
the water effluent from the air stripper would not be passed
through the GAC filters prior to the addition of lime. Provisions
were made to analyze this treatment process based upon either
removing the metals on-site, or passing the flow to ACUA for
final lime addition and sludge removal at the treatment plant.
The schematic diagram for this treatment alternative is presented
in Figure 16. As with the physical/chemical treatment alter-
natives, extracted groundwater may be distributed so that only
the more concentrated flow enters the air stripper.
Lime Pretreatment
The lime pretreatment process was evaluated to address metals
removal where extracted groundwater had concentrations of
volatiles which were low enough as to not require pretreatment
prior to being conveyed to the ACUA wastewater treatment plant.
Groundwater would be conveyed to the plant by means of double
seal pumps into a force main connector. Low levels of volatiles,
coupled with dilution within the force main and at ACUA, would
reduce the volatiles to below levels associated with either
odors or health risks. Therefore, under this scenario, it would
not be necessary to remove volatiles prior to the precipitation
of metals. The schematic diagram for this treatment alternative
is presented in Figure 17. The two treatment alternatives
evaluated for lime pretreatment are based on total flow treat-
ment for either the plume abatement or containment wall with
plume abatement remedial alternatives.
-------
-12-
COST ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
A series of -cost analyses were performed in the February 1985
RI/FS to compare Remedial Alternatives 2 and 3 and the five
groundwater treatment alternatives. For comparative purposes,
each remedial alternative was assumed to include a provision
for the installation of a cap which would comply with Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (;RCRA) requirements. Monitoring
costs are based on the quarterly sampling of two upgradient and
six downgradient wells with priority pollutant analyses conducted
over a 25 year period.
Capital Costs of the Treatment Alternatives
The capital costs for the five groundwater treatment alternatives
are presented in Table 3 for the flow conditions specified in
Table 2. Under the physical/chemical treatment alternatives,
the reduced air stripping costs* for partial flow treatment are
more than off-set by the increased GAC costs, such that total
flow treatment is more capital intensive. For the air stripping/
lime pretreatment alternatives, the elimination of the GAC units
from the system design, plus the reduced costs of the building
structure and site work, all operate to make the partial flow
option less capital intensive than the total flow option. The
lime addition pretreatment alternative offers a moderately ex-
pensive alternative which does not address the issue of volatiles
removal.
Comparisons were also made for the anticipated treatment costs
if metals removal were conducted on-site or at the ACUA waste-
water treatment facility. The settling of the sludge and
subsequent treatment is more cost-effective when conducted at
the ACUA facility. Conversations with ACUA personnel indicated
that metals precipitation at ACUA is compatible with ACUA's
on-going expansion of its sludge handling capabilities.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs and Present Worth of
Treatment Alternatives
Projections for the annual operation and maintenance costs for
the five groundwater treatment alternatives are presented in
Table 4. The projections indicate that carbon usage is a major
cost element for the physical/chemical treatment system; the
other costs for this option are comparable to those for com-
peting treatment options. The ACUA treatment charge for the
air stripping/lime pretreatment system effluent, estimated at
-------
-13-
$1,066 per million gallons plus charges for Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) and total suspended solids, nearly off-sets the
low chemical costs of this treatment system relative to physical/
chemical treatment. The lime addition pretreatment costs are
comparable to those for the competing systems, however, this
alternative would have no effect on the reduction of volatiles.
The total annual operating costs for the individual treatment
systems are generally comparable for the conditions where metals
precipitation is conducted at the landfill site. However, if
the metals can be satisfactorily removed at ACUA as anticipated,
then the operating costs may be slightly reduced depending on
whether or not the sludge is classified as hazardous.
Table 5 provides cost estimates for situations where the metals
are precipitated at the landfill site. In general, the costs
for the application of the physical/chemical treatment alternative
exceed those for the air stripping/lime pretreatment alternative
by approximately $12,000,000, for the partial flow conditions,
and about $7,000,000 for the total flow scenario, on a present
worth basis. The costs of the lime addition pretreatment alter-
native are nearly equivalent to those for the air stripping/lime
pretreatment alternative.
A present worth analysis was also conducted for the conditions
where metals precipitation occurs at the ACUA wastewater treat-
ment facility (Table 6). Under this scenario, the present
worth costs range from $11,450,000 for the partial flow option,
to $14,090,000 for the total flow option using the air stripping/
lime pretreatment alternatives. If the sludge is determined to
be non-hazardous, the cost differentials between on-site and
ACUA treatment become approximately $500,000.
The above comparisons assumed that each of the treatment systems
would be operational for twenty-five years at the pumping rates
shown in Table 2. In 1983, the EPA and NJDEP jointly developed
criteria to be used in evaluating the remedial action alternatives
for Price Landfill. Remediation of the plume (off-site) will be
considered complete when the concentration of TVO in the ground-
water reaches 10 ppb or less(see discussion in "Consistency
With Other Environmental Requirements" section). It is believed
that this will occur within five years. Further analysis is
described below which examined the effect on the present worth
cost of introducing a pumping regimen which discontinues pumping
of specific wells after a five year period and maintains other
wells as operational for up to twenty-five years.
-------
-14-
Capital Costs and Present Worth of Remedial Action Alternatives
The estimates for capital costs and present worth of the remedial
action alternatives are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9 for
situations where metals are removed either at the landfill or
at the ACUA wastewater treatment facility. The present worth
calculations reflect consideration of the operation of individual
pumping wells being discontinued after five years depending
upon which remedial alternative is implemented. For example,
the plume abatement system will initially pump at a rate of 1.3
mgd with 1.1 mgd consisting of low concentration (1 ppm), plume
quality water. The plume pumping would cease after an estimated
five years, while source control pumping would continue in the
highly contaminated (50 ppm) upper aquifer for approximately 20
additional years. The containment wall with plume abatement
alternative would initially be pumped at a rate of 1.36 mgd
with 1.1 mgd being plume quality water, 0.10 mgd being pumped
from the upper aquifer, and 0.16 mgd being pumped from within
the containment wall. After five years, the two series of
wells located outside the wall (1.2 mgd of total flow) would be
shut down, and the wells within the wall would pump for an
additional 20 years.
The present worth costs were reviewed for each remedial alter-
native to examine how they changed with the selection of a
groundwater treatment alternative. A comparison of pretreat-
ment alternatives for the plume abatement alternative, indicated
that costs ranged from $9,050,000, for the partial flow air
stripping/lime pretreatment system with metals removal at ACUA,
to $19,530,000, for the partial flow physical/chemical treatment
system where the sludge is hazardous and precipitated at the site,
An analysis of the costs for the various treatment alternatives,
when applied to the containment wall with plume abatement alter-
native (Alternative 3), indicated that costs were approximately
$8,000,000 less for the partial flow air stripping/lime pretreat-
ment system than the partial flow physical/chemical treatment.
Consideration for treating the total flow resulted in cost
differences of approximately $5,000,000 between the competing
treatment systems.
SUMMARY
The four remedial action alternatives initially considered for
implementation were evaluated in a sequential multi-stage
screening process. The attributes considered in the screening
process were technical feasibility, system costs, a group of
non-cost criteria, and other considerations related to the long-
term impact of the aquifer contamination on public health and
the environment.
-------
-15-
The initial screening mechanism was based on technical feasi-
bility. Major factors considered included site-specific physical
characteristics (e.g., topography, geology, hydrology), and an
understanding of both the type of waste disposed of at the site
and the nature of the operations conducted at a typical municipal
landfill. The analysis indicated that it may not be technically
feasible to construct a deep containment wall as proposed in
Remedial Alternative 3. A complicated pumping regime would
also be required to maintain the hydraulic gradients necessary
to achieve effective source control. For these reasons, an
intermediate depth (80-foot) hanging wall was proposed in place
of the deep wall.
Remedial Alternative 4 consisted of a containment wall for
source control, using both internal and external pumping, with
treatment and supplemental source flushing. The concept of in-
duced source flushing was proposed to expedite removal of
contaminants from within the unsaturated zone inside the wall.
A technical evaluation of the proposed flushing system, however,
indicated that the heterogeneous nature of the subsurface
materials in a typical municipal landfill could compromise the
expected efficiencies regarding source removal. It is highly
probably than any water applied to the surface of the landfill
would not percolate uniformly through the saturated zone.
Rather, there would be a tendency for the flow to "short circuit"
through more porous areas. Thus, the flushing action would be
minimal in the less porous areas, where significant quantities
of waste material may be bound. The concept of induced flushing
does provide a viable treatment mechanism for those situations
where subsurface conditions are relatively uniform with respect
to porosity, however, this is not the case at Price Landfill.
For this reason, the induced flushing option was determined to
be technically infeasible.
The remedial actions based on the plume abatement alternative
and on the containment wall with plume abatement alternative,
were each evaluated in conjunction with five possible groundwater
treatment systems. Ten individual remedial options were examined,
and capital and annual operating costs were developed for compara-
tive purposes. Capital costs for the plume abatement remedial
alternative were lower than those for the containment wall with
plume abatement alternative, regardless of the groundwater treat-
ment system selected. Operation and maintenance costs were
comparable for each treatment system, however, costs would be
reduced considerably if the metals were precipitated at the
ACUA facility.
-------
-16-
Present worth costs (assuming metals are precipitated at ACUA)
for the plume abatement remedial alternative, using air stripping/
lime pretreatment, ranged from $9,050,000 to $10,910,000. Com-
parable costs were $13,960,000 to $15,850,000 for the containment
wall with plume abatement alternative. Comparable costs for
situations where metals are settled out at the site ranged from
$9,860,000 to $11,900,000 for plume abatement, and $14,790,000
to $16,840,000 for the containment wall with plume abatement,
assuming the metals sludge is non-hazardous.
The three remaining remedial alternatives were also evaluated
in five non-cost categories: 1) implementability - whether the
system could be built and be compatible with remedial require-
ments; 2) performance and 3) reliability - how it would perform
over a period of time; 4) environmental effects - what its
effect would be on present and future environmental conditions;
and 5) safety - whether there were any potential safety defici-
encies that could jeopardize operating personnel. A series of
20 individual criteria were developed in the above non-cost
categories.
The remedial alternatives were then evaluated and rated on the
specific criteria on a (+), (-), (0) basis to determine a rela-
tive ranking. The results from the non-cost evaluation indicated
that Remedial Alternatives 2 and 3 rank highest with respect to
environmental issues, implementability, and performance.
The no action (minimal action) alternative was superior with
respect to worker safety. This may be due to an anomaly of the
scoring system, where doing nothing clearly involves minimal
potential for impacting worker safety. This, however, avoids
the issue of mitigating groundwater contamination. The no
action (minimal action) alternative takes no aggressive action
in that regard and allows the aquifer to deteriorate. Remedial
Alternative 2 was judged slightly superior to Alternative 3 in
the non-cost categories, while both Alternatives 2 and 3 are
superior to the no action (minimal action) alternative.
Modeling simulations of Alternatives 2 and 3 indicated that both
the plume abatement and the containment wall with plume abatement
alternatives are effective in reducing groundwater contamination
and that the deep extraction wells could be shut down after
approximately five years.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The National Contingency Plan requires the selection of "... a
cost-effective remedial alternative that effectively mitigates
and minimizes threats to and provides adequate protection of
public health and welfare and the environment." Therefore, the
remedial action alternative recommended for implementation at
Price Landfill is Remedial Alternative 2, Plume Abatement. The
recommended treatment alternative to be applied is the partial
-------
-17-
flow air stripping/lime pretreatment option, with metals removal
at the ACUA wastewater treatment facility, pending ACUA acceptance.
A quarterly groundwater monitoring program will also be implemented.
The actual sampling locations and parameters will be developed
during remedial design. A security fence will be installed around
the site to prevent access by unauthorized individuals. Addition-
ally, erosion control measures and a program to monitor potential
air emissions will be implemented. The groundwater extraction
and treatment remedial actions-will be implemented and completed
prior to final landfill closure.
The present worth cost of the recommended alternative, as estimated
in the February 1985 RI/FS and shown in Table 9, is $9,050,000.
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) will be required for the recommended
remedial action alternative and will include:
*
o O&M of the groundwater extraction wells
o O&M of the on-site pretreatment treatment facility
o Monitoring of groundwater elevation and quality in the
Cohansey aquifer
o Monitoring of potential air emissions from the site
o Maintenance of the landfill closure
The O&M costs have been presented in Table 9 as $1,010,000
for each of the first five years, and $255,000 per year
for the remaining 20 years. The total time period for which
O&M estimates were presented in Table 9, is 25 years.
Cap Deferral
Deferral of final landfill closure and capping is an integral
part of the recommended remedial action alternative at Price
Landfill. It is planned that capping will occur following the
completion of the groundwater extraction and treatment process.
Sufficient technical justification for delaying the cap
installation exists.
The contaminant transport modeling effort, which was undertaken
to simulate the effectiveness of the proposed remedial altern-
atives, relied on a representation of the contaminant source
and how that source entered the groundwater system. The contam-
inant source at Price Landfill was represented as entering the
groundwater system at the water table from the upper, unsaturated
zone where the wastes were originally deposited. The transport
mechanism was based on a natural effective recharge rate of
15.7 inches of rain per year, through an uncapped landfill.
This resulted in the estimation that the contaminant source
-------
-18-
would be effectively depleted in approximately 25 years. If
capping were to occur prior to, or at the start of, the remedial
action, the source itself would remain active for a longer
duration, possibly requiring a longer period of pumping.
Additionally, since the groundwater extraction wells would be
in operation, the water table would be locally depressed, result-
ing in greater traveling distances for the contaminants through
the unsaturated zone.
It should also be noted that, although induced flushing (i.e.,
through injection wells) was determined to be technically
infeasible with regard to cleansing contaminants from all areas
of the landfill, it was recognized that some contaminant trans-
port would occur. Natural infiltration of precipitation,
through an uncapped landfill, therefore, would enhance the
removal of contaminants at no additional cost.
In making the decision to defer capping the landfill, safety
and environmental impact were considered. Although previous
air monitoring, utilizing field instrumentation, has shown no
elevated contaminant concentrations, the site will be secured
by a fence to restrict access. In addition, along with the
minor regrading of this relatively flat site, a berm and/or
other measures will be constructed around the site perimeter to
prevent precipitation runoff and off-site soil erosion, and to
induce further infiltration until final closure. Final closure
will be compatible with appropriate and relevant federal and
state requirements. At a future date, EPA, in conjunction with
NJDEP, will evaluate then existing data and other relevant
information to determine the appropriate design and extent of
the cap.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The remedial action alternatives developed for Price Landfill
were intended to control the source of contamination and prevent
contaminant migration, as well as abate the contaminant plume
which has already migrated from the site. As mentioned earlier,
in 1983 the EPA and NJDEP jointly established the goal, for
reasons specific to the site, that remediation of the plume
would be considered complete when the concentration of total
volatile organics (TVO) in the groundwater reaches 10 ppb or
less. It is estimated that this will occur within five years
from the start of pumping. Throughout that period, the ground-
water quality will be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness
of the pumping plan in achieving the goal of a concentration of
10 ppb or less. If, after achieving TVO concentrations of 10 ppb
or less, specific compounds are found at concentrations above
applicable drinking water standards, a determination should be
made as to the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
meeting those standards. If technically feasible, cost-effective,
and appropriate, remedial action may continue until specific
-------
-19-
contaminant concentrations fall below the applicable drinking
water standards. If the goal of 10 ppb cannot be achieved, the
need for alternate concentration limits (ACLs), as indicated in
RCRA Part 264, will also be determined.
The source control wells, which are located adjacent to the
landfill, will continue to pump until the site is essentially
no longer a source. This is expected to occur within 25 years.
As with the plume abatement wells, groundwater quality will be
monitored throughout that period and the need for ACLs will be
determined.
The recommended alternative also includes the treatment of the
extracted groundwater at the ACUA wastewater treatment facility.
All appropriate and applicable regulatory requirements for this
action will be complied with.
As previously discussed, final site closure will be delayed
until after completion of the remedial action. For consistency
with RCRA, and as an integral part of the remedial action itself,
air and groundwater monitoring, as well as erosion control ;
measures, will be implemented throughout the remedial action
period. Final closure will be compatible with applicable federal
and state requirements, however, actual design of the cap will
be determined upon completion of the groundwater extraction and
treatment program.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Copies of the RI/FS report were made available to the public on
June 4, 1986, and on July 15, 1986, a public meeting was held in
the Egg Harbor Township Municipal Building to present the RI/FS
findings. A 21 day comment period followed the meeting. No
major adverse concerns were raised at the public meeting regard-
ing the proposed remedy; concerns were raised about the regional
water supply shortage, health impacts from past contamination,
and sanitary sewer capacities. Following the meeting the poten-
tially responsible parties commented in writing regarding the
recommended remedial action alternative. Responses to all
comments are included in the attached Responsiveness Summary
(except where prohibited by Order of U.S. Magistrate Jerome B.
Simandle in the District of New Jersey).
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
December 22, 1980 - The United States filed a lawsuit in the
Federal Court, District of New Jersey, seeking injunctive
relief pursuant to Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3005, Section 7003 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6973 and the
federal common law of nuisance. The original suit was
instituted against the current owners of the Price Landfill
and the persons who owned and managed the landfill in the early
1970's when it was in operation. A hearing was held in the
spring of 1981 on the government's motion for a preliminary
injunction.
-------
-20-
March 16, 1981 - The Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority
(ACMUA) moved to intervene in this case as a plaintiff. ACMUA
was given such permission on September 10, 1984.
September 21, 1981 - The United States filed a second amended
complaint adding thirty-five defendants, two days prior to the
court's decision on the preliminary injunction issue. The new
defendants included individuals and corporations who allegedly
generated and/or dumped the hazardous waste at Price Landfill.
The amended complaint also added claims under Sections 106 and
107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9606,
9607. The court did not consider these counts in its decision
on the motion for a preliminary injunction.
September 22, 1981 - Judge Stanley Brotman held that (1) the
United States was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief
requiring the past and current landfill owners to fund a study
to monitor the extent of the problem posed by leachate emanating
from the landfill and to devise a solution to the problem, and
(2) the Government was also not entitled to a preliminary order
compelling provision of alternate water supply to those homeowners
whose wells were contaminated by the leachate, as defendants
were no more able than the homeowners or the United States to
provide alternate water supply. The federal common law of
nuisance count was dismissed. United States v. Price, 523 £.
Supp. 1055 (1981).
September 14, 1982 - The government's appeal of the trial
court's decision on the motion for preliminary injunctive relief
was ruled upon. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the
District Court had not abused its discretion in denying the
motion for the preliminary injunction. United States v. Price,
688 _F. 2d 204 (1982) .
November 17, 1982 - The United States submitted a summary of
its evidence against the defendants as directed by the court.
A number of generator defendants expressed the desire to move
for summary judgment, and Judge Brotman allowed one generator,
Hoffman-LaRoche, to make such a motion.
July 28, 1983 - The court denied the summary judgment motion
of Hoffman-LaRoche, United States v. Price, 577 £. Supp. 1103
(1983). The court, however, found that there were no costs
incurred as defined by Section 107 of CERCLA and dismissed that
count without prejudice.
May 31, 1984 - Magistrate Jerome B. Simandle issued a Case
Management Order bifurcating the trial between remedies and
liability, with remedies to be tried first.
July 2, 1984 - The defendants filed a third-party complaint
against about 40 companies and individuals who allegedly used
the landfill.
-------
-21-
September 14, 1984 - A second Case Management Order and Confiden-
tiality Order was signed by the Magistrate, changing dates and
durations from the first Case Management Order and precluding the
parties from releasing information about each other's proposed
remedy until after settlement discussions were completed.
November 16, 1984 - The plaintiffs in the State court litigation,
approximately 200 private well-owners allegedly affected by the
Price Landfill, moved to intervene in the federal action. This
was later denied.
November 28, 1984 - The State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection, moved to intervene in this matter as a
plaintiff. Intervention was granted December 28, 1984 regarding
federal claims. State claims were to be considered later in
the litigation.
January 30, 1985 - The United States Magistrate issued the
Third Case Management Order and Confidentiality Order, which
modified the pretrial schedule and continued the prohibition on
the public release of documents relating to proposed remedies
for the landfill.
May 29, 1986 - The parties filed a "Statement of Intent" (SOI)
to be used in resolving the case. In that SOI most defendants
and most third-party defendants agreed to raise $17.15 million
to be given to government agencies in exchange for a broad
release from further liability arising from use of the Price
Landfill. In the SOI, the parties agreed to a modification of
the Confidentiality Order so that the Draft Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study prepared in February, 1985 could be released
to the public.
