SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR THE SAYREVILLE LANDFILL …

Second

Five-Year Review Report

For The

Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site

Borough of Sayreville Middlesex County, New Jersey

June 2007

PREPARED BY:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 New York, New York

900018

Executive Summary This is the second five-year review for the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site. The Sayreville Landfill Superfund site is located in the Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because the landfill cap is in place and the site fence restricts access. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the deed notice preventing disturbance of the landfill cap must be implemented. The remedy at OU2, no action for surface water and sediment, and monitoring for ground water, is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk. The implemented actions (OU-1 and OU-2) taken at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site protect human health and the environment in the short-term. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the final institutional controls need to be implemented. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the site use does not change and the engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. Because the remedial actions at all OUs are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.

900019

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name (from WasteLAN): Sayreville Landfill EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NJD 980505754 Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Borough of Sayreville/Middlesex County

SITE STATUS

NPL status: X Final G Deleted G Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): G Under Construction G Operating X Complete

Multiple OUs?* X YES G NO Construction completion date: 07 / 21 / 1998

Are site related properties currently in use? G YES ALL G YES SOME X NO NONE G N/A GW

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: G EPA X State G Tribe G Other Federal Agency ______________________

Author name: Thomas Porucznik Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA Review period:** 03 / 15 / 2007 to 05 / 31 / 2007

Date(s) of site inspection: 03 / 27 / 2007 Type of review: X Post-SARA Statutory G Pre-SARA or post-SARA Policy G NPL-Removal only G Non-NPL Remedial Action Site G Regional Discretion Review number: G 1 (first) X 2 (second) G 3 (third) G Other (specify) __________ Triggering action: X Previous Five-Year Review Report G Other (specify) G Actual RA Onsite Construction or RA Start at OU #____ G Construction Completion

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 06 / 27 / 2002 Does the report include recommendation(s) and follow-up action(s)? __ yes _X__ no Does the remedy protect the environment? X yes G no G not yet determined

* [“OU” refers to operable unit.] ** [ Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-year review in WasteLan]

900020

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont’d. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

This report does not identify any issue or recommend any action at this site needed to protect public health and/or the environment that is not addressed by the remedy selected in the site decision documents. The selected remedy has not been fully implemented because institutional controls to protect the landfill remedy are not in place. The Borough of Sayreville is expected to implement these institutional controls within one year.

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because the landfill cap is in place and the site fence restricts access. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the deed notice preventing disturbance of the landfill cap must be implemented. The remedy at OU2, no action for surface water and sediment, and monitoring for ground water, is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk. The implemented actions (OU-1 and OU-2) taken at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site protect human health and the environment in the short-term. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the final institutional controls need to be implemented. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the site use does not change and the engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. Because the remedial actions at all OUs are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.

Other Comments:

None.

900021

Five-Year Review Report

Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 1 II. Site Chronology………………………………………………………………. 1 III. Background…………………………………………………………………… 2

Site Location and Physical Description……………………………………. 2 Site Geology and Hydrology………………………………………………. 2 Land and Resource Use……………………………………………………. 2 History of Contamination………………………………………………….. 2 Initial Response…………………………………………………………….. 3 Basis for Taking Action……………………………………………………. 3

IV. Remedial Actions……………………………………………………………...3

Remedy Selection……………………………………….……….………….3 Remedy Implementation……………………………….……………………4 Institutional Controls Implementation……………………………………....5 Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring….……………………………… 5

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review……………………………………6 VI. Five-Year Review Process…………………………………………………….6

Five-Year Review Team…………………………………………………….6 Community Notification and Involvement………………………………… 7 Document Review….………………………………………………………. 7 Data Review……………………………………………………………….. 7 Site Inspection ……………………………………………………………...7 Interviews…………………………………………………………………...8

VII. Technical Assessment ………………………………………………………. 8

Question A…………………………………………………………………. 8 Question B…………………………………………………………………. 8 Question C…………………………………………………………………12 Technical Assessment Summary……………………………………..……12

