sdms document 112693
TRANSCRIPT
SDMS Document
112693
DRAFT
REMEDIAL ACTION MASTER PLAN
GEMS LANDFILL
Z-1-12.14
3 JANUARY 1982
k
•Hi
b o o
o o
1
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
^
K I I I I i
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
Data
2.1 2.2
Purpose Site Location General Approach Existing Data Assessment of Existing Information Initial Remedial Measures Remedial Investigations Feasibility Study Cost Estimate and Schedule
Evaluation
Objective Background
2.2.1 Site Description
2.2.2 Site History
2.3 Environmental Setting
2.3.1 Physiography 2.3.2 Geology 2.3.3 Surface Water Hydrology 2.3.4 Hydrogeology 2.3.5 Air Quality 2.3.6 Ecology 2.3.7 Socioeconomics
2.4 Hazardous Materials Characterization
2.4.1 Groundwater 2.4.2 Surface Water 2.4.3 Air 2.4.4 Cover Material
2.5 Assessment of Potential Impacts
2.5.1 Public Health and Safety 2.5.2 Environment
2.6 Assessment of Data Limitations
1-1 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-5 1-6 1-8 1-10 1-12
2-1
2-1 2-1
2-1 2-2
2-6
2-6 2-7 2-9 2-10 2-12 2-13 2-15
2-15
2-16 2-18 2-20 2-21
2-23
2-23 2-27
2-28
3 IT"
O
o
3
Q p-
I Q
a
H
i
i
Initial Remedial Measures
3.1 Objective
3.2 Recommended Measures
3.2.1 Task 1 - Initial Remedial Measures Plan 3.2.2 Task II - Install Fence 3.2.3 Task III - Post Area 3.2.4 Task IV - Sample Water Supplies
3.2.5 Task V - Replace Culverts
3.3 Cost Estimate and Schedule
Remedial Investigation Activities 4.1 4.2
Objective and Task I - Work Plan Preparation
Initial Organization 4.3 Task II - Collect and Review
Existing Data 4.4 Task III - Health and Safety
Assessment 4.5 Task IV - Topographic Survey 4.6 Task V - Geophysical Survey 4.7 Task VI - Hydrogeological Study
and Groundwater Monitoring 4.8 Task VII - Hydrological Study 4.9 Task VIII - Air Quality Monitoring 4.10 Task IX - Toxicological Review 4.11 Task X - Ecological Study 4.12 Task XT-Site Assessment Report 4.13 Costs and Schedule
Feasibility Study
5.1 Objective
5.2 Scope
5.2,1
5.2.2 5.2.3
5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7
Task I - Description of Current Situation and Proposed Response Task II - Development of Altneratives Task III - Initial Screening of Alternatives Task IV - Laboratory Studies (Optional) Task V - Evaluation of Alternatives Task VI - Conceptual Design Task VII - Final Report
5.3 Costs and Schedule
Paae
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4
3-4
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-4
4-6 4-10 4-11
4-13 4-19 4-22 4-24 4-26 4-27 4-29
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1 5-2
5-3 5-4 5-5 5-10 5-10
5-10
I o o
o o 4^
tl
D ps Page
5.4 Source Control Remedial Actions 5-11
I D
5.4.1 Transfer of DDD-Contaminated Sludge 5-11 5.4.2 Regrading of Side Slopes 5-12 5.4.3 Landfill Cap 5-13 5.4.4 Slurry Wall 5-13 5.4.5 Pumpout and Treatment 5-14 5.4.6 Surface Runoff Collection and
Treatment 5-14
5.5 Offsite Remedial Actions 5-15
5.5.1 Potable Wells 5-15 5.5.2 Contaminated Basements 5-16 5.5.3 Holly Run and Briar Lake 5-16
6 Community Relations 6-1
Appendix A. Site Chronology Appendix B. NJDEP Report
H I
RW27/41
fl
7} 3
o o
o o NJ
TABLES
Following Page
2-1 Groundwater Contaminant Identified in Vicinity of GEMS Landfill 2-16
2-2 Depths at Which Groundwater Contaminants Have
Been Identified 2-16
2-3 Leachate Contaminants Entering Holly Run 2-17
2-4 Contaminant Variation in the Hurst Well 2-18
2-5 Surface Water Contaminants Identified in Vicinity of GEMS Landfill 2-19
2-6 Sediment Contaminants Identified in Surface Water Near GEMS Landfill 2-19
2-7 GEMS Study - Contaminants Found - Interior Air Samples 2-20
2-8 Interior Air Samples - GEMS Study for Any Volatile Organic Chemicals 2-20
2-9 Exterior Air Samples - GEMS Study for Any Volatile Organic Chemicals 2-20
2-10 Frequency of Detection of Interior Air
Contaminants 2-20
2-11 Chlorinated Pesticide Screen 2-22
2-12 Analysis of March 10, 1981 Samples from Gloucester Township Landfill 2-23
2-13 RCRA Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test on March 10, 1981 Samples from 2-23 Gloucester Township Landfill
2-14 RCRA Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test on March 10, 1981 Samples from Gloucester Township Landfill 2-23 g
3-1 Estimated Cost of Initial Remedial Actions 3-4
4-1 Estimated Cost of Remedial Investigation 4-29
RW27/43
o o
o o
Q
Q
FIGURES
Following Page
1-1 Approach for Remedial Action Master Plan 1-2
1-2 Cost Estimate and Schedule Through Remedial Investigation for GEMS Landfill 1-12
1-3 Critical Path Schedule Through Remedial Investigation for GEMS Landfill 1-13
2-1 Northeastern Seaboard States and Site
Location 2-1
2-2 Roadways in the Region of the Site 2-1
2-3 Site Location and Local Topography 2-1
2-4 GEMS Landfill Well Log 2-9
4-1 Cost Estimate and Schedule Through Remedial 4-30 Investigation for GEMS Landfill
4-2 Critical Path Schedule Through Remedial 4-30 Investigation for GEMS Landfill
RW27/42
3
o o M
O O i(k
Q
I L Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) for the Gloucester
Environmental Management Services, Inc. (GEMS) landfill site, located in
Camden County, New Jersey. A RAMP is a plan for undertaking remedial
investigation activities and remedial actions in response to a hazardous
substance release, or a substantial threat of a release, into the
environment. It is based on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180-31243).
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this RAMP is to Identify the scope of practical remedial
investigation activities or remedial actions appropriate for the GEMS
site and to present an implementation schedule for these activities. It
is based on existing, available data only. The RAMP provides an
order-of-magnitude cost estimate and schedule for each proposed initial
remedial action or investigation activity, as well as a discussion of
data limitations, community relations strategies, and problems which may
be encountered during project implementation.
The RAMP provides the EPA with a basis on which to decide future actions
to be taken at the GEMS landfill, including remedial investigations,
feasibility studies, and other onsite or offsite remedial actions. It is ^
anticipated that the approved RAMP will serve as the primary planning
1-1
I o o
Ul
I P document for all remedial activities at the site and will form the basis
of an EPA - State cooperative agreement for the site.
I I
i
i i
Li
1.2 SITE LOCATION
I The GEMS landfill is located in Gloucester Township, Camden County, New
Jersey, at the intersection of Erial and Hickstown Roads. The site
consists of approximately 60 acres in a generally triangular plan, with
the top of the landfill rising 80 to 100 feet above the surrounding land.
The site is zoned for industrial use, but much of the surrounding area is
residential. The landfill is located along a minor watershed divide
between two small streams. Both streams are tributaries of Big Timber
Creek and the Delaware River.
1.3 GENERAL APPROACH
Figure 1-1 presents a general flow schematic of the remedial action
planning approach being recommended for the GEMS landfill site. The
approach is based on three types of remedial actions:
0 Initial Remedial Measures
0 Source Control Remedial Actions
0 Offsite Remedial Actions
3 f
o o
3 O
1-2
D n
IC
Col lac t & Evaluate
E x i t t l n g S l t a Data
O b t a i n
E n f o r c a m a n t Plan
Prepare Remedia l A c t i o n Master Plan ( R A M P )
I I n i t i a l Remedia l
Measures
I d e n t i f y Data
Requ i remen ts
C o n d u c t L i m i t e d Si te Inspec t ion
1 i
Figure 1—1 Approach for Remedial Action
Master Plan
( ^
I m p l e m e n t Cost E f fec t i ve A l t e r n a t i v e
N o A c t i o n
^ y ^ A r e ^ ^ H a i a r d s
^ ^ Present o r Po ten t ia
1
( ^
Remedia l Invest igat ion
I d e n t i f y A d d i t i o n a l Data Requ i rements
C o n d u c t S i te Oata l led Invest igat ion
N o A c t i o n
Design and I m p l e m e n t Remedy
Design and I m p l e m e n t Remedy
Post C losure M o n i t o r i n g
Post Closure M o n i t o r i n g
CiML 001004^
u
W ^ Initial remedial measures are implemented when a problem is identified
requiring prompt attention. They are carried out prior to planned
remedial actions or planned removal of hazardous substances. The
essential criterion for determining the need for initial remedial
measures is the existence of an actual or potential significant threat to
public health or the environment. However, initial remedial measures
should require a minimum of planning, be completed in a short period of
time, and be cost-effective.
Source control remedial actions are those responses ta.ken at or near the
original source of the hazardous substances whenever natural or manmade
barriers are inadequate to retard migration. If contaminants have
migrated away from the original site, offsite remedial actions may be
appropriate.
m
il
4
Offsite remedial actions are necessary when source control remedial
actions are either inappropriate or ineffective in reducing the migration
of hazardous substances from the site.
Before either source control or offsite remedial actions can be carried
out, sufficient data and information must exist to allow development,
screening, selection, design, and implementation of the remedial actions
in a cost-effective manner. If existing information is not adequate, a
remedial investigation is undertaken to provide supplemental data. tr'
o o
n
1.4 EXISTING DATA o jk
oo
1-3
r Extensive monitoring for hazardous materials has been conducted by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Camden
County Health Department. Hazardous chemicals have been identified in
J the nearby groundwater, surface water, air, and on the surface of the
landfill. NJDEP has concluded that the GEMS landfill is responsible for
•I contamination of nearby surface water and groundwater supplying potable
water wells in the area. Although some private wells have been found to
be contaminated, NJDEP has determined none require condemnation at this
time.
i
m Most of the hazardous materials found in water and air near the site are
^ _ classified as volatile organics. Many are classified by EPA as priority
pollutants and many are toxic to humans. Several are carcinogens. The i " ^ principal hazardous substance found on the landfill surface is ODD, a
degradation product of the pesticide, DDT. Smaller amounts of DDE
(another degradation product of DDT), DDT, and several toxic heavy metals
have also been identified as contaminants. *
Several potential threats to public health and safety exist from the
presence of the GEMS landfill, including:
0 Private well contamination
3 0 Access to contaminated surface water f
^
0 Access to landfill
o o
o o
1-4
n
m
m
m m m m m 1 •I
0 Flooding of contaminated surface water
0 Volatile organics in household basements
• 0 Air pollution from volatile organics
0 Long term contamination of deep aquifers
0 DDD-contaminated dust
Well contamination, access to the landfill and surrounding surface water,
and contaminated basements appear to pose the most irraninent problems
associated with the landfill. The degree of other potential health
problems has not yet been adequately evaluated and pose longer term
health impacts.
1.5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Several limitations apply to the GEMS landfill RAMP, including;
0 Insufficient information exists with which to assess the
magnitude of the problem and to evaluate the feasibility of
potential solutions.
0 Some groundwater monitoring data is extremely variable and
appears Inconsistent. In one potable well, volatile organics S o t-n
o
1-5
D" p., concentrations varied from 890 ppb to below detectable limits
within two months.
I El
•
a
0 Cost estimates provided are order-of-magnitude only. They have
been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and
implementation from the information available at the time of
the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions,
final project scope, implementation schedule, and other
variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will
vary from the estimates presented herein. Because of this,
project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully
reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help
ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
0 The RAMP process does not permit a complete and exhaustive
consideration of all remedial planning activities.
0 Many public agencies are related to the GEMS landfill in some
capacity, which leads to a complicated remediation process.
Extensive litigation related to the disposal of hazardous
wastes at the GEMS landfill is now in progress. Consequently,
at this point, all the involved parties are not cooperating 3
towards a common goal of site remediation. o o
1.6 INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES p
1-6
IT
a
Several Initial remedial measures are recommended to rapidly reduce any
existing or Imminent hazards to public health or the environment,
including:
0 Erect a fence with warning signs around the landfill and
contaminated surface water surrounding the site (Holly Run,
Briar Lake and swampy area). The fence is intended to prevent
accidental direct contact with the contaminated surface water
or cover material, and to prevent access into areas which are
potentially explosive from methane gas generated.
0 As the result of highly variable analytical results in the
past, potable water wells previously indentified as containing
volatile organic compounds should be resampled to verify the
levels of contamination. Once these levels are identified,
hazards to the well users can be assessed and appropriate
actions can be Initiated.
0 Increase the hydraulic capacity of the culverts enabling
passage of Holly Run under Briar Lane, to prevent flooding of
adjacent residential properties with contaminated surface water
after heavy rains.
0 Develop a plan to review and evaluate additional data as it is
generated, to enable implementation of additional initial
remedial measures as they arise. o o
o
i 1-7
I
r I J I
i
I r
I I
1.7 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
The following remedial investigation and activities are considered
necessary for the GEMS landfill site prior to conducting feasibility
studies for alternative remedial actions:
Task I - Work Plan Preparation and Initial Organization
Prepare a work plan for collecting additional field data during the
remaining tasks. Mobilize project team and equipment, and conduct an
^ investigative site visit.
Task II - Collect and Review Existing Data
Collect and review all existing data pertinent to the site.
Task III - Health and Safety Assessment
Prepare an initial Health and Safety Plan in conjunction with Task I.
Perform a field health and safety assessment of the site and update plan
I to include additional information.
Task IV - Topographic Survey 2 3 t r
I u
Review existing site topographic data and perform additional topographic °
•survey work needed to provide a detailed map for investigation and o
o design. oj
0 1-8
• • El
Q
Perform a geophysical survey to obtain additional information about the
underlying geologic formations and groundwater contamination.
I Wr Task V - Geophysical Survey
r Q H Task VI - Hydrogeological Study and Groundwater Monitoring
I Q
i H Task VII - Hydrological Study
Install additional monitoring wells to better characterize groundwater
location, flow patterns and contamination limits. Implement a
groundwater monitoring program to assess contamination concentrations and
to identify contaminant sources.
Monitor surface water and sediments to further document the presence of
hazardous pollutants in Holly Run, Briar Lake, and Tom's Branch. Monitor
leachate and surface runoff to help identify sources of surface water
contamination.
Task VIII - Air Quality Monitoring
Perform air quality testing to determine the extent of air pollution
attributed to the landfill and to identify health risk areas.
Task IX - Toxicological Review
Q 3
o o
o o
D 1-9
I
t
i i
Perform a toxicological review of air and water contaminants to assess
the potential impact on the exposed population at the concentrations
identified.
Task X - Ecological Study
Conduct an ecological study to identify receptors in the natural and
human environment within the vicinity of the site.
Task XI - Site Assessment Report
Compile and evaluate all pertinent data generated during the remedial
investigation and present conclusions concerning extent of contamination
and health impacts. Develop preliminary remedial action alternatives for
the site.
1.8 FEASIBILITY STUDY
Appropriate actions cannot be chosen until sufficient data have been
generated through the remedial investigation activities. When the
remedial investigation is complete, a detailed feasibility study will be
conducted to develop and evaluate alternative remedial actions. After
initial screening to Identify feasible alternatives, a detailed
evaluation will be conducted to compare each remaining alternative on the
basis of cost, reliability, implementability, operation and maintenance ^
requirements, environmental effects and safety requirements. As a result o
o o Crj
1-10
I of this analysis an alternative will be recoiranended and a conceptual
design prepared.
Source Control Remedial Actions
Several source control remedial actions which may be considered include:
0 Transfer DDD-contaminated sludge to top of landfill prior to
capping.
0 Regrade side slopes of landfill to minimize erosion and to
ensure the long-term stability of the site.
0 Cap the landfill with an impermeable layer to reduce
infiltration of rainfall. A gas venting system should also be
considered.
0 Construct slurry wall to prevent horizontal migration of
leachate.
o Pump contaminated groundwater from the vicinity of the
landfill, treat and recharge to ground.
0 Install surface runoff collection system to minimize potential
for contamination of surface water.
Offsite Remedial Actions
3
o o
o o
1-11
J M a M M a m m j A M a • • A m
TASKS COSTS
LOW HIGH 10 15 20 25 30
WEEKS
35 40 45 50 55 60
INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
TASK I Dntlop Plan
TASK 2 -5 Fanca, Poit Araa, Ratampla, Culvartt
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
TASK I Work Plan Praparation & Initial Organiation
TASK II Collact & Raviaw Existing Data
TASK III Haalth iSi Safaty Attastmant
TASK IV Topographic Survoy
TASK V Gaophytical Sunny
TASK VI Hydrogaogical Study*
TASK VII Hydrologic Study*
TASK VIII Air Quality Monitoring*
TASK IX Toxicological Raviaw
TASK X Ecological Study
TASK XI Sita Aisattmant Raport
FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
TASK I Davalop & Implamant
Community Ralationi Plan
13,000
13S.000
13,000 : 3,000 8,000
25,000 37.000 101.000 12.000 13.000 13.000
5.000
30.000
50,000
14.000
27.000
266,000
2S.000
6.000
13.000
39.000
55.000
158.000
19.000
20,000
18,000
8.000
45.000
150.000
20.000
INITfAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS TOTAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TOTAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY TOTAL
COMMUNITY REUTIONS TOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ANALYTICAL COSTS; EPA CONTRACT LABS
TOTAL COSTS: EPA CONTRACT LABS
ANALYTICAL COSTS: INDEPENDENT LABS
TOTAL COSTS: INDEPENDENT LABS
148,000
260,000
50,000
14,000
293.000
406.000
150.000
20.000
LEGEND
Primary Activity Ongoing Activity at Raquired
472.000
62,000
534.000
869.000
71,000
940.000
230,000 282,000
(702,000 $1,151,000 'NOTE: Excluding Analytical Cott
^SOO IOO IWD
Figure 1 -2
Cost Estimate and Schedule
Through Remedial Investigation for
GEMS Landfi l l
i i n
II
ta
Based on the results of the remedial investigation activities and the
problems identified, a variety of offsite actions may be appropriate,
including:
0 Discontinue use of private wells.
0 Install carbon filter units on contaminated wells or provide an
alternative supply.