-------
RBOFTTOWNSHIP
\
Figure 1
-------
M
94
91
O'DEP-08
OEP-
•0OEP-I3
• «
(MM
CM
616 C?S
So«t«
FIGURE 2 SITE MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF NEW WELLS AND BORINGS
-------
H ACMUA WELLS
O NJDEP WELLS
".-•• A WELLS
0 EPA WELLS
+ P WELLS
FIGURE 3 : PLAN VIEW OF 1984 PLUME FOR CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
FIGURE 4 : FINITE ELEMENT GRID
-------
,:VEL 6
LEUEL 3
LEUEL 3
LE--EL 1
FIGURE 5 : PRICES LANDFILL MO. I - TYPI«:HL CROSS-SECT ION
-------
JJL9INQ
»n
13
Price'* Lenetlll eo
No. I
tt
C!
tt
5>
54
Sc»l» SI
I!•••••I
«•
«5
4?
SB
1C
SI
40
,*>•-• *""3(K
I ,^
9 C
Sc»l* M«M» •>
'FKMINC 6 PIEZOMETRIC HEADS IN LOWER COHANSEY WITH NEW WELLFIELD
-------
FIGURE 7 :
NO-ACTION (MINIMAL ACTION) ALTERNATIVE —
CONTAMINANT PLUME AT YEAR 20
-------
Landfill-.]
FIGURE 8 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE—CONTAMINANT PLUME AT YEAR 20-SECTION ALONG PLUME CrNTCRLINE
-------
LEOENP
- Road*
Craak*
Prlco'a lanolin
No. I
o Doop Extraction Walla
O Shallow Extraction
Wall* w/ Slurry (a
Wall
-f Shallow Extraction
Walla (plumo control)
NOTt: Co«r«a. oro Modified N J. Coordlnau
HUM! 9 PtUMC PUMPINO ALTERNATIVC—PIC/OMtlfllC MFAUS Af ir.VCL 6
-------
LEGEND
Road*
"1 Pdca'a LanollN
fcJ Ho t
o Daap E •!( action Well*
O Shallow Extraction
Walit w/ Slurry (e
Wall
+ Shallow Eitraction
Walla (pluma control}
47
er eo
NO1C: Comtfa. ••• ModMUd H J. Cootdlnata 3y«l*m
riounc 10 PLUME PUMPING ALTERNATIVE—PIEZOMETRIG IICAUS Allayer 3
-------
lEflidfi
Ro«d«
Prlc«'» LandfIN
No. 1
60
47
er
MOTE: Co«rd» ar« Modified M J Coordlnalo 9y«lom
•O
• 6
scale
FIOURE
PLUME PUMPING ALTERNATIVE—CONCENTRATIONS AT LAYER 3 AT YEAR 6
-------
Road*
't Landfill
MOTl:
86
eo
er
to
e«
N.J.
8y«t«ii
FlOUftt 12 PLUME PUMPINO ALTERNATIVE— CONCENTRATIONS AT LAYER 5 AT YEAR 20
-------
Ro«d«
Prtc*'* UndflN
No. 1
60
• O
NOTE: Cocrtfs. «c« Modified N.J. Coordinate Syslom
66
scale : lOUU's
FIGURE 12 SLURRY WALL AND PUMPINO ALTERNATIVE—CONCENTRATIONS AT LAYER 3 AT YEAR 6
-------
Pflo«'«
60
60
47
67
NOTE: Coerd*. ere Modified N.J. Coordinate System
66
scale : lOOO's
FIOURE 14 SLURRY WALL AND PUMPING ALTERNATIVE — CONCENTRATIONS AT LAYER 6 AT YEAR 6
-------
/
1
(j
V
\
\
\
v*
1
1
n
WE
p
.13
>
1.
s*
V
1
)• MO
!) PWI
NEW
r
pH °rr °*9 TREATMENT |NtW CARBON ]
ADJ. 1 ~ •" ~ II
0 1 1 - VAPOR PHASE 1
^1 . . ^ nrmiUIDIFER nannu ' *_ nrr n*orc
. .. unn 1 * H CARBON - +~OTf OASES
1.30 MOD f
Oi r . " - . .. . -.. - r ADSORPTION
0.99 MOO , J j
'" -j - - --
AIR CARBON
FOR
REGENERATION
STRIPPER
FILTER COLUMN CARBON COLUMNS
AIR BLOWER , / / /
*/ *X #/ t.
I.I MOO or NO FLOW
UME
FEED
1
\ II 1 1
L . _ _ *^ J
» STRUCTURE ^^
Sludge Disposal
3/4 MILE *
ORCE MAIN f>- SEDIMENTATION-
^* BASIN
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Figure 15
PHYSICAL-CHCMICAL
ON site
ALTTRNATIVrS
-------
t 36 MOO
pH
OFF OAS TREATMENT
NEW
»
WELLS
1.36 MOD
or
0.76 MOO
DEHUMIDIFIED
AIR
STRIPPER
AIR BLOWER
L_
VAPOR PHASE
CARBON
ADSORPTION
CARBON
FOR
REGENERATION
I I.I MOD
Of NTTFLOW
NEW STRUCTURE
'TV
I r-* ,
-*I-L-_-J
SEDIMENTATION BASINS
^\
^ 1
9 c
MILES
FORCE
MAIN
••«•••••••
CARBON
~ 1 '
_J
EXISTING
WET WEll
PUMP
STATION
OFF GASES
flTME 1
I
TO ACUA
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Figure 16
AIR STRIPPING/LIME
PRH TRCATMFNT
ALTFRNATIVCS 344
-------
NEW STRUCTURE
I.St MOP
PUMPS
LIME
STORAGE
LIME
FEED
78*79
I
I
HVORATEO LIME
LIME
. FEED •
«. - - . - 4
SEDIMENTATION
BASINS
EXISTING
WCT
WELL
PUMP
StA
-JTO ACUA
SLUOOE DISPOSAL
WELLS
•7.5 MILES
rORCE MAIN
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Figure 17
LIMC PRfTRFATMENT
ALTTRNAriVC 5
-------
TABLE 1
Measured and Computed Concentrations
of Total Volatile Organics at Monitoring Wells
Well
C-2C
C-3C
C-4D
C-5C
EPA-1
EPA-1A<
EPA-?
EPA-3
EPA-4
EPA-5
DEP-1
.DEP-2
DEP-3
DEP-4S<
DEP-5+
PEP-7*
DEP-95
DEP-10I+
DEP-12S
DEP-14S
DEP-15S
1984 Measured
(Pgnge )
/ppp)
NO-?
ND
NO-1 .3
ND-fi
5*64-10203
12243-21800
ND-5
ND-10
ND-10
NA
NA
51MO-73MO
NA
lft-25
Nn-i.i
17420-24270
J0805-12910
4305-5706
13617-1R740
150-180
22-27
84-244
204-249
Prev ious
Me3S'JrPrrert s
'•P^]
NP-1-*
ND-15
3-33
2-300
500-37000
K4-2175000
ND-393
ND-R1
ND-41
ND-132
NP-22^
ND-14QOOO
1W5R-71000
ND-126
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
..
Computer ?e s / i s
f Pg ngo '
^::
ND
ND
ND
ND
5997
369-3«SJ
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
3950
269000
0-126
ND
1553:
233*7
5373
5938-
ND
ND
3127
ND-fiOO
NOTE:
Wells are screened in section of layer 4 (Upper Cohansey
-------
Tabl'e 1 (continued)
Measured and Computed Concentration
of Total Volatile Organics at Monitoring Wells
WPll
A-4
C-1A
C-2A
C-2B
C-3A
C-3B
C-4B
C-4C
C-5B
C-«
C-7
C-fl
C-Q
DEP-fil
DEP-9I
DEP-11I
PEP-12I*
DEP-13S/I
DEP-4I
P-l
P-4
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-12
IQfid Mo^Sijred
(R3pT
?.6 - ?9
7-Q.7
ND-1.2
ND-1.2
ND
ND-27
ND-1.2
ND-1.?
27-28
4094-7672
ND .
13.5-33
ND
NO
656-lfi32
ND
15-17
ND
ND
ND-1
NA
NA
1.3-1.2
NA
NA
Previous
ppb
NP
40-115
NH-6
ND-7
ND-130
8-516
ND
3-26
11-22
NP-799
10-177
3-306
ND
—
-
-
-
.
-
ND-35
NA
7
ND-57
24
NA
Compu*0" •'—' '•*
\ P 3 r' C *•
p::-
ND
NO-101
15
31-8
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.8-21
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
85?
11
11
ND
142
ro
ND
85
102
ND
6
«• NOTE: DEP-QI and -1?I are screened partially in this formation and
partially in the clay layer table.
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Measured and Computed Concentrations of
Total Volatile Organics* at Monitoring Wells
Moni tori ng Wei 1
Lower Cohansey
A-l
A-l
C-4A
C-5A
P-2
P-3
P-5
P-6
DEP-4D
nEP-RD
DEP-10D
DEP-lin
nEP-i?n
DEP-nn
]opd Measured
PPb
50
Nn
ND
29-3R
ND
ND
NA
NA
ND -1.7
ND
ND-45
ND
Nn
-------
Table 2
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTED FROM PRICE LANDFILL
Treatment Alternative Associated Remedial Alternative
#2 Plume Abatement #3 Containment
(MGD) Wall (MGD)
Physical/Chemical Pretreatment*
1. Total Flow** 1.3 1.36
2. Partial Flow*** - .2 .26
Air Stripping/Lime Pretreatment*
3. Total Flow** 1.3 1.36
%
4. Partial Flow*** .2 .26
Lime Pretreatment
5. Total Flow 1.3 1.36
*Flow passsing through air stripper.
**Dilute flow stream and concentrated stream to air stripper.
***Concentrated flow stream with 50 ppm volatiles to air stripper.
-------
Table 3
CAPITA! COST'. 01 IRIAIMINI SYSIINS
PRIII 'S I ANIII III NIINUH I
(J i IIHNI)
Mem
PUMP SIAIIUN
rURCE MAIN
S0? TEID STSTEM
AIR STRIPPING HUM SOI VTNI
RECOVERY
GAC TREATMENT HUM
I'RETIIIRAIION
IIMl ADDITION TACK ITY A
UME ADDITION EACH MY U*
riorcuiAiioN/PMfUPiiAiioN
SIRUOtm
BUIIDING STRUCTURE
StUDGE DISPO'.Al
INSIRUPfNTAIlON
ELECTRICAL SITE WORK
SHE WORK AND YAHD PIPING
ENGINEERING AND fONT INGI NCIES
TREATMENT COST TOTAI Wllll
ONSIIC MEIAl PRICIPMAIION
IREATMENT COST TOIAI WITH
I IMC ADD 11 ION Al AI.OA
(.hcmir.il/l'hysir.il
(lnl.il I low)' (IMrti.il I Inw)1
IPO
S
Air Mr i|i|,in,j/l imp Prol rc.iliiN-nl
I lot .11 I Inw) (I'.nl i.il I low)
IMS
?0
/IO
?'.',
HIS
I Km' A0 44
CIS |40
1 /O 1 IS
•mo h?<,
S.MS 4.1/0
7.11/n
fill
I.'O
/so
I.'O
4MI
IS
9S
US '
SIS
P.9Q5
1 .H/S
--
;..
Jin
/so
(III
4 SO
in
911
im
4 If.
.-,.,•
l.'.'ll.
•I inip adrfil inn !•» il ily II i'. lo.cttr.lrtl MM- Al MA 1.11 i I il y.
4 toljl flow of I 16 MKI.I Ihioti'ili Mi.- (.Al .illhni|.|li only ,'». im,il (i oni rnl r .ili-il :t,,:un] w.is m M|'n.,IU |.,r.-.r.l II ih II,, .,,, i, ,,.,„
ol I Inw |i.r.'.in<| thioiii|h ,nr '.(IIIIIHT
-------
Table 4
ANNUAL OPf RATING AND MAINTrNANCf COSTS
I lit AT MINI SVSIIHS
PRICI 'S I ANIH III NIIMtttR I
(I «
Item
PtMR
CHCNIIALS
PERSONNIL
Will RfGtNtHAIItW
SLUDGE OISPOSAI*
NAINUNANCC
SUBTOTAL
ACU TRfATMtNI**
CIIARGt
TRfAIMrNT OHM
IOIAI Will) ONSIIf
N1IAI PRICIPIIAIION 1,943 ?.307
Air Slrippincj/l inn* Prp(rr.itm>nt
I imp flildil inn
1 7S
?,055 ?.4?4
S?0
1/3 1.537
s?o s?o
99? 1.356
tdl MOM) (PdrlMl DOM)
3', 35
.65? 1.764
SO SO
1 1
540 I7S 540
.J_o_ . .__jw
I ?,307 ?.055 ?.4?4
(lot.il flow)
31
30?
(6?0)
40
1
175 540
? 4
f.SI 1.017
(P4rti.il Mow)
?7
?34
(47?)
?5
1
175 540
10
47? HJ6
IS
57
IS
1
1 t'i S40
10
?73 6I/
510 S10
B01 1,167
WATMTN! OAN
IOIAIS MUM I INC
AllOII ION Al ACIIA
I .OSS
•JIS
with Ihr disposal u( d mm hrt/drdnu<. sln«J<|C Mliilc Ihr hii|h tovls drp d«.«.ru Mini with
•The low CO\IS irr
dlS|MiSdl nl a
( )(.hpmi(.f>.»ll tier million i|.;!lmi<. plus inc rnnrnldl i lMr<|rs fur 111 HI
Iss
-------
TABLE 5
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS TREATMENT SYSTEMS*
(I x 1000)
Item
Chemical/Physical Treatment
(Total Flow) (Partial Flow)
Air Stripping/Lime Pretreatment
(Total Flow) (Partial Flow)
Lime Addition
Pretreatment
Capital Costs
Annual 0AM Costs
Present Worth 25 yrs.
5.411 5,635
1,943 1,307 2.055 1,424
23,050 26,350 24,300 27,600
4.170
1,173 1,537
2,995
992 1.356
14,820 18,120 12,000 15,300
2,611
803 1,167
9,900 13,?on
*Costs associated with onsite metal preceipitation and sludqe disposal. The low costs are associated
with the disposal of a non-hazardous sludqe while the hiqh costs are associated with the disposal of a
hazardous sludqe.
-------
TABLE 6
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS FOR METALS REMOVAL AT ACUA
($ x 1000)
Lime Addition
Air Stripping/Lime Pretreatment Pretreatment
(Total Flow) . (Partial Flow)
Capital Costs 2,870 1,875 1,546
Annual O&M Costs 1,236 1,055 915
Present Worth
25 years @ 10% 14,090 11,450 9,850
-------
Table 7
CAPITAL COSTS OF REMEDIAL ALTEDf
-------
TABLE 8
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS WITH TREATMENT SYSTEMS*
AND ALTERNATIVES
(S x loon)
Item
Present Worth
P 101 25 yrs.
Containment Wall and
Plume Abatement
Capital Costs
0*M Costs
1-5 yrs
6.. yrs
Present Worth
-------
TABLE 9
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS WITH TREATMENT SYSTEMS1
AND ALTERNATIVES2
($ x 1000)
Air Stripping/Lime Pretreatment Lime Addition Pretreatment
(Total Flow) (Partial Flow)
PLUME ABATEMENT
(Alternative f2)
Capital Costs 4,860 3,870 3,190
Annual O&M Costs
1-5 years 1,180 . 1,010 874
6...years 299 255 220
Present Worth
@ 10% 25 yrs. 10,910 9,050 7,670
CONTAINMENT WALL
WITH PLUME ABATEMENT
(Alternative #3)
Capital Costs 9,850 8,850 8,810
Annual O&M Costs
1-5 years 1,236 1,055 915
6...years 247 211 183
Present Worth
@ 10% 25 yrs. 15,850 13,960 12,620
ICosts are associated with the addition of lime, and metals
removal, at ACUA.
2plume Abatement wells are shut-off after five years.
-------
Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Completion of the Feasibility Study
Price Landfill
Pleasantville City and Egg Harbor Township
Atlantic County
Site History;
Price Landfill is a 26-acre site originally mined for sand and gravel. The site
became ^ commercial landfill receiving municipal solid waste in 1969. In May,
1971, the landfill began to accept bulk and drummed liquid and solid chemical
wastes. Available information indicates that these wastes included industrial
chemicals, sludges, oils, greases and sewage. Total quantities dumped are
estimated to be at least nine million gallons. Chemical waste disposal
operations were terminated in November, 1972; sludge disposal was terminated in
May, 1973 and municipal waste disposal was terminated in 1976. In December, 1982
the Price Landfill site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Of 97 New Jersey sites on
the NPL, this site ranks third.
»
Major Issues and Concerns and Related Remedial Activities:
Major issues and concerns have centered on the fact that considerable ground
water contamination exists in the vicinity of Price Landfill. Among the
contaminants present are benzene, cadmium, chloroform, dichloroethylene, lead,
1-2-transdichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride and acetone. The
ground water flow in the area of the landfill is complex, with three separate
aquifer formations located within 150 feet from the surface. The plume of
contamination extends almost one mile from the site and the contaminants tend to
move in an east-northeast direction.
In 1980 residential wells in the area were found to have levels of total volatile
organics exceeding 100 parts per billion (ppb) and the Atlantic County Health
Department recommended that the residents discontinue using the water for
drinking and cooking purposes. As an interim measure to provide an alternative
water supply, 400-gallon "water-buffalo" tanks were provided for residential use.
In December, 1981, 37 affected residences were connected co the New Jersey Water
Supply Company source. The advancing underground contarc-.nation also threatened
some of the wells supplying drinking water for Atlantic City, causing an
immediate precautionary shut down of four of the Atlantic City Municipal Utility
Authority's 12 wells.
In December, 1981, USEPA commissioned a contractor, Camp, Dresser and McKee
(COM), to prepare a two-part study addressing: 1) the immediate measures
necessary to ensure a supply of uncontaminated water to affected communities for
the summer of 1982 and 2) the long-term remedial solutions necessary to protect
the water supply and to remediate the discharge of contaminants from the
landfill.
During April, 1982, COM issued a report outlining initial measures necessary to
ensure the summer water supply: upgrading of the water treatment plant, the
redevelopment of three production wells, installation of a water supply system
interconnection, provision of standby carbon filter units and implementation of
water conservation measures and a ground water monitoring program. These
measures were successfully implemented.
-------
In June, 1982 the Atlantic County Health Department and the New Jersey Department
of Health conducted a health survey of the population living close to the
landfill and in the direction of the ground water flow, most of whom were using
or had used private wells as their only water supply. (The final report of this
survey is attached as Appendix A.)
In June, 1983, "COM issued a second report summarizing its full investigative
study. This study included development of computer ground water flow models
designed to assess the movement of contaminants leaching from the landfill and an
evaluation of ten remedial alternatives. This study led to the decision to
relocat^ the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA) wells.
Construction was completed in December, 1985. From the ten remedial alternatives
outlined in the study, four were selected for further investigation and the
computer models were recalibrated to 1984 field conditions to predict the
behavior of each of these alternatives. These four alternatives were studied in
depth during a subsequent remedial investigation and feasibility study performed
by COM and are discussed in detail in the July, 1986 fact sheet (attached in
Appendix B). The models were also used to evaluate the impact of the relocation
of the ACMUA wellfield to its new location north of the Atlantic City reservoir.
Concerns upon release of the feasibility study report focused on implementation
of the recommended alternative, water aflocation, land use and health issues. A
summary of comments and questions expressed at the July 15, 1986 public meeting
with responses made by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) follows on page 3. Copies of a resident's written comments and NJDEP's
response are attached as Appendix C.
Comments on the feasibility, study report have also been made by some of the
defendants in U.S. v. Price, civil action number 80-4104, pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Copies of these comments
are attached as Appendices D and E. The defendants have raised concerns in that
letter and the referenced writings about various technical aspects of the
Feasibility Study report. We have responded to these concerns in writing as is
evidenced in the attached Appendix F. We believe the defendants' concerns are
not well-founded.
