Second Five-Year Review Report Florence Land Recontouring ... › work › HQ › 179892.pdfFlorence...

Second Five-Year Review Report

Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site

Townships of Florence, Mansfield and Springfield Burlington County, New Jersey

Prepared by:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

July 2009

Executive Summary

This is the second five-year review for the Florence Land Recontouring Landfill (FLR) Superfund site. The site is located in the Townships ofFlorence, Mansfield and Springfield, in Burlington County, New Jersey. It was addressed in one remedial phase as specified in the 1986 Record of Decision (ROD). The major components ofthe selected remedy included: construction ofa landfill cap; construction ofa slurry containment wall; construction ofan upgradient groundwater interceptor system; construction ofa new storm water management system; leachate treatment and disposal; gas collection and treatment; removal and disposal oflagoon liquids and sediments, and other surface debris; construction ofa fence with warning signs; and operation and maintenance (O&M) ofthe constructed remedy. The remedy also called for supplemental sampling ofgroundwater, surface water, and sediments during design. The landfill cap was completed in 1993 with the remaining work completed in March 1994. An O&M plan was approved in 1994 requiring continued maintenance of the landfill cap and periodic sampling.

In March 2004, the FLR site was deleted from the National Priorities List.

This five-year review found that the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document, and is protecting human health and the environment.

2

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SII E IDE\ IIFle \ 110\

Site name (from WasteLAN): Florence Land Recontouring Landfill

EPA In (from WasteLAN): NJD980529143

Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Florence, Mansfield, Springfield / all in Burlington County

S I I I" S I \ I l S

NPL status: 0 Final. Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction. Constructed • Operating

Multiple ODs?* 0 YES • NO IConstruction completion date: 09/25/1998 Has site been put into reuse? 0 YES. NO 0 N/A

RL\IE\\ SI \llS

Lead agency: 0 EPA. State 0 Tnbe 0 Other Federal Agency

Author name: Mark Austin

Author title: Remedial Project Manager IAuthor affiliation: EPA Review period:** 09/29/2003 to 09/30/2008

Date(s) of site inspection: 12/10/2008

Type of review: • Post-SARA o Pre-SARA o NPL-Removal only o Non-NPL Remedial Action Site o NPL StateITnbe-lead o Policy o Regional Discretion

Review number: o 1 (first) • 2 (second) 0 3 (third) o Other (specify)

Triggering action: o Actual RA On-Site Construction at au # o Actual RA Start at OU#__ o Construction Completion • Previous Five-Year Review Report o Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 9/29/2003 (Previous Five-Year Review)

Does the report include recommendation(s) and foUow-up action(s)? • yes 0 no Is the remedy protective of the environment? • yes o no

* ["aU" refers to operable Unit.] ** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN,]

3

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Issues

- Maintenance ofthe wells should be improved. All of the active monitoring wells were missing locks. - There are a few inactive wells on the site. - The levels ofmanganese in the shallow downgradient wells should be monitored closely.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

- All wells should have identifYing name tags and locks. Ifdamaged, all protective casings should be repaired. - The unused wells should be abandoned according to New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) requirements, or properly repaired and maintained. - Ifthere are increases in the manganese levels during the next five-year period, then a supplemental investigation is recommended to further evaluate the performance of the landfill slurry wall.

Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance. Monitoring, and Institutional Controls

NJDEP will continue to conduct the oversight of routine operation and maintenance activities and adjustments to these activities will be made on an ongoing basis.

As part ofthe 1986 ROD, a security fence along with warning signs was constructed around the entire landfill. To date, the fencing continues to be observed and maintained weekly byNJDEP and there is no evidence oftrespassing per the December 2008 inspection. This maintenance will continue indefinitely.

Protectiveness Statement

The remedy as implemented at the site is intact and in good repair. It continues to protect the public and the environment from exposure to contaminated materials. An O&M program also is in effect to monitor the cap condition as well as leachate and gas emissions at the site, along with annual environmental sampling which indicates that the remedy is functioning as intended. The remedy is expected to remain protective ofpublic health and the environment

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary , 2

Five-Year Review Summary Form 3

I. Introduction........................................................................................ 7

II. Site Chronology................................................................................... 8

III. Background 8

Physical Characteristics , . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. 8 Geology/Hydrogeology 9 Land and Resource Use 9 History ofContarnination : 9 Initial Response " . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. 9 Basis for Taking Action.. 10

IV. Remedial Action 10

Remedy Selection and Implementation.... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

V. Progress Since Last Review.. 12

VI. Five-Year Review Process. . ... .. . .. . .. .. . . ... .. . .. . .. ... . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ... . .. . .. . .. . ... 13

Administrative Components ,. 13 Community Involvement 13 Document Review 13 Data Review ,. 13 Site Inspection , 15 Interviews , 15 Institutional Controls............................................................................. 16

VII. Technical Assessment........................................................................... 16

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 16

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time ofthe remedy selection still valid? 17

5

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy? 18

Technical Assessment Summary 18

VIII. Issues Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 18

IX. Protectiveness Statement. , 19

X. Next Review.............•........................................................................... 19

Appendix A: List ofAcronyms

Appendix B: Documents Reviewed

Appendix C: NJDEP Memorandum

Figure 1

6

I. Introduction

The purpose ofthe five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identifY issues found during the review, ifany, along with recommendations to address them.

This review was conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601; et seq. and 40 C.F.R. 300.430(t)(4)(ii), and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001).

