United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/147
October 1991
f/EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Global Landfill, NJ
-------
50272-101
1 REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
I PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/147
^ TIBe and Subtitle
^SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
^Global Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action
7. Au*or(s)
t. Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Nun* and Adckms
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accession No.
5. Report Date .
09/11/91
6.
a Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|ect/Ta«k/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
IX Type of Report t Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 57.5-acre Global Landfill is an inactive solid waste disposal facility in Old
Bridge Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The facility is bordered by wetlands
to the northeast, southeast, and southwest, and a former sand borrow pit and wooded
area to the northwest. Land use in the area is primarily residential. Onsite
^ features include a 51-acre landfill, a 6.5-acre northwest landfill extension, and an
inactive 1.7-acre leachate collection pond. Municipal water supply wells are located
approximately 1 mile north of the landfill. From 1968 until its closure in 1984, the
Global Landfill site was used for non-hazardous solid waste disposal. As a result of
a slope failure in 1984, landfill wastes were exposed, the dyke was breached, and the
wastes spilled into an adjacent wetlands area. Subsequently, the State ordered all
onsite disposal operations to cease. From 1988 to 1991, EPA and State site
investigations identified 63 buried 55-gallon drums containing hazardous wastes
including VOCs, organics, and metals within both the waste mound and northwest
extension. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses Operable Unit 1 (OU1), the
landfill wastes. A second ROD will address possible offsite ground water and surface
water contamination, and wetland areas, as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
(See Attached Page)
NJ
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Global Landfill,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics, metals
(arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. tdentifiere/Open-EndedTerm*
c. COSATI Held/Group
AvalloblDty Statement
19. Security das* (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
168
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See bwtructfon* on Rtnnt
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-7T)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/147
Global Landfill, NJ
irst Remedial Action
I
Abstract (Continued)
affecting the soil and sediment are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the landfill with a
synthetic and clay cap; constructing a soil stabilization berm; constructing and
operating a gas management system, and stormwater and leachate collection
systems; pumping leachate and condensate from the gas collection system to a holding
tank, and subsequently transporting the waste offsite for treatment and disposal (this
constitutes an interim remedy for the leachate); disposing of sludge offsite at a RCRA
facility; implementing a monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy;
mitigating any affected wetlands; and implementing site access restrictions such as
fencing. Onsite leachate treatment that would replace the offsite leachate treatment
and disposal provided for in this ROD, may be initiated as part of the ground water
remedy in the next ROD, which addresses OU2, as part of the preferred leachate
management alternative. This may include treatment using powdered activated carbon,
nitrification and denitrification, and UV disinfection, followed by discharging the
treated effluent onsite to the Cheesequake Creek. The estimated present worth cost of
this remedial action is $30,353,200, which includes an annual O&M cost of $865,100 based
on onsite treatment of leachate.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: A waiver of the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill
Closure Regulations will be required on the basis of technical impracticality due to the
^.arge volume of waste to be removed. The remedy will meet the appropriate Federal and
•tate guidelines and requirements for subsurface gas and leachate management systems and
Surface water systems. No chemical-specific standards were provided.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Soils:
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Global Landfill
Old Bridge Twp., Middlesex Co., New Jersey
II
45.92 (March '89)
297 (February 91)
September 11, 1991
Restore Landfill Source Control and Stability
through the Construction of a Modified NJDEP
Hazardous Waste Cap.
Leachate Collection from OU-1 will Likely be
Integrated with Off-site Groundwater
Collection and Treatment under OU-2.
$
$
$
21,464,200
865,100
30,353,200
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone):
Secondary Contact (phone):
Remedial, State Lead
Peter Latimer (609-633-1328)
Edward J. Finnerty (212-264-3555)
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Soil - VOC's, naphthalene, phthalates,
heavy metals and buried drums.
Groundwater - Elevated levels of BOD, COD,
and TDS found in the upper aquifer.
Soil, groundwater and wetlands.
Pollution originated as a result of both
deliberate and indirect disposal of hazardous
wastes at the landfill. Drums and liquid
wastes were also deposited there.
-------
SEP 6 1991
Record of Decision for the
Global Landfill Site
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division (2ERRD)
Constantino Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator (2RA)
Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the Global Landfill site, Middlesex County, New Jersey.
The selected remedial action represents the first of two planned
operable units for the site, and is a response action to
institute on-site controls for the landfill. NJDEP has initiated
an RI/FS at Global Landfill for the second operable unit, to
determine the nature and extent of migration of contaminants from
the site into the groundwater, surface water, and wetland areas,
and to evaluate remedial alternatives.
Both EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) have determined that a modified NJDEP
hazardous waste cap is the most appropriate remedy for addressing
source control at the Global Landfill site. The remedy involves
capping of the landfill in accordance with State and Federal
requirements, slope stability enhancement through construction of
a soil stabilization berm, construction and operation of a gas
management system, construction and operation of stormwater and
leachate management systems, installation of a perimeter security
fence to restrict access to the site, and implementation of a
monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.
The preferred leachate treatment option is on-site treatment with
discharge to surface water, however disposal of the leachate at
an industrial waste treatment plant will be employed until the
RI/FS for the second operable unit is completed.
The estimated present worth for all tasks associated with the
selected remedy (with Leachate Option 3) is $30,353,200.
The results of the FS and the Proposed Plan for the site were
released to the public on February 19, 1991. The public comment
period extended from this date until May 6, 1991. NJDEP
conducted a public meeting on March 12, 1991, and a public
information session on March 13, 1991. A few written comments on
the FS and Proposed Plan were received from the community; they
were generally supportive of the proposed remedial actions. In
-------
addition, the potentially responsible parties submitted extensive
comments questioning the proposed remedial actions.
The attached ROD was developed by EPA, and has been reviewed by
NJDEP and the appropriate program offices within Region II.
Their input and comments are reflected in this document.
If you have any questions concerning this ROD, I will be happy to
discuss them at your convenience.
Attachment
-------
_. OF
9. 10. 91
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
•OOrr A. WBNEft, COMMISSIONER
CN402
TRENTON, NJ. M825-0402
(609) 292-2185 "_-
PM: (609) 914.3962
Mr. Constantine sidamon-Eristoff june 27, 1991
Regional Administrator
USEPA - Region XI
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, KY 10276
RE; Global Landfill Project, Operable Unit 1
Record of Decision Concurrence Letter
The Department of Environmental Protection has evaluated and
concurs with the selected remedy for operable Unit fl for the
Global Landfill superfund Site outlined belowt
The selected remedy represents the first of two planned
operable units for the site. It involves cappping the
landfill in accordance with State and Federal requirements.
A subsequent decision document will address the remediation
of groundvater, surface waters and wetland areas surrounding
the site.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
" capping the landfill with a modified hazardous waste cap;
- Slope stability enhancement through construction of a soil
stabilization barm;
- construction and operation of a gas management system;
- Construction and operation of stormwater and leachate
management systems;
- Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
access to the eite; and
- Implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
The Department reserves its final comments en the complete Record
of Decision pending an opportunity to review the completed
documents, including the document's Responsiveness Summary.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Weiner
Commissioner
Ntw Jirtty it an Equal Opportunity Empioytr
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LANDFILL
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Global Landfill
Township of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision presents the selected remedial action for
the Global Landfill Superfund site, chosen in accordance with the
requirements of 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 applicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan of 1990. This decision document
serves to explain the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Information which supports the remedy can be found within the
administrative record for the site.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedial action described in this document represents the
first of two planned operable units for the site. It involves
capping of the landfill in accordance with State and Federal
requirements. A subsequent decision document will address the
remediation of groundwater, surface waters and wetland areas
surrounding the site.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
Capping of the landfill with a modified hazardous waste
cap;
• Slope stability enhancement through construction of a
soil stabilization berm;
• Construction and operation of a gas management system;
• Construction and operation of stormwater and leachate
management systems;
Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
access to the site; and
• Implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, and is cost-effective. With the exception of cap
construction, the selected remedy complies with Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action. The remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this site. However, because
treatment of the entire contents of the wastefill was not found
to be practicable, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy will not be completely satisfied.
This action does not constitute the final remedy for the site.
Subsequent actions are planned to fully address the remaining
principle threats posed by the site.
Because the remedy will result in low levels of .hazardous
substances remaining on the site above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
^Constantine Sidamon-Erls^bff Date I
Regional Administrator/
EPA Region II ' c '
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
GLOBAL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP, MIDDLESEX COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS PAGE
Site Location and Description 1
Site History and Enforcement Activities 2
Highlights of Community Participation 3
Scope and Role of the First Operable Unit 4
Summary of Site Characteristics 4
Summary of Site Risks 9
Description of Alternatives 12
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 18
Selected Remedy 25
Statutory Determinations 26
Documentation of Significant Changes 28
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Tables
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LANDFILL
SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Global Landfill site is a landfill located on Lots 10, 25.12
and 26, Block 4185, in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County, New
Jersey (Figure 1). The northeastern property line is also the
municipal boundary between Old Bridge Township and the Borough of
Sayreville. The site is bordered by wetlands to the northeast,
southeast, and southwest, in the drainage basin of Cheeseguake
Creek. The creek is located approximately 900 feet southeast of
the landfill, drains to the northeast, and enters the Raritan Bay
approximately 9,000 feet northeast of the site. On the opposite
side of the creek is Cheeseguake State Park. The Garden State
Parkway is located 2,700 feet east-northeast of the landfill.
Immediately to the northwest, the site is bordered by a former
sand borrow pit. An active 42-inch gas pipeline is located
approximately four feet beneath the original ground level, at the
base of the landfill's northwestern toe of slope. This pipeline
is owned by the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco).
Residential areas of Old Bridge Township and the Borough of
Sayreville are north and west-northwest of the site,
respectively, and include several apartment complexes, as well as
single-family homes, located off of Westminster Boulevard and
Ernston Road. The apartments are approximately 900 to 2400 feet
from the site, with the intervening area consisting of either the
previously mentioned borrow pit or a wooded area. The nearest
single-family homes are located in Sayreville, approximately 500
feet north of the site. The nearest municipal water supply wells
are located approximately one mile north of the landfill. They
are located upgradient from groundwater flow, and are not
believed to be impacted by the site.
The Global Landfill site is approximately 57.5 acres in size, and
consists of two areas, a 51-acre main section and a 6.5-acre
northwest extension (Figure 2). The main section of the landfill
consists of a mound ranging from 5 to 15 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) at its base, to approximately 90 to 108 feet at the
top. The top of the mound area (above elevation 90) is
approximately 11-12 acres, with the remaining area of the mound
consisting of sideslope. The top of the mound slopes generally
to the southeast, however, localized variations in grade occur,
resulting in flat areas or depressions that periodically contain
standing water. The mound has a volume of approximately
2,400,000 cubic yards. The northwest extension of the landfill
begins at the northwestern toe of slope of the mound area, and
extends across the Transco pipeline right-of-way to the northwest
-------
property line of lot 25.12. Elevations in the northwest
extension range from 8 to 32 feet above MSL. The volume of waste
material in the northwest extension is estimated to be 160,000
cubic yards.
Elevations in the adjacent wetlands area are between 3 to 6 feet
above MSL. Mean high tide in the wetlands and Cheeseguake Creek
is approximately elevation 4 feet above MSL. The 100-year and .
the 500-year tidal floods in Cheeseguake Creek are approximately
elevation 12 feet and 15.5 feet above MSL, respectively.
SITE HIBTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Global Landfill site was used for solid waste disposal from
approximately 1968 to 1984. The landfill was operated by Global
Landfill Reclaiming Corporation (GLRC), and was permitted to
accept waste classified by the State of New Jersey as ID-10
(municipal waste), ID-13 (bulky waste), ID-23 (vegetative waste),
and ID-27 (non-hazardous industrial waste).
In April 1984, a slope failure occurred on the southeast side of
the landfill, opening a fissure approximately 60 feet wide, 600
feet long and 40 feet deep. Rapid filling of the eastern portion
of the landfill followed by a period of heavy rainfall, and
excessive high tides in the surrounding wetlands, were reported
to be the principal factors contributing to the failure. The
failure exposed landfill wastes, breached the perimeter dike, and
filled a large portion of the adjacent wetlands with waste.
Subsequently, the failure area was filled, regraded and topped
with a thin soil cover. NJDEP ordered the GLRC to cease disposal
operations at the landfill on April 27, 1984, in an order to show
cause filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex
County. Since that time, the landfill has been inactive.
GLRC was ordered to establish an escrow account for closure of
the landfill, and on April 23, 1986, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, appointed an Administrator to oversee
the closure fund. Later in 1986, the Administrator of the
closure fund authorized the consulting firm of E.T. Killam
Associates of Millburn, New Jersey, to conduct "an investigation
at the site. A slope stability study was performed which showed
that the sideslopes adjacent to the wetlands generally do not
meet acceptable safety levels.
Witnesses have alleged that large numbers of drums containing
hazardous waste were also disposed of at the landfill, both in
the 51-acre mound area and the 6.5-acre northwest extension.
These allegations led to an exploratory excavation of the 6.5-
acre northeast tract by Killam Associates in March 1988. Drums
of hazardous waste were encountered during the excavation.
-------
The site was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's
National Priorities List (NPL) in March 1989 and became eligible
for action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Killam Associates was
authorized by NJDEP and the Administrator of the closure fund to
prepare a Feasibility Study (FS) to evaluate alternatives for on-
site controls at the site, prior to completion of a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS).
A search for Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) has also been
conducted. New Jersey Spill Act Directives were issued by NJDEP
on August 18, 1989 and March 21, 1991, to a total of 52
respondents. The Directives ordered the respondents to pay for
the ongoing RI/FS, and all future remedial actions required at
the site. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has issued General Notice letters to 24 respondents, notifying
them of their potential liability with respect to the site.
In June 1991, NJDEP negotiations with a group of respondents
known as the Global Landfill PRP Group, resulted in the funding
of the RI/FS for operable unit two (OU-2), in accordance with the
Spill Act Directives. In addition, several suits were filed by
residents in the vicinity of the Global Landfill, and have been
consolidated under Bernard Lamb, et al. vs. Global Landfill
Reclaiming, Inc., et al.) in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County (Docket No. w-15349-88).
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The FS report and a Proposed Plan for the Global Landfill site
were released for public comment on February 19, 1991 by NJDEP.
These two documents were made available to the public in the
administrative record information repositories maintained at
NJDEP in Trenton, EPA Region II Docket Room in New York City, and
at the Old Bridge Public Library. A notice of availability for
these two documents was published in the Central New Jersey Home
News, on February 19, 1991. A public comment period on the
Proposed Plan was held from February 20, 1991 to May 6, 1991.
A public meeting was held on March 12, 1991. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA and NJDEP answered questions about
problems at the site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. Following the public meeting, a public
information session was held on March 23, 1991. A response to
the comments received during the public comment period is
included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this
Record of Decision (ROD). This decision document presents the
selected remedial action for the Global Landfill Superfund site
under CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
-------
(NCP). The decision for this site is based on information
contained within the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
The NJDEP in consultation with EPA, has organized the remedial
work into two planned actions/ which are referred to as operable
units. This ROD addresses the first operable unit (OU-1) for the
site, which is a response action to institute on-site controls
for the landfill. The principal threats associated with the site
relate to the buried drums of hazardous waste in the landfill. In
addition, there is an unacceptable factor of safety related to
the stability of the southeast sideslope of the landfill which
threatens the adjacent wetlands. The overall objective of this
action is to contain contaminants at the site, and limit exposure
to levels protective of human health and the environment.
The NJDEP has also initiated a comprehensive RI/FS at Global
Landfill (OU-2). This RI/FS will determine the nature and extent
of the migration of contaminants from the site into nearby
surface water and groundwater, and will evaluate alternatives to
address this contamination. Selection of a remedial alternative
for the OU-2 action will take place at a later date.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
When the landfill ceased operations in 1984, it was closed with
only a thin soil cover. Vegetative cover over most of the site
is sparse to non-existent. As a result, the soil cover is
eroding, forming gullies in the sideslopes, and exposing waste
materials across the surface of the site. The height of the
landfill, the steepness of the sideslopes, the characteristics of
the underlying soils, and the nature of the fill, indicate that
the landfill is marginally stable. Slope movement (creep) of the
southeast sideslope will continue until engineering controls are
implemented.
Solid Wastes and Buried Drums
A total of 63 drums were discovered during the drum excavation in
March 1988, 18 of which were removed for sampling and analysis.
The drums, all of 55-gallon capacity, contained wastes of varied
color and consistency. The drums were generally in poor
condition, having been previously crushed or corroded. Their
contents included solids and sludges; one drum contained liquids.
Table 1-A presents the results of Priority Pollutant analyses
performed on the contents of the drums. The table lists only the
compounds which were detected in the samples.
-------
Volatile organic compounds present in the samples ranged in
concentration from 49.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (1,3
dichlorobenzene) to 4,890 mg/kg (carbon tetrachloride). The
predominant volatile organic compounds present included xylene,
toluene, and ethylbenzene. Base-neutral extractable organic
compounds in the samples ranged in concentration from 126 mg/kg
to 70,900 mg/kg. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, naphthalene and
di-n-butylphthaiate were the principal base-neutral extractable
organic compounds present. The predominant metals present
included arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Of
the 18 drums sampled, 11 contained hazardous waste based on EPA
limits. An additional three drums contained hazardous waste
based on NJDEP limits. Table 1-B contains a summary of the drum
wastes which fail Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
characteristics and, therefore, are considered hazardous waste.
The feasibility of additional drum removal in the northwest
extension of the landfill will be determined as part of the
remedial design activities.
Groundwater
Groundwater in the vicinity of Global Landfill is classified as
Class GW-2 under New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC 7.9-6.5).
There are 15 active groundwater monitoring wells at the site.
The boring logs indicate that at the southeast limit of the
landfill, the site is generally underlain by two to ten feet of
meadow mat (an organic-rich horizon comprised of clays, silts,
sands, and decomposed vegetation that is generally representative
of. a water saturated environment, such as a swamp or marsh), and
25 to 35 feet of dark gray silty clay, identified as the Amboy
Stoneware Clay member of the Raritan Formation. Beneath the clay
is the old Bridge Sand member of the Raritan Formation, a
municipal water supply source for Old Bridge Township and several
other communities.
The meadow mat layer decreases in thickness in a northwesterly
direction, and is absent upland of the landfill. The Amboy
Stoneware Clay also thins in a northwesterly direction. In the
vicinity of the Transco gas pipeline, it is either replaced by,
or grades into, one to two feet of light tan to gray clay layer.
The Amboy Stoneware Clay serves as a confining layer between the
landfill and the Old Bridge Sand, however, in the northwestern
section of the landfill, it may be locally absent. The absence
of this confining layer between the Old Bridge Sand and water
table aquifer may provide a pollutant pathway to the potable
water aquifer. A hydraulic conductivity of 125 feet per day in
the Old Bridge Sand aquifer has been reported by the United
States Geological Survey.
Eight of the fifteen groundwater monitoring wells at the site are
screened in the water table aquifer in sands above the clay
-------
layer. Seven of the wells are screened in the Old Bridge Sand
beneath the clay. The direction of groundwater flow at the site
is generally to the southeast, both in the water table aquifer
and in the Old Bridge Sand. The shallow groundwater flow
direction may be influenced by mounding of groundwater within the
landfill. Infiltration of precipitation may contribute to
mounding of groundwater below the landfill surface, and thereby
contribute to leaching and off-site migration of hazardous
substances. Mounding effects will continue to occur until a
proper cap and stormwater runoff controls are implemented to
prevent precipitation from entering the site in the future.
Water level measurements indicate that the Old Bridge Sand is
under confined or artesian conditions. An upward vertical
gradient is greatest in the southeastern section of the landfill,
where the clay layer is thickest, and less in the northwestern
part of the site, where the clay layer thins or disappears.
Groundwater data presented in the FS was obtained from monitoring
wells which have been sampled quarterly since October 1987, as
required under a New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NJPDES) permit issued to Global Landfill.
Data shown in Tables 2-A, 2-B, 2-C indicates that the landfill
has adversely impacted groundwater in the area. Many
contaminants identified in the landfill leachate and in the drums
excavated from the landfill, have been detected above maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) in the downgradient groundwater. MCLs
are generally "at the tap" or "point of use" standards.
Typical leachate indicator parameters such as Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), iron, chlorides,
total dissolved solids (TDS), and ammonia nitrogen are at
elevated levels in the shallow groundwater aquifer. Several of
the shallow monitoring wells have shown a general trend of
increasing concentration for these leachate parameters from
October 1987 to April 1990.
Table 2-A presents a comparison of downgradient and upgradient
groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer. Groundwater quality
criteria are based on State and Federal MCLs, and New Jersey GW-2
groundwater quality standards. These data demonstrate the
landfill's impact on groundwater quality in this aquifer.
Contaminants not detected in upgradient wells were found at
levels above their MCLs in the downgradient wells. For example,
in the downgradient wells, benzene and chlorobenzene were
detected above MCLs in 39 of 45, and 42 of 45 samples,
respectively, and were not detected in upgradient wells.
Similarly, acenaphthene, 1,2 dichlorobenzene, heptachlor,
cadmium, hexavalent and total chromium were detected above MCLs
in the downgradient wells.
-------
Table 2-B, a comparison of groundwater quality in the deep wells
(Old Bridge Sand aquifer), indicates that the landfill also has
impacted groundwater in the Old Bridge Sand aquifer. For
example, cadmium, total chromrom, lead, benzene, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride exceed MCLs in the
downgradient wells, and were not detected in the upgradient
wells.
During the March 1988 drum investigation, two samples of
groundwater, pumped from the trenches during dewatering
operations, were sampled and analyzed for Priority Pollutant
organics and metals. The data, summarized in Table 2-C, reveal a
similar spectrum of compounds to those encountered in the shallow
groundwater.
Leachate
Leachate seeps and ponded leachate have been frequently observed
at the landfill. These surface exposures of leachate are most
often observed at the toe of slope, but have also been noted at
higher elevations on the landfill sideslopes. At the present
time, there are no measures in place for leachate collection and
disposal. A 1.75-acre leachate collection pond was previously
constructed at the southern corner of the landfill, and a
leachate collection well was installed through the top of the
landfill in July 1985. However, neither of these facilities is
currently in operation.
As part of a NJPDES quarterly monitoring program, leachate
samples from exposed seeps have been collected for analysis from
October 1987 to April 1990. The average flow rates for
individual seeps ranged from 0.08 gallons per minute (gpm) to 3.5
gpm, while the total average leachate seepage flow from the site
is 5.5 gpm (8000 gallons per day). This flow represents only
surface leachate seeps that are exposed at the toe of the slope
or on sideslope areas.
Since 1987, concentrations of leachate indicator parameters (BOD,
COD, ammonia, chlorides, TDS, hardness and iron) were found to be
elevated. Certain heavy metal compounds (including lead and
cadmium) have been detected in the leachate above MCLs. Volatile
organics detected in the leachate consisted primarily of benzene-
related compounds, with chlorobenzene concentrations up to 4,600
micrograms per liter (ug/1). Benzene, chlorobenzene, and xylene
exceeded MCLs, respectively, in 24, 28, and 14 of the 50 samples
analyzed. Table 3 compares leachate data with groundwater
quality standards and illustrates the potential impact the
leachate is having on the groundwater and wetlands.
-------
Surface Water and Wetlands
Cheesequake Creek has been classified as a saline SE-1 surface
water under the NJAC Surface Water Quality Standards. Surface
waters within Cheesequake State Park are classified as Category
One waters, which are considered non-degradable. In addition,
Global Landfill is bordered on three sides by wetlands. Surface
drainage on the northeast, southeast, and southwest sides of the
mound area of the landfill is into the adjoining wetlands. On
the northwest side, surface drainage from the landfill mound is
into the northwest extension, and then southwest into the
wetlands. Currently, the wetlands are subject to several
discharges from the landfill, including stormwater runoff,
surface leachate seeps, and contaminated shallow groundwater.
In October 1986, NJDEP sampled surface water at two locations
adjacent to the landfill (one sample in Kelvin's Creek, and one
at an unspecified location on the southwest side of the
landfill), and analyzed them for Priority Pollutants. These data
are presented in Table 4-A. In October 1987, additional surface
water sampling was performed at ten locations in the vicinity of
the landfill (Table 4-B).
Table 4-C summarizes the data from the two sampling events, and
compares them'to NJDEP Surface Water Quality standards for
estuarine waters (NJAC 7:9-4.14(c)), and with NJPDES Criteria for
Protection of Salt Water Aquatic Life (NJAC 7:14A-appendix F).
Concentrations of cadmium, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc
exceeded the NJPDES Criteria for Protection of Salt Water Aquatic
Life. With regard to surface water quality, standards for the
pesticides, lindane and DDT, were exceeded.
These data are insufficient to establish background water quality
in the wetland areas, and to determine what impact the landfill
is having on those areas. However, the compounds detected above
NJPDES standards are present in both the leachate and groundwater
that discharges into the wetlands. These discharges provide a
potential threat to the wetlands. The nature and extent of
contaminants in the wetland areas will be characterized during
the RI/FS for OU-2.
Air
Limited air monitoring data are available, and therefore cannot
be compared with State or Federal air quality standards.
Monitoring of ambient air for organic vapors suggests that the
organic gasses emitted from the landfill consist primarily of
methane. No gas analyses for specific organic compounds have
been performed.
Subsurface methane migration has occurred beyond the northwest
property line. However, methane was not detected at a distance
-------
of 500 feet from the toe of slope, and did not extend to the
adjacent residential areas at the time of the field
investigation. Odor generation has been a significant nuisance
problem in the vicinity of the landfill, vith odors being
detected in the residential areas and as far away as the Garden
State Parkway, 2700 feet to the east-northeast.
Although no specific toxic compounds have been identified in the
air emissions from the landfill, there exists the potential of a
public health risk via the air pathway. Air and gas quality
monitoring will be performed during the RI/FS for OU-2, and will
be incorporated into the design of the gas management system
(OU-1).
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline
Transco owns a 42-inch natural gas pipeline that lies between the
northwest extension and the main portion of the landfill. The
pipeline is located approximately four feet beneath the original
ground level, within a 75-foot easement that runs through the
landfill proper. Approximately five to fifteen feet of refuse
have been deposited on the Transco easement. Discussions are
currently underway between representatives of Transco and NJDEP
regarding the feasibility of relocating the pipeline to an area
beyond the extent of the proposed cap. This would have the
desired effect of isolating the pipeline from the possible
corrosive effects of contaminated groundwater and leachate
beneath the landfill. This action would also prevent post-
construction damage to the cap, should repairs to the pipeline
become necessary.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Assessment
When Global Landfill ceased operations in 1984, it was improperly
closed with only a six-inch soil cover. The lack of a proper
cover at the landfill creates a number of potential pathways for
exposure. The failure of the southeast east sideslope also
created on- and off-site potential pathways for exposure through
direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants present in the
exposed refuse. Potential hazards also exist through the
inhalation of contaminated airborne particulates migrating from
the exposed refuse. Also, the migration of landfill gas
emissions can act as carrier gasses for volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds present in the refuse.
The discovery of drums in the northwest area of the landfill,
containing hazardous waste, support allegations that drums were
also disposed of in the main landfill area. A possibility exists
that these drums have and may continue to release hazardous waste
-------
10
into the environment. Leachate generated from the infiltration
of rainwater significantly increases the mobility of contaminants
present in the landfill. Additionally, the potential frr direct
contact with the leachate seeps present on the surface of the
landfill also exists.
Sixteen potential exposure pathways were evaluated in the FS, ten
of which were determined to be complete pathways, as defined by
the following exposure pathway elements:
A source and mechanism of chemical release in the
environment,
• A transport medium,
A point of potential environmental or human exposure,
• An exposure route at the point of contact.
The ten complete pathways for the Global Landfill site are:
1. Inhalation of contaminated ambient outdoor air,
off-site;
2. Inhalation of contaminated ambient outdoor air,
on-site;
3. Inhalation of contaminated ambient indoor air;
4. Ingestion of garden produce contaminated by
ambient outdoor air;
5. Ingestion of contaminated windblown particles
deposited onto back yard soils;
6. Ingestion of contaminated windblown particles
deposited onto indoor surfaces;
7. Ingestion of contaminated particles and liquids
on-site;
8. Dermal contact with contaminated windblown
particles deposited onto back yard soils;
9. Dermal contact with contaminated windblown
particles deposited onto indoor surfaces; and
10. Dermal contact with contaminated particles and
liquids on-site.
Exposures to site-related contaminants through the above pathways
were not quantified. However, in accordance with CERCLA guidance
on municipal landfills (Conducting Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, February
1991, OSWER Directive 9355.3-11), where established standards for
one or more contaminants in a given medium are clearly exceeded,
the basis for taking remedial action is warranted. Many
contaminants in the Old Bridge aquifer, a source of public water
supply, were detected at levels in excess of MCLs. Metals
(cadmium, chromium, and lead), and volatile organic compounds
(chlorobenzene, benzene, and vinyl chloride), were all detected
in excess of MCLs. The presence of these hazardous substances at
levels above MCLs poses a potential future threat to public
-------
11
health, and may prevent groundwater near the site from being used
as a potable water supply.
In an effort to qualitatively assess public health issues, the
mean landfill-associated concentration of each substance in
shallow groundwater was compared with State and Federal
groundwater protection standards. In addition, the estimated
overall concentrations of each substance, including groundwater,
leachate, and drummed waste, were also compared with State and
Federal groundwater standards.