Community Relations Activities
The objectives of the community relations program are as follows: 1) to maintain
lines of communication with local and other officials as well as involved
citizens and to ensure public understanding of basic issues involved in the
remedial program, 2) to inform officials, residents and uther interested parties
about the nature of the planned remedial action, to provide them with background
material on the technical studies when requested and to receive citizen feedback
on possible courses of action and 3) to provide a final summary of citizen
concerns and problem areas and the governmental response to them. In accordance
with these objectives, ongoing communication was maintained with the exception of
the 16-month period during which U.S. Magistrate Jerome B. Simandle imposed a
confidentiality ruling barring disclosure of the feasibility study to the public
while settlement discussions were occurring with the allegedly responsible
parties.
-------
Local public meetings and briefings were held on the following dates:
December 1, 1981
April 6, 1982
May 4, 1983
December 20, 1983
April 19, 1984
July 15, 1986
Copies of meeting materials are attached as Appendix G.
Following is a summarization of the public's questions and comments to the NJDEP
regarding the feasibility study and the responses to these.
Movement of the Plume/Nature of the Contaminants
1. How fast is the plume moving?
A. There is a relatively slow movement downwards from the landfill through
what is called the upper Cohansey plate (clay). Depending on the given
location, it may take up to five years to penetrate that plate (clay).
Once the plume got into the. middle zone of the system (the lower
section of the Upper Cohansey sand lens), it was moving fairly rapidly
as long as the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA) was
pumping from that zone. When ACMUA shut off its pumping, the plume
began to move much more slowly, but it is still moving at an average
rate of 200 feet per year.
2. How can you tell which layers of water are going where?
A. We have installed our ground water monitoring wells at various depths
into the various layers of ground water. The intervals over which we
collect the samples are between 10-20 feet. This makes the collection
of the sample very specific as to the location we are looking at,
enabling us to see clear, clean layers and dirty layers.
3. Are the heavy metals moving at the same speed as the organics?
A. No. We are finding the heavy metals in closer to the landfill. They
are probably being adsorbed by the clay of that upper lens.
4. What is the margin of error for ground water movement!'
A. Five hundred feet is a reasonably good estimate.
5. In the picture of where the plume would be in the future without treatment,
it was past the Absecon Creek line. Will it go under Absecon Creek and
'continue on without stopping?
A. We have a fairly dense network of monitoring wells in the plume and we
have checked very carefully to determine whether the plume would go to
the east of Conover Run or to the north of Absecon Creek. Under all
conditions, the ground water models indicate that those streams are the
discharge boundaries and they pretty much limit the extent of where the
-------
plume will go. There is a low-lying swampy area which bounds the
Absecon Creek. We show the plume discharging into the swamp and,
depending on the season of the year, the plume would sometimes move
slightly to the north. For all practical purposes, we should assume
the plume stops at the creek.
As far as moving downward and under Absecon Creek is concerned, in
general, based on the regional ground water -flow, the lower Cohansey
system tends to discharge more to Absecon Bay than to Absecon Creek.
As it approaches Absecon Creek, however, all of the ground water
I gradient in the Upper Cohansey system reverses and you get flow back to
the surface.
6. We have been told there is an impermeable layer of clay below which the
water will not go. What is driving the plume below this layer?
A. There is a clay layer that underlies the lower Cohansey system and
exists between that system and the Kirkvood Formation. This clay layer
is agreed by all to be reasonably impermeable and there would probably
be very little movement through it. We definitely have movement
downwards through those clay .layers that exist above the clay layer
between the lower Cohansey system and the Kirkwood plate. They are
relatively thin (approximately 30 feet thick) and are not impermeable.
7. I am not sure you have really identified all the volatile materials in
Price's Pit. Some of the drums that have not been opened up yet may contain
entirely new surprises and you may not be able to discharge them. What are
you going to do with organics like PCBs which do not respond to air
stripping or to activated carbon? How are you going to get rid of them?
Dump them out in the ocean?
A. We feel the recommended treatment system will work effectively for the
contaminants we have discovered at the landfill to date. We will
continue sampling every three months for an estimated duration of
twenty years and if we discover something new, we will modify the
treatment system to handle it.
Technical Aspects of the Remedial Alternatives
8. Why can't the treated water be re-injected or discharged on the ground for
water table replenishing? Can't we have our own closed-circuit system
rather than to keep on pulling water out? Why can't; that water be used for
irrigation purposes or to water people's lawns? It must be clean enough if
you have considered discharging it to Abescon Creek. Is it potable or
anywhere near potable? Will there be heavy metals in it?
A. Technically it is possible to do what you suggest. There are, however,
very few systems where reinjection has worked consistently well with
shallow ground water. One problem here is the amount of iron in the
water. We would have to be very certain that we remove all the iron
prior to reinjection or we would clog up the area of the aquifer where
the water is being reinjected. In addition, there are a lot of
technical and financial problems with reinjecting the water into the
Cohansey Sands. If the extracted ground water were either reinjected
-------
or discharged on the ground surface this could create additional
problems with regard to a discharge location, treatment, and additional
monitoring and control devices. These additional considerations would
be more costly than the selected alternative and would require more
sensitive monitoring. Using this water for irrigation purposes would
require either additional treatment or a new distribution system only
for this treated water. Either of these solutions would be cost
prohibitive.
9. I am concerned about removal of vast amounts of water from this area and the
faft that, at the same time, the sources that feed our aquifers are starting
to dry up. What is going to happen to our water table? Is the water table
going to start lowering so that people's wells will start drying up? Are we
going to start getting salt water intrusion into our aquifers? Who is going
to start studying the problem of water allocation at one coordinated time?
A. Camp Dresser and McKee's ground water modeling work has shown no change
in the water level elevations in the lower zone that we are planning to
pump. The water in the upper zone will be lowered. However, this a
restricted zone and no one should be extracting water for potable use
in this zone. And actually, .there is a large flow of water from west
to east in the Cohansey Sand system in this area, a lot of which is
discharged to Absecon Bay every day and is not used. But in terms of
continued development, there is a potential problem and it has to be
addressed as ground water management on a regional scale.
10. Have you considered the impact of your draw-down within a half-mile or mile
radius of your deep wells and how it will impact on other wells in the area?
A. There is no draw-down from any of the extraction wells outside of our
existing plume area.
11. Would it be possible to coordinate with the resource recovery plant the
county has proposed to build nearby and use the treated water to cool the
plant and then discharge it to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority
(ACUA) sewage plant?
A. It is possible. If the ACUA is interested in using this pretreated
water the DEP will entertain these discussions.
12. Will the ACUA sewage plant be able to handle th- additional volume of
treated water that would be coming from this project? Are they preparing
now to accept this extra volume?
A. We have discussed the ability of ACUA to handle the additional volume
with the ACUA and with the Industrial Pretreatment Section of the DEP's
Division of Water Resources. They feel the facility can handle the
quantity of water we are proposing to send there as well as the
concentrations of contaminants that are in the water. ACUA is in a
design phase now to upgrade it's facility. We have been assured that
this will not be a problem and we are negotiating with ACUA for a
service agreement to accept this waste.
-------
13. I am concerned about sewer main capacity. Through what lines will this
water be sent to the plant? Where will the pumping stations be?
A. The actual route is something we will address in the next stage of the
remedial action program, which is the engineering design to implement
the selected remedial alternative. When the conceptual design report
is ava'ilable, we will send a copy to the Mayor to be made publicly
available. At this time the DEP is proposing to construct a new force
main to transport the water to an existing ACUA interceptor line. From
this intercepter line the water will flow to the Pleasantville Pump
Section where it will be conveyed in an existing force main to the ACUA
plant in Atlantic City.
14. What data do you have on the effluent coming out of the ACUA at the end of
the process? How would the addition of 1,200,000 gallons per day change the
water quality of the effluent as it leaves the treatment plant and goes into
the ocean?
A. Actually we are sending a very dilute waste stream to the plant and
ACUA will be required to discharge at existing permit conditions. We
would not want them to exceed those conditions. Based on the Bio-
Treatability Study that was performed by CDM we do not anticipate that
our wastes will cause any problems with ACUA effluent.
15. The Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) as it is presently operating
has frequent air pollution problems. How would this additional effluent
impact on that existing problem?
A. The effluent from this project shouldn't have any impact on the odors.
The ACUA is currently in the process of upgrading its facility to
handle any difficulties it is currently having and is proposing to
upgrade the facility to accept additional water.
16. If and when you do hook up to the ACUA sewage plant will your treatment of
this contamination be consistent over each month or will it double up over
the summer as our resort sewage doubles during the summer since you have to
have percentages of compatibility?
A. The volume of water that we plan to pump to ACUA will be constant each
month. Our Bio-Treatability study showed thnc if our waste were a
relatively high percentage of the total wast-' ACUA receives, there
should be no problem with ACUA operations.
17. How much will it cost to put in a new line to feed the line that goes to the
ACUA? How much will it cost to upgrade the facility? Taking into
consideration the cost, wouldn't it be worthwhile to re-inject that water?
A. The estimated cost of constructing a means of conveying the waste to
ACUA is $495,000. This is considerably less than the additional cost
to construct and operate an on-site treatment plant that would allow
reinjection of the water back into the ground. The cost of upgrading
ACUA's facility is not fully known.
18. Was biodegradation on-site ever looked into?
-------
A. Yes,, however because of the complex nature of the contaminated waste
water, and the long retention times, on-site biodegradation was not
considered as a viable secondary treatment option. This method works
very well when you have a spill of one chemical.
19. Does the air stripping really work?
A. Yes, based on the Bench Scale Air Stripper column that CDM used and
existing available data on air stripping, we are estimating over a 90%
removal rate with the air stripper. This process will also meet state
: requirements and operate with a permit.
20. Can you or can't you install a containment wall?
A. The problem is that in most cases where you try to establish a
containment wall, there is a reasonably good impermeable layer of clay
which is going to form the bottom of the containment system. At
Price's Landfill, the first clay which is consistent enough to be a
reasonably impermeable barrier is the Cohansey Clay which at the
landfill site is down about 150'. It is pushing the present
technologies to install a slurry wall down 150' and still be able to
get it to be reasonably impermeable. We would also have to extract
very large quantities of material which would be very heavily
contaminated and which would release very large quantities of volatile
organics during construction.
There is another option which is to install a hanging slurry wall which
would go down roughly 80' and penetrate the upper Cohansey Plate (clay)
forming something like an upside down bathtub. We would then pump
water from inside the wall and force water up through the landfill,
treat it and discharge it to ACUA. Our estimates are that we would
have to pump around 150,000 gallons a day to insure that we had an
upward positive gradient into such a system. That's not much less than
what we have to pump just outside the landfill to control the plume.
With both of these we would probably have to spend between $5-$8
million for a relatively minimal increase in protection and a very
small reduction in the amount of water we would pump.
21. Will there be any attempt to exhume any of the drums that are presently in
the ground? I bring this up because many chlorinated solvents, in
particular, are not corrosive at all and the drums are going to erode from
the outside in rather than from the inside out. It would seem to be a good
time to go in there and get them out before they start polluting the ground
water.
A. The drums have been there now for about 15 years and there is no record
of any systematic drum disposal at Price Landfill. Because of the
length of time these drums have been buried, it is unlikely that large
quantities of intact drums still remain. Remote geophysical
technologies would not be able to reliably distinguish drums from other
buried metallic objects. Any type of direct identification of drums,
such as excavation, would be extremely hazardous and would not be
practical nor cost effective. We would be hunting random drums and the
probability of getting any significant number out without breaking them
-------
and discharging volatile organics into the air is very small. The
judgement is that it is better to leave the drums in place and no
attempt will be made to exhume any buried drums. The proposed remedial
plan will capture contaminants at a location directly adjacent to the
landfill.
22. What is the ultimate fate of the heavy metals that you are going to take
out? 1 am especially concerned about cadmium.
A. The heavy metals would be transported to ACUA and be removed in the
j solids processing at the facility as a metal hydroxide sludge.
Related Questions
23. Are the responsible parties contributing to the cost?
A. The Department of Environmental Protection and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency have reached a tentative settlement
agreement with some of the potentially responsible parties. The amount
of this settlement is approximately $17.15 million and should cover the
cost of the proposed remedial plan.
24. Request for sampling results from Delilah Road Landfill.
A. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Delilah Road site
is currently underway. Sampling results are not available yet but will
be sent to you when they are. Also, the DEP will hold another meeting
like this one when that full project is completed.
25. Obviously there is some danger in the chemicals to be extracted by the
treatment system. What happens to the chemicals that are already escaping?
What danger is caused to people living in the area?
A. We have not identified any problems from Price Landfill other than that
of using the contaminated ground water for potable purposes. The
chemicals in the ground water are not causing problems via other routes
of exposure, for example, air contamination. The chemicals that are
extracted by the treatment system will be condensed and collected,
either in a concentrated liquid form or in vnoor phase carbon. Any
emissions to the air will be within the standards established by the
NJDEP Administrative Codes which regulate air emissions.
26. Does everything that has been said apply to the area bordered by Mill Road,
Spruce Street, Delilah Road and Fire Road? Is that area also going to be
cleaned up? When you start cleaning up and chemicals are in the air, what
is going to happen then?
A. What we have discussed does apply to that area. We will take
precautions to reduce and control air emissions. We will be required
to monitor these emissions and keep them below limits established by
NJDEP Administrative Codes.
-------
27. I have lived on California Avenue for 30 years and I have never had to water
the grass. Now it is brown — what has happened? Are we drawing all the
water from the earth? Is the poison coming up through the earth?
A. You should contact your local county agriculture agent to inspect your
grass and determine the cause of the problem. Actually the plume is
between 15' to 100' below the surface and would not be making the grass
brown. More likely, it could be because we have not had enough rain.
28. We are often told that everything is going to be all right and then find out
five years later that it didn't work. On television I saw other
contaminated areas being tested and I have never had anyone bring any kind
of machinery into my house to test the air the way I have seen on
television. Why?
A. Based on the air monitoring that we have done on site we have not
identified any air problems due to the contaminants present at the
site.
29. I am bitter because I think we should have been told the water was
contaminated sooner, before we drank it.
*
A. As soon as the problem of contaminated water was identified, a
temporary water supply, in the form of National Guard "water buffalos"
was provided. Sometime later, the New Jersey Water Company was ordered
to extend their water lines and the affected homes were hooked up to a
public water supply.
30. So far nobody knows how bad we have been hurt already.
A. We will try to arrange for someone to come here to talk with you about
your health concerns.
-------
Appendix A
-------
REPORT
A Health Survey of the Population Living
Near the Price Landfill Conducted By
The Environmental Health Hazard Evaluation Program,
New Jersey State Department of Health
;•
in Cooperation with
The Atlantic County Health Department
July 1983
-------
A HEALTH SURVEY OF A POPULATION
LIVING NEAR THE PRICE LANDFILL,
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, ATLANTIC COUNTY
Price Landfill is located on the western side of Mill Road between Delilah
and Spruce Street in Egg Harbor Township. Atlantic County. The 26-acre site was
licensed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 1972
as a sanitary landfill to accept municipal, bulky waste, vegetative, animal and
food, junk, auto, and -non-chemical industrial waste. Operations ceased in
September 1980, and the site is now dosed and inactive with a final cover,
although some debris can be seen and erosion with leachate is present on the
western edge of the site. The landfill mass rises to about fO feet above the mean
ground elevation, with shallow groundwater 20 feet below in a permeable sandy
soil.
According to the Solid Waste Administration files at DEP, an estimated five
to six thousand fifty-gallon drums and unknown amounts of bulk liquid chemical
wastes were accepted at the site. In a period from April 10 to May 7, 1972, 82,000
cubic yards and 2,968 drums of various chemical wastes were accepted. Open
chemical dumping went on for nearly four years..
Contamination of both private and public wells has been established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DEP and the Atlantic County Health
Department. Both organic and inorganic contaminants have been found in
monitoring wells. Samples exceeded Water Quality Criteria (WQC) established or
recommended by EPA, in some cases by many thousand times, for substances such
as cadmium, beryllium, lead, zinc, nickel, bis (2 chloroethyl) ether, chloroform,
tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, benzene, 1,2 dichloroethane, methylene chlo-
ride, toluene, trichloroethylene and many more.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection-Hazard Management Divi-
sion Price Landfill Site Inspection Report, January 5, 1981.
USEPA Price Landfill analytical results, June 10, 1980 and September 23, 1980
-------
Generally, these substances are poorly degraded by natural processes and
tend to persist in the environment. These compounds are known to be toxic.
Research to identify adverse health effects from exposure to low concentrations of
these chemicals is necessary. Concern over this contamination led the Atlantic
County Health Department and the New Jersey State Department of Health to
conduct a health survey of the population living dose to the landfill and in the
direction of the groundwater flow, most of whom were using private wells as their
only water supply. -
Some 50 homes lie in the study area which covers a sector up to about 1)4
miles to the north and northeast of Price Landfill. (Hydrogeologic studies
determined that the groundwater flows north and northeast below the landfill.)
When the wells of some of these homes were tested in 1980 and found to have
levels of total volatile organics exceeding 100 ppb, the Atlantic County Health
•
Department recommended that the residents discontinue using the water for
drinking and cooking purposes. DEP ordered the water company to provide lines
and by late 1981, the pipes were installed. As of the summer of 1982, 22% of the
participating surveyed residents were still using private well water.
The survey consisted of-a questionnaire administered to each member of the
household to gather information on exposure to toxic substances, the presence of
symptoms and reported medical problems. In addition, this questionnaire was
administered to a control group of residents living several miles away from the
landfill who had always been on a municipal water supply. The control households
were from a similar type of housing in the same county. The information was
analyzed to determine whether or not health symptoms were more prevalent in
residents living near the landfill on private water supplies.
METHODS
The data for the present analysis are from a cross-sectional study of reported
symptoms and illness in the population residing in the area of suspect or proven
groundwater contamination to the north and northeast of the Price Landfill
compared to another population residing in another part of Atlantic County using a
-------
public water supply. Maps of the surveyed area are shown on pages 9 and 10. The
analyses of relative risks were done separately by sex and water usage. First, all
the exposed population versus the unexposed population was examined. Then, those
individuals still using private well water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing
were compared -to the unexposed population. Former users of private well water
now using municipal water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing were also
compared to the unexposed population. In addition, analyses were done for
physician visits and frequency of complaints. The questionnaire used is shown in
Appendix A.
RESULTS
The sample sizes, the proportion of households successfully interviewed, the
distribution by sex, age, tobacco use and/or chemical exposure and the perception
of taste in the water are shown in Table J. Differences between the exposed and
unexposed populations are small with the exception of the number of vacant.
households and those bothered by the taste of the water. Twenty-seven percent of
the exposed homes were vacant compared to eight percent in the unexposed.
Forty-six percent of the exposed compared to five percent of the unexposed were
bothered by the taste of their water.
The data presented in Table II are tabulated relative risks of complaints in
the exposed population compared to complaints in the unexposed group. A relative
risk greater than one (1) indicates that the risk of the specific symptom is greater
in the exposed population. An asterick (*) by a relative risk indicates a
statistically significant risk at the 5% probability level.
Muscle pain was the only significant complaint reported at all levels of
frequency either daily, weekly, monthly or seldom in the exposed Price males,
whereas the exposed Price females reported rash, skin irritation, joint pain, nausea
and abdominal pain significantly more often. The same is true for those currently
on well water. Exposed females using well water at the time of interview reported
more eye irritation, rashes, • tiredness, muscle pain and nausea. Exposed males
using well water at the time of the interview did not report any complaints that
were statistically significant. Overall, the exposed females reported more
complaints than the males and the exposed copulation living in the survey area near
-------
Price's Landfill, as a whole, reported more complaints than those in the unexposed
group on public water supply several miles away. The actual numbers and
percentages for the various symptoms are shown in Appendix B.
Table III. presents the reported medical problems for both the exposed
population and the unexposed control population by complaint, number of cases,
and percent of total respondents. No particular complaint or medical problem was
outstanding and both populations were quite similar in this analysis.
Table IV is a summary of pregnancy problems as reported by exposed and
unexposed females.. Fifty-two of the sixty-four exposed females and fifty-one of
the seventy-two unexposed females responded to this question. As with the
analysis of medical problems, nothing was outstanding with pregnancy problems,
although a slightly higher percentage of exposed females reported a variety of
problems.
SUMMARY ' '
It is known that the groundwater flowing beneath the Price Landfill moves in
a north and northeast direction. We also know that there were forty-one occupied
homes in the study area within one and a half miles to the north and northeast of
the landfill and that this was believed to be the extent to which the plume of
groundwater contamination had spread, ail of this at the time of our survey during
the summer of 1982.