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions…………………………..12 IX. Protectiveness Statement…………………………………………………….12 X. Next Review………………………………………………………………....13 Attachments: List of Acronyms………………………………………………… ……….14

900022

Tables: Table 1 Chronology of Site Events……………………………………. ....15 Table 2 O&M Cost Records………………………………………………16

Table 3 Site Inspection Attendees………………..……………………….17 Table 4 Documents, Data, and Information Used in

Completing Five-Year Review…………..…………………… …18 Appendix Map 1

900023

1

Five-Year Review Report I. Introduction This second five-year review for the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site, located in the Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey, was conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager, Thomas Porucznik. The five-year review was conducted pursuant to Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii), and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. This report will become part of the administrative record for this site. This is the second five-year review for this site. This review covers the period from June 2002 through June 2007. The triggering action for this review is the date of the last five-year review. The lead agency for this site is the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The NJDEP assisted EPA in the development and completion of this second review by having State personnel participate in the site visit and provide technical information, data, and documents. The Sayreville site has two operable units (OUs). The control of contamination within the landfill is OU1. The control of contamination, if any, leaving the landfill and entering surface water, sediment, and ground water is OU2. The OU1 remedy included the installation of a NJDEP Solid Waste Landfill Cap with an impermeable liner, the excavation and removal of buried drums containing hazardous materials, the installation of a landfill gas management system, and restricted site access through fencing and deed restrictions. The OU2 remedy is “No Action” for sediments and surface water, and “No Action with Monitoring” for ground water. In accordance with Section 1.2.1 of the five-year review guidance, a statutory review is triggered for this site since hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on site. This second five-year review found that the site remains protective of public health and the environment, in the short term, and the site remedy functions as designed. Once the Deed Notices are implemented, the site will be protective of public health and the environment for the long term. II. Site Chronology Table 1, attached, summarizes the chronology of site-related events from discovery to the present.

900024

2

III. Background Site Location and Physical Description The Sayreville Landfill Superfund site covers approximately 30 acres and is located (see Map 1) in a moderately industrial section of the Borough of Sayreville in Middlesex County, New Jersey, approximately 1 mile south of Route 535 and 1.5 miles north of the Bordentown-Amboy Turnpike. Several small industries surround the site to the north, east and south. The South River, which flows north, is a major tributary to the Raritan River and forms the western border of the site. The river waters adjacent to the site are designated for both primary and secondary contact recreation. Pond Creek forms a portion of the site boundary to the north and northwest, and Duck Creek on the south and southwest. These waters are classified by the NJDEP as fresh water Non-Trout. The site is partially located within the tidal wetlands of the river with drainage swales along the western part of the property. Site Geology and Hydrology The Remedial Investigation characterized the geology and hydrogeology within the vicinity of the site. Four hydraulic units were identified. The most shallow unit has waste materials, combined with leachate, and is also referred to as the perched water bearing zone. The next unit is the Alluvial/Cape May deposits that form a semi-confined to confined aquifer and is also referred to as the shallow water bearing zone. The following unit is the Woodbridge/South Amboy Clay sequence with water-bearing sandy units. The last unit is the deep Farrington Sand aquifer. Currently, the deep Farrington Sand aquifer is the only aquifer being used for drinking water purposes, but not in the vicinity of the site. Land and Resource The landfill property encompasses approximately 30 acres of land; of which, approximately 20 acres were used for wastefill and contain buried wastes. The wastefill area rises above the natural grade by approximately 8-10 feet and is covered with low-lying vegetation and marsh grasses and bordered by small surface streams. The eastern section of the site, near Jernee Mill Road, contains clusters of hardwood trees. The nearest residential developments are located 1/2 mile to the north and 1/4 mile to the west (across the South River, which is the western border of the landfill). History of Contamination From 1971 to August 1977, the Sayreville Landfill was operated by the Borough of Sayreville as a licensed municipal landfill which accepted primarily municipal solid wastes and some light industrial wastes. Reports from previous investigations indicate that hazardous wastes were disposed of at the site between August 1974 and 1977 when landfill operations ceased. In addition, it is believed that additional quantities of hazardous wastes were dumped at the site after 1977.