Substances of concern identified through this analysis are
presented in Table 5. The data shown in this table has been
revised to update and correct the MCL standards presented in the
FS. Nine substances are of concern based upon comparison of mean
groundwater concentrations with State and Federal standards.
They are ammonia nitrogen (641 x MCL), iron (56.7 x MCL),
chlorobenzene (41.0 x MCL), sodium (36.8 x MCL), benzene (21.0 x
MCL), chloride (37.7 x MCL), heptachlor (4.08 x MCL), aldrin
(2.22 x MCL) and total chromium (1.45 x MCL). However, it is
likely that the concentrations of chloride and sodium are
influenced by background tidal conditions. Based on the
comparison of leachate and drummed waste with State and Federal
MCLs, 30 pollutants are of concern, including eleven metals, five
substituted alkane and alkene hydrocarbons, and five
miscellaneous substances.
The environmental data collected at and near Global Landfill lead
to a number of conclusions which support the need for remedial
action at the site. As previously stated, groundwater data
collected to date reveals that groundwater quality beneath this
site exceeds MCLs for numerous hazardous substances, pollutants
and contaminants. Many of these hazardous substances were
detected in drums buried at the landfill, and in leachate flowing
out of the fill material. The migration of these substances from
the landfill into the underlying aquifers, and possibly into the
nearby surface waterways will continue unless remedial actions
are implemented.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of the
other active remedial measures considered, may present a current
or potential threat to the public health, welfare, and the
environment through the continued leaching of contaminants from
the landfill.
Environmental Assessment
As previously mentioned/ the wetlands are subject to several
discharges from the landfill, including stormwater runoff,
surface leachate seeps, and contaminated shallow groundwater. In
September 1990, Killam Associates conducted a wetland delineation
-------
12
study which evaluated potential wetland losses and mitigation
requirements associated with the capping alternatives. The
result of the study, presented in Appendix L of the FS report,
concludes that the proposed remedial activities will disturb the
wetland fringe along the base of the landfill. The study also
concludes that mitigation of impacted wetlands will be required.
A wetland mitigation report will be prepared in conjunction with
the design of the selected remedial alternative.
In addition to the delineation, a Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET) 2.0 analysis was conducted, and provides preliminary
information regarding the functions and values of the wetland
habitat in, and adjacent to, the Global Landfill site. The WET
was prepared as a supplement to the OU-1 FS report. The WET
identifies areas in which further data collection is required,
and provides a basis for evaluating potential wetland losses and
mitigation requirements associated with remedial activities at
the site. The WET recommends sampling parameters utilizing
quantitative data collection techniques, in order to gain a
useful and workable inventory of existing wildlife resources.
Also, a quantitative wildlife survey should be performed prior to
the design of on-site controls, or specification of mitigation
requirements for the site.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The goals of the remedial action are to prevent, reduce, or
control the migration of contaminants from the landfill.
Treatment or removal alternatives that reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume are preferred. However, it has been estimated that
removal of waste in the main portion of the landfill would
require bulk excavation of approximately 2,500,000 cubic yards of
landfill material. Removal of waste in the northwest extension
area would require excavation of approximately 160,000 cubic
yards. Because of the variability and volume of wastes
encountered at the landfill, excavation and/or treatment is
economically and technically infeasible, and was not considered
further. Containment of potentially contaminated soil and waste
at the landfill involves the placement of an impermeable cover
over the existing fill material. Containment technologies are
proven to be an effective and reliable means of protecting human
health and the environment against direct contact and migration
of contaminants from landfills.
In preparing the FS, a wide range of remedial technologies were
identified and initially screened for effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. Those alternatives which passed this
screening process were further evaluated for incorporation into
the on-site containment alternatives discussed below. Each
capping alternative, with the exception of the "No Action"
alternative, would include the following technologies:
-------
-;'. 13 : i
construction of a clay-based or composite cap;
slope stability enhancement by construction of a
stabilization berm;
construction of a gas collection/treatment system;
construction of a stormwater management system;
construction of site access controls; and
implementation of a program to monitor movement of the
landfill sideslopes.
Each alternative assumes .operation and maintenance (O&M) over a
thirty-year period of time. The estimated annual O&M costs, and
the estimated capital construction costs, are presented along
with the calculated estimated present worth cost.
The conceptual gas collection and treatment system consists of an
interior and perimeter active gas collection system", and
treatment of the gasses by flare or thermal oxidation. Future
sampling will be conducted at the site to analyze the gas
emissions. This information will be used during the design of
OU-1 to determine the proper choice of gas treatment.
While each of the five capping alternatives propose a specific
berm configuration, the final design of the berm will be
determined during the design of OU-1, and will take into account
all specific design parameters necessary to achieve an adequate
short and long-term factor of safety. The extent of the berm
will also be determined during the design.
In addition to the above components, there are three options for
leachate collection and treatment. These options will be
discussed under the section entitled "Leachate Treatment
Options". The costs for the leachate system options are listed
separately, and are not included in the cost estimates for the
individual capping alternatives.
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $210,000
Estimated Present Worth: $3,228,000 .
CERCLA requires that the evaluation of a "No Action" alternative
be considered at each site, to serve as a point of comparison
with other remedial action alternatives. Under this alternative,
the landfill would remain in its current condition. No
remediation measures would be implemented. However, NJPDES
groundwater monitoring program would be continued for 30 years.
The expense for this monitoring is shown as the annual O&M cost.
This program would consist of quarterly sampling of the 15 wells
which surround the site, in order to monitor contaminant
migration. The samples would be analyzed for EPA priority
pollutants plus selected indicator parameters. Also, the
-------
14
condition of the wells would be inspected on a weekly basis. No
other action is proposed under this alternative. Because this
alternative does not entail contaminant removal, CERCLA requires
that a review of site conditions be conducted every five years.
Alternative 2: NJDEP solid Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $16,915,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $489,000
Estimated Present Worth: $23,722,000
Estimated Construction Periods l*j years
This alternative would incorporate requirements for capping a
solid waste landfill, in accordance with the NJAC 7:26-2.9.
Using these guidelines, the following cap was developed:
12" vegetative topsoil
12" sand drainage
12" clay (with permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
This cap would have an overall thickness of three feet, and a
unit weight of 450 pounds per square foot (psf). The
construction of this cap would require a stabilization berm in
Zone 1 (Figure 2) in order to achieve an acceptable factor of
safety for sideslope stability. The Zone 1 stabilization berm
would consist of a soil embankment that would be constructed
along the toe of slope of the landfill for a length of
approximately 1000 feet. The berm would be placed along the
entire southeast sideslope in the former sideslope failure area,
and would have 3:1 to 3.5:1 sideslopes. The top width would be
approximately 50 feet, with a top elevation of about 20 feet
above MSL, or 15 feet above the adjacent wetlands.
Alternative 3: NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $30,190,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $581,900
Estimated Present Worth: $38,420,000
Estimated Construction Period: 2\ years
This alternative would incorporate capping requirements in
compliance with New Jersey State Hazardous Waste Regulation (NJAC
7:26-10.8(i)). Using these guidelines, the following cap was
developed:
12" vegetative topsoil
12" clean fill
12" sand drainage
30 mil textured synthetic material layer
36" clay (with permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
-------
15
This alternative would have a unit weight of 800 pounds psf, an
overall thickness of six feet, and would employ a textured
synthetic material layer. NJDEP guidelines restrict the use of
smooth synthetic material layers on landfills with sideslopes
greater than 7 percent. The sideslopes at Global Landfill range
from 5:1 (20 percent) to 3:1 (33 percent) slopes. Smooth
synthetic material layers have insufficient friction angles
between overlying soil layers to maintain long-term slope
stability. Recently, synthetic material manufacturers have
developed textured synthetic material layers that provide
increased friction angles with soil material together with other
engineering controls, such as geogrids and geonets, that provide
support, and render sufficient slope stability on sideslopes
greater than 7 percent.
This cap would require a stabilization berm in Zones 1 and 2 in
order to achieve an acceptable factor of safety for sideslope
stability. The Zone 1 and 2 stabilization berm would consist of
soil embankments constructed along the toe of slope of the
landfill for lengths of approximately 1000 and 600 feet
respectively. They would range in height from approximately ten
to twenty feet above the adjacent wetlands, with 3:1 to 3.5:1
sideslopes. The top width of the southeast berm (Zone 1) would
be approximately 50 feet, with a top elevation of about 25 feet
above MSL. The top of the southwest berm (Zone 2) would be about
20 feet wide, with a top elevation of 15 to 18 feet.
Alternative 4: RCRA Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $26,739,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $554,000
Estimated Present Worth: $34,548,000
Estimated Construction Period: 2\ years
This alternative would employ the capping requirements set forth
in RCRA (40 C.F.R. 264.310) guidelines. Using these guidelines,
the following was developed:
12" vegetated topsoil
12" clean fill
12" sand drainage
30 mil textured synthetic material layer
24" clay (with a permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
This alternative would have an overall thickness of five feet and
a unit weight of 650 pounds psf. As is the case with Alternative
3, this cap would require the construction of a stabilization
berm in Zones 1 and 2 in order to achieve an acceptable factor of
safety for sideslope stability.
-------
16
Alternative 5: Bentonite Clay Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $18,909,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $504,000
Estimated Present Worth: $25,945,000
Estimated Construction Period: 1% years
Bentonite is a clay material which is typically mixed with soil,
or used alone, to form an impervious layer. This capping
alternative uses a bentonite barrier layer in order to minimize
the load placed on the landfill from capping. The bentonite cap
would include:
12" vegetated topsoil
8" sand fill
±0.5" synthetic drainage
4" bentonite clay (with permeability of
1 x 10'9 cm/sec, after hydration)
The barrier layer in this alternative would be a pre-fabricated
material consisting of a dry bentonite clay layer (approximately
0.5-inch), sandwiched between two geotextile layers. Upon
contact with moisture, the bentonite layer swells to a thickness
of approximately two inches. A fifty percent overlap of the
barrier would be provided, resulting in an effective bentonite
thickness of four inches. This cap has a unit weight of 300
pounds psf. Also, as is the case with Alternative 2, this cap
would require a stabilization berm in Zone 1 in order to achieve
an acceptable factor of safety against sideslope failure.
Alternative 6: Modified NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $19,938,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $512,000
Estimated Present Worth: $27,101,000
Estimated Construction Period: 2 years
This alternative -was developed to provide a light weight capping
system for the Global Landfill site. It would.incorporate the
composite cap features of NJDEP Hazardous Waste and RCRA capping
alternatives in that it would also contain a textured synthetic
material layer that would increase friction along the landfill
sideslopes, and provide sufficient stability along the
sideslopes. However, this alternative would have a reduced unit
weight and thickness, in consideration of the slope stability
problems of the landfill. The Modified Hazardous Waste Cap
alternative would include:
12" vegetated topsoil
12" sand drainage
30 mil textured synthetic material layer
12" clay (with permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
-------
17
This cap would have a total thickness of three feet, and a unit
weight of 450 pounds psf. Also, as is the case with Alternatives
2 and 5, this alternative would require a stabilization berm in
Zone 1 in order to assure an acceptable factor of safety against
sideslope failure.
Leachate System Options
The landfill is partially saturated with leachate due to the lack
of an adequate cap. The leachate finds its way to the surface of
the landfill in the form of leachate seeps, and needs to be
collected. Collection of exposed leachate surface seeps would
prevent their migration from the landfill and discharge to the
adjacent wetlands. In addition, collection of the leachate would
assist in maintaining cap integrity by preventing a buildup of
leachate at the toe of slope of the landfill. Once collected,
the leachate would be treated, using one of the treatment options
described below. Condensate generated by the landfill gas
management system would also be collected and treated along with
the leachate. Reinfiltration of groundwater was not considered
because recharge at the site would be limited by the shallow
depth to groundwater characteristic of the surrounding wetlands.
The leachate treatment system would treat a flow rate that
diminishes annually from approximately 20,000 gallons per day
(gpd) to approximately 400 gpd after 15 years. Below are three
options for leachate collection and treatment:
Option 1; Off-Site Disposal at an Industrial Waste
Treatment Facility
Under this option, a leachate surface seep collection system
would be constructed along the toe of slope around the perimeter
of the landfill. Leachate, along with condensate from the gas
collection system, would then be pumped to a holding tank, and
transferred by truck to a RCRA permitted hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility. No pretreatment
would be required under this option.
Option 2; On-Site Pretreatment With Discharge to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works fPOTW)
This option requires the construction of a wastewater
pretreatment plant on site. Collection of the leachate seeps for
this option is similar to that described for Option 1. The
collected leachate and gas condensate would be pumped to the
treatment facility. The pretreatment process proposed under this
option would consist of flow equalization followed by a
one-stage, batch-operated biological treatment with the addition
of powdered activated carbon. Metals removal may be necessary to
meet Federal and state regulations. Following pretreatment, the
collected wastewater would be retained on-site in storage tanks,
-------
18
then transported by truck to a municipal waste water treatment
facility (otherwise known as a publicly owned treatment works, or
POTW). Sludge generated during pre-treatment would be
transported by truck to a RCRA permitted TSD facility for
treatment and disposal.
Option 3; On-Site Treatment With Discharge to Surface Water
This option requires the construction of a complete waste water
treatment plant oh-site. The leachate seep collection system for
this option is also similar to that described in Option 1. The
collected leachate and gas condensate would be pumped to the on-
site treatment plant. The treatment process proposed under this
option would consist of flow equalization followed by a
two-stage, batch-operated biological treatment system, with the
addition of powdered activated carbon for residual organics
removal. The system provides for nitrification and
denitrification as part of the process. Ultraviolet disinfection
of the treated effluent would be the final step, prior to
discharge to the Cheesequake Creek. Metals removal may be
necessary to meet Federal and State regulations. As in Option 2,
sludge generated from the treatment process would be transported,
by truck, to a RCRA permitted TSD facility. The treatment unit
would be designed to produce an effluent that would meet NJPDES
requirements for discharge to surface water.
Estimated Costs and Required Construction Time (Years)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Capital Cost $483,600 $1,051,700 $1,526,200
Annual O&M Cost $1,394,700 $275,500 $253,100
Present Worth $4,485,800 $2,797,700 $3,252,200
Construction period* 1 to 1% 2 to 2\ 2 to 2k
* Construction would take place concurrently with cap
construction
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was conducted with respect to each of the nine
criteria. This section discusses and compares the performance of
the remedial alternatives under consideration against these
criteria. The nine criteria are described below. All selected
alternatives must at least attain the Threshold Criteria. The
selected alternative should provide the best trade-offs among the
Primary. Balancing Criteria. The Modifying Criteria were
evaluated following the public comment period.
-------
19
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
• Overall Protection of Humpj Health and Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
• Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other Federal and State environmental
statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the magnitude
of residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time once remedial objectives have been met.
• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
is the anticipated performance of the disposal or treatment
technologies that may be employed in a remedy.
Short-term Effectiveness refers to the speed with which the
remedy achieves protection, as well as the remedy's potential
to create adverse impacts on human health and the environment
that may result during the construction and implementation
period.
Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement the chosen
solution.
• Cost refers to estimates used to compare costs among various
alternatives.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
FS and Proposed Plan, NJDEP concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative.
• community Acceptance summarizes the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the FS
report. Responses to public comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary of this ROD.
-------
20
ANALYSIS
The following is a summary of the comparison of each
alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the containment alternatives, with the exception of the No
Action alternative, address the on-site remedial action
objectives identified for the Global Landfill site. Wastes would
be contained on-site and residuals would be controlled through
the implementation of gas and leachate surface seep controls.
The alternatives would offer protection from windblown
contaminants, and from direct contact with contaminated soil or
leachate seeps. All of the alternatives are protective of a 100-
year flood, however, they would not offer protection from a 500-
year flood without additional reinforcement of sideslopes and/or
increasing the size of the berm.
Alternative 3 (NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap), Alternative 4 (EPA
RCRA Cap), Alternative 5 (Bentonite Clay Cap), and Alternative 6
(Modified NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap) would reduce the
infiltration of rainwater through the landfill's surface by over
99 percent, thereby reducing the current rate of leachate
generation. Alternative 2 (NJDEP Solid Waste Cap) reduces
infiltration of rainwater by an estimated 94 percent.
Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 would impact the least wetlands acreage
because they are lighter in weight (450, 300, and 450 pounds psf,
respectively), and therefore would only require Zone 1
stabilization berms. These alternatives would impact
approximately 2.6 acres of wetlands. Alternatives 3 and 4,
however, would require stabilization berms in Zones 1 and 2 to
support their unit weights (800 and 650 pounds psf,
respectively). These alternatives would impact approximately a
total of 4.0 and 4.2 acres of wetlands, respectively.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would provide greater control of gas
migration (in conjunction with the gas collection system) than
Alternatives 2 and 5, due to the incorporation of an synthetic
material layer into the cap.
The No Action alternative offers little protection of human
health and the environment. The risks would be increased over
time due to continual deterioration of the minimal on-site cover.
This alternative will not be considered further in this document.
Alternative 6 offers the greatest overall protection of human
health and the environment. This Modified NJDEP Hazardous Waste
Cap alternative effectively reduces the infiltration of
rainwater, thereby reducing the rate of leachate generation and
-------
21
provide protection from exposure to contaminants. It is lighter
in weight and would provide a greater factor of safety for the
sideslopes of the landfill. In addition, this alternative would
require a smaller berm, thereby impacting less wetland acreage.
Compliance With ARARs
Location-specific ARARs
The Coastal Zone Development requirements (NJAC 7:7E-3.27),
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules (NJAC 7:7A-1.1 et seq.),
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §1344) are
ARARs for this site. Therefore, wetlands destroyed as a result
of non-compliance with past permitting requirements, the
sideslope failure in 1984, and any encroachment due to remedial
construction activities, would require mitigation in compliance
with these ARARs. The type of wetland mitigation will be
determined during the design of the selected remedy. Also, in
order to comply with the provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act, a cultural resource study will be preformed
during the design of the selected remedy. If cultural resources
are found, a cultural resources mitigation plan will be developed
to reduce the impact to these resources as much as possible.
All the containment alternatives would comply with the Coastal
Zone Management Act (15 C.F.R. 930), Waterfront Development Law
(New Jersey Statutes Annotated (NJSA 12:5-3) and the Wetlands Act
of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A-1 et seq.) Because this project would impact
freshwater wetlands, the requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands
Statewide General Permit #4, under the Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act Rules (NJAC 7:7A-1.1 et seq.) are also applicable.
Activity-specific ARARs
The presence of hazardous waste in the landfill was confirmed, by
excavation, in 1988. Therefore, requirements set forth in
Subtitle C of RCRA, and the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill
Closure Regulations (NJAC 7:26-10.8(i)), as well as the
appropriate Federal and State requirements for subsurface gas and
leachate management systems, are relevant and appropriate for
capping of Global Landfill.
The NJDEP Solid Waste Cap (Alternative 2), NJDEP Hazardous Waste
Cap (Alternative 3), and the RCRA Cap (Alternative 4) have been
developed using Federal and State capping guidelines. The
Bentonite Clay Cap (Alternative 5) and Modified Hazardous Waste
Cap (Alternative 6) are specialized modifications of those
guidelines, that were developed as lightweight containment
alternatives to address the slope stability concerns specific to
Global Landfill; therefore, for either of these alternatives to
be implemented, a waiver of New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill
-------
22
Closure Regulations (NJAC 7:26-10.8(1)2) would be required based
upon technical impracticability from an engineering perspective.
All leachate collection and treatment system options would be in
compliance with requirements set forth in Sections 402 and 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§1342, 1344), the New Jersey
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJAC-7:14 et seq.)/ the
New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (NJAC 7:10 et seq.), New
Jersey Water Supply Management Act rules (NJAC 7:19 et seq.), and
Surface Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9-4 et seq.) Also,
Option 3 (on-site treatment with discharge to surface water),
would comply with Federal and State regulations concerning
discharges to surface waters.
Under the NJAC Surface Water Quality standards, Cheesequake Creek
is classified as a saline SE-1 surface water. The discharge to a
POTW option would be subject to discharge limitations set by the
agency receiving the pretreated wastewater. The construction
efforts at the site will also be subject to the Noise Control Act
of 1971 (NJAC 7:29-4 et seq.) In addition, trucking of the
leachate would be subject to Department of Transportation
regulations for hazardous wastes.
Air emissions of specific contaminants from Global Landfill can
not be quantified based on data collected to date. Therefore, a
comparison of ambient air quality at the landfill after capping,
with applicable air quality standards, cannot be made at this
time. Additional air and gas quality monitoring will be
performed during the OU-1 design, and will be incorporated into
the design of the gas management system.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
All five containment alternatives address this criteria by
eliminating the potential risks associated with direct (on-site)
contact with hazardous wastes, and with the off-site migration of
contaminated dust or landfill wastes. The bentonite clay cap
proposed in Alternative 5, and the textured synthetic material
layer in the clay composite caps (Alternatives 3, 4, and 6) are
relatively new technologies; their long-term performance as
landfill capping materials are not well documented (as is the
more conventional clay cap in Alternative 2).
All the capping alternatives address other existing site
conditions that require attention. These include improvement of
slope stability, leachate and gas management controls, and site
access controls. After the construction of the slope
stabilization berm and cap, the long-term factor of safety would
be greater for all the alternatives. However, Alternatives 2, 5,
and 6 are lighter, and would provide higher initial factors of
safety, which would improve further as a result of construction.
-------
23
Wetlands would be impacted during construction of the slope
stabilization berms. The impact would be greatest with capping
Alternatives 3 and 4 because of the larger sizes of the berms
required to support the weight of those caps.
All the capping alternatives are expected to adequately control
and manage wastes remaining on-site, and residuals generated
after capping. The key to effective long-term performance is
post-capping operation, maintenance, inspection, and monitoring.
Factors that could effect long-term performance include the
effects of differential settlement and sideslope creep.
Differential settlement could damage the wells and piping systems
of the gas collection and leachate collection systems, as well as
the low permeability layer of the cap. Buildup of solids and
biological growth on well screens and piping systems could also
effect long-term operation. The appropriate O&M programs would
be implemented to minimize these potential performance problems.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
None of the containment alternatives reduce the overall toxicity,
mobility or volume of wastes present at Global Landfill. The
alternatives will not address contamination caused by waste
materials in direct contact with shallow groundwater within the
landfill. However, all containment alternatives provide for on-
site containment of wastes, reduction in leachate generation, and
collection and treatment of leachate surface seeps generated by
the landfill. They would also eliminate the potential for direct
human contact with hazardous waste, and assist in controlling
erosion and sediment loss. In addition, the collection and
treatment of gasses would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of gaseous contaminants released through the surface of
the landfill.
Alternative 2 (NJDEP Solid Waste Cap) reduces infiltration of
rainwater by an estimated 94 percent. Alternative 3 (NJDEP
Hazardous Waste Cap), Alternative 4 (EPA RCRA Cap), Alternative 5
(Bentonite Clay Cap) and Alternative 6 (Modified NJDEP Hazardous
Waste Cap) would reduce the infiltration of rainwater through the
landfill's surface by over 99 percent, diminishing the current
rate of leachate generation, and therefore reducing the mobility
and volume of contaminants migrating into the groundwater. All
leachate collection and treatment options would be designed to
collect all of the leachate seeps and gas condensate.
Short-Term Effectiveness
All five containment alternatives may cause potential short-term
health and environmental impacts. These impacts are generally
related to potential exposure to waste materials on-site, air
emissions (on- or off-site), typical construction related safety
hazards, increased truck traffic, noise, and potential soil
-------
24
erosion. The short-term impacts, however, can be mitigated
through appropriate design considerations and construction
practices. In addition, health and safety plans including on-
and off-site air monitoring, would be developed for protection of
local residents and on-site workers.
Short-term health effects may be a concern during well drilling
for the gas collection system. Protection of local residents and
on-site workers can be achieved through air monitoring,
minimizing the aerial extent of waste disturbance, and by
employing standard dust control measures. Construction of the
leachate collection system would also require similar measures.
The time required to construct Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 ranges
from 1*5 to 2 years, while Alternatives 3 and 4 would require
approximately 2h years to construct.
Implementability
Alternatives 3 and 4 would be difficult to implement due to the
instability of the landfill sideslopes, and the potential for
another slope failure to occur. The weight of the caps proposed
in these alternatives, due to the amount of clay required, would
result in an unacceptable factor of safety for sideslope
stability. Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 are the most technically
feasible for Global Landfill to assure the greatest factor of
safety against sideslope failure. They are lighter in weight,
and would minimize the additional load placed on the landfill
during capping.
The Bentonite clay proposed in Alternative 5, and the textured
geomembranes in the composite clay cap alternatives (3, 4 and 6),
are presently available from a limited number of manufacturers,
while natural clay is available from a number of sources.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 employ technologies that are based on
conventional construction procedures. The materials and
techniques required to construct these alternatives have been
used at other landfills and should be implementable. The
construction of the cap, berm, leachate collection system, and
gas treatment system will be performed in a manner which will
minimize the impact to the wetlands.
No implementation difficulties are anticipated for the gas .
collection and treatment system. Implementation of all leachate
collection and treatment options is also technically and
administratively feasible.
COSt
Capital, costs, first year O&M costs, and the total present worth
of all the remedial alternatives are summarized in Table 6.
Present worth costs are based on a 30-year period and a discount
-------
25
rate of five percent. Alternative 2 is the least expensive in
terms of total present worth ($23,722,000), while Alternative 3
($',8,420,000) is the most expensive. Alternative 2 also has the
lowest capital ($16,915,000) and first year O&M cost ($489,000).
The highest capital cost ($30,190,000) and first year O&M cost
($581,000) are for Alternative 3.
State Acceptance
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs
with the preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative was evaluated
after the public comment period. Local residents had no
opposition to the preferred alternative, nor did they prefer any
other alternative. Comments raised at the public meeting and
during the public comment period are summarized in the attached
Responsiveness Summary.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon considerations of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the
alternatives, a detailed evaluation of all comments submitted by
interested parties during the public comment period, both EPA and
NJDEP have determined that Alternative 6 (Modified NJDEP
Hazardous Waste Cap) is the most appropriate remedy for
addressing source control at the Global Landfill site. This
alternative involves:
*
• Capping of the landfill with a modified hazardous waste cap
which includes: .
•12" vegetated topsoil
•12" sand drainage
•30 mil textured synthetic.material layer
•12" clay (with permeability
of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
• Slope stability enhancement through construction of a soil
stabilization berm;
• Construction and operation of a gas collection and treatment
system;
• Construction and operation of stormwater and leachate
management systems;
-------
26
• Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
access to the site; and
• Implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
The estimated present worth for all tasks associated with the
.selected remedy (with Leachate Option 3) is $30,353,200. The
capital cost is estimated to be $21,464,200, with an annual O&M
cost of approximately $765,100.
The preferred leachate collection and treatment system is
Option 3 (on-site treatment with discharge to surface water).
However, Leachate Option 1 (Disposal at an Industrial Waste
Treatment Plant) will be employed until the RI/FS for OU-2 is
completed. At that time, the design and installation of a
combined leachate and groundwater system can be considered. The
leachate seep treatment option chosen here would be designed to
be considerate of possible future expansion to accommodate
additional treatment capacity.
The leachate collection and treatment system, and other
associated remedial activities, will be designed to avoid further
impacts to wetlands.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, and is cost-effective. With the exception of cap
construction, the selected remedy complies with Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action. The remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this site. However, because
treatment of the entire contents of the wastefill was not found
to be practicable, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy will not be completely satisfied.
This action does not constitute the final remedy for the site.
Subsequent actions are planned to fully address 'the remaining
principle threats posed by the site. A brief, site-specific
description of how the selected remedy complies with the
statutory requirements is presented below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment by preventing direct contact with contaminated wastes
or leachate seeps, while effectively reducing leachate generation
and serving as an effective barrier to the release of landfill
gasses to the atmosphere. The remedy includes a composite cap
which, when constructed in combination with the stabilization
-------
27
benn (Zone 1), would provide an acceptable factor of safety for
sideslope stability on all the landfill sideslopes. In addition,
the selected remedy requires a smaller stabilization berm and,
therefore, would encroach upon fewer wetland acres.
The combination of the Modified Hazardous Waste Cap with a Zone 1
stabilization berm, gas and leachate management systems, and
perimeter security fence would eliminate site risks by limiting
the off-site migration of contaminants and restricting access to
the site. In addition, wetlands and surface waters would be
protected from the discharge of leachate by reducing infiltration
into the landfill, and by collecting the leachate for treatment.
Furthermore, the spread of contamination in the water table
aquifer, which affects the wetlands and possibly the Old Bridge
Sand aquifer, would be greatly reduced.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will meet the appropriate RCRA Subtitle C
regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. §264.310(A). Pursuant to 40
C.F.R. §300.430(f)(ii)(C) a waiver of New Jersey Hazardous Waste
Landfill Closure Regulations (NJAC 7:26-10.8(i)2) is invoked
under this ROD. The basis upon which this waiver is invoked is
technical impracticability; the specific engineering design
criteria for the cap set forth in NJAC 7:26-10.8(i)2 cannot be
implemented due to slope instability concerns and the additional
impact to wetlands at the site. However, the selected remedy
will attain a standard of performance that is equivalent to that
required under the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill Closure
Regulations. The remedy will meet the appropriate Federal and
State guidelines and requirements for subsurface gas management
systems.