What we do not know is the exposure that each individual may have had.
There is no data available on a complete sampling program of private wells. Some
respondents may have had high levels of exposure to various contaminants and
other respondents may not have had any exposure. What we have referred to as the
exposed population certainly reported more symptoms than the control population
which used a public water supply assumed to be free of the substances found in The
groundwater below Price Landfill. However, there was no increase among the
exposed population in chronic health problems or adverse reproductive outcomes.
The majority of exposed respondents were hooked up to a newly installed
water supply some months prior to our survey. The number and frequency of
-------
symptoms are beyond what one expects based on the known toxicity of the
comparatively low levels of chemicals found. What the exact role stress or
increased concern about one's health as a consequence of knowing about the water
contamination plays is unknown. The same questionnaire has been administered to
an "exposed" and "non exposed" group of individuals in another part of New Jersey
where water contamination was initially suspected (Somerset County). The results
from that study are similar to the ones found at Price's Pit, in that the "exposed"
group also has an increased number of reported symptoms. After reviewing the
water data, however, the "exposed" group in Somerset County was found not to
have any water contamination. It is interesting to note the same increase in
reported symptoms among individuals that thought their drinking water was
contaminated with that found in individuals who do have low level contamination of
their water. The similarity of these results suggests that increased concern or
stress may be a more important factor in the etiology of health complaints among
individuals with low level water contamination than previously considered.
The actual etiology of the increased symptoms in a practical sense may not
really be that important. After drinking water contamination is found, individuals
are instructed not to use the contaminated water and are provided with alternate
forms of water to prevent the possible long term potential chronic effect of
continued exposure. This substitution of non contaminated water should alleviate
the symptoms whether they are of toxicological or psychological origin. We are
reassured by the absence of increased chronic health effects or adverse reproduc-
tive effects. With the low levels and comparatively short duration of exposure, we
feel that the risk in the future of developing increased chronic health effects from
the past exposure to the contaminated water is extremely unlikely. Individuals who
do have persistence of symptoms should seek medical consultation with their
personal physician as they may have some undiagnosed medical condition causing
these problems.
In conclusion, we see no long term adverse health outcomes developing in
residents living adjacent to Price's Pit as a consequence of their drinking water
formerly being contaminated. The increase in reported symptoms can be
attributed to some combination of toxicological and psychological factors. "The
provision for a clean water supply should alleviate these symptoms. Future work
which would include a followup questionnaire to assess the expected remission of
symptoms is being considered.
-------
TABLE I
PRICE STUDY DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION SURVEYED
EXPOSED AND UNEX.POSED
EXPOSED POPULATION UNEXPOSED POPULATION
TO PRICE'S LANDFILL
Total Sample Size
Of Households
Respondent
Households
Non- Respondent
Households
Sex
Male
Female
Total Respondents
AG E Male Female
0-9 7 (12.3%) 6 (9.*%)
10-19 16(28.1%) 15(23.*%)
20-59 2* (42.1%) 30 (46.9%)
60+ 10 (17.5%) 13 (20.3%)
Total 57 (100%) 64 (100%)
Tobacco
Use and /or
Chemical
Exoosure Male Female
Yes 25 (43.9%) 13 (20.3%)
No 32(56.1%) 51(79.7%)
Total
Respond-
ents 57(100%) 64(100%)
Bothered By Taste
Yes 56
No 65
Total
Respond- 121
ent .
56 (100%)
38 (67.9%)
18 (32.1%)
15 Vacant (26.8%)
3. Refusals (5.3%)
57 (47.1%)
64 (52>9%)
121 (100%)
Total Male
13 (10.7%) 13 (25.5%)
31(25.6%) 11(21.6%)
54 (44.6%) 23 (45.1%)
23(19.1%) 4(7.8%)
121 (100%) 51 (100%)
Total Male
38(31.4%) 19(37.3%)
83 (68.6%) 32 (62.7%)
121 (100%) 51 (100%)
-
(46.3%)
(53.7%)
(100%)
TO PRICE'S LANDFILL
53 (100%)
40 (75.5%)
13 (24.5%)
4 Vacant (7.5%)
9 Refusals (17.0%)
51 (41.5%)
72 (58.5%)
123 (100%)
Female Total
11 (15.3%) 24 (19.5%)
14 (19.4%) 25 (20.3%)
38 (52.8%) 61 (49.6%)
9(12.5%) 13(10.6%)
72(100%) 123(100%)
Female Total
21 (29.2%) 40 (32.5%)
51 (70.8%) 83 (67.5%)
72(100%) 123(100%)
6 (4.9%)
117 (95.1%)
123 (100%)
-------
TADLE.II
HATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX, AND FREQUENTCY
PRICE STUDY RELATIVE RISKS OP REPORTED SYMPTOMATOLOGY
(ALL COMPARISONS ARE HAUB TO TUB AP PROP IRATELY MATCHED CONTROL CROUP.)
OP COMPLAINTS
(ALL RELATIVE RISKS
ARE AGE-ADJUSED)
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE HALE t
FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE USERS
PRIVATE HELL HATEH*
CURRENT HALE USERS
PRIVATE HELL HATER*
FORMEfc FEMALE USERS
PRIVATE HELL HATER*
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE HELL HATER*
1
EX-
POSED
64
64
64
57
57
57
121
121
121
14
14
11
11
47
47
41
4)
YES
Bothered
Freqently
Bothered
Saw Physician
Bothered
Frequently
Bothered
Saw Physician
Bothered
Frequently
Bothered
Saw Physician
Bothered
Frequently
bothered
Bothered
Frequently
Bothered
Bothered
Frequently
Bothered
Bothered
Frequently
Bothered
BYE
IRRI-
TATION
2.02
2.28
0.40
1.67
2.34
1.18
1.96«
2.36*
1.00
3.99*
4.44
1.25
1.10
1.61
1.51
1.82
2.29
NASAL
IRRI-
TATION
0.93
2.29
0.69
1.48
14.74*
0.72
1.11
3.24*
0.68
2.05
8.75*
0.49
4.16"
0.72
1.57
1.96
14.64*
RAflll
4.12*
6.06*
1.74
2.04
2.72
0.82
3.04*
4.17*
1.26
11.32*
8.80*
0.30
0.00
3.24*
3.84
2.91*
3.82
SKIN
IRRI-
TATION
7.13*
4.J3
3.35
2.46
3.06
1.62
4.21*
3.62*
2.46
2.72
0.00
0.41
0.00
9.12*
6.40*
3.51*
4.01
TIRED-
NESS
1.47
2.75*
1.49
1.99
2.39
0.93
1.67
2.61*
1.21
3.66*
6.38*
0.60
0.59
1.14
2.13
2.66*
3.14*
JOINT
PAIN
2.27*
3.62*
1.26
2.35
3.29
1.33
2.12*
3.19*.
1.11
2.41
4.25
1.48
0.86
2.23
3.27*
_•
2.40
4.30*
MUSCLE
PAIN
1.79
1.29
0.80
8.19*
2.16*
1.25
0.87
4.36*
i.'u
2.58
1.34
1.16
11.36*
0.00
NAU-
SEA
3.18*
3.95
1.66
2.23
1.29
2.78*
2.51
1.68
3.76*
0.00
0.57
0.00
2.86*
4.98*
3.01
1.71
DIAR-
RHEA
1.18
1.08
1.06
2.65
0.66
1.45
0.90
1.41
0.28
0.00
2.40
S.OO
1.52
1.32
2.84
0.00
OF
APPE-
TITE
1.94
1.92
1.76
2.41
7.80*
2.23
2.44*
4.06*
2.18
3.54
4.50
3.14
15.00^
1.89
1.87
1.90
4.71
ABDOH-
HGKT.
LOSS
2.17
1.69
1.97
1.13
0.0
1.71
2.28
1.32
0.00
0.00
1.26
0.00
2.91*
1.91
1.00
I HAL
PAIN
2.79*
1.60
.1.39
2.49
3.37
4.09
2.79*
2.6ii
1.85
2.74
9.00
0.48
1.61
2.92*
2.51
3.09*
3.32
ICAL NANCY
PROB- PROB-
OTHER LEMS LEMS
1.55
1.65
1.37 1.15 2.09
3.03
0.75 0.62
1.74
2.64
1.17 0.86
0.00
0.00
2.22
0.00
1.87
2.02
2.81
[lOTAL EXPOSED • 12llBotheted • Positive report regardless of frequency (dally, weekly, Monthly, and seldoo)
rOTAL UNEXPOSED - 123J Frequently bothered • Frequent complaints (dally or weekly)
• - Crude Hate
• (Three fenalea and one dale did not respond to water usage question at Interview)
-------
TABLE III
Medical Problem
PRICE STUDY
REPORTED MEDICAL PROBLEMS
FOR
EXPOSED AND UNEXPOSED POPULATIONS
Exposed - 121
Unexoosed - 123
9 % 9 %
Thyroid Problem
Hypertension
"Back Problems"
Dermatitis
Edema
"Sarcoidosis"
Arthritis
Diabetes
Heart Problem
Hiatal Hernia
Allergies
Asthma
"Orange Peel"
Eye Problem
Cholycystectomy
Bronchitis
Seizure Disorder
"Bowel Problem"
CVA
Ulcers
Gallstones
Tumors
Glaucoma
Eczema
Anemia
1
: 7
1
1
1
1
7
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
-
• -
-
-
-
^
O.S
5.8
0.8
O.S
0.8
0.8
5.8
2.5
2.5
0.8
2.5
1.7
0.8
1.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
7
1
2
-
1
9
4
2
-
6
1
-
-
-
3
-
I
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
-
5.7
0.8
1.6
-
0.8
7.3
3.3
1.6
-
4.9
0.8
-
-
-
2.4
-
0.8
1.6
2.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
0.8
-------
TABLE IV
PRICE STUDY
REPORTED PREGNANCY PROBLEMS IN EXPOSED
AND
UNEXPOSED AREAS BY NUMBER AND PERCENT
EXPOSED AREA UNEXPOSED AREA
PREGNANCY PROBLEM RESPONDING - 52 RESPONDING - 51
Unable to Conceive 1 1.9 -
C-Section 2 3.8 1 1.9
"Large Birth" 1 1.9
"Pains" 1 1.9
No Description • 1 1.9
Toxemia - 1 1.9
Tumor 1 1.9
Miscarriage 1 1.9 1 1.9
TOTAL 7 13.5 5 9.8
-------
-------
\\\^^^fe^^ *2
\\Nxr>nHfe-
iv-> ^1^
STUDY AREA NORIH
NORTHEAST OF SITE
PRICE'S LANDFILL
PRICL LANDFILL
E.GG HARBOR
-------
Stai* of 3
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
' JOHN riTCH PLAZA
SH.RL6V A. MAVKR. M.O.. M.P.M. CN J«0. TRtNTON. N.J. OS6M
COMMISSIONER
CONSENT FORM
I have been informed that the New Jersey State Department
of Health is conducting a study of environmental factors and their
effect on the health of individuals. This study involves obtaining
information from me about my residence, and health, as well as some
information about other substances I may have been exposed to. The
interview will require approximately 15 minutes of my time. I order-
stand it may be necessary to contact me again.
I have agreed to take part in this study and to qivc information
to the interviewer understanding tliat:
1. My responses will be kept completely confidential.
2. My participation is voluntary and I am free to discontinue
participation at any time.
3. The information in this study will be summarized by New
Jersey State Department of Health to determine whether
environmental factors in this area may be contributing to
health problems.
Name (Print)
Participant Signature
Date:
-------
Subject * 1
2
2
4
5
6
Into rvi ever's
Name
Resocr.dent' s Nan>e
Address
filing address if diff rent
Now I want to ask you about all persons who live in this household.
(Interviewer to circle race of household here: White Non-white)
What are the names of all persons who live here?
What are the ages?
Does or did anyone smoke cigarettes regularly (at least once a day for a
year or 20 packs in a lifetime.) ?
( CODE 1 = Current Smoker
2 = Ex smoker (quit more than 1 year ago.)
3 = Non-smoker
DOGS anyone in this household have a regular exposure either at a job or
hobby to chemicals?
( Code 1 « At job 2 = Hobby . 3 = None )
Dust or
Smoking Clerical
Name Age Sex Status Exposure
-------
What is the source of your water for showering, bathing and washing dishes?
(If water is from different sources check more than one box and indicate percentage
for all sources and indicate year)
Private well / 7 Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr.
Municipal water . / 7 Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr.
Bottled water / 7 Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr.
Other / 7 ' Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr.
What is the source of the water you use for cooking and drinking?
(If water is from different sources check more than one box and indicate percentage
for all sources and indicate year)
Private well / 7 Mo. . Yr. to Mo. Yr.
Municipal well / 7 Mo. Yr. to MO. Yr.
Bottled water / 7 Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr.
Other / 7 Mo. Yr. to Mo. Yr. „.
Have you been informed that your water is contaminated? Yes No
If yes, Date I /
day Mo. Yr.
-------
Household
Subject
Are you bothered by aiy of the following:
If yes, to any of the below symptoms, ask: How frequently does these
symptoms occur?
Code: 1 = Seldom
2 = Monthly
3 = Weekly
4 » Daily
Have you been bothered by these symptoms?
Eye irritation (itchy, red or watery eyes)
Nasal irritation (sneezing, runny nose or
stuffness)
Skin rash
Skin irritation (redness)
Tiredness
Pain in joints
Pain in muscles
Nausea
Diarrhea
Loss of appetite
Loss of weight (without dieting)
Stomach pain
Other gastrointestinal problems
(specify)
Seen by
Frequency physician
Yes No of Symptom Yes No
Have you been told by a physician that you have a medical problem?
Yes No If yes, name of physician and phone number.
If yes, describe condition and date of diagnosis.
For any women living in the house: Have you had trouble becoming pregnant or with a
pregnancy? Yes No
If yes, describe and list years.
Have you ever been bothered by the taste of water in this community? Yes No
-------
These are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything else
that I haven't asked you about that you think is important?
In case I've forccttan to ask you something and :ny supervisor needs to
call you back, Tay I have a chcne number and a ccnvient time to reach
you?
Phone
Best Ti« - - AM
PSI6J
-------
PRICE STUDY . ' APPENDI1
EYE IRRITATION - BY NUMBER
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
OF CASES. PERCENT AND RELATIVE
EXPOSED
//
28
- 12
16
22
13
11
50
25
27
7
3
4
2
19
7
17
10
%
43.8
18.8
25.0
38.6
. 22.8
19.3
41.3
20.7
22.3
50.0
21.4
30.8
15.4
40.4
14.9
39.5
23.3
RISK
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
//
19
6
16
11
5
7
30
11
23
19
6
11
5
19
6
11
5
%
26.4
8.3
22.2
21.6
9.8
13.7
24.4
8.9
18.7
26.4
8.3
21.6
9.8
26.4
8.3
21.6
9.8
2.02
2.28
0.40
1.87
2.34
1.18
1.96*
2.36*
1.00
3.99*
4.44
1.25
1.10
1.61
1.53
1.82
2.29
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
NASAL IRRITATION
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
-
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
- BY NUMBER OF CASES.
//
23
10
13
21
8
9
44
18
22
8
3
2
1
14
6
19
7
EXPOSED
%
35.9
15.6
20.3
36.8
• 14.0
15.8
36.4
14.9
18.2
57.1
21.4
15.4
-
29.8
12.8
44.2
16.3
PERCENT AND
RELATIVE RISK
UNEXPOSED
//
26
5
19
13
1
9
39
6
28
26
5
13
1
26
5
13
1
%
36.1
6.9
26.4
25.5
2.0
17.6
31.7
4.9
22.8
36.1
6.9
25.5
2.0 .
36.1
6.9
25.5
2.0
RELATIVE RISK
0.93
2.29
0.69
1.48
14.78*
0.72
1.11
3.24*
0.68
2.05
8.75*
0.49
4.16
0.72
1.57
1.96
14.64*
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE
RASH - BY NUMBER OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PR 1C EM ALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE '
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
EXPOSED
//
22
13
8
20
7
7
42
20
15
6
5
1
0
14
6
19
7
%
34. 4
20.3
12.5
35.1
• 12.3
12.3
34.7
16.5
12.4
42.9
35.7
7.7
-
29.8
12.8
44.2
16.3
UNEXPOSED
//
8
3
6
10
2
7
18
5
13
8
3
10
2
8
3
10
2
%
11. 1
4.2
8.3
19.6
3.9
14.7
14.6
4.1
10.6
11. 1
4.2
19.6
3.9
11. 1
4.2
19.6
3.9
RELATIVE RISK
4.12*
6.06*
1.74
2.04
2.72
0.82
3.04*
4.17*
1.26
11.32*
8.80*
0.30
0.00
3.24*
3.84
•
2.91*
3.82
WFLL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
SKIN IRRITATION - BY NUMBER OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
EXPOSED
if %
17 : 26.6
7 10.9
7 10.9
13 22.8
7 . 12.3
4 7.0
30 24.8
14 11.6
11 9.1
2 14.3
0
1 7.7
0
15 31.9
7 14.9
12 27.9
7 16.3
RISK
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
ft
4
2
3
5
2
2
9
4
5
4
2
5"
2
4
2
5
2
%
5.6
2.8
4.2
9.8
3.9
3.9
7.3
3.3
4.1
5.6
2.8
9.8
3.9
5.6
2.8
9.8
3.9
7.13*
4.33
3.35
2.46
3.06
1.62
4.21*
3.62*
2.46
2.72
0.00
0.41
0.00
9.32*
6.40*
3.51*
4.01
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO.TABLE II
TIREDNESS - BY NUMBER OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PR IV ATE
EXPOSED
8
27
22
12
24
20
4
51
42
16
8
7
3
2
18
14
20
17
96
42.2
3*.*
18.3
42.1
35.1
* 7.0
42.1
34.7
13.2
57.1
50.0
23.1
15.4
38.3
29.8
46.5
39.5
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
0
23
11
9
12
8
3
35
19
12
23
11
12
8
23
11
12 .
8
%
31.9
15.3
12.5
23.5
15.7
5.9
28.5
15.4
9.8
31.9
15.3
23.5
15.7
31.9
15.3
23.5
15.7
1.47
2.75*
1.49
1.99
2.39
0.93
1.67
2.61*
1.21
3.66*
6.38*
0.60
0.59
1.14
2.13
2.66*
3.14*
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
JOINT PAIN - BY NUMBER OF
CASES, PERCENT AND
WATER USE BY SOURCE EXPOSED
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS //
29
PRICE FEMALE 19
18
16
PRICE MALE 9
... *
45
PRICE MALE 28
AND FEMALE 22
CURRENT FEMALE 6
USERS - PRIVATE 4
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE 3
USERS - PRIVATE 1
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE 22
USERS - PRIVATE 14
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS 12
PRIVATE 7
%
45.3
29.7
28.1
28.1
15.8
7.0
37.2
23.1
18.2
42.9
28.6
23.1
7.7
46.8
29.8
27.9 .
16.3
RELATIVE RISK
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
0
18
7
15
6
3
2
24
10
17
18
7
6
3
18
7
6
3
•*
25.0
9.7
20.8
11.8
5.9
3.9
19.5
8.1 -
13.8
25.0
9.7
11.8
5.9
. 25.0
9.7
11.8
5.9
2.27*
3.62*
1.26
2.35
3.29
1.33
2.12*
3.19*
1.11
2.41
4.25
•
1.48
0.86
2.23
3.27*
2.40
4.30*
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
MUSCLE PAIN - BY NUMBER OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COM PLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
i
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WATER WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE
PRIVATE
EXPOSED
9
19
6
8
10
I
2
29
7
10
7
I
1
1
12
5
9
0
%
29.7
9.*
12.5
17.5
17.5
3.5
23.9
5.8
8.3
50.0
7.1
7.7
7.7
25.5
10.6
20.9
—
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
// - %
13 18.1 1.79
5 6.9 1.29
10 13.9 0.80
* 1 2.0 8.19*
0 - «
0
If . 11.* 2.16*
5 ft.l 1.25
10 8.1 0.87
13 18.1 4.36*
5 6.9 1.12
I 2.0 2.58
0 - «•
13' 18.1 1.34
5 6.9 1.36
1 2.0 11.36*
0 - 0.00
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
NAUSEA - BY NUMBER OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
-
PRICE MALE
-
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
EXPOSED
*
21
7
9
13
3
2
34
10
11
5
0
1
0
14
7
12
3
%
32.8
10.9
13.1
22.8
5.3
* 3.5
28.1
8.3
9.1
35.7
-
7.7
-
29.8
14.9
27.9
7.0
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
*
9
2
6
5
2
0
14
4
6
9
2
5
2
9
2
5
2
96
12.5
2.8
8.3
9.8
3.9
-
11.4
3.3
4.9
12.5
2.8
9.8
4.1
12.5
2.8
9.8
3.9
3.18*
3.95
1.66
2.23
1.29
00
2.78*
2.51
1.68
3.76*
0.00
0.57
0.00
2.S6*
4.98*
3.01
1.71
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY • APPENDIX TO TABLE II
DIARRHEA - BY
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
NUMBER
*
13
2-
5
9
1
2
22
3
7
1
0
2
1
11
2
7
0
OF CASES,
EXPOSED
%
: 20.