900025

3

Initial Response In 1980, a landfill closure plan, approved by the NJDEP, was implemented by the Borough. Subsequent site inspections, however, revealed that the closure had not been properly completed. The existing vegetative growth over the landfill had eroded in many areas and failed to significantly impede the release of fugitive dust or landfill gas emissions. In 1981, the NJDEP issued an order to the Borough of Sayreville to cease violations regarding maintenance of the landfill. Basis for Taking Action In April 1981, the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice performed a magnetometer survey on a portion of the landfill alleged to contain buried hazardous waste materials. Based on the survey results, an estimated 30 drums were excavated from the western peninsula of the wastefill area. Analytical results detected various hazardous compounds, including pentachlorophenol, para-ethyl toluene, chloroform, methyl bromide, as well as pesticides and acids. In August 1982, the EPA visited the site to gather information for ranking it on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Based on the data collected from this and previous investigations, the Sayreville Landfill site was proposed for the NPL on December 1, 1982 and placed final on the NPL on September 1, 1983. IV. Remedial Actions Remedy Selection On September 28, 1990, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a final remedial action plan for the landfill (OU1), which included: construction of a NJDEP Solid Waste Cap to prevent infiltration and release of hazardous substances to ground water and surface water; removal and off-site treatment of buried drums containing hazardous wastes; fencing of the site to restrict access; construction of an access road; establishment of deed restrictions; installation of storm water and passive gas management systems; monitoring of ground water, surface water, stream sediment and air; and installation of additional ground-water monitoring wells within the deep Farrington Sand aquifer to assess the impact, if any, of the landfill on this aquifer, as well as to determine ground-water flow patterns. On June 30, 1997, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) which modified the original cleanup selected in the 1990 ROD. The ESD documented that EPA and NJDEP, after further review of the circumstances surrounding the site, including additional monitoring data, determined that installation of an additional deep well into the Farrington Sand aquifer was not necessary. On September 23, 1998, the NJDEP, in consultation with EPA, issued a ROD for off-site sediments, surface water, and ground water (OU2). This ROD selected as the remedy, “No Further Action” for surface water and sediments, and “No Further Action with

900026

4

Monitoring” for ground water. This ROD also called for the establishment of a Deed Notice to prevent intrusive activities into the landfill cap and the establishment of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) for the shallow and perched aquifers in the vicinity of the landfill. Remedy Implementation Source Control The final remedial design (RD) was approved in February 1996. Actual on-site construction began on June 30, 1997, and was substantially completed by July 1998. A Preliminary Closeout Report was issued by EPA on September 28, 1998. O’Brien and Gere Engineers certified final construction completion in June 1999. EPA approved the Remedial Action Report on September 30, 1999. The Remedial Action Report contains detailed information on the construction and demonstrates that the remedy is operational and functional. Fencing was installed extending several hundred feet along Jernee Mill Road in both directions from the entrance gate. At both ends, the fence then turns westward towards the South River and proceeds approximately halfway to the River, preventing access to the landfill site from other than wetlands areas. “No Trespassing” signs have also been posted around the perimeter of the landfill site. Ground Water During the initial RI conducted by Black and Veatch Waste Science Technology, Inc. (BVWST) in February 1986, a total of twenty-one monitoring wells and three piezometers were installed in the four water bearing zones associated with the landfill (the perched aquifer within the wastefill, the shallow aquifer, the water bearing Woodbridge/South Amboy Clay and the deep Farrington Sand aquifer). The contaminants found in the initial sampling included volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals and pesticides. These twenty-one wells were re-sampled during Phase II of the BVWST investigation in October 1989. In a supplemental investigation, a third round of water sampling was conducted on the twenty-one wells in addition to installing two more deep wells in the deep Farrington Sand aquifer (further evaluation of these two deep wells revealed that one of the wells, MW-15, was not installed in the deep Farrington Sand aquifer, but rather in the water-bearing strata located above the Farrington Sand). These successive sampling events indicated that the contaminant concentrations have declined over time. The deep Farrington Sand aquifer was determined to have no contaminants that were above the NJ Ground-Water Quality Standards. However, monitoring well MW-15 contained cadmium at a concentration of 5 parts per billion (ppb). The NJ Ground-Water Quality Standard for cadmium is 4 ppb; the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level is 5 ppb.

