Superfund Record of Decision Kauffman and Minteer Inc Superfund Site Burlington County NJ


                                    EPA/ROD/R02-96/278
                                    1996
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     KAUFFMAN & MINTEER, INC.
     EPA ID: NJD002493054
     OU01
     SPRINGFIELD TWP(JOBSTOWN), NJ
     09/27/1996

-------


RECORD OF DECISION

Kauffman & Minteer Superfund Site
Jobstown, Burlington County, New Jersey

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York

September, 1996

-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Kauffman & Minteer

Jobstown, Burlington County, New Jersey

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Kauffman & Minteer Site, which was
chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, as amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) concurs with the selected remedy. This decision
document is based on the administrative record file for this Site.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Kauffman & Minteer Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response Action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy represents the first and only planned operable unit for the Kauffman & Minteer Site. It
addresses contaminated lagoon sediments at the Site and the shallow groundwater. The major components of the
selected remedy include the following:

! Excavation, off-site treatment as necessary, and off-site disposal of approximately 1000 cubic yards
of sediments;

! Long-term monitoring of the contaminated shallow ground-water underlying the Site. It is anticipated
that the groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually for at least five years. The frequency and
need to continue monitoring will be reevaluated after this five year period; and

! Institutional controls to limit groundwater use in the Navesink Formation. (NJDEP will establish a
Classification Exception Area which will restrict the use of the Navesink groundwater in the vicinity
of the Site.)

DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is
cost-effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. However, treatment of the principal threats at the Site was
not found to be practicable, since the small volume of'sediments could not be treated in a cost-effective
manner. Therefore, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
as their principal element.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the Site above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that it
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY

Kauffman & Minteer Site

Jobstown, Burlington County, New  Jersey

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                              PAGE

SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION                            1

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES                         2

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION                           5

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION                              5

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS                                 6

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS                                           9

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES                                     17

DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES                           20

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES                24

SELECTED REMEDY                                                32

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS                                       33

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES                           36


ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX  I.    FIGURES

APPENDIX  II.   TABLES

APPENDIX  III.  ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

APPENDIX  IV.   STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE

APPENDIX  V.    RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

The Kauffman & Minteer (K&M) Site is located on the eastern corner of the intersection of Monmouth Road
(Route 537) and Jobstown-Juliustown Road in Jobstown, Springfield Township, Burlington County, New Jersey.
Geographically, the Site is located at latitude 40° 021 10.811 N and longitude 74° 41' 37.5" W (USGS, 1957).
Figure 1 shows the general location of the Site.

The K&M property occupies approximately 5.5 acres in a sparsely populated, predominantly rural area that
primarily supports agriculture, horse farming, and related businesses. The K&M property is bordered on the
north by residences and Route 537, on the northeast and east by a marsh area, on the south by an overgrown
and wooded area traversed by Barker's Brook, and on the west by Jobstown-Juliustown Road. Boundaries of the
K&M property and adjoining properties are shown on Figure 2.

A small marsh immediately adjacent to the eastern property boundary gives rise to an intermittent stream.
This stream flows south-southeast into a branch of Barker's Brook which is located approximately 575 feet
south of the K&M property.

Features of concern on the K&M property include a small (approximately 0.7 acre), irregularly shaped, unlined
lagoon. The lagoon is approximately three to 10 feet deep and is surrounded by a low earthen berm. The
lagoon, which formerly received wash water from the tank truck interiors, has been drained by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is currently inactive. Since being drained in the summer of 1991,
the lagoon has been partially refilled due to precipitation. Also on the Site are ten under-ground storage
tanks and a wash water collection pit that was filled by the site owner.

The Site area is not served by either sanitary or storm sewer systems. The K&M facility, like the surrounding
residences and businesses, has a septic system to handle sanitary wastes. Storm water runoff in the Site area
flows to Barker's Brook via drainage ditches and overland flow. A drainage ditch along the southwestern
boundary of the K&M property, adjacent to Jobstown-Juliustown Road, carries runoff from the facility
operations lot and parking areas to Barker's Brook.

In the area around the Site, individual domestic wells are the primary source of drinking water. Within three
miles of the Site, primarily in the Juliustown area, approximately 560 people use water from private wells
that tap the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer. The nearest well drawing water from this aguifer is located
upgradient of the Site on the north side of the intersection of Routes 670 and 537, approximately 500 feet
from the K&M lagoon.

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Kauffman & Minteer, Inc. operated an industrial transportation facility. The company provided transport
services in company-owned tankers, carrying bulk luguids consiting primarily of organic substances including
plasticizers, resins, vegetable oils, soaps, petroleum oils, and alcohols. From 1960 through at least 1981,
wastewater generated from the washing of tanker interiors was discharged to the on-site lagoon.

The lagoon had no overflow diversion structure to protect the system from overflow during rainfall events. A
spray aeration system, consisting of seven sprinklers located along the western side of the lagoon, was
formerly used to evaporate wastewater by spraying it over the lagoon. Spray from this system was observed to
be carried by the wind onto surrounding properties.

On June 2, 1978, and Administrative Order was issued to K&M by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). The order reguired all existing lagoon water and process waters to be transported to an
acceptable waste processing center, or alternatively, the waters were to be treated and discharged on site
pursuant to the state treatment works approval reguirements. In the spring of 1981, K&M reproted that the
discharge of wastewater to the lagoon had stopped and that wastewater was being stored on the facility
property in tank trailers.

K&M was issued a National Pollution discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit (No. NJ0032310)
effective October 31, 1980 to October 31, 1985 by NJDEP to discharge surface runoff from the K&M facility to

-------
Barker's Brook in accordance with effluent limitations. The permit conditions required K&M to submit a
discharge monitoring report every twelve months.

On April 13, 1981, NJDEP preformed an inspection of the K&M facility and noted that the unlined, unpermitted
lagoon surface was contaminated with oil, and the general area contained rusted drums and debris. The lagoon
earthen berm was discolored by lagoon leachate. At the tank trailer wash-out area, potentially contaminated
process water was being discharged into an unlined collection pit. Near the western boundary of the
facility, a drainage ditch contained a straw filter berm that was used to remove oil and grease from parking
lot runoff. Also, drums at the rear of the Site were leaking onto unprotected soils.

In April 1982, K&M began shipping wastewater off site to the DuPont Deepwater facility for disposal. The K&M
wastewater shipments were manifested as waste water, nonhazardous, Department of Transportation (DOT) hazard
class NA9189, EPA waste type X724. Water samples collected from the lagoon by the NJDEP Bureau of Waste
Management showed concentrations of lead and cadmium above New Jersey hazardous waste criteria, qualifying
the lagoon as a hazardous, waste facility. After the samples from the lagoon were identified as hazardous,
the K&M NPDES permit was voided and all lagoon surface water was ordered to be removed and disposed in
accordance with the waste regulations of NJDEP.

On April 21, a joint inspection of the Site was conducted by NJDEP Division of Water Resources and the
Burlington County Health Department. During the inspection, Mr. Kauffman, the president of K&M Inc.,
indicated that the unlined collection pit next to the garage held tank trailer wash water until the wash
water was transferred to a storage tank trailer for highway transport. In addition, Mr. Kauffman explained
the use of two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks; one was used to store waste crankcase oil and oil
skimmed form the surface of the wash water collection pit, and the other was used to collect heels of
shipments of a Monsanto plasticizer. The collected plasticizers were then shipped back to Monsanto for
processing. Beginning in 1983, K&M wastewater was loaded into tank trailers and transported for
treatment/disposal at the Mt. Holly Sewer Authority. The wash water collection pit was filled by Mr.
Kauffman sometime between June 1989 and April 1990.

On June 1, 1984, the berm surrounding the lagoon broke and a portion of the lagoon contents was released to
the adjacent marsh and downstream areas. The level of the lagoon dropped 18 inches before the berm could be
repaired. In 1985, EPA conducted a Site investigation, which was used to evaluate the Site's eligibility for
the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The Site was subsequently placed on the NPL on March 30, 1989.

In June 1989, EPA conducted an inspection at the Site and noted conditions similar to previous inspections,
including stained soils adjacent to the lagoon, in the parking area, and in the drainage ditch area.

In April 1991, EPA performed a site inspection and noted that the Site was still active and tanker trailers
continued to be washed down at the facility. Wastewater from the tanker washing operations was being
collected in an unlined sump and continued to be transferred to tankers for transport to the Mt. Holly Sewer
Authority for treatment and disposal.

A removal action was conducted by EPA from the summer through the fall of 1991. This action included the
disposal of the liquid in the lagoon and the installation of a fence around the lagoon. Since that time, the
lagoon has refilled due to precipitation. K&M ceased operations at the facility in 1992.

In the summer of 1995, a release of liquid contaminated with plasticizers from an on-site tank trailer
prompted a second removal action. This subsequent removal action consisted of the collection and disposal of
the contaminated material found in four on-site tank trailers and deteriorating drums that were left on the
Site as a result of K&M's closure. The empty tank trailers were then demolished and disposed of. Shortly
before EPA initiated this removal action, an assessment of the contents of ten underground storage tanks
(USTs) by NJDEP resulted in the identifiction of two USTs containing hazardous substances, including
phthalates. The other USTs were found to contain fuel oils only. Consequently, EPA removed the contents of
these 2 USTs as part of the removal action.

Since the other 8 USTs contained fuel oil products only, EPA was precluded from taking action under Section
101 of CERCLA. However NJDEP plans to investigate these tanks to determine if any further remedial measures

-------
are warrented.

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Remedial Investigation report, Feasibility Study report, and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released
to the public for comment on July 9, 1996.  These documents were made available to the public in the
administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, and the
information repository at the Springfield Township Municipal Hall, Jacksonville-Jobstown Road, Jobstown, New
Jersey.  The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was published in the Burlington Times
on July 9, 1996.  The public comment period on these documents was held form July 9, 1996 to August 7, 1996.

On July 23, 1996, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Springfield Township Municipal Hall to inform local
officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to discuss the findings of  the RI, FS, and
proposed remedial activities at the Site, and to respond to any guestions from area residents and other
attendees.

Responses to the comments received at the public meeting, and in writing during the public comment period,
are included in the Responsiveness Summary section of this Record of Decision.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

EPA will address all remaining risks at the Site in one response action or operable unit.  This Record of
Decision  (ROD) addresses contaminated lagoon sediments and shallow groundwater at the Site.  In addition,
NJDEP plans to take further action to address the 8 USTs containing fuel oil products.

The primary goal of this remedial action is to reduce the risks to human health and the environment caused by
the potential exposure to contaminated lagoon sediments.  In addition, and area stained black from the
overflow of the lagoon reguires restoration because of the contaminant-stressed vegetation.  Finally, this
remedy includes actions to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater at the Site.

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A Remedial Investigation (RI) was preformed from 1991 to 1992 to determine the type and concentrations of
contaminants in various media at and around the Site.  The study was conducted for EPA by TAMs Consultants,
Inc.  The RI included sampling of site soils, sediment, surface water and ground water to delineate the
nature and extent of contamination as a result of K&M activities at the Site.  The results of the RI are
summarized below:

Site Hydrology and Geology

The land surface in the general area of the Site slopes gently toward the west from more elevated areas
northeast, east, and southeast of the Site.  Barker's Brook, a major stream in Springfield Township,
originates in the elevated areas east of the Site and flows west through much of Springfield Township.
Topography in the immediate vicinity of the Site slopes generally south toward Barker's Brook and the
drainage ditch that runs along Jobstown-Juliustown Road.

Two wetland areas were identified and mapped as part of the ecological investigation.  One wetland  (marsh
area) is located northeast of the K&M property and extends from the lagoon northeast toward Saylor's Pond
Road.  The width of this wetland  (northwest-southeast direction) ranges from about 250 to 300 feet, which is
approximately the same as the length of the lagoon.  This wetland occupies approximately 2.3 acres and is at
a lower elevation than the surrounding topography.  Drainage from the marsh area wetland is via an
intermittent stream that flows southeast towards Barker's Brook.  The channel of this intermittent stream
fans out near its junction with Barker's Brook.  A second wetland, approximately 2.5 acres in size, is
located southeast of the K&M property and adjacent to Barker's Brook.  It is connected to the marsh area
wetland via the intermittent stream and extends from the drainage ditch along Jobstown-Juliustown Road in the
southwest to the intermittent stream in the northeast.

-------
There are four aquifers in the vicinity of the K&M Site. In order of decreasing depth, the aquifers are the
Raritan-Magothy, the Englishtown, the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel, and the Navesink Marl Formation. These aquifers
dip to the southeast and strike northeast-southwest. The Site rests on the Navesink Formation, a
glauconitic, sandy clay layer, approximately 10 to 25 feet thick in the Site vicinity. The Navesink is th
uppermost water-bearing unit found at the Site. However, due to its low and inconsistent yeilds to wells and
poor water quality, it is normally not used for domestic well development. Below the Site and directly below
the Navesink Formation is the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aquifer, which is approximately 60 feet thick. This
aquifer is used for drinking water in the vicinity of the Site.

Nature and Extent of Contamination

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were the primary contaminants
detected at the Site. The RI identified contaminants primarily in the lagoon sediments and in the shallow
groundwater; the lagoon sediments being the source of contamination in the shallow aquifer.

Sediment samples were collected from six locations on the surface of the dewatered lagoon bed, including one
boring through the lagoon bed for collection of subsurface samples, as shown in Figure 3. The predominant
sediment contaminants and maximum concentrations detected, in parts per million (ppm), are:
tetrachloroethylene (230), trichloroethylene (3,100), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,600), 1,2-dichloroethylene
(1,100), 1,1-butylbenzylphthalate (31,000), di-n-octylphthalate (4,400). Based on the subsurface sampling,
similar contaminants were detected but concentrations generally decreased with depth. Butylbenzylphthalate
and di-n-octylphthalate were detected in the marsh soils adjacent to the lagoon, although at lower
concentrations (maximum of 430 ppm and 480 ppm, respectively). Tables 1 and 2 contain a summary of the
chemical data for the lagoon sediment and adjacent marsh soil.

As part of the RI, nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the Site, including six shallow
monitoring wells and three deep wells. These wells augmented three existing monitoring wells (installed by
NJDEP in 1981) at the Site. All twelve monitoring wells are shown in Figure 4. The predominant Navesink
Formation (shallow) groundwater contaminants and the maximum concentrations detected, as compared to their
respective Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) denoted in parentheses, or as
not available (NA), in parts per billion (ppb), are: VOCs - tetrachloroethylene: 4/(5), trichloroethylene:
16/(5), 1,2-dichloroethylene: 94 / (10), 1,1-dichloroethane: 4/(NA), benzene: I/ (5), isophorone: 570/ (NA),
and vinyl chloride: 17/(2); Inorganics -- beryllium 3/(4), chromium: 22.7/(100), and vanadium: 56.1/(NA).
The only potential contaminant of concern found in the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel (middle) Aquifer was chromium at a
maximum concentration of 20.4 ppb (MCL is 100 ppb). Table 3 contains a summary of the groundwater data.
Those compounds in the groundwater that exceed Federal and/or State drinking water standards are contained
within the property boundaries. The estimated dimensions of the contaminated groundwater plume are: 200 feet
wide by 200 feet long by 10 feet deep. Based on the available data, the plume is limited to the Site.

Sampling of residential drinking water wells was also conducted by EPA in 1990 and 1993. (NJDEP also sampled
residential wells in the vicinity of the Site in 1988). There were no exceedances of any primary Federal or
State drinking water standards during any of the sampling events.

Based on the on-site monitoring well data, which indicated that no contaminants found in the shallow aquifer
were found in the underlying Wenonah-Mt. Laurel aquifer, coupled with the residential well sampling, it
appears unlikely that the Wenonah Mt. Laurel is, or will be, impacted by contamination in the Navesink
unless new wells are installed at or near the Site.

A total of thirty surface soil samples and seventeen subsurface soil samples were collected at locations
throughout the Site, including the underground storage tank areas, the former washwater collection pit area
and other unpaved soils. Soil sampling locations are shown on Figures 3 and 5. Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7
summarize the surface and subsurface soil sample results. Contaminants detected in site soils include
butylbenzylphthalate and di-n-octylphthalate at maximum concentrations of 38 ppm and 65 ppm, respectively.
The maximum concentrations were found in the soil in the area of the former wash water collection pit; lower
levels were found in the other unpaved areas of the Site. No significant contamination was found in the
soils around the underground storage tanks.

-------
Seven surface water samples were collected from the sampling locations identified in Figure 4. Three samples
were collected in the drainage ditch along the western site boundary, one sample was collected from the
intermittent stream that runs from the marsh to Barker's brook, and three samples were collected from
Barker's Brook. Table 8 summarizes the surface water sample results. No significant contamination was
detected. Contaminants detected include butylbenzylphthalate at a maximum concentration of 2 ppb and
di-n-octylphthalate at a maximum concentration of 140 ppb which did not exceed Federal or State surface water
guality criteria.

Sediment samples were also collected from the drainage ditch and Barkers Brook, as shown on Figure 4.
Results are summarized in Table 9. In general, no significant sediment contamination was detected in Barkers
Brook. Contaminants detected include phthalates ranging form 63 to 960 ppb, including diethylphthalate,
di-n-butylphthalate and di-n-octylphthalate. In the drainage ditch, butylbenzylphthalate and
di-n-octylphthalate were detected at maximum concentrations of 2,300 and 1,900 ppm, respectively.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment
associated with the K&M Site in its current state. The following summarizes the results of the Risk
Assessment.

The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the sediment, ground-water, surface water, and soils which are
likely to pose significant risks to human health and the environment. The summary of the contaminants of
concern (COG) in sampled media is listed in Tables 10 through 16. Tables 17 through 23 provide a statistical
summary of the data for all media, including the frequency of detection, mean concentration, and the 95
percent Upper Confidence Limit (UCL).

Human Health Risk Assessment

A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Exposure Assessmet--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. Hazard Identification—contaminants of concern at the Site are
identified based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration. 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 outputs of the exposure and
toxicity assessments to provide a quantitiative (e.g., one-in-one-million excess cancer risk) assessment of
site-related risks. The reasonable maximum exposure was evaluated.

The data collected during the RI were grouped by media corresponding to respective exposure pathways
evaluated. The key media are: surface soils (0-2 feet), subsurface soils (greater than 2 feet), lagoon
sediments, drainage ditch and intermittent stream sediments, drainage ditch and intermittent stream surface
waters, marsh sediments, Barkers Brook sediments, Barkers Brook surface water, Navesink Marl groundwater
(shallow groundwater wells), and Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater (deep groundwater wells).

EPA's baseline risk assessment identified several potential exposure pathways by which the public may be
exposed to contaminants at the Site under current and future land-use conditions. Under present use
conditions, trespassers and site workers were evaluated for exposure to site soils and lagoon sediments.
Specifically, trespassers were evaluated for an ingestion pathway, and workers were evaluated for both
inhalation and ingestion routes. In addition, trespassers were evaluated for ingestion of sediments in the
marsh, drainage ditch and intermittent stream.

Exposure to groundwater under the present use scenario were evaluated for nearby residents, trespassers, and
site workers (under a combined current/future use scenario). Trespassers and residents were evaluated for
inhalation of the Navesink groundwater, and all three groups were evaluated for ingestion of the Navesink and
the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater.

Residential properties surround the Site, as the zoning in the immediate area of the Site is "Neighborhood

-------
Commercial." K&M is a non-conforming business, in that it was established prior to the zoning restrictions.
Now that facility operations have been discontinued, any future activities on the premises must conform to
the zoning code. Due to the present zoning restrictions, there is a distinct likelihood that the Site would
be used in the future for residential development. Therefore, the future use risk scenario assumes residents
would be living on the Site and construction workers would be present on the Site as a result. Residents
were evaluated for exposure to groundwater via ingestion and inhalation of the Navesink groundwater, and via
ingestion of the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel drinking water aquifer. Construction workers were evaluated for
ingestion of both the Navesink and the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater. Similarly, both groups were
evaluated under the future use scenario for ingestion and inhalation of lagoon sediments and site soils.

In taking the most conservative approach, exposure via ingestion of water from the shallow groundwater
(Navesink) was evaluated; however, a well search performed by EPA within a five mile radius of the Site
revealed that no drinking water wells were installed in the Navesink. Unlike the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel (middle
aguifer), the relatively low permeability, and naturally occurring high levels of iron and manganese,
significantly limit the use of the Navesink Marl Formation as a drinking water source. Additionally,
sampling of nearby residential wells did not detect any contaminants above health-based levels. Although the
Navesink Formation could be a potential source of public water supply for household purposes, there are no
wells registered with the NJDEP that draw from the Navesink Formation. The higher transmissivity, greater
hydraulic conductivity, and better water guality of the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer make drilling to a greater
depth cost effective. A site inspection did reveal two shallow residential wells, one upgradient and one
sidegradient to the Site; however, the wells are not used for drinking or bathing purposes.

Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due
to exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that the toxic effects of the
site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.

Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a comparison of expected
contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses (RFDs) have been developed
by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are
thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are compared
to the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is obtained by
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds within a particular medium that impact a particular receptor
population.

An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a
result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a use ful reference point for guaging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. The toxicity values,
including reference doses, for the compounds of concern at the Site are presented in Tables 24 and 25. A
summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals for each exposure pathway is contained
in Tables 26 through 29.

As can be seen from Tables 26 through 29, in the future use scenario, ingestion of lagoon sediments by a
child results in an estimated HI of 7.0, and inhalation of lagoon sediments results in His of 2.0 for an
adult resident and 9.4 for a child. The present and future scenario of inhalation of lagoon sediments by a
site worker resulted in an HI of 1.3. The remaining exposure pathways showed non-carcinogenic risks of less
than 1.0. The noncarcinogenic risk was attributable to butylbenzylphthalate and di-n-octylphthalate.

Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by EPA for the
contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Sfs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) -1, are multiplied by
the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the
excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper

-------
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern are presented in Table
25. A summary of the carcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals for each exposure pathway is
contained in Tables 26 through 29.

For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual lifetime cancer risks of
between 10-4 to 10-6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not greater than
approximately a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure conditions at a Site.

As can be seen from Table 26 through 29, in the current use scenario, residents are estimated to have an
excess cancer risk of 3.2 x 10-4, and site workers a risk of 1.9 x 10-4 from ingestion of the shallow
groundwater, due primarily to vinyl chloride. These risk numbers can be interpreted to mean that 3.2 out of
10,000 people, or 1.9 out of 10,000 for site workers, would be at an excess risk of developing cancers due to
regular exposure to shallow groundwater during their lifetime. These risks are near the upper bounds of
EPA's acceptable risk range. However, as stated above, the baseline risk assessment conservatively analyzed
exposure to shallow groundwater, although the Navesink Marl Formation is not used as a drinking water source.
All other pathways are within the guidelines for acceptable exposure to carcinogens.

Subseguent to the completion of the RI, it was found that provisional slope factors and Reference Doses for
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene were not considered in the analysis. The RI states that these
chemicals could not be evaluated guantitatively because of the absence of slope factor. However, provisional
slope factors are now available. Conseguently, calculations of the risks from these chemicals have been
developed. Based on these calculations, the calculated carcinogenic risks for exposure to groundwater for
the current residents increased slightly from 3.2 x 10-4 to 3.3 x 10-4 and the risks for site workers
increased from 1.9 x 10-4 to 1.93 x 10-4. For the future risks, the non carcinogenic risks to resident
adults form lagoon sediment ingestion increased from 0.75 to 1.45 and the risks to children increased from
7.0 to 13.6. Calculations were developed for high end and central tendency inhalation exposures from lagoon
sediment volatiles and the risks were 5.5 x 10-3 and 1.1 x 10-3, respectively.

In summary, the scenarios which exceeded guidelines for acceptable human exposure were a future use scenario
of adult residents and their children living on the Site, ingesting or inhaling noncarcinogenic and
carcinogenic contaminants in the lagoon sediments. In addition, the scenario of residents and site workers
currently drinking the Navesink groundwater had associated carcinogenic risks at the upper bounds of EPA's
acceptable risk range, although no exposure is occurring, or likely to occur, under this scenario.

While there is currently not a complete pathway for ingestion of the lagoon sediment, this situation will
likely change in the future. As mentioned above, the Site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which would
allow the property to be used for residences or light commerce. Whether the Site is used for residential or
light commerce, it is likely that the lagoon would be disturbed which could result in the sediments being
raised to the surface. With the sediments being raised to the surface, there will be a complete pathway for
ingestion which would then pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the sediment posing a potential
unacceptable ingestion risk, it also acts as a continuous source of contamination to the upper aguifer.

Ecological Risk Assessment

An environmental assessment was performed to identify and estimate the actual and/or potential adverse
ecological impacts of contaminants released by the K&M Site. A four-step process, very similar to that used
in human health assessment, was utilized. It consists of: Problem Formulation - a gualitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure
pathways, and known ecological effects of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment - a guantitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration and fate; characterization
of exposure pathways and receptors; and measurement of estimation of exposure point concentrations.
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. Unlike the Human Health Risk Assessment, the science of Environmental
Assessment has not evolved to the point where standard risk calculations can be made. Risk Characterization

-------
is primarily the process of comparing the results of the Exposure Assessment with the results of the Known
Ecological Effects assessment.

Potential risks to the environmental receptors associated with the K&M Site were identified in the ecological
risk assessment. Based upon: 1) the baseline information gathered during the field investigation, 2) review
of available data and literature, and 3) a comparison of the levels of site contamination to available
toxicity data, there appear to be no contaminant-related impacts on the immediate aguatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.

The study area of the K&M Site has four primary ecological features or community types: open field, riparian
woodlands, marsh, and stream. Appropriate media for each were analyzed - i.e., respectively, surficial soils
(0-2 feet), and composite soil samples from depths greater than 2 feet, surface water and sediment from
Barker's Brook, and sediment and soil from the adjacent marsh along the eastern portion of the Site. The
ecological risk assessment evaluated the contaminants of concern associated with each medium/community type,
and with the biota (plants and animals) of each. For the open field habitats, the soil-borne contaminants
list was comprised of phthalate, and di-n-octylphthalate) and lead. The contaminants in the marsh sediments
were phthalates, chromium, and lead. The Barker's Brook sediments revealed contaminants of concern -
phthalates and chromium; the surface water of the brook was eliminated as a medium of environmental exposure
on the basis that no contamination was detected above New Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria (NJSWQC).

The only contaminant-related ecological impact observed was to some flora in the lagoon-fed marsh. This
stressed area was an isolated section adjacent to the lagoon. Obvious signs of phytotoxicity and adverse
impacts were yellow, withered vegetation, and vegetation stained black form the overflow of lagoon contents.
Recent site inspections indicate that the majority of the marsh area vegetation has recovered; only the
black-stained area immediately adjacent to the lagoon still exhibits contaminant-related stress to the flora
ecosystem. The flora in the remainder of the study area appeared healthy and exhibited a species composition
indicative of similar habitats elsewhere. There were no obvious physical abnormalities observed in the fauna
of the study area either, including numerous frogs found in the stressed area of the marsh. The study area
contained birds, mammals and herpetofauna species that were representative of each habitat type.
Additionally, the assemblage of organisms in Barker's Brook adjacent to, upstream, and down-stream of the K&M
facility were typical for the habitat type. The potential impacts of contaminant exposure on local biota
were assessed based upon a review of available criteria and the relevant literature. The primary sources for
this information were: EPA Water Quality Criteria and literature compiled by the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Detailed information on the potential ecological effects of the COCs is
contained in Section 7 of the RI. Detailed information on the ecological assessment is contained in Appendix
G of the RI.

With the exception of stressed flora immediately adjacent to the lagoon, there appear to be no adverse
ecological impacts related to the Site. As discussed below, a remedial action for the lagoon sediments would
include restoration of the adjacent area of stressed vegetation.

Conseguently, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the K&M Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present a current or potential to
public health, welfare or the environment.

Uncertainties

The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to
a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty include:

! environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
! environmental parameter measurement
! fate and transport modeling
! exposure parameter estimation
! toxicological data

Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in

-------
the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual levels present.
Environmental chemistry-analysis error can stem from several sources, including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.

Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual would actually
come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure would occur, and
in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.

Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals.
Unidentified contaminants and tentatively identified compounds (TICs) detected at the Site serve as
additional sources of uncertainty. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative asusmptions
concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides
upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate
actual risks related to the Site.

More specific information concerning public health and environmental risks, including a quantitative
evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in Sections 6 and 7
of the RI Report.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. These objectives
are based on available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) , and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.

Based upon the results of the Risk Assessment, the estimated carcinogenic risks are within EPA guidlines (
10-4 to 10-6) for all pathways except for ingestion of Navesink groundwater and inhalation of lagoon
sediments. Exposure to noncarcinogens exceeds the guideline for acceptable exposure, (HI<=1.0), due to
ingestion and inhalation of lagoon sediments. Therefore, evaluation of remedial alternatives for the
Navesink groundwater and lagoon sediments is warranted.

Additionally, an area stained black from the overflow of the lagoon requires restoration because of the
contaminant-stressed vegetation. In light of the fact that this area is immediately adjacent to the lagoon,
remedial alternatives for this area will be evaluated along with the lagoon sediments.

There were also sediments in the drainage ditch with elevated levels of site-related contaminants.
Therefore, if additional sampling shows sediments exceeding EPA's cleanup criteria for the contaminants of
concern, these sediments will be excavated and backfilled with compatible soils.

Soil exposure pathways are all within EPA guidelines for acceptable exposure to carcinogens and
noncarcinogens. Remedial alternatives for the site soils will therefore not be addressed.

In summary, the following remedial action objectives were established:

! Prevent exposure through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated lagoon and drainage ditch sediments;

! Restore an area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon;

! Prevent further degradation of the groundwater by removing the sediments, which pose a continuing
source of contamination; and

! Prevent exposure through ingestion of on-site contaminated groundwater.

EPA has developed site-specific, risk-based remediation goals for the K&M Site for the following chemicals
based on the protection of human health:

-------
1,2-Dichloroethene(total)                    700 ppm
Butylbenzylphthalate                      16,000 ppm
Di-N-octylphthalate                        1,600 ppm
Trichloroethene                                5 ppm
Tetrachloroethene                             11 ppm
Toluene                                      650 ppm

The remediation goals were based on the assumption that future land use will be residential. The goals for
1,2-Dichloroethene(total),  Butylbenzylphthalate, and Di-N-octylphthalate were based on potential ingestion of
sediments by future residents, and would decrease potential noncarcinogenic risks to a Hazard Quotient of 1
for each chemical. These goals would be applied to both surface and subsurface sediments based on the
possibility that subsurface sediments may be brought to the surface during redevelopment of the Site.

The goals for Trichloroethene, Tetrachloroethene and Toluene were based on recommendations in EPA's soil
screening level guidance issued in July 1996. The levels were based on potential inhalation of volatiles from
the lagoon sediments. For Trichloroethene and Tetrachloroethene these goals would reduce carcinogenic risk to
the 10-6 level, and for Toluene, reduces the noncarcinogenic risk to a Hazard Quotient of 1. These inhalation
goals would be applied to surface sediments only.

NJDEP has developed soil cleanup guidelines designed to protect groundwater resources and has reguested that
the lagoon sediments be remediated consistent with its Proposed Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites
(February 1992).  It is likely that excavation of the lagoon sediments will include removal of some underlying
soils, and based on the lagoon characterization in the RI, it is likely that residual contamination will not
exceed NJDEP guidelines. EPA will ensure that any residual soil contamination does not impair the designated
uses of the groundwater, which may include developing alternate soil cleanup goals.

In order to develop cost estimates for the remedial alternatives, it was estimated that the volume of
sediments reguiring remediation, including those adjacent to the lagoon and in the drainage ditch, is
approximately 1000 cubic yards. This approach is believed to be conservative; actual sediment volume is
likely to be lower.

DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) , reguires
that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply
with other statutory laws,  and utilize permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, and resource
recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable.  In addition, the statute includes a preference for
the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.

The FS report evaluated, in detail, four remedial alternatives to address the contamination associated with
the lagoon sediments, and three remedial alternatives to address the contamination associated with on-site
groundwater.

The estimated construction time reflects only the time reguired to implement the remedy and does not include
the time reguired to design the remedy or procure contracts for design and construction.

These alternatives are:

LAGOON SEDIMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alternative LS-1: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost:         $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:       $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost:   $36,500
Estimated Present Worth:        $102,000

-------
Estimated Construction Time: None

The Superfund program requires the evaluation of a No Action alternative to serve as a baseline for
comparison with other remedial action alternatives. The No Action alternative for the lagoon sediments would
allow the Site to remain in its present condition. Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on Site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at least every five years. If justified by the
review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes. No other action is proposed under
this alternative.

Alternative LS-2: Cap/Cover

Estimated Capital Cost: $760,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $1,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $7,200
Estimated Present Worth: $796,000
Estimated Construction Time: three months

This alternative would require the dewatering of the lagoon, filling and regrading to meet the surrounding
topography, and the installation of a cap or cover. Approximately 31,000 square feet of contaminated lagoon
sediment area would be capped. This alternative would require some form of deed restrictions to ensure the
integrity of the capped area. The three options considered for this alternative are:

Option 2a: Vegetative Cover
Option 2b: Asphalt/Concrete Cap
Option 2c: RCRA Cap

An asphalt cap on the lagoon has been used for costing purposes; however, any of the capping alternatives
would be similar in cost because of the small surface area involved. A complete breakdown of costs for each
option can be found in Appendix B of the FS. A vegetative cover would be used on the area of
contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon. Because this alternative would result in
contaminants remaining on Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be 'reviewed every
five years.

Alternative LS-3: Excavation/Off-Site Treatment of Hot Spots/Off-Site Disposal

Estimated Capital Cost: $1,294,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated S Year Review Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $1,294,000
Estimated Construction Time: four months

As with Alternative LS-2, this alternative would require dewatering of the lagoon. The lagoon sediments and
berm soils, contaminated with COCs (approximately 1000 cubic yards) would be then excavated and disposed off
site. Sampling during the RI indicates the likelihood that hot spots of contamination, defined as areas
exceeding Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) limits for characteristic hazardous waste, exist
within the lagoon sediments. RCRA hazardous wastes would require disposal at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. As
a conservative costing measure, it was assumed that any lagoon sediments found to contain RCRA hazardous
wastes would be incinerated, with the remaining ash being disposed of in a RCRA. Subtitle C landfill, and
those sediments found to be non-hazardous would be disposed off site in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. For cost
purposes it was assumed that 85 percent of the sediment volume would be non-hazardous. All excavated areas
would be backfilled with suitable fill, regraded and reseeded. The area of contaminant-stressed vegetation
immediately adjacent to the lagoon would be excavated, backfilled with compatible soils and at a grade that
will preserve a wetland hydrogeology and support wetland vegetation, and reseeded. In addition, any sediments
found in the drainage ditch that exceed the cleanup criteria for the contaminants of concern would be
excavated and disposed of, and the area backfilled with compatible soils.

Alternative LS-4: Excavation/Off-Site Incineration/ Off-Site Disposal

-------
Estimated Capital Cost: $2,454,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $2,454,000
Estimated Construction Time: three months

As with Alternative LS-2 and LS-3, a total of approximately 1000 cubic yards of organic contaminated lagoon
sediments would be excavated, packed in drums, and transported to a RCRA permitted incineration and disposal
facility. The lagoon sediments would be incinerated and appropriately disposed of off site. Incineration is a
thermal process that destroys all forms of combustible waste materials. All excavated areas would be filled
with clean soil and graded. As with the other alternatives, the area of contaminant-stressed vegetation
immediately adjacent to the lagoon would be excavated and backfilled with compatible soils and at a grade
that will preserve a wetland hydrogeology and support wetland vegetation. Any sediments found in the drainage
ditch that exceed the cleanup criteria for the contaminants of concern will be excavated and disposed of, and
the area backfilled with compatible soils.

SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES

Alternative GW-1: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $36,500
Estimated Present Worth: $102,000
Estimated Construction Time: None

The Superfund Program reguires the evaluation of a No Action alternative to serve as a baseline for
comparison with other remedial action alternatives. The No Action alternative for the shallow groundwater
would allow the Site to remain in its present condition. Because this alternative would result in
contaminants remaining on site above health-based levels, CERCLA reguires that the Site be reviewed at least
every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the
wastes. No other action is proposed under this alternative.

Alternative GW-2: Limited Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $27,300
Estimated Annual O&M: $29,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $7,200
Estimated Present Worth: $499,000
Estimated Construction Time: one month

The limited action alternative for the contaminated shallow groundwater underlying the Site would include a
long-term monitoring program, and an institutional control program. The monitoring program would include the
installation of an additional well, and the sampling of all existing and new wells on a periodic basis. For
conservative cost purposes, groundwater monitoring over a thirty-year period was evaluated. However, the need
for continued groundwater monitoring would be reevaluated after five years. If, in the future, the monitoring
program detects an exposure to contamination from the Site in excess of drinking water standards, additional
remedial action would be considered. The institutional control program would consist of NJDEP placing well
restrictions on the use of shallow wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

Alternative GW-3: Collection and Treatment

Estimated Capital Cost: $2,804,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $370,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $36,300
Estimated Present Worth: $8,415,000
Estimated Construction Time: two years

-------
This alternative would provide for on-site collection and treatment of contaminated groundwater. Collection
of groundwater would be accomplished through the installation of trenches along the downgradient portion of
the property. Three cleanup processes would be necessary to treat the Navesink Formation groundwater:
pretreatment to reduce scaling or fouling, organic compound removal, and inorganics removal. The treatment
system reguired for these procedures would consist of: 1) Chemical Precipitation and Settling, 2) UV
Oxidation, and 3) Ion Exchange. Groundwater would need to be treated to meet both New Jersey Surface Water
Quality Criteria and Federal and State drinking water standards (MCLs) prior to surface water discharge.

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative was assessed utilizing nine
evaluation criteria as set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria were
developed to address the reguirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are
factored into remedy selection decisions.

The following "threshold" criteria are the most important, and must be satisfied by any alternative in order
to be eligible for selection:

Threshold Criteria

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether or not an alternative provides
adeguate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.

2. Compliance with Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not
an alternative will meet all of the ARARs of the Federal and State environmental statutes or provide a basis
for invoking a waiver.

The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to-identify the major trade-offs
between alternatives:

Primary Balancing Criteria

3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the magnitude of residual risk and the ability of an
alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once remedial
objectives have been met.

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial
actions that employ treatment technologies that permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances as a principal element.

5. Short-term Effectiveness refers to the period of time that is needed to achieve protection, as well as
the alternative's potential to create adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may result
during the construction and implementation period.

6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular alternative.

7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.

The following 'modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment period on the
Proposed Plan is complete:

Modifying Criteria

8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI and FS reports and the Proposed Plan,

-------
the State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the preferred alternative.

9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives described in the
Proposed Plan and the RI and FS reports - Responses to public comments are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary of this Record of Decision.

A comparative analysis of these alternatives, based upon the evaluation criteria noted above, is presented
below.

! Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Sediment Alternatives

The No Action Alternative (LS-1) would not limit or prevent exposure to the contaminated lagoon sediments. In
addition, there would still be the potential for continued degradation of the underlying groundwater.
Therefore, this alternative would not provide adeguate overall protection of human health and the
environment. Alternative LS-2 would prevent exposure to the lagoon sediments through the use of a cap or
cover. While capping would offer adeguate protection of human health, future threats to the environment would
remain since the contaminants would remain beneath the cap. Alternative LS-2 would offer better overall
protection of human health and the environment than LS-1. The excavation and off-site treatment,
alternatives, LS-3 and LS-4, would totally eliminate any potential future exposure by removal of the
contaminants. Alternatives LS-2, LS-3 and LS-4 would achieve protectiveness at the completion of
construction.

Groundwater Alternatives

Although no current exposure to contaminated groundwater is occurring, future exposure is possible.
Alternative GW-1 does not incorporate any remedial action. A five-year review would involve sampling and
analysis of existing groundwater monitoring wells. Therefore, Alternative GW-1 would provide some limited
protection of human health. Alternative GW-2 involves a groundwater monitoring program and incorporates well
restrictions. If, during the groundwater monitoring, contaminated groundwater is found to be migrating to a
drinking water source, or towards a surface water body, the need for remedial action would be reconsidered.
Alternative GW-2, in comparison to GW-1, would more effectively ensure the overall protection of human
health, because it includes regular groundwater monitoring. Alternative GW-3, through pumping and treating
contaminated groundwater, would offer an increased level of overall protection of human health and the
environment compared to GW-1 and GW-2, because it would involve active remedial measures to restore the
groundwater to federal and state standards.

! Compliance with ARARs

Sediment Alternatives

There are no contaminant-specific ARARs for the lagoon sediments. However, EPA did develop site-specific
cleanup goals. Alternative LS-1 would not achieve the health-based cleanup goals for the lagoon sediments.
The cap in Alternative LS-2 would prevent exposure to lagoon sediments, and therefore would satisfy the
remedial action objective. The cap in Alternative LS-2(c) would meet the reguirements for a RCRA hazardous
waste cap. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would achieve the remedial action objectives by removal of the
sediments to meet the cleanup goals. Excavation activities conducted under Alternative LS-3 and LS-4 would be
conducted in accordance with OSHA reguirements and federal and state air emission regulations. These
alternatives would also comply with RCRA reguirements appropriate for off-site treatment and disposal of the
sediments, as well as New Jersey hazardous waste regulations. For Alternatives LS-2, LS-3 and LS-4 the
restoration of stressed vegetation adjacent to the lagoon would comply with applicable wetlands regulations,
including Executive Order 11990 of the Clean Water Act and New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection
regulations.

A Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey was conducted during the RI to determine the need for compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act. Although the survey concluded that there is a potential for the presence

-------
of historical resources, in the vicinity of the Site, the lagoon area subject to remediation has already been
heavily disturbed. Therefore a stage IB cultural resources survey would not be necessary component of any of
the sediment alternatives.

Groundwater Alternatives

Although Alternative GW-1 would not accomplish the remedial action objective for the groundwater, there is no
current exposure to contaminated groundwater, as the shallow aguifer is not used for potable water.
Therefore, contaminant-specific ARARs (MCLs) are not applicable but could be considered relevant and
appropriate. It is anticipated that after remediation of the lagoon sediments, groundwater guality standards
will eventually be achieved through natural attenuation of contaminants, although the time frame is difficult
to predict. Alternative GW-2 would effectively ensure the prevention of exposure to contaminated groundwater
through a more comprehensive groundwater monitoring program consistent with Federal and State groundwater
monitoring reguirements and well restrictions. However, as with Alternative GW-1, it is difficult to predict
when groundwater guality standards will be achieved in the shallow aguifer. Alternative GW-3 would treat the
groundwater until federal and state groundwater standards are attained within the aguifer; ARARs for
extraction and treatment prior to discharge would also be met.

! Long-term Effectiveness

Sediment Alternatives

Alternative LS-1 would not maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, as
contaminated sediments would remain in the lagoon. Alternative LS-2 would provide acceptable reduction in
risk, however, hazardous substances would remain on Site, relying on long-term maintenance of the cap to
preserve its protectiveness. With this alternative, deed restrictions would be reguired to ensure the
integrity of the cap.

Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would involve the removal and off-site disposal of the contaminated lagoon
sediments, and therefore, would provide the best long-term effectiveness. Removal of contaminated sediments
would eliminate the lagoon as a source of future contamination. These two alternatives would be considered
permanent solutions. Since public health and environmental risks associated with contaminated sediments would
be eliminated, unrestricted future site use would be allowed.

Groundwater Alternatives

Although contaminant levels in the shallow groundwater are above MCLs, they are expected to gradually reduce,
through natural attenuation, to health-based levels. Therefore, Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would eventually
provide adeguate long-term protectiveness. Alternative GW-2 incorporates a more comprehensive monitoring
program, and therefore, would more reliably ensure protectiveness of human health, over the long term, than
Alternative GW-1. Alternative GW-3 would be consistent with the long-term effectiveness goals for the Site by
treating the groundwater until MCLs are achieved, or it becomes technically infeasible to attain remediation
goals.

! Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume

Sediment Alternatives

Alternative LS-1 would not achieve any reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of the lagoon sediments.
Alternative LS-2 would result in a reduction in mobility of the COCs in the lagoon sediments, but would not
reduce toxicity or volume. Capping would significantly reduce infiltration of runoff through the lagoon
sediments, transport of lagoon sediments via surface runoff, and volatilization of COCs in the lagoon
sediments. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would completely reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the COCs
in the lagoon sediments, by removal, treatment, as necessary, and off-site disposal.

Groundwater Alternatives

-------
Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would, over time, achieve reductions in toxicity and volume of the low levels of
COCs in the groundwater through natural attenuation. Alternative GW-3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and
volume of the COCs in the groundwater through active treatment in a shorter period of time.

! Short-term Effectiveness

Sediment Alternatives

Alternative LS-1 would not have any adverse short-term impacts, since it involves no active remedial
measures. Alternatives LS-2, LS-3 and LS-4 would involve disturbing the lagoon sediments to varying degrees,
which would generate dust and volatile emissions. Alternative LS-2 would create the least disturbance of the
sediments and fewest short-term impacts during construction of the cap. The excavation activities in
Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would have the most short-term adverse effects. These alternatives may require air
monitoring and engineering controls to reduce airborne dust and emissions. All of the lagoon sediment
alternatives would require implementation of a health and safety plan to minimize any risks to on-site
workers and nearby residents.

In terms of time to achieve protectiveness, Alternative LS-1 is the fastest to implement, as it involves no
active remedial measures. Alternatives LS-2, LS-3, and LS-4 could all be implemented relatively quickly;
construction times range from 3 to 4 months.

Groundwater Alternatives

Alternative GW-1 would not have any adverse short-term impacts. Alternative GW-2 would have minimal
short-term impacts associated with the installation and sampling of a monitoring well. Alternative GW-3 would
have the greatest short-term impacts, namely hazards associated with the extraction, treatment, and disposal
of contaminated groundwater. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would require the implementation of a health and
safety plan to minimize the associated short-term risks.

In terms of time to achieve protectiveness for the groundwater component, Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 could
both be implemented almost immediately. Conversely, Alternative GW-3 involves construction of a groundwater
extraction and treatment system, estimated to take at least 2 years to implement.

! Implementability

Sediment Alternatives

The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing Alternative LS-1 is minimal. The only activity
conducted under Alternative LS-1 would be the required five-year review. Cap or cover construction, in
Alternative LS-2, can be easily implemented using readily available technology and is not expected to involve
any technical difficulties. Similarly, Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 also incorporate easily implementable
technologies. Alternative LS-4 may experience more administrative difficulty than LS-3 due to the potentially
limited availability for off-site hazardous waste incineration capacity.

Groundwater Alternatives

The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing Alternative GW-1 is minimal. The only activity
conducted under Alternative GW-1 would be the required five year reviews. Administratively, Alternative GW-2
would require NJDEP to implement well restrictions for the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of the Site.
Alternative GW-3 would be more complex in its technical and administrative implementation than GW-1 and GW-2.
On a technical level, it may be difficult to extract shallow groundwater for treatment, due to the low
hydraulic conductivity in the Navesink Formation. In addition, administratively, Alternative GW-3 is more
difficult to implement than the other two Alternatives; it would have to be conducted in accordance with
substantive requirements of various state permits for extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.

! Cost

-------
Sediment Alternatives

The estimated present worth costs for the lagoon sediment alternatives are as follows: $112,600 for
Alternative LS-1, $796,000 for LS-2, $1.29 million for LS-3, and $2.45 million for LS-4. In evaluating cost
effectiveness, Alternative LS-3 satisfies the Remedial Action Objectives to the greatest extent at the least
cost.

Groundwater Alternatives

The estimated present worth costs for the groundwater alternatives include $112,600 for Alternative GW-1,
$499,000 for GW-2, and $8.41 million for Alternative GW-3. Of the alternatives that accomplish the Remedial
Action Objectives for the groundwater and provide for the protection of human health, Alternative GW-2 is the
most cost effective.

! State Acceptance

The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy presented in this Record of Decision.

! Community Acceptance

In general, both officials and community residents expressed support for the preferred remedy. A more
detailed discussion of community concerns is presented in the Responsiveness Summary.

SELECTED REMEDY

Based upon consideration of the reguirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the various alternatives,
and public comments, both EPA and. NJDEP have determined that Alternative LS-3 and Alternative GW-2 comprise
the most appropriate remedy for the K&M Site.

The major components of the Selected Remedy are:

! Excavation, and off-site treatment as necessary, and off-site disposal, of approximately 1000 cubic
yards of lagoon sediments; and

! Long-term monitoring of the contaminated shallow ground-water underlying the Site. It is anticipated
that the groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually for at least five years. The freguency and
need to continue monitoring will be reevaluated after this five year period.

! Institutional controls to limit groundwater use in the Navesink Formation. (NJDEP will.establish a
Classification Exception Area which will restrict the use of the Navesink groundwater in the vicinity
of the Site.)

The selection of this remedy is based upon the comparative analysis of the alternatives discussed above and
provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund Sites is to undertake remedial actions
that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes
several other statutory reguirements and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial
action for the Kauffman & Minteer Site must comply with applicable, or relevant and appropriate environmental
standards established under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The
selected remedy also must be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute
includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy
meets these statutory reguirements.

-------
Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected alternative addresses the human health-based remedial action objectives associated with
contaminated lagoon sediments and is, therefore, considered to be effective in achieving protection of human
health in both the short and long term. Threats to human health and the environment would be eliminated as
there would be no possibility of direct ingestion of lagoon sediments or inhalation of organic compounds
which volatilize from the lagoon sediment. In addition, the contaminated sediments will no longer be a source
of groundwater contamination.

For groundwater, the remedy does not entail removal or, natural attenuation and treatment of the contaminated
shallow groundwater, but relies on monitoring to be protective. Although there is no current exposure to
contaminated groundwater, future exposure is possible. In order to protect against the potential future
exposure, the remedy will include institutional controls, which will consist of NJDEP establishing a
Classification Exception Area (CEA) to restrict use of the contaminated portion of the Navesink groundwater.
The CEA will include the development of a well restriction area in the vicinity of the Site. These
restrictions will ensure that any pumping well installed in the vicinity (e.g. within 500 feet of the Site)
does not exert any significant hydraulic influence on the area of contaminated groundwater. The monitoring
program will assist in ensuring that contaminated groundwater does not migrate to areas not protected by the
well restrictions. The remedy will include the installation of an additional monitoring well, and periodic
sampling and analysis, it is anticipated that the groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually for at
least five years. The freguency and need to continue monitoring will be reevaluated after this five year
period. Implementation of the remedy will effectively prevent current and future exposure to contaminated
groundwater, and therefore provide adeguate overall protection of human health and the environment.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements

The remedy will comply with all ARARs. Contaminated sediments exceeding remediation goals will be removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable law. Table 30 provides for a listing of associated ARARs.
Action-specific ARARs will be achieved by conducting all sediment removal activities in accordance with OSHA,
RCRA, and New Jersey hazardous waste regulations. Excavated material will be appropriately packed and shipped
off-site to a permitted RCRA Subtitle C disposal facility if hazardous, or a permitted RCRA Subtitle D
landfill if non-hazardous. Location specific ARARs include Executive Order 11990 for restoration of the soils
adjacent to the lagoon.

Currently, no exposure to contaminated groundwater is occurring. Therefore, contaminant-specific ARARs
(MCLs) are not applicable, but will be considered in evaluating the results of the long-term monitoring. If
future exposure to contaminated groundwater occurs, Federal and State MCLs would be applicable
contaminant-specific ARARs.

Cost-Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness of a remedy is determined by weighing the cost against the alternative's ability to
achieve ARARs and remedial action objectives. The selected remedy is cost effective as it has been determined
to provide the greatest overall long-term and short-term effectiveness in proportion to its present worth
cost, $1,800,000. Although Alternatives LS-1 is less costly, it does not provide for protection of human
health and the environment. Similarly, Alternative LS-2, while less costly than the selected remedy, is not
effective over the long term, and does not completely eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminated
sediments. The ground water monitoring program will be effective in achieiving the remedial action objectives
at significantly less cost than active remediation of the shallow aguifer.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can
be utilized in a cost-effective manner at the Site. It further provides the best balance of trade-offs with
respect to the nine evaluation criteria. Of the three action alternatives for sediment, the selected remedy
is the most cost effective permanent remedy; the contaminated sediments will be removed and disposed of off
site. The complete removal of the contaminated sediments will provide a greater degree of flexibility for

-------
future development of the Site. In addition, the selected remedy, unlike Alternative LS-2, does not rely upon
long-term maintenance to be protective of human health and the environment.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

Although the remedy may include some off-site treatment of those contaminated sediments found to be
RCRA-hazardous, the selected remedy does not rely on the use of treatment technologies as a principal
component. Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is
not satisfied.

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan.

APPENDIX I






APPENDIX II

-------
                                                                                                                            KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                             LAGOON SOILS AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
SOIL               SAMPLES

SAMPLE ID

DATE SAMPLED
SAMPLE TYPE
Volatile Organics  (ug/kg)
        CARBON DISULFIDE
              12U
Chlorinated Aliphatics
        1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
               2  J
        1,2- DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)

         METHYLENE  CHLORIDE
         10 J
        TETRACHLOROETHENE
             12 U
        1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
           12 U
        TRICHLOROETHENE
                  1  J
        ACETONE
                         140  U
        2- BUTANONE

        2- HEXANONE
                           4  J
        4- METHYL-2-PENTANONE
      4 J
BTEX Compounds
        TOLUENE
      160
        ETHYLBENZENE
        XYLENE S  (TOTAL)
                              84
        TOTAL NUMBER  OF  TICS
                    10
        TOTAL TIC  CONCENTRATION
                 197
Semivolatile Organics  (ug/kg)
        PHENOL
               310  J
        2-METHYLPHENOL

        1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE

        ISOPHORONE
        41 J
Polynuclear Aromatic  Hydrocarbon;
        NAPHTHALENE
  390 U
        2-METHYL NAPHTHALENE
390 U
       ANTHRACENE
     390 U
        TOTAL PAHS
               240  J
                                                                                                                  PAGE  1  OF  3

                                                                                                 SURFACE  SEDIMENT/SOILS  SAMPLES


                                                                                                              SD18
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           SUBSURFACE
          1.700 U          27,000  J               1,800 U            3,600 UJ           1.700 UJ

1,700 U   1,100,000                  1,800  U            3,600 UJ          1,700  UJ             12

       1,700 U        230,000 UJ           1,800 UJ           3,600 UJ           1,700  UJ

        1,700 U       230.000                 1,800 U             3,600 UJ           1,700 UJ

        1,700 U     1,600000                 3,600 UJ            1,700 UJ                12 U

                 170 U    3,100,000                 1,800 U             3 600  UJ         1,700 UJ
                             1,700  UJ        230,000 UJ

                       1,700 U          230,000 U

                      1,700  UJ         230.000 UJ

                    230,000  UJ           1,800 UJ


                                 580 J        2,200,000

                      880 J        1,300,000

                  3.200  J        3,700,000
       1,200 J

       960 J

 2,200 J

1,  700 UJ
                             14,000  UJ

            14,000 UJ          74,000 UJ

        14000 UJ          15,000  J

                      14000  UJ


                  14000 UJ

                       66,000  J

                     14000 UJ

                          1,400  J

-------
Phthalates
        DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
     150 J
        BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
        BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
        DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
 250 J
        TOTAL NUMBER OF TICS
           1 9
        TOTAL TIC  CONCENTRATION
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS  (mg/kg)
48
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (mg/kg)
TOT. ORGANIC CARBON  (MG/KG)
TOT ORGANICS  (VOC+SVOC+TPHC)mg/kg
56
Notes:
     U =  Not detected.   J = Estimated Value. B  =   compound also detected in associated method blank
     TCL and TAL  analytes not listed were not detected
     Shading indicates  exceedance of applicable  criterion.
J

UJ

-------
        SAMPLE ID
        DATE SAMPLED
        SAMPLE TYPE
Inorganics  (mg/kg)
       ANTIMONY
                0.04
       ARSENIC

       BARIUM

       BERYLLIUM
       COBALT

       COPPER

       LEAD

       MANGANESE
       SELENIUM

       VANADIUM

       ZINC
                                                                                                                       KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                      LAGOON SOILS AND  SEDIMENT SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                     SURFACE  SEDIMENT/SOIL SAMPLES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   SUBSURFACE  SOIL SAMPLES
  2.4 UJ

         4.8 J

    168.0 J

0. 09

3. 10

 39.3

          4.6

      85. 8

       217.0
     1. 1

  0. 8 UJ

 8.5

    19.9

0.12  U

    2.1
                                                              16.4                 15.

                                                      1.70                1.50

                                                              0.52 U

                                                      101.0 J             69.4

                                                                       2.0
                                                                                                                                       12.0                13.4

                                                                                                                                              0. 12 U

                                                                                                                                                       6 . 3

                                                                                                                                                  0.25

                                                                                                                                         52.8                 43.7

                                                                                                                                                      R
       Shading indicates exceedance  of  applicable criterion.
        (1) - Crustal abundant metal (Aluminum,  Calcium.  Iron, Magnesium, Potassium,  and  Sodium)  not Listed.
        (2) - TCL and TAL analytes not  listed were not defected.
        (3) - Inorganics soil background  data from NJDEPE,  1993. Values are  2x   local maximum.
        (4) - Shacklette, H.T and Boerngen,   J.G., 1984.  Maximum background  level  in  eastern U.S  soils.
        (5) - Tedrow, J.C.F  , 1996,  2 x maximum background in New Jersey Sassafras  Soils.

-------
           SUBSURFACE

        SAMPLE ID
                       TCLP  REGULATORY
        DATE SAMPLED
                LIMIT
        SAMPLE TYPE
       (40 CFR 261)

TCLP Volatile Organics  ( ug/L)
        1,1- DICHLOROETHENE

        1,2- DICHLOROETHANE

        CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
                                   500
        TRICHLOROETHENE

        BENZENE
   5 U
        TETRACHLOETHENE

TCLP Semivolatile Organics  (ug/L)
        1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
                                   750C
        3,4 METHYLPHENOL  (M5P-CRESOL)
                     200,000
TCLP Pesticides/Herbicides  (  ug/L)
TCLP Metals  (ug/L)
        ARSENIC
6.1 J
        BARIUM
219 U
        CHROMIUM

        LEAD
700

 500
                                                              84 J


                                                          11 J

                                         93                             20 U

                       No  TCLP  Pesticides or herbicides were detected
                   5, 000

               100,000

           5, 000

                      5,000

                      5,000
       U = NOT DETECTED,  J  =-  ESTIMATED VALUE,  R = REJECTED VALUE
       All data and regulatory limits  in ug/1 in TCLP extract
       Reported results  are  corrected  for matrix spike recoveries as reguired  by  40  CFR Part 268 Method 1311.
       Shading indicates  exceedance  of applicable criterion.
        TCLP analytes not listed  were  not detected in the TCLP extract  of  any  sample.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Table 1
                                                                                                                                           KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE  REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                           LAGOON SOILS AND SEDIMENT  SAMPLE  DATA SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                                     TCLP ANALYSIS
                                                                                                                                                                                          PAGE 3 OF 3
                                                                                                         SURFACE SEDIMENT/SOIL  SAMPLES
5 U

 5 U
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           5.7  J

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             5  UJ

-------
         SAMPLE ID
    SD12                            SS
         SAMPLE LOCATION
Volatile  Organics (ug/kg)
          METHYLENE CHLORIDE
              2 J
          ACETONE
               I 7 U
         CARBON DISULFIDE
                 17 U
         TOLUENE
                       17 U
         XYLENES (TOTAL)
                   17 U

         TOTAL NUMBER OF VOC  TICS
                 1
         TOTAL VOC TIC CONCENTRATION
                                                                                                                                           KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                                           MARSH AREA SOIL SAMPLE  DATA SUMMARY
     SD10

MARSH                     MARSH

       4 J

          100  U

              15 U

                     15 U

                15 U
Semivolatile  Organics  (ug/kg)  (1)
         PHENOL
      560 U                        520 U
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
         BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
   520 U
         BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
   520 U
         CHRYSENE
560 U                        520  U
         FLUORANTHENE
                     73 J
         PYRENE
   560 U                          67 J
         TOTAL PAHS
  0                                    0
Phthalates
         BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
1600
         BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
       600 U
         DIETHYLPHTHALATE
               520 U
         DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
            520 U
         DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
         TOTAL NUMBER OF SV  TICS
          19                               20
         TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION
         TOT.  PET.  HYDROCARBON  (TPHC I (mg/kg)

         TOT.  ORGANIC (VOC+SV+TPHC)(mg/kg)
          288
         Inorganics (mg/kg)
         ARSENIC
                                    5.3
         BARIUM

         BERYLLIUM

         CADMIUM

-------
COBALT

COPPER

LEAD

MANGANESE
     21.3
NICKEL

SELENIUM

VANADIUM
        3 9
ZINC

CYANIDE
U = NOT DETECTED. J =  ESTIMATED VALUE.  R = REJECTED BY VALIDATION. D =VALUE  FROM  SECONDARY DILUTION. X = ISOMERS NOT DIFFERENTIATED.
Q = QUANTITATION SUSPECT  (concentration in diluted analysis was below reliable  quantitation limit).
        Shading indicates  exceedance of applicable criterion.
        (1) -Contaminants  listed are those detected in soil samples

-------
                                                                                                                                         KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                                     MARSH AREA SOIL SAMPLE  DATA  SUMMARY
         SAMPLE ID
           SS19
         SAMPLE LOCATION
     MW10 4 S
Volatile Organics (ug/kg)(1)
         METHYLENE CHLORIDE
                           13 U
         ACETONE
                 16 U
         CARBON DISULFIDE
16 U
         TOLUENE
               16 UJ
         XYLENES (TOTAL)
   16 UJ

         TOTAL NUMBER OF VOC TICS
         1
         TOTAL VOC TIC CONCENTRATION
                                                                                 SS18

                                                                                  MARSH
Semivolatile  Organics  (ug/kg)(1)
          PHENOL
       920 U
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
        BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
                   430 U
        BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
                  430 U
        CHRYSENE
       920 UJ
        FLUORANTHENE
920 U
        PYRENE
          920 UJ
        TOTAL PAHS
                           0
 Phthalates
        BIS (2- ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
          430 U
        BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
                430 U
       DIETHYLPHTHALATE
                             44  J
        DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
                 310 J
        DI-N-OCTYLPHTHLATE
                             430 U
         TOTAL NUMBER OF SV TICS
           8
         TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION
            2390
         TOT.  PET.  HYDRODCARBON  (TPHC)  (mg/kg)
                     60 J
         TOT.  ORGANIC (VOC +SV+TPHC)(mg/kg)
990 UJ

     990 UJ

                990  U

          5100  U

                   990 UJ
        BERYLLIUM
                                                                                                                                                                                                             81.4

                                                                                                                                                                                                            1. 1
                                                                                       63.4

                                                                                        1.1

-------
        CADMIUM
             1.7 U
        CHROMIUM
            64 .3
        COBALT
                1.7 U
        COPPER
                   21.
        LEAD

        MANGANESE
       26.7
        NICKEL
        CYANIDE

Total Organic Carbon  (mg/kg)
                                R
Notes:
        U= NOT DETECTED.  J  =  ESTIMATED VALUE.  T = REJECTED BY VALIDATION. D  = VALUE  FROM SECONDARY DILUTION. X = ISOMERS NOT DIFFERENTIATED
        Q = QUANTITATION  SUSPECT  (concentration in diluted analysis was below reliable  guantitation limit).
        Shading indicates exceedance  of applicable criterion.
        (1) Contaminants  listed are those detected in soil samples
      2.0 UJ

  28.2 J

          2. 0 UJ

           7.3 J

                 R

16.9 J

           3.3 UJ

      1.2 UJ

   16.5 J

               47. 0

       1. 1 J
  1.5 U

49. 8

     1.5 U

       12.6

-------
                                                                                                                             KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                             GROUNDWATER SAMPLE DATA  SUMMARY
        LOCATION
        SAMPLE  ID
        DATE SAMPLED
US (3)
MCLs)
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/1)(4)
Chlorinated VOCs
        VINYL CHLORIDE
        Chlorinated VOCs
        VINYL CHLORIDE
5                     2
        METHYLENE  CHLORIDE
          2                     5
        1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
                2
        1,1-DICHLOROETHANE

        1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL
  10                   10(5)
        1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
        26                 200
        TRICHLOROETHENE
                 1
        TETRACHLOROETHENE
             1                     5
BTEX Compounds
        BENZENE
        1                     1
        XYLENES  (TOTAL)
40                  44
        TOTAL NUMBER  OF  TICS
 0
        TOTAL TIC  CONCENTRATION

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/L)(4)
        ISOPHORONE
100
        NAPHTHALENE

        BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE

        BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE

        DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE

        TOTAL NUMBER  OF  TICS
4
        TOTAL TIC  CONCENTRATION
                                                    SHALLOW  GROUNDWATER WELLS
                                                  MW102S     MW103S     MW104S   MWI05S
                                                      GW01          GW12       GWIO
                                                  12/17/91       12/19/92     12/19/91
                                                                             10 U          10

                                                                     23  U          18 U

                                                                          10 U          10 U

                                                                        10 U         10 U

                                                                             10 U

                                                                      10 U         10 U

                                                                          10 U

                                                                        10 U
                                                                              MW101D
                                                                            GW11
                                                                            12/18/91
                                                                                             10 U

                                                                                             10 U
   DEEP GROUNDWATER WELLS
       GROUNDWATER
   GW13
       12/17/92          NJ  GWQC(l)
J              100 U           1

  1,000 B          12 U

          100 U           10  U

          100 U          10 U

 100 U         10 U

     100 U          10 U

           100 U           10 U

       100 U          10  U
                                                                                                10 U

                                                                                            10  U

                                                                                            10  U

                                                                                          10 UJ

                                                                                                10 UJ
                                                                                                                                                           10 U
                                                                                                                                                                              100  U
CRITERION
 NJ MCLs(2)
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U 10 UJ
10 U 10 UJ
10 UJ 10 UJ
10 UJ 10 UJ
10 UJ 10 UJ
WET CHEMISTRY ANALYTES  (mg/1)
        Total Suspended Solids

        Total Dissolved Solids
           500,000
        Chloride
                    250,000
        MBAS  (Surfactants)
106.6           30.3

    230 J          270

           17.4
  500
 0.25 U        0.25 U

   0.10 U       0.19
     71.2            440.2            85.8            78.1             260            202.7           384.5                 50.7

        310               220               40              360  J          470 J              180  J           210                   660  J

5.1 U         14.0            112.5          10.85             7.0  U       13.5              73.0                12                 94.0

  0.25 U          0.25 U         0.25 U       0.25 U        0.25 U            4.2             0.25  U              0.25 U             0.25 U

       2.3              0.95             0.10 U          2.1            14.0                8.9              0.42                    0.1  U

-------
U = NOT DETECTED, J = ESTIMATED  VALUE,  R = REJECTED (UNUSABLE)  DATUM, B = DETECTED  IN METHOD  BLANK,  NC = NO CRITERION.
Shading indicates exceedance  of  applicable criterion.
(1)  - NJGWQ criteria based  on values  in NJAC 7-9-6 for class 11-A waters.
    - NJ primary drinking water  MCLs  (NJAC 7:10-16.7 (a)) .
    - Federal MCLS  (40CFR 141.61).
    - Contaminants listed are those detected in groundwater samples.
(5)  - Value shown is cis 1.2-dichloroethene; standard for  trans isomer
( 6)
                                    literature data indicating total 1,2- DCE comprised of  60%  cis  isomer,  probable cis isomer concentration of 56 ug/1  exceeds  the  10  ug/I  criterion

-------
        LOCATION
        SAMPLE 10
        DATE SAMPLED
          12/19/91
        SAMPLE TYPE
INORGANICS  (mg/L)(1,2)

        ARSENIC
            2. 0 U
        BARIUM
               9 . 8
        BERYLLIUM
       1. 0 U
        CHROMIUM  (total)
6.0 U               24.9  J
        COBALT
      4. 0 U
        COPPER
21.5                      5.9
        LEAD
                 1.0 UJ
        MANGANESE
   52.5
        NICKEL
14. 0 U
       SELENIUM
       1. 1
       THALLIUM
          1. 6 J
        VANADIUM
     3.0  U
        ZINC
 41.3
        CYANIDE
    NR
                                                                                                                                             KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER  SITE  REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                                               GROUNDWATER SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                                             Page 2 of  3
   MW102S
GW01
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WELLS
        U = NOT DETECTED.  J = ESTIMATED VALUE. NR = ANALYSIS  NOT  REQUIRED
       Shading indicates  exceedance of applicable criterion.
       (1) - Contaminants  listed are those detected in  groundwater samples.
       (2) - TAL  crustal  abundant metals  (aluminum, calcium,  iron, magnesium, potassium,  and  sodium)  not tabulated.

-------
        LOCATION
        SAMPLE ID
        DATE SAMPLED
        SAMPLE TYPE
INORGANICS  (mg/L)(4,5
        ARSENIC
            8
        BARIUM
     2000
        BERYLLIUM
20
           SHALLOW GROUNDWATER  WELLS
   MW105S         MW106S         MW106S
      GW03A            GW11             GW11A
12/17/91           12/18/91           12/18/91
 MW101D      MW101D
         GW06
         12/19/91
AL      FILTERED
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Table 3
                                                                                                                                               KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER  SITE  REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                                                              GROUNDWATER SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                                              Page 3 of 3

                                                                                                                                                          DEEP GROUNDWATER WELLS
                                                                                                                                                    MW102D        MW103D        MW103D
                                                                                                                                                                                                            GROUNDWATER   QUALITY
 GW02
      12/17
FILTERED
        GW13
12/17/91
  FILTERED
                                                                                                CRITERION
                                                                                                      85.7

                                                                                                  1. 0 U

                                                                                              6.0 U

                                                                                                       4. 0 U
                                                                                                                 142.0

                                                                                                                 1. 0 U

                                                                                                                    1. 0 U

                                                                                                                 3.0 U

                                                                                                                        16.9

                                                                                                                  NR
        U = NOT DETECTED,  J  =  ESTIMATED VALUE,  NR = ANALYSIS NOT REQUIRED,  NC  =  NO CRITERION.
        Shading indicates  exceedance  of applicable criterion.
        (1) - NJGWQ criteria based on values in NJAC 7:9.6 for class  II-A waters.
        (2) - NJ primary drinking  water MCLs (NJAC 7:10-16.7(a)).
        (3) - Federal MCLs  (40  CFR 141.61).
        (4) - Contaminants listed  are those  detected in groundwater samples
        (5) - TAL crustal  abundant metals (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,  potassium,  and sodium) not tabulated.
        (6) - NJ Adopts federal standards for inorganics (per NJAC 7:10  5.1)
        (7) - Old MCL from 40  CFR  141.11.

