2012 The Richard Stockton College of New JerseyENVL Pollution & Regulation ENVL 3241- 001 Professor Tait Chirenje Group #2 Members: Justin Hasenfus, Liz Burnham, Keith Mulligan, Kelly Kohler & Brian Santoleri PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Comprehensive report based on CERCLA. a United States environmental law. This was a group report written for an "Environmental Pollution and Regulation" course at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in 2012.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2012 The Richard Stockton College of
New JerseyENVL Pollution & Regulation ENVL 3241- 001 Professor Tait Chirenje Group #2 Members: Justin Hasenfus, Liz Burnham, Keith Mulligan, Kelly Kohler & Brian Santoleri
PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
2 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Table of Contents (T.O.C.)
Abstract 4
What is CERCLA and how did it start? 5
How has CERCLA changed over the years? 6
Brief History of Price Landfill 6
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation 7
Precautions for exposure reduction 8
Monitoring/Preventative Measures 8
NPL Status 9
Feasibility study 10
Contaminants and Distribution 11
Record of Decision 11
Remedial Design/Action 12
Site Review 14
Suggested Site Use 14
Does Superfund Work? 15
Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund 16
3 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Works Cited 17
Appendix
Appendix Summary 19
Appendix A 20
Appendix B 25
Appendix C 30
Appendix D 38
4 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Abstract
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
alternately referred to as Superfund, has been utilized in the forefront of protecting the health
of the general public from the dangers of hazardous pollutants, created by small-scale and large
scale companies alike, and monitoring the standing of sites given the Superfund status. The cost
of the remediation processes far exceeds the cost of what preventative measures would have
cost, had they been deployed to begin with, as we will see. Money aside (and that’s a BIG
aside), the time and effort that goes into the cleanup of a Superfund site is just plain
monotonous. Not only is the remediation process is a long one, but it is directly correlated with
the basic foundation of the health of Atlantic County’s population. This paper seeks to answer
questions regarding exactly how the Price Landfill #1 Superfund site (referred to as “Price
Landfill” throughout this paper), located in Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey,
functions under CERCLA and how well the remediation team responds to the rectification
process of cleaning up said site and a brief history of the Price Landfill is also covered.
5 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
What it CERCLA and How Did it Start?
Before 1980, America’s chemical companies’ dumping practices were not very heavily
regulated. Some companies were not interested in the fact that those chemicals and hazardous
waste might be affecting the environment, or the people around them. Environmentalist and
activist from the EPA collectively brought an idea to congress for stricter laws, fines and the
accountability of responsible parties for cleaning up contaminated sites. (EHSO,2011)
In 1980, congress passed CERCLA, the law that the EPA and environmentalists had proposed.
This law would put a tax on all chemical companies who were releasing hazardous materials. These
materials were deemed to produce potentially harmful effects on the public and the surrounding
environment. All the money accumulated from this tax, was to be deposited into an account, or a
“Superfund”, that would pay for the cleanup of these waste sites created by the chemical companies. This
Superfund is known as The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or
CERCLA. (EPA, 2011). CERCLA requires that the companies are held accountable for the environmental
messes they have generated. Accountability would include undertaking stricter guidelines and regulations
on how to handle different chemicals, and claiming responsibility for the integral cleanup of these sites
(EHSO, 2011). These clean ups can be classified as either short term or long term. The short term cleanup
process involves actions concerned extreme or copious releases of hazardous wastes which need to be
dealt with in a prompt manner.
Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers
associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not
immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's
National Priorities List (NPL). These actions can and are to be carried out exclusively on sites
mentioned in the National Priorities List (NPL) on EPA’s website (EPA, 2011).
CERCLA is used to fund the clean-up of superfund sites that are listed on the National Priorities list.
6 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
How Has CERCLA Changed Over the Years
Over the years CERCLA has gone through many changes, as well as additions. In 1986,
CERCLA was amended by a federal agency called the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). This amendment allowed the same regulations to be put in place for not only privately owned
companies, but federally owned ones as well. These federal companies must now adhere to the same
regulations, pay the same taxes and make certain they are just as much a part of the integrative cleanup as
the other parties (HSS, 2012). SARA greatly strengthened CERCLA and required the EPA revise the
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), a system created to assess the comparative nature of prioritizing the
contaminated sites by level of express importance (Superfund, SARA Overview, 2011).
