Superfund Record of Decision Sayreville Landfill OU 2 Sayreville NJ


                                    EPA/ROD/R02-98/138
                                    1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     SAYREVILLE LANDFILL
     EPA ID: NJD980505754
     OU02
     SAYREVILLE, NJ
     09/23/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-138



SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION

SAYREVILLE LANDFILL
OPERABLE UNIT 11
BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
NEW JERSEY



PREPARED BY:  N.J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL  PROTECTION
              SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM
              BUREAU OF FEDERAL CASE MANAGEMENT
              SEPTEMBER 1998

-------
SAYREVELLE LANDFILL
OPERABLE UNIT II
RECORD OF DECISION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  DECLARATION STATEMENT  	1

  DECISION SUMMARY 	3

  ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD  INDEX  	12

  RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 	13

  SITE MAPS 	APPENDIX A

  EXPOSURE PATHWAYS  	APPENDIX B

  GROUND WATER WELL, LOCATIONS AND  SAMPLE  RESULTS  	APPENDIX C

  SURFACE WATER AND  SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS  AND  RESULTS (PRE-DESIGN
  PHASE)  	  APPENDIX D
  SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND RESULTS  (SUPPLEMENTAL SEDIMENT
  SAMPLING PHASE) 	   APPENDIX E

  COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
  	  APPENDIX  F

-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT - RECORD OF DECISION
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL - OPERABLE UNIT II

Site Name and Location
Sayreville Landfill Site
Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document, prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as lead
agency, presents the selected remedy for the Sayreville Landfill, located in the Borough of Sayreville,
Middlesex County, New Jersey. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the reguirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended 42 U.S.C. 89601, et seg.
and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) as
amended 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for this site. This decision is based on the administrative record for this site. The attached index
identifies the items that comprise the administrative record.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), support agency for this site, concurs with the
selected remedy and has provided a concurrence letter to that effect which is attached to the responsiveness
summary section of this document.

Description of the Selected Remedy

This Record of Decision (ROD) sets forth the selected final remedy for the ground water, surface water and
sediments in the vicinity of the Sayreville Landfill. The selected remedy is "No Further Action with
Monitoring" for the ground water and "No Further Action" for the surface water and sediments. Closure of the
landfill, designated Operable Unit I, was addressed in the first ROD for the Site signed on September 28,
1990.

The major component of the selected remedy includes:

! Monitoring of the wells surrounding the landfill to verify the effectiveness of the landfill cap to
ensure that the landfill is not contaminating the ground water.

! Implementation of a Deed Notice to prevent any intrusive activities into the landfill cap

! Implementation of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) for the shallow aguifer in the vicinity of the
Site.

This remedy complies With the NJDEP Ground Water Quality Standards, the Technical Regulations for Site
Remediation, and Public Law 1993, c 112 (S-1070)

Declaration of Statutory Determination

The No Further Action remedy has been selected based on the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment,
Pre-Design data and supplemental sediment sampling data, which show that no further action is protective of
human health and the environment.

In accordance with CERCLA, the NCP, and state reguirements, NJDEP has determined that no further action is
necessary to ensure protection of public health and the environment at the Sayreville Landfill As was stated
in the September 28, 1990 ROD for this Site (based on low levels of hazardous substances remaining on the
site above health based levels), a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the
remedy selected in 1990 to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adeguate protection of human health
and the environment. This review will be a site-wide review including the remedy selected herein for OU-II.

-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT II

Site Name, Location, and Description

The Sayreville Landfill site is located (see Appendix A) in a moderately industrial section of the Borough of
Sayreville in Middlesex County, New Jersey, approximately 1 mile south of Route 535 and 1.5 miles north of
the Bordentown-Amboy Turnpike. Several small industries surround the site to the north east and south. The
South River, which flows north, is a major tributary to the Raritan River and forms the western border of the
site. The river waters adjacent to the site are designated for both primary and secondary contact recreation.
Pond Creek forms a portion of the site boundary to the north and northwest, and Duck Creek on the south and
southwestern edges. These waters are classified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) as fresh water Non-Trout. The site is partially located within the tidal wetlands of the river with
drainage swales along the western part of the property,

The landfill property encompasses approximately 35 acres of land, of which, approximately 20 acres was used
for wastefill and contains buried wastes. The wastefill area rises above the natural grade by approximately
8-10 feet, and is covered with low-lying vegetation and marsh grasses and bordered by small surface streams.
The eastern section of the site, near Jernees Mill Road, contains clusters of hardwood trees. The nearest
residential developments are located 1/2 mile to the north and 1/4 mile to the west (across the South River).
Currently, access to the site is unrestricted.

The landfill is underlain by three major stratigraphic units. The Woodbridge/South Amboy confining seguence
separates the deep Farrington aguifer from the shallow Cape May and alluvial deposit aguifers. Both the
shallow and deep aguifers are designated by the State as suitable for use as drinking water sources.
Currently, the deep aguifer is the only aguifer being used for drinking water purposes.

Site History and Enforcement Activities

From 1971 to August 1977, the Sayreville Landfill was operated by the Borough of Sayreville as a licensed
municipal landfill which accepted primarily munuicipal solid wastes and some light industrial wastes. Reports
from previous investigations indicate that hazardous wastes were disposed of at the site between August 1974
and 1977 when landfill operations ceased. In 1980, a landfill closure plan, which was approved by the NJDEP,
was implemented at the site by the Borough. The closure reguirements, consisted of one foot of clay on the
landfill side slopes covered by one foot of soil capable of supporting vegetation. The top of the landfill
had to consist of a minimum of two feet of soil capable of supporting vegetation to be graded and compacted
to reduce the infiltration of rainwater, and seeding and maintenance of the cover to prevent erosion. In
addition, the plan called for the installation of methane gas vents at 200 sguare foot intervals. Subseguent
site inspections, however, revealed that the closure had not been properly completed. The existing vegetative
growth over the landfill had eroded in many areas and failed to significantly impede the release of fugitive
dust or landfill gas emissions. In 1981, the NJDEP issued an order to the Borough of Sayreville to cease
violations regarding maintenance of the landfill. The order identified deficiencies including inadeguate
cover and failure to maintain grade and cover thickness. In April 1991, the New Jersey Division of Criminal
Justice performed a magnetometer survey on a portion of the landfill alleged to contain buried hazardous
waste materials. Based on the survey results, an estimated 30 drums were excavated from the western peninsula
of the wastefill area. Analytical results detected various hazardous compounds including pentachlorophenol,
para-ethyl toluene, chloroform, methyl bromide and various other compounds as well as pesticides and acids.
In August 1982, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) visited the site to gather information for ranking
it on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Based on the data collected from this and
previous investigations, the Sayreville Landfill site was proposed for the NPL an December 1, 1982. On
September 1, 1983, Sayreville Landfill was placed on the NPL.

On September 28, 1990, the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region II, issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
selecting a final remedial action plan for the landfill, which is referred to in this document as Operable
Unit I (OU-1). OU-1 included the construction of a NJDEP Solid Waste Cap to prevent infiltration and/or
release of hazardous substances to ground water and surface water, removal and off-site treatment of buried

-------
drums containing hazardous wastes, fencing of the site to restrict access, construction of an access road,
establishment of deed restrictions, installation of storm water and passive gas management system monitoring
of ground water, surface water, stream sediment, air and installation of additional ground water monitoring
wells within the deep Farrington Sand aguifer to assess the impact, if any, of the landfill on this aguifer,
as well as to determine ground water flow patterns.

On November 18, 1991, seven Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) signed an Administrative Consent Order
(AGO) with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to design and implement the remedial action.
These PRPs formed a Site Committee which contracted with McLaren-Hart to design the remedial action. Having
completed the design, the Site Committee contracted with IBM Sealand Corp. to perform the remedial action.
Construction of the OU-1 remedy was completed in July 1998.

On June 30, 1997,  the EPA Regional Administrator signed an Explanation of Significant Difference  (BSD)  which
modified the original remedy selected in the 1990 ROD for OU-1. The BSD documented that EPA and NJDEP,  after
further review of the circumstances surrounding the site, including additional monitoring data, determined
that installation of an additional deep well into the Farrington Sand aguifer was not necessary.

Highlights of Community Participation

The Remedial Investigation  (RI), Baseline Risk Assessment,  Ground Water Monitoring Report and the Pre-Design
Report for the Sayreville Landfill, Operable Unit II (OU-11) were forwarded to the public repository in
October 1997. The Proposed Plan was released to the public for comments on October 15, 1997. These documents
were made available to the public for review at the designated public repositories located at the NJDEP
office (Trenton, New Jersey) and the Sayreville Public Free Library (Parlin, New Jersey).  The notice of
availability for these documents and a public meeting notification was published in the Home News and Tribune
on October 14, 1997. A public comment period on the documents was held from October 15, to November 15, 1997.
The public meeting was held on October 29, 1997. At this meeting, representatives from the NJDEP presented
the preferred remedy and answered guestions about the site. A response to comments received during this
period and the public meeting is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD.

Scope and Role of Response Action

This ROD addresses the second of two Operable Units (OU's)  at the site. The first ROD  (OU-1) addresses the
landfill itself. This ROD addresses the adjacent surface water, sediment and ground water. The selected
remedy for Sayreville Landfill OU-II is "No Further Action with Monitoring" for the ground water and "No
Further Action" for the surface water and sediments.

The selection of the OU-II remedy is based on the acceptable exposure of contaminants to humans and the
ecology.  This determination was made based on the following facts:

       !       According to the Human Health Risk Assessment for the site,  there is no current or future risk
              to public health greater than the risk level  of  1x10 -6  or the Hazard Index  of 1.0.

       !       Ground water contamination is decreasing in the  perched  and shallow aguifer  by natural
              attenuation.  A Classification Exception Area  (CEA)  will  be placed on those  areas of the shallow
              aguifer that exceed the Ground Water Cleanup  Standards.

       !       No contamination was found in the deep wells  that have intercepted the Farrington aguifer

       !       The  reconstructed landfill cap and enhanced surface water drainage control measures,  taken in
              accordance with the OU-IROD,  will be effective in reducing any potential leachate generation

       !       As per the OU-I ROD,  the entire site will be  surrounded  by security fencing  which restricts
              unauthorized entries to the site and any potential direct contact exposures.

       !       Also,  in accordance with the OU-I ROD,  a Deed Notice,  pursuant to Public Law 1997,  c 228,  will
              be implemented in order to prevent any future activities that would potentially disturb the

-------
landfill cap.

! There are no known current users of the perched and shallow ground water aquifers in this area
There are also no known plans for future use of the perched and shallow ground water aguifers
in this area.

! Surface water samples indicate the presence of metals above the NJ surface water standards,
however, there is no disceiable pattern linking the landfill with the surface water
contamination. Moreover, the levels that were found did not pose an elevated risk to human
health.

! Sediment contaminant concentrations reflect ambient conditions or, conditions of the sediments
in the vicinity of the Site. Therefore, the NJDEP and the EPA cannot conclude that the landfill
is a source of contamination to the sediments. The results in the July 1996 Sediment Sampling
Report support these findings.

Summary of Site Characteristics

A. Ground Water:

During the initial RI in February 1986, a total of twenty-one monitoring wells and three piezometers were
installed and sampled to determine the type and extent of ground water contamination at the landfill. These
wells resulted in the finding of three water bearing strata associated with the landfill, the perched zone
within the landfill itself, the shallow aguifer, and the deep Farrington Sand aguifer The contaminants found
in the initial ground water investigation included the following, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals and pesticides. These wells were resampled during Phase II of
the investigation in October 1989. In a supplemental investigation, McLaren-Hart conducted a third round of
ground water sampling in these twenty-one wells in addition to installing two more deep wells in the deep
Farrington Sand aguifer (further evaluation of these two deep wells revealed that one of the wells, MW-15,
was not installed in the deep Farrington Sand aguifer, but rather the water-bearing strata located above the
Farrington Sand). The successive sampling events showed that the contaminant concentrations have declined
over time. Concentrations of metals dropped in the shallow aguifer, for example, the concentration of cadmium
in MW-1S (a shallow aguifer well) dropped from 24 parts per billion (ppb), sampled during the RI, to 5.4 ppb
during the Pre-Design Phase. Shallow aguifer concentrations of VOCs also dropped, for example the
concentration of chloroethane in MW-13 dropped from 7,300 ppb to 1,600 ppb (there is no NJ Ground Water
Quality Standard or EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level for chloroethane); the
concentration of total Xylenes in MW-8 and MW-9 dropped from 510 ppb to 240 ppb, and 70 ppb to 26 ppb,
respectively, between 1986 and 1993 (NJ Ground Water Quality Standard is 40 ppb, EPA Safe Drinldng Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Level is 10,000 ppb). As a result of the most recent exceedences, a Classification
Exception Area (CEA) will be implemented for the shallow aguifer. A CEA is an institutional control which
documents areas in an aguifer which exceed the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards. The deep Farrington
Sand aguifer had no contaminants that were above the NJ Ground Water Quality Standards. However, monitoring
well MW-15, which was drilled into the water-bearing zone above the Farrington Sand aguifer, contained
cadmium at a concentration of 5 ppb in 1993. The NJ Ground Water Quality Standard for cadmium, is 4 ppb: the
EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level is 5 ppb. See Appendix C for ground water well
locations and analytical data.

