Superfund Record of Decision: Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill, NJ


          United States        Office of
          Environmental Protection   Emergency and
          Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/153
September 1991
SEPA   Superfund
          Record of Decision:
          Upper Deerfield Township
          Sanitary Landfill, NJ

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/153
4. TW»«nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(s)
9. Performing Org«lnlz«tlon Nun* and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name ind Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report D»te
09/30/91
8.
a PMfonnlng OrgsnlzMion Rtpt No.
10. ProlKt/Tuk/WoikUnttNo.
1 1. Contr»ct
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/153
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (Continued)

posed a health threat under current or likely land use conditions, there are no
contaminants of concern affecting this site.

The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action since previous
investigations indicated that ground water and soil contamination associated with the
site no longer pose a health threat under current or likely future land use conditions.
However, a comprehensive ground water and air monitoring program will be implemented,
which will include installing additional monitoring wells and sampling downgradient
residential wells. In addition, sediment and surface water sampling also will be
conducted. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $2,380,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $154,000.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
SITE
Name:
Location:
EPA Region:
MRS Score (date):
NPL Rank (date):

ROD
Date Signed:

Selected Remedy:
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated O&M:
Estimated Present Worth:

LEAD
Agency:
Primary Contract:
State Contact:

WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
ROD FACT SHEET

Upper Deerfield Township Landfill Superfund Site
Upper Deerfield Twp., Cumberland Co., New Jersey
II
33.62 (6/83)
751 (9/84)
September 30, 1991

No Action with Monitoring.
Implementation of a long-term comprehensive monitoring
program of the air and ground water (including the
installation of additional monitoring wells and sampling of
downgradient residential wells) in the vicinity of the landfill.
This remedy will also include a five year review program
including an ecological assessment at the time of the first
five year review. As part of the ecological assessment,
surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted in
the vicinity of the site.

$ 10,000
$ 154,000
$ 2,380,000
Federal Remedial Lead
Kelley Chase (212) 264-8991
Zoe Kelman-Shinn (609) 633-0766
The landfill contains primarily domestic waste and
construction debris. Low levels of volatile organic
compounds and inorganic compounds are present in the
landfill soils and groundwater.
Soils and groundwater.
The property was operated privately as a gravel pit and
waste disposal facility from 1938 until 1960. After being
purchased by the Township, the property was operated as
a municipal sanitary landfill from 1960 until 1983. During its
operation, the landfill was registered to accept household,
commercial, municipal, and vegetative waste. EPA has not
found evidence of disposal of hazardous waste in the
landfill.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT

RECORD OF DECISION

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP SANITARY LANDFILL

Site N*"«» *»4 Location

Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill
Upper Deerfield Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site which was
chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
has evaluated the selected remedy for the Upper Deerfield
Township Sanitary Landfill site and does not concur. The
Department's basis for disagreeing with the selected remedy is
discussed in the Responsiveness Summary section of this document.
Information supporting this decision is contained in the
administrative record for this site. The index to the
administrative record can be found as an attachment to this
Record of Decision.

Description of the Selected Remedy

The selected alternative for the Upper Deerfield site is to take
no further remedial action, however, a monitoring program of the
air and ground water will be implemented. In 1986, in response
to the ground water contamination problem, the residents of Upper
Deerfield Township were connected to a public water supply
system, thus removing any immediate health risk at the time to
the residents posed by the ground water. This action was funded
by the State of New Jersey.

EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation at the Upper Deerfield
site from 1987 to 1990. The results of the investigation showed
that the ground water and soil contamination associated with the
site no longer pose a health threat under current or likely
future land use conditions. Therefore, no additional action is
required pursuant to CERCLA.
-------
However, since groundwater contamination did exist in the
vicinity of the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill and
because low levels of hazardous substances will remain on site,
continued air and ground water monitoring is necessary.

Declaration of Statutory Determinations

In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, and the NCP, I have determined that no further remedial
action is necessary to protect human health and the environment
at the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site. However,
a program to monitor air and ground water in the vicinity of the
landfill will be implemented under the No Action with Monitoring
Alternative.

Because this remedy will result in low levels of hazardous
substances remaining on the site above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
the monitoring program to ensure that the no action with
monitoring remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.

Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that Federal and State regulations
developed under statutes other than CERCLA may require that
landfills be closed in a manner appropriate to the type of wastes
present. In evaluating the closure alternatives present in the
Feasibility Study, the State of New Jersey may require that the
landfill be closed as a sanitary landfill. While this closure
cannot be undertaken pursuant to CERCLA, EPA recognizes that the
State of New Jersey may utilize its enforcement authority to
compel closure of the landfill in accordance with the appropriate
state regulations.
Sidamon-Eristof
Regional Administrator
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environment*) Protection And Energy
Office of the Commissioner
CN40Z
Trenton. Nj 08625-0402
Tel. « 609-292,2885
;v ..*..ier . Fax. f 609-984-3962
Commissioner
September 25, 1991

Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Erietoff
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Jacob K. Javitc Federal Building
New York, Mew York 10276

Dear Mr. Sidamon-Eristoff:

Subject: Upper Deerfield Superfund Site
Record of Deciiicn Non-Concurrence Latter

After reviewing and evaluating the Record of Decision (ROD) submitted by the
EPA, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE) concluded that the selected remedy of "No Action with Monitoring"
is unacceptable. Our non-concurrence decision is based on two main Issues.

1. The first issue is that the Selected Remedy does not consider
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). KJDEPE
maintains that the National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires EPA to
consider both Risk and ARARs when selecting a remedy. In the ease of
the Upper Deerfield Landfill site, the "New Jersty Solid Waste
Management Act" should have been considered during the selection
process.

The basis for ths Selected Remedy has been the "No Action11 section of
EPA'a Guidance Directive 9355.0-3- "Hole of the Baseline Riek
Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions". Your staff claims
that thia guidance document clearly states, without exception, that if
the baseline risk assessment indicates an acceptable risk to human
health or the environment, the cleanup standards, including the
requirement to meet ARARs, are not triggered. However, thla rational
neglecta to point out that this section also references Section 121(a)
of SARA, concerning "No Action" decisions. Section 121(a) refers to
the phrase "determined to be necessary under Section 104". Upon review
of Section 104 of CERCLA, our reading Indicated that all Section 104
actions must be in conformance with the NCP. Therefore, our position
that ths NCP requires evaluation of both Risk "and" ARARs appears valid.

Ntwjtnty It tn Ctjutl Opportunity tmptaytr
Auyefed ftper
-------
: IvI
E F" T.
O F
M V.
PHOT.
O 2
2.
In addition ro disagreeing with EPA1a method of selecting a "No Action"
'• J-J •• — whether the
alternative, we further disagree with EPA's judgement
on
or not. EPA'• preferred remedy
risk at tipper Deerfleld la acceptable,
ie bated on two assumptions;

(a) that the landfill does not contain significant amounts of
hazardous vast*; and

(b) that residents are not currently using the contaminated ground
water.

On the contrary! available data indicates that hazardous waste is most
likely present in the landfill, and may threaten future ground water quality.

The results of the Upper Deerfield Landfill Risk Assessment estimate* the
carcinogenic risk to bt between 1x10-6 to 2x10-5 (one cancer in 1 million
people to 2 cancers in 100,000 people, respectively). However, the NCP
states that the need for remedial action withiti this range varies, and
should ba considered on a site specific basis. The determination as to
whether the risks from the Upper Deerfield site are acceptable, must be made
by the USEPA together with the NJDEPE.

In closing, it is the NJDEPE's position that, at a minimum, a solid waste
cap supplemented with a ground water monitoring program should be the
remedial action pursued at the site. A cap would prevent precipitation from
infiltrating the waste and potentially contaminate the ground water.
Scott A. Veiner
Commissioner
SAW/zks/dfh
-------
DECISION SUMMARY

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP SANITARY LANDFILL SITE

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION II
-------
Table of Contents

Section Page
Site Name, Location and Description 1
Site History and Enforcement Activities 3
Highlights of Community Involvement 5
Scope and Role of Response Action 6
Site Characteristics 7
Summary of Site Risks 13
Description of Alternatives 17
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 21
Selected Remedy 27
Documentation of Significant Changes 29

Attachments
Appendices
Appendix A Index of Figures Figure Number
Upper Deerfield Township Landfill Site Map 1
Appendix B Index of Tables Table Number
Summary of Contaminants of Concern by Media 1-4
Summary of Human Exposure Pathways Under Current
and Likely Future Land-Use Conditions 5
lexicological Criteria - Noncarcinogenicity (Reference
Doses) for Selected Chemicals of Concern 6
Estimated Carcinogenic Risks and Hazard Indices 7
Toxicological Criteria - Carcinogenicity (Slope Factors)
for Selected Chemicals of Concern 8
Appendix C Responsiveness summary
Appendix D Administrative Record Index
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP SANITARY LANDFILL

Site Name. Location, and Description

The Upper Deerfield Sanitary Landfill site is an inactive,
14 acre landfill legated on a 22.72 acre tract of land in the
rural farming community of Upper Deerfield Township, Cumberland
County, New Jersey. The site is located approximately two and
one half miles east-southeast of Seabrook, New Jersey and lies
between Woodruff Husted Station Road (County Route 687) to the
east and Centerton Road (County Route 553) to the west (See
Figure 1). Farming is the dominant land-use activity in the area
surrounding the site. The northern and southern boundaries of
the landfill are shared with a cornfield and soybean field,
respectively.