0 Drain contaminated water away from basements.
0 Collect, vent, and treat volatile organic gases.
0 Ventilate basements.
0 Abandon and fill basements.
0 Remove and treat water from Holly Run and Briar Lake.
0 Channelize swampy areas to enhance natural dissipation of
contaminants.
1.9 COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE 3
o Cost estimates and schedules for the initial remedial actions, remedial o
investigation activities, feasibility study, and conwunity relations are ^ o
shown in Figure 1-2. Cost estimate ranges are given to account for such ^
1-12
{ B B ^ j t j m 1 ^ ^ M m m m m m
s •
10 •
IS T
20 T
25 T
30
• 35 •
40
T 45
• SO
• SS T
60
•
Community Relations
Initial Ramadial Meaiures
/ ^ Collact & Review Existing Data
Hydrological Study
^ ^ ^ Work Plan
Topographic Survey
/i?r\
* / v \ Geophysical Survey
I Hydrogeological * | Study
Feasibility Study
T I I Sample Y Analysis rx\\
Health 8i Safaty Assessment
I /vuh
II II
A I I I I
Site Assessment Raport -
Air Quality Monitoring Ecological Study LEGEND
^•"•"••^ Primary Activity • • » • • » Sample Analysis — Ongoing Activity as Raquired
Initial Toxicological Raviaw
6S00 too awo
J ^ ^ Final Toxicological Review
F igure 1—3
Cr i t i ca l Path Schedule T h r o u g h
Remed ia l Invest igat ion f o r G E M S L a n d f i l l
m
Q
PH
things as analyses by an EPA contract laboratory versus an independent
laboratory, installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells due
to geological conditions experienced during field installation of earlier
wells or due to monitoring data collected and analyzed from existing
wells, and repeat or refined sampling and analysis programs. The task
descriptions for each initial remedial action and remedial investigation
activity provide the basis for the associated cost range.
The GEMS landfill remedial investigation and feasibility study will
require approximately 58 weeks to complete. Inclement weather conditions
could adversely affect this schedule. Increasing the time required.
Estimated costs range from $534,000 to $940,000 if analytical analyses
are performed by EPA contract laboratories and $702,000 to $1,151,000 if
performed by independent laboratories.
• A critical path schedule of initial remedial actions, remedial
investigations, and feasibility study is presented in Figure 1-3.
I • I I i I
RW27/65
] 1-13
Ci 3 IT"
O o
o o O
I
i
tr
Section 2 % i;'\"^Sf id"^ !%3 m
DATA EVALUATION (••1 *-.--» • T-,;','i & £ L _ . a i 1
2.1 OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this section is to assess and summarize the current status
of the Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc. (GEMS) landfill
site. To accomplish this, existing information regarding the site was
compiled and evaluated. This data serves as the framework for developing
the Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) and serves as the basis for future
data collection and recommendations. This section is intended to be a
summary of pertinent technical and non-technical information needed to
determine the seriousness of the problems at the GEMS landfill site and to
develop plans for remedial actions. It is not, however, intended to be a
complete compilation of all data which has been generated concerning the
site.
2.2 BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Site Description
I I i I ^ The GEMS landfill is located in Gloucester Township, Camden County,
New Jersey, at the intersection of Erial and Hickstown Roads. The site is g
Cj situated on Tax Map Block 357, Lot 9, with geographical coordinates 39°46'48" North and 75°01'15" West. The location of the landfill is
f
o o
o identified in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. 5
2-1
II
Figure 2—1 Northeastern Seabpard States
and Site Location
c c
o o o\ to
SOUTH CAROLINA \
/
g^2M BHILL
10
SCALE IN MILES Figure 2-2 Roadways in the Region of the Site
{-900 TOO awD
The site consists of approximately 60 acres in a generally triangular plan
with a relief above the general topography of 80 to 100 feet. The slopes
of the landfill are steep," particularly on the west face.
Holly Run, a small stream, originates near the southeast corner of the
landfill and flows northward along the northeast side of the property.
Near its origin and adjacent to the landfill. Holly Run has been relocated
twice, creating a swampy area.
Near the southeast corner of the site is a cement manufacturing and
welding operation. Adjoining the site to the west, is a property owned by
the Gloucester Township Board of Education. A maintained, motorbike
course is also located adjacent to the west side of the landfill. Along
the northeast side are houses in close proximity to the landfill
(300 feet) and to Holly Run (200 feet).
The site is zoned for industrial use, but much of the surrounding area is
m residential. A population of approximately 6,000 live within one mile of
the landfill and approximately 38,000 live within three miles.
1 a
2.2.2 Site History
H The GEMS landfill has existed under various operators for over 20 years §
while being owned by the Township of Gloucester. Originally, the Township
was responsible for operating a small portion of the landfill. In 1969,
Anthony Amadei began contracting operation of the landfill from the
Township. He then incorporated his operation the following year into the
a 2-2
f
o
o o cn
n
V
Anthony Amadei Sand and Gravel Company. In 1976, registration of the
landfill transferred to Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc.
(GEMS), which continued to operate the landfill until its closure in
November, 1980.
Although early operations were not well documented, reports indicated that
chemical wastes may have been disposed of beneath the water table prior to
1970; however, limited geophysical testing has not supported these
reports. Disposal of chemical wastes at the site was permitted by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1970 for a
period of approximately three weeks. Approval was discontinued after this
time due to a chemical fire at the site. Records of occurrences, such as
fires, complaints and NJDEP inspections indicate that chemicals may have
also been dumped intermittantly between 1970 and 1976.
The NJDEP Solid Waste Administration (SWA) conducted regular inspections
of the GEMS landfill beginning in April, 1973. Often, these inspections
revealed deficiencies in sanitary landfill operating procedures, such as
use of inadequate or insufficient cover material, or failure to control
windblown paper. Over 60 separate inspection reports indicate leachate
emanating from the landfill and flowing into Holly Run.
In April, 1977, a land survey by SWA indicated that the GEMS landfill had 3"
exceeded its approved design elevations. GEMS disputed that the landfill (r*
o o had reached capacity, but supplied no evidence to NJDEP in support of
their position. A design for expansion, submitted at the end of 1976, was o o
not approved because the environmental impact statement required for the ^
2-3
a n
expansion had not been conducted. Consequently, SWA issued an
Administrative Order on September 1, 1977 requiring the landfill to cease
operation within 10 days. However, the hardship that would be created by
closure for the boroughs using the landfill and for the waste haulers led
to the decision to allow expansion and continued operation, but for less
• than one year. After the GEMS lease expired in July 1978, the expanded
capacity had not yet been reached, and the Courts authorized the landfill
to continue operation because it was needed. A series of litigation
followed, concerning the closure of the site. Acceptance of solid waste
was discontinued by November, 1980.
a
a As part of the site closure operations, sludge from the City of
Philadelphia was brought in as cover material. A spill of this material
onto the road caused a road hazard and prompted testing. Examination of
the sludge revealed the presence of DDD, a degradation byproduct of the
pesticide DDT. The impacts of the contaminated sludge and responsibility
for any relocation or containment which may be necessary, are now being
litigated.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first identified
the potential hazardous waste problems at the GEMS landfill in November,
1979. In January of 1980, NJDEP began testing private water wells in the
area for volatile organic chemicals. In June, they expanded their testing
to include surface water, finding leachate contamination in Holly Run and §
Briar Lake. Additional monitoring of both groundwater and surface water
have continued periodically by both NJDEP and Camden County, including
o o
o
•
scans for priority pollutants. Geophysical testing has included surface o
2-4
n electrical resistivity and terrain conductivity to determine the extent of
leachate migration.
In April 1982, the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) and the Camden
County Health Department conducted a health survey of the population
living near the GEMS landfill. Increased minor respiratory problems were
identified near the landfill, particularly in nonsmoking males. Follow-up
pulmonary function testing was conducted, but data analysis has not yet
been completed. Nevertheless, preliminary results do not appear to verify
the results of the health survey.
NJDEP has determined that the contaminated ground and surface water poses
a potential health hazard to nearby residents. No potable water wells
have been condemned by the State, but HJDEP has recommended that the
Township require residents to hook up to nearby public water supply
systems. Also the State has required that development cease within the
affected area that would require new wells.
As a result of health concerns relating to possible exposure to
contaminated surface water, NJDEP recommended, as early as December 1981,
installing a fence around the entire perimeter of the landfill. Holly Run,
and the swampy area. Subsequently, in May 1982, NJDEP ordered the
Township of Gloucester to construct a perimeter fence to prevent access,
but it has not been constructed, to date. Since then, NJDEP has requested
funding for fence construction from the New Jersey Department of Treasury ,§
•
under the Spill Compensation and Control Act of New Jersey, and from EPA o
° o o
'k . — a oo
B
B 2-5
I fl under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA/Superfund).
a
I I
a
a
i
a
n •
As of July 1982, the GEMS landfill site has been included on the Superfund
Interim Priority List. The site has also been submitted for inclu.sion on
the National Priorities 400 List. A site chronology, outlining important
events at the GEMS landfill, is presented in Appendix A.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.3.1 Physiography
• The GEMS landfill site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
physiographic province, which extends from Massachusetts to Florida.
Gloucester Township is described as a low lying, gently rolling plain.
Elevations in the immediate vicinity of the GEMS landfill vary from
approximately 50 to 200 feet above mean sea level. The landfill is sited
fl| on a hill, with the natural topographic high at approximately 175 feet
above mean sea level. With the addition of fill material, the top of the
GEMS landfill now has an elevation of approximately 232 feet above mean
sea level. The existing relief is 80 to 100 feet above the surrounding
area.
a
The landfill Is located on a minor watershed divide, sloping downward
towards Tom's Branch to the south and west and towards Holly Run to the ^
east and north. g
M
O
o (Tl
2-6
m H 2.3.2 Geology
B
The geologic formations in Camden County are comprised primarily of
Quaternary, Tertiary and Cretaceous sediments, underlain by pre-Cretaceous
crystalline metamorphic rocks. The sediments consist of alternating
layers of mostly unconsolidated and some semiconsolidated sand, silt,
gravel, and clay. In Camden County, the Cretaceous and Tertiary sediment
layers slope downward to the southeast. The oldest, pre-Quaternary
sediment formations crop out near the Delaware River, while more recent
formations are exposed at or near the surface with increasing distance
from the river. Thin Quaternary formations often overlie the Cretaceous
and Tertiary formations in relatively horizontal layers.
At the GEMS landfill site, the surface sediments belong to the Bridgeton
Formation from the Quaternary Period. This formation consists of fine to
very coarse quartzose sand with some gravel and is typically found as
isolated patches on topographic highs, such as the GEMS landfill site.
The Bridgeton Formation is approximately 10 feet thick in the area of the
landfill.
B
Beneath the Bridgeton is the Cohansey Sand Formation, which consists of
light yellowish brown, fine to coarse, quartzose sand and fine gravel. In
places, this formation contains lenses of silt and clay which can be as
much as 30 feet thick. ^
o o M
O O
o
2-7
a
m
1
Portions of both the Bridgeton and Cohansey Formations were excavated as
part of the early sand and gravel operations conducted at the landfill.
However, details of this mining are not well documented.
The Kirkwood Formation lies beneath the Cohansey Sand, and consists
primarily of sand, silt and clay. Beneath this formation are the
Vincentown and Manasquan Formations, which are often quite difficult to
differentiate. Each consists of very fine to medium, quartzose sand which
is somewhat clayey. Together, they serve as a moderately permeable
confining layer above the Hornerstown Sand Formation. Hornerstown Sand is
composed of sand and clay, contains up to 90 percent glauconite, and also
served as a leaky confining layer.
The Navesink Formation is the most recent of the Cretaceous formations and
underlies the Hornerstown Sand. It is comprised of a dark green to black
glauconitic sand and clay mixed with varying amounts of quartz sand.
Mount Laurel Sand is a gray quartz sand, and changes into the deeper
Wenowah Formation with a finer grain size, darker grain color, and a large
increase in the mica content.
The Marshalltown Formation is a confining layer of silty sand above the
Englishtown Formation, although some vertical leakage occurs. The
Woodbury Clay is a grayish-black micaceous clayey silt and the
Merchantville Formation is a dark gray micaceous clay to clayey silt with
lenses and beds of glauconite sand. The Magothy Formation, the deepest
recorded on the landfill well logs, consists of a series of alternating o
confining clayey beds and sand beds. The profile of geological formations
1 2-8
o
o o
underlying the GEMS landfill is shown in the well log presented in
Figure 2-4.
2.3.3 Surface Water Hydrology
The GEMS landfill is located within the Delaware River Water Basin, which
dominates the surface hydrology in the region. The landfill is located on
a minor watershed divide between Tom's Branch and Holly Run. Holly run
drains the landfill to the east and north, while Tom's Branch drains it to
the west and south. Each stream originates in the vicinity of the
landfill, and the two combine to form South Branch, a tributary of
Big Timber Creek, which in turn flows into the Delaware River south of
Gloucester City.
1Q
Holly Run flows along the northeast side of the GEMS landfill parallel to
the landfill toe. The course of the stream has been illegally relocated
twice next to the Fox Chase II subdivision, to provide space for
additional housing development. As a result, a swampy area has formed
upstream of the >elocation adjacent to existing homes. This area is
wooded, but the roots of the trees are now submerged. Downstream,
Holly Run flows into Briar Lake, a small pond surrounded by recent
development. From there, it flows through a naturally low, swampy area
into the larger Holly Lake.
A ditch has been dug along the northeast side of the landfill, between the
landfill toe and Holly 'Run. Surface runoff that collects in the ditch
flows southeast and discharges into Holly Run. No other ditches or drains
3 t r i
o o
o o NJ
9 2-9
B V B
•
k 1
1
i i
B
aritffKon Lifht . AaoW MMttf
o( Hi iBOMM Aa* (QwNnary). broMn, fiiM ta wry to t im, e i t u o a •
ColmiMv Smd FonmiiM a< Middh MioeiM A|i. Li|ht Y*<lo«riih brown, f iM ta Mry cMnt griiiMd q i a n i o a and with lo iM b id i of d ty Mid litt. WMtr toM* oquifir i t GEMS wid • mojor muihr in Ctmdtn Cotintv.
Kirkwood Fonnotion o4 Middle Mioenw A f . Li|ht grty to l i fht oliM p t i , i l i(htly floucanitic, riifhtly m i a e n u i , f i m to modium fioinod and with imorboddid tilt and day. A minor oquifir.
Hmooqinn Fomiatien of Eeetno A f t . OliM fray, dayoy, floueonitic quartzoa and. Modwolily yonnofbio csnfininf bod.
Vineontown FortMtion of Poltocani AfO. Olim fray to lifht fray, Hmowhit doyty, nwdium ta fino froinod quoruoa and. Contiins ioa cloy thon Mtnaquon Formotion. A M i y wnflwinf bod.
Homintown Formotion of Eotfy f Cloyoy quorttoa and with o hifh poreontofo of dor* fwwi floMi uiiito. Looky conf ininf bod.
HoMtink Formotion of Uppor Cratooooui A f i . Oork fffon to gray, modoratily to vory eoora, modoratdy floiicanitic quoruoa and and cloy, with o prominom riwll zano i t boa of formotion. A rafionol morkn torn.
Mount Laural Formotion of Uppor Cnaeoeut A f i . Lifht fray, f in i to tsora i n i n i d qua t i oa and. A miior iqui f i r , yii ldinf up to SCO gpm. Qu i l i t yo fwot i r i i f ood , butmaybohi fh in i ron. ^
Winowoh Formotion of Uppor Crotieooui Ago. Dork gray, wry micocoaui, rtty, modium ta lino frainad quortzoa and. A mojor aquifar.
Monhalltown Formotion of Uppor C IO IMMU> Apa. Dark fray, micoeoo«i,iilty glwconita and. A aonfininf t
EnfMitown Formotion of Uppar Craucaout Afa. ' « , dirlc-eolond alty and . Good to poor capabilHY to yiald wator.
VfOadbury day of Uppor CretocMut Ago. 'firayirii block, mai in i mieocooua doyoy l i l t . A canfininf bod.
Marehantvillo Formotion of Uppor Cratocoout Ago. Oork gray to f roy i# block micocoout clay to cloyay Mt with bodt ond laniai of f louconlta and. Laokyconfininf bodandaminoroquifor.
Mofothy Formation of Uppor Cratacooui Afo. A a r i n of contininf cloyoy bodt with and bodt which cwi yiold wproiimataly 1000 gpm bl tha GEMS ana. Along with Rorinn Formation, i i tho mojor oquifor in Camdan County.
Atlor "Iwfoco ond Grsvndwww In ia t lp i l o i i of tha GEMS Uadf i l l , " by NJDEP.
Figure 2—4
GEMS Landfill Well Log
] -'' currently exist to collect surface runoff. Consequently, most surface
drainage from the landfill will occur by unchannelized flow, percolation
4 and evaporation.
I 2.3.4 Hydrogeology
I Several of the geologic formations described in Section 2.3.2 serve as
W^ aquifers for private and commercial water supplies in the vicinity of the
landfill and throughout Camden County. The Bridgeton Formation lies above
^ the local water table, which is located in the Cohansey Formation. Deeper
• lithologic units, including the Kirkwood, Wenowah-Mount Laurel, and
Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, are important as water supplies.
H Manasquan, Vincentown, Hornerstown, Navesink, Marshalltown, Englishtown,
Woodbury and Merchantville Formations are considered to be aquitards in
' - the area. They are generally not capable of producing enough water for
major potable uses but are able to transmit some water to lower aquifers.
These formations can be characterized as moderately permeable confining
beds.
a a • a
The aquifers are recharged by local rainfall, primarily in the region
where the ^rmation crops out near the ground surface. However, minor
recharge likely occurs through aquitards into lower water bearing
H formations. The average rainfall in the region is 42 inches per year.