B. Surface Water and Sediment:

As with the initial ground water investigation, the 1986 surface water and sediment investigation indicated
the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, organics, metals and pesticides. In 1994, the surface water samples showed no
contamination of VOCs or SVOCs above the surface water criteria. Metals that were detected above the Federal
surface water criteria (40 CFR 131 36) were Copper (164 ppb, 12 ppb criteria), Lead (5.5 ppb; 3.2 criteria),
Mercury (0,3 ppb 0,012 ppb criteria) and Zinc (410 ppb, 110 ppb criteria). Since 1994, the NJDEP has adopted
a more stringent set of surface water guality criteria. These criteria were put into effect on May 6, 1994
(N.J.A.C. 7.9B). The volatile organic constituents detected in the sediment samples were sporadic and
generally found at low concentrations. The inorganic and pesticide contaminants were detected in various

-------
concentrations in both upgradient and downgradient locations, therefore, no discemable pattern could be found
that could demonstrate the landfill contaminated the surface water or sediments in the South River. A
subseguent Sediment Sampling Report prepared by McLaren - Hart, dated July, 1996 support these findings. See
Appendix D for surface water and sediment sample locations and data obtained during the Pre-Design Phase, See
Appendix E for the sediment sample locations and data obtained during the supplemental sediment sampling
event.

C. Soil:

During the Phase I RI, soil samples were obtained for classification purposes, and for physical and chemical
analyses. During the installation of the monitoring wells and piezometers, continuous split-spoon soil
sampling was conducted during the drilling of five shallow wells and three deep wells. All of the
split-spoons were used to classify the soils according to both the Burmeister and Unified Soil Classification
System. A total of 25 soil borings were drilled and five test pits were excavated at the Sayreville Landfill
Site during the RI. Metals, volatile organics, base neutral compounds and pesticides are present in the soil
matrix of the wastefill. Heavy metal concentrations of antimony (23.3 ppm, 14 ppm criteria), and cadmium
(3.4 ppm; 1 ppm criteria), are present, but similar to the range of concentrations normally found in New
Jersey soils for these compounds. Elevated levels of volatile and semi-volatile organic contaminants were
found in a soil sample obtained four feet below ground surface in the northwest toe of the wastefill.
Heptachlor (290 ppm; 0.15 ppm criteria) and PCBs (96 ppm; 0.49 ppm criteria) were found 25 to 27 feet below
the ground surface in a sod sample in the northern portion of the wastefill. The greatest range of
contaminants, mostly semi-volatiles (1000-3700 ppm), were found in it soil sample 10 to 12 feet deep at the
northwest toe of the wastefill. Since these results were sporadic, and the area will be capped to prevent any
exposure to humans or the environment, it is the NJDEP's and EPA's position that capping is the appropriate
remedy.

D. Air

Emissions to the atmosphere of volatile compounds from the Sayreville landfill consist almost exclusively of
methane. The presence of methane is not unusual around landfills because it is a byproduct of the natural
degradation of organic materials within the municipal waste. The presence of methane and related volatile
compounds could be a potential problem if there was an excavation within the wastefill and an individual
entered that excavation. Landfill gas emissions do not pose a threat to human health and the environment,
unless emissions are allowed to collect in a confined space. Currently, the landfill does not reguire an air
permit. However, a permit will be reguired once the new passive gas vent system is installed. The gas vent
system is part of OU-1 and will be installed along with the landfill cap. The landfill cap was completed in
July 1998

Summary of Site Risks

Based upon the results of the RI, a Baseline Risk Assessment was conducted to estimate the risks to human
health and the environment associated with current site conditions under hypothetical reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios. The Baseline Risk Assessment estimated the human health and ecological risks which could
potentially result from the site if no further remedial actions were taken.

A. Human Health Risk Assessment

A four step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario:

! Hazard Identification—identifies the chemicals of concern at the site based on several factors
such as toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration.

! 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.

-------
! 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 quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) assessment of
site-related risks.

The Baseline Risk Assessment began with listing contaminants of concern in ground water, soil and sediment
which would be representative of site risks, specifically because they were above background. Background was
determined to be areas on the site which were not compromised by previous site activity. The contaminant list
included VOCs, SVOCs, metals and pesticides as contaminants of potential concern. The following paragraphs
discuss these contaminants and how they affect the remedial decisions for this site.

The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which could result from exposure to contamination
via dermal contact and ingestion of ground water, surface water and sediment.

The results of the Baseline Risk Assessment indicate that the surface water and sediments do not pose an
unacceptable risk in terms of human health. New Jersey Statute Annotated 58:10B, et seg (S-1070) defines an
acceptable cancer risk to be no greater than 1x10 -6 (one additional cancer per one million persons). Current
federal guidelines for acceptable exposures define an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the
range 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6. Any cancer risks on the site that are above the New Jersey criteria of 1x10 -6 are
due to pesticides, particularly dieldsin. Several current and future onsite soil exposure pathways exceeded
1x10 -6 due to dieldrin. The highest risk was 2x10 -3 for future onsite residents. These cancer risks will be
removed once the landfill has been properly capped and fenced along the perimeter under the requirements of
the OU-1 ROD. The risk assessment also described a future scenario of on-site residents having a cancer risk
of 4x10 -1 through the ingestion of shallow ground water. This was the only ground water pathway exceeding a
risk of 1x10 -6. This risk was due entirely to the presence of arsenic in the shallow aquifer. Arsenic was
found in one well (NW-5S) at the concentration of 43 ppb and in piezometer P-l at the concentration of 9.6
ppb. The NJ Ground Water Quality Criteria for arsenic is 8 ppb. The piezometer is located hydraulically
upgradient of the landfill, therefore the arsenic contarrdnation present in the landfill may be contributed
by another source. Once the landfill cap has been installed, this well will be further monitored to determine
any change in contaminant concentration.

Current state and federal guidelines for acceptable exposures for non carcinogens, are a maximum health
Hazard Index of 1.0. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that the exposure level exceeds the protective
level for that particular chemical.

An evaluation of the results (of the risk calculations indicates that hazard indices for a current scenarios
are below 1.0. For future scenarios, such as individuals living on the site, the hazard indices are all above
1.0. Adult and child on-site residents being exposed to soil have hazard indices of 5.0 and 8.0,
respectively. The ground water hazard index of 1.0 should be added to each of these, resulting in a 9.0
hazard index for future children living on the site. In soil, the risk is from pesticides. In ground water,
the risk is from metals. As mentioned earlier, once the landfill is capped, as required by the OU-1 ROD, any
risks from soil contamination would be eliminated. Once the cap is in place, a Deed Notice will be put on the
site to prevent any future intrusive activities. In addition to a Deed Notice, a Classification Exception
Area will be designated for the shallow aquifer. See Appendix B for a summary of exposure pathways.

B. Ecological Risk Assessment

In the Ecological assessment, a reasonable maximum environmental exposure is evaluated utilizing a four step
process for assessing site-related ecological risks. These steps are: Problem Formulation - development of
the objectives and scope of the ecological assessment, description of the site and ecosystems that may be
impacted; identification of chemicals of concern. Exposure Assessment - identification of potential
ecological receptors and exposure pathways; quantitative evaluation of exposure pathways; fate and transport
mechanisms for contaminants. Ecological Effects Assessment - literature reviews, field studies and toxicity
tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Characterization -

-------
measurement or estimation of both current and future adverse effects on ecological receptors.

Surface water and sediment contaminants were identified at concentrations in exceedance of screening values.
In order to determine whether these concentrations reflected ambient conditions or were site-related,
additional sediment sampling in Duck Creek, Pond Creek and at appropriate reference locations was
recommended. Sampling was performed by McLaren-Hart during the Pre-Design phase of the landfill cap. The
objective of this sampling plan was to determine whether contaminant levels identified in the resampled
pre-design sampfing locations fell within the range of sample data from the four reference locations. The
results of this review indicated that it could not be determined that the site is the source of contaminants
identified in Duck Creek, Pond Creek and the South River. This is due to the presence of many industries both
upstream and downstream of the site. Therefore, no further ecological characterization was conducted.

Description of the "No Further Action with Monitoring" Remedy for the Ground Water and and "No Further
Action" for Surface Water and Sediments.

The NJDEP is recommending the "No Further Action" remedy to address the surface water and sediments along
with "No Further Action with Monitoring" to address the ground water, in conjunction with the closure (OU-1
remedy) of the Sayreville Landfill. The initial ground water sampling plan will be performed on a semi-annual
basis for a five year period. After the results of the first two rounds of sampling are analyzed, the
monitoring program may be modified to reflect altered conditions. The following are the issues which provided
a basis for the selected remedies.

! According to the Human Health Risk Assessment for the site, there is no current or
future risk to public health greater than the risk level of 1x10 -6 or the Hazard Index
of 1.0.

! Ground water contamination is decreasing in the perched and shallow aguifer by natural
attenuation.

! No contamination was found in the deep wells that has intercepted the Farrington
aguifer.

! The future landfill cap and enhanced surface water drainage control measures, taken in
accordance with the OU-1 ROD, will be effective in reducing any potential leachate
generation

! As per the OU-1 ROD, the entire site will be surrounded by security fencing which
restricts unauthorized entries to the site and any potential direct contact exposures.

! Also, in accordance with the OU-I ROD, a Deed Notice will be put in place in order to
prevent any future activities that would potentially disturb the landfill cap

! There are no known current users of the perched and shallow ground water aguifers. A
Classification Exception Area will be designated for the shallow aguifer. There are also
no known plan for future use of the perched and shallow ground water aguifers in the
area

! Surface water samples indicate the presence of metals above the NJ surface water
standards. However, there is no discernable pattern linking the landfill with the
surface water-contamination. The levels that were found did not pose an elevated risk to
human health.

! Sediment contaminant concentrations reflect ambient conditions or conditions of the
sediments in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, the NJDEP and the EPA cannot conclude
that the landfill is a source of contamination to the sediments. The results in the July
1996 Sediment Sampling Report support these findings

-------
Explanation of Significant Changes

There is no change from the Preferred Remedy described in the Proposed Plan and the selected remedy described
in this ROD.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT II SUPERFUND SITE
BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

1) Remedial Investigation Report/Feasibility Study - B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp, March 1990.

2) Baseline Risk Assessment - B&V Waste Science and Technology Corp., March 1990.

3) Administrative Consent Order - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, November 1991.

4) Pre-Design Ground Water Investigation Report - McLaren-Hart Environmental Engineering Corp., December
1993.

5) Pre-Design Report - McLaren-Hart Environmental Engineering Corp., April 1994.

6) Proposed Plan - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, October 1997.

7) Final Sediment Sampling Report - McLaren - Hart Environmental Engineering Corp., July 1996.

8) Explanation of Significant Difference - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, June 1997.

9) Record of Decision for OU-I - Environmental Protection Agency, September 28, 1990

10) Transcript of Public Meeting, dated October 29, 1997. Transcript is Appendix F of this ROD

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT II SUPERFUND SITE

OUTLINE:

This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:

A. Overview
B. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
C. Summary of Comments Received During the Public Meeting and Comment Period and Agency Responses
D. Community Relatiors Activities at the Sayreville Landfill Site
E. Transcript of Meeting

A. OVERVIEW

This is a summary of the public's comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Plan for the remediation of
the Sayreville Landfill Operable Unit II Superfund Site and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) responses to those comments.

The public comment period extended from October 15, 1997 through November 15, 1997 to provide interested
parties the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan, Pre-Design Report, Ground Water Monitoring Report
and other supporting documents for the Sayreville Landfill Operable Unit II Site. During the comment period,
the NJDEP held a public meeting on October 29, 1997 at 7:00 PM at the Sayreville Municipal Building to
discuss the results of the Proposed Plan, Pre-Design Report, Pre-Design Ground Water Ivestigation Report and
other supporting documents.