The selected leachate management system (Leachate Option 3) will
be in compliance with the appropriate Federal and State
regulations concerning discharges to surface waters. The interim
leachate management system (Leachate Option 1) will also comply
with appropriate Federal and State regulations concerning
leachate disposal at a TSD facility.
Wetlands impacted as a result of non-compliance with past
permitting requirements, the sideslope failure in 1984, and any
encroachment due to remedial construction activities, will be
mitigated in accordance with the appropriate State and Federal
regulations. Also, in order to comply with the provisions of the
National Historic Preservation Act, a cultural resource study
will be undertaken.
Cost-Effectiveness
Of the alternatives which most effectively address the principal
threats posed by the site, the selected remedy affords the
-------
28
highest level of overall effectiveness proportional to its cost.
Based on the information generated during the FS, the estimated
total project cost, with Leachate Option 3, is $30,353,200.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable and Preference for
Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternate
treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum
extent practicable by providing the best balance among the nine
evaluation criteria. The remedy employs a textured synthetic
material layer. This is a new technology developed for use on
landfills with sideslopes greater than 7 percent. The sideslopes
at Global Landfill range from 5:1 (20 percent) to 3:1 (33
percent) slopes. Smooth synthetic material layers have
insufficient friction angles between overlying soil layers to
maintain long term slope stability. The textured synthetic
material layer will provide increased friction on the angles with
soil material to render sufficient slope stability sideslopes.
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment. The landfill would require excavation and removal in
order to effectively treat the on-site waste. Excavation of such
a large volume of waste is technically impractical and not cost-
effective. The principal threats to groundwater will be
addressed under a separate ROD.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Global Landfill site was released to
the public in February 1991. The Proposed Plan identified the
preferred alternative for containment of the landfill. EPA
reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the
public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was
determined that no significant changes to the selected remedy, as
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
Appendix A: Figures
-------
SOURCE: SOUTH AMBOY U.S.G.S
7.5 MIN. QUADRANGLE
PHOTO REVISED 1981
SCALE: 1" • 2000'
FIGURE 1
GLOBAL LANDFILL
OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP, N.J.
LOCATION MAP
Elton T KflUm A»»oel«U«, Inc.
Envrorvntniil and Hyortui« Enginetri
fT Mtl " •••" '
D!
POORQ
ORIGINAL
-------
-o
08
3
00
IP
.-•V. .-- * r"'
^"' 1-, /-N
««• •«• • - - s.
bd
I
I
iiSI
M
111
-------
Appendix B: Tables
-------
TABLE 1-A
Summary of Results of Priority Pollutant Analysis
of Drum Contents
DRUMS WITH SOLIDS AND SLUDGES CONTENT
CONCENTRATION NUMBER OF TIMES
RANGE fmo/kcrt FOUND
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Carbon Tetrachloride 72-4.940 3
Chlorobenzene 135-204 2
1,3 Dichlorobenzene 49.2 1
Ethylbenzene 105-1,250 5
Methylene Chloride 207 1
Tetrachloroethytene 126-343 3
Trichloroethylene 309-510 2
Toluene 142-552 8
Xylene 112-4,890 6
BASE/NEUTRALS
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 133-70,900 8
Dimethylphthalate 134 - 251 2
Di-rvButylpnthalate 126-3,830 3
Naphthalene 800-1440 3
METALS
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Thallium
Zinc
0.32 - 146
0.23 - 7.47
0.28 - 7,530
0.92-21.70
1.57 - 42,600
0.22-154
0.26 - 14.8
1.18-6.21
1.11 -11,600
18
4
18
18
18
14
3
3
19
DRUM WITH LIQUID CONTENT
BASE/NEUTRALS
Naphthalene 80.00 mg/l 1
METALS
Arsenic 0.32 mg/l 1
Chromium 0.28 mg/l 1
Copper 0.92 mg/l 1
Lead 1.57 mg/l 1
Nickel 0.22 mg/l 1
Zinc 7.45 mg/l 1
-------
Table 1-B
Drum Waste Which Failed RCRA Characteristics
Resulting in Classificationas a Hazardous Waste
DRUM
WASTE
SAMPLE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (VOC8)
(ag/kg)
LEAD
(mg/kg)
TR5-D3
TR4-D5
TR4-D2
TR5-D5
TR5-D4
TR4-D3
TR4-D4
TR4-D7
P9-D1
P9-D2
TR4A-D1
113
2,005
552
6,112
1,160
112
559
142
7,027
105
182
BDL
BDL
2.09
29.8
BDL
0.12
0.45
2.71
4.25
BDL
BDL
VOC characteristic level 100 mg/kg
Lead characteristic level 5 mg/kg
-------
Table 2-A
Comparison of Groundwater Quality
in Shallow Wells with Water Quality
Criteria for Heavy Metals and
Priority Pollutant Organics
PARAMETER
STANDARD
mJcfoQwns
. per liter (ug/l)
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
EXCEEDING
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
REPORTED
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATION
-------
Table 2-A, Continued
Comparison of Groundvater Quality
in Shallow Wells with Water Quality
Criteria for Heavy Metals and
Priority Pollutant Organics
PARAMETER
Xylene
Arodor - 1260 (PCB)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Expoxide
Aldrin
STANDARD
nilcrog rents
pw M*r (ug/l)
44"
0.5"
0.4e
0-2°
0.003*
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
EXCEEDING
16
1
1
2
2
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
45
45
45
45
45
REPORTED
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATION
(ug/0
ND-140
ND-1.2
ND - 71
ND-2
ND • 0.33
ND Not Detected
* Elevated Concentrations are believed to be attributed to positive matrix interference during analysis
** Methylene chloride concentrations are subject to blank contamination, and are not believed to accurately
reflect actual concentrations in groundwater
a NJDEP Water Quality Standards for GW-2 Groundwater
b NJDEP MCL (NJ A-280 Amendments)
c EPA Safe Drinking Water Act • MCL, Promulgated January 30. 1991
d EPA Safe Drinking Water Act - Action Level for Drinking Water, Promulgated May 7,1991
-------
Table 2-B
Comparison of Groundwater Quality
in Deep Wells with Water Quality
Criteria for Heavy Metals and
Priority Pollutant Organics
PARAMETER
STANDARD
rntCTOQTBfTtS
p«f in* (ug/i)
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
EXCEEDING
Upgradient Wells MW-7D
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
4.4-DDT
2"
1b
0.001*
7"
5
1
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
REPORTED
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATION
(ug/i)
8
9
9
ND-120
ND • 4.1
ND • 0.043
Downgradient Wells
MW-2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6D, 8D
Cadmium
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
4,4-DDT
5e
50*
50*
15"
1b
4b
2*
1b
1b
2"
0.001'
3
2'
1
4
4
3
42"
3
2
3
4
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
"54
54
ND-15
ND-110
ND-70
ND-280
ND-3
ND-43
ND-110
ND-5
ND - 10
ND-7
ND • 0.06
ND Not Detected
* Elevated Concentrations are believed to be attributed to positive matrix interference during analysis
•* Methytene chloride concentrations are subject to blank contamination, and are not believed to accurately
reflect actual concentrations in groundwater
a NJDEP Water Quality Standards for GW-2 Groundwater
b NJDEP MCL (NJ A-280 Amendments)
c EPA Safe Drinking Water Act • MCL, Promulgated January 30,1991
d EPA Safe Drinking Water Act • Action Level for Drinking Water, Promulgated May 7,1991
-------
Table 3
Comparison of Leachate Data with
Groundwater Quality Data
PARAMETER
•
STANDARD
nticroQrwns
p«r w«r (ug/0
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
EXCEEDING
STANDARD
(Total & so lamptos)
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDING STANDARD
(ufl/0
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Cyanide
Lead
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride*
Tetrachloroethene
Xytenes (Total)
50"
1000*
5s
50*
200"
15"
1"
«b
2"
1b
44b
1
6
13
1
3
27.
24
28
22
5
14
110
1082-2019
5-27
200
200-26,000
15-5530
1-69
4-4600
2-720
1-12
68-990
Methylene Chloride concentrations are subject to blank contamination"
a NJDEP Water Quality Standards for GW-2 Groundwater
b NJDEP MCL (NJ A-280 Amendments)
c EPA Safe Drinking Water Act - MCL, Promulgated January 30,1991
d EPA Safe Drinking Water Act - Action Level for Drinking Water, Promulgated May 7,1991
-------
TABLE 4-A
SUMMARY OF NJDEP SURFACE WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM
OCTOBER 1986
Southwest Side
(ug/1) Kelvin's Creek of Landfill
Phenols 10 ' 10
Cyanide <25 . <25
•Antimony 4.3 4.3
Arsenic 5.4 ND
Beryllium 0.7 0.5
Cai-iu-s 1.2 0.9
Chrc--u- ND 5.6
Copper . 4.6 0.8
Lead 2.2 7.8
Mercury ND ND
Nickel 4.3 18
Sele-. •:•„••:. 2.4 0.8
Silver • 2.5 0.8
ThaViiu- ND ND
Zinc 16 20
Sa-.:les analyzed for Priority Pollutant organics and metals.
Orcs-ic fractions for both samples were non-detectable except for
"pehicic'es/PCE's for Kelvin's Creek sample. This sample was reported lost due
t: t::.l ever on a hot plate during laboratory preparation.
ND - indicates parameter not detected in analysis.
POOR Q'JWJ
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 4-B
SUMMARY OF RESUITS OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
ADJACfNT TO GLOBAL LANOFILL
, ocTonrR
1907
Sample l.ncat (on
Parameter
BOOc
Cl
COO
Hardness
Hllj-N
NOj-N
pll (units)
Total Phenols
Na
50-
TO?
10X
F. Coll (HPN/IOOmls)
T. Coll (MPN/lOOmls)
00
PHC
Fe
Cd
Pb
Cr
N1
7n
PCB'S (ug/1)
Aldrln/Oleldrln (ug/1)
flenildene (ug/1)
DOT (ug/1)
tndrln (ug/1)
Toxaphene (ug/1)
Other PP Pesticides (ug/1)
Beta BMC (ug/1)
Gamna BMC (Llndane) (ug/1)
Color (CPU)
,
O.O
34
34
103
7.0
<0.5
6.4
0.075
74
18
1740
0.047
740
2
4.3
47
30
68
7.0
1.18
6.5
0.015
26
58
740
0.046
4600
460 >?4000
9.1
ND(<1.0)
18.6
0.0034
<0.005
0.0045
<0.010
0.031
NO
NO
N0(<50)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
70
7.1
NO
7.03
<0.003
'<0.005
0.017
0.015
0.116
NO
NO
NO
0.1?
NO
NO
NO
0.77
NO
30
3
3.3
till
n;
4R.7
24000
>?4000
4.0
NO
4.71
<0.003
<0.005
<0.004
?4000
8.9
NO
7.06
<0.003
<0.005
<0.004
<0.010
0.063
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.70
0.13
15
6
0.0
4977
194
7371
15.0
<0.5
6.8
0.005
4350
754
3410
7
0.0
7379
72
7579
?4000
>?4000
8.7
NO
7.65
<0.003
<0.005
<0.004
<0.010
0.033
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
70
8
O.O
6004
110
7007
-------
TABLE A-
COMPARISON OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY
WITH NJDEP WATER DUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter
Fecal Colifonr.
Bacteria
Lindane
DDT
Cadmium
N.' - 1. - i
. ».K.C I
Zinc
Copper
Silver
Chrorriiun;
Standard
or
Criteria
200 per 100ml *
0.004 ug/la
0.001 ug/l*«b
4.5 ug/lb
7.1 ug/lb
58 ug/lb
4.0 ug/lb
2.3 ug/lb
50 ug/1*
No. of
Samples
Exceeding
10
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
AND STANDARDS
Total
No. of
Samples
10
11
11
12
12
12
2
2
12
Max 1 num
Reported
Concentrat1onc
24,000
0.130
0.120
5.3
61
255
4.6
2.5
289
Monitoring wes conducted In October 1986 by NJDEP and
October 1987 by Killam Associates.
a - NJD:P Surface Water Quality Standards
b - NJPDES Criteria for Protection of Salt Water Aquatic Life.
c - Units are the same as for the appropriate standard or criteria.
-------
Table 5
Substances of concern in the Global Landfill
Based Upon Concern Index Values
Action Mean
Levels 1n Cone, in
Groundwater Shallow
Groundwater
Substance (mg/1) (mg/1)
Metals
lead
iron
chromium (total)
mercury
copper
arsenic
cadmium
zinc
barium
Substituted Alkane and Alkene
carbon tetrachloride
trichlorethylene
tetrachl oroethyl ene
methyl ene chloride
1,2-trans-dichl oroethyl ene
0.015d 0.035
0.30s 1.70
0.05s 0.0723
0.002s 0
1.0s 0.016
0.05s 0.0035
0.005s 0.0068
5.0s 0.134
1.0s 0.467
Hydrocarbons
0.002b 0
0.001b 0
0.0016 0
0.002b 0
0.010b 0
Overall
Cone.
in
Landfill
(mg/kg)
97.5
87.2
11.1
0.0468
20.2
0.461
0.0396
15.4
1.10
15.4
3.12
2.12
1.87
0.0343
Lowest
Concern
Index
2.30
56.7
1.45
0.00
0.02
0.07
1.36
0.03
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Highest
Concern
Index
6,500
291
221
23.4
20.2
9.22
7.92
3.07
1.10
WL5
2,115
937
3.43
Aromatic and Substituted Aromatic Hydrocarbons
chlorobenzene
xylenes, total
benzene
DDT/metabolites
ethyl benzene
aldrin
heptachlor
toluene
Miscellaneous
ammonia (as nitrogen)
sodium
chloride
cyanide
nitrate (as nitrogen)
0.004b 0.164
0.0446 0.0345
0.001b 0.0210
0.000001" 0
0.7° 0.0139
0.000003' 0.000007
0.0004C 0.0016
1.0C 0.00067
0.5s 320
50" 1840
250s 3420
0.2s 0.00052
10s 5.55
2.17
17.3
0.0263
0.00001
5.39
0.00002
0.0016
2.85
791
3480
5920
0.66
20.9
41.0
0.78
26.3
0.00
0.02
2.22
4.08
0.00
641
36.8
13.7
0.00
0.56
543
394
26.3
10.3
7.70
7.00
4.14
2.85
1,581
69.6
23.7
3.30
2.09
a NJDEP Water Quality Standards for 6V- 2 GrounoVater
b NJDEP HCL (NJ A-280 Amendments)
c EPA Safe Drinking Water
d EPA Safe Drinking Water
Act - HCL, Promulgated January 30, 1991
Act - Action Level for Drinking Water,
Promulgated May
7. 1991
-------
Table 6
Summary of Remedial Alternative Costs
CONTAINMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1:
No Action
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
$ 0
$ 210,000
$3,228,000
Alternative 2:
NJDEP Solid Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $16,915,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 489,000
Estimated Present Worth: $23,722,000
Estimated Construction Period: m years
Alternative 3:.
NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
$30,190,000
$ 581,900
$38,420,000
Estimated Construction Period: 2\ years
Alternative 4:
RCRA Cap
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Estimated Construction Period:
$26,739,000
$ 554,000
$34,548,000
2\ years
Alternative 5;
Bentonite Clay cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $18,909,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 504,000
Estimated Present Worth: $25,945,000
Estimated Construction Period: I3* years
Alternative 6:
Modified NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap
Estimated Capital Cost: $19,938,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 512,000
Estimated Present Worth: $27,101,000
Estimated Construction Period: 2 years
-------
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Summary of Remedial Alternative Costs
LEACHATB SYSTEM OPTIONS
Option l:
Off-Site Disposal at an Industrial Waste Treatment
Facility
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Estimated Construction Period:
$ 483,600
$1,394,700
$4,485,800
1 to l^i years
Option 2:
On-Site Pretreatment With Discharge to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW)
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Estimated Construction Period:
$1,051,700
$ 275,500
$2,797,700
2 to 2S ye
years
Option 3:
On-Site Treatment With Discharge to
Surface Water
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Estimated Construction Period:
$1,526,200
$ 253,100
$3,252,200
2 to 2^ years
Notes;
1,
The cap alternative costs (Alt. 1 through 5) include costs for the
cap and slope stabilization berm (from Table 4-1), gas management
(from Table 4-2), and groundwater monitoring plus and allowance
for wetlands mitigation but exclude leachate management costs.
Leachate management costs are presented separately as Options IA,
2A, 3A and Options IB, 2B, 3B and are derived from Table 4-3.
All capital costs include a 30% allowance for indirect capital
costs.
Construction of Leachate Systems would take place concurrently
with cap construction.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
GLOBAL LANDFILL
I. OVERVIEW
From February 19, 1991 through May 6, 1991, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) held a public
comment period to obtain verbal and written comments from
citizens, elected officials, and other interested parties for the
preferred remedy proposed by NJDEP and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Operable Unit I (OU-1)
at the Global Landfill Superfund Site located in Old Bridge
Township, Middlesex County. This Responsiveness Summary provides
highlights of community involvement and NJDEP community relation
activities at the site during the Feasibility Study (FS) and
public comment period. In particular, the document summarizes
community relations, legal questions and technical concerns
pertaining to the FS and the Proposed Plan expressed by
residents, local officials, and other interested parties.
At the public meeting held on March 12, 1991, NJDEP formally
presented its preferred alternative, addressing the on-site
controls for the Global Landfill site. The preferred alternative
involves the construction of a modified NJDEP hazardous waste
cap, which was detailed in the February 1991 Proposed Plan in
Alternative 6. The components of this alternative include the
following:
Capping of the landfill with a modified hazardous waste
cap;
Slope stability enhancement through construction of a
soil stabilization berm;
Construction and operation of a gas management system;
Construction and operation of stormwater and leachate
management systems;
Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
access to the site; and
Implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Comments received during the public comment period focused on
concerns with the actual design, the impact of costs on Old
Bridge Township, relocation of the gas pipeline, traffic impacts
from construction, and planting trees as a buffer. The Global
Landfill Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) Group requested an
-------
extension of the comment period; the comment period was extended
to May 6, 1991. Detailed answers-to the Global Landfill PRP
Group's technical comments are presented in this document.
Some of the community relations activities for the Global
landfill include the following:
• NJDEP prepared a Community Relations Plan (February
1989). Copies of this plan are located in the public
repositories for the site.
• Since January 1988, the Global Landfill/Sommers
Brothers Property Site Task Group (Task Group) have met
almost monthly. The Task Group consists of
representatives from Citizens Helping Environmental
Cleanup (CHEC), the Old Bridge Environmental
Commission, the Old Bridge Health Department, NJDEP,
and New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH). This
group is actively involved in overseeing the NJDOH
health study on residents living near the sites.
NJDEP held a briefing on February 13, 1991 with the
Task Group to discuss on-site controls and the project
schedule for Global.
NJDEP held a public meeting on March 12, 1991 to
discuss the preferred option for on-site controls on
the landfill, and to respond to citizens' comments and
questions. A transcript of the meeting is available at
the public repository locations. NJDEP also held a
public information session to answer citizens'
questions on March 13, 1991.
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan
continued until May 6, 1991.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Global Landfill, located in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex
County, was in operation from 1968 until 1984. The site was
closed in April 1984 by the NJDEP, after the southeast sideslope
of the landfill failed and slid into the adjacent wetlands. A
New Jersey court appointed an administrator to oversee the proper
closure of the landfill on April 23, 1986.
The administrator authorized the consulting firm of E.T. Killam
Associates of Millburn, New Jersey, to conduct an on-site
investigation. The landfill was reported to contain municipal
solid, bulky, vegetative, and industrial wastes. Drums
containing hazardous waste were discovered during an exploratory
excavation in March 1988.
The site was placed on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) in
March 1989. Killam Associates was authorized by NJDEP and the
administrator to prepare a Feasibility Study (FS) for on-site
-------
controls at the site. The FS provides" only limited data on the
nature and extent of contamination of groundwater, surface water,
and air at the landfill. An investigation of the groundwater and
other natural resources at the site, will be conducted during the
ongoing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for
Operable Unit 2 (OU-2).
The combination of high population density and high visibility of
hazardous waste problems has resulted in significant community
interest. In March 1986, residents of the London Terrace
Apartments collected soil samples from the landfill for analysis.
The test results indicated the presence of volatile organic
compounds. Many of the local residents feel that the tests prove
that the site is the cause of unexplained medical conditions and
illnesses in surrounding communities. These residents formed
CHEC in March 1986.
Two toxic tort action suits were filed in 1988 against numerous
parties involved with operations at Global Landfill by plaintiffs
seeking damages for health and economic distress caused by
hazardous wastes. Continued community health concerns led to the
passage of PL 1987, C.358, which appropriated $75,000 for a NJDOH
study of local residents. NJDOH set up the Task Group to
implement the legislation. The Task Group's main
responsibilities included:
• Conducting a community cancer evaluation;
• Conducting a health risk assessment
Implementing a soil monitoring program to confirm the
absences or presence of a third landfill under the
housing complexes;
• Establishing a pediatric health care service to monitor
health of Old Bridge and Sayreville children;
• Conducting a community demographic profile; and
Continuing community outreach and education.
The work performed under the grant to the NJDOH should be
completed in the near future and presented to the Task Group.
III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES
Verbal comments made during the March 12, 1991 public meeting are
summarized below, followed by responses from the lead agency
(NJDEP). Responses to written comments submitted by the Old
Bridge Township Environmental Commission (OBEC), the
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), and the
Global Landfill Potentially Responsible Party Group are in a
separate section of the Responsiveness Summary. Copies of the
written comments received are attached as an Appendix of this
document.
-------
COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC MEETING ON MARCH 12. 1991
A Task Group member requested an explanation of a synthetic
geomembrane.
Response; The synthetic geomembrane is about a quarter inch
thick and composed of rubber and plastic. It is designed as an
impermeable landfill liner. The geomembrane will be placed on
the top of the landfill over the clay layer, to form a composite
cap.
A question was raised by a Task Group member regarding the
shrinking and settling of the landfill over time and how this
will affect the cap's integrity.
Response; Organic decomposition of waste in any landfill will
continue as long as moisture is present. This decomposition
produces gas and causes shrinkage and landfill settling. As part
of the operation and maintenance (O&M) phase, regular inspections
will be made to assure the cap's integrity and, when necessary,
the cap will be repaired. Geogrids are plastic lattices that
provide strength and integrity to the cap to protect against :
damage due to settling of the landfill.
Questions from a Task Group member concerning whether the
landfill will .be disturbed during the OU-1 construction, and if
air monitoring will be conducted during the construction to
protect the area residents.
Response; Any intrusive work on Global will be controlled by
disturbing only small areas at one time. As part of the Health
and Safety Plan for the OU-1 construction, dust suppression and
continuous air monitoring will be required. The NJDEP, in
consultation with the community, will establish a program of
perimeter air monitoring during the construction. The only
proposed regrading of Global would occur on the top seven acres
to provide proper drainage of precipitation.
A Task Group member asked what other sites in New Jersey have the
same type of NJDEP hazardous waste cap/ and how has it performed.
Response; This will be the first site in NJ to "have this
specific type of cap. A similar cap with a lighter weight
geomembrane material was used at Kin-Buc Landfill in 1981. The
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission is using the
textured geomembrane with native soil as a cap on two landfills.
A Task Group member requested information on how to obtain a
Technical Assistance Grant.
Response; The Task Group received a Technical Assistant Grant as
requested.
-------
A question was raised by the OBEC about whether the proposed
alternative for OU-l has a foundation sand layer under the cap.
Response; For the proposed capping alternative, the regraded
landfill surface will be covered with new sand, a geogrid
material (to stabilize the clay layer), and then the clay layer.
A detailed description of Alternative 6 can be found in the
Feasibility Study (FS) located in the listed repositories.
Another inquiry from the OBEC concerned assurance that the
engineering specifications for OU-l will be fulfilled during
construction.
Response; The engineering specifications and plans will be
public documents upon their completion. The NJDEP will hold a
public meeting at the end of the design phase, and prior to the
actual construction, to present the final design. Every item
used in the construction for OU-l will have detailed specifics in
the final design. The NJDEP and the design engineering firm will
have staff on-site during the construction phase to ensure that
the required materials are used.
The OBEC inquired about who is responsible for the post-closure
funding.
Response; Under the Superfund program, the state is responsible
for the operation and maintenance phase. The NJDEP will
establish funds to perform the O&M phase of the remediation. The
Department has established a specific group to oversee this
phase, although the O&M could be delegated to the county, the
municipality, or responsible parties with NJDEP oversight. The
O&M plan will be placed in the repositories with the other
documents for Global.
A question was raised by a Task Group member whether the leachate
and gas treatment facilities will be located in wetlands.
Response; During the design phase, the precise size, type and
location of both facilities will be determined. Additional
impacts on wetlands will be a consideration on where to locate
these facilities.
The OBEC inquired about what permits would be necessary for the
leachate treatment on-site with discharge to Cheesequake Creek;
who would be responsible for obtaining such permits; will the
RI/F8 process define the nature and type of permits required;
and how, if any, will the stormwater Runoff Regulations impact
the treatment facility.
Response; In the design phase for OU-l, statutory and technical
requirements will determine the discharge limitations. Under the
Superfund program, these discharge limitations must still meet
-------
all normal permit requirements for any landfill, storm run-off,
and surface water discharge to the Cheesequake, even though a
permit is not issued. The monitoring and discharge requirements
are the same as would be required for a permit. The NJDEP would
make all monitoring data available to the public.
A question was raised by a Task Group member regarding the
"burning11 of landfill gas for treatment and how clean the
emissions would be.
Response; The NJDEP will collect data during the design phase
which will be used to develop a state-of-the-art gas treatment
facility that must meet New Jersey State air quality standards.
Two members of the Task Group stated that trees should be planted
behind the London Terrace Apartments.
Response; Whether or not tree planting can be funded by
Superfund as a part of OU-1 will be evaluated during the design.
An inquiry was made by a Task Group member concerning the access
route for trucks during the construction phase of Global. A
resident questioned the interaction between the Global
construction phase traffic and the road construction at Ernston
Road and Route 9.
Response; As part of the design phase of OU-1, a transportation
plan will be developed. The only route to Global is through that
intersection. Depending on the schedule for road construction
and the construction at Global for OU-1, there may be traffic
problems. NJDEP will work closely with local officials to limit
traffic impacts as much as possible.
The OBEC requested copies of all reports concerning Global
Landfill from NJDEP in addition to any placed in the site's
repositories listed in the February 1991 Proposed Plan.
Response; As a member Task Group, OBEC has had direct access to
all reports concerning Global Landfill. In the future NJDEP will
provide documents regrading the Global Landfill Site to the Old
Bridge Environmental Commission, the Task Group-, as well as to
all the repositories listed in the February 1991 Proposed Plan.
Comments from a Task Group member and the OBEC concerned the gas
pipeline that runs through the Global Landfill/ and whether it
will be relocated, by whom, and who will pay for the relocation.
Response; The Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
(Transco) has a 42-inch high pressure natural gas pipeline that
transects the site, and is covered by 12 to 15 feet of waste, in
the northwest section of the landfill area. The NJDEP is
discussing the relocation of the pipeline with Transco. The
-------
question of responsibility for the movement of the pipeline is a
legal issue. The New Jersey Attorney General's Office is
reviewing this issue.
A resident inquired about time schedules/ and the OBEC requested
that a detailed explanation of the OD-1 design and construction
processes, with estimated timetables - schedule of goals or
milestones, be included in this document.
Response; The following schedules are NJDEP's best estimates for
each of the operable units:
OU-1 Record of Decision
Design Phase - Start
Design Phase - Completion
Construction Contractor Proposal Request
Construction Contract Award
Construction - Start
Construction - Completion
OU-2 Phase I Field Investigation
Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report Completion
Phase 2 Field Investigation
Phase 2 Remedial Investigation
Report Completion
Record of Decision
*Design Phase - Start
*Design Phase - Completion
Construction - Start
Construction - Completion
Summer
Winter
Winter
Winter
Summer
Fall
Fall
1991
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1995
Ongoing
Winter 1993
Spring l?93
Winter 1994
Spring 1994
Spring 1994
Fall 1995
Winter 1995
Winter 1997
* If required, based on Record of Decision for OU-2.
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE GLOBAL LANDFILL PRP GROUP -
Submitted Mav 6. 1991
The following Comments and Responses are presented in the format
of the written comments from the Global Landfill PRP Group.
I. Introduction
The NJDEP was arbitrary in classifying Global Landfill
as a hazardous waste site.
Response: While Global Landfill was not permitted as a hazardous
waste landfill, evidence indicates that significant amounts of
hazardous waste and hazardous substances were improperly disposed
of a*: the site.
Former landfill employees, who were personally involved in the
disposal of tens of thousands of drums of hazardous wastes and
hazardous substances at the landfill, provided this information
to NJDEP. Their information was corroborated in 1987, when test
pits uncovered metal drums of hazardous wastes in areas
designated by these former employees as containing buried drums.
Landfill facility reports, which summarize information regarding
volume and types of waste disposed in landfills, indicate that
tons of waste, including both hazardous waste and hazardous
substances, were disposed of in the Global Landfill. These
include the following: furnace flue dust, a source specific
hazardous waste (K-061) under RCRA and New Jersey Hazardous Waste
Regulations; paint waste; filter residuals containing the
hazardous substances toluene, acetone, phenol, and formaldehyde;
asbestos; heavy metals; organics; and polychlorinated biphenyls.
Based upon the evidence that hazardous wastes were disposed at
Global Landfill, and the resultant documented potential threats
to human health and the environment, New Jersey's Hazardous Waste
Regulations are relevant and appropriate for the capping of
Global Landfill.
