-
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
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on
Recycled Paper and Recyclable
-
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.
MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D MW6S MW7S GWQS
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
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on
Recycled Paper and Recyclable
-
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.
MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D MW6S MW7S GWQS
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
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on
Recycled Paper and Recyclable
-
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.
MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D MW6S MW7S GWQS
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.
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on
Recycled Paper and Recyclable
-
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
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer I Printed on
Recycled Paper and Recyclable