900027

5

Based on the findings of the various investigations, the fact that there are no known users of the perched and shallow aquifers and that ground-water contaminant concentrations appeared to be decreasing, the NJDEP and EPA agreed that the ground-water remedy (OU2) would be “No Further Action with Monitoring.” Selected wells were chosen in each of the water formations to be monitored on a semi-annual basis for a five year period to evaluate concentration changes that might indicate a possible threat to the Farrington Sand aquifer from contaminants penetrating downwards from the upper perched and shallow aquifers. As the semi-annual ground-water monitoring results were obtained and reviewed, the monitoring program was evaluated to reflect changing conditions. Based on the data obtained from ground-water monitoring over the last five years, it appears that contaminant concentrations in the shallow and perched aquifers were slowly decreasing and not impacting the Farrington Sand aquifer. The NJDEP and EPA agreed to permit annual (once a year) monitoring after the first ten semi-annual monitoring reports were completed. Institutional Controls Implementation O’Brien and Gere Engineers is the consultant for the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). O’Brien and Gere Engineers will be submitting a “Deed Notice” package to NJDEP that will include drawings, data, and other information that the State can send to the appropriate County Clerk’s Office. The County Clerk will then attach the “Deed Notice” to the deeds for those properties comprising the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site. In addition, in March 2003, O’Brien and Gere Engineers provided the NJDEP with information that was placed in the State’s CEA database, which identifies what areas of the site have ground-water contamination in excess of New Jersey Ground-Water Quality Standards. Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Detailed “Sampling and Monitoring Reports” were submitted by O’Brien and Gere Engineers to the PRPs members, NJDEP, and EPA on a semi-annual basis. These reports included both maintenance and monitoring activities. They identified problems and corrective measures. Routine Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities are performed by O’Brien and Gere Engineers by contract with the PRPs at the site in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Manual which was approved by NJDEP in November 1995. Ten ground-water monitoring wells (three wells in the perched aquifer, four wells in the shallow aquifer, one well in the water bearing Woodbridge/South Amboy Clay, and two wells in the deep aquifer) were sampled semi-annually over a period of five years. The final semi-annual report was submitted in January 2005. Since then, monitoring has been conducted on an annual basis. The latest data provided to EPA was obtained from samples taken in August 2005 and in August 2006. Both sets of data were submitted on the newly adopted annual basis in accordance with prior NJDEP/EPA approval. Landfill gas is monitored using thirteen soil gas monitoring probes.

900028

6

Site inspections are performed twice per month, with the findings recorded in the inspection and maintenance logs provided in Appendix A of the “Sampling and Monitoring Reports.” The contractor usually cuts the grass on a monthly basis, and performs any necessary repairs to the liners and/or the soil gas monitoring probes. Damage to the surface soil above the cap is also inspected and repaired as necessary. The contractor is also responsible for maintaining the integrity of the fence. V. Progress Since the Last Review This is the second five-year review for this site. The first five-year review for this site was completed on June 27, 2002. The previous five-year review found the implemented remedy, which included the landfill cap and the installation of a fence, would protect human health and the environment until the next five-year review. The placement of the appropriate Deed Notices was to have been completed prior to the second five-year review, providing additional protectiveness by restricting use of the site. However, these Deed Notices have not yet been implemented. Otherwise, there have been no other significant changes. Since the first five-year review, data from two annual sampling and monitoring reports have been submitted in addition to the ten original semi-annual sampling and monitoring reports required in the original ROD. The previous five-year review identified the following issues, recommendations and follow-up actions: Soil Gas Probes/Replace Gas Probes: The soil gas probes were replaced in 2003. However, many of the new probes are not operating properly and samples cannot be obtained because of the presence of water in many of the probes. This problem will be studied in the near future to see if another approach to soil gas sampling can be taken. Contaminant Exceedances in Ground Water: The general trend in contaminant concentrations is down. However, the PRPs must continue to monitor the ground water because many of the ground-water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are still exceeded. Landfill Site Maintenance: Damage to the topsoil has been repaired. The minor damage to the geotextile/surface liner has also been repaired. The PRPs will continue to maintain the landfill cap in good condition. CEA and Deed Notice: The proposed CEA documents for the shallow aquifer were submitted to the NJDEP in March 2003. Although NJDEP has never responded to this submission, according to State records, the NJDEP has entered the CEA into its database. EPA has obtained the CEA information from the NJDEP database for our records. NJDEP and the PRP consultant have not yet implemented the Deed Notices. VI. Five-Year Review Process Five-Year Review Team

