United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Respons
EPA/ROD/R02-93/220
August 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision;
Wilson Farm, NJ
-------
80272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/220
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Tltlo and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Wilson Farm, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Data
08/02/93
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Orant(Q) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Ty pa of Report & Parlod Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963808
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 10-acre Wilson Farm site is part of a 218-acre farm located in Plumsted Township,
Ocean County, New Jersey. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural, with
wooded and unoccupied areas. The site borders the Colliers Mills Fish and Wildlife
Management Area to the east and Run Creek to the south and west, and lies within the
New Jersey Pinelands area. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the surface of the site
allegedly was used to illegally "dispose of chemical wastes from Thiokol Corporation. In
1980, a State investigation identified onsite contamination. Later that year, the
State required the removal and disposal of approximately 620 yd^ of mixed chemical
waste material 'and soil offsite, and the installation of six ground water monitoring
wells. In 1986, the State established a Well Restriction Area on the site and
surrounding areas to protect any new drinking water wells which might be installed near
the site. In 1992, the State required a second removal action to remove and dispose of
various surface waste materials offsite. This ROD addresses a 10-acre area of the
218-acre Wilson Farm, as OU1. An EPA baseline risk assessment, conducted after the
completion of the 1992 removal action, determined that previous actions have removed
the source of the contamination; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern
affecting this site.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Wilson Farm,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Endod Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
NJ
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Pago)
None
21. No. of Pages
42
22. Priea
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
So* Instructions on flavors*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/220
Wilson Farm, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action, with monitoring of ground
water, surface water, and sediment, and continuation of the Well Restriction Area. The
State, with EPA concurrence, has determined that the prior removal actions conducted in
1980 and 1992 sufficiently have eliminated any risks to human health or the environment.
The estimated present worth cost for this no action remedy is $436,800 for five years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name : Wilson Farm
Location/State : Plumsted Township, New Jersey
EPA Region : 2
HRS Score (date): 33.93 (1982)
ROD
Date Signed: August 3, 1993
Remedy/ies: No Action/Monitoring
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Construction Completion: August 1993 (month/year)
Present worth: $436,800 (5%, 5 years) (Monitoring program)
LEAD
State/Enforcement
Primary contact (phone): Mike Burlingame,NJDEPE (609)292-1424
Secondary contact (phone): Gary Adamkiewicz,EPA (212)264-7592
Main PRP(s): Morton International Inc.
PRP Contact (phone): Nick Klumpp, (312)807-3126
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, etc.): Organics, Metals
Medium (soil, g.w.,etc.): Surface waste(removed), soil, ground
water
Origin: Surface disposal of mixed waste by Thiokol Corporation
(now Morton International)
Est. quantity: Approximately 1270 cu.yd. of surface waste/soil
removed during two removal actions (1980 and 1992)
-------
DECISION DECLARATION
RECORD OF DECISION
WILSON FARM SITE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Wilson Farm Site
Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision presents the selected no action remedy for
the Wilson Farm Site, in Plumsted Township, New Jersey. The remedy
was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concurs with the selected
remedy. The information supporting this decision is contained in
the administrative record for the site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the
Wilson Farm Site. The removal of chemical and industrial waste
materials from the site by Morton International, Inc, in 1992 was
successful in remediating the principal threats associated with the
site.
The major components of the no action remedy are:
o Implementation of a five-year monitoring program
involving ground water, surface water and sediments to
verify that any residual contamination remains below
levels of concern. Also, three additional ground water
monitoring wells will be installed at the site as part of
this program.
o Visual inspection of the site during monitoring to ensure
that no further waste materials are present which frost
or erosion might bring to the surface.
o Continuation of the Well Restriction Area, for minimum of
five years, to ensure the protection of area drinking
water supplies.
-------
DECLARATION
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency have determined that no further remedial action
is necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the
environment at the Wilson Farm Site. Therefore, the site now
qualifies for inclusion in the "sites awaiting deletion"
subcategory of the construction completion category of the National
Priorities List. Because the site does not contain hazardous
substances above health-based levels, the five year "review will not
apply to this decision.
Jeannje
N.J.
and
M. Fox, Acting Commissioner
epartment of Environmental Protection
Date
Energy
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
WILSON FARM SITE
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP/ OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY
AUGUST 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
3. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 3
5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY 3
5.1 Subsurface Characteristics 4
5.2 Geophysical and Soil Gas Surveys 4
5.3 Waste Materials 4
5.4 Soils 5
5.5 Ground Water 6
5.6 Potable Residential Wells 7
5.7 Air 7
5.8 Surface Water and Sediments 7
6. SITE RISK SUMMARY 8
6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment ..... 9
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 11
6.3 Uncertainties 13
7. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION REMEDY 14
8. USEPA ACCEPTANCE 14
9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 15
»
10. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 15
ATTACHMENTS
I. FIGURES
II. TABLES
III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
IV. USEPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
WILSON FARM SITE
1. INTRODUCTION
This Decision Document presents the preferred no action remedy for
the Wilson Farm Site located in Plumsted Township, Ocean County,
New Jersey. The selected remedy for the site was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan of 1990. The
investigations which led to this Decision Document were developed
pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A.
58:10-23.11a et. seq. (Spill Act) and the Water Pollution Control
Act, N.J.S.A. 5S-10A. This decision document serves to explain the
factual and legal basis for selecting the no action remedy for this
site.
The information supporting the no action remedy is contained in the
administrative record for this site. This Decision Document
contains a Decision Declaration, Decision Summary, and a
Responsiveness Summary.
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Wilson Farm Site is located approximately one-quarter mile
southwest of the intersection of State Highway Route 528 and Hawkin
Road, in Plumsted Township, Ocean County (Figure 1). The area of
concern, which hereafter will be referred to as the "site", covers
approximately 10 acres of the 218 acre property, which is listed on
the Plumsted Township Tax Maps as Block 76, Lot 63.
The site is bordered on the north by cultivated land which is part
of the Wilson Farm property. The site area is wooded and
unoccupied. The two sand roads that circle the site approximately
define the site boundaries. Across Hawkin Road to the east is the
Colliers Mills Fish and Wildlife Management Area. To the south and
west is Bordens Run Creek which flows into Colliers Mills Lake.
The site has a number of unimproved roadways in and around it and
is used mainly for hunting. The Wilson Farm is privately owned and
has been posted with "No Trespassing" signs.
3. SITE EISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Wilson Farm Site was allegedly used to dispose of chemical
1
-------
wastes from Thiokol Corporation during the 1960s and early 1970s.
The site was first inspected by the Ocean County Health Department,
Plums ted Township Representatives and the NJ Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) in February 1980 which
led to the implementation of an Immediate Removal Action by NJDEPE
in September 1980. Approximately 620 cubic yards of mixed chemical
waste material and soils were removed from the site. Concurrent
with the Immediate Removal Action, the NJDEPE installed and sampled
six ground water monitoring wells in July 1980. Ground water from
these wells was found to contain chemical contamination.
In December 1982, the NJDEPE inspected the site and scored it
utilizing the Federal Hazard Ranking System. Based on this ranking
the site was included on the Federal National Priorities List (NPL)
of Superfund sites.
In 1986, the NJDEPE established a Well Restriction Area on the
Wilson Farm and surrounding properties in order to protect any new
drinking water wells which might be installed near the site. The
Well Restriction required that all new wells within approximately
a 2,000 foot radius of the site be installed to a depth of at least
150 feet. The purpose of this action was to ensure that new wells
were not impacted by contamination in the shallow aquifer by
locating them in a deeper, separate aquifer.
In July 1986, the NJDEPE directed Morton Thiokol, Incorporated
(MTI) to make payment to the Department for the cost of a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. On
December 3, 1987, the NJDEPE and MTI entered into an Administrative
Consent Order (ACO) in which MTI agreed to comply with this
Directive (No. 1).
In January 1987, Acres International Corporation (Acres) was
contracted by the State to perform a RI/FS to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at the site and to recommend cleanup
alternatives. After initial site investigations were performed, it
was determined that further remedial studies were necessary. The
NJDEPE, in January 1990, directed Morton International,
Incorporated (Mil) and the Thiokol Corporation (since Directive No.
1 was issued, Morton Thiokol, Inc. had split into these two,
component corporations) to pay for the additional studies. Mil
complied and the RI/FS was completed by Acres in March 1992.
On August 23, 1991, the NJDEPE and Mil entered into a second ACO
for the removal of surface waste materials at the site. This
Removal Action took place between June and July 1992. On April 30,
1993, following a review of post-excavation sampling results, the
NJDEPE notified Mil that the Removal Action was complete.
Restoration of the site by regrading and replanting will take place
in the near future.
-------
4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
Throughout the RI/FS process, representatives from the NJDEPE have
attended meetings concerning the Wilson Farm Site at the New Egypt
Town Hall in Plumsted Township. The first public meeting was held
in New Egypt on March 31, 1987 to brief interested parties
concerning what the Department knew about the site and to explain
the RI/FS work which was commencing at that time. Fact sheets were
distributed by the NJDEPE.
Since this initial meeting, the NJDEPE has participated in a
Township Meeting in New Egypt on May 14, 1990 to update concerned
persons on the status of the site. Another meeting was held on
August 27, 1990 in New Egypt. Prior to all meetings, the NJDEPE
mailed meeting notices to a list of concerned parties. Questions
at the meetings generally focused on the potential for
contamination of ground water around the site. Concerns about
whether the site could ever be commercially developed were raised.