-------
On the basis of the information contained in the Pre-Design Report, Pre-Design Ground Water Investigation
Report and other supporting documents, such as the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment, the NJDEP has selected
the following remedy for the Sayreville Landfill Operable Unit II Site, "No Further Action with Monitoring"
for ground water and "No Further Action" for surface water and sediment.

D. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

Community interest for the Sayreville Landfill Site was generally limited. Interest intensified during a
landfill "release" of solid debris on July 24, 1997. This release was a result of construction of the new
landfill cap on the Sayreville Landfill. During construction of OUI on July 24, 1997, some wastefill was
exposed in the northern portion of the landfill. While the waste was exposed, there were several rain events
coupled with a high tide, which caused some of the wastefill to be released into the South River. The NJDEP
investigated the area of the release, however, the remedial contractor had already taken corrective measures,
which included the following installation of a permeable barrier across Duck Creek to prevent debris from
entering the South River and the installation of soil berms around the wastefill to prevent more water from
entering the wastefill area. The NJDEP directed the contractor to continue the corrective measures and to
conduct moriitoring during rain and high tide events. Since these corrective measures have been implemented,
no subseguent releases have been reported. The landfill cap was constructed in July 1998.

C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

Concerns raised during the Sayreville Landfill Operable Unit II Public Meeting held on October 29, 1997 are
summarized below. Only one written comment was received during the comment period, which extended from
October 15, 1997 to November 15, 1997. Responses to the written comment and verbal comments received during
the public meeting are indicated below.

Comment: (Written) The law firm that represents the Borough of Sayreville was concerned that there could be
no future use for this land. It is the Borough's intention to use this land for possibly a driving range,
recreational use or for waterfront access. Copy of letter is attached. See Appendix F.

Response: The Department may approve this type of use for the landfill, provided that any development will
not breach the cap, which could form an exposure pathway. If an exposure pathway is formed, it could pose a
risk to human health and the environment. Any development plan will also reguire a monitoring plan to ensure
that there is no undue wear to the cap due to the development The law firm was replied to by the NJDEP in a
letter dated January 28, 1998 See copy of letter in Appendix F.

Comment: (Verbal) The Chairperson of the Sayreville Environmental Committee reguested a tour of the site.

Response: As a follow up to this reguest, the Department contacted the Chairperson on two separate occasions
via telephone. One was on or about November 15, 1997 the other was on December 2, 1997. The Department has
also followed up with a letter dated January 29, 1998 to the Chairperson, See copy of letter in Appendix F.
As a result of follow-up phone calls, the NJDEP, the Sayreville Environmental Commission, the Site Committee
Representative and the remedial contractors conducted a site visit on May 29, 1998.

Comment: (Verbal) There were several guestions regarding whether the contaminants in the perched zone of the
landfill at the Site may contaminate the surface water and put the drinking water in jeopardy.

Response: The Department explained the capping process and how the cap will prevent rainfall from leaching
into the wastefill and therefore prevent a constant source of ground water contamination. In conjunction with
the impermeable cap, there are surrounding wells that will be sampled on a periodic basis to ensure that no
ground water contamination is migrating to the adjacent surface water bodies.

Comment: (Verbal) Am audience member guestioned whether the clay layer on the landfill can be disturbed by
future uses (including use as a park by the Borough of Sayreville) and therefore cause contamination in the
ground water.

-------
Response: The Department explained that any future uses would have to be consistent with all deed
restrictions the Department has placed on property located at the site.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked what contaminants have been found in the ground water and surface
water, and at what levels.

Response: It was explained that in the perched aquifer that benzene was found along with antimony, cadmium.,
chronium and nickel. It was further explained to the audience that if they wanted more information on the
names and concentrations of contaminants in the different environmental media, that they can review the
remedial investigation and design reports that are located in the local depository

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked how many wells are in the Farrington Sand Area.

Response: There are two wells located in the Farrington Sand.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked why there was no discussion by the state regarding the Old Bridge
Sands and the geology of the Site.

Response: The Department explained that the Old Bridge Sands do not exist under the Site Only Pleistocene
sediment exists above the Woodbridge Clay in this area.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked what contamination was found in the sediment samples taken at the
site.

Response: It was explained to the audience member that there were both organic and inorganic contaminants
found in the sediment along with low levels of pesticides. Any detailed information that the audience
requires is in the remedial investigation report and the site design reports, which were located in the local
depository.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked what are the acceptable levels of contaminants in the sediment.

Response: It was explained that there are no actual sediment criteria, however there are established
guidelines, in addition to these guidelines, there are a number of steps to go through in order to determine
if the concentrations of a contaminant in sediment is an actual risk. Generally most concentrations; of
contaminants in the sediment were below what would be considered a human health or ecological risk.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked what is being done to clean up or investigate the contamination
that was found upstream and downstream of the Sayreville Landfill Site when the investigation at the
Sayreville Landfill was done.

Response: It was explained that several sites within this watershed are currently under Department oversight,
such as Evor Phillips and CPS Madison. It was also explained to the audience member that the Department would
appreciate any information on any site that isn't currently under Department oversight.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked what the state approach to the contamination is in the area when
ground water contamination in the area allegedly cannot be attributed to any particular site

Response: The Department's first approach is to take each site on an individual basis and try to control the
source areas. As funds and resources become available and if the impact is severe enough, the Department's
cleanup approach will be on a more regional basis.

Comment: (Verbal) An audience member asked whether there is an ongoing monitoring program for rivers in the
state.

Response: The Department representatives were not sure as to the existence of a monitoring program for
surface water bodies. It was later determined that a program does exist which performs biological monitoring
every five years in the South River. In addition, biological or chemical monitoring by the local health or

-------
environmental officials.

Comment:  (Verbal) An audience member asked what the  (presumably ground water) monitoring schedule is for the
Site.

Response: An Operations and Maintenance Plan wrill be implemented after the landfill cap is constructed.
Ground water sampling will be done on a semi-annual basis.

Comment:  (Verbal) An audience member asked whether a no action remedy is being taken at the Site because the
Site was placed on the NPL later than other Sites.

Response: It was explained that the selection of a particular remedial action at a Superfund Site has nothing
to do with when the Site was placed on the NPL list. Rather, the remedy is selected by the process outlined
in CERCLA, and its implementing regulations. It was also explained that private monies were being spent on
the cleanup, not public funds.

Comment:  (Verbal) An audience member asked how much the Borough of Sayreville would pay for future cleanup at
the Site  (premmably OU-II work at the Site).

Response: According to information provided to the Department, as part of the agreement among the Site
Committee members  (consisting of the Borough of Sayreville and several companies that signed the
Administrative Consent Order  (AGO)),  the Borough of Sayreville has been responsible for 50% of the overall
cost of the cleanup.

12.  COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES AT THE SAYREVILLE LANDFILL SITE

NJDEP established information repositories at the following locations.

Sayreville Public Free Library
1050 Washington Road
Parlin, NJ 08859

Hours: Mon-Thrus 9:30 AM to 8:00 PM
       Fri: 9:30 A-M to 5:00 PM

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Community Relations
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-3081
Contact: Heather Swartz

NJDEP held a public commitent, period from October 15, 1997 to November 15, 1997 and a public meeting at  the
Borough of Sayreville Municipal Building on October 29, 1997 to discuss the Departments chosen remedy. A
transcript of this meeting is provided in Appendix F.

APPENDIX A
SITE MAPS



APPENDIX B
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

-------
TABLE 3-2 - SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - CURRENT LAND USE
    POTENTIALLY
      EXPOSED
    POPULATION

      Residents
      (Offsite)
     Residents
     (Offsite)
     Residents
     (Offsite)
    Residents
    (Offsite)
    Residents
    (Offsite)
 EXPOSURE ROUTE
    AND POINT

Ingestion of, direct
contact with, and
inhalation of
contaminants from
downgradient wells.

Ingestion of garden
produce irrigated from
downgradient wells.

Ingestion of, direct
contact with, and
inhalation of
contaminants from
downgradient wells.

Ingestion of garden
produce irrigated from
downgradient wells.

Ingestion of, direct
contact with, and
inhalation of
contaminants in
wastefill.
   MEDIUM

Deep Aguifer
   PATHWAY
QUANTITATIVELY
   EVALUATED

     No
Deep Aguifer
Shallow Aguifer
     No
     No
Shallow Aguifer
 Perched Water
      No
                       No
  REASON FOR SELECTION
      OR EXCLUSION

No chemicals of potential
concern in deep aguifer.
 No chemicals of potential
 concern in deep aguifer.
 No wells exist downgradient
 between the landfill and the
 south river.
 No wells exist downgradient
 between the landfill and the
 south river

 No residences on wastefill
    Residents
    (Offsite)
Incidental ingestion of,
and direct contact with
contaminants.
     Soil
                       No
                   No residences adjacent to s
                   where soil contamination
                   exist.
    Residents
    (Offsite)
Ingestion of, direct
contact with, and
inhalation of
contaminants.
   Surface Water
                       Yes
                   Potential exists for exposure
                   to surface water
   Residents
   (Offsite)
Incidental ingestion of,
and direct contact with
contaminants
    Sediment
                      Yes
                  Potential exists for exposure
                  sediment in the creeks and
                  river.

-------
TABLE 3-2 (CONTINED)
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - CURRENT LAND USE
    POTENTIALLY
      EXPOSED
    POPULATION

      Workers
     (Onsite)
  EXPOSURE ROUTE
     AND POINT

Incidental ingestion of,
and direct contact with
soil, and contaminants
in sewer line water.
  MEDIUM

Sewer Line
   PATHWAY
QUANTITATIVELY
   EVALUATED

       Yes
 REASON FOR SELECTION
     OR EXCLUSION

Potential exists for exposure to
contaminants in sewer line and
surrounding soils.
   Trespassers
    (Onsite)
Incidental ingestion of
and direct contact with
contaminants.
                                                     Soil
                        Yes       Potential exists for exposure to
                                  contaminants in soil.
   Trespassers
    (Onsite)
Incidental ingestion of,
direct contact with, and
inhalation of
contaminants.
                                                     Sediment
                         No       All onsite sediment is buried,
                                  and offsite sediment addressed
                                  under residential population.
   Trespassers
    (Onsite)
Incidental ingestion of
and direct contact with
contaminants.
                                                      Surface Water
                         No       Surface water addressed to a
                                  residential population.

-------
TABLE 3-3
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - FUTURE LAND USE
    POTENTIALLY
      EXPOSED
    POPULATION
   EXPOSURE ROUTE
      AND POINT
                                                     MEDIUM
                   PATHWAY
                QUANTITATIVELY
                   EVALUATED
REASON FOR SELECTION
    OR EXCLUSION
     Residents        Incidental ingestion of,
     (Onsite)          direct contact with,
                      and inhalation of
                      contaminants.
                              Groundwater          No
                             (Deep Aquifer)
                                    The  deep  aquifer has  not
                                    been impacted by the  landfill.
    Residents
    (Onsite)
    Residents
    (Onsite)
Incidental inqestion of,
direct contact with,
and inhalation of
contaminants.

Incidental inqestion of,
direct contact with
and inhalation of
  Groundwater           Yes
(Shallow Aquifer)
  Groundwater
  (Waste-Fill)
                        No
 Althouqh is is unlikely
 that the site will be
 developed for residential
 use, this will be performed.

 Unlikely that a useable well
 could be placed in the waste
 fill.
    Residents
    (Onsite)
    Residents
    (Onsite)
Incidental inqestion of,
and direct contact with
contaminants.
Incidental inqestion of,
and direct contact with
contaminants.
     Soil               Yes
    Surface Water,        No
     Sediment  and
      Sewer Line
  Althouqh it is unlikely
  that the site will be
  developed for residential
  use, this will be performed

  Surface water and sediment
  quantitatively evaluated
  under current land use and
  sewer line inaccessable
     Workers
     (Onsite)
Incidental inqestion of,
direct contact with,
and inhalation of
contaminants.
                                                          Sewer Line
                                                                             No
                                     Exposure  would be  the
                                     same  as present but  with
                                     lower contaminant  levels
    Trespasser
    (Onsite)
Incidental inqestion of,
direct contact with,
and inhalation of
contaminants.
                                                             All
                                                                             No
                                     Exposure  would be  the
                                     same  as present but  with
                                     lower contaminant  levels

-------
TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - FUTURE LAND USE
    POTENTIALLY
      EXPOSED
    POPULATION
EXPOSURE ROUTE
   AND POINT
                                                     MEDIUM
   PATHWAY
QUANTITATIVELY
   EVALUATED
REASON FOR SELECTION
    OR EXCLUSION
     Residents        Incidental ingestion of,
     (Onsite)         direct contact with,
                      and inhalation of
                      contaminants
                          Groundwater
                          (Shallow Aquifer-
                            GW-13-02)
                                               Yes
                     Risk are calculated
                     individually for this well
                     due to inability to identify
                     whether it is site impacted
                     or not.

