United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/199
March 1993
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Monroe Township Landfill, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
4.
7.
9.
12.
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/199
2.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Monroe Township Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
Authors)
Performing Organization Nam* and Address
Sponsoring Organization Nairn and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3.
5.
Recipient's Accession No.
Report Oat*
03/31/93
6.
8.
10
11
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/199
Monroe Township Landfill, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
poses no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $2,482,000, which includes an unspecified estimated
O&M cost of $6,000,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
Monroe Township Landfill
Monroe Township, Middlesex County, N.J.
2
42.37
ROD
Date Signed
Remedy
Capital Cost
0 & M/year
Present worth
3/31/93
No Further Action with Monitoring
none this ROD
$6 Million over 30 years
$2,482,000
LEAD Remedial State Lead
Primary contact Haiyesh Shah, NJDEPE (609) 633-1455
Secondary contact John Osolin, EPA (212) 264-9301
Main PRP(s) Browning Ferris Industries
PRP Contact (phone) Gordon Spradley, (713) 870-7054
WASTE
Type
Medium
Origin
Est. quantity
inorganics and organics
soil, g.w.
Leachate from Municipal Landfill
No Estimate
-------
3 I m 1933
Honorable Scott A. Weiner
Commissioner
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
401 East State Street, CN 402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402
Re: Record of Decision (ROD)
Monroe Township Landfill Site
Monroe Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
Dear Commissioner Weiner:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
(EPA) has reviewed the draft ROD dated March 1993, for the Monroe
Township Landfill Site (Site) located in Monroe Township, Middlesex
County, New Jersey.
EPA concurs with the "No Further Action, with Maintenance and
Monitoring" alternative, and has determined that the draft ROD is
consistent with Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), based on the
administrative record for the Site. This finding shall not affect
EPA's right to conduct five-year reviews of the Site, or to take or
require appropriate action pursuant to such review, in accordance
with Section 121(c) of CERCLA and EPA further reserves the right to
take response and enforcement actions pursuant to Sections 104, 106
and 107 of CERCLA with respect to the remedy and any additional
future work at the site. ->
Sincerely,
William J. Muszynski, P.E.
.Acting Regional Administrator
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
MONROE TOWNSHIP, MIDDLESEX COUNTY
NEW JERSEY
PREPARED BY:
N.J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY
SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM
BUREAU OF FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT
APRIL 1993
-------
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT 1
DECISION SUMMARY 3
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 20
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 22
FIGURES (1 and 2) 31
TABLES (1 to 17) 33
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
Site Name and Location
Monroe Township Landfill Site
Monroe Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document, prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) as lead agency, presents the selected remedy for the
Monroe Township Landfill Site. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for this site. This decision is based on the administrative record for this site. The
attached index identifies the items that comprise the administrative record.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), support agency for this site,
concurs with the selected remedy and has provided a concurrence letter to that effect which
is attached to the responsiveness summary section of this document.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This Record of Decision (ROD) sets forth the selected final remedy for the Monroe
Township Landfill Site. The ROD addresses all environmental media and all operable units
at the Site. The selected remedy is "No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring".
The major components of the selected remedy include:
o Maintenance of existing source control "measures (leachate collection and
management system, emergency power supply, clay cutoff wall, protective cover
systems, surface water drainage systems, and passive gas venting system),
maintenance of the control measure (security fencing), and upgrading of the passive
gas vent system which will be monitored under a Post-Closure Operation and
Maintenance Plan; and
o Ground water monitoring, which will include a sentinel ground water monitoring well
system as well as site perimeter monitor wells to detect potential migration of
contaminants from the site.
-1-
-------
This remedy complies with the NJDEPE Ground Water Quality Standards as well as with
the NJDEPE policy as outlined in the proposed NJDEPE Cleanup Standards through
natural attenuation.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring remedy has been selected based
on the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment, which has shown the remedy to be
protective of human health and the environment.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the site, a review will
be conducted within five (5) years after execution of the ROD to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
accordance with CERCLA, NCP and state requirements, NJDEPE has determined that no
further action is necessary to ensure protection of public health and the environment at the
Monroe Township Landfill Site. NJDEPE has determined that its response at this site is
complete. Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion in the Construction Completion
List
Signature Date
Scott A. Weiner, NJDEPE Commissioner
-2-
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SITE
Site Name. Location, and Description
The Monroe Township Landfill is located on an 86-acre site in Middlesex County, New
Jersey as shown on Figure 1. The site is bordered by woodlands made up mostly of
deciduous trees to the east, south, and west. Most of the area north of the site is also
wooded, but is comprised largely of conifers. Bordering the northeast corner of the site is
a residential neighborhood (Lani and Lori Streets). Approximately 1,800 people live within
a mile radius of the site. Access to the site is from the northwest via Spotswood Gravel Hill
Road. Figure 2 identifies the location of the site and important features.
The landfill is situated on a regional high point. Surface drainage at the site runs primarily
to the north and south away from the crown of the landfill. A shallow drainage channel
exists on the landfill and along the eastern edge of the site.
Low-lying areas occur adjacent to the site at the southeast corner, and in the off-site areas
north and south of the center of the site. An intermittent stream begins at an off-site
location near the southeast corner of the site and flows further off-site toward the south.
The geology/hydrogeology at the site consists of clean sands which grade to silty sand and
clay at increasing depth within two major water bearing formations, the Merchantville and
the Magothy formations. The Merchantville Formation (thickness 30 to 50 feet) directly
underlies a majority of the landfill. Ground water flow in the Merchantville is generally in
an easterly or south easterly direction. The Magothy Formation lies directly below the
Merchantville in the north and southeast. At the northeast corner of the site, where the
Merchantville is absent, a perched zone lies twenty feet above the Magothy Formation.
Ground water flow in the Magothy Formation is generally toward the east.
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Monroe Township was the original owner and operator of the landfill and continues to own
the property. The Township operated the landfill from the mid-1950s until 1968 when it was
leased to Princeton Disposal Service for operation under the service contract to Monroe
Township. Browning-Ferris Industries of South Jersey (BFISJ) acquired Princeton Disposal
Service in 1972 and operated the landfill until 1978. The NJDEPE ordered the site closed
in 1978 when leachate outbreaks seeped onto Lani Street. Based on the NJDEPE
documentation, only municipal and household waste was placed in the landfill.
Following closure of the site, an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) was signed by BFISJ
and the NJDEPE on October 19, 1979. The ACO established methods and schedules for
designing and implementing a closure plan. Remedial measures required under the closure
-3-
-------
plan were completed in 1984. The site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priority
List (NPL) in December 1982 and was included on the NPL in September 1983. BFISJ and
the NJDEPE entered into a second AGO effective December 29, 1986, to determine the
effectiveness of the closure and remedial measures implemented.
In accordance with the 1979 Consent Order, the following three remedial measures have
been implemented:
o installation of a 7,000-foot long compacted clay cutoff wall circumscribing most of the
site;
o construction and operation of a leachate collection and storage system which
discharges to a Publicly Owned Treatment works (POTW) under a New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit; and
o construction of a protective clay cap covering the northern portion of the landfill and
a soil cap covering the remainder of the landfill.
The clay cutoff wall could not be installed on the northern portion of the landfill due to the
absence of a clay layer base required to key in the clay cutoff wall. On this portion of the
landfill, a clay cap was installed having a maximum permeability of 10"7 cm/sec to minimize
infiltration of precipitation. The clay cap was installed in accordance with the New Jersey
State Solid Waste Management Act and meets current State and Federal standards for solid
waste covers.
The soil cap was also installed in accordance with the New Jersey Solid Waste Management
Act and meets current State and Federal standards (2 feet of clean top soil and vegetation).
The soil cap prevents erosion from occurring and allows the percolation of rain water
through the landfill. Any leachate generated from this percolation is collected in the
leachate collection system and treated. Figure 2 identifies areas of the landfill with the clay
cap, cutoff wall, leachate collection system and the soil cap.
The following additional remedial measures were completed between 1987 and 1991 in
accordance with the 1986 AGO:
o upgrading the soil erosion and sediment control systems by replacing former channels
with rip-rap lined channels, and upgrading the sedimentation basin;
o installation of a seven foot high chain-link fence surrounding the landfill to limit
unauthorized access;
o closure of the previous leachate storage lagoon and construction of an underground
leachate storage tank;
-4-
-------
o installation of an emergency power generator as a contingency for the leachate
collection system in case of power failure; and
o installation of 13 landfill gas vents for gas ventilation under a New Jersey Air
Pollution Control Permit.
These remedial systems have proven to be effective as source control measures.
Highlights of Community Participation
A briefing for Township officials was held on August 10, 1989 to discuss a proposal for
replacing the on-site leachate storage lagoon with an underground storage tank and
installing a standby power generator. The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA), forwarded to the public repositories in September 1992 as well as the
Proposed Plan, forwarded to the public repositories on November 1, 1992 for the Monroe
Township Landfill Site were released to the public for comments on November 2, 1992.
These documents were made available to the public for review at the NJDEPE office
(Trenton, New Jersey), the Monroe Township Municipal Complex (Jamesburg, New Jersey),
and the Jamesburg Library (Jamesburg, New Jersey). The notice of availability for these
documents was published in the Home News on November 2, 1992. A public comment
period on the documents was held from November 2, 1992 to December 1, 1992. In
addition, a public meeting was held on November 9, 1992. At this meeting representatives
from the NJDEPE presented the preferred remedy and answered questions about the site
and the remedy under consideration. A response to comments received during this period
and the public meeting is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this
ROD.
Scope and Role of Response Action
The selecte'd remedy for the site is No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring.
This remedy will include the maintenance and upgrading of existing control measures and
ground water monitoring. The NJDEPE evaluated the feasibility of possible alternatives for
the treatment of the contaminants in ground water monitor well B-21R. Based on the
evaluation, it was determined that ground water treatment was impractical and unnecessary.
This remedy addresses the protection of human health and the environment as explained
below:
o The No Further Action with Monitoring remedy complies with the NJDEPE Ground
Water Quality Standards as well as with the policy outlined in the proposed NJDEPE
Cleanup Standards through natural attenuation.
o Based on the BRA, there is no current or future risk to public health greater than
the carcinogenic risk range of 10^ to 10"6, or the non-carcinogenic Hazard Index
-5-
-------
criteria of one (1) established by USEPA. Also, based on the BRA, there is no
unacceptable current or future risk to the environment.
o Landfill contamination is being contained by the compacted clay cutoff wall, the
leachate collection system, and the clay cap and soil cover systems.
o The landfill cover systems and enhanced surface water drainage control measures are
effective in reducing leachate generation. The entire site is surrounded by security
fencing which restricts unauthorized entries to the site and potential direct contact
exposures.
o Ground water modeling at the site has shown that contaminants will travel down
gradient a distance of less than 800 feet in 100 years conservatively assuming no
natural attenuation.
o There are no known users of the Magothy Formation ground water within 3000 feet
of the site. Down gradient residences are connected to the Monroe Township
Municipal Water Supply. There are two residential wells located at a single
residence on block # 148, lot # 36.02. These wells are located upgradient of the site
ground water flow direction and are hand dugout shallow wells (installed in
quaternary deposits located above the Merchantville Formation) having less than 30
feet depth. These wells were sampled during the RI and determined not to be of
concern because the results were below the applicable regulatory standards.
o There is no potential for the ground water to be used as a potable source in the
vicinity of the site in the future based on written documentation obtained from the
Township concerning the potential ground water uses for a 25 year horizon. A
Township Ordinance requires that all existing and planned dwellings located within
200 feet of a water supply be connected to the Township Water Supply.
o Potential migration of contaminants detected in on-site monitoring wells will be
monitored by a sentinel well system which is currently in-place and located down
gradient of the potential source areas. The monitoring will be performed in
accordance with the NJDEPE policy as outlined in the proposed NJDEPE
regulations which are designed to be conservative in terms of protection of public
health and the environment.
o If contaminants are confirmed to be present in the sentinel well system at
concentrations above promulgated State and Federal drinking water standards or the
NJDEPE Ground Water Quality Standards, the need for additional remedial
action(s) will be reevaluated.
o The existing remedial systems (compacted clay cutoff wall; leachate collection system
and storage tank; emergency power supply; multi-layer clay cap and soil cover
-6-
-------
systems; surface water, sediment and soil erosion control measures; landfill gas vent
systems; and site security) are effective and will be maintained through a post-closure
operation and maintenance plan to ensure their proper operation and continued
effectiveness.
o The existing landfill gas venting system will be upgraded by installing approximately
eleven (11) additional landfill gas vents on the northern portion of the site. These
passive gas vents will be installed to minimize the potential gas pressure build up in
the subsurface. The approximate locations of the proposed passive gas vents are
identified on Figure 2.
