Superfund Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed Plan Region II 0 ST

Rockaway Borough Wellfield
Superfund Site

i £* \

\Wj

August 2006

(A

proT'6

Dates to remember:

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:

August 11 - September 11, 2006

EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed Plan
during the public comment period.

PUBLIC MEETING: August 23, 2006 - 7:00 pm

EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the
Proposed Plan. EPA will also accept oral and
written comments at the meeting. The meeting will
be held at Rockaway Borough Community
Center, 21-25 Union Street, Rockaway, New
Jersey. Prior to the start of the meeting, EPA will
be available from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to answer
questions.

For more information, see the Administrative Record at
the following locations:

U.S. EPA Records Center, Region II
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212)-637-3261

Hours: Monday-Friday - 9:00 am to 5:00 pm

Rockaway Borough Free Public Library
82 East Main Street
Rockaway, NJ 07866
(973) 627-5709

Hours: Monday & Wednesday - 12:00 to 8:00 PM
Tuesday. Thursday and Friday - 10:00 am to 8:00 mn

EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN

This Proposed Plan identifies the Preferred
Alternative for addressing soils at one of the
source areas at the Rockaway Borough Wellfteld
Superfund Site and provides the rationale for this
preference. This particular source area is known
as the Wall Street/East Main Street (WS/EM)
area. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) evaluated a number of remedial
measures to address contaminated soil and as
explained below, the Preferred Alternative is
Excavation with Off-Site Treatment and/or
Disposal with Soil Vapor Extraction.

The Proposed Plan includes summaries of all the
soil cleanup alternatives evaluated for use at this
site. EPA, the lead agency for site activities,
issues this document. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) is the support agency. EPA, in
consultation with NJDEP, will select a final
remedy for the site after reviewing and
considering all information submitted during the
30-day public comment period. EPA, in
consultation with NJDEP, may modify the
Preferred Alternative or select another response
action presented in this Plan based on new
information or public comments. Therefore, the
public is encouraged to review and comment on
all the alternatives presented in this Proposed
Plan.

EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its
public participation responsibilities under
Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA)
and Section 300.430(f) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This Proposed Plan summarizes
information that can be found in greater detail in

the Operable Unit 3 (OU3) Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) reports
and other site-related documents contained in the
Administrative Record file for this site. EPA
encourages the public to review these documents
to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the Rockaway Borough Wellfield Site and the
Superfund process.

-------
SITE HISTORY

The Rockaway Borough Wellfield Site is located
in Rockaway Borough in Morris County, New
Jersey (See Figure 1). Rockaway Borough is
situated in the center of Morris County,
approximately 10 miles north of Morristown and
20 miles northwest of Newark in the north-
central portion of the state.

Rockaway Borough is approximately 2.1 square
miles in size and is located in the central part of
Morris County, New Jersey. It is bordered to the
north and west by Rockaway Township and to
the east and south by Denville Township. Land
use in the Borough is a mix of commercial,
industrial, and residential. The Rockaway
Borough Wellfield Superfund Site includes three
municipal water supply wells (nos. 1, 5, and 6),
which are located in the eastern section of the
Borough. The municipal wells range in depth
from 54 to 84 feet below ground surface (bgs)
and are located in a glacial aquifer. EPA
designated the aquifer a sole source aquifer for
the Borough and surrounding communities. The
wells supply potable water to approximately
11,000 people.

In 1981, a granular carbon treatment system was
installed by the Borough after contamination was
discovered in the municipal water supply system.
The principal contaminants found in the glacial
aquifer include volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
trichloroethene (TCE). In 1993, an air stripping
system was added to improve the treatment of
the contaminated groundwater and reduce
operating costs.

The WS/EM Area is a portion of the larger
Rockaway Borough Wellfield Superfund Site.
The sources of the TCE and PCE contamination
include industrial operations within the Borough,
including the Klockner and Klockner (K&K)
facility, and a dry cleaning operation.