900029

7

EPA personnel on the five-year review team include Thomas Porucznik (RPM), Marian Olsen (Human Health Risk Assessor), Diana Cutt (Hydrogeologist), Mindy Pensak (Ecological Risk Assessor), and Pat Seppi (Community Involvement Coordinator). A complete list of all EPA, NJDEP, Borough of Sayreville, and contractor attendees can be found in Table 3. Community Notification and Involvement The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the Sayreville Landfill site, Pat Seppi, arranged for a notice to be published in a local newspaper called the “Home News”, on March 21, 2007. This notice indicated that a five-year review would be completed and comments on the remedy or the site were welcome. The notice also identified the local information repositories. Other notifications included the names, address, and phone numbers for Thomas Porucznik (RPM) and Pat Seppi (Community Involvement Coordinator). The EPA representatives have not received any inquiries from area residents in response to the published notice. Document Review The documents, data, and information which were reviewed in completing the second five-year review are summarized in Table 4 at the end of this document. A listing of acronyms used in this five-year review is provided just before Table 1. Data Review This section summarizes the monitoring results obtained since the last five-year review. Since the last review, the contaminant concentrations have been slowly decreasing. More information on the data has been provided in Figures 1, 2, and 3 in the Technical Assessment in Section VII. Site Inspection EPA, NJDEP, and several other organizations having a stake in site operations, conducted a site inspection on March 27, 2007. A complete list of all attendees is provided in Table 3. During the site inspection, no problems or issues with the ongoing remedial activities were noted. In general, the inspection found the Sayreville Landfill cap to be well-maintained and functioning in accordance with the design. There was no evidence of settlement, cracks, or erosion on the landfill cap. The highest point of the landfill is near the center of the cap, with an appropriate grade that allows proper drainage without causing erosion. The entire area covered by the cap appeared to have a properly established vegetative cover. However, the new soil gas monitoring probes recently installed to replace the previous probes are still experiencing problems. The PRP Committee and the O’Brien and Gere Engineers feel that the probes are not functioning because they are picking up water from the South River.

900030

8

Interviews Thomas Porucznik of EPA conducted discussions with Tom Grzymski of NJDEP, Dom DeAngelis of the PRP Committee, and Mike Kozar of O’Brien and Gere during the March 27, 2007 site visit. Issues discussed included the status of the newly replaced soil gas probes, maintenance of the site, implementation of the Deed Notices, and other topics relating to the condition of the site. These interviews were conducted as we walked around the entire site. VII. Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site over the past five years covered in this assessment that would change the protectiveness of the remedy. The landfill cap placed in 1998 is being maintained and the cap serves as a barrier to potential exposures. In general, the site has limited access based on its location within an industrial area, fencing over a portion of the site to limit or prevent access to the site, and signage. During the inspection, the members of the town and the contractor indicated that they have not observed problems with trespassing onto the site. The ongoing procedures of inspecting the fence for damage should continue. Soil and ground-water use at the site are not expected to change during the next five years, the period of time considered in this review. The 1990 risk assessment included an analysis of cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards under an industrial scenario and included an evaluation of off-site exposures and on-site future residential exposures. The previous five-year review evaluated health risk assessment guidance and new toxicity values and determined the overall conclusions of the risk assessment would not change with this new information. During the inspection, the Borough of Sayreville indicated a potential interest for redeveloping the property for recreational use which will need to be evaluated when a final determination to change the zoning is evaluated. During the site inspection, the contractor to the PRPs (O’Brien and Gere) indicated that two gas vents (6A and 5) had concentrations that exceeded the lower explosive limit for explosion hazards. Further evaluation of these results, the wells and sources should be carried out. Ground water collected over the past five years from the perched water bearing zone, shallow water bearing zone, and deep water bearing zone were evaluated. Figure 1 below