Summary of Site Characteristics
The Remedial Investigation (RI) is comprised of several environmental investigations
performed in accordance with the 1979 and 1986 Administrative Consent Orders. The RI
developed a conceptual model of the site geology and hydrogeology and assessed the nature
and extent of contamination in various environmental media including ground water, surface
water, surface soil, stream sediments and landfill gas. The RI was carried out in a phased
approach which initially focused upon ground water and then addressed other environmental
media. The significant findings of the RI are summarized below.
A. Ground Water
A hydrogeologic study of the site during the RI field investigation was performed in 1987
and included drilling of borings through the Merchantville and Magothy Formation, and the
collection of soil samples to evaluate site stratigraphy. Piezometers and monitoring wells
were installed in the borings through Merchantville Formation, Magothy Formation and the
perched zones within the Magothy Formation. Water samples were collected from 13
monitor wells in the Merchantville Formation (including 6 EFP wells, MW-1S through MW-
6S), 15 wells in the Magothy Formation and four (4) wells (one well was dry, B-55) in the
perched zones of the Magothy Formation at the site as well as two (2) residential wells and
analyzed for Target Compound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL) parameters. Ground
water sampling was conducted for four quarters from July 1987 to February 1989. A fifth
round of samples was collected when data from the first round were determined to be
invalid. Figure 2 identifies the locations of the ground water monitor wells.
Chemicals of concern in the Magothy Formation ground water at the site exceeding the
respective regulatory standards are listed in the table below. The table includes the
maximum concentrations of chemicals of concern detected in the Magothy Formation
ground water at the site in parts per billion (ppb), respective NJDEPE Ground Water
Quality Standards and the respective Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL).
-7-
-------
CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN IN
THE MAGOTHY
FORMATION
GROUND
WATER
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Arsenic
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATIO
N DETECTED
(PPB)
16
10.9
226
3.7
14
16.9
4
13.7
10.1
NJDEPE
QUALITY
STANDARD
(PPB)
4
10
100
1
4
2
2
5
8
FEDERAL MCL
(PPB)
5
15
100
5
100
5
7
2
50
Arsenic levels in ground water are attributed to natural background based on the results of
site upgradient monitor wells results. Contaminants were also detected in the Merchantville
Formation and the perched water zone within the Magothy Formation ground water. The
range of these contaminant concentrations along with a comparison to the NJDEPE Ground
Water Quality Standards and the Federal MCLs is presented in Table 1. Based on the
BRA, there is no current or future unacceptable risk to public health or the environment
related to ground water exposures as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks section of this
ROD.
B. Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected for quantitative chemical analyses at five locations that
included an off-site intermittent stream beginning at the southeastern corner of the site, a
low-lying area on the southern border of the site, and the sedimentation pond. The samples
were analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, TAL
inorganic compounds, and pesticides/Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The following is
a list of chemicals of concern with maximum concentration detected in the surface water
along with State and the Federal Criteria, Figure 2 identifies the locations of the surface
water samples.
-8-
-------
CHEMICALS
OF
CONCERN
IN SURFACE
WATER
Arsenic
Beryllium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Methylene
chloride
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRA
TION
DETECTED
(PPB)
2.3
0.2
9.4
47.1
0.3
19.1
65.8
2.0
STATE
CRITERIA
(PPB)
50
Not Available
Not Available
50
2
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
FEDERAL
ACUTE
CRITERIA
(PPB)
360
130
18
82
2.4
1400
120
Not Available
FEDERAL
CHRONIC
CRITERIA
(PPB)
190
5.3
12
3.2
0.012
160
110
Not Available
Concentrations of chemicals of concern detected in the surface water samples were
determined not to be of concern in the BRA as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks
section of this ROD.
C. Surface Soil
Surface soil samples were collected for quantitative chemical analyses at nine locations on
the capped portion of the site. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds,
semi-volatile organic compounds, TAL inorganic compounds, and pesticides/PCBs.
Concentrations of contaminants detected in the soil samples were below NJDEPE's most
recent general guidance on contaminant cleanup levels as found in the "Cleanup Standards
for Contaminated Sites" which appeared in the February 3,1992 New Jersey Register except
for arsenic. Arsenic was detected in the soil samples at a maximum concentration of 29.2
parts per million (ppm) which is above NJDEPE's -general guidance of 2.0 ppm. Arsenic
concentrations in the soil are attributed to natural background (typically 1-40 ppm based on
the results of the regional studies, James Dragun, 1988 as well as Shacklette and Boerngen,
1984). Concentrations of contaminants detected in surface soil were determined not to be
of concern in the BRA as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks section of this ROD.
Figure 2 identifies the locations of the surface soil samples. The following is a list of
chemicals of concern with maximum concentration detected in the surface soil and
NJDEPE's most recent general guidance on contaminant cleanup levels as found in the
"Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites" which appeared in the February 3, 1992 New
Jersey register:
-9-
-------
CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN IN
SURFACE SOIL
Arsenic
Fluoranthene
Benzole acid
Heptachlor
DDD
Phenanthrene
DDE
Pyrene
DDT
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED (MG/KG,
PPM)
31.3
0.110
16.0
0.098
0.420
0.085
0.430
0.100
0.610
PROPOSED NJDEPE
CLEANUP STANDARD
(MG/KG, PPM)
2.0
2,300
Not Available
0.15
3.0
Not Available
2.0
1,700
2.0
D. Sediment
Sediment samples were collected for quantitative chemical analyses at nine locations that
included the sedimentation pond, the sedimentation pond discharge channel, a low-lying
area to the northeast of the sedimentation pond, a channel along the eastern border of the
site, a low-lying area near the southeastern corner of the landfill, a location along the
southern boundary of the site, and the leachate pond. The samples were analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, TAL inorganic compounds,
and pesticides/PCBs. The following is a list of chemicals of concern with maximum
concentration detected in the sediments and the respective Quality Criteria:
-10-
-------
CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN IN
SEDIMENTS
Anthracene
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
ODD
DDE
DDT
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
-
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
(MG/KG,PPM)
0.390
34.2
0.190
0.210
0.160
0.310
0.084
0.130
0.230
0.480
0.078
0.170
0.056
0.530
0.350
EFFECT RANGE
MEDIAN (ER-M)'
(MG/KG, PPM)
0.960
85
2.5
Not Available
Not Available
2.8
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
3.6
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
1.380
2.200
* ER-M = A reference number used to identify the presence of contamination
exceeding levels potentially harmful to aquatic life. The values referenced are from
NOAA, 1990, "The Biological Effects of Sediments-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in
the National Status and Trends Program".
Concentrations of contaminants detected in sediments were determined not to be of concern
in the BRA as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks section of this ROD. Figure 2
identifies the locations of the sediment samples.
E. Air
Air samples were collected for quantitative chemical analyses at three of the 13 landfill gas
vents on three separate occasions. Volatile organic compounds detected in these samples
-11-
-------
were within the existing Air Pollution Control Permit limits. Figure 2 identifies the
locations of the air samples collected from the gas vents. The following is a list of chemicals
of concern with maximum concentration detected in the gas vents and the respective limits
under the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Permit (NJAPCP):
CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN IN AIR
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED (MG/M3)
(ESTIMATED RELEASE
IN 1B/HR IN
PARENTHESES)
110 (0.00029)
15 (0.00039)
15 (0.00039)
NJAPCP LIMITS
Total release not to
exceed 0.1 Ib/hr
Total release not to
exceed 0.1 Ib/hr
Total release not to
exceed 0.1 Ib/hr
Chemicals of concern detected in the air were determined not to be of concern in the BRA
as discussed in the Summary of Site Risks section of this ROD.
Summary of Site Risks
Based upon the results of the RI, a BRA was conducted to estimate the risks to human
health and the environment associated with current and future site conditions under
hypothetical reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The BRA estimated the human
health and ejcological risks which could potentially result from the site if no further remedial
actions were taken.
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A four step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario:
o Hazard Identification—identifies the chemicals of concern at the site based on several
factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
o Exposure Assessment-estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways
(e.g.,ingesting contaminated well water) by which humans are potentially exposed.
-12-
-------
o Toxicity Assessment-determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response).
o Risk Characterization-summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk)
assessment of site-related risks.
Hazard Identification
Chemicals of concern were selected based upon the frequency of detection in each medium
(e.g., soil, ground water, etc.), adequacy and representativeness of the analytical results,
toxicity, comparison to site or area-specific background concentrations, and comparison to
lab results for blank samples. The chemicals of concern for each medium include metals
(including antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and thallium), volatile organic
compounds (including acetone, benzene, 2-butanone, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride,
and vinyl chloride), semi-volatile organic compounds (including benzoic acid, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,2-dichlorobenzene and phenol), and pesticides (DDD, DDE, and
DDT). A summary of all contaminants detected in all ground water monitor wells is
included in Table 1. Table 2 provides a summary of ground water aquifer zones at the site
and monitor wells within the aquifer zones evaluated in the BRA. Table 3 provides a
summary of the chemicals of concern in the Magothy Formation ground water as well as
range of detected concentrations. A summary of all contaminants detected in surface water,
soil, sediment and air is included in Tables 4 through 7. A summary of chemicals of
concern in surface water, soil, sediments, and air is included in Tables 8.
Exposure Assessment
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the chemicals of concern were
estimated quantitatively through the development of hypothetical exposure pathways. These
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to chemicals of concern based
on the current uses and potential future uses. The assumptions for exposure frequency and
duration and the equations to calculate exposure concentrations along with the resulting
exposure point concentrations using "the reasonable maximum exposure scenario are
presented and discussed in the BRA.
Under current site conditions, exposure to chemicals of concern might potentially occur via
inhalation of emissions from landfill gas vents, direct contact with surface soil, direct contact
with surface water, and direct contact with sediment. Current exposure to ground water was
considered to be an incomplete exposure pathway because there are no known users of the
Magothy Formation ground water within 3,000 feet of the site and because the overlying
aquitard (Merchantville Formation) is naturally unsuitable, and is currently not being used
as a source of potable water. As mentioned earlier there are two, less than 25 feet deep,
residential wells located at the single residence on block # 148, lot # 36.02. These wells
-13-
-------
are upgradient of the site ground water flow direction and determined to be not of concern
based on the sampling results and the BRA.
Populations which are potentially exposed to surface water, surface soil, sediment and air
under current site conditions considered in the BRA include off-site residents, trespassers,
and site workers. Off-site residents were assumed to inhale chemicals of concern emitted
from the landfill gas vents, and children were assumed to be exposed to sediment and
surface water during play. A trespasser was assumed to inhale chemicals of concern emitted
from landfill gas vents and to be exposed to chemicals of concern in surface soil. A site
worker was assumed to inhale chemicals of concern emitted from landfill gas vents and to
have direct contact with chemicals of concern in soil and sediment.