In 1985, the NJDEP initiated a Phase I RI/FS.
The Phase I report concluded that contamination
of the municipal water supply was emanating
from multiple source areas within the Borough.

2

Based on the findings of the 1986 RI/FS, EPA
initiated a Phase II RI/FS to identify the
contaminant sources, further delineate the full
extent of contamination and evaluate remedial
action alternatives to address the sources of
contamination. Some of the major findings and
conclusions of Phase II RI/FS were as follows:

•	Groundwater in the northeast portion
of Rockaway Borough was
contaminated with VOCs, primarily
TCE and PCE.

•	A PCE groundwater contamination
plume originating in the WS/EM
Area was affecting Municipal Wells
No. 1 and 5. However, the source
area was not identified.

•	Groundwater contamination from
TCE was emanating from the K&K
property and impacting the Rockaway
Borough Well Field, specifically
Municipal Well No. 6;

The remedy selected in a September 30, 1991
Record of Decision (ROD) called for extraction
and treatment of two areas of groundwater
contamination referred to as the K&K and
WS/EM plumes. The remedy also called for
further investigations to determine the source of
the PCE and TCE plumes. In 2003, EPA began
an RI/FS for the WS/EM Area.

The WS/EM Area is primarily a commercial area
in the heart of downtown Rockaway Borough.
The RI Study Area encompassed businesses
located in this area including dry cleaning, auto
body repair, auto service and repair, banking,
hardware, hairdressing, convenience stores, and
food establishments. In addition, Borough
Police and Fire Departments, Memorial Park,
and municipal parking lots are located within the
Study Area.

The developed portions of the WS/EM Area are
covered by impervious surfaces including asphalt
roadways, driveways, and parking areas; and
concrete building slabs and sidewalks. A limited

-------
number of small, fragmented areas of exposed
soils comprising suburban parkland, mowed
lawns, ball fields and playgrounds, and
fragmented areas of forested habitats, occur in
the WS/EM Area.

CURRENT STATUS

A potentially responsible party is presently
performing the groundwater cleanup for the K&K
plume. Construction of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system has been
completed and operation of the system began in
January 2006.

The Remedial Design for the WS/EM Area,
which was completed in February 2006, includes
development of engineering drawings and
specifications. Construction of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system is scheduled to
begin in early 2007. The United States Army
Corps of Engineers, under an agreement with
EPA, will be constructing the system.

The groundwater treatment system for the
WS/EM Area will consist of three extraction
wells, forcemains, air stripping and the discharge
of treated water to the Rockaway River. The
projected timeframe to restore the aquifer is 30
years.

An RI/FS is currently in progress to characterize
the K&K source Area and one for the WS/EM
source Area has been completed. The WS/EM
Area RI/FS is the subject of this Proposed Plan.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

There have been numerous investigations
conducted at the Rockaway Borough Wellfield
Superfund Site to define the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination, examine potential
migration routes by which contamination could
reach the Borough's Wellfield, and to identify
potential sources of contamination.

The following discussion relates only to the
results of the source area RI/FS conducted at the
WS/EM Area.

3

Samples were collected from surface and
subsurface soil. In general, the samples were
analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds, pesticides, and metals. VOCs are
the only contaminant of concern at the site.
Therefore, the investigations focused on just the
nature and extent of VOCs. A summary of the
findings for each media sampled is presented
below.

Surface Contamination

Surface soils (i.e., 0 to 1 foot below ground
surface (bgs)) were collected from 17 boring
locations, along with two duplicate samples (for
a total of 19 soil samples). Eleven individual
VOCs were detected in the surface soils; PCE
was the only constituent that exceeded the
NJDEP Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup
Criteria (IGSCC). PCE was present in 10 of the
19 surface soil samples.

PCE occurred at concentrations exceeding its
most conservative criteria value [the NJDEP
IGSCC (1,000 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg)]
in surface soil samples. Lower concentrations of
PCE were present in five other locations (i.e.,
detected range: 4 to 49 ug/kg). PCE was not
detected in any of the three background
locations. The more elevated concentrations of
PCE in surface soil are present in the WS/EM
Area.