-------
APPENDIX C
GROUND WATER WELL LOCATIONS AND SAMPLE RESULTS










APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AND RESULTS  (PRE-DESIGN PHASE)








APPENDIX E
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AND RESULTS  (SUPPLEMENTAL SEDIMENT SAMPLING PHASE)

-------
APPENDIX F
COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
AND MEETING TRANSCRIPT

1

2      NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

3                  SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM

4
              PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR
5      REMEDIATION OF THE SAYREVILLE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

6
                        Wednesday, October 29, 1997
7
                                  7:00 p.m.
8
                        Sayreville Municipal Building
9                          167 Main Street
                            Sayreville, New Jersey
10

11

12
       APPEARANCES:
13

14     ROMAN LUZECKY, Section Chief, NJDEP
       ROBERT MARCOLINA, Case Manager, NJDEP
15
      CHARLES HARMAN, Supervising Environmental Scientist,
16                    McLaren Hart Corporation

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------
1           MR.  LUZECKY:  My name is Roman Luzecky. I'm a Sect.





2 Chief with the New Jersey Department of Environmental





3 Protection.





4           UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're not used to this,  because





5 council meetings start at 7:00. They don't start at 7:30.





6           MR.  LUZECKY:  I'm sorry. I'm sorry for starting





7 early. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Councilwoman





8 Malet and also Ms. Hanson with the Environmental Commission.





9           UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How do you pronounce that?





10          MR.  LUZECKY:  Malet.





11          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Spelled?





12          MR.  LUZECKY:  M-A-L-E-T.





13          MS.  MALET:  I'm not a councilwoman.





14          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Committeewoman.





15          MR.  LUZECKY:  Committeewoman. I'm sorry, and I  don't





16 know if there are any other officials that didn't sign in.





17          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right here. There's an





18 official right there.  Councilwoman.





19          MR.  LUZECKY:  Hi.





20          UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hillbeck (phonetic).





21          MR.  LUZECKY:  Thank you. We're here to discuss  the





22 proposed plan for the no further remedy for the off-site





23 surface water and sediments and also for the on-site





24 groundwater at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site,  and this





25 is part of the State remedial process. I'd like to remind you





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 that we have a -- an agenda and a fact sheet that's available





2 at the sign in desk,  and a summary of the Community Relations





3 Program. Also, a meeting evaluation form is attached,  and we





4 would appreciate it if you would fill both sides out and return





5 it on your way out. I would also like to reguest that if you





6 haven't signed in,  to please do so now.  We would use this list





7 for future mailings concerning the site.





8     We're here tonight to share information with you and to





9 receive your comments and guestions,  and this is part of our





10 community involvement which is described in detail in the





11 Community Relations Summary in the handout you received





12 tonight. On the back of the sheet is a flow chart, and it





13 describes the major steps in the site cleanup,  and we're on





14 step number six now which is the proposed plan for remedial





15 action and part of the public meeting.





16     I'd also like to inform you that part of the Superfund





17 Program has a technical assistance grant. This program is





18 designed to provide citizen groups with grants up to $50,000





19 for the purpose of hiring technical advisors to help them





20 understand and interpret site-related technical information.





21 If you're interested in applying for a grant,  please pick up a





22 fact sheet about the program at the sign in table.





23     The floor will be open for guestions and comments after the





24 presentation. We have an audio transcriber here to record our





25 proceedings. This is reguired under superfund regulations. If





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  you would like to speak,  please come up to the microphone and





2  identify yourself and your affiliation clearly so the





3  transcriber can hear you. The comment period is open until





4  November 15th, and the fact sheet gives details as to where to





5  write if you prefer.





6      We will try to keep our presentation brief to allow





7  sufficient time for your questions and comments.  We hope that





8  you will also limit the length of your comments so that





9  everyone who wishes to speak has an opportunity to do so.





10  Please hold all comments and guestions until we are finished





11  our presentation.





12      I would like to introduce Robert Marcolina,  the Site





13  Manager with the New Jersey Department of Environmental





14  Protection. He will present a brief overview and a site





15  history, and Chuck Harman, our consultant,  he will discuss the





16  remedial investigation and the feasibility study and present





17  the remedial alternatives for the site.





18      I would also like to acknowledge other DEP representatives





19  who are present tonight. Kathy Kunz, the technical





20  coordinator, Dave Kaplan, the geologist, and Heather Schwartz,





21  the community relations coordinator for the site, and we also





22  have project manager from EPA, Mr. Porusnic. I'd like to turn





23  it over now to Bob.





24           MR. MARCOLINA:     Okay. Thank you Roman. Chuck just





25  going to start the projector for us. Okay.  Are we all





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  familiar with the site where it's located?





2           UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:   Urn-hum.





3            MARCOLINA:  Okay.  Okay. Thank you,  and as Roman





4   said,  name's Bob Marcolina, and I'm the site manager for the





5   Sayreville Landfill, and what  I want to do now is just kind of





6   take you through a brief site  history.  Okay. To begin with





7   the site began operation 1971,  and operation -- landfill





8   Operation ceased in 1977.  In 1980 the landfill —okay. The





9   landfill — okay. In 1980 the  Sayreville Landfill had to close





10   the site. Okay? And concurrent with that there was a





11   investigation going on with Vant Chemical which was located





12   adjacent to the site. Vant Chemical dealt with disposal of





13   chemicals, and what happened  was the investigation bore out





14   that there was some drums that were buried in the Sayreville





15   Landfill. Okay.





16            In 1981 the Department issued a violation to the Borough of





17   Sayreville for improperly closing the landfill. The reason for





18   the violation was the cap was improperly installed. What was





19   happening was the rain was falling on the cap, and it was being





20   eroded away,  thus exposing the land -- landfill -- wastefill,





21   okay,  and at this time criminal justice was doing a





22   magnetometer survey on the landfill, and what that is is





23   basically they were using a device to detect buried metals, and





24   this survey bore out that they found buried drums on the site.





25   The site -- these drums were  excavated and sampled, and they





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 were found to contain hazardous wastes such as toluene and





2 chloroform.





3     Next,  in 1983 the site was placed on a national priorities





4 list.  That's basically superfund. In 1986 the Department





5 performed a remedial investigation feasibility study on the





6 site,  and basically what that is is they take analytical





7 samples of all the environmental media. That's groundwater,





8 surface water, soils, and sediment, and basically,  that





9 determines the nature and extent of contamination and where





10 that contamination could've come from. As a result of this





11 remedial investigation, 17 potentially responsible parties were





12 directed to contribute costs to the Departments remedial





13 investigation. Nine out of the 17 potentially responsible





14 parties responded.





15     Next, in 1980 (sic) a record of decision was signed to





16 install a new cap and to conduct a further investigation of





17 surface water sediments and groundwater. In 1991 an





18 administrative consent order was signed by seven of the nine





19 potentially responsible parties to design and build a new cap





20 and conduct a further investigation of surface water and





21 sediments, and the end of this November the cap will be





22 constructed, and at this point I'd like to introduce Chuck





23 Harman, the project manager for McLaren Hart, and he'll give us





24 a rundown of the design and the follow up studies.





25          MR. HARMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bob.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 Really what I'm going to try to focus on here is just,  you





2 know,  looking at a couple of the really -- the O-U-2 issues.





3 We'll  mention a little bit of the O-U-1 landfill itseif,  but as





4 Bob said,  this is under current remediation,  and the cap that





5 is being installed is expected to be completed here some time





6 in the very near future.





7     Again,  the site has been -- was divided by the Department.





8 You have operable unit number one,  which is the landfill





9 itself, and then operable unit two, which is groundwater at the





10 site, surface water, and sediments that surround the landfill





11 proper. Again, this is just kind of to reiterate some of the





12 things that Bob mentioned.  We've had a variety of





13 investigation and design studies that have gone into the--





14 into  the site, both O-U-1 and O-U-2, two-phase remedial





15 investigation, and F-S, some predesign studies conducted in the





16 years '90 through '92, O-U-1 design which was approved by the





17 State in 1996, and then --  and O-U-2 supplemental sediment





18 sampling program that was initiated in 1996 and was some of the





19 further technical basis for some of the decisions the





20 Department has made regarding planned action.





21     The objective of the remedial investigation that was





22 conducted was to define probable contaminant pathways, to





23 determine the potential for public health, and to generate





24 necessary data to evaluate  remedial alternatives. The





25 feasibility study -- and this is really more for both O-U-1 and





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 2 and dealt with all the -- the media at the site including





2 groundwater,  surface water, sediments,  landfill refuse itself,





3 and then air issues.





4      Okay.  Again,  bearing in mind that O-U-2 includes both





5 groundwater at the site as well as surface water and sediments





6 and the water areas surrounding the landfill,  the site





7 hydrology of that area -- that portion of the subsurface media





8 which -- in which you find groundwater is — is defined or





9 divided into three water bearing zones. The first is what's





10 called a perched zone. In other words, you have something





11 that's fairly hard to penetrate, and you have water that sits





12 on top of it. You can kind of imagine it as being a big bowl





13 or a saucer, and the saucer is filled with a fair amount of the





14 -- the landfill refuse. The perched zone is right in -- in the





15 -- the base of the landfill. Under that further down you have





16 a shallow zone which is not really in direct connection with





17 the perched zone, and then further deep under that is the deep





18 aguifer, and it's separated from the upper two zones by what's





19 called a Woodbridge clay, and it's a very thick, very





20 impermeable layer of clay which in the sense completely





21 isolates the deep aguifer which is used for -- used as a





22 potable water source throughout much of this portion in New





23 Jersey from any of the upper layers. One — one thing about





24 these layers is that again this area is within the landfill





25 itself. Both of these zones are generally under influence of





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 tides and as such,  you know,  tend to be rather brackish.





2 Neither one of them would be considered to be a -- a potable





3 water quality. There is some possible interconnection between





4 the perched zone itself -- perched zone itself and the





5 surrounding surface water bodies.





6     Okay. The groundwater investigation.  The perched zone has





7 elevated concentrations,  organic and inorganic compounds, which





8 again is to be expected noting that it's  within the landfill





9 itself. The shallow zone has some elevated concentrations of





10 organic and inorganic compounds, but again, this particular





11 water bearing zone is not used for potable water sources,  and





12 then the deep potable aguifer is unimpacted.





13     Okay. Now moving into the -- the surface water and





14 sediments that are associated with the -- the three surface





15 water bodies around the landfill — these areas include  Pond





16 Creek, Duck Creek which are -- Pond Creek and Duck Creek which





17 are two small little creeks that feed into the South River





18 which forms the major western border to  the site itself  -- to





19 the landfill. As with many surface water bodies, sediments are





20 generally the media of concern, because  they're the areas that





21 have the greatest potential to impact biological receptors or





22 the bio that may be found in this particular area.





23     During the remedial investigation there were 11 samples





24 from -- of sediment that were taken during phase one. Six





25 samples were collected during phase two. During the predesign





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 Studies ten additional samples and then during the supplement





2 sediment sampling program that was conducted in -- in 1996 we





3 collected ten additional samples,  and surface water samples





4 were also collected throughout all these things,  but again





5 sediments tended to be more the focus,  and again,  this is the





6 landfill, South River, Pond Creek, and Duck Creek, the surface





7 water bodies that are flowing, and it's -- it's hard to see,





8 but there — there are little pink dots that you can hopefully





9 see surrounding the site,  and these are just some of the





10 locations where surface water and sediment samples were





11 collected during the various activities.





12     In addition, one set that's kind of -- was hard to see from





13 this,  but five samples were collected as  far away as a mile





14 further upstream — half a mile -- excuse me -- about half a





15 mile upstream from the site in the South  River itself, so





16 again, a fairly good coverage in terms of areas that are being





17 sampled and evaluated for potential impacts from the landfill.





18     The sediment sampling results. There  were concentrations





19 of organic and inorganic contaminants identified in the





20 vicinity of the landfill, but more importantly,  there were





21 concentrations that were identified both  up -- both upstream





22 areas of South River, Pond Creek, and Duck Creek, as well as





23 some of the downstream areas, so in other words,  if you -- in





24 looking at this -- this particular map, there were





25 concentrations, but in many cases concentrations were higher in





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 upstream areas,  especially in South River,  than they were found





2 immediately in the vicinity of the landfill.