Under future conditions, in addition to the exposure scenarios outlined above, hypothetical
recreational use of the site as a play area or park and subsequent exposure to surface water,
surface soil, sediment, and air were considered as possible future exposure scenarios. In
addition, because future use of the Magothy Formation as a potable water source cannot
be absolutely precluded, direct human exposure to chemicals of concern in ground water via
ingestion and bathing was assessed. Future use of the Magothy Formation as a water supply
source in the vicinity of the site is highly unlikely because a township ordinance requires that
all dwellings must be connected to the public water supply. This ordinance would preclude
any future homes from using private wells in the area.
Future potential direct and indirect exposures to the Merchantville Formation ground water
are not considered to be a complete pathway because:
o the Merchantville Formation is naturally unsuitable as a source of potable water
primarily due to its classification as an aquitard;
o the Merchantville Formation has a low vertical ground water migration rate of 9X10"4
ft/day such that vertical recharge to the Magothy Formation is negligible; and
o the .leachate collection system controls ground water from flowing through the
Merchantville silty sand seam into the Quaternary deposits.
There are two residential wells installed in the quaternary deposit located above the
Merchantville formation at the single residence located on block # 148, lot # 36.02. These
wells are far from the landfill, upgradient of the site ground water flow direction and
determined to be not of concern based on the sampling results performed on these wells
during the RI. The BRA provides expanded discussions of the potential current and future
ground water exposure scenarios at the site. A summary of all potential exposure pathways
for all media is included in Table 9.
-14-
-------
Toxicity Assessment
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) and reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by USEPA
for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks for the carcinogenic chemicals of concern at the
site and for indicating adverse health effects from non-carcinogenic chemicals of concern
at the site, respectively. The BRA presents and discusses these numerical factors used for
the calculation of human health risks at the site. A reference calculation of intakes of the
chemicals of concern in ground water, surface water, soil, sediment and air is included in
Table 10 while a summary of exposure assumptions is included in Tables 11 through 13.
Tables 14 through 16 includes reference doses and slope factors for chemicals of concern
for all media.
Risk Characterization
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are individual lifetime excess
carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"* to 10"6. This can be interpreted to mean that an
individual may have a one in ten thousand to a one in a million increased chance of
developing cancer as a result of a site related exposure to a carcinogen under specific
exposure conditions.
The calculations of carcinogenic risk numbers for the site indicated that, for all pathways
evaluated, the risk is well within or below acceptable range. The highest potential
carcinogenic risk calculated was 2X10"5, which was associated with the future recreational
use scenario of an individual incidently ingesting site soils.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures for non-carcinogens are a maximum
health Hazard Index of 1.0. A hazard index greater than one (1.0) indicates that the
exposure level exceeds the protective level for that particular chemical.
Of all the p'athways evaluated for non-carcinogenic risk, none exceeded the acceptable limit
of hazard index of 1.0. The highest hazard index calculated was 0.69, which was associated
with the future use scenario of an individual ingesting ground water from local wells in the
Magothy Formation.
The State of New Jersey general guidelines on contaminant cleanup levels as found in the
"Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites" which was published in the February 3, 1992
New Jersey Register. These guidelines are protective to 10"*. There were three different
pathways for which the cancer risks associated with incidental ingestion of site soils were
above the NJDEPE guidelines of 10"*. These risks, 4X10"6,3x10^, and 2xlO"5 were calculated
for current trespasser, current site workers and the future on-site recreational population.
These risks were attributable to background concentration of arsenic in the soil. There was
no cancer risk associated with the site ground water above the NJDEPE guidelines of 10"*.
-15-
-------
The results of the BRA indicate that the current and potential future risks, both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, associated with the chemicals of concern for all media
at the site are within or below acceptable limits and that there is no unacceptable risk to
the public health. A summary of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks for current and
hypothetical future use of the site is included in Table 17.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
In the Ecological assessment, a reasonable maximum environmental exposure is evaluated
utilizing a four step process for assessing site-related ecological risks. These steps are:
Problem Formulation - development of the objectives and scope of the ecological
assessment; description of the site and ecosystems that may be impacted; identification of
chemicals of concern. Exposure Assessment - identification of potential ecological receptors
and exposure pathways; quantitative evaluation of exposure pathways; fate and transport
mechanisms for contaminants. Ecological Effects Assessment - literature reviews, field
studies and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological
receptors. Risk Characterization -measurement or estimation of both current and future
adverse effects on ecological receptors.
The environmental evaluation was completed in accordance with the requirements outlined
in the risk assessment work plan approved by the NJDEPE and USEPA which included the
following:
o an inventory of on-site flora and fauna;
o an estimate of site vegetative cover;
o identification of threatened and endangered species in the area;
o determination of likely exposure pathways for organisms in the area;
o identification and sampling of surface water runoff areas; and
o identification and sampling of ground water discharge areas.
The analytical results for soil, sediment, ground water, and surface water samples collected
at the site were also reviewed with respect to potential ecological impacts.
A number of State, Federal, and Local government agencies, private organizations, and local
experts were contacted to obtain information on the flora, fauna, aquatic biota, historical
water quality data, soils, topography, and listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species
in the area of the site. A two-day reconnaissance of the landfill and surrounding area was
conducted on July 8-9, 1991, during which surface drainage patterns, areas devoid of
vegetation, wetlands, and other pertinent site features were identified and recorded. Signs
-16-
-------
of animal usage or presence on or near the site were also recorded. Animal species were
identified through direct observation or ancillary evidence (e.g., tracks or nests).
As determined from the two-day reconnaissance of the site, no visual evidence of impacts
on plant or animal species was determined for the site or wetland areas surrounding the site.
No federal or state listed endangered species were observed on the site, although some
listed or endangered species have been recorded as being in the area. The most likely
exposure pathways for the flora were determined to be uptake via water and sediments in
the wetlands adjacent to the site. The most likely exposure pathways for fauna were
determined to be ingestion of surface water and sediment in the wetlands, and dermal
adsorption from water in the wetlands.
Surface water drainage on the northern part of the site is directed to the sedimentation
basin. Surface water discharged from the sedimentation basin is tested in accordance with
its NJPDES permit. Another permitted outfall exists at the northeast corner of the site.
The permit discharge limits and testing requirements are designed to be protective of
aquatic life. Samples of the discharge have historically been within the approved permit
limits. Surface water on the southern portion of the landfill flows via sheet flow into three
wetlands located on the southern boundary of the landfill. Based upon a review of the
surface water data and the fact that the cap is effectively preventing contaminants from
entering the surface water, the surface water runoff from the landfill should not have any
adverse effects on the water quality of the streams draining these areas.
The clay cutoff wall forms an effective barrier between the leachate contained in the landfill
and the surrounding Quaternary deposits east and south of the landfill which contain
freshwater wetlands. The leachate collection system hydraulically controls the migration of
any impacted ground water from the landfill into the wetlands. Therefore, wetlands will not
be affected by impacted water from the site.
To further"assess potential ecological impacts, surface water and sediment quality data for
samples obtained from low lying areas on and off-site and from an off-site intermittent
stream, were compared to federal ambient surface water quality criteria and state sediment
criteria. These criteria were developed to be protective of ecological systems. This
assessment showed that the majority of constituents detected in surface water samples were
below the applicable criteria and that the few constituents detected in surface water samples
were found at concentrations typical of background concentrations in the area. Only total
mercury (0.0003 ppm) and total lead (0.047 ppm) exceeded surface water quality criteria,
0.000012 ppm and 0.0032 ppm respectively. These concentrations were determined to be
not of concern as they are comparable to background concentrations found in surrounding
areas. No chemicals in sediment samples exceeded the respective Effect Range-Median
criteria. Effect Range-Median (ER-M) criteria is a reference number used to identify the
presence of contamination exceeding levels potentially harmful to aquatic life. These ER-M
values are referenced in "The Potential Biological Effects of Sediments-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program", NOAA, 1990.
-17-
-------
Based on the on and off-site chemical data and information on the source of contaminants
reported in the RI, the results of the two-day reconnaissance, physical characteristics of the
site, species population and ecology, animal and plant toxicity data, and operation of the
existing remedial measures, it is unlikely that there will be adverse impacts on the flora and
fauna of the area, on the wetlands communities as a whole, or on potential threatened and
endangered species in the vicinity of the site.
Description of the "No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring" Remedy
The NJDEPE has selected the No Further Action with Maintenance and Monitoring remedy
for the Monroe Township Landfill Site. This remedy was selected after evaluating the
feasibility of treating contaminants in ground water monitor well B-21R. The USEPA
concurs with the selected remedy based on the RI and BRA. A description of the selected
remedy is presented below.
o The source control measures which are currently in place at the site, including the
landfill cover systems, site security fencing, leachate collection and management
system, emergency power supply, landfill gas vent system, and surface water, sediment
and erosion control are effective and will be maintained under a post-closure
operation and maintenance plan.
o The continued effectiveness of the existing source control measures will be assessed
through a ground water monitoring program in accordance with the proposed
NJDEPE Natural Remediation Compliance Program (NRCP) which will include a
sentinel well system to monitor the ground water quality. The NRCP includes 20
consecutive quarters (5 years) worth of ground water quality data collected from the
monitoring wells which track the degradation and attenuation of contaminants in the
ground water. The ground water at the site is determined to be in compliance with
the NRCP after 5 years of monitoring if: 1) Contaminant concentrations have not
beerr increasing in site monitor wells; 2) Contaminant concentrations have been
steadily decreasing in source control monitor wells; and 3) No contamination above
the applicable ground water quality standard is detected in the sentinel well system.
If contaminants are confirmed to be present in the sentinel well system at
concentrations above promulgated State and Federal drinking water standards or the
NJDEPE Ground Water Quality Standards, the need for additional remedial
action(s) will be reevaluated.
o The sentinel well system for the Magothy Formation will, at a minimum, consist of
monitoring wells B-56 and B-48. It is expected that the sentinel well system for the
perched zone within the Magothy Formation will, at a minimum, consist of
monitoring wells B-1R-SS and B-46P, and that sentinel monitoring of the
Merchantville Formation will consist of both hydrogeologic and contaminant
monitoring. Water levels will be measured in the monitoring wells and piezometers
in the Merchantville Formation along the southern boundary of the site and
-18-
-------
contaminants will be monitored in well B-52. The expected sentinel monitoring point
locations are shown on Figure 2.
o The sentinel ground water monitoring wells will be sampled on a quarterly basis
beginning within six (6) months of signing the ROD and continuing for a minimum
of five (5) years. The monitoring frequency and parameters of analyses may be
modified during the five year period based on the ground water quality results. The
ground water samples will be analyzed for TCL volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds and TAL metals.
o Landfill gas emissions will continue to be monitored in accordance with the existing
air pollution control permit (APC plant ID No. 15949 Stack 001 and 002). In
addition, approximately eleven new passive gas vents will be installed and monitored
through modification of the existing air pollution control permit.
o Surface water discharge from the sedimentation pond will continue to be monitored
in accordance with the current NJPDES/Discharge to Surface Water (DSW) permit
(NJPDES Permit No. 0099988). The leachate collection and discharge to the POTW
will continue to be monitored in accordance with the current NJPDES permit
(NJPDES Permit No. 0099988).
The requirements for the Natural Remediation Compliance Program, and the Operation
and Maintenance Plan for the source control measures will be specified in the Post-Closure
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan to be prepared after the ROD has been signed. The
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan will also include monitoring of selected
perimeter monitor wells on a semi-annual basis for the first five years and on a yearly basis
thereafter using TCL/TAL parameters. BFISJ will be responsible for this monitoring and
will also be responsible for the maintenance of the landfill and control measures.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will be
conducted within five years after signing the Record of Decision to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Documentation of Significant Changes
There is no change from the Preferred Remedy described in the Proposed Plan and the
selected remedy described in this ROD.
-19-
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
MONROE TOWNSHIP. MIDDLESEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
1. Administrative Consent Order (AGO) between Browning-Ferris Industries of South
Jersey (BFISJ) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy (NJDEPE), 1979.