-------
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AREAS SOIL SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
SAMPLE ID
SAMPLE LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH (FT)
TOTAL NUMBER OF TICS
TOTAL TIC CONCENTRATION
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/kg)
BARIUM

BERYLLIUM

CHROMIUM

COBALT

LEAD

MANGANESE
NO TARGET VOLATILE ORGANICS DETECTED IN ANY SAMPLE

0 0
0 0

NO TARGET SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS DETECTED IN ANY SAMPLE

3 1
9.4 J

11.5

0.5 U

48.5 J
16.4 J

7.5

0.5 U

36.3 J

2.2 U

3.7 J

5.3

5.5 U
3.1

5.1 U

28. 1
U = NOT DETECTED, J = ESTIMATED VALUE, R = REJECTED BY VALIDATION
Shading indicates exceedance of applicable criterion.
(1) - Contaminants listed are those defected in soil samples.
(2) - TAL crustal abundard metals (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) not tabulated.
(3) - Inorganics soil background data from NJDEPE, 1993 except where noted. Values are 2x local maximum.
- Shacklette, H.T. and Boerngen. J.G. 1984. Maximum background level in eastern U.S. soils.
- Tedrow. J.C.F.. 1986. Maximum background/2 x maximum background in New Jersey Sassafras Soils
- EPA lead screening criterion (OSWER Directive 9355.4-12. 1994)

-------
                                                                                                                                   KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER  SITE  REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                                                                                                       FORMER WASHWATER COLLECTION PIT SOIL SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
        SAMPLE  ID
         SOIL BACKGROUND
        SAMPLE  LOCATION
CONCENTRATION
        DATE SAMPLED

 VOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/kg)(1)
        METHYLENE CHLORIDE

        ACETONE

        2-BUTANONE

        TOLUENE

        XYLENES (TOTAL)
                                                                                                                                                                                                  SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
                                                                                                                                                                                                             SS05
                                                                                                                                                   170  J

                                                                                                                                                  10 J
        TOTAL  NUMBER OF VOC TICS
        TOTAL  VOC TIC CONCENTRATION
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (ug/kg)
        2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
4,000-13,000(2,3)
        BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
        BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
        DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE

        TOTAL  NUMBER OF SV TICS
        TOTAL  SV TIC CONCENTRATION

        TOTAL  PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS  (TPHC) mg/k
TOTAL ORGANICS (VOC + SVOC + TPHC)  (mg/kg)
        TOTAL  ORGANIC CARBON  (TOC)  mg/kg
INORGANICS  (mg/kg)(1,4,5)
        ARSENIC
        BARIUM

        BERYLLIUM

        CHROMIUM

        COBALT

        COPPER

        LEAD

        MANGANESE

        NICKEL

        VANADIUM

        ZINC
                                         36,710

                                                   1, 160

                                   4,330 J

                                               0. 9 UJ

                                             12.3

                                         0.4 U

                                        12.8 J

                                               2.0 U
             3.4  J

         57.3

       0 . 9

   21.3  J

             2.1  U

              11. 1

               61.3  J

146.0

              5. 0  U

      16.7

                   61.2
        TCLP  VOLATILE ORGANICS
        TCLP  SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
        TCLP  PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
            NO  TCLP VOLATILES DETECTED
NO TCL P SEMIVOLATILE S DETECTED
NO TCLP PESTICIDE S/HERBICIDES  DETECTED

-------
TCLP METALS  (ug/1)
BARIUM
CADMIUM

LEAD
    NOT DETECTED
   ding indicate
    = Contaminan
    = ATSDR. Tox
    = Total Poly
    = TAL crusta
    = Inorganics
    = Shacklette
    = Tedrow. J.
    = EPA lead s
TIMATED VALUE, NC = NO CRITERION,  N/A = NOT  ANALYZED,  R = REJECTED BY VALIDATION.
ance of applicable criterion.
d are those detected in  soil  samples.
al Profile for Benzo(a)anthracene,  1990
Aromatics
nt metals  (aluminum, calcium,  iron, magnesium,  potassium, and sodium) not tabulated.
ckground data from NJDEPE  1993  except where  noted.  Values are 2x local maximum.
nd Boerngen, J.G., 1984  Maximum background level in eastern US soils.
6 Maximum background/2x  maximum background in New Jersey Sassafras Soils
 criterion  (OSWER Directive  9355.4-12.  1994)

-------
Table 6
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL
UNPAVED OPERATIONS LOT SOIL  SAMPLE
Page 1 of 2

     SAMPLE ID
     SAMPLE LOCATION
     DATE SAMPLED
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)1
     METHYLENE CHLORIDE
     1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
     2-BUTANONE
     ACETONE
     TOLUENE
     XYLENES  (TOTAL)
     VINYL CHLORIDE

     TOTAL NUMBER OF VOC TICS
     TOTAL VOC TIC CONCENTRATION

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
     CARBAZOLE
Phthalates
     BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
     BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
     DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
     DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
     TOTAL PHTHALATES
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons  (PAHs)
     2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
     ACENAPHTHAYLENE
     ANTHRACENE
     BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
     BENZO(A)PYRENE
     BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
     BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
     BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
     CHRYSENE
     DIBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
     FLUORANTHENE
     INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
     NAPHTHALATE
     PHENANTHRENE
     PYRENE
INVESTIGATION
DATA SUMMARY
SS01
10/17/91
28
13
13
28
13
13
13
0
0
83
430
330
430
220
550
DTVUc; \
ir.rino j
87
64
110
440
370
820
820
350
420
140
670
280
68
300
530
SS06
COMPOSITE
SURFACE SOIL
SS07 SS08
COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
10/22/91
UJ
U
U
UJ
U
U
UJ


J
U
J
U
J

J
J
J

J
X
X
J
J
J

J
J
J

67
11
99
11
65
1600
11
11
389
NR
690
690
2100
690
0
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
J
D
UJ



U
U
U
U

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
10/22/91
110
11
13
11
11
11
11
8
441
NR
37,000
930
3100
690
37,930
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
450
690
690
720
500

UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U



J

U
U

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U

J
10/22/91
140
3
52
220
12
11
11
9
469
NR
9000
17,000
2700
720
26,000
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720

UJ
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
U




J
U
U

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
  SS09
 MW102S
10/16/91
      55 UJ
      11 U
      11 UJ
      24 UJ
      11 U
      11 U
      11 U

       0
       0
     370 U
     390 U
     120 J
     370 U
     190 J
     310
     180 J
     370 U
     370 U
     170
     160
J
J
     350 JX
     350 JX
     180 J
     390
     370 U
     310
     110
     130
     260
J
J
J
J
                                                                                                     240  J

-------
     TOTAL PAHs
     TOTAL NUMBER OF SV TICS
     TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION
TOT.PET.HYDROCARBON(TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT.ORGANICS(VOC+SVOC+TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT ORGANIC CARBON  (mg/kg)
METALS(mg/kg)
     Arsenic
     Barium
     Berllium
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Cobalt
     Copper
     Lead
     Manganese
     Nickel
     Vanadium
     Zinc
     Cyanide
TCLP RESULTS(ug/L)
 TCLP VOLATILE ORGANICS
   TRICHLOROETHENE
 TCLP SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
 TCLP PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
 TCLP METALS
     Barium
     Cadmium
     Lead
Notes:
U = NOT DETECTED.
J = ESTIMATED VALUE.
R = REJECTED(UNUSABLE DATUM) .
NR = NOT REPORTED.
NA = NOT ANALYZED.
X = ANALYTES COELUTE AS INDISTINGUISHABLE
4,649
19
6,260
1,510 J
1,522
251,000 J
7.6 J
93.4
0.6
1.0 U
24.5 J
10.3
116.0
340.0 J
287.0
12.9
40.2
201.0
1.0
5 UJ
NONE DETECTED
NONE DETECTED
558
4.0 J
30.0 J
0
5
9,300
11, 600 J
11, 611
90,505
5.2
32.0
0.5
1.1 U
18.2
1.7
8.3
35.4
78.7
2.3
12.0
39.5 J
0.5 U
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,220
10
57,800
56 J
154
8,980 J
4.2
27.4
0.6
1.1 U
23.1
1.7
13.1
41.7
158.0
3.5
19.8
36.7 J
0.5 U
5 UJ
NONE DETECTED
NONE DETECTED
332
3.0 J
5.9 J
0
9
60,800
21,000 J
21,088
93,705
5.6
35.0
0.9
1.1 U
35.8
1.2
5.7
32.6
89.7
3.3
21.5
46.1 J
0.6 U
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,480
20
15,600
1,100 J
1,118
63,500 J
5.7 J
59.2
0.5
0.9
25.0 J
3.4
26.2
R
104.0
4.8 U
21.5
94.1
0.5 U
26 J
NONE DETECTED
NONE DETECTED
336
6.0 J
29.2 J
                                          ISOMERS. VALUE REPRESENTS  COMBINED  CONCENTRATION.
Shading indicates exceedances of applicable criterion.

(1) = Contaminants listed are those detected in soil  samples.

-------
Table 6
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
UNPAVED OPERATIONS LOT SOIL SAMPLE  DATA  SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2

     SAMPLE ID
     SAMPLE LOCATION
     DATE SAMPLED
VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/kg)
     METHYLENE CHLORIDE
     1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
     2-BUTANONE
     ACETONE
     TOLUENE
     XYLENES  (TOTAL)
     VINYL CHLORIDE
            SUBSURFACE SOIL
     SB05
OPERATIONS LOT
   10/30/91

     7 J
     6 J
    12 U
    89 J
     3 J
    12 U
    11 J
     SB17
    MW105S
   10/23/91

    95 UJ
    12 U
    37
    13 U
    12 U
    12 U
    12 U
     TOTAL NUMBER OF VOC TICS
     TOTAL VOC TIC CONCENTRATION

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/kg)
     CARBAZOLE
Phthalates
     BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
     BUTYLBENZLPHTHALATE
     DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
     DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
     TOTAL PHTHALATES
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons  (PAHs)
     2-METHYLNAPHTHALATE
     ACENAPHTHYLENE
     ANTHRACENE
     BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
     BENZO(A)PYRENE
     BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
     BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
     BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
     CHRYSENE
     DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
     FLUORANTHENE
     INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
     NAPHTHALENE
     PHENANTHRENE
     PYRENE
     1
    40
   400 U

   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
     0

   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
   400 U
     2
    30
    NR

   740 U
   740 U
12,000 J
   740 U
12,000

   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U
   740 U

-------
     TOTAL PAHs
     TOTAL NUMBER OF SV TICS
     TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION
TOT.PET.HYDRODCARBON(TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT.  ORGANICS(VOC+SVOC+TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT.ORGANIC CARBON(mg/kg)
METALS(mg/kg)
     Arsenic
     Barium
     Beryllium
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Cobalt
     Copper
     Lead
     Manganese
     Nickel
     Vanadium
     Zinc
     Cyanide
TCLP RESULTS (ug/L)
 TCLP VOLATILE ORGANICS
   TRICHLOROETHENE
 TCLP SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
 TCLP PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
 TCLP METALS
     Barium
     Cadmium
     Lead

Notes
    0
    6
  907
  357 J
   37
   738

  6.2
 24.2
  1.2
  0.7 U
101.0 J
  2.0
  9.0
  5.5
 17.3
  5.1
 32.5
 27.5
  5.9 U

  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
  N/A

  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
   0
   6
7810
47.1 J
  67
  930 J

 7.5
14.7
 0.8
 1.1 U
57.5
 1.6
 1.3 U
 2.6
10.1
 2.5
24.5
27.0 J
 0.6 U

 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A

 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
U = NOT DETECTED.
J = ESTIMATED VALUE.
R = REJECTED  (UNSABLE DATUM).
NR = NOT REPORTED.
NA = NOT ANALYZED.
X = ANALYTES COELUTE AS INDISTINGUISHABLE ISOMERS. VALUE REPRESENTS COMBINED CONCENTRATION.

Shading indicates exceedances of applicable criterion.

(1) - Contaminants listed are those detected in soil samples.

-------
Table 7
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
VARIOUS FACILITY AREAS SOIL  SAMPLE  DATA SUMMARY
             SURFACE SOIL  SAMPLES
  SAMPLE ID
  SAMPLE LOCATION
  DATE SAMPLED
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)  (1)
    METHYLENE CHLORIDE
    2-BUTANONE

    TOTAL NUMBER OF VOC TICS
    TOTAL VOC TIC CONCENTRATION
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)(1)
Polunuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
    NAPHTHALENE
    PHENANTHRENE
    FLUORANTHENE
    PYRENE
    TOTAL PAHS
Phthalates
    BUTYLBENZLPHTHALATE
    DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE

    TOTAL NUMBER OF SV TICS
    TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION

TOT.PET.HYDRODCARBON(TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT.ORGANICS(VOC+SVOC+TPHC)mg/kg
TOT.ORGANIC CARBON(mg/kg)
INORGANICS  (mg/kg)
    ARSENIC
    BARIUM
    BERYLLIUM
    CHROMIUM
    COBALT
    COPPER
    LEAD
    MANGANESE
    NICKEL
    VANADIUM
    ZINC
    CYANIDE
SS02
SEPTIC
10/17/91












36 UJ
11 U
0
0
50 J
63 J
60 J
64 J
237 J
60 J
320 J
20
9280


191 JQ
201
5,950 J
4
37
0
24
2
5
39
122
4
18
40
0.6
.1 J
.0
.6
.6 J
.0 U
.4
.8 J
.0
.9 U
.8
.8
U
SS10
SPOILS
10/17/91
62
13
0
0
430
430
430
430
0
430
66
7
1091
320
331
1,780
2.6
20.9
0.5
11.9
2.4
14.6
12.4
92.1
5.8
12.1
24.6
0.7
UJ
U


U
U
U
U

U
J


JQ

J
J

U
J


J

U



SS11
DRUMS
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
SB04 SB10
SEPTIC MW101S
10/18/91
27
13
0
0
420
420
420
420
0
110
820
20
17700
72
91
8,290
3.0
34.2
0.6
28.1
2.2
1.9
29.9
112.0
5.3
19.1
42.6
0.6
UJ
U


U
U
U
U

J



J

J
J


J
U
U
J

U


U
10/18/91
61
12
0
0
390
390
390
390
0
390
390
1
400
200
200
2,180
10.0
11.3
0.5
41.6
2.2
1.9
2.4
8.8
5.3
22.5
17.1
0.6
UJ
UJ


U
U
U
U

U
U


J

J
J

U
J
U
U
J

U


U
10/22/91
120 UJ
13
1
22
720 U
720 U
720 U
720 U
0
720 U
720 U
4
4250
47 J
51
1,120 J
9.0
12.5
0.6
44.4
1.2 U
1.4 U
2.7
20.1
2.8
19.7
15.8 J
10
SB12
MW102S
10/22/91
88 UJ
12 U
1
11
740 U
740 U
740 U
740 U
0
740 U
740 U
3
4900
34 J
41
1,240 J
8.4
17.2
0.4
34.0
1.2 U
1.7
4.8 J
51.4
2.6
16.2
13.2 J
0.7
SB15
MW103D
10/30/91
6
12
0
0
380
380
380
380
0
380
380
2
217
25
0.2
932
8.4
11.3
0.4
50.6
1.8
15.3
2.5
9.8
2.1
21.0
10.9
5.7
J
U


U
U
U
U

U
U


UJ

J



J
U



U


U

-------
Notes:

U = NOT DETECTED.
J = ESTIMATED VALUE.
R = REJECTED BY VALIDATION.
NC = NO CRITERION.
Q = QUANTITATION SUSPECT(concentration in diluted analysis was below reliable quantitation limit).

Shading indicates exceedance of applicable criterion.

(1) - Contaminants listed are those detected in soil samples.

-------
Table 8
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
Page 1 of 2
       AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT LOCATIONS
         SAMPLE LOCATION
                                                                                                             DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
                                               SURFACE WATER
             Upstream
           SAMPLE ID
             SW03
           DATE SAMPLED
    12/17/91
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/1)(3)
   METHYLENE CHLORIDE

   TOTAL NUMBER OF TICS
   TOTAL TIC CONCENTRATION
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/1)(3)
   PHENOL
   BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
   BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
   DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE

   TOTAL NUMBER OF TICS
   TOTAL TIC CONCENTRATION
WET CHEMISTRY ANALYTES(mg/1)
   Total Suspended Solids
   Total Dissolved Solids
   Chloride
   MBAS (Surfactants)
   Nitrate(N03 as N)
   Chemical Oxygen Demand
   Biochemical Oxygen Demand
   Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
FIELD MEASUREMENTS
   Temperature(C)
   Dissolved Oxygen  (mg/1)
   pH(Standard Units)
   Eh (mv)
   Conductivity(umho/cm)
           FRESHWATER CHRONIC

              AQUATIC CRITERION

GOLD BOOK             NJ SWQC

                   39 BJ       16 UJ
12/18/91

  10 UJ
    Intermittent

Stream

   SW04



       47
                                                      Barker's Brook
                                                           Drainage
                                                                                                                     Downstream
                                                                                                                                             Midstream
                                                                                                                                 Ditch
                                      SW01
                                       SW05
  12/17/91
 12/18/91

2.49
                                         10 UJ
0
0
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
0
0
5.6
100
17.0
0.25 U
1.2
5.8
1.2 U
0.3 U
2.0
12.4
5.30
83.1
100
0
0
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
0
0
68
10 U
15.7
0.25 U
1.2
5.8
1.7 U
0.3 U
2.0
12.6
6.18
78.9
90
0
0
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
0
0
12.6
30
16.3
0.25 U
1.3
5.8
1.9 U
0.3 U
3.0
10.2
6.50
80.0
90
2560
3
4
360(2)
-
(7)
(7)
230
-
10
-
-
-
(7)
(7)
6.5-9.0
-
-
20,900
239
1.76
-
25
500
250
10,000
-
-
-
(7)
+ 1.7
5.0
6.5-8.5
-
-
0 0
0 0
10 U 1 J
10 UJ 10 UJ
3 J 10 UJ
6 J 10 UJ
14 2
90
33.1
450
114
1.6
0.98
262
48
0.3 U
30
4.2
6.51
134.2
160
10
55.2
230
62.5
0.25 U
0.55
57.2
1.4 U
0.3 U
4.0
5.0
4.76
95.0
345
0
0
1
2
10
140
20
1565
1027.8
710
250.0
0.25
1.6
328
7.1
0.9 U
35
6.1
7.37
71.6
900
J
J
UJ
JD

J


U


J

-------
Notes:
U=NOT DETECTED.
J=ESTIMATED VALUE.
R=REJECTED BY VALIDATION.
D=VALUE FROM SECONDARY DILUTION.

(l)-Gold Book values from Quality Criteria for water-1992, USEPA.

(2)-New Jersey FW-2 Surface Water Quality Criteria from NJAC 7:9B - 1.14

(3)-Contaminants listed are those detected in soil samples.

(4)-Insufficient data; value is lowest observed effect level  (LOEL) for phthalate  esters.

(5)-Proposed criterion.

(6)-No criterion for protection of aquatic life; value shown is for protection of  human health by  consumption of  water.

(7)-No gerneral numerical criterion; narrative statement in document.

(8)-No published criterion; value shown is recalculated from IRIS, 9/90.

(9)-No change greater than 1.7"C  (3"F).

(10)-24 hour average  (minimum); 4.0 mg/1 at any time.  Criterion for non-trout waters.

-------
Table 8
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE DATA SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2

             AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT LOCATIONS
               SAMPLE LOCATION
                                    SURFACE WATER
SAMPLE ID
                                                     SW01
 INTERMITTENT STREAM
SW01A               SW02           SW02A
   DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
         BARKER'S BROOK
      DITCH
SW03             SW03A
FRESH CHRONIC SW04
DATE SAMPLED
AQUATIC CRITERIA 12/18/91
SAMPLE TYPE
TOTAL FILTERED
INORGANICS (mg/L) (3)
ARSENIC 2.0 UJ 2.
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
31.
1.
3,
6,
4,
2,
1.
90,
0,
14,
1.
1.
3,
17,
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.1
.0
.0
.2
.1
.5
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
30.
1.
3.
6.
4.
7.
1.
90.
0.
14.
1.
1.
3.
21.
SW04A
12/17/91
12/18/91
TOTAL
TOTAL FILTERED
0 UJ 2.0 UJ 2.0
1
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 U
7
0 U
8
1 UJ
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 J
31,
1.
3,
6,
4,
2,
1.
91.
0,
14,
1,
1.
3,
18,
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.1
.0
.0
.2
.0
.7

U
U
U
U
U
U

UJ
U
U

U

30.2
1.0
3.0
6.0
4.0
9.1
1.0
91.4
0.1
14.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
19.1
UJ

U
U
U
U

U

UJ
U
U
U
U

SW05
12/17/91
12/18/91
FILTERED
TOTAL
2.0 UJ 2.0
32.2
1.0
3.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
R
0.1
R
1.0
1.0
3.0
R

U
U
U
U
U
U

UJ

U
U
U

92.5
1.0
3.0
6.0
210
50
1.0
R
0.1
R
1.0
1.1
3.0
R
SW05A SW06 SW06A
12/17/91 12/17/91 12/17/91
12/18/91 12/18/91 12/18/91
TOTAL FILTERED TOTAL FILTERED
FILTERED
UJ 190 0.017 3.5 J 2.0 J 2.0 J 2.3
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ

UJ

UJ
U
UJ

1000(5)
53(6)
1.1
210
-
12
3.2
50
0.012
160
50
40
-
110
2000(5)
-
10(5)
160
-
-
5(5)
100
0.144
516
10(5)
1.7
-
-
7
1
3
12
4
13
10
103
0
14
1
1
11
94
.3
.0 U
.0 U
.3
.0 U
.6
.9
.0
.1
.0 U
.1
.0 U
.2
.2
30 U
1,
3,
6,
4,
6,
3,
84,
0,
14,
1,
1,
5,
26,
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
.1
.5 J
.0
.2
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
.2
.0
22.
1.
3.
6.
4.
12.
17.
108.
0.
14.
1.
1.
5.
61.
,8
,0
,0
,0
,0
,2
,7
,0
,1
,0
,0
,0
,6
,3

U
U
U
U



UJ
U
U
U


10.
1.
3.
6.
4.
5.
5.
85.
0.
14.
1.
1.
3.
41.
3
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 U
2
6 J
2
1 UJ
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 U
6
12/17/91
Gold Book
8.1 2.
380,
4,
10,
130,
10,
148,
430,
783,
0,
37,
1,
1,
96,
852,
.0
.3
.2
.0
.6
.0 J
.0
.0
.3 J
.8
. 0 UJ
. 0 UJ
.7
.0
27.
1.
3.
6.
4.
6.
6.
161.
0.
14.
1.
1.
3.
51.
NJ :
8
6
0 U
0 U
0 U
0 U
9
4
0
1 UJ
0 U
0 U
0 UJ
0 U
3
Notes:
U = NOT DETECTED,
J = ESTIMATED VALUE,
R = REJECTED BY VALIDATION,
D = VALUE FROM SECONDARY DILUTION.

(1) - Gold Book values from Quality Criteria for water  -  1992,  USEPA.

(2) - New Jersey FW-2 Surface Water Qua;ity Criteria  from NJAC  7:9B  -  1.14.

(3) - Contaminants listed are those detected in soil  samples.

-------
(4)  -  TAL  crustal  abundant metals (aluminum,  calcium,  iron,  magnesum, potassium, and sodium) not tabulated.




(5)  Criterion based on protection of human health as drinking water source.




(6)  Insufficient data;  value is Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL).




(7)  Value  is  for irrvalent chromium

-------
Table 9
KAUFFMAN AND MINTEER SITE REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION
SURFACE WATER BODY SEDIMENT AND SOIL  SAMPLE  DATA  SUMMARY
  SAMPLE LOCATION

  SAMPLE ID

VOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/kg)
   CARBON DISULFIDE
Chlorinated Aliphatics
   VINYL CHLORIDE
   METHYLENE CHLORIDE
   1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
   1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
   THRICHLOROETHENE
   TETRACHLOROETHENE
BTEX Compounds
   BENZENE
   TOLUENE
   ETHYLBENZENE
   XYLENES  (TOTAL)
Ke tones
   ACETONE
   2-BUTANONE

   TOTAL VOLATILE TICS
   VOLATILE TIC CONCENTRATION
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons  (PAHs)
   ACENAPHTHENE
   BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
   BENZO(A)PYRENE
   BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
   CHRYSENE
   FLUORANTHENE
   PHENANTHRENE
   PYRENE
   Total PAHs
      Barker's Brook                NOAA
         Sediment                   ER-L
SD01       SD02        SD03      Guideline
3 J        15 U        15 U         NC
  NOAA    Intermittent
  ER-M      Stream
Guideline     SD04
                                                NC
                                                              2  J
       Ditch
     Sediment
SD05          SD06
                                                                         15  UJ
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
590 D
220
2
52
570 U
94 J
72 J
130 J
100 J
150 J
93 J
240 J
879
15
2
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
180
47
0
0
500
500
500
500
500
500
78
62
140
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ



U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J

15
9
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
170
34
0
0
76
510
510
100
510
150
510
130
456
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U


J
U
U
J
U
J
U
J

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
150
230
400
NC
400
600
225
350
4,000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
650
1,600
2,500
NC
2,800
3, 600
1,380
2,200
35,000
14
19
14
14
R
14
R
2
14
14
92
17
8
622
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
0
UJ
J
UJ
UJ

UJ

J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ


U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

15
15
15
15
15
R
15
R
R
R
64
15
10
1201
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
0
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

UJ



UJ
UJ


U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U




27,



97,
35,
160,



5,
440,
440,
440,
440,
440,
440,
440,
440,

830
14 J
16 J
000
58 J
19 J
18 J
000
000
000
280 U
120 U
10
920
000 U
000 U
000 U
000 U
000 U
000 U
000 U
000 U
0

-------
Phthalates
   BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
   DIETHYLPHTHALATE
   DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
   DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
   Total Phthalates

   TOTAL NUMBER OF SV TICS
   TOTAL SV TIC CONCENTRATION
Tot.Petroleum Hydrocarbon  (TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOT.ORGANIC(VOC+SVOC+TPHC)(mg/kg)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON  (mg/kg)
INORGANICS  (mg/kg)(1)(2)
   ANTIMONY
   ARSENIC
   BARIUM
   BERYLLIUM
   CADMIUM
   CHROMIUM
   COBALT
   COPPER
   LEAD
   MANGANESE
   MERCURY
   NICKEL
   SELENIUM
   VANADIUM
   ZINC
Notes:
U = NOT DETECTED,
J = ESTIMATED VALUE,
R = REJECTED (UNUSABLE) DATUM,
NC = NO CRITERION.

Shading indicates exceedance of  applicable  criterion.

(1) - Contaminants listed are those detected  in  soil  samples.

(2) - TAL crustal abundant metals  (aluminum,  calcium,  iron,  magnesium,  potassium,  and sodium)  not tabulated.
570
63
960
540
1,563
18
37,590
5,360
5,401
26,300
4.8
5.1
101.0
2.4
0.8
125.0
4.0
12.1
28.4
56.4
0.2
12.4
0.7
49.9
103.0
U
J

J



J


UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
500 U
500 U
930
140 J
1,070
18
12,750
131 J
145
7460
3.8 UJ
5.1
64.0
2.2
0.6 U
108.0
2.7
5.3
11.0
39.2
0.1 U
7.6
0.6
43.5
108.0 J
510 U
510 U
700
510 U
700
18
14,390
83 J
98
47, 600
4.5 UJ
5.8
117.0
2.5
0.8 U
122.0
3.5
5.1
13.8
47.3
0.2 U
11.2
0.8
48.7
82.8 J
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2
33
NC
NC
5
80
NC
70
35
NC
0.15
30
NC
NC
120
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
25
85
NC
NC
9
145
NC
390
110
NC
1.3
50
NC
NC
270
72,000
19,000
19,000
91,000
163,000
20
1,115,000
21,000
22,279
15, 600
3.6
13.1
13.9
1.2
0.6
68.1
1.7
2.8
8.6
24.1
0.1
4.7
0.8
42.7
33.2
73
U 100
U 100
350
423

2,558
J 57
60
73
UJ

,000 J
,000 U
, 000 U
,000
,000
20
,000
,200 J
,482
,800
3.4 J
10.4
2,300
440
440
1,900
4,200

22,580
85
112
55


168.0

U
1.9
2.8


103.0


4.9
43.9
385.0
168.0
U



0.2
12.8
0.7
54.8
J 283.0 J


,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
20
,000
,400
,185
,300
3.2
9.5
86.3
1.6
1.8
98.8
3.6
28.6

U
U




J


UJ







125.0
127.0




0.1
10.2
0.6
53.7
180.0
U



J

-------
Table 10
SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN IN SURFACE SOILS
BASED ON CONCENTRATION/TOXICITY SCREENING AND RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS
  Potential Compounds of Concern
   in Surface Soils(1)

 INORGANICS
    BERYLLIUM
    CADMIUM
    CHROMIUM (Cr III @ 85%)
    CHROMIUM (Cr VI  @ 15%)
    COPPER
    VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
    ZINC AND COMPOUNDS

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
    BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
    BENZO(A)PYRENE
    BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
    BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
    BUTYLBENZYLPHATHALATE
    DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
    DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
    INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
    TIC PHTHALATES
    TIC BENZENE DERIV.
  Risk Based Concentrations    Maximum
Residential Soil Ingestion(2)     Cone.
                (mg/kg)           (mg/kg)
Compound   Risk Based Concentrations
of Concern(3)      Ambient Air
                     (ug/m3)
0.015
3.9

39
290
70
2300
1.70
0.88
84.32
14.88
116.00
54.70
201.00
                                                 Yes
                                                                7.50E-05
                                                                  90E-05
                                                                  10E-04
                                                                  50E-05
                                                                  40E+01
                                                                  30E+00
                                                                1.10E+02








Not
Not
0.088
0.0088
0.088
4.6
1600
160
0.0088
0.088
Available
Available
0,
0,
0,
58,
270,
500,
0,
0,
2803,
162,
.44
.37
.82
.00
.00
.00
.14
.28
.00
.00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
1
1
4
7
7
1
1
Not
Not
.OOE-03
.OOE-04
.OOE-03
.50E-02
.30E+01
.30E+00
.OOE-04
.OOE-03
Available
Available
 Maximum
 Air Cone.
(ug/m3)

1.66E-04
8.58E-05
8.22E-03
1.45E-03
1.13E-02
5.33E.03
1.96E.02
                                                                                       4.29E.05
                                                                                       3.61E-05
                                                                                       8.00E-05
                                                                                        .66E-03
                                                                                        .63E-02
                                                                                        .88E-02
                                                                                        .37E-05
                                                                                        .73E-05
                                                                                        .73E-01
                                                                                                                               1.58E-02
Compound
of Concern
                                                           Yes

                                                           Yes
                                                           Yes
Notes:

(1) Based on concentration/toxicity screening.

(2) Based on a 0.1 hazard guotient or a 10' cancer risk.  (USEPA Region  III  "Risk Based Concentration Table,  January - June 1995" correspondence by Roy L. Smith, PH. D. dated March,
1995.)
(3) Indicates selected as a compound of concern, i.e.  ,  the maximum concentration is  greater than the risk based concentration.

-------
Table 11
SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN IN SURFACE SOILS
BASED ON CONCENTRATION/TOXICITY SCREENING AND RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS
Potential Compounds of Concern
      in Surface Soils  (1)

INORGANICS
    ANTIMONY
    CHROMIUM  (CrIII @ 85%)
    CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%
    COPPER
    SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS
    VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
 Risk Based Concentrations    Maximum
Residential Soil Ingestion(2)   Cone.
           (mg/kg)              (mg/kg)
             3.1

              39
             290
              39
              70
  3.3

 15.2
 12.1
  2.3
 52.8
             Compound    Risk Based Concentrations
           Of Concern(3)          Ambient Air(2)
            Ingestion               (mg/m3)
                                              Yes
1.50E-05
2.10E-04
1.50E-05
1.40E+01
1.80E+00
                    Maximum
                      Air Cone.
                         (mg/m3)
 .22E-04
 .37E-03
 .48E-03
 .17E-03
 .24E-04
              Compound
            of Concern(3)
             Inhalation
Yes
Tes
                                                                                                       3.30E+00
                                                                                                                                5.15E-03
VOLATILE ORGANICS
    TRICHLOROETHENE
                                                                      0.0
                                                                                                       l.OOE-01
                                                                                                                                9.75E-C
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
    DI-N-OCTYLPHTALATE
    ISOPHORONE
    TIC BENZENE DERIV
    TIC PHTHALATES
             160
              67
        Not Available
        Not Available
 65.0
  0.0
 46.0
773.0
7.30E+00
6.60E-01
                                                                                   Yes
6.34E-03
4.00E-06
4.49E-03
7.54E-02
Notes:
(1) Based on concentration/ toxicity screening.

(2) Based on a 0.1 hazard guotient or a 10-7 cancer risk.  (USEPA Region  III  "Risk  Based  Concentration Table,  January -  June 1995" correspondence by Roy L.  Smith,  Ph. D. dated March 7,
1995.)
 (3) Indicates selected as a compound of concern, i.e.  , the maximum  concentration  is  greater  than the  risk based concentration.

-------
Table 12
SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN  IN  LAGOON  SEDIMENT
BASED ON TOXICITY SCREENING AND  RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS
Potential Compounds at Concern
     in Lagoon "1"
      INGESTION
VOLATILE ORGANICS
   1,1, 1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
   1,2-CHLOPOETHENE  (TOTAL)
   ETHYLBENZENE
   TETRACHLOROETHENE
   TOLUENE
   TRICHLOROETHENE
    Risk Based Concentrations    Maximum
    Residential Soil Ingestion(2) Cone.
           (mg/kg)                 (mg/kg)
            700
             70
            780
            1.2
           1600
            5.8
                  1600
                  1100
                  1300
                   230
                  2200
                  3100
                            Compound
                            of Concern(3)
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
   BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
   DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
   TIC BENZENE DERIV.
   TIC PHTHALATES
           1600
            160
      Not Available
      Not Available
                 31000
                  4400
                   680
                  6660
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
  Yes
Potential Compounds of Cancer
  in Lagoon(4)
   INHALATION                 (ug/m3)
         Risk Based Concentrations
         Ambient Air(2)
                  (ug/m3)     Concern(3)
                       On -Site Receptor      On-Site  Receptor       Off-Site Receptor
                       Maximum Cone.(5)       Compound of Maximum Cone.(3)Compound of
                          (ug/m3)     Concern(2)
                                                                 Off-Site Receptor
VOLATILE ORGANICS
   1,1-D1CHLOROETHANE            52
   1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)  3.7
   1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE      100
   TRICHLOROETHENE             0.1
   TETRACHLOROETHENE           0.31
   TOLUENE                       42
ETHYLBENZENE                   100
   XYLENES  (Total)           730(8)
                 9.7E+01
                 4.7E+03
                 4.9E+03
                 5.4E+03
                 1.4E+02
                 7.0E+02
                 1.5E+02
                 5.2E+02
               Yes
               Yes
               Yes
               Yes
               Yes
               Yes
               Yes
2.2E+00
1.1E+02
1.1E+02
1.2E+02
3.3E+00
1.6E+01
3.5E+00
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                                             I.2E+01
SENVOLATILE ORGANICS
   PHENOL
   1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
   NAPHTHALENE
   2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
   ANTHRACENE
   DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
   BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
   DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
   220
    15
    15
Not Available
   110
Not Available
    73
   7.3
4.1E-01
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
9.4E-03
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)
  NQ(7)

-------
   TIC BENZENE DERIV.       Not Available      NQ(7)                      NQ(7)
   TIC PHTHALATES           Not Available      NQ(7)                      NQ(7)

Notes:
(1) Based on concentration/toxicity screening
(2) Based on a 0.1 hazard quotient or a 10-7 cancer risk  (USEPA Region III  *Risk Based Concentration  Table,  January-June  1995*  correspondence by Roy L.  Smith,  Ph.  D.  dated March 7,
1995.)
(3) Indicates selected as a compound of concern, i.e., the maximum concentration is  greater  than  the  risk  based concentration.
(4) Only used volatile compounds which were detected in lagoon sediment at  10 ppm  or greater.
(5) Calculated using model discussed in text for on-site  receptors  (USEPA,  Guidance  Nov.   1992, A Workshop on Air  Pathway Analysis  at Superfund Sites).
(6) Calculated using model discussed in text for off-site receptors  (USEPA, Guidance Nov.  1992,  A Workshop on  Air Pathway Analysis at Superfund Sites).
(7) NQ = Not Quantifiable
(8) Risk-based concentration for mixed xylenes.