3.
7.
15.
1.
3.
18.
2.
5.
7.
-
15.
7.
23.
*.
16.
^
PERCENT AND
RELATIVE RISK ™
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
*
3 13
1 2
8 5
8 3
8 1
5 0
2 16
5 3
8 5
1 13
2
* 3
7 1
* 13
3 2
3 3
1
%
18.1 1.18
2.8 1.08
6.9 1.06
5.9 2.65
2.0 0.66
" - -
13.0 l.*5
2.* 0.90
*.l 1.41
18.1 0.28
2.8 0.00
5.9 2.*0
2.0 5.00
18.1 1.52
2.8 1.32
5.9 2.8*
2.0 0.00
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY
APPENDIX TO TABLE II
LOSS OF APPETITE - BY NUMBER
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
-
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
EXPOSED
it
7
4
2
16
9
5
23
13
7
2
1
5
3
5
3
10
5
%
; 10.9
6.3
3.1 "
28.1
4 15.8
8.8
19.0
10.7
5.8
14.3
7.1
38.5
23.1
10.6
6.4
23.3
11.6
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
*
4
2
1
6
I
2
10
3
3
4
2
6
1
4
2
6
1
*
5.6
2.8
1.4
11.8
2.0
3.9
8.1
2.4
2.4
5.6
2.8
11.8
2.0
5.6
2.8
11.8
2.0
1.94
1.92
1.76
2.41
7.80*
2.23
2.44*
4.06*
2.18
3.5a
4.50
3.14
15.00x*
1.S9
1.37
1.90
4.73
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE
WEIGHT LOSS - BY
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE '
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
NUMBER OF CASES.
0
11
2
7
3
1
0
1*
3
7
0
0
1
0
. 11
2
2
1
EXPOSED
%
: 17.2
3.1
10.9
5.3
1.8
-
11.6
2.5
5.8
-
-
7.7
-
23.4
ft. 3
ft. 7
2.3
PERCENT AND
RELATIVE
UN EX POSED
//
6
1
ft
2
0
" 1
8
1
5
- 6
1
2
0
6
1
2
0
%
8.3
l.ft
5.6
3.9
-
2.0
6.5
0.8
ft.l*
8.3
l.ft
3.9
-
9.1
l.ft
3.9
„
RISK ^
RELATIVE RISK
2.17
1.69
1.97
1.13
-
0.0
1.71
2.28
1.32
0.00
0.00
1.26
0.00
2.91*
. 1.91
1.00
•0
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
ABDOMINAL PAIN - BY NUMBER
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COM PLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
.
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
OF CASES, PERCENT AND RELATIVE
EXPOSED
//
15
4
6
15
8
5
30
12
11
3
0
1
1
11
4
13
6
%
: 23.*
6.3
9.*
26.3
14.0
8.8
2*. 8
9.9
9.1
21.4
-
7.7
7.7
23.4
8.5
30.2
14.0
RISK
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
//
7
3
5
6
2
1
13
5
6
7
3
6
2
7
3
6
2'
%
9.7
4.2
6.9
11.8
3.9
2.0
10.6
»•!
4.9
9.7
4.2
11.8
3.9
9.7
4.2
11.8
3.9
2.79*
1.80
1.39
2.49
3.37
4.09
2.79*
2.66
1.85
2.74
0.00
0.48
1.61
2.92*
2.51
3.09*
3.32
WELL WATER
-------
PRICE STUDY APPENDIX TO TABLE II
OTHER - BY NUMBER OF CASES. PERCENT AND RELATIVE RISK
WATER USE BY SOURCE
SEX AND FREQUENCY
OF COMPLAINTS
PRICE FEMALE
PRICE MALE
PRICE MALE
AND FEMALE
CURRENT FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
CURRENT MALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER FEMALE
USERS - PRIVATE
WELL WATER
FORMER MALE USERS
PRIVATE
EXPOSED .
f %
8 12.5
3 4.7
5 7.8
5 8.8
3 5.3
2 ' 3.5
13 10.7
6 5.0
7 5.8
0
0
I 7.7
0
7 14.9
3 • 6.4
4 9.3
3 7.0
UNEXPOSED RELATIVE RISK
*
6
2
4
1
0
1
7
2
5
6
2
1
0
6
2
1
0
%
8.3
2.8
5.6
2.0
-
2.0
5.7
1.6
4.1
8.3
2.8
2.0
-
8.3
2.8
2.0
—
1.55
1.65
1.37
3.03
00
0.75
1.74
2.64
1.17 '
0.00
0.00
2.22
0.00
1.87
2.02
2:83
00
WELL WATER
-------
Appendix B
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FACT SHEET
on the"" completion of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price Landfill site
Pleasantville City and Egg Harbor Township
Atlantic County
Price Landfill is a 26-acre site originally mined for sand and gravel. The site
became a commercial landfill receiving municipal solid waste in 1969. In May,
1971, the landfill- began to accept bulk and drummed liquid and solid chemical
wastes. Available information indicates that these wastes included industrial
chemicals, sludges, oils, greases and sewage. Total quantities dumped are
estimated to be at least nine million gallons. Chemical waste disposal opera-
tions were terminated in November, 1972; sludge disposal was terminated in May,
1973 and municipal waste disposal was terminated in 1976. In December, 1982 the
Price Landfill site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Of 97 New Jersey sites on
the NPL, this site ranks third. ,.
Monitoring data indicates considerable ground water contamination exists in the
vicinity of Price Landfill. ' Among the contaminants present are benzene, cadmium,
chloroform, dichloroethylene, lead, 1-2-transdichloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride and acetone. The ground water flow in the area of the landfill is
complex, with three separate aquifer formations located within 150 feet from the
surface. The plume of contamination extends almost one mile from the site and
the contaminants tend to move in an east-northeast direction.
In December, 1981, USEPA commissioned a contractor, Camp, Dresser and McKee
(CDM) , to prepare a two-part study addressing: 1) the immediate measures
necessary to ensure a supply of uncontaminated water to affected communities for
the summer of 1982 and 2) the long-term remedial solutions necessary to protect
the water supply and to remediate the discharge of contaminants from the
landfill.
During April, 1982, CDM issued a report outlining initial measures necessary to
ensure the summer water supply: upgrading of the water treatment plant, the
redevelopment of three production wells, installation of a water supply system
interconnection, provision of standby carbon filter units and implementation of
water conservation measures and a ground water monitoring program. These
measures were successfully implemented.
In June, 1983, CDM issued a second report summarizing its full investigative
study. This included development of computer ground water flow models designed to
assess the movement of contaminants leaching from the landfill and an evaluation
of ten remedial alternatives. This study led to a decision to relocate the
Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA) wells. From the ten remedial
alternatives outlined in the study, four were selected for further investigation
and the computer models were recalibrated to 1984 field conditions to predict
behavior of each of these alternative courses of action. These four
were studied in depth during a subsequent remedial investigation and feasibility
over. . .
\t'u Jrr\<.-\ I* All Equal Opportunity Lmplnytr •
-------
- J-
In each case, the exact configuration cf the extracticr, velln e ] erf, ir.cludi:-.--: :ue
number of wells, the individual well punrping rates and the specific locat i<;:-.s .
both horizontally and vertically within the aquifer system, are subj^cti to be
addressed by the- engineering design of the selected alternative.
Copies of CDM's final report are available for public review at the following
locations:
1. Office of the Mayor
Egg Harbor Township Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, NJ 08221
2. Office of the City Clerk
18 North First Street
Pleasantville City, NJ 08232
3. Office of the City Clerk
City -Hall
Absecon, NJ 08201 .
4. Atlantic City Public Library
1 North Tennessee Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and USEPA are
recommending implementation of Alternative 2. A public meeting to discuss this
report will be held in July and followed by a 21-day comment period during which
comments on the report will be received by NJDEP. They should be addressed to:
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Office of Community Relations
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
432 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
For further information contact Susan Gall, Office of Community Relations,
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation, at (609) 633-2320.
6/86
NJDEP
-------
Appendix C
-------
Grace Singer
Office of C c urnur. i t y Relations
Division if Hazardous Site Mitigation
Department of I rw i. r o nm e n t a i Protection
Price 3 Pit Remediation Alternative 2, Plume Abatement, seems
to be the most sound measure, financially and . t echrs i c * 1 I y . The
containment wall appears grandiose and not necessarily more
effective. Capping the site would only delay the inevitable
problem and should not be done. Rather, as proposed in Alternative
4, the more dilute water of the deep wells should be used to flush
the site to enhance the removal of the contamination.
! would like to see a more aggressive approach at the site
itself, hov/ever. An attempt should be made to exhume the source of
the pollution by digging d own to t h'e surface of the pi ume , slightly
downstream, and attacking the heaviest concentrations directly
Discharge of the deep well water, slight y upstream, should help to
float the plume and lead to quickest remediation.
Of more concern is the county:s new dump proposal and the
department's lack of guidance in th*e selection process. Less than a
mile away, a new resource recovery plant is planned Since the plant
itself would require only 20 or so acres, but 265 are being
purchased, one can only assume the Doughty Road Site will also be
used to landfill the ash from the plant This site is cut in half by
Jarre t t • s Run, a tributary to Absecon Creek, and is flood prone Tar
more suitable for landfill purposes is the Mill Road site, across the
street ''Delilah Rd '> from Price's Pit Remediation measures which
you are now undertaking would ilso contain any grsundwater
contamination which might develop in the future from the H i Ii Road
dump site. It seems far preferable t 3 use an area ;ust upstream from
one that is 2. I r e a d y polluted and undergoing cleanup . rather than a
relatively clean one. I would hope that the Department :f
C n v i r o nme n t a 1 Protection b e a i n s to protect the e n v i r o nit e r. t before a
problem exists, rather than attempt remediation after it is- too late.
Dob P i i i p c i a k
2001 Shore Rd.
I n c o s u r e > Li nwc o d . N-J 0322
-------
• ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
^ RESOURCE RECOVERY SITING ANALYSIS
it AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
JUNE 1986
DRAFT
Prepared For;
ACUA ATLANTIC COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORltY
1701 Absecon Boulevard
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
Prepared by:
A Joint Ventun
STV/SANDCRS & THOMAS
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS. 11 ROBINSON STREET, POTTSTOWN. PENNSYLVANIA 19464
PROJECT NO.: 5472
THE TARQUZNI ORGANIZATION
ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS. 1812 FEDERAL STREET. CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08105
ROGERS. GOLDEN A HALPERN
ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
1216 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107
PROJECT NO 175.09
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Targuini Organization • Rogers, Golden &. Halpem
A hint Venture
1.4.1 Site A; Doughty Rrtari
GENERAL LOCATION: In Egg Harbor Township east of the Parkway and Doughty Rd.
ESTIMATED SIZE: Approximately 265 acres
VEGETATION: Pine-oak forest; hardwood swamp forest
ON-SITE USES: Active and Inactive excavations
ADJACENT LAND USES: Vacant, forested land; power lines and highways
SURROUNDING DENSITY (within 1/4 ml)*: Low - moderate (10 - 20 dwellings)
TRUCK ACCESS: From the Islands: Absecon Blvd.-Del 11 ah Rd.-Doughty Rd. or
Absecon Blvd.-Westcoat Rd.-Doughty Rd.
From the mainland: Expressway-Del 11 ah Rd.-Doughty Rd.
TRAFFIC CONSTRAINTS: Traffic congestion along Doughty Rd.; awkward Inter-
section at Dcrughty and Delilah Rds. 1,000 feet to
the south; Doughty Rd. unimproved at site
ACQUISITION CONSTRAINTS: Low (two principal owners)
SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY: Doughty Rd. Pumping Station 1.2 miles to the
west
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY: N.J. Water Co. l2-1nch line cm Del Hah
Rd. 1,200 ft. to the south
PROXIMITY TO SUBSTATIONS/ENERGY MARKETS: Lewis substation 4,000 feet to the
southeast.
STATE PERMITTING JURISDICTIONS: CAFRA
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: Demolition landfill proposed on-site 1n 1981.; 264-unit
residential development with 37,000 sq. ft. office
building proposed 2,000 ft. to the northeast 1n 1985
OTHER CONSTRAINTS: Approximately 40* of the site 1s restricted from use by
structures 263 feet 1n height due to proximity to
Atlantic City International Airport; potential for on-
site contamination from nearby disposal pit being
Investigated (may require ECRA permit); Stream and Flood
Hazard Area bisects site
*DENSITY CLASSIFICATIONS: Low: fewer than 10 dwellings
(for all sites) Low - moderate: 10 - 19 dwellings
Moderate: 20 - 29 dwellings
Moderate - high: 30 - 39 dwellings
High: 40 or more dwellings
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Targuini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpern
A hint Venture
^L-
Mgure 1.12 Site A: Doughty Road
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Targuini Organization • Ror/ers, Golden & Halpern
A Joint Venture
1.4.2 Site B; Mm RQafl
GENERAL LOCATION: In Pleasantvllle at ^the Egg Harbor Township line north of
the Atlantic City Expressway
ESTIMATED SIZE: Approximately 90 acres
VEGETATION: Agricultural/urban land
ON-SITE USES: Inactive excavations
ADJACENT LAND USES: Industrial and commercial development; h1ghv/ays and
related uses
SURROUNDING DENSITY (within 1/4 ml): High (greater than 40 dwellings)
TRUCK ACCESS: From the Islands: Expressway or Del 11 ah Rd. to Mill Rd.
From the mainland: Expressway or US Rte 40/322 to Delilah Rd.
TRAFFIC CONSTRAINTS: Potential for shared access from A.C. Expressway main-
tenance yard; Improvements planned to upgrade Delilah
Rd. right-of-way and Intersections; traffic volumes 'on
adjacent streets moderate; westbound trucks exiting the
Expressway will be helped by proposed third lane
ACQUISITION CONSTRAINTS: Low (Predominant area under single ownership)
SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY: Two separate 8-1nch lines available, both on
Mill Rd. along eastern boundary of &1te
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY: N.J. Water Co. l2-1nch line on Delilah
Rd. along northern boundary of site
PROXIMITY TO SUBSTATIONS/ENERGY MARKETS: Lewis substation 2,000 feet to the
north
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: Proposed bus parking and maintenance facility next to
site at southeast corner, Del Hah and Mill roads
(1986); 400-un1t townhouse/condominlum complex
proposed across Mill Road from site (not y«
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Tarquini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpem
A Joint Venture
Figure 1.13 Site B: Mill Road
-------
W
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Targuini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpern
A Joint Venture
bordered by the Black horse Pike (US 40/322) on the no"th, Englis
Creek-Port Republic Road (Rt 575) on the east, the fontier Pennsyl
vania-Reading Seashore Lines right-of-way on the south, and the
Township Limits on the west.
Owner: Atlantic Electric Company
1600 Pac ific Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ
Tot a1 Area: About 380 acres within a somewhat regularly shaped
pa-eel.
1.7.3
Proposed Facility Ar6a: 9?.9 acres
Facility - Related Factors
1.7.3.1 Doughty Road
Avai1 able Land Area: •
Availability is a function of a number of factors. But, consider-
ing only parcel size, given the need for twenty acres, the Doughty
Road site has about 280 acres in excess of that which is neces-
sary. However, please see "Flooding Susceptibility," and "An-po
Restriction Zones," below.
Site Traffic Patterns and Access:
Access to the site is provided via Delilah and Doughty Roads on
the southwest. Access might be provided via Westcoat .and Doughty
Roads on the northwest, Fire Road and Pleasant Avenue on the
northeast, and Fire and Risley Roads on the east if existing earth
berms were removed.
Westcoat, Delilah and Fire roads are county roads. Each is a
2-lane bituminous asphalt hiahway without curb and gutter, nor
controlled frontage access. Delilah and Fi-e Roads are inadecuate
for existing and projected traffic volumes, (particularly during
rush hours), and type (more and more industrial).
Visibility and turning lane storage are danoerously restricted,
particularly at the intersections of Doughty/Delilah Roads, and
Fire/Deli1 ah Roads.
The results of the Delilah Road Corridor Study are expected from
• the Atlantic County Planning Department sometime during summer,
1986, and will include recommendations which will alleviate the
problems described above.
1-61
-------
STV/Sanden & Thomas • The Targuini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpern
A hint Venture
Within the site, Doughty Road is a dirt road providing direct ac-
cess to the interior of the site. It is used by sand and gravel
haulers, and has been used by the occasional surreptitious dumper.
The «"oad has been closed with an earth benn at its north end
(Westcoat Road) in an attempt to curtail access and illegal dump-
ing. Doughty Road might be incorporated with the plan of the pro-
posed facility. If it is, then it should be paved.
Risley Road is a dirt road leading into the site from Fire Road on
the east. It has been closed with an earth berm at the property
line and if it is incorporated with the plan of the proposed
facility, it should be paved.
Utilities:
Sewer service is not directly available to the Doughty Road site.
Connection miqht be made at the Delilah Road Pump Station, about
one and one-half miles west of Fire Road on Delilah Road. Another
connection might be m.ade with the Washington Avenue T^unk Line,
about one and one-quarter miles to the south. Both potential con-
nections would require crossing either the Garden State Parkwav
or the Atlantic City Expressway. A thir
-------
I
I
I
I
I
!
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Tarquini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpern
A Joint Venture -
Electric Utility Interconnection:
Electric power for on-site use will be generated by the oroposed
facility. Excess power would be fed into Atlantic Electric Co.'s
'system via the Lewis Substation (69KV) located across Fire Road
about 2000 feet from the usac ;e portion (see "Airport Restriction
Zones" below) of the Doughty Road area.'
Solid Waste Transoort Costs:
Relative solid waste transport costs for comparison of a number of
locations can be quickly estimated once a waste centroid is deter-
mined for the area in which the locations are found. Relative
costs can be expressed in terms of how far the locations are from
the centroid. The location furthest from the centroid will have
the highest transoort cost. Please see Section 1.3.2: "Highway
Access/Solid Waste Transportation Cost/Proximity to Ash and Resi-
due Disposal Landfills," for a definition of a waste centroid. As
identified in previous .sections of this report, the centroid for
Atlantic County is located at the interchange between the Garden
State Parkway and the Atlantic City Expressway.
The distance between the Doughty Road site and the solid waste
centroid for Atlantic County is about 7000 feet, (same as Mill
Road, less than McKee City).
Topography and Terrain:
The site is a sand and gravel borrow pit. The majority of the
sue has been strip-excavated to the elevations of various clay
lense stratum, leaving several flat areas or benches with differ-
ences in elevation of from 5 to 30 feet. Spoil with higher clay
content has been stockpiled at certain locations in the site.
The resulting terrain within the pit is irregular with inter-
spersed pockets (some with standing water) and hillocks scattered
about the flats and benches.
The borrow areas are almost totally devoid of vegetation save that
typically associated with highly disturbed and infertile soils.
Within the site, the heaviest and least disturbed vegetation is
associated with the Janets Run stream bed.
Jarrets Run crosses the middle of the site from.the southwest to
the northeast. Field investigation (3/26/86) found a dry stream
bed at the Doughty Road crossing (two 12 inch pipes) on the south-
west, and a flowing stream about five feet wide and six-twelve
inch maximum depth at the Fire Road crossing (24 inch corrugated
metal pipe) on the northeast.
Along the perimeter of the pit, a cross section of the natural
terrain has been exposed to a deoth of from 20 to 25 feet. At the
rim, the overstorv and ground cover (Jack Pine/Red Oak scrub for-
est association) can be dearly seen above the sand and gravel
outwash soils typical of the region.