The u.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, conducted this five-year review of the remedy implemented at the Florence Land Recontouring Landfill (FLR) Superfund site in the Townships ofFlorence, Mansfield and Springfield, New Jersey. In particular, the five-year review was conducted by Mark Austin, Remedial Project Manager (RPM). This report documents the results 0 fthe review.

This is the second five-year review for the FLR site. The triggering action for this statutory review was the approval ofthe Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report in September 1998. A five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

The first five-year review for the site was completed in March 2004 and determined that the implemented remedy was protective ofhuman health and the environment. As part of the first five-year review, EPA conducted a site visit in addition to a review ofdocuments, data and information. The purpose of the inspection was to assess whether the site remedy was operating as designed, as well as to determine whether current conditions at the site were protective of human health and the environment.

This site was addressed in one remedial phase or Operable Unit (OU). In a comprehensive Record ofDecision (ROD) issued in June 1986 for the site, the major components ofthe selected remedy included: construction ofa synthetic membrane and clay composite cap; construction ofa circumferential soil/bentonite slurry containment wall; construction ofan upgradient groundwater interceptor system; construction ofa new storm water management system; leachate treatment and disposal at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW); gas collection and treatment; removal and disposal oflagoon liquids and sediments, and other surface debris; construction ofa fence with warning signs; and, operation and maintenance (O&M) ofthe constructed remedy. The remedy also called for supplemental sampling ofgroundwater, surface water, and sediments during design.

The remedy was completed in 1994.

7

II. Site Chronology

Table 1, below, summarizes site-related events from discovery to present activities:

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event!Activity Date

Landfill operations begin at the site. 1973

NJDEP conducts site investigation disclosing chemical waste disposal. 1975

NJDEP issues a Consent Order to control further contamination. 1979

Landfill owners issue a final landfill closure plan. 1981

Site placed on National Priorities List. 1984

NJDEP conducts an additional site investigation detecting petroleum hydrocarbons in nearby water supply.

1986

Site-wide ROD issued. June 1986

Remedial action begins. April 1992

Remedial action completed. Aug 1994

NJDEP initiates five-year monitoring period. Sept 1997

EPA issues Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report. Sept 1998

EPA approves NJDEP's Close-Out Report. Sept 2001

EPA issues first Five-Year Review Report. March 2004

Site is deleted from National Priorities List. March 2004

III. Background

Physical Characteristics

The site (Figure 1) is located on Cedar Lane, in the Townships ofFlorence, Mansfield and Springfield, in Burlington County, New Jersey. The property encompasses approximately 60 acres. Out ofthe 60 acres, the area which contains the actual landfilled wastes is 29 acres, along with two relatively small leachate collection lagoons. The site is bordered by farmland, the Assiscunk Creek, used for both recreational purposes and irrigation, the Burlington County

8

Resource Recovery Facilities Complex (BCRRFC) and Cedar Lane, also known as Cedar Lane Extension.

Geology/Hydrogeology

The site lies above the Raritan-Magothy Aquifer, a major source ofdrinking water for the area. The Raritan-Magothy Formation comprises of150 feet of interbedded sands, silts and clays. Separating the site from this aquifer is 50 to 70 feet ofMerchantville Clay. Overlying the Merchantville are Pleistocene deposits varying from zero to 25 feet in thickness, which consist of sand, silt and clay. The surficial Pleistocene Aquifer is used as a water supply, but to a lesser extent than the Raritan-Magothy. Flow in both the Pleistocene and Raritan-Magothy is in the south-southeast direction toward the Assiscunk Creek. Based on existing hydraulic gradients, leachate from the landfill has the potential to flow out ofthe fill into theadjacent surficial Pleistocene aquifer. Since groundwater from the Pleistocene Aquifer discharges into the Assiscunk Creek, the Creek acts as a natural hydraulic barrier to further contain contaminant transport in the groundwater beyond the creek.

Land and Resource Use

Florence Land Recontouring, Inc. operated the site as a landfill from 1973 to 1981. The site is now inactive and completely covered with vegetation. In addition, the site is fenced off from the general public. The area surrounding FLR is predominantly agricultural and somewhat industrial. Adjacent to most ofthe site perimeter are lands owned by Burlington County where the Burlington County Resource Recovery Facility is located.

History ofContamination

During its operation, the landfill was permitted to accept sanitary and industrial (non-chemical) waste, which also included septage and sewage sludge. In 1975, an investigation by the NJDEP detected chemical waste disposal at the landfill.. Due to a history ofenvironmental concerns, including observed leachate seeps, potential groundwater contamination and emissions to the atmosphere, a Consent Order was issued by the New Jersey Superior Court in January 1979. Elements ofthis Order included: a listing ofpermitted and prohtbited waste types for acceptance at the facility; establishment ofa sampling and analysis program for existing groundwater monitoring wells; specifications for site preparation, disposal limits, and operations; design and installation ofa leachate collection system; pumping and removal ofleachate to alleviate hydraulic head pressures; the construction ofcutoffwalls, dikes and wastefill gas vents; provisions for the control oflitter, dust, odor, noise and fire protection; and, the establishment ofthe final elevation and depth ofexcavation. Compliance with the Order was sporadic.

Initial Response

In 1975, the NJDEP's investigation disclosed chemical waste disposal at the landfill. NJDEP's 9

January 1979 Consent Order served as an immediate measure to alleviate and control site-related contamination.

