United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAJROD/R02-84/009
September 1984
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pijak Farm Site, NJ
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/ROD/R02 -84/009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION:
Pijak Farm Site, NJ
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
. S. Environmental Protection Agency
01 "M" Street, S. W.
ashington, D. C. 20460
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
09/30/84
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
4
CODE ^H
REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACT
The Pijak Farm is located approximately two miles northeast of the Town of New
ypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The site is approximately 87
res and is relatively flat with portions that drop off into a marshy, wooded flood
ain. Between 1963 and 1970, drums and free-flowing liquids from a facility dis-
sing of specialty and research chemicals were dumped into a natural ditch which
aversed the site and were later covered with soil. The deteriorated remains of
ams are visible along the edge of the flood plain. Contaminants found at the sit*
.Tlude: halogenated hydrocarbons, PCBs., phenolic compounds and oil sludges. The
inciple contaminants found onsite are not priority pollutants.
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site includes:
moval and off-site disposal of all drums and lab packs to a RCRA facility; excavation
d off-site disposal of visibly contaminated soil to a RCRA facility; pumping and
:moval of contaminated ground water, as necessary, during excavation; monitoring on-
te wells, annually, for a five year period and sediment control during excavation
d sampling efforts. The capital cost for the selected alternative is estimated to
, $1,962,750 and the five-year O&M ground water monitoring costs are estimated to be
33,600.
rKev Words on Attached Sheet)
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Record of Decision
,-jite Name:- Pijak Farm Site, NJ
Contaminated Media: GW, SW, Soil, Stream
Sediments
Key Contaminants: PCBs, Phenols, Oils,
Halogenated hydrocarbons , VOCS , pesticides,
metals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS .(This Report/
Nonp
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page/
None
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
•7C ^
22. PRICE ^^H
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
16. ABSTRACT (Continued)
Key Words: Direct Contact, Excavation, Ground Water Contamination, NDD, ROD
-------
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
Site; Pijak Farm, New Jersey
Region: II
AA, OSWER
Briefing; September 27, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Pijak Farm is located approximately two miles northeast of
the Town of New Egypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New
Jersey. The site is approximately 87 acres and is relatively flat
with portions that drop off into a marshy, wooded flood plain.
Between 1963 and 1970, drums and free-flowing liquids from a
facility disposing of specialty and research chemicals were dumped
into a natural ditch which traversed the site and were later covered
with soil. The deteriorated remains of drums are visible along the
edge of the flood plain. Contaminants found at the site include:
halogenated hydrocarbons, PCBs, phenolic compounds and oil sludges.
The principle contaminants found onsite are not priority pollutants.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site
includes: removal and off-site disposal of all drums and lab packs
to a RCRA facility; excavation and off-site disposal of visibly
contaminated soil to a RCRA facility; pumping and removal of con-
taminated ground water, as necessary, during excavation; monitoring
on-site wells, annually, for a five year period and sediment control
during excavation and sampling efforts. The capital cost for the
selected alternative is estimated to be $1/962,750 and the five-year
O&M ground water monitoring costs are estimated to be S53,600.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
1. This ROD authorizes the Phase I remedy of . Direct Contact
limited excavation to eliminate the threat . Excavation
of direct contact from the site. The extent . Ground Water
of contamination and the potential for ground Contamination
water contamination will be determined dur-
ing the Phase I remedial action. A supple-
mental ROD for site closure and additional
remedial actions, if necessary, will be
initiated upon the completion of Phase I.
-1-
-------
Pijak Farm, New Jersey
September 27, 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
A decision was made to approve a ROD for this . NDD
site instead of an NDD because there were no . ROD
substantive areas for negotiation and the cost
of the remedy is relatively low.
-2-
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
S ite
Pijak Farm, Plumsted Township, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
which describes the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for the Pijak Farm site.
- Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the
Pijak Farm site, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.,
August 1984
- Staff Summaries and Recommendations
- Responsiveness Summary, September 1984
Description of Selected Remedy
- Removal and off-site disposal of all drums
and lab packs at a RCRA 264 facility
- Excavation and off-site disposal of visibly contaminated
soil at a RCRA 264 facility
Pump and remove contaminated ground water, as necessary,
during excavation
Monitor on site wells, annually, for a five year
period
Sediment control during excavation and sampling efforts
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the
excavation and offsite disposal of visibly contaminated soil and
waste, pumping and removal of contaminated groundwater during
excavation, and monitoring onsite wells is the cost-effective
remedy and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare
and the environment. The State has been consulted and agrees
with the proposed remedy.
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate when balanced against the availability ot Trust Fund
jnonies for use at other sites. In addition, the removal of
contaminated waste, soil and groundwater to a secure hazardous
waste facility is more cost-effective than other remedial actions,
and is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the
environment. The State and EPA will include additional .sampling to
-------
-2-
determine the potential contact of contamination with the ground
water. A Supplemental Record of Decision will be prepared for
approval of the future Remedial Actions.
?-•
•v.
Date Lee M. Thomas, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Pijak Farm site
Plumsted. New Jersey
Site Location and Description
The Pijak Farm site is located approximately 2.0 miles
northeast of the Town of New Egypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean
County, New Jersey. The site is approximately 1,000 feet south
of New Egypt-Lakewood Road (County of Route 528) and approximately
1.000 feet west of Fischer Road. It occupies a portion of Lot
22, Block 15 in Plumsted Township. Waste disposal occurred at
several locations along the edge of an open field and in an
adjacent low-lying wooded area which drains ultimately to
Crosswicks Creek. A vicinity map and site location map are
presented in Figures 1 and 2.
The area consists of gently rolling farmlands which range
in elevation from 115 to 145 feet above mean sea level. The
fields are cut by forested and heavily overgrown stream valleys
which form a dendritic pattern and range in elevation from 100
to 140 feet above mean sea level. The total area investigated is
approximately 87 acres of which approximately 40 acres are woods,
stream valleys or swamp lands.
The drainage area for the stream system crossing the site
is approximately 0.88 square miles and is situated within the
Delaware River Basin. Downstream from the site the stream joins
another small stream which flows west into Crosswicks Creek in
New Egypt. Several homes are located within one-quarter mile ot
the site.
The Pijak Farm site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
which covers portions of eastern and central New Jersey. This
unconsolidated geological formation overlies bedrock comprised
of early Paleozoic to Precambrian metamorphic gneiss and schist.
The unconsolidated beds generally strike northeast/southwest,
although shallower units strike in a more easterly direction.
The units dip and thicken toward the southeast at dip angles
varying from about 10 feet per mile at the top to approximately
120 feet per mile at the bottom of the unconsolidated sequence.
Many of the units vary in composition from where they outcrop to
downdip locations.