Subsurface Contamination

Shallow subsurface soils (i.e., 1 to about 10 feet
bgs) were collected from ten locations, while
deeper subsurface soils (i.e., about 8 to 42 feet
bgs) were collected from five locations. A total
of 46 subsurface soil samples and two duplicate
samples were analyzed.

Although 10 VOCs were detected, only PCE
exceeded its most conservative criteria value
(i.e., 1,000 ug/kg) in four depth interval samples
from three boring locations.

-------
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL
"CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN"?

PCE, benzene, methylene chloride, chromium
and lead were detected at the Site above the
NJDEP Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup
Criteria. Based on validity of the analytical
results, frequency of occurrence, toxicological,
physical, and chemical characteristics, the
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
identified only PCE as a Contaminant of
Concern.

Summary

The nature and extent of soil contamination
present in the WS/EM Area was assessed
through sampling of surface, shallow subsurface
and deep subsurface soils. In addition, an
evaluation of available historical information and
the results of the geophysical and soil gas
surveys were performed to assist in the
determination of potential contaminant source
areas.

Contaminated groundwater is generally not
considered to be a "principal threat". However,
the source area associated with this proposed
plan is considered to be a "principal threat" to
the groundwater. The OU3 remedy will address
this "principal threat" via excavation of the
contaminated soil, which acts as a source for
groundwater contamination.

WHAT IS A "PRINCIPAL THREAT"?

The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a
site wherever practicable (NCP Section
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). The "principal threat" concept
is applied to the characterization of "source materials"
at a Superfund site. A source material is material that
includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of
contamination to groundwater, surface water or air, or
acts as a source for direct exposure. Contaminated
groundwater generally is not considered to be a source
material; however, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(NAPLs) in groundwater may be viewed as source
material. Principal threat wastes are those source
materials considered to be highly toxic or highly
mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained, or
would present a significant risk to human health or the
environment should exposure occur. The decision to
treat these wastes is made on a site-specific basis
through a detailed analysis of the alternatives using
the nine remedy selection criteria. This analysis
provides a basis for making a statutory finding that the
remedy employs treatment as a principal element

PCE is the primary contaminant at the site, and is
present at elevated concentrations in the soil (i.e.,
up to 14,000 ug/kg) in the surface and 730 ug/kg
in the subsurface) specifically in the vicinity of
Lusardi's Cleaners, the southeastern portion of
Municipal Parking Lot #2, and the parking lot
west of the Rockaway Borough Police Station.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION

As in many complex Superfund sites, this site
has been divided into three Operable Units
(OUs) or phases. OU1 was the site-wide
investigation to identify the contaminants in the
Borough water supply. OU2 was created when
the remedy was selected to treat the groundwater
plumes. This action, referred to as OU3, is
intended to be the first of two source area
remedial actions for the site. This Proposed Plan
summarizes the remedial alternatives detailed in
the Feasibility Study, and discusses the preferred
alternative for addressing contaminated soil.

4

-------
Human Health Risk Assessment:

A Superfund baseline human health risk assessment is an
analysis of the potential adverse health effects caused by
hazardous substance releases from a site in the absence of any
actions to control or mitigate these under current- and future-land
uses. A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
human health risks for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.

Hazard Identification: In this step, the chemicals of concern
(COCs) at the site in various media (i.e., soil, groundwater,
surface water, and air) are identified based on such factors as
toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and fate and transport of the
contaminants in the environment, concentrations of the
contaminants in specific media, mobility, persistence, and
bioaccumulation.

Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure
pathways through which people might be exposed to the
contaminants identified in the previous step are evaluated.
Examples of exposure pathways include incidental ingestion of
and dermal contact with contaminated soil. Factors relating to the
exposure assessment include, but are not limited to, the
concentrations that people might be exposed to and the potential
frequency and duration of exposure. Using these factors, a
"reasonable maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the
highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be
expected to occur, is calculated.