-------
STV/Sanders & Thomas • The Tarquini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpem
A Joint Venture
The northeastern portion of the site, associated with Janets Run
and a smaller stream, parallel and about 1000 feet to the north is
within a flood prone area. This area is bordered by Fire Road and
Wescoat Road, and the limits between Pleasantville and Egq harbor
Township.
Airport Restriction Zones:
The western 75 percent"of the Doughty Road site is unavailable for
use as a location for the proposed facility's stack (263 feet
high) due to height restrictions associated with the FAA Technical
Center, which lies three miles away toward the northwest.
Regulatory Permitting and Appproval Requirements:
The Doughty Road area falls under the aeqis of the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act, CAFRA (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq). The pro-
posed facility will require submission of an Environmental Impact
Statement to, review by, and permit from the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of Coastal Resources,
Bureau of Coastal Project Review. Detailed consideration will be
required by DEP, Stream Encroachment, as a result of on-site sur-
face water, i.e., Janets Run.
The proposed facility will require submission of a form 7460-1 to;
reviewed by, and permit from the Federal Aviation Administration,
since it will include a structure greater than 200 feet high.
1.7.3.2 Mill Road
Available Land Area:
Availability is a function of a number of factors. But consider-
ing jon_l^ parcel size, given the need for twenty acres the Mill
Road site has about 70 acres in excess of that which is neces-
sary.
Site Traffic Patterns and Access:
Access to the site is available via frontage along Delilah Road on
the north, and frontage along Mill Road on the east.
Delilah Road is a county road. Mill Road is a local collector
road. For a discussion of Delilah road, as well as conditions
applicable to Mill Road (including the Mill and Delilah Roads
intersection), please refer to Section 1.7.3.1: "Doughty Road,
Site Traffic Patterns and Access," in the preceding section.
Utilities:
Two separate eight-inch gravity sewer lines are directly available
to the Mill Road site, yielding a total 16 inches of available
capacity.
-------
]STV/S*nders & Thomas • The Tarquini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpem
A Joint Venture
Capacity could be increased if necessary. Since both lines end on
Mill Road at a ridge which crosses the site, a pumping station
could be built on the site which serves either or both eight-inch
lines. Therefore, sewer seance to the Mill Road site is redun-
dant, as well as sufficient i capacity. Less chance exists for
"interrupted waste management serv\ces due to failure in sewage
treatment service.
One eight-inch line run: easterly along Delilah Road across the
north end of the site. Another branch begins about 500 feet south
of Delilah Road and "Ur>s northerly along Mill Road to join the
eight-inch line coming from the west along Delilah Road. The
merged lines then run northeasterly from the intersection of
Delilah and Mill Road to the plant.
The second separate eight-inch line begins at a point 1000 feet
south of Delilah Road, and runs southerly along Mill Road, turns
east with Mill Road into Martin Terrace, and along Martin Terrace
to Route 9, where it leads northerly along Route 9 to the plant.
Adequate water supply'is available along Delilah Road.
Thermal Energy Users:
Please refer to the above discussion on Thermal Energy Users
under Section 1.7.3.1: "Doughty Road, Site Traffic Patterns and
Access," in the preceding section.
Elect"ic Utility Interconnection:
Electric power for on-site use will be generated by the proposed
facility. Excess power would be fed into Atlantic Electric Com-
pany's system via the Lewis Substation (69kV) located about 2000
feet to the north, across Delilah Road.
Solid Waste Transport Costs:
Relative solid waste transport costs for comparison of a number of
locations can be quickly estimated once a waste centroid is deter-
mined for the area in which the locations are found. Relative
costs can be expressed in terms of how far the locations are from
the centroid. The location furthest from the centroid will have
the highest transport cost. See Section 1.3.2: "Highway
Access/Solid Waste Transportation Cost/Proximity to Ash and
Residue Disposal Landfills," for definition of a waste centroid.
As identified in previous sections of this investigation report,
the centroid for Atlantic County is located at the interchange
between the Garden State Parkway and the Atlantic City Expressway.
The distance between the Mill Road site
troid for Atlantic County is about 7000
Road, Less than McKee City).
and the solid waste cen-
feet, (same as Doughty
1-65
-------
STV/Sanden & Thomas • The Tarquini Organization • Rogers, Golden & Halpem
A Joint Venture
Topography and Terrain:
The Mill Road site is a sand and gravel borrow oit. The majority
of the site has been strip-excavated to the elevations of various
clay Tense stratum, leaving several flat areas or benches with
differences in elevation of from 5 to 30 feet. Spoil with hiqher
clay content has been stockpiled at certain locations in the site.
The resultinq terrain within the pit is irregular with inter-
spersed pockets (some with standing water) and hillocks scattered
about the flats and benches.
The borrow areas are almost totally devoid of vegetation save that
typically associated with highly disturbed and infertile soils.
Within the site, the heaviest and least disturbed vegetation is
found along the western perimeter and at the northwest and south-
west corners.
Along the perimeter of the pit, a c^oss section of the natural
terrain has been exposed to a depth of from 10 to 30 feet. At the
rim, the overstory and qround cover (Jack Pine/Red Oak scrub for-
est, association) can be clearly seen above the sand and gravel
outwash soils typical of the region.
Flooding Susceptibility:
The site is entirely clear of the projected and recorded limits of
flooding due to a 100-year storm.
Airport Restriction Zones:
No portion of the site is unavailable to the proposed facility due
to Airport related restrictions.
Regulatory Permitting and Approval Requirements:
The Mill Road area falls under the aegis of the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act, CAFRA (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq). The pro-
posed facility will require submission of an Environmental Impact
Statement to, review by, and permit f-om the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau
of Coastal Project Review.
The proposed facility will require submission of a Form 7460-1 to,
review by, and permit from the Federal Aviation Administration,
since it will include a structure greater than 200 feet high.
1.7.3.3 McKee City
Available Land Area:
Availability is a function of a number of factors. But consider-
ing only parcel size, qiven the need for twenty acres the McKee
City site has about 360 acres in excess of that which is neces-
sary. However, please see: "Airport Restriction Zones," below.
-------
"f:'.... . . *tntc of ^*cm i/rrsey >:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
,, . . . -DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION •:.-.-
': ' ' '. CN 028. Trenton, N.J. Q8625 • V
-'••-.-. 609-984-2902 • •
':."-• RICHARD C. SALKIE. P.E. '"• ' • ..•*•' '.''-=*
ACTING DIRECTOR ... _ • ' • "' .•>
;" • ; . ' |7 SEP 1986 ' ^'"•:' ..
•'-•;• ' Mr. Bob Filipcsak i . • . :'.":'•./• '. '
-. .•-.- 2001 Shore Road -.' '• . : ..
; . Linwood, NJ 08221 " . . /'' •••'/
' - ; • it ' ' ' • '-_ - ' **•
-v • Dear Mr. Filipczak:. •'•'.',..
: . I would like to thank you for your interest and recent letter regarding reme- •..
'•'] .'"•.'. diation of the Price Landfill Site. This is in response to the concerns you have *~
raiced and will be included as-part of the responsiveness summary for the record
-'•»• ."*..'.• .of 'decision. . - - .- . ',-'.':'.''-'•-••.•' ".:
;^..:. . With regard to impler.ertetion of Alternative 4 (a containment wall with plume
jVj ••-'.' r abatement and flushing), this alternative was removed from consideration in a "
^' ' ' prelir.inary screening of the technical feasibility of suggested 'remedial 'al-
;. terratives. The technical feasibility is questionable with regard to the
'••-.. : proposed flushing design because non-uniform void spaces exist^ within the
v- .landfill materials. When water infiltrates the unsaturated zone it has.a
_,.-. '••; tendency to seek the path of least resistance and would net uniformly filter
_4 .. through the landfill. This results in heavier flushing in some areas and reduced ;
vv>. flushing in 'other areas, compromising the effectiveness of a repirculation ;
system. This non-uniformity cannot be defined adequately to estimate the level .;
> .. of flushing reliability. ; Because of this uncertainty,, this alternative • was',.—'-
.••-/removed from further consideration. ,7., ...,•; . . . .•' -,^ •-. :.: •;•';.''-•, x '. .:•'.
With regard to your suggestion to excavate down to the heaviest concentration of *•-
contaminants and remove these materials, this process is problematic for' en-
.; vircrunental, technical and financial reasons. Excavating the Inndfill to the
;- areas of heaviest : concentration of contamirarts would require excavating the
• entire landfill since ..the specific heavily contaminated areas are not known.
This process would release volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere in an
• uncontrolled manner and is not advisable. Technically, this would require the
.;;* use of heavy construction equipment "and the loading and transporting of rthe
landfill materials , to another site. In addition, this operation would not be .-r
.. cost-effective tectuse remediation of the landfill would still require the .-,
"• pumping and treating of large quantities of groundwater. . The ^recommended -•:
:-. alternative (#2: plume abatement) , will capture the contaminants adjacentVto the';'?V:*
'f-j*.;.;/"..;latidfill and pull back the major section of the plume that has .already moved off "•:•-;.;
r;:":.' site. Because of the characteristics of the. contaminants/ primarily ^their /^j
.^'"'''•••.•'.solubility in water, discharging water" upstream as you suggest may not floa't the *^.
^;- -JV plume and lead to ^he quicVfst remediation. > :.. / " ••• ;-.;r -:~^ --^;'.^;'r:/' _[ V-L ,^.-.-:
1.
-------
With regard to your concerns with Atlantic County's proposed resource recovery
facility, the Department is aware of the er'v^rcrjr.ental sensitivity of the area
and, through existing regulations, will continue to protect the environment. The
proposed Mill Road site is not upstream from the Price Landfill site but rather
crccc-^radlent or adjacent to th« Price site. The siting of this facility ic the
County's re?Fer.cibility. The State's responsibility is to insure compliance with.
torrent environoeT.tal - regulations concerning tho plr.rrJrg, _ construction and
operation of such a facility. . :. ' ":•'•-..
If you have any other Questions, please . feel free to contact me at (609) ,
984-2991. ••".•• '••-•.', :-v>-\-- -:•:•:.-• . • ^ ••-.'.•--.-. . •-.•:••••- . v-'.i: .' -,'- . • .- :
Very truly yours,
Assistant Chief . •
Eureau of Site Operations .'.":• I;.. •
H?17:fb
'*•• . '•••-!& :• '•'.':. '•••'
,; .:^--l>;^-^':
••*- -'^ .
"• -*•' . •***. ^-' ~*~- .'.. '•- •'. "^"l"
''' '^* '•' —' -"" •''- ' i
-------
Appendices D and E
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN. KIPP & SZUCH
MAOIBON AVKNUC
MOMlBTOWN.
O7»«O I»*S
(too tcr
• K*«OI»«.
WA»O
JAMC»C. VTTMCT
WILLIAM O. MAHOI*
CLVM A.
•AIL M.
• LISAMTM C.
• CAM •. ICLLT
MIMWT WCLBOM MA««(T
Jtrr ILLCWTuei
JULLANHC
• CVIM f.
•ATHTA LA «r\.
WILLIAM ». *MCLkrf
JAMC* M.
.
0AV10 „'. COMMOkkT. J«
WILLIAM X. XTATT. J«
kAW'CMCC »• •CILL*
T J. LAULICMT
AC »ALO C. MtAVV
»O L
TlMOTMT •
•oacirr L-
L »»I
»A»LI
•OCC
MCWABH. NIW J(»»fT O'lOt
« O>B(CT DIAL Mu»*C*
4848
OAVIO «.
MNNI»T. KCAKWCV
JANICt MCMTAHA
M 9LIMH TwC'f •
»A»»A«A C •wkC»
L«Of »lt • •U»M«
JAMC M. NAAOIM
•OCf »T W I«MC
•trrv «MH •ewiLLiA««
•*••»•» A MOO*C
LA«*CMC( J MAOT
• CNMCTMJ MO»CBO*»
ifrr jAHt OL*OM
j. AMI*
LkO^O M. TUKMAW
VALOlS J AAUMAMM
•«M««T j. eiccexi
AI4H V. COKMCT
MICMAfL J OUMWC
KATMkgIN A. QBCIN
MA0IC N JACKCON
HkCIN A LINOkAT
A*»C •• J CA&C V
• CviNJ OOONNCLL
CI.INN C CdCI"
DCNMIB • U« "U«A
Cirr A "fC'O
tvtL»N • »TO«C»
CYMTMI* M AUGUST*NC
Dl>.»~ - •OU'Nt
»CLCM C MOtNS
OO««*k.O W «>Cl
CYMTMIA • LU»O
MAHIt O MAKOlMO
jOtt M •O*X«
JOMM K. AN«rr»AM
LOOl J •1AC»OCI>
OAVIO NIU
RAIiCM M BAkMA
JAMC* O MAY
•CO" A «MIT»
MATTHtWJ «"
JOANNC C "Aw
MO»C * CONC
LAUHAO 1 O AL
CTNTNIA A »OTl
• CTCY L. WC'SS
August 4, 1986
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Office of Community Relations
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
New Jersey Department of Environmental
432 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Protection
Re: Price's Landfill, Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville,
Atlantic County, New Jersey
Dear Ms. Singer:
We submit this Comment on the Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for Price's Landfill, on
behalf of some of the defendants, third and fourth party
defendants in United States v. Price, et al., Civil Action
No. 80-4104, pendingTntheUnitedStatesDistrict Court
for the District of New Jersey. That lawsuit was brought
by plaintiff the United States Envi ronr.er.tal Protection
Agency ("EPA") and plaintiff-intervenor the New. Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") to recover costs
of investigation and remediation, and for other relief,
against certain alleged owner/operators, haulers and gener-
ators in connection with the disposal of wastes at Price's
Landfill. Yet EPA and NJDEP failed to notify those defendant
individuals and companies when EPA and NJDEP recently released
the RI/FS for public comment and when they held a public
meeting on the RI/FS in July 1986. We have since learned
that the RI/FS was released for public comment on or about
June 4, 1986, and that the public comment period expires
on August 5, 1986.
-------
PITNKY. HAHOIN, Ki** & SZUCM
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Page Two
August 4, 1986
We request that this Comment letter be considered
by EPA and NJDEP in their evaluation of the RI/FS and their
selection of a remedial plan for Price's Landfill. As we
advised plaintiffs EPA and NJDEP previously on numerous
occasions in connection with the Price case, we disagree
with many of the conclusions contained in the RI/FS, and
we believe that the proposed remedial plan is not cost effec-
tive, does not meet the requirements of the National Contin-
gency Plan, and will not work. Our comments, and the bases
for those . comments were presented at length to. EPA, NJDEP
and their attorneys and experts in the numerous meetings,
conferences, reports, memoranda and correspondence identified
on the attached Appendix, and on other occasions. Those
comments addressed the following subjects, among others;
1. The influenece and appropriateness of government
policy considerations in the remedial investigation and
decision-making process.
2. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the
locations, pumping rates, and pumping time periods for the
proposed treatment wells.
3. The accuracy and appropriateness of the computer
modeling analysis performed by Camp, Dresser & McKee, and
of the assumptions on which it was based.
4. The achievability and appropriateness of the
proposed clean-up standards for the remedial plan.
5. The timing and appropriateness of the proposed
method of landfill closure.
6. The availability, cost effectiveness, and
appropriateness of other alternative monitoring and remedial
plans .
Because the Third Case Management Order and Confi-
dentiality Order, as amended, entered in the Price case
prohibits disclosure of the substance of our comments made
in those meetings, conferences, reports, memoranda and corres-
pondence, we cannot repeat those comments here. We incor-
porate them by reference, however, for full consideration
in the remedial plan administrative selection process. Under
the National Contingency Plan, and as a fiduciary for the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund and for the public,
including the defendants in Price, you are obligated to
take our comments into consideration. Therefore, if because
of public disclosure obligations or any other reason, EPA
and NJDEP believe that they cannot use and consider fully
-------
PITNCY. MAMDIN. Ki»» & SZUCH
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Page Three
August 4, 1986
in the administrative process our comments in the form they
were presented previously, it is your obligation to so advise
us immediately. In that event, we will discuss with counsel
for EPA and NJDEP a mechanism for obtaining Court approval
to release that information under the Third Case Management
Order and Confidentiality Order.
Very truly yours,
GAIL H. ALLYN
GHA:ob
cc: Samuel P. Moulthrop, Esq.
Richard F. Engel, Esq.
John Matthews, Esq.
William K. Sawyer, Esq.
Members of the Defendants' Study Group in U.S. v. Price
-------
APPENDIX
Comments made by defense counsel and defense experts
Geraghty i Miller and SMC Martin in the following letters,
reports and other materials submitted to plaintiffs'
counsel:
1. Report prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc. entitled
^Preliminary Investigation of Hydrogeologic Conditions
at Price's Landfill, Pleasantville, New Jersey* dated
March 1985 (2 vols.)
2. Report prepared by SMC Martin entitled "Hydrogeo-
logical Study and Site Assessment of Price's Landfill,
Atlantic County, New Jersey" dated March, 1985 (4
vols. )
3. Water quality data from monitoring wells in the
vicinity of Price's Landfill from samples taken
by Geraghty & Miller and SMC Martin in 1984 and
1985.
4. Letter from William. H. Hyatt, Jr. to Honorable Jerome
B. Simandle dated March 18, 1985.
5. Letter from Gail H. Allyn to Samuel P. Moulthrop
dated April 26, 1985, with enclosed letter and attach-
ments from Michael F. Wolfert of Geraghty & Miller
to William H. Hyatt, Jr. dated April 26, 1985.
6. Memorandum and enclosure from Daniel J. Shoemaker
of SMC Martin to Jeffrey P. Heppard dated April
25, 1985.
7. Letter from Gail H. Allyn to Samuel P. Moulthrop
dated May 13, 1985, with enclosures from Geraghty
& Miller.
8. Letter from Gail H. Allyn to Samuel P. Moulthrop
and Richard F. Engel dated June 24, 19S5, with
enclosures prepared by Geraghty & Miller and SMC
Martin.
9. Letter from Benjamin G. Stonelake to Samuel P.
Moulthrop Sated July 31, 1985, with enclosures pre-
pared by Geraghty & Miller.
10. Letter from Jeffrey P. Heppard to Samuel P. Moulthrop
dated August 21, 1985.
11. Letter from Jeffrey P. Heppard to Roger Bernstein
and Richard F. Engel dated September 6, 1985, with
enclosures prepared by SMC Martin.
12. Letter from William H. Hyatt, Jr. to Samuel P.
Moulthrop dated October 16, 1985.
-------
B. Comments made by defense counsel and/or defense experts
Geraghty 6 Miller and SMC Martin to plaintiffs'counsel
and/or plaintiffs' experts Camp, Dresser i McKee, and
other representatives of EPA and NJDEP at meetings held
on the following dates:
January 4, 1985
March 18, 1985
March 26, 1985
April 17, 1985
May 24, 1985
May 29, 1985
July 12, 1985
July 16, 1985
July 23, 1985
August 2, 1985
August 9, 1985
August 19, 1985
August 29, 1985
«
C. Comments made by defense counsel to the Court and to
plaintiffs' counsel at conferences and during telephone
conference calls with Honorable Jerome B. Simandle on
the following dates:
March 29, 1985
April 19, 1985
June 3, 1985
July 2, 1985
July 17, 1985
August 5, 1985
August 13, 1985
August 23, 1985
August 30, 1985
September 20, 1985
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
163 MADISON AVENUE
CN 1943
MORRiSTOWN. NEW JEPSCT O796O-I943
ROBERTB HAZLEHURSY. JR.
JOHX BARKER
CHARLES B. HABD'N. JB.
BOGEB C. WARD
JAMtS C. PITNEY
WILLIAM O. MARGIN
CLYDZ A. SZUCM
S. JOSE«M rOBTUNATO
DAVID J. CONNOLLY. JB
WILLIAM M. MYATT, JR.