B fl
Q
The general quality of groundwater varies between aquifers and throughout g
Camden County. Water from the Cohansey Sand is generally suitable for o o
potable use after treatment. Typical characteristics of water from this --J
2-10
aquifer include low pH, high iron concentration, undesirable color, low
dissolved solids content, and low hardness. The Kirkwood Formation
produces water which is generally soft, but high in dissolved solids and
iron content. Water from the Wenowah-Mount Laurel aquifer generally is
suitable for potable use except for high iron concentrations. It often
has low levels of dissolved solids, sulfates and chloride, and hardness
ranges from soft to moderately hard. Local wells tap primarily into the
Cohansey Sand, Mount Laurel Sand, Magothy and Vincentown-Hornerstown
Formations.
NJDEP conducted geophysical investigations in the fall of 1980 to
determine the extent of the contaminated plume emanating from the
landfill. Both surface electrical resistivity and terrain conductivity
tests were conducted, in conjunction with chemical analyses for volatile
organics. The results of these studies are presented in a January, 1981
report entitled, "Surface and Groundwater Investigation of the Gloucester
Environmental Management Services, Inc. (GEMS) Landfill."
From these results, NJDEP concluded that the GEMS landfill is responsible
for both ground and surface water contamination and that contamination is
emanating from all sides of the landfill. Also, water from the Kirkwood
and Mount Laurel aquifers contains volatile organic chemicals similar to
those detected in leachate and stream samples near the GEMS landfill.
Consequently, NJDEP has concluded that the GEMS landfill is a contributing 3
factor in the contamination of these aquifers. o o i->
o o cn
2-11
i |(L An abbreviated groundwater elevation survey was conducted in the vicinity
of the Fox Chase II development in October, 1980 by NJDEP. The survey
I indicated that groundwater elevations of the water table (shallow) aquifer
reflect topographic elevations and that contaminants are emanating from
the landfill rather than being carried from another upstream point in
Holly Run. 1 I m 2.3.5 Air Quality
I a
Air sampling has been conducted several times in the vicinity of the GEMS
landfill to determine air contaminant exposure by nearby residents.
Sampling was conducted during January and February, 1982 by EPA/Technical
ajl Assistance Team in the Briar Lake development. No volatile organics were
recorded immediately exterior to the-dwellings. However, total volatile
organics were detected in the house basements at levels between 5 and
^ - 975 ppb. Because this study did not rule out the possibility that
household items were the sources of contamination, additional studies are
being conducted. Volatile organics were also measured on top of the
landfill in August, 1982, finding up to 100 ppm intermittantly being
released through vent cracks in the cover material.
At the GEMS site, NJDEP monitored ambient air quality in June, 1982.
Measurements were conducted using an HNU Detector, calibrated for benzene.
The background reading was found to be 3 ppm benzene. At one location, ^ 3
two-thirds the way up a 60 percent slope on the landfill, measurements of o
5 ppm benzene were recorded at ground, waist, and overhead levels. ^
o
o
2-12
[] P^ Testing for explosion risk in the vicinity of the landfill was conducted
in May, 1981 by NJDEP. An MSA explosive gas meter probe was used to
detect explosion hazard 3 feet deep in the ground. Readings of
100 percent of the lower explosion limit, calibrated as methane, in air
were detected in several locations including along Holly Run, within
• 100 feet of Fox Chase II residences, along the south and west sides of the
landfill, and near the swamp at the end of Holly Run Drive.
I I
I ]
a
A health survey (April, 1982) has been conducted on the population living
near the GEMS landfill by the State Department of Health in cooperation
B with the Camden County Health Department. A standard set of questions was
asked of 122 households in the immediate vicinity of the landfill as well
as a control group of residents living several miles from the landfill.
Statistical analyses of the questionnaire results were performed
separately by sex and smoking status. Results of the study indicated an
increase in minor respiratory ailments of residents near the landfill,
particularly in nonsmoking males. However, because a difference was found
between affects on males and females, the researchers could not conclude
definitively that the respiratory problems were associated solely with
local air pollution. Pulmonary function testing has been conducted to
determine whether the symptoms reported are associated with a decrement in
breathing function. Preliminary results do not support the earlier
questionnaire results.
a a I a I 1 I
o 3
2.3.6 Ecology o o
o o ^ •
2-13
n
m
n
Land use in the vicinity of the GEMS landfill varies considerably. Much
of the surrounding area consists of recent suburban development. Near the
southeast corner of the site is a cement manufacturing and welding
operation. Much of the surrounding area remains undeveloped and wooded.
Nearby, to the north, is an area of maintained motorbike trails. The
trees from this area have been removed and the ground remains mostly
barren.
The landfill, itself, rises above the surrounding landscape by 80 to
100 feet. Most of the landfill is vegetated by a variety of annual and
perrenial weeds and grasses. Some larger shrubs have begun to take hold
in areas. Nevertheless, a substantial portion of the landfill remains
unvegetated. The brushy habitat is ideal for supporting rabbits and other
rodents, and their predators, such as hawks and foxes. In a NJDEP
evaluation of the site using the Mitre Model, critical environments for
the Cooper's hawk and the bog turtle have been Identified.
In the area that Holly Run has been relocated, the ground is sparsely
covered by grasses, bush clovers and other weedy vegetation capable of
growing in sandy, relatively infertile soil. Upstream of the relocation,
decidous trees are how located with their roots submerged beneath the
water. Many of these trees have been adversely affected and denuded by
the stream relocation, either by the increase in water level or by the
presence of volatile organics. Other trees along the stream bank which ^ t r
have not been affected by an increased water table have also been denuded,
indicating that the volatile organics are contributing to the foliage o o
D
shock. o o
CO
2-14
II
n
I
D
2.3.7 Socioeconomics
Possible impacts of a hazardous landfill in residential areas include
lowered property values, decreased dwelling occupancy, discontinued
development, or lost work days due to illness. Further development in the
vicinity of the landfill has been ordered to cease by NJDEP if individual
wells would be required to supply potable water.
Citizens and public officials in the area of the landfill are aware of the
potential health problems, and are concerned about the spreading of
chemicals via groundwater to their wells and into their basements. This
acute public awareness is evidenced by the number of complaints and
requests for information received by local and state officials, and the
extensive press coverage of the landfill concerns.
If the landfill is properly closed and leachate migration can be
controlled, then local social and economic conditions can be revitalized.
However, until this occurs, negative impacts will continue.
2.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
Extensive monitoring for hazardous chemicals has been conducted by NJDEP
and the Camden County Health Department. Hazardous chemicals have been
identified in the groundwater, surface water, air, and landfill surface 3
soils. The nature of the hazards in each vary and are discussed
separately below.
2-15
o o
o o
axrmt. uui i ^ '- .-:.<i3KliH
1 J
2.4.1 Groundwater
Extensive monitoring of the-groundwater in the vicinity of the GEMS
landfill has taken place by NJDEP and the Camden County Health Department.
Analysis of samples has been performed by the NJDOH Laboratory and a
variety of private laboratories. Samples have been collected from 22
potable water wells and from 13 monitoring wells installed specifically
for this testing. Most samples were tested using only a volatile organic
scan. However, a complete priority pollutant scan was conducted on
samples collected March 9, 1982.
A summary of contaminants identified in groundwater near the landfill is
presented in Table 2-1. Maximum concentrations are presented for each
general compass direction from the landfill. A distinction has been made
between potable water wells and monitoring wells, because the monitoring
wells are generally closer to the landfill and draw samples of shallower
groundwater than do the potable wells. Also, contaminants in potable
wells indicate a more immediate public health concern than when found in
monitoring wells.
A summary of the depths at which specific contaminants have been
identified is presented in Table 2-2. Wells exist only at a limited
number of depths in each direction from the landfill. Consequently,
contamination by specific compounds could range considerably beyond those 3 f
o depths which have been identified. o
o o 00 o
2-16
1
I 1 I I 1 a a
a a a a a a •
Table 2-1 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN VICINITY OF GEMS LANDFILL
Maximum Concentration Identified (ppb)^ Potable Monitoring Well Type
Direction from Landfill East
Chemical
Benzene Chlorobenzene Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Tetrach1oroethy1ene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloropropane Cumene Decane Ethylbenzene Mesitylene Methylene Chloride Toluene Xylenes (m-, o-, p-)
0.8 1.4 70
360
17.6
3.0 10 20
7.1 440
South
4.8 10.0
1.8
40 22.4 0.6 2.1 7.1
West North East South
6.7 14.3 12.7
6.2
0.7 10.1
7.1
Total Volatile Organics 890
1.9 2.6
45.4
2.4
32.3 19.8
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
136
8.4
18
6.3
5.0 2.2 1.1 1.3
2.3 6.9
200
West
57
31
- Not detected * Not analyzed
Data derived from "Summary of Surface and Groundwater in the Vicinity of the GEMS landfill." by NJDEP, June 1982 (see Appendix B).
RW27/18
260 144
110
210 53 180
947
o o CO
a
Table 2-2 DEPTHS AT WHICH GROUNDWATER CONTAMINAN
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
i^£J 'Mi JI
Range of Depths (feet)
Direction From Landfill
Chemical
Benzene Chlorobenzene Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1,1-Tri chloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloropropane Cumene Decane Ethylbenzene Mesitylene Methylene Chloride Toluene Xylenes (m-, o-, p-)
Total Volatile Organics
- Not Detected
East
250 250 250
250
250 250
70-250 70 250
250 250
20-250
South
17-234
West
60-90 60-90
17-70
17-37 60-90
60-234 • -
17-234 17-90
17-37 17-37 17-37 17-37
17-234 17-70 17-37
15-90 90
15-30
«, -
175-350 15-30 15-350 90-350
.
-
15-30 -
15-350 15-30 15-30
13-350
North
205
205
205
NOTE: Wells do not exist in the entire depth range (0 - 350 feet) in all directions from the landfill.
RW27/70
c. 3 tr>
o o
o o bo
i
II
t
The sources of these chemicals prior to disposal at the landfill is not
known, and a list of companies which have deposited chemicals at the
landfill was not available for the preparation of this RAMP. For
approximately three weeks in 1970, the landfill was authorized to accept
chemical wastes from Rohm and Haas, but permission was revoked after a
chemical fire occurred that was related to these wastes. In 1973, arsenic
and salt wastes were brought to the landfill from the Vineland Chemical
Company.
Evidence exists indicating that chemicals may have been deposited at other
times in the landfill. In January 1977, SWA issued a Notice of
Prosecution to GEMS for their disposing of unauthorized chemical wastes in
the landfill. Incomplete records suggest that chemical wastes may have
been deposited beneath the groundwater table during operations of the
landfill prior to 1970. Also, numerous fires have broken out at the
landfill, some showing evidence of being chemically related. In March
1973, during a fire, a NJDEP Inspector noted two 55 gallon drums that were
spilled on the ground. The liquid was observed to look like #6 Bunker "C"
o n and smell like acetone and toluene.
A major source of groundwater contamination is likely leachate from the
landfill. Testing of leachate near Holly Run on three separate dates
shows that it is also highly contaminated by volatile organics. Results
of these analyses are presented in Table 2-3. Many of the pollutants
identified in the leachate are the same as those found in groundwater. o
However, 1,1,2-trlchloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichoroethylene, ^ o
and 1,2-dichloropropane have been identified in groundwater but not in S
2-17
Ti
o
a m
B B B B B B B
B
B
Table 2-3 LEACHATE CONTAMINANTS ENTERING HOLLY RUN
Date Sampled
Parameter
Total Conforms (MPN/100 ml) Fecal Conforms (MPN/100 ml) Fecal Streptococci (MPN/lOOml) Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1) Chloride (mg/1) 5-Day BOD (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Iron (mg/1)
Volatile Organics (ppb)
Benzene Bromodichloromethane Chlorobenzene . . 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1-Tri chloroethane Tetrachloroethane Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Chloroform
Volatile Organics (ppb)
Cumene Decane Ethylbenzene Mesitylene Methylene Chlori de Propylbenzene Toluene M-Xylene + P-Xylene O-Xylene PCBs Pesticides
Maximum Concentration Identified
6/24/80°
540 49 79
2903 2158 63
7520 0.2
36.02
592
9/18/80^ 11/6/80'
>50,000
>50,000 >50,000 >50,000
* *
479 954 453
•
* *
289
22 245 18 18 36
6.3 144
5.0 2.2
3.1 62 34 598 78 58
* * * *
* * * *
84 853 17
25,153 59
67 27
270
54
- Not detected * Not analyzed t r
^
One leachate sample
'TWO leachate samples
'Three leachate samples
RW27/19
o
o o 00 •Ck.
I 1-^ leachate. Of these four compounds, only 1,2-dichloroethylene, and
1,2-dichloropropane have been identified in the same area that leachate
sampling took place. I !
i I E
a
q a a a a
These data should not be considered a complete summary of all groundwater
monitoring to date, because NJDEP and Camden County continue to conduct
testing around the GEMS landfill. A summary report of monitoring data,
prepared by NJDEP, is Included in Appendix B, which gives more specific
information concerning sampling locations and dates.
It should be noted that the levels of contamination have not been
consistent between sampling times. In particular, a private well (Hurst)
I was sampled on five separate occasions. The result of this sampling is
^ presented in Table 2-4. In three samples, volatile organics were not
detected. In one sample, total volatile organics were found at a level of
29 ppb, and in another, at 890 ppb. Also, the specific compounds
identified change considerably. These variations are much greater than
I normally expected from groundwater monitoring. NJDEP has concluded that
the results from the sample taken March 9,.1982 is inconsistent with other
data available, and have referred to it as a "statistical anomaly".
Additional groundwater sampling should be conducted to better characterize
contaminant concentrations in potable water wells.
a
2.4.2 Surface Water Q 3 f
o
Contamination of the surface water is apparent from a visual inspection of 3
Holly Run and the swampy area near Fox Chase II. Inspection reports by o
o 00 Ul
2-18
m
Sample Date
09/22/80
11/17/80
10/27/81
03/09/82
Table 2-4 CONTAMINANT VARIATION IN THE HURST WELE
Chemical
fk M i "^-^ M Ta '
04/29/82
1,2-Di chloroethylene Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene Chlorobenzene Toluene Benzene Trichloroethylene
Total Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1,2-Tri chloroethane Toluene 1,2-Dichloropropane
Total Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Concentration(ppb)
17.6 7.1 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.6
29.1
N.D.
N.D.
70 360 440 20
890
N.D.
N.D. - Not Detected
Data from "Summary of Surface and Groundwater in the Vicinity of the GEMS Landfill," by NJDEP, June 1982 (see Appendix B)
RW27/17
k 3 IT*
o o
o o oo
]
i Surface water testing has been conducted at several points along Holly Run
WT' which runs parallel to the northeast side of the landfill. Samples have
I i i
a
a a a B B
NJDEP have indicated at times a red oily sheen has covered the entire
width of the stream. Strong odors emitted from the stream are a further
indication of volatile organic contamination.
also been taken from Briar Lake, located to the north of the landfill, and
through which Holly Run flows. Only one sample has been taken from Tom's
Branch, a stream located south of the landfill. A summary of analytical
results is shown in Table 2-5.
Many of the major contaminants are the same as those found in the
• groundwater and leachates, including benzene, chlorobenzene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichlorethylene» chloroform, cumene, decane, ethyl
^ benzene, mesitylene, methylene chloride, toluene and xylenes. However,
there are also many contaminants found in surface water but not identified
in leachate, including benzofuran, carbon tetrachloride,
H 1,2-d1chlorobenzene, 1,3-dlchlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,1,2-tri chloroethane,1,2-di chloroethane, 1,1-di chloroethylene,
2,2,2-trifluorotoluene, heptane, nonane and octane. The only compound
identified in leachate but not in the surface water is
bromodichloromethane.
c During metals testing, cadium and lead were found in Holly Run, while very ^
high concentrations of iron were found in Briar Lake and downstream in o o
Holly Run. o o CO
2-19
I .
Table 2-5 SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN VICINITY OF
Chemical
Volatile Chemicals Benzene Benzofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene 1,2-Di chlorobenzene 1,3-Di chlorobenzene 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1-Trichlorothane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Chloroform Cumene Decane Ethylbenzene 2,2,2-Trifluorotoluene Heptane Mesitylene Methylene Chloride Naphthalene Nonane Octane Propylbenzene Toluene M-Xylene + P-Xylene 0-Xylene
Total Volatile Organics
Metals Cadmium Lead Iron
Not detected
Maximum Concentration Identified (ppb)
One sample only
^Downstream from Briar Lake
Holly Run
251
240 37 110
250 155 102 53
750 110 10
936 9.5 146 60
67 1.4 152
212 95 20
816 172 77
2162
30
' 2 14880
Briar Lake
2400 10
130 6 8 48 80 30 70 320 8 5
34 2 7
90 34 2
46
8 4000 163 92 86
3300 16 6
10,378
37,760
Tom's Branch
40
80
120
3
o o
o o 00 00
• Data from "Summary of Surface and Groundwater Monitoring in the Vicinity of the GEMS Landfill," NJDEP, June 1982 (see Appendix B).
RW27/20
D f/t- Volatile organics were also identified in the sediment from Holly Run and
Briar Lake, as shown in Table 2-6. Only one compound was identified in
each, and the two sediment samples contained different chemicals. B n B
n B B " ^
B
ia ia t
ia
i
2.4.3 Ai£
Air sampling was conducted in the area of GEMS landfill during December
1982 and January 1982 by the New Jersey State Department of Health
(NJDOH). The interiors of 26 homes and a Catholic retreat house were
tested, as well as 15 exterior locations, 4 of which were at the landfill
itself. The samples were analyzed by the NJDOH, Division of Laboratories
for volatile organics. A listing of those contaminants and the
concentrations found is shown in Table 2-7, Sampling was done using
charcoal tubes and constant flow air sampling pumps at a sample rate of no
more than 1 liter of air per minute with a minimum of 200 liters of air
collected per sample. Interior samples were taken in the basements or
otherwise at the lowest level of the homes.
Table 2-8 indicates the number and percent of homes with one or more
contaminants detected. No contaminants were detected in the outdoor air
samples (Table 2-9). Table 2-10 shows the frequency of detection in
interior samples for each specific contaminant.
Standards for the workplace environment are available thru OSHA and NIOSH.