Brief History of Price Landfill
In the 1960’s, Price Landfill (Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township) was used as a sand
and gravel quarry. Usage changed in the 1970’s when they began to use the pit as a landfill and
later accepted the dumping of chemical materials and hazardous waste, with the permission of
the owner, Charles Price (EPA, 2000). Even though the landfill stopped accepting waste in the
early 70’s. The chemicals infiltrated into the groundwater, causing a contaminated groundwater
plume that migrated towards public drinking wells. The area was recognized as contaminated in
the early 80’s and was proposed as a potential superfund site because of the threat posed on
public health due to contamination of the groundwater.
The Price family owned the landfill during its operative period, before the site’s
contaminated status was declared. NJDEP conducted the initial investigation of Price Landfill
after it was proposed to the EPA. The sum of $17 million was received form the companies and
individuals responsible for the site contamination and was deposited in an account to help fund
the clean-up. CERCLA provided emergency funds to clean water to effected residents and
7 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
reconnected their water lines to a clean source. The NJDEP and the EPA received a $16 million-
dollar grant from the American Resource and Recovery Acts fund (ARRA) to clean up the
ground water and put a cap on the site. (Superfund,2011)
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation
The NJDEP came in and did the preliminary assessment and site investigation under
advisement of the EPA. From the time of the preliminary assessment to when they actually
finished the site investigation, approximately three years had passed. (Superfund, 2011) In this
time, they determined that there was an excessive amount of chemicals contaminating the
groundwater. These harmful chemicals were metals and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Benzene, cadmium, lead, vinyl chloride, and toluene were among the most prominent chemicals
found that caused rising concern about their expedient removal (EPA, 2012). High amounts of
naturally occurring iron was also found in the ground water which was found to be a problem at
the ACUA water treatment plant (Katz, 2012). The release of these chemicals came most directly
from the county’s allowance of chemical drums being disposed of on the site, as well as
chemicals that were openly poured into the ground.
The contaminated grounds of Price Landfill were determined to be a result of the
percolation of these harmful chemicals through the soil, facilitated by rainfall and capillary
action in the underlying soil (Superfund, 2011). Although New Jersey’s soil consists of a variety
of sandy, silty, and clay-like consistencies, the soil around the Price Landfill is predominantly of
the silty and sandy contents. It is because of this, that rainwater percolated more quickly through
the ground, carrying the toxins with them due to the high permeability of the soil. The majority
of the contamination was found in the groundwater.
8 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Precautions for Exposure Reduction
The effect on human health could have been disastrous in the Atlantic county area if they
didn’t realize the groundwater was contaminated. The EPA and the State of New Jersey worked
together to alter the distribution of water available to residents, so as to provide it from a
different water source. In 1981, trucks of bottled water were supplied to the people in the area.
The EPA took control of the project and implemented measures, to be taken by ACUA, that
would treat the water and therefore, control what was being released to the public. Unfortunately,
37 residents were affected by the contaminated groundwater before it could be treated (EPA,
2011).
Monitoring and Preventative Measures
Fear of the contamination spreading to the nearby Absecon Creek led the EPA to make
the decision to move the public water supply wells, nixing the possibility of further cross-
contamination (EPA, 2011). Even though this site was being treated as a top priority, it still took
almost an entire year for it to be added to the NPL. It was in that year that they discussed how to
make the best plans for the cleanup. They came up with eight steps for containment. The
placement of a cap onto the infected area and the erection of a fence around the area of the
landfill for future monitoring and construction were just a couple of the steps taken (EPA, 2012).
The purpose of the fence was to keep the public out of the working areas around the landfill and
to prevent anyone from wandering onto the site and getting hurt.