The Well Restriction Area was also discussed.
Over the course of the RI/FS and Removal Action, numerous
correspondences and discussions have taken place between the NJDEPE
and potential home-buyers, Plumsted Township Officials, the
Plumsted Township Environmental Committee, property owners,
building developers, and the Ocean County Health Department.
At the onset of the RI/FS in 1987, the NJDEPE established a records
repository at the New Egypt Library. All major site-related
documents were sent to this location. The Administrative Record,
a comprehensive collection of all records relating to the case, is
located at the NJDEPE in Trenton. The Index to the Administrative
Record is attached to this Decision Document.
A Proposed Plan which presented the preferred no action remedy was
released to potentially affected persons and the public for comment
on May 3, 1993. The notice of availability of these documents was
announced by means of a newspaper advertisement in the Tri-Town
News on April 29, 1993. Notices were also mailed to the area
residents and other concerned parties on the NJDEPE's mailing list
for this site.
A public comment period on site-related documents was held from
April 30, 1993 to June 3, 1993. In addition, a public meeting was
held on May 11, 1993. At this meeting, representatives from NJDEPE
answered questions about the site and the proposed no action
remedy. Responses to significant comments and criticisms received
during this period are included in the Responsiveness Summary,
which forms the third part of this Decision Document.
5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Site investigations were conducted from the period of 1987 to 1993.
3
-------
Results from the NJDEPE's Remedial Investigation (RI) and soil
sampling by Mil are summarized in this section.
5.1 Subsurface Characteristics
Figure 2 shows a generalized representation of subsurface
conditions at the site. The site is immediately underlain by
recent-aged sediments to depths of 0.5 to 5 feet. The Cohansey
Sand Formation underlies these sediments and is 20 to 29 feet
thick. Below this formation the 15 to 20 foot thick, sandy Upper
Member of the Kirkwood Formation was encountered. Both units are
valuable sources of drinking water. Underlying the Upper Member of
the Kirkwood Formation is the Lower Member of the Kirkwood
Formation and the Lower Member of the Manasquan Formation. The
Lower Members of the Kirkwood and Manasquan Formations act as
confining units to restrict the downward flow of ground water into
deeper aquifers.
5.2 Geophysical and Soil Gas Surveys
Geophysical investigations were conducted at the site in order to
locate any buried wastes, to determine the depth to ground water
and to obtain stratigraphic information. Electromagnetic,
magnetometer and electrical resistivity investigations were
performed. The areas where waste dumping had occurred, on either
side of a sand road paralleling Bordens Run Creek, generally
correlated with anomalous readings from the geophysical
instruments. All anomalies were located and targeted for
investigation.
Measurements of the levels of volatile organic chemicals in the
soil pore gases were also made in an attempt to locate
contamination. Efforts to locate chemical waste material through
soil gas measurements gave inconclusive results.
5.3 Waste Materials
Figure 3 shows the areas where chemical/industrial waste was found
and subsequently removed by Mil. The material which was removed
generally consisted of small pieces scattered over the ground
surface on either side of a dirt road running parallel to Bordens
Run Creek. The waste was visually classified into three types in
the RI. These included reddish brown to black tar-like material,
a yellow to light brown solid with a pitted texture and greenish-
yellow or yellow granular masses with no definite shape. The waste
materials were found to contain hazardous organic chemicals such as
carbon disulfide (Not Detectable, ND-148 parts per billion, ppb),
trichloroethene (ND-6.2 ppb), methylene chloride (ND-140 ppb),
pentachlorophenol (ND-2500 ppb), bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (ND-
2400 ppb) and di-n-butyl phthalate (ND-3600 ppb). Hazardous metals
were also detected including arsenic (ND-4.1 parts per million,
ppm), beryllium (ND-O.l ppm), chromium (ND-5 ppm), copper (ND-13.9
-------
ppm), lead (3.9-85.4 ppm), mercury (ND-0.6 ppm) and zinc (10.4-25.9
ppm) .
In June and July 1992, Mil excavated areas of the site where
chemical waste materials were found. Material was removed to a
depth of 6 to 12 inches over various areas throughout the site and
processed by a mechanical sieve to separate waste materials from
natural soils. Approximately 650 cubic yards of mixed chemical
waste materials and soils were segregated for disposal. Soils not
containing waste material were stockpiled on-site and analyzed for
reuse as backfill. Analytical testing (Toxic Characteristics
Leaching Procedure Test) of the waste materials by Mil indicated
that some of these materials leached lead at concentrations above
regulatory standards for a non-hazardous waste. Also, some of the
material contained total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations above
acceptable State levels for a non-hazardous waste. As a result of
these findings, the contaminated materials were disposed of off-
site at the Envirotech Management Services, Inc. facility which is
a permitted, hazardous waste landfill located in Ypsilanti,
Michigan.
5.4 Boils
Soil borings indicate that the site is immediately underlain by
recent-aged sandy sediments to depths of 0.5 to 5 feet. Underlying
these sediments is the Cohansey Sand Formation with a thickness of
20 to 29 feet. Below the Cohansey Sand, the sandy Upper Kirkwood
Formation was encountered with a thickness of 15 to 20 feet. The
Lower Member of the Kirkwood Formation was encountered at depths of
39 to 49 feet and consists of sand with varying amounts of silt and
clay. Several borings were terminated in the Lower Member of the
Manasguan Formation at depths of 68 to 79 feet. This stratum
consisted of extremely dense sands and sandy clay.
Surficial soil sampling and analysis were performed during the RI
at locations throughout the site where waste had been disposed. A
total of 37 post-excavation soil samples were subsequently taken
under the areas excavated during the Mil Removal Action (see Figure
3) between June 24 and July 16, 1992. The soils were analyzed for
Target Compound List/Target Analyte List compounds. A number of
organic and inorganic compounds were detected in post-excavation
samples at low levels including: 2-butanone (ND-5 ppb), 4,4 DDT
(ND-4,800 ppb), di-n-butyl phthalate (ND-430 ppb), diethyl
phthalate (ND-700 ppb), endrin (ND-24 ppb), polychlorinated
biphenyls (ND-120 ppb), toluene (ND-98 ppb), arsenic (ND-1.8 ppm),
copper (ND-7.5 ppm), lead (1.8-110 ppm), mercury (ND-0.26 ppm) and
zinc (3.8-42.1 ppm). Table 1 summarizes the contaminants found in
post-excavation soil samples. Analyses of the soils which were
separated from the waste materials during the Removal Action were
also performed and, after a quality assurance check, the results
will be reviewed by the NJDEPE and USEPA to determine whether they
may be reused as backfill for the excavations.
-------
Subsurface soil samples were also obtained at depths ranging from
6 to 13 feet. Organic compounds were detected such as: benzene
(ND-6 ppb), vinyl acetate (ND-66 ppb) and total xylenes (ND-i.7
ppb). Inorganic compounds were detected including: barium (ND-6.4
ppm), chromium (ND-5.7 ppm), copper (ND-5.9 ppm), lead (1.1-93.3
ppm) and zinc (3.9-48.5 ppm).
5.5 Ground Water
Six shallow and four deep monitor wells were installed at depths
ranging from 14 to 65 feet in the Cohansey and Upper Member
Kirkwood Formations. The depth to ground water at the site is 5 to
10 feet. Water level measurements indicate that ground water flows
generally to the south; however, near Bordens Creek it swings
westward to intercept the Creek. Figure 4 shows the well locations
and the shallow ground water flow direction. The Lower Member of
the Kirkwood and the Manasquan Formations are believed to form a
composite aquitard, retarding transfer of contaminants to deeper
aquifers.
Ground water in eight monitor wells was sampled for Target Compound
List/Target Analyte List compounds. Various organic compounds were
detected above the NJDEPE Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) for
Class I-PL (Pinelands Protection Area) Aquifers (ref. NJAC 7:9-6).
The New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards are the specific
criteria necessary to implement the nondegredation policy contained
in the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (NJAC 7:50 et seg) .
These standards require that discharges to the Cohansey and
Kirkwood Aquifers within the Pinelands Protection Area should be at
"background" water quality levels.
Organic compounds detected above GWQS included methylene chloride
(ND-1500 ppb), carbon disulfide (ND-11 ppb), acetone (ND-17 ppb),
di-n-octyl phthalate (ND-150 ppb), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (ND-3.1
ppb), and di-n-butyl phthalate (ND-3 ppb). Sampling results are
summarized on Table 2. The only organic contaminants to be
consistently identified in the same monitor wells, over repeated
sampling events, were bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in a shallow well
(MW-3S) and acetone in a deep well (MW-3D). Both of these
detections were questionable based on a quality assurance review of
the data. Both contaminants are considered to be common laboratory
and/or sampling induced contaminants.
Inorganic contaminants detected in the ground water above NJDEPE
Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) for Class I-PL(Protection
Area) Aquifers (ref. NJAC 7:9-6) were aluminum (ND-7886 ppb),
calcium (2292-50,213 ppb), copper (ND-26 ppb), sodium (1044-7372
ppb), lead (ND-185 ppb) and zinc (ND-289 ppb). Only aluminum and
lead were detected above human health-based standards for drinking
water aquifers. Lead was also detected in the chemical waste
material which was removed from the site while aluminum was not.