In July 1981, Florence Land Recontouring, Inc. submitted a final closure plan and operations terminated in November 1981. In 1982, the waste fill area was capped with on-site clay-like material, reportedly using the Merchantville Formation, and revegetated. A leachate collection system was installed with the resulting leachate being placed into two lagoons constructed on another section 0 f the property, and eventually disposed 0 f at an 0 ff-site wastewater treatment plant. The leachate lagoons were surrounded by a five-foot high fence. Carbon adsorption filters were placed on top ofthe leachate collection system manholes to collect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and control odors.

The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1984.

Basis for Taking Action

During 1985 and 1986, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) was performed. The RIfFS revealed that the main source ofenvironmental concern at the site was the reported deposition ofhazardous waste, including phthalates, heavy metals and vinyl chloride monomers. Sampling and analysis ofleachate in waste-fill wells indicated the presence ofVOCs and heavy metals. At that time, public health concerns from at the site included:

• The groundwater in the landfill was contaminated with a potential for migration into the adjacent aquifers;

• There was a potential for contaminants to migrate to the Assiscunk Creek via surfacewater runoff and groundwater flow in the surifical aquifer. The creek was considered an exposure pathway through dermal contact and ingestion;

• Air emissions were an exposure pathway through inhalation; and, • Hazardous substances potentially found near the ground surface in the landfill presented

an exposure pathway through dermal contact.

IV. Remedial Action

Remedy Selection and Implementation

EPA issued a comprehensive ROD for the site on June 27, 1986, with NJDEP concurrence. The Remedial Action Objective (RAO) for the remedy is to control the potential release of contaminants from the landfill. Based on the general exposure pathways, more specific objectives were established: mitigate downgradient, off-site groundwater contamination; mitigate on-site surface-water runoff contamination; mitigate off-site air contamination; and, mitigate the potential for health hazard exposure and enhance on-site safety. The major components ofthe selected remedy included: construction ofa synthetic membrane and clay composite cap; construction ofa circumferential soil/bentonite slurry containment wall; construction ofan upgradient groundwater

10

interceptor system; construction ofa new storm water management system; leachate treatment and disposal at a POTW; gas collection and treatment; removal and disposal oflagoon liquids and sediments, and other surface debris; construction of a fence with warning signs; and O&M ofthe constructed remedy. The remedy also called for supplemental sampling ofgroundwater, surface water, and sediments during design.

In 1987, NJDEP initiated the remedial design.

During the Fall of 1988, soil borings were taken around the perimeter of the landfill to develop subsurface information for the perimeter slurry wall design. In addition, a slurry wall mix design study was completed to determine the optimum soil/bentonite ratio that would achieve the desired 1xl 0-7 permeability. While the design work was being performed, a two-phase Interim Monitoring Program (IMP) was carried out involving the sampling and analysis ofgroundwater, surface water, stream sediment and air. Sampling was performed during the Spring and Summer of1989. Based on the results ofth~ IMP, NJDEP concluded that no significant contamination was leaving the site by way ofgroundwater, surface water, sediment, or air.

In November 1991, NJDEP performed the remedial action by completing the following activities: the leachate lagoons were dewatered (waste water disposed ofoff-site) and approximately 4,000 cubic yards oflagoon bottom sediments were removed and placed in the landfill and under the cap; the lagoons were then backfilled and graded; the upgradient groundwater interceptor system was installed; the slurry wall was installed to an average depth of25 feet below ground surface; a leachate collection and treatment system was installed; the 29-acre composite cap, which included gas collection layers for the gas venting system, was subsequently installed in February 1994; and, the site was re-graded to provide surface water management and revegetated.

O&M activities associated with the site are being conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan, dated March 1994. General O&M activities, performed byNJDEP, include inspections ofsite security fencing, inspections ofpotential areas oflandfill cap degradation, and periodic environmental sampling.

A final Preliminary Closeout Report was approved by EPA in September 1998.

In March 2004, EPA deleted the FLR site from the NPL.

11

v. Progress Since the Last Review

The first Five-Year Review for the site, which was approved in March 2004, noted that NJDEP should continue performing oversight ofall O&M activities. Since the completion of the 2004 review, the site has remained secure.

Of the NJDEP's oversight activities during the past five years, the following is noted:

• Periodic site inspections have ensured that the fencing surrounding the site has remained in good condition and that the access gates remain locked.

• Leachate is periodically pumped to a tank, sampled and transported off-site for proper treatment and disposal. Primary contaminants in landfill leachate include BTEX compounds and chlorinated volatile organics, including 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2trichloroethane, and methylene chloride. More recently (October 2008), the primary VOCs detected include: chloroethane, benzene, chlorobenzene, isopropylbenzene, and several other substituted benzenes. These total less than 100 micrograms per liter (ug/l).

• Landfill gas production has decreased over the years and is periodically flared. • NJDEP has performed oversight ofannual groundwater and surface water monitoring

activities. The annual groundwater monitoring involves groundwater quality testing at three monitoring well clusters (one upgradient and two downgradient) which test groundwater quality in both the overburden and confined aquifers. In addition, the surface water quality ofAssiscunk: Creek is monitored through the sampling ofthree locations (one upstream and two downstream) in this creek, which runs north to south along the eastern side ofthe FLR site.

During this five-year time period (between 2004 to 2008), six groundwater monitoring wells were sampled annually. The selected wells include MW4S, MW4D, MW6S, MW5S, MW5D and MW7S. Sampling occurs in the fall ofeach year, generally in September or October. It should be noted that data for 2004 are missing; these data are currently unavailable due to an error with archived files. However, comparison of2003. data to the data set covering 2005 to 2008 provided continuity.