Approximately 100 people live within one mile of the site, and
the nearest residence is about 100 feet away. Upper Deerfield
Township has a population of approximately 6,800 people. Until
1986, residents in the vicinity of the site maintained individual
water supply wells. Many of the wells have not been used for
drinking and bathing since the presence of volatile organics and
mercury were detected in area wells in the early 1980s. However,
some of these residents continue to use ground water for
irrigation. In 1986, utilizing funds provided by the State of
New Jersey, the Upper Deerfield Township installed a public water
supply well and distribution system to provide potable water to
residents in the area. During the interim, between the early
1980s and the date of completion of the municipal water line,
Upper Deerfield Township provided affected residents with bottled
water.

Soils in the study area consist of nearly level to gently
sloping, well drained, permeable, loamy sand. Surface soils in
the area are characterized by the Aura-Downer-Sassafras Soil
Association. The soils underlying the Upper Deerfield site are
characterized by five soil mapping units: the Aura gravely sandy
loam, Downer loamy sand, Sassafras sandy loam, Berryland Sand,
and Chillum silt loam.

Cumberland County lies almost entirely in the Delaware River
Basin. Most streams in the county flow south and southwest to
the Delaware Bay; the exception is the Tuckahoe River which flows
south and then eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. The closest
stream downgradient of the Upper Deerfield site is an unnamed
tributary of the Thundergust Brook located approximately
-------
three-quarters of a mile southeast of the site. ' This tributary
flows from Route 658 northeast for about one-half mile before
entering Thundergust Brook. Thundergust Brook is located
approximately one-half mile northeast of the landfill.
Thunderguat Brook flows eastward into Muddy Run, a tributary of
the Maurice River which in turn flows into Union Lake.

The topography in the general area of the Upper Deerfield site is
flat to gently sloping, with an average slope of less than one
percent. The landfill is at an elevation level approximately
equal to the surrounding land and has an average elevation of
approximately 130 feet above mean sea level.

The site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
province. This area is comprised of south and east dipping
layers of sand, silt, and gravel. Generally these sediments are
unconsolidated and not continuous. The sands and gravels form
confined aquifers at various levels separated by the clays. The
aquifers of Cretaceous age from oldest to youngest (deepest to
the shallowest) are in the Potomac group, the Raritan-Magothy
sequence, the Wenonah Formation, and Mount Laurel sand.

Deposits of the younger Tertiary age are above the Cretaceous
sediments. The Cohansey and Kirkwood formations are the only
Tertiary units that crop out in the vicinity of the Upper
Deerfield site. The Cohansey Sand overlies the Kirkwood
Formation. The Kirkwood is not exposed throughout much of
Cumberland County, where it is largely concealed by the Cohansey
Sand or by deposits of the younger Pleistocene and Holocene age.

Four hydrogeological units can be identified in the Kirkwood
Formation in Cumberland County. From the oldest to youngest
(deepest to the shallowest) they are: a basal clay (Lower
Kirkwood Formation), a lower water-bearing sand (Lower Kirkwood
aquifer), an intermediate clay (Upper Kirkwood Formation), and an
upper water-bearing sand (Cohansey-Kirkwood aquifer).

The principal aquifers in the vicinity of the Upper Deerfield
site are the Cohansey-Kirkwood and the Lower Kirkwood. The
Cohansey-Kirkwood aquifer is generally considered to be a water
table aquifer (top of the ground water) throughout most of
Cumberland County. The water table in the Cohansey-Kirkwood in
the vicinity of the site is approximately 40 feet below ground
surface. This aquifer serves as the major source of water for
this part of southern New Jersey. Ground water at the Site flows
to the south and southeast under a slight horizontal gradient.
Because it is highly permeable and relatively thick, the
Cohansey-Kirkwood aquifer is capable of yielding abundant
quantities of water. Large quantities of water can generally be
obtained from wells that are less than 180 feet deep. The
Township maintains two potable water production wells
approximately one-half mile north (upgradient) of the site. The

-2-
-------
wells are approximately 165 feet deep and are capable of pumping
150 gallons per minute each. A second important source of ground
water in Cumberland County is the Lower Kirkwood aquifer. Most
of the wells insta]led in this aquifer are located in the eastern
half of the county and along the near shore area of Delaware Bay.
Depths of the wells range from about 200 to 370 feet.

Except for occasional transient species, no federally listed or
proposed threatened or endangered flora or fauna are known to
exist within the study area. There are no federally designated
wild and scenic rivers in the vicinity of the site.
Additionally, the site does not lie within the coastal zone as
defined by the State of New Jersey. Because of the current
nature of the site, proposed activities will probably have no
effect on resources on, or eligible for nomination to, the
National Register of Historic Places.

Site History and Enforcement Activities

Before being purchased by Upper Deerfield Township in 1960,
Seabrook Farms, Inc., a vegetable growing and processing company,
operated the property as a gravel pit, and eventually as a waste
disposal facility for its vegetative wastes from approximately
1938 until February 29, 1960. Beginning in the late 1930s,
pesticide residues and containers were allegedly disposed of at
the site. Upper Deerfield Township operated the facility as a
municipal sanitary landfill until December 31, 1983. During its
operation, the landfill was registered to accept household,
commercial, municipal, and vegetative waste. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) have conducted a
potentially responsible party investigation in an attempt to link
responsible parties to the contamination at the site. However,
only limited information on the disposal of chemicals at the site
is currently available. At this time, no party has been
identified as disposing of hazardous wastes in the landfill.
Upper Deerfield Township is the current owner of the site.

In January 1980, in response to complaints about water quality
from residents using private ground water wells, the Township
installed three monitoring wells at the landfill. In February
1980, the three monitoring wells and 26 residential wells were
sampled by the Cumberland County Health Department (CCHD). The
results of the sampling indicated the presence of volatile
organics and mercury in area wells. NJDEPE and CCHD advised
residents in the vicinity of the landfill to discontinue use of
their water for potable purposes.

During 1981 through 1983, several Administrative Orders and
Notices of Prosecution with penalties for operational violations
were issued to the Township by NJDEPE. Specific violations
included the following: failure to limit the width of the

-3-
-------
working face to a maximum of 150 feet, failure to control wind
blown litter, failure to post fire fighting procedures, failure
to apply adequate cover material at the conclusion of the day's
operation, failure to comply with all conditions and limitations
in the approved regulation; specifically, accepting an
unauthorized type of waste (bulky items), failure to apply
intermediate cover, failure to apply adequate final cover, and
failure to maintain grade and thickness of cover material until
stabilized.

In 1982, a geophysical survey conducted by NJDEPE detected the
presence of a possible ground water contaminant plume moving
southeast from the landfill. In 1983, EPA included the Upper
Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites when it was recognized
that the site-related ground water contamination posed a
potential threat to human health and the environment.

In December 1983, Upper Deerfield Township began supplying
affected residents with bottled water. In 1984, analyses of
residential well samples showed the presence of mercury in nine
of the wells at concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 130 parts per
billion (ppb), which is above the Federal drinking water standard
of 2 ppb. Vinyl chloride and chlorinated solvents also exceeded
drinking water- standards in several samples.

In 1985, NJDEPE developed an Administrative Consent Order (AGO)
which it proposed to enter into with Upper Deerfield Township for
the performance of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) for the landfill. The Township did not sign the AGO by
the deadline established by the State. On April 15, 1986, EPA
initiated the RI/FS with Federal funds.

In 1986, utilizing funds provided by the State of New Jersey, the
Township installed a public water supply well and distribution
system to provide potable water to residents in the area. EPA
conducted a Remedial Investigation at the Upper Deerfield site
from April 1987 through April 1990 to delineate the nature and
extent of site-related contamination.

Highlights of Community Participation

On July 19, 1991, the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan for the Upper
Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site were released to the
public for comment. These two documents were made available to
the public in the administrative record maintained at the EPA
Docket Room in the Region II Office in New York, and at the Upper
Deerfield Township Municipal Building information repository. In
addition, the documents are available in the information
repositories maintained at the Bridgeton Public Library and the
Cumberland County Library.

-4-
-------
The notice of availability for these documents was published in
the Atlantic City Press, Bridgeton Evening News, and the Vineland
Daily Journal on July 19, 1991. A public comment period was held
from July 19, 1991 to August 19, 1991.. In addition, a public
meeting was held on August 6, 1991. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA and its consultant presented the results
of the RI/FS and the major components of the preferred
alternative. Also, EPA answered questions raised by the public
about the site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Responses to comments received during this period are included in
the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision.

A Community Relations Plan for the EPA activities was placed in
the repositories near the site. This plan includes a description
of the site background, history of community involvement at the
site, community relations strategies, and a schedule for
community relations activities. Previous community relations
activities include a public information meeting, conducted on
April 12, 1988, to provide an overview of the Superfund Program,
background information on the history of the Upper Deerfield
Township Sanitary Landfill site, and to discuss the work plan
prepared for the RI/FS. On June 23, 1988, a second public
information meeting was held to further discuss the RI/FS
activities planned for the site.

This decision document presents the selected alternative for the
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site in Upper
Deerfield Township, New Jersey, chosen in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and to the extent practicable the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for
this site is based on the Administrative Record.

Scope and Role of Response Action

The selected alternative for the Upper Deerfield site is to take
no further remedial action. In 1986, in response to the ground
water contamination problem, the residents of Upper Deerfield
Township were connected to a public water supply system, thus
removing any immediate health risk at the time to the residents
posed by the ground water. This action was funded by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy.

EPA conducted an RI from April 1987 through April 1990. The
results of an extensive investigation showed that the ground
water and soil contamination associated with the Upper Deerfield
site no longer pose a health threat under current or likely
future land use conditions.
-5-
-------
Data obtained during the RI has shown that the ground water
contamination caused by the landfill no longer poses a health
threat under current or likely future land use conditions.
Consequently, no additional action is required pursuant to
CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP. However, since groundwater
contamination did exist in the vicinity of the Upper Deerfield
Township Sanitary Landfill, and because low levels of hazardous
waste will remain on site, continued sampling is necessary in
order to monitor the overall air and ground water quality in the
area. The No Action with Monitoring Alternative is the
appropriate response action to ensure long-term protection of
human health and the environment.