All these compounds were found in background ground water samples
6
-------
at levels which may represent natural variability in the aquifer,
with the exception of lead in Monitor Well No. 5S (MW-5S) . The
Class I-PL GWQS for lead at this site is 10 ppb, which is the
compound's Practical Quantitation Limit in the laboratory. Lead
was detected above the GWQS in Monitor Well No. MW-5S at levels
ranging from 60 ppb to 185 ppb. Lead was also detected in Well MW-
2S at 11.1 ppb. Lead in the ground water of Well MW-4S, which is
directly downgradient from MW-5S by a distance of approximately 270
feet, was at background levels (3.2 ppb). The extent of elevated
levels of lead in the ground water, therefore, is very limited.
5.6 Potable Residential Wells
Five residential wells at locations to the north, northeast and
southeast of the site were sampled in 1988 and the water analyzed
for Target Compound List/Target Analyte List compounds during the
RI. Figure 5 shows the potable well sampling locations. No
potable wells were located downgradient of the site (to the south)
within approximately 3,000 feet. No organic or inorganic
contamination was detected in any of the wells sampled except for
lead, which may be due to the household plumbing.
In order to determine if the elevated concentrations of lead in the
area of MW-5S at the site could affect off-site wells, a ground
water model was developed as part of the FS Report. The model
indicated that at a distance of 1,300 feet, lead levels would be
naturally attenuated from 185 ppb to 15 ppb. The potable wells in
which elevated levels of lead were detected during the RI are 2,500
feet and 4,000 feet distant from Well MW-5S. These wells are not
hydraulically downgradient from Well MW-5S. Based on this ground
water model and the direction of ground water flow, it was
concluded that lead would not be expected to migrate off the site
at unsafe levels.
5.7 Air
Air monitoring was performed at the site during the RI. No
hydrocarbon-based contamination was detected, however, a faint odor
was noticeable which seemed to be associated with the exposed
waste. Since the chemical wastes at the site have been removed,
the odor problem has been mitigated.
5.8 Surface Water and Sediments
Table 3 summarizes the results of surface water and sediment
sampling in Bordens Run Creek. An upstream surface water sample
was taken during the RI in order to determine the impact of the
site on Bordens Run Creek. Surface water samples taken adjacent
and downstream of the site contained no organic contaminants
(Figure 4 shows sampling locations). Copper (10 ppb) and total
cyanide (12.6 ppb) were the only inorganic contaminants detected
which exceeded levels found in background surface water.
-------
Resampling was performed for cyanide but its presence was not
confirmed.
Sediment samples were taken during the RI in January 1988 and May
1990 and by Mil in February of 1992 in order to determine the
impact of the site on Bordens Run Creek. Organic chemicals
detected in the stream sediments adjacent to or downstream of the
site were: acetone (ND-350 ppb), methylene chloride (ND-19 ppb),
carbon disulf ide (ND-28 ppb), di-n-butyl phthalate (ND-170 ppb) and
2-butanone (ND-5 ppb). None of these contaminants were
consistently detected in the same areas during sampling events.
The majority of these detections were qualified after a quality
assurance review; these contaminants are considered to be common
laboratory and/or sampling induced artifacts.
Stream sediments also contained a number of inorganic chemicals.
Sediments sampled during the RI and in February of 1992 at
locations adjacent to and downstream of the site and were found to
contain copper, lead, mercury and zinc. Upstream sediment samples
also contained these same four metals at comparable levels. Total
cyanide (0.2-1.1 ppm) was the only contaminant detected downstream
of the site which was not in upstream samples. Cyanide was not
detected in the chemical waste material at the site.
In response to concerns expressed by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Mil obtained three additional sediment samples in a wetland area
adjacent to Bordens Run Creek in February 1992. Other than
methylene chloride and acetone, two common field sampling and
laboratory contaminants, no other organic contaminants were
detected. Elevated levels of lead (136 ppm) and zinc (403 ppm)
were detected in one of the wetland sediment samples. Further
sampling around this area in August 1992 indicated lead levels of
112 ppm to 137 ppm away from the Creek and 23.5 ppm in a drainage
area near the Creek. Zinc levels ranged from 28.9 ppm to 97 ppm.
It was concluded that the extent of the wetland sediments with
elevated levels of zinc was very limited. Wetland sediments with
elevated lead levels were found to be more extensive, however,
these levels decreased toward the Creek.
6. SITE RISK SUMMARY
In June and July of 1992 an Interim Removal Action was performed by
Mil in which the surficial chemical waste materials were removed
from the site and disposed of at a federally-permitted hazardous
waste landfill. Any risks to human health or the environment due
to contact with these materials no longer exist. Risks to human
health and the environment from contaminants still remaining at the
site are discussed in this section.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a baseline
risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment after the Removal Action was completed. The Risk
8
-------
Assessment evaluated contaminants in ground water, soil, surface
water and sediments. A summary of the contaminants of concern in
each of these media is listed in Table 4.
6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
The EPA human health risk assessment identified several exposure
pathways at the site under current and potential, future land-use
scenarios. Health effects were then evaluated for each of these
exposure scenarios and respective chemicals of concern. Based on
the present land-use, dermal exposure to surface water and
incidental ingestion of sediments were evaluated. Under a
hypothetical, future residential-use situation, exposure scenarios
evaluated in detail included ingestion of shallow ground water,
incidental ingestion of soils, dermal exposure to surface water and
incidental ingestion of sediments. Receptor populations included
on-site residents, excavation workers and trespassers/recreational
users. Table 5 presents a summary of all pathways considered.
EPA guidelines require the separate analysis of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to chemicals at
the site. It is assumed that the toxic effects of chemicals at the
site would be additive. Therefore, carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks associated with exposures to individual
contaminants of concern were added to determine the potential risks
associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and non-
carcinogens , respectively.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a Hazard Index (HI),
which is the ratio of the expected contaminant intakes to the safe
levels of intake (reference doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have
been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of milligrams
per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day), are estimates of daily exposure
levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a lifetime
(including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals
from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested
from contaminated drinking water) are compared with the RfD to
derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular
media. The reference doses for the chemicals of potential concern
at the Wilson Farm Site are presented in Table 6. The Hazard Index
is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media. A hazard index greater than 1.0 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. A
summary of the non-carcinogenic risks associated with these
chemicals across various exposure pathways is presented in Table 7.
Results of the quantitative risk assessment using the Hazard Index
approach show that the site media currently do not pose any
-------
significant non-carcinogenic risk to human health. Under
hypothetical, future conditions where on-site residents rely on
shallow ground water for drinking, a marginal degree of risk was
determined. Under this scenario, the chronic hazard index was
equal to 1.0 for ingestion of ground water, which is the upper
limit of acceptable risk established by the National Contingency
Plan and EPA. This non-carcinogenic risk is attributed to
methylene chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and aluminum.
The Hazard Index of 1.0 is based on the conservative assumption
that there will be future residential use of the site. It is
assumed that the shallow ground water would be used for potable
purposes, in spite of the NJDEPE Well Restriction. -The detections
of methylene chloride and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in the ground
water are qualified based on a quality assurance review of the data
and both are common laboratory and/or field sampling-induced
contaminants. Aluminum was detected in all wells on-site and in
background ground water samples but was not detected in the
chemical waste materials. Aluminum, therefore, is not thought to
be a "site related" contaminant.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the EPA for the contaminants of
concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg/day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg/day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper-
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SFs. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the chemicals of concern are
presented in Table 6.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10~4 to 1 X
10~6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has
not greater than a one-in-ten-thousand to one-in-one-mi 11 ion chance
of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure conditions
at the site. A summary of the carcinogenic risk estimates is
presented in Table 8.
Under current conditions the site media do not pose any
significant, carcinogenic risk to human health. Risks were also
calculated for potential future conditions where residents live on-
site and have potable wells in the shallow ground water aquifer.
The pathway with the highest upper bound carcinogenic risk is
residential ingestion of shallow ground water, which was calculated
to be 1 X 10"4 (one-in-ten-thousand). This risk number, which is
10
-------
considered a conservative upper-bound estimate, means that one
additional person in ten thousand would be at risk of developing
cancer if the site is not remediated. As indicated by Table 8,
carcinogenic risk associated with each of the pathways falls within
or below EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 X 10~* to 1 X 10~6.
Carcinogenic risks associated with on-site residents' ingestion of
surface soil, subsurface soil and sediments ranged from 1 X 10~10
to 5 X 10"6 (one-in-ten-billion to five-in-one-million).
The hypothetical residential carcinogenic risk for the site of 1 X
10~4 is attributed to the presence of methylene chloride and bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, both of which are common laboratory and/or
field sampling-induced contaminants. The detections of both of
these compounds were qualified after a quality assurance review and
neither compound was consistently detected between sampling events.