_ ' The Pijak Farm site is in the outcrop area of the
Kirkwood Formation, one of the major aquifers in the Coastal
Plain sequence. Two lithologic members make up the Kirkwood•,
an upper unit consisting of light gray to yellow-brown, fine
quartz sand and a lower unit consisting of dark brown, fine to
very fine sand and silt containing some glauconite. Muscovite,
ilmentite and lignite are common minerals to both members. The
-------
Kirkwood Formation, which ranges in thickness from 40 to 100
feet iYi the outcrop area, has an average dip of 22 feet per mile
in the southeastern direction and strikes N 60°E. Downdip, this
formation thickens to over 500 feet at the coast. The Kirkwood
aquifers are the most heavily developed of the Coastal Plain
aquifers in Ocean County.
A gradual formational contact exists between the finer sands
of the Kirkwood Formation and the coarser sands of the underlying
Manasquan Formation, the target depth for termination of monitor
wells in the remedial investigation. Even though both formations
have geologic similarities, noticeable differences, such as the
larger grain size, increased glauconite content and the fossil-
iferous and calcareous nature of the sediments, distinquishes
the Manasquan from the Kirkwood. Additionally, the Manasquan is
generally considered an aquitard even though in localized areas
the upper unit of the Manasquan may be more permeable than the
Kirkwood.
Beneath the Manasquan Formation are the Vincentown Formation,
Hornerstown Sand, Red Bank Sand, Navashink Formation and
Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Formation. The Vincentown and Mount Laurel-
Wenonah formations are major aquifers in the area.
Site History
Portions of the Pijak Farm site are currently in use as
cultivated farmland. The site is relatively flat, however,
portions drop off into a marshy, wooded floodplain. It is alleged
that between 1963 and 1970, drums and free-flowing liquids were
dumped into a natural ditch which traversed the site and were
later covered with soil. The deteriorated remains of drums are
visible along the bank of the floodplain.
Presently, there are no containment or diversion systems
for the waste or for contaminants emanating from the site. The
location of this site in the bank of and possibly within an
active floodplain makes the hazardous waste particularly suscep-
table to erosion by flood waters and surface runoff.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Agency
(NJDEP) has performed a limited site investigation of the Pijak
Farm site prior to the initiation of a comprehensive Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
Contaminants found at the site include; halogenated hydrocarbons,
~~PCBs, phenolic compounds, and oil sludges.
A stream sample taken adjacent to the site showed a high
COD. Ground water samples from the site indicate the presence
of a number of contaminants including zinc, 2-chlorophenol,
2,4 dichlorophenol, 4-nitrophenol, di-n-butyl phthalate,
fluorine, pyrene, anthracene, and Arochlor 1254.
-------
To date, the Pijak Farm site has had no known documented
effects upon the local human population. However, ground
water is used as the major source of potable water throughout
the area. Leachate breakouts from the ground surface into the
adjacent marshy floodplain have been reported.
A Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was completed for
the Pijak Farm site in 1982. Subsequently the NJDEP filed a
Cooperative Agreement Application with the USEPA to cover the
costs to complete a detailed RI/FS for the site. In September
1982, $292,500 of Federal Funds were approved for the Pijak
Farm RI/FS .
The State of New Jersey proceeded to procure a consultant
to undertake the work necessary to complete the RI/FS. Elson
T. Killam Associates was selected as the State's consultant.
Work on the RI/FS was initiated in November 1983. A draft
RI/FS report was completed in August 1984.
Current Site Status
The investigation program undertaken as part of the remedial
investigation phase included the following activities:
1. An electromagnetic induction terrain conductivity survey
of the site
2. An emanation flux detection survey
3. Construction and sampling of eleven monitoring wells
4. Excavation of seven test pits and bbtainment of four soil
and six waste samples
5. Collection of one sediment and three surface-water samples.
The results of these remedial investigation activities
indicate that:
0 Wastes were disposed of at the site by surface dumping
and burial.
0 Most waste containers were opened intentionally or have
rusted and their contents dispersed;
0 Principal contamination on site found in waste
containers, underlying soils, a small area containing
buried waste and the ground water at monitoring well 2-S ;
0 Most organic pollutants detected were not priority
pollutants; and
0 Review of available data on toxicity for these non-
priority organic pollutants indicated that the greatest
potential for adverse health and environmental effects
were found in soil rather than in water.
-------
A more detailed discussion of remedial investigative results
is noted below;
Ground Water Samping and Results
All eleven newly constructed monitoring wells were sampled
as part of the investigative program. There were no volatile
organics, acid extractable organics, pesticides or PCB's detected
in any of the ground-water samples. Only two wells, MW-2S and
MW-5D, yielded ground water that contained base extractable
organics: the latter having just 13 ug/1 of 3,7,11-Trilmethyl-
(Z,E)-2,6,10 dodecatrien-1-OL, which was identified through the
library search. The sample from MW-2S contained 14 base extract-
able compounds ranging in concentrations from 220 ug/1 to 3600
ug/1, and averaging about 1000 ug/1. Included are four priority
pollutants: ethylbenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, di-n-butyl phthalate
and bis (2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate in concentrations of 940 ug/1,
220 ug/1, 310 ug/1 and 320 ug/1, respectively.
The only inorganic compounds found were very low concentrations
of mercury (approximately 0.0004 mg/1) and zinc (approximately
0.11 mg/1). These contaminants were detected in all ground water
samples.
Surface Water Sampling and Results
The flows of streams on the Pijak Farm site are primarily
maintained by the discharge of ground water at the stream channels.
As such, surface water throughout the site is the recipient of
water first entering the cycle as recharge. Thus, the three
surface-water samples are important for defining the water quality
at the end-point of its underground migration including the
point where the surface water eventually leaves the study area.
The results of the chemical analyses indicate that the surface
water at two of the three locations are virtually free of priority
pollutants, both organic and inorganic. Sample SW-3, centrally
located on the site, contained no priority pollutants and contained
only one organic compound 13 ug/1 of 1-(1 Methylpropoxy)-2 propaool.
The surface water sample at the downstream boundary of the study
area, SW-5, also contained only one organic compound, 15 ug/1 of
toluene which was detected through the base-extraction procedure.
The third sample SW-1 which is representative of surface water
entering the study area, contained the largest number and
concentrations of organic compounds. Again, only base extractable
compounds were detected, and these all were identified through
the library search including the priority pollutant toluene.
Five compounds were identified and ranged in concentrations
from 18 ug/1 to 56 ug/1. All .three samples contained mercury
and zinc at concentrations well below drinking water standards.
-------
Test Pit Soil Sampling _and__Resuits
Aside from actual waste samples, the four samples obtained
at Test Pits 2, 2A, 2B, and 3 contained the highest concentrations
of contaminants found on the Pijak Farm site. These samples are
considered to be adjacent to the source as they were collected at
depths not exceeding 3 feet below grade. Contamination by
individual organic compounds ranged from a low of 4 ug/kg to a
high of 36,000 ug/kg and generally averaged about 6500 ug/kg.
Similarly, individual inorganic compounds ranged from 0.02 ug/g
to 280 ug/g with an average of about 9 ug/g. The pesticides
4,4' DDE and 4,4' ODD were detected in Test Pit 2B in concen-
trations of 7.2 ug/kg and 9.0 ug/kg, respectively. No other
pesticides were found in this or the other test pits. Soil from
Test Pit 2 was found to contain 2300 ug/kg of PCB-1254; the
only detection of a PCB compound in the investigation.
