United States Off ice of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/222
September 1993
£EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Woodland Township
Route 532 Dump, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/222
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Woodland Township Route 532 Dump, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Oat*
09/28/93
6.
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rapt No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-9.63809
16. Abstract (Umlt: 200 words)
The 20-acre Woodland Township Route 532 Dump site is an abandoned, hazardous waste dump
in Woodland Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. Land use in the area is
predominantly .undeveloped and commercial, with a wetlands area located onsite. The site
is being remediated concurrently with another abandoned dump, the 12-acre Woodland
Township Route 72 Dump site, located 3 miles from the Route 532 site. Both sites are
located within the Pinelands Preservation Area District of New Jersey, and there is one
residence within a 3-mile radius of the site. Both sites overlie the Cohansey and
Kirkwood Aquifers; the Cohansey Aquifer is the major source of potable water for the
area and was impacted by past disposal practices associated with the sites. From 1951
to 1962, several chemical manufacturing companies disposed of chemicals and other waste
into onsite trenches or lagoons and burned various types of waste at the sites. The
western half of the Route 532 site was organized into a series of bermed lagoons when
the disposal began. A 1962 aerial photograph showed that most of the disposal areas
had been regraded and that black liquid, previously dumped onsite, had breached the
lagoon berm and was flowing into the nearby pine forest. A 1984 aerial photograph
indicated that the site remained unchanged between 1962 and 1984; and that partially
buried drums were located on the edges of the former lagoons and road on the western
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Woodland Township Route 532 Dump, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None .
21. No. of Pages
30
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/222
Woodland Township Route 532 Dump, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
portion of the site, and partially buried drums and general refuse were piled along former
roads on the eastern half of the property. No site controls were in place from 1962 to
1986. Surface soil, stream sediment, sludge, and debris were contaminated at both sites
with waste, including tarry substances and paint residues. Leaching from these media has
resulted in contamination of subsurface soil and ground water beneath both sites. A 1990
ROD addressed contaminated surface soil, sediment, sludge, debris, and ground water by
excavating and disposing of any source contamination offsite, establishing a vegetative
cover to prevent erosion, and treating and reinjecting ground water onsite, as OU1. This
ROD addresses contamination of the subsurface soil, as OU3. Much of the contaminated
subsurface soil, which had been acting as a source of continuing contamination to the
ground water, was removed during excavation for the 1990 ROD. Recent EPA investigations
indicated that natural processes have reduced the contaminants to below health-based risk
levels; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action, with ground water
monitoring, because natural processes have reduced contaminants significantly at the site.
Based on sampling and the risk assessment, EPA, in consultation with the State, determined
that the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and
that exposure to hazardous substances contained in the subsurface soil will not occur
under current or future use scenarios. However, it is possible that infiltration of
precipitation may flush the remaining contaminants from the subsurface soil. If this
occurs, the contaminants would be captured and treated by the ground water treatment
system installed in the 1990 ROD. There are no present worth or O&M costs associated with
this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Name: Woodland Township Route 72 and Route 532 Sites
Location: Woodland Township, Burlington County, New Jersey
EPA Region: 2
HRS Score: Route 72 site - 31.17 (July 5, 1983)
Route 532 site - 34.98 (July 5, 1983)
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT RODS
Date Signed: September 28, 1993
Remedy for the subsurface soils: No further action
LEAD
Agency: NJDEPE Remedial and Enforcement Leads
Primary USEPA contact: Rick Robinson (212) 264-4425
Primary NJDEPE contact: Gwen Barunas (609) 633-1455
WASTE
No remedial action for the subsurface soils is necessary to
ensure protection of public health and the environment.
-------
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Division of Responsible Party Site Remediation
CM 028
Trenton. N) 08625-0028
Jeanne/VLFox " Karl J. DeJaney
Acting Commissioner Director
OCT
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
- fat. DSC 901
Mr. Larry Granite
Project Manager
USEPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Granite:
Re: Woodland Township Superfund Sites
Woodland Township, Burlington County
Enclosed please find a copy of the Subsurface Soils (Operable Unit 2) Record of
Decision for the above referenced sites signed September 28, 1993. As we
discussed on September 29, 1993, you will make copies of the document and
distribute them to the appropriate people in your office.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact" me at (609) 633-1455.
Sincerely,
Gwen Barunas, Case Manager
Bureau of Federal Case Management
enclosure
New Jersey Is *nbju*l Opportunity Employer
Rexydcd Piper
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP SUPERFUND SITES
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
BURLINGTON COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
PREPARED BY:
N.J.' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY
SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM
BUREAU of FEDERAL CASH MANAGEMENT
SEPTEMBER 1993
-------
I JLE- | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\*U\f&l( REGION II
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278-OO12
24 SEP 1393
Jeanne Fox, Acting Commissioner
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
401 East State Street, CN 402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402
Re: Records of Decision
Woodland Township Route 532 and Route 72 Superfund Sites
Burlington County, New Jersey
Dear Commissioner Fox:
Draft Records of Decision (RODs) have been prepared for the
Woodland Township Route 532 and Woodland Township Route 72
Superfund sites located in Burlington County, New Jersey.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
concurs with the "No Further Action" remedy for the subsurface
soils at the sites, and has determined that, based on the
administrative record for the sites, the draft RODs are
consistent with Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et sea. This finding shall not affect
EPA's right to take response and enforcement actions pursuant to
Sections 104, 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
Sincerely,
William 3< Muszynski, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP SUPERFUND SITES
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT 1
DECISION SUMMARY . . . 3
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 13
ATTACHMENT 1 - FIGURES
ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLES
ATTACHMENT 3 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 72 SITE
Site Name and Location
Woodland Township Route 72 Site, Burlington County, New Jersey.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for subsurface
soils if ttfe' Woodland Township Route 72 site, which was chosen 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 Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision is based
on the administrative record for the site.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concurs with the selected remedy.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This is the second and final operable unit for the site. A previous Record
of Decision, signed on May 16, 1990, addressed the remediation of
contaminated surface materials, sediments and ground water at the site. This
decision document addresses the subsurface soils.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy has
selected no further action for the second operable unit.