In addition, three surface water samples were collected during each annual sampling event. These samples were located in areas identified as SWT-l (downstream), SWT-5 (upstream) and SWT-6 (next to the landfill). Sampling results are compared to NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) or Criteria. Ifmore than one criterion is available for a parameter of interest, the strictest level provided is used for screening purposes.

Both the groundwater and surface water sampling results are discussed in the next section (Section VI) under Data Review.

12

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The first five-year review ofthe FLR site was completed in 2004. The 2004 five-year review determined that the remedy selected for the site provided adequate protection ofpublic health and the environment. Since the first five-year review was completed in 2004, subsequent reviews are due every five years thereafter.

For this five-year review, the review team consisted ofMark Austin (EPA - RPM), Lora Smith (EPA - Risk Assessor), Mindy Pensak (EPA - Eco Risk Assessor), Grant Anderson (EPAHydrogeologist), Steve WoWeb (NJDEP - Project Manager), and Anne Hayton (NJDEP Technical Coordinator).

Community Involvement

Public participation activities leading to the selection ofthe ROD were done in accordance with CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The NJDEP reports that there has been very little public interest in this site due to its remote location. EPA published a notice in the Trenton Times, a local newspaper, on June 17,2009, notifYing the community ofthe five-year review process. The notice indicated that EPA was in the process of conducting a five-year review ofthe remedy for the site to ensure that the implemented remedy remained protective ofpublic health and the environment and is functioning as designed. It also indicated that upon completion ofthe five-year review, the results of the review would be made available at the designated site repository. In addition, the notice included the RPM's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process or to the site in general. The EPA RPM has not received questions from any members ofthe community involving this five-year review.

Document Review

This five-year review consisted ofa review ofrelevant documents including moni~oring data (See Attachment B for a list ofdocuments reviewed).

Data Review

Overall Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Data - Six monitoring wells have been sampled annually during this five-year time period. The selected wells include MW4S, MW4D, MW6S, MW5S, MW5D and MW7S. The data was compared to New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS).

• With the exception ofvinyl cWoride in MW-7S, no volatile organic compounds were detected above analytical detection limits during the time period including 2003 and 2005 to 2008. MW-7S was not sampled in 2007 and 2008 due to insufficient water flow during

13

purging. At MW-7S, vinyl chloride was found at 1 part per billion (ppb) in 2003, 1.1 ppb in 2005, and 0.77 ppb in 2006, in comparison to the NJDEP GWQS of 1 ppb.

• Semi-volatile organic compounds (SYOCs) were generally not detected. The SYOCs that were detected, such as bis 2-ethyl hexyl phthalate caprolactam, were also found in associated QNQC samples. Therefore, they can be attributable to either laboratory or sampling sources, and not to the waste in the landfill.

• For inorganics, arsenic, beryllium, nickel and chromium periodically exceeded associated GWQS; however, these metals are also found in the upgradient well, MW-4S, and are therefore most likely attributed to background conditions. With regard to manganese, the data collected during the past five years has identified a potential issue with the effectiveness of the slurry wall. In the shallow aquifer, manganese levels are generally an order ofmagnitude higher in the downgradient wells than in the upgradient wells. This, combined with sporadic hits ofTCLITAL contaminants in shallow downgradient monitoring wells and surface water, suggest the presence ofleaking leachate. The deeper aquifer, which is a regional water supply, appears to be fully protected. The data trend analysis for manganese suggests that the slurry wall may not be completely effective, although leakage from it may not be increasing throughout the last five-year period. Manganese is often used as an early indicator for leaking leachate. Both organic and inorganic contaminants escaping from the landfill can be highly retarded by the soil composition and geochemistry, so it is often difficult to detect a leachate leak for many years. Manganese, however, is partitioned directly from the soil to the groundwater under the reducing conditions created by leachate and therefore can provide an early indication of a problem.

Overall Summary of Surface Water Monitoring Data - Three surface water samples were collected during each annual sampling event. These include: SWT-l (downstream), SWT-5 (upstream) and SWT-6 (next to the landfill). Sampling results were compared to NJDEP SWQS or Criteria.

• For sampling rounds conducted in 2005,2006 and 2007, chloroform was frequently detected, usually hovering around 1 ppb at all three locations. During the 2008 sampling, chloroform was reported at levels up to 10 ppb at SWT-5. In each case, detected concentrations ofchloroform did not exceed the associated SWQS of68 ppb (based on human health). In 2008 only, bromodichloromethane and dibromochloromethane were detected at concentrations slightly exceeding their assigned SWQS of 0.55 ppb and 0.40 ppb, respectively (based on human health). These compounds were not detected in previous sampling rounds and may be related to the presence ofchloroform at these same locations. To a lesser extent, acetone and 2-hexanone have been detected, but no pattern is observed. An associated SWQS does not currently exist for either acetone or 2 hexanone; however, the concentrations reported are less than 5 ppb and, due to the low concentrations and improbability that YOCs would remain in surface waters for any period oftime, these concentrations are unlikely to pose concern for human receptors.

• No SYOCs ofnote were detected in any of the surface water samples.

14

• For inorganics, arsenic was often detected at low levels (less than 2 ppb); yet, this level exceeds the associated SWQS of0.017 ppb (based on human health for drinking water). However, concentrations are similar up and downstream and are therefore attributed to background conditions.

See Attachment C for a detailed summary ofboth groundwater and surface water monitoring results provided byNJDEP.