Two important observations are made from the test pit results.
First, Test Pit 2 is the only location which showed a variety of
volatile organics, two of which are priority pollutants (toluene
and ethyl-benzene). Of the three remaining samples, Test Pit 2B
was free of volatile organics. Methyloxirane, found at Test
Pit 3, an 1,3-oxathiolane, found at Test Pit 2A, were identified
through the library search. The second observation is the rela-
tively small number and concentrations of organic compounds on
the priority pollutant list, toluene, ethylbenzene, di-m-butyl
phthalate and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were the only compounds
detected. With the exception of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
which was found at Test Pit 3, organic priority pollutants were
found only at Test Pit 2.
In summary, Test Pit 2 revealed the most heavily contaminated
soil. There is a relatively small number of priority pollutants
and volatile organics in the test pit soil samples. Those organics
which have been detected and identified with the library search
are rarely found at more than one test-pit location. Pesticides
and PCB have been detected in shallow soils in the area of Test
Pit 2.
Split Spoon Soil Sampling and Results
The soil zone sampled by split-spoon is adjacent to the
initial contaminant sources from the shallow soils of the test
pits. Shortly after the start of dumping at Pijak Farm, the
saturated soils likely retained or adsorbed a portion of the
-contaminants being carried by the ground water. However, recent
sampling indicates that ground water presently has signficantly
lower contaminant concentrations than the soil. Therefore,
these soils may be acting as secondary sources of contamination
of the ground water by the leaching process. *
Because of an oversight in the laboratory procedures, the
split spoon soil samples from Sites MW-4 and MW-5 were not
subjected to preliminary OVA scanning and, as a result, they
were not considered for the complete chemical analyses. The
-------
fact that there is low contamination in the ground water sample
at these locations does not imply the absence of soil contamination.
Ground water and soil samples from MW-1 and MW-2D support this
notion. Similarily, low near-background readings from OVA scanning
are also not conclusive evidence that no contamination is present.
This possibility is illustrated by the sampling results of MW-1.
Therefore, since existing data makes extrapolation inconclusive
the existence of contaminated soils at Site MW-4 and MW-5 is
uncertain. However, because of the proximity of Site MW-4 to a
suspected dumping location, the detection of volatile organics
by EFD's just downgradient of this area, and the contamination
detected in a soil sample from nearby Test Pit 3, the soils at
Site MW-4 should be considered as contaminated for the purposes
of evaluation of remedial alternatives. There is no visual
evidence of waste disposal at MW-5 and nearby EFD's were not
considered anomalous. Therefore, the soils at MW-5 were probably
not subject to direct contamination but could be affected by
mobile contaminants migrating with the ground water.
The split spoon samples were similar to the test pit samples
in that of the 8 organic compounds identified, only 1 was a
priority pollutant. Methylene chloride was detected in three of
four split-spoon samples which were subjected to complete chemical
analysis. Also, the highest levels of contamination were found
at Site MW-2 near Test Pit 2 and the main buried waste disposal
area identified by the EM survey. In general, individual organic
compounds were detected in concentrations of from 10 ug/kg to
24,000 ug/kg while the average was on the order of 2,400 ug/kg.
Inorganic compounds included on the priroity pollutant list were
again found at all locations. These concentrations ranged from
0.011 ug/g to 61 ug/g. None of the split spoon samples contained
pesticides or PCB's.
When compared to test pit sampling results the split spoon
samples have a larger portion of volatile organics and virtually
no acid extractable organics. Also of note is the 400 ug/1 of
methylene chloride, 1.1 ug/g of chromium and 310 ug/kg to 700
ug/kg of 1-chlorodecane found in a soil sample from MW-1. Not
only is this the upgradient well, but the sample was obtained
at a depth of 40-42 feet below grade.
Stream Sediment Sampling and Results
One stream sediment sample was obtained where the main
stream flows out of the study area. The chemical analysis
^showed this sample to be similar to the test pit samples but
with fewer contaminant species and smaller concentrations.
Ethylbenzene was the only organic priority pollutant detected
in the sample. Also, the types and proportions of acid and base
extractable organic compounds were about the same. Thesmain
differences are the generally lower concentration of organics,
averaging about 5,500 ug/kg, though the range of values is larger
-------
(15 ug/kg to 52,000 ug/kg). The inorganics are lower, averaging
about 2.8 ug/g. Three pesticides on the priority pollutant list
were also identified; 4 ,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-ODD in concn-
trations of 8.1 ug/kg, 10 ug/kg and 15 ug/kg, respectively.
Discussion of Remedial Investigation Results
The remedial investigation activity results at the Pijak
Farm site indicate that random dumping occurred over the entire
wooded area of the site. A major disposal area was found
approximately 100 feet south of th stream traversing the site
and approximately 700 feet west of Fischer Road.
Of the many compounds which have been identified few are
found in more than one sample of a particular sample type, while
fewer still are in different types of samples. Though it is
expected that some degree of breakdown has occurred in the organic
compound found in the shallow soils of the test pits, different
compounds were detected in the ground water.
Few of the organics found on-site are in the volatile
classification. This implies that either these compounds were
not disposed of or that the dumping practices terminated some
time ago and most of the volatiles have had time to dissipate.
The majority of the numerous organic compounds detected at
the site were identified through the acid or base extraction
process. The fact that these processes are required to move
the compounds from the soil matrix indicates that, under natural
conditions, moving ground water will leach out only minor amounts
Df these tightly held compounds. The stability of these organic
compounds in the sediments is borne out by the relatively large
number and concentration of compounds detected in the soil samples
while the ground water samples in general contained few organics
in relatively low concentrations. However, at MW-2S concentrations
of organics in the shallow ground water were greater than concen-
trations detected in split spoon samples obtained at the same
lepth intervals. The detection of relatively stable organics in
the saturated soils over the site indicates that at some previous**
time these compounds were transported by ground water. This
would be due to the sporadic nature of dumping and slow rusting
of drums which would tend to result in low concentrations of
contamination small distances from the source. Over time the
soils accumulated contaminants by adsorption from moving ground
water.
Of the organic compounds found on-site, it should be noted
that few are priority pollutants. This means that most of the
compounds used in this evaluation were identified through a
library search.
-------
Inorganic compounds were the only contaminants that were
common to the various types of samples. The results indicate
a general decline in inorganic compounds as water moves further
from source contamination areas. These elements might be expected
in on-site or downgradient samples considering the concentrations
found in soils on-site. However, on-site sources at Pijak Farm
cannot be the source of mercury and zinc in the upgradient monitor
well, the upstream surface water sample, and the potable wells
sampled as part of the Spence Farm study. These concentrations
are within the background levels for this area, which tend to be
unusually high.