Toxicity Assessment: In this step, the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship
between magnitude of exposure and severity of adverse effects
are determined. Potential health effects are chemical-specific
and may include the risk of developing cancer over a lifetime or
other non-cancer health effects, such as changes in the normal
functions of organs within the body (e.g., changes in the
effectiveness of the immune system). Some chemicals are
capable of causing both cancer and non-cancer health effects.

Risk Characterization: This step summarizes and combines
outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
quantitative assessment of site risks. Exposures are evaluated
based on the potential risk of developing cancer and the potential
for non-cancer health hazards. The likelihood of an individual
developing cancer is expressed as a probability. For example, a
10"4 cancer risk means a "one-in-ten-thousand excess cancer
risk"; or one additional cancer may be seen in a population of
10,000 people as a result of exposure to site contaminants under
the conditions explained in the Exposure Assessment. Current
Superfund guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual
lifetime excess cancer risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6
(corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million
excess cancer risk) with 10"6 being the point of departure. For
non-cancer health effects, a "hazard index" (HI) is calculated. An
HI represents the sum of the individual exposure levels compared
to their corresponding reference doses. The key concept for a
non-cancer HI is that a "threshold level" (measured as an HI of
less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects are not
expected to occur.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted a baseline
risk assessment to determine the current and
future effects of the contaminants on human
health and the environment. The site iscurrently
used as a commercial facility, and any future use
is expected to be the same. Therefore, the
baseline risk assessment focused on health
effects for populations typically associated with
commercial facilities, site workers and future
construction workers that could result from
current and future direct contact with
contaminated surface and subsurface soils.

Human Health Risk Assessment Findings
The carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic
hazards for soil exposures at the WS/EM Area
showed values that were within EPA's target risk
range for carcinogens and below the Hazard
Index (HI) of 1 for non-carcinogens (please see
the box on this page for an explanation of these
terms) for all populations evaluated under both
current and future use scenarios. A complete
discussion of the risks and hazards can be found
in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment.

Although the risks and hazards associated with
soil exposure are within or below EPA's
acceptable values, the soil concentrations of PCE
are above the concentrations that are associated
with an adverse impact to groundwater; thus,
there is a need to address the soil through a
remedial action.

Ecological Risks

A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
(SLERA) was performed for the Area. The
SLERA determined that because the majority of
the observed concentrations is comparable to
background or below screening level benchmark
values and due to the lack of usable terrestrial
habitat for ecological receptors at the WS/EM
Area, risks to ecological receptors are deemed to
be low. Therefore, ecologically based screening
criteria are not presented and will not be utilized
to assist in the interpretation of the nature and
extent of soil contamination at the Area.

5

-------
Remedial Action Objectives

The overall remediation goal for this area is to
protect human health and the environment. The
remedial action objective (RAO) has been
identified to mitigate the potential risks
associated with the WS/EM Area.

Soil

The RAO for the contaminated soil at the
WS/EM Area is:

1. Reduce the potential for further migration
of PCE from the contaminated soil into
groundwater.

The Preliminary Remediation Goal for PCE in
soil was identified from the New Jersey Impact
to Groundwater Soil Criteria and is 1 mg/kg.

Summary of Remedial Alternatives

Based on technology screening and process
option evaluation, the potential soils remedial
alternatives developed for the site are as follows:

S-l: No Action
S-2: Limited Action
S-3: In-Situ Treatment (SVE) and Hot-
Spot Excavation with Off-Site
Treatment and/or Disposal

S-4: Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal with SVE

Alternative S-l: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $0
Estimated Construction Time Frame: None

Regulations governing the Superfund program
require that the "no action" alternative be
evaluated to establish a baseline for comparison.
Under this alternative, EPA would take no action
at the site to prevent the migration of the
contamination to the groundwater. Since this
alternative results in contaminants remaining on
the site above levels that would not allow for

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a
review of the site at least every five years would
be required.