LAWBENCE '. RCILLT
MURRAY j. LAULICHT
COWARD O. LYNCH
GEBALO C. NCARY
JOSEPH LUNIN
RICHARD L. PLOTKIN
TIMOTHY R. GRCINCR
ROBERT L. HOLLINGSHCAO
rPEDER'CK L. WHITMCR
GREGORY C PARL'MAN
ROBCRT G. ROSE
PATRICK j MCCARTHY
JOSEPH H KQTT
MART LOU PARKER
PAUL E GRAHAM
j MICHAEL NOLAN. JR
WARREN J CASEY
KEVIN J O DONNCLL
GLENN C. GEiGER
DENNIS R LA riuRA
3333
1 936 O33I
MQRR'STOWN (
NCW rOR» (3i
TELE»
TELECOPIER 120" 267-3727
NEWARK orrict
33 WASHINGTON STREET
NEWARK. NEW JE BSEY O7IO2
WHITER S OIBCC- OIAL NUMBER
'•""•"' 4848
FEDERAL EXPRESS
GAIL H ALLYN
ELIZABETH c. FLANAGAN
SEAN R. KCLLY
HENRY NELSON MASSEY
PATRICIA A PICHREL
WILLIAM P SHELLEY
JAMES H. rosTCR
WILLIAM J. FP'EOMAN
DAVID G HAROIN
DENNIS T. KE»RNEY
JANICE MONTANA
H OuCNN TUCHE3
BARBARA c. SLACK
LIGEHIE P BURNS
JANE H. HARDIN
ROBERT w. IHNE
BETTY ANN MCWILLIAMS
BARBARA A MOORC
LAWRENCE J. NAGY
KENNETH J. NORCROSS
CHARLES OUINN
ROBERT A RECIO
EVELYN P STORCH
CYNTMIA H AUGUSTINE
OIN»« H BOURNE
HELEN E nOENS
DONALD W KIEL
CYNTHIA B. LURO
MARIE O. NARDINO
JOE-M ROSEN
JO*«N K SKRYPAM
LO = ' J BRAENOER
JE" ELLENTuCK
JULIANNE FLACM SOWINSKI
KEVIN r KOSTYN
KATMY A LAWLER
YVONNE MARCuSE
HABRifi-r JANE OLSON
ELIZABETH J. S»CR
LLOYD H TUBMAN
VALLRIEJ BAUMANN
ERNEST j. CICCONI
ANN V CONPCY
MICHAEL J CiWNNE
.JAMES H TORTE
KATHLEEN A. GREEN
MARIE N. JACKSON
EILEEN A. L-NOSA*
THQMASJ MALMAN
DAVID NIU
KAREN M PALMA
JAMES D. RAY
SCOT A SMITH
KENNETH E. THOMPSON
PETER G.vERN'ERO
M'LLIE E. WIL^'A~S
IVET-TC Q ALVAREZ
MATTHEW J BPQAS
JOANNE C. PALo'MB-
HOPE S CONE
LAURAN S O ALESS'O
JENNIFER CHANDLER «A JO
CYNTHIA A. ROT2
BETSY L. WEISS
September 20, 1986
Richard F. Engel
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Law
Environmental Protection Section
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex • •
CN 112
Trenton, NJ 08625
Re: Price's Landfill, Atlantic County, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Engel:
In response to your letter of September 4, 1986,
and in accordance with our subsequent telephone conversation
concerning an extension of time for any additional comments,
I am enclosing a letter from Geraghty & Miller to William
H. Hyatt, Jr. dated October 1, 1985 as an additional comment
on the Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS")
for Price's Landfill. I believe that this letter was not
submitted previously to DEP or EPA, although its technical
comments are incorporated in the October 16, 1985 letter
from William H. Hyatt, Jr. which was sent, to Samuel Moulthrop
and yourself.
This October 1, 1985 letter from Geraghty & Miller
was prepared in connection with our settlement negotiations
in United States v. Price, and is subject to the
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN. KIPP & SZUCH
Richard F. Engel
Sepember 20, 1986
Page Two ..
Confidentiality Order which remains in effect in that case.
Therefore, I request that you take steps to maintain the
confidentiality of this document, as you have with respect
to the other documents identified in my letter of August
4, 1986 to Grace L. Singer, a copy of which is enclosed.
truly yours,
GAIL H. ALLYN
GHAtrp
cc: Samuel Moulthrop, Esq. (By Regular Mail)
William K. Sawyer, Esq. " "
John Matthews, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Heppard, Esq. "
Grace L. Singer
Benjamin Stonelake, Esq. " " "
Other Members of the Defendants' Study Group in U.S. v. Price
(By Regular Mail)
-------
Appendix F
-------
§tatr of -Xciu ilrrsry
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF LAW 0£0,JTV DIHS.
DONALD R. BELSOLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECTION
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL • RICHARD j. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX LAWRE^E E STA,-JLcY
CN 112 DEPUTY A — CSNEY GENE = i
DEBORAH T PORITZ TRENTON 0862S SECTION CM:£F
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIRECTOR " JOHN w VAN DAL-N
(609) 984-5612 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GEN==*
ASSISTANT SECTION CfiE =
September 4/ 1986
Gail H. Allyn, Esq.
Pitney, Hardin,.Kipp & Szuch
CN 1945
Morristown, NJ 07960-1945
Re: Price's Landfill, Atlantic County, New Jersey
Dear Gail:
This constitutes the DEP response to your letter of August
4, 1986 concerning the Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study ("RI/FS") for the Price landfill. In that letter you note
that, because of the Third Case Management Order and Confidentiality
Order entered in the case of United States v. Price (80-4104) , you
cannot publicly submit comments on the RI/FS, and thus refer DEP/EPA
to various documents and oral comments on the issues presented in
the RI/FS, and make them your comments..
DEP/EPA have no problem with your use of that letter and
the written material noted therein as ^constituting your comments on
the RI/FS, in light of the restrictions in the Confidentiality
Order. We do, however, have a problem with your concept of oral
.communications as constituting formal comments on the RI/FS, because
there is no written record of such comments. Please understand that
we say that not in an attempt to preclude your comments. Rather, we
do not think it is proper to attempt to reconstruct for purposes of
the DEP/EPA response document what was said by either side at the
meetings, conferences and calls referred to in your letter.
Thus, DEP/EPA are responding to your written comments by
referring you to our written comments for the period from
January, 1985 to May, 1986. Just as "the Confidentiality Order
prevents you from revealing your comments, we cannot publish our
-------
September 4, 1986
Page 2
comments in our responsiveness summary. We believe our previous
written responses adequately address all of your comments.
If today's letter response is not satisfactory to you,
please let us know. by September 12. If we do not hear from you by
the end of business on that date, or if this letter is satisfactory,
the public comment period will be over as of September 12.
Sincerely,
; W. GARY EDWARDS
Attorney General of New Jersey
By:
Richard F. Engel
Deputy Attorney General
/cmg
cc: Samuel Moulthrop, Esq.
William K. Sawyer, Esq.
John Matthews, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Heppard, Esq.
Grace L. Singer
-------
Appendix G
-------
' ' . New Jersey
Ur-vd c'iies 2???!L2 B, New York
• En\-.r0r.me.r.al Protection ZBr «M ral P'«« Puerto Rico
Agency *** York- N-Y- 10007 Virgin Islands
Official Business Po»Ug« ana
Penalty for Pnv»t» UM F«n PHQ
$300 Environmental
Protection
EPA 335
&EPA
80(61) Suzanne Weiss (202) 755-0344
James R. Marshall (212) 264-4913
EPA APPROVES ACTION TO PROTECT ATLANTIC CITY WATER
FOR RELEASE, MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1981
WASHINGTON - Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has approved fundinq of
a study to determine the best method to protect the public water
supply of Atlantic City, New Jersey, from contamination by
chemical wastes migrating out of Price's Pit, a nearby disposal
site. Ms. Gorsuch also approved fundinq for a standby supply
of activated carbon to be used to treat the city's water if and
when it should become contaminated while a long-term clean-uo
program is being developed.
The study, estimated to cost $500,000, and the standby
carbon supply, estimated to cost up to SI million, are to be
funded under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, known as "Superfund."
-more-
-------
-2-
"Price's Pit ranks among the to? priority Super fund sites
s
in .the nation,." Ms. Gorsuch pointed out. "Today's decision
demonstrates EPA's determination to take quick and effective
action where a potential public health risk is involved."
Since May, Ms. Gorsuch has approved the allocation of
approximately S-33 million from Superfund for emergency and
remedial action at hazardous waste sites around the country.
Price's Pit, a now inactive 26-acre landfill in the town
•
of Pleasantville, six miles northwest of Atlantic City,
received drummed and bulk chemical wastes from 1963 to 1976.
Leachate from the landfill has contaminated nearby private
drinking water wells serving 37 homes. Tests show that the
contaminants are moving through the groundwater and have
approached a well field serving Atlantic City.
On December 22, 1980, the U.S. Department of Justice
-filed suit at EPA's request against the former and present
owners of the landfill. On September 23, 1981 the State cf
New Jersey issued an administrative order directing the !?ew
Jersey Water Company and the affected municipalities to extend
water mains to supply the already affected houses.
-0-
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
RMJOA2
26 F**r»l PUz*
New York. N.Y. 10007
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Official Bu*nes»
Penalty lex PnvaM UM
$300
PoBtao* tna
Environmental
Protection
fPAXM
&EPA
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 82(11) Lillian Johnson (212) 264-4534
EPA SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING FOR PRICE LANDFILL SITE
•
NEW YORK — A public meeting has been scheduled by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for comments on an Interim Plan concerning Price
Landfill site in the Town of Pleasantville, Atlantic County, N. J. The
document contains preliminary recommendations and a plan of action for
implementing^ in the event that the contamination emanating from the Price
Landfill site threatens the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority
water supply this summer.
The meeting will be held April 6, 1982 at 1:00 p.m. at the Main Meeting
Hall, Municipal Building, Bargain Town Fire Road, Egg Harbor Township,
N.J.
Copies of the Interim Plan are available at these locations:
1) Egg Harbor Township Information Room
% Mayor John J. Heinz, Jr.
R.D. #1
Linwood, N.J.
2) City Clerk's Office
% Mr. William Hurd, Administrator
City Hall
Absecon, N.J.
(more)
-------
- 2 -
- 3) City Clerk's Office
% Mr. George R. English
City Hall
18 North Main Street
Pleasantville, N.J.
4) Mayor Joseph Lazarow
City Hall
Atlantic City, N.J.
Also, representatives from EPA and the New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection will be available for discussion and to respond
to your comments.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 ^EDERAi. PLAZA
NEW YORK NEW YORK 10273
MAR 1982 -
Honorable John J. Heinz, Jr.
flayer of Egg Harbor
FD f 1 , Box 262
Linwood, New Jersey 08221
Dear Mayor Heinz:
This is to confirm that a public meeting on the Prioe Landfill site has been
scheduled for 1:00 p.m. an April 6, 1982 at:
Main Meeting Hall
Municipal Building
Bargain Town/Fire Road
Bgg Harbor Township, New Jersey
Of
cocern
is the quality and quantity of drinking water that will be available
this summer in the event that the contamination from the Price Landfill site
threatens the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority water supply. This
issue is the subject of the Interim .Flan; this Flan will be presented at the
April 6 meeting for your consideration.
Representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Jersey
State Department of Environmental Protection will be present at the April 6
meeting to discuss the Interim Plan and address any comments you or area resi-
dents may have on the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan will be available for
public review prior to the meeting at the places listed en the enclosed sheet.
Your participation will be very much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
cc: Commissioner Robert E. Hughey
New Jersey state Dept. of
Environmental Protection
-------
Repositories for Interim Plan
Copies of the Interim Plan will be available for public review prior to the
April 6, 1982 meeting at the following locations:
1) Egg Harbor Township Information Room
c/o Mayor John J. Heinz, Jr.
R.D. tl
Linwood, New Jersey
2) City Cleric's Office
c/o Mr. William Kurd, Administrator
City Hall
Absecon, New Jersey
3) City Clerk's Office
c/o Mr. George R. English
City Hall
18 North Main Street
Pleasantville, New Jersey
4) Mayor Joseph Lazarow
City Hall
Atlantic City, New Jersey
-------
Mr. Lee Budd "Mr. Budd"
Health Officer
Atlantic City Health Department
2314 Pacific Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
TAJ
Honorable William Gorraley "Mr. Gormley"
New Jersey State Assemblyman
1125 Atlantic Avenue
Guarantee Trust Building, Suite 511
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
fA]
Honorable Michael Matthews "Mr. Matthews"
New Jersey State Assemhljman
3113 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
fA]
Honorable Steven Perskie "Mr. Perskie"
New Jersey State Senator
1125 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
fA]
Mr. John Mruz "Mr. Mruz"
District Director
Office of Honorable William Hughes
2307 New Itaad
Nbrthfield, New Jersey 08225
fA]
Mr. Dennis F. Marco "Mr. Marco"
'Special Assistant
Office of Senator Bill Bradley
1605 Vauxhall Itoad
Uhion, New Jersey 07083
fA]
Mr. Tom Delaney "Mr. Delaney"
Office of Senator Harrison Williams
Washington, D.C. 20510
-------
SAME LETTER SENT TO:
[A]
Honorable Chris R. Leopard! "Mayor Leopardi"
Mayor of Abseoon
City Hall
Abseoon, New Jersey 08201
[A]
Honorable Joseph Lazarow "Mayor Lazarow"
Mayor of Atlantic City
City Hall
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
[A]
Honorable George Dix "Mayor Dix"
Mayor of Pleasantville
City Hall
Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232
[A]
Honorable Charles Warthington "Mr. Warthington"
County Executive
Guarantee Trust Building, Rm. 615
1125 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401
[A]
Ms. Alice Gitchell "Ms. Gitchell"
Director of Environmental Health Service
Atlantic County Division of Public Health
201 South Shore Itoad
Northfield, New Jersey 08225
[A]
Me. Neil Goldfine, Executive Director "Mr. Goldfine"
Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority
2101 Arctic Avenue
P.O. Box 1686
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08404
-------
bcc: Paul Giardina, NJDEP
Jim Marshall /
Lilliaa Johnson \s
Shelley Holm
Jeane Hosianski
Ken Stoller
Bob Ogg
Don Diescp .
Sal Badalamenti
John Frisco
Feed Rubel
Mite Bonchonsky
Jack Wiber,.0ffice of Congressional
Liaison
Brad Gates, Office of Intergovernmental
Liaison
2CIL: JROSIANSKI: tr: 3/8/8 2
-------
New Jersey
•jmted States 2j?°l? * , «, New York
Environmental Protection ** rtotrai PltZl Puerto Rico
Agency N«w York. N.Y. 10007 Virgin Islands
Official Bu»n«M ' Postage »no
Penally for Privat* Uw Fw* Piid
$.100 Environmental
Protection
EPA 335
&EPA News Release
82(19)
EPA Margaret Randol (212) 264-2515
DEP James Staples (609) 292-2994
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1982
•
DOCUMENTS SIGNED TO START REMEDIAL WORK TO PROTECT ATLANTIC CITY
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.—Top officials from Federal and State
environmental agencies and the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities
Authority (MUA) signed documents here today to intitiate
remedial work to protect Atlantic City drinking water against
possible contamination this summer from a nearby hazardous
waste site known as Price's Pit.
Officials expressed confidence that these protective actions
will be ready, when and if needed, in June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Adminis-
trator Jacqueline E. Schafer said, "Today, we are ensuring that
immediate actions will be taken to protect the City's drinking
water and prevent any disruption of service."
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Commissioner Robert E. Hughey said that, "These documents
represent a major step forward in the State and Federal
governments' battle to control toxic contamination of our water
-more-
-------
-2-
supplies. When fully implemented, emergency back-up water
supplies- will be available this summer and long-term action
will follow."
Three formal documents were signed today. The first
consists of a contract between EPA and the New Jersey DEP in
which EPA agrees to be responsible for a number of actions that
are part of the "Interim Action Plan" for the summer. Two
separate contracts between DEP and the MUA spell out the
responsibilities to be carried out by the MUA. Also today, a
» ~
grant application for a cooperative agreement was signed by
DEP and submitted to EPA for review and approval. Under the
cooperative agreement, the State will agree to undertake addi-
tional elements of the "Action Plan".
Together, these documents establish responsibilities for the
necessary remedial work, as well as the maintenance of a system
to provide an alternate supply of drinking water. The elements
of this system are as follows:
1. The redirection and repiping of the MUA production
wells AC-14, AC-15 and AC-3 to discharge directly to
the MUA water plant storage basins. This action will
increase the capacity of the plant to use more of the
surface water supply from the MUA's two reservoirs.
2. Iron sequestering treatment for MUA production well
AC-3 to insure good water quality.
3. The construction of a new interconnection between the
New Jersey Water Company (NJWC) and the MUA to enable
the Authority's purchase of NJWC water. In addition,
rehabilitation of an existing interconnection of the
systems will be completed.
4. The site preparation of MUA production wells AC-4A
and AC-2 for activated carbon treatment which will
include preparation of the wells for hook-up to the
-more-
-------
/**%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I I
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278
AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
Price's Pit Landfill Site
Municipal Building
Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey
MAY 4, 1983
7:00 P.M.
I. Welcome
II. The Superfund Program
III. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection's
Role at Price's Pit
IV.
V.
Discussion of the Groundwater
Modeling Results
Description of the Alternatives
Evaluation of the Alternatives
ACMUA's Cements on EPA's
Proposed Cleanup Efforts
VI. Questions and Answers
VII. Closing
Mayor Stanley R. Glassey
Egg Harbor Township
Jacqueline Schafer
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II
Marwan Sadat, Administrator
Hazardous Site Mitigation
Administration
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Brendan Harley, Vice President &
Water Resources Specialist
and
James Wallace, Project Manager
for Price's Pit Landfill
Camp Dresser & McKee
Neil Goldfine, Executive Director
Atlantic C_cy Municipal Utilities
Authority
I'*
*->•-—v/
-------
-3-
activated carbon systems, as well as the installation
of concrete pads to support the units.
The total construction costs of these action elements
are estimated to be $160,000 dollars.
This proposed work is based on an evaluation of impacts
which the Price landfill could have upon the MUA's water
supply.
In December 1981, EPA Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch
approved $1 million standby funding to be used to treat the
Atlantic City water supply if it should become contaminated
*
while a long-term cleanup program is being developed for Price's
Pit.
At that time, Mrs. Gorsuch also approved $445,000 for a
study to determine the best method of protecting the public
water supply, as well as for additional field investigation studies
Price's Pit, a now inactive 26-acre landfill in the town
of Pleasantville, six miles northwest of Atlantic City, received
drummed and bulk chemical wastes from 1971 to 1972.
On December 22, 1980, the U.S. Department of Justice filed
suit at EPA's request against the former and present owners of
the'landfill. On Septermber 23, 1981, the State of New Jersey
issued an administrative order directing the NJWC and the
affected municipalities to extend water mains to supply the
already affected houses.
-0-
-------
New Jersey
Stales «t«on 2 New Yorn
Envronmental Protection 26 r«b*r*l Plu* Puerto Rico
Agency N** Yorti, N.Y. 1 0278 Virgin Islands
Business °~"rp- and
'Penally lor Pnv«l» UM f^^ p^g
Environmental
Protection
EPAXIS
EPA Environmental Facts
May 1983
PRICE LANDFILL FEASIBILITY STUDY
This fact sheet summarizes the study conducted by Camp Dresser & McKee
(COM) at the direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to compare various long-term action alternatives at Price Landfill. The
landfill is an inactive hazardous waste site threatening drinking water
supplies of Atlantic City. The feasibi'ity study was financed by EPA
through a Superfund grant of $445,000.
Site Background
Price's Pit is a 26-acre landfill that received industrial wastes from 1969
through 1976. It contains a range of chemicals/ including benzene and chloro-
form, that was either disposed of in drums or poured directly into the landfill.
Groundwater in the area is contaminated, with contamination moving slowly
toward Atlantic City's public water supply well field.
Actions To Date
In December 1981, EPA announced a $445,000 6-month feasibility study and $1 mill-
ion standby funding for an alternate system in case the City's water becomes contam-
inated before long-term remedial action is taken. In the early Summer of '82, EPA
and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) completed the initial
remedial work to protect the City's drinking water in the short-term and to avoid
any possible disruption of service by making emergency back-up water supplies available
At EPA's request, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against the former
and present owners of the landfill, as well as all known transporters and generators.
The New Jersey Water Company (NJWC) and the affected municipalities complied with a
DEP order to extend water mains to supply already affected houses.
Objective of the Feasibility Study
The purpose of the study was to select the long-term alternative action that
will ensure the existing ability of the Atlantic City Municipal Utility
Authority (ACMUA) to deliver drinking water and reduce the effects of the
contamination from the landfill. The preferred alternative action must
-------
-2-
accomplish this objective and do so with the greatest benefit to the public
and the least negative impact to the environment.
Approach and Scope
The long-term remedial action alternatives were developed basea on a study of the
existing information on the contaminants known to be in the area.