2. Remedial Action Plan, Wehren Engineering, March 17, 1980.
3. Phase 1 Remedial Action Completion Certification Report, Wehren Engineering,
May 29, 1981.
4. Monroe Township Water Supply Master Plan, Charles J. Kupper, Inc., April 1983.
5. Phase 2 Remedial Action Completion Certification Report, Wehren Engineering,
September 5, 1984.
6. Community Relations Plan for Monroe Township Landfill Site, NJDEPE, September
1986.
7. Groundwater Quality Analysis Plan and Potable Well Inventory, BFISJ, October 16,
1986.
8. AGO between BFISJ and the NJDEPE, December 29, 1986.
9. Hydrogeologic Data Compilation, Analysis and Reporting, P.C. Rizzo Associates
(Rizzo), October 23, 1987.
10. New_Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) DSW/SIU permit #
NJ0599988 issuance to BFISJ on November 1, 1988.
11. Comprehensive Evaluation of Chemical Analysis Results, Rizzo, June 1989.
12. Air Pollution Control Permit for Plant ID #15949 Stack # 001 for 13 Sas Vents,
Issued to BFISJ on March 6, 1989.
13. Air Pollution Control Permit for Plant ID # 15949 Stack # 002 for Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Vent, Issued to BFISJ on April 2, 1990.
14. Treatment Works Approval, Permit # 89-3542-4L for the UST and 30 Kilowatt
Standby Generator (Alternate Power Station), Issued to BFISJ on July 25, 1990.
15. Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan, Rizzo, August 1990.
-20-
-------
16. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Rizzo, September 1990.
17. Risk Assessment (RA)/Feasibility Study (FS) Work Plan, Rizzo, November 16,1990.
18. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Soil, Sediment and Surface Water, Rizzo, January 23,
1991.
19. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Certification Report, Earth Sciences Consultants
(ESC), June 1991.
20. Leachate Lagoon Closure Plan, ESC, September 9, 1991.
21. Supplemental Environmental Investigation report, Rizzo, January 1992.
22. Leachate Lagoon Closure Certification Report, ESC, May 11, 1992.
23. Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Industrial Compliance/Golder Associates, July
1992.
24. Proposed Plan, NJDEPE, November 1992.
25. November 9, 1992 Public Meeting Proceedings Transcript, Schulman, Ciccarelli &
Wiegmann, December 1992.
-21-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
OUTLINE:
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
A. Overview
B. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
C. Summary of Comments Received During the Public Meeting and Comment Period
and Agency Responses
D. Community Relations Activities at the Monroe Township Landfill Site
A. OVERVIEW
This is a summary of the public's comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Plan for
the remediation of the Monroe Township Landfill Superfund Site and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy's (NJDEPE) responses to those
comments. The comments which were received in writing are attached to this section.
The public comment period extended from November 2, 1992 through December 1, 1992
to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan, Remedial
Investigation (RI), Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) and other supporting documents for
the Monroe Township Landfill Site. During the comment period, the NJDEPE held a public
meeting on November 9, 1992 at 7:00 PM at the Monroe Township Municipal Building to
discuss the results of the RI and BRA and to present the preferred remedy.
On the basis of the information contained in the RI, BRA and supporting documents,
NJDEPE has selected the following remedy for the Monroe Township Landfill Site: No
further action with Maintenance and Monitoring.
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Community involvement at the Monroe Township Landfill site was greatly intensified after
a June 1978 leachate overflow from the then active landfill onto Lani Street into a nearby
residential area. NJDEPE ordered the Landfill closed after this incident. In the Spring of
1979, Monroe Township hired its own consultant to evaluate public health and safety at the
landfill. In June of 1979 NJDEPE initiated potable well water sampling at six homes; one
well was closed as a result. Mayor Peter Garibaldi of Monroe Township requested that
NJDEPE conduct further sampling. Although well samples taken on July 3 and 15,1979 did
not reveal the levels of contamination seen in the previous sampling, NJDEPE
recommended that the well water in this area not be considered safe. As a result, Mayor
-22-
-------
Garibaldi requested that army water tanks be placed in this neighborhood as a temporary
source of potable water.
The extensive use of ground water as the only available source of potable water in the
Outcalt section of Monroe Township prompted Mayor Garibaldi to place a building
moratorium in this area in August of 1979 until problems were corrected or other
permanent water sources were supplied. A water line for the Outcalt residents was
constructed in the winter of 1979/1980.
NJDEPE forwarded sampling results to the Monroe Township Environmental Commission
in June 1981 and May 1983 and to the Middlesex County Health Department in April 1984
in response to requests from these agencies. Township concerns were also reflected in a
letter from Mayor Garibaldi requesting a status update pertaining to NJDEPE's Superfund
application. Community involvement subsided significantly in 1984 after the installation of
the water line and implementation of the landfill closure plan.
NJDEPE held a Public Meeting at the Monroe Township Municipal Building on April 22,
1987 to discuss initiation of the Hydrological Study to evaluate ground water quality in the
vicinity of the landfill and evaluate effectiveness of the landfill closure measures.
Approximately seventy people attended this meeting and generally expressed satisfaction
with the closure operations to that point and concerns for when the site would be opened
to public use, perhaps as a park or recreation area.
NJDEPE held a briefing for Monroe Township officials at the Monroe Township Municipal
Building on August 10, 1989 to discuss planned improvements to the leachate collection
system. At the request of the officials, letters were sent to property owners adjacent to the
landfill discussing this work when it was initiated in the summer of 1990.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
Concerns raised during the Monroe Township landfill Superfund Site Public Meeting held
on November 9,1992 are summarized below. Responses to two written comments received
during the comment period which extended from November 2, 1992 through December 1,
1992 are also included.
1. Comment: A representative of the Middlesex County Sewage Authority asked who
were the responsible parties for contamination of the site.
Response: Browning Ferris Industries is the responsible party. All costs of the
cleanup are being paid by Browning Ferris Industries at no cost to the tax payer
under the terms of an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) with NJDEPE.
-23-
-------
2. Comment: The Chairperson of the Monroe Township Environmental Commission
expressed concern about 1) arsenic levels in the soil being attributed to natural
background levels, 2) the source of materials for capping the landfill and 3)
responsibility for monitoring and maintaining the landfill in the future. One of the
letters received also included these concerns, indicating that the proposed plan stated
that arsenic was present in the cap material and why was the cap material not tested?
Response: Naturally occurring soils in the vicinity of the Monroe Township Landfill
have been shown to contain as much as 40 parts per million (ppm) of arsenic (based
on the results of the regional studies, James Dragun, 1988 as well as Shacklette and
Boerngen, 1984). Based on the BRA which considered an exposure to arsenic in the
soil, there is no current or future unacceptable risk to public health and the
environment. The discussion on arsenic in the proposed plan refers to arsenic
present in the soil at the landfill before the cap material was brought in, not to the
cap material itself. Soil used to cap the site was purchased from a source certified
to be free of contamination. The cap material itself was not tested because the
source area was fully evaluated and determined to be clean. Browning Ferris
Industries is required to maintain the site after signing the Record of Decision for
a period of at least thirty (30) years, and thereafter for as long as leachate is being
generated.
3. Comment: The Chairperson of the Environmental Commission asked if the
Department of Health would be doing studies to determine if-there were any health
risks associated with the landfill.
Response: The New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) published a Site Review
and Update for the Monroe Township Landfill in August of 1992 which concluded
that the site did not pose a health threat. The Superfund law requires that site health
assessments be updated periodically. NJDEPE has provided a copy of the August
1992.NJDOH report to the environmental commission.
4. Comment: The owner of a residential property .adjacent to the landfill whose wells
had been sampled on various occasions during the site investigations requested the
sampling results. Also a writer asked the status of the same residential well sampling
results and requested more information concerning status of the current residential
wells surrounding the landfill area.
Response: NJDEPE has mailed the sampling results to the resident's home address.
The results show that the wells met all NJDEPE drinking water standards. There
are no known users of the Magothy Formation ground water within 3000 feet of the
site and that residents are currently connected to the public water supply system.
Local ordinance requires that all existing and planned dwellings located within 200
feet of a water supply be connected to the Township Water Supply System.
-24-
-------
5. Comment: A resident stated that he has observed considerable numbers of hunters
at the landfill over the years and wanted to know if there is a health threat from
eating deer killed at the site.
Response: The remediation measures that have been taken to date at the site have
been effective in isolating contaminants from the top soil, water and vegetation at the
site. Since the food and water sources for the deer are not contaminated, the deer
should not be contaminated.
6. Comment: A Rutgers University professor asked who was analyzing site samples for
heavy metals.
Response: ETC Labs, Edison, New Jersey.
7. Comment: A potential purchaser of a residence adjacent to the landfill asked if a
stream at the southeastern comer of the landfill was contaminated.
Response: Test results have not shown contamination in this stream.
8. Comment: A commenter stated that carcinogenic risks in this area are said to be high
if (the site) were used for recreational purposes and asked what are the risks and for
how long a duration?
Response: Based on the Baseline Risk Assessment which considered future
recreational use scenarios, the highest cancer risk calculated was 2xlO~5 which was
associated with incidental ingestion of site soils and the highest non-carcinogenic risk
calculated was Hazard Index of 0.44 which was also associated with incidental
ingestion of site soils.
Curfent federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are individual lifetime excess
cancer risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6. The highest cancer risk calculated for the
future recreational site use (2xlO'5) is within the acceptable range.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures for non-carcinogens are a
maximum health Hazard Index of 1.0. The highest non-carcinogenic risk calculated
for the future recreational site use (Hazard Index = 0.44) is well below the maximum
allowable Hazard Index.
9. Comment: Several individuals asked for more information on future monitoring at
the site including type of monitoring, duration (will it really continue for thirty years),
and future actions if test results are not acceptable.
Response: Maintenance and monitoring will be continued for a minimum of thirty
years as specified in the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision. Source control
-25-
-------
measures (cap, slurry wall, leachate collection system, underground storage tank,
generator and fence) will be maintained for an indefinite period. Quarterly
monitoring of sentinel system will continue for five years. Semi-annual ground water
monitoring of perimeter wells will continue for five years with annual monitoring
after that. Surface water, landfill leachate and gas vents will be monitored in
accordance with NJPDES and Air Pollution Control Permits. If testing indicates
leachate is still being generated after thirty years monitoring will be extended. If test
results are not acceptable, the need for additional remedial action(s) will be
reevaluated.
10. Comment: A writer asked when the landfill and surrounding properties can be
improved.
Response: Since there is no current or future unacceptable risk to public health and
the environment from the landfill, the surrounding properties are not impacted by
the landfill. The site property itself will improve over a period of time as the waste
decomposes.
11. Comment: A writer stated that "Misuse of any landfill is possible, particularly during
the years before regulations. Waste could have been dumped that was not specified
for the Monroe Landfill before the DEPE monitoring. As a result, problems could
arise in the future that could go undetected due to lack of monitoring or further
remediation."
Response: NJDEPE agrees that such problems could and have occurred, in fact that
is why the landfill was ordered closed and why extensive remediation activities have
already been completed. Monitoring will be initiated after the Record of Decision
is signed and any future problems indicated by the monitoring will be fully addressed.
E>. Community Relations Activities at the Monroe Township Landfill Site
NJDEPE prepared a Community Relations Plan (September 1986).
NJDEPE established information repositories at the following locations:
Monroe Township Municipal Complex
Perrineville Road P.O.
Jamesburg, NJ 08831 Phone # (908) 521-4400
Jamesburg Public Library
229 Gatzmer Road
Jamesburg, NJ 08831 Phone # (908) 521-0440
-26-
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Bureau of Community Relations
401 East State Street, CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-3081
Contact: George Tamaccio
NJDEPE held a public meeting to discuss initiation of the Hydrogeologic Study at the
Monroe Township Landfill Site at the Monroe Township Municipal Building (April 22,
1987).