Following the Removal Action and post-excavation soil sampling, the
NJDEPE performed an assessment of risk at the site, independent of
the EPA. The methods used by the NJDEPE consisted of comparing the
levels of contaminants on-site with the NJDEPE requirements for
organic and inorganic contaminants in soil and Ground Water Quality
Standards. These requirements and standards are based on health-
related risks for each contaminant and are protective over a
lifetime of exposure. The NJDEPE concurs with the EPA conclusions
that there is currently no unacceptable risk to human receptors at
the site. An unacceptable risk was determined, however, for
potential future residents at the site which rely on shallow,
potable wells in areas where elevated levels of lead occur in the
ground water. However, this scenario is unlikely due to the
existing Well Restriction which advises against the installation of
shallow wells at the site.
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The Wilson Farm Site is located in the New Jersey Pinelands, an
area which is protected under the State Pinelands Comprehensive
Management Plan to preserve natural ecosystems and the capacity for
recharging the underlying aquifers. A number of New Jersey
threatened or endangered species have been historically reported in
the Colliers Mills Fish and Wildlife Management Area and in Bordens
Run Creek including the Pine Barren Boneset, Wood Turtle, Bog
Turtle, Pine Barrens Tree Frog, Pine Snake, Red-Headed Woodpecker,
Purple Bladderwort and Humped Bladderwort. A flora and fauna
survey was conducted by Acres at the site in May 1990. It was
concluded that the site did not contain any significant habitat for
rare or endangered species that are unique to the Pinelands. A
Pine Snake was observed on the site, during the Removal Action by
Mil. In July 1992, EcolSciences, Inc. inspected the site for Swamp
Pink, a New Jersey Endangered Plant, but failed to find any.
The EPA ecological risk assessment first evaluated contaminants
found on site that could pose risks to associated ecological (non-
11
-------
human) receptors. Chemicals of concern in the surface water were
copper, cyanide, iron, vanadium and zinc. Chemicals of concern in
the sediments were acetone, carbon disulfide, di-n-butyl phthalate,
aluminum, barium, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium, vanadium and
zinc.
Next, for evaluating risk due to contaminated surface soils, two
indicator species of two distinct feeding guilds were selected as
representative of those ecological receptors interacting with that
medium. The white-footed mouse and the short-tailed shrew were
chosen to model estimated exposure doses of surface soil
contaminants received by the omnivorous mouse and insectivore,
respectively. Exposure to most surface soil contaminants by
terrestrial wildlife receptors is not expected to result in adverse
effects based on a comparison of the estimated exposure doses of
the two indicator species to applicable acute and chronic toxicity
values. The exception was post-excavation Soil Sample No. S-3
which contained high levels of 4,4'-DDT which could result in
adverse impacts to sensitive benthic species. Historically, 4,4'-
DDT was used as a pesticide in agricultural areas and it was not
detected in the chemical waste material.
The risk to ecological receptors via contact with and/or ingestion
of surface water was estimated by comparing acute and chronic
toxicity information obtained from the EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria and the AQUIRE database with site conditions. The results
indicate that the concentrations of copper and zinc in surface
water may cause adverse, acute effects to aquatic receptors.
Vanadium and cyanide concentrations in the surface water may cause
adverse chronic effects to aquatic biota. However, zinc and
vanadium concentrations appear to be naturally elevated or a result
of an upstream source. Cyanide was not detected in the chemical
waste material at the site and resampling of surface water did not
confirm its presence in Bordens Run Creek. Copper was detected at
elevated levels adjacent to the site in surface water and
sediments, but downstream samples were at background
concentrations. The extent of any copper contamination in Bordens
Run Creek, therefore, is limited.
Bordens Run Creek sediments were evaluated by comparing the
contaminants of concerns' mean and maximum concentrations to EPA
(1977) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1990)
guidance for sediment contamination. Concentrations of cyanide
provide the greatest risk to ecological receptors contacting
sediments in Bordens Run Creek, although the detected cyanide
concentrations have not been documented to result in adverse
impacts to benthic organisms. Lead, zinc and mercury were also
detected at concentrations which may result in adverse impacts to
sensitive benthic organisms. However, all three metals were
detected in sediments located upstream of the site and are, in
part, if not entirely, naturally elevated or a result of an
upstream source.
12
-------
The NJDEPE has promulgated Ground Water Quality Standards (NJAC
7:9-6) for the Pinelands Protection Area (Class I-PL waters) in
which the site is located. They have been established to protect
the Pineland's plant and animal species and their habitats and to
protect the use of the ground water for drinking and agricultural
purposes. The only contaminant that exceeded these standards with
any level of confidence was lead. A qualitative assessment of the
environmental risks due to lead in the ground water was performed
in the RI Report. This assessment found that there are several
factors which would limit environmental exposure to lead in the
ground water. Organic binding of lead to the soil and the shallow
root structure of many plants would tend to reduce or mitigate
uptake. Also, plants tend to concentrate lead in their roots
rather than their above-ground structures which are a food source
for animals.
Based on these ecological risk assessments, site-related
contaminants should have no significant impact on plant or animal
species on and around the site.
6.3 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 characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and 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
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the
13
-------
site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related
to the site.
More specific information concerning public health and ecological
risks, including quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, can be found in the Risk
Assessment Report.
7. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION REMEDY
The Removal Action performed by Mil has effectively removed the
source of contamination at the site. Restoration of the site will
take place shortly. Regrading and replanting the excavated areas
will help mitigate the spread of any remaining contaminants. As a
result, the NJDEPE has determined that no further remedial action
is necessary at the site. However, because contaminants were
detected in the ground water, surface water and sediments, a
limited monitoring program will be implemented.
Monitoring of ground water, surface water and sediments will be
conducted for five years. In addition, a total of three ground
water monitor wells will be installed along the southern site
boundary and between Well MW-5S and Bordens Run Creek. The seven
existing and three proposed monitor wells will be sampled and
analyzed quarterly for TCL/TAL compounds during the first year.
Surface water and sediments will also be monitored quarterly at
three locations for TCL/TAL compounds for the first year.
Monitoring frequency may be adjusted in subsequent years. At a
minimum, annual monitoring will be required. If, at any time, the
monitoring indicates the need for action to protect human health or
the environment, the appropriate measures will be taken. The
present worth cost for the installation of three monitor wells and
a five year monitoring program is estimated to be $436,800.
As part of the No Action Remedy, the existing Well Restriction Area
would continue in effect for the southern portion of the Wilson
Farm Property (Block 76, Lot 63), for at least five years. This
will effectively prevent human contact with the shallow ground
water by advising anyone drilling a new well on the site that it
should be at least 150 feet deep. The Well Restriction may be
modified after five years by the NJDEPE depending on the results of
ground water monitoring data.
During the monitoring work, the site will be inspected for any
small scattered pieces of chemical waste material which could be
remaining and come to the ground surface through the action of
frost and erosion. Any such waste materials will be removed, as
appropriate.
6. USEPA ACCEPTANCE
The EPA concurs with the No Action Remedy. The EPA's letter of
14
-------
concurrence is attached to this Record of Decision.
9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
A summary of the comments received during the public comment period
is provided in the Responsiveness Summary which is Attachment V to
this Decision Document.
10. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
There are no significant changes from the recommended no action
remedy presented in the Proposed Plan.
15
-------
ATTACHMENT I
FIGURES
-------
WILSON FARM
LOCATION
3000 I EtT
-------
MONITORING
WELL
UNMPI«OVEO
unMiTMHMA
WN'"g
WF
f-IM-tO
SOICCNtO
so
f-MW-SS
KHHWD
INtt«v«.
4
I9° FT BREAK
IN SECTION
BURIED CABLE
RIGHT OF WAY
MONITORING
WELL PAIR
WF-MW-ISAIO
RECENT SEDIMENTS
COHANSEY SANO ZXTmo
UPPER MEMBER KIRKWOOD FORMATION
LOWER MEMBER SliwiEt*
. KIRKWOOD FORMATION WHIIVM.
^ LOWER MEMBER
' MANASQUAN FORMATION
i
«
100
KHt irttll
««, ??££»., .
vimm iuMt.no.. i»i
MNEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WILSON FARM SITE RI/FS
OEOLOOIC CROSS SECTION
WILSON FARM SITE
Figure 2
-------
Tvtaphm Urm (undnowtf
NottoScaJe
APPROXIMATE POST-EXCAVATION
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
WUON FAfW STTE
PLUMSTEO TOWKSWP. NEW JERSEY
TRC
Figure 3
-------
LEGEND
Sol Bomg (B)
Mentoring Wafl (MW)
Top Casing El*vXjrovnd
Surtee* El*v.
^ Sadunant Sampl*
A Suttee* Watar and Sadinwm
= =: Unpav*dRoad
Surtee* E^eaura el Cnamiea!
Was* (approx.)
Surtee* Exposure of Hou*«hold
Ti«ah (approx.)