-------
Table 13
SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN IN DITCH, MARSH AND  INTERMITTENT  STREAM SOILS
BASED ON CONCENTRATION/TOXICITY SCREENING AND RISK BASED  CONCENTRATIONS
    Potential Compounds of Concern
           in Marsh(l)
                                         Risk Based Concentrations
                                         Residential Soil Ingestion(2)
                                                (mg/kq)
INORGANICS
ANTIMONY
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI@ 15%)
COPPER
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE

VOLATILE ORGANICS
1.2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
VINYL CHLORIDE

SEMIVOLATLE ORGANICS
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXY)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
TIC BENZENE DERIV.
TIC PHTHALATES

Notes:

(1) Based on concentration/toxicity screening.
                                                  3.1
                                                0.015
                                                  3.9
                                                   39
                                                  290
                                                   70
                                                   70
                                                0.034
                                                  4.6
                                                 1600
                                                  160
                                                   NA
                                                   NA
Maximum
 Cone.
(mg/kg)
  3.4
  2.3
  2.8
19.65
 43.9
 63.9
   20
 0.83
  8.6
 1950
 1600
   41
 9771
    Compound
of Concern(3)
       Yes
       Yes
                                                                                          Yes
       Yes
       Yes
       Yes
       Yes
       Yes
 (2) Based on a 0.1 hazard quotient or a 10.7 cancer  risk.
7, 1995.)
                                                           (USEPA Region III "Risk Based Concentration Table.  January - June  1995"  correspondence  by Roy L.  Smith,  Ph.D.   dated March


(3)  Indicates  selected as a compound fo concern,  i.e.,  the maximum concentration is greater than the risk based concentration.

-------
Table 14
SUMMARY-OF-COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN IN NAVESINK MARL GROUNDWATER
BASED ON CONCENTRATION/TOXICITY SCREENING AND RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS
          Whole House Model
   Potential Compounds of Concern
   in Nacasink Mart(l)
                   Risk Based Concentrations
                   Tap Water(2)
Inhalation
(ug/m3)
Inhalation
                                                                                                                                     Shower Model

                                  Maximum       Compound Risk Based     Concentrations    Maximum    Compound       Maximum       Compound
                                  Cone.         of Concern(S)       Ambrietn Air(2)          Air Cone.    of  Concern(S)     Air Cone.      of Concern(S)
                                           (ug/1)                    (ug/1)          Ingestion                (ug/m3)                 (ug/m3)
INORGANICS
 BERYLLIUM
 CHROMIUM  (Cr VI@ 15%)
 COPPER
 SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS
 VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
 ZINC AND COMPOUNDS
 CYANIDE, FREE

VOLATILE ORGANICS
 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)5.50E+00
 TETRACHLOROETHENE
 TRICHLOROETHENE
 VINYL CHLORIDE
1.
1.
1.
1.
3,
1.
7,
8,
5,
1.
1.
1.
. 60E-03
.80E+01
.40E+02
.80E+01
.30E+01
.10E+03
.30E+01
.10E+01
.50E+00
.10E-01
. 60E-01
.90E-03
300E+00
227E+01
6,
1.
5,
1.
6,
4,
9,
4,
1.
2,
.37E+01
. 80E+00
. 61E+01
.72E+02
. 90E+00
. OOE+00
.70E+01
.OOE+00
. 60E+01
. 05E+01
Yes
Yes


Yes



Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7,
1.
1.
1.
3,
1.
7,
5,
3,
3,
1.
2,
.50E-05
.50E-05
. 40E+01
. 80E+00
.30E+00
. 10E+02
.30E+00
.20E+01
.30E+00
. 10E-01
. OOE-01
. 10E-03







9.8E+01
2.1E+03
8.0E+01
3.5E+02
8.3E+02







Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes







1.
1.
1.
2.
6.







5E+00
1E+01
3E+00
9E+00
3E+00








Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
 BENZENE
                           3.60E-02  1.OOE+00
                                                      2.20E-02
                                                                  2.4E+01    Yes    3.7E-01
                                                                                            Yes
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
 ISOPHORONE
                           7.10E+00  6.70E+02   Yes    6.60E-01
Notes:
(1) Based on concentration/toxicity screening.

(2) Based on a 0.1 hazard guotient or a 10' cancer risk  (USEPA  Region  III  "Risk  Based Concentration Table.   January-June 1995" correspondence by Roy L. Smith, Ph.d. dated March 7,
1995.)
 (3) Indicates selected as a compound of concern, i.e., the maximum concentration is  greater than the risk based concentration.

-------
Table 15
SUMMARY OF COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN IN WENONAH-MT. LAUREL GROUNDWATER
BASED ON TOXICITY SCREENING AND RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS
   Potential Compounds of Concern
in Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater(1)

INORGANICS
CHROMIUM  (CrIII @ 85%)
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%)
COPPER
CYANIDE, FREE
Risk Based Concentrations
 Tap Water(2)
   (ug/L)

       3700
         18
        140
         73
Maximum       Compound
 Cone.    of Concern(3)
 (ug/L)
   115.6
    20.4
    11.9
       5
Yes
Notes:
(1) Based on concentration/loxicity, screening.

(2) Based on a 0.1 hazard guotient or a 10.7 cancer risk.  (USEPA Region  III  "Risk  Based  Concentration Table,
January-June 1995" correspondence by Roy L. Smith, Ph. D. dated March 7,  1995.)

(3) Indicates selected as a compound of concern, i.e., the maximum concentration is  greater  than the  risk
based concentration.

-------
Table 16
SUMMARY OF FINAL COMPOUNDS OF  CONCERN
                                              FOR ALL MEDIA
        Compound
                           Matrix
            Subsurface         Ditch, Marsh  &             Wenonah-Mt.
Surface Soil   Soil   Lagoon     Stream      Navesink  Marl
                                                               Laurel
INORGANICS
ANTIMONY
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM  (Cr III @ 85%;
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%)
 VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
   v
   v
   V
V
V
                                    V
                                    V
 VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2 DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
1,1,1-TRRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
                         v
                         v
                         V
                         V
                         V
                         V
                         V
                                 V
                                 V
                                 V
                                 V
                                                  V
                                                  V
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE             v
BENZO(A)PYRENE                 v
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE           v
DEBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE         v
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE         v
ISOPHORONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE     v
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE            v
TIC BENZENE DERIV.             v
TIC PHTHALATES                 v
                 v
                 v
        V
        V
        V
        V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Notes:

v = Compound of Concern

-------
Table 17
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
SURFACE SOILS
COMPOUND
                                   FREQUENCY(1) MAXIUMUM
                                      OF        DETECTED
                                   OCCURRENCE      CONG.
 MEHTOD       W TEST STATISTIC
 OF UCL       UN-          LOG
)  CALC (3)  TRANSFORMED  TRANSFORMED
EXPOSURE
  POINT
 CONG.(4)
11/14
14/14


1.70E+00
9.92E+01


5.29E-01
2.65E+01


6.10E-01
3.07E+01


8.49E-01
4.13E+01
3.51E+00
6.19E+00
LN
LN


7.85E-01
6.74E-01


9.26E-01
9.18E-01


8.49E-01
4.13E+01


INORGANICS  (mg/kg)
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM(5)
  CHROMIUM  (Cr III @ 85%)
  CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @15 %)

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
DI-N-OCYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
TIC BENZENE DERIV
TIC PHTHALATES

Notes:
(1) Freguency = Number of Detections/Total number  of  Samples  Analyzed.

(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and  95% Upper  Confidence Limit calculations as 50% of the Contract Reguired Detection Limits  (CRDLs)  except  as  noted in the text.

(3) Method selected based on visual data  review (see  text for discussion).   LN = lognormal distribution.

(4) The actual high end risk exposure-point  concentration used in subseguent calculations is the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value  detected.

(5) Chromium is assumed to occur as 1577  chromium  (VI)  and 85% chromium (III).
9/14
2/14
2/14
2/14
5/14
1/14
2/14
5/14
6/14
5
4
3
8
5
1
2
1
2
.OOE+05
.40E+02
.70E+02
.20E+02
.80E+04
.40E+02
.80E+02
.62E+05
.80E+06
4.62E+05
6.52E+01
6.42E+01
7.18E+01
2.75E+02
5.13E+01
6.12E+01


4.47E+04
1.48E+02
1.43E+02
1.88E+02
8.32E+03
1.16E+02
1.33E+02
1.33E+04
2.37E+05
1.
5,
5,
9,
3,
3,
4,


. 03E+08
.56E+02
. 13E+02
. 01E+02
. 44E+07
. 32E+02
.31E+02


LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN


3.
7.
7.
7.
5.
6.
7.


89E-01
OOE-01
03E-01
19E-01
59E-01
39E-01
05E-01


8.42E-01
7.79E-01
7.82E-01
7.82E-01
7.69E-01
7.61E-01
7.99E-01


5. OOE+05
4.40E+02
3.70E+02
8.20E+02
5.80E+04
1.40E+02
2.80E+02
1.62E+05
2.80E+06

-------
Table 18
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
SURFACE SOILS



        COMPOUND

INORGANIC ANALYTES(mmg/kg)
ANTIMONY
CHROMIUM(5)
CHROMIUM (Cr III @ 85%)
CHROMIUM (Cr VI @ 15%)

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS(ug/kg)
TIC BENZENE DERIV
TIC PHTHALATES

Notes:

(1) Freguency = Number of Detections/toatal Number of Samples Analyzed.

(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and 95% Upper cofidence  Limit  calculations  as  50%  of the Contract Reguired Detection Limits (CRDLs)  except as noted in the text.

(3) Method selected based on visual data review  ( see text  for discussion).   LN  =  lognormal distribution.

(4) The actual high end risk exposure-point concentration used in subseguent  calculations is  the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.

(5) Chromium is assumed to occur as 15% chromium  (VI) and 85% chromium (III) .
FREQUENCY ( 1 )
OF
OCCURRENCE
1/15
15/15


5/15
2/15
MAXIUMUM
DETECTED
CONG.
3.30E+00
1.01E+02


4.60E+04
7.73E+05

GEOMETRIC
MEAN (2)
4.10E+00
5.46E+01


9.37E+03
3.87E+05

ARITHMETIC
MEAN (2)
4.25E+00 4,
5.92E+01 7,
6,
1,
4,
4,
MEHTOD
OF UCL
95% UCL (2) CALC (3)
. 68E+00
.35E+01
.25E+01
. 10E+01
. 60E+04
. 60E+04
W TEST STATISTIC
UN-
TRANSFORMED
8.25E-01
8.49E+01




LOG
TRANSFORMED
6.84E-01
9.10E-01




EXPOSURE
POINT
CONG. (4)
3.30E+00
7.35E+01

-------
Table 19
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
SURFACE SOILS
FREQUENCY (1) MAXIUMUM
OF DETECTED
OCCURRENCE
5/5
1/5
5/5
2/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
CONG.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
30E+06
30E+05
20E+06
10E+06
60E+06
10E+06
70E+04
10E+07
40E+06
80E+05
66E+06
GEOMETRIC
MEAN (2)
7.72E+03
4.85E+02
4.89E+03
7.62E+02
7.15E+02
5.15E+02
3.16E+02
1.03E+06
1.58E+05
1.81E+05
1.66E+06
ARITHMETIC
MEAN (2)
2.62E+05
4.61E+04
4.41E+05
2.20E+05
3.20E+05
6.20E+05
5.49E+03
6.59E+06
9.43E+05
6.80E+05
6. 66E+06


METHOD
OF UCL
W TEST STATISTIC
UN- LOG
95% UCL(2) CALC (3) TRANSFORMED
2,
2,
1,
1,
5,
2,
1,
5,
7,


.54E+14
. 30E+17
.78E+18
. 98E+23
. 65E+25
. 06E+33
.70E+10
. 85E+10
.31E+09


LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN


5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5


.54E-01
.52E-01
.53E-01
.52E-01
.52E-01
.52E-01
.55E-01
.65E-01
.68E-01


TRANSFORMED
7.39E-01
6.17E-01
6.74E-01
6.26E-01
6.04E-01
7.56E-01
6.40E-01
7.65E-01
7.98E-01


EXPOSURE
POINT
CONG. (4)
1.30E+06
2.30E+05
2.20E+06
1.10E+06
1.60E+06
3.10E+06
2.70E+04
3.10E+07
4.40E+06


        COMPOUND

VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
ETHYLBENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
BUTYBENZYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
TIC BENZENE DERIVATIVES
TIC PHTHALATES

Notes:
(1)  Freguency = Number of Detections/Total Number of Samples Analyzed.
(2)  Non-etects are incorporated into mean and 95% Upper Confidence  Limit  calculations  as  50%  of the Contact Reguired Detection Limits (CRDLs)  except as noted in the text.
(3)  Method selected based on visual data review  ( see text  for  discussion).   LN =  lognormal distribution.
(40 The actual high end risk exposure-point concentration used  in subseguent  calculations is  the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.

-------
Table 20

KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
DITCH & MARSH SOILS
        COMPOUND
INORGANICS  (mg/kg)
ANTIMONY
BERYLLIUM
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
VINYL CHLORIDE
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
TIC BENZENE DERIV
TIC PHTHALATES
FREQUENCY
OF
OCCURRENCE
2/15
15/15
1/15
8/15
2/15
11/15
7/15
9/15
MAXIMUM
DETECTED GEOMETRIC
CONG. MEAN2
3.
2.
8.
1.
8.
1.
4.
9.
40E+00 3.10E+00
30E+00 1.18E+00
30E+02 1.37E+00
95E+06 1.28E+03
60E+03 2.73E+02
60E+06 5.15E+03
10E+04
77E+06
METHOD
ARITHMETIC OF UCL
MEAN2 95% UCL2 CALC .
3.
1.
5.
1.
2.
1.
5.
1.
60E+00 5.04E+00 LN
26E+00 1.53E+00 LN
62E+01 5.51E+01 LN
79E+05 7.94E+10 LN
73E+03 1.41E+05 LN
84E+05 3.40E+10 LN
56E+03
27E+06
W TEST STATISTIC
UN- LOG
TRANSFORMED TRANSFORM:
8.38E-01 8.49E-01
9.53E-01 9.79E-01
2.86E-01 4.05E-01
4.13E-01 8.37E-01
5.40E-01 8.47E-01
5.11E-01 8.96E-01
                                                                                                                                               EXPOSURE
                                                                                                                                                 POINT
                                                                                                                                                  CONG.
3.40E+00
1.53E+00
                                                                                                                                               5.51E+01
1.95E+06
8.60E+03
1.60E+06
4.10E+04
9.77E+06
Notes:

(1) Freguency = Number of Detections/Total Number of Samples Analyzed.

(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and 95% Upper Confidence Limit  calculations  as  50%  of  the  Contract Reguired Detection Limits (CRDLs)  except as noted in the text.

(3) Method selected based on visual data review  (see text for discussion).   LN  =  lognormal distribution.

(4) The actual high end risk exposure-point concentration used in  subseguent calculations  is the  lesser  of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.

-------
Table 21
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
LAGOON SEDIMENTS & SURFACE SOILS
   COMPOUND
                            FREQUENCY
                               OF
                           OCCURRENCE
                MAXIMUM
                DETECTED
                 CONG.
                GEOMETRIC
                  MEAN2
                                     METHOD         W TEST STATISTIC
                                     OF UCL       UN-             LOG
                                     CALC.3    TRANSFORMED      TRANSFORMED
                                             EXPOSURE
                                               POINT
                                               CONG.
INORGANICS  (mg/kg)
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM(5)

      CHROMIUM  (Cr III @ 85%;
      CHROMIUM  (Cr VI  @ 15%;

VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
ETHYLBENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
16/19
19/19
1.70E+00
9.92E+01
6.06E-01
2.98E+01
LN
LN
8.87E-01
8.03E-01
6/19
2/19
8/19
3/19
1/19
1/19
1.30E+06
2.30E+05
2.20E+06
1.10E+06
1.60E+06
3.10E+06
3.83E+01
1.80E+01
3.84E+01
2.04E+01
2.07E+01
1.90E+01
6.90E+04
1.21E+04
1.16E+05
5.79E+04
8.42E+04
1.63E+05
7.77E+06
1.45E+04
4.25E+06
1.02E+05
1.28E+05
2.47E+05
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
2.46E-01
2.45E-01
2.45E-01
2.44E-01
2.44E-01
2.44E-01
9.32E-01
9.70E-01
                                                                                                 6.22E-01
                                                                                                 5.67E-01
                                                                                                 6.93E-01
                                                                                                 5.47E-01
                                                                                                 5.01E-01
                                                                                                 4.55E-01
8.91E-01
4.31E+01

3.67E+01
6.47E+00
                                                                                                      1.30E+03
                                                                                                      1.45E+04
                                                                                                      2.20E+06
                                                                                                      1.02E+05
                                                                                                      1.28E+05
                                                                                                      2.47E+05
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/kg)
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BIS(2-ETHLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
TIC BENZENE DERIV.
TIC PHTHALATES
14/19
2/19
2/19
2/19
5/19
13/19
1/19
2/19
9/19
11/19
4,
4,
3,
8,
5,
3,
1,
2,
6,
6,
.40E+06
.40E+02
.70E+02
.20E+02
.80E+04
.10E+07
.40E+02
.80E+02
.80E+05
. 66E+06
2.
1.
1.
1.
4.
2.
1.
1.


15E+03
55E+02
53E+02
67E+02
49E+02
36E+03
30E+02
48E+02


2.81E+05
1.18E+03
1.17E+03
1.20E+03
7.19E+03
1.75E+06
1.15E+03
1.16E+03
1.01E+05
1.06E+06
9.58E+09
8.12E+03
7.88E+03
9.83E+03
2.25E+06
6.98E+11
7.93E+03
7.48E+03


LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN


3
3
3
3
5
2
3
3


.05E-01
.78E-01
.77E-01
.85E-01
.47E-01
.64E-01
.76E-01
.77E-01


8.95E-01
8.77E-01
8.78E-01
8.72E-01
8.60E-01
8.71E-01
8.55E-01
8.80E-01


4.40E+06
4.40E+02
3.70E+02
8.20E+02
5.80E+04
3.10E+07
1.40E+02
2.80E+02
6.80E+05
6. 66E+06
Notes:
(1) Freguency = Number of Detections/Total Number  of  Samples Analyzed.
(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and  95% Upper  Confidence  Limit  calculations as 50% of the Contract Reguired Detection Limits  (CRDLs) except as noted in the text.
(3) Method selected based on visual data review (see  text for  discussion).   LN = lognormal distribution.
(4) The actual high end risk exposure-point  concentration used in subseguent calculations is the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.
(5) Chromium is assumed to occur as 15% chromium (VI)  and 85%  chromium (III) .

-------
Table 22
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
NAVESINK MARL GROUNDWATER
 COMPOUND
                                 FREQUENCY    MAXIMUM
                                    OF        DETECTED
                                OCCURRENCE      CONG.
                                                                                         95% UCL2
                                                                                                         METHOD
                                                                                                         OF UCL
                                                                                                          CALC.
 UN-
TRANSFORMED
INORGANICS
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM
            (ug/kg)
            CHROMIUM  (Cr VI@15%)
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
4/9
7/9

8/9
3.00E+00
1.51E+02

5.61E+01
9.55E-01
3.20E+01

1.57E+01
1.26E+00
5.78E+01

2.33E+01
1.85E+00
8.79E+01

3.48E+01
NORMAL
NORMAL

NORMAL
7.87E-01
9.38E-01

9.17E-01
7.50E-01
8.37E-01

9.17E-01
1.85E+00
8.79E+01
1.32E+01
3.48E+01
VOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/L)
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS  (ug/L)
ISOPHORONE
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
9.70E+01
4.00E+00
1.60E+01
2.05E+01
l.OOE+00
4.00E+00
6.95E+00
4.88E+00
5.69E+00
5.85E+00
4.18E+00
4.88E+00
1.52E+01
4.89E+00
6.22E+00
6.72E+00
4.56E+00
4.89E+00
3.42E+01
5.10E+00
8.50E+00
9.93E+00
5.38E+00
5.10E+00
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.90E-01
3.42E+01
4.00E+00
8.50E+00
9.93E+00
l.OOE+00
4.00E+00
                                    1/9
                                              6.70E+02
                                                             1.11E+00
                                                                           7.49E+01
                                                                                         2.13E+02
                                                                                                         NORMAL
                                                                                                                   3.90E-01
                                                                                                                                3.90E-01
                                                                                                                                            2.13E+02
Notes:
(1) Freguency = Number of Detections/Total Number  of  Samples Analyzed.
(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and  95% Upper  Confidence Limit calculations as 50% of the Contract Reguired Detection Limits  (CRDLs) except as noted in  the  text.
(3) Method selected based on visual data  review (see  text for  discussion).  LN = lognormal distribution.
(4) The actual high end risk exposure-point  concentration used in subseguent calculations is the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.
(5) Chromium is assumed to occur as 15% chromium (VI)  and 85%  chromium (III) .

-------
Table 23
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR COMPOUNDS OF CONCERN
WENONAH-MT. LAUREL GROUNDWATER
      COMPOUND

INORGANICS  (ug/L)
CHROMIUM 5
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI@ 15%)
                              FREQUENCY 1    MAXIMUM
                                 OF         DETECTED
                              OCCURRENCE      CONG.
1/3
1.36E+02
                         GEOMETRIC
                           MEAN2
             1.07E+02
                           ARITHMETIC
                              MEAN2     95% UCL2
                           4.73E+01
METHOD       W TEST STATISTIC
OF UCL     UN-             LOG
 CALC.   TRANSFORMED  TRANSFORMED
                                        1.77E+02    NORMAL    7.50E-01
                                                                             7.50E-01
EXPOSURE
 POINT
 CONG.
                                                                                                   1.36E+02
                                                                                                   2.04E+01
Notes:

(1) Frequency = Number of Detections/Total Number of Samples Analyzed.

(2) Non-detects are incorporated into mean and 95% Upper Confidence  Limit  calculations  as  50%  of the Contract Required DetectionLimits (CRDLs)  except as noted in the text.

(3) Method selected based on visual data review  (see text  for discussion).   LN  =  loqnormal distribution.  N = Normal distribution.

(4) The actual hiqh end risk exposure-point concentration  used  in  subsequent calculations  is the lesser of the UCL calculated and the maximum value detected.

(5) Chromium is assumed to occur as 15% chromium  (VI) and  85% chromium  (III) .

-------
Table 24
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE RI/FS
TOXICITY VALUES FOR POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
     Compound

    ORAL ROUTE
  Chronic RfD
  (mg/kg-day)
                                                IRIS
                                              Confidence
                                                Level
                           Critical
                            Effect
                                                                                                              RfD  Source
                                                                       Uncertainty and
                                                                       Modifying Factors
INORGANICS

ANTIMONY

BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI@15%)
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE

VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
   4.0E-4

   5.0E-3
   5.0E-3
   9.0E-3
   9.03E-3
Not Available
Not Available
   l.OE-2
   2.0E-1
   l.OE-1
Not Available
 Low

 Low
 Low
 Low
Blood Glucose and Cholesterol Levels;
Myocardia; longevity; Reproductive
System
No Adverse Effect Observed
No Reported Effects
Decreased Hair Cystine
            Hermatological Effects
            Hepatotoxicity; Gastrointestical
            Liver; Kidney; Hermatological Effects
Medium      Hepatotoxicity; Weight Gain
Medium      Liver and Kidney Weight Changes
 Low        Liver and Kidney Toxicity
            Liver Damage
IRIS

IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
                                                                                     HE AST
                                                    IRIS
                                                    IRIS
                                                    IRIS
UF=1000;MF=1

UF=100; MF=1
UF=500; MF=1
UF=100; MF=1
                       UF=1000;MF=1
                       UF=1000;MF=1
                       UF=1000;MF=1
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
   2.0E-1
   2.0E-2
   2.0E-1

   2.0E-2
 Low        No Effect Observed
Medium      Liver Weight Increase
 Low        Significantly Increased Liver-to-Body
            Weight and Liver-to-weight Brain Ratios
            Liver and Kidney Weight Increase; Skin
            and Eye Irritations
                                                    IRIS
                                                    IRIS
                                                    IRIS
                                                                                                                 HE AST
                       UF=1000;MF=1
                       UF=1000;MF=1
                       UF=1000;MF=1

-------
    INHALATION ROUTE
NORGANICS
CHROMIUM  (Cr III @ 85%
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%)
 Not Available
 Not Available
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE           1.43E-1
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL) Not Available
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE

TOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE

BENZENE
 Not Available
 Not Available
 Not Available

   1.14E-1
   2.86E-1
Not Available
Medium
 Low
            Possible Respiratory Effects
Kidney Damage
Lung, Heart, Liver, Central Nervous
System Effects
Central Nervous System Effects; Liver
Kidney and Liver Effects
Enlarged Liver, Central Nervous System
Effects
Neurological Effects
Developmental Toxicity
Central Nervous System, Liver, Birth
Defects
Hematological Effects
                                                                                 Alternate Heast
IRIS
IRIS
UF=300; MF=1
UF=300; MF=1

-------
Table 25
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE RI/FS
TOXICITY VALUES FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
     Compound

     ORAL ROUTE
Slope Factor(SF)
   (mg/kg-day) -1
                                              Weight-of-Evidence
                                                Classification
                                                                       Type  of  Cancer
                                                                                                     SF Source
INORGANICS
ANTIMONY
BERYLLIUM
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%)
VANADIUM PENTOXIDE
                 Not Available
                      4.3
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                                                                           D
                                                                          B2
                                                                           A
                                                                           D
Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
                                                    IRIS
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE  (TOTAL)
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
ETHYL BENZENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                      1.9
                                                                           D
                                                                           D
                                                               Withdrawn/Under  Review
                                                                     Under Review
                                                                           D
                                                                           D
                                                                           A
Liver and Kidney Carcinoma; Leukemia
Liver Cancer
                                                                                                                                                  HEAST
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE

DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
INDENO[1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE

BIS92-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
                 Not Available
                      7.3
                 Not Available

                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                    9.5 E-4

                    1.4 E-2
                 Not Available
                 Not Available
                                                                          B2
                                                                          B2
                                                                          B2

                                                                          B2
                                                                          B2
                                                                           C

                                                                          B2
                                                                           C
                                                                           D
Heptatoma/Pulmonary Adenomas(1)
Lung Cancer: Site Tumors(1)
Site Sarcomas(1)
Pulmonary Adenomas and Carcinomas;
Mammary Carcinomas
Site Sarcomas(1)
Preputial Gland Carcinomas
Hepatocellular and Adenoma;
Liver Tumors
Leukemia  (in female rats)
IRIS




IRIS

IRIS
   INHALATION ROUTE
INORGANICS
CHROMIUM  (Cr III @ 85%)
CHROMIUM  (Cr VI @ 15%)
                                            Not Available
                                               4.2  E+l
                                          Under Review
                                               A
                                                                                                Lung Cancer
                                                                                                                                                  IRIS

-------
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE Not Available C Mammary Gland Cancer; Liver Cancer(1)
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) Not Available D
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE Not Available D
TRICHLOROETHENE Not Available Withdrawn/Under Review Testicular, Lung, Liver Cancer
TETRACHLOROETHENE Not Available Under Review
TOLUENE Not Available D
ETHYL BENZENE Not Available D
VINYL CHLORIDE 3.0 E-l A
BENZENE 2.9 X 10-2 A Leukemia HEAST

Notes:
(1) Experimental animals were exposed by gavage, or intraperioneal, subcutaneous, or intramuscular injection.

EPA Weight of Evidence Classification are as follows:

Group A - Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies exists to support a casual association between exposure and cancer.

Group Bl - Probable human carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity from epidemiological studies.

Group B2 - Probable human carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from animal studies and inadeguate evidence from epidemiological studies.

Group C - Possible human carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of human data.

Group D - Not Classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Inadeguate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.

Group E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans. No evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adeguate animal tests in different species or in both adeguate epidemiological and
animal studies.

-------
Table 26
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF RISKS
RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE
PRESENT USE: HIGH END RISK

                Pathway
Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
   Shower Inhalation
   Whole House Inhalation
Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion

Total Risk*
PRESENT USE: CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK**

                Pathway
Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
   Shower Inhalation
   Whole House Inhalation
Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion

Total Risk*
Carcinogenic
Adult
4.6E-07
IN
2.7E-06
1.3E-06
3.2E-04
NQ
3.2E-04
Carcinogenic
Adult
4.6E-07
IN
5.6E-07
3.8E-07
4.5E-05
NQ
Noncarcinogenic
Adult Child
NQ
IN
6.3E-03
NQ
3.3E-01
1.1E-01
3.4E-01
NQ
IN
2.9E-02
NQ
7.8E-01
2.7E-01
8.1E-01
Noncarcinogenic
Adult Child
NQ
IN
6.3E-03
NQ
3.3E-01
1.1E-01
NQ
IN
2.9E-02
NQ
7.8E-01
2.7E-01
                                            4.6E-05
                                                         3.4E-01  8.1E-01
FUTURE USE: HIGH END RISK
                                         Carcinogen
           Pathway                          Adult
Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation             4.6E-07
Site Soils Ingestion                       4.2E-06
Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation         NQ
Lagoon Sediment Ingestion                    NQ
Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
   Shower Inhalation                       2.7E-06
   Whole House Inhalation                  1.3E-06
Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion        3.2E-04
Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion     NQ

Total Risk*                                3.3E-04
FUTURE USE: CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK**
                                         Carcinogen
           Pathway                          Adult
Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation        4.6E-07
Site Soils Ingestion                       6.7E-07
Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation          NQ
Lagoon Sediment Ingestion                     NQ
Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
  Shower Inhalation                        5.6E-07
  Whole House Inhalation                   3.8E-07
Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion        4.5E-05
Wenonah Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion      NQ

Total Risk*                                4.7E-05
 Noncarcinogenic
 Adult   Child
           NQ
         3.6E-01
         9.4E+00
  NQ
3.9E-02
2.0E+00
7.5E-01
         7.0E+00
6.3E-03  2.9E-02
  NQ       NQ
3.3E-04  7.8E-01
1.1E-01  2.7E-01

3.1E-04  1.8E+01
 Noncarcinogenic
 Adult   Child
   NQ      NQ
3.9E-02  3.6E-01
   NQ      NQ
3.1E-01  1.5E+00

6.3E-03  2.9E-02
   NQ      NQ
3.3E-01  7.8E-01
1.1E-01  2.7E-01

6.9E-01  2.6E+00
Notes:
NQ = Not Quantifiable
IN = Inappropriate
* Total Risk calculated assuming use of the Navesink Marl groundwater.
** No central tendency risk calculated for exposures which do not show high end risk.
       High end risk for these exposures is included in the central tendency risk guantification.

-------
Table 27
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF RISKS
TRESPASSER EXPOSURE

  PRESENT USE: HIGH END RISK

                    Pathway
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
   Site Soils and Lagoon Sediment Ingestion
   Ditch,  Marsh, and Intermittent Stream Sediment Ingestion
   Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
   Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
       Shower Inhalation
       Whole House Inhalation
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion
   1.5E-07
   3.3E-07
   4.6E-07
     IN
   2.7E-06
   1.3E-06
   3.2E-04
     NQ
    5.4E-02
    1.3E-02
      NQ
      IN

    6.3E-03
      NQ
    3.3E-01
    1.1E-01
   Total Risk*

   PRESENT USE: CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK*J
   3.2E-04
                    Pathway                                 Carcinogenic

   Site Soils and Lagoon Sediment Ingestion                    1.5E-07
   Ditch,  Marsh, and Intermittent Stream Sediment Ingestion    3.3E-07
   Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation                         4.6E-07
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation                          IN
   Navesink Marl Volatiles Inhalation
       Shower Inhalation
       Whole House Inhalation
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion

   Total Risk*                                                 4.7E-05
   5.6E-07
   3.8E-07
   4.5E-05
     NQ
                      4.1E-01
Noncarcinogenic

     5.4E-02
     1.3E-02
       NQ
       IN

     6.3E-03
       NQ
     3.3E-01
     1.1E-01

     4.1E-01
Notes:
NQ = Not Quantifiable

IN = Inappropriate

* Total Risk calculated assuming use of the Navesink Marl groundwater.

** No central tendency risk calculated for exposures which do not show high end risk.  High end risk for
these exposures is included in the central tendency risk guantification.

-------
Table 28
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF RISKS
SITE WORKER EXPOSURE

   PRESENT AND FUTURE USE: HIGH END RISK

                    Pathway

   Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
   Site Soils Ingestion
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
   Lagoon Sediment Ingestion
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion
Carcinogenic

   1.8E-06
   1.3E-06
     NQ
     NQ
   1.9E-04
     NQ
Noncarcinogenic
      NQ
    1.4E-02
    1.3E+00
    2.7E-01
    2.4E-01
    8.0E-02
   Total Risk*

   PRESENT AND FUTURE USE: CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK*

                     Pathway

   Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
   Site Soils Ingestion
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
   Lagoon Sediment Ingestion
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion
   1.9E-04
 Carcinogenic

   4.5E-07
   2.6E-07
     NQ
     NQ
   3.6E-05
     NQ
                      1.8E+00
 Noncarcinogenic

       NQ
     1.4E-02
       NQ
     2.7E-01
     2.4E-01
     8.0E-02
   Total Risk*
                                                               3.6E-05
                                                                                   5.2E-01
Notes:

NQ = Not Quantifiable

IN = Inappropriate

* Total Risk calculated assuming use of the Navesink Marl groundwater.

** No central tendency risk calculated for exposures which do not show high end risk.  High end risk for
these exposures is included in the central tendency risk guantification.

-------
Table 29
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
SUMMARY OF RISKS
CONSTRUCTION WORKER EXPOSURE

   FUTURE USE: HIGH END RISK

                    Pathway
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
   Subsurface Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
   Subsurface Site Soils Ingestion
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
   Lagoon Sediment Ingestion
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion
   9.5E-09
     NQ
     NQ
     NQ
   3.8E-06
     NQ
     NQ
   1.9E-02
   6.5E-01
   1.3E-01
   1.2E-01
   4.0E-02
   Total Risk*

   FUTURE USE: CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK**

                    Pathway

   Subsurface Site Soils Fugitive Dust Inhalation
   Subsurface Site Soils Ingestion
   Lagoon Sediment Volatiles Inhalation
   Lagoon Sediment Ingestion
   Navesink Marl Groundwater Ingestion
   Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Groundwater Ingestion
   3.8E-06
Carcinogenic

   9.5E-09
     NQ
     NQ
     NQ
   1.8E-06
     NQ
                     9.2E-01
Noncarcinogenic

      NQ
    1.9E-02
    6.5E-01
    1.3E-01
    1.2E-01
    4.0E-02
   Total Risk*
                                                               1.8E-06
                                                                                  9.2E-01
Notes:

NQ = Not Quantifiable

IN = Inappropriate

* Total Risk calculated assuming use of the Navesink Marl groundwater.

** No central tendency risk calculated for exposures which do not show high end risk.  High end risk for
these exposures is included in the central tendency risk guantification.

-------
Table 30
Lagoon Sediments

Contaminant-specific ARARs:
                   RCRA Identification of Hazardous Waste  (40 CFR 261).
                    Provides regulations concerning identification and
                    classification of RCRA Hazardous Waste.