3     Okay.  Again,  as well as upstream/downstream areas,  and





4 essentially,  what the con — in evaluating the distribution fo





5 the constituents  which were found in the sediment samples,  they





6 indicated that the landfill was really not significantly





7 contributing contamination to surface water sediment -- surface





8 water and sediments,  so in other words,  again, we have this





9 perched zone which is groundwater which is found within the





10 landfill itself, so you have the potential for the water coming





11 out from under the landfill, but what was found immediately





12 around the landfill -- actually in the -- in the more open





13 environment that you would find in these particular rivers,  you





14 were not seeing  anything that -- that indicated a significant





15 contribution from the landfill itself.  So now that feeds back





16 to Bob --





17          MR. MARCOLINA: Okay.





18          MR. FARMAN:  — so I'll let him talk a little bit





19 about the preferred alternative.





20          MR. MARCOLINA: Okay. Thank you, Chuck. After





21 reviewing the remedial investigation feasibility studies that





22 the Department did back in  '86 and the supplemental data that





23 Chuck has just discussed with you, the Department in concert





24 with EPA offered up the no further action for groundwater with





25 monitoring and no further action for surface water and





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 sediments.  We came to these conclusions for the following





2 reasons:  (1)  Based on the risk assessment there is no





3 elevated danger to human health in the environment -- no





4 elevated risk; (2) There is no discernable pattern linking any





5 surface water sediment contamination with the landfill.  The





6 reason no — no real pattern could be found is because the





7 South River's tidally influenced,  and basically,  you have a





8 washing back and forth,  and it's very difficult to find where





9 the origin of contamination is, and (B) the landfill's in close





10 proximity to other hazardous -- not hazardous waste sites, but





11 sites identified by the Department as contaminated such as Evor





12 Phillips and C-P-S Madison. Therefore, it's very — it's





13 difficult to associate specific sediment surface water





14 contamination with the landfill site, and please note that the





15 sites identified again are under Department oversight.





16     Again, as Chuck had mentioned, underneath the landfill is a





17 geological unit referred to as a Woodbridge clay in which





18 varies between 25 and 50 feet thick,  and it's pretty -- it's





19 very impermeable, so we feel there's no danger of contamination





20 migrating downward through the clay into the drinking water





21 aquifer, and the only xylene that we found in that aguifer was





22 a cadmium five milligrams per liter,  and the New Jersey





23 groundwater guality criteria for that is four, and the perched





24 zone and shell zone aguifer had had some organic and inorganic





25 contamination as Chuck had mentioned, however, once the cap is





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 installed this will prevent rain infiltrating it through the





2 wastefill and contaminating those aguifers as well,  and at this





3 point I think we'll open the floor for guestions,  and Roman





4 will lead that.





5          MR.  LUZECKY:  If you do have any comments or guestion,





61 — if you can come up to the microphone or if you need to,





7 and state your name and your affiliation so that the





8 transcriber can hear you,  and we'd appreciate that.  I'd like





9 to open up the floor for any guestions.  Yes, sir?





10          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  My name is Julian Capic (phonetic).





11 I'm a member of the environmental commission here in





12 Sayreville,  and I would be concerned about groundwater. Now,





13 you say you have a perched area, and that perched area contains





14 organic and inorganic compounds, and I  would be concerned





15 because you also said that there's an interconnection between





16 the groundwater and the surface water.  Now, the surface water





17 would be the South River, and the South River is — just





18 upstream of South River from the area is a potential for





19 drinking water -- several uses of that  -- so if the perched





20 zone has contaminants, there is a possibility that it would go





21 into the surface water, contaminate the surface water, and





22 place our drinking water in jeopardy.





23          MR. LUZECKY: Correct. That's why the alternative





24 that we're looking -- that we're recommending is monitoring





25 included. Where -- we looked at the cap. We feel that the cap





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 will prevent further migration of contaminants and the





2 spreading of those contaminants from that aguifer, but we also





3 plan to have monitoring wells positioned downstream,  and if





4 contamination is identified,  we would then take a more active





5 approach to groundwater cleanup.





6          AUDIENCE MEMBER: How often would you test that?





7          MR. LUZECKY: Well,  we're looking, at some type of





8 schedule, whether it be guarterly,  four times a year,  or semi-





9 annually, twice a year. We're looking at a schedule like that





10 initially, and then depending on what happens over two or three





11 years of analysis may be reducing to -- reducing that sampling





12 freguency.





13          AUDIENCE MEMBER: How about present ponding in the





14 landfill itself? The shallow area you claim has a large clay





15 barrier which would prevent it from going into the Farrington





16 Sands, but that could also have ponding effect, and how would





17 you -- how would you adjust for ponding?





18          MR. LUZECKY: Are you referring to the surface of the





19 impoundment -- of the landfill?





20          AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, you would ponding right in the





21 landfill itself.





22          MR. LUZECKY: Right.





23          AUDIENCE MEMBER: That liguid has to go somewhere, and





24 if you have --





25          MR. LUZECKY:   Right. Where the —





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  If you have a clay barrier,  you'll





2 have ponding in the clay barrier.





3          MR. LUZECKY:  The landfill is in a process of being





4 regraded and capped.  I don't know if you're referring to the





5 low areas on the landfill surface. Are you referring to that





6 or beneath the surface?





7          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Well,  I'm — I'm referring to the —





8 beneath the surface of the perched area.





9          MR. LUZECKY:  Okay. I'd have to refer that to Chuck.





10 Do you - can you maybe respond to that?





11          MR. HARMAN:  Yes, I'm not sure what he means by





12 ponding, and Bob and I were just trying to talk about that. I





13 mean from one standpoint I mean the whole purpose of the cap is





14 to prevent surface -- rainfall from coming down and moving into





15 the landfill, therefore,  changing -- increasing the amount of





16 water or creating a pond in excess of what's there won't happen





17 again. That's the whole purpose of -- fo the landfill cap.





18 Rainfall comes down,  hits the surface barrier, and then it runs





19 off to the sides. There will always be some tidal action that





20 occurs just because -- because there is some interconnectivity





21 between the South River and the -- and the landfill itself --





22 that perched zone, but I just went through and looked real





23 guick. Most -- there were very few constituents that were --





24 were identified in the -- in either the South River or Pond





25 Creek or Duck Creek during the remedial investigation and





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 predesign studies.  The concentrations of some constituents





2 were found,  but generally,  they were fairly low,  so what that





3 indicates is that there may be some things in the landfill





4 itself,  but they're not --  they're not going out into the —





5 into the South River or the Pond and Duck Creeks, and if they





6 are, they're not at levels  that -- that would be considered to





7 be -- to pose a risk to your human health or the environment.





8          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, we would be concerned of any





9 contaminants going into the South River. We had concerns about





10 at levels which you say we wouldn't worry about. We worry





11 about them, because this is the water that we drink.





12          MR. HARMAN:  No,  I understand. I understand that.





13          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Oh, this clay — the cap. What





14 would that consist of?





15          MR. HARMAN:  What's the --





16          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  What would the cap consist of? What





17 kind of cap are you putting over the landfill?





18          MR. HARMAN:  The current cap design. What is that?





19          MR. MARCOLINA: The current cap design — and Mr.





20 Sullivan, I see you back there. Maybe you can help me out just





21 a little bit -- but that entails clay and impermeable barrier





22 and also some soil with a  vegetative cover. It will be an





23 impermeable barrier as part of the layers of this cap.





24          AUDIENCE MEMBER:  And would -- would this cap be





25 molded?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1           MR.  MARCOLINA: Yes.





2           AUDIENCE MEMBER: It would?





3           MR.  MARCOLINA: Yes.





4           AUDIENCE MEMBER: And it would be impermeable?





5           MR.  MARCOLINA: Yes.





6           MR.  LUZECKY: I believe that it's impermeability of





7  ten to the minus six.





8           MR.  MARCOLINA: Ten to the minus six.





9           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Thank you.





10           MR. LUZECKY: Thank you. Yes, sir?





11           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.





12           MR. LUZECKY: Sure. Go ahead.





13           AUDIENCE MEMBER: There's one more question — one





14 more question that I would like to ask. Are the -- does the





15 DEP look at this landfill as how clean is clean. This is a new





16 way of lookinq at landfills now.





17           KR. LUZECKY: Well, we've excavated all the drums that





18 contain hazardous waste. Presently, as far as we know, the





19 landfill only contains solid waste, so we are cappinq in





20 accordance with solid waste requirements and puttinq an





21 impermeable cap on it, and we're also monitorinq the





22 qroundwater to make sure that it's not impactinq off site, so





23 if you're askinq would we diq up the landfill and remove it,  so





24 that would be impractical.





25           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now, you're sayinq now that it would





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1 typical municipal waste.





2        MR. LUZECKY: Correct.





3        AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Okay.  Thank you.





4        MR. LUZECKY: Yes,  sir?





5        AUDIENCE MEMBER:  My name is Nick Weber.  I'm a





6 taxpayer from Morgan.  In your  initial statement you made a





7 statement that most of this was contributed to by a chemical





8 company in the area?





9        MR. MARCOLINA:  Yeah, the — the whole thing started





10 from an investigation from Vant Chemical,  and I went there --





11        AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Was there anybody else involved in





12 this contamination of this site?





13        MR. LUZECKY: I believe there were a list of





14 responsible parties identified. Nine of them signed an





15 administrative consent order  to do the investigation,  and





16 they're the ones that are paying for this. This is not being





17 paid through tax dollars. The responsible parties are paying





18 for the studies and also for  the capping and the groundwater





19 monitoring.





20        AUDIENCE MEMBER:  All right, so now the area we're





21 talking about -- however many acres it contains -- is





22 originally a landfill -- a dump site for the Borough of





23 Sayreville that became contaminated.





24          MR. LUZECKY: Right.





25          AUDIENCE MEMBER: What about the adjacent property to





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 it now?  You're going to cap the landfill,  but now what about





2 the properties on either side of that? Is that going to be





3 taken into consideration when you do this,  or -- I know when I





4 brought it up at a council meeting,  they said that they were in





5 the process of discussing it with the landowners adjacent to





6 the landfill, and if -- if they had to,  they could do a





7 condemnation proceeding to take this land away from them so it





8 would be incorporated into this.





9          MR. MARCOLINA: Well, I can answer part of that





10 guestion. Just north of Sayreville Landfill -- I think it's





11 north -- Insulcoustic, Cellotex (phonetic)  -- that property is





12 being investigated by the Department under ISRA which was





13 formerly ECRA, so that's regarded as an entirely different





14 site.





15          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now, you have a brick works next to





16 that, too, and Hercules owns part of that property,  too.





17          MR. LUZECKY: Have we taken samples adjacent to the





18          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Landfill itself.





19          MR. LUZECKY: Sayreville Landfill to determine if we





20 contributed off site, and is that included?





21          MR. MARCOLINA: Well, the samples — there would be





22 samples in that remedial investigatiou feasibility study, and





23 that basically gave us the out -- well, we physically knew the





24 outline of the landfill, and the RI/FS would've maybe expanded





25 that a little bit. If the -- if there was contamination on the





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 edge as you say,  then the landfill would've been expanded to





2 that point.





3          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, but you can't expand it if it





4  belongs to somebody else.





5          MR.  LUZECKY: Yes, we can.





6          MR.  MARCOLINA: Yes.





7          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, if you condemn the property.





8          MR.  LUZECKY: Well, this is a superfund site. A





9 superfund site doesn't have limits -- a lot and block limit.





10 It's the extent of the contamination.





11          AUDIENCE MEMBER: All right. Now, the cap you're





12 talking about putting on top of the landfill.





13          MR. MARCOLINA: It's going to be finished the end of





14 November.





15          AUDIENCE MEMBER: All right, so now this landfill was





16 stable to the capping. Right?





17          MR. MARCOLINA: Well, we had some --





18          AUDIENCE MEMBER: More or less?





19          MR. MARCOLINA: More or less, but we had some problems





20 with erosion from rainfall, and that was exposing some of the





21 landfill which made us put in a new cap to begin with.





22          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now, once you start in on the area,





23 and you bring eguipment in there and start moving the landfill





24 products around, you're disturbing it. Now you're causing more





25 contamination? Yes or no?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1        MR. MARCOLINA:  No.





2        AUDIENCE MEMBER: No?





3        MR. MARCOLINA:  No, we don't think so,  because we're





4 actually bringing everything together,  mounding it, adding a





5 much better cap to the site --





6        AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah,  but this is a solid floor. If





7 I bring a bulldozer in here and scrape up this floor, I'm





8 creating dust.  Now, I  disturbed the area that's been stable.





9        MR. KAPLAN: They're not disturbing the bottom of the





10 landfill. They're just working on the top.