The study evaluated the impacts of alternatives on the following areas:
Groundwater Terrestrial Habitat Economics and Population
Surface water Aquatic Habitats Land Use
Air Quality Environmentally Sensitive Community/Institutional Services
Habitats Energy (needed)
The major tools used in the evaluation of impacts were the existing phy-
sical conditions of the area and groundwater computer modeling results.
*
The Goals of EPA and PEP
0 To ensure a long-term supply of good-quality drinking water for Atlantic
City
0 To minimize future contamination of private drinking water wells
0 To prevent further spread of the contaminants from the landfill
0 To safely treat and dispose of contaminants recovered from the ground-
water
Conclusions
Based on a review of the environmental issues and cost and non-cost technical
criteria, both EPA and DEP agree that the following two alternatives would be
equally effective in best achieving the goals of the two agencies:
1. To relocate 13.5 million gallons per day of Atlantic City well capacity to
a new location north of the city's reservoir; to extract 2 million gallons
per day of the contaminated groundwater down gradient from the landfill
and either treat it on site or discharge it for treatment in a nearby sew-
age treatment plant.
2. To relocate the wells, as described above; to construct a slurry wall in
the ground surrounding the old landfill; to extract 2 million gallons per
day of the contaminated groundwater outside the slurry wall and treat it
as described above; to extract enough water from inside the slurry wall
to prevent escape of contaminants from the landfill and treat it as de-
scribed above.
The estimated capital costs for these alternatives range from $7.5 million to
$13.1 million, and the estimated annual operating and maintenance costs range
from $927,000 to $947,000, depending on the options selected.
-------
TABLE 3-1' (eont.) )
SUitWRT OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
N'JfS E H
9
10
11
1?
1 £
13
u«
-3
3ESC":'T!ON
* Extraction wells aowngraaienr.
pumped' at 2 mgd
t Recnarge to aquifer
• Slurry wall in conjunction
witn Alternative 6a
• Slurry wall in conjunction
wi tn Alternative 9
• Slurry wall constructed
completely around tne
landfill ares
• Control only in landfill
• New Wells tn Lower Conansey
nortn of reservoir
• Existing wells aoanaoned
• Extraction well placed
aowngrjaient at landfill and
Pumped at 2 mge
« New -e'ls in Lower Conansey
nortn of reservoir
• Existing »ells aoandoncd
§ S'JTV -all constructed
iirasletely arouna tne
la.-.cfili area
* 'Jew «e;'s fn L3»er Conaise/
nort.i of reservoir
t Existing wells afianaoned
t Sljr-y .all constr-jctea
c:mslete'iy around t.ie
lanafill area
• Extraction «el Is placed
30wngra3ient at lansMll
and 5y.:.pe3 at 2 rga
;TLA:IT:C TIT* wa:£? Sv-53. ,
COH4NSEY
13.8 mga '
new wells 6.0 mgd
existing w«l Is
2.9 mgd
(for snort tem)
13.8 mgd
.
13-. 8 mgd
new Conansey
wel Is 13.5 mgd
new Conansey
wells 13.5 mg3
ne. Conansey
w«i !s 13.5 m?3
KIPKWCOO
2.2 mga
2.2 mgd
2.t n^O
2.2 mgd
2.2 mgd
2.2 mr:
2.: ,n3a
SURFACE
PESEOVO!"
9.0 mga
9.0 mgd
9.0 mgd
9.0 ngd
9.0 mgd
9.0 mgd
TO'^L
25.0 mga
20. 1 mgd
2S.O mgd
25. 0 mgd
24.7 mgd
24.7 mg3
=>'.*E C:T=GL >-•::«
NEW
EXTRACTION
-ELLS
6.6 mga '
7 mga years
0-5;
no control
tnereafter
6.6 mgd
none'
2.0 mgd
none
t
SLUPftr
*-l. !
ncne
!
yes. !
1
yes
yes
none
yes
1
i
9.C r;a J4.7 ngd ..0 mga yes
!
i i
• -
>
!
-------
At(. C
c
'•)..('/I £ //,
-^O"'*-^' ^^ (s •<,) s^y (L i, 4
-------
Le! s |.>rnteU (ui! oj'i
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CN 402. TRENTON. N.J. 08625
509-232 2994
Pleasar.tville (Atlantic County)
PLELIC ERIEFH;.-. 01^ RELOCATION
OF THE ATLANTIC CITY WELLFIELD
THOMAS U. 1CEAN, GC\T-ONOR
ROBERT E. IIUGHEY. COMMISSIONER
/ f" ™" " ^ r* i r T r^ P* \
;,S I.HI EwIDt)
No. 84/73
Immediate release:
Dece-.oer 14, 19S3
,TRENTON--State Department of Environmental Protection (DE?) Commissioner^
Kcbert E. Huchey announced today that a Djrlic briefing on the relocation of the A112,r,tic
City well field will be held on Tuesday, Decerr.oer 20, at 7:50 p~ in tne Pleasantvi 1 le
Court and Police Administration Building, 17 First Street, in Pleasantvilie.
•
Hjgrey explained that the Price Landfill, a orivate facility,was operative from
1954 through the early 1970s when liquid chemical anc! industrial wastes were disposed of
at the site. The Atlantic City well field, the drinking water supoly for the 60,000 year-
round residents, is located one mile downgracient of tris Superfund site. Toxic pollutants
migrating from the landfill near the municipalities of Eg; Harbor Township and
r 1 easantvi 11 e tr.reaten the wellfield.
Representatives of the Department and of tne engineering consultants on the
investigation and relocation project, Roy F. Weston of West Chester, Pa., will discuss
the wellfield relocation from its present site to the Federal Aviation Administration
property between Pleasantvilie and Pomona.
The investigation, engineering design, and construction of the new wellfield
are being conducted with $6,835,736 in Superfund monies awarded by the federal Environ-
mental' Protection Agency. These funds will also pay for the conceptual design and other
studies on the management of the contaminant plume and the landfill site itself.
For additional information, contact Grace Singer, Hazardous Site Mitigation
Administration, at 609/984/3081.
-dep-
-------
A L£Tj
J
/L
1
^
/&&£u^e/ ^ &^£^^£^
n// / ~>
//W.f* * tf ' ^TV> >.^r /.
GellGSj-e,
ruj-
&Z£ /f-
'-^
-------
MARWAN M SADAT OI
OIRECTOP
$tate of ^*eu) {Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
C.N 029. Trenton. N j. 08625
FACT SHEET 12/20/33
NEW ATLANTIC CITY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY (ACMUA) WELLF
Current Project Funding: Federal - $6,335,736
State - $ 585,7^3
Award Date: Cctccer 27, "933
Proiect Phase:
Design and construction of a new wellfield to
eventually provide 13.5 MGD (million gallons/day)
of water for ACMUA.
Prooosed Weilfieid Site
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Property,
north of the Atlantic City reservoir, Atlantic
County (Based on preliminary investigations).
Weilfield Description:
Nine complete well installations at depths of
20C ft. into '•he lower Cohansey Aquifer and a
new water transmission pipeline to convey the
water to an existing ACMUA treatment facility.
Each well would produce 1 ,20C G?M (gallons per
minute) of water at a continuous rate.
Engineering:
A contract was executed on October 1^, '?53 between
ACMUA and R.F. Weston, Inc. to assess potential
pollution sources near the proposed welifield,
to investigate the characteristics of the aquifer,
to modify wellfieid designs, to manage installation
of three test/production wells under Phase I,
and to provide complete engineering construction
services under Phase II.
Status:
Field reconnaissance of the FAA property resulted
in identifying 58 potential contamination areas
within a three mile radius of the welifield site.
Of these, four areas were selected for further
investigation and sampling to determine if hazardous
substances are actually present.
over...
-------
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Waste Management
Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration
Briefing
on
Site Remediation
at
Price's Landfill #1
Thursday, April 19, 1934
2:00 p.m.
Old Courtroom
Pleasantville Municipal Building
Pleasantville, N.J.
Agenda
1) Overview of situation and introduction
of Contractor, Camp, Dresser & McKee
Dr. Marvan Sadat
Director, Division of
Waste Management,
NJDEP
2) Presentation: Completion of Feasibility
Study and Conceptual Design for site
remediation
Camp, Dresser, & McKee
3) Questions and Answers
-------
FACT SHEET
for
Briefing on Site Remediation
at
Price's Landfill //I
Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville
Atlantic County
April 19, 1984
Site Description: Until the 1960's, Price's Landfill was a sand and
gravel pit of approximately 26 acres. The pit was
converted to a private landfill in 1969. During the
early 1970's, industrial wastes were disposed of at
the site. These included benzene, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, sludges, grease, oil, septic tank
and sewer wastes. Liquid chemical wastes were poured
directly into the landfill as well as buried there in
55-gallon drums. The site is currently inactive.
*
Current Project Funding; Federal - $865,000 Award Date: 9/29/83
Background:
Status:
In December, 1981 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) commissioned consultants Camp,
Dresser & McKee (COM) to prepare a feasibility study
for site remediation. CDM examined various long-term
remedial actions and devised a 1982 Summer Interim
Water Supply Plan (IWSP) to supply sufficient amounts
of water during peak demand periods. The IWSP
included activities for ground water monitoring and
facility upgrading. On May 4, 1983 a public meeting
was held in Egg Harbor Township on the CDM feasibility
study alternatives. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) , under a Cooperative
Agreement conducted a 1982-1983 winter monitoring
program.
Presently, NJDEP is planning to complete the feasi-
bility study and accomplish a conceptual design for
site remediation. This work involves the following
tasks:
1) Data Compilation: Installation and sampling
of ground water monitoring wells, an extended
duration pump test at the landfill, and a
sampling program for monitoring wells.
2) Engineering and Environmental Analysis;
In order to evaluate four alternatives which
are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
No site remediation;
Site remediation and treatment of
ground water without a slurry wall;
Treatment of ground water with a slurry
wall; and
More aggressive treatment of the
landfill interior (i.e., recharge the
water through the landfill within the
-------
3)
A Treatability Study and ground water modeling
will be conducted along with the selected
alternative b, c, or d. Relocation of the
Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority
(ACMUA) wellfield in ongoing, regardless of
the chosen action.
Conceptual Design; Definition of design para-
meters, fine tuning prior to final design, and
development of the scope of work for the final
design.
Contractor; Camp, Dresser & McKee (COM)
Schedule of Events
Target wells for aerial survey
Well drilling (2 shifts/day for approxi-
mately one month, on a 5-day/week
CDM begins ground water model recali-
bration
CDM begins Treatability Study
CDM begins first round of ground water
sampling
CDM begins second round of ground water
sampling
Draft report on Feasibiltiy Study
completed
Public meeting on Draft Feasibility Study
CDM finalizes the Feasibility Study, NJDEP
finalizes the Federal Assistance Grant
Application for Final Design and Construc-
tion. The goal is to secure federal fund-
ing for the Design and Construction by
September 30, 1984.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
4/84
-------
^ j - a f
' - r -~ •
^ • •'
r 'j c' j 3
BrL?:
'"•^j-jg f~^ >:?".3 ^ fi p^ Q ^ •' T. J- •' ^ i-
Price's L-.r.ifiil *1
.y, April ' '3, * ^ a" 2: : J
:i'i Cc'jrtrtor;
5 = n.tvilL? M^r.::p=i E^il-^i
Fie^oanrviile, :;..;.
VAME
A"F:L:ATION
I (*-^t ****. K-«e
LC.VI j^^.tx-,
. i f M , —,
..TV? V l'/v • i .; /, I i.
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF EN Vi RO N M EN T A L PROTECT'CN
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION
Public Meeting to Discuss
Completion of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price Landfill site
Tuesday, July 15, 1986
7:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Township
Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, NJ
AGENDA
1. Opening Remarks ard Introduction
of NJDEP and Camp Dresser &
McKee Personnel
2. Site History and Project Overview
3. Presentation of the Remedial
Alternatives Evaluated in
the Study
4. Discussion
Mr. Anthonv Farro, Assistant Director
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
Mr. George Kleir, Site Manager
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
Dr. Brendon Harley, Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Dr. Lawrence Partridge, Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
The floor will be open for Questions
and comments at this time.
/•»,•!• l.\ ,4n f-'uuul Oppuriunin
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FACT SHEET
' • on the"* completion of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price Landfill site
Fleasantville City and Egg Harbor Township
Atlantic County
Price Landfill is a 26-acre site originally mined for sand and gravel. The site
became a commercial landfill receiving municipal solid waste in 1969. In May,
1971, the landfill began to accept bulk and drummed liquid and solid chemical
wastes. Available' information indicates that these wastes included industrial
chemicals, sludges, oils, greases and sewage. Total quantities dumped are
estimated to be at least nine million gallons. Chemical waste disposal opera-
tions were terminated in November, 1972; sludge disposal was terminated in May,
1973 and municipal waste disposal was terminated in 1976. In December, 1982 the
Price Landfill size was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the
United States Environmental Protection* Agency (USEPA) . Of 97 New Jersey sites on
the NPL, this site ranks third. _-
Monitoring data indicates considerable ground water contamination exists in the
vicinity of Price Landfill. Among the contaminants present are benzene, cadmium,
chloroform, dichloroethylene, lead, 1-2-transdichloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride and acetone. The ground water flow in the area of the landfill is
complex, with three separate aquifer formations located within 150 feet from the
surface. The plume of contamination extends almost one mile from the site and
the contaminants tend to move in an east-northeast direction.
In December, 1981, USEPA commissioned a contractor, Camp, Dresser and McKee
(CDM) , to prepare a two-part study addressing: 1) the immediate measures
necessary to ensure a supply of uncontaminated water to affected communities for
the summer of 1982 and 2) the long-term remedial solutions necessary to protect
the water supply and to remediate the discharge of contaminants from the
landfill.
During April, 1982, CDM issued a report outlining initial measures necessary to
ensure the summer water supply: upgrading of the water treatment plant, the
redevelopment of three production wells, installation of a water supply system
interconnection, provision of standby carbon filter units and implementation of
water conservation measures and a ground water monitoring program. These
measures were successfully implemented.
In June, 1983, CDM issued a second report summarizing its full investigative
study. This included development of computer ground water flow models designed to
assess the movement of contaminants leaching from the landfill and an evaluation
of ten remedial alternatives. This study led to a decision to relocate the
Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority (ACMUA) wells. From the ten remedial
alternatives outlined in the study, four were selected for further investigation
and the computer models were recalibrated to 1984 field conditions to predict the
behavior of each of these alternative courses of action. These four alternatives
were studied in depth during a subsequent remedial investigation and feasibility
over. . .
.Vi-H Jtr\c\- l\ An Hi/ual ()ppuriuntl\
-------
In ea-ch case, C'P.P p.::acc configuration cf the excraccicr. veil f i e 1 cis , ir.cLudi-.v-: :-e
number of wells, the individual veil puirpir.g rates and the specific locati ::•.;;.
both horizontally and vertically within the aquifer system, are subjects to be
addressed by the engineering design of the selected alternative.
Copies of CDM's final report are available for public review at the following
locations:
1. Office of the Mayor
Egg Harbor Township Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, NJ 08221
2. Office of the City Clerk
18 North First Street
Pleasantville City, NJ 08232
3. Office of the City Clerk
City Hall
Absecon, N7J 08201 *
4. Atlantic City Public Library
1 North Tennessee Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and USEPA are
recommending implementation of Alternative 2. A public meeting to discuss this
report will be held in July and followed by a 21-day comment period during which
comments on the report will be received by NJDEP. They should be addressed to:
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Office of Community Relations
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
432 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
For further information contact Susan Gall, Office of Community Relations,
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation, at (609) 633-2320.
6/86
NJDEP
-------
C'.cssarv :-~ Terrs
Administrative Consent Order (ACO): A bindir.e legal docur.ert between a
government agency and a responsible part'--. It is issued bv t'-e
government in the forr. of an order that specifies site miti^aticr.
activities to be undertaken by the responsible party.
Contract: The legal agreement that outlines federal and state
government responsibilities at USIPA-lead sites on the National
Priorities List (Superfur.d sites) as authorized by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Cooperative Agreement: An agreement whereby USE?A transfers funds and
other resources to a state for the accomplishment of certain remedial
activities at sites on the National Priorities list (Superfur.d sites)
as authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Engineering Design (Remedial Design): Following a feasibility study,
an engineering design is executed to translate the selected remedy in
accordance with engineering criteria in a bid package, enabling
implementation of the site remedy.
Focused Feasibility Study (F?SV. A limited feasibility study which is
performed on a certain aspect of site remediation and/or when more than
one remedial measure is considered technically viable for the immediate
control of a threat
Immediate Removal Actions (IRAs): Actions taken to prevent or mitigate
immediate and significant risk to human life, health or to the
environment.
Initial Remedial Measures (IRMs): Actions that can be taken quickly to
limit exposure or threat of exposure to a significant health cr
environmental hazard at sites where planning for remedial actions is
underway.
Monitoring Well; A well installed under strict design specifications
that, when sampled, will reveal hycrcgeloeic dcta at 'its point of
installation. Monitoring wells are installed at predetermined
locations, usually in groups, to gain knowledge of site conditions
including: extent and type of ground water contaminatirn, soil tvpes,
depth to ground water and direction of ground water flow.
National Contingency Plan (NCP): The basic policy directive for
federal response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). It sets forth .the
Hazard Ranking System and procedures and standards for responding to
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The
NCP is a regulation subject to regular revision.
National Priorities List (NPL): A "list of the highest priority
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances, based upon
-------
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OP WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
A Community Relations Program at Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites
As part of the federal/state program of cleanup at hazardous waste
sites, a Community Relations Program is conducted to receive local input and
to advise local residents and officials about the planned remedial actions at
the three major stages of the cleanup: 1) remedial investigation/feasibility
study 2) engineering design and 3) removal/treatment/construction. Local
briefings and meetings are conducted with elected officials and residents and
generally take place at:
1) The commencement of a remedial investigation/feasibility study so
that local concerns can be addressed early in the process.
2) The completion of a feasibility study to discuss the alternative
courses of remedial action. There is a 30-day comment period after
public presentation of the alternatives during which the feasibility
study is available in local repositories.
3) The engineering design stage to carry out the mandates of the
selected remedial alternative.
4) The commencement of the removal/treatment/construction stage to
advise of the expected physical remedial action.
5) The completion of the remedial action.
In addition to the activities outlined above, there is generally
ongoing communication with local officials and residents as required.
Depending upon whether the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the lead
in remedial action at a site, community relations activities are conducted by
the relevant State or Federal agency.
In New Jersey, the DEP Community Relations Program is directed by Grace
Singer, Chief, Office of Community Relations (609) 984-3081. At Region II,
EPA, the contact person is Lillian Johnson, Community Relations Coordinator
(212) 264-2515.
HS45:js
4/85
Over.
-------
.v-;
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION
Public Meeting to Discuss
Completion of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price landfill Site
Tuesday, July 15, 1985
7:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Township
Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, New Jersey
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
3.
4.
5. v a
6. ,
i.
9.
'
< w ;^A ^
r / ' 7
r ^> c' "^ r
« 7 ' '•- -
_LX v - i
- n
/^
U
-------
-2-
NAME
13.
14.
19. A-OUt>
20.
••1 f
21.
PLEASE PRINT
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
7
<£&C S/^c^y&^z-^
7
7/-/9^^.~
-------
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION
Public Meeting to Discuss
Completion of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price Landfill Site
Tuesday, July 15, 1985
7:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Township
Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, New Jersey
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
i.
:1'..mc
A
4./
i- U&,
RI.
/
e.
7.7V*
9.
•
io3^^/?Yffi
-------
9.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION"
. DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION
Public Meeting to Discuss
Completion or the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Price Landfill Site
Tuesday, July 15, 1985
7:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Township
Municipal Building
262 Bargaintown Road
Linwood, New Jersey
PLEASE* PRINT
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
<> t. -
2. //u,-^ Uc*
3.
U**«
i -J •• • *"-*— -^ *' / •*• /.•••• - r j •'• •• — -
4 .'^--^r O • /jt ^— ^..-g>r>r' -yr? .' "^Ui y > <^ - ~' •"e c7 //^
7.^^04^ C I L v- IV,' . W ,_ \v. As \
. vjii\ te. Vs^czol d^/^ _ uiNSu.v7
i'o.
11.
/.
f •
-------
NAME
13.
-2-
PLEASE PRINT
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
C
17.
18.
19.
21. .
22. _
23. _
24. _
25. _
26. _
27. _
28. _
29.
------- |