900031

9

provides a list of contaminants, their maximum concentrations, and those chemicals that exceeded regulatory values, i.e., state and federal MCLs for each water bearing zone. The ROD established the MCLs as the cleanup criteria for contaminants of concern identified above. The toxicity values for several of the chemicals of concern were modified (e.g., barium, lead, benzene) or are being updated through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA’s consensus toxicity system (e.g., arsenic, chloroethane, chlorobenzene, nickel soluble salts, and methylene chloride). The EPA MCLS and NJDEP MCLs remain protective. Currently, the ground water is not used for potable purposes. A CEA was instituted by the NJDEP in 2003. This action provides additional protection from exposure to the contaminated ground water. Figure 1. Perched Water Bearing Zone. Chemical EPA MCL

(mg/l) NJDEP MCL* (mg/l)

Max. Conc. Location (mg/l)

Result

Aluminum NA (secondary MCL is 0.05 to 0.2 mg/l)

0.2 (Secondary MCL)

3.5 P-5

Exceeds NJDEP and EPA Secondary Standards

Arsenic 0.01 0.005 0.015 P-5

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP MCLs

Barium 2.0 2.0 6.6 P-5


Iron 0.3 (2nd Standard)

0.3 (2nd Standard)

170.0 MW-8

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP Secondary Standards

Lead 0.015 (Action Level)

0.015 (Action Level)

0.066 (dupe 0.100) P-5

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP Action Levels

Manganese 0.05 (2nd Standard)

0.05 (secondary Standard).

1.5 MW-8


Chloroethane NA 0.1** (interim specific criteria)

1.5 P-5

Exceeds NJDEP criteria

Benzene 0.005 0.001 0.069 Exceeds EPA

900032

10

and NJDEP MCLs

Methylene chloride

0.005 0.003 0.059 P-5


1,2-dichloroethane

0.005 0.002 0.008 P-5


Chlorobenzene 0.100 0.050 * interim specific criteria

0.066 P-5

Exceeds NJDEP interim criteria

Values from EPA’s http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/#listmcl homepage containing MCLs and secondary standards obtained on 3/28/07 Values from NJDEP were obtained from www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/standard.html obtained on 3/28/07

Figure 2. Shallow Water Bearing Zone. Chemical EPA MCL


Max. Conc. Location

Result

Aluminum NA (secondary MCL is 0.05 to 0.2 mg/l)

0.2 (Secondary MCL)

30.0 P-1

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP Secondary criteria

Arsenic 0.010 0.005 0.028 P-1

Exceeds NJDEP and EPA MCLs

Chromium (total)

0.100 0.1 0.390 MW-5S


Iron 0.3 (2nd Standard)

0.3 (2nd Standard)

110.0 P-1

Exceeds NJDEP MCL

Lead 0.015 (Action Level)

0.015 (Action Level)

0.180 P-1

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP Action Levels


0.05 (2nd Standard)

0.980 P-1

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP 2nd Standards

Nickel NA Specific criteria not identified but monitoring recommended

0.490 MW-2S

Thallium 0.002 0.002 0.0078 P-1


Chloroethane NA 0.1** (interim specific criteria)