Alternative S-2: Limited Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $27,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $0
Estimated Construction Time Frame: None

The Limited Action Alternative would include
implementation of administrative controls such
as deed notices. The deed notices, or
comparable administrative control, would be
implemented to ensure that future activities at the
WS/EM Area (e.g., excavation) would be
performed with knowledge of the WS/EM Area
conditions and implementation of appropriate
health and safety controls. Since this alternative
results in contaminants remaining on the site
above levels that would not allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, a review of the
site at least every five years would be required.

Alternative S-3: In-Situ Remediation (SVE)
and Hot-Spot Excavation with Off-Site
Treatment and/or Disposal

Estimated Capital Cost: $410,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $410,000
Estimated Construction Time Frame: 1 year
Estimated Time to Achieve RAO: 2 years

This alternative includes in-situ remediation via
soil vapor extraction (SVE) in an effort to
address the RAO by removing PCE as a potential
ongoing source of groundwater contamination.
SVE would be used to remediate PCE in the
unsaturated (vadose) zone soil. To implement
SVE, a vacuum is applied to the soil through a
series of wells to induce the controlled flow of
air to remove VOCs from the soil. The captured
vapors are then treated to applicable air
standards. An estimated area of PCE-impacted
soil, based on information provided in the RI
Report and the April 2006 Focused Field
Sampling, is 195 ft2.

6

-------
A hot-spot excavation will occur in parallel with
the SVE system to remove approximately 20
cubic yards (yd3) of PCE-contaminated soil in a
parking area southwest of the Rockaway
Borough Police Station.

Excavated soils would be analyzed for disposal
parameters and would be containerized for off-
site disposal. The excavated soils would be
trucked off-site for treatment, as needed, and
disposed of in accordance with federal and state
regulations. Upon completion of contaminated
soil removal, the excavation would be backfilled
and compacted, and the surface would be
restored.

Excavation would remove contaminated soil and
meet the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater criteria,
and post-excavation sampling would confirm
that the criteria have been met.

If during pre-design investigation sampling it is
determined that soil under the Lusardi's Dry
Cleaner building would need to be remediated,
the SVE system may be expanded to address the
remaining soil contamination.

Because this alternative is expected to achieve
the cleanup goals and not leave hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining
at the site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review
may not be required.

Alternative S-4: Excavation with Off-Site
Treatment and/or Disposal with SVE

Estimated Capital Cost: $320,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth: $320,000
Estimated Construction Time Frame: 3-6 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAO: 6 months

In this alternative, PCE-contaminated soils are
removed via excavation. The excavated material
would be transported off-site for treatment
and/or disposal, at a facility designed and
permitted for disposal of PCE-contaminated soil.
The estimated volume of impacted soil, based on
information in the RI report is approximately 40
cubic yards, excluding contamination that may

7

be located beneath the Lusardi's Dry Cleaner
building. However, additional action level
exceedences could be detected during post-
excavation confirmatory sampling, which could
increase the scope during remedial construction.

Excavated soils would be analyzed for disposal
parameters and would be containerized for off-
site disposal. The excavated soils would be
trucked off-site for treatment, as needed, and
disposed of in accordance with federal and state
regulations. Upon completion of contaminated
soil removal, the excavation would be backfilled
and compacted, and the surface would be
restored.

Excavation would remove contaminated soil and
meet the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater criteria,
and post-excavation sampling would confirm
that the criteria have been met.

If during pre-design investigation sampling it is
determined that soil under the Lusardi's Dry
Cleaner building would need to be remediated,
an SVE component may be added to this
alternative to address the remaining soil
contamination. The capital costs for this
alternative reflect the use of the SVE system.

Because this alternative is expected to achieve
the cleanup goals and not leave hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining
at the site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review
may not be required.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Nine criteria are used to evaluate the different
remediation alternatives individually and against
each other in order to select the best alternative.
This section of the Proposed Plan profiles the
relative performance of each alternative against
the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the
other options under consideration. The nine
evaluation criteria are discussed below. A
"Detailed Analysis of Alternatives" can be found
in the Feasibility Study.