These limits, PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) and TLV-TWA (Threshold
o 3
o o
m
Limit Value-Time Weighted Average), are the maximum allowable o CO
concentrations of contaminants that a worker may be exposed to over an ^
2-20
n
H "Tab e 2-6 ^ SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN SURFACE WATER NEAR GEMS LANDFILL mm Maximum Concentration Identified (ppb) m Chemical Holly Run' Briar Lake"
B Chlorobenzene - 7.2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.8
- Not detected
Data from "Summary of Surface and Groundwater Monitoring in the Vicinity of the GEMS Landfill," NJDEP, June 1982 (see Appendix B).
o 3 tr
o o
RW27/21 g o
L •il-^g-^^ j i - jr-'M^WrWrWrm-w-m Table 2-7
GEMS STUDY-CONTAMINANTS FOUND In ter io r Air Samples In ppm
o 3
o o
o o
S I u -8 s
01
c:
a.
0) c «
n U J
V
V •
> i
M
£
¥
« o o
>» J!
«
1 o J Z u
• -0 - »
) - l
^ a , ••-» c II
1
cn o ^ u u t i J u
? <« a.
e M
C
N C
B O
u a 1
£
1 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18-
19
20"
21
22
23
Z4
25
2fi
Z7
- . O M
" 0 0 4
.013
.005
.005
.032
.005
" . 0 8 0
" . 0 0 4
- . 0 0 5 •
.008
- . 0 0 5
- . 0 0 5
.008
.005
.005
.029
.007
.041
.005
.006
.027
. 0 0 9
. 0 0 9
.116
. 008
.007
. 008
. 0 1 9
. 048
.008
.004 •
. 0 5 7
.039
.007
.097
.106
.035
. 0 8 3
. 308
.107
. 028
. 048
. 0 7 3
.056
. 108
. 108
.024
.1130
.009
, 033
.007
.010
.012
. 041
.018
.004
.004
. 0 0 5
.034
.016
•s;; ..,
7008'
.013
.038
.014
-
.012
.023 :
.012
.004
.152
.022
.001
.007 •
•.014""
.007
.004
.002
.057
.003
. 0 1 4 " "
.003
.006
.008
.006
. 0 0 7
.017
:oi7
.075
.045
.041
.016
.005
.008
.013
.015
.DID
.019
.019
.008
.005
.025
.286
.411
.006
.025
".015
.039
.331
.023
.012
.061
.113
.007 •
.102"
.106
.082
.035
.329
.431
.115
.298
.051
.011
.008
.340
.056
.114
".005
TOOS
.056
.412
" : i i i
.497
• .015
.475
.009
. . - k r O T - ^ ^ ' . - . t . ; / , ,
fclSlSii^
^ ^ ^ ^
mim.^.i^rfiM
n B
B Location
Elevation Upper Lower Other
Table 2-8 INTERIOR AIR SAMPLES-GEMS STUDY
FOR ANY VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
#Households With ND To 10 ppb
3 1 4
#Households With 10 ppb
8 3 7
' / f
11 4 11
Total % > 10 ppb
73% 75% 64%
Total 18 26 69%
Table 2-9 EXTERIOR AIR SAMPLES-GEMS STUDY
FOR ANY VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Location
Elevation Upper Lower Other
Total
#Household With ND To < 10 ppb
3 1
11
15
#Households With z 10 ppb
0 0 0
0
Total
3 1
11
15
%_ 10 > ppb
0 0 0
0
Data from report by NJDOH.
la Ci 3 t r
o o
RW27/23
o o " . NJ
Table 2-10 FREQUENCY OF DETECTION OF INTERIOR
AIR CONTAMINANTS
Chemical
TLV/10 TLV/100* Detected Frequency of Detection in ppm or or Range in None
PEL/10 PEL/100 ppm Detected .01 .01-.09 .1-.9
Toluene 20 ppm 2 ppm 0-.080 17
Pentane
Butane
Hexane
Xylene
Octane
Decane
Undecane
Benzene
Nonane
1,2,4-1 nmethyl-benzene
Propylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Mesitylene
Methyl Cyclo Hexane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
C15 1,3-Dimethyl Cyclo Hexane
Isopropanol
Para-Dichloro-benzene
100 ppm
80 ppm
50 ppm
10 ppm
50 ppm
1 ppm
2.5 ppm
10 ppm
10 ppm
35 ppm
7.5 ppm
10 ppm
8 ppm
5 ppm
1 ppm
5 ppm
.1 ppm
.25 ppm
1 ppm
1 ppm
3.5 ppm
.75 ppm
0-.116
0-.306
0-.033
0-.041
0-.038
0-.1S2
0-.057
0-.008
0-.075
0-.045
0-.013
O-.OlS
0-.019
0-.008
0-.411
0-.025
0-.331
IS
12
23
17
23
21
18
23
23
24
25
25
25
24
24
24
26
24
g
1
1
4
1
1
6
4
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
d
3
6
3
4
3
0
3
3
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
* TLV/100 or PEL/100 is an arbitrary figure to show an additional safety factor. Above data from interior air samples from 26 homes and a catholic retreat house.
Data from report by NJDOH.
RW27/24
a 3 tr
o o
o o CO
il
il
eight hour shift and 40 hour work week without any adverse health effects.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) has typically specified that air used for ventilation
purposes in the indoor environmental must not contain contaminants at
concentrations greater than one-tenth the TLV-TWA. The TLV is chosen
because it provides a good margin of safety for an 8-hour daily exposure.
ASHRAE has added additional and substantial safety margins using the TLV
divided by 10 formula. From the comparison of these limits to levels
found in homes near the GEMS landfill (Table 2-10), NJDOH has made the
preliminary conclusion that concentrations found are not expected to cause
serious health problems. NJDOH has resampled air from the earlier test
locations, but the results are not available for the preparation of this
RAMP. Results from both sampling episodes should be evaluated by a
toxicologist before final conclusions are drawn.
Ambient air sampling by NJDEP detected background readings of 3 ppm
benzene. On one slope of the landfill, benzene concentrations increased
to 5 ppm at ground, waist, and overhead levels. At other locations, no
benzene was detected.
2.4.4 Cover Material
Several old Imhoff Tanks were demolished in the process of upgrading o
Philadelphia's Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant (NEWPCP). The
debris from demolition of these tanks was transported to the GEMS landfill
2-21
f
o o
beginning in October, 1980, and used as landfill cover material. o
n The Imhoff tanks were designed to remove and anaerobically digest
settleable wastewater solids. After 1951, the Imhoff tanks at NEWPCP were
abandoned and used only in emergencies when the treatment plant was not
operating properly. However, sewage sludge remained in the tanks until
its removal in 1980. Periodically, between 1951 and 1980, sewage grit,
bar screenings, sewer inlet debris, and small amounts of municipal refuse
were added to the tanks.
Material transported to the GEMS site included approximately 30,500 cubic
yards of steel reinforced concrete and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of
tank contents. It was estimated that the tank contents included
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of municipal refuse and 36,000 cubic yards
of stabilized sludge and grit.
On December 29, 1980, sludge being transported to the GEMS landfill from
the Philadelphia Imhoff tanks was spilled near the landfill, causing a
road hazard. The spilled material was sampled by state inspectors and
found to be contaminated by DDD. Subsequently, material deposited on the
landfill was tested and found to contain^DDD and DDE, which are metabolic
products of the pesticide DDT.
Twelve locations on the landfill, including the top edge and side slopes
around the entire perimeter, have been identified as having Philadelphia a 3
sludge deposited on them. The results of NJDEP testing for chlorinated t
pesticides are shown in Table 2-11. o (-1
o o vo cn
2-22
II
B n
a
Constituent
Aldrin Chlordane Endrin Lindane p,p' - DDD o,p' P.P'
DDD DDE
o,p' - DDE DDT Toxaphene Methoxychlor
Site 1
1.7 0.86 0.67 0.060
Table 2-11 CHLORINATED PESTICIDE SCREEN
Sample & Designation Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
8.4 2.8 2.2 0.88
4.4 1.8 1.4 0.10
2.4 0.90 1.1 0.086
1.0 0.44 0.80 0.14
6.1 2.8 3.1 0.24
Constituent
Aldrin Chlordane Endrin Lindane p,p' - DDD o,p' - DDD p,p' - DDE o,p' - DDE DDT Toxaphene Methoxychlor
Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12
7.4 2.1 1.5 0.12
:o 5.7 6.8 0.75
4.6 1.9 1.7 0.10
3.3 1.6 1.1 0.14
4.1 2.0 3.0 0.23
1.3 0.46 0.55 0.030
All results are in micrograms of consituent per gram of sample.
- Less than 0.1 microgram of constituent per gram of sample.
Data from Stabler Reutter Test Report No. 5-1356 for NJDEP Solid Waste Division.
Ci 3 f
o o
RW27/25 o o vo <7\
I
a I
flb The City of Philadelphia Water Department conducted independent sampling
(March 10, 1981) and analysis on the sludge deposited. These additional
tests confirm the presence of DDD and DDE (Table 2-12). DDT was also
identified during this analysis. However, the Soxhlet extraction
technique used for identifying these compounds is not representative of
the amounts available through leaching. Consequently, an EPA Extraction
Procedure (EP) analysis was also conducted to determine if the samples
were hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Section 261.24. Results of
these EP Toxicity Tests for pesticides at four of the twelve locations are
shown in Table 2-13. DDD, DDE, and DDT could not be detected using this
procedure. Metals were also tested by the RCRA EP Toxicity Test with the
results shown in Table 2-14, Resampling by the Philadelphia Water
Department was conducted in April 1982 with similar analytical results.
2.5 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
2.5.1 Public Health and Safety
Several potential threats to public health and safety exist due to the
presence of the GEMS landfill. Including:
0 Private drinking well contamination
0 Access to contaminated surface water
0 Access to landfill s
0 Flooding of contaminated surface water o B
Q
0 Volatile organics in household basements
2-23
o
o 0 Air pollution from volatile organics °
I
a 9 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Table 2-12 ANALYSIS OF MARCH 10, 1981 SAMPLES (PPM)
FROM GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
Site No. o',p'DDE p',p'DDE o'.p'DDD p',p'DDD o',p'DDT p',p'DDT
2.5 4.7 6. 2. 2. 15. 6.9 9.3 4.4 3.2 2.6 4.1
1.5 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.6 12.0 1.7 1.0 2.5 1.4
3.2 14.0 20.0 3.2 1.3 13.0 13.0 19.0 6.3 4.0 3.8 0.8
8.7 33.0 57.0 7.9 5.4 34.0 22.0 49.0 11.0 9.0 8.3 3.3
0.8 2.4 5.3 0.8 5.3 12.0 6.0 2.9 1.5 1.1 1.6 3.2
0.4 1.8 3.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.8 2.6
Average 5.32 3.05 8.47 20.7 3.58 1.25
Data from City of Philadelphia
RW27/26
a 3 tr
o o
o o vo 00
B
m Table 2-13
RCRA EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP) TOXICITY TEST ON MARCH 10, 1981 SAMPLES
FROM GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
1
Site No.
08 09 10 11
Description
Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Composite
(p.p.m.) 2,4 D
BD .001 BD BD
Si 1 vex
BD BD BD BD
MCL 10.0 1.0
i n U o . DescHEtlon 0,^:000 ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ I M ^ . ^ ^
08 09 10 11
Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Composite
BD BD BD BD
BD BD BD BD
BD BD BD BD
BD BD BD BD
BD BD BD BD
BD BD BD BD
Site No.
08 09 10 11
Description
Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Composite
Lindane
BD BD BD BD
Endrin
BD BD BD BD
Methoxychlor
BD BD BD BD
Toxaphene
BD BD BD BD
MCL .4 .2 10.0 0.5
BD - Below Detectable Limits MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
Data from City of Philadelphia
Q 3 tr"
RW27/28 o o
o o vo vo
a I i
a a
Table 2-14 RCRA EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP)
TOXICITY TEST ON MARCH 10, 1981 SAMPLES FROM GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
U d <
Site No. Ba Pb ia Cd Se Hg As
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
Data from City of Philadelphia
RW27/27
Cl
6
7
3
Composite of 2 Samples
MCL
0.68
1.52
1.96
1.04
100 •
0.44
0.17
0.50
0.28
5.0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
5.0
0.70
0.65
0.75
0.49
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.00193
0.00073
0.00090
0.00060
0.2
0.009
0.043
0.011
0.062
5.0
0.15
0.01
0.10
0.01
5.0
Q 3 t r
o o
o o
a
fl fl
n
0 Long-term contamination of deep aquifers
0 DDD-contaminated dust.
Well contamination, access to the landfill and surrounding surface water,
and contaminated basements appear to pose the most imminent problems
associated with the landfill. The degree of other potential health
problems has not yet been adequately evaluated and may pose longer term
health impacts.
Within one mile of the landfill, approximately 1000 people are served by
260 private wells for water supply. Although some draw water from deep
aquifers, other wells are relatively shallow, drawing water from the
Cohansey Sand and Kirkwood aquifers. Contamination of private wells in
the vicinity of the landfill has been indicated, but not conclusively
proven as the result of variable data.
Although no toxicological studies have been conducted to date, NJDEP has
determined that no immediate potable water emergency exists.
Consequently, NJDEP has not required the Garden State Water Company to
extend its public supply system to affected areas. However, NJDEP
considers there to be a immediate threat, and has suggested that the
Township of Gloucester require residents to tie into the public system at
their own expense. Further development near the landfill has been ^ 3 IT"
prohibited if private water wells are to be used. One private well was o
found to contain 890 ppb volatile organics, which is greater than the 3
100 ppb total organics level at which State officials can condemn a o
potable well. The well has hot been condemned because of inconsistent
2-24
o
n
•
data, but it has been recorranended to the residents that they discontinue
using water from that well. No other wells have been found to be
contaminated at levels greater than 100 ppb total organics.
Houses exist in the subdivision of Fox Chase II, which are within 100 feet
of an open swampy area and within 250 feet of Holly Run, both of which are
heavily contaminated with volatile organics. Houses are also located
within several hundred feet of Briar Lake, which is also contaminated. A
3-foot fence exists along portions of Holly Run and the swampy area but
has fallen in places making access easy.
Culverts under Briar Lane, an unpaved road, do not have the hydraulic
capacity to carry peak flows from Holly Run after heavy rains.
Consequently, Holly Run has flooded onto adjacent residential property
with contaminated surface water.
The landfill, itself, could present both public health and safety
problems. A maintained motorbike trail is located adjacent to the site.
Bikers have easy access to the landfill and have been known to use it as
an extension of their trails. Evidence Indicates that unauthorized
dumping has occurred at the site since its closure.
The landfill is not maintained for safe use of motorbikes and may present
excessive accident potential. Riding over the sludge cover material could
result in inhalation of DDD-laden dust which could accumulate in the body.
There exists potential for explosion due to methane generated in the
a 2-25
3
t r
o
o
I
I a a «
a B
landfill. This potential is enhanced by the presence of a number of
flammable chemicals deposited at the site.
A variety of volatile organic chemicals have been identified in the
basements of homes in the area of the landfill. They have created a
I nuisance odor condition for residents, although NJDOH testing has
indicated that chemical levels are below those posing immediate health
problems. Increasing migration of volatile organics could lead to health
problems in the near future.
I Wider spread air contamination was indicated by an initial health survey
conducted by NJDOH and Camden County Health Department, which suggested an
I increase in minor respiratory ailments in residents living near the
^ _ landfill. Preliminary results from pulmonary function testing conducted
by NJDOH have not shown a similar association. The long-term health
impacts on nearby residents from Increased exposure to volatile organics
is unknown.
Several of the geologic formations underlying the landfill serve as major
aquifers to Camden County and surrounding regions. Although there are
several clayey formations, that serve as leaky, slowly permeable layers
(aquitards) and which will retard the downward migration of contaminants,
H there are no truly impermeable layers (aquicludes) to prevent contaminant
flow to other aquifers. The long-term effects on deeper major aquifers is
a major concern. 3 o o
o CO
2-26
0Mfmattti^\i Mmim
d
I I
1 ^ The DDD-contaminated cover material is located on the surface of the
landfill. This material has not supported vegetative growth well to date,
and will likely remain barren unless covered by better soils. Without
vegetative cover the sludge may be susceptible to dusting during dry
periods. Although most dust will not travel far from the site, inhalation
of DDD-contaminated particles may pose substantial long-term health
problems. Nevertheless, because DDD tightly binds to sludge particles and
is relatively insoluble in water, very little leaching is expected.
Consequently, long-term impacts of the sludge on groundwater quality are
expected to be minimal.
2.5.2 Environment
NJDEP has concluded that both Holly Run and Tom's Branch are contaminated
by volatile organics ("Surface and Groundwater Investigation of the GEMS
Landfill," January, 1981). They feed into Big Timber Creek and then into
the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. Foliage shock on deciduous trees has
already been observed along Holly Run where the contamination is the
greatest. Further contamination is expected to extend the range of
impacts to other plants.
Contaminated surface water is expected to have both short- and long-term
negative impacts on wildlife, as well. A few birds were observed in the
a partially denuded woods along Holly Run, but the number and variety tr
o
I
present were much lower than would be expected along a healthy woodland
stream. The effects of contaminated water and air on wildlife is expected o
to be significant. p
2-27
01 2.6 ASSESSMENT OF DATA LIMITATIONS
Much data has been collected at the GEMS landfill in an attempt to
identify health hazards and potential solutions. However, most
conclusions drawn to date should be considered preliminary, because
additional testing is required to verify past results and to draw
definitive conclusions.
Monitoring of the landfill area is still underway so the data base on
which to make decisions continues to improve. Data is being collected by
several organizations, including EPA, NJDEP, NJDOH, and Camden County.
Consequently, all pertinent files must be reviewed to ensure that
conclusions and final decisions are based on all available information.
Many aspects of the GEMS landfill have not yet been adequately quantified,
but must be prior to implementing remedial actions, including:
0 General health Impacts of the landfill on local residents.
0 Health impacts of specific volatile organics identified in
nearby potable wells.
0 Health impacts of the specific volatile organics identified in
nearby basements. 3
0 Groundwater elevation and flow patterns.
o o
3 cn
2-28
I P^ 0 Horizontal and vertical extent of the contaminated groundwater
plume.