1.5 P-5


900033

11

Benzene 0.005 0.001 0.069 Exceeds EPA and NJDEP MCL

Methylene chloride

0.005 0.003 0.059 P-5

Exceeds EPA and NJDEP MCL

1,2-dichloroethane

0.005 0.002 0.008 P-5


Chlorobenzene 0.100 0.050 * interim specific criteria

0.066 P-5


Values from EPA’s www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index_html#1.stmd homepage containing MCLS and secondary standards. Values from NJDEP were obtained from www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/standard.html. Figure 3. Deep Water Bearing Zone. Chemical EPA MCL


Max. Conc. Location

Result

Aluminum NA (secondary

MCL is 0.05 to 0.2 mg/l)

0.2 (Secondary MCL)

1.3 MW-14 (upgradient)

Exceeds EPA (secondary) and NJDEP MCLs

Cadmium 0.005 0.005 0.012 MW-14 (upgradient)


`Iron 0.3 (2nd Standard)

0.3 (2nd Standard)

88.0 MW-15



0.05 (2nd Standard)

2.9 MW-15


Values from EPA’s www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index_html#1.stmd homepage containing MCLS and secondary standards. Values from NJDEP were obtained from www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/standard.html. Soil Vapor Intrusion. Soil vapor intrusion based on ground-water concentrations was also evaluated qualitatively. Since there are no buildings on the facility and the closest existing buildings are more than 100 feet from the landfill, vapor intrusion is not considered a problem. Based on the OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway for Ground water and Soil, further analysis is not necessary. Current landfill access controls, zoning and future deed restrictions will limit future building in this area. If buildings were to be constructed, analysis of vapor intrusion will be necessary.

900034

12

Overall, based on the past remedial actions and ongoing monitoring at the site, the remedy remains protective under the industrial scenario. Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. Techncial Assessment Summary Overall, the data indicates that ground-water contamination persists underneath the landfill with some exceedances immediately outside within the shallow aquifer. Continued monitoring for VOCs and inorganics on an annual basis is recommended given the contaminant concentration history. Prior to consideration of site deletion, a round of sampling from all wells at the site (including those not monitored under the current program) should be conducted. VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions This report does not identify any issue or recommend any action at this site needed to protect public health and/or the environment that is not addressed by the remedy selected in the site decision documents. The selected remedy has not been fully implemented because institutional controls to protect the landfill remedy are not in place. The Borough is expected to implement these institutional controls within one year. IX. Protectiveness Statement The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because the landfill cap is in place and the site fence restricts access. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the deed notice preventing disturbance of the landfill cap must be implemented. The remedy at OU2, no action for surface water and sediment, and monitoring for ground water, is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk. The implemented actions (OU-1 and OU-2) taken at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund site protect human health and the environment in the short-term. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the final institutional controls need to be implemented. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the site use does not change and the engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. Because the remedial actions at all OUs are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.

900035

"'., 90: H eeee-ce-w

SiDoe!w.aldoull "."". cs, poDutanta, or~ re:maiD.1be Sayreville I andfillsite which do DO( allow for IIII1imitm use lII"~"¥"'~m·1lCCOI'dmce with40 em 3OO.430(f)(4)(u), the rantdiIJ Idion ror1he si~ sba1l be~ DO less tbllllevay fi~ yews. EPA will conduct anotba five-yeerreview 00 or before.hmc 2012,which is five yeal"ll from Ih.i. report', approval date.

13

900036

•

•e•••o..J..0

0~o

cc

J.

oo•-..00cc

I.

..--

•.-

.--

•....

Z'D

-J

JC

J!l

0-

...'"

••..

...c

••

'"•

••g

•••

"c.

_cc

-...-

.\&~....

-~

'"•

..II

•in

~

......

..c

'"-

-•

•«

••U

)w

~~•

0"

!•

..'c

.2:I

•0

>....

-.,.