Declarations
No remedial action for the subsurface soils is necessary to ensure protection
of public health and the environment.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy will
conduct a five-year review for this operable unit.
Jeanne M. Fox. Acting Commissioner Date
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 532 SITE
Site Name and Location
Woodland Township Route 532 Site, Burlington County, New Jersey.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for subsurface
soils at the Woodland Township Route 532 site, which was chosen 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 Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision is based
on the administrative record for the site.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concurs with the selected remedy.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This is the second and final operable unit for the site. A previous Record
of Decision, signed on May 16, 1990, addressed the remediation of
contaminated surface materials, sediments and ground water at the site. This
decision document addresses the subsurface soils.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy has
selected no further action for the second operable unit.
Declarations
No remedial action for the subsurface soils is necessary to ensure protection
of public health and the environment.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy will
conduct a five-year review for this operable unit.
Jeanne M. Fox, Acting Commissioner Date
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy
-------
-3-
DECISION SUMMARIES
Woodland Township Route 532 and Woodland Township Route 72 Sites
SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Woodland Township Route 72 site and Woodland Township Route 532 site
are both located in Woodland Township, Burlington. County, New Jersey
(Figure 1). Both of the sites are situated within the Preservation Area
District of the New Jersey Pinelands. The Route 532 site also falls within
the designated "special agricultural area-" of the Pinelands.
The Route 532 site is approximately 20 acres in size and is located on tax
block 4210, lot 1. The site is at the end of ah unpaved access road
approximately. 1/8 mile south of Route 532. The unnamed site access road
meets Route 532 approximately 1 1/8 miles west of the intersection of Route
532 and Route 72. Goodwater Run, an intermittent stream, and Bayley Road
border the site to the east. An unpaved forest fire control road runs along
the southern edge of the site. Active commercial cranberry bogs are located
approximately 1 mile west-southwest of the site.
The Route 72 site is approximately 12 acres in size and is located on tax
block 5501, lot 15 and tax block 6301, lot 1. The site is 1/4 mile south
of Route 72 along Crawley Road. Crawley Road is labeled as Sooey Road on
United States Geological Survey maps. Crawley Road meets Route 72
approximately 1 1/3 miles southeast of the intersection of Route 532 and
Route 72. Pope Branch, an intermittent stream, is located approximately 500
feet to the north and 1,000 feet west of the site. An active commercial
cranberry bog is located approximately -.112 mile northwest of the site.
One private residence is located within a 3-mile radius of each site. The
sites are approximately 3 miles apart, and are at an average elevation of 125
feet above mean sea level. The Route 532 site has approximately 20 feet
of relief, while the Route 72 site has roughly 10 feet of relief. Both sites
are characterized by loose sandy soils.
.Both sites overlie the Cohansey and Kirkwood Aquifers. Of the two
formations, the high-yielding Cohansey Aquifer is the major source of potable
water for the area and was impacted by the past disposal practices
associated with the sites. In addition, the Woodland Township sites are
located in a regional recharge area for these aquifers. The Cohansey Aquifer
also provides the base flow of many regional surface water bodies (e.g.,
streams, bogs). There are discontinuous clay layers beneath the sites.
In September 1983, both sites were proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The sites were added to the NPL in
September 1984.
-------
4-
S1TE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Route 532 Site
Early records indicate ownership of the Route 532 site by Francis Estlow.
In 1973, Estlow sold the property to Cohen, Weiss and Krell. In 1976,
Airtime, Incorporated purchased the property and subsequently sold it to its
present owners, Joseph and Albert Spitzer.
An aerial photograph from 1951 shows that a pine forest existed in the study
area prior to the beginning of disposal operations. The exact date disposal
began is unknown; however, it is estimated to have begun between 1951 and
1956. The western half of the Route 532 site was organized into a series
of bermed lagoons when the disposal began. A 1956 photo indicated these
lagoons contained black liquid waste. It was also evident from the
photograph that this waste was released along an on-site road and flowed
toward a depression.
By 1962, most of the disposal areas had been regraded. In a 1962 aerial
photograph, new bulldozer scrape marks indicate that the disposal area was
being enlarged. The black liquid, previously dumped on site, had also
breached the lagoon berm and was flowing into the nearby pine forest. A
second flow was observed extending from the eastern border toward the path
of Goodwater Run.