After assessing the priority pollutant and non-priority
pollutant data generated during the remedial investigation
activities, it can be seen that no surface water or ground water
quality criteria are violated as a result of waste disposal at
the Pijak site. The principal priority and non-priority organic
pollutants are bound in the soil and released from the site as
sediment. Therefore, the control objectives are first to limit
or eliminate sediment loss and second, to limit or eliminate
direct contact. Because of the exotic nature of the non-priority
organic contaminants a numerical control objective could not be
developed. However, given the relatively low level and low
toxicity of the contaminants present, dredging of these sediments
is not recommended.
The focus of soil removal is on those species which are
priority pollutants or which are listed in Subpart D, Section
3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Potential criteria for removal include:
0 An order of magnitude above detection limit for
individual species using EPA Methods 624 and 625
(detected limit approximately 10 ppb)
0 A level of 500 ppb in soil of any single volatile
species, based on ten times the NJDEP water quality
criteria
0 A level of 1 ppm in soil of total priority pollutants
and RCRA Section 3001 pollutants ppb level permitted by
the NJDEP. The source of contamination appears to be
the buried material found in Test Pit 2.
Initial estimates of -the extent of soil removal to each
eriterion can be based on results of remedial investigation soil
analyses. The most stringent criterion (ten times detection
limit or approximately 100 ppb for individual pollutants) would
require excavation and reburial of material at depths ranging
from 26 feet (Well No. 9) to 30 feet (Well No. 2) to 3 ffeet. It
is estimated that the resulting volume of excavation would be
approximately 98,000 cubic (Test Pit 3) yards, with 10,970 cubic
yard for disposal.
-------
For the second approach, based on 500 ppb of any pollutant
(ten times the NJDEP criteria), the levels of excavation would
be similar, that is, 98,000 CY excavated and 10,970 removed
for disposal.
For the third possible criterion, i.e., 1 mg/kg of total
RCRA Section 3001 pollutants, the extent of removal would be
much reduced based on data resulting from the remedial investi-
gation. Only the monitoring Well No. 2 soil sample (301 depth)
showed total RCRA pollutants in excess of this criterion.
Therefore, approximately 5,500 cubic yards would require excavation
and 370 cubic yards would require removal under this criterion.
The results of a ground water sample taken at MW-2S show the
well to be contaminated with volatile organic priority pollutants
greater than 100 ppb. Nor can on-site sources account for the
organics found in the upstream surface-water sample or the presence
of methylene chloride and chromium in a deep split-spoon sample
of the upgradient monitor well. Possible explanations might
include off-site dumping areas, a flaw in sampling and/or anlaysis,
or, in the case of mercury and zinc, their natural occurrences
or the application of agricultural substances containing these
elements.
Alternatives Evaluation
After assessing the all data generated during the remedial
investigation activities, it can be seen that surface water
quality is not violated as a results of waste disposal at the
Pijak Farm site. However, a violation of ground water quality
criteria has occurred. The ground water contamination found in
MW-S2 exceed ground water quality standards.
The principal priority and non-priority organic pollutants
are bound in soil and released from the site as sediment or found
in one area of burned, buried waste. Therefore, the control
objectives are first, to limit or eliminate sediment loss, second,
to limit or eliminate direct contact, and third, to remove the
buried material and contaminated ground water. Because of the
exotic nature of the non-priority organic contamination, no
numerical control objective could be developed. However, given
the relatively low level and low toxicity of the species present,
dredging of these sediments should not be necessary.
The initial screening of alternatives can be done based on
-cast, effectiveness, and acceptable engineering practice. The
most significant pathways with the potential for adverse impacts
on public health and the environment are to limit or eliminate
pollutant migration and direct contact. The candidate remedial
actions identified in the National Contingency Plan are presented
in Table 2.
-------
10
The screening of remedial alternatives indicates that remedial
action will be necessary to mitigate the threat to public health,
welfare and the environment. Source control action which would
lessen the migration of stream sediment and measures to eliminate
direct contact will also be required. For this reason the "No
Action" alternative was not considered in the detailed Evaluation
of Alternatives.
SEE INSERT A.
The following remedial action alterantives were developed
for a more detailed analysis of effectiveness and cost measure.
Alter nati ye 1 - Waste, soil and groundwater removal, dam and pond
for sediment control, groundwater removal, fencing and direct
access control and groundwater monitoring.
Alternative 2 - Waste, soil and groundwater removal, berms along
stream for sediment control, groundwater removal, fencing and
groundwater monitoring.
Al ter ria t i ve 3 - Waste, soil and groundwater removal, berms along
stream and site perimeter, groundwater removal, fencing and
ground water monitoring.
Alternative 4 - Waste, soil and groundwater removal, site regrading
and surface restoration, groundwater removal, berm along site
perimeter, and ground water monitoring.
A11 e r na t i ye 5 - Removal of all waste and contaminated soil,
ground water removal and site restoration.
t
A11e rna t rye 6 - Construction of on-site landfill to RCRA and
NJDEP landfill specifications, ground water removal, site
restoration, and ground water monitoring.
The cost-effective alternative is defined as the lowest cost
alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and
which effectively mitigates damage to and provides adequate
protection to public health, welfare and the environment.
The following evaluation of the six remedial action alter-
natives will consider their present worth cost as well as their
effectiveness in controlling direct contact and sediment migration.
-------
lOa
INSERT AT A.
The alternative of closing the site in accordance with RCRA,
without the removal of any waste off-site for disposal, was
eliminated during the initial screening of alternatives. This
alternative did not significantly lessen the migration of
contamination through ground water already in contact with source
materials. In addition, the scattered disposal of drums and lab
packs would require the extensive capping of the site. However,
the discrete removal of the drums, lab packs, and visibly
contaminated soils would be significantly lower in cost, as well
as more environmentally secure, and will facilitate capping the
remaining contaminated soils.
- - m f.
L iK I INITIALS
-------
11
Alternative *1
This alternative would include removal of contaminated waste,
soil and ground water from the site and the construction of a
dam across the stream flowing through the site. The proposed
dam would be located below the perimeter of the site approximately
200 feet upstream of the confluence of the stream flowing through
the site and the Stony Ford Brook, as shown in Figure 3.
The total drainage area of this stream is approximately 190
acres. Designing the basins to contain a 100 year storm event
would require the construction of a dam 175 feet wide and approx-
imately 8 feet high. The pond created during a 100 year storm
event would have a volume of approximately 517,000 ft3 and
depth of approximately 6 feet at the dam. The basin will have
an emergency overflow riser pipe and will be dewatered by the
use of subsurface drains.
The effects of this dam will only be realized during storm
events when a pond will be created as a result of the excess of
inflow entering the basin over the capacity of the subsurface
drain. The area behind the dam will be a relatively calm area
where the sediment transported by the stream will slowly drain.
Preliminary calculations indicate volume of approximately
38,000 ft3 of soil will be removed annually. Therefore, the
periodic excavation of this sediment will be required. The
sediment yield of 38,000 ft3 will not all be delivered to the
dam. For sandy soils, approximately 19 percent of the sediment
yeild will occur at the dam, with the remainder being deposited
upstream of the pond area. Therefore, the annual sediment yield
will be approximately 7,200 ft3, or 270 CY. The area behind
the dam is over eight (8) acres, so the sediment yield will
require approximately 50 years to fill one foot. Removal of
sediment is recommended every 15 years.