11        AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm not talking about the bottom of





12 the landfill the bottom of the landfill I'm going to get to





13 in another guestion.





14        MR. LUZECKY: Well, I don't have the details of the





15 methods of construction, however, as they approach the





16 landfill, they could  be placing the cover material in front of





17 the bulldozers as they're moving forward limiting or minimizing





18 the --  the disturbance to the existing cap.





19        AUDIENCE MEMBER: And the cap you're putting on the





20 landfill, to what depth is the cap.





21        MR. LUZECKY:  Do you have the cap design details?





22        MR. MARCOLINA: Well, I have the reports with me, but





23 I could certainly make them available to you.





24        AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, I mean from ground level how far





25 down will you be capping?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1           MR.  MARCOLINA:  I don't know the exact elevations.





2           MR.  KAPLAN:  They're not going down.  They're going





3 up.





4           MR.  MARCOLINA:  They're going up.





5           AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know.





6           MR.  KAPLAN:  It's covering the top.





7           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, here's the landfill, and





8  you're capping on top of that,  so I'm saying from the -- where





9 you finish your cap to the landfill itself.





10           MR. LUZECKY:  Well, there's going to be a clay layer.





11           MR. HARCOLINA: There's going to be a clay layer —





12           MR. LUZECKY:   And permeable liner and a soil cover.





13           AUDIENCE MEMBER: What is the liner?





14           MR. MARCOLINA: It'd be a L-D-P-E,  low density





15 polyethylene. There'd be a --





16           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is that a rubber-based liner that





17 they're using in the landfills out west?





18           MR. MARCOLINA: It's a standard — standard material





19 that they use in landfills.





20           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Wello,  because I — the reason I'm





21 asking is because I just got through reading articles on these





22 landfills out west where they propose landfills, and they went





23 in there. They brought pans in there. They scraped the area.





24 They put a clay base down. They put the liners in there which





25 was a -- a plastic and a rubber-based liner in there, and they





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 found out after ten-years — only ten years that the liners





2 were leaking and it was contaminating the area.





3          MR. KAPLAN: That's completely different from this





4 Site. We're not putting anything on the bottom.  There's





5 already 50 feet of clay there.  This is just on the top. It's





6 not going to be covered by anything.  They can see if it's





7 being eroded,  or they can repair it.





8          AUDIENCE MEMBER: No,  but what I'm saying is in the





9 future --





10          MR.  KAPLAN: The only purpose of this is to prevent





11 rainwater from getting into it.





12          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right.





13          MR.  KAPLAN: It's not going to be millions of tons of





14 garbage sitting on top of it.  There's going to be some grass,





15 so it's going to be very hard to destroy this --





   AUDIENCE MEMBER: But what I'm concerned about is —





17          MR.  KAPLAN: -- similar to what you're talking about,





18 which is definitely a possibility with a bottom liner.





19          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right.





20          MR.  KAPLAN: This is  a top cap, not a bottom liner,





21 and that 	 that's why when  they do the bottom liners,  they





22 make them double with leak detection systems and leachate





23 collections.  None of that is  needed here, because all we're





24 doing is letting rainwater hit the top and roll off the sides.





25 That's all this is for.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1           AUDIENCE MEMBER:  But although it has a clay base --





2           MR.  KAPLAN:  It's  got a 50 foot impermeable —





3           AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I don't care if it's 100 foot clay





4 base	





5           MR.  KAPLAN:  Well  —





6           AUDIENCE MEMER:   — water will find its own route





7 even in clay,  and once that route is established --





8            MR. KAPLAN: You're —





9            AUDIENCE MEMBER: — it will continually use that





10 route.





11           MR. KAPLAN: Okay,  but here's the case. This





12 landfill's been here since 1970 or -- so it's been there for 30





13 years without any cap on it at all, and the Farrington aguifer





14 underneath has never been contaminated. We're improving what's





15 there by 1,000 percent by put an impermeable cap on on top





lo which will mean the chances of anything getting down into the





17 Farrington are even more remote, and nothing's happened in 30





18 years without any cap. We're putting a cap on --





19           AUDIENCE MEMBER: But we don't know that.





20           MR. KAPLAN: Of course, we know.  We have wells





21 installed in the Farrington --





22           MR. MARCOLINA: We have wells, and we're doing





23 monitoring.





24           MR. KAPLAN: — that we're sampling





25           MR. MARCOLINA: And we're also





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1          MR.  KAPLAN:   — and they're clean.





2          MR.  MARCOLINA: -- going to be doing monitoring for





3 the next well --





4          MR.  KAPLAN:  Five years.





5          MR.  MARCOLINA: — for the next five years and another





6 five-year review could be for another five years depending





7 on --





8          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now why I'm bringing about is the





9 elevation of your —  your cap to the landfill itself is say in





10 future years down the road the Borough of Sayreville decides





11 we're going to take  this land, and we're going to develop this





12 into a park or something else like that.





13          MR. MARCOLINA: Right.





14          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Now, they bring eguipment in and





15 start grading it and -- and --





16          MR. KAPLAN: They can't do that. There has to be a





17 design that would not interfere with the cap.





Is          MR. MARCOLINA: No, it's a —





19          AUDIENCE MEMBER: It has to be above that cap.





20          MR. KAPLAN: Right.





21          MR. MARCOLINA: It's a complete deed restriction and -





22 -





23          AUDIENCE MEMBER:Well, this is why I'm saying what is





24 the —





25          MR. KAPLAN: They can't do anything. You can't —





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1           AUDIENCE MEMBER: — the distance between --





2           MR. LUZECKY: It'll probably be an average of two feet





3 above the existing --





4           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Two feet is nothing.





5           MR. LUZECKY: Well, if you have an impermeable cap and





6 a liner,  it's sufficient to not allow water to go through it.





7 Now,  if you want to put a difference use on it for recreation





8 purposes or whatever, then you'd have to meet a design that





9 would be protective in your future development.





10          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, what you're telling me is now





11 your cap is going to be two feet below the ground level?





12          MR. KAPLAN: No. No. Above.





13          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Above.





14          MR. KAPLAN: Adding to the top.





15          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, from ground level to the





16 landfill it's going to be two feet.





17          MR. KAPLAN: No. No. No. On top of the landfill.





18          AUDIENCE MEMBER. Yeah.





19          MR. KAPLAN: Right.





20          MR. MARCOLINA: On top of the landfill. We're adding





21 the cap on top of the landfill.





22          MR. KAPLAN: It's got nothing to do with grounds.





23          AUDIENCE MEMBER: You're going to add two feet on top





24 of the -- on top of the cap.





25          MR. KAPLAN: Right.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBER, INC.

-------
1           MR.  MARCOLINA: Right.





2           AUDIENCE MEMBER: But now if they come in there, and





3 they're going to do something, and they dig down three feet --





4           MR.  KAPLAN:  They can't.





5           AUDIENCE MEMBER: — they — they penetrated your —





6           MR.  MARCOLINA: No,  the site's going to be deed





7 restricted right now.





8           MR.  KAPLAN:  They can't do that.





9           MR.  MARCOLINA: — and if they want to develop it,





10 that's going to have to go through a very specific





11          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can't do what?





12          MR.  KAPLAN:  They do anything. Once the cap is there,





13 they can't do anything.





14          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are you going to be there the day





15 they bring a bulldozer in there -- every single day?





16          MR.  KAPLAN:  No,  of course, not.





17          AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. No. No. No. I've got 40





18 years in this business.





19          MR.  LUZECKY: Any other guestions or comments? Yes,





2 0 ma'am?





21          AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have one, but I want to say it





22 from here.





23          MR.  LUZECKY: Okay.





24          AUDIENCE MEMBER: Nellie Malet. I'd like to know what





25 the time span's going to be between now and when you can build





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1 something in that area.





2           MR.  LUZECKY:  Well,  the cap is supposed to be





3 completed by the end of the November. If you have a proposal





4 for doing something, you can bring that to us in December





5 provided that it's protective,  and you're not going to





6 compromise the existing cap, we may entertain some type of





7 improvement right after that.





8          AUDIENCE MEMBER: You're saying that you can build —





9 after December you can build in that area?





10           MR. LUZECKY: I didn't say you can build. I said you





11 do some other use for it. You're not going to put homes on it,





12 but if you want to use it for a golf course or some





13 recreational use, and you're not going to compromise the cap,





14 you may be able to do that.





15           AUDIENCE MEMBER: After this year?





16           MR. LUZECKY: Right.





17           MR. MARCOLINA: Yes.





18           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.





19           MR. MARCOLINA: If I could just follow up on that





20 note. I have your name and address, because I saw it.





21           AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, but I've got your bicycle.





22 That's true.  I'm Bob McGough,  and I'm the attorney for the





23 Borough. Just to follow up on that, the Borough has, in fact,





24 consistently got on record to the extent that we are looking to





25 have some future use for the property whether it's some kind of





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  recreational activity or a non-intrusive commercial use. We





2  understand that it will be subject to satisfying the deed that





3  we won't disturb the cap and so forth, but we have gone on





4  record with DEP that that's what we will be seeking, and we do





5  intend to follow up on that and send letter in the comment





6  period that we're going to continue that to pursue.





7       MR. LUZECKY: Okay.





8       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Thank you.





9       MR. LUZECKY: Yes, ma'am?





10       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Can I do it from here?





11       MR. LUZECKY: Sure.





12       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Rosalyn McBride.





13       TRANSCRIBER: Just keep your voice up.





14       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Rosalyn McBride. I'm a member of





15  the Middlesex County Environmental Coalition. In both the





16  groundwater and surface water, could you tell us what types of





17  contaminants have been found and at what levels?





18       MR. KAPLAN: I've got that right here. In the





19  landfill itself in the leachate in the last round which was





20  done in '93 by McLaren Hart benzine was found. That was the





21  only organic, and four metals, antimony, cadmium, chromium, and





22  nickel, and I can give you the maximum levels if you want. The





23  max --





24       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will you provide me with a list of





25  it?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1       MR. KAPLAN: Well,  it's in this report. You can —





2  this is probably on file someplace.





3       MR. LUZECKY: This is in the library. There's a list





4  of the repositories on your fact sheet.





5       MR. KAPLAN: That's here I got this — this data from.





6  That would be in the -- in the landfill, and then the -- the





7  natural material right underneath it there's also some benzine.





8  This is in the pleistocene aguifer which is right above the





9  Woodbridge clay. There is some benzine, and there also is some





10  metals -- about six different metals -- arsenic, cadmium,





11  chromium, lead, mercury, antimony,,  and nickel, and then in the





12  Farrington aguifer, below that there was absolutely nothing.





13  Bob discussed that there was some cadmium found, and he said it





14  was in the Farrington aguifer, but that was found in a well





15  that was installed --





16       MR. MARCOLINA: No, the deep --





17       MR. KAPLAN: Right, in the deep, but it wasn't in the





18  deep aguifer.





19       MR. MARCOLINA: Oh, it wasn't?





20       MR. KAPLAN: That was from the sands in the Woodbridge





21  clay above the aguifer, so there were no contaminants at all





22  found in the two wells that were installed on the landfill in





23  the Farrington sands,  so that's —





24       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  How many wells do you have there?





25  Just two?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1       MR.  KAPLAN:  In the Farrington Sand there are two.





2  There are about 25 wells. Well,  there were before they started





3  constructing the cap.  Some of them have been destroyed,  but





4  there were 25 wells,  and when we're all done, there will be --





5  we'll be sampling from ten wells and the different water





6  bearing zones for the next five years to make sure that no





7  contamination is getting into the ground.





8       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  When you talked about the geology of





9  the site, you talked about two -- there are two water bodies --





10  two shallow aguifers and then the clay and then the Farrington





11  Sands, there was no mention of the Old Bridge Sands.





12       MR. KAPLAN: That's not there. It doesn't exist.





13       AUDIENCE MEMER:  It's not?





14       MR. KAPLAN: No.





15       AUDIENCE MEMBER: You haven't found that there?





16       MR. KAPLAN: No.





17       AUDIENCE MEMBER: And what are the --





18       MR. KAPLAN: That would be above the Woodbridge clay,





19  and everything above the Woodbridge clay is a pleistocene





20  sediment. It's not really an aguifer. As Chuck said, it's





21  very brackish, and it's not drinkable. It has too much salt in





22  it.





23       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I find it strange --





24       MR. KAPLAN: The only --





25       AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- that there's no Old Bridge there.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1       MR. KAPLAN: Well --





2       AUDIENCE MEMBER: We have wells in the Old Bridge





3  sands not far from here.