Site Inspection

An inspection ofthe site was conducted on December 10, 2008. The following parties were in attendance: Mark Austin, EPA Region 2 Remedial Project Manager; Lora Smith, EPA Region 2 Human Health Risk Assessor; Mindy Pensak, EPA Region 2 Ecological Risk Assessor; and, Anne Hayton, NJDEP Technical Coordinator.

The site inspection consisted ofa physical inspection of the entire remediated landfill area, security fencing, monitoring wells, and surrounding off-site areas.

The following sections present the results ofthe site inspection, separated into each inspected element.

Groundwater Monitoring Wells - There are a number ofwells on the site and off-site that are part ofthe sampling program. No damages were observed. All wells were determined to be in good working order. These wells will continue to be inspected throughout the sampling program, as needed. Ifthere is a need to decommission any wells in the future, the appropriate actions will be taken.

Security Fencing - Upon inspection, no deficiencies were noted regarding the site security fencing. Fencing was visible around the perimeter ofthe former landfill area, ending near the access gate.

Surrounding Areas - Nothing out ofthe ordinary was noted. No new construction on neighboring properties or other factors that might change exposure scenarios were identified.

On-Site Drainage System - The drainage system located in the center and along the northern portion ofthe site was inspected. No blockages or debris were noted and water was flowing through the system. New vegetative growth was observed in the surrounding areas.

Off-Site Creek Area - The areas where the Assiscunk Creek approaches the site were inspected. Nothing out ofthe ordinary was noted.

Interviews

During the site inspection, EPA spoke with representatives ofNJDEP regarding the implemented

15

remedy and the current O&M program. NJDEP staff indicated that they did not have any specific concerns regarding the remedy or the existing monitoring program.

Institutional Controls

Although the ROD did not require institutional controls and EPA does not believe they are necessary at this site for the remedy to be protective, NJDEP independently requires institutional controls, in the form ofa deed notice, under its landfill closure and post-closure regulations (New Jersey Solid Waste Regulations, N.J.A.C 7:26-2A.9). A deed notice would remain in effect in perpetuity, and would require prior approval from NJDEP before any future disturbance occurs. However, the former FLR site owner is defunct and the site is not currently owned by a viable entity; therefore, until an entity buys the property or the townships take possession of it, a deed notice cannot be placed on the property.

In lieu ofa deed notice, the ROD specifies that the completed remedy must include O&M activities. These activities, as previously mentioned, include inspections of site security fencing, inspections ofpotential areas oflandfill cap degradation, and periodic environmental sampling. The combination ofO&M activities along with the fact that Burlington County Resource Recovery Facility almost completely surrounds the FLR site inherently provides adequate protectiveness until a deed notice can be placed on the property.

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes. The 1986 ROD for the FLR site called for the following: construction of a synthetic landfill cap, slurry wall surrounding the landfill, upgradient groundwater interceptor system, storm water management system, leachate treatment and disposal, gas collection and treatment, removal and disposal oflagoon liquids and sediments, a fence with warning signs, and supplemental sampling. These remedial activities were necessary in order to attain the remedial action objective (RAO) of controlling the potential release ofcontaminants from the landfill.

All remedial activities were completed in 1994 with a monitoring program initiated in 1997. In 2004, the FLR site was deleted from the NPL.

During the five year O&M sampling conducted from 1997-2002, no monitoring well had any VOC exceedence in any ofthe five rounds. During the monitoring, only slight exceedences ofthe Class-IIA GWQS for lead and arsenic were observed. Lead was only observed during the 2000 sampling round in wells MW-6S and MW-7S at 11.5 and 19.2 ppb, respectively (compared to the GWQS of 10 ppb). The only exceedence in the final 2002 sampling round was arsenic at 11.5 ppb (GWQS = 8 ppb) in well BV-4D (also known as MW4D). NJDEP has suggested that arsenic may have originated from the neighboring upgradient Burlington County landfill. There was only one exceedence ofSWQS during the monitoring program. In 2002, zinc was detected in SW-7 at

16

a level ofl03 ug/L (SWQS waslOO ug/L). The new SWQS supersedes the earlier version. The SWQS for zinc is now 7400 ugIL; therefore, the exceedence in 2002 is not a current concern. Results ofthe monitoring program (IMP) indicated that no significant contamination was leaving the site by way ofgroundwater, surface water, sediment or air.

Subsequent surface and groundwater sampling from 2005 through 2008 indicates that manganese is present in shallow groundwater above screening criteria, with no discernable trend. Manganese is also present in surface waters; yet, no screening criteria are available to evaluate health-based risk. While manganese may naturally exist at levels above risk-based screening levels, it appears that less manganese exists in the upgradient well MW4S (475-650 ug/L) than other downgradient wells, such as MW5S (898-1550 ug/L) and MW6S (806-2130 ug/L), where concentrations are up to four-fold higher. This is an indication that the landfill may be leaching to the surrounding areas as manganese has also been detected in downgradient surface water, beyond the slurry wall. Since the ROD selected a containment remedy, it is suggested that downgradient samples from wells MW5S, MW6S and MW7S along with surface water samples from Assiscunk Creek continue to be collected to ensure the remedy continues to function as intended and meet the selected RAO.

Additionally, bromodichloromethane and dibromochloromethane have been detected in surface water at concentrations above SWQC at locations SWT-l, SWT-5, and SWT-6 in 2008. In this sampling round, chromium was also identified above screening criteria in well MW4S. These contaminants may be leaching from the landfill. It is suggested that the surface water samples downgradient ofFLR continue to be collected to confirm the remedy is functioning as intended and meets the selected RAO.