~--•.:z

ie

I•

I

-L~

•

I~- •"""

ft'll

LOO!-tO-1Jt

900037

14

Acronyms used in this Document

ACO Administrative Consent Order ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements BVWST Black and Veatch Waste Science Technology, Inc. CEA Classification Exception Area CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Differences FS Feasibility Study MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels NJDEP N.J. Department of Environmental Protection NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OU1 Operable Unit 1 OU2 Operable Unit 2 OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Preparedness PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCOR Preliminary Closeout Report PRPs Potentially Responsible Parties RA Remedial Action RAR Remedial Action Report RD Remedial Design RI Remedial Investigation RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision RPM Regional Project Manager SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds U.S.C. United States Code VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

900038

15

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events Event/Activity Date

Borough of Sayreville operates Sayreville Landfill as a licensed municipal landfill

1971 - 1977

Hazardous wastes are disposed of at the landfill 1974 - 1980

Borough implements closure plan at landfill site 1980

NJDEP identifies landfill maintenance violations 1981

Magnetometer survey identifies presence of buried drums within the landfill

1981

Sayreville Landfill site placed on the NPL 1983

NJDEP engages Black and Veatch Waste Science Technology, Inc. (BVWST) to begin Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at site

1986

Final RI/FS and Baseline Risk Assessment issued by NJDEP 1990

OU1 Record of Decision (ROD) 1990

Seven Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) sign Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with NJDEP to design and implement the OU1 Remedial Action

1991

PRPs form a Site Committee which engages McLaren-Hart to design the remedy

1991 - 1992

Remedial Design completed 1995

PRP Site Committee engages IEM Sealand to perform Remedial Action; O’Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. provide oversight

1997

Physical construction complete 1998

First EPA Five-Year Review 2002

Second EPA Five-Year Review 2007

900039

16

Table 2: O & M Costs Records

Dates Costs

January 2002 to December 2002 $ 102,000





January 2007 to December 2007 $ 100,000 (estimated)

900040

17

Table 3: Site Inspection Attendees Name

Telephone

Organization

Capacity

Tom Porucznik

212-637-4370

EPA

Project Manager (RPM)

Marian Olsen

212-637-4313

EPA

Risk Assessor

Pat Seppi

212-637-3679

EPA

Community Involvement

Coordinator Diana Cutt

212-637-4311

EPA

Geologist

Tom Grzymski

609-984-9891

NJDEP

Site Manager

Kathy Kunze

609-633-1346

NJDEP

Technical Coordinator

Dave Kaplan

609-292-8071

NJDEP

Geologist

Dom DeAngelis

781-264-6728

Exxon-Mobil

Corp.

Site Project Administrator

Mike Kozar

215-628-9100

O=Brien and Gere

Engineers

PRP Committee Contractor

Project Manager Dan Mazza

215-628-9100

O=Brien and Gere

Engineers

PRP Committee Contractor

Field Technician Tim Gillen

732-727-8000

Consulting Municipal Engineers

Borough Engineer

Jeffry Bertrand

---------

Borough of Sayreville

Business Administrator

900041

18

Table 4: Documents, Data, and Information Used in Completing Five-Year Review

< Remedial Investigation Report, BVWST, March 1990

< Feasibility Study, BVWST, July 1990

< Baseline Risk Assessment, BVWST, March 1990

< Sayreville OU1 Record of Decision, EPA, September 1990

< Sayreville Explanation of Significant Difference, EPA, June 1997

< Sayreville OU2 Proposed Plan, EPA, October 1997

< Sayreville OU2 Record of Decision, NJDEP, September 1998

< CERCLIS Database Information, April 2002

< Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) for Sayreville Landfill, September 1998

< Remedial Action Report (RAR) for Sayreville Landfill, September 1999

< Site Inspection List, Dom DeAngelis, PRP Committee, May 2002

< Semi-Annual Sampling and Monitoring Reports, O’Brien and Gere Engineers, 2002-2004

< Annual Sampling and Monitoring Reports, O’Brien and Gere Engineers, 2006-2007

< Comments from Diana Cutt, EPA Hydrogeologist, May 2007

< Comments from Marian Olsen, EPA Risk Assessor, May 2007

< Information from Checklist provided by Dom DeAngelis, June 2007

900042