EPA determination that the health and environmental risks created
by the current conditions at the Upper Deerfield Township
Landfill site are low is based on the following:

- the results of the Remedial Investigation, which
indicate low levels of hazardous substances;

the action already taken to provide residents with a
public water supply;

the lack of any evidence of disposal of hazardous waste
in the landfill (rather the landfill contains primarily
domestic waste and construction debris);

the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment which
indicate that the chemicals of concern at the Upper
Deerfield site do not pose a significant risk to human
health or the environment; and

- the current zoning restrictions placed on land use of
the landfill property, the recent resolution, passed by
the Township, authorizing deed restrictions on the
landfill property, and area ground water use
restrictions imposed by the Township of Upper
Deerfield.

Because this remedy will result in low levels of hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review

-6-
-------
will be conducted within five years after commencement of the
monitoring program to ensure that the no action. with monitoring
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.

°f Site Characteristics
The objective of the Remedial Investigation was to characterize
the nature and extent of contamination associated with the Upper
Deerfield Landfill site. The analytical data generated during
the RI was used to quantify the risk to public health and/or the
environment resulting from exposure to the site. The results of
the RI enabled EPA to determine the need for remedial measures to
mitigate the impact of the site on public health and the
environment. These objectives were met by examining all
available information regarding the Upper Deerfield site and by
performing field investigations to gather additional information
where necessary.

The major goals of this investigation were to determine if the
materials disposed of at the landfill have resulted in the
following:

Contamination of surface and/or subsurface soils;

- contamination of ground water (including residential
wells) ; and/or

the presence of hazardous wastes in the landfill.

The RI field work, conducted from April 1987 to April 1990,
included a soil gas survey, an air sampling program, a site grid
survey, a geophysical survey, subsurface soil sampling, sediment
sampling, monitoring well and piezometer installation, and ground
water sampling from monitoring wells and residential wells. In
addition, a public health evaluation and an environmental
assessment were conducted to address the potential risk to public
health and the environment posed by site-related contaminants.

The major findings of the RI were:

Fbysical Characteristics of the Site

• There is a 120-foot thick water bearing zone composed of
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sediments beneath the
property. This water bearing zone, the Kirkwood-Cohansey
aquifer, lies beneath the Bridgeton formation which occurs
to a depth of 23 feet below ground surface. The Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer is considered the water table in the
vicinity of the site and is the primary source of potable
water in the area .
-7-
-------
• The Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer overlies the intermediate clay
unit of the Kirkwood formation, a regional semi-confining
unit found at the site approximately 160 to 190 feet below
ground surface.

• The thickness of the waste within the landfill ranges from
approximately 10 feet to 30 feet.

• Ground water at the site flows to the south and southeast
under a slight horizontal gradient at an estimated linear
velocity of 35 feet/year. During periods of above average
rainfall, a circular mound or ridge is created in the middle
of the landfill from which ground water tends to flow in all
directions.

• The water table at the site is approximately 40 feet below
ground surface. Water level measurements indicate that the
wastes in the landfill are generally above the level of the
water table.

Nature and Extent of Contamination

SOIL GAS SURVEY

A soil gas survey, analyzing volatile organic contamination
present in the near surface soils, was conducted in two
phases during the remedial investigation.

The results of Phase I, conducted in July 1987, indicated
the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) located
primarily at the southern edge and southeast corner of the
landfill. The VOCs in these areas are primarily petroleum
hydrocarbons (compounds common to gasoline: alkanes and
cycloalkanes, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes)
and vinyl chloride. In addition, low levels of 1,1-
dichloroethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene were
detected. Through the use of a Jerome Mercury Vapor
Analyzer, EPA detected a mercury vapor plume in the
northwest corner of the landfill. No significant
concentrations of contaminants were noted downgradient of
the site, suggesting that little or no migration of the soil
gas contaminants beyond the site boundary was occurring at
the time of the Phase I soil gas sampling.

The soil gas results from Phase II, conducted in January
1990, showed low levels of chlorinated and aromatic
hydrocarbons present at the site. Compounds detected were
similar to those identified during the first phase of
sampling. Aromatic compounds detected included benzene,
toluene, xylenes, and ethyl benzene. Chlorinated compounds
included vinyl chloride, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene,
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene and

-8-
-------
1,1,1-trichloroethane. As in the first phase of sampling,
low levels of mercury vapors were detected in one isolated
area on the northwest corner of the landfill. In addition,
the soil gas survey detected landfill gases (primarily
methane) in the landfill. However, the results indicate
that off-site migration of methane is limited.

SOIL/SEDIMENT SAMPLING

The objective of soil sampling and analysis was to determine
the nature and extent of soil contamination at the site.
During Phase I, a total of 80 soil samples were collected •
from five soil borings in the landfill and from boreholes
created during monitoring well installation. Thirty-three
soil samples were collected from the boreholes during Phase
II monitoring well installation and from the four boreholes
drilled into the landfill. Subsurface soil sample results
were compared to results from the background samples
obtained from monitoring well (MW) 12S, and the New Jersey
Interim Soil Action Levels.

Volatile Organic Compounds

Phase I organic data was rejected during data validation.
During Phase II of the RI, split spoon samples were
collected from one background well and three downgradient
and side gradient wells. Two VOCs, methylene chloride, and
toluene were detected in the subsurface soils at the
background location. However, the action level of 1 part
per million (ppm) for total VOCs was not exceeded in
background locations during Phase II. Four VOCs (toluene,
xylene, 2-butanone, and carbon disulfide) were found in
subsurface soils from MW-8D; total VOCs slightly exceeded
soil action levels at this location. These compounds were
roost prevalent in soils from below 155 feet. Only one VOC,
chloroform, was detected in MW-lOS at 1 microgram per
kilogram (ug/kg), which is below the soil action level. No
VOCs were detected in subsurface soil samples in MW-11S.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

Only one SVOC, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, was detected in
subsurface soil samples during Phase II. The compound was
detected at the background location and did not exceed the
soil action level. SOVCs were not detected in other Phase
II subsurface soil samples, and no pesticides or PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) were detected.

Inorganic Compounds

During Phase I, five contaminants (antimony, beryllium,
cadmium, silver, and vanadium) were detected at or above the

-9-
-------
NJDEPE Interim Soil Action Levels. Vanadium was detected at
109 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is only slightly
above the action level of 100 mg/kg. Silver was detected at
the action level of 5 mg/kg. Cadmium was detected at 3 and
3.1 mg/kg, at or slightly above the action level of 3 mg/kg,
respectively. Beryllium was detected at concentrations
ranging from 0.35 to 4.3 mg/kg; the action level for
beryllium is 1 mg/kg. Antimony was detected at
concentrations ranging from 6.7 to 59 mg/kg; the action
level for antimony is 10 mg/kg.

During Phase II, a large number of inorganics were detected
in subsurface soil samples from MW-12S, the background well
located upgradient of the site. The inorganics detected
included aluminum, antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and vanadium. However, no
sample exceeded New Jersey Interim Soil Action Levels.
Several inorganics were detected at MW-8D, however only
cadmium, detected at 5 mg/kg, slightly exceeded the action
level of 3 mg/kg. Several inorganics were detected at MW-
10S and MW-11S, however all were found at concentrations
similar to those of the background soil samples. No sample
exceeded the soil action levels.

As part of Phase I, sediment sampling was performed in
several drainage ditches and areas where temporary ponding
of water occurs, to determine if contaminants were present.
However, these areas were dry at the time of sampling. The
samples are more accurately defined as soil samples. No
inorganic compounds detected in the "sediment" samples
exceeded NJDEPE Interim Soil Action Levels.

GROUND WATER INVESTIGATIONS

Ground water investigations at the Upper Deerfield site have
included periodic sampling of monitoring and residential
wells, beginning in 1980, by the Cumberland County Health
Department (CCHD) and NJDEPE, as well as ground water
sampling during the Remedial Investigation by EPA from 1988
through 1990. EPA collected samples from residential wells
in the area, and from monitoring wells and piezometers
installed during the Remedial Investigation.

RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING

Beginning in February 1980, the CCHD and NJDEPE began
sampling residential wells in the area of the Upper
Deerfield site. Results of these sampling events indicated
the presence of volatile organics and mercury in area wells.
In 1984, NJDEPE sampled 26 residential wells in the vicinity
of the landfill. Analyses of the samples showed the
presence of mercury at concentrations ranging from 2.5 to

-10-
-------
130 parts per billion (ppb), exceeding the Federal drinking
water standard of 2 ppb in nine of the wells.

EPA initiated the Remedial Investigation at the site in
1987. As part of the investigation, EPA sampled residential
wells in the area during 1988 and 1989. Two of the
downgradient residential wells sampled in 1988 showed levels
of mercury at 6.6 ppb and 7.2 ppb, exceeding the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 2 ppb. In addition, several
samples indicated elevated levels of other inorganics,
however only copper detected at 1100 ppb slightly exceeded
the State MCL of 1000 ppb. During the second round of
residential sampling, in 1989, low levels of volatile
organic compounds were detected in four wells, however, no
sample showed concentrations exceeding the Federal and State
drinking water standards. Among the inorganics, copper
detected at 1420 ppb exceeded the State MCL of 1000 ppb and
lead detected at 65 ppb slightly exceeded the Federal MCL of
50 ppb. Mercury concentrations did not exceed MCLs in any
of the 1989 residential well samples.