II. NJDEP has not complied with the NCP's data collection and
analysis requirements and/ as a result, has selected a
preferred remedial alternative that is not cost-effective
and is beset with serious technical deficiencies
NO Remedial Investigation was performed.
Response: EPA Guidance entitled "Conducting Remedial
Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Sites" (OSWER Directive 9355.3-11, February 1991) (RI/FS
Guidance) , states that since most CERCLA municipal landfill sites
are similar, the RI/FS process, including the Site
Characterization (Remedial Investigation Report) , Risk
8
-------
Assessment, and the Development of Remedial Alternatives, nay be
streamlined. With respect to the Global Landfill site, NJDEP
believes that the groundwater, leachate, and drum excavation data
collected throughout the five year involvement of Killam
Associates, provides the basis for an adequate site
characterization of the site. As a result of this data and
analysis it has .been determined, pursuant to EPA guidance
Directive:9355.3-11FS and the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(B), that a containment technology is
appropriate at Global Landfill.
Commentt No Quantitative Risk Assessment was performed..
Response; The data presented in the FS clearly indicates that
the leachate .seeps and the shallow aquifer (which is in hydraulic
contact with the lower potable aquifer) are contaminated with
hazardous substances. Both aquifers discharge to the wetlands
and surface waters at levels which exceed State and Federal
standards. The release and migration of hazardous substances
from the landfill pose a potential risk to human health and the
environment. As stated in the RI/FS guidance on municipal
landfills, a qualitative risk assessment that describes the
exposure pathways, and qualitatively describes the risk to
receptors, is sufficient to establish risk. While a Quantitative
Risk Assessment is not required for OU-1, one Will be performed
during the RI/FS for OU-2.
Comment; NJDEP did not account for interdependence between the
two operable units.
Response; NJDEP is well aware of the potential interrelationship
of the remedy selected in this Record of Decision and the
selected remedy for the second operable unit. For this reason, a
decision has been made to implement off-site treatment as an
interim remedy for leachate disposal, pending the selection of
the remedy for the second operable unit.
The cap will employ collection systems for leachate seeps,
landfill gasses, and stormwater management. The possible future
collection systems for groundwater collection and treatment would
be no less implementable or effective as a result of
implementation of OU-1.
Comment; Insufficient geotechnical study was performed.
Response; The degree of geotechnical study performed at the site
has been extensive and reiterative in nature. The study
performed by French and Parello Associates (F&P) originated in
1989 and was based on soil boring data which was reviewed by
NJDEP. This report was subsequently refined in 1991, based on
additional soil borings. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reviewed the F&P report and concurred with the assumptions made
9
-------
regarding site conditions, the method of calculation used, and
the level of confidence attributable to the results. The
allegation that an inadequate amount of geotechnical study was
performed is inaccurate. The assumptions made in the development
of vemedial alternatives for the cap and berm were conservative
due to the previous slope failure, which suggests the danger of a
subsequent slope failure at the site. Due to the heterogeneous
nature of the waste disposed of at the site, there is no
practical way to gain a high level of confidence in certain
geotechnical parameters such as shear strength of the refuse.
Comment; No treatability studies were performed on the leachate
seep stream.
Response; Treatability studies may be performed in design.
qommftTifc' There was inadequate data on landfill refuse
characteristics to choose a gas collection and treatment system.
Response; The effects of settlement on subsurface structures
(i.e. gas collection wells or associated piping), preferential
flow paths and chemical characteristics of the refuse can be
either predicted or estimated for the purposes of developing a
gas collection and treatment alternative.
Comment; No Field Sampling Plan, Quality Assurance Plan or
clearly defined data quality objectives.
Response; Although no Field Sampling Plan or Quality Assurance
Plan were supplied for the Killam Feasibility Study, the data was
collected in accordance with New Jersey Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit requirements and deemed by EPA and
NJDEP to meet data quality objectives.
Comment; The refuse strength parameters used by F&P in their
1991 study were inappropriate. Although the 1984 Woodward Clyde
Consultants report, the 1989 F&P report, and 1991 F&P report
include the results of stability analyses for the landfill
against sliding, all base the analyses on waste strength
parameters that are neither site-specific nor appropriate.
Inexplicably, the fieldwork ignored the strength of the refuse as
a data needed. As a result of this omission, the Proposed Plan
erroneously assumes that the Global Landfill is unstable.
Response; The analyses used by F&P to assess the stability of
the landfill under present and proposed loading conditions placed
a major emphasis on the geotechnical parameters. These
parameters included the unit weights and strengths of the refuse
materials and the underlying organic foundation soils.
F&P's evaluation assessed the merits of performing field
measurements of the refuse parameters. Landfill materials are
10
-------
extremely variable; if a field evaluation was performed, the
question of representativeness would arise. Due to the
heterogenous nature of the landfill, testing of particular
sections may result in parameters which are not representative of
the entire landfill, and would not provide any additional level
of confidence in the parameters selected than what could be
obtained from empirical published data. F&P chose data that are
consistent with recently published parameters.
In order to back calculate the refuse strength, the following
parameters have to be determined: geometry of failure surface,
unit weight and strength of the organic soils, and the unit
weight of the refuse. The unit weight of the refuse value is
significant since it is the driving force producing instability.
In the 1990 F&P study, a unit weight of 50 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf), and a saturated unit weight of refuse below the water
table of 70 pcf were used. This is within the range of typical
values appearing in recent publications. The Global Landfill PRP
Group selected a unit weight of 76.4 pcf, which is above the
typical range of unit weights in any of the references F&P have
seen. In order to establish equilibrium, the resisting strength
must be increased if the driving force is increased. Therefore,
by starting a back analyses with an unrealistically high unit
weight or driving force, the refuse strength parameter required
for equilibrium is also unrealistically high. The Global
Landfill PRP Group's assessment of the refuse strengths is
significant because they used the errant higher strength in their
stability analyses, concluding that the factors of safety for the
slopes under proposed loading conditions do not warrant
construction of the berm.
Comment; The Proposed Plan is based on the premise that
substantial movement of the southeast sideslope is now occurring,
but NJDEP has not performed any monitoring for slope stability as
called for in the NCP and EPA guidance.
Response; Sensitivity evaluation of the underlying soils
indicates that the southeast sideslopes are subject to creep
movement. Sensitivity is defined as the ratio of undisturbed
strength to remolded (or disturbed) strength. Materials that are
highly sensitive are susceptible to both acute slope stability
failure, and long-term creep movement. In addition, there is
some evidence of slope movement of the southeast sideslope as
indicated by the hummocky ground surface. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers concurs with this observation.
Commentt Since the drum excavation was outside the main
landfill, and due to a lack of analysis of the leachate, the true
characterization of the landfill waste is in doubt.
Response; RI/FS Guidance states that "Characterization of a
landfill's contents is generally not necessary because
11
-------
containment of the landfill contents, which is often the most
practicable technology, does not require such information."
Notwithstanding the fact that RI/FS Guidance requires minimal, if
any waste characterization, characterization of the landfill
contents was performed, and included: landfill facility reports,
statements from former landfill employees, magnetometer studies,
drum excavations, and leachate sampling and analyses.
Landfill facility reports, which summarize information regarding
volume and types of waste disposed in landfills, indicate that
tons of waste, including both hazardous waste and hazardous
substances, were disposed of in the Global Landfill. These
include the following: furnace flue dust, a source specific
hazardous waste (K-061) under RCRA and New Jersey Hazardous Waste
Regulations; paint waste; filter residuals containing the
hazardous substances toluene, acetone, phenol, and formaldehyde;
asbestos; heavy metals; organics; and polychlorinated biphenyls.
Former landfill employees stated that they were personally
involved in the disposal of tens of thousands of drums of
hazardous wastes and hazardous substances in both sections of the
landfill. These allegations led to an exploratory excavation of
the northwest extension. A total of 63 drums were discovered, 18
of which were removed for sampling and analysis; 11 contained
hazardous waste based on EPA limits and an additional three drums
contained hazardous waste based on NJDEP limits. The drums
contained numerous hazardous substances including: xylenes,
toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
zinc, and some base neutral compounds.
As part of a NJPDES quarterly monitoring program, leachate
samples from exposed seeps have been collected for analysis from
October 1987 to April 1990. Since 1987, concentrations of
leachate indicator parameters (BOD, COD, ammonia, chlorides, TDS,
hardness, and iron) were found to be elevated. Volatile organics
detected in the leachate consisted primarily of benzene-related
compounds. Chlorobenzene was found at concentrations up to 4,400
micrograms per liter (ug/1), which far exceeds the groundwater
quality standard of 4 ug/1. This further illustrates the
potential impact the leachate is having on the groundwater and
wetlands.
These waste characterization efforts clearly comply with the
requirements of the NCP and the RI/FS Guidance referred to above.
Comment; Insufficient air quality monitoring has been conducted
at the site.
Response; NJDEP acknowledges that little air analysis was
performed at the site. However, this analysis was not necessary
12
-------
for the selection of the cap or the gas collection system. The
selection of either a flare or a thermal oxidation unit will
depend upon additional air characterization to be performed
during design of OU-1. Based upon this information, the decision
to employ either a flare or a inore advanced gas treatment system
will be made.
poHnnenti in view of the data gaps, and the resulting safety
factors applied to protect against a future slide, a temporary
cap is warranted until the settlement rate has stabilized.
Response; An analysis of temporary or interim cap alternatives
was performed for Global Landfill. The alternatives ranged from
a soil cover (no impermeable cap), exposed synthetic caps, to
variations of conventional solid waste and hazardous waste caps.
The less expensive alternatives (soil cover and exposed
synthetic) were rejected due to either non-responsiveness to site
concerns, or construction/maintenance difficulties. The
remaining alternatives complied with NJDEP requirements, however,
their costs were close to those for standard NJDEP cap designs.
The decision was made to implement a final cap, rather than
install an interim cap and upgrade or modify it in the future.
III. The Proposed Plan alternative is not justified by the
purported risks alleged to exist at the site.
Comment; The Qualitative Risk Assessment is inadequate for the
purposes of the study, and does not comply with the requirements
of the NCP.
Response; This claim by the PRPs is erroneous. The RI/FS
guidance states: "Because options for remedial actions at
municipal landfill sites are limited, it may be possible to
streamline or limit the scope of the baseline risk assessment by
(1) using a conceptual model ... to perform a qualitative risk
assessment ..." The Guidance goes on to state that
"...Quantitative assessments ... are not necessary to initiate
remedial action." Use of qualitative instead of quantitative
risk assessments for municipal landfills is clearly an acceptable
procedure under the RI/FS Guidance, and complies with the
requirements of the NCP. One purpose for this option is to
streamline remedial action decisions, and allow rapid
implementation of protective measures for the major problems at
municipal landfills. The need for "rapid implementation" of the
remedy at this site is clearly warranted given the fact that:
hazardous substances have been disposed of, and are present in
the Global Landfill; contamination has been detected in both the
leachate seeps and groundwater above State and Federal maximum
contamination levels (MCLs); the landfill is marginally stable,
having previously experienced a sideslope failure; and the
landfill routinely receives infiltration which may flush
13
-------
hazardous substances from the fill material into the groundwater
and adjoining wetlands..
Comment; The Concern Index Approach is flawed.
Response; A Hazard Index is calculated by dividing the
quantified dose of a toxic compound to a reference dose for that
compound. In the absence of data necessary to derive Hazard
Indices, the purpose of the Concern Index approach was to obtain
a frame of reference to qualitatively evaluate the relative
levels of source concentrations and their potential impacts on
the public health and the environment. With respect to the
applicability of the Concern Indices, they are put forward as a
means of comparison of landfill concentrations to State and
Federal MCLs.
Comment: Methane migration does not reach the residential areas
and conclusions that air transport is a complete pathway is
invalid.
Response; This PRP claim is invalid. The Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual (1986) requires four elements to
comprise a "complete" exposure pathway. These are a) a source
and mechanism for chemical release in the environment; b) a
transport medium; c) a point of potential environmental or human
exposure; and d) an exposure route at the contact point.
The PRP's comment incorrectly implies a chemical from the site
must be detected in the residential area before a "complete"
pathway can be found to exist under EPA risk assessment protocol.
The fact air samples were not taken in the residential zone for
some specific site related chemicals does not support the PRPs
conclusion that those chemicals have not or will not in the
future reach the residential zone and come in contact with
individuals in that zone. Only a potential point of exposure
need exist; an actual exposure event or actual detection of a
specific chemical in the residential area is not required for a
determination that a "complete" pathway exists under risk
assessment protocol.
IV. The agency has failed to integrate the first Operable Unit
with any later groundwater remediation operable unit.
Comment; The remedy proposed for OU-1 will be constructed
entirely within the property boundaries.
Response; The remedy proposed for OU-1 will extend beyond the
property boundaries if it becomes necessary for engineering
implementation, as determined during the design phase.
14
-------
With respect to the integration of the two operable units, the
implementation of OU-1 will not result in an increase in the
amount of wetlands disrupted as a part of OU-2.
Comment; No evaluation vas made of the wetlands to be disrupted
during implementation of OU-1.
Response; An evaluation of the wetlands in the area immediately
surrounding the landfill which may be impacted by the
implementation of OU-1 was performed. This evaluation was
finalized in the April 1991 report entitled "Final Supplemental
Report on Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET 2.0) Analysis", and
is in the Administrative Record.
Comment; The construction of the berm may preclude the
effective use of a slurry wall as a component of OU-2.
Response; It is the opinion of NJDEP that the proposed berm will
not interfere with construction of a slurry wall, if a slurry
wall is called for in OU-2. The slurry in the trench should
maintain the trench stability until a cement-bentonite slurry is
placed. If trench stability becomes a concern, then various
construction methods, such as construction of the trench in
sections, can be employed. Furthermore, a berm will actually
facilitate slurry wall construction by providing a working pad
from which equipment can operate.
Comment; OU-2 will in all probability extend beyond the property
limit of the landfill, therefore, it is more logical to integrate
OU-2 into OU-1, so that wetland impacts are reduced.
Response; NJDEP intends to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands
in both OU-1 and OU-2, consistent with the need to take
appropriate and timely actions to protect public health and the
environment.
Comment; If NJDEP follows the preference for on-site treatment
and discharge as part of OU-1, a treatment system for leachate
could be designed and built prior to leachate characteristic and
volume changes, and before the groundwater treatment system, if
any, is analyzed and determined. This could lead to duplicate
treatment systems, and therefore, is not cost-effective.
Response; The preferred leachate collection and treatment system
is Option 3 (on-site treatment with discharge to surface water).
In the interim, Leachate Option 1 (disposal at an Industrial
Waste Treatment Plant) will be employed until the RI/FS for OU-2
is completed. At that time, the design and installation of a
combined leachate and groundwater system can be considered. The
leachate seep treatment option chosen here would be designed to
be considerate of possible future expansion to accommodate
additional treatment capacity.
15
-------
V. The agency has failed to include any interim action
alternatives which account for data gaps and which are
commensurate with the low level of risk at the site.
Response; Various interim capping alternatives were evaluated in
the FS. The alternatives ranged from a soil cover (no
impermeable cap), exposed synthetic caps, to variations of
conventional solid waste and hazardous waste caps. The less
expensive alternatives (soil cover and exposed synthetic) were
rejected due to either non-responsiveness to site concerns, or
construction/maintenance difficulties. The remaining
alternatives complied with NJDEP requirements, however, their
costs were close to standard NJDEP cap designs. The decision was
made to implement a final cap, rather than install an interim cap
and upgrade or modify it in the future.
VI. The geogrids, sand, berm, leachate treatment plant, and cap
contained in the Proposed Plan alternative are neither
necessary nor properly designed.
Comment; Slope stability analyses with appropriate soil and
refuse parameters indicate that the landfill slopes are stable,
and therefore, geogrids are unnecessary. In addition, the need
for geogrids is unjustified since the landfill has been closed
for more than -.seven years, and it is far more justified to assume
that the major part of final settlement has already occurred.
Response; Based on consolidation analyses of the organic soils,
which vary in thickness around the landfill, some differential
settlement will occur as these soils continue to consolidate
under their existing loads. Since the nature of the landfill
material is heterogeneous, the amount of settlement due to
decomposition and possible structural collapse of buried objects
is unpredictable, and can be very localized. This makes it
difficult to assess the stresses and strains associated with the
cap without destroying its integrity.
Geogrids are that component of the cap which provides the
strength to mitigate differential settlement. It is important
that the geogrids relieve the georoembrane of the stresses,
because if the geomembrane tears, the integrity-of the cap is
compromised and costs for repair will be great.
NJOEP believes that geogrids are necessary and can be
successfully installed. In the design phase, it will be
determined if one or two layers of geogrid are required for the
purposes of cap sliding stability and differential settlement
concerns.
Comment; In order to repair the geogrids, bodkin connectors
would have to be "needled" into the existing grids, an operation
16
-------
which may not be successful in restoring the grid's strength and
other properties.
Response: NJDEP is of the opinion that cutting and repairing the
geogrids will not significantly reduce their effectiveness. It
is common practice to use bodkin joint connections.
Comment; A geonet could be used instead of the sand drainage
material immediately above the liner.
Response; This could be considered during design. However,
NJDEP believes that replacement of the 12 inch sand, or sand and
gravel layer, with a geonet does not represent a significant cost
savings.
Commenti other landfills under the jurisdiction of NJDEP, such
as GEMS or Helen Kramer, do not include geogrids. This indicates
an inconsistency on the part of NJDEP.
Response; Site characteristics are markedly different at each
site. Geogrids have been determined to be necessary at the
Global Landfill because of slope stability and surrounding
wetlands.
Comment; A berm is unnecessary based upon back analyses.
Response; F&P stability analyses indicate that marginal factors
of safety exist, and a berm is required at the toe of the east
slope for construction of the proposed cap.
Comment; Monitoring may be necessary during construction of the
berm. In addition, soils underlying the berm may contain waste
that would permanently be trapped under the berm and outside the
cap.
Response; During design, a monitoring program for berm
construction will be established, along with the design of the
berm. Also, the area under the proposed berm may be explored for
possible refuse. At the present time, NJDEP does not intend to
allow refuse to be left under the berm.
Comment; The leachate treatment plant is not cost-effective for
two reasons. First, the Proposed Plan alternative does not take
into account the sharp drop in flows after the first year.
Second, it does not take into account the efficiencies associated
with a comprehensive treatment program in OU-2. It would be more
sensible and cost-effective to address any leachate treatment
along with the groundwater treatment at the time of OU-2.
Response; The preferred leachate collection and treatment system
is Option 3 (on-site treatment with discharge to surface water).
However, a contingency system, Leachate Option 1 (disposal at an
17
-------
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant), will be employed until the
RI/FS for OU-2 is completed. At that time, the design and
installation of a combined leachate and groundwater system can be
considered. The leachate seep treatment option chosen here would
be designed to be considerate of possible future expansion to
accommodate additional treatment capacity.
Comment; The flexible membrane liner to be placed over clay
material is accompanied by risks associated with moisture
collecting under the liner during construction. Moisture may
originate from condensation, or consolidation of the clay from
the weight of the materials above, as was the case in the
Kettleman Hills Waste Landfill slope failure. The wetted clay
may lead to a stability problem.
Response; The referenced landfill experienced a failure in its
liner system, not the cap, and a contributing factor was a
buildup of moisture under the geomembrane overlying the clay.
The moisture buildup was attributed to several possibilities that
are not applicable here, since a cap system is being utilized at
Global. In addition, the stability of the cap components will be
evaluated during design.
Comment; Until its closure in 1984, the landfill, like other
municipal landfills, was authorized to receive up to 100, and for
a period of time, 1000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste
from small quantity generators. Yet, the Proposed Plan would
treat the site differently from a municipal site. This site
should be closed as an ordinary municipal landfill. In addition,
RCRA Subtitle C is not an ARAR. RCRA Subtitle C does not require
a composite cap. A solid waste cap, or its equivalent, should be
selected in the ROD.
Response; The environmental data collected at and near Global
Landfill lead to a number of conclusions which support the need
for the selected remedial action at the site. Hazardous
substances have been disposed of, and are now present in the
Global Landfill. Groundwater data collected to date reveals that
groundwater quality in both the shallow aquifer and the Old
Bridge Sand aquifer (a source of public water supply) exceeds
MCLs for numerous hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants. Many of these substances were detected in drums
buried at the landfill, and in leachate flowing out of the fill
material. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to cap
this site as an ordinary municipal landfill.
Both New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill Closure Regulations,
subchapter 10, and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle C have been identified as being relevant and appropriate
(NCP, Section 300.400 (g)(2)) to the circumstances of the release
at Global Landfill as iterated above. Both regulations address
closure of hazardous waste landfills to provide long-term
18
-------
minimization of migration of hazardous substances through the
closed landfill. Also, many of the hazardous substances
identified at Global Landfill are also listed as RCRA hazardous
substances. The NCP states that EPA will often find RCRA
requirements are relevant and appropriate at a site, and that
these requirements may be relevant and appropriate where waste is
just similar in composition, even where it is not identifiable as
a RCRA listed waste, and even for waste disposed of prior to 1980
(55 Fed. Reg. 8763). In the case of Global Landfill the selected
remedy would incorporate the composite cap features of NJDEP
Hazardous Waste cap. The NJDEP Hazardous Waste Landfill Closure
Regulations (NJAC 7:26-10.8(i)) require specific cap features
that must be attained. The selected remedy includes a modified
NJDEP Hazardous Waste cap that will attain a standard of
performance that is equivalent to that required under the New
Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill Closure Regulations. Since the
New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfill Closure Regulations require
specific cap features, such as a composite cap, then use of a
NJDEP Hazardous Waste cap for remediation of a site such as
Global is clearly consistent with the RI/FS Guidance and the NCP.
The RI/FS Guidance states: "A composite-barrier cap is to be
used when the landfill contains RCRA listed wastes, waste
sufficiently similar to RCRA listed waste, or RCRA characteristic
waste." A composite-barrier cap may also be used at landfills
which contain much lower concentrations of hazardous contaminants
than that of RCRA listed or characteristic wastes, depending upon
site specific characteristics (RI/FS Guidance, p. 4-11).
Composite-barrier caps minimize infiltration into the fill
material, and provide greater protection against migration of
contaminants out of the fill material than single barrier caps or
closures with just soil cover.
RI/FS Guidance recognizes that where "... a groundwater
contaminant problem exists, a RCRA cap would serve to "... limit
infiltration of precipitation (RI/FS Guidance, p. 5-9). The NCP
also recognizes that "... the mobility of the waste ... may be a
key concern in evaluating" the need for a highly impermeable cap
(55 Fed. Reg. 8763).
The purposes of closure under Subtitle C and the objectives of
CERCLA remediation at Global are clearly the same (control of
release of hazardous waste and other contaminants into the
environment), thereby reflecting accord with 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.400(g)(2)(i). The media regulated by Subtitle C under 40
C.F.R. Part 264 include, inter alia, landfills, the same type of
media to be affected by this remedial action, thereby meeting the
intent of 40 C.F.R. § 300.400(g)(2)(ii). The substances
"regulated by" Subtitle C (i.e. hazardous waste) were not only
found at the site but also fall within the legal definition of
those same substances affected by CERCLA (i.e. hazardous
substances), thereby meeting the intent of 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.400(g)(2)(iii). Finally, the actions regulated by
19
-------
Subtitle C (e.g. closure of landfills), are similar to this
remedial action.
Therefore, the cap requirements of both New Jersey Hazardous
Waste Landfill Closure Regulations and RCRA Subtitle C are
relevant and appropriate for the capping of Global Landfill.
Comment: The risk assessment does not justify using a hazardous
waste cap at the Global Landfill.
Response; This PRP claim misconstrues the relationship between
remediation goals and risk assessments. Risk assessments and
ARARs serve different functions. The baseline assessment is
intended to be essentially an evaluation of the no-action
alternative (55 Fed. Reg. 8711). The determination of whether
particular requirements are ARARs for a site is to be made
independently from the risk assessment (55 Fed. Reg. 8711).
VII. Group's proposed alternative
Comment; The group's proposed alternative is presented in their
attached comments on the Proposed Plan, on pages 60 to 72.
Response; It is NJDEP's opinion that the Global Landfill PRP
Group's proposed alternative is not cost effective from a
geotechnical viewpoint. Based upon F&P's analyses, construction
of the stabilization berm is necessary. The total amount spent
at the beginning of this project to preclude failure will be much
less than the amount which will be required should a failure
occur. Given the sensitivity of the underlying organic soils,
and the fact that the east slopes are in a remolded state of
stress, NJDEP believes that slope failure will occur without a
berm. The resultant effort to re-stabilize a slope after a
failure would most likely include the construction of a berm much
larger than presently proposed, impacting more wetlands than what
are presently anticipated.
The NJDEP recognizes that there are alternate ways of achieving
some of these intended functions. The preferred alternative
achieves these objectives and minimizes disruption of the
wetlands.
VIII. ROD Flexibility
Comment; Flexibility should be extended to the design of the cap
and the determination of the necessity of the berm.
Response; Due to the unique slope stability problems, and the
surrounding wetlands at Global Landfill, it has been determined
that a berm is necessary.
20
-------
Comment; The Global ROD should have as much flexibility with
regard to cap design as the Sharkey Landfill ROD.
Responset Site characteristics are markedly different at each
site. The selected remedy addresses the unique characteristics
at the Global Landfill site.
IZ. Miscellaneous
Comment; OU-1, as a phased remedy addressing only source
control, is only governed by certain action-specific ARARs, and
not contaminant-specific ARARs.
Response; OU-1 is governed by action-specific and location-
specific ARARs.
Comment; Under Section 121 of CERCIA, permits are not required
for any proposed treatment plant.
Response; Under the Superfund program, discharge limitations
must still meet all substantive permit requirements even though
permits are not issued. The discharge requirements are the same
as would be required for a permit.
Comment; Without a requirement-by-requirement determination as
mandated by CERCLA, no standard has an independent application to
a cleanup under CERCLA. The FS assumes the application of, and
includes standards wholesale without the type of ARARs analysis
required. One example of this is that MCLs are not ARARs for
either OU-1 or OU-2. MCLs may be "relevant and appropriate" only
for "ground and surface water that is a current or potential
source of drinking water." The water table aquifer is not a
potable water source, and the nearest Old Bridge aquifer well is
downgradient one mile from the landfill. In addition,
groundwater quality data in the Old Bridge aquifer reflects
"background levels" of contaminants.
Response; This claim is erroneous. The legislative history of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
indicates that aquifers which have any potential future use
should be cleaned up to achieve MCLs. Furthermore, MCLs must be
applied not only at the tap, but whenever contaminated [ground]
waters are found (Senate Congressional Record, October 3, 1986,
p. S14915).
Some of the hazardous substances present in the landfill and in
the shallow aquifer may be migrating downward into the Old Bridge
Sand aquifer, a source of public water supply. Under the NCP,
MCLs and non-zero maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) are
potential ARARs, and may appropriately be used as cleanup goals
in groundwater where it is or may be directly used for drinking
water.
21
-------
Groundwater data collected to date reveals that groundwater
quality in both the shallow and the Old Bridge Sand aquifers
exceeds MCLs for numerous hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants, downgradient from the landfill. For example,
cadmium, total chromium, benzene, chlorobenzene, and vinyl
chloride were not detected in upgradient wells in the Old Bridge
formation. However, they were detected above MCLs in
downgradient samples, indicating that the landfill may have
affected this public water supply. These downgradient
contaminant levels clearly are not "background levels" as the
PRPs assert. Many of these hazardous substances were detected in
drums buried at the landfill, and in leachate flowing out of the
fill material. The migration of these substances from the
landfill into the underlying aquifers, and possibly into the
nearby surface waterways will continue unless remedial actions
are implemented. The selected remedy will limit and control
infiltration and surface runoff of precipitation, thereby
reducing leachate generation and migration into the groundwater
and surface waters. The NCP states that operable units should
not be inconsistent with nor preclude implementation of the
expected final remedy. OU-1 is a response action to contain
hazardous substances at the site which are impacting the
groundwater. Therefore it is appropriate to examine MCLs as
ARARs in this ROD.
Comment: Any -drum removal at this site must be limited to the
already excavated drums.
Response; The decision whether or not additional excavation of
drums is necessary will be determined in design.
X. Conclusion
Comment; The Proposal suggested by the PRPs compares favorably
with remedial alternatives implemented at other New Jersey
landfills, and accepted by NJDEP as appropriate at those sites.
Response; Site characteristics are markedly different at each
site. The selected remedy addresses the unique characteristics
at the Global Landfill site.
22
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE OLD BRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION-
Subndtted on March 12. 1991. and May 6. 1991
^fltnniATifrf please provide a detailed explanation of remedial
processes to be done at the Global Landfill, and provide an
estimated timetable for completion of goals or milestones in the
process.
Response; The components of this remedial action (OU-1) include
the following:
Capping of the landfill with a modified hazardous waste
cap;
Slope stability enhancement through construction of a
soil stabilization berm;
• Construction and operation of a gas management system;
Construction and operation of stormwater and leachate
management systems;
• Installation of a perimeter security fence to restrict
access to the site; and
• Implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
OU-2 will address groundwater contamination from the site.
Selection of a remedial alternative for the OU-2 action will take
place at a later date.