The security fence along with warning signs was constructed around the entire landfill. To date, the fencing continues to be maintained weekly by NJDEP and there is no evidence oftrespassing based on the December 2008 inspection. This maintenance will continue indefinitely.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time ofthe remedy still valid?

There have been no physical changes to the site that would adversely affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

Land use assumptions, exposure assumptions and pathways, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives considered in the decision documents remain valid. Although specific parameters may have changed since the time that the risk assessment was completed, the process utilized remains valid.

Soil vapor intrusion is evaluated when soils and/or groundwater are known or suspected to contain VOCs. One hit oftotal VOCs was detected above its respective groundwater screening criteria prior to the monitoring program. Since 1997, no VOCs have been detected in any groundwater wells.

17

However, since trihalomethanes have been observed in surface water samples, groundwater sCJ1llples will be closely monitored for these and other volatile contaminants. Currently, the vapor intrusion pathway remains incomplete at the FLR site.

Detection limits have become more sensitive for some compounds, namely the trihalomethanes, which have been detected in surface water during recent sampling events. As a result, while this group ofcompounds has not been a concern at FLR in the past, they should be closely monitored moving forward.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy?

No.

Technical Assessment Summary

According to the reviewed data and the site inspection, the site remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document.

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Table 2, below, summarizes site-related issues, recommendations and proposed follow-up actions.

Table 2 Issue Recommendations &

Follow-up Actions Party

Responsible Oversight

Agency Milestone

Date Affects

Protectiveness? (YIN)

Current Future Maintenance of the wells All wells should have NJDEP EPA December N N should be improved. All of the active monitoring

identifYing name tags and locks. Ifdamaged,

2009

wells were missing locks. all protective casings should be repaired.

There are a few inactive The unused wells NJDEP EPA December N N wells on the site. should be abandoned 2010

according to NJDEP requirements, or properly repaired and

. maintained.

18

The levels ofmanganese in shallow downgradient wells should be monitored closely.

Ifmanganese levels increase during the next five-year period, then a supplemental investigation is recommended to further evaluate' the performance ofthe landfill slurry wall.

NJDEP EPA December 2013

N Y

IX. Protectiveness Statement

The remedy as implemented at the site is intact and in good repair. It continues to protect the public and the environment from exposure to contaminated materials. An O&M program is in effect to monitor the cap condition as well as leachate and gas emissions at the.site, along with annual environmental sampling which indicates that the remedy is functioning as intended. The remedy is expected to remain protective ofpublic health and the environment.

x. Next Review

The next Five-Year Review for the Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund site should be completed by July 2014.

Approved:

n~ S ~,-----'-'='-=w:.......---_ WaltUE. Mugdan, Director Date Emergency and Remedial Response Division

FIGURE 1

o 0.05 0.1

N

A 0.2 __==::::J Miles

Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site Florence Township, New Jersey

Figure #1

BCRRFC CERCLA EPA FLR GWQS IMP MCL ug/l NJDEP NPL O&M OU POTW ppb PRG QNQC RA RAO RD RI RIfFS RPM ROD SVOC SWQS VOC

ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF ACRONYMS

Burlington County Resource Recovery Facilities Complex Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Groundwater Quality Standard Interim Monitoring Program Maximum Contaminant Level Micrograms per Liter New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance Operable Unit Publicly Owned Treatment Works Parts Per Billion Preliminary Remediation Goals Quality Assurance/Quality Control Remedial Action Remedial Action Objective Remedial Design Remedial Investigation Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Remedial Project Manager Record ofDecision Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Surface Water QualityStandards Volatile Organic Compound

ATTACHMENT B - DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, "Annual Sampling Event Data Results," 2005 to 2008. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "FLR Landfill- Operation and Maintenance Sampling Soil Gas Measurements", Trenton, New Jersey, January 2007. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "FLR Landfill- Operation and Maintenance Sampling Soil Gas & Water Level Measurements", Trenton, New Jersey, July 2006. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "Florence Landfill Sampling (C150A WOO) O&M Phase", Trenton, New Jersey, July 2004. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "Florence Landfill Sampling (C150A WOO) O&M Phase", Trenton, New Jersey, July 2006. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "Florence Landfill Sampling (C150AWOO) O&M Phase", Trenton, New Jersey, September 2008. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "FLR Landfill- Operation and Maintenance Monitoring Five Year Review 2008", Trenton, New Jersey, January 2009. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, "Close-Out Report, Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Remediation", Florence Twp, Burlington County, NJ, November 1991

August 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Superfund Record ofDecision: Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey," Region 2, New York, New York, June 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report, Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey," Region 2, New York, New York, September 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Five-Year Review Report, Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey," Region 2, New York, New York, March 2004.

ATTACHMENT C - NJDEP MEMORANDUM

DEPARlMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

JON S. CORZINE MARK N. MAURIELLO Governor Division ofRemediation Management and Response Acting Commissioner

Bureau ofEnvironmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment P.O. Box 413

Trenton, NJ 08625 Phone: (609) 633-7413

Fax:(609) 292-0848

MEMORANDUM

7/30/2009

TO: Steve Wohleb, Project Manager, BOMM

FROM: Anne Hayton, Technical Coordinator, BEERA

SUBJECT: FLR Landfill-Operation and Maintenance Monitoring Five Year Review - 2008