NJDEPE held a briefing with local officials to discuss improvements to the leachate
collection system on site at the Monroe Township Municipal Building (August 10, 1989).
NJDEPE mailed letters to property owners adjacent to the landfill announcing initiation of
construction activities for leachate collection system improvements (August 1990).
NJDEPE held a public comment period from November 2,1992 to December 1, 1992 and
a public meeting at the Monroe Township Municipal Building on November 9, 1992 to
discuss site work to date and the Proposed Plan for final site remediation.
-27-
-------
Perry Diamantis
13 Watchung Rd.
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
November 29,1992
Ms. G.L Singer
Bureau of Community Relations
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy
CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Ms Singer:
As a potential resident of Monroe Township, I am concerned
about the DEPE's action to remove the Monroe Township Landfill
from the National Priorities List.
As I am sure you are aware, the DEPE's proposal cal.ls for
no further action or monitoring of the landfill if no further
leachate is generated. With the plans for additional residential
dwellings near the landfill site and the resulting added strain
on the environment (i.e. drainage) an extra measure of caution
is needed. I hope the DEPE's proposals have taken this into
account.
In addition, misuse of any landfill is possible, particularly
during the years before regulations. Waste could have been
dumped that was not specified for the Monroe landfill before
the DEPE monitoring. As a result, problems could arise in
the future that could go undetected due to a lack of monitoring
or further remediation. Does the DEPE proposal consider this?
I urge the DEPE to be prudent in the disposition of the Monroe
Township Landfill, so that present and future residents of
Monroe are protected from any hazards.
Perrvv Diamantis
-28-
-------
302H Gravel Hill/Spotswood Rd
Jamesburg, N.J. 08831
908-521-4997
November 27, 1992
Grace L. Singer, Chief
Bureau of Community Relations
N.J Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
CN 413
Trenton, N.J. 08625-0413
Dear Ms. Singer:
I'm writing my comments in response to the NJDEPE meeting
in Monroe Township on November 9, 1992. This meeting concerned
the "Monroe Township Landfill Superfund Site."
First, just let me say that the meeting was conducted in a very
professional and friendly manor. The presentation was well
planned and all participants were prepared well.
Although I'm writing these concerns on behalf of myself, the
contents will be shared with the Monroe Township Republican
Committee of which I hold the positions of Committee Secretary
and Committeeman.
The concerns I have are:
1) a) The arsenic levels being higher then normal: What are
the immediate and long range effects? What impact does this
have on surrounding properties? When can this property be
improved? Can the surrounding properties be improved and if
so when?
b) It is stated in your hand out that the arsenic was
detected in the surface soil of the cap material which was
brought from an outside source. Why wasn't this soil checked
for contamination by the NJDEPE before utilization as cap
material. Aren't you responsible for this condition?
2) Local ordinances prevent wells in the area for future housing.
What about the current wells in this area now? At least one
resident said he has a well in the immediate area. He also said
the state has tested his well, but never notified him of the
results. If this is correct, I find this incredible and totally
irresponsible of the NJDEPE. The gentleman in question testified
the night of meeting and should be part of the record. I'm most
interested in your comments on this matter.
-29-
-------
carcinogenic risks in this area are said to be high if
sed for recreational purposes. What are these risks and for
how long a duration? If property improvements are made in this
surrounding area in the future, what are the recreational impacts
that the Township may be faced with?
^Jxl was told at. the meeting t::at the monitoring will continue
for the next 30 years, yet the handout I received at the meeting
does not stated this fact. Can you clarify this question?
events in testing will take place in the next 30 years
at this site? What happens if the test are not acceptable? What
happens after 20 years?
Thank you for given me the opportunity to address these questions
.to you and to your department.
Sincerely yours
James A. Soden
-30-
-------
BOROUGH or
SPOTSWOOO
BOROUGH OF
HELVETIA
•.-•.R E S 1 D E N1M A L
il
HYDRANT
(LORI STREET)
ONR
TOWNSHl'P
PI
MATCH APONJX
LOWER RD. TO
MATCH APONIX
BOROUGH OF JAMESBURC
/ ' S C A L
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDAU
MIDDLESEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
2000
2000 FEET
REFERENCE;
MAP OF MONROE TV*>.. MIDDLESEX CO.. N.JL
1963. PREPARED BY HARRY APPUGAlE.
TOWNSHIP ENGINEER.
-31-
-------
UNDERGROUND LEACHATE
STORAGE TANK
(20.000 GAL)
N SM.OOO I
SW-2
1
1
z
LEGEND
•••
A
•
A
VW-5A
-
SENTINEL MONITORING
SENTINEL PIEZOMETER
MAGOTHY FORMATION
U/MulTADlKir* iX/Cl 1 UinTI
MW-4S • "*-» OMW-3S
. MB-«.
B-40
§ •
1 B~
sw-A || <,
* z MW-6S
POINTS
MONITORING WELL
LJIM ororurn
—* — x- ^pioaS^
MW-2S ~4 •J^"4
VW-17A
52
400
F""C
scale
: PROTECTIVE
PROTECTIVE
SS5=s3r 1
— ^ ,^r> I
r* ^ — — J
9 Mw-is
§ SW-3
° A
£l
3 • SE-4
0 400
- — I
(opproximote} taet
CLAY CAP
SOIL CAP
* WATER ZONE OF THE MAGOTHY FORMATION
• MERCHANTVILLE FORMATION MONITORING WELL
9
•
MERCHANTVILLE FORM
(SCHEDULE 40 PVC)
PASSIVE GAS VENT
AT10N MONITORING WELL
ni i rrrmw CVCTTU
• m "i tr?r n r*r nn*
CLAY CUTOFF WALL
AINAGE CHANNEL
WITH RIP RAP
•
A
PROPOSED PASSIVE GAS VENTS
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
LINE
SEWER CONNECTION
7 FT HIGH SECURITY FENCE
FIGURE 2
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
-32-
-------
Table 1
COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS TO
NJDEPE QROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND FEDERAL MCLa.
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
MONROE, NEW JERSEY
PARAMETERS
1. METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Artanlc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnedum
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potasvium
Selenium <
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
II. VOLATILE ORQANICS
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene (t)
2-Bulanone
Chtorobenzene (1)
Chloroethane
Dlchlorodilluofomethane
1.1-Dichloroethane(1)
1.2-Dichlo
-------
LO
•P-
Table 1 (contd)
COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS TO
NJDEPE QROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND FEDERAL MCLa.
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
MONROE. NEW JERSEY
PARAMETERS
1 ,2-Dlchlof oethene (total) (1)
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene Chloride
4-Methyl 2-Pentanone
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroelhene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride (1)
III. SEMIVOLATILE ORQANICS
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-N-Butylphthalata
DI-N-Octylphthalale
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene (1)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Phenol
MAQOTHY
FORMATION.
CLASS HA.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(ugt)
1.6-3.9
ND
ND
2.1-58.8
91.0
2.0
2.0-57.0
ND
0.8-11.8
8.4-13.7
ND
9.8
0.4
3.4
3.0-S.1 \
38.5
ND
PERCHED ZONES
WITHIN MAQOTHY
FORMATION.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/L). (2)
18.0-264.0
ND
ND
1 .0-4.9
ND
-ND
ND
ND
ND
4.3-33.8
ND
0.4-179.0
0.2-0.2
10.9-10.9
ND
46.3-46.3
ND
MERCHANTVILLE
FORMATION.
CLASS IIIA.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(Ufl/U.<3)
ND
3.36-4.2
670.0-570.0
1.96-670.0
390.0
ND
0.7-19.8
1.0
0.86-7.4
ND
680.0-580.0
ND
0.3-0.3
4.4-4.4
ND
32.8-32.8
78.8-1.000
NJDEPE
QROUNDWATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
(ug/L)
10 (clt), 100 (Irani)
700.0
NS
' 2.0
400.0
2.0
1.000
1.0
NS
6.0
NS
30.0
• 900.0
NS
600.0
NS
4.000
FEDERAL
MCUa
(ug/L)
70.0(cl«)
700.0
NS
6.0
NS
NS
1,000
6.0
NS
2.0
NS
6.0
NS
NS
600.0
NS
NS
NOTES:
N/A-not available for thliconttltuent
ND - conatltuent not detected In the medium Indicated
NS - no NJDEPE Qroundwater Quality Standard or Federal MCL exlrt
(1) - Constituent concentration* (which were not eliminated •* Conatltuent* of Interact In the Dateline Rlik Aiaeitment due to
augpect laboratory contamination, prevent In blank aampte* or detection In 6% or (ewer aamplei) were found above
the NJDEPE Qroundwater Quality Standard or Federal MCL only In monitoring well 21-R and were eliminated In the
Batellne Riftk Aiaeiement due to Incomplete exposure.
(2) - Constituent concentration* In the Perched Zone within Magothy Formation were found above the NJDEPE
Qroundwater Quality Standard or MCL only In monitoring well* B-1R-SS and B-46P.
(3) - Constituent concentration* found In Merchantvllle Formation above the NJDEPE Qroundwater Quality Standard* or MCL*
In monitoring well* B-39. B-41. B-42. B-43 and B-45.
-------
Table 2
SOKMARY OF GROUND WATER AQUIFER ZONES AND MONITOR WELLS WITHIN THE AQUIFER ZONES
EVALUATED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 1 includes a list of all contaminants detected in monitor wells installed
in three zones of the ground water aquifer system at the site. The three zones
of the ground water aquifer system at the site, are: Merchantville Formation
(Total 13 Wells: B-39, B-41, B-42, B-43, B-44, B-45, B-52, MW-1S,MW-2S, MW-3S,
MW-4S, MW-5S and MW-6S), Magothy Formation (Total 15 Wells: B-40, B-46SS, B-47,
B-48, B-50, B-51SS, B-7R, B-10R, B-13RSS, B-18R, B-21R, B-53R, B-54, B-55 and B-
56) -and perched zones within the Magothy Formation (Total 5 Wells: B-1RSS, B-46P,
B-49, B-55P and B-56P). Ground water data collected from the monitor wells of
Merchantville Formation and the perched zones within the Magothy Formation were
not evaluated in the Risk Assessment (RA). The Merchantville formation was
removed from consideration in the RA because the current remedial system (cap,
clay cut-off wall and the leachate collection system) is effectively containing
contamination within the zone on-site, the exposure pathway is incomplete due to
the public water supply serving the residents, and the water quality is naturally
poor (high Iron, high Chloride and low PH). The perched zones within the Magothy
Formation were also removed from consideration in .the RA due to lack of
production and because they are not representative of the Magothy Formation
ground water quality.
Current use of the' Magothy Formation ground water was considered incomplete
because the ground water contamination in the Magothy Formation is contained on-
site and the residents are connected to the public water supply system. Ground
water data collected from ten (10) monitor wells were evaluated in the RA for
future off-site residential use scenario. The following is a summary of all
wells in the Magothy Formation with reasons for retaining or removing them from
further consideration in the RA:
MONITOR WELL
B-40
B-7R
B-10R
B53-R
B-46SS
B-54
B-47
B-55
B-48
B-56
B-50
B-18R
B-51SS
RETAINED
X
X «.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
REMOVED
t
X
X
X
REASON
Downgradient
Downgr ad ient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Downgradient
Upgradient
Upgradient
Upgradient
-35-
-------
Table 2
B-13RSS
B-21R
X
X
Interference of
naturally
occurring
geologic
materials and
water chemistry
Situated
directly beneath
a specific
source *
USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I (Pg 6-26 to 6-27)
states that "In a few situations, however, it may not be reasonable to
assume that water will be drawn from directly beneath a specific source
(e.g. a waste management unit such as a landfill) in the future. In these
cases, it should be assumed that water could be drawn from directly
adjacent to the source". Well B-21R is situated directly beneath a
specific source and was dropped out. Well B-56 which is nearest to the
source area was included in the RA.