A 1984 photograph indicated that the site remained essentially unchanged
between 1962 and 1984. Denuded areas could be observed where the two
liquid flows moved off site. The photograph also shows partially buried
drums on the downslope edges of the former lagoons and road on the western
half of the site. Partially buried drums and general refuse were piled along
former roads on tbe eastern half of the property at that time. No site
controls were in place from 1962 to 1986. In 1986, potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) constructed a security fence to restrict site access.
Route 72 Site
The Route 72 site was owned by Francis Estlow until 1957, when the
property was purchased by Rudolf Kraus. Rudolf and/or Eleanor Kraus also
owned Industrial Trucking Services Corporation, the company that reportedly
transported the waste materials to the sites for disposal. Cohen, Weiss and
Krell purchased the property in April 1964. It is unclear from Woodland
Township records when the property was acquired by its current owner,
Airtime, Inc.
A 1951 aerial photograph of the site illustrates conditions prior to the waste
disposal operation. Probable concrete pads, possible basement space, a utility
building and a sidewalk can be observed. An unpaved road connected the
site to the perimeter road of the Coyle Airport. Crawley Road and a fire
road north of the site were also present.
A 1956 photograph shows several trenches elongated in an east-west direction
on the northern third of the site. The trenches were located on both sides
-------
-5-
of Crawley Road. The central portion of the site was covered with general
refuse and stained soils. Small depressions containing standing liquid were
evident on the western half of the site. The southern portion of the site
west of Crawley Road contained a wide depression with standing liquid in it.
The southern portion east of Crawley Road contained several shallow trenches
oriented along a north-south axis.
Between 1956 and 1962, the site layout remained unchanged based on a
1962 photograph. However, the trenches were apparently deepened, and
those in the northern and southern portions of the site contained a standing
light-colored liquid.
A 1984 photograph did not identify any changes to the site since 1962. The
outlines of trenches and depressions could be observed. Drums, stained soils,
and general refuse were identifiable in the centralr'~portion of the site. Much
of the pine forest at the edge of the site had regenerated, while on-site
disposal areas remained unvegetated. This site was also uncontrolled between
1962 and 1986. In 1986, the PRPs constructed a security fence to restrict
site access.
Enforcement History
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (DEPE)
was advised of environmental problems at the sites by the Burlington County
Health Department in April 1979. The DEPE subsequently conveyed the
information to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At about the
same time, a biologist investigating endangered species for the DEPE also
reported environmental problems at the sites.
Due to the similarities of the two sites (i.e., PRPs, waste disposal practices,
location and physical/chemical characteristics), enforcement efforts for the
sites have been combined. The DEPE issued a directive on March 4, 1985
to the Rohm and Haas Company, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
(3M) Company, Hercules, Inc., and other companies identified as PRPs to
arrange for the investigation and remediation of the sites. On March 27,
1985. the DEPE entered into an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) with
Hercules, Incorporated to help pay for the investigative and administrative
costs. On July 6, 1987, the DEPE entered into similar ACO with 3M, and
Rohm and Haas Company.
On January 2, 1990, the DEPE entered into a second Administrative Consent
Order (ACO II) with Hercules, 3M and Rohm and Haas. The purpose of this
ACO was to compel the PRPs to remove liquids and sludges from isolated
locations on the sites' surfaces.
A third order, ACO III, was signed with Hercules, 3M and Rohm and Haas on
June 15, 1990. It required the PRPs to excavate for off-site disposal all
visibly contaminated surface soils from both sites, as specified in the Record
of Decision (ROD) dated May 16, 1990. The ROD estimated there was a
total of 54,000 cubic yards of contaminated surface materials and sediments
(soils, sludges, debris, etc.) and 19 cubic yards of radiologically contaminated
surface materials at the two sites.
-------
-6-
The excavation and off-site disposal of the surface materials was conducted
in 1990. The actual amount of contaminated materials and sediments
removed from the Route 72 and 532 sites was 37,200 and 60,200 cubic
yards, respectively, compared to the ROD estimate of 54,000 cubic yards.
Part of the reason for the higher volumes is that much of t-he contaminated
subsurface soils was removed along with the removal of the visibly
contaminated surface materials. These soils had been acting as a source of
continuing contamination of the groundwater. The excavation of the soil was
intended to minimize cross-media impacts of contaminated soil on the ground
water. The removal of additional subsurface soils further reduced these
impacts, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the remedy.
Subsequent to the excavation of the contaminated surface materials, the sites
were graded to prevent soil erosion. Protective vegetative and mulch covers
were also established to prevent erosion. The May 1990 ROD calls for the
final restoration of the sites after the remedial actions are completed.
On August 15, 1991, the fourth AGO (AGO IV) was signed with Hercules,
3M, and Rohm and Haas. The purpose of this AGO was to require the PRPs
to extract and treat contaminated ground water as specified in the ROD and
to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), and remedial
action, if necessary, for the subsurface soils.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan (CRP) was developed to ensure the public
opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions. In addition, the CRP
was used by the DEPE to determine, based on community interviews, activities
to ensure public involvement and to provide opportunities for the community
to learn about the sites.