Alternative »2
This alternative includes the removal of contaminated waste,
soil and groundwater from the site as well as the construction
of berms along the banks of the stream flowing through the site.
These berms would prevent the surface runoff passing through the
site from carrying contaminated soil into the stream. The area
upgradient of the berm will be so graded that the surface runoff
will be directed towards a sediment basin where the contaminated
soil will settle out.
„•
Approximately 3800 linear feet of berms would be required
to isolate the stream as it flows through the site as shown in
Figure 4. The total drainage area tributary to and including
the site is aproximately 55 acres. The berm on the soutrh bank
would have tributary to it a drainage area of approximately
15 acres while the berm on the north bank would have approximately
40 tributary acres. Designing the respective basins (north and
-------
12
south side) to withhold a 100 year storm event would require
basins with volumes of approximately 90,000 ft3 and 22,000 ft-*
respectively. Each basin would be designed with an emergency
overflow riser pipe and will be dewatered by the use of subsurface
drains.
The effects of the berms will be to prevent the contaminated
soil from entering the stream and leaving the site. Preliminary
calculations indicate that the basins on the north side of the
stream will remove annually approximately 1,900 ft3 of soil. The
south side basin will annually remove approximately 25 ft3 of
soil. Excavation of this sediment every 15 years is recommended.
Alternative »3
This alternative includes the removal of contaminated waste,
soil and ground water from the site as well as the construction
of berms along the backs of the stream and along the upland
perimeter of the site shown in Figure 5.
The addition of the perimeter berm would prevent upland
runoff from flowing over the site, by directing it to a point
further downstream. This alternative would require approximately
2200 feet of smaller sized berms to isolate the site. This is
in addition to the approximately 3800 linear feet of berms required
to isolate the stream as it flows through the site. Therefore,
the total drainage area tributary to the site would be greatly
reduced. The north side berm would have a drainage area of
approximately 10 acres. The south berm would have a drainage
area of approximately 15 acres. The respective basins required
to withhold a 100 year storm event would have volumes of approxi-
mately 21,000 ft3 and 22,000 ft3. Each basin would be designed
with an emergency overflow riser and will be dewatered by the
use of subsurface drains. With the construction of a perimeter
berm, there is a reduction in size required for the sediment
basins. Similarly, the amount of sediment removed prior to
entering the stream is also reduced. Preliminary calculations
indicate that the basin on the north side of the stream will
remove annually approximately 15 ft3 of soil. The south side
basin will remove approximately 25 ft3 of soil annually. With
this small quantity, removal of sediment should not be required
over the thirty year planning period.
Alternative #4
T ' This alternative involves the removal of contaminated waste,
soil and ground water from the site as well as construction of a
temporary dam, regrading of areas of high slope and covering with
native material, construction of a site perimeter berm for runoff
control and the restoration of vegetation. *
-------
13
The greatest source of contaminated soil is the embankment
area marking the transition from upland to wetland areas. The
slope of this embankment area ranges from approximately 1.5 to
1 to approximately 3 to 1. To regrade the slope to 4 to 1 and
cover with one foot of contaminated material will require
approximately 6 cubic yards of excavation per linear foot of
slope. In addition, the slopes will require clearing and
grubbing (approximately 3.4 acres) before regrading and will
require surface restoration after regrading for the area shown
in Figure 6. To further minimize erosion, the site perimeter
berm described in Alternative 13 will be incorporated. The
final stage of construction will be the removal of the temporary
sediment control dam.
Alternative #5
This alternative would involve removal of contaminated
waste, soil and groundwater from the site. Removal of the top
two feet of soil with proper regrading and revegetation would
remove the potential for direct contact and potential for soil
loss and consequent sediment migration.
This alternative would require the construction of a temporary
dam for the control of sediment loss during construction. The
area affected by removal and restoration is estimated to be 3.4
acres with the volume of soil to be removed being 10,970 cubic
yards.
Alternative t6
This alternative involves the removal of contaminated ground
water from the site. Contaminated waste and soil will be excavated
and placed in an on-site RCRA quality controlled landfill. This
landfill will be constructed in an upland area.
In addition to RCRA criteria, NJDEP landfill criteria for
new construction were used in development of the design. These
additional criteria include double, rather than single, lining
and specifications for surface cover and drainage layers. The
RCRA landfill configuration is shown in Figure 7 with the disturbed
area and tentative landfill locations shown in Figure 8. The
landfill design includes site regrading, a double bottom layer
for leachate control, surface sealing using a clay cap and new
monitoring wells.
~. ' Excavation and removal of contaminated surface and subsurface
soils will require excavating approximately 75,600 CY of soil,
of which 8,890 CY would be placed in the landfill in addition
to the 4000 CY to be removed. This excavation will require well
pointing to lower the groundwater sufficiently for removal of
contaminated materials at an average depth of 15 feet below
grade. For sediment control the temporary dam would also be
required.
-------
14
Community Relations
A public meeting was held by the NJDEP on February 7. 1984.
to discuss the initiation of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) for the Pijak Farm site. Notification of the
meeting was accomplished through press releases sent to all
newspapers listed in the Pijak Farm Community Relations Plan and
mailings to all parties listed in the "Contacts" section of the
plan. An information package, including an agenda, fact sheet.
overview of the Community Relations Program at Superfund sites.
and the steps involved in a major hazardous waste site cleanup.
was given to all attendees at the beginning of the meeting. The
meeting was attended by approximately 30 people in addition to
local Township officials and NJDEP representatives. After the
initial presentation by the contractor, Elson T. Killanir the
meeting was opened for public discussion. There were four questions-
asked by citizens with regard to testing of the ground water. 'The
state officials responded to these inquiries.
A second public meeting was held by NJDEP on August 16, 1984.
to discuss the results of the RI/FS. An information package
including the agenda and fact sheet were provided to the 'approxi-
mately 30 people who attended. The contractor outlined the
objectives, scope of work, results and conclusion of the RI/FS.
Six alternatives were discussed. The contractor's recommended
alternative included: removal of drums, lab packs and contaminated
soil, site regrading and surface restoration and berming the
perimeter of the site. Numerous questions were asked by the
public regarding the proposed remedial alternative. The State
officials were able to respond adquately to all concerns raised
by the public.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was available
for public review and comment, beginning on August 17r at three
locations the Ocean County Library in Toms River, the Plumsted
Township Municipal Building, and the NJDEP1s Hazardous Site
Mitigation Administration in Trenton. There was one letter
received prior to the conclusion of the twenty one day comment
period.
A letter was received from Mr. Edward C. Larid. Esq. ,
attorney for Morton-Thiokol. This letter included comments
concerning the technical feasibility and detailed implementation
of the various facets of the recommended alternative. The
comments, that are directly related to the first phase of the
recommended remedial alternative, have been considered in this
Record of Decision document and the NJDEP's response is included
in the responsiveness summary.