0 Potential for deep aquifer contamination.
0 Major leachate sources within the landfill.
0 Contribution of surface runoff to surface water contamination.
0 Contamination levels for volatile organics in Tom's Branch.
0 Detailed characteristics of underlying geologic formations.
^ 0 Impacts on the environment".
I I i I a a a
2-29
RW27/16
Ci 3 tr
o o
o
n B
B 01
Section 3
INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Extensive monitoring by state and local agencies has indicated several
potential health risks due to the presence of the GEMS landfill,
including (a) direct contact with surface water containing hazardous
substances by nearby residents, (b) contamination of potable groundwater
supplies, (c) migration of hazardous chemicals into household basements,
(d) exposure to volatile organic air contaminants (e) exposure to
explosive gases, and (f) inhalation of DDD-laden dust. Initial remedial
actions are recommended to rapidly reduce any existing or irmiinent
hazards to public health or the environment. These are measures which
would be effective in accomplishing this goal, yet could be implemented
relatively quickly without developing extensive amounts of detailed
engineering data. Factors for determining appropriate initial remedial
measures are outlined In 40 CFR 300.68(e).
3.2 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
3.2.1 Task I - Initial Remedial Measures Plan
An implementation plan will be developed initially to proceed with the
proposed initial remedial measures in a timely and organized manner. As
further data is collected, additional initial remedial measures may be
a 3 tr
o
o VI
li 3-1
I
m r Pi
P
n 1
1
required. Therefore, also included must be a plan to respond to these
requirements as they develop. Included should be mechanisms to rapidly:
0 Review and evaluate new data as it is gathered during the
remedial investigation.
0 Collect and analyze supplemental water and air samples.
0 Determine technical requirements for additional initial
remedial measures.
0 Communicate proposed measures to the regulatory agencies and
the affected public.
0 Identify permit requirements associated with the initial
remedial measures.
0 Implement the selected measures.
3.2.2 Task II - Install Fence
To limit access by nearby residents, children, and motorbikers to
contaminated surface water and to the landfill itself, the landfill site a
and adjacent Holly Run should be enclosed with a fence. Briar Lake, ^
located approximately one-quarter-mile from the landfill, is also highly o o
contaminated and is situated in a residential area, so it too should be o
fenced. ^ CO
3-2
1»
m m
NJDEP has developed a scope of work to construct such a fence which is
recommended for use. NJDEP has estimated approximately 10,000 feet of
fence is needed to adequately isolate the landfill and Holly Run, and
approximately 1,500 feet to surround Briar Lake. The scope calls for a
6-foot high fence with coil wire at the top and bottom. Vertical posts
will be cemented into the ground. The landfill fence is planned to have
8 driveway gates, while the Briar Lake fence is planned to have 2
walk-in gates and 1 driveway gate. NJDEP estimates this fence would
cost $170,000 to install, including the cost for surveying the property
and fence line. NJDEP has requested funding from the New Jersey
Department of Treasury for action under the Spill Compensation and
Control Act of New Jersey, and from EPA Region II through CERCLA. Funds
have not yet been committed from either source.
3.2.3 Task III - Post Area
Signs should be Installed around the entire perimeter of the fence to
provide a clear, visible warning to unauthorized persons. The signs
should state "DANGER—UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT" in 3-inch high
letters, and be visible from a distance of 25 feet. Signs should be
placed at all gates or access points, with a minimum of two on every
side of the fence and at no greater than 300-foot intervals.
3.2.4 Task IV - Sample Water Supplies ^
A variety of volatile organics have been identified in at least 12 of
the private wells monitored (Appendix B). One sample taken from the
3-3
o o
o vo
n
9
Hurst residence well contained 890 ppb total volatile organics. This is
considerably greater than the 100 ppb total organics criterion used by
New Jersey for well condemnation. Another site of major concern is the
Norcross Deli, because contaminated water from this well could Impact a
larger population than most of the wells serving individual residences.
All potable water wells in which volatile organics have been Identified
in the past should be resampled to verify levels of contamination.
Based on the results of this testing, appropriate actions would then be
taken to ensure safe drinking water to all affected users.
3.2.5 Task V - Replace Culverts
Two existing culverts on Briar Lane do not have sufficient hydraulic
capacity for peak Holly Run flows. During heavy rains. Holly Run has
overflowed onto adjacent residential property. To avoid potential
contact with contaminated surface water by local residents, the two
existing culverts should be replaced with larger ones. It has been
estimated by EPA Region II that two 30-inch equivalent oval arch
culverts will be sufficient to handle peak flows.
3.3 COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE
Estimated costs for initial remedial actions are shown in Table 3-1. A g t r
schedule of initial remedial actions is shown in Figure 4-1 in
Section 4.13. It is recommended that the proposed initial solutions be o o
o
O
3-4
m
Table 3-1 ESTIMATED COST OF INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
Action
Task I
Develop Initial Remedial Measures Plan
Task II
Fence Landfill, Holly Run, Briar Lake & Swampy area, including access gates and site survey.
Task III
Install warning signs
Task IV
Resample and analyze water from potable wells
Task V
Replace Briar Lane culverts
Quantity
11,500 feet 9 driveway gates 2 walk-in gates
40 signs
^ ' • ; .
12 houses
2 culverts
Cost
Initial,Remedial Actions Totar
^NJDEP estimate was $170,000
Low
$ 13,000
108,000 1
2,000
16,000
9,000
$148,000
"Total cost does not include any additional Initial remedial measures determined necessary from further data collected.
•HTqF
$ 27,000
220,000
4,000
21,000
21,000
$293,000
a 3
fl a
o o
RW27/35
a
a H implemented as soon as feasible to reduce the immediate health risks at
the GEMS landfill site.
I 1 I a ] a a "B
a a 1 a a a a
CW07/02
3
o o
fl
p M M to
3-5
I
I ]
I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I
Section 4
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
A number of other actions must be taken to reduce the health risks to an
.acceptable level. These measures should be instituted as quickly as
possible, but require additional field testing before they can be
successfully implemented. For example, it is desirable to minimize the
amount of leachate generated from the landfill. However, this cannot be
done until contaminant migration is better defined through geophysical
and hydrogeological testing. Another exanqile is that facilities to
collect leachate and surface runoff cannot be installed until a suitable
treatment method can also be instituted. Additional geological and
hydrogeological information must be gathered before dikes, slurry walls,
or drainage collection systems can be constructed. To remedy these data
limitations, a remedial investigation will be conducted, compiling the
additional information necessary to proceed with all of the actions
required for remediation.
4.1 OBJECTIVE
A remedial investigation is a field-oriented effort to obtain the data
necessary to assess the merits of alternative remedial measures.
Remedial Investigation activities are structured to accomplish one or
more of the following objectives:
Qi
3
CO
o
o h-t CO
4-1
fl I
I
i I
a
1. Determine if the site poses an imminent public health hazard
or environmental problem.
2. Determine the nature and extent of contamination on the
project site.
3. Define the pathways of migration from the site, as well as the
impact of contaminants on potential receptors.
4. Define onsite physical features and facilities which could
impact contaminant migration, containment, or cleanup.
Extensive testing has been conducted by NJDEP, NJDOH, and Camden County
Health Department to build a data base for fulfilling these objectives.
However, the existing information on the GEMS landfill is currently
insufficient to allow the selection, screening, and feasibility study of
remedial action alternatives. The following sections constitute a
general work plan to accomplish the above objectives for the GEMS
landfill site. Order-of-magnitude cost estimates and a schedule are
presented for each remedial investigation activity.
4.2 TASK I - WORK PLAN PREPARATION AND INITIAL ORGANIZATION
Objective o o
The scope and focus of a remedial investigation depends on the site and 3
the amount of the pertinent information available. The scope of work ''
4-2
D H must therefore be tailored specifically to each site. The objective of
the work plan is to provide a detailed approach for collecting
additional data needed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of
each potential solution. Concurrent with developing a work plan,
arrangements must be made to implement the remedial investigation and to
establish onsite investigation facilities.
B n
n
m
fe
i
Scope
Development of the work plan includes the administrative functions
necessary to implement the remedial investigation. Major aspects of the
work plan may include:
- ^ Subtask I-A—Organization and Administrative
^ M 0 Assign project team
0 Meet with regulatory personnel
I H 0 Gather background data
0 Prepare quality assurance project plan
Subtask I-B~Invest1gative Site Visit
•0 Conduct Initial site visit a
3 tr
Subtask I-C—Draft and Final Work Plan o o
0 Prepare critical path analysis o
0 Prepare draft work plan '
4-3
i
I a
i i
0 Prepare final work plan
Each of the investigation tasks must have a planned approach.
Consequently, the overall work plan includes a description of the basic
approach for each of site investigations, including:
0 Detailed Review of Existing Data
0 Health and Safety Site Assessment
• 0 Topographical Study
0 Geophysical Study
0 Hydrogeological Study
0 Hydrologic Investigations
0 Stormwater and Leachate Testing
0 Soil Testing
0 Air Quality Testing
0 Ecological Study
• The work plan depends on information that is being gathered as part of
the other tasks, and consequently must be developed concurrently with
the initiation of the other tasks. Furthermore, the work plan will
require continual review, and appropriate revisions will be made as
1 additional information becomes available and the potential remedial
• solutions become better defined.
3
4.3 TASK II - COLLECT AND REVIEW EXISTING DATA o ' — o
Objective o M M
4-4
1
1 i
Numerous data have been collected to develop this RAMP. The objective
of this task is to collect other data related to the GEMS landfill which
are known or suspected to exist.
Scope
A detailed data search will be conducted and all data evaluated. The
work will include the following in addition to that which is available
from the preparation of the RAMP;
0 Collect additional maps, historical photographs, and
geological, soils, surface water, and groundwater data and
reports (both published and unpublished). Sources of
additional data include USGS, Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
state geological survey (or equivalent). National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), local health departments,
stream gauging records, U.S. Weather Bureau records, and local
well drillers.
0 Review additional regulatory files that exist concerning the
GEMS landfill. Included should be files held by NJDEP Solid
Waste Administration, Camden County, Township of Gloucester,
and EPA Region II. Review files recently generated by NJDEP
Division of Hazardous Management and NJDEP Division of Water ^
Resources to update information collected during the RAMP. o
o M
4-5
m
II
n
a
k
m
n
0 Collect and review additional groundwater, surface water and
air monitoring data generated by NJDEP, Camden County and EPA
not included in this RAMP.
0 Collect other data from sources such as site records,
interviews with cooperative personnel (site owners, site
operators, and nearby residents), newspaper reports, shipping
company documents, etc. Files held by GEMS and Anthony Amadei
Sand and Gravel Company should be reviewed for detailed well
logs, mining operations, and bills of lading specifying
materials disposed of at the site.
All environmental data will be evaluated for compliance with the Quality
Assurance Project Plan and enforcement support requirements. On this
basis, some data may be discarded, some may be usable as indicators of
problems and for general guidance, and some may be directly suitable for
developing and evaluating alternatives.
4.4 TASK H I - HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Objective
The objective of a health and safety assessment is to determine if there Q 3
are areas on or near the landfill site which present chemical or t physical hazards to the general populace or any employees working
onsite. Such information will be useful in selecting remedial actions
o o
o
00
4-6
1 I which provide local residents and remedial action investigators/workers
with adequate warnings and safeguards.
m mm Scope
H Subtask III-A—Initial Health and Safety Plan
B Results from past air, water and cover material monitoring has been
conducted which can be used as a starting point for conducting the site
health and safety assessment. Using this information, a health and
H safety plan will be developed to establish protection levels for the
B
B n
m
I
Of
investigative site visit. The plan-will specify the field tests to be
performed and the protective gear to be worn by the site visit
participants. The basis for this health and safety plan will be data
collected in Task II and other information gathered during meetings with
the EPA and state and local agencies. This plan will focus upon the use
of personal protective equipment to minimize exposure to hazardous
materials through inhalation or direct contact. Because much is still
unknown about the health and safety risks of the site at this point,
appropriate precautions will be taken. This plan will be modified as
more data is collected during the initial and subsequent visits.
Subtask III-B—Site Assessment
4-7
3
o
A trained health and safety team will perform a sweep of the site to
further define potential hazards. The safety team will use an o
appropriate level of personal protective equipment and procedures as o I-I I-" vo
I I determined in Subtask III-A. A minimum of level C protection should be
used. Monitoring equipment should be used at the safety team's
discretion to obtain sufficient data to evaluate the potential for
adverse health effects from chemical exposure levels. For this
analysis, the team will use instrumentation such as the following:
r 3
r !
]
I I 1
!
0 A photoionization detector to detect localized areas of high
total hydrocarbon concentrations
0 An organic vapor analyzer (OVA)
0 A direct-reading respirable dust monitor to evaluate ambient
dust levels
0 A combustible gas and oxygen level meter to measure oxygen and
explosive gas levels In the air !
I 0 A radiation survey meter to measure radiation levels
1 I I 0 A portable high-volume sampler for particulates
0 Draeger tubes (colorimetric chemical indicators) for specific
vapors
0 A portable pH probe to check surface water.
Ci 3 tr
o o
NJ O
4-8
a Q
I
The health and safety team will delineate areas of high, medium, and low
risk on the site. The team will stake areas with special potential for
risks, such as contaminated surface water, contaminated surface cover
material, explosion hazard, or high hazardous chemical concentrations in
the air to prevent inadvertent foot traffic by others.
Subtask III-C—Revised Plan
The results of the site assessment will be incorporated into the health
and safety plan and the site management team will be advised of the
appropriate level of personal protection to be used for further site
entry. A report will be prepared containing conclusions and
recommendations from the site assessment, as well as the revised plan.
Subtask III-D—Onsite Mobile Facility
Due to the extensive amount of field work which will be conducted, two
mobile onsite facilities should be established at the GEMS landfill
site. One will serve as an office and be located in the support areas
as outlined by the health and safety program. The other will be used
for decontamination and will be located in a designated decontamination
area.
The decontamination facility will be supplied by a contractor on a ' ^ 3 tr rental basis or will be purchased, whichever is more cost-effective. It
4-9
o will be equipped based on the needs identified in the health and safety 3
o (-I
u IH plan, and will include a secure waste material storage facility for
temporary storage of wastes generated during the investigation.
q
q
b
4.5 TASK IV - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Objective
The objective of the topographic survey is to create a site plan showing
elevations and locations of all pertinent features. Such information is
necessary for developing, screening, and selecting remedial actions, as
well as for designing and contracting the remedial actions.
A limited amount of topographic data has been collected concerning the
GEMs landfill site. However, additional survey information is needed to
provide a detailed map for investigation and design.
Scope
Subtask IV-A—Survey Work Plan
Existing topographic data will be reviewed, followed by preparation of a
detailed work plan will be prepared to address the procedure used for
developing the topographic survey. The work plan will include the scope
of activities to be conducted, time and cost schedules, and a list of g c
subcontracted services. _ o
Subtask IV-B—Survey
4-10
] " An aerial survey of the site should be performed using a scale and
contours determined in the detailed plan. It is expected that a survey
with a scale of 1 inch equals 80 feet and with 5-foot contours would be
appropriate. Accuracy should be within 0.5 foot horizontal and 0.1 foot
vertical. Ground survey techniques will be used for tieing horizontal
distances to the property boundary and vertical elevations to National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (mean sea level). Onsite features which should
be included are streams and wetland areas, roads, structures, monitoring
wells, fences, vegetation, trees, breaks, and grades. Typical offsite
features near the site that should be shown on the survey include roads,
streams, wetland areas, houses, structures, monitoring wells,
vegetation, and trees.
4.6 TASK V - GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
Objective
A geophysical survey of the landfill will be conducted to supplement
existing geophysical data, to better define the site geology and to
better delineate the boundaries and flow direction of contaminated
groundwater plumes, A combination of geophysical techniques may be
required to gather the needed data.
Scope 3
Subtask V-A—Data Compilation and Work Plan
o o
to CO
1 4-11
3
i
^ ^
Compile and evaluate all existing geophysical testing results, as well
as other pertinent information concerning subsurface geology and
hydrogeology, such as well logs. Prepare a detailed work plan to
conduct additional geophysical investigations. The plan will include
the scope of activities to be conducted, time and cost schedules, and a
list of subcontracted services.
Subtask V-B—Seismic and Resistivity Testing
I 1 a a I
Previously, the landfill site was used as part of a sand and gravel
H mining operation. To determine the existing underlying topography of undisturbed material, seismic surveys should be conducted. Seismic
surveys may also help to determine the depth to water table.
Previous surface electrical resistivity and terrain conductivity testing
has suggested that contaminated groundwater may be flowing in easterly,
southerly, and westerly directions. Better delineation of contaminated
groundwater plumes should be made through additional resistivity tests.
Subtask V-C~Report Preparation
Prepare a report covering results of previous and newly completed
geophysical tests. The report should include conclusions concerning
groundwater flow, contamination, and the potential for long-term g tr*
groundwater contamination, as well as a discussion of how the results o
, , . o impact potential solutions. •-'
NO 4^
4-12
4.7 TASK VI - HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Objective
The objective of conducting a hydrogeological study is to better
characterize groundwater location, flow patterns and contamination
limits. In the process of installing additional monitoring wells,
additional soils characterization data will be developed.
Scope
Subtask VI-A—Data Compilation and Work Plan
m
m
n
At least 13 monitoring wells have been installed by NJDEP or Camden
County, and have been used for groundwater sampling. Data on the
design, location, and construction of the existing monitoring wells
should be compiled and evaluated. A physical inspection of each well
should be conducted to verify Installation records and to assess the
future viability of the existing wells.
From previous monitoring activities, NJDEP files contain considerable
groundwater and well log data in the vicinity of the landfill. This
data should be compiled and reviewed, and should serve as the basis for
conducting the remainder of the hydrogeological study.
A detailed work plan should be prepared to outline the procedures to be
used in defining site hydrogeology. Existing data, and data collected
4-13
o 3 tr
o o
to U}
I —
m
during Tasks IV and V should be used to prepare the scope of this
Investigation. The work plan should include the scope of activities to
be conducted, time and cost schedules, and a list of subcontracted
services.
Subtask VI-B--Existing Well Inventory
A thorough offsite potable water well inventory should be conducted to*
better identify the population at risk from contaminated drinking water.