-------
1.	Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment

Alternative S-l would provide no protection of
human health and the environment since the
contamination is left on-site. Alternative S-2
would provide limited protection of human health
and the environment by reducing potential risks
by utilizing institutional controls. Alternatives
S-3 and S-4 would provide protection of human
health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling risk through the removal
or treatment of contaminated material.

Because the "no action" alternative (S-l) is not
protective of human health and the environment,
it was eliminated from consideration under the
remaining eight criteria.

2.	Compliance with ARARs

Actions taken at any Superfund site must meet all
Applicable or Relavent and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) of federal and state law
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver of these
requirements. These include chemical-specific,
location-specific, and action-specific ARARs.
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for soil,
only To-Be-Considered cleanup numbers (TBC).
The New Jersey Impact to Groundwater Soil
Criteria are TBCs. Alternatives S-3 and S-4
would meet the TBCs for the contaminated soils.
Alternative S-2 would not meet the TBCs for the
contaminated soils. Location-specific ARARs
would not be triggered for any of the alternatives,
however, should the remediation area expand to
the former Morris Canal, National Register of
Historical Places requirements would be
triggered. Alternatives S-3 and S-4 would attain
action-specific ARARs for the contaminated soils,
which would include RCRA Transportation and
Disposal requirements. Alternative S-2 would not
attain action-specific ARARs for the
contaminated soils.

3.	Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence

Of the remaining alternatives, the magnitude of
residual risks is highest for Alternative S-2.

Alternative S-2 relies on land use restrictions and
public education programs aimed at informing
the public about potential hazards posed by
exposure to contaminants in the soil.

Alternatives S-3 and S-4 both mitigate the
ongoing source of groundwater contamination.
Alternative S-3 uses limited excavation and in-
situ treatment to reduce contaminant mass in the
vadose zone. Alternative S-4 uses excavation
and off-site disposal to remove contaminant
mass from the Site with the contingency to use
in-situ treatment should additional sources be
located. Alternatives S-3 and S-4 are both
permanent remedies and effective in the long-
term.

4.	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume of Contaminants Through
Treatment

Alternative S-2 would not reduce toxicity, volume
or mobility through treatment. Alternatives S-3
and S-4 would reduce contaminant mobility
through removal and disposal or regeneration of
the spent granular activated carbon (GAC) and
removal and disposal of soils at approved off-site
facilities. Alternative S-3 (and potentially
Alternative S-4 if the SVE contingency is
implemented) would also reduce the volume of
contaminated media by transferring
contaminants from soil to GAC. For
Alternatives S-3 and S-4, pre-disposal treatment,
if necessary, could potentially reduce the toxicity
and volume of the contaminated soils.

5.	Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternative S-2 does not involve any physical
treatment; there are no short-term risks to the
community or workers as well as no
environmental effects.

Alternative S-3 would present short-term risks to
the community relating to inhalation exposure
that would be mitigated by air monitoring and
engineering controls. Risks relating to inhalation
exposure by workers, would be mitigated by air
monitoring and a health and safety program. The
in-situ remediation is anticipated to create

-------
minimal environmental effects since the WS/EM
Area is highly developed.

Alternative S-4 would present short-term risks to
the community relating to exposure to
contaminated soil. This exposure will be
mitigated with the use of air monitoring, dust
suppression, and restricted site access. Risks
relating to inhalation exposure by workers, would
be mitigated by air monitoring, dust suppression,
and a health and safety program. Excavation is
anticipated to create minimal environmental
effects since the WS/EM Area is highly
developed.

6.	Implementability

Alternative S-2 could be easily implemented.
Coordination with state and local governments
will be required for implementing institutional
controls and educational programs.

Coordination with state and local authorities will
be required for five-year reviews.