Consistency With Other Environmental Laws
The final recommended remedial alternative for Pijak Farm
will require the removal of containerized waste and visibly
contaminated soil. These materials will be manifested for
-------
15
transport from the site to a secure facility in accordance with
RCPA and TSCA requirements.
.The benefits of reducing direct contact ot the residual
contaminants and the migration of these contaminants into the
stream for outweigh the minimal impacts on the floodplain. The
NJDFP Bureau of Floodplain Management will require the incorpor-
ation of specific environmental specifications into the cleanup
plan to minimize the impacts on the floodplain. The cleanup
contractor will be required to obtain a Stream Encroachment
Permit from the NJDEP prior to the initiation of any work in
the floodplain area. The floodplain management assessment is
inclused as Attachment I.
Enforcem enjt
The State of New Jersey and EPA have identified Morton-
Thiokol. Inc., and Dayton Hopkins (former property owner) as
potential responsible parties (PRP's). Notice letters were sent
by the State to Thiokol on March 18, 1982. This resulted in a
meeting with Thiokol of July 7, 1982. to discuss its role in
undertaking the site cleanup.
Further correspondence resulted in Thiokol submitting two
proposals for conducting a modified RI/FS. These proposals were
rejected by EPA on January 16, 1983. A second Notice Letter was
sent to Thiokol on March IP, 1983 indicating the State would be
responsible to perform the RI/FS.
The State of New Jersey and EPA Region II have designated
this site a State enforcement lead. Currently, the State of New
Jersey is negotiating an Administrative Consent Order with Morton-
Thiokol, Inc. for the clean up of this site. There will be a
negotiation period of no greater than sixty (60) days from the
signing of the ROD. The recommended remedial actions included
in this Record of Decision will be incorporated by the State
into the Administrative Consent Order. If New Jersey is not
successful in these negotiations EPA will likely issue a §1U6
Order for the selected remedy and later pursue a Cost Recovery
Action against Morton-Thiokol.
Recommended Alternative
According to 40CFR Part 300.68 (j), cost-effectiveness is
described as the lowest cost alternative that is technically
feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates and
minimizes damages to and provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and the environment. A cost comparison of remedial
alternatives is presented in Table 3. The evaluation of the six
remedial alternatives leads to the conclusion that Alternative 1*4
is the most cost-effective.
-------
16
Of the remaining alternatives, the initial three were all
found to have slightly higher present worth cost. In addition.
operation and maintenance costs were significantly greater for
all three alternatives. The permanent loss of forest and wetlana;
areas are common to all these activities. Furthermore, contami-
nation would remain on site in the surface water sediment for
these alternatives.
Alternatives 5 and 6 would result in the permanent loss of
forest and wetland areas. These two alternative were also far
more costly than the recommended alternative.
The components of Alternative #4 are technically feasible
and reliable and when combined, provide adequate protection of
public health, welfare and the environment. The removal of
containerized wastes and contaminated ground water and visibly
contaminated soils to a secure hazardous waste management facility
is a reliable remedial measure. The regrading of the site in
conjunction with placing clean fill will effectively control
direct contact with residual contaminants. The construction of
a temporary dam during excavation activities will eliminate the
off-site migration of contaminants. The monitoring of existing
on-site wells for a period of five years after the completion of
the remedial action will evaluate for the possible migration of
contaminants from the site, thereby, ensuring the effectiveness
of the remedial action.
The Agency and the State of New Jersey have decided to
proceed with the recommended alternative as a multiphase remedial
action. Phase I will consist of : The excavation of surface
waste material and visibly contaminated soil; the transportation
and off-site disposal of the excavated material; dewatering
during excavation and disposal of contaminated aqueous materials
generated; the monitoring of ground water for a five-year period;
and further sampling and analysis of soil, stream sediment and
ground water in the areas of the excavation. The.additional
sampling will be conducted to establish the design criteria £05,
the next phase of the remedial action. Sediment control measures
will be taken during excavation and sampling efforts. Based on
the results of the sampling and analysis effort, Phase II will
consist of? site regrading and closure; ground water monitoring;
and if necessary, additional excavation of contaminated soils
and/or sediments and off-site disposal of the excavated materials.
-and, the off-site removal, treatment and disposal of contaminated
ground water.
The following listed figures respresent a cost estimate for
the proposed actions. Cost sharing for project implementation
is 90% Federal and 10% State on capital costs and the first
year of O&M monitoring costs. The remaining four years of
monitoring costs will be borne by the State of New Jersey.
-------
17
Cost Summary for Recommended Remedial Alternative #4
Remedial Measure
Component
Waste Removal & Disposal
Ground water Monitoring
Sampling and Analysis
TOTAL COST
Capital
Cost
$1,737,750
225,000
$1,962,750
Present Worth
of O&M
53,600
__
Present Worth
$1,737,750
53,600
225,000
$53,600
$2,016,133
Operation and Maintenance
Upon completion of all remedial actions, monitoring of the
site will be necessary to evaluate the migration of any contami-
nants into the local groundwater.
Future Actions
Schedule
Final Record of Decision
Continue negotiation with
Morton-Thiokol
Amend Cooperative Agreement
(if necessary)
Initiate Design
(if necessary)
Complete Design
(if necessary)
Date
September 1984
October-November 1984
December 1984
February 1985
August 1985
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
PIJAK FARM - VICINITY.MAP
\FIGURE 1
STATE
NEW YORK
NEWARK
OF
.TRENTON
/ MONMOUTH CO. // '
DELA*
SITE
.^
-*\
ss*T^^V
t \
~-*s \
I
x-'
NEW JERSEY
-------
FIGURE 2
PIJAK FARM
NEW EGYPT. NEW JERSEY
REGIONAL SITE LOCATION MAP
Qr >!
_ '»s^/T»
> -
• f <-
PIJAK FARM SITE
2000 FOOT RADIUS
SCALE IN FEET ;2
0 1000 2000
/
LEOOETTE. BRA3HEAR3 A GRAHAM. INC.
-------
APPROX!
T!O
POSED DAM
FIGURE 3 - Illustration of Alternative.#1
SCAI.K: I" = l.JOU'i
-SOL'RCE: .U.S.C.S. TOPO MAPS
PIJAK FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
DAMMING WITH STREAM PONDING
El»on T. Klltom At>oc»»t«», Inc.
. , .
tnvironm«nt»i tno Hydrauic Engineers
tr •....„ I,,.., „,„„„,„ „.. W>MT 0,04,
-------
FIGURE 4 - Illustration of Alternative #2
SCAI.K: 1" = I ,Jl)U'±-
SOURCK: I .S.C.S. TOPO MAPS
?:JAK FARM
PLUMSTED TO'.-.-JSHlP, NEW JERSEY
BERMS ALONG STREAM
El«on T. KllUm At.ocKt.s. Inc
Environmental
and Hydraulic Engineers
»"««i u.iie,,,. H.. rt,,,f 0,o4,
Oi
-------
PPROXIMATE LOCATION
\ v ' :; n •'' -i
\ >i *u ;: \
FIGURE 5 - Illustration of Alternative #3
SCALE: I" = l,J(JO'±
SOl'RCK: U.S.ti.S. TOPO >L\PS
PIJAK FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
PERIMETER BERMS
Elton T. Kllfrm At»ocl«tt». Inc.'