On February 10, 1986, a public meeting was held to explain the initial RI/FS
to the public and to report on progress being made at the site. The results
of the RI/FS were presented in a public meeting held on January 31, 1990.
A ROD, which selected a remedy for the contaminated surface materials,
sediments and ground water, was signed on May 16, 1990.
The supplemental Rl report and the Proposed Plan, which addressed the
subsurface soils, were released to the public for comment in August 1993.
These documents were made available to the public at the information
repositories at the Woodland Township Municipal Building located on Main
Street in Chatsworth, and at the Pinelands Commission located on Springfield
Road in New Lisbon. A copy of the administrative record file for the sites
is located at the previously-mentioned information repositories, as well as in
the DEPE's Bureau of Community Relations, 401 East State Street in Trenton.
The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was published
in The Burlington County Times on August 19, 1993. The public comment
period on these documents was held from August 19, 1993 through September
17. 1993 (30 calendar days).
-------
-7-
On August 31, 1993, the DEPE held a public meeting at the Woodland
Township Municipal Building, to present the findings of the supplemental Rl
report and the Proposed Plan, and to respond to questions and comments from
area residents and other attendees. A Responsiveness Summary is part of
this ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for the
Woodland Township Route 532 and Route 72 sites, chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The remedial action decisions for these
sites are based on the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The remedial action described in the May 1990 ROD was the first of two
planned operable units fo/ the sites. As discussed above, the first operable
unit action was to address the remediation of contaminated surface materials,
sediments and ground water at the sites. The excavation and off-site
disposal of the surface materials and sediments was completed in the Fall of
1990. The design of the ground water remedy is currently underway. After
the ROD was signed, a study was conducted to more fully characterize the
presence and extent of contamination in the subsurface soils (the s_econd
operable unit).
Based on the results of both the Rl for the subsurface soils and risk
assessments performed for the sites, no further action is necessary for the
second operable unit.
-------
-8-
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The supplemental Rl is comprised of two rounds of subsurface soil sampling.
The locations of the sampling are shown in Figures 2 and 3. A summary of
the subsurface soil data and a comparison to the DEPE's proposed cleanup
criteria is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Continuous split spoon samples were
collected from grade until the water table, refusal (blow counts exceeding
200) or a depth of 20 feet, whichever - came first. The first round of
sampling was conducted in 1991. The samples were collected on a regularly
spaced grid (50 x 50 feet) that covered the disturbed area of both sites.
The sampling results are as follows:
Route 72
Two locations were identified as hay.in.g contaminants exceeding the DEPE's
then proposed cleanup criteria for subsurface soils. The DEPE determined that
the proposed cleanup criteria were not applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for the Route 532 and Route 72 sites. However, since the
proposed cleanup criteria were useful in evaluating the sampling results, they
were regarded as "to be considered" information.
At one location, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, xylenes, and clorobenzene
exceeded the criteria; the other location had trichloroethene, xylenes, and
clorobenzene exceeding the criteria.
Route 532
Four locations were identified as having contaminants exceeding the DEPE soil
cleanup criteria. Three locations contained one or more of the following
organic compounds: bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane, tetrachloroethene and xylenes. Zinc exceeded the proposed
soil cleanup criteria at one location.
The quantity of soil exceeding the soil cleanup criteria was estimated to be
3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards total for both sites.
The second round of sampling was conducted in 1993. The purpose of this
effort was to further delineate the contaminated areas that were identified in
the 1991 sampling round. The distance between soil sampling locations.
ranged from 10 to 35 feet depending on the area under investigation. The
results of the 1993 work are as follows:
Route 72
Three sample locations were identified as having one or more of the following
compounds exceeding soil cleanup criteria: chlorobenzene, styrene, xylenes,
and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The volume of soil exceeding the criteria
is approximately 400 cubic yards.
-------
-9-
Route 532
Two sampling locations were identified as having xylenes and
tetrachloroethene at concentrations exceeding soil cleanup criteria. The
estimated volume of soil exceeding the criteria is 400 cubic yards.
The 1993 subsurface soil sampling program better delineated the extent of
residual contamination at the two sites.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential risks to human
health associated with the Woodland Township Route 532 and Route 72 sites
in their current state. Because the remedy for the surface' materials and
sediments has already been implemented, and the 1990 ROD included
remediation of the ground water at the sites, the risk assessment evaluated
the potential impacts associated with the subsurface soils.
To evaluate human health risks, a four-step process was utilized for assessing
site-related risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario. These steps
are: Hazard Identification - identifies the contaminants of concern at the site
based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration; Exposure Assessment - estimates the magnitude of actual
and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these expo-
sures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated soil) by which humans
are potentially exposed; Toxicity Assessment - determines the types of
adverse health effects associated wfth exposures to site contaminants, and
the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response); and Risk Characterization - summarizes and combines
outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
(e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) assessment of site-related risks.
The risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which
would be representative of site risks. These contaminants included bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, DDT, 1,2-dichloroethane, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene and zinc. These chemicals of
potential concern are shown in Table 3. The concentrations of the chemicals
of potential concern used in the risk assessment are shown in Tables 4 and
5. _,.,...