Alternative S-3 and possibly S-4 (if the SVE is
needed) would be somewhat difficult to
implement because of limited available space to
install a treatment building. Coordination with
state and local governments in addition to
property owners and tenants would be required
for placement of extraction wells and associated
treatment equipment.

Alternative S-4 would be easily implemented
using conventional construction equipment and
materials; however, some specialized techniques
may be required for excavation in close
proximity to building foundations and would
require coordination with state and local
governments in addition to property owners and
tenants. This alternative would also potentially
impact businesses since the excavation would
occur near buildings as well as the need to close
a portion of a municipal parking lot during
excavation work

7.	Cost

The estimated present worth costs of the
Alternatives are:

9

Alternative S-2 (Limited Action): potential
capital costs involved with the implementation of
the institutional controls -$27,000 .

Alternative S-3 (In-situ Treatment and Hot Spot
Excavation): operating costs are only needed
until RAO is achieved -$410,000.

Alternative S-4 (Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal and SVE): have capital costs until RAO
is achieved and may have operating costs if SVE
treatment is needed - $320,000.

8.	State/Support Agency Acceptance

The State of New Jersey is currently evaluating
EPA's Preferred Alternative in this Proposed
Plan.

9.	Community Acceptance

EPA will evaluate community acceptance of the
Preferred Alternative after the public comment
period ends. EPA will discuss community
acceptance in the Record of Decision, the
document that formalizes the selection of the
remedy for the Area.

SUMMARY OF I II I PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVES

Based on the evaluation of remedial alternatives
that was presented in the previous section, EPA
has selected Alternative S-4 as its Preferred
Alternative. This alternative involves excavation
and off-site treatment and/or disposal of
contaminated soils, and use of an SVE system
for contamination beneath the Lusardi's Dry
Cleaner building at the WS/EM Area.

The Preferred Alternative satisfies the remedial
action objectives and the requirements of
CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP. It will
require 1-2 years of operation for the remedy to
meet the cleanup criteria, which are the New
Jersey Impact to Ground Water Soil Cleanup
Criteria.

-------
The Preferred Alternative provides the best bal-
ance of trade-offs among alternatives with resp-
ect to the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria. The
Preferred Alternative is protective of human
health and the environment, complies with
ARARs and cleanup criteria, is cost-effective,
and uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The Preferred Alternative also meets the statuto-
ry preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element to the maximum extent
practicable.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

EPA provides information regarding the cleanup
of the Rockaway Borough Wellfield Superfund
Site to the public through public meetings, the
Administrative Record file for the site, and
announcements published in the local
newspaper. EPA and the State encourage the
public to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the site and the Superfund
activities that has been conducted there. The
front page of this Proposed Plan shows the dates
for the public comment period, the date, location,
and time of the public meeting, and the locations
of the Administrative Record files.

EPA Region 2 has designated a point-of-contact
for community concerns and questions about the
Superfund program. To support this effort, the
Agency has established a 24-hour, toll-free
number the public can call to request
information, express concerns or register
complaints about Superfund. The Public Liaison
Manager for EPA's Region 2 office is:

For further information on the Rockaway Borough
Wellfield site, please contact:

Brian Quinn
Project Manager

(212) 637-4381
quinn.brian@epa.gov

Cecilia Echols
Community Involvement
Coordinator
(212) 637-3678
echols. cecilia@epa. gov

U.S. EPA
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866

George H. Zachos
Toll-free (888) 283-7626
(732)321-6621

U.S. EPA Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-211
Edison, New Jersey 08837

10

-------
im\

mm

MUNICIPAL 3
WELL NO. 6'

Ki

Source: Dover, N.J. USGS
Topographic Quadrangle,
7.5—minute series, dated 1954
and photorevised in 1981.

0 750 1500''

DWN:

CTS

DES.:

CTS

CHKD:

LH

APPD:

BQ

DATE:

8/8/2006

REV.:

0

TITLE:

SITE LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED PLAN

ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELLFIELD Rl/FS

PROJECT NO.:

FIGURE NO.:

-------