Environmental and HydrauK Enoineers"
J7 ....... Si..., M.,,D.,. „,. rt,,.Y 0,04,
-------
FIGURE 6 - Illustration of Alternative #4
SCALE: 1" = l,200'±
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. TOPO MAP
PIJAK FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
SITE REGRADING
& RESTORATION
Eicon T. Klltom Asaoclatci, Inc.
Environmental and Hydraulic Engineers
>' «!••••• ItrMt
-------
FIGURE 7 - Sketch of RCRA Landfill
NEW SURFACE
ELEVATION
ORIGINAL
SURfACE
ELEVATION
?.' CLAY CAP
MINIMUM 5" SLOPE TO DRAIN-
- TO LFACHATE
HOLDING TANK
UNDERDRA1N (TYP.)
I t
NOT TO SCALE
PIJAK
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP. NEW JERSEY
ON-SITE
SECURE LANDFILL
f (sen T. KMtam Associates, Inc.
-------
.
.^'l^:. __. •_-.• JT-—. 4\/£NU' .4-—.-..-»• \.
»•--•• r""w' —-•*" ' '!
pH :AV.. •/•-•••?#
N
A -*-f
V- •- : -.V^-l
FIGURE 8 - Illustration of Alternative #6
SCALE: 1" = l,200'±
SOURCE: U.S.U.S. TOPO MAP
P'JAK FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, .\EW JERSEY
EXCAVATION AND ON
SITE LANDFILL
El»on T. Klllam A««OC|«t«t. inc.
Environment and Hydraulic Eng,n««rs"
IT in.... s>'..i M.,,B|,,« w,. j.,M, 07041
-------
Table 1
Summary of On-Site Waste Material
Estimate of Drummed Material
Site |Drums Drums Intact
TP 2A 50 20
TP 4B 10 5
TP 5 4 2
Scattered 50 0
114 TT
Labortary Packs;
Site Number
TP 2 400
Buried Material
Site Quantity
TP 2 4000 CY
-------
Eicon T. Klllsm Associates, Inc.
0
TABLE 2
Screening of Altetnatives
Acceptabl e
Remedial Need For Effective- Engineering
Action Action? Cost? ness? Practice?
I. Emissions Control
A. Air Emissions Control
1. Pipe Vents N
2. Trench Vents N
3. Gas Barriers N
4. Gas Collection N
5. Overpacking N
B. Surface Water Controls
1. Surface Seals Y N Y Y
2. Diversion/Collection
a. Dikes & Berns Y Y Y Y
b. Ditching Y Y Y Y
c. Chutes Y Y Y Y
d. Levees Y Y Y Y
e. Seepage Basins Y Y Y Y
f. Sediment Basins Y Y Y Y
g. Terracing Y Y Y Y
C. Groundwater Controls
1. Impermeable Barriers N
2. Permeable Treatment N
3. GW Pumping Y Y Y Y
4. Leachate Control N
D. Contaminated
Sewer Lines N
-9-
-------
Elton T. Klllsm Associates, hie.
TABLE 2
PIJAK FARM
Acceptab
Remedial Need For Effective-
Action Action? Cost? ness?
II. On Site Treatment
A. Direct Treatment
1. Biological N
2. Chemical N
3. Physical N
B. Contain. Soil /Sediment
1. Incineration Y NY
2. Wet Air Oxidation Y NY
3. Solidification N
4. Encapsulation Y Y Y
5. In-Situ Treatment N
III. Other Control Technology
A. Removal for Off-Site
Treatment or Disposal Y Y Y
B. Provision of Alternative
Water Supply N
C. Relocation N
D. Other
1. Securing Site Y Y Y
2. Monitoring
a. Groundwater Y Y Y
b. Surface Water Y Y Y
C. Air N
~ Uc^.
1 e
Engineering
Practice
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-10-
-------
TABLE 3
Alternative
1. Permanent Dam
2. Berm along
Stream
Present Worth Costs
Capital O&M Total
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
PIJAK FARM
Control Effectiveness for
Objective Sediment Groundxater Access
-Soils Control Control Control
SI.942.140 S167.390 S?. 109.530 1 ppm LT lOOt LT 1001 LT 1001
S2.045.7PO $130.620 S2.176,340 1 ppm IT 100X LT 100* LT 1001
Adverse Environmental
Effects
Permanent Loss of Forest
& Wetland, Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Site
Permanent Loss of Forest
I Wetland. Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Site
ro
CD
3. berni along
Stream & Peii-
mete. - S2.IVP.S70 SIOH.MQO. S2.I31.460 1 ppm LT 100X IT 100% LT 1001
4; Kegrading & • '
Restoralion Sl.976.5hd S f,4,730 S2.041,290 1 ppm
5. Complete Removal
I Restoration S7.29l.S7n
$7.291.570 loo ppb
100S
100S
Permanent Loss of Forest
& Wetland, Contaminated Sed-
iment On-Site
lUOt LT 1001 LT- 100X Temporary Loss of Wetland
1001 Permanent Loss of Forest
& Wetland, Groundwater
Movement
6. On-Site land-
fill
S2.1.VJ.HJU SJH). I'jO S2.970.180 100 ppb
100X 1001 1001 Permanent Loss of Forest
Wetland, firm Lands. Ground-
water Movement
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Pijak Farm Site
New Jersey
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
I. Purpose
The purpose of this addendum is to:
1. Review Executive Order No. 11988, May 24, 1977, 42 F.R.
26951 entitled Floodplain Management•
2. Review applicable statute referred to in the Executive
Order as required?
3. Review the proposed Remedial Alternative as it relates
to the floodplain;
4. Summarize the review and describe any technical
requirements necessary to comply with (1) and (2)
above.
II. Introduction
A Remedial Investigation/Fresibility Study (RI/FS) was
prepared by Elson T. Killam Associates, for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), to determine
the extent of contamination on-site and to evaluate remedial
alternatives. The Pijak Farm site is located in Plumsted
Township, south of Route 528 and approximately 1000 feet
west of Fischer Road. Waste disposal occurred at several
locations along the edge of an open field and in an adjacent
low-lying wooded area which drains to a small stream, and
ultimately to Crosswicks Creek.
The random dumping of hazardous wastes via drums and
lab packs has resulted in numerous areas of contamination.
Investigative activities indicated a majority of the drums
dumped at the site were intentionally opened or rusted
through and their content dispersed. This has resulted in
many areas of contaminated surface soils, along the stream
banks.
At all times the stream flow is below the areas of soil
contamination. However, during times of high flow scouring
of the stream bank can result in the migration of contaminants
into the waterway. Also, precipitation runoff can carry
the contaminants from the low-lying areas into the stream.