'" TrwLina
Craak (approx.)
a Talaphona Lra* (undarground)
B-8
APPBQMMATE PREREMED1AL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
WILSON FARM SHE
HMISTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
TRC
Figure 4
-------
PROTECTION AREA
BASE IMP B A PORTION OF THE FOllOWMQ
7.» USOS TOPOGRAPHIC OUAORWIOIE
PHOIOHEVISeO 1f?1
LOCATIONS OF OFPSITE RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER WELLS
WILSON FARMSTTE
PLUMSTCO. NEW JERSEY
-------
ATTACHMENT II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1 - TCL AND TAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN POST-EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLES
Chemical
Volatile Organic Compounds:
Acetone
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chloromethane
ftl^AU. 1 kl *^
MBtnyiene cntonoe
Toluene
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
TrichJoroethene (TCE)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds:
Anthracene
3.4-Benzofluoranthene (Benzo(b)fluoranthene)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Dt-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
bts(2-chJoroethoxy)methane
Ethanol
Fluoranthene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pesticides/PCBs:
4,4'-DDD (p.p'-TDE)
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosutfan
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor epoxkte
Methoxycnlor
PCBs (Pofychkxinated biphenyls)
Frequency
of
Detection
23/33
18/33
1/33
1/33
29/33
1/33
1/33
1/33
2/33
21/33
1/33
18/33
9/33
2/33
25/33
1/33
1/33
1/33
6/33
2/33
13/33
4/33
2/33
5/33
1/33
7/33
7/33
1/33
Ranged
Concentrations
Detected (ug/kg)
4JB-34B
2JB - 7JB
20
24
3J-98
3JB
3J
24J
24J-27J
20J-200JB
21J
22JB-43B
19J-60J
39J-51J
11J-80J
23J
27J
20J
0.42J-9.9
14-99
0.71J-4800J
0.18-3.3J
1.1J-19
0.3SJ-Z4J
0.44J
0^8J-0.66J
7.1 B- 87J
120
-------
TABLE 1 - TCL AND TAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN POST-EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLES
Chemical
Inorganic Compounds:
Antimony
Arsenic (Total)
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Soluble salts)
Selenium (Total)
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection
2/33
28/33
33/33
1/33
30/33
30/33
4/33
33/33
7/33
7/33
3/33
14/33
8/33
31/33
33/33
Range of
Concentrations
Detected (mg/kg)
4.1J-S.5J
0.43J-1.8J
1.4J 14.2J
0.83J
1.6J - 13.3
U - 7.5
0.13J-0.17J
1.8JB-110
0.11-0.26
2.1 -4.9J
0.5J-0.64J
0.41 - 1.1J
0.22J - 0.35J
3.7JB-14.4
3.8J-44.9
Notes:
8 - Compound present in method blank
j. Data qualified as a result of QA data validation
-------
TABLE 2 -7CL AND TAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN GROUND WATER SAMPLES
Chemical
Volatile Organic Compounds:
Acetone
Carbon Disuffide
Metnylene chloride
1.1.1-TrichIoroethane
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds:
B*(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Pesticides:
Dieldrin
Inorganic Compounds:
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection
2/19
1/19
3/19
1/19
5/19
1/19
3/19
1/19
8/9
1/9
9/9
8/9
9/9
8/11
9/9
5/9
9/9
8/9
Contract Required
Quanthation Limits
(us/kg)
10
5
5
5
20
20
0.1
200
200
5000
25
100
5
5000
15
5000
20
Concentrations
Detected
(ug/kg)
7J - 17JB
11J
7JB-1500JB
3.1J
10JB-1900JB
150
2J-3J
0.05J
810-7.886E
114
1,846-50,213
8-26
1,571-23.265
3.2-185J
722-2,327
19N-105
1,044-7,372
ND - 2B9E
Background
Levels *
(ug/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
10JB-1900JB
ND
2J
0.05J
810-1,799
114
3,969 - 4,598
9
4,317-B.785E
ND-5.7
722-2,327
39 - 52N
4.814-5,040
24-106
Notes:
E - Value esthnateddue to the presence of interference
N - Space sample recovery is not within control limits
B - Compound present in method blank
J - Data qualified as a result of QA data validation
* - From Monitor WeUS No. MW-1D, MW-1S, MW-6S
ND-Not detectable
-------
TABLE 3 -TCL AND TAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
STREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS
Chemical
Volatile Organic Compounds:
Acetone
Carbon DisuMide
Benzene
Methytene Chloride
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds:
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Chemical
Inorganic Compounds:
Aluminium
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Chromium
Cobalt
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection
2/5
2/5
1/5
2/5
2/5
Frequency
of
Detection
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
3/5
2/2
1/2
2/4
2/2
5/5
2/2
2/2
4/5
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
5/5
Concentrations
Detected
(ug/kg)
32-154JB
12JB-28JB
1.1J
3BJ
170J-470J
Range of
Concentrations
Detected
(mg/kg)
870-1,450
0.66B-26B
3.4B - 76.9B
2.8B
60.6B-1170B
1.4-5.2B
2.6B-3.6
1.8B
0.2-1.1J
852-1.410
2.8 14.4
18.3B-136B
2.1 B- 38. 5
0.2 - 0.4
6.3B
0.62B
39.7B-61.7B
1B-1.6B
16.4-37.5
Background
Levels*
(ug/kg)
ND
ND
1.1J
ND
450J
Background
Levels *
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
NA
NA
ND
NA
4.8
NA
NA
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.4
-------
TABLE 3 - TCL AND TAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
Frequency Concentrations Background
of Detected Levels **
Chemical Detection (ug/kg) (ug/kg)
Organic Compounds:
None Detected
Inorganic Compounds:
Calcium 3/3 3,616-4,021 3,827
Copper 1/3 10 ND
Cyanide 1/4 12.6 ND
Iron 3/3 184-318 201
Magnesium 3/3 2,153-2,645 2,645
Vanadium 3/3 2,577-3,437 3,437
Zinc 3/3 78J-98E 90E
Notes:
E - Value estimated due to the presence of interference
NA-Notavaialble
B - Compound present in method blank
J - Data qualified as a result of QA data validation
* From Sample No. SD-3
** - From Sample No. SW-3
ND Not detectable
-------
TABLE 4 WILSON FARM SFTE: CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Volatile
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
CUoramethane
Metbylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1.1-Trichloroetbane
Vinyl Acetate
BNAs
BisG-cbloToetboxy)metbane
Bis(2
-------
TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) (1)
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Surface
Soib
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Subsurface
Soib
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
Water
X
Surface
Water
X
X
Sediments
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1) From "Final Risk Assessment Report"/ by TRC Environmental, dated 5/26/93
-------
TABLE 5
WILSON FARM SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
(1)
iTwOIWBJf RffCf^Wv rTCMM rVIMV ^JlttMe ^fML If WfMlt 1*1" SfffCwMI *T ElCtasWA UMlwl GfWpInf
Surface Sorb ' , . . .., : P-" 'V'-' :: ':' :'.:':% ' , '.'^^.V^:-' .-.:: :^;..-V: V.i'. ;',,:'; V^" ' '.'..V/.-.' , ./.'V- : ;;4'i:.'.; :"y :k:-
lacideaul laaeitioa of OMiie Dm* RefideM
Surface Soib
Dermal Coaled witfi Oetrle Oatrtt Retideal
Surface Soib
lahalilioa of VOC Emiukwt Oatile Retideal
aed Panictdatet from Surface
Soib
No Yet X Future the developmeal auy occur.
No Yet X Two of die llvee cooUmiaaaU thai
are routinely evaluated for riik due to
dermal upuke from toib (PCBi aad
dioiiu. at per USEPA-Refioa II
Riik AueMmeal policy) were act
detected at die Wibo* Farm file.
('dmium leveb were at or aear die
detectio* limiu.
No Yei X VOC coacealratiou m turface nib
are typically leu thta 10 u(/kf
(eicefN for lolueae with a maiimuM
concealratioai of 96 tt(/kej. Thit
precludet »it nificul future
eiposuret.
All pott-euivatkM aurface nib
(0-6-).
SubmfaMM,* - * . . ':''-:V-.:/: X^V'.'- .-' -.- '''^ :V^ "-' , i> :i;-^;f- '.^ W:-^f^O^:.-itV^v^: V^-' ^-'C'%V;-
laddeaul laieilioB of Oatile Eieavatioa
Surface awl Subwrface Soili Worker
Dermal CoMaci widi Oeriw Etcavatkw
Surface awl Subrurface Soib Wotker
No Yet X Eipoiuretotubiurfaceioiti(0.)'io
151 nuy occur duriaf esuTation
for future utility
muMeMnceAeiideatitl developmeai.
No Yet X Two of the line coaumiuau widi
lufficieM loiiciiy data to conpkte a
qujmtiuuve auctimeal wen not
delected at die Wilio* Farm tile.
Meaa cadmium coeceatfatioM were
below die quaatitalio* limit.
All rabfurface toib from deptht of
0.3' to 15*.
OmmA Wawt ' » '. ; . . .-.;. '; . :.-. '.-;; '.'' :;;''. . :';'. -:: ".; K.:, ..' :'! 'l\ . ' ' ':.. . { '..
latetio* of Grand Water Omhe aad/or
AdjaccM RetideM
No Yet X Adjaoeal areat are retidealial.
Reiideatt cwicMly rely oa privale
welb for driakia| water. Alihouth
ol curreatly affected, Iheu welb
may become coMmiaated ia the
future.
Alt froowl water templet.
-------
TABLE 5
WILSON FARM SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (i)
*».,. Km** fmr* fttart Q. Q«i. R-M^f^SrV^atE^h^ tM.Cr^tes
UftMMM WiMK«t CcdMuMftMy * . . t -.
Inhalation of VolatiKied Ontte an4fer
CoMamiMMi During
Inhalation of Contnminanti Onlte and/or
«iat Volitilise from Grand Adjacent Resident
Water and Seep into
Buemrnu
Dcrmil Contact wMl Ground Owrte and/or
Water Adjacent RetideM
No Yei X Concentratiou of volatile! in ground
water are low (e.g., kss than 1 1
ug/L). to ciporarei arc considered
insignificant compared to other
ground water eiposorel.