The following schedules are NJDEP's best estimates for each of
the operable units:
OU-1 Record of Decision Summer 1991
Design Phase - Start Winter 1992
Design Phase - Completion Winter 1993
Construction Contractor Proposal Request Winter 1993
Construction Contract Award Summer 1993
Construction - Start Fall 1993
Construction - Completion Fall 1995
OU-2 Phase I Field Investigation Ongoing
Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report Completion Winter 1993
Phase 2 Field Investigation Spring 1993
23
-------
Phase 2 Remedial Investigation
Report Completion Winter 1994
Record of Decision Spring 1994
*Design Phase - Start Spring 1994
*Design Ph?.*se - Completion Fall 1995
Construction - Start Winter 1995
Construction - Completion Winter 1997
* If required, based on Record of Decision for OU-2.
int; Will a protective sand bed be incorporated into the
engineering design.
Response; For the proposed capping alternative, the regraded
landfill surface will be covered with new sand, a geogrid
material (to stabilize the clay layer), and then the clay layer.
A detailed description of Alternative 6 can be found in the
Feasibility Study (FS) located in the listed repositories.
Comment; How will the specifications be written to ensure
compliance with engineering design, and what safeguards will be
incorporated?
Response: The engineering specifications and plans will be
public documents upon their completion. NJDEP will hold a public
meeting at the end of the design phase, and prior to the actual
construction, to present the final design. Every item used in
the construction for OU-1 will have detailed specifics in the
final design. NJDEP and the design engineering firm will have
staff on-site during the construction phase to ensure that the
required materials are used.
Comment; Who is responsible for the post-closure funding?
Response; Under the Superfund program, the state is responsible
for the operation and maintenance phase (O&M). The NJDEP will
establish funds to perform the O&M phase of the remediation. The
Department has established a specific group to oversee this
phase, although the O&M could be delegated to the county, the
municipality, or responsible parties with NJDEP oversight. The
O&M plan will be placed in the repositories with the other
documents for Global.
Comment; What permits are necessary for the leachate treatment
on-site with discharge to Cheesequake Creek; who would be
responsible for obtaining such permits; will the RI/FS process
define the nature and type of permits required; and how, if any,
will the Stormwater Runoff Regulations impact the treatment
facility.
Response; In the design phase for OU-1, statutory and technical
requirements will determine the discharge limitations. Under the
24
-------
Superfund program, these discharge limitations must still meet
all permit requirements for any landfill, storm run-off, and
surface water discharge to the Cheesequake, even though a permit
is not issued. The discharge requirements are the same as would
be required for a permit. Th« NJDEP would make all monitoring
data available to the public.
qonmianfc' should relocation of the pipeline be necessary,, who
will pay for its relocation?
Response; The question of responsibility for the movement of the
pipeline is a legal issue. The New Jersey Attorney General's
Office is looking into the matter.
Comment; The OBEC requested copies of all reports concerning
Global Landfill from NJDEP in addition to any placed in the
site's repositories listed in the February 1991 Proposed Plan.
Response; As a member Task Group, OBEC has had direct access to
all reports concerning Global Landfill. In the future NJDEP will
provide documents regrading the Global Landfill site to the Old
Bridge Environmental Commission, the Task Group, as well as to
all the repositories listed in the February 1991 Proposed Plan.
Comment; The OBEC is concerned that the construction and the
operation of the proposed on-site treatment plant and the
associated costs, operation, and liability will someday fall
under the jurisdiction of the Township. Unless the Township
could be indemnified against any courses of action that may
transpire as a result of any violations to any regulation, be it
air or water should the Township take over operation of the
plant, they would be exceedingly reluctant to agree with this
course of action.
Response; Any on-site treatment plant will be constructed,
operated and maintained for the life of the plant, and eventually
dismantled by the agency or party funding the site remediation.
It is not foreseeable how the construction, operation, and
maintenance of an on-site treatment plant would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Township of Old Bridge.
25
-------
WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORPORATION-j
Submitted March 20. 1991
Comment; Transco is willing to relocate its existing facilities
and loop around the site, however, Transco is unwilling to
undertake the relocation from both a regulatory and an economic
standpoint unless it is on a fully reimbursable basis.
Response? The question of responsibility for the movement of the
pipeline is a legal issue. The New Jersey Attorney General's
Office is reviewing this issue.
26
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Ye ' -."SN-> */ MIDDLESEX COUNTY. NJ.
(201) 721-5600
TOWNSHIP OP OLD BRIDGE
Blanche D. Hoffman, Chairwoman
Joyce Caldon
Susan E. Knauf
George R. Koehler
William Schnitzerling
Robert Sommers
Gary Szelc
March 12, 1991
Ms. Grace L. Singer, Chief
i, Bureau of Community Relations
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
- New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
J CN 413
t 401 East State St., 6th Floor
| Trenton, NJ 08625
RE: Feasibility Study for Capping of the Global Landfill Superfund Site
Dear Ms. Singer:
On behalf of the Old Bridge Environmental Commission, we offer the following comments and
questions regarding the proposed plan for the remedial alternative for the proper closure of the
Global Landfill. We recognize that the. capping alternative and the subsequent engineering
design for the gas venting system and the leachate collection system as well as the remediation
of contaminated groundwater will be incorporated into the Complete Feasibility Study for the
closure of Global as a Superfund Site. We ask for a detailed explanation of the process, as well
as an estimated time table for completion of goals or milestones in the process. It is assumed
that these requirements will then be set forth in the Record of Decision (ROD). We also
request an explanation of the steps in the remedial action, including the time frame of the
remedial design, the subsequent remedial action and the plan both technical and financial for
the operation and maintenance of the post closure monitoring.
-------
Ms. Grace Singer
March 12, 1991
Page 2 of 2
The selection of Alternative 6, a modified NJDEP Hazardous Waste Cap, as the most
technically feasible for Global, as presented did not include the incorporation of what is
commonly referred to as a foundation layer. This layer generally consists of a protective sand
bed and is laid first. Is this to be incorporated into the engineering design, and if not, was its
incorporation considered and rejected as either not necessary or infeasible?
As in the capping of any landfill, the engineering specifications are critical. How will the
specifications be written to ensure compliance with the engineering design? What safeguards
will be incorporated and who will maintain supervision of the process? Who will be responsible
for the post closure financial plan?
The proposed option for the treatment of the leachate raises many questions. Who would be
responsible for the design, operation and maintenance of this facility and be responsible for the
associated permits? Will the RI/FS process define the nature and type of the permits required?
What will be the nature of the NJPDES permits required? How, if any, will the Stormwater|
Runoff Regulations impact this facility? Our concern here is deterioration of CheesequaW|
Creek, should it be determined to be the receiving body.
Our last question regards the Transcontinental Pipeline. Should relocation of the pipeline be
necessary, who will pay for its relocation?
Regardless of alternatives chosen either for the capping of the landfill or final remediation
design for Global as a Superfund site, the Environmental Commission respectfully requests to
receive copies of all reports conducted in relation to the Landfill. This copy would be in
addition to any sent to the Health Department or the Library.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Very Truly Yours,
Blanche D. Hoffman
:sek
-------
FRI
COUNTY. *.•
TOWNSHIP OF OI-D BRI3X5E
Kay 6, 1991
Ms. Grace L. Singer, Chief
Bureau of Community Relations
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation
Nev Jersey Department of Environment Protection
401 East State St., CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
RI: Global Landfill Super fund Site, Township of Old Bridge
Dear Ms. Singer:
As a follow up to our comments and letter read during the Public
Meeting on March 12, 1991 to discuss the completion of the
Feasibility Study for the Global Landfill Super fund, the Old Bridge
Environmental Commission wishes to augment our remarks as follows:
l) We are concerned that the construction and the operation
of the proposed on site treatment plant and the associated
costs, operation, and liability will someday fall under the
jurisdiction of the Township. Unless the Township could b«
indemnified against any courses of action that may transpire
as a result of any violations to any regulation, be it air or
water should the Township take over operation of the plant,
we would be exceedingly reluctant tc agree with this course
of action.
2) We recommend that the planting of trees along the buffer
zone near London Terrace be given strong consideration from
the Department for inclusion in the remedial design.
we appreciate the opportunity to consent on the Proposed Plan.
Very truly yours,
Blanche D. Hoffman
Chair, Old Bridge Environmental
Commission
copy: Scott Weiner, Commissioner, NJD£P
Peter La timer, NJDEP, Site Manager
Barbara Cannon, Council President, Township of Old Bridge
Arthur Haney, Mayor, Township of Old Bridge
Thomas SiXorsXi, Health Officer, Township of Old Bridcr
-------
MAR 2 IBM
Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Corporation
Al £._.,~V^
2800 Pen Oak •outovird
P. 0 Bo. 1396
Houston. Tt»tl 77251-1396
713-439-2000
Ms. Grace Singer, Chief
Bureau of Community Relations
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN413, 401 East State Street, 6th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08825-0413
RE: The Global Landfill Superfund Site ("Site") in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex
County, New Jersey
Dear Ms. Singer:
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation ("TGPL") would like to take this
opportunity to thank both the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") for allowing it
to review and comment on the Proposed Plan ("Plan") forwarded under cover of Ronald J.
Borsellino's letter.
TGPL is a major interstate natural gas pipeline operating a 12,000 mile system and
transporting natural gas from Gulf Coast production areas to Northeast market areas.
Upon review of the Plan, it appears a portion of TGPL's system lies within an easement
which runs beneath the above-referenced Site. The easement was granted prior to
commencement of activities at the Site and reserved specific rights, outside the control
of TGPL, to the surface owner.
As previously discussed with NJDEP, regarding that portion of TGPL's system lying
beneath the Site, TGPL is willing, if feasible, to relocate its existing facilities and loop
around the Site to alleviate any potential future problems associated with NJDEP's
maintenance and oversite of the Site. However, TGPL is unwilling to undertake the
relocation from both a regulatory and an economic standpoint unless it is on a fully
reimbursable basis (i.e., TGPL bears no cost of any type or nature).
TGPL again thanks both the EPA and the NJDEP for soliciting its comments.
R. TJ. Graves
Senior Vice President
Transmission Operations
Vice President
Environment*! and Safety Affairs
-------
EDWARDS Ac ANGELL
Counsellors at Law
Lrofljrd R Cli»i
Citergt A. Rodentuuim
Irim M Frnhrh
Alfred R. pjluni
Ltnit «'rifhi
•ofein F. PrKi
Sine* 6. Rohn
Supkm *: O'Conntll
Afldm H. Dononn
tr« P. Mixlkr
Rcliiu A. Mneiki
Kf»m M. V«nan
Gateway One, Suite 702
Newark, NJ 07101
(TJI)613-1616
Telecopier: (101) 613-7717
May 6, 1991
VIA BAND DELIVERY
Grace Singer, Chief
Bureau of Community Relations
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 413
401 East State Street, 6th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0413
Dear Ms. Singer:
Enclosed herewith are the Comments of the Global Land-
fill PRP Group Concerning the February 1991 New Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection Proposed Remedial Action Plan
for Global Landfill, Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County, New
Jersey ("Comments"), with appendices. Also enclosed herewith
is a copy of the transcript of the deposition of Richard J.
Sullivan, which was conducted on November 13, 1990 in a litiga-
tion caption Lamb, et al. v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 'et
3.ij-, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County Law Divi-
sion, Docket No. W-15349-88.
The membership of the PRP group is set forth in
Appendix E to the Comments. Please be advised, however, that
the membership may change; if so, an amended Appendix will be
submitted promptly.
The Comments are submitted pursuant to the provisions
of CERCLA and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
The Comments do not constitute the waiver of any rights or
positions on the part of the Global Landfill PRP Group or any
of its members; additionally, the Comments do not constitute
any admission of liability on the part of the Global Landfill
PRP Group or any of its members. Finally, the members of the
Global Landfill PRP Group do not purport to represent the views
of any other person or entity.
By copy of this letter, three copies of the Comments
and appendices, along with one copy of the Sullivan deposition
transcript, are being delivered to John MacDonald, Esq. and
Frank Cardiello, Esq., deputy attorneys general, for their use
and information.
3700 Hospital Trust Tower
Providence, Rl 0190.1
(401) 174-9100
•to Lexington Avenue
New York, NY. 10011
(nil ,308-4411
150 Royal Palm Way
Palm Bach, FL Jj4«o
(407)ljj-7-oo
i jo Bellevue Avenue
Newport, RI 01840
wot) 4*9-7800
joo Union Street
New Bedford, MA 01740
-------
Grace Singer, Chief
May 6, 1991
Page 2
Any inquiries concerning the enclosed, and any
response thereto, may be directed to this office or to the
following:
Richard F. Ricci, Esq.
Lowenstein, Sandier, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Mark G. Weisshaar, Esq.
Hunton & Williams
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Nancy B.-^Rohn
NBRiswx
Enclosures
cc: John MacDonald, Esq. (w/enc.)
Frank Cardiello, Esq. (w/enc.)
Global Landfill PRP Group (w/enc.)
-------
COMMENTS OF THE GLOBAL LANDFILL PRP CROUP
CONCERNING TEE FEBRUARY 1991
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
GLOBAL LANDFILL, OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Submitted by the Members oftfu Global LemdfiH PRP Group
do Edwards & Angell
Gateway One, Suite 702
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Hunion & Williams
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Lowenstein, Sandier, Kohl, Fisher & Boy Ian
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
May 6,1991
-------
TABUS OF CONTENTS
lift
I. INTRODUCTION I
II. THE NJDEP HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NCP'S DATA
COLLECTION AND ANAL?SIS REQUIREMENTS AND, AS
A RESULT, HAS SELECTED A PREFERRED REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVE THAT IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE AND
THA T IS BESET WITH SERIOUS TECHNICAL
DEFICIENCIES ,,, 5
A, The Proposed Plan It Not Baud On m
Remedial Investigation audit tiif
Product of Inadequate Data Collection
and Site Characterization 7
* StrtHgtti of Refuse, Settlement,
and Slope Stab&tj 10
Nature oftiu Wafts 17
Ambient Air and Landfill Gas Qvatity 18
B. The Omission ofNeeetsary Data Ltd to A
Flawed PRAP Alternative 19
111. THE PRA P ALTERNA TTVE IS NOT JUSTIFIED
B Y THE PURPORTED RISKS ALLEGED TO EXIST
AT TELE SITE ....... ...................... ................. . ____ 21
IV. THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO INTEGRATE TMK
VA &*<*£•*
OPERABLE UNIT ................ 31
V. THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE ANT
INTERIM ACTION ALTERNATIVES WHICH ACCOUNT
FOR DATA CAPS AND WHICH ARE COMMENSURATE
WfTHTBE LOW LEVEL OF RISK AT TOE SITE ---- .......... . ..... 34
-------
TAB_L£ OF CDNTENJS
(continued)
Page
VI. TUE GEOCRWS, SAND, BERM, LEACHATE
TREATMENT PLANT, AND CAP CONTAINED
IN THE PRAP ALTERNA TJVE ARE NEITHER
NECESSARY NOR PROPERLY DESIGNED 35
A. CeogriJt 35
B. Sand 3*
T. Bfrm 38
D. Leachate Treatment Plant 40
E. Composite Cmp 43
Technical Itrues 43
Legal lames 44
I. A Hazardous Waste Cap It Nat
Justified By The Risk Aueament 46
2. RCRA Subtitle C Is Not An ARAR 47
a. Nature of the Waste 48
b. Nature of the Site 54
3. RCRA Doe* Not Require m Composite Cap 56
4. Summary 5*
VII. CROUP'S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 60
A* Description 60
B. Remedy Selection AMafytu 65
1. Analjrit of NCP Criteria 65
2. AppKcatioit of the NCP Factor*
to Remedy Selection AnaJjru 70
Vlll. ROD FLEXIBILITY > 72
il
-------
TABLE OF C0J&EJOS
(contixtuJ)
17.. MISCELLANEOUS
A. ARARi
B. Excavation and Removal ofDnuns,
Page
75
75
79
CONCLUSION 80
•HI-
-------
/. INTRODUCTION
Global Landfill, located in Old Bridge Township,
Middlesex County, New Jersey, was a municipal landfill which
operated from 1968 until April 1984. At that time, a side
slope failure prompted administrative action: in connection
with an Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraints obtained
by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion ("NJDEP") and entered by the Honorable Richard S. Cohen on
April 17, 1964, Global was ordered to cease operations. Global
was further ordered to "...immediately retain the services of
an engineering firm, approved ^. iNJDEP], to prepare a final
closure plan as required by the "Sanitary Landfill Facility
Closure and Contingency Fund Act,* N..J.S.A.. 13:1E-100 fit seq.
and [NJDEP]'s rules and regulation promulgated, pursuant
thereto!.],.."
In January 1986, a consent order was entered in con-
nection with the litigation commenced by NJDEP in 1984. In
pertinent part, the consent order provided that Global
...shall forthwith retain the services of Richard J.
Sullivan for the purpose of overseeing the expedi-
tious, and cost effective closure of the landfill
which is the subject matter of this litigation as soon
as practicable and in accordance with the appropriate
environmental requirements and law. More specifi-
cally, Mr. Sullivan shall hire an engineering firm,
from a list agreed to by the parties, to prepare
closure plans in accordance with the appropriate rules
and regulations of the [NJDEP] and further, retain a
contractor(s) to implement said plans provided they
-------
are approved beforehand by DEP. Mr. Sullivan's f
as well as the fees of the engineering firm he reta
to prepare the closure plans for Global shall be pa
for from tl>e escrow accounts established by Global
pursuant to the Sanitary Landfill Facility Closure
Contingency Fund Act, M.J..5.&. 13:1E-100 t
Consent Order entered by the Honorable John E. Keefe on January
M l9Bf, K 1. Clearly, the objective of NJDEP since April
(if not earlier
i was the complete, quick, final and cost
elective closure of Global Landfill, in keeping with the
*r
-------
shortcut procedure, had not been shown by the data presented.
Sullivan Deposition at T112-5 to T118-11.
On or about August 22, 1969, NJDEP issued Directive
and Notice to Insurers Number 1 pursuant to the Spill Compen-
sation and Control Act, M.J.S.A- 58:10-23.11 fti fififl- This
Directive, which named approximately twenty-one (21) Poten-
tially Responsible Parties ("PRPsT), demanded the payment of
$1,500,000 to fund a Remedial Investigation ("RI") plus another
$225,000 in the .cost of NJDEP's administrative oversight of
that activity. During the _course of discussions between the
PRPs and NJDEP, it became apparent that the scope of the RI
pertained to groundwater issues, and not to closure of the
site, per s_£. In February 1991, NJDEP issued the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan, which specified its preferred alternative
for capping the site, ini«_r_ a_l_Lft. In March 1991, Directive and
Notice to Insurers Number Two was issued, which added several
PRPs and called for the payment of a reduced figure for the
RI/FS (the same demand covered in Directive Number One), and to
pay $500,000 for the Remedial Design, and $30,353,200 for the
costs of Operable Unit Number One (which mirrored the preferred
alternative identified in the PRAP) plus $4,652,980 in adminis-
trative oversight.
As NJDEP acknowledges, Global Landfill was a municipal
landfill authorized to accept a variety of wastes for disposal;
among the authorized wastes was "ID 27* which is described as
"dry industrial waste." Encompassed within that category is,
- 3 -
-------
Inter ilia, "asbestos and asbestos-containing waste....
K.J.A.C. 7:26-2.13(g)(vi). There is no dispute that much or
most of the waste allegedly generated and/or transported by the
PKPs named in both the First and Second Directives was properly
disposed of at Global Landfill; insulation material containing
asbestos is an excellent illustration. There is no dispute
that NJDEP rules and regulations governing closure of
municipal, or solid waste, landfills contemplate and anticipate
the presence of such properly disposed of materials at such
sites. , . . _ .._ - — - - -
In the Proposed Remedial Action Plan issued on
February 19, 1991, NJDEP maintains that the discovery of some
drums in a discrete portion of the landfill, some of which are
alleged to have contained hazardous materials, is enough t
warrant the treatment of Global Landfill as something othe
than a municipal landfill. However, that conclusion is largely
the result of assumption, extrapolation, and inadequate foun-
dation. When all of the legal and technical deficiencies
reflected in NJDEP's conclusions are considered, it is readily
apparent that the preferred alternative promulgated by NJDEP is
inappropriate. In fact, it is highly probable that if NJDEP
had not interfered vi«-h fh*» *•£"-?* ?*:riti!ity 5tudy, the proper
municipal landfill closure design, and the landfill construc-
tion process, no additional closure or remediation efforts
would have been required at Global Landfill.
-------
In the discussion which follows, the Global Landfill
PRP Group ("PRPs" or "Group"), the membership of which is set'
forth in Appendix E, will address the inadequacies in the NJDEP
preferred alternative (and the materials upon which it re-
lies). Importantly, the Group also presents an alternative for
closure of Global Landfill which complies with technical and
legal requirements and addresses the alleged problems posed by
this site — in fact, the Group's alternative achieves
everything expected in the NJDEP alternative, at a significant
cost savings. .
The Global Landfill PRP Group urges NJDEP to give
meaningful consideration to the comments and suggestions set
forth herein. At the very least, the Group stresses that any
Record of Decision entered in connection with Global Landfill
should be sufficiently flexible to meet site-specific circum-
stances and needs as they arise.
//. TEE NJDEP HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NCP'S DATA COL-
LECTION AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND, AS A RESULT, HAS
SELECTED A PREFERRED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE THAT IS NOT
COST-EFFECTIVE AND THAT IS BESET WITH SERIOUS TECHNICAL
DEFICIENCIES
There can be no doubt that the actipn intended at
Global Landfill is "remedial" -- final, complete, and thorough,
not temporary or "stop-gap" — indeed, that intent is reflected
in the very label imposed by NJDEP. In its Proposed Remedial
Action Plan for the Global Landfill (emphasis added) (herei-
nafter "Proposed Plan" or "PRAP"), the NJDEP plans two actions
- 5 -
-------
to remedy this landfill. The first, known as Operable Unit
Number 1 (OU4F1), is a phased response action that addresses *9
closure of the landfill. The Proposed Plan's preferred alterna-
tive for OU#1 (PRAP alternative) calls for the construction of
a modified hazardous waste cap over the entire landfill, and
the installation of a gas collection and active treatment sys-
tem, and collection and treatment for surface leachate.
NJDEP's estimated cost of the PRAP alternative is
$30,353,200. A second remedial action, known as Operable Unit
Vjrber 2 (OU*2), may be needed to address groundwater. OU#2
will include an RI/FS to focus on OU*2 issues.
The selection process for the OU#1 remedy was flawed
from the outset because NJDEP failed to complete a remedial in-
vestigation (RI), both oi the overall site conditions and of
the conditions specifically related to OU'fll, prior to issuij
its Proposed Plan. This is inconsistent with the NationaT
Contingency Plan (NCP), which establishes a systematic method
of data collection and analysis as the basis for selecting reme-
dial actions. The absence of the data that an RI is designed
to provide has led to a misunderstanding by NJOEP of the site
risks to human health and the environment posed by Global
Landfill, a faulty Feasibility Study (FS), and a failure by
NJDEP to realize and plan for the interdependence of the two
Operable Units in achieving the overall effectiveness of the
final remedy for this landfill, as required by the NCP. Most
importantly, the lack of an RI has led to a failure by NJDEP to
•- 6 -
-------
develop the data on the landfill's soil .strength, settlement
rate, waste characteristics, and hydrogeology, all of which are
essential to an evaluation of the alternatives considered in
the Proposed Plan for capping the landfill and installing gas
and leachate treatment systems for it.
With a thorough RI and an accurate FS, cost-effective
and integrated remedies could have been selected on the basis
of adequate data. Without these essential elements, NJDEP's
premature and incorrect selection of the PRAP alternative for
OU#1 makes it more likely that any decision relating to OU#2
will not be well integrated with OU#1. In summary, the NJDEP's
failure to collect necessary technical data in an RI, NJDEP's
defective FS, and its failure to consider the overall site rem-
edy, has resulted in the premature selection of a PRAP alterna-
tive that is not cost-effective and is inconsistent with the
NCF.
A. Tht Proposed Plan It Not Based On a Remedial Investigation and It
the Product of Inadequate Data Collection and Site ChancUrization
The NJDEP did not follow the methodology established
by the NCP for characterizing the nature and extent of the con-
tamination present at Global Landfill. Pursuant to the NCP, a
lead agency must develop a sampling and analysis plan that pro-
vides data of sufficient quality to support the analysis and de-
sign of potential response actions for a Superfund site. 40
C.F.R. §§ 300.430(b)(8), (d)(2) (1990). The NCP specifies that
- 7 -
-------
sampling and analysis plan shall consist of a field s
ling plan, a quality assurance project plan (QAPP), and often
one or more treatability studies. 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.430(b) (8)
(li), (d)(l) (1990). As part of the field investigation, the
RI must obtain data on the physical characteristics of the
-:'te, including soils/ geology, and hydrogeology; characteris-
nrs of the air, surface water, and groundwater; characteris-
«••«-« Cf the waste;, the extent to which the source c*n be ade-
~.-.8f«»iy characterized; and actual and potential exposure
.'_tes. 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.430(d)(i)-(vi) (1990).
For municipal waste landfills, EPA, which is
responsible for implementing the NCP, has identified certain
types of data that at the minimum must be considered when evalu-
ating specific elements of the potential remedial alterna-
i. jvc-5. Data on settlement rate, availability and adequacy ^
rover materials, and soil and waste characteristics are neces-
sary to evaluate capping alternatives for these landfills.I7
*' "Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies
frr CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites," OSWER Dir. No. 9355.3-11
at pp. 3-11, 4-8 (Feb. 1991) ("Municipal Guidance"). The
development of capping alternatives relies on an analysis of
i*nofill contents. For landfill contents, the objectives of
-. collection are to determine "total and differential
—». • i f,->-, =>"- n ota.-.. *><; «c-»• 4 ^»i»s-4r**>i <*•?>£ "rt*i'<5ntration of
.junlaminotion in surficial soils,s *th@ latsgsifcy of any buried
3," and "the degree of contaminiation of any unsaturated
--n." Id. at 3-16 to 3-17. To "document settlement over
--,-e. a series of settlement markers should be established on a
-rid pattern of approximately 100 feet (more in areas with
kncwn settlement problem)." Ifl. at 3-17. The importance of
JcLermining settlement, particularly differential settlement,
• c difficult to overstate. It may be necessary to monitor
settlement throughout the Rl/FS and the design stage. Id. at
3-18.
- 8 -
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
Data on hydrogeology and the chemical characteristics of the
leachate, often coupled with a treatability study, are funda-
mental to an evaluation of leachate treatment options.
Municipal Guidance at 4-22, 4-23.^/ Finally/ data on settle-
ment rate, nature of the wastes, preferential flow paths, and
chemical characteristics of the gas emanating from the landfill
are required to evaluate gas collection and treatment alterna-
tives. Id. at 4-28, 4-30.ix
The Proposed Plan for Global Landfill is not based on
er. adequate field investigation and NJDEP has therefore failed
to consider in the Proposed Plan the specific data that is re-
quired by the NCP and that is necessary for evaluation of reme-
dial actions for municipal landfills. The Administrative
27 For leachate, the objectives of data collection are to
provide information that determines its "chemical
characteristics," and its "impact on groundwater." Id. at
3-10. Leachate wells or collection drains should be used to
define "soil" characteristics including permeability, grain
size distribution, and moisture content" . and "waste
characteristics." Id. at 3-13.
2X Landfill gas characterization has as -its objectives "an
assessment of human health risks due to air toxics and
explosive hazards," and "the feasibility of gas collection and
treatment." Id. at 3-26 .to 3-27. Data should therefore
include "contour maps," "geologic, hydrogeologic, and soil
characteristics...to determine gas migration patterns,"
landfill gas "composition, moisture content, quality, and heat
and methane content," and "types of microorganisms present."
Id. at 3-29.
- 9 -
-------
Record does not include a field sampling plan and a quality
surance project plan, the two essential elements in any NCP
field investigation. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(b) (8) . The field ef-
fort for Global Landfill did not define data quality objectives
and therefore failed to obtain essential categories of data.
In particular, the Proposed Plan is not supported by an ade-
quate field investigation of the nature and strength of the
waste, the soil characteristics, or the landfill's settlement
rate, all of which are necessary to evaluate capping and gas
treatment alternatives. Furthermore, the Proposed Plan is not
based upon treatability studies which are necessary to evaluate
leachate treatment alternatives, or an investigation of prefer-
ential flow paths and characteristics of the gases from the
landfill which are required for the evaluation of gas treatment
alternatives. This is inconsistent with 40 C.F.R.
300 .430(d) (1) and the basic principles governing evaluation of
municipal landfills. As a result, NJDEP could not and did not
develop and effectively evaluate remedial alternatives for
Global Landfill in its Proposed Plan.
NJDEP 's failure to conduct an adequate RI for the land-
fill has caused it to erroneously assume that the landfill is
unstable. thr, Ts^n^st ^?!r*"-^~ r-r-5 discussed below.
Strength ofRtfust, SettUmtnl, and Slept Stability
The Proposed Plan is based on three investigations of
soil conditions at the site:
- 10 -
-------
An investigation including fifteen test borings
and five cone penetration tests in 1964 by
Woodward Clyde Consultants following a major
slope failure in April 1984.*x
An investigation by French and Parello Associates
including four test borings and in situ field
vane tests in January 1989.^'
An investigation by French and Parello consisting
of eight borings and fifteen in-situ field vane
shear tests in February 1990.£'
Although these reports include the results of stabil-
ity analyses for the landfill against sliding, all base the
analyses on waste strength parameters that are neither site-spe-
cific nor appropriate. Inexplicably, the fieldwork ignored the
strength of the refuse as a data need. As a result of this
V Geotechnical Investigation, Global Sanitary Landfill, Old
Bridge Township, New Jersey, Woodward Clyde Consultants.