In an effort to evaluate regional ground water quality in
the vicinity of the Upper Deerfield site, EPA also collected
ground water samples from 28 residential wells in the area
on July 11 and 12, 1989. No significant volatile organic
contamination was found in any of the samples. Metal
concentrations in all but one sample were well below Federal
and State safe drinking water levels. One sample contained
52 ppb of lead, which is above the drinking water standard
of 50 ppb. However, concentrations of lead in adjacent
residences were detected at 5 ppb and 9 ppb, suggesting that
the higher level was likely due to the internal plumbing
system in the home.

MONITORING WELL SAMPLING

In addition to residential well sampling, ground water
investigations included the installation and sampling of
monitoring wells and piezometers in and around the landfill.
In February 1980, the CCHD began periodic sampling of three
monitoring wells installed in the landfill. Initial
sampling indicated that two of the wells were contaminated
with mercury, vinyl chloride, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-
dichloroethane, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. As part of its
Remedial Investigation, EPA installed ten monitoring wells
and five piezometers at the site in 1988. In November 1988,
EPA sampled six of the monitoring wells; the remaining four
wells did not contain sufficient water to sample. Among the
inorganics, chromium was detected at 76.8 ppb, which is
below the Federal MCL of 100, but is slightly above the
State MCL of 50 ppb. The highest concentration of mercury
detected was 1.9 ppb, which is below the MCL of 2 ppb.

-11-
-------
Among the organics, vinyl chloride was detected at 3 ppb
which is above the drinking water standard of 2 ppb. No
other compound exceeding State or Federal MCLs was detected
at any monitoring well during this sampling episode. •

In 1989, EPA installed and sampled five additional
monitoring wells at the site. EPA also sampled the six
wells previously sampled in 1988 and four of the five
piezometers that had been installed in 1988. The fifth
piezometer did not contain sufficient water to sample.
Results of the 1989 sampling indicated that volatile organic
compounds were present in shallow monitoring wells
downgradient of the site. However, only cis-1,2-
dichloroethene detected at 13 ppb slightly exceeded the
State. MCL of 10 ppb, but was below the Federal MCL of 70
ppb. Among the inorganics, cadmium, chromium, lead and
mercury exceeded the State and Federal MCLs in some samples
from four piezometers located on the landfill. Mercury was
detected at 82.5 ppb, lead at 84.6 ppb, chromium from 69 to
252 ppb, and cadmium from 9.1 to 14.9 ppb.

In 1990, EPA sampled the same set of monitoring wells that
was sampled in 1989. The 1990 results indicate that the
relative distribution of contaminants in these wells is
similar to that observed during the 1988 and 1989 sampling,
however, the magnitude of the contamination and frequency of
detection decreased from 1989 to 1990. Three contaminants
detected (chlorobenzene, chromium, and mercury) in
piezometers located on the landfill, exceeded MCLs.
Chlorobenzene was detected at 5.9 ppb, which slightly
exceeds the State MCL of 4 ppb. Chromium was detected at 85
ppb and 120 ppb, exceeding the State MCL of 50 ppb and the
Federal MCL of 100 ppb. Mercury was detected at 5.4 ppb
und 146 ppb, exceeding the MCL of 2 ppb. However, samples
taken from monitoring wells located adjacent to the landfill
indicated mercury concentrations below the MCLs. Benzene,
cis-l,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride slightly exceeded
MCLs in several piezometers and monitoring wells. Benzene
was detected at a range of 1.1 ppb to 2.3 ppb, which is
below the Federal MCL of 5 ppb, but is slightly above the
State MCL of 1 ppb. Cis-l,2-dichloroethene was detected at
11 ppb and 15 ppb, which is below the Federal MCL of 70 ppb,
but is slightly above the State MCL of 10 ppb. Vinyl
chloride was detected at 3.7 ppb exceeding the MCL of 2 ppb.

In summary, the results of the Remedial Investigation showed
only low levels of contaminants in the landfill soils.
Results of the soil gas survey indicate that while VOCs and
mercury are present in on-site soil gas, little migration of
the soil gas contaminants from the site is presently
occurring. Volatile organic compounds and inorganic
compounds were found at relatively low levels in the ground

-12-
-------
water and results indicate that these levels have decreased.
The investigation did not identify a definite ground water
contaminant plume migrating from the landfill.
of Bite Risks
A baseline risk assessment (public health evaluation) was
conducted by EPA to determine potential risks to public health
and the environment posed by contamination at the Upper Deerfield
Township Sanitary Landfill site. The risk assessment is based
primarily on data gathered during the field investigation phase
of the RI. The risk assessment incorporates conservative
assumptions about pollutant toxicity, exposures, intakes and
risks.

The chemicals detected at the Upper Deerfield site include
volatile organics and inorganics. The risk assessment focussed
on the contaminants which are likely to pose the greatest
potential risks to human health and the environment (contaminants
of concern). These 'contaminants of concern' and their
concentrations in site media are shown in Tables 1 through 4.

Ground water migration and volatilization to the atmosphere are
the primary transport pathways for contaminants from the site.
Potentially exposed populations include trespassers and off -site
residents under current and likely future site uses; future use
of the property for residential purposes is not considered to be
a likely scenario. Possible routes of exposure to site
contaminants present in the on-site soil are through dermal
contact, ingestion, and/or inhalation of soil particulates, and
through inhalation of organic vapors possibly volatilizing from
the soil. Exposure to contaminated ground water may occur
through ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation during
showering. A summary of potential human exposure pathways under
current and likely future land-use conditions is presented in
5.
Risk Characterization

Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It is assumed that the
toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive.
Thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual indicator compounds were summed to
indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.

Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (reference doses) . Reference doses

-13-
-------
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The reference doses for
the chemicals of potential concern at the Upper Oeerfield site
are presented in Table €. The hazard index is obtained by adding
the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media. A
hazard index greater than one indicates that potential exists for
non-carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. The hazard
indices for non-carcinogenic effects from the Site are listed in
Table 7. The hazard indices for all current scenarios are less
than or equal to one (when rounded to one significant figure) and
thus are within EPA's acceptable risk range.

Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the EPA for the contaminants of
concern. Slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg/day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg/day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper-
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the chemicals of potential
concern are presented in Table 8.

For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10"4 to 1 X
10"8 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual
has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to site
conditions. A summary of the carcinogenic risk estimates is
presented in Table 7. Under current and likely future land use
conditions at the Upper Deerfield site, the total carcinogenic
risk was estimated to be 1 X 10"6 (one in a million) to on-site
trespassers and 2 X 10"* (two in one hundred thousand) risk to
off-site residents. Therefore, under current and likely future
land use scenarios, total carcinogenic risks are within EPA's
acceptable risk range for the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary
Landfill site.
-14-
-------
Ecological Assessment

An Ecological Assessment was conducted to assess potential
impacts to non-human receptors associated with the contaminants
of concern at tho Upper Deerfield site. The approach used in the
ecological assessment roughly paralleled those used in the human
health risk assessment. Potentially exposed non-human receptors
were identified and then estimated impacts from the site were
determined. The chemicals of concern for the human health risk
assessment were selected based on frequency of occurrence, range
of concentrations, and background levels.

The site is located in a rural agricultural area in southern New
Jersey. Wildlife habitat in the site vicinity includes a mixture
of agricultural fields, meadows, woodlots, and small steams. The
site is bordered by a cornfield to the north, a soybean field to
the south, and scattered woodlots to the east and west.

Vegetation within these areas include: various agricultural
crops (soybean, corn, spinach, legumes, and forage grasses). The
particular species comprising the vegetative community of the
meadows in the area depends on the number of years the field has
been abandoned. Generally, crab grass and horseweed dominate
abandoned fields first, followed by asters, broomsedge,
goldenrod, and tree saplings. The forests of the area can be
characterized primarily as upland mixed hardwood forests.
Principal canopy species include red maple, white oak, and red
oak.

Various forms of wildlife inhabit the areas surrounding the Upper
Deerfield site. The specific terrestrial and aquatic plant and
wildlife communities present in the vicinity of the site are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of the Remedial
Investigation Report.

Surface waters in the study area consist primarily of streams
originating from surface drainage or from ground water springs.
The closest stream, located three-quarters of a mile southeast,
downgradient of Site is an unnamed tributary of the Thundergust
Brook. This tributary flows from Route 658 northeast for about
one-half a mile before entering Thundergust Brook, the closest
stream upgradient of the site. Due to their size and flow
characteristics, the streams in the study area are likely to be
comprised chiefly of small invertebrates, such as copepods,
crayfish and other decapods, fairy shrimp, water fleas and
possible freshwater mollusks. In addition, the streams likely
provide breeding habitat for several amphibian species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an endangered and
threatened species survey for the site and surrounding areas.
The federally threatened plant species, swamp pink, occurs within
a three-mile radius of the site. However, since swamp pink

-15-
-------
typically occurs in forested wetlands, suitable habitat for the
swamp pink is unlikely to be present at the site. Except for
occasional transient species such as the bald eagle and peregrine
falcon, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or
endangered flora or fauna are known to exist within the study
area.

There are no wetlands, floodplains, or federally designated wild
and scenic rivers in the immediate vicinity of the site. In
addition, the site is not in the coastal zone as designated by
the State of New Jersey.

In summary, the environmental assessment determined that the
environmental hazards at the Upper Deerfield site are limited to
possible impacts on aquatic life from exposure to low levels of
metals in ground water which can potentially enter surface water.
The amphibian populations of the study area as a whole are not
expected to be affected. Adverse impacts on plant and other
terrestrial wildlife are unlikely.

Risk Assessment Uncertainties

The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include the following:

- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
- environmental parameter measurement;
- fate and transport modeling;
- exposure parameter estimation; and
- toxicological data.

Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present.