Included should be an assessment of well depth, supplying aquifer,
distance to landfill, direction from landfill, and potential for
contaminantion. All wells located within one mile of the site should be
included. In addition, public wells, and wells affecting more than a
single household, should be Included within three miles of the site.
Each existing monitoring well should be checked to determine its
suitability for further groundwater sampling. Included should be a
detailed review of well installation records and a field inspection of
i« each well
Subtask VI-C~Well Installation
Additional monitoring wells should be installed to broaden the data base a
of hydrogeologic information. The exact number of monitoring wells that ^
will be necessary cannot be adequately determined at his time. The need o
for additional monitoring wells may be identified during the groundwater o
sampling program. M
4-14
Q
a a a fl fl
ui
After detailed evaluation of site conditions and existing information,
NJDEP developed a scope of work for installing additional monitoring
wells and is described in the August 10, 1982 Draft Investigation
Proposal for the GEMS landfill. NJDEP recommendations have been
incorporated into the scope of the hydrogeological study proposed in
this RAMP.
The following description serves as the basis for estimating costs to
install monitoring wells and to complete the hydrogeological
investigation. The actual methodology employed will be subject to
negotiation between EPA, NJDEP, and the investigation contractor, and
will be developed as part of the sampling and analysis protocol plan.
The wells should be sited to enable Identification of the depth of water
table, perimeter of groundwater contamination, rate of contamination
movement, and direction and rate of groundwater flow. To adequately
delineate the vertical extent of the contaminant plume, the groundwater
should be monitored at multiple depths. Well log data should be
retained to help characterize the site soils and hydrogeology.
The monitoring wells should be installed in clusters, to enable
measurement of both vertical and horizontal distribution of groundwater
contaminants. At the GEMs landfill site approximately nine well Ci 3;
clusters would be appropriate. In each cluster three wells, shallow, tr-
(first water) intermediate (40-60 feet) and deep (80-100 feet), would be g
installed in the Cohansey-Kirkwood aquifer. It is anticipated, at o
several locations, existing shallow monitoring wells could be to
4-15
I
1 I I I I a a
a a a a
a a
incorporated into the cluster. Furthermore, 2 wells would be installed
at depths of 280-320 feet to monitor groundwater conditions in the Mount
Laurel Formation.
Asthe wells are being installed, split spoon samples should be
collected from each of the 100-foot and 300-foot wells, every 5 feet or
at a change in geologic formation. A photoionization detector should be
used to determine total hydrocarbon concentrations during boring.
Whenever a high concentration is measured, the corresponding soil sample
should be analyzed for priority pollutants. In addition, Shelby tube
samples should be obtained from the Cohansey Formation to determine
permeability.
All monitoring wells should be constructed of PVC and joined with
threaded connections or stainless steel screws. Two-inch diameter wells
should be sufficient except for the deep wells penetrating the Mount
Laurel Formation which should have a 4-inch diameter.
Specific quality assurance procedures will be required during
installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Technical guidance to the
drilling contractor should be provided by an experienced geologist to
obtain the desired hydrogeologic information during well installation,
fl The geologist should direct the contractor during collection of soil o
samples, and should select the depth to set permanent tubing and f
screens. 2 o
Subtask VI-D--Monitoring Well Report w 00
4-16
D • • A report of the well installation should be prepared to provide
documentation of data obtained during the well installation program.
This data includes all drillers logs, geophysical logs, formation sample
analyses, water quality analyses, and water level elevations. Well
construction profiles and location data, hydrogeologic profiles,
contaminant concentration maps and profiles, and a potentiometric
surface map should be presented. If additional wells are needed beyond
those constructed in this portion of the remedial investigation program,
_ ^ supporting data, recommended locations, and design details should be
r * presented.
Subtask VI-F--Groundwater Sampling Program
i n
la
i
ai
A detailed groundwater sampling program will be developed to
characterize the distribution and rate of movement of contaminated
groundwaters. Sampling locations to be included will be new and
existing monitoring wells, and private wells identified during
Task VI-B. Sampling will be conducted at a frequency to obtain
sufficient information and to assess variation differences. Sampling
times should reflect different hydrologic conditions, caused by
precipitation. When no further useful information will be obtained from
sampling a particular well, further sampling of that well may be
discontinued. o 3
Specific aspects of the groundwater sampling and analysis program will
be developed in the quality assurance protocol plan, but should include:
o o
to
vo
4-17
a
0 The monitoring wells will be sampled with a stainless steel or
other comparable sampling pump. The pump discharge will be
routed through a test cell containing conductivity,
temperature, and pH electrodes. The wells will be pumped
until the electrode readings have stabilized (if possible).
0 The offsite water supply wells will be sampled from the
closest outlet to the pump.
0 Static water levels, specific conductance, temperature, pH,
and other pertinent project-specific parameters will be
determined in the field. All samples will be tested for major
anions and cations and will undergo a priority pollutant scan
at an EPA contract laboratory, state laboratory, or qualified
private laboratory using the normal schedule for turnaround
time. Special analyses may be requested based on previous
analytical results at the site.
0 Following completion of the two initial sampling episodes,
additional water table measurement and sampling episodes will
be conducted at a reduced number of wells to provide ongoing
seasonal quality data to the remedial investigation and
feasibility study teams. The analyses will be for selected o
parameters and will include compounds already Identified, ^
field testing parameters included above, and any other o o
contaminants of concern Identified in the initial scans.
B 4-18
o V-i CO
o
• 0 All groundwater sampling episodes will be coordinated with
surface water sampling episodes (Subtask VII-B) to reduce
r travel time.
0 Field-generated wastes will be handled as described in the
site health and safety plan.
Subtask VI-G—Groundwater and Soils Report
A groundwater sampling and analysis technical memorandum will be
prepared at the completion of the initial two sampling/analysis
episodes, summarizing data from field studies and analytical results.
The memorandum will include the nature and thickness of strata
penetrated, identification of aquifers, water table elevation map,
aerial extent of contamination, direction and rate of groundwater flow,
and nature and concentrations of contaminants. A supplement to the
memorandum will be prepared at the completion of each of the ongoing
sampling/analysis episodes.
4.8 TASK VII - HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
Objective
The objective of the surface water investigations is to further document ^
3 the presence of hazardous pollutants in the surface water and sediments ^
o in Holly Run, Briar Lake and Tom's Branch. Other testing will indicate o
o M CO M
4-19
n
''I
-<
the contributiohs of leachate and surface runoff to surface water
contamination.
Testing has previously been conducted in Holly Run on Briar Lake, but
only one sample has been collected and analyzed from Tom's Branch. The
data base from all three needs expanding to obtain sufficient
informatiOTi^ for implementing surface water contamination control
measures.
Scope
Subtask VII-A—Work Plan
A work plan for surface water, leachate, and sediment sampling and
analysis will be developed. The work plan will include the scope of
services, a time and cost schedule, and a list of subcontracted
services.
Subtask VII-B - Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring
NJDEP has used existing data to select eleven locations for collecting
additional surface water samples in Holly Run, Briar Lake and Tom's
Branch. Seven of the locations will also have sediment analyses Ci
conducted. After review of testing results for surface water, sediment ^
and groundwater samples, it may be determined that additional locations
should be sampled.
o o
CO to
4-20
n All sampling and sample handling procedures should be conducted in
accordance with established quality assurance and chain-of-custody
procedures. Specific aspects of the sampling and analysis program will
be developed in the quality assurance protocol plan.
Samples will be analyzed using the total priority pollutant scan with
confirmation of organics by GC/MS methodology. The sediment samples
should be analyzed for EP (extraction procedure) toxicity as delineated
by EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 261.24). Samples can be analyzed
using EPA contract laboratories, NJDOH laboratories, or other
laboratories as required.
Following completion of the two initial sampling and analysis episodes,
additional ongoing\ampling/episodes will be conducted to provide
continuing data. The work to be performed and the analyses to be
conducted will be comparable to the continuing program for groundwater
sampling and analysis.
Subtask VII-C—Leachate and Surface Runoff Monitoring
Several leachate samples have been collected and analyzed at the
landfill site. Additional investigation of leachate contamination, as
well as the Impact of surface runoff on surface water quality is needed.
Previous leachate sampling locations should be Investigated and a g f
program for further testing should be developed. o o
CO CO
4-21
Leachate samples should be taken in conjunction with surface water
samples and analyzed according to the same methodology. Sampling should
be conducted under different hydrologic conditions, as affected by
precipitation.
Surface runoff samples can be collected only during and immediately
following a heavy rainfall. Consequently, sampling of surface runoff
cannot be easily scheduled. Samples should be collected along the face
and a\t the bottom of all sides of the landfill.
Subtask VII-D—Surface Water Quality Report
After two sets of surface water and sediment samples are analyzed, a
technical memorandum will be prepared which summarizes the data from the
field work and analytical results, and which presents a preliminary
evaluation of the data. A supplement to the memorandum will be prepared
after the completion of each of the ongoing sampling/analysis episodes.
4.9 TASK VIII - AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Objective
Air quality testing is designed to confirm previous tests identifying a
high levels of volatile organics in the vicinity of the landfill and in 3
neighboring basements. A primary objective of the testing is to provide
a data base for determining the extent of air contamination attributed
to the landfill and the degree of health risk involved. The results of
4-22
o o
CO
a this onsite survey should provide a baseline for future air pollution
monitoring.
Scope
Subta^sk VIII-A—Work Plan
Existing air quality monitoring data will be compiled and reviewed.
Based (m this information, a work plan will be produced for additional
testing.\ Sample locations, instrumentation and sampling schedules will
be developec
Subtask VIII-B--Air Monitoring
Air samples should be taken upwind, onsite, and immediately downwind
from the site. Samples should also be taken in and around houses in the
vicinity of the landfill, particularly in the basements. The details of
the survey will be developed in the quality assurance protocol plan but
may involve the following instrumentation at each of the ambient air
sampling stations.
0 Wind speed and wind direction instrumentation
0 A continuous high-volume particulate sampler
0 Total hydrocarbon analyzer equipped with a flame ionization
or photoionization detector
4-23
o 3 tr
00 cn
n 0 Bubblers containing an organic vapor-absorbing liquid or tubes
containing activated charcoal for the specific organic vapors
identified during the initial onsite survey.
The bubbler liquid or activated charcoal will be returned to the
laboratory and analyzed. The other instrumentation will produce the
necessary analytical results in the field.
Data from the wind speed and wind direction instrumentation will be used
to help interpret the air quality data. The data will be evaluated in
light of the presence of normal and sensitive receptors (residences with
young children, hospitals, geriatric homes, and elementary schools).
During long-term remedial or site cleanup action, additional air
monitoring may be needed.
Subtask VIII-C—Air Quality Report
A technical memorandum will be prepared summarizing the monitoring
results and data evaluation.
4.10 TASK IX - TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW
Objective
The purpose of the toxicological review is to assess the potential
health impact caused when the general populace is exposed to the
identified contaminant concentrations. Results from the review will
a 3 tr
o o
CO
4-24
contribute to decisions concerning the need for additional initial
remedial measures needed before remedial source control can be
implemented.
Scope
Subtask IX-A—Review of Groundwater Data
A trained toxicologist should review all groundwater monitoring data to
determine the risk to the public through Ingestion. Specific chemical
compounds identified and their toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and
teratongenic characteristics should be evaluated. Any potable wells
found to pose excessive or potentially excessive risk should be
identified.
Review should begin immediately on all data currently existing. Further
review should occur throughout the remedial investigation process as new
data are generated.
Subtask IX-B—Review of Air Quality Data
A trained toxicologist should review all air quality monitoring data and
identify locations of excessive or potentially excessive risk to the
nearby public. Special attention should be given to data from household 3
basements. Review should begin immediately with continual reassessment t-*
throughout the remedial investigation.
4-25
o o
CO
-J
•
Subtask IX-C—Toxicology Summary Report
A technical memorandum will summarize findings, conclusions, and
recommendations from the toxicological review.
4.11 TASK X - ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Objective
An environmental study will be conducted to identify the receptors in
the natural and human environment within the vicinity of the site.
Scope
The environmental study will focus on or identify critical receptors,
determine current stresses on these receptors, and provide the necessary
background information to determine environmental impacts and
alternative remedial measures. The potential factors to be examined in
identifying receptors and impacts are as follows:
o 3 tr*
o o
CO 00
4-26
w
m
B
Natural Environment
Aquatic resources
Wetlands
Flood-prone areas
Rare and endangered species
Critical habitats
Ecological communities
Visual quality
Noise
Soils
Geology
Climatology
Topography
Surface water
Groundwater
Human Environment
Sensitive receptors
Zoning
Adjacent land use
Access
Potential explosions or fires
Human population
State and local recreation areas
Odors
Economics (public welfare)
a a a a a
The study will be conducted using published literature on the above
environmental factors, contacts with knowledgeable individuals and
agencies, and a field investigation of the site and the vicinity.
A technical memorandum will be prepared at the conclusion of the work,
presenting the types and numbers of critical receptors identified, signs
of environmental stress, and other background data that will be useful
when the impacts of alternative remedial actions are developed.
4.12 TASK XI - SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
3
o o
CO
vo
4-27
Objective
| l The objective of this final task is to compile all pertinent data
^ ^ generated in the remedial investigation, to present conclusions
f ^ regarding the extent of contamination, to address possible future
contamination, and to develop preliminary remedial action alternatives
for the site, if required.
Scope
Subtask XI-A--Evaluation of Data
All data collected during the remedial Investigation will be thoroughly
evaluated. Professional judgments will be required concerning the
degree of hazards to human health or welfare or to the environment from
chemicals found in the vicinity of the GEMS landfill.
The overall evaluation of the site will be conducted in the following
steps:
fl fl
0 Evaluate the data and select the contaminants of concern,
describe the hazardous properties of the contaminants,
fl| determine the quantities of contaminants present, assess the
a extent of contamination both onsite and offsite, and determine
a the potential for future contaminant migration. Contaminants p
of concern will be identified on the basis of concentration, o o
O
4-28
p
degree of hazard, and the potential for migration and receptor
impact.
0 Determine the critical environmental pathways for contaminant
migration (air, surface water, groundwater, erosion) and the
potential receptors (human, animal, fish, vegetation).
0 Assess the dangers or potential dangers to human health or .
welfare and the environment.
Subtask XI-B—Draft and Final Report
A draft report will be prepared to consolidate and summarize the data
acquired during the remedial investigation. The report will include a
discussion of the operable units and remedial actions considered,
recommendations regarding whether or not to proceed with the feasibility
study, and the 3 to 5 recommended remedial action alternatives that
should be included in the feasibility study. The draft report will be
submitted to EPA for review. Review comments will be incorporated into
the final report.
4.13 COSTS AND SCHEDULE
o o
A detailed cost estimate for the proposed remedial investigation Q 3
activities at the GEMS landfill is presented in Table 4.1. Costs may
vary depending on the sampling and analysis protocol plan agreed upon
between EPA, NJDEP and the contractor, and is reflected in the cost
4-29
a
a 1 fl
Table 4-1 ESTIMATED COST OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGAT
Action
Remedial Investigation
Task 1 - Detailed Work Plan Preparation & Initial Organization
I-A - Organization & Administration I-B - Investigative Site Visit I-C - Draft and Final Work Plan
Task II Data
Collect and Review Existing
Task III - Health and Safety Assessment
III-A - Initial Health and Safety Plan III-B - Site Assessment III-C - Revised Plan • III-D - Onsite Mobile Facility
Task IV - Topographic Survey
IV-A - Topographic Work Plan IV-B - Topographic Survey
Task V - Geophysical Survey
V-A - Data Compilation and Work Plan V-B - Seismic and Resistivity Testing V-C - Report Preparation
Task VI - Hydrogeological Study and Groundwater Monitoring
VI VI
A - Data Compilation and Work Plan B - Existing Well Inventory , «
VI-C - Well Installation & Soil Samoling^'^ Soil Analysis by EPA Contract Lab" Soil Analysis by Independent Lab
VI-D - Monitoring Well & Soils Report VI-E - Groundwater Sampling Program
Analysis by EPA Contract Lab Analysis by Independent Lab
VI-F - Groundwater/Soils Report
Low
$ 3,000 1,000 9,000
3,000
Costs
"HTW
5,000 3,000 17,000
6,000
2,000 2,000 1,000 3,000
3,000 22,000
5,000 24,000 8,000
3,000 4,000 2,000 4,000
6,000 33,000
7,000 36,000 12,000
7,000 3,000
66,000 18,000 70,000 6,000
15,000 23,000 78,000 4,000
10,000 7,000
104,000 21,000 85,000 10,000 20,000 24,000 96,000
7,000
Ci 3 f l
o o M
o M
to
B
a fl • I a a I I
Table 4-1 ESTIMATED COST OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(Continued)
Action
Task VII - Surface Water and Hydrologic Investigations
Vli-A - Work Plan VII-B - Surface Water and Sediment
Monitoring - 5 Analysis by EPA Contract Lab^'c Analysis by Independent Lab '
VII-C - Leachate and Surface Runoff Monitoring ^ Analysis by EPA Contract Lab Analysis by Independent Lab
VII-D - Surface Water Report
Task VIII - Air Quality Monitoring
VIII-A - Work Plan .8 VI I I -B - A i r Monitoring Q Analysis by EPA Contract Lab Analysis by Independent Lab
VI I I -C - A i r Quality Report
Task IX - Toxicological Review
IX-A - Review of Groundwater Data IX-B - Review of Air Quality Data IX-C - Toxicological Summary Report
Task X - Ecological Study
Task XI - Develop Site Assessment Report
XI-A - Evaluate Data XI-B - Prepare and Revise Site Assessment Report
Cost Excluding Analyses Analyses by EPA Contract Labs
Total Cost (Analyses by EPA Contract Labs)
Analyses by Independent labs
Total Cost Analyses by Independent Labs)
Low
$ 2,000
5,000
Costs "PTgF
$ 4,000
4,000 12,000 48,000
4,000 7,000 26,000 2,000
2,000 9,000 2,000 8,000 2,000
5,000 5,000 3,000
6,000 15,000 59,000
6,000 8,000 32,000 3,000
4,000 13,000 3,000 10,000 3,000
7,000 7,000 4,000
8,000
16,000
14,000
$260,000 $ 62,000
$332,000
$230,000
$490,000
24,000
21,000
$406,000 $ 71,000
$477,000
$282,000
$688,000
a 3
0
0
M
CO
Assumes 2 wells at 300-foot depth, 9 wells at 100-foot depth, 9 wells at 60-foot depth and 3 wells at 20-foot depth. Drilling costs $45-$70/foot for 300-foot wells, $25-$40/foot for other wells.