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which could result
if a current or future trespasser were exposed to contamination as a result
of dermal absorption of constituents following dermal contact, incidental
ingestion of contaminants, inhalation of volatile organics, and inhalation of
fugitive dusts. The assumptions used for each exposure pathway are shown
in Tables 6, 7 and 8.
For risk assessment purposes, individual contaminants are typically separated
into two categories of health hazard depending on whether they exhibit
carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic effects. Current federal guidelines for accept-
able exposures are an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range
of 10"* to 10"6, representing a probability of approximately one in ten
-------
-10-
thousand to one in one million that an individual could develop cancer due
to exposure. The noncarcinogenic effects (e.g., systemic effects) posed by
each contaminant are summarized as a "Hazard Index" (HI) for a particular
exposure pathway. The HI compares the chronic exposures to contaminants
within an exposure pathway to their respective reference doses, the reference
dose being a measure, with many built-in safety factors, of a contaminant's
threshold for causing toxicity. Generally, only Hazard Indices greater than 1.0
are identified with potential adverse health effects.
The. results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that, for all pathways
evaluated, the subsurface soils at the site pose an acceptable risk. For the
Route 72 site, the total carcinogenic risks for the soil pathway are 5.0x10"13
and 3.5x10"'° for the probable and worst cases, respectively. This
carcinogenic risk is well below the DEPE's target carcinogenic risk of 1x10 6.
The Hazard Index was estimated to be 0.003 for the most probable case and
0.57 for the worst case. Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures
are a maximum Hazard Index equal to 1.0.
For the Route 532 site, the total carcinogenic risks for the soil pathway are
2.9x10'12 and 2.6x10''° for the most probable and worst cases, respectivrely"
The total noncarcinogenic hazard indices are 0.0067 for the most probable
case and 0.061 for the worst case. As with the Route 72 site, the
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks are well below the current federal and
state guidelines. The hazard indices and cancer risks associated with the
potential exposure pathways are presented in Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12.
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all
such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general,
the main sources of uncertainty include:
environmental 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 medium sampled. Consequently, there
is significant uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental
sample 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.
-------
-11-
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 contaminants. 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, and is highly
unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a
quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure
pathways, is presented in the Risk Assessment Addendum.
Ecological risks were characterized prior to the May 1990 ROD. Subsequent
to the remedial action in 1990, native vegetation has grown at the sites.
Therefore, it is likely that the presence of contaminants in the subsurface
soils do not pose significant risks to this vegetation.
DISCUSSION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" REMEDY
The DEPE has selected "No Further Action" for the subsurface soils at both
sites because of the following:
Based on the risk assessment addendum, no unacceptable exposures to
hazardous substances contained in the subsurface soils will occur under
current or future use scenarios. The calculated carcinogenic risks were
not greater than the DEPE's acceptable risk of 1x10'6 or EPA's
acceptable risk range of 1x10"* to 1x10'6, while the calculated non-
carcinogenic risk did not exceed the Hazard Index of 1.0.
Soil flushing studies conducted by Rutgers University on behalf of the
PRPs indicate that the soils at both sites are amenable to flushing. It
is possible that the infiltration of precipitation may flush the remaining
volatile contaminants from the subsurface soils; these contaminants (i.e.,
xylenes, tetrachloroethene, and chlorobenzene) would be captured and
treated by the ground water treatment system.
The potential exists for natural processes such as biotic and abiotic
degradation, flushing and volatilization to reduce the low level
concentrations of contaminants in the subsurface soil, including those
exceeding the soil cleanup criteria. Two sampling locations at the Route
532 site had notable reductions in the level of contaminants between the
1991 sampling event and the 1993 sampling event, indicating that
natural processes are reducing the low level concentrations remaining.
-------
12-
The no further action with monitoring remedy complies with the DEPE's
cleanup criteria through natural attenuation. Although hazardous
substances are not present above health-based levels in the subsurface
soils, the DEPE has decided to conduct monitoring and a five-year review
to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of human health
and the environment.
In summary, the DEPE and EPA believe that no remediation of the subsurface
soils is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
U.S. EPA ACCEPTANCE
EPA concurs with the No Further Action remedy. EPA's letter of concurrence
is attached to this ROD.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred remedial approach
presented in the Proposed Plan.
-------
-13-
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 532/WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 72 SITES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1 . Subsurface Soil Investigation. Route 72 and Route 532 Sites. Woodland
Township. Burlington County. New Jersey. prepared by EEC
Environmental, Inc., November, 1992.
2. Subsurface' Solf Contaminant Characterization. Route 72 and Route 532
Sites. Woodland Township, Burlington County. New Jersey. Volumes I and
j_L, prepared by Harding Lawson Associates, May 18, 1993.
3. Evaluation of Human Health Risk Following Soil Remediation at the Route
72 and Route 532 Sites. Woodland Township. Burlington County. New
Jersey, prepared by ENVIRON Corporation,- July, 1993.