No Yet X Concentrations of votalilef in (round
water are low (typically < IT |igAg).
Vicinity residence! ate vnlikely to
have tuhgrade living structures given
the shallow water table, ranging from
2' to 9' below the lurfacc. Af
result, eipmure to indoor air
contaminants it elpected to be let!
significant than other pathway*.
No Yes X Considered insignificant given short
duration of eipmure and eipected
dilute concentrations in Up water.
Surfaea Water " ' _ " ';.; -i.'}~ : '" ; .:.': ^ ;j-' ', ::.p:- :>:',,;. V1 ?. \; ,::':;.:'-;: :" ?V.;| ; ; >::;: ;':; ' '. "'?". .
Incidental Ingettio* of Owi«e and/or
Surface Water AdJMcM Retidenl
Dermal Contact with Surface Omtte andAw
Water Adjaoenl Rerident
No No Rnrdens Run Creek it loo ihallow
(e.g.. 6* deep) to support swimming
adivWet, to mndenul ingeition is
unlikely. Anticipated activity
(wading) involve! aegligibte eipomre
via the oral roote.
Ye i Yei X Bordent Run Creek i* a recrttlioMl
aitractio* for youths and may be used
for wading.
*._iii ^.. , ' ' ; '';'- - ' '.."' . - -f t' ..':''. ' '':''':.'' .'--. ' -, '' ' ' ' ".. ' ' ' : .-. ' .''. ':
ICWmPnia :. ':.'...''.- '.'- : '''. ' '' : '- V. ' v ' .".:.
Incidental Ingestion 01 Owite nnd/or
Sediments from Roident RM Adjacent Retidenl
Creek and Adjacent Wetlandi
Yei Yes X Area is accessible to the public. All sediment samples.
(1) From "Final Risk Assessment Report", by TRC Environmental, dated 5/26/93
-------
TABLE 6 TOXICITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE WILSON FARM SITE (1)
Chemical
Volatiles
Acetone
| Benzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
| Toluene
1 1.1.1 -Trichloroethane
| Vinyl Acetate
IBNAS
Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate
8is(2-Chioroethoxy)methane
Diethyiphthalate
Di-n-butyl phihalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Pasticldes/PCBs
4.4' ODD
4.4' ODE
4.4' DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
1 Heptachlor epoxide
1 Methoxyclor
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Chromium. VI
1 Cobalt
! Copper
Cyanide
Lead
j Manganese
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
D a
A a
D a
C b
B2 a
D a
D a
-
B2 a
Oral Slope
Factor
(mo/taj/dayM
I -
2.90E-02 a
1.30E-02b
7.50E-03 a
1 .40E-02 a
^ i
D a
D a
62 a.or
B2 a
62 a
62 a
D a
62 a
D a
D d
a
A a
a
61 a,in
-
A a.in
~
D a
D a
62 a
D a
1 Mercury D a
2.40E-01 a
3.40E-01 a
3.40E-01 a
1.60E+01 a
9.10E+00 a
1.75E+006
CHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mo/ka/dav)
1.00E-01 a
5.00E-02 b
4.00E-03 d
6.00E-02 a
SUBCHRONIC !!
Sutehronic
Oral RfD
(mo/ka/dav)
1.00E+OOb
5.00E-01 b
6.00E-02 b
2.00E-01 a 2.00E+00 b
9.00E-02 b 9.00E-01 b
1.00E+OOb 2.00E-01b
2.00E-02 a
8.00E-01 a
1.00E-013
2.00E-02 b
3.00E-03 d
5.00E-04 a
5.00E-05 a
3.00E-04 a
UOE-OSa
5.00E-03 a
1.00E+OOd
4.00E-043
3.00E-043
7.00E-02 a
5.00E-04 a.f
8.76E-01 h
5.00E-033
5.50E-02 d
2.00E-02 a
5.00E-03 a.i
2.00E-02b
8.00E+OOb
2.00E-02D
5.00E-04b
5.00E-05 b
3.00E-04b
1.30E-05b
5.00E-03 b
LOOEi-OOi
4.00E-04b
3.00E-04fa
7.00E-02b
5.00E-04 i
8.77E-01 h
2.00E-02 b
5.50E-02 i
2.00E-02 b
1.00E-01b
3.00E-04b 3.00E-04b
-------
TABLE 6 TOXICITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE WILSON FARM SITE (1)
Chemical
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
Oral Slope
Factor
(mo/ko/dav)-l
1 ' '
Nickel
Selenium
! Silver
A B,in
D a
D a I
j Thallium ! - |
Vanadium
I Zinc
D C
D a
CHRONIC ISUBCHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mo/ka/dav)
2.00E-02 a,q
5.00E-03 a
5.00E-03 a
7.00E-05 b
7.00E-03 b
2.00E-01 b
Subchronic
Oral Rf 0
(ma/ka/dav)
2.00E-02 b
5.00E-03 b
5.00E-03 b
7.00E-04 b
7.00E-03 b
2.00E-01 b
a. From IRIS.
b. From HEA5T.
c. From MCL/Health Advisories December 1992 Update.
d Interim value Irom E CAO.
. Arsenic oral dope factor derived Irom unit risk in IRIS.
f. Cadmium RfD is for water; 1 .OE-03 mg/kg/day is RfD for food.
g. Value is tor nickel, soluble salts.
h. Value is weighted-average value of the Hex and Tri RfDs assuming 7 parts Tri to 1 part Hex.
i. Chronic RfD used as Subchronic RfD H no Subchronic value is available (per RAGs).
j. Manganese RfD is for water; RfD for food is 1.4e-1
in: EPA Weight of Evidence Classification listed in HEAST under inhalation route only.
or: EPA Weight of Evidence Classification lisied in HEAST under oral route only.
(1) Fran "Final Risk Assessment Report", by TRC Environmental/ dated 5/26/93
-------
TABLE 7 . SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGEN1C HAZARD INDICES (HI)
ESTIMATED FOR THE WILSON FARM SITE i)
Scenario Receptor Present/Future Chronic HI
Surface Soil
Ingestion Onsite Resident F 2x10°
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion Excavation Worker F 1 x 10" '(a)
Ground Water
Ingestion Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident F 1x10*°
Surface Water
Dermal Contact Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident P/F 4 x KT*
Sediment
Ingestion Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident P/F 3 x 10°
(a) - HI is based on Subchronic Protective Body Dose.
(1) From "Final Risk Assessment Report", by TOC Environmental, dated 5/26/93
-------
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATED FOR THE WILSON
FARM SITE (1)
Scenario Receptor Present/Future Total Risk
Surface Soil
Ingestion Onsite Resident F 5 x 10**
Subsurface SoD
Ingestion Excavation Worker F 1 x 10'1C
Ground Water
Ingestion Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident F 1 x 10"4*
Surface Water
Dermal Contact Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident P/F NA**
Sediment
Ingestion Onsite and/or Adjacent Resident P/F 3x10"**
Exceeds 10* risk
Absence of loxicity values precludes quantification of carcinogenic risk
(1) Fran "Final Risk Assessment Report"/ by TRC Environmental, dated 5/26/93
-------
ATTACHMENT III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
WILSON FARM
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
Report: Summary of Detected Analytes: November 1992 to January
1993 Site Investigation fNon-acrueous Samples) . prepared
by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc., February 16,
1993.
Report: Documentation for Hazardous Ranking System, December 17,
1982.
Report: Hazardous Waste Site Analysis. Wilson Farm. Plumsted
Township. New Jersey, prepared by Ms. Linda Abbot,
Imagery Analysis Section, Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center, July 1981.
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
Report: Interim Removal Action Plan for Properties in Plumsted
and Jackson Townships. New Jersey. Prepared by Morton
International Inc.. October 1991.
Report: ppstexcavation Sampling Plan for Properties in Plumsted
and Jackson Townships. New Jersey. Interim Removal
Action Plan Addendum, prepared by IT Corporation,
October 2, 1991, Revised December 9, 1991.
2.7 Correspondence
Letter to Mr. Williams Weddendorf, Manager, Corporate Hazardous
Materials, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of Site Management, State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental.Protection and Energy, re:
Hopkins, Wilson and Gravel Pit Sites, December 1991 Interim
Removal Action Plan, January 3, 1992.
-------
Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, from Mr.
William K. Weddendorf, Manager, Corporate Hazardous Materials,
Morton International, Inc., re: Administrative Consent Order,
Wilson Farm, Hopkins Farm, and Gravel Pit Sites, December 10,
1991. Table of Contents for Interim Removal Action Plan for
Properties in Plumsted and Jackson Townships attached.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
Report: Quality Assurance Review. Wilson Farm. Case 3540-0003
SPG HFFB01510. prepared by Weston Analytical Laboratory,
A Division of Roy F. Weston, Inc., August 17, 1990.
Report: Quality Assurance Review. Gravel Pit and Wilson Farm.
Case 3540-0003 SPG GPFB01GW. prepared by Weston
Analytical Laboratory, A Division of Roy F. Weston,
Inc., August 17, 1990.
Report: pp-3. Health and Safety Plan. Phase II Revisions.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm.
Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey, submitted by Acres
International Corporation, April 1990.
Report: PD-3. Health and Safety Plan. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibiltv Study. Wilson Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel
Pit. Plumsted and Jackson Townships. Ocean County. New
Jersey, submitted by Acres International Corporation,
March 1987.
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data
Location Map for Post-X Samples, Survey Conditions After Clean-
up, prepared by Shepherd, Weinert & Smildzens, November 21, 1991.
3.3 work Plans
Report: PD4. QA Project Management Plan. Phase II Revisions.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm.
Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey, submitted by Acres
Internationl Corporation, April 1990.
-------
Report:
Report:
Report:
Report:
Report:
PD-5. Field Sampling/Work Plan. Phase II Revisions.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm.
Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey.submitted by Acres
International Corporation, April 1990.
PD-5. Field Sampling/Work Plan. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel
Pit. Plurosted and Jackson Townships. Ocean County. New
Jersey, submitted by Acres International Corporation,
September 1987.
PD-4. OA Project Management Plan. Volume I of III.
Remedial Investigation/ Feasibiltity Study. Wilson Farm.
Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson
Townships. Ocean County. New Jersey, submitted by Acres
International Corporation, July 1987.
PD-4. OA Project Management Plan. Appendix A. Sections
1. 2. 3. Volume II of III. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel
Pit. Plumsted and Jackson Townships. Ocean County. New
Jersey, submitted by Acres International Corporation,
July 1987.
PD-4. OA Projects Management Plan. Appendix A. Sections
4. 5. Volume III of III. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel
Pit. Plumsted and Jackson Townships. Ocean County. New
Jersey, submitted by Acres International Corporation,
July 1987.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
Report: PD-13A. Final Remedial Investigation Report. Wilson
Farm. Volume I of II and II of II. prepared by Acres
International Corporation, November 1991.
Report: PD-2. Background Investigation Report. Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Wilson Farm. Hopkins
Farm. Gravel Pit. Plumsted and Jackson Townships. Ocean
County. New Jersey, submitted by Acres International
Corporation, June 1987.
-------
3.5 Correspondence
Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of Site
Management, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation,
from Mr. Samuel Jung of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, re:
Preliminary Summary Table, Morton International Inc., Wilson Farm
Site, January 13, 1993. Wilson Farm Site: Summary of Detected
Analytes attached.
Letter-to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of Site
Management, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation,
from Mr. Nicholas P. Klumpp, Senior Environmental Engineer,
Morton International, re: Wilson Farm Site, Plumsted Township,
Ocean County, New Jersey, Wetlands Sediment Sampling Report,
October 28, 1992. Sediment Sampling at the Wilson Farm Site
attached.
Memorandum to Mr. George Jaegers, Technical Coordinator, Bureau
of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, from Ms. Linda
Appel, Quality Assurance Section, Bureau of Environmental
Measurements and Quality Assurance, State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, re:
Analytical Data Validation of the June 29 and July 2, 1992
Sampling events conducted at Wilson Farm, Plumsted Township, New
Jersey, October 22, 1992. Data Validation Report attached.
Memorandum to Mr. George Jaegers, Technical Coordinator, Bureau
of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, from
Mr. Karanvir S. Kaushal, Research Scientist, Quality Assurance
Section, Bureau of Environmental Measurements and Quality
Assurance, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, re: Data Validation Review of the
Analytical Package for Morton Thiokol/Lesser Sites, September 21,
1992.
Memorandum to Mr. George Jaegers, Technical Coordinator, Bureau
of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, from
Mr. John Sacco, Ecologist, State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, re: Review of Sediment Data
from Hopkins and Wilson Farms Superfund Sites, Plumsted Township,
June 4, 1992.
-------
Letter to Mr. William Weddendorf, Manager, Corporate Hazardous
Materials, Morton International, Inc., from Mr. Michael
Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of Site Management, State of New
jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy,
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation, re: Hopkins, Wilson and
Gravel Pit sites, Soil clean-up Numbers, September 5, 1991.
Letter and Preliminary Remediation Goals attached.
Memorandum to Mr. George Jaegers. Technical Coordinator, Bureau
of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, State of New
Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, from
Mr. James R. Plummer, Hazardous Site Mitigation Specialist II,
Quality Assurance Section, Bureau of Environmental Measurements &
Quality Assurance, State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, re: Data Review of Wilson
Farm Tier I Deliverables. Analytical Package submitted by H2M
Laboratory. Aqueous Samples Analyzed for Volatile and
Semivolatile organics by U.S. EPA CLP-SOW 2/88 Methods, April 2,
1991. Target and Non Target Compound Summary List attached.
Memorandum to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of
Site Management, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation,
from Mr. James R. Plummer, Hazardous Site Mitigation Specialist
II, Quality Assurance Section, Bureau of Environmental
Measurements & Quality Assurance, re: Review of Wilson Farm
Monitoring Well #5S for Total and Dissolved Lead. Analytical
Package submitted by Envirodyne Laboratory. Sample Collected on
May 15, 1990. Analysis for Lead by Contract X-408, Task IV, CLP
Deliverables, Feruary 28, 1991.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARAR'S) Determination
Report: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
fARAR's) for Wilson Farm. Hopkins Farm. Gravel Pit.
prepared by Acres International Corporation, February
1989.
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
Report: PD-14A. Final Feasibility Study Report. Wilson Farm.
Remedial Investicration/Feasibility Study. Plumsted
Township. New Jersey, prepared by Acres International
Corporation, January 1992.
-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.6 Documentation of Technical Discussions with PRP's
Letter to Mr. Robert C. Hyndman, President, Morton Thiokol, Inc.,
and Morton Thiokol, Inc., c/o Corporation Trust Co., from Mr.
Gerard Burke, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Regulatory Services, re: Three Directives
and Notices of Violation regarding the Hopkins Farm and Wilson
Farm Waste Disposal Sites, Plumsted Township, New Jersey; and
Gravel Pit Waste Disposal Site, Jackson Township, New Jersey,
July 17, 1993. Three Directives and Notices of Violation
attached.
Letter to Mr. Nicholas Kluropp, Project Manager, Morton
International, Inc., from Mr. Robert Soboleski, Chief for Bureau
of Site Management, State of New Jersey, Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Publicly Funded
Site Remediation, re: Wilson Farm Site, Removal of Contaminated
Soils, April 1993. Pinelands Commission approval letter and
Wilson Farm Post-Ex Samples Draft Comparison to Residential
Surface Soil Criteria attached.
Letter to Mr. Charles S. Locke, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
of the Board, Morton International, Inc., and Mr. Edward
Garrison, Chief Executive Officer, President, Thiokol
Corporation, from Mr. Dennis Hart, Assistant Director,
Responsible Party Cleanup Element, State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Hazardous
Waste Management, re: Enclosed Directive II regarding Hopkins
Farm and Wilson Farm Waste Disposal Sites, Plumsted Township, New
Jersey; and Gravel Pit Waste Disposal Site, Jackson Township, New
Jersey, January 9, 1990. Directive II attached.
7.8 Correspondence
Letter to Mr. Michael Burlingame, Site Manager, Bureau of Site
Management, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation,
from Mr. William Weddendorf, Manager, Corporate Hazardous
Materials, Morton International, Inc., re: Administrative
Consent Order, Wilson Farm, Hopkins Farm and Gravel Pit sites,
December 18, 1991. Proposed "Optimal Conditions" Schedule for
Interim Removal Action attached.
-------
Letter to Mr. Jeffrey C. Wyant, Environmental Counsel, Morton
International, Inc., from Mr. Roman S. Luzecky, Section Chief,
Bureau of Federal Case Management, State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, re:
Administrative Consent Order for Gravel Pit, Hopkins Farm and
Wilson Farm, August 26, 1991.
Letter to Gerard Burke, Esquire, Director, Office of Regulatory
Services, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, from
W. Gary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, State of New
Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, re: Wilson Farm,
Hopkins Farm and Gravel Pit - Administrative Consent Order signed
by Morton Thiokol, December 1, 1987. Letter and Administrative
Consent Order attached.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
Report: Final Risk Assessment. Wilson Farm Site. Plumsted
Township. New Jersey, prepared by TRC Environmental
Corporation, May 26, 1993.
Report: Health Assessment for Wilson Farm prepared by Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. U.S. Public
Health Service, June 20, 1990.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plan
Plan: Community Relations Plan. Hazardous Waste Site Remedial
Action, prepared by New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Hazardous Site
Mitigation, October 1986.
10.9 Proposed Plan
Superfund Proposed Plan: Wilson Farm Site. May 1993.
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
USEPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACO* K. JAVIT6 PEDMAU BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1 0276-OP12
23 JUL 1993
Jeanne Pox, Acting Commissioner
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
CN 402
401 East State Street
Trenton, Mew Jersey 08625-0402
Re: Record of Decision
Wilson Farm Site
Flumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
Dear Commissioner FOX:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
(EPA) has reviewed the draft Record of Decision (ROD) dated June
1993, for the Wilson Farm Site (Site) located in Plumsted
Township, Ocean County, New Jersey.