                 RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions  (LDRs)  (40 CFR 268).
                   Limits land disposal options and provides treatment
                   standards for contaminants prior to disposal.

                New Jersey Regulations for the Identification of
                  Hazardous Waste  (NJAC 7:26-8). Provides regulations
                  concerning the identification and classification of
                  Hazardous Waste
Location Specific ARARs:
                 Clean Water Act  (CWA section 404(b)(1) ,  Executive Order
                   11990. Provides for protection of wetlands.

                 New Jersey Wetlands Act  (NJSA 13:9A). Provides for
                  protection of wetlands.

                 New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Regulations
                   (NJAC 7:7A) .  Provides for protection of wetlands.
Action-specific ARARs:
                 Clean Air Act  (40 CFR 61).  Provides emission standards
                  for hazardous air pollutants.

                 New Jersey Air Emission Standards for Volatile Organic
                  Compounds  (VOCs) (NJAC 7:27-16). Provides emission
                  standards for VOC air pollutants.

                 New Jersey Air Emission Standards for Toxic Organic
                  Compounds  (NJAC 7:27-17).  Provides emission standards
                  for hazardous air pollutants.

                 RCRA (40 CFR 260-268).  Provides provisions relating to
                  the definition, treatment, storage, transportation and
                  disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.

                 DOT rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 CFR
                  171).  Provides reguirements for the transportation of
                  hazardous waste.

                 OSHA - General Industry Standards (29 CFR 1910).
                  Provides standards to regulate exposure of workers at
                  hazardous waste operations.

                 OSHA - Safety and Health Standards  (29 CFR 1926) .
                  Provides regulations regarding the type of safety
                  eguipment and procedures to be followed during site

-------
                  remediation.

Shallow Groundwater

Contaminant-specific ARARs:

                 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act  (SDWA)(P.L. 93-523)

                 New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act.

                 New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards. Provides
                  guality standards for groundwater based on aguifer
                  characteristics and use.

Location-specific ARARs:

                 No location-specific ARARs were identified for the
                  shallow groundwater.

Action-Specific ARARs:

                 RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Reguirements (40 CFR 264
                  Subpart F).  This regulation details reguirements for
                  groundwater monitoring programs.

-------
APPENDIX III

KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

    3.0  REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

    3.4  Remedial Investigation Reports

    P.   300001-   Report:   Final Remedial Investigation Report for
          300196     Kauffman & Minteer Site, Jobstown. New Jersey,
                     Volume I. prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
                     prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc., July 1995.

    P.   300197-   Report:   Final Remedial Investigation Report for-
          300321     Kauffman & Minteer Site, Jobstown, New Jersey,
                     Volume II, prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
                     prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc., July 1995.

    P.   300322-   Report:   Final Remedial Investigation Report for
          300851     Kauffman & Minteer Site, Jobstown. New Jersey,
                     Volume III, prepared for U.S. EPA, Region  II,
                     prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc., July 1995.
   4.0
         FEASIBILITY STUDY
    4.3  Feasibility Study Reports

    P.   400001-   Report:   Feasibility Study for the Kauffman  &
          400095     Minteer Superfund Site, Jobstown. Burlington
                     County, New Jersey,  July 1996.

-------
APPENDIX IV



SEP 27, 1996

Ms. Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
USEPA - Region II
290 Broadway - Flour 19
New York, NY 10007-1866

Subject:      Kauffman & Minteer Superfund Site
              Record of Decision (ROD)

Dear Ms. Fox:

The Department of Environmental Protection has evaluated and concurs with the following specific components
of the selected remedy for the Kauffman & Minteer Superfund site as stated below:

This is the first and only planned operable wait for the Kauffman & Minteer Site. It addresses contaminated
lagoon sediments at the Site and the shallow groundwater.

The major components of the selected remedy that NJDEP concurs with includes the following:

         !     Excavation,  off-site  treatment as necessary,  and off-site disposal of approximately 1000 cubic
              yards of lagoon sediments:

         !     Long-term monitoring  of the contaminated shallow groundwater underlying the Site.  It is
              anticipated that the  groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually for at least five years.
              The freguency and need to continue monitoring will be reevaluated after this five  year period;
              and

        !      Institutional controls to limit groundwater use in the Navesink Formation.   (NJDEP will
              establish a Classification Exception Area which will restrict the use of the Navesink
              groundwater in the vicinity of  the Site).

The DEP is reguiring that EPA recognize that NJDEP's Soil Clean-up criteria differs from EPA's Remedial
Action Objectives included in the ROD. However, DFP feels that the selected remedy will still achieve NJDEP's
soil clean-tip guidelines.

The State of New Jersey appreciates the opportunity to participate in the decision making process and looks
forward to future cooperation with the USEPA.

-------
APPENDIX V

FINAL RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SUPERFUND SITE
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ

SEPTEMBER 1996

FINAL RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER SUPERFUND SITE
BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ

Table of Contents

Subject                                                                              Page

1.      INTRODUCTION                                                                 1

2.      COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND                                             2

3.      SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
        CONCERNS, AND RESPONSES                                                      3

        3.1  Contamination/Potential Contamination of Area Wells and Property        3

        3.2  Requests for Clarification                                              5

        3.3  Remedial Activities/Implementation of the Remedy                        6

        3.4  Miscellaneous.                                                          8

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:    Proposed Plan
APPENDIX B:    Public notices announcing the July 23, 1996 public meeting
APPENDIX C:    Public Meeting Agenda
APPENDIX D:    Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets

-------
1.    INTRODUCTION

On July 23, 1996, the US Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) held a public meeting at 7:00 PM at the
Springfield Township Municipal Hall on Jacksonville-Jobstown Road in Jobstown, NJ, to describe the
alternatives considered for cleanup of the Kauffman-Minteer Superfund Site  (Site), and to discuss EPA's
Proposed Plan  (Appendix A) for remediation of the Site.  The public meeting was announced in The Trentonian
and in The Burlington County Times  (Appendix B)  and a stenographic record was made of the proceedings.

Representing EPA at the public meeting were Charles Tenerella, Section Chief, Paolo Pascetta, Remedial
Project Manager; Janet Feldstein, Section Chief; Melissa Girard, Remedial Project Manager; and Ann
Rychlenski, Community Relations Coordinator.  Representing TAMS Consultants, Inc., contractor to EPA for the
Kauffman & Minteer Superfund Site, were R. Bruce Fidler, Project Manager; Pamela Pierce, Project Engineer,
and Karen Coghlan, Community Relations Specialist. Also present was Mary Lou Parra, a representative from the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

A public comment period opened on July 9, 1996 and ended on August 7, 1996, during which time the public was
invited to write to EPA with any comments not made at the public meeting. EPA received no additional written
comments during the public comment period.

This Final Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns taken during the
meeting on July 23, 1996, and EPA's responses to those comments and concerns. Section 3 contains a synopsis
of those comments and responses.

The community generally supported EPA's preferred remedy, however, some meeting attendees had guestions
regarding the Site.

2. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND

For over twenty years, concerns about odor, possible contamination of the local water supply, and potential
contamination of the nearby environment have been centered on the Kauffman & Minteer Site. In 1991, according
to the Burlington County Health Department's Pollution Coordinator, the county was receiving three to four
calls per year about possible surface water contamination suspected to have originated at the Site.

EPA conducted two sets of community interviews,  first in September 1989 and then again in February 1990. The
major area of concern during the first set of interviews was the potential contamination of domestic wells in
the area. Surface water contamination from the Site's wastewater lagoon was another concern. Most people
interviewed indicated that sampling of their wells would be welcome. Several people expressed surprise that
the Site had been deemed serious enough to be placed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

The second set of interviews resulted from a call placed to EPA indicating that others in the area desired to
have input. Those interviews resulted in expression of concerns surrounding the severe chemical odor
emanating from the Site; concern about direct exposure to lagoon waste; apparent impact on fish and wildlife;
and alarm over observable physical anomalies such as the greenish, "soapy" cast of creek water at several
areas near the Site.

EPA prepared a Community Relations Plan in May 1991 and established an information repository for the
Administrative Record at the Springfield Township Municipal Hall. As part of the community relations
activities specified in the plan, Ann Rychlenski, EPA Region 2 Public Affairs Specialist, was named Community
Relations Coordinator for the Site. A mailing list of local, state, and federal officials and other
interested parties, including the local media, was developed.

In June 1991, EPA held two public availability sessions in Jobstown to explain the Community Relations Plan
and to present its plan to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)  at the Site. The RI/FS
has been completed and EPA held the public meeting to explain its Proposed Plan for remediating the Site on
July 23, 1996. The public comment period ended on August 7, 1996, with no comments received other than those
taken at that meeting, summarized herein.

-------
3. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND RESPONSES

3.1 Contamination/Potential Contamination of Area Wells and Property

Comment: A resident who lives adjacent to the Site, in the vicinity of two monitoring wells asked if one were
shallow and one deep, and if any contaminants had been found in them.

EPA Response: EPA explained that the particular wells the resident referred to included a cluster of both a
shallow and deep well. EPA stated that there was no significant contamination detected in these wells,
meaning that there were no contaminants detected above risk-based concentrations.

Comment: An interested citizen referred to a reported presence of the contaminant trichlorethylene in the
well water of a nearby resident, based on 1984 tests of the water, and suggested that the resident had not
been informed of the test results.

EPA Response: EPA explained that the residential well sampling was conducted by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) during the 1980s, and that EPA also conducted additional well sampling in
1990 and 1993. The typical procedure for any agency doing testing is to obtain permission from residents to
test their water prior to doing any sampling, and to provide the resident with the sampling results as soon
as they are available. EPA and NJDEP have been unable to locate a 1984 letter to the particular resident
referred to, but notes that this resident's well was sampled by EPA in 1990, at which time the results were
transmitted to the resident. No contaminants were detected in the well above drinking water standards.

Comment: The same speaker indicated that in 1988 the records showed phthalates in five residential wells.
Although the records do not state whether or not the phthalates exceed MCLs, the speaker expressed concern.
She also wanted to know if the residents had been notified.

EPA Response: EPA explained that it was the concern over potential for contamination in area wells in the
which contributed to the Site being listed on the NPL, and the need for EPA to perform a Remedial
Investigation. When EPA tested the five wells in guestion, among others, no evidence of phthalates was found,
or any other contaminants, above drinking water standards. Regarding notification of residents, EPA
reiterated that the normal protocol for EPA, NJDEP, and the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) is to
notify everyone whose wells are tested of the results.

Comment: A resident living adjacent to the Site asked if what was now running onto her property from the
lagoon was rainwater.

EPA Response: EPA explained that, as part of Removal Actions EPA has performed at the Site, the Agency has
tested the water which collects in the lagoon and sometimes overflows. Results indicated that it is not
hazardous; it is rainwater.

Comment: Another resident adjacent to the Site asked if she could have her well water retested.

EPA Response: EPA agreed to arrange for testing of this resident's well. At the resident' reguest, EPA
sampled the well on September 10, 1996. The results will be transmitted to the resident as soon as they are
available.

Comment: A resident asked if the area around the underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property had been
tested for contamination.

EPA Response: EPA confirmed that the soil around the tanks was checked for contamination, and that no
significant contamination was detected.

Comment: A resident asked if the water in the school close to the K&M Site had been tested, and if not,
whether it could be tested.

EPA Response: EPA stated that the school's water had been tested by EPA in the early 1990s, and that no

-------
contamination was detected above drinking water standards.

Comment: A speaker asked how EPA could be sure the Navesink aquifer had not contaminated the underlying
Wenonah aguifer. He also reiterated his concern, on behalf of an adjacent resident, that EPA should retest
her well, to ensure that this resident was not unknowingly drinking contaminated water.

EPA Response: EPA explained that the Navesink aguifer has a very low transmissivity, and therefore that
ground water moves very slowly through this hydraulic unit, and does not tend to migrate downward to
underlying aquifers. Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation, contamination was limited to the
shallow aguifer; no contamination was found in the underlying Wenonah-Mt. Laurel aguifer above drinking water
standards. In addition, EPA has sampled residential wells in the vicinity of the Site, which draw from the
Wenonah-Mt. Laurel aguifer, and no contamination was detected above drinking water standards. With respect to
this particular resident, EPA noted that the groundwater flow direction is away from the resident's property,
so contamination from the Site would be unlikely. EPA also pointed out that long term monitoring will be
conducted as part of the remedy, to ensure that wells in the vicinity of the Site are not impacted. However,
as stated above, EPA did agree to sample this resident's well again (it had been sampled in the early 1990s) .
This sampling was conducted on September 10, 1996.

Comment: A resident asked if the ground water would be tested every year.

EPA Response: EPA explained that the on-site groundwater monitoring wells will be tested periodically as part
of the groundwater monitoring program at the Site. Initially, the testing will be annually. Over time,
depending on the results, the freguency may be reduced. It is expected that, after removal of the lagoon
sediments, which represent the source of groundwater contamination, contaminant levels will decrease.

Comment: A speaker reguested that EPA provide a list of chemicals that would be of concern at the Site to the
Township, for the convenience of people who wanted to have their wells tested.

EPA Response: EPA referred the speaker to Table 4-2 in the Remedial Investigation Report that provides the
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels and NJ Class II-A Groundwater Standards (i.e.,
evaluation criteria) for the organic contaminants and trace metals detected in groundwater.

3.2 Reguests for Clarification

Comment: An interested citizen reguested several clarifications. She asked whether: 1) a Subtitle D Disposal
Facility is a municipal landfill; 2) where off-site treatment of the sediment would occur; and 3) if the
material being removed were a liguid, whether it would be treated at a local sewer plant.

EPA Response: EPA clarified that 1) a Subtitle D landfill, also known as a municipal landfill, is suitable
for disposal of non-hazardous wastes; 2) off-site treatment of the lagoon sediment, if necessary prior to
disposal, would occur at a Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) Subtitle C facility for hazardous waste;
and 3) if the liguid were nonhazardous under RCRA, treatment at a local sewer plant would be possible.

Comment: The same speaker inguired if EPA had investigated the number of wells in the Navesink aguifer. The
speaker referred to older homes in the area which may have unregistered wells at depths of ten to 28 feet.
Further, she referred to one of the project reports that stated some residents may have placed wells into the
shallow Navesink.

EPA Response: EPA explained that a well survey went to all residents in the area, and a well search was
conducted of permitted wells via NJDEP records. There are apparently two unregistered wells in the Navesink
(shallow) aguifer, neither of which are used for drinking water. It is possible that some residents may have
installed wells into the Navesink aguifer, but it is unlikely that anyone would drink the water due to the
naturally-occurring high sediment levels, which would make the water objectionable for drinking water. When
accessible drinking water is available in the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer (beneath the Navesink), there would
be no need for installation of a well in the shallow formation.

Comment: The same speaker suggested that monitoring wells are a "hit-and-miss" system of monitoring, because

-------
of the number of variables in the movement of groundwater and contamination.

EPA Response: Consideration of such variables was an integral and time-consuming part of EPA's investigation
of the Site. EPA explained that its monitoring program was initiated to ensure that the upper shallower
aguifer was not contaminating the lower drinking water aguifer. Further, EPA explained that the science of
hydrogeology, while not perfect, provides a rational means for assessing the potential for migration of
contamination. Knowledge of site history, topography, regional hydrology, and local conditions is used to
design a network of monitoring wells that can be used to determine the direction of groundwater flow, the
potential for water movement between geologic formations, the distribution of contaminants, and to estimate
the rate of groundwater flow. With these data, and knowledge of the characteristics of different types of
contaminants, the likely movement and behavior of those contaminants in the groundwater system can be
predicted. Furthermore, EPA's monitoring program will be used to ensure that contaminant levels in the
Navesink decrease over time, and do not contaminate the lower aguifer.

3.4 Implementation of the Remedy

Comment: A resident adjacent to Site asked if, when the lagoon cleanup is implemented, EPA would just clean
out what is in the bottom, and if so, what would be done with the hole.

EPA Response: EPA explained that it will remove contaminated sediments from the bottom of the lagoon, then
backfill the hole and revegetate the area.

Comment: The same resident asked if EPA were finished with cleanup of the property behind the lagoon and,
referring to recent digging in that area, asked if the dumpsters that had been behind the lagoon had been
removed.

EPA Response: EPA stated that final cleanup of the area adjacent to the lagoon will be included along with
the lagoon sediment remediation. EPA explained that the activity the resident referred to was part of the
latest Removal Action to address material which had been left in tanker trucks at the Site. The contents had
been placed into dumpsters prior to disposal. This action, which addressed all remaining stored wastes at the
Site, was completed in the Summer of 1995.

Comment: A resident living adjacent to the lagoon inguired about a patch of her property on which nothing
would grow, and stated that the area floods from the lagoon when it rains. She identified it on the site map
and wanted to know if EPA was going to clean it up as part of the proposed action.

EPA Response: EPA confirmed that the property indicated is the stressed area of the marsh adjacent to the
lagoon. EPA explained that this area is included as part of the lagoon sediment remediation.

Comment: Several residents wanted to know when the entire remediation would be completed. One resident
referred to unsuccessful attempts by herself and others to sell their properties, and expressed concern about
hearing references to additional five-year time frames.

EPA Response: EPA explained that within six months of initiating the remediation, the project could be
complete. However, at this time, due to budget limitations, these remediation projects are being prioritized
nationally for funding. At this time, prioritization is based on risk, and because the risks are not high at
K&M, funding for this action may not be available immediately. EPA agreed to keep local officials informed as
to the status of the planned remediation.

Regarding the guestion concerning the reference to "five years," EPA clarified that the five-year review
mentioned earlier in the evening's discussion referred to EPA's conducting periodic evaluations to ensure
that the remediated Site is stable. EPA pointed out that in addition to the review in five years, the agency
is conducting a groundwater monitoring program for this Site.

Comment: A resident asked specifically whom she should write to if the Site was not remediated in the next
year and one half.

-------
EPA Response: EPA explained that residents are free to write to EPA or their elected representatives. The
current EPA Project Manager for this Site is Paolo Pascetta, who can be reached at (212) 637-4383.

3.5 Miscellaneous

Comment: An interested citizen questioned EPA's determination that the "only subpopulation identified that
may be at increased risk are the children living in the vicinity of the site."

EPA Response: EPA explained that, as part of the Baseline Risk Assessment, the Agency tries to determine if
there is any particularly sensitive subpopulation which might be potentially at risk from the Site, in order
to conservatively evaluate risks. In this case, EPA explained that children were the most sensitive receptors
identified as being potentially at risk, and therefore, EPA evaluated the risks to children specifically.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, under the hypothetical scenario of children ingesting or
inhaling lagoon sediments, it was determined that an unacceptable risk would be present.

Comment: The Mayor stated for the record that he agreed with EPA's preferred remedy. He will recommend to
the Town Council that it also approves the preferred remedy, and that the town indicate its support to the
appropriate federal representatives.

EPA Response: EPA stated that it appreciated the comment.

Comment: A resident for information regarding underground storage tanks (USTs) on the Site, whether or not
they would ever be removed, and about potential future liability of property owners for contamination from
the USTs.

EPA Response: EPA explained that the contents of the tanks included petroleum products, such as fuel for the
trucks, waste oil from the trucks, and plasticizer heels from the loads the trucks used to carry. During
EPA's 1995 removal action, the Agency was able to address two of the USTs by removing the contents, which
contained hazardous substances under Superfund. However, the other tanks contained pure petroleum products,
which can not be addressed under the Superfund program. These tanks have been referred to NJDEP for further
action under State law.

For petroleum products, a future owner would not be liable under Superfund because of the petroleum
exclusion, but could potentially be liable under the State's underground storage tank program.

Comment: With regard to the discussion on the direction of groundwater flow in the Navesink Formation and
Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aquifer, an interested citizen asked if the flow of water can reverse itself under certain
conditions.

EPA Response: EPA explained that if there is a very large local well drawing water, it can sometimes
influence groundwater flow in the area of the well, which would draw water toward the well. EPA has not
identified any such incidences in this case. Based on data collected during EPA's Remedial Investigation,
groundwater flow at the Site is governed by regional hydrogeology.

Comment: A resident wanted to know who currently owns the property.

EPA Response. EPA explained that the Site is currently owned by the Kauffman family. The Mayor added that
the Township currently has a lien on the property.

PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN

This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives considered for the Kauffman and Minteer (K&M)
Superfund site, and identifies the preferred remedial alternative with the rationale for this preference. The
Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as lead agency, with support
from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The EPA is issuing the Proposed Plan as

-------
part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 7(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and Section 300.430(f) of the
National Contingency Plan  (NCP).  The alternatives summarized here are described in the feasibility study  (FS)
report, which should be consulted for a more detailed description of all the alternatives.

This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement to the Remedial Investigation (RI) and FS reports, to
inform the public of EPA's and NJDEP's preferred remedy, and to solicit public comments pertaining to all the
remedial alternatives evaluated,  as well as the preferred alternative.

The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the preferred remedy for the site. Changes to the preferred
remedy, or a change from the preferred remedy to another remedy, may be made if public comments or additional
data indicate that such a change will result in a more appropriate remedial action. The final decision
regarding the selected remedy will be made after EPA has taken all public comments into consideration. We are
soliciting public comment on all of the alternatives considered in the detailed analysis of the FS because
EPA and NJDEP may select a remedy other than the preferred remedy described herein.

COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS

EPA and NJDEP rely on public input to ensure that the concerns of the community are considered in selecting
an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end, the RI and FS reports, Proposed Plan, and
supporting documentation have been made available to the public for a public comment period which begins on
July 9, 1996, and concludes on August 7, 1996.

A public meeting will be held during the public comment period at the Springfield Township Municipal Hall on
Jacksonville-Jobstown Road, Jobstown,  NJ, on July 23 at 7:00 pm to present the conclusions of the RI and FS,
to elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the preferred remedial alternative and to receive public
comments.

Comments received at the public meeting, as well as written comments, will be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record of Decision (ROD),  the document which formalizes the selection
of the remedy.

All written comments should be addressed to:

Ms. Melissa Girard, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New Jersey Superfund Branch I
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866



Copies of the RI and FS reports,  Proposed Plan, and supporting documentation are available at the following
repositories:

U.S. EPA
290 Broadway
Floor 19,
New York. NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-4369

Springfield Township
Municipal Building
Jacksonville-Jobstown Rd.

(609)723-2464

-------
SITE BACKGROUND

Kauffman & Minteer, Inc. operated a bulk liquid transportation facility located on the eastern corner of the
intersection of Monmouth Road (Route 537) and Jobstown-Juliustown Road in Jobstown, Springfield Township,
Burlington County, New Jersey. Geographically, the site is located at latitude 40 02' 10.8" N and longitude
74 41' 37.5" W (USGS, 1957). Figure 1 shows the general layout and location of the site.

The K&M property occupies approximately 5.5 acres in sparsely populated, predominately rural area that
primarily supports agriculture, horse farming, and related businesses. The K&M property is bordered on the
north by residences and Route 537, on the northeast and east by a marsh area, on the south by an overgrown
and wooded area traversed by Barker's Brook, and on' the west by Jobstown-Juliustown Road.

A small marsh adjacent to the eastern property boundary gives rise to an intermittent stream. This stream
flows south-southeast into a branch of Barker's Brook which is located approximately 575 feet south of the
K&M property.

The site area is not served by either sanitary or storm sewer systems. The K&M facility, like surrounding
residences and businesses, has a septic system to handle sanitary wastes. Stormwater runoff from the site
area flows to Barker's Brook via drainage ditches and overland flow. Two discharge points along the
southwesten boundary of the K&M property, adjacent to Jobstown-Juliustown Road, carry runoff from the
facility operations lot and parking areas to Barker's Brook via a drainage ditch.

There are four aguifers beneath the K&M site. In order of increasing depth, the aguifers are the Navesink
Marl Formation, the Wenunah-Mt. Laurel, the Englishtown, and the Raritan-Magothy. The direction of
groundwater flow is south-southwest. The site rests on the Navesink Formation, a glauconitic, sandy clay
layer, approximately 10 to 25 feet thick in the site vicinity. The Navesink Formation is the uppermost water
bearing unit found at the site. However, due to its low and inconsistent yields to wells and poor water
guality, it is normally not used as a source of water. Below the site and directly below the Navesink
Formation is the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer, which is approximately 60 feet thick in the site vicinity. In
the area around the site, individual domestic wells are the primary source of drinking water. Within three
miles of the site, but primarily in the Juliustown area (the principal use area of the Wenonah-Mt Laurel
Aguifer), approximately 560 people use water from private wells that tap the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer. The
nearest well drawing water from this aguifer is located upgradient, on the north side of the intersection of
Routes 670 and 537, approximately 500 feet from the K&M site.

Kauffman & Minteer, Inc. transported, in company owned tankers, bulk liguids consisting primarily of organic
substances, including plasticizers, resins, vegetable oils, soaps, petroleum oils, and alcohols. From 1960
through at least 1981, wastewater generated from the washing of tanker interiors was discharged to an
on-site, 0.7-acre, irregularly shaped lagoon, about three to ten feet deep. The lagoon is unlined and has
inadequate runoff and runon control structures. It has no overflow diversion structure to protect the system
from overflow during rainfall events: there is only a low earthen berm to protect the adjacent marsh from
overflow. An additional berm was installed in 1991 to divert parking area runoff away from the lagoon. A
spray aeration system consisting of seven sprinklers located along the western side of the lagoon was
formerly used to evaporate wastewater by spraying it over the lagoon. Spray from this system was sometimes
carried by the wind onto surrounding properties. The spray aeration system was dismantled prior to
construction of the diversion berm.

Sampling was conducted at the site on at least nine occasions by EPA and NJDEP between August 1981 and
January 1988. Media sampled included waste sources, groundwater (on-site wells and residential wells),
surface water, soils, and sediment. Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed immediately adjacent
to the lagoon in 1981 by NJDEP to determine if contamination from the lagoon was migrating to the
groundwater.

A site investigation was conducted in 1985, which determined that the site's eligibility for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The K&M facility was subsequently placed on the NPL on March 30, 1989.

A removal action was conducted by EPA from the summer through the fall of 1991 which included the collection

-------
and disposal of the liquid within the lagoon and fencing around the lagoon. Since that time, the lagoon has
refilled due to precipitation. In the summer of 1995, a release of liguid contaminated with plasticizers from
an on-site tank trailer prompted a second removal action. This subsequent removal action consisted of the
collection and disposal of the contaminated material found in four on-site tank trailers and deteriorating
drums that were left on the site as a result of K&M's closure. The empty tank trailers were then demolished
and disposed of. Shortly before EPA initiated this removal action, an assessment of the contents of ten
underground storage tanks (UST) b NJDEP resulted in the identification of two USTs containing, hazardous
substances. Consequent to NJDEP's identification of these materials, the contents of the USTs were
incorporated into the 1995 removal action. Although other additional underground storage tanks may contain
minute amounts of fuel oil products and are therefore precluded from any CERCLA action, NJDEP further
investigate these tanks to determine if any further remedial measures are warranted.

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

A remedial investigation of the K&M site was performed in 1991 by TAMS Consultants, Inc. TAMS). The firm of
Fanning, Phillips & Molnar (Ronkonkoma, New York) assisted TAMS as a subcontractor, providing boring and
monitoring well inspection, hydrogeologic testing, and evaluation of geologic and hydrogeologic information.
RI field work was initiated at the site in September 1991, during which time six monitoring wells, in
addition to the three installed by NJDEP in 1981, were installed. Initially, the facility remained in
business; however, the frequency of activity substantially decreased beginning in late 1991 and facility
operations were discontinued soon afterward.

The purposes of the investigation were to determine the physical characteristics of the site and sources of
contamination, to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination, and to characterize the potential health
risk and environmental impact of the site.

The following activities were conducted during the RI: a land survey, cultural resources survey, geophysical
survey, soil gas survey, population/land-use survey, lagoon sediment investigation, surface water and
sediment investigations, a geologic investigation, surface and subsurface soil investigations, a groundwater
investigation, and an ecological investigation. These surveys and investigations were used to delineate the
nature and extent of contamination as a result of K&M's activities at the site.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were the primary contaminants
detected at the site. The RI identified contaminants in the lagoon sediments and in the shallow groundwater;
the lagoon sediments being the source of contamination in the shallow aquifer.

The predominant sediment contaminants and maximum concentrations detected, in parts per million (ppm) , are:
tetrachloroethylene (230), trichloroethylene (3,100), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,600), 1,2-dichloroethylene
(1,100), 1,1-dichloroethane (27), ethylbenzene (1,300), toluene (2,200), butylbenzylphthalate (31,000),
di-n-octylphthalate (4,400). The sediments that exceed health-based screening levels are within the area of
the lagoon. The volume of sediments that exceed health-based levels is approximately 1000 cubic yards.

The predominant Navesink Formation (shallow) groundwater contaminants and the maximum concentrations
detected, as compared to their respective Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) denoted in parentheses,
or as not available (NA), in parts per billion (ppb), are: VOCs -- tetrachloroethylene: 4/(5),
trichloroethylene: 16/(5), 1,2-dichloroethylene: 94 /(10), 1,1-dichloroethane: 4 /(NA) , benzene: l/(5),
isophorone: 570/(NA), and vinyl chloride: 17/(2): Inorganics -- beryllium 3/(4), chromium: 22.7/(100), and
vanadium: 56. 1 /(NA). The only potential contaminant of concern found in Laurel (middle) Aquifer was
chromium at a maximum concentration of 20.4 ppb ( MCL is 100 ppb). Those compounds in the groundwater that
exceed Federal and/or State drinking water standards are contained within the property boundaries. The
estimated dimensions of the contaminated groundwater plume are: 200 feet wide by 200 feet long by 10 feet
deep. Based on the available data, it is believed that the plume remains on site: however, further
delineation of the contaminated groundwater plume will occur in design.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISK

Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks associated

-------
with current and future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the human health and
ecological risk which could result from the contamination at the site if no remedial action were taken.

Human Health Risk Assessment

A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures,
the freguency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by
which humans are potentially exposed. Hazard Identification- -contaminants of concern at the site are
identified based on several factors such as toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration. 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). Risk
Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
guantitative (e.g., one- in-one -million excess cancer risk) assessment of site-related risks. The-reasonable
maximum exposure was evaluated.

EPA uses two toxicity factors, reference doses (RfDs) and slope factors to calculate the respective
noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk attributable to particular contaminants. An RfD is an estimate of a
daily exposure level that is not likely to result in any appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a
person's lifetime. A slope factor establishes the relationship between the dose of a chemical and the
response, and is commonly expressed as a probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a
lifetime. Section 6.1 of the RI contains a full summary of the contaminants of concern (COCs), their
toxicological parameters and their potential human health effects.

Although EPA has established RfDs and slope factors for many chemicals, there are others that currently do
not have such accepted toxicological parameters available. Conseguently, the risk due to such contaminants
cannot be guantified, but can be gualitatively evaluated. Lead, which does not have an RfD or slope factor,
was also gualitatively evaluated. A recent EPA directive has recommended a health-based screening level for
lead in soil of 400 parts per million (ppm) until RfDs and slope factors are established. Since lead is
present in the site soils at a maximum concentration of 385 ppm, which does not exceed the health-based
screening level, it has been eliminated as a COG.

The RI data was compiled and screened according to freguency of occurrence, concentration, and toxicity, to
develop COCs which would be representative of site risks. The COCs for the lagoon sediments include:
1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), benzene, toluene, butylbenzylphthalate (BBP), and di-n-ocrylphthalate (DNOP). The COCs for the
shallow groundwater include: vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane, benzene,
isophorone, TCE, PCE, beryllium, chromium, and vanadium. The only potential COG for the middle aguifer was
chromium. Several of the contaminants in the groundwater and lagoon sediments are possible human
carcinogens.

The data collected from the RI were grouped by media corresponding to respective exposure pathways evaluated.
The key media are: surface soils (0-2 feet), subsurface soils (greater than 2 feet), lagoon sediments,
drainage ditch and intermittent stream sediments, drainage ditch and intermittent stream surface waters,
marsh sediments, Barkers Brook sediments, Barkers Brook surface water, Navesink Marl groundwater (shallow
groundwater wells), and Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater (deep groundwater wells). Of the above, the only areas
characterized in the Baseline Risk Assessment as having a potential for adverse health effects were the
lagoon sediments and the shallow groundwater. A detailed description of all site areas and exposure pathways
is contained in Section 6 of the RI. Below is a summary of the Baseline Risk Assessment and associated
exposure pathways.

Under present use conditions, trespassers and site workers were evaluated for exposure to site soils and
lagoon sediments. Specifically, trespassers were evaluated for an ingestion pathway, and workers were
evaluated for both inhalation and ingestion routes.

Exposures to groundwater under the present use scenario were evaluated for nearby residents, trespassers, and
site workers (under a combined current/future use scenario). Trespassers and residents were evaluated for

-------
inhalation of the Navesink groundwater, and all three groups were evaluated for ingestion of the Navesink and
the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater.

Residential properties surround the site as the zoning in the immediate area of the site is "Neighborhood
Commercial." K&M is a non-conforming business, in that it was established prior to the zoning restrictions.
Now that facility operations have been discontinued, any future activities on the premises must conform to
the zoning code. Due to the present zoning restrictions, there is a distinct likelihood that the site would
be used in the future for residential development. Therefore, the future use risk scenario assumes residents
would be living on the site and construction workers would be present on the site as a result. Residents were
evaluated for exposure to groundwater via ingestion and inhalation of the Navesink groundwater, and via
ingestion of the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel drinking water aquifer Construction workers were evaluated for ingestion
of both the Navesink and the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel groundwater, Similarly, both groups were evaluated under the
future use scenario for ingestion and inhalation of lagoon sediments and site soils. In taking the most
conservative approach, exposure via ingestion of water from the shallow groundwater (Navesink) was evaluated;
however, a well search performed within a five mile radius of the site revealed that no drinking water wells
were installed in the Navesink. Unlike the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel (middle aguifer), the relatively low
permeability, and naturally occurring high levels of iron and manganese, significantly limit the use of the
Navesink Marl Formation as a drinking water source. Additionally, sampling of nearby residential wells did
not detect any, contaminants above health-based levels. Although the Navesink Formation could be a potential
source of public water supply for household purposes, there are no wells registered with the NJDEP that draw
from the Navesink Formation. The higher transmissivity, greater hydraulic conductivity, and better water
guality of the Wenonah-Mt. Laurel Aguifer make drilling to a greater depth cost effective. A site inspection
did reveal two shallow residential wells, one upgradient and one sidegradient to the site; however, the wells
are not used for drinking or bathing purposes.

To assess the overall potential for carcinogenic effects to arise, EPA calculates excess cancer risk. Excess
cancer risk is an, estimation of the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a
lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen(s). The current guideline for acceptable
exposure is an excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 1 x 10 -4 to 1 X 10 -6 (one in ten thousand to one in
one million).

To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed. EPA developed the Hazard Index (HI). This
index is calculated by comparing, as a ratio, the sum of the individual chemical exposure levels over a
specified time period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose derived for a similar exposure period. The
current guideline for acceptable exposure is an HI not to exceed 1.0.

Excess lifetime cancer risks and His were calculated for all of the various pathways under the present and
future land use scenarios in Section 6.5 of the RI. In the current use scenario, residents are estimated to
have an excess cancer risk of 3.2 x 10 -4, and site workers a risk of 1.9 x 10 -4 from ingestion of the
shallow groundwater, due primarily to vinyl chloride. However, no workers have been observed at the site
since facility operations were discontinued. All other pathways are within the guidelines for acceptable
exposure to carcinogens and noncarcinogens. In the future use scenario, ingestion of lagoon sediments by a
child results in an estimated HI of 7.0, and inhalation of lagoon, sediments results in His of 2.0 for an
adult resident and 9.4 for a child. The total non-cancer risks for the future construction worker was
calculated at 1.1 which slightly exceeds the acceptable risk range for noncarcinogens. The noncarcinogenic
risk was attributable to butylbenzylphthalate and di-n-ylphthalate.