Provided below is a summary ofthe monitoring results for surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the FLR Landfill in Burlington County, NJ. This landfill was formerly on the National Priority List ofcontaminated sites and was closed and remediated through the Superfund program. The remedy included slurry wall encapsulation along the landfill perimeter and a multi-layer cap. Included in the design are infrastructure for the collection oflandfill leachate and gases. Leachate is periodically pumped to a tank, sampled and transported off-site for proper treatment and disposal. Landfill gas production has decreased over the years and is periodically flared. Primary historical contaminants in landfill leachate include BTEX compounds and chlorinated volatile organics, including, but not limited to, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, methylene chloride. More recently (October 2008), the primary volatile organic contaminants detected include: chloroethane, benzene, chlorobenzene, isopropylbenzene, and several other substituted benzenes. These total less than 100 ug/l (ppb). Long term monitoring involves annual groundwater quality testing at 3 monitoring well clusters (one upgradient and two downgradient) which test groundwater quality in both the overburden and confined aquifers. In addition, surface water quality ofthe Assiscunk: Creek is monitored through sampling of three locations (one upstream and two downstream) in this creek, which runs north to south along the eastern side ofthe landfill. The O&M data were reviewed by the NJDEP Office ofData Quality for validation purposes and found to be acceptable.

Overall Summary ofGroundwater Monitoring Data

Six monitoring wells have been sampled annually during this 5 year time period between 2004 to 2008. The selected wells include MW4S, MW4D, MW6S, MW5S, MW5D and MW7S. Sampling takes place in the fall ofeach year, generally in September or October. Summarized in the table below are the organic and inorganic constituents detected. These data are compared to

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable

New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS). Attached to this memo are copies of the analytical summary sheets for a full listing ofcontaminants tested, and their associated detection limits. Data for 2004 are missing from this summary, as these data are currently unavailable, due to an error with archived files. However, comparison of2003 data to the data set covering 2005 to 2008 provides continuity. With the exception ofvinyl chloride in MW-7S, no volatile organic compounds were detected above analytical detection limits during the time period of2003 and 2005 to 2008. MW-7S was not sampled in 2007 and 2008 due to insufficient water flow during purging. At MW-7S, vinyl chloride was found at 1 ppb in 2003, 1.1 ppb in 2005 and 0.77 ppb in 2006, in comparison to the NJDEP GWQS of 1 ppb.

In addition, semi-volatile organic compounds were generally not detected. Although some plasticizer compounds and caprolactam were occasionally reported at low levels, these are considered potentially attributed to either laboratory or sampling sources.

For inorganics, arsenic, beryllium, manganese, nickel and chromium periodically exceeded associated GWQS, however these metals are also found in the upgradient well, MW-4S and are therefore most likely attributed to background conditions

Overall Summary of Surface Water Monitoring Data

Three surface water samples were collecting during each annual sampling event. These include: SWT-l (downstream), SWT-5 (upstream) and SWT-6 (next to the landfill). Sampling results are compared to NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards or Criteria. Ifmore than one criterion is listed, the strictest level is used for screening purposes. For sampling rounds conducted in 2005, 2006 and 2007, chloroform was frequently detected, usually hovering around 1 ppb at all three locations. During the most recent sampling in 2008, chloroform was reported at levels up to 10 ppb at SWT-5 in 2008. In all cases, detected concentrations ofchloroform did not exceed the associated SWQS of68 ppb (based on human health). In 2008 only, bromodichloromethane and dibromochloromethane were detected at concentrations slightly exceeding their assigned SWQS of0.55 ppb and 0.40 ppb, respectively (based on human health). These compounds were not detected in previous sampling rounds and may be related to the presence ofchloroform at these same locations. To a lesser extent, acetone and 2-hexanone have been detected, but no pattern is observed. An associated SWQS does not currently exist for either acetone or 2 -hexanone, however, the concentrations reported are less than 5 ppb and therefore not of concern for surface water receptors.

No semivolatile organic compounds ofnote were detected in any ofthe surface water samples. For inorganics, arsenic was often detected at low levels (less than 2 ppb), yet this level exceeds the associated SWQS of0.017 ppb (based on human health). However, concentrations are similar up and down stream and are therefore attributed to background conditions.

September 2005 Ground Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S: no VOCs detected greater than CRDLs. MW-7S: Vinyl Chloride, 1.1 ug/l. Semi-Volatile Organic Summary


MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-7S: no SVOCs detected greater than CRDLs, except for bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate detected in low concentrations but also found in QA/QC samples and therefore negated.

MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D MW6S MW7S GWQS

Arsenic 5.9 U U U U U 3 Beryllium 2 U 0.17 0.2 0.22 0.23 1 Cadmium 0.74 U U U U U 4 Chromium 6 U U 2.8 0.82 2.5 70 Copper 13.6 2.9 7.5 3 6.5 8.5 1,300 Lead 3.4 U U U U U 5 Manganese 484 21.3 1750 10.9 2350 645 50 Nickel 104 U 9.3 U 11.5 U 100 Zinc 129 U 12 U 11.5 U 2,000

September 2005 Surface Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary, ug/l

SWT-l SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS Chloroform 0.65 0.90 0.80 140 2-Hexanone 2.9 U U NL Acetone U U U NL Semi-Volatile Organic Summary - None detected Inorganics

SWT-l SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS Arsenic 047 0.46 0.45 150 Beryllium U U U 3.6 Cadmium 0.19 ·0.22 0.21 3.4 Chromium 0.59 0.64 0.72 42 Copper 0.97 0.98 I 1,300 Lead 0.76 0.76 0.78 5.4 Manganese 73.9 99.9 114 NA Nickel 2.2 2.1 2.2 500 Zinc 8.3 6.8 7.2 7,400

September 2006 Ground Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S: no VOCs detected greater than CRDLs. MW-4S, MTBE, 0.3 ug/l, MW-7S: Vinyl Chloride, 0.77 ug/l. Semi-Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-7S: no SVOCs detected greater than CRDLs, except for bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate and di-ethyl phthalate detected in low concentrations but also found in QA/QC samples and therefore attributed to sampling and/or lab sources.