Environmental chemistry analysis error can stem from several
sources including the errors inherent in the analytical methods
and characterization of the matrix being sampled. Uncertainties
in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often
an individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals
of concern, the period of time over which such exposures would
occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of
the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure. Uncertainties
in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to
humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from
the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of
chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment

-16-
-------
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near
the landfill, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual
risks related to the Site.

For more specific information concerning public health risks,
including quantitative evaluations of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, please see the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report for the Upper Deerfield Township
Sanitary Landfill site, dated July 1991.

Description of Alternatives

Initially, a number of remedial alternatives were screened and
evaluated for effectiveness, implementability and cost. The
screening was performed to reduce the number of remedial
technologies and process options for detailed evaluation. The
screened technology types and process options have been assembled
into site-wide alternatives. The following represent those
alternatives for which a more detailed evaluation was performed.
A five year review is part of all the alternatives since
contaminants will be left untreated on the site.

Alternative 1A: No Action

Capital Cost: $0
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $9,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $132,000
Implementation Time: Reviews to be conducted every five years
for an assumed 30 year period

The No Action alternative provides no remedial action. The
alternative does not reduce the potential risks posed by soils,
buried wastes, and ground water at the Upper Deerfield site.
CERCLA requires that the No Action alternative be evaluated at
every site to establish a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives.

All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would
result in contaminants remaining on site. As a result, CERCLA
requires that the site be reviewed every five years to assess the
current levels of contaminants remaining at the site and their
impacts on public health and the environment.
-17-
-------
Alternative IB: Limited Action

Capital Cost: $10,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $154-000
Total Present Worth Cost: $2,380,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring assumed for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 6-12 months

The Limited Action alternative includes a recommendation to place
deed and ground water use restrictions on the landfill property,
and a five year review program including an ecological assessment
at the time of the first review. As part of the ecological
assessment, surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted
in the vicinity of the site. In addition, the alternative
includes the implementation of a long-term comprehensive
monitoring program of the air and ground water (including the
installation of additional monitoring wells and sampling of
downgradient residential wells) in the vicinity of the landfill
to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Alternative 1C: No Action with Monitoring

Capital Cost: $10,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $154,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $2,380,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring assumed for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 6-12 months

The No Action with Monitoring Alternative was added to the list
of alternatives because subsequent to the public comment period,
EPA has found that the landfill property is currently zoned as
public land, thus precluding residential use of the property. In
addition, the Township of Upper Deerfield has recently pasted a
resolution authorizing deed restrictions on the landfill
property. These restrictions are in the process of being filed
in the county clerk*s office. Furthermore, in 1986, following
the installation of the public water supply system, the Township
placed restrictions on ground water use in the vicinity of the
landfill. These restrictions continue to be enforced.
Therefore, EPA believes that future land use of the landfill
property and restrictions on ground water use have been
adequately addressed by the Township of Upper Deerfield.

Therefore, this alternative includes all the major components of
Alternative IB, excluding the recommendation to place deed and
ground water use restrictions on the landfill property.
-18-
-------
Alternative 2A: Boil Cap

Capital cost: $2,549,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $172/000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5/187,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 12 - 14 months

Under this alternative, a 24 inch thick soil cap would be
installed over the landfill waste. The existing landfill would
be stripped of vegetation and regraded to provide a smooth
working surface. The cap would be installed over a gravel gas
collection layer containing an active gas collection/
distribution and treatment system. The area covered by the cap
would be approximately 11 acres and would be bounded by a site
perimeter fence.

This alternative also includes, deed and ground water use
restrictions on the landfill property, ground water and ambient
air monitoring, and a five year review program including an
ecological assessment as described in Alternative IB. Post-
closure maintenance is also included as part of this alternative.

Alternative 2B: Soil Cap with Limited Ground Water Treatment

Capital Cost: $3,830,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $1,151,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $20,594,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 15 months

Alternative 2B is the same as Alternative 2A with the addition of
ground water treatment. Ground water treatment has been added
because a small number of contaminants in the ground water
slightly exceed current drinking water standards. As part of
this alternative, ground water from beneath the landfill would be
extracted using wells, treated on site, and injected back into
the aquifer. Ground water would be treated until federal and
state drinking water standards are attained or longer if the goal
of providing ground water containment is chosen. Ground water
would be extracted and treated to meet two potential goals. The
primary goal is to minimize contaminant migration beyond the site
boundary. The secondary goal is to reduce contaminant levels in
ground water to meet Federal and State drinking water standards.

The following processes would be required for ground water
treatment: equalization, flocculation/precipitation, filtration,
ion exchange, and carbon adsorption.
-19-
-------
Alternative 3A: Mew Jersey Solid Waste Cap

Capital Cost: $2,298,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $172,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $4,936,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 12 - 14 months

This alternative includes a flexible 40 mil membrane liner with
the cap, surface water controls, an active landfill gas
collection, treatment and monitoring system, a facility access
s control system, and provisions for site reclamation to ensure
that the site is compatible with its surroundings.

This alternative also includes, deed and ground water use
restrictions on the landfill property, ground water and ambient
air monitoring, a five year review program including an
ecological assessment as described in Alternative IB. In
addition, installation of a site perimeter fence and construction
of storm water management structures would be required, as well
as post closure maintenance.

Alternative 3B: Mew Jersey Solid Waste Cap with Limited Ground
Water Treatment

Capital Cost: $3,565,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $1,151,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $20,330,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 15 months

This alternative is the same as described in Alternative 3A, with
the addition of ground water treatment. The ground water
treatment system would be as described in Alternative 2B.

Alternative 4A: MJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap

Capital Cost: $3,295,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $172,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5,932,000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 12 - 14 months

The NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap consists of two liners. The upper
liner would consist of a flexible membrane liner; the lower liner
would consist of a minimum of three feet of clay. A granular
layer would be installed below the lower liner to collect
landfill gases to be transported to the active gas treatment
system.

-20-
-------
This alternative also includes, deed and ground water use
restrictions on the landfill property, ground water and ambient
air monitoring, a five year review program including an
ecological assessment as described in Alternative IB. In
addition, installation of a site perimeter fence and construction
of storm water management structures would be required, as well
as post-closure maintenance.

Alternative 4B: NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap and Limited Ground
Water Treatment

Capital Cost: $4,562,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $1/151,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $21,326/000
Implementation Time: Monitoring and maintenance assumed
for a 30 year period
Estimated Time to Construct: 15 months

Alternative 4B is the same as Alternative 4A with the addition of
ground water treatment. The ground water treatment system is the
same as described in Alternative 2B.

Of comarative Analysis of Al
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was conducted with respect to each of nine criteria.
However, based on EPA's risk assessment for the site (showing a
baseline risk of 1X10"6 for site trespassers and 2X10"8 for off-
site residents) , plus the information supplied by the Township
regarding restrictions on future use of the landfill property and
area ground water (referenced earlier) , EPA believes that no
remedial action is necessary at this site to protect human health
or the environment (although air and ground water monitoring will
continue to be conducted) .

The nine criteria are described below along with a comparison of
the performance of the different remedial alternatives against
the nine criteria.

Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether an alternative provides adequate protection and describes
how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether an alternative will meet
all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of

-21-
-------
Federal and State environmental statutes and/or provides a
justification for invoking a waiver.

Primary Balancing Criteria

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to expected
residual risk and the ability of the alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time, once cleanup goals have been met.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
evaluates the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies an alternative may employ.

Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the period of time in which
the remedy achieves protection, as well as the alternative's
potential to create adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may result during the construction and
implementation period, until remedial goals are met. Items
evaluated include: protection of community during remedial
actions, protection of workers during remedial actions, and
impacts on the environment.

Implementability evaluates the technical and administrative
feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular
technology.

Cost refers to estimated construction, and operation and
maintenance costs, also expressed as net present worth costs.

Modifying Criteria

State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Risk Assessment,
and Proposed Plan, NJDEPE concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative.

Community Acceptance addresses the public's concerns and comments
about the Proposed Plan and the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study reports. This criteria is evaluated in the
Responsiveness Summary section of this document.

ANALYSIS

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

With the exception of Alternative 1A, No Action, all other
alternatives provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment, considering the low risks posed by the contamination
at the Upper Deerfield Landfill site.

-22-
-------
Alternative 1A, No Action, includes only a five year review
program, which, without a monitoring program, may not provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative IB, Limited Action, offers adequate protection of
human health and the environment through recommended
institutional controls and a comprehensive monitoring program of
air and ground water. Because future use of the landfill
property and restrictions on ground water use have been
adequately addressed by the Township of Upper Deerfield,
Alternative 1C, No Action with Monitoring also offers adequate
protection of human health and the environment.

In addition to a monitoring program as discussed under
Alternative IB, Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4A provide for a cap on
che landfill. The caps differ in their construction and
therefore, provide varying degrees of protectiveness.
Alternative 4A includes both a clay layer and a synthetic liner
and thus would provide more protection against the potential
leaching of contaminants into the ground water than Alternatives
2A and 3A. Alternative 3A has a 40 mil synthetic liner, but no
clay layer, while Alternative 2A has a 24 inch layer of clay
without the synthetic liner. According to a model, a 24 inch
layer of clay is estimated to be slightly less permeable than a
40 mil synthetic liner. In terms of reducing any risk of
exposure by direct contact with the landfilled waste or
contaminated soil there is no discernable difference among
Alternatives 2B, 3B, and 4B.

Alternatives 2B, 3B, and 4B include ground water collection and
treatment in addition to the placement of a cap on the landfill.
All three alternatives would utilize the same type of ground
water collection and treatment system, therefore differing only
in terms of cap construction.

