arcs ii program - Records Collections

EMSCO

ARCS II PROGRAM

Remedial Planning Activities at SelectedUncontrolled Hazardous SubstanceDisposal Sites Within EPA Region II

(NY, NJ, PR, VI)

EPA Contract 68-W8-0110

EMSCOAn ENSERCH" Engineering and Construction Company

w8oo

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NOS.: 034-2L3S/034-2L3REPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-W8-0110

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

ARCS II PROGRAM

FINAL DRAFTREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY/GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITES

MINOTOLA, ATLANTIC COUNTYNEW JERSEY

VOLUME I OF IIAUGUST, 1991

NOTICE

oThe information in this document has been funded by the Untied States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) under ARCS II Contract No. 68-W8-0110 to Ebasco Services Incorporated o(Ebasco). This document has been formally released by Ebasco to USEPA 2

MMO*»•

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 -1

1.1 Purpose of Report................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Site Background...................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Site Description ........................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Site History .................................................................................. 1-7

1.2.2.1 South Jersey Clothing Company.................................. 1-7

1.2.2.2 Garden State Cleaners .................................................. 1-14

1.2.3 Results of Previous Investigations............................................. 1-16

1.2.4 Current Conditions ..................................................................... 1-28

2.0 Study Area Investigation...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Surface Features..................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Soil Gas Survey........................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Flux Chamber Measurement Survey...................................................... 2-4

2.4 Survey of Human Populations, Land Use and Aquifer Use ................. 2-7

2.5 Private Well Sampling............................................................................. 2-8

2.6 Shallow SoO Sampling............................................................................ 2-13 »o

2.7 Geological Investigation.......................................................................... 2-18 o

1 sen

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Eflflfi

2.7.1 Splft Spoon Sampling ................................................................ 2-18

2.7.1.1 Monitoring Well Locations............................................... 2-18

2.7.1.2 :-ji Boring locations ..................................................... 2-20

2.7.2 Geophysical Wen Logging .......................................................... 2-21

2.8 Hydrogedogical Investigation ................................................................ 2-22

2.8.1 Monitoring Well Installation ......................................................... 2-23

2.8.2 Surveying of Monitoring Wells .................................................... 2-28

2.8.3 Aquifer Conductivity Testing ....................................................... 2-28

2.8.4 Geotechnical Sampling ............................................................... 2-32

2.8.5 Water Level Measurements ........................................................ 2-32

2.8.6 Groundwater Sampling .............................................................. 2-33

3.0 Physical Characteristics of the Study Area ........................................................ 3-1

3.1 Surface Features ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Meteorology ............................................................................................ 3-3

3.3 Geology ................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Regional Geology ........................................................................ 3-4

3.3.2 Site Geology ............................................................................... 3-6

3.3.3 Geochemical And Geotechnical Characteristies ....................... 3-11

3.4 Sols .......................................................................................................... 3-14 0o

oON


Section Rape

3.5 Hydrogeology.......................................................................................... 3-15

3.5.1 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Tests ........................................... 3-15

3.5.2 Water Levels and Groundwater Row........................................ 3-17

3.6 Demography and Land Use ................................................................... 3-26

3.7 Ecology.................................................................................................... 3-27

4.0 Nature and Extent of Contamination .................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Sources.................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Sofl Gas Survey........................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Source Identification ................................................................... 4-6

4.2 Soils and Vadose Zone ............................................................................. 4-7

4.2.1 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels ..................:................................ 4-8

4.2.2 South Jersey Clothing Company............................................... 4-9

4.2.3 Garden State Cleaners .............................................................. 4-34

4.2.4 Area North of Atlantic Avenue ................................................... 4-52

4.2.5 Soil Samples Collected During Monitoring Well Installation .... 4-56

4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................ 4-58

4.3.1 ERT/REAC Groundwater Sampling, March 1989 ................... 4-58

4.3.2 Groundwater Investigation ......................................................... 4-61

4.3.2.1 Phase 1 Groundwater Sampling .................................... 4-73CO

84.3.2.2 Phase 2 Groundwater Sampling .................................... 4-80 o

iii


Section Page

4.4 Air............................................................................................................. 4-90

4.4.1 South Jersey Clothing Company .............................................. 4-91

4.4.2 Garden State Cleaners ................................................................ 4-93

5.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport ........................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Potential Contaminant Migration Routes .................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Contaminant Physical and Chemical Properties ....................... 5-2

5.2 Contaminant Persistence........................................................................ 5-5

5.3 Contaminant Migration............................................................................ 5-7

6.0 Baseline Risk Assessment................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Data Evaluation and Selection of Chemicals of Concern ..................... 6-2

6.2.1 Data Evaluation ........................................................................... 6-2

6.2.2 Selection of Chemicals of Concern ........................................... 6-6

6.3 Exposure Assessment............................................................................ 6-13

6.3.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways .......................................... 6-14