^ Report of Geotechnical Exploration for the Closure Plan,
Global Sanitary Landfill, Old Bridge Township, New Jersey,
French and Parello Associates, April 1989.
£' Report of Supplementary Geotechnical Evaluation for the
Feasibility Study, Global Sanitary Landfill, Old Bridge
Township, New Jersey, French and Parello Associates, February
14, 1991.
- 11 -
-------
omission, the Proposed Plan erroneously assumes that Global
Landfill is unstable.
The 1984 Woodward Clyde investigation used rotational
slide analysis to back analyze the strength of the refuse.
Notably, the actual failed slope profile followed a block slide
failure; it did not represent the rotational slide mechanism.
Several calculations of slope stability were performed with dif-
ferent refuse strengths, but with inappropriate slide mechan-
;-rs, until the calculated factor of safety reached unity.
This back analysis led to Woodward Clyde's assumption that, the
correct refuse strength was a cohesion of 780 psf, using an un-
drsined strength analysis. A back analysis had been performed,
but led to an over-conservative result owing to the improper
slide mechanism adopted.
In 1989 French and Parello Associates used the same inv
proper rotational analysis approach, but with refuse strengths
that were assumed from limited desk studies of available litera-
ture. The analysis assumed undrained strength parameters of
750 psf (similar to Woodward Clyde). No back analyses were per-
formed on the landfill slopes prior to failure to justify the
refuse strengths. The studies led French and Parello to con-
clude that the a»*3£i3.5 was r*.^«-.;i:««..>?« *^MAB si^d back analy-
sis been used with a more appropriate block slide, it could
have been realized that the refuse strengths were higher, and
consequently the actual calculated factors of safety for the
landfill were better than predicted.
- 12 -
-------
In 1991, French and Parello reanalyzed the landfill
stability using a block analysis, and found that the existing
fa-.tor of safety was 1.34 for the North and South slopes, but
that the East slope presented a factor of safety of 1.1. The
refuse parameters used were drained values of 22 degrees for
friction and 200 psf cohesion, as a result of a published lit-
erature review. Although an appropriate analytical method was
now being used, the tefuse strengths were still not based on ap-
propriate site specific back analysis, in the absence of any
field testing to determine refuse strengths. While the report
did examine soils strengths in detail, less attention was appar-
ently given to refuse strengths which are nonetheless of equal
importance. The 1991 French and Parello analysis, therefore,
used the appropriate slide mechanism, but the refuse strength
parameters were again inappropriate.
In the case of the analysis of the North East slope
existing stability evaluation, French and Parello did not
lecognize that measured vane soil strengths did not support the
fact that the slope was stable. (If measured vane strengths
are used, the calculated factor of safety for the existing
slopes is less than or near unity.) This would have indicated
to them that the vane strengths underestimated soil strengths.
They used vane strength data to evaluate the stability of the
East slope, leading to their conclusion that it is unstable,
when site observations indicate it is also stable. The low
soil strengths based on vane tests were later used in the
- 13 -
-------
analysis of the East slope with a cap, which contributed
their misconception that a bertn is necessary.
By implementing the correct methodology, the analysis
by the PRP group clearly demonstrates by back analysis with a
uioc* slide approach, that the refuse strengths are signifi-
:~r.tly higher than those stated by French and Parello. Back
0,,0-Ljsis has shown that parameters of a friction angle of 34 de-
, and a cohesion of 334 psf are appropriate for the refuse,
oecause with a block analysis, the calculated factor of safety
TCI the landfill profile before failure was near unity,—that •
is, it was at an incipient failure condition. Analysis of the
Proposed Plan's preferred alternative with these parameters and
n.ethc'J of anc;yris show that there is no D_e.ejl for, a, stabi Hza-
'..::r. -:rr.. See Appendix A.
There has been only one incident of slope stabilitlj
'•:'!i:re at Global which was . then corrected by regrading the
l_..::ill. Given that stability failure event, an experienced
engineer would have known that ground movement monitoring in-
formation would be essential. It is difficult to understand
why NJDEP did not subsequently install a series of vertical and
r:rental movement monitors to follow the landfill behavior.
-jch an installation would have enabled NJDEP to better under-
r:=na the stability of the landfill, and this would have pro-
vided critical data to the Feasibility Study in proposing real-
:rt£c cap designs.
POOR QU-v.
ORIGINAL
-------
The Proposed Plan is based on the premise that substan-
tial movement of the southeast sideslope is now occurring but,
contrary to the NCP and ZPA guidance, the KJDEP has not per-
formed any monitoring for slope stability or landfill settle-
ment even though NJDEP, through the site Administrator for clo-
sure, has been in control of the site for over five years. An
inspection of Global's existent cap by the PRPs in January
1991, accompanied by representatives of the NJDEP consultants,
showed no evidence of ongoing instability or movement to the
southeast. During the visit, there were no signs of settlement
or creep monitoring points from which a firm conclusion on in-
stability could be drawn through regular survey measurements.
If NJDEP had conducted an adequate RI that (1) included survey
points to measure the landfill's vertical and lateral movements
soon after the original slide or (2) included routine settle-
ment monitoring attendant to a landfill closure/ the Proposed
Plan could be based on actual data and not general observations
or overly conservative assumptions.^/
Based on information that NJDEP has.made available, it
appears that the only survey source of data to quantitatively
1' The DEP's approach is based largely on the 1984 incident
of slope failure. This type of failure is not expected to
recur in the future. First, the 1984 slope failure occurred on
the east slope where a large volume of refuse had been placed
rapidly during the previous four to five months. Second, a
heavy rainfall and extremely high tide were recorded
immediately prior to the slope failure.
- 15 -
-------
estimate movement is contours on successive aerial surveys. It
is widely recognized that such surveys are not accurate enougV
for proper settlement monitoring, as the margin of error gener-
ally associated with such aerial surveys is one contour inter*
val, which equates to two feet for the site drawings. From a
comparison of two available topographical surveys dated June
1986 and March 1989, the landfill exhibited generally four to
six feet of settlement. The 1986 topography is on the Feasi-
bility Study drawing "Feasibility Study for On-Site Controls,
Site Plan" by Killam Associates, and the 1989 topography was
provided to the PRPs by Killam Associates in January 1991. The
contour changes were consistent with normal landfill consolida-
tion, were not isolated, but were general around the whole land-
fill. This is not a sign of landfill slope instability or in-
cipient failure, but of the normal aging of the landfill.
^
also supports slope stability analyses performed by the PRPs.
Settlement measurements, in order to be meaningful,
should generally be made to levels of accuracy of one tenth of
a foot (or less), as they are when settlement monuments are in-
stalled. At a minimum, therefore, periodic monitoring with sur-
vey instruments is needed to determine the rate of settlement
and degree of slope stability. Municipal Guidance at p. 3-17.
- 16 -
-------
The Proposed Plan has been issued, therefore, without the essen-
tial site-specific data needed for a decision concerning a tem-
porary or final response action and for development and analy-
sis of capping and gas collection alternatives. Municipal
Guidance at pp. 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-30.
In the absence of the required site-specific data, the
NJDEP adopted very conservative values in the assessment of al-
ternative cap. designs. The final analysis assumed an angle of
friction of 22 degrees and a cohesion of 200 psf. A more appro-
priate back analysis^of the 1984 slope failure would have indi-
cated that the strength of the waste is actually at an angle of
friction of 34 degrees and has a cohesion of 334 psf.^' Thus,
NJDEP has seriously underestimated the current stability of the
landfill, overestimated the urgency to improve stability, and
overdesigned various elements of the PRAP alternative.
Naturt oftht Waste
Only one investigation to determine the general charac-
teristics of the waste was conducted on a portion of the smal-
ler 6.5 acre section of the landfill. The much larger and dis-
tinct 51 acre area was not investigated, even though it ob-
viously contains most of the waste and will cost the most to re-
mediate. This omission is inconsistent with 40 C.F.R. §
Appendix A.
- 17 -
-------
300.430(d)(2)(iii)/ which requires general characteristics^^
the waste to be investigated. Moreover, although boreholes
through the refuse were drilled by Woodward Clyde Consultants,
ihe information from the boreholes was not used by NJDEP to as-
sess the general characteristics of the waste. Again, this is
inconsistent with 40 C.F.P. $ 300.«30(b) (1), requiring the
evaluation of existing data at the site.
One important indicator of the nature of the waste in
& landfill is the leachate. Through a Bite monitoring program,
v.TDEP has been collecting annual and some quarterly leachate
data from the landfill since October 1986. NJDEP, however, has
not performed any treatability studies on the leachate or
groundwater, nor has NJDEP reviewed the leachate data and com-
pared leachate chemistry with the Toxicity Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to determine the nature of t
waste. The failure to perform these analyses on the nature of
the waste has prevented NJDEP from determining the viability
and effectiveness of treatment and from adequately characteri-
sing the nature of this landfill.
Ambient ASr otuf LandJUl Gas Quality
NJDEP also failed to perform a baseline study of the
types and amounts of gssss ^sssti^ tx&& Global Landfill and
Lhe effect these gases have on ambient air. This is difficult
to understand because the Proposed Plan claims that OUI1 is nec-
essary to mitigate odor complaints from surrounding residents.
- 18 -
-------
Furthermore, the baseline risk assessment included in the FS
identified ambient air or windblown particles as complete expo-
sure pathways.
The data available on air quality and landfill gas is
very limited. It does not include an analysis of the constitu-
ents of representative gas samples, an analysis of preferential
gas flow paths, or off-site ambient air monitoring data. The
Feasibility Study indicates only that air monitoring was per-
formed in 1986 in a fissure on the existing cap, in 1988 during
the drum investigation, and in 1988 during a subsurface methane
gas survey, which found continuous methane concentrations to be
zero at a distance of 500 feet from the landfill toe. The data
relied on is largely data from other landfills. The Proposed
Flan has thus not. -.oii^iiecl wit:': 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(d) (2) (ii).
requiring an investigation of air, nor with 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(d)(2)(iii) requiring investigation of landfill gas
which is a waste product. £&£ a_l_s_c Municipal Guidance at p.
4-30.
B. The Omission ofNecestorj Data Led to A Flawed PHAP Alternative
NJDEP's failure to obtain the necessary data discussed
above has adversely affected the selection of several compo-
nents of the PRAP alternative. These adverse consequences are
most evident in the type of cap selected, the requirement that
a toe berm be used for the cap, and the Proposed Plan's appar-
ent preference for on-site leachate treatment.
- 19 -
-------
The failure to provide accurate strength
for the calculation of cap stability led to an underest:
of the factors of safety against sliding failure of the exist-
'•••0 landfill.*'' The failure to determine the settlement rate
of the waste has resulted in the inclusion of unnecessary and
ineffective geogrids. Moreover, the inadequate evaluation of
-.::? nature of the waste led to the unfounded assumption that a
-opposite cap is necessary for this site. Together, these data
.iencies and the consequent reliance on overconservative as-
enr--<«-ir>ns directly led to an overdesign of the cap.
In spite of the lack of essential geotechnical studies
on the strength of the waste, the PRAP alternative recommends
the construction of a perimeter berm to enhance landfill stabil-
ity. The analyses in the Feasibility Study indicate minimum
lectors of safety of 1.13 increasing to 1.37 with a toe berntf
An analysis by the PRP Group with more realistic refuse
'.:en;ths indicates a minimum factor of safety of 1.57 assuming
M.< sell strength increases from aging and without a toe berm.
The factor of safety of the East slope may be as high as 3.13
without a berm, if significant aging has occurred. ^/ The
landfill, under current conditions, does not pose a stability
In fact, if the landfill is a* unstable as indicated in
. ioposed Plan, a temporary cap would be warranted until the
lenient rate has stabilized. Municipal Guidance at pp. 4-8,
4-12.
Appendix A.
POOR GUAi-V1
ORIGINAL
-------
risk. Because of the lack of proper data, the NJDEP overesti-
mated the risk of stability failure, and consequently the al-
ternatives with a bernt are overdesigned.
The lack of adequate data on the groundwater quality
and volumes, owing to the limited investigations that have
taken place, represent a failure to adequately address the date
needs for leachate treatment. Equally important, even if lea-
chate treatment is to be performed in OUK1, the failure to ana-
lyze representative leachate has prevented an adequate consid-
eration of treatment -options. Significantly, the investiga-
tions have not included any treatability studies. Such studies
can only be representative if they include water typical of
that to be treated. Without the benefit of such studies, the
Proposed Plan has indicated a preference foi on-site treatment
-- which may not be practicable, administratively feasible, or
cost-effective for leachate at this site.
///. THE PRAP ALTERNATIVE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE
PURPORTED RISKS ALLEGED TO EXIST AT THE SITE
It is fundamental that a remedial action is driven, at
least in large measure, by the risks determined to exist at a
site. In that regard, it is imperative that the risks be quan-
tified. The risk assessment incorporated into the FS is admit-
tedly a qualitative assessment, and not quantitative. Conse-
quently, it is fatally flawed.
The National Contingency Plan provides in pertinent
part:
- 21 -
-------
(d) Remedial Investigation. (1) The purpose of t!
remedial investigation (RI) is to collect data nec<
sary to adequately characterize the site for the pul
pose of developing and evaluating effective remedial
alternatives. To characterize the site/ the lead
agency shall, as appropriate, conduct field investiga-
tions, including treatability studies, and conduct a
baseline risk assessment. The RI provides information
to assess the risks to human health and the environ-
ment and to support the development, evaluation, and
selection of appropriate response alternatives. . .or
(2) The lead agency shall characterize the na-
ture of and threat posed by the hazardous substances
and hazardous materials and gather data necessary to
assess the extent to which the release poses a threat
to human health or the environment or to support the
analysis and design of potential response actions by
conducting, as appropriate, field .investigations. ... . ...
(4) Using the data developed under paragraphs
(d)(l) and (2) of this section, the lead agency shall
conduct a site-specific baseline risk assessment to
characterize the current and potential threats to
human health and the environment that may be posed by
cpntair.ir.a.'jt^ migrating to ground water or surface
water, releasing to air, leaching through soil, remain-
ing in the soil, and bioaccumulating in the fooi
chain. The results of the baseline risk assessment
will help establish acceptable exposure levels for us^
in developing remedial alternatives in the FS. . . .
300 C.F.R. § 430(d)(l), (2) and (4) (emphasis added). There
can be no doubt that data is required for the conduct of a quan-
titative assessment; absent that d_a_Lfl, only a qualitative, judg-
mental, and subjective assessment is possible. A qualitative
assessment cannot, and does not, satisfy the requirements of
the NCP.
Risk assessments are required as part of the Superfund
process to do that which the name implies: assess the risk
posed by a given site. In this instance, the risk assessment
incorporated in the Feasibility Study fails to accomplish the
- 22 -
-------
obvious goal; this deficiency is admitted by the company per-
forming the work. In summarizing the potential health risks
rosed by Global Landfill, Ram Trac Corporation, the subcon-
tractor to Killam which prepared the risk assessment (see FS
Appendix E) states, "[ijnasmuch as routes and pathways of expo-
sure to substances of potential concern were not quantified, it
is impossible to determine to what degree public health in the
vicinity of the Global Landfill may be threatened.* Feasibility
Study, App. E, at p. 188.
This deficiency is recognized repeatedly _throughout
the FS. For example, the FS includes a detailed executive sum-
mary which sets forth the conclusions of the component parts of
the FS. Kith regard to the requisite risk assessment, the ex-
ecutive summary states:
Due to the limited data base for the site, only a
qualitative health assessment could be performed for
Global Landfill. Ten complete potential exposure path-
ways were identified but health risks could not be
quantified based on available data. . . .
Id., at ES-5. Recognizing the deficiencies in a qualitative as-
sessment, the executive summary concludes:
Inasmuch as routes and pathways of exposure to sub-
stances of potential concern were not quantified as
part of this study, it is impossible .to determine to
what degree public health in the vicinity of the
Global Landfill may be threatened. . . .
Based on presently available data, it is impossible to
determine whether the facility poses non-cancer risks
because such risks are typically associated with a
threshold of toxic action below which they will not
occur. Having not quanitified [sic] exposure, this
risk assessment cannot determine whether or not levels
- 23 -
-------
of exposure via exposure pathways deemed to be co
plete are above or below applicable thresholds....
Id., at ES-8. By its own terms, therefore, the risk assessment
incorporated into the FS, which gives rise to the Proposed
Plan's preferred alternative, does not assess "... to what
degree public health in the vicinity of the Global Landfill may
be threatened. . . ."
The risk assessment then admits that:
Health risk can be quantified only when exposures can
be quantified through identification of a complete ex-
posure pathway. . . . [T]en complete exposure pathways
were identified but quantification of the level of ex-
posure was not possible. - —- — —-~ — —
1£. at 1-22. Once again, the absence of quantitative data ren-
ders the interpretation of "complete" exposure pathways sus-
pect. F-£T T:3c ackrrw'Jedcei1 tMr fata] deficiency. In its ex-
ecutive summary included in the risk assessment, Ram Tra,
states:
. . .Although ten pathways were deemed complete based
upon qualitative evidence, no conclusions could be
drawn about the significance of these routes. Such
conclusions require quantitative analysis of data....
Id. Appendix E, at p. 1 (emphasis added). Surely, if no conclu-
sion can be drawn about the significance of the route of expo-
sure, no conclusion can be drawn about the actual or potential
risk to public health. Without any real ability to reach such
a conclusion, the risk assessment is seriously deficient, and
rr.ost certainly cannot form the basis upon which to propose, let
alone select, a site-specific remedy.
-------
Ram Trac states that because a quantitative assessment
cannot be performed, a qualitative one must suffice. Ifl. at
pp. 71-72. However, the basis upon which Ram Trac forms its
qualitative judgment of a complete exposure pathway is the ob-
servation of "odors." Id. at pp. 74-82. Odors are clearly a
matter of subjective judgment; nevertheless, the constituent
parts of a discerned odor can and should be a natter of objec-
tive quantification. The risk assessment herein does nothing
to consider the objectively determinable constituents. Impor-
tantly, Ram Trac specified the problem as follows:
In the analysis of the completeness of exposure
pathways, it is important to emphasize that complete-
ness was judged based upon the reliability of avail-
able evidence documenting each pathway, but not neces-
sarily quantifying it. Thus, some of the complete
pathways Hi:.:' ebi. c ••..-':••>:,:. te r&liauly quantifies.
based upon presently available data. Whether or not a
pathway can be reliably quantified based upon avail-
able data, it is important to note that no quantita-
tive or qualitative judgment is being made about the
fnsonitude of exposure or of potential health risk asso-
ciated with the pathway. The bottom line is that, al-
though the exposure pathways listed above have been
deemed complete, the risk assessment is essentially
non-quantitative, and does not permit differentiating
complete pathways of exposure which are significant
from those which are insignificant.
Id. at p. 187 (emphasis added).
i
Apart from the obvious doubts about the validity of
deeming .an exposure pathway "complete," the rationale for so
concluding, even on a qualitative basis, is seriously flawed.
For example, seven of the ten purportedly complete exposure
pathways are derived from alleged transport of contaminants by
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
oil. £££ Feasibility Study at 1-20 for list of sixteen poter
rial exposure pathways, and 1-21 for list of ten exposure path-
wf»vs deemed "complete." Notably, the air monitoring data is re-
markable in its lack of significance: air monitoring conducted
during the March 1988 drum investigation revealed readings in
1ve residential area which were basically non-detectable; read-
mos taken at the excavation site specifically, and at the land-
f-in penerally, were hardly different. Ifl. at 1-16. To the ex-
»r,nf any readings were possible, there was no consideration of
.r? actual source!__ .. . .
Similarly, a December 1986 methane survey focused on
the area between the northwest side slope of the landfill and
the residential area. According to the results, ". . .at a dis-
tance of 500 feet from the toe of the slope, both peak and con-
i i-vj^us methane concentrations were zero. Methane migratio™
?w?y .from the site is therefore taking place in a northwesterly
direction. However at the time of the survey the migration was
i imilej &H3 did not extend tQ the residential area located
north and northwest of the landfill. , . ." Id. at 1-17 (empha-
sis added). This conclusion therefore casts significant doubt
the basis for the determination of seven of the ten "com-
" pathways:
Seven of [the] pathways are associated with the
off-site airborne transport of contaminants from
Global Landfill. Although air monitoring data are un-
available for quantifying the exposure, these pathways
were determined to be complete on a qualitative basis,
due to the high vapor pressure of many of the sub-
stances known to exist at Global and the documented de-
tection of off-site odors. Although the identity of
- 26 -
-------
the gases has not been established, the detection of
landfill-associated odors is sufficient to confirm the
presence of an effective transport medium.
Id. at 1-21. If th«: detection of ortors is the prime justifica-
tion for concluding that air transport of contaminants is an ef-
fective, or complete, exposure pathway, yet the only quantita-
tive analyses of the transport of landfill gases reveals that
it is no_t reaching the residential areas, it is clear that a
qualitative conclusion that air transport is a complete pathway
»
is invalid.
The deficiencies in the Ram Trac report are magnified
when the other presumptions employed by that company are ex-
amined. For example, Ram Trac seeks to reach a source assess-
ment based upon a multiplication of the estimated waste volume
by the concentration of the substances of concern ". . .as meas-
ured in the environmental media for which data are avail-
able..." FS, Appendix E, p. 57. However, the media truly at
issue is air; virtually no data exists for the concentration of
substances of concern in air. Ram Trac then looks to data aris-
ing from media which are nai purportedly complete pathways in
this health risk assessment: groundwater, leachate, and exca-
vated drums. This reliance upon data from media which are ad-
mittedly not part of the exposure pathways under review results
in insupportable conclusions.
Moreover, the Ram Trac assumption that buried drums ".
. .are of 55-gallon volume, and that they are distributed at
this same density throughout the landfill. . .• is completely
- 27 -
-------
without foundation. FS, App. E, p. 57. Drums were excavate;
in the 6.5 acre portion of the site which is separated from th<
main landfill mound by the Transcontinental Gas Company pipe-
line. No investigation, excavation or analysis has been per-
formed in the main landfill mound. Consequently, there is no
support for a conclusion that drums, of any particular content
or density, are present in that portion of the landfill.
Inasmuch as that mound portion of the landfill represents the
overwhelming majority of the total acreage and volume of the
landfill, the lack of any specific information _tp_ support the
view that drums are present therein is a major, and obviously
fatal, defect in the source assessment developed by Ram Trac.
The deficiencies in the calculation of the source term
are acknowledged by Ram Trac. ifl. at p. 58 ("[tjhese values
are set forth with the caveat that significant uncertaintiefl
are associated with them*). Therefore, the source assessment
upon which the risk assessment relies is gravely dubious — any
and all of the conclusions which flow from it are similarly
doubtful.
The risk assessment is totally incapable of demonstrat-
ing a true exposure pathway that is based on quantifiable, ob-
jective information^ *n* th« calculation contained in the risk
assessment of the contaminants which are travelling that pur-
ported exposure pathway is similarly unsupported. Unfor-
tunately, the failings of the risk assessment do not end there
- 28 -
-------
— also insupportable is the determination of concern index
which depends upon groundwater action levels.
There is no dispute that groundwater does not present
an exposure pathway in connection with Global Landfill. £££
id. at 1-21. There is also no argument that the Old Bridge
Sand aguifer reflects ". . .leachate indicator parameters gener-
ally close to background levels," and that any remedial action
relating to the groundwater will be the subject of OU#2. Id.
at ES-4. Groundwater at or near Global Landfill is not a po-
table water source for the surrounding residents; indeed, the
nearest well is both some distance away, and upgradient.
Adoption of drinking water standards in connection with this
site is therefore inappropriate and unreasonable.
Significantly, NJDEP similarly rejected Ram Tree's
interpretation of "concern indices." In a memorandum dated
November 13, 1990, which followed review of the October 1990
"final draff of the FS risk assessment section, an NJDEP
research scientist wrote the following:
1) The concept of using hazard index values [the
label used for "concern index* in the predecessor
document] as described on page 178 [the same page in
the February 1991 FS, Appendix E] is unorthodox. As
stated on page 176 "In particular, the hazard index
value corresponding to a pollutant 'present in the
Global Landfill is calculated as the concentration at
which it was detected divided by the applicable NJDEP
action level. Thus, with respect to any substance, a
hazard index value equal to or exceeding unity denotes
that the substance is present at levels of concern to
NJDEP, and that remediation is appropriate." This
approach is basically comparing site related levels to
ARARs and determining if the ratio exceeds unity.
This is not consistent with the EPA approach which
- 29 -
-------
compares a site related exposure level for any tox^
cant to a reference dose (based on a daily exposu^B
for that toxicant and then sums the hazard quotient
for the same exposure period. When the hazard index
exceeds unity, there may be concern for potential
health effects. It should be noted that seme of tJie
NJ action levels are not health based aqd therefore
exceedance of these values does not accurately portray
the potential for any site related adverse, health
effect. It is also incorrect to state that remedia-
tion is appropriate if there has been an exceedanee of
a NJ action level. Action levels can be exceeded
without remediation.
&££ Appendix D, p. 1 (emphasis added). Insofar as the Ram Trac
analysis depends upon the determination of "concern indices,"
which determination is questioned by NJDEP itself/ the conclu-
sions of the risk assessment are indisputably unfounded.
when the FS risk assessment is viewed in totality, the
following can be gleaned: The landfill most likely emits
odors, as all landfills do. The landfill most likely presents
a leachate problem, as any landfill which was not properly
tained or covered by the operator would. These qualities or
characteristics can be addressed readily by the implementation
of gas (methane) 'controls and the addition of a simple,
straightforward cover which will interfere with the rainwater
infiltration thus significantly reducing, and ultimately elimi-
nating, leachate creation and movement. No risks have been
chown to exist at or near Global Landfill which call for more
extreme measures.
- 30 -
-------
IV. THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO INTEGRATE THE FIRST OPERABLE
UNIT WITH ANY LATER GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION OPERABLE
UNIT
The Proposed Plan artificially separates groundwater
treatment from those elements of OU#1. Although the concept of
dividing remedial actions into operable units is recognized in
the provisions of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, a lead agency
may utilize operable units only if they are consistent with the
expected final remedy and meet the basic statutory criterion of
cost-effectiveness. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a)(1)(ii)(B); 42
U.S.C. § 9621(a). " ""
The initial phase of the RI/FS process consists of the
scoping of the project. The scoping process includes assem-
bling and evaluating exi-:tir;T £.•;-.* for a site, developing a con-
ceptual understanding of the site, and identifying operable
units that tr.ay address site problems. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(b).
Yet, in developing the operable units described in the Proposed
Plan, NJDEP has not properly scoped the nature of the site or
the potential conflicts between OU#1 and OU#2. Thus, NJDEP has
developed a final remedial action recommendation for OUJfl that
may be inconsistent with the remedy for OU#2, that bears no
relationship to the low short-term risks presented by the site,
and that will result in an overall response which is not
cost-effective.
The potential for inconsistency is manifest in a
number of ways. First, the PRAP's alternative for OU#1 calls
for the construction of a berm at the foot of the landfill in
- 31 -
-------
-rSer to provide the support that NJDEP claims is necessary
«-h«? weight of the cap. Yet, the presence of the term may
elude as a component of OU#2, the construction of a slurry wall
.0 arrest migration of groundwater (due to high pore pressures
leading to slurry trench instability), even though slurry walls
have been accepted as efficient and effective means of address-
•-7 groundwater conditions beneath municipal landfills. See.
».«., Record of Decision for Helen Kramer Landfill.
Second, OUfll has been developed to close the landfill
.. ..-ilructing a cap, a gas collection and treatment system,
_.;: e leachate collection and treatment system, entirely within
the property limits of the landfill. In so doing, the PRAP al-
ternative significantly restricts placement of various struc-
tures required to be implemented as psrt of OU#1. Yet, the rem-
Ox<. fnr ou#2 will, in all probability, extend beyond trfl
property limit of the landfill. In order to reduce the overall
fci,6ce requirements around the landfill to a minimum, it is more
logical to wait for OU#2 and integrate it into OU#1, so that
.l.ler.ds impacts are reduced.
Third, the Proposed Plan acknowledges that the pre-
ferred leachate collection and treatment system should not be
constructed until NJDEP can evaluate whether a single treatment
-i = r.f can be designed to address both landfill leachate and
....ndwater. The Proposed Plan addresses this problem by allow-
_::g, while this evaluation takes place, for a contingency sys-
tem that requires collection of leachate in on-site tanks for
- 32 -
-------
ultimate trucking off-site for disposal. Confusingly, the
Proposed Plan nevertheless expresses a preference for ori-^ite
treatment and discharge as part of OU#1. If NJDEP follows this
stated preference, a treatment system for leachate could be de-
signed and built prior to a period of dramatic leachate charac-
teristic and volume change, and before the groundwater treat-
ment system, if any, is analyzed and determined. This could
lead to potentially duplicative treatment systems — one for
leachate and one for groundwater — and an overall response
which is not cost-effective. _Had the project been properly
scoped, NJDEP could have avoided this inefficiency and lack of
cost-effectiveness by providing for the design of the leachate
and groundwater treatment systems concurrently (once the lea-
chate generation, volume, and characteristics stabilize follow-
ing construction of the cap).