Compliance with ARARs

This criterion addresses whether an alternative will meet ARARs
under Federal and State environmental laws and/or provides a
justification for a waiver. There are several types of ARARs:
action-specific, chemical-specific and location-specific.
Action-specific ARARs are technology or activity-specific
requirements or limitations related to various activities.
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually numerical values which
establish the amount or concentrations of a chemical that may be
found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. Location-
specific requirements are restrictions placed on the
concentrations of hazardous substances or the conduct of
activities solely because they occur in a special location.
As mentioned previously, based on EPA's risk assessment for the
site (showing a baseline risk of 1X10"6 for site trespassers and
2X10"* for off-site residents) , plus the information supplied by
the Township regarding restrictions on future use of the landfill

-23-
-------
property and area ground water, EPA believes that no remedial
action is necessary at this site to protect human health or the
environment (although air and ground water monitoring will
continue to be conducted). In light of our decision not to
select a remedial action, the requirements of CERCLA section
121(d)(2) (compliance with ARARs) — are not triggered; that
section applies only in those cases where a remedial action is
selected.

Long—Term Effectiveness and Permanence

With the exception of Alternative 1A, No Action, all alternatives
are believed to be effective over the long-term.

Alternative IB is more effective in the long-term than
Alternative 1A since it includes institutional controls as well
as air and ground water monitoring. As future use of the
landfill property and area ground water use have already been
addressed by the Township of Upper Deerfield, Alternative 1C
provides long-term effectiveness equal to that of Alternative IB.
Due to the differences between the construction of the different
caps, Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4A offer varying degrees of long-
term effectiveness and permanence. Alternative 4A is expected to
be more effective in the long-term than Alternatives 2A and 3A
due to their relative rates of cap deterioration. The NJDEP
Hazardous Waste Cap associated with Alternative 4A is expected to
be more stable than the Soil Cap in Alternative 2A or the NJDEP
Solid Waste Cap in Alternative 3A. Alternatives 2A and 3A would
provide approximately the same degree of long-term effectiveness.

If required, ground water treatment alternatives would be
effective in permanently controlling and reducing the low
concentration of ground water contaminants migrating from the
Upper Deerfield site once these alternatives were implemented,
and should maintain their effectiveness for the expected duration
of the remedial action. The treatment and discharge components
of the alternatives would require maintenance to preserve their
effectiveness. Due to the differences in the construction of
their caps Alternatives 2B, 3B, and 4B offer varying degrees of
long term effectiveness and permanence.

Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

None of the capping alternatives reduce toxicity or volume of
wastes present at the landfill, however, capping Alternatives 2A,
3A, and 4A restrict contaminant mobility in the landfill by
reducing the infiltration of precipitation and thereby reduce the
mobility of contaminants into the ground water. In addition, the
collection and treatment of gases included under the capping
alternatives would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants released into the air from the landfill.
-24-
-------
In addition to capping, Alternatives 2B, 3B, and 4B include
ground water treatment and, therefore, would reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of contaminants present in the ground water.
The recovery of ground water for treatment would effect a
reduction in contaminant mobility by preventing further migration
of the contaminants. The toxicity and volume of contaminants in
the ground water would also be reduced via treatment, although
the extent of overall toxicity and volume reduction would depend
on the treatment process used. Alternatives IA, IB, and 1C would
provide no reductions of toxicity, mobility or volume.

Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternative 1A would impose the least impact to the community,
remedial workers, and the environment during implementation
because no actions would be taken. Alternatives IB and 1C would
impose only slightly more impact than Alternative 1A since they
involve the installation of additional monitoring wells and
sampling of residential wells.

For all alternatives, except Alternatives 1A, IB, and 1C ground-
intrusive activities, such as grading and excavation and the
installation of an active gas collection/treatment and monitoring
system would cause short-term dust generation and possible soil
erosion. Therefore, dust and soil erosion controls would be used
as appropriate. Construction of all capping alternatives
(Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4A) is estimated to take approximately 12
to 14 months.

The ground water treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2B, 3B, and
4B) would impact the community and environment most due to
construction of ground water extraction wells and an on-site
treatment plart. Construction of the ground water extraction and
treatment system is estimated to take approximately 15 months.
The treatment operations would continue for approximately 30
years, or until State and Federal drinking water standards are
attained.

Implementability

Alternative 1A would be the easiest to implement because no
construction would be involved. Alternative IB would be slightly
more difficult to implement than the No Action alternative since
it involves institutional controls, implementation of a
comprehensive monitoring program of air and ground water, and the
installation of additional monitoring wells. Alternative 1C
would also be slightly more difficult to implement than the No
Action alternative since, as in Alternative IB, it involves
implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program of air and
ground water, and the installation of additional monitoring
wells. However, institutional controls are not included under
this alternative. Alternatives 2A, 3A and 4A involve the

-25-
-------
construction of a cap and a gas collection/treatment system;
there are no discernable differences related to the
implementation of these alternatives. Alternatives 2B, 3B and 4B
would be the most difficult to implement as all three involve
construction of a ground water treatment system in addition to a
cap and gas collection/treatment system. However, all
construction alternatives utilize well developed processes. The
availability of equipment and contractors for construction
activities is expected to be adequate.

Cost

The estimated total present worth of the remedial alternatives
are:

Alternative 1A: $132,000
Alternative IB: $2,380,000
Alternative 1C: $2,380,000
Alternative 2A: $5,187,000
Alternative 2B: $20,594,000
Alternative 3A: $4,936,000
Alternative 3B: $20,330,000
Alternative 4A: $5,932,000
Alternative 4B: $21,326,000

The primary constituents of the cost of Alternative 1A are
related to the 5 year review program estimated over a 30 year
period. For Alternatives IB and 1C, costs are primarily
attributed to sample collection and laboratory analysis over a 30
year period, and to a lesser extent, installation of additional
monitoring wells. Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4A costs are associated
with construction of a the various landfill caps. In addition to
the costs of the caps, the bulk of the costs of Alternatives 2B,
3B, and 4B can be attributed to the construction of a ground
water extraction and treatment system, and long-term operation
and maintenance of that system.

State Acceptance

NJDEPE provided comments to EPA on the proposed remedy during the
public comment period. The NJDEPE has evaluated the selected
remedy for the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site
and does not concur. The Department's basis for disagreeing with
the selected remedy is discussed in the Responsiveness Summary
section of the Record of Decision.

Community Acceptance

Community acceptance is assessed in the attached Responsiveness
Summary. The Responsiveness Summary provides a thorough review
of the public comments received during the public comment period
on the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, Risk

-26-
-------
Assessment, and Proposed Plan, and EPA's responses to the
comments received. The public comments that were received did
not necessitate any major changes in the general remedial
approach proposed for the site.

Selection of the "No Action Alternative vith Monitoring"

Section 121 (d), Degree of cleanup (1), of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
states "Remedial actions selected under this section or otherwise
required or agreed to by the President under this Act shall
attain a degree of cleanup of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants released into the environment and of control of
further release at a minimum which assures protection of human
health and the environment. Such remedial actions shall be
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances presented by the
release or threatened release of such substance, pollutant or
contaminant".

The results of an extensive ground water investigation showed
that high levels of contamination once present in the ground
water no longer exist. Data obtained during the RI has shown
that the ground water contamination caused by the landfill no
longer poses a health threat under current or likely future land
use conditions.

On August 6, 1991, EPA presented Alternative IB, Limited Action,
to the public as the preferred alternative. The major components
of the proposed Limited Action Remedy include the following: a
recommendation to place deed and ground water use restrictions on
the landfill property, a five year review program including an
ecological assessment at the tine of the first review, and the
implementation of a long-term comprehensive monitoring program of
the air and ground water in the vicinity of the landfill.

The input received during the public comment period is presented
in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this document.
The public comments that were received did not necessitate any
major changes in the general remedial approach proposed for the
site.

However, previous assumptions regarding possible future land use
of the landfill property as a residential area with private wells
installed on the landfill led EPA to take a conservative approach
to the proposed remedy by including a recommendation to place
deed and ground water use restrictions on the landfill property.
Subsequent to the public comment period, EPA has learned that the
landfill property is currently zoned as public land, thus
precluding residential use of the property. In addition, the
Township of Upper Deerfield has recently passed a resolution
authorizing deed restrictions on the landfill property. These

-27-
-------
restrictions are in the process of being filed in the county
clerk's office. Furthermore, in 1986, following the installation
of the public water supply system, the Township placed
restrictions on ground water use in the vicinity of the landfill;
these restrictions continue to be enforced. Therefore, EPA
believes that future land use of the landfill property and
restrictions on ground water use have been adequately addressed
by the Township of Upper Deerfield and thus, no further remedial
action is required under CERCLA.

However, since groundwater contamination did exist in the
vicinity of the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill and
because low levels of hazardous substances will remain on site,
EPA has chosen a No Action with Monitoring Alternative. As part
of the No Action with Monitoring Alternative, a monitoring
program of air and ground water in the vicinity of the landfill
will be implemented.

In addition, because this remedy will result in low levels of
hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted within five years after commencement
of the monitoring program to ensure that the no action with
monitoring remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.

The monitoring program to be implemented is the same program that
is described under Alternative IB, Limited Action. However, it
is important to note that this program is based on an extremely
conservative approach. The costs reflect a sampling program that
assumes all wells will be sampled for all possible inorganic and
organic contaminants for a period of 30 years. The need for such
a comprehensive program is likely to change. Therefore, EPA will
re-evaluate the monitoring program periodically based on the
sampling results. Accordingly, as the need for sampling
decreases, the program will be modified; this will be reflected
in the sampling and analytical costs.