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP SUPERFUND SITES
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
BURLINGTON COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
ATTACHMENT 1 - FIGURES
-------
Pope Branch
Route 532
Woodland
Route 532
Site
Woodland /
Route 72 / ^. /
Siie / Covle ^ '
/ Air Field /
/
/
Cranberry Bogs
Decou I
Pond -I
Chaisworth
Cranberry Bogs
Cranberry Bogs
X
Shoal Branch
Dukes Bridge
Figure 1
S^.ik-: I in.'li :- Appm.x. 3000 l\vl
Cranberry Bogs
AIC:I nl' Ocliii
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP SUPERFUND SITES
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
BURLINGTON COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
ATTACHMENT 2 - TABLES
-------
"V " J -. " '
TABLE
- V SOIL SAMPLING
1
LOCATIONS
^EXCEEDING NJDEPE TBC CRITERIA1 (3/8/93)
ROUTE 72
Location Depth Parameter
Below
Grade
7NL-13 4-6' bis'(2-ethyUtcxyl)plilh:ihitc
Chlorobenzenc
Xylcne (Total)
Styrenc
7N'L-I3/IOE 6-8' bis(2-ethy!liexyl)phthaiate
7NL-13/10S 6-S' bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorobcnzene
- Xylene (Total)
NOTES: -:
SITE
Concentration T15C
(ppm) Criteria
(ppm)
320 -4'J
45 I
40 10
46 23
81 -#)
205 49
1^ I
20 J 10
TBC
Criteria
Applied
Residential
Ground Water
Ground Water
Residential
Residential
Residential
Ground Water
Ground Water
Concentrations for 7NI^I3/10S were determined -by ralfulaling the a\-erag« of the original
and duplicate samples.
SOURCE: Harding I jwson Associates (Project No. 19008)
-------
1
TABLED % .
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
EXCEEDING NJDEPE TBC CRITERIA (3/8/93)
ROUTE 532 SITE ,
Location Depth Parameter Concentration TBC
Below (ppm) Criteria
Grade (ppm)
5NJ-11 0-2' Tetrachloroethene 40 1
Xylene (Total) 170 10
5NJ-12 2-4' . Tetrachloroctliene 1.2 1
Xylene (Total) 51.5 10
''"''!: ':'* .-> '-:;-...: ': :.. -.':-' .:-;,'..':''.''.'': ' . ''...:/.:;.' '"- '-': . .'- .-.'' ' :--'"'.-."''.
' v*rtTT*C ---.'-':-.::''' ;:- -: : " - .---: :' -.- - . .-.'. . . '
iSOTES:. x*-;s:i?'SS':KS::.: -...::.. .- - i^:\-.\'^:'f '::':' '. '';:.''.''.'(.: .?'.::.>.:''.;
';1:/;.'. V:J?;;SS;::S:';:ijsS?:i?/i-.>.: ' 'i^^S: ^K^'(-':K^AS- .'V:'". . '.-'d; &'isi:----'3r£*:f;'-'' $ '}'?.:.: ''. '.:' ' :
:Concchlrations-f6r::5NJ-12 were' elerinined by ralcalalihg the average of ihe original V- : ; . :
vandaupiicaie''»mpJei;->;v::s:f;;:f' j^^^sj;^--'''.i^:': :':'?^^S?:^'^'''^^:#'^ .';'-
SOURCE:?ilarding tawson Associaties (Proj«ci!No. 1900S) '^^^^'"'^:^^.'^:-^:k'f ''
TBC
Criteria
Applied
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
-------
Table 3 -: Substances of Concern for the Route 72 and Route 532 Sites
Public Health Evaluation
Substance
DEHP*
DDT
1,2,-dichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-tetrachIoroethane
PAHse
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Route 72 Site
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Route 532 Site
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
' bis(2-ethylhexyl)pbthalate
b DDT and its metabolites
e PAHs included the potential carcinogens benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and chrysene
-------
Table 4 : Exposure Point Concentration of Substances or Concern
In Surface Soil
Route 72 Site
Pre-Remediation
Post-Remediation1
Carcinogen
Most
probable1*
concentration
(ug/kg)
Worst case1
concentration
(ug/kg)
Most probableb
concentration
(ug/kg)
Worst case'
concentration
(ug/kg)
DDT"
4,008
2,000,000
0.1
13.8
PAHse
1,770
2,670
ND
ND
1,2-Dichloroethane
291
1,600
NDf
ND'
Chlorobenzene
7.4
4,500
Ethylbenzene
10.4
28,000s
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
13,645
2,300,000
1,797
320,000*
Lead
184,310
18,126,000
4,033h
271,754h
Zinc1'
1,600,000
230,000,000
35,020
345,000
Notes:
1991 and 1993 data combined
b Geometric mean concentrations used for most probable case
c Maximum concentrations used for worst case
d DDT metabolites include DDD and DDE geometric mean concentrations were summed to
represent the most probable concentration
e PAHs included in the study are the potential carcinogens benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and chrysene
' No value exceeded the detection limit
1 Found at 6-8 feet in 1993
h Estimated using zinc percent reduction as a surrogate
1 Included to estimate lead soil concentrations
-------
1 c*
Table » : Exposure Point Concentration of Substances of Concern
in Surface Soil
Route 532 Site
Carcinogen
DDT
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Lead
Zinc1
Pre-Remediation
Most
probable1* ..
concentration
(ug/kg)
5,148
-"76
9
10,710
94,210
290,000
Worst case*
concentration
(ug/kg)
412,000
100
19
300,000
1,323,000
610,000,000
Post-Remediation*
Most probableb
concentration
(ug/kg)
0.45
NDe
8
757
6,729f
20,730
Worst case'
concentration
(ug/kg)
4.4
NDe
32,000
55,000
37,930'
1,720,000
Notes:
1 . 1991 and 1993-data combined
b Geometric mean concentrations used for most probable case
e Maximum concentrations used for worst case
d DDT metabolites include DDD and DDE geometric mean concentrations were summed to
represent the most probable concentration
e No value exceeded the detection limit -
1 Estimated using zinc .percent reduction as a surrogate
* Included to estimate lead soil concentrations
-------
Table 6 : Assumptions for Volatile Organics
Parameter
1. Frequency of contract
2. Breathing rate
3. Duration of exposure
4. Percent absorbance
..»