Fourth, the Proposed Plan states that OU#2 will focus
on the natural resources at the site. In spite of this ex-
pressed intent, OU#1 calls for the construction of a berrr, that
will substantially impact the most obvious natural resource at
the site, the wetlands, without making any evaluation of
whether the need for the berm outweighs the destruction of the
wetlands.. •
These numerous possibilities for inconsistency,
coupled with the fact that the site, even in its present state,
presents extremely low risks, compel the conclusion that the
- 33 -
-------
operable units developed by the department are inconsiste
with the NCP.
V. THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE ANT INTERIM ACTION
ALTERNATIVES WHICH ACCOUNT FOR DATA CAPS AND WHICH
ARE COMMENSURATE WITB THE LOW LEVEL OF RISK AT THE SITE
As described in the risk assessment, current site
conditions present a low level of potential risk to public
health and the environment. The only pathways for even these
potential risks are direct contact and the air, both of which
can be -addressed -by site—controls/ -gas collection . and
treatment, and an interim cover. Moreover, based on NJDEP's
understanding of the site conditions, the settlement rate for
the landfill has not stabilized. If these analyses are cor-
rect, then NJOEP should have considered and adopted an interind
action for the site. An interim action would have addressed
the perceived risks at the site while developing an integrated
and consistent approach to final remediation of the site. See
55 Fed. Reg. 8705, col. 1 (March 8, 1990). It is well-under-
stood that "a temporary cap as an interim action may be war-
ranted in situations where the settlement rate of the landfill
contents has not stabilized.* Municipal Guidance at pp. 4-8.
Given the low ivv.i »,» wU*i"^i-rt :vis»R sad WJDEPVs understanding
of the site, NJDEP's failure to consider an interim action oper-
able unit to deal with the site on a temporary basis was incon-
sistent with the NCP.
- 34 -
-------
VI. TEE GEOGRIDS, SAND, BERM, LEACHATE TREATHENT PLANT, AND
CAP CONTAINED IN THE FRAF ALTERNATIVE ARE NEITHER
NECESSARY NOR PROPERLY DESIGNED
A. Geogridi
The PRAP alternative cap calls for two layers of rein-
forced geogrid to prevent settlement of the landfill from af-
fecting the performance of the cap and to prevent the cap from
"sliding." However, as noted previously, a quantitative assess-
ment of future long term settlement of the cap has not been per-
formed and no numerical justification for the geogrids is pre-
sented in the PRAP. And, with regard to slope stability, zr.
analysis which uses the appropriate parameters for refuse
strength and which takes account of soil aging indicates that
the slope of the landfill has stabilized. There is, in short,
no justification for the assumption that the layers of geogrid
are needed. Slope stability analyses with appropriate soil and
refuse parameters indicate that the landfill slopes are stable.
In fact, the geogrids are unnecessary. The cap's soil
cover materials would be of sufficient strength so that re-
inforcement will not be required. There is no need to provide
geogrids in order to reduce the tensile stresses in the cap ma-
terials that are due to a tendency for them to slide down the
slope. The interface friction between the materials of the
PRAP alternative cap is sufficient for slopes as steep as
2.5H:1V. The slopes at Global Landfill are much less steep,
- 35 -
-------
generally ranging from 5H:1V to 3.5H:1V. Furthermore, the tei
tured FMC that would be part of the PRAP alternative cap has
roughened surface, which increases available friction.
There is no need to require geogrids to address the ef-
fects of depressions and crevices in the landfill surface that
are due to large local absolute or differential settlement of
refuse. There is no indication that such large deformations
have formed or will form. Because the landfill has been closed
for seven years, it is far more justified to assume that the
major part of final settlement has already occurred. _ .._
The landfill shows no evidence to suggest it will pre-
sent greater future settlements than other sanitary waste land-
fills. It is not general practice to include geogrids in the
cover designs of sanitary waste landfills, and their inclusion
at Global Landfill is unjustified. Other landfills under
jurisdiction of NJDEP, such as GEMS or Helen Kramer, do not in-
clude geogrids, even though they are Superfund sites and exhi-
bit in certain cases slopes much steeper than Global Landfill.
This indicates an inconsistency on the part of NJDEP in impos-
ing geogrids at the Global Landfill site, where the settlement
potential is no greater than other, similar sites where geo-
grids have not bean 3mc?3Jnenta!?L
Furthermore, even if the geogrid layers were needed,
they would not be effective if implemented in the manner set
forth in the Proposed Plan. First, the PRAP alternative would
place the upper layer only twelve inches below the surface. At
- 36 -
-------
that depth, there would be inadequate load on the upper grid to
generate enough shear resistance for the upper grid to be effec-
tive. Second, the Feasibility Study assumes a minimum factor
of safety of 1.13 with a berm, which would produce disturbances
for which the lower geogrid would, in any event, not be effec-
tive. The geogrids, therefore, do not add to the long-term ef-
fectiveness of the cap.
Moreover, the geogrids can create substantial implem-
entability concerns. There are significant problems associated
with their installation, which is an operation of some diffi-
culty. Unlike geonets, which are uniaxially unrolled, geogrids
are difficult to install when installed biaxially. When double
grids have to be installed to provide biaxial strength as is
the case for covers, the geogrids tend to roll up in two perpen-
dicular directions. The contractor installing them on a slope
lias to provide additional labor to unroll the grids in two di-
rections to hold them down as soil is placed above them. in
addition, repairs to the gas header pipes of the gas extraction
system, buried under the cover, will require cutting the geo-
grids, thereby losing any contribution they may make in the
strengthening of the cap. In order to repair the geogrids, bod-
kin connectors would have to be 'needled* into the existing
grids, an operation which may not be successful in restoring
the grid's strength and other properties. The need to repair
gas header pipes raises the possibility that, however little ef-
fectiveness the geogrids would have contributed in the first
- 37 -
-------
, even that level of effectiveness would be undermined
tne repairs.
B. Soul
The placement of the sand drainage material immedi-
-'ely above the liner is less implementable than would be a geo-
ncr , which is easier to control from a QA/QC aspect. The geo-
-•««• rould be more rapidly installed with a superior perform-
s-r-e Ease of installation is much enhanced by the fact that
?« oecnet may simply be unrolled. The superior performance re-
sults because the geonet, with its crisscrossed plastic grids,
is much more permeable than sand, producing better surface
water drainage laterally.
C. Berm
The PRAP alternative would include a toe berm in order
to increase slope stability. A berm is unnecessary. Even as
proposed, the berm would not be effective. The inclusion of
tne berm also would have a significant adverse impact on the
surrounding wetlands.
As discussed above, the landfill stability analyses
I.o.-c, used erroneous strength parameters for the refuse, which
. = critical parameter in determining slope stability. The
rrrner use of back analyses would have demonstrated that the
rtrength is nearer to a friction angle of 34 degrees and a cohe-
sion of 334 psf, rather than the values of 22 degrees and 200
POOR QUALITY
- 38 - ORIGINAL
-------
psf that were used in the Feasibility Study for refuse
strengths.^/ Similar refuse strengths have been used in the
design of caps for other solid fasce landfills without berms,
and with successful results. Thus, given the appropriate cal-
culation of refuse strength and the data from the performance
of similar landfills, the berm is unnecessary to achieve slope
stability.
Moreover, construction of the berm would be a diffi-
cult operation, as it would involve substantial loading of the
underlying soils. The increase in pore pressures in the under-..
lying soils would have to be monitored carefully, to ensure
that pure water could drain fast enough for the soil to with-
stand the loading. Any overloading could lead to a slide, with
waste being pushed into the wetland. If wick drains were
added, an additional 10,000 gpd of leachate would have to be
treated.
In addition, construction of the berm could be accompa-
nied by significant settlement of the underlying soils, which
might also contain waste. This might lead to waste being perma-
nently trapped under the berm outside the cap, and must pre-
clude any subsequent attempts to address this trapped waste
without removing portions of the berm. Because of the difficul-
ties of the construction of the cap, and the risk that some
£fi£ Appendix A.
- 39 -
-------
waste might be trapped by the berm, the implementability,
well as the long-term effectiveness, of the PRAP alternative
would be reduced by the inclusion of a berm.
Not only is the berm unnecessary and ineffective, it
would harm the environment. Construction of the berm would re-
quire the destruction of approximately 2.4 acres of wetland. As
construction of the berm will affect an area significantly
greater than the berm footprint, the Feasibility Report has se-
riously underestimated the extent of wetlands impact. Thus,
the proposed berm is not protective-of the-environment. - Nor
have practicable alternatives been explored to avoid the pos-
sible wetlands impacts, thus violating applicable wetlands re-
quirements. •
D. Leaf hate Trtatment Plant
Although leaving the final choice of treatment alterna-
tive to remedial design, the Proposed Plan expresses a prefer-
ence for leachate collection and on-site treatment as part of
the preferred alternative. The proposed leachate treatment
plant is not cost-effective for two reasons. First, the PRAP
alternative does not take into account the sharp drop in flows
after the first year. Second, it does not take into account
- 40 -
-------
the efficiencies associated with a comprehensive treatment pro-
gram in OU#2, if any is needed.1*' The leachate treatment
plant was sized on the basis of 10,000 gpd of liquids to be
treated. The expected generation rate of leachate provided in
the Feasibility Study is 10,000 gpd for only the first
££££ H/ Tne expected leachate flows are 1,000 gpd from year
six onwards.14 ' Consequently, there is every reason to con-
clude that it would be more sensible and cost-effective to add-
ress any leachate treatment along with the groundwater treat-
ment at the time of .any OUH.2, and provide an -alternative and
The proper approach is represented in EPA's selection of
a leachate treatment remedy at the Helen Kramer Landfill site.
See Record of Decision for Helen Kramer Landfill at 32 (Sept.
21, 1585). There, EPA rejected the separation of groundwater
from leachate into separate operable units. Id. at 34. The
decision as to whether and to what extent on-site treatment of
the leachate and groundwater was needed was reserved until
treatability studies were completed, on which the decision was
"dependent." Id. at 24 and 32. The results of the study would
assist the determination of whether complete on-site treatment
or pre-treatment with off-site discharge were the most
cost-effective. Id. EPA noted that because of the
"substantial flow decrease with time,* alternatives to building
a plant on the site might be preferable because they "should
lower the capital cost." Ifl. "Thus, the Kramer ROD concluded
that it would be possible 'to rent a number of package
treatment plants instead of building a plant on site.' Id.
The Kramer ROD retained sufficient flexibility to adapt to both
the results of the Treatability Studies and substantial flow
decreases."
Feasibility Study, App. K, table 2. The levels for years
2, 3 and 4 are 4,700, 3,200 and 2,100 gpd respectively. Id-
- 41 -
-------
temporary solution for leachate until OU*2 is implemented.-^^
wore important, there is no reason to conclude that the pro-
.posed treatment plant would be effective. One of the most se-
ricus flaws in the technical work done to date is the absence
of treatability studies. Leachate constituent concentrations
will vary as the installation of any cap decreases precipita-
tion infiltration and. as the landfill continues to decompose.
It is simply not possible to be confident that the proposed
treatment p:ant will be effective or reliable because of the
tremendous uncertainties relating to the landfill leachate.
Furthermore, there are implementability concerns. The
leachate treatment plant study in the Feasibility Study indi-
cates that priority pollutants are present in the influent in
"trace amounts" and no difficulties are anticipated in meetin
the discharge limits. The discharge limits have not yet b
established but could be quite low. In the absence of treata-
bility studies, it has to be demonstrated that such low levels
can be met. £fi£ 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(F)(1) (imple-
mentability includes "[tjechnical feasibility"). Moreover, the
NJDEP discharge limits are as yet unknown, which also seriously
places in doubt the administrative feasibility of the discharge
to surface str~=^. £~> 40 C.2V?.. | 3C-2. «3D<2) <9) (iii) (F) (2)
(implementability includes "Mdministrative feasibility").
The Feasibility Study identified a Chemical Waste
Management facility only 25 miles from the landfill that was
prepared to accept untreated leachate and gas condensate.
- 42 -
-------
E. Composite Cap
Technical btuet
The Proposed Plan's preferred alternative includes a
synthetic geomembrane using a geoteztile made from recycled
plastic bonded to Hypalon. The availability and long-term per-
formance of such materials are unproven, particularly given the
size of the cover and its behavior when the landfill settles.
Hypalon has an inherent weakness in that the scrim reinforce-
ment from which it derives its initial strength can act as a
wick, and the water in the wick can lead to separation of the
multiple layers of polyethylene. This liner is therefore not
as reliable as alternative synthetic liners, reducing its
long-term effectiveness.
The construction of a composite cap, where a flexible
membrane liner is to be placed over a clay material, is accompa-
nied by risks associated with moisture collecting under the
liner during construction. The moisture may originate from con-
densation, or consolidation of the clay from the weight of the
materials above.•^/ The wetted clay may lead to a stability
problem of the cover sliding, unless a great deal of care is
Mitchell, Seed and Seed, Kettleman Hills Waste Landfill
Slope Failure; Liner System Properties, 116 J. Geotechnical
Eng. (April 1990).
-------
taken during the construction of the cap.12/ The liner cl
would have to be carefully protected from rainfall and thermal
effects during and after placement. This renders the actual
emplacement of the PRAP alternative cap difficult. There ex-
ist, therefore, serious questions as to its implementabil-
an
-------
100, end, for a period of time, 1000 kilograms per month of har-
crdous waste from small quantity generators.^•/ And, as de-
scribed in the leachate monitoring data, the contamination at
Global Landfill is similar to that found at other municipal
waste landfills.
Yet, the Proposed Plan would treat the site differ-
ently from a municipal site. The PRAP alternative would in-
clude a modified hazardous waste composite cap that consists of
a 12 inch clay layer, a synthetic layer of a non-woven geotex-
'. ile spun from recycled plastic and bonded to a Hypalon-based
containment membrane, a drainage layer, and a vegetative
layer. Proposed Plan at 6, 9. In these circumstances, the
Proposed Plan must be supported by independent reasons for this
substantial departure from requirements and practice for clo-
sure of a municipal landfill. Such reasons are not to be found
in the Proposed Plan or accompanying materials. On the con-
trary, the analyses contained in the Proposed Plan support the
conclusion that this site is, and should be closed as, an ordi-
nary municipal landfill.
Under RCRA until 19B4, a small quantity generator was
allowed to dispose of up to 1000 kilograms/month at an
authorized municipal landfill. 40 C.F.R. § 261.5(g)(3)(iv)
(1984). In 1981, New Jersey authorized disposal of up to 100
kilograms/month by small quantity generators at municipal
landfills, a requirement that is currently in force in both New.
Jersey and RCRA regulations. Sfifi fi.J.&.C. 7:26-8.3(f )(3)(iv);
40 C.F.R. § 261(f)(3)(iv)(1990).
-------
1. A Bazanfomj Waste Cap It Not Juti/itt By Tht JUcft AuaxmeM
The baseline public health assessment does not support
the use of a hazardous waste cap. The assessment indicates nc
immediate danger to human health or the environment. No drink-
ing water wells are located downgradient of the landfill. No
studies have identified significant exposures or threats to
human health from gas emissions from the landfill. Odor pro-
blems have been identified, but they have not been quantified
in the Feasibilty Study as being different from any other mu-
nicipal landfill.
The baseline public health assessment identified ten
potential pathways which, upon further investigation, may be
found to be complete. Most concerned ambient air or windborne.
particles, which a noncomposite cover would prevent.^' Th
other two pathways refer to on-site contact, which could be pre
vented by erection of a fence or a noncomposite cover. None of
the identified pathways requires a very high performance cover
I
2-Q' Although the public health assessment in the Feasibility
Report has identified airborne pathways as the majority of all
potential pathways, no ambient air quality investigation has
been performed. Air quality data which is available has not
been used in the choice of cover section.
-------
to prevent escape of gas front the site. The choice of a compos-
ite cap is neither necessary nor a cost-effective means to edd-
'•oss the identified pathways of direct contact in the risk as-
sessment. Thus, the choice of a composite .cover is simply not
justified by the risk assessment.
2. KCRA StMdf C h Not Am AXAK
The Proposed Plan, with no analysis, states conclu-
-~'My that " [h] azardous waste landfill requirements are rele-
v:.-.t and appropriate for closure of _the Global Landfill.^
Frcposed Plan at 8. EPA describes "relevance" as addressing
"similar situations or problems," and "appropriate" as address-
ing "whether the requirement is well-suited to the particular
site." 55 Fed. Reg. 8743, col. 2 (Mar. 8,* 1990). As EPA noted
3 r. trie preamble to its proposed NCP, even the. basic requirement
to cap landfills upon closure is "an example of a requirement
that may be relevant but not appropriate in certain situations.
..." 53 Fed. Reg. 51437, col. 1 (Dec. 21, 1988).ii/ Thus,
"la]lthough capping may be appropriate for smaller areas, it
may not be appropriate in some circumstances for large dis-
~ersed areas of low-level soil contamination such as may be
:*,-,.3' at many large solid waste landfill facilities." Ifl. A
*-*'' Unless directly contradicted or superseded in the final
NCP, "the preamble to the proposed rule reflects the EPA's
intent in promulgating [the] revisions to the NCP." 55 Fed.
neg. 8666, col. 3 (March 6, 1990).
- 47 -
ORIGINAL
-------
hazardous waste cap is even less "relevant and appropriate* fM
Global Landfill.
The NCP requires that a determination of whether a re-
quirement is an ARAR must be the product of an analysis of sev-
eral factors. An analysis of these relevant factors estab-
lished by the NCP does not direct the use of a hazardous waste
cap at Global Landfill; rather, the factors reinforce the con-
clusion that use of the proposed hazardous waste cap would not
be justified at this landfill.
a. Katurt of the West*
The NCP ARAR determination analysis requires, inter
alia. a comparison of the "substances regulated by the require-
ment and the substances found at the CERCLA site." 40 C.F.R. §
300 .400(g) (2) (iii). In order to find that RCRA closure
ments are "relevant and appropriate," there should be a showing
that either RCRA hazardous wastes, or wastes similar to RCRA
hazardous wastes, are present at the facility subject to these
requirements, fififi 55 Fed. Reg. 8763, cols. 1-2 (Mar. 8, 1990);
53 Fed. Reg. 51447, col. 1. However, even if waste similar to
RCRA hazardous wastes or containing RCRA hazardous constituents
are present, there is no presumption t.hat a *?»A requirement is
relevant and appropriate. Preamble to Final NCP, 55 Fed. Reg.
8763, col. 2 (Mar. 8, 1990). To the contrary, EPA states that
"low concentrations of a hazardous constituent, dispersed in
soil over a wide area, would generally not trigger Subtitle C
- 48 -
-------
as relevant and appropriate.- "CERCLA Compliance With Other
Laws Manual," at p. 2- 6 - 2-7 (Aug. 1988) (Interim Final).
Thus, it is important to determine if a waste similar to hazard-
ous waste is present and whether that waste is representative
of the Global Landfill's contents.
Global Landfill consists of two distinct landfill
areas. Proposed Plan at 2. The only investigation for hazard-
ous wastes was performed at the sraller, 6.5 acre tract. That
investigation claims to have revealed the presence of hazardous
wastes in fourteen drums. However, the fourteen drums of haz-
ardous waste constitute an isolated instance'and are not repre-
sentative of the contents of either the 6.5 acre tract or the
51 acre area. The drum investigation spanned a two week period
and a few drums were encountered on ei-ght different days.
Excavations were performed at locations which had been identi-
fied by positive magnetometer readings. .Although there were nu-
merous areas of very high magnetic concentrations, most of
these proved to represent buried metal representative of solid
waste (such as stoves and refrigerators), rather than buried
drums. Feasibility Study, at pp. 1-9, 1-11.
The drum excavation went to a depth of 15 feet through
municipal waste and only.discovered 63 drums — relatively few
for an area that size but consistent with the contents at mu-
nicipal landfills, which would typically include relatively
-------
small amounts of hazardous waste from small quantity gener
tors. The Feasibility Study determined that "no organized pa
i
tern of drum disposal could be established" and that "no spe-
cific hot spots or areas of elevated contamination have been de-
fined at Global Landfill.- Feasibility Study at pp. 1-11,
2-13. Rather, the results of the drum excavation were summa-
rized as follows:
At Global Landfill, specific locations of hazardous
wastes have not been identified. Instead, as indi-
cated by the results of the drum investigation, drums
containing hazardous waste were found randomly" inter-
mixed with municipal refuse, construction and demoli-
tion debris and other bulky wastes. During the drum
investigation, a total of approximately 1900 cubic
yards of waste material was excavated and 63 drums
were encountered. Assuming all 63 drums were 55 gal-
lons in capacity r-.rd originally contained hazardous
waste, the volume of hazardous waste encountered was
approximately one percent of the total volume of was^
excavated.
Feasibility Study at pp. 2-21, 2-22 (emphasis added). The
calculation of even this 1\ value is based on overconservative
assumptions.^' Moreover, because the excavation was already
targetted toward the areas that registered positive during the
Feasibility Study at p. 2-22. The assumption that all 63
drums were "full" of hazardous waste is, of course, incorrect
even unaer the saets is dsv^ioped H-'«in.9 the drum survey. Some
of the drums were corroded or crushed, so there is no infor-
mation on what they contained. In fact, only 18 out of the 63
drums were actually sampled; of those, 4 were determined not to
contain hazardous waste. Thus, even to reach the "1%" estimate
required unwarranted and overly conservative assumptions.
- 50 -
-------
magnetometer survey, it is obvious that far less that 1\ of the
waste is likely to be hazardous. Under these circumstances, it
ir clear that the contents of the 6.5 acre tract are not repre-
sentative of a hazardous waste landfill.
At least equally important, no such investigation was
initiated for the 51 acre landfill tract. Ifl. In the absence
of evidence establishing that hazardous waste is representative
of the contents in that portion of the landfill, the documen-
tary evidence supporting the Proposed Plan states that the 51
acre tract contains .only "municipal solid, bulky, vegetative
end non-chemical industrial waste." Ifl. Those are precisely
the types of wastes which a solid waste landfill is licensed to
accept and for which the solid waste closure requirements were
designed.^/ To extrapolate from the conditions found in iso-
lated instances in a much smaller tract to a much larger and
distinct area, and conclude that the entire site should be
closed using a modified hazardous waste cap, is unjusti-
fied.^/ The only evidence in the Feasibility Study supports
Moreover, given the authorized disposal of small quantity
generator hazardous waste, the presense of isolated drums of
hazardous waste is consistent with the site's operation and
closure as a municipal landfill.
The Feasibility Study merely states in one sentence, that
hazardous waste landfill closure regulations are relevant and
appropriate due to the known presense of hazardous wastes at
the landfill." Feasibility Study on-Sitc Controls at Global
Landfill, Vol. I, p. 2-12 (Feb. 1991) (emphasis added).
- 51 -
-------
the conclusion that the 51 acre tract should be closed as
solid waste landfill.
A further indication of the nati-re of the waste at a
landfill can be gleaned by comparing leachate data with RCRA's
toxicity characteristic threshold levels. Under RCRA, waste
can be characterized by its toxicity as hazardous waste.
Toxicity is measured by the TCLP> a test designed to simulate
leaching of the waste, and to measure the concentrations of me-
tals, volatiles, semivolatiles and pesticides in the leachate.
Examination of the leachate quality results -contained in the
Feasibility Study support the conclusion that this is a typical
municipal landfill.^^ Monitoring of leachate has occurred
at ten locations at least annually and often quarterly for the
last three and one-half (3%) years. These sampling results, ij
i
general, show a low level of toxicity. The average concentri
tions for the hazardous constituents found at Global Landfill
which were evaluated by the TC procedure are between 100 and
1,000 times less than the leachate concentration levels estab-
lished to designate a hazardous waste.^' There is only one
value that barely exceeded the TC threshold, and the average
in. the drums
from the 6.3 acre landt'ili cannot be compared with TC
thresholds. TC thresholds take account of leaching from
hazardous waste, and consequently the thresholds are less
concentrated than "pure" waste.
Appendix C.
- 52 -
-------
value for that constituent is far below the TC threshold
vpi'je.*^' Thus, these low leachate readings confirm that,
w'red on the nature of the waste, Global should ke classified
£e_e. Appendix C (the values for lead).
The leachate sample from leachate seep L4, taken in
-j;:y 1988, measured 5.53 mg/1 of lead, which compares to the
re:;.? threshold of 5 mg/1. See FS, Appendix D. That value is
J—rctrably an outlier. All other leachate samples taken from
*-*<=> same seep ranged from .025 mg/1 to .41 mg/1 of lead, less
'-- 1/10 of this single value. Id. The leachate samples
from the -other locations had a range from below
'—••able limits to .576 mg/1 of lead and averaged 1/100 of
n-s- Dingle value. For a variety of reasons, this single
_»...i.ie 'does not overcome the overwhelming contrary data.
In the first place, the Feasibility Study does not
-isclcse the methods used to collect and analyze this sample.
i*ur is theie any evidence that a challenge was made to the
laboratory analysis that produced this anomolous value. Thus,
this value may well result from poor quality assurance. Seco
thp value for th«- single sarrple and *.he TCLP threshold.
?cir,.-jm-. a«: ". ofchalt see? L3, only 250 feet awty, during the
same sampling event, produced a value of '.465 mg/1, which is
less than 1/10 of the value at L4. The other locations yielded
ivc:£ce values of less thanl/200 of the L4 value. These facts,
and the fact that lead is not consistently the highest value in
the readings of the other seeps, suggest that the most
-.-:r,cble explanation is that the value reflects a small lead
particle, rather than the concentrations from progressive
icscning. In any event, in light of the consistent and
f'verwhelrr.ingly contrary leachate data and the other facts that
«
-------
and closed as a municipal landfill and not a hazardous
landfill.
*. Natxrt oftfu Stir
In order to determine when a closure requirement is ap-
propriate, the NCP also requires a comparison between the "type
and size of structure or facility* regulated by the potential
closure requirement and that found at the CERCLA site. 40
C.F.R. § 300.400(g)(2)(vi), (vii). The nature of Global
Landfill is very different. from the usual. RCRA unit, which is
typically a discrete waste management unit that is the product
of uniform construction and operating standards and that con-
tains only listed or characteristic hazardous waste. Such
unit precludes the type of unregulated landfill growth that r<
suits in widely dispersed waste as is the case with Globe
Landfill.
In fact, EPA has explicitly recognized that RCRA
Subtitle C caps may not be "appropriate under certain circums-
tances for large municipal landfills. . .if the waste is gener-
ally of low toxicity and the contamination is dispersed over a
large area that bears little resemblance to the discrete units
regulated under SCRA*- 53 res. Keg. 5i«4/, col, 2; see also
"CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual," at p. 2-21 ("RCRA
covers are generally not appropriate for large municipal land-
fills" that."bearlJ little resemblance to the discrete units
regulated under RCRA Subtitle C"). The conditions identified
- 54 -
-------
by EPA which militate against the use of Subtitle C covers are
met in this case. The Global Landfill leachate data shows
consistently low levels of contamination, thereby indicating
the waste is generally of low toxicity. Moreover, the landfill
is unquestionably a large site, consisting of two distinct
areas totaling approximately 57 acres, and the waste is widely
dispersed over the 57 acre area. Based on the size and type of
facility, therefore, it is clear that Global Landfill is appro-
priately capped as a solid waste landfill.2A'
Moreover, the general principles Q_overning_the closure
of municipal landfills in the Superfund program reaffirm that a
noncomposite cap typically used for municipal landfills should
also be used for this site. As explained by EPA, such a cap is
appropriate where groundwater is not being used for drinking
EPA has underscored this principle in its September 30,
1?P8 Record of Decision for the Oak Grove Landfill in Oak Grove
Township, Anoka County, Minnesota. EPA has stated that:
The USEPA does not believe it appropriate to use a
Subtitle C cap/cover to remediate a large sanitary
landfill where we have such small documented quantities
of hazardous waste known to have been disposed.
With respect to the important factor concerning the size of the
facility, the EPA applied the WCP requirements described above
end concluded:
In view of the small documented quantity of hazardous
waste and the potential wide distribution of the waste in
a 45-acre sanitary landfill, there does not seem to be
sufficient similarity between the OGSLF site and the type
of circumstances Subtitle C requirements are intended to
address.
- 55 -
-------
water. Municipal Guidance pp. 4-7, fig. 4-1. As confirmed in
the Proposed Plan, groundwater in the upper aquifer, whi
exhibits elevated levels of some contaminants, is not a present
or potential source of drinking water. In the groundwater of
the Old Bridge Sand, the Feasibility Study has detected only
occasional and low levels of contamination. The Feasibility
Study has determined that there is upward pressure from the Old
Bridge Sand which confines contamination in the upper aquifer,
thus indicating that the low levels of contamination detected
may well be attributable to areawide contamination rather then
Global Landfill. In any event, this portion of the Old Bridge
Sand does not provide any drinking water supply. The nearest
drinking water intake is upgradient and approximately one mile
away, end as a result of gravity and .attenuation, is not
affected or threatened by Global Landfill. Thus, given t
lack of use of groundwater as a drinking water supply, there fs
even greater reason to support a noncomposite cap, consistent
with solid waste closure requirements. Id.
3. RCRA Dcxt Hex Ktfutrt A Compcrte Cap
In any event, even if it is assumed that RCRA
requirements should be utilized for the cover on the landfill,
these requirements do not justify or mandate the cap described
in the Proposed Plan's preferred alternative. Under RCRA, the
primary requirement applicable to the cover is that the top
liner must be more impermeable than any bottom liner or any
- 56 -
-------
natural subsoils. 40 C.F.R. § 264.228(a)(2) (iii)(E) (1990).