-36-
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND WATER AND RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
DETECTED
The following LB a list of potential chemicals of concern and range of
concentrations detected in ten (10) monitor wells (Refer to Table 2 for a
discussion of monitor well selection for evaluation in the RA) of the Magothy
Formation ground water:
CHEMICAL
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium •
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Methylene chloride
4-Methyl 2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2,-)
TIME DETECTED/SAMPLES
ANALYZED
10/10
1/29
13/29
22/23
10/29
7/29
18/29
6/10
7/29
10/10
14/29
10/10
10/10
2/29
16/28
1/29
2/22
1/29
8/10
28/29
4/10
1/24
13/24
1/10
1/34
RANGE OF CONCENTRATION
DETECTED MG/L (PPM)
0.14-44.3
0.0037
0.0005-0.0101
0.0195-0.2580
0.0005-0.0037 .
0.0005-0.0160
0.0004-0.0319
0.0067-0.1720
0/0028-0.0270
2.16-86.30
0.0006-0.0109
1.75-17.00
0.1160-0.9180
0.0001-0.0003
0.0050-0.2260
0.0015
0.0026-0.0028
0.0011
0.0054-0.0672
0.0049-0.8840
0.0050-0.0630
0.0099
0.0021-0.0100
0.0910
0.0020-0.0020
-37-
-------
Table 3 (contd)
Toluene
Trichlorofluromethane
SEMI-VOLATILE OROAKICS
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Dinitrotoluene (2,6,-)
1/33
7/24
1/34
1/34
1/34
0.0570
0.0018-0.0112
0.0004
0.0034
0.0365
The potential chemicals of concern were screened further in accordance with the
USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance to select the final chemicals of concern to be
used for evaluation in the Risk Assessment. The following chemicals were
eliminated because they were detected in less than 5% of the samples:
Ant imony
Thallium
Tetrachloroethane
(1,1,2,2,-)
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Toluene
Selenium
Acrylonitrile
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Dinitrotoluene (2,6,-)
The following chemicals were eliminated on the basis that they are essential
nutrients:
Iron
Magnesium
Zinc
The following chemicals were eliminated because they were also detected in the
blank samples:
Acetone
Methylene chloride
The following chemicals were eliminated because their presence is attributable
to the natural background conditions:
Arsenic
Beryllium
Although detected only once, 4-methyl 2-pentanone was retained as a chemical of
concern- due to its relatively higher concentration in ground water and the
uncertainty associated with measurements when there are relatively few samples
available for evaluation.
The following is the list of final chemicals of concern found in ten (10) monitor
wells of the Magothy Formation groundwater which was used in the Risk Assessment:
Aluminum
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Silver
4-Methyl 2-pentanone
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Trichlorofluromethane
-38-
-------
Table 4
Summary of Surface Water Data
Qx/nical
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Times
Detected/Samples
Analyzed
7/7
1/7
7/7
1/7
7/7
4/7
4/7
7/7
1/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
4/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
Average
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.751
0.002
0.024
0.0002
29.9
0.0139
0.0094
1.20
0.0471
8.71
0.935
0.0003
0.0191
2.85
4.78
0.0455
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.1280
0.0023
0.0107
0.0002
4.0400
0.0123
0.0076
02980
0.0471
2.4300
0.0694
0.0003
0.0179
0.9830
22000
0.0184
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
122
0.0023
0.0279
0.0002
47.8
0.0139
0.0094
2.44
0.0471
12.1
156
0.0003
0.0191
3.91
5.97
0.0655
Volatile chemical
Methylene chloride
1/7
0.002
0.002
0.002
-39-
-------
Table 5
Summary of Soil Data
Chemical
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Volatile chemicals
Acetone
Semivolatile
chemicals
Benzoic acid
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pesticides/PCBs
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Hepachlor
Times
Detected/Samples
Analyzed
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
7/9
9/9
1/9
9/9
9/9
5/9
2/9
1/9
3/9
2/9
2/9
6/9
1/9
6/9
1/9
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
16,800
19.7
75.1
0.767
27.9
426
19.6
28,900
31.1
165
0.154
6.92
0.700
482
455
0240
0.022
16.0
0.071
0.104
0.088' '
0205
" 0.420
0310
0.098
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
6,520
6.8
14.7
0.300
19.1
2£0
6.40
20200
8.10
615
0.080
3.90
0.700
33.1
28.9
0500
0.014
16.0
0.062
0.097
0.076
0.031
0.420
0.022
0.098
Maximum
Concentration
(mgAg)
2j.lCO
31.3
131
1.00
42.5
5.80
32.0
37,600
93.4
267
0.200
11.7
• 0.700
69.1
«5o 0
0.500
o 030
160
COS?
0 Hi)
0 H»
o;v
o-;:-'
0 1 1 : '
r> i •<»
-40-
-------
Table 6
Summary of Sediment Data
Chemical
Inorganics
AJumjnum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Times
Detected /Samples
Analyzed
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
3/7
6/7
2/7
7/7
7/7
6/7
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
15,600
213
69.6
0.614
32.0
4.69
23.5
36,200
30.0
174.0
0.113
9.07
0.800
66.6
59.5
0.133
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
6,260
620
25.7
0200
14.4
2.10
7.00
14300
750
69.1
0.0400
330
0.800
25.6
26.6
0.100
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
36.200
34 2
183
1.60
532
9.60
502
66300
445
' 578
0200
18.6
O.SOO
121
' 112
0.200
Volatile chemical
Acetone
Semivolatile chemicals
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
Chrysene
Fiuoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesbcidts/PCBs
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
1/7
4/7
3/7
2/7
2/7
1/7
3/7
5/7
2/7
1/7
1/7
5/7
5/7
4/7
4/7
3/7
0.0240
0.211
0.166
0.165
0.154
0.160
0.191
10.247
0.075
0.170
0.056
0.269
0.184
0.085
0.056
0.136
0.0240
0.0730
0.0570
0.140
0.0970
0.160
0.0630
0.0740
0.0710
0.1700
0.0560
0.0760
0.0550
0.0310
0.0260
0.0690
0.02^
0390
0.260
0.190
0.210
0.160
0310
0.4SO
0.078
0.170
0.056
0530
0350
0.130
O.QS-4
0.230
-41-
-------
Table 7
2.5 Air
three of 13 air vents located at the site were sampled for the presence of organic
chemicals in June 1988. Of the 3 vents sampled, only vent 11 had a measurable
emissions of identifiable organic chemicals. Carbon tetrachloride, trichJoroethylene,
and tetrachloroethylene were detected in air samples collected on 3 consecutive
days from vent 11. The results axe presented below. "Unspecified suspected freons"
were also detected in vent 11 at concentrations 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater
than the identified chemicals.
Air Concentration in mg/m-*
Chemical (estimated release in Ib/hr in parenthesis)
Day I Day! Day 3
Carbon tetrachloride 64(0.0017) 110(0.00029) 54(0.0014)
Trichloroethylene 15(0.00039) 15(0.00039) 8(0.00021)
Tetrachloroethylene 7(0.00018) 15(0.00039) 8(0.00021)
Unspecified suspected freons (0.024) (0.071) (0.044)
-42-
-------
Table 8
Summary of Chemicals of Concern and the Range
of Detected Concentrations
Chemical Surface Water Surface Soil Sediment Air
(mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/m3)
Inorganics
Aluminum 0.128-122
Arsenic f-' 6.8-313 6.2-34.2
Barium •
Beryllium -
Cadmium -
Chromium -
Cobalt -
Copper ....
Lead ....
Manganese 0.069-156
Mercury 0.0003 - - - .
Nickel - - -
Silver ....
Vanadium ....
Organic chemicals
Anthracene - - 0.0730-0390
Denzo(ajanthracene - - 0.0570-0.260
Benzofajpyrene . - - 0.140-0.190
Benzo[b]fluoranthene - -. 0.0970-0210
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene • • 0-16
Benzoic acid 16
Carbon tetrachJoride - - - 54-110
Chrysene - ' - 0.063-0310
ODD- - " 0.42 0.026-0.054
DDE - 0.031-0.430 0.031-0.130
-43-
-------
Chemical
PPT
Fluoranthene
Fiuorene
HepcachJor
Indenof !,2,3<,dJp)Tene
4-Methyl 2-pentanone
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TetrachJoroethylene
TrichJoroethylene
Tn'chJorofluoromethane
Table 8
(contd)
Surface Water Surface Soil
(mg/kg)
0.022-0.610^
0.097-0.110
0.098
0.062-0.085
0.076-0.100
Sediment
(mg/kg)
^0.069 - 0.230
0.074 - 0.4SO
0.071 -0.078
0.17
0.056
0.076 - 0.530
0.055-0.230
Air
(mg/m3)
7-15
8-15
-44-
-------
Table 9
Potential Exposure Pathways
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Medium,
Route, and Exposure
Point
Pathway
Selected for
Examination?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Current Off-Site
Residents
Ground wafer
Ingestion of
ground water from
local wells located off-
site
Inhalation of volatile
chemicals released
during
showering/bathing.
Dermal absorption of
chemicals in
groundwater during
showering/ba thing
No Nearby residents are supplied with
public water. The N'JDEPE
designates the Merchantville
Formation as a Qass ELJ-A aquicard,
unsuitable for public use, due to
natural hydrogeologk conditions.
No No taown use of the Merchantville
Formation is currently being made.
There are no known users of the
Magothy Formation within 3000
feet of the Site. Current remedial
No systems (clay cap, leachate
collection and clay cut-off wail) axe
protective of the surrounding
surficial deposits.
Current Trespasser
Air
Inha la fion of va por Yes
phase chemicals
transported off-site
Inhalation of , No
particulate transported
off-site
Sediment Yes
Incidental ingestion
while at play
Dermal contact with Yes
sediment while at play
Surface Water
Dermal contact with Yes
water while at play
Air
Inhalation of vapor Yes
phase chemicals
released on-site
Chemicals have been detected rn
landfill vents. These chemicals may
be transported off-site by
prevailing winds.
The site is almost entirely covered
by grass, greatly reducing the
potential for creation of significant
amounts of dust
Children may play in low-lying
areas adjacent to me site
Children may play in low-lying
areas adjacent to the site
Children may play in stream*
formed during rainy periods
Chemicals have been detected in
air released from landfill ver.o
-45-
-------
Table 9
-------
Table 9.
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Medium,
Route, and Exposure
Point
Pathway
Selected for
Examination?
Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Future Off-Site
Residents
Groundwater
Ingestion of
groundwater from
local wells
Inhalation of volatile
chemicals released
during
showering/bathing.
Dermal absorption of
chemicals in
groundwater during
showering/bathing
Yes, exposure
limited to the
Magothy
Formation
Yes, exposure
limited to the
Magothy
Formation
Yes, exposure
limited to the
Magothy
Formation
Air
Inhalation of vapor Yes
phase chemicals
transported off-site
Inhalation of No
particulate transported
off-site
While future use of Magothy
Formation groundwater is highly
improbable, because future use
cannot be absolutely precluded,
exposure to groundwater from the
Magothy Formation is considered a
potential exposure pathway.
Solute transport calculations
indicate that there should be no
adverse impacts from constituents
detected in B-21R to any potential
receptors above the proposed
NJDEPE groundwater cleanup
standards for 100 years. Therefore,
there are no complete exposures to
ground water constituents
monitored in well B-21R.
In regard to the Merchantville
Formation, hydrogeologic
conditions, in conjunction with
current remedial systems, indicate
that potential lateral migration of
leachate constituents in the
Merchantville Formation is
controlled. Hydrogeologic
analyses also indicate that verccal
migration of leachate constituent;.
to the Magothy Formation shouki
not occur for over 100 years.