2 Assumes 200 soil samples will be collected and 50 will be analyzed for prioirty pollutants.
Soil analysis costs for priority pollutants, $350-$425/sample by EPA contract lab, $l,400-$l,700/sample by independent lab.
Assumes 30 monitoring wells and 10 potable water wells sampled for first episode plus 50 percent resampled in a second episode (60 samples total). Costs associated with ongoing monitoring are not included.
Water analysis costs for priroity pollutants, $325-$400/sample by EPA contract lab, $l,300-$l,600/sample by independent lab.
Assumes 11 surface water and 7 sediment samples analyzed for priority pollutants, for 2 sampling episodes (22 surface water and 14 sediment samples total). Costs associated with ongoing moniotring are not included.
Assumes 5 surface runoff and 5 leachate samples analyzed for 2 sampling episodes (20 samples total).
8 Assumes air monitoring will be conducted on 2 occasions at 10 locations around the landfill and at 20 nearby homes. 20 samples total will be
^ taken for laboratory analysis. HNU, portable gas chromatographic equip-H ment and Draeger tubes will be used for field testing.
9 Air analysis cost, $100-$125/sample by EPA contract lab, $400-$500/sample by independent lab.
n B
B a a a
CW07/13
Ci 3 t r
o o
I]
ranges presented. Analytical costs vary considerably depending on
whether an EPA contract laboratory or an independent laboratory is used
for analyses.
Cost estimates provided are order-of-magnitude only. They have been
prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the
information available at the time of the estimate. The final costs of
the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive
market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and
other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary
from the estimates presented herein. Because of this, project
feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation
and adequate funding.
Remedial investigation costs and schedule are summarized in Figure 4-1,
along with the costs and schedule for initial remedial measures,
feasibility study and community relations program. A critical path
schedule is presented in Figure 4-2. It should be noted that the
schedule does not allow for significant seasonal or inclement weather
delays, or time for regulatory review.
CW07/05 o 3
o o
cn ^ A
4-30
)
TASKS COSTS
LOW HIGH 10 15 20 25 30
WEEKS
35 40 45 50 55 60
INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
TASK I Develop Plan
TASK 2-5 Fence, Post Area, Resample, Culverts
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
TASK I Work Plan Preparation & Initial Organization
TASK II Collect & Review Existing Data
TASK III Health & Safety Assessment
TASK IV Topographic Survey
TASK V Geophysical Survey
TASK VI Hydrogaoolcal Study*
TASK VII Hydrologic Study*
TASK VIII Air Quality Monitoring*
TASK IX Toxicological Review
TASK X Ecological Study
TASK XI Site Assessment Report
FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
TASK I Develop & Implement
Community Relations Plan
13,000
135,000
13,000
3,000
8.000
25,000
37,000
101,000
12,000
13,000
13,000
5,000
30,000
50,000
14,000
27,000
266,000
25,000
6,000
13,000
39,000
55,000
158,000
19,000
20,000
18,000
8,000
45,000
150,000
20,000
INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS TOTAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TOTAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY TOTAL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS TOTAL
SUB TOTAL
ANALYTICAL COSTS; EPA CONTRACT LABS
TOTAL COSTS: EPA CONTRACT LABS
ANALYTICAL COSTS: INDEPENDENT LABS
TOTAL COSTS: INDEPENDENT LABS
148,000
260,000
. 50.000
14,000
293,000
406,000
150,000
20,000
LEGEND
Primary Activity Ongoing Activity as Required
, ^ f » i f i S ^
472,000 62,000
534.000
869,000 71,000
940,000 230,000 282,000
$702,000 $1,151,000 'NOTE: Excluding Analytical Cost
Figure 4—1 Cost Estimate and Schedule
Through Remedial Investigation for GEMS Landfi l l
9frI0 TOO aw3"
10 T
15 20 T
25 T
30 •
35 T
40 T
45 T
SO •
55 T
60
Community Relations
Initial Remedial Measures
ZlLl Collect 8i Review Existing Data
i vn l Hydrological Study
r^ r^ W»fk Topographic Survey " Geophysical Survey Hydrogeological* Plan
/ 1 M \
l ^v\ / \ n \
F II II
Feasibility Study
T I I Sample Y Analysis .£xF^
Site Assessment Report
Health & Safety Assessment
Air Quality Monitoring Ecological Study
. ^ T x l Initial Toxicological Review
Zlll Final Toxicological Review
Figure 4—2
Critical Path Schedule Through Remedial Investigation for
GEMS Landfil l
LEGEND ^ ^ ^ ^ Primary Activity • ^ • - » Sample Analysis
Ongoing Activity as Requirl
^ t ' T O TOO I W D "
1
I I
Section 5
FEASIBILITY STUDY a 1
5.1 OBJECTIVE
The feasibility study is an integral part of the remedial planning
process. Following the remedial investigation, the feasibility study is
conducted to develop and evaluate alternatives. The data base developed
in the remedial investigation should provide the Information needed to
develop and evaluate alternatives, recommend the appropriate
cost-effective remedial action, prepare an environmental assessment, and
develop a conceptual design for recommended action.
5.2 SCOPE
5.2.1 Task I - Description of Current Situation and Proposed Response
Information on the site background, the nature and extent of the
problem, and previous response activities presented in this Remedial
Action Master Plan may be incorporated by reference. Any changes to the
original scoping decision presented in this RAMP should be discussed and
I justified based on results of the remedial investigation.
Following this summary of the current situation, a site-specific
statement of purpose for the response, based on the results of the
remedial investigation, should be presented. The statement of purpose
5-1
o 3 tr
o o
CO
a
1 i
should be organized in terms of components amenable to discrete remedial
actions (e.g., a statement of purpose describing the evaluation of
alternatives for remedial actions related to controlling leachate from
the landfill).
5.2.2 Task II - Development of Alternatives
Based on the results of the remedial investigation, the Engineer shall
develop a limited number of alternatives for source control or offsite
remedial actions, or both, on the basis of objectives established for
the response.
0 Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives. Establish
site-specific objectives for the response. These objectives
shall be based on public health and environmental concerns,
the Remedial Action Master Plan and scoping decision,
information gathered during the remedial investigation.
Section 300,68 of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA
interim guidance, and the requirements of any other applicable
federal statutes. Preliminary cleanup objectives shall be
developed in consultation with EPA and the State.
0 Identification of Remedial Technologies. Identify appropriate
remedial technologies as a basis for the development of o
remedial alternatives. These technologies must be identified
on a medium-specific basis, although consideration should be
tr"
o o
5-2
i] a a
a
1 B B
given to the interrelationship of the media. The technologies
should be able to meet the response objectives.
0 Identification of Remedial Alternatives. Develop alternatives
to incorporate remedial technologies, response objectives, and
other appropriate considerations into a comprehensive,
site-specific approach. Alternatives should include
H non-cleanup (e.g., alternative water supply, relocation) and
no-action options. The alternatives shall be developed in
close consultation with EPA and the State.
5.2.3 Task III - Initial Screening of Alternatives
The alternatives developed in Task II will be screened by the Engineer,
EPA, and the State to eliminate alternatives, prior to detailed
development, that are clearly not feasible or appropriate.
0 Considerations to be used in Initial Screening. Three broad
considerations must be used as a basis for the initial
screening: cost, effects of the alternative, and acceptable
engineering practices. More specifically, the following
factors must be considered:
Cost. An alternative whose cost far exceeds that of
other alternatives will usually be eliminated. Total
Q 3
o cost w i l l include the cost of implementing the o alternative and the cost of operation and maintenance. ^
cn o
5-3
1
a Environmental effects. Alternatives posing significant
adverse environmental effects will be excluded.
Environmental protection. Only those alternatives that
satisfy the response objectives and contribute
substantially to the protection of public health,
welfare, or the environment will be considered further.
Source control alternatives will achieve adequate control
of source materials. Offsite alternatives will minimize
or mitigate the threat of harm to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
Implementability and feasibility. Alternatives that may
prove extremely difficult to implement, that will not
achieve the remedial objectives in a reasonable time
period, or which rely on unproven technology will be
eliminated.
5.2.4 Task IV - Laboratory Studies (Optional)
The Engineer will conduct any necessary laboratory and bench scale
treatability studies required to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial
technologies and establish engineering criteria (e.g., leachate
treatment; groundwater treatment; compatability of waste/1eachate with ^ 3 ft
site barrier walls, cover, and other materials proposed for use in the o
remedy). It is expected that the scope of this Task will depend on the °
results of Tasks II and III and therefore will not be complete at the o (-1 cn )-•
5-4
I a.. start of Task V. The Engineer will submit a separate work plan for any
proposed laboratory studies for EPA and State approval. This submittal
will be made in the time frame required to maintain steady progress of
the overall feasibility study. (Additional studies may also be
conducted during the design phase if needed to refine treatability
results or develop detailed design criteria.)
I I I I
i a lai
fl 0 Detailed Development of Remaining Alternatives. The detailed
H development of the remaining feasible remedial alternatives
should include as a minimum:
i B
fl
5.2.5 Task V - Evaluation of the Alternatives
The Engineer shall evaluate the alternative remedies that pass through
the initial screening in Task III and recommend the most desirable
(cost-effective) alternative to EPA and the State.
Alternative evaluation shall be preceded by a detailed development of
the remaining alternatives.
a
Description of appropriate treatment and disposal
technologies
Special engineering considerations required to implement
the alternative (e.g., pilot treatment facility,
additional studies needed to proceed with final remedial
design)
5-5
2 I? o o
cn to
Environmental impacts and proposed methods for mitigating
any adverse effects
Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements of
the completed remedy
Offsite disposal needs and transportation plans
Temporary storage requirements
Safety requirements for remedial implementation
(including both onsite and offsite health and safety
considerations)
A description of how the alternative could be phased into
individual operable units. The description should
include a discussion of how various operable units of the
total remedy could be implemented individually or in
groups, resulting in a-significant improvement to the
environment or savings in costs.
A description of how the alternative could be segmented
into areas to allow implementation of differing phases of
the alternative 3 tr
o o
cn UJ
5-6
A review of any offsite facilities provided by the State
to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA requirements,
both current and proposed
Environmental Assessment. Perform an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for each alternative. The EA should include, at a
minimum, an evaluation of each alternative's environmental
effects, an analysis of measures to mitigate adverse effects,
physical or legal constraints, and compliance with CERCLA or
other regulatory requirements.
Each alternative will be assessed in terms of the extent to
which it will mitigate damage to, or protect, public health,
welfare, and the environment, in comparison to the other
remedial alternatives. The specific considerations to be used
in the assessment will be different for source control
alternatives and for offsite alternatives, as explained in EPA
guidance. Consideration may be given to standards and
criteria developed under Federal or State environmental and
health statutes.
Cost Analysis. Evaluate the cost of each feasible remedial
action alternative (and for each phase or segment of the
alternative). The cost will be presented as a present worth
cost and will include the total cost of implementing the
alternative and the annual operating and maintenance cost.
Both monetary costs and associated non-monetary costs will be
a 3 tr-
o o
CJl
5-7
Di
fl i
included. A distribution of costs over time will be provided.
Guidance is available from EPA on estimating project costs.
0 Evaluation and Recommendation of Cost-Effective Alternative.
Alternatives will be evaluated using technical, environmental,
and economic criteria. At a minimum, the following areas
should be used to evaluate alternatives:
Reliability. Alternatives that minimize or eliminate the
potential for release of wastes into the environment will
be considered more reliable than other alternatives. For
example, recycling of waste and offsite incineration
would be considered more reliable than land disposal.
Institutional concerns such as management requirements
can also be considered as reliability factors.
Implementability. The requirements of implementing the
alternatives will be considered, including phasing
alternatives into operable units and segmenting
alternatives into project areas on the site.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Preference will
be given to projects with lower O&M requirements, other 3
factors being equal. ^ o o
cn cn
5-8
tmim^m-%»
I ^ ^ - Environmental Effects. Alternatives posing the least
impact (or greatest improvement) on the environment will
a be favored.
Safety Requirements. Onsite and offsite safety
I requirements during implementation of the alternatives
should be considered. Alternatives with lower safety
impact and cost will be favored. I I I I
Cost. The alternative with the lowest total present
worth cost will be favored. Total cost will include cost
of implementing the alternative and cost of operations
and maintenance of the proposed alternative.
The alternative determined to be the most cost-effective will
be recommended and will be justified by stating the relative
advantages over other alternatives considered. All special
considerations will be applied uniformly to each alternative.
The lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible
and reliable, and that adequately protects (or mitigates
damage to) public health, welfare, or the environment will be
considered the cost-effective alternative.
a 3 0 Preliminary Report. Prepare a preliminary report presenting tr
the results of Tasks I through V and the recommended remedial g
alternative. Submit copies of the preliminary report to EPA
cn
5-9
and the State. (Note: EPA and the State will review and
select a remedial alternative).
5.2.6 Task VI - Conceptual Design
Prepare a conceptual design of the remedial alternative selected by EPA
and the State, The conceptual design should include, but is not limited
to, the engineering approach including implementation schedule, special
Implementation requirements, institutional requirements, phasing and
segmenting considerations, design criteria, preliminary site and
facility layouts, budget cost estimate (including operation and
maintenance costs), operating and maintenance requirements and duration,
and an outline of the safety plans including cost impact on
implementation. Any additional information required as the basis for
the completion of the final remedial design should also be included.
The Engineer may also be required to revise portions of the community
relations plan to reflect the results of the conceptual design.
5.2.7 Task VII - Final Report
Prepare a final report for submission to EPA and the State. The report
should Include the results of Tasks I through VI, and should include any
supplemental information in an appendix. Submit copies to EPA and the
State.
5.3 COSTS AND SCHEDULE
Ci 3 IT*
O
o
cn -J
5-10
a
I The overall cost for a Feasibility Study ranges from $50,000 to $150,000
depending on severity of problems at the site. It should take
approximately 10-20 weeks to perform this Feasibility Study. Figure 4-1
and 4-2 show the overall schedule and costs for the site.
5.4 SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Source control remedial actions include measures to prevent or eliminate
contamination migration by either containing the hazardous wastes in
place or removing them from the site. Appropriate actions can be
formulated only after sufficient data have been generated through the
remedial investigation activities.
A variety of source controls may be appropriate, depending on the
results of field testing. Some potential actions to be considered along
with important considerations are described below. These measures will
be refined and evaluated in the feasibility study.
5.4.1 Transfer of DDD-Contaminated Sludge
The DDD-contaminated sludge, brought from Philadelphia, has been
deposited along the perimeter and on the side slopes of the landfill.
Potential problems which have been considered during litigation are a 3"
water contamination from DDD leachate, erosion of contaminated material, tr" and DDD-laden dust. The original solution advocated by New Jersey
regulatory agencies was removal of the contaminated material. Removal
o o
cn OS
5-11
a ^ was estimated to cost $1,250,000, and has been ruled out as too
expensive, and not necessary.
NJDEP now holds the position that, when adequately covered, the sludge
will not endanger the environment. They have proposed that the sludge
be relocated to the top of the landfill prior to capping.
Testing by the EP toxicity procedure on the contaminated material has
indicated that the DDD is not readily available to leaching.
Consequently, there may be little need to ensure that the contaminated
material is under the clay cap. However, to prevent human exposure to
contaminated dust, the sludge should be covered, and logically will be
placed underneath the cap. Sludge on the side slopes could be
transferred to the top of the landfill to prevent erosion and to
consolidate contaminated material. Much of it probably will be
transferred if the side slopes of the landfill are regraded to prevent
erosion. However, transferring of the sludge may create additional
hazards from the dust generated. Prior to moving any sludge, the
material should be hosed with water or a nontoxic dust inhibitor.
5.4.2 Regrading of Side Slopes
A properly designed landfill will have side slopes at a ratio of 3
3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter, to prevent erosion. However, at ^
the GEMS landfill, the side slopes are much steeper than this ratio, § particularly on the south and west sides. To ensure the long-term
stability of the landfill, the side slopes should be regraded to conform
5-12
o cn vo
to standard design practice. To accomplish this without extending the
landfill perimeter, material from the top corners could be relocated to
the top surface of the landfill. However, to do so may require
increasing the overall landfill height above the permitted level.
Three primary concerns must be addressed in the process of regrading the
landfill slopes. First, dust control must be used to prevent air
contamination by the DDD-contaminated sludge. Second, care must be
taken to prevent fires and possible methane explosions while cutting the
landfill. Adequate equipment must be available onsite' to extinguish any
fires that may occur. Third, efforts must be taken to reduce exposure
of landfill material to the air and stormwater. Intermediate cover
material should be added to all excavated surfaces as rapidly as
feasible.
5.4.3 Landfill Cap
To minimize leachate emanating from the landfill, it should be capped
with an impermeable layer after regrading has been completed. Above the
cap, top soil should be added, and then seeded to prevent erosion. To
prevent damage to the cap from gas, or to prevent horizontal gas
migration to nearby homes, a venting system may be required.
a B A A Slurry Wall ^
To minimize offsite migration of leachate, further containment could be
o o
o accomplished by constructing a slurry wall around the landfill. For the <?,
o
5-13
m wall to serve as an effective leachate barrier between the landfill and
adjacent areas or aquifers, it must be tied to a sufficiently
impermeable geologic formation. Preliminary geologic data indicate that
no such formation exists, although this must be verified during
geophysical and geohydrologic investigations.
5.4.5 Pumpout and Treatment
A cap above the landfill would reduce the amount of leachate generated
in the landfill from percolating rainwater. To further prevent leachate
migration to offsite, wells could be drilled and the groundwater pumped
out for treatment. A lowered piezometric surface would be created,
causing groundwater to flow towards the landfill.
The water removed must then be treated and recharged to groundwater or
surface water. Treatment options for removal of volatile organics may
include air stripping or absorption onto carbon columns.