Extraction wells and granular activated carbon filtration units were later installed to
prevent the movement of the contaminated ground water (EPA, 1983). Effluent and influent
water is being collected and treated to prevent the contamination of surrounding creeks and
9 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
wetlands. A trench has been dug around the landfill to collect runoff and soil erosion. These
actions are preventing the spread of the contaminated waters. If this was not done, the
contaminated ground water would be able to reach the surrounding creeks and wetlands
potentially leading to exposure of other people. A cap will be put on the landfill once
groundwater extraction and treatment is completed (EPA, 1986). The cap will consist of a multi-
layer system of solids and a synthetic geo-membrane made of polyethylene. The top layer will be
covered in grass that does not have long root penetration; beneath that are a drainage layer and
barrier layer. Constructed from a geo-membrane polyethylene, the barrier layer consists of an
impermeable layer that will prevent surface water from penetrating the waste beneath and
pushing more hazardous waste into the groundwater. The barrier layer would then be placed over
a layer of compacted clay (Salomon, 2012). These steps will all help in the containment of the
contaminated groundwater and in reducing human contact with the area of concern.
NPL Status
Price Landfill was an addition to the NPL in 1983. It was added to the list because of its
threat to the public drinking water supply that was being pumped by wells connecting to the
groundwater. Spread of the contaminated groundwater supply to the remaining aquifers of
Atlantic County was a deep concern voiced by the EPA (EPA, 2012). Clean up of this sight is
still current and is in the construction phase of remediation. It has been about 30 years that the
NJDEP and EPA have been working on cleaning up this site. So far, several steps have been
taken to clean up the site, including the closing of some public water wells showing
contamination. In May of 2012, began the construction of the groundwater treatment facility.
Once that is complete, the EPA will conduct hourly testing of the ground water (Salomon, 2012).
10 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Treatment plants and extraction systems as well as carbon filters were installed to prevent and
track the movement of the contaminated groundwater to nearby creeks and wetlands (EPA,
1986). The on-site treatment plant is responsible for the pretreatment of the ground water. It is
then sent to the ACUA for further treatment before the water is released into the ocean. The
water that is released is required to and does meet the sewage water treatment standards (Katz,
2012). Because the clean up process is still in effect, the site is still listed on the NPL. Air
surrounding the Price Landfill Superfund site is safe of VOC’s and the land has been excavated
to remove any oily or chemical substances in the soil. Despite this, the ground water is still
contaminated (Katz, 2012). The goal is to reach less than 10 part per billion (ppb) of total
contamination in the groundwater (EPA, 1986). When this is achieved, the Price Landfill will be
removed from the NPL and the groundwater will have reached levels that are considered safe for
drinking water.
Feasibility Study
In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a feasibility study and
developed a long-term remedial action plan. The study involved evaluating alternatives
(including carbon treatment) to protect Atlantic City's water supply, containing or eliminating
additional migration of contaminants from Price Landfill, and dealing with contamination that
has already migrated from the landfill. At this time, the EPA only approved about $940,000 for
the work, under a Cooperative Agreement and Superfund State Contract. (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2012) In June of 1993, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) completed a Focused Feasibility Study to evaluate several treatment and
disposal options for the groundwater. (EPA, 2012)
11 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Contaminants and Distribution
Total volatile organics (TVO) concentrations range from 40-50 ppm near the landfill in
the shallow depths of the upper cohansey formation. TVO concentrations range from 10-
100 ppb in the deeper areas of the aquifer, with the plum extending almost one mile from
the landfill and tending to move in an east-northeasterly direction. (EPA ROD, 1986 pg
3)
Contaminants Detected
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Air Soil Other
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE X
1,2-TRANS-
DICHLOROETHYLENE
X
ARSENIC X X
BENZENE X
CHLOROFORM X X
DICHLOROETHYLENES X
LEAD X X X
VINYL CHLORIDE X X
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
X
Graph from (Good Guide, 2011)
Record of Decision
In 1983 the EPA, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) from a remedial investigation done in
1982. The investigation was led by the EPA and NJDEP, under the contractor, Camp Dresser and
McKee.
The investigation included the installation of 22 additional groundwater
monitoring well and 6 soil borings during the spring of 1984. This program was
preceded by a geophysical survey, employing both seismic refraction and ground
penetration radar to better identify the boundaries of the landfill and assist in the
selecting locations for the monitoring wells and soil borings. (EPA, 1986, pg 4)