Therefore, there are no complete
exposure routes to Merchantville
Formation groundwater.
Chemicals have been detected in
landfill vents. These cherruGjls
be transported off-site by
prevailing winds.
The site is almost end rely cover. -i
by grass, greatly reducing trie
potential for creation of
amounts of dust
-47-
-------
Table 9 (««*<»
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Medium,
Route, and Exposure
Point
Pathway
Selected for
Examination? Reason for Selection or Exclusion
Future Off-Site
Residents (contd)
Future On-Site
Recreational
Population
Sediment
Incidental ingestion
while at play
Dermal contact with
sediment while at play
Surface Water
Dermal contact with
water while at play
Air
Inhalation of vapor
phase chemicals
released on-site
Soil
Incidental ingestion of
site soils
Dermal contact with
site soils
Inhalation of
paniculate produced
on-site
Sediment
Incidental ingestion
while at play
Dermal contact with
sediment while at play
Surface Water
Dermal contact with
water while at play
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Children may play in low-lying
areas adjacent to the site
Children may play in low-lying
areas adjacent to (tie sire
Children may play in streams
formed during rainy periods
Chemicals have been detected in
air released from landfill vents.
Children at play may ingest soil
Children at play may contact ?
Children at play may inhale dust
particles
Children may play in lo
areas adjacent to the site
Children may play in low-lying
areas adjacent to the site
Children may play in
during rainy periods
-48-
-------
Table 10
Calculation of Intakes of the Chemicals of concern in Air, soil,
Sediment, Groundvater, and Surface Water
Exposure
Path'vvay
Exposure Equation
Exposure variables
Air
Inhalation of
vapor phase
chemicals
CA x IR x ET x EF x ED
BWxAT
Inhalation of
paniculate phase
chemicals
CxPCxrRxRFxETxEFxEDxCF
BWxAT
Soil or Sediment
Ingestion of soil or
sediment
CSxIRxFIxEFxEDxCF
BWxAT
CA = Concentration in air (mg/rro )
IR = Inhalation rate (m3/hour or rro/day)
ET= Exposure time (hours/day; this
variable not needed when IR is
expressed in m3/day)
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
BW=Body weight (kg)
AT =Averaging time (period over which
exposure is averaged (for non-
carcinogens: ED x 365 days/year; for
carcinogens:70 years x 365 days/year)
C = Concentration of chemical In
paniculate (mg/kg)
IR = Inhalation Rate (m3/hour)
PC = Particular Concentration in Air
(mg/m3)
RF = Respirable Fraction (unitless)
ET= Exposure Time (hours/day)
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
CF = Conversion Factor (10"6 kg/mg)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT =Averaging Time (period over which
exposure is averaged (for non-
carcinogens: ED x 365 days/year; for
carcinogens: 70 years x 365 days /year)
CS = Chemical concentration in soil
(mg/kg)
IR = Ingestion rate (mg soil/day)
FI = Fraction ingested from contamiruu-l
source
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF= Conversion factor (1 x 10 ^ kg/mo
BW 3 Body weight (kg)
AT 'Averaging time (period over wh.. !<
exposure is averaged (for non-
carcinogens: ED x 365 days/year; l.u
carcinogens: 70 years x365davs/^-."'
-49-
-------
Table 10
(contd)
Evposure
Pjthwav
Exposure Equation
Exposure variables
Surface Water
Ln^esrion of
groundwater
CW x IR x EF x ED
BW x AT
Dermal contact
with groundwater
or surface water
CW x S A x PC x ET x EF x ED x CF
BWxAT
CW = Chemical concentration in water
(tng/L)
IR = Ingesrion rate (liters/day)
EF - Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
BW =Body weight (kg)
AT =Averaging time (period over which
exposure is averaged (for non-
carcinogens: ED x 365 days/year; for
carcinogens: 70 years x 365 days/year)
CW s Chemical concentration in water
(mg/L)
SA = Skin surface area available for
contact (cm2)
PC = Dermal permeability constant
(cm/hr)
ET = Exposure time (hours/day)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/xv.vj
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Volumetric conversion factor for
water (1 L/1000cm3)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT =Averaging time (period over win;:*.
exposure is averaged (for nor. •
carcinogens: ED x 365 days/ye.u. Mr
carcinogens: 70 years x 365 djvs/vf.ir>
-50-
-------
Table 11
Summary of Exposure Assumptions: Ingestion of Chemicals in Groundwater
Population
Future resident
Receptor
Adult
Doily Weight
(UW)
(kR)
70*
tlngestion Rate (IR)
(liters of groundwater Ingested
per day)
1.4/2*
1 Exposure
Frequency
(EP)
350 days per year •
Itirxn'urv
Dm. \tlim
(UD)
(years)
9/30*
I
01
Table 3-10
Summary of Exposure Assumption,: Dermal Absorption of Chemical, in Groundwa.er and Surface Water
Population
Groundwittr
Future residents-bathing
Surface Water
Current residents-wading Child
Future recreational chUd-wadlng Aduli
Receptor
Adult
Body Weight
(DW)
(kg)
70«
Exposed Skin
Surface Area
(SA)
(cm*)
18.150b
1 Exposure
Time
(ET)
0.2 hours per
day*
{Exposure
Frequency
(EF)
350 days per
year*
lExpoRuro
Duration
-------
Table 12
Summary of Exposure Assumptions: Ingeslion of Chemicals in Soil and Sediment
i
01
to
I
Population
Soil
Current trespasser
Current site workers
Future recreational population
Sediment
Current residents
Current site workers
Future recreational population
Receptor
Child
Adult
Child
Child
Adult
Child
Doily Weigh!
(UW)
-------
Table 13
Summary of Exposure Assumptions: Inhalation of Chemicals in Air
1
Ot
Ul
1
Population
Inhalation of Vapor Phase Chemical*'
Current residents
Current trespasser
Current site workers
Future resident Inhaling chemicals
while showering
Future on-slte recreational population
Inhalation of PartlculaU Pha.e
Chemical.2
Current residents
Current site workers
Current on-slfe workers
1-raclion of
Receptor Body Weight Hnhalalion Rale Paniculate t Exposure Time
(DW) (IK) Rcsplrablc (RF) (ET)
(Kj?) (unltless)
Adult
Child
Adult
Adult
Child
Child
Adult
Child
70* 20m3 per day'
3?b Im3/2.lm3 per hour0
70* 20 m3 per work day*
70* 0.96 m3/hr°
15* 0.6 m3/ 1.5m3 per hour*1
37b Im3/2.lm3pcrhourb
70» JO m3 per day'
IS* 0.6m3/l.5m3pcrhourb
.
1/3 hours per
day
•
0.20 hour per
day*
3 hours per day
0.5 0.5/3 hours per
day
0.5
0.5 3 hours per day
IE»pcxurv Fn^jiietvy
-------
Table 14
Ul
Inhalation Reference Doses and Slope Factors
for Chemicals of Concern
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (water)
Chromium (01)
Chromium (VT)
Cobalt
Copper (mg/l)
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Anthracene
Benzofa)anthracene
Benzojajpyrene
Benzofb)ftuoranlhene
Benzo|g,h.i|p«fylene
Benzole Acid
Non-carcinogenic
Effects
NA
Fetotoxicily
NA
Cancer
•
NA
NA
Respiratory symptoms
and psychomotor
disturbances
MeurotoxJcity
Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference
RfD
Subchronic
(mg/kg/day)
Dl
ND
l.OOE-03
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I.HE-04'
8.57E-05*:
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dos«t
Safely
Factor
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
900
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RfD
Chronic
(mg/kg/day)
Di
ND
l.OOE-04
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.14E-04*
8S7E4S*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
«»«»••
Safely
Factor
NA
NA
1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
900
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
t^f\
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Carcinogenic
Effects
NA
Respiratory
tract tumors
NA
Lung tumors
Respiratory
tract tumors
Respiratory
tract tumors
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Respiratory
tract tumors
NA
NA
KIA
lN/\
NA
Respiratory
tract tumors
NA
1 ^i f\
NA
tv/\
NA
Slopr Factors
Slope F.iclor
(mg/k})/d.>y)-l
NA
S.OOEtOI
NA
8.40E»00
6.IOE+00
NA
4.10E+01
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
l.70EtOO
NA
NA
NA
6.inE«00
6.wi:«00
NA
EPA
Crqup
A
D2
Dl
A
D2
A
H2
II?
n?
02
-------
Table 14
I
U1
Ol
I
Chemical
Carbon Telrachlori de
Chrysene
ODD
DDE
DDT
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heplachlor
Indenoll^-cdlpyrene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(Methyllsobutyl ketone)
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroelhyleneb
Trichloroethylene
Trkhlorofl uoromet ha ne
effects
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elevated DUN,
lung lesions
(conid)
cinogenJc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
kidney
Referent
i
RfD
Subchronic
(mg/kg/day)
ND
Dl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2E-1
c Doaea
Safety
Factor
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
RfD
Chronic
(mg/kg/day)
Nn "
i NLX
Dl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2E-2
Safety
Factor
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
Carcinogenic
Effects
Liver tumors
NA
NA
NA
Uver rumors
NA
NA
Uver tumors
NA
NA
ND
Dl
ND
ND
' ND
2.00E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
ND
Dl
ND
ND
ND
2.00E-01
« Data Inadequate; ND - Not Determined; NA • Not Applicable; Taken from IRIS or the US EPA Health
•Converted to mg/kg/day from RfC (mg/m3) using the formula: RfC x —7nT7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10000
NA
NA
NA
Leukemia,
liver tumors
Lung tumors
NA
Slope r«cl>m
Slope F.ictor
(mg/kg/d.iyH
LlOE-OI
6.10C.OO
NA
ND
3.40E-OI
NA
NA
4.50E»00
6.10EtOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
I.70E-02
NA
EPA
Group
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
7Q.
RfD
'" "b
••Converted to (mg/kg/day)-« from unit risk factor (Mg/m3)-« ,,$ing the formula: unit risk factor x 7°kfi X 1000HK/mK
20 m-"
slope i.iclor
-------
I
U!