This option may be required, particularly if chemicals are found to have
been disposed of beneath the groundwater table, as is reported. By
pumping out the water, not only can the direction of groundwater flow be
changed, but it may be possible to lower the groundwater table
sufficiently, so that the chemicals are no longer underwater. If tr
chemicals have been disposed of beneath the water table, this expensive o
option may be required to continue long into the future.
5.4.6 Surface Runoff Collection and Treatment
5-14
o
o M
m
'1
If studies find that surface runoff significantly contributes to
contamination of Holly Run and Tom's Branch, a runoff collection system
may be desirable. However, after regrading, capping, and reseeding,
runoff is expected to add little to the existing water pollution
problem. If collection and treatment are necessary, dikes could be
installed around the base of the landfill to collect runoff and to *
direct it to a treatment facility.
5.5 OFFSITE REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Offsite remedial actions include measures to mitigate the effects of
hazardous waste contamination that has migrated beyond the site. Based
on the results of the remedial investigation activities and the problems
found, a variety of offsite actions may be appropriate.
5.5.1 Potable Wells
If private potable wells are found to pose a health risk to residents,
the well water may require treatment by a carbon absorption column or
the wells may require abandoning. Potable water could be replaced by
extending public water supply lines which are already located in the
vicinity.
Sampling of potable water wells will be conducted as part of both the g f
initial remedial measures and the remedial investigation. Consequently,
it may be found necessary to implement individual treatment systems or
o o
NJ
5-15
Mmmmmiam^m
n alternative water supplies relatively rapidly if a inmediate health
threat is identified.
5.5.2 Contaminated Basements
Volatile organics have been identified in a number of basements near the
landfill. If it is determined that a health risk to residents exists,
several options are available depending on the means of contamination.
If the organics are being carried into the basements with contaminated
groundwater, the water could be diverted by drains. However, if gas
migration is the direct source, then the source of gas could be diverted
and vented to the atmosphere. The basements themselves could be better
sealed to the migrating gases and then basement ventilation could be
improved. Alternatively, the basements could be abandoned and filled.
5.5.3 Holly Run and Briar Lake
Due to extensive contamination already existing in Holly Run, the water
may require treating to enhance cleanup even with leachate control.
NJDEP believes that water in Holly Run will require either removal and
treatment or the stream should be lined and covered, then redirected to
an uninhabited area for natural dissipation. Q 3
B Holly Run is expected to act as a hydrologic barrier to much of the
flj leachate generated from the landfill. If this is found to be true
tr
o o
a\ during the hydrogeologic investigation, then lining of Holly Run could u»
5-16
V allow leachate to migrate further offsite, increasing the extent of
groundwater contamination. On the other hand, if leachate is controlled
properly at the source, then water quality in Holly Run and Briar Lake
will likely improve fairly quickly.
To enhance natural dissipation, it may be beneficial to channelize the
swampy areas upstream of the Foxchase II subdivision and downstream of
Briar Lake, increasing the stream flow. Also, the final course of Holly
Run, which has been rerouted twice, should be chosen and implemented at
the same time as the construction of channels.
CW07/06
a 3
o o
5-17
ndHiil utmMmmmimmm
I
Section 6
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The subject of uncontrolled hazardous wastes is very emotional for many
people and in particular those in a cotranunity with an identified
uncontrolled hazardous waste site. In the GEMS landfill case, this
concern has been expressed through the attention given to the problems
associated with the site by the public and the media. Through a
carefully planned community relations program, information can be
released to the public in a timely and coordinated manner. At the same
time, their input can be obtained to assess attitudes toward the program
and general concurrence with the proposed remedial action.
The overall objective of the community relations program is to establish
a cooperative and positive working relationship with local governmental
agencies, elected officials, the press, and concerned citizen groups.
EPA Region II and NJDEP should keep the residents and emergency support
service groups In the vicinity of the GEMS landfill informed of ongoing
and planned activities throughout the program. The close proximity of
homes and busineses to GEMS landfill requires greater attention than
normal to the education and notification process. Efforts to inform
those outside the area should be considered of secondary importance o
since they are only indirectly affected by the RAMP activities. tr o o M
In order to provide an active community relations program, night o
coiranunity meetings at the following program dates .are recommended: o\
6-1
Q HI 1. Prior to finalizing the RAMP
B 2. Upon completion of initial remedial actions
3. Upon completion of remedial investigation activities
4. Upon completion of source control and offsite remedial
actions.
Every feasible attempt should be made to conduct the meetings as an
informal, open forum with as few constraints on the release of
information as possible. Handout materials should be in surmary form
and written in a style that the citizens can comprehend.
On a weekly basis, during the implementation of the remedial actions and
the remedial investigation activities, information sheets should be
posted and made generally available in the area noting those actions and
activities to be undertaken during the following week.
Costs for Community Relations are shown in Figure 4-1.
CW07/09 o 3 tr
o o
B 6-2
•MMawMHMIII l i l i lHI iMMli lMk-uMMiiai i
n •I
Appendix A
SITE CHRONOLOGY
J
a 3 tr
o o
- J
Appendix B
NJDEP REPORT
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
IN THE VICINITY OF THE GEMS LANDFILL
GLOUCHESTER TOWNSHIP, CAMDEN COUNTY
JUNE 1982
a 3 tr
o o
00
B
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND GROUND WATER
MONITORING IN THE VICINITY
OF THE GEMS LANDFILL
GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP, CAMDEN COUNTY
JUNE, 1982
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ci 3 tr
o o
o !-• (Tl
n
m SAMPLING LOCATIONS
GEMS LANDFILL
o
PRIVATE WELL ANALYSES
R NO.
? 5
3tes:
LOCATION
Simons 265 Erial Rd. (Well Depth 200 ft)1
Watson Box 266 - Erial Rd. (Well Depth 205 ft)l
Speigel 270 Erial Rd. (Well Depth 215 ft)i
Hurst 274 Erial Rd. (Well DepU) 250 f t) i
DATE
11/25/80
11/17/80
4/29/82
y/22/80
11/17/80
10/27/81
3/9/82
4/29/82
Muntaqim 11/17/80 Erial Rd. ,
(Wfell Depth 50 ft.r 10/27/81
1/20/82
4/29/82 Archie 11/17/80 Erial Rd. - 10/27/81 Hickstown Rd. 1/20/82 (Well Jtepth 70 ft)1 4/29/82
CCNCSTTRATION f Ppb)
N.D. (V.O.)
7.1 12.7 • 19.8 Total V.O.
N.D. (V.O.)
17.6 7.1 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.6
29.1 Total V.O.
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
70.0 360.0 440.0 20.0 890.0 Total
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.) N.D.(V.O.) N.D.(V.O.) 1.0 3.0 4.0 Ttotal V.O.
N.D. - Non Detectable V.O. - Volatile Organics 1 - Well depths are as reported by well ownerc
CONTAMINANT
Trichloroethylene Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride T«trachloroethylene Chlorobenzene Toluene Benzene Tr ichloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1, 2-Trichloroethant Toluene
1,2-Dichloroprcpane
Chloroform ^ Tetrachlor-oe thylene
o o
o M
-2-
No.
f 12
ia
'14
•
Location
Watson 277 Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 78 ft.)^-
Robinson 432D Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 90 ft.)l
Kergides 893 Hickstown Rd.
Ennis B93A Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 175 f t . ) l
Date
4/29/82
11/17/80
10/27/81 3/9/82
1/20/82
9/22/80
Sullivan Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 225 ft)"^
Nicoletta 1010 Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 350 ft) •'•
9/22/80
9/22/80
Erial Concrete Hickstown Rd.
Accurate Industries Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 234 ft)
Morrissey Hickstown Rd. (Well Depth 68 ft.)^
10/27/81
1/20/82
10/27/81
9/22/80
10/27/81 1/20/82 4/29/82
n/17/80
C0NQ3ffRATTn^Irpph^
N.D. (V.O.)
14.3 11.3 6.7 32.3 Total V.O.
CONTAMINANT
N.D. (V.O.) N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
6.2 2.4 2.0 10.6 ' Total V.O.
5.7 2.4 2.0 10.1 Total V.O.
5.7 2.3 0.7 1.3 10.0 Total
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
5.6 1.9 0.9 8.4 Total V.O.
N.D. (V.O.) NJD. (V.O.) N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. - Non Detectable
well Depths are as reported by well
Chlorobenzene Chloroform Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroe thy .lene Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethylene
owners
a 3 tr
o o
-J
-3-
^lAF NO. LOCATION
16
po
II
McKenna Aliaerta Rd. (Well Depth 70 ft) 1
NOrcross Deli Williamstown Rd. Alberta Ave. (Well Depth 90 ft.)-^
Wilson 266A Erial Rd. (Well Depth 80 ft.)^
Britton Essex Ave. (Well Depth 60 ft.)^
Ferrante Essex Ave. (Well Depth 70 ft.)-"-
Liszewski 733 E. Essex Ave.
Santone Erial Rd. , (Well Depth 125 ft.)-^
DATE
1/24/80
11/17/80
10/27/81
3/9/82
11/17/80
11/17/80
4/29/82
11/17/80
4 /29 /82
CagCIJJTRATTnM(ppK|
2 . 1 1.8 2.6 2 .3 8.8 T o t a l V.O.
20.6 6.4 9.6 4 .5
4 1 . 1 To ta l V.O.
N.D. (V.O.)
40 .0
N.D. (V.O.)
21.9 4 .2 6 .0 8.8 , 4 . 5 45.4 T o t a l V.O.
N.D. (V.O.)
22.4 7 . 1
10.0 4 .8
44 .3 T o t a l V.O.
N.D. (V.O.O
1V25 /80 N.D. (V.O.)
CONTAMINANT
Tetrachloroethylene 1,1,1-Tr ichloroethai Toluene Chloroform
lane
1,2-Dichloroethylene Chloroform Chlorobenzene Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1f2-Dichloroethylene 1,1-Dichloroethylene Chloroform Chlorobenzene Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethylene Chloroform Chlorobenzene Benzene
k N.D. - Non Detectable
w e n depths are as reported by u.11 owners
a 3
o o
- J C«J
MONITORING WELL ANALYSES
\gf NO.
li li
J
LOCATION
Landfill M.W. #1 (Screened 17-37 ft.)
lAndfill M.W. #2 (Screened 14-32 ft.)
Landfill M.W.-Wehran (Screened 40-50 ft.)
State M.W. 0 U (Screened 15-30 ft.)
State M.W. r2A (Screened 7-17 ft.)
County M.W. #1 (Screened 13-23 ft.)
County M.W. #2 (Screened 70-80 ft.)
County M.W. #3 (Screened 20-30 ft.)
N.D. - Non Detectable V.O. - Volatile Organics M.W. - Monitoring Well
DATE
9/18/80
12/12/80
9/18/80 12/12/80
11/17/80
12/12/80
11/17/80 12/12/80
5/3,4/82
5/3,4/82
5/3,4/82
OCNCEimiATION (ppb)
8.4 18.0 6.3 2.3 1.1 2.7 4.2 5.0 1.3 2.2
144.0 5.0
iOO.5 Total V.O,
N.D,
N.D. N.D.
44 27 "83 130
(V.O.)
(V.O.) (V.O.)
i84 Total V.O. 210 31 46 57 260 53 110 180 947 Total V.O.
N.D. N.D.
12.3
136.0
69.7
(V.O.) (V.O.)
OCNTAMINANT
1,1,1-Trichlorocthane Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene O-xylene M-xylene P-xylene Cunene Mesitylene Decane Qilorofonn Methylene Chloride
Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes
Methylene Chloride 1,1,l-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Benzene Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes
Total V.O.
Total V.O.
Total V.O.
a 3 tr o o M
O
- 2 -
•Lpjfo. LOCATION DATE
County M.W. 04 5/3,4/82 (Screened 20-30 f t . )
county M.W. #5 5/3,4/82 (Screened 35-45 f t . )
County M.W. #6 5/3,4/82 (Screened 24-34 f t . )
County M.W. #7 5/3,4/82 (Screened 21-31 f t . )
County M.W. #8 5/3,4/82 (Screened 31-41 f t . )
OONCEyraATION pph ayTAMINAffr
10.3 Total V.O.
N.D. (V.O.)
N.D. (V.O.)
21.7
N.D. (V.O.)
Total V.O.
es: N.D. ^ ^ V.O.
M.W.
- Non Detectable - Volatile Organics - Monitoring Well
o 3 IT*
O
o
cn
SURI'ACE WATER ANALYSES
^ P NO.
¥^ I 37 n
-•38
LOCATION
Holly Run at Holly Run Drive
Holly Run at Start of Fox Chase II
Holly Run across from Fox Chase II
DATE
11/25/80
9/18/80
6/24/80
9/18/80
,
3/9/82
CONCJ:NTRATION(PPb)
N.D.
70 675 112 100 816 60 172 77 80 2,162
251.0 358.0 37.0 25.0 47.0 48.0 1.4 9.5 1.4
155.0 53.0
986.3
152 153 205 430 25 59 44 15 93
1,176
750 30 70 100 200 70 10 560 1,790
(V.O.)
Total V.O.
Total V.O.
Total V.O.
Total V.O.
CONTAMINANT
Methylene Chloride 1,2-Dichloroethane 1, l,>TrichlorodJTan< Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene M-Xylene +P-Xylene 0-Xylene Chloroform
.
Benzene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene M-Xylene+P-Xylene O-Xylene Octane Cumene Mesitylene 1,1,1-Tr ichlor oe than€ Tetrachloroethane
Methylene Chloride 1,2HDichloroethane Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene M-Xylene+P-Xylene 0-Xylene Chlorobenzene Chloroform
1, l-Dichlorc?thylei Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1 J.-Tr ichloroethai Carbon Tetrachloric Tr ichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Toluene
70 Lead
) t e s : N.D. V.O.
- Non Detectable - Volatile Organics
GML 001 0176
-2-
LQCATION
Holly Run at end of Gens Landfill
Holly Run at Briar Lane
6/24/80
II
• •
ii
I
11/6/80
Inlet to Briar Lake
11/6/80
CCWCDJTRATION f pph^
90 40
250 140
, 240 . 110 650 110
1,630 . T o t a l V.O.
30
936.0 15.0 22.0
3.0 2 . 1 2 .5 3.1i
984.7 T o t a l V.O.
To ta l V.O.
T o t a l V.O.
CONTAMINANT
1,1-Dichloroethylene Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,l-Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Trichloroethylene Toluene 1,2-Dichlor dbenzene
Cadmium
Chloroform Benzene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene M-Xylene + P-Xylene 0-Xylene
Heptane Octane Nonane Decane Benzene 1,1,l-Trichloroethane Trichloroethyler.? Toluene Propylbenzene Methylene Chloride 1,1,2-Tr ichloroethane M-Xylene + P-Xylene 0-Xylene
Heptane Octane Nonane Decane Benzene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Tr ichloroe thylene Toluen6 Ethylbenzene Cumene Propylbenzene a
3 f
rs: N.D. V.O.
- Non Detectable - Volatile Organics
o o
^ -
-3-
gyP NO. LOCATION
5/26/82
Outlet from Briar 3/9/82 Lake
5/26/82
"<«es: N.D. ] V.O.
- Non Detectable - Volatile Organics
CONCUTTRATION (ppb)
80 30 70 130 2400 320 3300 48
4000 10,378 Total V.O.
37,760
5 5 5 5 10 1 8 68 4 2 2 8 4 6 6 6 10
155 Total V.O.
50 20 10
1600 . 30
2oao 3710 Total V.O.
2,933
8 5 10 7 16 2 4 74 4
CONTAMINANT
1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1-Tr ichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Berizene 1,1,2-Tr ichloroethane Toluene 1,3-Dichlorcbenzene Naphthalene
Iron
Methylene Chloride 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroetheo* Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane Trichloroethylene U»2,2 rTetrachiroetliane Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene J- •<'>-Tr if lorotoluene p xylene o xylene m xylene Chlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2,3-Benzofuran
1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1,l-Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride' Benzene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Toluene
Iron
Methylene Chloride 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane-Tr ichloroethylene Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene
Ci 3
o o
O
00
n
- 4 -
NO. LOCATION DATE
Bolly Run (400 f t . -dOMt-stream from LBriAT Lake)
4/29/82
^ ' ^ ^ ^ '" " frr"- CONTAMINANT
8 6 8 5 8 9 2 176 Total V.O.
N.D. (V.O.) 14880
P xylene o xylene nJ xylene Chlorobenzene l,2^ichlorobenzene 2,3-Benzofuran Tetrachloroethylene
Iron
f l h U t Holly Run Lake 4/29/82
pDutlet Holly Run Lake 4/29/82
as Dam Branch ; (above YMCA Lake) 3/9/82
N.D. (V.O.) 10390
N.D. (V.O.) 6400
80 40 120 Total V.O.
Iron
Iron
1,1-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethane
s?- ^
1 '" !!?? detectable '• ^i^tile Organics
O 3
SS:i- o o
&?;
-J
SEDIMENT ANALYSES
Concentration Location I^^^ Micro grams
S e ^ n w r . . ^ U y Hun ^ 3 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O a n ^ ^ j ^
Sediaent frcn Briar I ^ e 3/9/82 ^'1»1 - Trichloroethane
^'^ Chlorobenzene
a 3 f
o o
00
o
I ]
I I ] H Appendix C
COST ASSUMPTIONS
I
I I ]
I I I I
o 3 tr
o o
o 00
I
n
a
APPENDIX C - COST ASSUMPTIONS
The following cost assumptions utilized to develop the cost estimates used
for the GEMS Landfill Remedial Investigations. It should be noted that
the cost estimates shown have been prepared for guidance in project
evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time
of the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on actual
labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project
scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result,
the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein.
Because of this, project'feasibility and funding needs must be carefully
reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure
proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
Monitor Well Drilling Costs:
High = $70/foot
Low = $45/foot
Priority Pollutant Analysis of Water:
High = $1.600/sample
Low = $l,280/sample
3 t r
o o
CD
I
EP Toxicity and Priority Pollutant Analysis of Soils and Sediments;
High * $l,400/sample.
Low = $l,120/sample
•i^^af^i
Air Quality Analysis:
High = $500/sample
Low = $400/sample
All other costs were developed using CH2M HILL's past experience in
dealing with managerial, prime contractual and subcontractual tasks
related to hazardous waste site investigations.
CW07/13
I a 3
o o
I 00 CO