Subsequent to the completion of the RI, it was found that provisional slope factors and Reference Doses for
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene were not considered in the analysis. The RI states that these
chemicals could not be evaluated quantitatively because of the absence of a slope factor, However,
provisional slope factors are now available. Consequently, calculations of the risks from these chemicals
have been developed. Based on these calculations, the calculated risks for the current residents increased
from 3.2 x 10 -4 to 3.3 x 10 -4 and the risks for site workers increased from 1.9 x 10 -4 to 1.93 X 10-4 .
For the future risks, the risks to resident adults from lagoon sediment ingestion increased from 0.75 to 1.45
and the risks to children increased from 7.0 to 13.6.

Soil exposure pathways are all within EPA guidelines for acceptable exposure to carcinogens and

-------
noncarcinogens. The routes of exposure to noncarcinogens are all below an HI of 1.0; the greatest risk of
carcinogenic exposure is at 4.2 x 10-6 for soils ingestion, which is well within the acceptable risk range of
1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6. Conseguently, remedial alternatives for the soils on the site will not be addressed
at this time.

The scenarios which exceeded guidelines for acceptable human exposure were as follows: residents and site
workers currently taking the Navesink groundwater, although no current exposure is occurring under this
scenario; and a future use scenario of adult residents and their children living on the site, ingesting or
inhaling noncarcinogenic contaminants in the lagoon sediments.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the K&M site, if not addressed by one of the
active measures considered in this Proposed Plan, may present a future threat to public health.

Ecological Risk Assessment

An environmental assessment was performed to identify and estimate the actual and/or potential adverse
ecological impacts of contaminants released by the K&M site. A four-step process, very similar to that used
in human health assessment, was utilized. It consists of: Problem Formulation - a gualitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure
pathways, and known ecological effects of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment - a guantitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration and fate; characterization
of exposure pathways and receptors; and measurement of estimation of exposure point concentrations.
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. Unlike the Human Health Risk Assessment, the science of Environmental
Assessment has not evolved to the point where standard risk calculations can be made. Risk Characterization
is primarily the process of comparing the results of the Exposure Assessment with he results of the Known
Ecological Effects assessment.

The primary objective of this assessment was to estimate the potential ecological impacts associated with the
release of contaminants from the K&M facility. Based upon: 1 ) the baseline information gathered during the
field investigation, 2) review of available data and literature, and 3) a comparison of the levels of site
contamination to available toxicity data, there appear to be no contaminant-related impacts on the immediate
aguatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

The study area of the K&M site has four primary ecological features or community types: open field, riparian
woodlands, marsh, and stream. Appropriate media for each were analyzed- i.e., respectively, surficial soils
(0-2 feet), and composite soil samples from depths greater than 2 feet, surface water and sediment from
Barker's Brook, and sediment and soil from the adjacent marsh along the eastern portion of the site. The
ecological risk assessment evaluated the contaminants of concern associated with each medium/community type,
and with the biota (plants and animals) of each. For the open field habitats, the soil-borne contaminants
list was comprised of phthalates (i,e., butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and
di-n-octylphthalate) and lead. The contaminants in the marsh sediments were phthalates, chromium, and lead.
The Barker's Brook sediments revealed contaminants of concern - phthalates and chromium; the surface water of
the brook was eliminated as a medium of environmental exposure on the basis that no contamination was
detected above New Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria (NJSWQC).

-------
facility were typical for the habitat type.

The potential impacts of contaminant exposure on local biota were assessed based upon a review of available
criteria and the relevant literature. The primary sources for this information were: EPA Water Quality
Criteria and literature compiled by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Detailed information on the potential ecological effects of the COCs is contained in Section 7 of the RI.
Detailed information on the ecological assessment is contained in Appendix G of the RI.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION

The two media identified in the RI as potentially requiring remedial action are the lagoon sediments and the
shallow groundwater. The FS developed remedial alternatives that could remediate both of these media.
Therefore, the preferred remedy in this Proposed Plan will address both the lagoon sediments and the shallow
groundwater. Additionally, an area stained black from the overflow of the lagoon requires restoration because
of the contaminant-stressed vegetation. In light of the fact that this area is immediately adjacent to the
lagoon, remedial alternatives for this area will be evaluated along with the lagoon sediments.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. These objectives
are based on available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.

The following remedial action objectives were established:

! Prevent exposure through ingestion of contaminated lagoon and drainage ditch sediments;

! Restore an area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon;

! Prevent exposure through ingestion of on-site contaminated groundwater.

To achieve these objectives, EPA has developed site-specific, risk-based remediation goals. These remediation
goals would decrease direct contact risks at the site to the 10 -6 level. EPA understands that NJDEP has
developed soil cleanup guidelines designed to protect groundwater resources and has requested that the lagoon
sediments be remediated consistent with its Proposed Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites (February
1992). Based on available information, EPA believes that its planned remedial construction project will
achieve the NJDEP guidelines. Notwithstanding this belief, EPA will ensure that any residual soil
contamination does not impair the designated uses of the groundwater.

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

While there is currently not a complete pathway for ingestion of the lagoon sediment, this situation will
likely change in the future. As mentioned above, the site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which would allow
the property to be used for residences or light commerce. Whether the site is used for residential or light
commerce, it is likely that the lagoon would be demolished which could result in the sediments being raised
to the surface. With the sediments being raised to the surface there will be a complete pathway for ingestion
which would then pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the sediment posing potential unacceptable
ingestion risk, it also acts as a continuous source of contamination to the upper aquifer.

CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be cost
effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.

The FS report evaluated, in detail, four remedial alternatives address the contamination associated with the
lagoon sediments, and three remedial alternatives to address the contamination associated with on-site

-------
groundwater.

These alternatives are:

LAGOON SEDIMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alternative LS-I: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $36,500
Estimated Present Worth: $102,000
Estimated Construction Time: None

CERCLA and the NCP require the evaluation of a No Action alternative to serve as a point of comparison with
other remedial action alternatives. The No Action alternative for the lagoon sediments would allow the site
to remain in its present condition. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on site,
CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed at least every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes. No other action is proposed under this alternative.

Alternative LS-2: Cap/Cover

Estimated Capital Cost: $760,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $1,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $7,200
Estimated Present Worth: $796,000
Estimated Construction Time: three months

This alternative would require the dewatering of the lagoon, filling and regrading to meet the surrounding
topography, and the installation of a cap or cover. Approximately 31,000 square feet of contaminated lagoon
sediment area would be capped. The alternative would require deed restrictions to protect the capped area.
The three options considered for this alternative are:

Option 2a: Vegetative Cover
Option 2b: Asphalt/Concrete Cap
Option 2c: RCRA Cap

An asphalt cap on the lagoon has been used for costing purposes however, any of the capping, alternatives
would be similar in cost because of the small surface area involved. A complete breakdown of costs for each
option can he found in Appendix B of the FS. A vegetative cover would be used on the area of
contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon. Because this alternative would result in
contaminants remaining on site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every
five years.

Alternative LS-3: Excavation/Off-Site Treatment of Hot Spot/Off-Site Disposal

Estimated Capital Cost: $1,294,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $1,294,000
Estimated Construction Time: four months

The lagoon sediments and berm soils contaminated with COCs (approximately 1000 cubic yards) would be
excavated and disposed off site. Sampling during the RI indicates the likelihood that hot spots of
contamination exist within the lagoon sediments. A conservative costing measure, it was assumed that any
goon sediments found to exhibit hazardous characteristics would be incinerated with the remaining ash being

-------
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill, and those sediments found to be non-hazardous would be disposed
off site in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. All excavated areas would be backfilled with suitable fill and
regraded. The area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon would be excavated
and backfilled with, compatible soils and at a grade that will preserve a wetland hydrogeology and support
wetland vegetation. Any sediments found in the drainage ditch that exceed the cleanup criteria for the
contaminants of concern will be excavated and backfilled with compatible soils.

Alternative LS-4: Excavation/Off-Site Incineration/
Off-Site Disposal

Estimated Capital Cost: $2,454,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $2,454,000
Estimated Construction Time: three months

A total of approximately 1000 cubic yards of organic contaminated lagoon sediments would be excavated, packed
in drums, and transported to a RCRA permitted incineration and disposal facility. The lagoon sediments would
be incinerated and appropriately disposed of off site. Incineration is a thermal process that destroys all
forms of combustible waste materials. All excavated areas would be filled with clean soil and graded. The
area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon would be excavated and backfilled
With compatible soils and at a grade that will preserve a wetland hydrogeology and support wetland
vegetation. Any sediments found in the drainage ditch that exceed the cleanup criteria for the contaminants
of concern will be excavated and backfilled with compatible soils.

SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES

Alternative GW-1: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M: $0
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $36,500
Estimated Present Worth: $102,000
Estimated Construction Time: None

CERCLA and the NCP reguire the evaluation of a No Action alternative to serve as a point of comparison with
other remedial action alternatives. The No Action alternative for the shallow groundwater would allow the
site to remain in its present condition. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on
site above health-based levels, CERCLA reguires that the site be reviewed at least every five years. If
justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes. No other action
is proposed under this alternative.

Alternative GW-2: Limited Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $27,300
Estimated Annual O&M: $29,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $7,200
Estimated Present Worth: $499,000
Estimated Construction Time: one month

The limited action alternative for the contaminated shallow groundwater underlying the site would include a
lone-term monitoring program, and an institutional control program. The monitoring program would include the
installation of an additional well, and the sampling of all existing and new wells on a periodic basis. If,
in the future, the monitoring program detects an exposure to contamination from the site in excess of
drinking water standards, additional remedial action would be considered. The institutional control program
would place well restrictions on the use of shallow wells in the immediate vicinity of the site.

-------
Alternative GW-3: Collection and Treatment

Estimated Capital Cost: $2,804,000
Estimated Annual O&M: $370,000
Estimated 5 Year Review Cost: $36,500
Estimated Present Worth: $8,415,000
Estimated Construction Time: two years

This alternative would provide for on-site collection and treatment of contaminated groundwater, Collection
of groundwater would be accomplished through the installation of trenches along the downgradient portion of
the property. Three cleanup processes would be necessary to treat the Navesink Formation groundwater:
pretreatment to reduce scaling or fouling, organic compound removal, and inorganics removal. The treatment
system reguired for these procedures would consist of: 1) Chemical Precipitation and Settling, 2) UV
Oxidation, and 3) Ion Exchange. Groundwater would need to be treated to meet both New Jersey Surface Water
Quality Criteria and Federal and State drinking water standards (MCLs) prior to surface water discharge.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, including, overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate reguirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and state and community acceptance.

The evaluation criteria are described below:

! Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adeguate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.

! Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a
remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements of other federal and
state environmental statutes and reguirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.

! Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met.

! Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedy may employ.

! Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.

! Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.

! Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present worth costs

! State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS reports and Proposed Plan, the
state concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.

! Communily acceptance will be assessed in the Record of Decision following a review of the public
comments, received on the Proposed Plan.

The following is a comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives for the K&M site, based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above:

-------
! Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The No Action Alternative (LS-1) would not limit or prevent exposure to the contaminated lagoon sediments.
Therefore, it would not provide adequate overall protection of human health and the environment. Alternative
LS-2 would prevent exposure to the lagoon sediments through the use of a cap or cover. While capping would
offer adequate protection of human health, future threats to the environment would remain since the
contaminants would remain beneath the cap. Alternative LS-2 would offer better overall protection of human
health and the environment than LS-1. The excavation and off-site treatment alternatives, LS-3 and LS-4,
would eliminate any potential future exposure. Alternatives LS-2, LS-3 and LS-4 would achieve protectiveness
at the completion of construction.

Although no current exposure to contaminated groundwater is occurring, future exposure is possible.
Alternative GW- 1 does not incorporate any remedial action. A five-year review would involve sampling and
analysis of existing groundwater monitoring wells. Therefore, Alternative GW-1 would provide some protection
of human health. Alternative GW-2 offers an groundwater monitoring program and incorporates well
restrictions. If, during the groundwater monitoring, contaminated groundwater is found to be migrating to a
drinking water source, remedial action would be considered. Alternative GW-2, in comparison to GW-1, would
more effectively ensure the overall protection of human health. Alternative GW-3, through pumping and
treating contaminated groundwater, would offer an increased level of overall protection of human health and
the environment compared to GW-1 and GW-2.

! Compliance with ARARs

Alternative LS-1 would not achieve the health-based clean goals for the lagoon sediments. The cap in
Alternative LS-2 would prevent exposure to lagoon sediments, and therefore would satisfy the remedial action
objective. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would meet all ARARs for the sediments.

Although Alternative GW-1 would not accomplish the remedial action objective for the groundwater, there is no
current exposure contaminated groundwater. Therefore, contaminant-specific ARARs (MCLs) are not applicable
but could be considered relevant and appropriate. Alternative GW-2 would meet ARARs and effectively ensure
the prevention of exposure to contaminated groundwater through a more comprehensive groundwater monitoring
program and well restrictions. Alternative GW-3 would treat the groundwater until MCLs are attained within
the aquifer; ARARs for extraction and treatment prior to discharge would also be met.

! Long-term Effectiveness

Alternative LS- 1 would not maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment. Alternative
LS-2 would provide acceptable reduction in risk, however, hazardous substances would remain on site,
requiring long-term maintenance to preserve its protectiveness. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would remove all
hazardous substances in the lagoon sediments, and therefore, would provide the best long-term effectiveness.

Although contaminant levels in the shallow groundwater are above MCLs, they are expected to gradually reduce,
through natural attenuation, to health-based levels. Therefore, Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would eventually
provide adequate long-term protectiveness. Alternative GW-2 incorporates a more comprehensive monitoring
program, and therefore, would more iably ensure protectiveness of human health than Alternative GW- 1.
Alternative GW-3 would be consistent with the long-term effectiveness goals for the site by treating the
groundwater until MCLs are achieved, or it becomes technically infeasible to attain remediation goals.

! Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume

Alternative LS-1 would not achieve any reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of the lagoon sediments.
Alternative LS-2 would result in a reduction in mobility of the COCs in the lagoon sediments, but would not
reduce toxicity or volume. Capping would significantly reduce infiltration of runoff through the lagoon
sediments, transport of lagoon sediments via surface runoff, and volatilization of COCs in the lagoon
sediments. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4 would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the COCs in the
lagoon sediments.

Short-term Effectiveness

Alternative LS-1 would not have any adverse short-term impacts. Alternatives LS-2, LS-3 and LS-4 would
involve disturbing the lagoon sediments to varying degrees, which would generate dust and volatile emissions.
Alternative LS-2 would create minimal disturbance of the sediments and short-term impacts during construction
of the cap. Excavation in Alternatives LS-3 and LS 4 would have the most short-term adverse effects. These
alternatives may reguire air monitoring and engineering controls to reduce airborne dust and emissions. All
of the lagoon sediment alternatives would reguire implementation of a health and safety plan to minimize any
risks to on-site workers and nearby residents.

Alternative GW-1 would not have any adverse short-term impacts. Alternative GW-2 would have minimal
short-term impacts associated with the installation and sampling of a monitoring well. Alternative GW-3 would
have the greatest short-term impacts, namely hazards associated with the extraction, treatment, and disposal
of contaminated groundwater. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reguire the implementation of a health and
safety plan tor minimize the associated short-term risks.

! Implementability

The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing Alternative LS-1 is minimal. The only activity
conducted under Alternative LS-1 would be the reguired five year review. Cap or cover construction, in
Alternative LS-2, can be easily implemented using readily available technology. Alternatives LS-3 and LS-4
also incorporate easily implementable technologies. Alternative LS-4 may experience more administrative
difficulty than LS-3 due to the potentially limited Availability for off-site hazardous waste incineration
capacity.

The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing Alternative GW-1 is minimal. The only activity
conducted under Alternative GW-1 would be the reguired five year reviews. Administratively, Alternative GW-2
would reguire the implementation of well restrictions for the affected area. Alternative GW-3 would be more
complex in its technical and administrative implementation than GW- 1 and GW-2.

! Cost

The estimated present worth costs for the lagoon sediment alternatives are as follows: $112,600 for
Alternative LS-1, $796,000 for LS-2, $1.29 million for LS-3 and $2.45 million for LS-4. In evaluating cost
effectiveness, Alternative LS-3 that satisfies the Remedial Action Objectives to the greatest extent at the
least cost.

The estimated present worth costs for the groundwater alternatives include $112,600 for Alternative GW- 1,
$499,000 for GW-2, and $8.41 million for Alternative GW-3. Of the alternatives that accomplish the Remedial
Action Objectives for the groundwater and provide for the protection of human health, Alternative GW-2 is the
most cost effective.

! State Acceptance

The State of New Jersey supports the preferred alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan.

! Community Acceptance

Community acceptance of the preferred alternatives, will be assessed in the ROD following review of the
public comments received on the Proposed Plan.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

-------
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA and NJDEP recommend Alternative LS-3:
Excavation/Off-Site Treatment of Hot Spots/Off-Site Disposal for the lagoon sediments and Alternative GW-2:
Limited Action for the groundwater. The components of the Preferred Alternatives are:

For lagoon sediments (Alternative LS-3):

Approximately 1000 cubic yards would be excavated and disposed off site. Any lagoon sediments found to
exhibit hazardous characteristics would be transported off site to a permitted hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facility. Those sediments found to be non-hazardous would be disposed off site
in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. All excavated areas would be backfilled with suitable fill and
regraded. The area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately adjacent to the lagoon would be
excavated and backfilled with topsoil and seeded to promote vegetative growth. Any sediments found in
the drainage ditch that exceed the cleanup criteria for the contaminants of concern will be excavated
and backfilled with compatible soils.

For groundwater (Alternative GW-2):

A comprehensive groundwater monitoring program would be established, including installation of an
additional monitoring well, and sampling and analysis of all new and existing monitoring wells.
Additionally, well restrictions on the affected groundwater would be incorporated. NJDEP will
establish a Classification Exemption Area (CEA) based on the groundwater monitoring to ensure that new
wells will not be installed without appropriate precautions.

The preferred alternatives (Alternatives LS-3 and GW-2) would achieve cleanup objectives, and at less cost
than the other options. EPA and the NJDEP believe that the preferred alternatives would be protective of
human health and the environment, would comply with ARARs, be cost effective, and would utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.

In summary, the preferred alternatives are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and are cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, EPA believes the preferred alternatives provide
the best balance among alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria..

-------


Representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Invite you to Attend Public Meeting

on the Proposed Clean Up of the

Kauffman & Minteer Superfund Site in Jobstown,  N.J.

The Time:                  7:00 p.m.

The Date:                   Tuesday, July 23,  1996

The Place:                  Springfield Township Municipal Hall

Road
Jobstown, N.J. 08041
Jacksonville-Jobstown
Representatives from the EPA win give presentations on the proposed clean UP of the Kauffman & Minteer
superfund site, and will be available to answer your guestions and take public comment.  If you wish to review
site-related documents,  they are available to the public at the Town Clerk's office at the above address.
Please make every effort to attend this meeting and if you have any guestions you may contact Ann Rychlenski,
Community Relations Coordinator, U.S. EPA, 212/637-3672.

-------
                                                                        THE UNITED  STATES





                                                                         ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
         IN RE:
                KAUFFMAN & MINTEER





                SUPERFUND SITE
9





10





11





12





13





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25





Guy J. Renzi & Associates
                                    PUBLIC MEETING





                                    SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL HALL





                                    2159 Jacksonville Road





                                    Jobstown, New Jersey      New Jersey





                                    Tuesday, July 23, 1996





                                    7: 00 p.m.
BEFORE:





CHARLIE TENERELLA, Section Chief, Hearing officer
                              GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES





                                        824 West State Street





                                     Trenton, New Jersey 08618





                       609-989-9199 or 800-368-7652  (TOLL FREE)





                                          (609) 392-7978  (FAX)

-------
1





2  ALSO     PRESENT:





3  PAOLO PASCETTA, EPA, Program Manager





4  ANN RYCHLENSKI, Community Relations Coordinator




5  PAM PIERCE,  Senior Engineer (TAMS Consultant)





6  MELISSA GIRARD, Remedial Project Manager





7  JANET FELDSTEIN, Section Chief





8  MARY LOU PARRA, Representative from NJDEP




9





10





11





12




13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21




22





23





24





25





 Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2          INDEX    OF    SPEAKERS





3   NAME              PAGE





4   PAM PIERCE             13





 5   MELISSA GIRARD        19





 6   MAYOR MARTIN POINSETT 28





 7   RON MILLER            29





 8   VERONICA STEVENSON    29, 85





 9    RUTH ANN BICE        53





10    JOAN BAIER           57





11    JOHN PETRINO         66





12    JIM RUSSELL          73





13    JANE DOROFACHUK      83





14





15





16





17





18





19





20





21





22





23





24





25





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                           MS.  RYCHLENSKI:  Good evening.





3    Thank you all for coming out here tonight.  My name





4    is Ann Rychlenski,  and I'm the Community Relations




5    Coordinator from the U.S.  Environmental Protection





6    Agency for the Kauffman and Minteer Superfund Site.





7                           I want to thank you all for coming





8    out here tonight. This meeting is for EPA to present




9    to you its proposed plan for the cleanup of the





10   Kauffman & Minteer site. And I'm just going to go





11   through a couple of things  very guickly before we





12   open up the floor.




13                           I want to introduce my colleagues





14   here from EPA and also from TAMS Consultants. They





15   are our contractors that are working on this site for





16   us.





17                           I'm going to start at the far end of




18   the table. Pam Pierce. Pam is a Senior Engineer





19   with TAMS Consultants.





20                         And if you take a look at your





21   meeting agenda,  you'll see  that Pam is going to be




22   giving the results of the investigation that we did





23   out at the site.





24                           And then, at the other end here,  is





25   Paolo Pascetta.  Paolo will  be the new Remedial





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2    Project Manager for this site.  I'm going to talk a





3    little bit about that.  It's sort of changing hands





4    due to a reorganization at EPA.




5                              And then, to my immediate right is





6    Charlie Tenerella.  I think some of you know





7    Charlie. Charlie has been in other meetings down





8    here.




9                              Charlie is the Section Chief for





10    this particular site.  But that will be changing,





11    too, and I'll be introducing the new Section Chief





12    for that under the EPA reorganization.




13                             And right here to my left is the





14    lady who has been the Project Manager for this site.





15    This is Melissa Girard. And she's going to be giving





16    a presentation, also,  on our Proposed Plan for the





17    cleanup of the site. And Charlie is going to be




18    talking to you a little bit about how Superfund





19    works.





20                               It's been a while since we've been





21    out here. And maybe some people have forgotten. I




22    don't whether things have changed, whether there are





23    interesting policies going on that may effect the





24    site, but Charlie is going to talk to you a little





25    bit about that.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                              And again,  like I said,  the purpose





3    of the meeting is   to talk about what it is that we





4    are proposing for the cleanup of Kauffman and




5    Minteer.





6                              Now,  one of the reasons that we hold





7    a public meeting is to get public comment. Because





8    one of the criteria by which EPA makes a decision on




9    how we clean up a site, if to clean up a site,  one of





10   the things we look at is public comment.





11                              So we are here tonight to hear your





12   concerns, to hear your questions, to hopefully answer




13  them.





14                             And we have a stenographer here this





15   evening for that purpose. She will take your





16   comments down, your guestions down. Like I said,  we





17   will answer them.




18                             There's a document that we put out





19   after we go through a public meeting, it's called a





20   Responsiveness Summary.





21                              It's exactly lay as it sounds. It




22   is our responses to your guestions and comments.





23   That is a published document that will come out a





24   little while later  along with this transcript from





25  this meeting.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                           Because a transcript is being done





3    tonight,  I'm going to ask you all to please hold your





4    guestions until the very, very end.  When you do ask




5    your guestions, please stand up, speak very clearly,





6    give your name if you're comfortable with that. If





7    you're not,  that's okay. But I do ask that you





8    mention where it is that you live.  Just the town is




9    fine. And please do that so that we could have an





10   accurate recording of this particular meeting.





11                           It makes it a lot easier on the





12   person who is doing the transcription. So please do




13   that when we get to the very, very end.





14                          A few other things that are going on





15   here, and when we look at public comment, we look at





16   the meeting itself and what you're to be hearing here





17   tonight,  there are other ways to look at a site.




18                          We have an Information Repository.





19   And that's made up of the documents that are





20   generated by EPA that are pertinent to this





21   particular site.




22                           You can find those documents in





23   Virginia Freck's office in the Office of the Clerk.





24   Virginia you want to say.





25                            MS. FRECK:  Hi.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                            MR.  RYCHLENSKI:      Okay.  Virginia has





3    been very good,  Springfield Township has been real





4    good, about holding those documents for us and




5    keeping them in good order.





6                            You are welcome to come and look at





7    them at any time,  make copies if you'd like. And you





8    can get an good idea of what has happened on the site




9    and the history of it so that you could put things





10    into perspective.





11                           We have a public comment period on





12    this site as we do with all others when we come to




13    this point when we put out a Proposed Plan for





14    cleanup.





15                           There will be comment taken here





16    tonight. But if there are things that you may think





17    of or if you wish to investigate further and send




18    your comments in writing, you can send them to





19    Melissa Girard.





20                          And we need to have those postmarked





21    by close of business August 7, 1996. So if you have




22    anything written, please make sure you get them to





23    Melissa by that time.





24                         Now, you can find Melissa's address





25    in this, in the Proposed Plan. I hope you all have a





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2     copy of this. They're right outside.





3                            Please, take a copy this so that you





4     can read through the Proposed Plan and understand




5     exactly what it is that we're going to be doing.





6                            Also, please take a meeting agenda





7     if you don't have one. And, also,  make sure that you





8     sign in. If you don't sign in, I  can't keep a good




9     mailing list and  keep it up to date.





10                           So this way, if your name is on





11     there with your address, I can at least keep you





12     abreast of the other things that are going on at




13     Kauffman and Minteer.





14                           Before I turn this over to Charlie





15     to talk to you a little bit about Superfund sites, I





16     just want to introduce the other people that are here





17     this evening and that will be taking over the site.




18                           Again, Paolo Pascetta, who will be





19     the new Remedial Project Manager; and Janet





20     Feldstein, you want to say hi?





21                           MS. FELDSTEIN:  Hi.




22                           MS. RYCHLENSKI: She will be taking





23     Charlie's place on this one. Again, like I said,





24     there's been a reorganization at EPA.





25                            I also want to acknowledge two





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2     people. There is a lady by the name of Mary Lou





3     Parra who is here from New Jersey DEP.





4                             Mary Lou, want to say hi?




5                             MS.  PARRA:    Hi.





6                             MS.  RYCHLENSKI: Thank you.  And





7     also, I want to acknowledge Martin Poinsett,  longtime





8     mayor. I met Mr. Poinsett a very long time ago.




9     Thanks for being here and for the continuity,





10     certainly.





11                             And without further ado, let me hand





12     this over to Charlie.




13                             MR. TENERELLA:  I wanted to give you





14     just a little overview of what Superfund is. It's





15     basically the federal law that cleans up hazardous





16     waste sites around the country.





17                              And the first step in that process




18     is for a site to be listed on something we call the





19     National Priority List. And Kauffman and Minteer





20     made that list a number of years ago.





21                              What that allowed us to do,  was use




22     federal money to study the site, do a full scale of





23     what we call a Remedial Investigation.





24                             And also, in the past couple of





25     years, in fact,  there has been some activity at the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2     site while we have taken some activities in an area





3     we call Removal Actions. Where we are allowed to





4      bring our staff out quickly and spend federal money




5      to take some of the,  in this case,  wastewater out of





6      the lagoon and some trailers and some drums and





7      things that were on the site. And we got those out





8      guick.




9                               But  that's — we knew we were going





10      take it off, but we got that done guickly without





11      going through the full process where we are now,





12      something called a Record of Decision,  which is the




13      full scale cleanup.





14                              In the meantime, we concurrently





15      have been looking at the site to determine what risks





16      it had.





17                              When we first came out here — I've




18      had the site for a long. When we first came out





19      here, it was some sense that Kauffman and Minteer





20      might be a rather nasty site, either from a public





21      health perspective or ecologically. Because there




22      was some -- I think there was a dead duck or





23      something,  'dead animals in the area. And as we did





24      our initial investigations, we found that it wasn't





25      guite so bad here.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                              In fact,  one of the burdens we've





3      had on the site that's caused us a long time in





4      coming back to you with this decision was that the




5      risks were not extreme at the site. And we had to





6      guestion what kind of an action to take, if any,  at





7      the site.





8                              So the good news is, that this is




9      not a real problem site. The bad news is, it took us





10      a while to get here to tell you that. But we are





11      going to take some actions which will be described to





12      you tonight.




13                              Right now we're in the process of





14      the public comment period before we issue a former





15      Record of Decision.





16                             What that does is, it allows the





17      agency to use the Federal Superfund to pay for the




18      full scale cleanup, whatever is determined to be the





19      cleanup in our plan, and then we could go on from





20      there.





21                             Realistically, right now, money is




22      an object. It wasn't a couple of years ago, but it





23      is now in terms of the priority setting nationally





24      for site cleanups.





25                              And as I said before, as we studied





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS. PIERCE





2      Kauffman and Minteer and found out that we don't have





3      a lot of heavy risks,  and where we did have some





4      risks we took out the offending chemicals quickly and





5      earlier, the remaining part of the cleanup may not





6      happen immediately because funds may not be





7      available.





8                           Because there is a national limited





9      pot of money now, and the priorities are set based on





10      public health issues.





11                          And Kauffman and Minteer is not an





12      extreme public health danger, so it might be some





13      time before the actual cleanup can get started.





14                          When it does, because of the scale





15      of cleanup on this site, we think we can get it done





16      rather guickly. And it won't take a number of years





17      like a dozen or so of the larger sites that we have





18      in New Jersey. So that's where we are now.





19                           We'll go into some detail in terms





20      of what we found on our investigations and what our





21      plans for the cleanup are. And we'll try to keep the





22      presentations fairly short and then open it up for





23      guestions, and use the detail of your guestions to





24      provide other answers to you.





25                           Thank you.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS. PIERCE





2                           MS.  RYCHLENSKI: Pan.





3                           MS. PIERCE:  Can everyone see this?





4      I'd like to start by giving you a little bit a of





5      background about the Kauffman and Minteer site.





6                           First,    it operated as a transport





7      company for bulk liguids.  Some of the chemicals that





8      they transported included plasticizer agents and





9      soaps.





10                           As part of the operations, Kauffman





11      and Minteer rinsed the trucks after transporting the





12      bulk liguids and disposed of the wastewater, the wash





13      water, into an on-site lagoon which is shown here in





14      blue  (Indicating).





15                          Now,  the site is located on the





16      corner at the intersection of Monmouth Road and





17      Jobstown-Juliustown Road.





18                          The property itself is only five





19      and-a-half acres,  but for the purposes of Remedial





20      Investigation, we considered it to be a 25 -- roughly





21      a 25-acre area that's bounded by the -- that includes





22      the site in the marsh area,  which is to the east of





23      the site over towards Barker's Brook, which is this





24      line here (Indicating) towards the south of the site





25      and along Jobstown-Juliustown Road. So that was what





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS.  PIERCE





2       we considered as the site in our Remedial





3       Investigation..





4                           To give you a little bit of a





5       history on the work that's been done thus far at the





6       site. As Charlie explained, there have been





7       several -- the site has a long history.  And there





8       have been several investigations of the site between





9       the period of roughly 1981 to 1988.





10                          In 1985, a Site Investigation was





11       performed where they determined that there was enough





12       of a potential risk associated with the site to place





13       it on the National Priorities List, and that occurred





14       in 1989.





15                           In 1991, EPA removed the liguid





16       contents of the lagoon.  And the Remedial





17       Investigation was conducted between 1991 and 1995.





18       And that's the bulk of-  what I'll be talking about





19       tonight.





20                          In 1995, EPA also removed tankers





21       and drums containing wastewater that were on the





22       site.





23                           The  Remedial Investigation was





24       broken down into seven major components. The first





25       of which was the geophysical survey and soil gas





Guy J.  Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS.  PIERCE





2      survey.





3                           Geophysical survey is where we





4      evaluated the subsurface on the site and tried to get





5      some idea of the characteristics of the site.





6                            We investigated the characteristics





7      of the Navesink aguifer, which is the shallow aguifer





8      that derives directly beneath the site, as well as





9      the characteristics of the Wenonah-Mount Laurel





10      aguifer, which is the deeper aguifer and below the





11      Navesink, which is where the wells in the area obtain





12       their groundwater --  their potable water from.





13                           We also sampled from the lagoon and





14      took various surface water samples across the site.





15      This figure shows some of the lagoon surface soil





16      sampling locations (Indicating).





17                           We took samples around the perimeter





18      of the lagoon to try to get a representative sample





19      to get an idea what the contents of the lagoon





20      sediments were.





21                            And we also took surface soil





22      samples across the site, including samples in the





23      marsh,  to address or to investigate potential





24      contamination in the marsh area.





25                            We also did a surface water and





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                             BY MS. PIERCE





2       sediment sampling. These locations, as you can see.





3       We took samples upstream of the site on Barker's





4        Brook; we took a sample midstream and a sample





5        downstream of the site.





6                           We also took a couple samples along





7       the drainage ditch which runs along





8       Jobstown-Juliustown Road. This overhead also shows





9       the groundwater sampling locations.





10                            We installed nine wells to





11       supplement the three existing wells. The three





12       existing wells were wells that were in the shallow





13       Navesink aguifer, and we installed the three deep





14       wells.





15                           Of those nine, three of them were





16       deep wells down in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aguifer.





17       Then the remaining six were shallow wells as well.





18                            We investigated the subsurface to





19       try to get an idea of the extent of contamination





20       below the site. How much of any site contamination





21       has migrated downward.





22                           And this indicates some of the





23       locations we investigated, which includes the septic





24       tank area off the northern corner of the existing





25       building; within the underground storage tank area,





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                            BY MS.  PIERCE





2      which is south of the building;  as well as the





3      wastewater collection pit that was used to store some





4      of the wash water prior to transfer to the lagoon.





5                           Also, as part of the Remedial





6       Investigation,  we conducted an ecological





7       investigation to determine if there ecological





8       impacts associated with the contamination that's





9       on-site.





10                          It's not listed here, but we also





11       performed a Human Health Risk Assessment to evaluate





12       the impacts, if any,  on human health due to exposure





13       to site contaminants.





14                            The  results of the Human Health Risk





15      Assessment. We determined that there was some risk





16       associated with ingestion of the Navesink





17       groundwater. And that risk was driven by vinyl,





18       chloride and beryllium. And there was also some risk





19       associated with ingestion  of lagoon sediment and that





20       risk being phthalates.   I want to qualify the risks





21       here in that.





22                            For the Navesink ingestion





23       scenario. What that requires is, that you are





24       withdrawing water, you're ingesting water that has





25        been withdrawn from the site.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  GIRARD





2                           There's no evidence of any of the





3       contamination moving off the property boundaries. So





4       you would be required to drink water on a daily basis





5       from a well on the site for a matter -- for a period





6       of years.





7                           And the ingestion of lagoon





8       sediments, again,  is a fairly conservative scenario.





9       And it's somewhat self explanatory.





10                          You know, if you ingest the -- if





11       you have access to the lagoon sediments and ingest





12       them for a period of seven years,  then there is a





13       risk associated with that as well.





14                           We also determined, that for the





15       ecological investigation that the real -- the only





16       real evidence of any ecological stress on the system





17       was the vegetation that's directly adjacent to the





18       marsh, which is a result of the lagoon overflowing





19       into the marsh.