At Global, the bottom of the landfill does not have a liner and
rests on entirely natural materials. Under such circumstances,
a noncomposite top cover will easily satisfy the RCRA
requirement. ^__
The idea of a composite cap derives not from the
regulations of RCRA but from certain guidance issued
tnereunder. At best, this guidance is simply information to be
-~r!sidered (TBC), not an applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirement for the cap. As stated in the Municipal Guidance,
"RCRA provides technical guidance that defines the types of
layers EPA considers to be appropriate for a cap for new RCRA
landfill cells. This Guidance is a TBC (to be considered)."
Municipal Guidance at p. 4-11. Unlike an -ARAR, a TBC is not
rar.datory and need not be followed in developing alternatives
v.-hich comply with RCRA. 55 Fed. Reg. 8745, col. 3 (March 8,
1990). Moreover, unlike ARARs, the underlying validity of a
TBC is at issue in the remedy selection process and a TBC can
only be used if it is cost effective. Id.
Current experience with composite caps indicates the
difficulty of their installation and the loss of their effec-
tiveness if the clay becomes wet, thereby undermining the
original rationale of the cap guidance. At least equally
important, as demonstrated below, a composite cap is clearly
not cost-effective when compared to a noncomposite cap. When
- 57 -
-------
use of a TBC would produce a result that is not cost-effectiv
it should not be used.
The proper application of this principle is illur-
trated in the ROD for Sharkey Landfill in Morris County, New
Jersey. At the Sharkey Landfill, substantial hazardous waste
disposal led to the consideration of RCRA Subtitle C closure
requirements as ARARs. Record of Decision for Sharkey Landfill
at 35 (Sapt. 29, 1986). However, the ROD pointed out that the
remedy would not meet the "compositional criteria of the RCRA
'model' cap." Id.. Instead, the ROD considered the "-jnodel" to
be "unwarranted for this site," and selected a noncomposite
cap. id. The reason provided was that the extra layer would
not have increased effectiveness but: would have increased the
cost significantly -- the same situation 'that obtains here
Id. at 8, .35. Thus, in light of past practice at other New
Jersey sites, it is apparent that a non-composite cap meets
Subtitle C requirements and is well-suited to Global.
4. Summary
In conclusion, a solid waste cap, or its equivalent,
should be selected in the ROD. Global Landfill was authorized
to and received various forms of solid waste, including
residential waste, bulky waste, and non-hazardous industrial
waste. Until its closure in 1964, Global was authorized,
consistent with RCRA and New Jersey law, to receive hazardous
waste from small quantity generators — a situation applicable
- 58 -
-------
tu most municipal landfills. As demonstrated by the drum
investigation, far in excess of 99% of the landfill's contents
is solid waste.
Unquestionably, solid waste is representative of
Global's contents. Moreover, Global is an extremely large
i»-£fill (100 feet in height and 57.5 acres in lateral extent)
wmrh is characterized by widely dispersed contamination of
^-orally i0w tuxicity. The solid waste capping requirements,
'=fher than the hazardous waste requirements, were designed for
/•ecisely these situations --_ large volumes of essentially
solid waste giving rise to widely dispersed and low toxicity
contamination. As stated by the NCP, RCRA hazardous waste caps
are not appropriate for such municipal landfills; instead, the
specifically tailored requirements governing solid waste caps
±'—u:u form the basis of the selected alternative.
Even if hazardous waste requirements are chosen for
the Global cap, however, those requirements can be easily
satisfied by a noncomposite cap. The composite cap found in
tne Proposed Plan's preferred alternative is based on a
guidance document, not a regulation. It should not be used at
Global because experience in the field has not confirmed its
i: pis.T.entability or effectiveness and because it is not
. z-effective. Moreover, at Sharkey Landfill, EPA reached
rr.'.s same conclusion and determined that a noncomposite cap
fully satisfies RCRA's hazardous waste capping requirements.
' 59 " POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
It would be unjustified and unreasonable to allow a
posite cap at Sharkey Landfill and not at Global.
V/7. CROUP'S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
A. Description
The alternative recommended by the PRP group would
begin by an investigation to fill identified site-specific data
gaps. The investigation would include the following:
a field investigation of sampling the soils, with
in -situ -vane tests and CPT -tests to confirm shear
strength and aging effects, and a field test to
determine the refuse strength parameters, through
t-pcV analyses of an excavated refuse fence;
bench scale treatability 'tests to evalug
proposed leachate treatability;
ambient air monitoring including gas migration
studies and quarterly monitoring of landfill gas
constituents;
settlement and horizontal surface monitoring of
the existing .landfill, with survey points and
inclinometers, and a current topography from an
aerial survey with ground control to establish a
base map; and
regular monitoring of leachate for flow rate and
. quality, using recognized protocols.
- 60 -
-------
Based on the existing data and depending on the
outcome of further testing, the Global Landfill PRP Group ("the
Group") believer that the problems identified with the Proposed
Plan can be solved by a different alternative. The alternative
suggested by the Group ("Recommended Alternative*) is comprised
of the following: 1) a fence around the site; 2) a noncomposite
cap with installation of a geonet and without geogrid layers;
3; grading of the cap to provide surface water controls; 4) an
active gas extraction system; and 5) a temporary storage of
leachate on-site with transportation to •n____p_ff-site water
treatment plant. The Recommended Alternative would not include
construction of a toe faerm.^' . .
The Recommended Alternative will include a compre-
hensive monitoring scheme of settlement markers on the existing
cover on grids ranging from 500 to 100 feet, depending on
location. This will enable landfill movements to be followed
The Group's Alternative is based on provision of a cover
to meet the PRAP Remedial Action Objectives, which are to:
prevent direct contact with exposed waste materials
or leachate surface seeps that could result in
exposure to substances of concern;
prevent airborne transport of landfill gases or
waste particles that would result in exposure to
substances of concern; and
develop controls and measures for stormwater and
soil erosion management, establishing a vegetative
cover, landfill gas and leachate surface seep
management, correction of slope stability problems
and site security.
. 61 -
-------
as early as possible, including the design and bidding
The monitoring will indicate if there are signs of instability;
and also enable landfill behavior to be followed during cap
construction. In the unlikely event that the landfill is
unstable, measures such as regrading or even stabilization in
some form could be implemented.
The proposed cap consists of a top layer of stabilized
vegetation. Below that mat would be a 12 inch layer of
topsoil, a 12 inch layer of common borrow soil, and a
geocomposite drain (geonet with non-woven geotextile bonded to
both sides) which will together provide frost protection. The
next lower layer would consist of a 60 mil textured VLDPE or
HDPE geomembrane. The landfill surface would be regraded with
6 to 12 inches of clean backfill. The cover would no_i include
the two geogrid layers proposed in the PRAP alternative.
The cover would be graded to include channels for
surface water collection so that water velocities are
controlled to prevent erosion. Surface water would be led via
channels to sedimentation ponds before discharge. Surface
seeps of leachate would be collected and stored in tanks before
transportation and treatment off-site. An active landfill gas
ezi: rarh i r-»r> *vsf«>m- ^onctfhar **i vh *•*»«*•* <-»m^»nt from the liner,
would lead to inward gradients to collect landfill gas, which
would be flared in accordance with applicable air quality
standards.
- 62 -
-------
There are four principal differences between the
Recommended Alternative and the PRAP alternative: these concern
the cap, the berm and leachate treatment.
The first two differences between the Recommended
Alternative and that presented in the PRAP address the cap.
First, the Group's cover would delete the two geogrid layers in
the PRAP alternative. For the reasons noted previously, those
layers are unnecessary, ineffective as designed, and decrease
the implementability of the cap. Second, the Group proposes a
noncomposite cap. The proposed noncomposite cap would provide.
an essentially equivalent barrier to infiltration. Analyses
with the current version of EPA's HELP software have been made
of the Recommended Alternative.^' These analyses
demonstrate that the Recommended Alternative compares favorably
with that in the Proposed Plan: it would yield a reduction
efficiency of 99.95 percent as compared with an efficiency of
99.97 percent for the PRAP alternative. The noncomposite cap
is less costly than the composite cap, and avoids
implementability problems associated with a composite cap.
The third difference between the Recommended
Alternative and that included the PRAP is that the Group's plan
would not require the construction of a berm (in part because
the Feasibility Study underestimated the strength of the
See Appendix B.
- 63 -
-------
waste). The Recommended Alternative would provide factors
safety against sliding that exceed those in the Proposed Plan,
based on an evaluation of refuse strengths that have been the
subject of back analysis, ^-l' The Recommended Alternative
also includes a limited program of investigation that would
confirm the refuse and soil strength parameters used and set up
points to monitor landfill movements, at an estimated cost of
$120,000. Monitoring would be an integral part of the
Recommended Alternative; such monitoring would provide
sufficient notice so that any necessary measures to enhance
slope stability can be performed in a timely manner.
Finally, the Recommended Alternative provides for
transportation of leachate to an off-site treatment plant. As
noted previously, corstruction of an on-site plant would either
duplicate or prejudice the selection of a treatment plant,
any, for groundwater in OU#2. Treatment at a larger facility
off-site would also solve two lurking problems in the PRAP
alternative: (1) it ensures that the leachate is brought to a
facility designed to effectively treat the leachate, a result
that is much less certain at the on-site plant in light of the
omission of treatability studies; and (2) the inefficiencies
produced by the dramatic reduction of leashats flows over time
would be effectively addressed at a larger off-site facility
gee Appendix A.
- 64 -
-------
*nere the capacity is much less affected by the volume produced
try the Global Landfill leachate.
B. Remeffy Selection Analyxit
I. Ajulyat oftiCP Criteria
An analysis of the criteria set forth in the NCP, see
" C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9), shows that the PRAP alternative does
-~t reflect the best balance of these criteria. Both the
Bended Alternative and the PRAP alternative would protect
._,„ health. Sfifi Proposed Plan at 7. However, the
. ice—ended Alternative would better protect the .environment
•-ecr'jse it would not include the construction of a berm and
on-site leachate treatment facility, and thus would not destroy
the surrounding wetlands.
Both the Recommended Alternative and the PRAP
riternative would comply with all pertinent closure
AP.AP.s.-^7 However, the PRAP alternative, which would
construct a berm and expresses a preference for an on-site
Jeschate treatment facility, would not comply with wetlands
AKARS. while response actions under the NCP may be eligible
for a nationwide permit, £££ 33 C.F.R. $ 330.5(a)(20), they are
subject to certain conditions. Sfi£ 33 C.F.R. § 330.6(a). In
KO. Licular, "to the maximum extent practicable," "IdHscharges
-'-4/ The Group's proposed Alternative meets the New Jersey
~-]id Waste Regulations, £.£.&.£. 7:26-2A.9 for closure with a
cover of a solid waste landfill.
- 65 -
-------
. . . shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other/
practical alternatives*; and *[d]ischarges in wetlands areas
shall be avoided.* 33 C.F.R, § 330.6(a)(1),(5). See Executive
Order 11990, Sec. 2(a) (new construction located in wetlands is
permitted only if there is "no practicable alternative" to the
construction). &££ alsp 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a). Because there
exists a practical alternative that fully protects human health
and the environment — the Recommended Alternetive • -- the PRAP
alternative does not satisfy wetlands ARARs. See Municipal
Guidance at 5-5, fig. 5-3._ _
The Proposed Plan does not suggest that the solid
waste and hazardous waste cap alternatives reviewed in the
Feasibility Study are distinguishable based on the criteria of
"long-term effectiveness and permanence." Sfifi Proposed Plan at
8. In reality, though, the PRAP alternative suffers from)
several deficiencies which will undermine long-term
effectiveness. In the first place, there are significant
questions about the short-term effectiveness of a composite cap
in light of the problems associated with moistening of the
clay, which may undermine stability. Second, the PRAP and
accompanying materials do not provide any data to demonstrate
the reliability >?? •*. n-^ri—»*rtv*« «<*«:><»«>•! la %?>un from recycled
plastic beverage bottles, whereas the cap in the Recommended
Alternative consists of a thick HDPE — a demonstrated and
reliable technology. The Recommended Alternative also offers
essentially equivalent impermeability to that provided by the
- 66 -
-------
PRAP alternative but without these significant
deficiencies. ^2-/ Thus, the Recommended Alternative offers
greater "long-term effectiveness.* -
The PRAP alternative is presumed "implementable" but
this presumption is questionable. First, the PRAP alternative
cap creates several problems associated with the combination of
clay and synthetic liner. Measures must be taken to prevent
wetting of the clay in order to avoid stability problems. It
is difficult to reach satisfactory compaction and permeability
with clay. -As .a result, _ placement—of ...-clay -increases.
construction difficulty and time. A second set of
implementability problems arises due to the presence of the
geogrids. As settlement occurs, the gas headers and piping
will need repairs, thus necessitating the cutting of the
geogrids. Attempting to repair the geogrids will be a
difficult and perhaps ineffective operation because it will
require bodkin connectors when backfilling trenches. Finally,
in the absence of treatability studies, the implementability of
a leachate treatment plant is questionable. The Recommended
Alternative, in contrast, does not contain these components
with the associated implementability concerns. Consequently,
the Recommended Alternative will be considerably quicker to
construct and more "implementable."
See Appendix B.
- 67 -
-------
•Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume" is not
relevant factor as far as the choice of caps is concerned.
Proposed Plan at 8. To the .extent that it is .relevant to
leachate or groundwater, in light of the uncertainty produced
by the omission of treatability studies, the Recommended
Alternative proposal of off-site treatment offers a greater
likelihood that toxicity will be reduced. Sec 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(e)(9)(iii)(D)(2), (3) (factors include the -amount of
hazardous substances. . .that will be treated,* and "degree of
expected reduction -in toxicity"). In addition, there would be
no outfalls into the wetlands, and thus no residuals left
on-site. &££ 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(D)(5) (factors
include -"the type and quantity of residuals"). Thus,
"reduction of toxicity" is more nearly achieved by off-site
treatment.
"Short-term effectiveness," which addresses the
effects of the alternative during both its construction and
implementation phases, would be somewhat less for the PRAP
alternative. This is because the construction of a berm and
any leachate treatment would require measures that would result
in greater impacts on wetlands. Moreover, the.construction of
the extra clay layer in. the composite cap would result in
-------
greater potential disturbance to the public due to the extra
truck traffic associated with the transport of the clay.^4/
The capital costs would be greater for the PRAP
alternative because that proposal contemplates a composite cap,
an unnecessary berm, unnecessary geogrid layers, and the
additional costs of mitigating the impacts to wetlands. The
estimated capital cost of the cap described in the Proposed
Plan is $19.9 million. On the other hand, a rough estimate for
the capital cost of the Recommended Alternative is $14.8
million, a savings of over 25%. Moreover, it.can be expected.
that the Recommended Alternative would result in lower
operation and maintenance expenses because repair would be
simpler due to the absence of geogrids and the unnecessary
extra composite layer.
As the preceding discussion demonstrates, the
Recommended Alternative offers a far better balance of the
relevant criteria than the PRAP alternative.. Under such
circumstances, the PRAP alternative should not be selected
because it is inconsistent with the MCP. 40 C.F.R. §
300.43.0(f)(I)(i)(B) (1990).
See FS at 3-10 - 3-11 (berms under review would affect
from 2.4 to 3.8 acres of wetlands and encroach on £loodplains).
- 69 -
-------
2. Application oftht NCF F acton to Remedy Selection Analysis
The NCP requires that the selected alternative protect
human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, offer
"permanent solutions" to the maximum extent practicable, and be
cost-effective. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(£ )(i) , (ii) (1990). The
Recommended Alternative meets all of these requirements. It is
doubtful whether the PRAP alternative satisfies the first three
requirements and it is clear that it violates the fourth.
Each alternative would be protective of human health,
but the Recommended Alternative would provide greater
protection of the environment. S&£. 40 C.F.R. §
300.430'f)(I)(ii)(A).. The PRAP alternative, which includes the
construction of a berm, would violate1 wetlands ARAR;^' the
Recommended Alternative would not. See 40 C.F.R.
300.430(f ) (1) (ii)(B). With regard to whether an alternative
offers "permanent solutions," it is uncertain whether the PRAP
alternative's use of the recycled plastic liner will offer the
equivalent "permanence" as the Group's demonstrated liner
technology. &££ 40 C.F.R. S 300.430(f ) (I) (ii)(E). Moreoever,
as described above, the Proposed Plan's preferred alternative
doer r.ct off?" *•** h***»r balsr-.-vs »? the five relevant
criteria, particularly long-term effectiveness.
id. at 4-18
- 70 -
-------
Finally and crucially, the NCP's requirement that the
remedy be "cost-effective" would not be met by the selection of
wiie PRAP alternative. fi££ 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f )(l)(ii)(D).
In order to determine "cost-effectiveness," the NCP first
requires the determination of "overall effectiveness" -- which
.-eludes (1) long-term effectiveness and permanence; (2)
-'.ction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
.'3) short-term effectiveness. Id. As noted previously,
Recommended Alternative and PRAP alternative offer
->.
equivalent performance-with regard to -impermeability but., _for.
.ther reasons, the PRAP alternative provides less "short-term
effectiveness" and "long-term effectiveness." Because it is
uncertain how successful an on-site leachate treatment plant
would be in light of the absence of treatability studies, it
ksouid offer less "reduction of toxicity" than the much more
certain treatment at a facility with the full range of treat-
~onf methods. On balance, therefore, the PRAP alternative
offers less "overall effectiveness."
The next step in the NCP requires that "overall
effectiveness" be compared to "cost." The NCP states that «
•Tprnedy shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional
tc its overall effectiveness." 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(1)
,.:;(D). As EPA states in the preamble to the final NCP,
r:oportional" is used to show that the determination is one
that "compare[s] the cost and effectiveness of alternatives in
relation to one another." 55 Fed. Reg. 8728 (Mar. 8, 1990}.
- 71 -
-------
In this situation, no "proportionality* could be s
to exist. The capital costs associated with the capping
portion of the PRAP alternative are approximately $5.1 million
higher than the Recommended Alternative; the overall
effectiveness of the PRAP alternative is the same or lower.
This is therefore not a situation where the more costly
alternative offers a significantly more effective remedy. The
decision to select the more costly alternative — with similar
or less overall effectiveness — would be, therefore,
inconsistent with the NCP._. _ _,
VW. ROD FleabiKtj
In general, any alternative selected in a record of
decision (ROD) should be flexible and should not constrain the
ultimate design of a cap or other elements of the remedia
alternative. If NJDEP decides to proceed based on the current
inadequate information, it is even more important to provide a
flexible ROD in order that the remedy can be adapted as essen-
tial data gaps are filled. The general requirement of ROD
flexibility has been made explicit by EPA in its discussion of
the development of remedial alternatives:
:«••:• -;"M."Ji.-J 2 2 i-Z-Cted, if
possible, so* saeh technology type to simplify
the subsequent development and evaluation of
alternatives without limiting flexibility during
remedial design. The representative process
provides a basis for developing performance
specifications during preliminary design;
however, the specified process actually used to
implement the remedial action at a site may not
be selected until remedial design.
- 72 -
-------
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies under CERCLA (Interim Final), 4-16 (October 1988). The
ROD selects an alternative which has been developed pursuant to
this process. The ROD sets forth the conceptual remedy, which
is provided to inform the public about the basic elements of
the remedy and to establish relative cost estimates among the
possible remedial alternatives. The actual remedial design
takes place after the adoption of the ROD. See 40 C.F.R. §
300.435. The performance of the ultimate design must meet the
performance objectives set forth "in the POD," such as "remedial
action objectives and ARARs.it/ &&£ 40 C.F.R. § 300.435
(b)(l), (2) (1990). However, so long as these objectives are
met, the ultimate c3e?iar. nay ce?s>rt frorr, the remedy described
in the ROD with no further action required unless the remedy
design "differs significantly" from the ROD with respect to
scope, performance, or cost. Sfifi 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2)
In some respects, the Proposed Plan already reflects
this understanding of the relationship between the ROD
alternative and the Remedial Design stage. Thus, the Proposed
Plan proposes an "active gas collection and treatment system"
as its preferred alternative, leaving to the design stage the
details of how this component will be constructed and
For the first operable unit, most of the ARARs will
consist of action-specific ARARs.
- 73 -
-------
operated. Sfifi Proposed Plan at 9. In addition, though t^f
Proposed Plan expresses a preference for *on-site treatment" as
the preferred leachate treatment alternative, it appears to
preserve needed flexibility: "The final option for leachate
collection and treatment, however, would be selected during the
design of this operable unit." Id. at 6.^'
This flexibility should be extended to the design of
the cap and the determination of the necessity of the berm.
with respect to the type of cap implemented at Global Landfill,
the ROD could select _a. general type of .cap or one. achieving
"equivalent performance." With respect to the berm, the ROD
could select monitoring and an engineering evaluation to
de-rnstrate slope stability during the post-closure period. In
the event the required slope stability is not achieved, the
installation of a berm to achieve the required stability may
made at that time. That decision would not be prejudiced by
the implementation of the other components of OUK1.
This approach was used at the Sharkey Landfill in
Morris County, New Jersey, described in the ROD for the site as
a "hazardous waste site." Record of Decision for Sharkey
—-i--' in *>viu* v *t*-«9f fctn-i «• »-*j» «*».»'«*« * £.&ti $> 4. ^> v <* tie 5 the following:
"However, a contingency system, which would include off-site
disposal, may be used during this phase of the remedial
action. This would provide sufficient time to evaluate whether
a single treatment plant could be designed and constructed to
address both the landfill leachate and underlying
groundwater." Proposed Plan at 9.
- 74 -
-------
Landfill, at 35 (Sept. 29, 1986). Although the Sharkey ROD
concluded that RCRA Subtitle C closure requirements were to be
utilized at the site, the cap selected did 'not meet the
compositional criteria of the RCRA 'model' cap," because it did
not include a synthetic liner. Id. Instead, the preferred
alternative was a noncomposite cap which met "the performance
requirements of the relevant RCRA regulations.* 16. Because
of the site characteristics of Global Landfill discussed
previously, the ROD should be similarly written to allow
flexible remedial and cap "design so long as performance
criteria are met. In fact, given the circumstances at Global,
it would be unreasonable for the Global ROD not to have at
least as much flexibility with regard to cap design as the
Sharkey ROD.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. AAARi
The Feasibility Study was designed for a specific
purpose -- the analysis of alternatives that address the
en-site source control of contamination at Global Landfill.
However, the Feasibility Study also purports to identify a
universe of ARARs in order to assist the determination of
remedial objectives at the site. &££ Feasibility Study at 2-1;
App. F. That limited use should not be confused with whether
OU#1 must comply with these contaminant-specific, ambient
standards as ARARs. OUfll, as a phased remedy addressing only
source control, is only governed by certain action-specific
- 75 -
-------
and not contaminant-specific ARARs. See 55 F
Reg. 8755, col. 3 (March 8, 1990).
Indeed, the Feasibility Study recognites that none of
the caps under consideration would produce compliance with the
chemical-specific groundwater or surface water standards
identified in Appendix F of the Feasibility Study. id- at
4-18. Nor is there any present method of comparison of air
ambient quality in relation to the gas management options that
were analyzed. Id- at 4-6. Similarly, none of the leachate
options under consideration would necessarily produce
compliance with chemical-specific ARARs or groundwater and
surface water. Id. at 4-38.
The reason is straightforward: ambient standards are
not relevant at this stage for air, surface water, and
groundwater because the Proposed Plan only covers OU#1. Ev^
were they arguably relevant, they would be the subject of a
waiver under CERCLA § 121(d)(4)(A), because OU#1 is "only part
of a total remedial action that will attain such level or
standard of control when completed.* The Proposed Plan also
treats the standards identified in Appendix F as not yet
relevant beyond assisting in the formulation of remedial
saSsr. iss . the Proposed- Plan
These action-specific ARARs will be different for
distinct remedial alternatives. As EPA has stated, "ARARs will
differ depending upon the specific actions and objectives of
each alternative being considered. . . ."53 Fed. Reg. 51438,
col. 3 (Dec. 21 1988).
- 76 -
-------
identifies only ope ARAR as potentially relevant: closure
requirements. Proposed Plan at 8.
Nonetheless, though the universe of ARAT^s identified
in Appendix F does not apply to OU*1,32/ the general
formulation in Appendix F of what constitutes an ARAR at this
•te is noteworthy. First, the Proposed Plan apparently
<•-r-j~.es that permits would be required for any proposed
•---••Tent plant. Proposed Plan a 6'("effluent. . . .would meet
.-.-i^nrg requirements for discharge to surface water"). This is
.-correct. Section 121(e) of CERCLA states that permits_ ^re_
~ct required for "the portion of any removal or remedial action
conducted entirely onsite." fififi also H.J.A.-C 7:14A-3. l(b) (3)
(exception to NPDE5 permit requirements for CERCLA and Spill
Act activities). The proposed treatment plant would be
•cr.site." Proposed Plan at 6.
Second, the justification for what constitutes an ARAR
is not in accordance with law. The Feasibility Study states
*"•'' Further support for the proposition that the state ARARs
identified in the Feasibility Study were identified solely to
assist in determining remedial objectives can be found in the
feet that there was no effort to specifically explain why each
standard was either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate."
_.,. has stated that "(i)t is not sufficient to provide a
Mu,.c;;5l 'laundry' list for statutes and regulations that might
jje ARARs for a particular site. The state . . . must instead
...ide a list of requirements with specific citations to the
•ration of law identified as a potential ARAR, and a brief
°*-ianation of why that requirement is considered to be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to. lh£ fiitfi." 55 Fed.
F.eg. 8746 col. 2 (Mar. 8, 1990) (emphasis added).
- 77 -
-------
that "[fjor purposes of this FS, ARARs constitute Federal antf
State promulgated regulations, standards and criteria whose
legality is not overridden by any clause of [CERCLA or SARA]."
Feasibility Study at 2-2. This is a misreading of CERCLA, and
reverses the proper burden for determining ARARs. The entire
point of the ARARs process — i.ft., to determine whether a
requirement is "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate* — is
that CERCLA alone determines those requiiements that are
subsequently applied to cleanups on a case-by-case basis. As
-noted -in the preamble -to the J4CP, -."the position that, on-site
CERCLA response actions are not independently subject to other
federal or state environmental laws is a longstanding one,
based on a theory of implied repeal or preemption." 55 Fed.
Reg. £742, col. 1 (March 8, 1990). ' In short, without a
requirement-by-requirement determination as mandated by CERCLA
no standard has an independent application to a cleanup under
CERCLA. The result of this misconception is that the
Feasibility Study assumes the application of, and includes,
standards wholesale without the type of ARARs analysis required.
One example should suffice to make this point clear.
The MCLs are not ARARs, for either OU*1 o_r OU«2. MCLs may be
"relevir-w sni ;??^;jrists- sr.Iy f=r =i»s=r,d and surface water
that is a current or potential source of drinking water." 55
Fed. Reg. 8750, col. 2 (Mar. 8, 1990). However, the upper
water table aquifer is not a potable water source. Proposed
Plan at 4. It therefore could not serve as a current or
- 78 -
-------
potential source of drinking water. And the Old Bridge Sand
aquifer beneath Global Landfill is downgradient; one mile from
the nearest drinking water well. Id. It, therefore, does not
serve as a current drinking water source. Nor can it serve as
a potential drinking water source inasmuch as there is no
significant likelihood of development or the installation of a
drinking water intake downgradient from the site due to the
proximity of the surrounding wetlands and Cheeseguake State
Park. See id., at 2."
B. Excavation and Removal of Drums
The Proposed Plan states that "also under
consideration is the possible removal of the drums during the
exploratory drum investigation in the 6.5 acre tract of land."
Proposed Plan at 3. The number of drums discovered in that
investigation was 63, and these were randomly intermixed with
the surrounding solid waste. From the face of the Proposed
Plan, it appears that the contemplated removal is limited to
these 63 drums and does not extend to a search for and ultimate
removal of any other drums or the landfill's contents. The
Feasibility Study considered an alternative of full-scale
excavation and off-site disposal for the 6.5 acre tract and
properly rejected this option during screening due to the
increased risks to the workers and the public, the lack of
- 79 -
-------
available disposal capacity, and the prohibitive cos
Feasibility Study at 2-22, 2-23. The rejection of this'
alternative is consistent with the NCP and EPA's governing
principles because the few, random drums are clearly not a
principal threat at this site and because the alternative is
completely impracticable for an area as extensive as the 6.5
acre tract. 55 Fed. Reg. 8703, col. 1 (March 8, 1990); 53 Fed,
Reg. 51427, col. 2 (Dec. 21, 1998); Municipal Guidance at
4-12. Thus, any drum removal at this site must be limited to
the already excavatedjJrums. _ _ _
X. CONCLUSION
The foregoing discussion amply demonstrates that the
preferred alternative suggested by NJDEP in the PRAP is
result of inadequate data and overconservative assumptions
which are not warranted by the site or the evidence. On the
other hand, the proposal advanced by the Global Landfill PRP
Group is in complete keeping with the site conditions, the
regulatory requirements, and the potential risks posed by the
site. Importantly, the proposal suggested by the PRPs is one
which compares favorably with remedial alternatives being
implemented at other Rsv; Jsrssy landfills, and accepted by
NJDEP as appropriate at those other sites.
The lack of available disposal capacity renders this
alternative unimplementable.
- 80 -
------- |