5. Body weight
Most Probable Case
2 hours/week for
10 weeks/year
1.7 m3/nour
6 years
100%
45kg
Worst Case
4 hours/week for
20 weeks/year
1.7 m3/hour
6 years
100%
45kg
Table ~J : Assumptions Used in Estimating Exposure
to Direct Contact with Contaminated Soils
Parameter
1. Frequency of contact
2. Duration of exposure
3. Average skin area over period of
exposure
4. Average weight over period of
exposure
5. Quantity of soil contacting skin per
exposure event
6. Direct application absorption rate
7. Incidental ingestion of
contaminated soil - ---
8. Percentage of ingested soil
absorbed
9. Exposure point concentration
Most Probable Case
2 hours/week for
10 weeks /year
6 years
5,000 cm2
45kg
2gm
12%/12 hours
50 mg/day
100%
Geometric mean
concentration
Worst Case
4 hours/week for
20 weeks/year
6 years
5,000 cm2
45kg
10 gm
12%/12 hours
100 mg/day
100%
Maximum concentration
-------
Table $ : Assumptions for Respirable Participate Exposure
Parameter
1. Breathing rate
2. Frequency of contact
3. Percent retention of particulates in
the lungs
4. Percent absorbance of contaminant
5. Duration of contact
Most Probable Case
1.7 m3/hour
2 hours/week for
10 weeks/year
30%
100%
6 years
Worst Case
1.7 m3/hour
4 hours/week for
20 weeks/year
75%
100%
6 years
-------
Table ^ .: Risk Assessment for Potential Carcinogens
Route 72 Site
Substance
DDT
PAHs
DEHP
Total Soil
Dermal
Probable
N/A
-
N/A
Wont
N/A
-
N/A
Ingestion
Probable
5.0E-13
N/A
N/A
5.0E-13
Wonl
3.5E-10
N/A
N/A
3.5E-10
Inhalation
VOCs
Probable
N/A
N/A
N/A
~
Wont
N/A
N/A
N/A
--
Inhalation
Participates
Probable
5.0E-17
N/A
13E-13
1.4E-15
Wont
1.4E-13
N/A
2.8E-13
4.2E-13
Total
Probable
5.0E-13
Wont
3.5E-10
- Not detected.
Table to : Hazard Assessment for Noncarcinogens
Route 72 Site
Substance
Chlorobcnzene
Ethylbenzcne
Lead
Total
Dermal
Probable
2.1E-4
N/A
N/A
.2.1E-4
Wont
13E-1
N/A
N/A
13E-1
Ingestion
Probable
N/A
N/A
33E-3
33E-3
Wont
N/A
N/A
4.2E-1
4.2E-1
Inhalation
VOCs
Probable
N/A
5.4E-7
N/A
5.4E-7
Wont
N/A
2^E-2
N/A
2.2E-2
Inhalation
Parti culates
Probable
N/A
N/A
7.7E-7
7.7E-7
Wont
N/A
N/A
6.0E-4
6.0E^4
Total
Probable
3.5E-3
Wont
5.7E-1
Not detected.
-------
Table // : Risk Assessment for Potential Carcinogens
Route 532 Site
Substance
DDT
1,1,2,2-TCE
DEHP
Total Soil
Dermal
Probtbk
N/A
N/A
3.0E-13
3.0E-13
Went
N/A
N/A
L5E-10
1.5E-10
Ingestion
Prohibit
2.6E-12
N/A
N/A
2.6E-12
Wont
1.1E-10
N/A
N/A
1.1E-10
Inhalatioo
VOCs
Prob«bU
N/A
~
N/A
-
Wont
N/A
-
N/A
Inhalation
Particulates
Prohibit
1.8E-16
N/A
43E-16
6.1E-16
Wont
43E-14
N/A
2.6E-13
3.0E-D
Total
Probable
2.9E-12
Wont
2.6E-10
- Not detected.
Table 12- .: Hazard Assessment for Noncarcinogens
Route 532 Site
Substance
Ethyibenzene
Lead
Total
Dermal
Pretwbk
4.9E-9
N/A
4.9E-9
Wont
2.0E-4
N/A
2.0E-4
Ingestion
FnUbk
N/A
6.7E-3
6.7E-3
Wont.
N/A
6.0E-2
6.0E-2
Inhalation
VOCs
.Probable
3.1E-7
N/A
3.1E-7
Wont
2.9E-4
N/A
2.9E-4
Inhalation
Particulates
Protuble
N/A
13E-6
13E-6
Want
N/A
8.6E-5
8.6E-5
Total
Probable
6.7E-3
Wont
6.1E-2
- Not detected.