20                           That was the only evidence of any





21       contaminated-related stress to the Ecological





22       System.





23                           MS.  GIRARD:   okay. So I took Pam's





24       information and the information from the Remedial





25       Investigation.  And the next step involved is to do





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS.  GIRARD





2      what's called a Feasibility Study.





3                           And what that does is go over some





4      different alternatives to address the areas of





5      concern at the site,  and that being the lagoon





6      sediments and the Navesink groundwater.





7                           There's a number of general Response





8      Actions that we look at in the FS. Anywhere from





9      being No Action,  which will be nothing at all, to a





10      Limited Action.  And then we have Containment,





11      On-site Treatment and Off-site Treatment.





12                           And from that we go to the Proposed





13      Plan, and we develop Remedial Action Objectives.





14      Those Remedial-Actions Objectives consisted of





15      preventing exposure through ingestion of contaminated





16      lagoon and drainage ditch sediments; restoring an





17      area of contaminant-stressed vegetation immediately





18      adjacent to the lagoon; and preventing' exposure





19      through ingestion of on-site contaminated





20      groundwater.





21                          The drainage ditch sediments are





22      something that we will be addressing during design.





23      There was one hit of phthalates over our cleanup





24      criteria in a drainage ditch. That testing was done





25      in the early 1990's.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS. GIRARD





2                           We want to confirm that that is





3      still a problem,  and if so,  we will be taking that





4      out with the lagoon sediments at the time of the





5      Remedial Action.





6                            What the Proposed Plan does is — we





7      have nine evaluation criteria that we use to





8      determine which Remedial Action we're going to take





9      at the site.





10                           Of course, the first and most





11      important is,  Overall Protection of Human Health and





12      the Environment.





13                           Second, is the Compliance With





14      ARARs, which is  Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate





15      Reguirements.  Basically what that is, is just the





16      federal and state statutes and regulations that apply





17      to these alt alternatives.





18                            The third one is,  Long-term





19      Effectiveness  and Permanence. Just to make sure that





20      this Remedial  Action will take care of.  the problem





21      associated with the site.





22                           Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and





23      Volume. That's pretty self explanatory.





24                            Short-term Effectiveness. If you





25      can do it in a short period of time and what's the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                   BY MS.  GIRARD





2      effectiveness of doing it in that period of time.





3                            Implementability.  That's self





4      explanatory. How implementable is the alternative.





5                            Cost.  How much it's going to cost





6      with respect to all the other criteria.





7                           State Acceptance is one of our





8      criteria as well,  and we do have the state's concerns





9      for the Proposed Plan on this.





10                           And the last,  but  not least  is,





11      Community Acceptance. And that's why we're here





12      today.





13                            Okay. Lagoon Sediment





14      Alternatives. These are the alternatives that have





15      been chosen for the Proposed Plan from evaluation





16      through the Feasibility Study that we think pertain





17      the most to what is the issue at the site for the





18      lagoon sediments.





19                           No Action has to be evaluated. It's





20      just one of our reguirements to give sort of a





21      baseline for what occurs here.





22                           The second one is  a cap or a cover





23      that would adeguately help the protection of human





24      health and the environment at a relatively decent





25       cost.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS. GIRARD





2                           The third one is excavation and





3      off-site treatment of hot spots and off-site





4      disposal.





5                            And what that would entail is pretty





6      much similar to the last one, which is excavation,





7      off-site incineration, and off-site disposal.





8                           However, what we believe at the





9       site,  from the data that we've collected,  is that





10      there is distinct spots of contamination in the





11      sediment -- in the lagoon sediment that aren't





12      necessarily widespread.





13                          So what we want to do is not





14      necessarily spend the absolute amount of money,





15      taking out all of the sediments and treating them all





16      at once.





17                          What we're planning to do is,





18      actually,  to take out all of the sediments, test





19      them,  see which ones are hazardous.





20                          If they're hazardous,  then we'll





21      send them to a RCRA Subtitle C treatment and disposal





22      facility.





23                          The rest of those sediments that are





24       not hazardous will  end up going to a Subtitle B





25      facility,  which is just a municipal landfill.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  GIRARD





2                           And this is just some of





3      the -- I just want to show you this quickly,  about





4      what we're looking at here.





5                            These are the different time frames





6      it will take to implement each of the plans or each





7      of the options, and what they're cost would be.





8                           As you could see, the difference





9      between not doing anything here, a hundred and two





10      thousand dollars in no time, and what we're actually





11      going to be presenting as our preferred alternative,





12      which is excavation, off-site treatment of hot spots





13      and off-site disposal. You know,  which is





14      approximately 1.2 million dollars.





15                           The difference between those two and





16      the excavation and off-site incineration and disposal





17      is relatively large.  And the implementation time is





18      the same.





19                          And the protection to the human





20      health and the environment is just the-same for any





21      residents in this area.





22                           The sediments are going to be taken





23      off-site and either treated, like I said, in a





24      hazardous waste facility or sent to a Subtitle B





25      landfill. We're not planning on leaving any of the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  GIRARD





2       sediments here.





3                           So the third option and the fourth





4      option are pretty much the same from your





5      standpoint.





6                           As for the shallow groundwater





7      alternatives,  same thing as for the lagoon sediment





8      alternatives,  No Action has to be evaluated as a





9      baseline.





10                           The second alternative was a Limited





11      Action,  which includes monitoring and institutional





12      controls.





13                           What that basically consists of,  is





14      that during design we're going to -- we have -- as





15      Pam, who spoke before, we have some monitoring wells





16      that are already in existence now.





17                           We are planning on installing an





18      additional monitoring well to make sure that we can





19      adeguately monitor the shallow aguifer and see if





20      it's contaminating the lower aguifer, which is -- as





21      of now,  we have no evidence of that. And there's no





22      risk associated with that, as Pam mentioned. So





23      that's part of what that action calls for.





24                          As well as institutional controls,





25      which would basically be well restrictions on the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  GIRARD





2      Navesink so that nobody could actually build a well





3      that was used for drinking water purposes or any





4      other purposes,  for that matter, and registered with





5      the New Jersey Department of Environmental





6      Protection; is that correct, the well restrictions?





7      Yeah.





8                            And the third option is collection





9      and treatment. This option has a number of things





10      involved with it.





11                           You'd have to -- we'd have to build





12      a big collection trench all along the downgrading





13      inside of the lagoon and use a number of treatment





14      trains.





15                           I won't get into what that is





16      because it's very technical and complicated. If you





17      want more information on that I can send it to you.





18      But there's a number of things involved with treating





19      that, and it would take a number of years to do that.





20                           And actually, to be honest, we're





21      not even sure if it would work because the yield of





22      the Navesink is so low that it would be very





23      difficult to even collect most of this groundwater.





24                            And just like I did with the





25      sediment alternatives, I just wanted to show you sort





Guy J.  Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  GIRARD





2      of a comparison as to the implementation time and the





3      cost involved.





4                            Limited Action would take





5      approximately one month to implement at a cost of





6      about $500,000 for the actual monitoring and





7      institutional controls that are involved with that.





8                            Limited Action will also have annual





9      monitoring as well as a five-year detailed review of





10      what is actually occurring on the site.





11                            At that five-year review,  we





12      determine whether or not any contamination has spread





13      into the drinking water aguifer below that, that's





14      the Wenonah-Mount Laurel.





15                           If that's the case, then we





16      reevaluate it and possibly do a Remedial Action as a





17      result.





18                           And finally, these are EPA's





19      preferred alternatives after going through all the





20      nine criteria that I explained before,





21                            These are the two alternatives we





22      think that will most adeguately address the problems





23      at the site. And those are excavation and off-site





24       treatment of all -- of hot spots, and we'll dispose





25       of all sediments on the site.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. GIRARD





2                           And  for the shallow groundwater.  We





3      will be installing an additional monitoring well and





4      doing annual monitoring of that shallow aguifer to





5      make sure that nothing has spread to the underlying





6      drinking water aguifer, and to actually monitor the





7      actual natural attenuation, or, I guess what you





8      would say,  disintegration of the chemicals that are





9      actually in the shallow aguifer.





10                           So those are our preferred





11      alternatives. I'll hand it over to, I guess, Ann.





12      Which I will have, now, a guestion-and-answer





13      period. And we can try to address any guestions you





14      may have.  Thank you.





15                           MS. RYCHLENSKI: Thank you, Melissa





16      once again, I'm just going to ask you to please wait





17      until you're called upon. I'm going to hand this





18      over to Charlie,  and then Charlie can moderate.





19                            And please wait until you're called





20      upon. And, like I said, please speak clearly,





21      identify yourself for the stenographer that's present





22      so that we can have a clear record of this.





23      Charlie. Okay. And we'll open to guestions,





24      comments.





25                            MR. TENERELLA: Yes,  sir?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                   BY MR. POINSETT





2                            MR. POINSETT: Mayor Poinsett from





3      Springfield here. I'd just like to go on record as





4      saying,  of course we are most concerned with the





5      health,  safety and welfare of all of our residents.





6                            I've read over your report. And I





7      would like to go on record as agreeing with the EPA





8      and the DEP while selecting the LS-3 alternative,





9      excavation/off-site treatment of the hot





10     spots/off-site disposal of the material, and also on





11     record as a agreeing with the EPA and the DEP with





12      the GW-2 Limited Action, which is basically





13      monitoring the well water in the area.





14                           And I think that we should go on





15      record,  the Town Council, and I'm going to recommend





16      that at the next meeting.





17                          I'm here tonight as the mayor of the





18      town. And I'm going on record as recommending that.





19      And if it takes further action, if we have to go on





20      record with our congressman or whoever,.that puts the





21      okay on spending of the Superfund money,  I think





22      we'll do that also.





23                           Thank you.





24                           MR. TENERELLA: Yes,  sir?





25                           MR. MILLER: My name is Ron Miller.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      I live next to the site.





3                           There's two test wells right across





4      the street, I was wondering if one is a deep one and





5      one is a shallow one, and are there any contaminants





6      in the shallow one?





7                           MS. GIRARD: Where exactly do you





8      live?.





9                           MR. MILLER: Right on the corner.





10                          MR. GIRARD: Right on the corner?





11                          MR. MILLER: Urn-hum.





12                          MS. GIRARD: Yeah, one is shallow





13      and one is deep. And no, there's no contaminants





14      there.





15                           MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you.





16                           MR. TENERELLA: Veronica Stevenson?





17                           MS. STEVENSON: A couple guestions.





18      Clarification. Subtitle D Disposal Facility, that is





19      a municipal landfill?





20                          MS. GIRARD: Correct.





21                          MS. STEVENSON: Okay. So our county





22      landfill would gualify for that, right? It's a





23      municipal landfill.





24                          Just a clarification, too. Where





25      would off-site treatment occur?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2                           MS.  GIRARD:  It would occur at a





3       Subtitle C facility. That facility has not been





4       chosen at this time.





5                            MS. STEVENSON: Which would





6       be -- would that be a municipal  sewer plant?





7                           MS.  GIRARD:  No It would be for





8       hazardous waste.





9                           MR.  TENERELLA: No. It's a





10       hazardous waste facility.





11                            MS. STEVENSON: It would be a





12       hazardous waste facility.





13                           MR. TENERELLA: It would be RCRA,





14       RCRA is the acronym, the Resource Conservation





15       Recovery Act, and it regulates  all hazardous waste





16       landfills in the country or disposal facilities.





17                           And as Melissa was saying, we have





18       something called ARARs. And those are other





19       regulations of other agencies or EPA and the state





20       agency that we have to  abide by.





21                           And one of  them is,  when we dispose





22       the materials,  they have to be disposed of just like





23       an industry would, properly.





24                           MS. STEVENSON: At a Superfund site,





25       then, it would go to this type  of facility?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2                           MR.  TENERELLA:  If it's hazardous.





3                           MS.  STEVENSON:  If it's hazardous.





4      So leachate,  like in the Superfund Site,  FLR,  is





5      being taken presently to Willingboro sewer plant





6                            MR. TENERELLA: That's a different





7      type of contaminant coming off of the landfill as





8      part of the landfill





9                           MS.  STEVENSON:  It's  a leachate?





10                          MR.  TENERELLA:  Yeah.  It's a





11      leachate off of a landfill. It's different than what





12      we have here. We don't have any leachate here.  It's





13      not landfilled.





14                           We have sediments in the lagoon.





15      The lagoon water, in fact,  a couple of years ago,





16      '91, was removed  and treated to a wastewater





17      treatment plant because it was a liguid.  The





18      sediments are now heavier,  sludge or mud-like





19      material.





20                           MS. STEVENSON: Okay-Then,  the





21      difference really is, sediments would be treated in





22      the facility that you would just -- a different type,





23      and then the liguid would be treated





24                           MR. TENERELLA: It won't be a





25      liguid, it will be  a solid.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2                            MS. STEVENSON: But if it was





3       liquid,  it could be treated at a local sewer plant?





4                            MR. PAOLO:  It depends. If it's





5       nonhazardous,    it's a possibility.





6                            MR. TENERELLA: There are certain





7       types of plants that will accept that kind of liquid





8       and there are others that won't.





9                            In this case, with Kauffman and





10       Minteer, we won't see liquid disposals except,





11       perhaps, from test well or monitorinq well water





12       disposal, if need be.





13                          And if it's  hazardous, it's  disposed





14       of one way. If it's nonhazardous, it could be





15       disposed of in a sewer line like anyone else would do





16       from a household.





17                            So it very much depends on what the





18       contents of the samplinq is of  the material that





19       we're tryinq to qet rid of.





20                           As I said before in my introduction,





21       the problem that we've had over the years here  and





22       has qiven us somewhat of a delay, unlike most





23       Superfund sites that we deal with, certainly unlike





24       anyone I've ever dealt with, was the biq question of,





25       is there a risk at Kauffman and Minteer sufficient





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      enough to spend federal money to take an action? And





3      if so, how much of a risk is there and how much of an





4      action do we take?





5                           So it's kind of the opposite of what





6      we would normally see on a site where we have,





7      perhaps, a serious risk, and we have to -- the scale





8      of the action might be guite large. Here it's guite





9      limited, actually.





10                           MS. STEVENSON: Okay. Another





11      clarification.





12                           Did you investigate the number of





13      wells that were in the Navesink aguifer? You





14      wouldn't consider it an aguifer.





15                           But the Navesink portion, do you





16      know the actual number of residents or are you just





17      making an assumption that there are some wells that





18      are in that area?





19                           Do you know the actual number?





20                           MS. GIRARD: I think there's two.





21      There's one upgradient and one sidegradient, but





22      neither of them are used for drinking water purposes.





23                           MS. STEVENSON: You're talking the





24      residents in the local area. Because you're talking





25      wells that are between 10 and 28 feet. And a lot of





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      these homes are older homes, and they probably





3      wouldn't be registered or on record as having a well





4      the depth of 10 to 28 feet.





5                           But you're sure there are only two





6      residents?





7                            MS. GIRARD: There was a well survey,





8      that was done that went to residents in the area all





9      around the area.





10                           MS. STEVENSON: There was a well





11      survey done?





12                           MS. GIRARD: Yes.





13                           MS. STEVENSON: I reviewed your





14      documents —





15                            MR. TENERELLA: Nobody can actually





16      drink that—





17                           MS. GIRARD: You wouldn't even want





18      to drink it. It's mud, basically. It's just very





19      cloudy, high iron content, that you wouldn't -- I





20      mean, it would be, first of all, aesthetically





21      unpleasing to even drink if you wanted to.





22                           MS. STEVENSON: I just wondered with





23      older homes. Because I know,  in the area, there are





24      people that have shallow wells. And 10 to 28





25      feet-





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2                           MS. GIRARD: Sure. But  there's





3      also — as Bruce -- Bruce did some work on this as





4      well. Bruce Fiddler who is also with TAMS and did





5      some work additionally on this.





6                            There's an outcropping of  the





7      Navesink. So it's not necessarily in all areas 10 to





8      28 feet deep. It could be as little as, you know,





9       just a couple of feet deep.





10                           MS. STEVENSON: See, I'm taking this





11      from your information that's on record here.





12                           MS. GIRARD: We obviously have to do





13      an average. But there's a definite outcropping of





14      the Navesink where there's basically  nothing around





15      there.





16                          MS. STEVENSON: But I want you to be





17      aware that I got all the information that I'm about





18      to guestion from the Record of Decision on file here.





19                           MS. GIRARD: There's no Record of





20      Decision.





21                           MS. FELDSTEIN: The Administrative





22      Record.





23                           MS. GIRARD: Oh, you mean the





24      Administrative Record.





25                           MS. STEVENSON: Well, I guess.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      Technical terms,  okay. I'm a novice at this.





3                           what I'm concerned about is,  in





4      1984,  according to the records on file here, whatever





5      they are, the chemical trichlorethylene,  and this  is





6      on Page 10 in the first section,  lists the Cronin





7      residence of having exceeded maximum contaminant





8      levels of this chemical.





9                            I was concerned. And I went  to





10      Ms. Cronin today and I guestioned her. She was never,





11      notified. And this is not something new to me.





12      Because this has happened before in this township





13      with the residents that lived near the Superfund





14      Site.





15                           My concern as a resident living near





16      a Superfund site is process. Now, I'm really a





17      little concerned because of — if this is true, she





18      should have been notified especially when it exceeded





19      maximum contaminant levels.





20                           MR. TENERELLA: In 1984?





21                           MS. STEVENSON: In 1984. I don't





22      care if it happened in 1969. You know, you've got a





23      chemical contamination in your water. The Cronins





24      have children in the family.





25                          MR.  TENERELLA: I don't think  we'll





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      be able to answer it now,  though.





3                           MR. FIDLER: I   just want to





4      comment. Bruce Fidler, TAMS.  That was a sample





5      collected by DEP,  not EPA. Just to clarify for you.





6                           MR. TENERELLA: Okay. That's a





7      state sample.





8                           MR. FIDLER: That's a state sample,





9      not a federal. Normally they would notify them.





10                           MS.  FELDSTEIN: Typically there's





11      notification that the results are provided to any





12      resident who's well was sampled.





13                           So we have  to go back — we'll ask





14      DEP to go back and look at the  records, and





15                          A SPEAKER: My water was sampled at





16      that time, and I didn't get a letter from them.





17                           MS.  FELDSTEIN: You got the results.





18                           A SPEAKER: I got the results of





19      what the water tested at after that.





20                           MR.  TENERELLA: Are you from the





21      state?





22                           A SPEAKER: Yes.





23                           MR.  PAOLO: Usually, it's common





24      protocol that whoever comes to sample the wells of





25      the resident will then send the results.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                            BY  MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2                            MS. FELDSTEIN: We'll look into





3       that.





4                             MS. GIRARD: That's the Cronin





5       residence?





6                           MS. STEVENSON: Cronin. And then in





7       1988,  you don't list the five residents, but they had





8       phthalates in their water,  di-n-butyphthalates and





9       bis (z)  ethylhexphthalates in their water.





10                           I don't -- it doesn't say whether





11       that exceeded MCLs.  Regardless if it did, I know as





12       a consumer,  and I'm sure you,  if that were in your





13       drinking water, even if it didn't exceed MCLs and you





14       have children and you're bathing babies, you would





15       want to know.





16                            And we have five people here. Who





17       are you? Okay.





18                           MS. PARRA: What year was that?





19                           MS. STEVENSON: 1988. This is from





20       your documents. Again, from your document -- oh,





21       boy.  There's a list of chemicals here.





22                           This one disturbs me. Where you





23       talk about no health risk. Background health





24       statistics survey for Burlington County. Again,





25       taken from your documents.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2                           When you do a health survey,





3      evidently you take the whole county. You're not





4      taking this locality. This is what your information





5      says if you read it. Okay. You're taking the whole





6      county and comparing it to the state. I don't see





7      the logic in that.





8                            Quote, Available information on the





9      Springfield Township was reviewed to determine if any





10      sensitive subpopulations were present in the





11      vicinity.





12                          The only subpopulation identified





13      that may be at increased risk are the children living





14      in the vicinity of the site. Page 16 of this section





15      here (Indicating).





16                           MR. TENERELLA: What's the problem?





17      I don't understand your guestion.





18                           MS. STEVENSON: The problem is,  you





19      are stating — according to this health survey,





20      you're looking for a subpopulation in the vicinity





21      that might be at risk.





22                           MR. TENERELLA:  Based on the risks





23      of the chemicals that we have at the levels we have,





24      right.





25                          MS. STEVENSON: Right.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2                           MR.  TENERELLA: Right.





3                           MS.  STEVENSON: You're saying hear,





4      the subpopulation identified.





5                           MR.  TENERELLA: That's potentially





6      be at risk.





7                            MS. STEVENSON: You have a potential





8      risk to children.





9                            MR. TENERELLA: Correct.





10                           MS. STEVENSON: Children are more





11      vulnerable. Their bodies are smaller.





12                            MR. TENERELLA: That's why we





13      decided to take the action.





14                           MS. STEVENSON: Right.





15                           MR. TENERELLA: Yes.





16                           MS. STEVENSON: In bathing they





17      could get the chemicals  into their system; in





18      breathing in the water they can get the chemical into





19      their system.





20                           MR. TENERELLA: Correct. Although,





21      I wouldn't bring my kids to that sediment lagoon to





22      bathe them.





23                           MS. STEVENSON:  And I don't think





24      you would take your children to the Cronin's house to





25      be bathed. I don't think any of you would.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY  MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2                           And I think if we sat their water in





3       front of you, You wouldn't --





4                           MR. TENERELLA:  Where are they





5       getting their water from, the shallow aguifer or the





6       deep?





7                           MS. STEVENSON: They are —





8                           MS. CRONIN: 60 feet.





9                           MR. TENERELLA: That's the deeper





10      one. That's the Wenonah. That's the one that's





11      okay.





12                           MS. STEVENSON: Well, the five





13      residents in '88 that have the chemical contamination





14      the phthalates -- you were saying that there are two





15      residents that had wells in





16      the — whatever it was. Navesink?





17                           MS. GIRARD: Urn-hum.





18                           MS. STEVENSON: So that leaves three





19      other ones with these chemicals in it. That would





20      indicate -- no. You take two—





21                           MR. TENERELLA: That's the kind of





22      information, in the early days of the program or the





24      and do a full Remedial Investigation.





25      When we did additional studies and





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      couldn't find those chemicals,  there was no risk any





3      longer. Maybe they went through system.





4                            One thing that this site has unigue





5      to other sites is, the cessation-of operations of





6      Kauffman and Minteer helped to cease any chemicals





7      that might have been occurring because of whatever





8      was being transported in the tanker trucks and then





9      washed out.





10                           So as he ceased operations, whatever





11      chemicals might have been appearing in the





12      environment, say in the mid-80s, late-80s,





13      disappeared. So there's nothing for us to remediate





14      any longer, except what we've identified now in the





15      lagoon, and then,  of course,  the monitored





16      groundwater.





17                           In case there's a problem, part of





18      the Superfund process is that after five years of





19      taking the action that we select, we go back and





20      check it again.  We remonitor, if you will, after





21      five years. We look at the site to see if we missed





22      anything.





23                           So if, in this case, Kauffman again,





24      during the five-year period while we're doing





25      groundwater monitoring, if we start seeing a trend





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      for chemicals reappearing,  say,  that showed up in





3      early '80s,  we'd come back and take additional





4      action,  if necessary. So this is not the end of the





5      process,  if necessary, from a risk point of view.





6                           But right now, given the risk that





7      we have seen in our Remedial Investigations over the





8      last couple of years, there's really not much of a





9      risk other than the sediment. And, of course, that's





10      to children.  And so that's what-the report is





11      saying.





12                           MS. STEVENSON: From information I





13      read from environmental books and so forth, I'd like





14      to read this section to you.





15                           Monitoring wells are a type of





16      hit-and-miss system of monitoring. The contamination





17      moves.  Some move in plumes, some dissipate.





18                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.





19                           MS. STEVENSON:  Okay. Because





20      groundwater moves slowly.  A slug of contaminant





21      moving through the  groundwater will slow and disperse





22      into a plume, the dimensions of which are controlled





23      by the structure of the aguifer because of the slow





24      rate of travel and the vagaries of slow and





25      dispersion of groundwater making it heavily





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2       contaminated in one place,  but remain pristine only a





3       few hundred feet away. Size of the openings





4       influence how fast water can flow through the





5       aguifer.





6                            MR. TENERELLA: That's right.





7                            MS. STEVENSON: There's a lot of





8       variables there.





9                            MR. TENERELLA:  That's what took





10       us - -





11                           A.)   That's what took us time in





12       coming to an assessment of what we should do, and;





13                           B.)   Because we wanted to-make sure





14      that the upper shallower aguifer wasn't contaminating





15      the lower drinking water aguifer where people are





16      drinking right now. And that's why we're taking the





17      action on the additional monitoring,  exactly that





18      reason.





19                          MS. STEVENSON:  You have had —





20                          MR. TENERELLA:  You're asking these





21       guestions like there's a problem, but





22                           MS. STEVENSON: There is a problem.





23       There is a problem. Big problem for me is, and I





24       have raised this to Town Council, I wanted to know





25       DEP's procedures for notifying people when





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      contamination was found in the water supplies.





3                           Did I not, Mayor Poinsett, did I ask





4      that?





5                           MR. POINSETT: That's correct, yes.





6                           MS. STEVENSON:  With a response from





7      the DEP. There aren't





8                            MR. TENERELLA: I'm going to say





9      this. I don't know DEP's regular procedures. But





10      most of the times the Health Department, and it's the





11      State Health Department -- I now in other sites that





12      I've had,  when it comes to water supply sampling of





13      local, single,    private wells, we usually involve the





14      State Health Department, through us and through DEP,





15      and they're the ones that do the testing for us, get





16      the results, and give them out to residents.





17                          I can't say in this case. I don't





18      remember,  going back that far, what exactly happened





19      or who did the sampling.





20                           But the normal protocol for all





21      three agencies,  no matter what the results are,





22      whether they're good or bad, is that they're released





23      to the people who's wells are tested.





24                           MS. STEVENSON: Well, the





25      information of the safety of the drinking water





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2       doesn't seem to be released. And this is the second





3       case.





4                           And I'11 tell you,  the first couple





5       that was involved and not being notified is methylene





6       chloride.





7                           MR. TENERELLA:  Well,  that could





8       be—





9                           MS. STEVENSON: But in the Remedial





10       Investigation Study Report it said, for prudent





11       purposes,  the residents will be notified not to drink





12       the water. For prudent purposes.





13                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.





14                           MS. STEVENSON: Right. This couple





15       both died and left several children. They lived very





16       close to the Superfund Site and were never told.





17                           MR. TENERELLA: You can't make a





18       relationship between people dying and being next to





19       the Superfund Site. Most people die.





20                           MS. STEVENSON: They do. And, you





21       know--





22                           MR. TENERELLA: Again, I'm not sure





23       what you're getting at because there's no connection





24       that we saw on a risk basis for the kinds of levels





25       we have,  certainly methylene chloride and things like





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2      that.





3                           First of all,  they are -- tend to be





4      lab contaminants at low levels if you don't find them





5      on a site as a process chemical or something that was





6      used as a cleaning solvent or something like that.





7                            If not, and to be prudent as we say





8      in the report, we still would notify and maybe take





9      action. Again depending on the levels,  if they're





10      above MCLs or the lowest level of contamination that





11      you would allow in  drinking water.





12                           But at those very, very low levels,





13      we're talking about an additional potential cancer





14      risk. And MCL is defined as a one in a million





15      additional cancer risk to what the regular cancer





16      population is.





17                          And the regular cancer population is





18      something like one in five citizens over their





19      lifetime will get cancer.





20                           So to say there's one in a million





21      additional risks versus the national trend of one in





22      five will get cancer sometime in their lifetime, you





23      can't make that correlation on a given single





24      chemical and say, well, those two people died.





25                           As I  say—





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2                           MS. STEVENSON: I've read enough





3      books—





4                           MR. TENERELLA:  — there's not a





5      connection there unless you have a very, very direct





6      relationship. Which, actually,  is quite highly





7      unusual,  to have a direct relationship, accepting





8      very, very high concentrations of any chemical.





9                           MS. STEVENSON: See,  denial is a big





10      thing with the DEP and EPA. Because every incident





11      where contamination has been found and problems,





12      health problems, have been found, it is all because





13      residents were very aware of clusters, such as Toms





14      River, with that cancer cluster. And now, there is





15      going to be more in depth studies on the water.





16                           That doesn't surprise me because of





17      the concerns and contamination that area faced





18      before.





19                           There was serious--





20                           MR. TENERELLA: You're jumping the





21      gun again because there's nothing proven in Toms





22      River between -- the connection between the health





23      effects of the people and drinking water yet. But





24      they're willing to look because of concern registered





25      by the residents.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2                            I'm not an expert on that site.





3      It's not mine. But I know from reading, myself, in





4      the paper and knowing the risk connections of





5      chemicals,  that it's going to be very difficult,  from





6      a epidemiological point of view, to connect any





7      chemicals at low levels to people dying of any





8      specific disease, except when the chemicals is very





9      specific and is very high level. Anyplace, Toms





10      River or anyplace else. You just cannot make those





11      kinds of connections.





12                           Although the public would like to





13      make them because it's easier to say, it must be "A"





14      and "B", and,   therefore, "C". It just doesn't happen





15      that way.





16                           In most cases,  the majority of





17      cases,  and in rare is the case, where you'll get a





18      direct correlation between health effects or health





19      risks and cleanup of a Superfund site.





20                           And the one example in New Jersey





21      that comes immediately to my mind is radon





22      contamination in some homes in one area of





23      Montclair-Glen Ridge where there is a relationship,





24      direct relationship, between that radon and things





25      like lung cancer, potentially for people. And so





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                     BY MR. MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2      that's a very high risk-related site being cleaned up





3      right now.





4                     MS. STEVENSON: See that's





5                     MR. TENERELLA: So where we see





6      those kinds of connections we take very aggressive





7      action.  But we have to see the correlation.  In most





8      cases we don't if it's very,  very low levels





9      affected.





10                         Are we wrong? Maybe people will





11      prove that parts per guadrillion or something was bad





12      for you. But right now,  we don't have that proof.





13                           MS. STEVENSON: You don't put too





14      much stock in the MCLs that are given.





15                           MR. TENERELLA: No, that's our





16      baseline. That's we operate from.





17                           MS. STEVENSON: That's your





18      baseline?





19                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.  Out of one





20      in a million cancer risks. That's the regulatory





21      baseline, that one in a million additional cancer





22      risk. Anything above that which can give you your





23      MCL or your maximum contaminant level from drinking





24      water,  anything above that and you take some action.





25                           MS. STEVENSON: And some





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR.  MILLER/MS.  STEVENSON





2      action -- so no action was taken here.





3                            Will you look into why no action was





4      taken in regards to that?





5                            MR. TENERELLA:  And Janet will be





6      following up because the site will be transferring to





7      Janet and Paolo.





8                            I'm sure they'll  follow up with the





9      state, also. If it was a state sampling event, we





10      won't.'have those records in terms of  what might have.





11      happened.





12                           MS. STEVENSON:  Also,  what I would





13      reguest of you, and it would make it a lot easier and





14      cheaper for residents in the area to want to have





15      their water tested, if you would supply a list to the





16      Township of the chemicals you think would be the high





17      priority pollutants that may be found  in the water.





18                           So that when they have their water





19      tested,  they can focus in on this. Because you know





20      that it would cost thousands of dollars to do an





21      in- depth water test.





22                           This would be an  asset to the DEP





23      and EPA because you would have individuals paying for





24      their own water to have it tested. And if they can





25      pick up anything, then they can refer  that





Guy J.  Renzi & Associates

-------
1                      BY MR. MILLER/MS. STEVENSON





2       information to you.





3                      MR. TENERELLA: Bruce, is there a





4      list of MCLs in the RI?





5                      MS. FELDSTEIN: Chemicals of concern





6      for the site. Yeah, we can get a list.





7                      MR. TENERELLA: No,  but in addition,





8      is there a list of MCLs that compares the chemicals





9      concerned at the site?





10                     MS. PIERCE: Yes, they're in the





11      record.





12                      MR. TENERELLA: So they should be





13      able to get that.





14                      MR. FIDLER: In Volume II in the





15      section on the tables, I'm sure that with the





16      groundwater sampling there is a list, also, of the





17      criteria that they were compared against for drinking





18      water, the MCLs.





19                          If you give me a second, I'm sure I





20      could come up with the specific table that would show





21      that. And it's, of course, already in the record





22      that you have here.





23                           MR. TENERELLA: While Bruce is





24      looking that up so that we can answer it right away,





25      I'd ask if we could answer some other guestions,





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  BICE





2       other people's questions.





3                           Yes,  ma'am?





4                           MS.  BICE: I have a question.  Ruth





5      Ann Bice.  My property is  part -- was at one time,





6      before we bouqht our house,  was part of the truckinq





7      of Kauffman and Minteer.  They owned our property.





8      Okay.





9                           I was under the impression,  when





10      they came in a couple of years aqo and tested it,





11      that this laqoon,  that they put a barrier around it





12      to keep it so that this  water did not move.  And that





13      one of the thinqs  that was -- we had qoinq for us was





14      the fact that our  -- the property in town is very





15      clay and the water was not movinq as fast or would





16      not qo into the people's wells like as if it





17      was — this laqoon was someplace else.





18                           MR.  TENERELLA: Yeah, the laqoon is





19      sort of self contained.  There's a clay layer under





20      it.





21                           The biqqest concern we had at the





22      time when we drained the laqoon is, that it was





23      overfillinq into those marshlands.





24                           In  fact, it was creatinq that





25      marshland over years as  he washed his trucks. That





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  BICE





2      marshland is a -- sort of artificial,  and it was





3      created by the activity of the company.  Now the





4      company is out of business. I wonder if that





5      marshland will become dry.





6                           In the meantime,  we saw a soap sudsy





7      kind of effect,  and you probably saw that years ago





8      in the area. And there was a concern in terms of





9      what was in it and  whether there was  either a public





10      health risk, which determined there wasn't, or





11      something that's a little more difficult to determine





12      easily is the ecological risk on animals and birds





13      and things in the neighborhood.





14                           And so for both  reasons, we drained





15      the lagoon immediately. There's no sense in  'waiting





16      for that and letting it keep overflowing,  so we





17      drained it.





18                            MS. BICE: So now what is happening





19      is that most of this rain water is running into





20      there?





21                          MR. TENERELLA: In fact, we had





22      think we tested it at one point to make sure that's





23      all it was.





24                           MS. GIRARD:  Right, we did. And





25      it's not hazardous. It's just drain water.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS.   BICE





2                           MS. BICE: So, therefore, when you





3      come in and clean that out, okay, then what you're





4      doing is you're just cleaning out what's in the





5      bottom?





6                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.





7                           MS. BICE: And then, what are you





8      going to do with the holes?





9                            MS. GIRARD: Fill it up.





10                           MS. BICE: Fill it up with some





11      soils?





12                           MS. GIRARD: Fill  it up with soils





13      and seeded on top.





14                          MS. BICE: How about the





15      other -- behind the property,  are you finished back





16      there, the cleanup?





17                           MS. GIRARD: No. That will actually





18     be included with the lagoon sediments.





19                          MS. BICE: Well, what they have





20      cleaned up -- like, they dug up. They were back





21      there digging up,    and 	 for several months.





22                           Has that been removed from back





23      there?





24                           There was dumpsters back there.





25      Have they removed the dumpsters?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS. BICE





2                           They have dumpsters--





3                           MR. PASCETTA: Most recently,  this





4      past summer?





5                           MS. BICE: Yes.





6                           MS. GIRARD: Oh,  yeah. That was





7      actually -- that was the newest Removal Action that





8      just occurred. There was a release of some -- it was





9      basically a phthalates contaminated petroleum product





10      that is somewhat -- phthalates are basically a





11      plasticizer. They're what's in a plastic bottle,





12      that type of thing. So they harden a little bit.