4       MR. KAPLAN: Well, that — the Old Bridge exists not





5  -- not within a mile of this site, but there's no Old Bridge





6  here.  That's -- it was eroded away before this -- you know,





7  maybe a million years ago -- ten million years ago.





8       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. You also talked about the —





9  the contamination in the river, but let me go back a little





10  bit. You took sediment samples, also?





11       MR. HARMAN:  Correct, yes.





12       AUDIENCE MEMBER: And what was found there?





13       MR. K:   Do you have a list of —





14       MR. HARMAN: There were sediments that were both





15  inorganic and organic constituents. The organics were -- let





16  me see what we have. Organics -- acetone, a couple of hits of





17  —  one small hit of benzine.





18       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  What's a small hit?





19       MR. HARMAN: Five parts per billion.





20       AUDIENCE MEMBER: And acceptable levels of that would





21  be?





22       MR. HARMAN:  In sediments there are no —





23       AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know that --





24       MR. HARMAN:  -- criteria.





25       AUDIENCE MEMBER: — you only use drinking water





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  criteria but --





2       MR. HARMAN: No,  not for sediments. Sediments have





3  their own guidelines. There are no actual regulatory criteria





4  for evaluating sediments. You have to go through a variety of





5  steps to evaluate whether the constituents there are considered





6  to really be of an ecological risk,  and most them -- in fact,





7  in the guidelines themselves there are very few guidelines for





8  organics. Most of the guidelines are for the inorganics.





9  There are some pesticides that were identified there -- D-D-E,





10  D-D-D which are breakdown products of D-D-T,  a couple of other





11  intasulfen (phonetic)  and dieldrin, again just pesticides. In





12  the organic -- inorganic constituents, aluminum, iron,





13  magnesium,  zinc — not real high levels of those -- some





14  chromium, copper in a couple places. Again, most of those





15  generally were not above guidelines that have been published by





16  Noah and, some of the other regulatory agencies. Again, this





17  whole document is on file, you know, if you'd like to review





18  it.





19       AUDIENCE MEMBER:   Okay. I know I've read in your fact





20  sheet that there's no action regarding the surface water and





21  the sediment, and the fact that similar levels of contamination





22  were found both upstream and downstream from the site. Has the





23  Department considered taking any action to do any cleanup or





24  investigation to find out what all the sources of contamination





25  are along that route?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1        MR. LUZECKY: Well, we have identified some other





2  sites that are part of that drainage basin. They are under





3  Department oversight. I think Bob mentioned a couple of --





4        AUDIENCE MEMBER: He talked about Evor Phillips and C-





5  P-S Madison.





6        MR. LUZECKY: Right. I'm sure there's a —





7        AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are several sites that are on





8  that roadway --





9        MR. MARCOLINA: Right.





10       AUDIENCE MEMBER: — that are on your known and





11  suspected list.





12       MR. LUZECKY: Right, and I can provide you with that





13  list of all the sites that we know. If there's additional ones





14  that you're familiar with that you can get back to us with,





15  I could also let you know --





16       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, I'm familiar with your list,





17  so I know what --





18       MR. LUZECKY: Okay.





19       AUDIENCE MEMBER: — what's out there. Has any been





20  — any action been taken at any of those other suspected sites?





21       MR. LUZECKY: I don't have the exact list to tell you





22  exactly which ones.





23       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, Viking Terminal is one of them





24  that's on your list.





25       MR. LUZECKY: Which one?





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Viking.





2       MR.  LUZECKY: That site has been -- all the





3  contaminants have been excavated at that site. There are some





4  residual  contaminants  in the groundwater on that site,  but





5  they're not contributing to the surface water based on the





6  studies that we did in the past.





7       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  And I think Sayreville Lake is





8  listed on your list,  or it was the last time I saw your list.





9       MR.  LUZECKY: That one I'm not familiar with, but I'll





10  get back to you. In fact, I'll respond with that providing you





11  the list that we have, what kind of an oversight document, or





12  who's handling that site, and if you have any additional ones





13  that we've missed --





14       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, we did have a most current





15  list —





16       MR. LUZECKY: Okay.





17       AUDIENCE MEMBER: — of — of sites. You did mention





18  Evor Phillips and C-P-S Madison as being a contributor. If





19  they're  not adjacent  to the waterway,  I know that they're





20  having an impact on groundwater, and you feel that they are --





21  they're  having impact on the river through the groundwater? Is





22  that —





23       MR. MARCOLINA: Well, we're just saying -- we were





24  just using that as an example for potential of contamination.





25  The point being is that we couldn't find -- we couldn't





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS,  INC.

-------
1  associate a specific contaminant with a specific site,  because





2  there's no pattern.  As you said, we had sediment at some





3  levels upgrading from the landfill and downgrading from the





4  landfill,  and coupled with the fact that Sayreville Landfill is





5  tidally influenced,  we really couldn't make any direct link,





6  and so what we're saying is we can't make the direct link





7  because of (A)  it's  tidally influenced, and (B)  the proximity





8  of other known contaminated sites. Those two may not have





9  specifically done,  but I just used those examples because they





10  were close to Sayreville Landfill.





11       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let me ask you — let me ask you





12  I've been to many hearings on many different sites, and you





13  look familiar to me,  because I've been to Kinbuck, and it just





14  appears that no matter what site the Department is looking at





15  especially in this  area, they always include that the specific





16  site -- because you're looking with -- with tunnel vision at





17  the one site -- that site cannot -- they cannot determine that





18  that site is the contributor or it's just one of many. You





19  can't attribute it  here, and you can't attribute it there. You





20  can't attribute to  the site downstream or upstream, but





21  obviously, somebody's contributing to the contamination in the





22  river, and to say to me, "Well, we're looking at other sites,"





23  but I'm sure when you look at those sites you're saying to





24  someone at one of those hearings, "This site, you know, cannot





25  — this site's contamination cannot be attributed -- attributed





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  to the river."





2       MR.  LUZECKY: Well,  we're --





3       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  So you know,  can't there be any





4  regional  approach that the Department takes --





5       MR.  LUZECKY: Yes, there can be.  We're taking each





6  site on an individual  basis and trying to control the source





7  areas, and eventually  as funds and resources allow,  we'll look





8  at it at  a regional basis, and when we have sufficient funds





9  and if the impact is severe enough, I'm certain we're going to





10  do something about it.





11       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is there an ongoing monitoring





12  Program for the rivers  in the state? For rivers. You know, an





13  ongoing  thing where samples are continually being taken?





14       MR. LUZECKY: I'm not certain of that I'm not





15  familiar with a program like that.





16       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Only because I know that the





17  waterways here have been condemned for fishing.





18       MR. LUZECKY: Right. We do do an analysis of all the





19  waterways in the state  every three years. I'm not sure what





20  the sampling schedule is. They do get reclassified. I could





21  find out for you and  get back to you on that.





22       AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'd appreciate it. Thank you.





23       MR. LUZECKY: Yes,  sir?





24       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is there any slopes in this here





25  property, because I remember the dumps that always had a --





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  going down in the -- into the -- from a high spot to a low





2  spot, so I imagine that on the end there must be a slope.





3       MR. LUZECKY: The landfill is going to be regraded and





4  capped.





5       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah,  on the top part, but are you





6  going to put a retaining wall on the slopes --





7       MR. LUZECKY: No, it's going to be —





8       AUDIENCE MEMBER: — to catch their leachate?





9       MR. LUZECKY: It's — it's going to be graded. Okay?





10       AUDIENCE MEMBER: What I was going to ask is the —





11  the garbage produces methane gas. Is there a decibel or any





12  type of reading as to the amount of methane gas coming off of





13  that right now that's going to affect the environment or the





14  people in the area?





15       MR. MARCOLINA: We're going to have a — as typical





16  landfill constructioning, we'll have a methane gas ventilation





17  system installed on that site.





18       AUDIENCE MEMBER: But there's nothing there right now?





19       MR. MARCOLINA: No, there isn't any —





20       MR. LUZECKY: But the cap's not constructed.





21       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, I'm not — I'm not worried





22  about the cap. I'm saying monitoring the methane gas coming





23  off it right now. The landfill in Staten Island is not capped





24  off yet, but they have methane monitoring units there.





25       MR. MARCOLINA: And we also did a — as Chuck has just





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  pointed out to me,  during some of the predesign studies, of





2  course, we did a soil gas survey on that site, and we found





3  little or negligible amount of methane gas. We did a -- and





4  those results are in the repository.





5       MR. LUZECKY:  Yes,  sir?





6       AUDIENCE MEMBER: I  very recently read of the new EPA





7  study which indicated that the Raritan River, Sandy Hook area,





8  watersheds -- those areas are contaminated, and they're





9  becoming more contaminated, and according to the EPA this is





10  something that we have  to keep our eye on and start addressing.





11  The thing that they said that we have to address is urban





12  runoff. When somebody asks a guestion how soon could we





13  develop this site, one  of the first things that you said was,





14  "We could use this for  recreation, and you could probably build





15  a golf course." Now, would a golf course be feasible with the





16  South River which runs  into the Raritan River, and the Raritan





17  River runs into Sandy Hook -- would a golf course and the





18  runoff from-all that fertilizer be a feasible development for





19  this site?





20       MR. LUZECKY:  I'm certain that certain constraints can





21  be placed to limit the  amount of fertilizer entering the South





22  River, but not knowing  the specifics of your golf course, I





23  can't answer that guestion.





24       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Just the idea of putting a golf





25  course there, and just  the idea of urban runoff which is





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  contaminating our rivers is something that we don't want a site





2  like this to be used for.





3       MR. LUZECKY: But I'm not proposing a golf course. I





4  used that as an example.





5       AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know, and it was a poor example in





6  my opinion.





7       MR. LUZECKY: I don't golf. I have no comment. Yes,





8  sir?





9       AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Paul Tametto (phonetic)





10  with Congressman Pallone's office.  I think you said that





11  there's going to be continued monitoring.





12       MR. LUZECKY: Yes.





13       MR. MARCOLINA: Yes.





14       MR. LUZECKY: We're going to start guarterly initial





15  and possibly reduce that depending on the results.





16       MR. MARCOLINA: That's a superfund reguirement, and





17  then we look at that after a five-year period,  and then we





18  reevaluate it at that time.





19       AUDIENCE MEMBER: So is  there any schedule at this





20  point when those -- when it  will be monitored?





21       MR. MARCOLINA: Well, we — we're going to — once —





22  once the landfill cap is constructed then we'll begin the





23  scheduling.





24       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.





25       MR. LUZECKY: No, strike that.  I think it's going to





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  be semi-annually initially.  Yes,  ma'am?





2       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Eloise Hanson from the Environmental





3  Commission.  I have a couple of old questions,  because it goes





4  back so far.  When this was put on the N-P-L list,  was it





5  considered one of the first to get on the N-P-L list? I'm





6  wondering how -- what I'm wondering about is the comparison





7  between how much action is being taken, how much money gets to





8  be spent, compared to say something that came on the list 50





9  other sites after us,  because people wonder are you going to do





10  the most for us, or are we at the end when the money's running





11  out? That kind of -- that's what I want to know.





12       MR. LUZECKY: Well, the money being used for the site





13  is not public monies. It's responsible party money, so the





14  remedy isn't selected based on cost. That is one of the





15  evaluating criteria,  but it's not a major criteria. I think we





16  list the major criteria on our fact sheet, and I don't remember





17  them all off the top of my head, but there are nine criteria





18  that we use, and they include meeting certain standards,





19  protecting human health, and also being protective of the





20  environment, so we if we meet those criteria, cost becomes a





21  secondary factor in it, but are we getting a less protective





22  remedy here? I don't think so to answer the guestion.





23       AUDIENCE MEMBER: How soon were we on the N-P-L list?





24  How soon was it recognized as a — as a site?





25       MR. LUZECKY: I think in 19 eight --





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1       MR. MARCOLINA:  Nineteen eighty-three.





2       MR. LUZECKY: Nineteen eighty-three.





3       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sooner than most sites in New





4  Jersey?





5       MR. KAPLAN: Well,  that's about when the N-P-L





6  started, so it's one of the first --





7       MR. LUZECKY:  Well,  1976.





8       MR. KAPLAN: Yeah,  nothing was really listed a little





9  later.





10       MR. LUZECKY:  Right.





11       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Okay. Now, at the time,  because





12  there were a number of responsible parties and say a decade ago





13  there was a lot of discussion about Sayreville, of course,





14  being part of responsibility, okay, so of the seven is





15  Sayreville still one of the seven responsible parties are these





16  the outside dumpers that are the responsible --





17       MR. MARCOLINA: No,  Borough of Sayreville is included





18  in that seven.





19       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  And what's our percentage of freight





20  for this?