The total present worth cost of Alternative 1C is estimated at
$2,380,000. The capitol cost, associated primarily with the
installation of two additional monitoring wells, is estimated at
$8,645. The annual cost of the monitoring program is estimated
at $154,330.

The decision is based on the following:

The immediate threat to the residents in the vicinity of the
Upper Deerfield site was removed by the installation of the
alternate water supply in 1986;

the results of the Remedial Investigation show that the high
concentrations of chemicals that were present previously have
significantly decreased;

-28-
-------
through its PRP Search, EPA has not found evidence of disposal of
hazardous waste in the landfill (rather, the landfill contains
primarily domestic waste and construction debris) ;

the Baseline Risk Assessment showed that the chemicals of concern
present at the Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill site do
not pose a significant health threat;

the Ecological Assessment indicates that the probability of
ecological impacts was estimated to be negligible; and

the current zoning restrictions placed on future land use of the
landfill property, area ground water use restrictions, and deed
restrictions currently being placed on the landfill property by
the Township of Upper Deerfield.

n of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the Upper Deerfield Township Landfill site
was released to the public in July 1991. This plan identified
the preferred alternative, Alternative IB, Limited Action. The
Limited Action alternative includes a recommendation to place
deed and ground water use restrictions on the landfill property,
and a five year review program including an ecological assessment
at the time of the first review. In addition, the alternative
includes the implementation of a long-term comprehensive
monitoring program of the air and ground water (including the
installation of additional monitoring wells and sampling of
downgradient residential wells) in the vicinity of the landfill
to ensure protection of human health and the environment. EPA
reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the
public comment period. Upon review of these comments EPA found
no cause to modify the selected remedy.

Previous assumptions regarding possible future land use of the
landfill property as a residential area with private wells
installed on the landfill led EPA to take a conservative approach
relative to the proposed remedy by including a recommendation to
place deed and ground water use restrictions on the landfill
property. However, subsequent to the public comment period, EPA
learned that the landfill property is currently zoned as public

-29-
-------
land, thus precluding residential use of the property. In
addition, the Township of Upper Deerfield is currently
undertaking the necessary steps to place deed restrictions on the
property. Furthermore, in 1986, following the installation of
the public water supply system, the Township placed restrictions
on ground water use in the vicinity of the landfill. These
restrictions continue to be enforced. Therefore, EPA believes
that future land use of the landfill property and restrictions on
ground water use have been adequately addressed by the Township
of Upper Deerfield and thus, no further remedial action is
required under CERCLA.

FIGURES
-------
SITE LOCATION MAP
COM ricio
CSIKNCCS
N
FIGURE 1
-------
APPENDIX B

TABLES
-------
TABLE I

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
GROUP 1 SOIL
UPPER DEERFIELD LANDFILL SITE, NJ
-o
08
OD
T-SS-4.UK1
M-Oec-90

Chealcal
Antlaony
Derylllui
Cadalua
Copper
Mercury
Silver
line
Group 1 On- sit* <«g/kg)"«
frequency
Detection*
2/ IS
7/ IS
11 / IS
2/2
2 / IS
2/ IS
10 / 12
SOL
Mtnlaua
7.2
O.S
0.89
HA
0.08
1.2
4
Manlaus
8.2
0.4
1
HA
0.1
1.3
4
Detected Cone."
Nlnlaus
SO
0.34
0.99
4
0.12
2.1
10
HSHISUS
SI
1.4
2.4
6.9
0.19
3.9
18
95*
level Mean
21.13
0.60
1.64
18.48
0.09
1.S6
13.96

Cone.
21
0.6
1.6
6.9
0.09
1.6
14
Background Data
MM-12S (s«/kg)*"

Detected
Cone.
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
Twice
Cone.
MO
HO
HO
HD
NO
HD
HO
•Huaber of ssaplee In which the cheeriest net positively detected ever the nuaber of Maple* available.
••Only detected concentration data for on-»lie • tat lore Mere used.
•••Croup 1 aaaplea arc aoll aanplea (sediment and subsurface soil) collected ulthln four feat beloMfround level.
SOX: Saaple Ousntltatlon Hall; DA: Hot Available; HO: Hot Detected.
Notet If a chealcal IMS detected tuic* or aore than twice within all acdla. It It considered to be a contaminant of concern.
If a chealcal was not detected or was detected only once within all acdla. It Is not considered to be a
contaminant of concern.
-------
TABLE 2

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
GROUP 2 SOIL
UPPER DEERFIELD LANDFILL SITE, NJ
-a
O
00
gg;n
OO
T-SS-B.UK1
9/24/90

Chemical
Antimony
Beryl HUB
Caomlus
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Silver
line
Group 2 On- site (mo/kg)'"
frequency
•ftf
Of
Detect Ion*
3/22
9/22
IS / 22
§/ 9
20/29
3/22
4/22
10 / 19
SOL
Ninlaua
4.6
0.3
0.66
0.92
HA
0.08
0.22
4
Detected Cone."
Ns»laus
0.2
O.S
1.3
0.92
•A
0.12
1.3
4
Mlnlaua
SO
0.34
0.99
2.8
20
0.12
2.1
10
Maalaue
59
1.4
2.0
18
306
0.2
13
18
9SX
f* «Mkf titmnrm
con? loence
Level Mean
18.0S
0.62
1.S1
12.02
105.50
0.09
2.79
10.46

Cone.
21 ••••
0.62
1.6 •••*
12
IDS
0.09
2.8
14 ••••
Background Data
NU-12S (ma/kg)4"

Detected
Cone.
NO
NO
MO
NO
4S.7
NO
NO
NO
twice
Detected
Cone.
NO
•0
MO
NO
91.4
NO
NO
NO
•Nuriier of SMple* In Mhlck the cheat eel wee positively detected over the nuriber of •••pie* eveiloble.
••Only detected concentration data for site-affected atationa ucre uaed.
M*Crota> 2 tastes are at 11 saaples (aedlaent and •ubaurface toll) collected Ml thin eight feet below (round level.
••••fxpoaure concentration* for these awtala Mere adopted fro» Croup 1.
SOL: Sample Ouantltatlon llailt; MA: Not Available; NO: Not Detected.
Motet If a ehevlcat Maa detected twice or awe than twice within all Media. It la considered to be a contaminant of concern.
If • chesilcal Mas not detected or was detected only once within all «edla. It la not considered to be a
contaminant of concern.
-------
TAIII.I: 3
CON TAMINANTS OF CONCERN
GROUNDWATI-R FROM MONITORING WELLS
UPPER DEERFIELD LANDFILL SITE. NJ
I-NU.UKl
04-0ec-90
Chemical
Antimony
•arlua
•erylliua
Coomlua
Chromlui
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadlua
Zinc
,1-Olchloroethana
,2.4-lrlmethylbenzene
.2-Olchloroethent (cU)
,3.5-Trlmethylbenien*
,3-Olchloroberaeiw
.4-Dlchlorobentent
•entene
bls(2-Ethylheiiyl )ph thai ate
•utylbentylpnthalata
Chloroberaent
Chloroform
OiehlorodlfluorcMtham
fthylbeniene
f 1 uorotr 1 ch 1 oromethana
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethen*
Kylene (Total)

frequency
Detection*
14/34
20/20
12/34
7 / 34
16/34
12/20
21 / 34
18 / 32
19 / 19
11/34
18/34
5/34
14/20
/ 34
/ 20
1 / 20
/20
/ 20
/20
/ 20
/ 20
/ 20
/20
/ 20
/ 20
/20
1 / 20
/ 20
/ 20
/ 20
11/20

SOL
Minimum Naxlmua
5 22
NA NA
0.9 25
2 25
a so
2 9
6 25
2 5
NA NA
0.2 0.2
16 SO
3 25
2 2.8
12 25
0.
Q_
0.
U»
0.
0.
o.
1
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
On-elte
(ug/l)
Detected Cone."
Ninimua
7
19
1.4
2.3
8.9
2
6.8
4.9
37.5
0.2
4.6
4.2
2.2
180
1.8
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.1
2
2
0.1
4
2
0.1
0.5
0.2
1
0.5
Haiimua
326
814
5.3
14.9
252
60.4
239
85
269
146
59.5
11.4
1.120
562
2
2.4
15
0.7
3.9
10
1.1
4
2
1.5
4
2
0.5
0.5
2
1.6
4.5
Background Data,
• 95X
Conf idence
level Mean
56.04
279.49
2.58
9.07
62.18
19.66
62.23
17.67
147.74
16.76
25.43
4.53
224.00
94.98
0.65
0.77
3.60
0.32
0.82
2.19
0.45
5.03
2.00
0.54
0.82
0.52
0.28
0.29
0.48
0.51
1.44
Exposure
Cone.
56
279
2.6
9.1
62
20
62
18
148
17
25
4.5
224
95
0.65
0.77
3.6
0.32
0.82
2.2
0.45
4
2
0.54
0.82
0.52
0.28
0.29
0.48
0.51
1.4
Cone.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NU-12S
Cone. Cone.*"
14.4
42.3
1.8
ND
5.4
2.5
6.0
ND
8.2
0.4
4.3
ND
3.4
NO
ND
0.3
ND
ND
NO
1.3
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.1
NO
1.3
ND
0.3
7.2
21.2
0.9
ND
2.7
1.3
3.0
ND
4.1
0.2
2.2
ND
1.7
ND
ND
0.2
ND
ND
ND
0.7
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.1
NO
0.7
NO
0.2
(ug/l)
Twice
Cone.
14.
42.
1.
ND
5.
2.
6.0
NO
8.2
0.4
4.3
NO
3.4
NO
ND
0.3
NO
ND
ND
1.3
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
0.1
ND
1.3
ND
0.3
OQ
-H
•Nuaber of •••plea In which the chealcat wai positively detected over the number of caaples available.
••Only detected concentration data for lite-affected stations were used.
•"iero value was used for nondetected (NO) to calculate the average cone.
SOL: Saaple Quant I tat ion Halt; NA: Not Available; ND: Not Detected.
Note: If a chealcal was detected twica or •ore than twice within all Media. It la considered to be a contaminant of concern.
If a cheaical waa not detected or waa detected only once within all acdia. It is not considered to be a contaminant of concern.
-------
TABLE 4