13                           But some of that had come out of one





14      of the tanker trucks and we tested it. Because it





15      had some phthalates in it,  we decided to get rid of





16      all of those.





17                          So that — what were in those





18     dumpsters was the contents of those tanker trucks





19      that was then taken off-site.





20                           MS. BICE: They did take it





21      off-site. You see,  it's done while I'm at work, so,





22      therefore, I don't know.





23                           MS. GIRARD: Yes, that's been taken





24       off.





25                           MS. BICE: Okay. So really, the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS. BICE/MS. BAIER





2      main thing now is just the lagoon?





3                            MS. GIRARD: The lagoon and the area





4      right in back of the lagoon where the marsh area was





5      from the overflow that happened.





6                            MS. BICE: But not like in front of





7      the building towards — where you go in?





8                           MS. GIRARD: No. Yes,  right.





9      That's all taken care of.





10                           MR. TENERELLA: Yes,  ma'am.





11                           MS. BAIER: My name is Joan





12      Baier. I live adjacent to the lagoon, and I have





13      some concerns.





14                           It is still coming over on my





15      property. And from the pictures I saw there, it





16      doesn't look like -- I have one section that's about





17      60 feet long, maybe 8 feet wide that nothing can





18      grow.





19                           MR. TENERELLA: Are you getting rain





20      water runoffs, is that the problem there?





21                           MS. BAIER: It is flooded there.





22                           MR. TENERELLA: When it rains





23      because it's not operating anymore. So you're still





24      getting a water flow. That's probably a rain event





25      in a





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  BAIER





2                           MS.  BAIER:  Yes. One section





3       is -- it's all green now except for this one section





4       that you can't see now because it's overgrown.





5                            But there is one section that





6       is looks like it's the moon. It's real black and





7       there's nothing growing there,  and I'm really





8       concerned about that area.





9                            And it seems to me -- are you going





10      to take care of that area as well?





11                           I was under the impression that I





12       was not going to get cleaned up from your office.





13                           MR. TENERELLA: When we did — I





14       don't know. I have to ask Pam for this.





15                           When we did the soil investigation,





16       the original soil investigation, were there samples





17       taken toward that property.





18                           MR. FIDLER:  Bruce Fidler with





19       TAMS.





20                           Let's put up on the screen the map





21       of the site so you could point out the area you're





22       talking about. And then we can see where the samples





23       were and what's included in the stuff in the lagoon





24       area overflow which might be related to the cleanup.





25                           Okay. Could you point out





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS. BAIER





2       where -- let me let you right into here and you can





3       point out on the map where your --





4                           MS. BAIER: This is a picture of





5       where the overflow which seems to be right here.





6       This is the section I'm concerned about.





7       (Indicating).





8       It seems that you've done --





9                           MS. FELDSTEIN: Melissa, is that the





10      marsh area?





11                           MR. PASCETTA: That's your property,





12      ma'am?





13                           MS. FELDSTEIN: This is the stressed





14       area that's talked about in here.





15                           MR. FIDLER: Ma'am, this property





16       right here is yours?





17                           MS. BAIER: Yes.





18                           MR. FIDLER: Okay. This is included





19       in the lagoon overflow area which is included in the





20       remediation of the lagoon sediments.





21                           MS. BAIER: Right. But this is the





22       area where I think it's overflowing. This is where





23       you've done your test site.





24                           MR. FIDLER: Right.





25                           MS. BAIER: You haven't done,





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                           BY MS.  BAIER





2       anything here,  and this is  where my problem is.





3                           It seems you've gone all the way





4       around,  but this section here (Indicating).  That's





5       where the problem is.





6                            MS. GIRARD: That's where the





7      excavation is going occur as well, and that's going





8      to be—





9                           MR. TENERELLA:  In addition to the





10      sediments in the lagoon, let's talk a little bit the





11      area just off the berm that's distressed.  I  think





12      it's a blackened area it looks like. And it's that





13      area right there that will  also be taken out.





14                           So is  that your property,  ma'am?





15                           MS. BAIER:  That is my property.





16                           MR. TENERELLA: Okay.  That's going





17      to be handled.





18                           MS. BAIER:  I'd also like to know





19      when this nightmare is going to end?





20                           MR. TENERELLA: When we  take that





21      off the property and when we get the money.





22                           MS. BAIER:  The problem is,  since





23      you've done the removal of  the water and such,  and





24      since you've done activity  there, it's under





25      my -- I would like to have  my water tested again.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                            BY MS. BAIER





2                           I was under the impression that I





3      had a 200-foot well. I came to find out that I don't





4      have one. I have a 60-foot well.





5                            And I understand, that when the





6      water tables are very low, which are not this year,





7      but they have been in previous years,  it does bring





8      water -- suck water back into the other aquifers.





9                           MR. TENERELLA: It depends on the





10      area of how the aquifer operates.





11                           MS. BAIER: I have a four-year-old





12      qrandson.  I have four kids in that house and plus an





13      aunt. That's -- actually, two kids plus an aunt.





14      And the thinq of it is, four of us have tried to sell





15      our property and we cannot do that.





16                           MR. TENERELLA:  Right. I remember





17      we talked a couple of years aqo about it.





18                           MS.  BAIER:   I  can't sell that





19      piece -- my property with a siqn sayinq, danqer, do





20      not qo into it.





21                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.





22                           MS. BAIER: Now,  I hear a five-year





23      plan when it's done. Then five years  later more





24      tests will be done.





25                           MR.  TENERELLA:   Let me explain that





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. BAIER





2      again so you'll -- you don't misunderstand me.





3                           Theoretically, if I was here three





4      or four years ago and it was time for the cleanup, I





5      would be able to say, with some guite degree of





6      confidence, that we would go on in the next couple of





7      months.





8                           Because of the scale of the





9      situation here at Kauffman,  we would be able to skip





10      a full scale engineering design, which takes a couple





11      of years.





12                           We would skip that and do a guick





13      design and start pulling sediments out of the lagoon,





14      actually do the action, within at least during the





15      time of the four-month action.





16                           So within six months, say, of the





17      decision to do it, we can get it done if we had the





18      money.





19                           The trick in the past couple of





20      years,  unfortunately, with congressional -- with





21      budget cuts, federal budget cuts, is we don't have





22      the money to do all of the actions we need to in the





23      country that have been signed off as we're going to





24      do it,  and we're sort of stuck.





25                           MR. BAIER: I do understand that.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. BAIER





2      What I'm getting at is,  when you start





3                            MR. TENERELLA: When we start it





4      will be in six months. The five years that I just





5      mentioned is, that in addition to doing the cleanup,





6      after five years we go back and do an investigation





7      again,  a mini investigation, to make sure we got it





8      all, that there are no surprises, that the





9      groundwater didn't recontaminate or that something





10      didn't go guite right.





11                          In this site, in addition to that





12      five-year review, we're doing groundwater monitoring





13      from day one. We're including it as part of the





14      action as opposed to even waiting five years to look





15      at it again. Just to keep an eye.





16                           So that if there's something that





17      goes askew from what we don't that will happen, but





18      just in case, we're including some groundwater





19      monitoring in the action.





20                           MS. BAIER: And at that point, do we





21      get a clean bill of health? We can remove our signs,





22       remove our wells





23                           MR. TENERELLA: Right.





24                           MS. BAIER: And at that point, put





25       an end to it?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                          BY MS.    BAIER





2                            MR.  TENERELLA:  That's always a





3      difficult thing for us to do. Because while we want





4      to keep,  especially, teenagers and children who tend





5      to want to play in abandoned areas out,  it is





6      alarmist to some people to see those kinds of signs.





7      It's kind of a general call we have to make to try to





8      keep people off the site.  A lot of it





9                           MS.  DAIER: I haven't been able to





10      use that for the past 12 years.  I'd like to use that





11      acre that I have or be able to sell it,  you know.





12                           Because I'm not going to sell





13      this -- when this property was sold to me, I inguired





14      about what was happening in the lagoon,  I was told





15      there was nothing wrong there at all. And I said, I





16      had four children, I'm coming here,  are they going to





17      be healthy? Thank God they are.    But —





18                           MR.  TENERELLA:  You didn't have to





19      wallow in it for years to have a health it's very





20      conservative.





21                           MS.  BAIER:  There was a lot of





22      spraying going on. And they would get itches and





23      things like that.





24                           MR.  TENERELLA:  Right.





25                           MS.  BAIER:  And I would not sell





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. BAIER.





2      this property knowing that it was -- when you start





3      five years--





4                            MR. TENERELLA:  When you sell, you





5      will be able to get a certificate, if you will,





6      of -- sort of a clean bill of health, if you will.





7      Because people will know, if they can accept this,





8      that EPA had been there and had cleaned up the





9      place.





10                          Now, whether they like that idea is





11      another matter. But at least you will have known by





12      then that we will have done something.





13                           MS. BAIER: Is there also a





14      possibility of getting -- since you've done — moving





15      things around, is it possible to get water tested





16      again?





17                          MR. TENERELLA: It might be. I'll





18      refer to Janet because I don't have the site anymore





19      in terms of following up.





20                           MS. FELDSTEIN: I think — can't we





21      do that as part of the monitoring?





22                           MR. TENERELLA: Yeah, we might.





23      Yeah.





24                           MS. FELDSTEIN: We can arrange it.





25      After the meeting, make sure you see Paolo and give





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MR. PETRINO





2      him your name and phone number.





3                            MS. BAIER: I appreciate that.





4      Thank you.





5                            MR. TENERELLA: Yes,  sir?





6                            MR. PETRINO: John Petrino. There





7      were underground storage tanks there,  do you know





8      what the capacities of the storage tanks?





9                            (Brief Pause).





10                          MR. PETRINO: There were ten





11      underground storage tanks,  do you know what the





12      capacities of the tanks were and what they





13      contained?





14                           MR. TENERELLA:  This is referred to





15      TAMS for the details. Do you know offhand?





16                           MS. GIRARD: I  don't know offhand





17      what the capacities were. I know that some of the





18      tanks were used to hold some of the heels of the





19      loads that they were carrying.





20                           What was -- the remainder that was





21      left, the residues in their trucks, they would





22      temporarily hold that on site in some of the tanks,





23      but I don't know what --





24                           MR. PETRINO: Would they be below





25      the plain levels?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. PETRINO





2                           MR. FIDLER: Mr. Fidler. I think





3      there are three different things that you might have





4      found in underground storage tanks based on my





5      recollection,  petroleum products like gasoline or





6      diesel or fuel for the trucks, waste oil from





7      changing oil in the trucks,  and three,  plasticizer





8      heels, as she mentioned. Specifically plasticizers.





9      Okay. And that material was recycled back to





10      Monsanto.





11                          MR. PETRINO: They would come and





12      pick it up?





13                          MR. FIDLER: Or they transported it





14      back. Whatever the case may be, there was some





15      recycling of that material.





16                           MR. TENERELLA:  Actually, K&M





17      transported it because they were a transporter.





18                           MS. GIRARD: In addition to that,  in





19      the 1995 Removal Action that we did to remove the





20      tanker truck contents, DEP had some concerns with





21      regards to these underground storage tanks, so we did





22      additional sampling of each of these underground





23      storage tanks and found that one did have some





24      plasticizers left in them,  so we did remove that.





25                           MR. PETRINO: The tanks are partly





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. PETRINO





2       removed then, except  the water, right?





3                            MS. GIRARD: The tanks are there.





4                            MR. FIDLER: The tanks are still





5      under the ground.





6                           MS. FELDSTEIN: The tanks are there,





7      but they're empty.





8                           MS. GIRARD: For all intents and





9      purposes, there's some small amounts of petroleum





10      products that are





11                           MR. FIDLER: Fuel Oil.





12                           MS. GIRARD: -- that are still in a





13      few of the underground storage tanks. However, EPA,





14      because of a petroleum exclusion  that we have, we're





15      unable to remove those contents. So that's something





16      that DEP would be handling.





17                           MR. PETRINO: Will DEP, then,





18      eventually remove all the underground tanks?





19                           MS. PARRA: DEP will be following





20      proper closure procedures concerning the tanks.





21                           I can't say that they're going to





22      remove -- what the removal will be.





23                           MR. PETRINO: Has the area around





24      the tanks been checked for contamination?





25                           MS. GIRARD: Yes.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. PETRINO





2                            MR. PETRINO: And there was no





3      contamination?





4                            MS. PARRA: But I think, also, two





5      of the tanks we had diesel fuel, and they -- weren't





6      they emptied during the 1995 —





7                            MS. GIRARD: Right,  they were. The





8      ones that had either water in them or a very small





9      amount,  what's considered RCRA empty, which is,  I





10      guess,  less than one or two inches of any type of a





11      material in an underground storage tank or any





12      container,  that -- that still remains. That was not





13      removed.





14                           MR. PETRINO: But right now, they're





15      still in one tank with some product in them?





16                           MS. GIRARD: There are





17      probably -- I'm not sure as to the number. But there





18      are probably a couple of tanks still on site that





19      have very little amounts of petroleum products in





20      those -- in those tanks.





21                           MR. PETRINO: You have no idea?





22      That's why I asked the capacity of the tanks.





23      It could be 50 gallons, a hundred gallons, 200.





24                           MS. GIRARD: I have to get back to





25      you on that.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR.  PETRINO





2                            MR.  FIDLER:  We did not determine





3      the capacities of the tanks in the RI.  It was not





4      part of what was done because -- specifically because





5      the petroleum product tanks are not part of CERCLA.





6                           MS.  FELDSTEIN: It sounds like we're





7      not answering your question,  and that's -- I just





8      want to say why that is.





9                           We're not answering your guestion.





10      That's probably because Superfund -- we deal with the





11      Superfund and the Hazardous  Waste Program, hazardous





12      waste, sediments of the lagoon, soil contamination,





13      specifically groundwater contamination.





14                           Specifically fuel oil and petroleum





15      products that are covered in underground storage





16      tanks are something more --  congress told us, that's





17      not your job. You're not allowed to deal with that.





18      So we sort of excluded that. That gets deferred to





19      other state-regulated programs that are not dealt





20      with at the federal level.





21                           That's  sort of why we're hedging





22      around. So we didn't investigate that possibly -- we





23      didn't do that.





24                           The ones that had the plasticizers





25      in them and the chemicals, we removed.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. PETRINO





2                           MR. PETRINO: After the contaminants





3      that the federal government will complete with,  if





4      there is contamination levels, let's say, by the





5      petroleum product,  could the future owners of that





6      site be held liable for that?





7                           MR. TENERELLA: Not under the





8      Superfund because it excludes them, but under the





9      state's underground storage tank program, maybe. But





10      they'll be closing those tanks.





11                           You asked can the tanks be removed.





12      A lot of times, the tank itself is not. It's





13      foam-filled or filled with sand and stabilized that





14      way after the contents are removed. Depends on the





15      type of tank.





16                           So there are a variety of ways,  not





17      necessarily excavation of a tank, to stabilize a tank





18      in place that are also allowable under tank closure





19      laws, state laws.  But those don't come under





20      Superfund because they petroleum products in them.





21                           They didn't want to have confusion





22      in the federal law. Because there's another law that





23      deals with oil spills that's separate from the





24      Superfund. And in order not to have all this





25      conflict in terms of what goes where, this is





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR.  PETRINO





2     exclusive.





3                           Unfortunately,  when you have an





4      industrial site with any kind of diesel or fuel oil





5      tank or gasoline,  we're held about -- took back from





6      doing anything on that legally





7                           MR. PASCETTA: If you're interested





8      in the property and the issue of the underground





9      storage tanks, the best person to speak to is Mary





10      Lou right there.





11                           Because if the state is going to do





12      something with the underground storage tanks, they'd





13      be the ones to know.





14                           MR.  PETRINO: Second guestion.





15                           You have a school directly across





16      the street which is probably less than three guarters





17      of a mile away.





18                           Has the water in the school been





19      tested?





20                           MR.  TENERELLA: We'd have to check





21      the report on that. I think it was a few years ago.





22                           MS.  GIRARD:  Way back when in





23      19-- during the initial--





24                           MS.  PARRA: 1990.





25                           MS.  GIRARD:  1990. I don't remember





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MR. PETRINO





2      what date it was,  but I'm almost positive--





3                            MS. PARRA: Were you on it at the





4      this time?





5                            MS. GIRARD: Not in 1990.





6                            MR. PETRINO: As a member of the





7      Board of Education,  I would like to make a request,





8      if it wasn't tested,  could it be tested?





9                            MS. FELDSTEIN:  We can look back at





10      the data.





11                          MR. TENERELLA:  I hate to promise





12      you, though. But if memory serves me correctly,  when





13      were doing the more board of scale study, we were





14      concerned about the school because of its location.





15      And we did the sampling and it came up clean.





16                           Because it was one of the major





17      well -- or one of the major water-used facilities in





18      the area. But I don't want to swear to it without





19      seeing the report myself. I'm pretty sure we did it,





20      but we'll check.  And that it came up clean, if





21      memory serves me right.





22                          MS. RYCHLENSKI: Anymore questions?





23                          MR. TENERELLA:  Bruce, do you have





24      the—





25                           MR. FIDLER: Yes. I have some





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR.  RUSSELL





2      information to kind of follow up with the earlier--





3                           MR.  TENERELLA:  One more question.





4      I'm sorry.





5                            MR. RUSSELL: My name is Jim





6      Russell. I'm concerned that Joan's water hasn't been





7      tested in five years.





8                            How can you be assured that the





9      Navesink aquifer hasn't qone down into the





10      Mount.Laurel-Wenonah aquifer and right now she's





11      drinking contaminated water?





12      MR. TENERELLA:  Can you describe





13      exactly the dynamics or should we? Of the two





14      aquifers and how they operate together or don't





15      operate together.





16                           MS. PIERCE:  There isn't a lot of





17      interaction between the two — the shallow Navesink





18      aquifer and the deeper Wenonah-Mount Laurel.





19      The Navesink has a very low





20      transmissivity. It's very tight.  And so you don't





21      have a lot flow of the contaminants through that.





22      In the sampling that we did, there





23      was no evidence, even in the shallow aquifer, that





24      any of that contamination had moved outside.





25      It was pretty much centralized to the west of the





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. RUSSELL





2      lagoon.





3                           MR. RUSSELL: I really think you're





4      Remedial Action is deficient in not checking the tap





5      water of the people in the area to know --





6                           How do you know there isn't





7      contamination if you don't check it?





8                           You're moving on assumptions.





9                           MS. PIERCE:    We—





10                          MR. RUSSELL: You're assuming that





11      there's no contamination in the water. You should





12      get a sample from the tap and test it, and that





13      should be included in your Remedial Action.





14                          MR. FIDLER: Pam, maybe you want to





15      describe how the groundwater moves under the site. I





16      mean, not just the speed with which it moves, and





17      that's the Navesink moves very slow, the





18      Wenonah-Mouth Laurel underneath it moves relatively





19      guickly, but also the direction of that flow. If you





20      want to point out on the map, perhaps





21                           MS. PIERCE: Based on the





22      underground contour that we've measured during the





23      investigation, we found that the groundwater flow is





24      in this direction (Indicating). So it's away from





25      the property.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MR. RUSSELL





2                           And based on the wells,  there are





3      wells based on this side of the lagoon,  that's what





4      we used to establish the fact that there was no





5      contamination.





6                           Although, contamination was moving





7       in this direction,   it hadn't moved outside.





8                            MR. PASCETTA:  Now, to answer your





9      guestion--





10                           MR. RUSSELL: That doesn't give me a





11      lot of comfort. I mean, testing it is a guantitative





12      test to know there's no contaminants. You're





13      assuming there isn't any.





14                           MS. PIERCE: We tested the





15     groundwater samples that we took during the





16     investigation.





17                           MR. RUSSELL: It hasn't been tested





18      in five years. You would not know if it's





19      contaminated right now.





20                           MR.  TENERELLA:  Not right at the





21     moment. But in 1990, 1 guess, we tested the taps





22     when Kauffman was operational. That's a very





23     critical point here.





24                           We tested at a worse case, when he





25      was operating and when he was saturating  the lagoon





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. RUSSELL





2      and the nearby wetlands with his wastewater. Now





3      we're at the point where he's closed operations for a





4      number of years.





5                           If anything, the situation is going





6      to get drier, basically, and better.





7                           MR. RUSSELL: You're assuming the





8      situation should get better. Why don't you just test





9      the water?





10                           MR. TENERELLA: The assumption is of





11      science. It's not a blind assumption. We sampled





12      individual drinking water wells, including that one,





13      in 1990 because of that concern that we had, too.





14                           MR. RUSSELL: Right.





15                           MR. TENERELLA: They came up clean.





16      All of the test results that we have  to date show





17      that the water flows opposite of that direction.





18                          In fact, if something happened there





19      now, guite candidly, because of the flow and the





20      information we have, if you got a problem well, you





21      got a problem and it ain't ours. Because  the flow is





22      in the opposite direction, it's not the site.





23                           MR. RUSSELL: Well, why don't you





24      test the people's ground drainage then?





25                           MR. TENERELLA: We have. That's





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MR. RUSSELL





2      fine. And we have looked -- we had the flow of the





3      waters -- you're sensing this plume like it's very as





4      opposed to the fact that the upper aquifer is tightly





5      located on the site,  and the lower aguifer, which you





6      all drink out of if you have private wells in the





7      area, has been tested clean all along.





8                            It just shows that there's a





9      pocket -- a very low nothing flow pocketed on the





10      site versus the higher. And just to make sure,  we're





11      going to monitor some more.





12                           MR. RUSSELL: For the cost of doing





13      the test, you should do it.





14                           MR. TENERELLA: That's what we're





15      going to do. It's part of the remedy.





16                           MR. RUSSELL: And another thing is,





17      it takes a year for her to get the results after you





18      make the test.  I mean, I think a couple of weeks





19                           MR. TENERELLA: Well, it takes a





20      while to take the test, get them to a lab, certify





21      the results, do a QA-QC on the results.





22                           We just don't go out and take your





23      sample and then the next thing they come back with





24      the test results. It does take a while.





25                           MR. RUSSELL: I think a year is





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2      long.





3                            MR. TENERELLA:  It shouldn't take





4      quite that long. No,  I agree with you there, it




5      should have been months. Months,  yes, but not years.





6                            MR. RUSSELL: And I'm sure the cost





7      of doing these last tests,  it would -- I think it





8      will-be well worth and should be part of your




9      remedial plan. It's not that





10                           MR. TENERELLA:  We'll see that in





11      the record so we can assess that before we go to our





12      final decision.




13                           Your concerns are certainly





14      legitimate I don't want to mean that they're not.





15                           MS. STEVENSON:  You pointed the flow





16      in that direction (Indicating).  Is that towards the





17      school?




18                           MR. MILLER: That's towards — right





19      up near my house.





20                          Are these wells going, to be tested





21      every year now? I mean, it's flowing right towards




22      my house.





23                           MS. GIRARD: Yes, they will.





24                           MR. TENERELLA:  Again, don't





25      misinterpret the word "flow". I mean, we're talking





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2       in a very slow rate of movement.





3                            MR. MILLER:  I'm on the corner.





4      This is towards the back. I mean, I don't expect




5      to come right to my house.





6                            MR. BRUCE: Show us where your house





7      is.





8                            MR. MILLER: Right on the corner of




9      537 and Jobstown-Juliustown Road.





10                           MS. PIERCE: Right here





11      (Indicating).  Okay. This flow is upstream. The





12      water is moving in this direction (Indicating). It's




13      not moving in this direction.  You're not





14      downgrading





15                           MS. GIRARD: And there are clean





16      wells that separate those -- between that.





17                           MR. SPEAKER: So the water goes this




18      way and not





19                           MS. PIERCE: It flows in this





20      direction (Indicating).





21                           MS. STEVENSON:   Would you consider




22      the knowledge on the flow of water an exact science





23      or are there some variables, like water draw can





24      reverse the way it's flowing and other considerations





25      have to be made?





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                            If you have a large draw on water,





3      it can reverse the flow if there is one.





4                            MS. PIERCE: If you have a very




5      large local well,  very large local well, drawing





6      water you can have -- it can have a radial inward





7      flow within a small area around that well. But there





8      is no incidence of that in this case. And the water




9      flow is governed by the geology of the area of it.





10                           MR. FIDLER: And it's a regional





11      phenomenon.





12                           MS. PIERCE: It's regional, it's not




13      site related.





14                           MR. MILLER: Does the state own the





15      property now?





16                          MR. TENERELLA: No





17                          MR. MILLER: Who exactly owns it?




18                          MR. TENERELLA: The Kauffman





19      family. And I guess there's a lien on it for





20      nonpayment of taxes or something. Basically, it's





21      the Kauffman family.




22                           MR. MILLER: And then it put into a





23      sheriff's sale, I guess, or





24                           MR. POINSETT: Please identify





25      yourselves so that the lady can get a record.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2      Mayor Poinsett?





3                           MS.  FELDSTEIN:  Ron Miller asked the





4      initial question.




5                           MR.  POINSETT:  The Township has a





6      tax certificate to the property.  They didn't pay the





7      taxes. They filed bankruptcy and it's in the courts.





8                            MR.  TENERELLA: Our assumption, from




9      EPA's standpoint-as a policy all the time,  as the





10      sites get cleaned up, and if they're sort of an





11      abandoned 'property, then it would be put back to





12      public reuse.




13                           MR.  POINSETT:  The Township is





14      interested in -- the state passed the law identifying





15      the municipal governments, that they pick up the





16      site. Because, guite frankly, they're off the tax





17      roles. And if the Township residents can get some




18      use out of the property,  it's not a health risk, we





19      would try to utilize that.





20                           MR.  TENERELLA: It's certainly one





21      of our motivations in trying to get cleanups done




22      guickly so—





23                           MR.  POINSETT:  There's a lien on it





24      as of right now.  I'm sorry to interrupt you.





25                           MS.  RYCHLENSKI: Anymore guestions,





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                       BY MS. DOROFACHUK





2      comments.





3                           MR. FIDLER: In the report,  Table





4      4-2,  if you would like that information,  provides the





5      groundwater MCLs.





6                           MR. TENERELLA: I just want to





7      obviate. If you would like to come by after the





8      meeting is formally over and have some other





9      guestions that you might want to inguire of our





10      consultants or the EPA staff, by all means, we'd be





11      happy to talk to you after the formal part of the





12      meeting is over.





13                           MS. RYCHLENSKI: Anymore guestions





14      or comments? Going once, going twice.  Do I see a





15      hand in the back? Okay. Your name, please.





16                           MS. DOROFACHUK: Jane Dorofachuk.





17                           Since the size is not too bad,





18      exactly when is it going to be taken care of?





19                           MR. TENERELLA: We  are not sure at





20      the moment. It depends on the availability of





21      funding.





22                           Because the cost is relatively low





23      relative to other sites in the country,  if there is





24      some money available, say, at the end of this year or





25      early next year that we can get for the site we're





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  DOROFACHUK





2      transferring the site to Paolo and Janet there.





3      We've already talked about a hope to maybe get some





4      money to get this particular site cleaned up because





5      it's not going to cost that much.





6                           But money is a big guestion for us





7      now. And the priorities are how -- have heavy health





8      risks sites nationally. So all sites nationally





9      going on this large Priority List now.  And then they





10      take them off the top in terms of risk, in terms of





11      what was funded for cleanup.





12                           Kauffman's  is going to probably be





13      pretty low because  the risks are not high. And so it





14      may have to wait awhile to get funding for cleanup.





15                           We also have -- Superfund was never





16      re-authorized.  The legislation we worked under was





17      supposed to be re-authorize last year and this year





18      in those congresses. And because of other





19      legislation, they haven't gotten to it yet.





20                           So it won't happen, now, until the





21      next congress from the time that we are -- it will be





22      another year before we get re-authorized with a lot





23      of new money, if at all. Depending on what they're





24      giving.





25                           So right now we're in sort of a





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. STEVENSON





2      continual resolution where congress gives us "X"





3      number of dollars to operate as much as we can with,





4      but it's not sufficient to do everything. We're in a





5      little bit of a bind for now.





6                            MS. DOROFACHUK: And if nothing





7      happens in a year's time or a year and-a-half,  to





8      whom shall I write?





9                            MS. RYCHLENSKI: You should exercise





10      your constitutional right that is given to you by our,





11      forefathers, and I would suggest that you get in





12      touch with your elected representative since they're





13      the ones that have the power of the vote on the





14      hills. Make some ruckus. You're a citizen, it's





15      your right.





16                           MS. STEVENSON: I'd like to point





17      out a discrepancy between this and the report. And I





18      asked the guestion earlier about the Navesink and how





19      many people have wells? You said probably, two.





20                           This ones says, a well survey





21      performed within a five-mile radius. No drinking





22      water wells were installed in the Navesink.





23                           MS. GIRARD: That's correct.





24                           MS. STEVENSON: And here it says,





25      some individual homeowners may have placed wells in





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. STEVENSON





2      the shallow Navesink.





3                            MS. GIRARD: Right. They're not





4      drinking water wells.





5                            MS. STEVENSON: Well,  what are they





6      doing with it?





7                            MS. TENERELLA: Irrigation, crop





8      irrigation, or animal we're not sure because we





9      weren't able to find--





10                           MR.. FIDLER: There's a important





11      distinction to be made,  too.  And that is that a well





12      search, where we go to the Department of





13      Environmental Protection and do a search of their





14      records, would only turn up those wells which





15      actually have permits for them. And those are





16      wells --





17                          The state reguires that any well





18      that's dug in the state or drilled, and that's been





19      true for many years, has to have a permit.





20                           There are some wells in





21      the — very shallow, that are not in those records.





22      And those were turned up through other means of





23      surveying the area. Okay.





24                           But there is no information on those





25      wells that says whether they're in the Navesink or





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. STEVENSON





2      whether they go down through the Navesink to some





3      other -- to the formation below.





4                            MS. STEVENSON: It wouldn't be hard





5      for you to find out if they're shallow wells.





6      Really, that's a shallow well, right?





7                            MR. TENERELLA: Sure. Somebody





8      could dig a hole in their back yard, we wouldn't





9      know. And that's a well.





10                            MS. STEVENSON: If you turned up one.





11      that was a older home and it was a guestion, that





12      shouldn't be that hard to find out.





13                            MR. TENERELLA: Well, because of the





14      nature of the well, as we mentioned before, in this





15      situation, in the shallow aguifer, somebody could dig





16      a shallow well and say, wow, I got free water.





17      That's why people don't want their wells done,





18      because they don't want to -- you know, there's some





19      charges and stuff sometimes.





20                           But let's say they dig, a well,





21      theoretically, and take the water out of the lower





22      aguifer, they won't go to drink it. It's





23      undrinkable. The animals won't even drink it. Just





24      this particular aguifer is naturally nasty, a high





25      iron content, muddy.





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS.  STEVENSON





2                           But the deeper aquifer isn't all





3      that far down either. You don't have to go 200 feet





4      to get drinkable water in this area. So it's a





5      very — it's not a motivation to steal the water from





6      the lower aguifer when you can drill a few feet more





7      and get good, clean water.





8                           So that's why we don't see such a





9       problem here,  that we're aware of. I mean, someone





10      could be doing it,  but I don't know why they would.





11      It would not be rational to do it, let's put it that





12      way.





13                           MS. STEVENSON:  That's my concern.





14      The persons who might not be aware that they're in a





15      shallow aguifer and are





16                           MR. TENERELLA:  But they wouldn't





17      use it. Would you use muddy, smelly water, even for





18      washing?





19                           MS. STEVENSON: Is it muddy and





20      smelly? Because some of the statements  in your





21      reports indicate that it's possible to be potable.





22      From the report the way it's written.





23                           MR. TENERELLA: Potable water -- how





24      do I describe this one. Potable water can have a





25      high iron content.  It's potable. It's safe to drink





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                  BY MS. STEVENSON





2      it,  but you wouldn't want to drink it because it





3      wouldn't taste right.





4                           MS. STEVENSON: You have this with





5      your deep wells. You have a lot of iron in a deep





6      well, but it's good water.





7                          MR. TENERELLA: Yeah, if it has a





8      filter or whatever. But it's not a dangerous. It's





9      not a public health issue. It's an issue





10      of—





11                         Actually,  we have something called





12      Secondary Aesthetic Levels which includes high iron





13      content, odor,  turbidity, things like that, that we





14      can also monitor for. But it's not a public health





15      threat, it's more of an aesthetic threat.  It's just





16      not pleasant.





17                           And that's why, as I say again, in a





18      shallow aguifer like this, when you have accessible





19      drinking water so close below it, relatively close,





20      that you don't have to go down a hundred feet or so,





21      there's no rational need for anyone to dig a well





22      into that shallow aguifer and none that we are aware





23      of.





24                          MS. STEVENSON: If when you check





25      the area of Springfield Township -- I know for a





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. STEVENSON





2      fact that there are older homes,  not necessarily this





3      area,  there are shallow wells and they're using them.





4                           MR. TENERELLA: Site specifically,





5      in looking for things,  we could not find them.





6      That's all we can say.





7                           MS. GIRARD:  And Ann can





8      answer -- give some additional information on that at





9      that time.





10                          MS. RYCHLENSKI: We went





11     door-to-door because a lot of the people that are





12      here in this room,  Ms. Bice and Ms. Joan Baier and





13      Jake Coulter.





14                           In fact, Jake Coulter, we got down





15      under his crawl space,  and our water sampler had to





16      hang dowry into the well while I held her feet under





17      his crawl space.





18                          And I just know from what we





19      remember that a lot of people here complained about





20      the iron taste of their water. A lot of people have





21      softeners. We had to take them off and take the tap





22      samples.





23                          But we did a lot of sampling in this





24      area. We went all the way around the perimeter of





25      the site and did tap samples. And I don't know of





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1                                 BY MS. STEVENSON





2      anybody that was into the shallow aquifer.





3                           And a lot of those were very old





4      homes. I know Joan Baier's home is old. I know





5      Jake's home is old. And I don't know of anybody that





6      I was at. And we tried to get to as many people as





7      we could and we really looked around the area.





8                           MS. GIRARD:  We also left letters,





9      too. We have people responding to it, asking them





10     how deep their well is; do they drink their the water





11     out of that well; is it a privately dug well?





12                          All of this information that was





13     then returned to us for the people that we didn't





14      contact.





15                           MS. RYCHLENSKI: And there was no





16      one that I saw that was into the shallow aguifer, and





17      those included some very old homes. And that was





18      close to the site,  Monmouth Road, Jobstown-Juliustown





19      Road, Sailor's Pond, that whole area.





20                           MR. TENERELLA: Any other informal





21      guestions for the record, comment?





22                            (No Response).





23                            MR. TENERELLA: We certainly -- this





24      does not obviate written comments, if you'd like,





25      during the comment period. You can send us written





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2      comments at any time during the 30-day open comment





3      period. And those will be reviewed and responded to





4      also, and our Responsiveness Summary goes along with




5      the Record of Decision.





6                           Thank you all for coming.





7                            MS. RYCHLENSKI: Okay. The only





8      last thing I want to say is, if you didn't sign on




9      the sign-in sheet outside, please do so.





10                           Please print I beg with everybody,





11      to please print so I get your name straight. And





12      also,  put your full address with the zip code.




13                           And if you want to do any written





14      comments, make sure you have one of these to refer





15      to. Okay.





16                          And thanks a lot.





17                          (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned




18      at approximately 8:30 p.m.)





19





20





21




22





23





24





25





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------
1





2                            CERTIFICATE





3





4





5





6





7





8





9         I,  MIRIAM RIOS (License No. X102031),  a





10       Certified shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the.





11       State of New Jersey, do hereby certify the foregoing





12       to be a true and accurate transcript of my original





13       stenographic notes taken at the time and place





14       hereinbefore set forth.





15





16





17





18





19





20                                       





21





22





23       Dated:   August 12, 1996.





24





25





Guy J. Renzi & Associates

-------