EPA concurs with the "No Action11 alternative, and has
determined that, based on the administrative record for the Site,
the draft ROD is consistent with Section 121 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended, (CERCLA) , 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et «an. This finding
shall not affect EPA's right to conduct five-year reviews of the
Site, or to take or require appropriate action pursuant to such
review, in accordance with Section 121(o) of CERCLA and EPA
further reserves the right to take response and enforcement
actions pursuant to Sections 104, 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
Sincerely,
/William J. Muszynski, P.E,
fa' Acting Regional Administrator
»NLNTKO ON NCCYCLtO PAM*
-------
ATTACHMENT V
RESPONSIVNESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DECISION DOCUMENT
WILSON FARM 8UPERFUND SITE
OVERVIEW
This is a summary of the public's comments and concerns regarding
the Proposed Plan and related documents for the Wilson Farm
Superfund site and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy's (NJDEPE) responses to those comments.
In accordance with the public participation requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act as amended (CERCLA) the NJDEPE held a public comment period
from April 30, 1993 to June 3, 1993 to provide interested parties
the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan and documents
contained in the Administrative Record for the Wilson Farm
Superfund site. During the comment period, the NJDEPE held a
public meeting on May 11, 1993 at 7:00 pm at the Plumsted Township
Municipal Building to discuss the results of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and to present the
preferred no action remedy. Public comments received during the
public meeting are documented in this Responsiveness Summary. No
written comments were received during the comment period.
Comments received during the public comment period focused on: (1)
technical aspects of the ground water sampling conducted during the
RI/FS; (2) the Well Restriction Area; (3) the presence of
endangered species at the site; (4) the actions of the Responsible
Party that resulted in the contamination of the site; and (5) the
schedule for delisting the site from the National Priorities List.
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
I Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
II Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
and Agency Responses
III Community Relations Activities at the Wilson Farm Superfund
Site
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Officials from Plumsted Township were present during the initial
inspection of the site by NJDEPE and the Ocean County Health
Department in February 198 0. Over the course of the site
investigation and subsequent removal action, numerous discussions
and exchanges of correspondence have taken place between NJDEPE and
-------
Plumsted Township officials, the Plumsted Township Environmental
Commission, the Ocean County Health Department, building
developers, property owners and potential home buyers. Since
people in that area rely solely on private residential wells to
provide drinking water, the concerns expressed by the members of
the community have generally focused on the potential for
contamination of ground water in the vicinity of the site and the
Well Restriction Area imposed by NJDEPE on properties around the
site.
ZZ. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING TEE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND AGENCY RESPONSES
Comments raised during the Wilson Farm Superfund Site public
meeting held on May 11, 1993 and the NJDEPE's responses are
summarized below.
GROUND WATER ZS8UES
(1) COMMENT:
RESPONSE:
(2) COMMENT:
According to the Proposed Plan volatile organic
contaminants were not found consistently in the
same wells between sampling events and the primary
contaminants were metals, such as lead. Were the
samples that you took filtered or unfiltered? Did
you establish background levels of metals from both
filtered and unfiltered ground water samples?
The initial ground water samples were unfiltered.
Unfiltered ground water samples give a much more
conservative value for metals because you do not
lose anything by filtering them out. In the second
phase of the remedial investigation work the
ground water was reanalyzed for lead using both
filtered and unfiltered samples. The levels of
lead in one monitoring well in particular were
still elevated both for the filtered sample and the
unfiltered sample, exhibiting over 100 parts per
billion (ppb) of lead in each case.
At the Wilson Farm site the background levels of
lead in the ground water were less than 10 ppb.
However, there is a well used to obtain samples
indicative of background conditions at the nearby
Gravel Pit site in which the ground water has shown
background levels of lead greater than 100 ppb. It
is not uncommon for certain areas in South Jersey
to have very high levels of naturally occurring
lead in the ground water.
(Continuation of the above comment) Is it possible
then that the five year monitoring program at the
site will result in millions of dollars spent just
-------
to monitor naturally occurring substances?
RESPONSE:
(3) COMMENT:
RESPONSE:
(4) COMMENT:
The estimated present worth cost for the five year
monitoring program is $436,800. It might indeed be
that the monitoring program will show only
naturally occurring substances, however we are also
looking to see if any other contaminants appear
that may be trapped in the soil and were missed
during the removal action at the site. Even if we
did not detect any contamination in the ground
water, we would probably conduct some sampling to
ensure that the situation does not change in the
future.
If during the monitoring period we see a constant
level of lead in the ground water and no other
contaminants are found, we may determine that the
lead is naturally occurring and reduce the
frequency of ground water monitoring to annually
instead of quarterly. We can adjust our monitoring
program based on the results in order to reduce
costs.
What would happen if, several years after the five
year monitoring program was completed, people began
to find high levels of lead or arsenic in their
wells?
If anyone anywhere in the State discovers
hazardous, chemical contamination in their well,
the NJDEPE has a mechanism to address the problem.
Usually in rural areas we install a point of entry
treatment system that the State pays for as long as
it is not shown that the affected resident caused
the contamination of their own well. If several
residences in the neighborhood were found to have
contaminated wells, the NJDEPE would begin
investigating the source by starting at the
affected residences and investigating outward,
because the contamination could be coming from
anywhere within a 360 degree radius of the affected
residences. If as a result of the investigation,
the Wilson Farm was determined to be the source of
the contamination, then the remediation program for
the site could be reactivated. NJDEPE would go
back to Morton International Inc., the Potential
Responsible Party for this site, and require them
to address the problem. If they failed to respond,
then remediation efforts would be publicly funded.
What does the term "field sampling originated
artifact, not site related" mean?
-------
RESPONSE: The analytical methods that we use allow us to
detect compounds down to the parts per billion
level, which is equivalent to nine decimal points
past zero, or one ten millionth of a percent. We
use very sensitive equipment which can pick-up
compounds that are not related to the site. For
example, we clean our equipment with acetone to
make sure its free of organics. Unfortunately,
when equipment is cleaned in this way, residual
acetone is left on the equipment. Therefore, this
compound can show up in the analysis as a "field
originated artifact" or "field induced artifact".
Commercial acetone also contains methyl-ethyl-
ketone, which also appears as a field induced
artifact. The bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which
often shows up in our analysis, is a plasticizer
that is present in the gloves that are worn when
that samples are collected. It is also in the
tubing used in the laboratory and often leaches
into the samples.
To help to determine if contaminants are being
introduced into the samples which are not related
to the site, we take samples in the field that are
known as field and trip blanks. Laboratory
personnel also take similar quality assurance
samples that are called method blanks. By
analyzing these "blank" samples along with the
samples collected at the site it is possible to
identify compounds that are introduced
artificially.
WELL RESTRICTION
(5) COMMENT: Are there any restrictions on the construction of
the wells in the Well Restriction Area other than
the fact that they should be at least 150 feet
deep?
RESPONSE: Yes. The well should be double-cased into the
confining layer separating the shallow and deep
aquifers. This will seal the well drill hole from
any potential downward migration of contamination
from the shallow to the deep aquifer.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
(6) COMMENT: Has the Wilson Farm site had any effect on the
endangered species in the area, such as the pine
snake or the bog turtle?
RESPONSE: No. Two separate surveys of the site were
4
-------
performed to look for endangered species. Neither
found any unique endangered species habitats or
threatened or endangered species at the site.
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
(7) COMMENT: Why did Morton (Thiokol) dump there in the first
place and who gave them permission to do so?
RESPONSE: Our understanding of the situation is that it was
the decision of the Thiokol Corporation's plant
manager in Trenton to dispose of the waste in this
way. Some of the people that did the dumping, or
owned property on which the material was found,
were farmers who worked at the Thiokol plant. At
the time that the dumping occurred, these materials
were not regulated by State or Federal laws and so
it was not a matter of obtaining permission.
DELZ8TIN6 PROCEDURE
(8) COMMENT: .When will the Wilson Farm site come off the
Superfund List?
RESPONSE: If the decision to take no further remedial action
is formalized in the Record of Decision then steps
will be taken to remove the site from the National
Priorities List (NPL). After that process is
complete, the site would be placed in a category
known as "construction complete", and would no
longer be listed on the NPL. However, even after
delisting, the site can be reactivated at any time
should a problem develop.
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE WILSON FARM SUPERFUND
SITE
* NJDEPE prepared a Community Relations Plan in October 1986.
* NJDEPE established information repositories at the following
locations:
New Egypt Library
10 Evergreen Road
New Egypt, NJ 08533
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
The repository at NJDEPE contains a comprehensive collection
5
-------
of records relating to the site which comprise the
Administrative Record. The index to the Administrative Record
is Attachment III of the Record of Decision.
NJDEPE held a public meeting regarding the Wilson Farm
Superfund site at the Plumsted Township Municipal Building to
discuss the initiation of the RI/FS and to respond to
citizens' questions on March 31, 1987.
NJDEPE participated in a Township meeting in New Egypt on May
14, 1990 to update concerned persons on the status of the
site, and held a meeting for this same purpose in New Egypt on
August 27, 1990.
NJDEPE held a public meeting at Plumsted Township Municipal
Building to discuss the completion of the RI/FS and present
the Proposed Plan for the no action remedy on May 11, 1993.
Approximately 20 people attended. A transcript of the meeting
can be found in the records repositories at the NJDEPE in
Trenton and the New Egypt Library.
NJDEPE held a public comment period from April 30, 1993 to
June 3, 1993.
------- |