21       MR. MARCOLINA: I  think close to — around 50 percent





22  I believe.





23       AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Is that much? Because of what we





24  accepted?





25       MR. MARCOLINA:   Is -- that Sayreville's contributed 50





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1  percent to the overall cost of the project,  I believe that's





2  close figure.  I'm not one really qualified.  I mean we don't





3  care the percentage of who contributed. Just as long as the





4  project is paid for but --





5       MR. LUZECKY: I think that agreement was reached





6  between the parties -- the responsible parties. They came up





7  with the distribution of costs among themselves.





8       MR. MARCOLINA: But that's the approximate figure that





9  I have heard through various conversations.





10       AUDIENCE MEMBER: And of the 50 percent what





11  percentage of that was spent on studying how much more money is





12  Sayreville expected to spend for our portion of the cleanup?





13       MR. MARCOLINA: That I don't know, ma'am. I mean the





14  cleanup is just about complete. It'll be done by the end of





15  this month. What's, left to do now is just the monitor -- costs





16  of monitonring.





17       AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's just — it's just hard to keep





18  following newspaper articles fora couple fo decades, you know,





19  so you have to reask all those guestions. Okay. I had a





20  question, about the -- the L-D-P-E layer. Now this is, of





21  course, completely different than the geotextile layer that is





22  on our asbestos site. This is more like the liner kind of





23  material that would be say in the new phase of Edgeboro or --





24       MR. LUZECKY: Correct.





25       MR. MARCOLINA: Right.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
1       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Like that. Can I go there





2  and watch if I want to,  or should I be protected or let





3 somebody know if I wanted to go take a look?





4       MR. LUZECKY: You can go watch, but I suggest you





5  contact Bob so he can go with you and drive you around in a





6  Jeep so you don't' have to --





7       AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, I'm just — I'm worried — I





8  will worry about airborne particles,  of course. That's what





9  I'm worried about.





10       MR. LUZECKY: Bob goes there unprotected all the time.





11       AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. Yes, I remember going there





12  as a child unprotected, also, on a motorcycle, so okay.





13       MR. LUZECKY: We won't go there.





14       MR. MARCOLIKA: Well, I'm — I'm just thinking about





15  OSHA reguirements for --





16       AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's what I'm. curious about. Is





17  there -- is there some --





18       MR. LUZECKY: During the construction activities.





19       MR. MARCOLINA: During the — right, but I think





20  there's — I'm sure there's a vantage point from the other side





21  of the river where we can look.





22       MR. LUZECKY: But,  also there -- there has to be a





23  construction trailer, a clean zone,  an area where you can go,





24  and I'm sure we can eguip you with a hard hat, boots, and a





25  coat.





J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.

-------
-------
1 whatever you excavated out of there came out of here?

2 MR. LUZECKY: Well, how many drums? How many

3 truckloads of -- right. There wasn't any soil. There wasn't

4 -- no soil left the site. Everything was kind of pulled

5 together and then capped.

6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And how many did you take out?

7 MR. LUZECKY: The drums.

8 MR. MARCOLINA: How many — I think it was around 22

9 -- something like that. Somewhere around 22 drums.

10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's it?

11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Twenty-two drums or 22 truckloads?

12 MR. MARCOLINA: No, 22 drums.

13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You didn't dig a very big area did

14 you?

15 MR. MARCOLINA: The drum that were removed were ones

16 that had been previously identified which drove this whole

17 cleanup. There was no effort to try to -- as you were talking

18 before, the effort here was not to disturb things in place

19 that were not known to be dangerous, but rather to only remove

20 those items that had already been discovered or which were

21 discovered in the process of trying to remove the ones that

22 were known, and that's all that occurred.

23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: One guestion. When you take your

24 water samples, now do the other — all the other landfills all

25 still flow into this same river. That's a fast moving river.

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-------
1 You've got Edgeboro, you've got Kinbuck, and all these other

2 facilities around that are contaminating the water. Is there

3 any specific way that you're telling or monitoring what's on

4 that landfill itself, or is this just a average of what's

5 flowing down that river?

6 MR. LUZECKY: No, these wells that we have are on the

7 site or adjacent to it.

8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And they're not affected by the

9 tidal flow?

10 MR. LUZECKY: They are affected by the tidal flow

11 but —

12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: So in other words, anything coming

13 out of Edgeboro or coming up the river from Kinbuck were still

14 there from on site wells?

15 MR. KAPLAN: They're all on the Raritan River. This

16 is on the South River, so they're downstream from this.

17 Anything from Kinbuck or Edgeboro would not affect the water

18 near the Sayreville Landfill.

19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why not?

20 MR. KAPLAN: Because they're in a different river.

21 They're next to — they're on the Raritan River. This is the

22 South River.

23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: They're hooked together though.

24 MR. KAPLAN: They come together downstream from the

25 Sayreville River. Contaminants from Edgeboro and Kinbuck can't

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-------
1 go up river to affect the Sayreville site. Everything's going

2 down.

3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's a tidal river. Why couldn't it

4 do that?

5 MR. KAPLAN: Tidal doesn't mean it's going to go.

6 That stuff is going down the river towards Raritan Bay.

7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.

8 MR. KAPLAN: All right.

9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: What about when it's coming in?

10 Where is it going?

11 MR. KAPLAN: It's not coming up to Sayreville.

12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tide of the river is two knots. The

13 tide take six hours. It's only two miles up to the center of

14 Manville by my calculations.

15 MR. LUZECKY: Well, it's possible that there may be

16 sediment deposition by this landfill, but I don't think it's

17 affecting the well sampling from the Sayreville Landfill which

18 was your guestion.

19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, this is what I'm saying. Is —

20 is whatever is coming off these other sites --

21 MR. LUZECKY: Right.

22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Not through the Edgeboro or

23 Kinbuck —

24 MR. LUZECKY: The sediment may be depositing near the

25 Sayreville Landfill. That's correct, but you --

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-------
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: And we're getting a reading from

2 them, also.

3 MR. LUZECKY: But you were asking about the

4 groundwater wells, and we were trying to respond to that that

5 the sediment or the contaminants from the surface water that

6 Edgeboro contributes to or Kinbuck contributes will not affect

7 the wells on Sayreville, but we're not saying that the

8 sediments would not redeposit there.

9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: So we're not really get a true,

10 accurate reading then.

11 MR. LUZECKY: Well, that was the problem with the

12 sediment. That's why we can't say, "Yes, this is all

13 Sayreville sediment contamination." That's not the case. We

14 can't say that.

15 MR. MARCOLINA: No.

16 MR. LUZECKY: Yes? Any other guestions?

17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is another comparison. How

18 long was Global in operation before it was closed? Before the

19 face fell down?

20 MR. LUZECKY: I don't —

21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm going to try to get some kind of

22 sense of proportion --

23 MR. LUZECKY: Right. That one was --

24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: About 25 years.

25 MR. LUZECKY: Right.

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-------
1 MR. MARCOLINA: Mr. Sills was the Attorney General at

2 the time, so he can figure out all those years.

3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, you can't do it by how many

4 stories --

5 MR. MARCOLINA: Seventy-one and '11.

6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I believe it was before '11.

1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, it was a community dump.

8 Right? How long was it a community dump in that area?

9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, everybody dumped there.

10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sorry. I don't want to get off

11 the subject.

12 MR. LUZECKY: That's okay. Any other comments or

13 questions?

14 (No verbal response given.)

15 MR. LUZECKY: On closing I'd like to reiterate that

16 this meeting is part of the ongoing Community Relations

17 Outreach Program. We do have a strong commitment for two-way

18 communication with you, and if you have not done so, please

19 complete our meeting evaluation form, and sign our attendance

20 sheet so we can include you in future mailings regarding this

21 site. After all the comments are received during the public

22 comment period, and all the comments have been considered, DEP

23 and EPA will select an alternative. This selected remedy will

24 be presented in a record of decision. Copies of this record of

25 decision will be available in the same repositories listed on

J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-------
1 the fact sheet, and that's the Sayreville Library. An

2 announcement of the decision will be sent to everyone that is

3 on the mailing list, and if all goes according to plan, the

4 next time you'll hear from us is when you receive the record of

5 decision, and we start to initiate the listing of the site, and

6 that probably will be in about five years from now.

7 I do want to emphasize that your guestions and comments are

8 welcome throughout the remedial action process, and please

9 direct them to Heather Schwartz, Community Relations

10 Coordinator, and her telephone number is listed on the fact

11 sheet, and thank you all for-coming tonight.

]_2 *****

13 CERTIFICATION

15 I, Patricia C. Repko, certify that the foregoing is a

16 correct transcript to the best of my ability, from the

17 electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above

18 entitled matter.

-------

November 13, 1997

VIA FEDERAL, EXPRESS

Heather Swartz, Community Relations Coordinator
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Community Relations
Sixth Floor
West Wing
401 East State Street
CN-028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

RE: Sayreville Landfill III, Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey

Dear Ms. Swartz:

Please be advised that this Firm serves as Special Counsel to the Borough of Sayreville ("the Borough" or
"Sayreville"], owner of Sayreville Landfill III (the "Site"). The following is submitted in response to the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's (the "Department"] solicitation of written comments,
dated October 15, 1997, regarding the Department's recommended "No Further Action with Monitoring" remedy for
groundwater, and "No Further Action" remedy for the off-site surface water and sediments proximate to the
Sayreville Landfill site (the "Public Notice").

While the Borough fully concurs with the Department's conclusion that "No Further Action" regarding ground
and surface waters is appropriate, this comment is submitted to reiterate the Borough's long-standing
position that, upon completion of the remediation and following a suitable time thereafter for appropriate
environmental testing, it is the Borough's intent to redevelop the Site for recreational and/or commercial
purposes in such a manner that does not jeopardize the integrity of the impermeable cap. The Public Notice
does not recognize Sayreville's intention to transform the Site into a useful property. Rather, there is
ambiguous language contained within the Public Notice which could be construed to limit the Borough's ability
to redevelop the Site, following implementation of the approved remedy. In particular, the Public Notice
states:

As mentioned earlier, once the [L]andfill is capped, any risks from soil contamination would be
eliminated. Once the cap is in place environmental use restrictions will be put on the site to
prevent intrusive activities. [Emphasis supplied] [Recommendation at p. 5, column 2]

Furthermore, in a bullet point section of the Public Notice, entitle "Recommended Remedy", a provision sets
forth that:

A Declaration of Environmental Restriction ["DER"] will be put in place in order to prevent any future
activities that would potentially disturb the [L]andfill cap. [Emphasis supplied] [Recommendation at
p. 6]

Again, the Borough submits this comment to ensure that the Department understands that it is the Borough's
intention to ultimately develop Landfill III into a useful property. Indeed, the Borough is in the process of
finalizing amendments to the Department's standard form of DER, for the Department's consideration, which
would allow Sayreville to redevelop the Site for recreational and/or commercial purposes. This amended DER is
intended to be consistent with the Borough's historical position regarding Landfill III and Sayreville's
understanding of the Department's previous tacit approval of that understanding. In fact, during the public
hearing phase of the Environmental Protection Agency's 1990 Record of Decision ["ROD"] for the Site, comments
were raised by Sayreville concerning the potential reuse of the Site. Additionally, the Statement of Work
["SOW"], attached as Exhibit A to the executed 1991 Administrative Consent Order ["AGO"], entered into
between Sayreville and NJDEP, stated that "further uses for the Site would be taken into account in
-------
determining the [Landfill] cap design" [SOW at p. 16]. Finally, in addition to confirming the foregoing, the
Department-approved Remedial Action Design Reports - Intermediate (60%), dated October 1994 95%/Draft 100%,
dated March 1995; and the Final (100%), dated November 1996 — expressly state the following:

-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Site ID # :
Sayreville Landfill
Borough of Sayreville, New Jersey
II
441 (12/82)
NJD 98050 5754
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
September 24, 1998
No Action (surface water and sediment)
No Action with Monitoring (ground water)
Operating Unit Number: OU-2
Capital cost: $ 0
Construction Completion: N/A
0 & M in 1999: None
2000: None
Present worth:
$ 0
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement:
EPA/State/PRP:
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRP(s):
PRP Contact:
PRP (Enforcement)
State
Bob Marcolina (NJDEP) (609) 633-1455
Thomas Porucznik (EPA) (212) 637-4370
Borough of Sayreville (half of cost)
Richard Sullivan
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. guantity:
Low level VOCs and metals
Sediment, Surface Water, Ground water
Landfill (OU-1) was contaminated by drums containing hazardous materials
N/A (22 Drums were found in the OU-1 Landfill)
-------