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
GROUNDWATER FROM RESIDENTIAL WELLS
UPPER DEERFIELD LANDFILL SITE, NJ
T-KU.IK1
Ot-Dec-90
Che»lcal
Frequency
of
Detection* Nlnli
Off-Bit* (UB/I) •eckground Data. M-M (ug/l)

Detected cone.**
SOI Detected cone.** 95X |M
-------
TABLE 5

SUMMARY OP HUMAN EXPOSURE PATHWAYS UNDER CURRENT
AND LIKELY FUTURE LAND-USE CONDITIONS
UPPER DEERFIELD SITE, NEW JERSEY
"O
08
OO
ModlUi
lolooM Sourco
fotcntlolly
Cipottd Population
Air
fuoltlvo dk»t.
VOlotllllOtlon
Contoalnottd ourfoc*
•olio oral oupoocd MMtto
oral wwitlraj of londf III
•roundMtor loochlnj
(rooldontlot NolU)
toll* (fro. f)-V
oubourfoco Mil
•otontlol •Iffrotlon of
contoalnonto freo) tho
•Ito.
I, ourfoco Contoalnotod toll* ond
runoff, fUfltlvo hurlod MM
duot
SI to Iroipoctero ond
Off-olto rooltfrnto.
Off-olio rcsldmu
iHlnj froundMotcr fro*
rooldcntlol Hollo.
tlto trotpoMcro.
iipoouro •outos oral
lypo of iUk Aaooo
Ouontltotlwo for cklldron
oral odulto vlo Inkolotlon;
chronic ond oubcfcronlc.
Ouontltotlwo for chlldron
ond odulto vlo Infection,
InHolotlon, ond dtrvol contoct;
chronic ond oubchronlc.
Ouontltotlvo for chlldron ond
odjlt* vlo Injection.
Iratolotlen. ond derail contoct;
chronic ond '
•Hoto: Ho ourfoco MlU Mtro col lot ted durlna tho rooxdlol InvMtloatlon.
-------
TABLE 6

TOXICOLOGICAL CRITERIA - NONCARCINOGENICITY (REFERENCE DOSES)
Hie: UD-irot.wi

-o
08
OO
Chronic

Or
•eference Owe
(•10)
• «aV*t &A1.MK
CkSNICM (a*/kf-dey) (•a/krday')
Antlanny
•arlua
•eryllluB
CadaluM
ChreailUB (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
lead
HantamU
Nercury
Nickel
Selenlial
Silver
Vanedlui
lint
l-Olchlaraethane
2.4-trlawthytbeniena
2-Olchlaraethene (ell)
).S-trla*thylbeiu*nt
S-Olchlarobentene
4-Olchlarobmiajia
•entene
bU(2-CthyllM*yt HAtfcaUtt
OutylbeniylphtlMlate
CMerebeniene
CM or af oral
Olchlorodlf luarwtMnv
Ethyl bemene
HuorotrlchlaroMthane
naphthalene
tetracMerwthetw
toluene
•ylenee (fatal)
.OK -04
.OK-02
.OK-OS
.OK -04
.OK-OS

.fK-02

.OK -01
.OK -04
.OK-02
.OK-OS
.OK-OS
.OK-OS
.OK-«I
.OK-OI

.OK -02

.OK-02

.OOt-02
.OK -01
.OK-02
.OK-02
.OK -01
.OK-OI
.OK-OI
.OK-OS
.OK-02
.OOC-OI
.OK«00

1.0K-04 •

• S.OK-04 •
•.SIE-OS •

e
•
a l.OK-Ot •

•

2.0K-01 •

S.OK-OS •

S.OK-02 -

2.0K-OI •
•

s.m-oi •
t.m-oz •
Subchronic •eference
Oose
ATA!
iw ai
4.0K-04 •
S.OK-02 •
S.OK-OS •

2.0K-02 •

S.7K-02 •

9. OK-OI •
S.OK-04 •
2.0K-02 •
S.OK-01 •
S.OK-01 •
7.0K-01 •
2.0K-OI •
1.0K*00*

1.0K-OI •

.OK-02
.OK*00
.OK -01
.OK-02
.OK-OI
.OK«00
.OOC-OI
.OK -01
.OK-OI
.OK-OI
.OK«00
(«fO»)
• •vkalakftlAam
• VWIBI •« I Off

1.0K-0] •

S.OK-04 •
•.S7E-05 •

1.0K«00 •

2.0K-01 •

S.OK-02 •

S.OK-01 •

2.0K«00

S.7U-01 •
8.57C-02 •
Absorbed Reference OoM
Oral via Oera»l
Absorption ilO (•%
(X) Chronic
0.1S
0.20 •••
0.10
0.07
O.M
M
0.9f
O.SO
0.04
0.15
0.10
0.97
0.10
0.01
.OK-OS
.4K-02
.OK -04
.VK-OS
.ME -OS

.S9E-02

.OK-OS
.5K-OJ
.OK-OS
.91C-OS
.OK -04
.OK-OS
O.M 1.MC-01
t.M 1.0K-01
1.M«*«
0.90 f.OK-01
1.M»»*
1.00 ••• 9.0K-02
1.M
0.90
0.» S.OK-OS
0.90 1.0K-OI
0.10 A.OK-OI
1.M 1.0K-02
1.M ••• 2.0K-OI
O.M O.OK-02
1.00 ••• l.OK-Ot
0.04 l.MC-Oi
1.00 ' 1.0K-02
1.00 S.OK-01
0.92 1.04E«00
•oute"««
fkf-day)
Subchronic
A.OK-OS
t.OK-02
S.OK-04

1.0K-02

S.S9E-02

2.0K-02
4.MC-OS
2.0K-OS
2.9K-OS
S.OK-04
7.0K-09
1.4K-OI
t.OK*00

f.ME-tt

.OK-OS
.OK*00 '
.OK-02
.OK-02
.OK-OI
.OK -01
.OK -01
.MC-01
.OK-OI
.OK-OI
.»K»00
Oat* rcfcrmct: <1) lilS October 1990
(2) 'Health Ellecta AMMtavnt Tiaairy I ablet. 3rd Ot. 1990
(1) **(M CCAO. 1990
(4) •••EttlMted based on the Information provided by CCAO
(SI ••••AbMrtted IKO a Orel IfO • Oral Abtorptlon factor
-------
TABLE 7

ESTIMATED CARCINOGENIC RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
CURRENT AND LIKELY FUTURE EXPOSURE ROUTES
Hazard Index
Environmental
Medium
Subchronic
soil
Exposure
Route
inhalation
dermal
oral
Total
Carcinogenic Risk
1X10"6

9X10'7
2X10'7
3X10'7
1X1Q-6
Adult
Chronic
0.02

0.000
0.006
0.014
0.02
Adult
Subchronic
0.02

0.000
0.005
0.013
0.02
Child
0.74

0.000
0.345
0.392
0.74
OFF-SITE RESIDENTS

Environmental
Medium
Subchronic
soil
ground water
Exposure
Route
inhalation
dermal
oral

Carcinogenic Risk
2X10'*
3X10-6

2X10'S
1X10"6
8X1 0'7

Adult
Chronic
0.00
0.48

0.002
0.013
0.464
Hazard Index
Adult
Subchronic
0.00
0.52

0.000
0.013
0.502

Child
0.00
1.11

0.002
0.022
1.090
Total
2X10-5
0.48
0.52
1.11
-------
TABLE 8

TOXICOLOGICAL CRITERIA - CARCINOGENICITY (SLOPE FACTORS)
HU: I0-O.UC1
12/02/90
TJ
O
OO
QO
CKNICAl
Oerylllua
Cadaliai
CkroMlui (VI)
lead
•Ickel
1,1-Olckloreetkene
t.4-0lcklorobaniant
CMorofore)
Carcinogenic
evidence*
(Oral/Ink.)
02/02
MA/01
02/02
e/e
02/02
A/A
te 02/02
C/NA
02/02
02/02
ttn
Oral
total tutors
liver
leukeali
liver
Kidney
liver
or Sltea
Infcatetlon
•esplratory tract
•esplratory tract
UukoBlo
liver
leukeate liver
Slope factor (o*)
Oral
4.301*00
2.40E-02 •
2.90E-02
1.40C-02
A.10E-03
5. IOC -02 •
Inhalation
0.4K«00
*.10E«00
4.10E«01
I.40E-01
i*
2.90E-02
0.10E-02
» S.SOE-03 •
Oral Absorbed
Absorption Slope factor
Factor"* 0«ro»l****
(X) (M-dsy/o*)

.10 4.3K*01
.07
.50
!lO
.00
.00
. l^»
!«o
.00
.00
.40E-02
.221-02
.Mf-02
.10E-03
.10E-02
Mt Ouoan earelnoom;
011 PrakaMo kuMn carclnoacn ClWted cvldcnco);
02t SoilIclont cvldtnca In anlwl of carcliwocnlclty or lock of tvldcnco In
C: Feasible kuaan carclnoacn.
M: Hot ovallaMo or not applicable
Oata references (1) HIS October 1990
(2) ••Oealth fffecta Aucetocnt Suwery tablet. Jrd Ot, 1990
13) •"USfPA iCAO. 1990
«4) ••••Abaorbcd alope factor • Oral «lope factor/oral absorption factor
-------