Figure 1 shows the general location of the remedial activity.
Currently the slope in this area of the stream ranges from
1.5* 1 to 3^ 1.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
PIJAK FARM SITE
NEW JERSEY
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
I. Purpose
The purpose of this addendum is to:
1. Review Executive Order No. 11988, May 1977, 42 F.R.
26951 entitled Floodplain Management;
2. Review applicable status referred to in the Executive
Order as required;
3. Review the proposed remnant site contaminant option
as it relates to the floodplain of the Hudson River;
4. Summarize the review and describe any technical require-
ments necessary to comply with ( 1) and (2) above.
II. Introduction
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was
prepared by Elson T. Killam Associates, for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDr,P), to determine
the extent of contamination on-site and to evaluate remedial
alternatives. The Pijak Farm site is located in Plumsted
Township, south of Route 528 and approximately 1000 feet
west of Fischer Road. Waste disposal occurred at several
locations along the edge of an open field and in an adjacent
low-lying wooded area which drains to a small stream, and
ultimately to Crosswicks Creek.
The random dumping of hazardous wastes via drums and
lab packs has resulted in numerous areas of contamination.
Investigative activities indicated a majority of the drums
dumped at the site were intentionally opened or rusted
through and their contents dispersed. This has resulted in
many areas of contamination surface soil along the stream
banks.
Virtually all of the time the stream flow is below
the areas of soil contamination. However, during times of
high flow scouring of the stream bank can result in the
migration of contaminants into the waterway. Also,
precipitation runoff can carry the contaminants from the
low-lying areas into the stream. Figure 1 shows the general
location of the remedial activity. Currently the slope in
this area of the stream ranges from 1.5 to 1 to 3 to 1.
-------
-2-
A Flood Insurance Study for Plumsted Township was
completed in March 1981, and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
were published in March 1982. Based on this study it appears
that the low-lying areas of the Pijak Farm site are within
the 100 year flopdplain. However, it should be noted that
the actual location of the 100 year flood was not determined
from the flood insurance study.
III. Proposed Site Remedial Action
The selected remedial action for the Pijak Farm site
includes the removal of drummed material and lab packs and
adjacent contaminated soil. After additional samples are
taken to determine the extent of soil contamination, clean
fill material will be placed in area where removals have
occurred. The clean soil will be graded to its original
condition prior to the removal action.
IV. Flood _P_I_ai_n_ jtegu1 atory Reguirements
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management, an applicable executive agency shall provide
leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of
flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human
safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. In
addition, it is necessary to evaluate the potential effects
of any action that may be taken in a floodplain and to
assure that potential harm is minimized.
The following agencies would be involved in any floodplain
management efforts:
0 United States Environmental Protection Agency
0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
0 Federal Emergency Management Agency
0 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
As a responsibility under the cooperative agreement between
the USEPA and the NYSDEC the appropriate agencies and concerned
groups will be kept abreast of proposed design and construction
activities.
The EPA in conjunction with the NJDEP has determined that
-the proposed activities for the site are the most practical
options available in light of current funding limitations and
technical constraints. It is not expected that working in the
low-lying area will have any major or long-term detrimental impacts
on the floodplain, since the majority of the work will bfe temporary
sediment control measures.
-------
=3-
Flood Hazard Assessment
Part of the future recommended remedial action for the Pijak
Farm site includes the removal of contaminated soil along the
stream channel and thus involved working in the floodplain. The
benefits of reducing direct contact of the residual contaminants
and the migration of these contaminants into the stream far
outweigh the minimal impacts on the floodplain. The NJDEP Bureau
of Floodplain Management will require the incorporation of specific
environmental specifications into the cleanup plan to minimize
the impacts on the floodplain. In addition, the cleanup contractor
will be required to obtain a Stream Encroachment Permit from the
NJDEP prior to the initiation of any work in the floodplain area.
-------
APPROXIMATE *
LIMITS OF SITE
SC:AI.I:: r = 1,^00'±
SOCRCK: -U.S.C.S. TOPO M\1JS
FIGURE 1
PIJAK FARM
PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS
El«on T. KHlam At»ocl«t««. Inc.' P|r"T
* I and Hydraulic Engineers I 1*^.
1 tMtvra. Nra MfMr 07041 h^MBM
.®
-------
\ __ _.__ ';
*
ArrrMrv
.»f t » + * x» •»
SEP 28
: t A^'IJ fc •
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
Authorization to Proceed with Remedial Action for the
Pijak Farm Site, New Jersey - Record of Decision
William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director.
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
J
The attached Record of Decision (ROD) is presented for your
authorization of remedial action at the subject site. We are
asking your approval for the excavation and off-site disposal of
drums, lab packs, and adjacent soils in accordance with RCRA.
We are also recommending the sampling and analysis for possible
soil and ground water contamination, in order to determine the
extent of contamination and the possible need for further excava-
tion. A supplemental ROD will be developed for site regrading
and closure, as well as excavation if additional action is
determined to be necessary.
Funding is included in the FY-85 SCAP for the remedial design
of the above cited remedial activities.
Attachment
-------
I =.,. UN I TED'STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ ^il'l/ / ""• t=r:- .•—------ . WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
'
2 r i. i D W AST E A N D E I.1: ! i C L :
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Record of Decision for Approval of Remedial Action
the Pijak Farm 8*1 te, New Jersey
FROM: /Francis J. Biros, Director
CERCLA Enforcement Division,
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (WH-527)
TO: William N. Hedeman, Jr., Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548E)
The Record of Decision for the Pijak Farm Site,
New Jersey has been reviewed by my staff.
I Concur *
I Do Not Concur
I Concur With the
Attached Conditions
Date
Comments:
-------
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTJON.AGENCY-
Record of Decision
Pijak Farm
Christopher J. DagqefetA +s^,
Regional AdministratwV>^^^
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Reponse (WH-562A)
This is to provide you with the draft Record of Decision (ROD)
prepared by my staff for the Pijak Farm site in the State of
New Jersey.
The ROD document reflects Region II's recommendations for remedial
action at the Pijak Farm site. Our recommendations were developed
based on the results of a remedial investigation and feasibility
study performed by Elson T. Killam, Associates, Inc. for the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
Specifically, we agree with the recommendations presented by the
NJDEP. They recommend the removal of all drums and lab packs and
the discolored soil surrounding these surface wastes as well as
the buried waste found during the excavation of Test Pit 2.
These hazardous wastes will be removed to a secure hazardous
waste disposal facility. Following this phase of the cleanup,
further testing of soil will be performed to determine whether
additional soil should be removed. The NJDEP has agreed to
monitor the groundwater by sampling the existing on-site wells,
annually, for a five year period.
The proposed action, I feel, is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act and the National Contingency Plan to
provide adequate protection of public health and environment.
Also, the recommended action has been discussed with the NJDEP,
and they concur with the proposed remedy.
If you have any questions regarding the attached Record of Decision,
do not hesitate to contact me.
Attachment
EFA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
------- |