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP SUPERFUND SITES
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP
BURLINGON COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
ATTACHMENT 3 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 532 AND ROUTE 72 SUPERFUND SITES
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of significant comments
received from the public, regarding the Proposed Plan for the Woodland
Township Route 532 and Route 72 Superfund sites.
The public comment period extended from August 19, 1993 through September
17, 1993 to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on the
Proposed Plan for the sites. During the comment period, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) held a public
meeting on August 31, 1993 at 7:00 PM at the Woodland Township Municipal
Buildinti/'to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation for subsurface
soils and to present the preferred remedial alternative.
OVERVIEW
The preferred remedial alternative, which was presented in the August 1993
Proposed Plan, addresses the subsurface soils with the recommendation of "No
Further Action". All visibly contaminated surface soils have already been
excavated from both sites and disposed of off-site by the Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) in accordance with the 1990 Record of Decision
(ROD). The "No Further Action" with monitoring remedy for the subsurface
soils will comply with NJDEPE cleanup criteria through natural attenuation.
Infiltration of precipitation may flush the remaining volatile contaminants from
the subsurface soil; treatment of contaminated ground water, another
component of the 1990 ROD, is planned for the future. The engineering
design for this system is currently underway.
One comment was received during the public comment period from the
Pinelands Commission supporting the preferred remedial alternative presented
in the Proposed Plan. This comment was based upon the understanding that
any degradation of ground water caused by the flushing of contaminants from
the subsurface soils will be addressed in the proposed plan for remediation
of ground water. With the Record of Decision of which this Responsiveness
Summary is a part, the preferred remedial alternative identified in the
Proposed Plan becomes the selected remedy for the sites.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community interest in the Woodland Township Route 532 and Route 72 dump
sites has been minimal since the sites were placed on the Superfund National
Priorities List in 1983. Most likely, the low population density in the area
contributes to the lack of citizen involvement with the sites. There is only
one residence in the immediate vicinity, although there is evidence of public
recreational activities. (Footprints and tire tracks from trail motorcycles have
been found on and around the sites.) In 1986, fences were erected around
both the Route 532 and Route 72 sites by the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) for the Woodland sites. Route 72 is heavily traveled in the summer
months as an access route to the New Jersey Shore area but there is minimal
local traffic. There were some complaints of noxious odors during the 1950s
-------
and 1960s when waste disposal was being carried out; however, there has
only been one subsequent complaint, also" of odors, in 1979. Two reported
incidents exist of residents wandering onto the sites and requiring medical
attention as a result of dermal contact with contaminated materials. Local
and county officials acted as the primary catalysts in bringing the sites to
the attention of the NJDEPE, initially requesting assistance in sample analyses
and visiting the sites with NJDEPE officials.
Some of the key community issues surrounding these sites include concern for
the integrity of the Cohansey Sand Aquifer, the potential for surface water
contamination threatening a number of commercial cranberry bogs in the area,
concern for endangered species such as the timber rattle snake and the corn
snake, and an overall concern for the ecology of the area as part of the
significant New .Jersey Pinelands Preservation Area within the Pinelands
National Reserve.
Community relations activities conducted for the Woodland Township dump
sites to date have included:
NJDEPE preparation of a Community Relations Plan (July 1984).
NJDEPE conducted a public meeting at the Chatsworth Fire Hall to
discuss the initiation of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) on February 10, 1986. Approximately 30 people attended,
including local residents and officials, PRP representatives and media
representatives.
NJDEPE conducted potable well sampling epjsodes in 1985 at the
one residence located in the immediate vicinity of the sites and
again in June 1988 in the area of Dukes Bridge.
NJDEPE sampled the fall cranberry harvests in both 1988 and 1989
with the assistance of the Chatsworth Cranberry Association and
Ocean Spray, Inc.
NJDEPE conducted a second public meeting at the Chatsworth
Elementary School on January 31, 1990 to discuss the results of
the RI/FS and the preferred alternatives preliminarily selected by
NJDEPE and USEPA to clean up the sites. Approximately 35 people
attended, including local residents and officials, the New Jersey
Pinelands Commission's Executive Director and media representatives.
A transcript of this meeting, -together with other site-related
documents which are not enforcement-sensitive (e.g., RI/FS reports.
Proposed Plan) form the administrative record, which is available for
public review at the following information repositories:
Woodland Township Municipal Building
Main Street
Chatsworth, NJ 08019
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
P.O. Box 7, Springfield Road
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Ervergy
Division of Publicly Funded Site Remediation
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
In June 1990, the Woodland Private Study Group, a consortium
comprising of 3M, Rohm and Haas and Hercules Incorporated,
prepared the first of several 'Woodland Sites Reports" serving as a
community information newsletter.
NJDEPE conducted a third .public meeting at the Woodland Township
Municipal Building on August 31, 1993 to discuss the results of the
remedial investigation and the preferred alternative for remediation
of subsurface soils at the sites. The Township Engineer was the
only person attending. A transcript of this meeting, together with
other site-related documents which are not enforcement-sensitive, are
available for review at the same information repositories mentioned
above.
------- |