Arsenic 6.2 U 3.1 1.8 0.39 0.75 3 Beryllium 1.6 U U U 0.096 U 1 Cadmium 0.22 U U U U U 4 Chromium 14.7 0.42 0.56 4.4 0.66 2 70 Copper 9.5 2.6 3.2 1.2 3.7 6.9 1,300 Lead 2.2 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.59 I 5 Manganese 650 23.6 1310 14.4 806 616 50 Nickel 130 0.16 9 0.68 4.6 0.70 100 Zinc 191 U 9.6 U 17.2 50.2 2,000


September 2006 Surface Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary, ug/l

SWT-l SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS, ug/l Chloroform 1 0.97 1.1 140 Acetone U U 2.2 NL Semi-Volatile Organic Summary

Naphthalene 0.095 U U 13 2-methylnaphthalene 0.12 U U 330 Caprolactam 7.1 U U NL Di-n-butyl phthalate II U U 9.7 Inorganics

SWT-I.SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS Arsenic .8 0.76 1 150 Beryllium 0.2 0.27 0.29 3.6 Cadmium U U 0.11 3.4 Chromium 0.95 0.95 0.94 42 Copper 2 U U 1,300 Lead 0.65 U U 5.4 Manganese 124 125 130 NA Nickel 3.9 2.1 4 500 Zinc 12.4 6.8 13.9 7,400

September 2007 Ground Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S: no VOCs detected greater than CRDLs. MW-4S, MTBE, 0.32 ug/l, MW-7S:not sampled. Semi-Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-7S: no SVOCs detected greater than CRDLs, except for caprolactam, bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate and butyl benzyl phthalate detected at less than 2 ug/l in several samples but also found in QAlQC samples and therefore attributed to sampling and/or lab sources.


Arsenic 2.6 U 4.5 1.7 0.82 NA 3 Beryllium 1.4 U U U U NA I Cadmium 0.35 U U U U NA 4 Chromium 28.1 0.11 0.32 5.7 0.65 NA 70 Copper 6.3 0.70 1.4 0.51 2.7 NA 1,300 Lead 2.5 0.25 0.11 0.090 0.28 NA 5 Manganese 650 23.8 964 16.7 1310 NA 50 Nickel 124 0.24 12.2 0.51 8.1 NA 100 Zinc 227 0.79 50.3 U 14.6 NA 2,000

September 2007 Surface Water Summary Volatile Organic' Summary, ugll

SWT-l SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS Chloroform 1.5 1.2 1.1 140

Semi-Volatile Organic Summary, ug/l


Caprolactum 4.3 3 1.3 NL

Inorganics SWT-I SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS

Arsenic 0.72 0.62 0.39 150 Beryllium U U U 3.6 Cadmium U U U 3.4 Chromium I 0.37 0.23 42 Copper 2.6 1.3 1.6 1,300 Lead .44 0.23 0.14 5.4 Manganese 123 138 114 NA Nickel 2.5 2.2 2.4 500 Zinc 6.1 5.3 5.1 7,400

September 2008 Ground Water Summary Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S: no VOCs detected greater than CRDLs. MW-4S, MTBE, 0.32 ug/l, MW-7S: not sampled. Semi-Volatile Organic Summary MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-7S: no SVOCs detected greater than CRDLs, with the exception of occasional detections ofcaprolactam, bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate and butyl benzyl phthalate detected at low levels in several samples but also found in QAlQC samples and therefore attributed to sampling and/or lab sources.


Arsenic 4.5 U 2.5 2.3 0.72 NA 3 Beryllium 1.5 U U U U NA 1 Cadmium 0.91 U U U 0.019 NA 4 Chromium 109 0.36 0.49 6 0.65 NA 70 Copper 13 U 2 U 2.4 NA 1,300 Lead 2.9 0.61 0.70 0.62 0.71 NA 5 Manganese 502 20 898 18.1 1480 NA 50 Nickel 182 u 12.7 U 5.2 NA 100 Zinc 257 U 98.2 U 15.6 NA 2,000

September 2008 Surface water Summary Volatile Organic Summary

SWT-I SWT-5 SWT-6 SWQS Acetone U 2.4 3.2 NL Chloroform 7.3 10 9.4 140 Bromodichloromethane 2.3 3 2.9 0.55 Dibromochloromethane 0.44 0.55 0.54 0.40

Semi-Volatile Organic Summary - Caprolactum detected at SWT-I, 4.3 ug/l, SWT-5, 3 ug/l and SWT-6, 1.3 ug/l.


Inorganics SWT-l SW-5 SW-6 SWQS

Arsenic 0.67 0.49 0.43 150 Beryllium U U U 3.6 Cadmium 0.1 U U 3.4 Chromium 0.84 0.49 0.56 42 Copper 0.75 0.62 0.70 1,300 Lead 0.86 0.70 0.71 5.4 Manganese 164 150 137 NA Nickel 1.4 1.2 1.3 500 Zinc 4.6 0.99 3.4 7,400

Feel free to contact me at (609) 984-9772 if you have any questions on this data summary report.

Attachments

cc: Teruo Sugihara, EES-I


Date post:	28-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times