O\
I
Table 15
oral Refer.no. Dos.s and Slop. Factors for chemicals of concern
Chemical
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (water)
Chromium (01)
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Anthracene
Benxo[a)anthracene
Benzojajpyrene
Non-carcinogenic
Effects
NA
Keratosls and hyper*
pigmentation •
Increased blood
pressure
Renal damage
Hepalotoxicily
ND
NA
Local Cl irritation
CNS effects
No effect
Kidney effects
Reduced body and .••
organ weight
Argyria
None observed
No effects
NA
NA
Reference
i
RfD
Subchronic
(mg/kg/day)
Di
3.00E-04
5.00E-02
ND
I.OOE«01
2.00E-02
ND
1 JO mg/L
ND
l.OOE-01
3.00E-04
2.00E-02
3.00E-03
7.00E-03
3.00EtOO
ND
ND
Doie»
Safc-ty
Factor
NA
1
100
NA
100
100
NA
NA
NA
I
1000
300
2
100
300
NA
NA
RfD
Chronic
(nig/kg/day)
ND
3.00E-04
5.00E-02
5.00E-04
I.OOE+00
5.00E-03
ND
1.30 mg/L
ND
l.OOE-01
3.00E-04
2.00E-02
3.00E-03
7.00E-03
3.00E-01
ND
ND
Safely
Factor
NA
1
100
10
1000
500
NA
NA
NA
1
1000
300
2
100
3000
NA
NA
Carcinogenic
Effects
NA
Skin tumors
MA
IMA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stomach
tumors
•,
Slope Fjclnrs
Slope P.iciof
(»»R/kK/ttoy)-
NA
•1.75E + 00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
580E«00
SBOEtOO
EPA
Group
02
02
D2
-------
Table 15
(conld)
Chemical
Benzo|b]fluoranthene
Bertto(g,h,l Jpery lene
Benzole Acid
Carbon Teirachloride
Chrysene
ODD
DDE
DDT
Fluoranihene
Fluorene
HeptachJor
Ifldenof 1,2,3-cd Jpyrene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(MtthyitMfculyl tutor**)
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrenc
Tetrachloroethylene
Trlchloroelhylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Noncarcinogenic
Effects
__
NA
Irritation, malaise
Uver lesions
NA
NA
NA
Liver lesions
Liver weight changes,
hematological
changes
Decreased RBC
Increased liver weight
NA .,
Uver and kidney
effects
Decreased body
weight gain
NA
Renal effects
hfepatotoxidty
NA
Mortality
i
Reference
R/D
Subchronic
(nig/kg/day)
ND
ND
4.00E+00
7.00E-03
Dl
ND
ND
5.00E-04
4.QOE-01
4.00E-OI
5.00E-04
ND
5.00E-1
fOOE-02
DI
3.00E-01
1.00E-01
ND
7.00E-01
Done*
Safety
Factor
~~NA
NA
1
100
NA
NA
NA
100
300
300
300
NA
100
1000
Dl
300
100
NA
1000
RfD
Chronic
(mg/kg/day)
ND
ND
4.00EiOO
7.00E-04
Dl
ND
ND
5.00E-04
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-04
ND
5.00E-2
4.00E-03
DI
3.00E-02
l.OOE-02
ND
3.00E-OI
Safely
Factor
NA
NA
1
1000
NA
NA
NA
100
3000
3000
300
NA
1000
10000
NA
3000
1000
NA
1000
Carcinogenic
Effects
NA
NA
NA
Liver tumors
NA
Liver tumors
Liver tumors
Liver tumors
NA
NA
Llvet tumors
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Liver rumors
Liver tumors
NA
Slop* Fedora
Slope Factor
(mg/kfiAMyH
S.HOEfOU
5.80E»00
NA
5.80E-00
5.80E»00
2.40E-01
.1.40E-OI
3.40E-OI
NA
NA
4-50E+CJO
S.flOEtOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.10E-02
1.IOE^)2
NA
EPA
Croup
02
02
02
02
IJ2
II?
D2
_
D2
D2
.
.
.
02
D2
-
I
01
Dl • Data Inadequate; ND • Not Determined; NA • Not Applicable or Not Available; Taken from IRIS or the US EPA Health Efftvis ASSI-SMIUMU Summary
Tables (1992)
•The following calculation was performed to derive an oral slope facinr for arsenic: —— x~2i x ^^8 x —mg " 1-75 (nig/kj»/d.iy)''
-------
Table 16
Dermal Reference Doses for Chemicals of concern
Chemical
Gastrointestinal
absorption factor'
Chronic Dermal
Reference Doseb
Aluminum
Oarium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
4-Methyl 2-Pentanone
Trichlorofluoro me thane
0.005
0.07
0.05
0.11
03
0.04
0.15
035
0.18
0.03
1
1
.
2.08E-03
3.46E-43
1.44E-C3
-
4.00E-03
4.50E-05
5.46E-03
5.86E-04
1.40E-02
1.43E-04
8.S7E-05
'Gastrointestinal (GI) absorption factors arc from the ATSDR lexicological
Profiles for Aluminum and Compounds, Barium., Cadmium. Chromium,
Cobalt. Manganese. Mercury, NickeX and Vanadium. The CI absorption factor
for silver is from (he Handbook of Th« Toxicology of Metals, Volume II
(1986) Friberg, Nordberg, and Vouk, editors. Although no CI absorption
factors were available for 4-methyl 2-pentanone and tricnlorofluoromethane,
it was assumed that absorption would likely be complete.
''Dermal reference doses were calculated by multiplying the oral reference
dose by the gastrointestinal absorption factor.
-58-
-------
Table 17
Summary of Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risks for Current
and Hypothetical Future Site Conditions
Potentially Exposed Exposure Media. Pathways, and
Population Points of Exposure . 'Hazard Index 'Lifetime Oncer Risk
Current Off-Site
Residents
Current Trespasser
Current Site Workers
Air
• Inhalation of vapor phase
chemicals transported off-site
Sediment
• Incidental ingestion while at 5.0E-02
play
Surface Water
• Dermal contact with water 6.8E-03
while at play
Air
• Inhalation of vapor phase
chemicals released on-site
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 6.7E-02
• Inhalation of participates
produced on-site
Air
• Inhalation of vapor phase
chemicals on-site
Soil
• Incidental ingestion of site soils 15E-02
• Inhalation of participates
produced on-site
Sediment
• Incidental ingestion 1.8E-02
3E-06
3E-06
3E-06
4E-06
9E-08
2E-07
3E-06
5E-07
4E-06
-59-
-------
Table 17
(contd)
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Media, Pathways, and
Points of Exposure 'Hazard Index 'Lifetime Cancer Risk
Future Off-Site
Residents
future On-Site
Recreational Population
Groundwater
• Ingestion of groundwater from 6.9E-01
local wells
• Inhalation of volatile chemicals 1.1E-04
released during
showehng/ba thing.
• Dermal absorption of chemicals 3.6E-02
in groundwater during
showering/bathing
Air
Inhalation of vapor phase
chemicals released on-site
5E-07
Soil
• Incidental ingesrion of site soils 4.4E-01
• Inhalation of participates
produced on-site
. Sediment
• Incidental ingestion while at 2.5E-01
play
Surface Water
• Dermal contact with water 13E-02
while at play
2E-05
2E-07
IE-05
'For the sake of conservatism and clarity, only reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case"risk
estimates are presented in this table
Note; Cancer risk was not calculated for the future off-site residential
scenario associated with the ground water for the following reasons:
use
1. Inhalation Route: Cancer slope factors are available only for cadmium,
chromium and nickel out of the final chemicals of concern listed in Table
2. Since these metals are not expected to volatilize, cancer risk was not
calculated.
2. Oral (ingestion) and Dermal (direct contact) Routes: Mo cancer elope
factors are available for the final chemicals of concern listed in Table
3.
-60-
-------
BOROUGH OF
SPOTSWOOD
BOROUGH OF
HELMETTA
R E S 1 D E N 7//I A L.
FIRE HYDRANT
(LORI STREET)
•.•••.-v.VSTATES.-
IvSUBblVISION
ONRQ
TOWNSHIP
'"bn"
MATCHAPONIX
LOWER RD. TO
MATCHAPONIX
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
BOROUGH OF JAMESBURG
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
MIDDLESEX COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
S C A L E
•••
0 2000 FEET
MAP OF MONROE TWP.. MIDDLESEX CO.. N.J.
1983. PREPARED BY HARRY APPLEGATC.
TOWNSHIP ENGINEER.
-------
UNDERGROUND LEACHATE
STORAGE TANK
.000 GAL)
I 558.000 I
N SS6.QQO
LEGEND
(approximate)
SENTINEL MONITORING POINTS
SENTINEL PIEZOMETER
MAGOTHY FORMATION MONITORING WELL
MONITORING WELL WITHIN PERCHED
WATER ZONE OF THE MAGOTHY FORMATION
MERCHANTMLLE FORMATION MONITORING WELL
MERCHANTVILLE FORMATION MONITORING WELL
(SCHEDULE 40 PVC)
PASSIVE GAS VENT
PROPOSED PASSIVE GAS VENTS
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
PROTECTIVE CLAY CAP
PROTECTIVE SOIL CAP
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
COMPACTED CLAY CUTOFF WALL
SURFACE DRAINAGE CHANNEL
WITH RIP RAP .
LANDFILL PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LINE
SEWER CONNECTION
7 FT HIGH SECURITY FENCE
FIGURE 2
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
TO PROPOSED NJDEPE OROUNDWATER CLEANUP STANDARDS AND FEDERAL MCLi.
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
MONROE. NEW JERSEY
PARAMETERS •
1. METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arienlc
Barium .
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead .
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potaitium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
II. VOLATILE ORQANICS
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene (t)
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene (1)
Chloroelhana
Dichlorodilluoromethane
t.l-Dichloroelhane(l)
1.2-Dichloroelhane (1)
1.1-Dichlofoethene (1)
MAQOTHY
FORMATION.
CLASS HA.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(UO/L)
67.S-44.300
2.0-3.7
0.6-10.1
10.6-258.0
0.4-3.7
• 0.2-18.0
1,800-67.000
0.4-31.0
4.5-172.0
2.8-27.0
2.120-168.000
0.5-10.8
1. 750- 17.000
118.0-918.0
0.1-O.3
6.0-226.0
083.0-3S.600
1.5-1.0
2.6-3.0
1.320-145.000
1.1
5.4-67.2
4.9-884.0
ND
5.0-63.0
0.0
2.0-3.7
NO
6.4-14.0
6.3
ND
13.4-10.6
11.1-16.0
1.3-4.0
PERCHED ZONES
WITHIN MAQOTHY
FORMATION.
RANQEOF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
TO PROPOSE!) NJOEPE QROUNOWATER CLEANUP STANDARDS AND FEDERAL MCLs.
MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
MONROE. NEW JERSEY
PARAMETERS
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total) (1)
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene Chloride
4-Melhyl 2-Pentanone
1 . 1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroelhane
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorolluoromelhane
Vinyl Chloride (1)
III. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzoic Acid
Bic(2-«thylhexyl)phthalale
Di-N-Bulylphthalata
DI-N-Oclylphthalate
1,2-Dicr.:orobenzene(1)
2.6-Dinilrolotuene
Phenol
MAQOTHY
FORMATION.
CLASS HA.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/L)
1.6-3.9
NO
ND
2.1-58.*
81.0
2.0
2.0-67.0
ND
0.«-11.2
1.4-13.7
ND
0.8
0.4
3.4
3.0-5.1
36.5 .
ND
PERCHED ZONES
WITHIN MAGOTHY
FORMATION.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(ufl/L).<2)
1B.O-264.0
ND
•ND
1.0-4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.3-33.8
ND
0.4-178.0
0.2-0.2
10.8-10.8
ND
46.3-46.3
ND
MEHCHANTVILLE
FORMATION.
CLASS IIIA.
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(ugrt.). (3)
ND
3.36-4.2
S70.0-S70.0
1.86-670.0
380.0
ND
0.7-18.8
1.0
0.85-7.4
ND
580.0-580.0
ND
0.3-0.3
4.4-4.4
ND
32.8-32.8
78.8-1.000
PROPOSED NJDEPE
GROUNDWATER
CLEANUP
STANDARDS
(ug/L)
10.0
700.0
NS
30.0
400.0
2.0
1.000
1.0
NS
2.0
NS
30.0
800.0
100.0
600.0
10.0
4.000
FEDERAL
MCLt
(ug/L)
70.0(cis)
700.0
NS
5.0
NS
NS
1.000
5.0
NS
2.0
NS
6.0
NS
NS
600.0
NS
NS
N6t6S:
ND - conitltuenl not delected In the medium Indicated
NS - no NJDEPE proposed cleanup standard or Federal MCL exist
(1) - Condiment concentration! (which were not eliminated at Constituents ol Interest in the Baseline Risk Assessment due to
suspecl laboratory contamination, present In blank samples or detection in 5% or fewer samples) were lound above
the NJDEPE proposed cleanup standard or Federal MCL only In monitoring well 21-R and were eliminated in the
Baseline Risk Assessment due to incomplete exposure.
(2) - Constituent concentrations In the Perched Zone within Magothy Formation were lound above the NJDEPE Proposed
Cleanup Standard or MCL only In monitoring wells B-1R-SS and B-46P.
(3) - Constituent concentrations lound In Merchantville Formation above the Proposed NJDEPE Cleanup Standards or MCLs
In monitoring wells B-3». B-41. B-42, B-43 and B-4S.
• - MCL lor Barium proposed to be Increased to 2.0 mg/L, January 1.1083
------- |