6.3.1.1 Environmental Media ...................................................... 6-16eno

6.3.1.2 Exposure Routes............................................................ 6-16 °o

6.3.1.3 Exposure Populations..................................................... 6-17 2


Section

6.3.2 Exposure Assessment Methods and Assumptions .................. 6-18

6.3.2.1 Exposure to Ambient Air............................................... 6-19

6.3.2.2 Exposure to Surface Sol............................................... 6-20

6.3.2.3 Exposure to Groundwater.............................................. 6-23

6.4 Toxicity Assessment............................................................................... 6-28

6.4.1 Classification of Health Effects ................................................... 6-29

6.4.1.1 Health Effects Criteria for Caricinogenic Effects .......... 6-29

6.4.1.2 Health Effects Criteria forNoncaricinogenic Effects............................................... 6-32

6.4.2 Range of Potential Health Effects forSelected Chemicals of Concern................................................. 6-32

6.5 Risk Characterization.............................................................................. 6-36

6.5.1 Noncardnogenic Risk Assessment........................................... 6-37

6.5.2 Carcinogenic Risk Assessment.................................................. 6-49

6.5.3 Uncertanties Associated With theHealth Risk Assessment............................................................ 6-62

6.5.4 Conclusions................................................................................ 6-66

6.6 Environmental / Ecological Assessment............................................... 6-67

6.6.1 Aquatic Habitats......................................................................... 6-67 g

6.6.2 Terrestrial Habitats ..................................................................... 6-68 oo

ovo


Section Ease

6.6.2.1 Terrestrial Plants ............................................................. 6-68

6.6.2.2 Terrestrial Aninals........................................................... 6-69

6.6.3 Conclusions................................................................................. 6-70

7.0 Summary and Conclusions................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Summary................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................................ 7-1

7.1.2 Contaminant Fate and Transport.............................................. 7-9

7.1.3 Risk Assessment........................................................................ 7-11

7.2 Conclusion............................................................................................. 7-12

7.2.1 Data Gaps and Data Limitations ................................................ 7-12

7.2.2 Recommendations for The Feasibility Study............................ 7-13

7.2.3 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives ............................. 7-iS^

COao

ooM

viVl

UST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

1-13

1-14

1-15

1-16

2-1

2-2

2-3

Site Location Map ..................................................................................

Location of Sites and Selected Wells ...................................................

Fadity Map - SJCC ............i..................................................................

Garden State Cleaners Site ...................................................................

SoB Sampling Locations, October, 1982 ..............................................

Location of Selected Wells ....................................................................

Soil Sample Locations, May/June, 1984 ..............................................

TCE in Groundwater (PPB) for 12-09-82 ..............................................

TCE in Groundwater (PPB) for 10-12-83 ..............................................

TCE in Groundwater (PPB) for 7-19-84 ................................................







SoB Gas Sampling Locations: January - March, 1989 .......................

Flux Chamber Measurement Locations - March, 1989 .......................

Flux Chamber Measurement Locations NearSouth Jersey Clothing Company .........................................................

.............. 1-3

.............. 1-4

.............. 1-5

.............. 1-6

.............. 1-18

.............. 1-21

............... 1-25

............... 1-29

.............. 1-30

............ 1-31

............ 1-32

............ 1-33

. ........ 1-34

............. 1-35

............. 1-36

............. 1-37

.............. 2-3

.............. 2-5

COS

............. 2-6 °oo

VII

UST OF RGURES (Continued)N^X*

Figure Eflflfi

2-4 Aquifer Use Survey............................................................................................. 2-9

2-5 Private Well Sampling Locations - March, 1989 .................................................. 2-12

2-6 Phase 1 and 2 Sol Sampling Locations NearGarden State Cleaners .......................................................................................... 2-14

2-7 Phase 1 and 2 Sol Sampling Locations NearSouth Jersey Clothing Company ....................................................................... 2-15

2-8 Phase 1 and 2 Soil Sampling Locations North of Atlantic Avenue ................. 2-16

2-9 Phase 1 and 2 Monitoring WeO and Soi Boring Locations .............................. 2-19

2-10 Shallow or Intermediate WeB .............................................................................. 2-29

2-11 Deep Well............................................................................................................ 2-30

3-1 South Jersey Clothing Company/Garden StateCleaners Site Topography Map .......................................................................... 3-2

3-2 Regional Hydrogeoiogic Cross Section .............................................................. 3-5

3-3 Cross Section Locations.................................................................................... 3-7

3-4 Geological Cross Section A-A'........................................................................... 3-8

3-5 Geological Cross Section B-B'........................................................................... 3-9

3-6 Groundwater Contour Map - Shallow Wells Monitored 02-12-90 .................... 3-19

3-7 Groundwater Contour Map - Shallow Wells Monitored 03-20-91 .................... 3-22

3-8 Groundwater Contour Map - Intermediate Wells Monitored 03-20-91 ............. 3-25

Wooo

viii 2

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Eflflfi

4-1 SoD Gas - TCE (PPB) ......................................................................................... 4-3

4-2 SoD Gas - PCE (PPB)......................................................................................... 4-4

4-3 Soil Gas - Sum of Organics Detected (PPB)..................................................... 4-5

4-4 Phase 1 and 2 Soil Sampling Locations in the Vicinity of SJCC ..................... 4-11

4-5 Soi Sampling Locations Near Northwest Comer ofAbandoned SJCC Building .................................................................................. 4-12

4-6 Area of Soil Exceeding VOC Cleanup Levels and Area Recommended .......... 4-28for Remediation - SJCC

4-7 Phase 1 and 2 Soil Sampling Locations Near Garden State Cleaners ............ 4-35

4-8 Area of Soil Exceeding VOC Cleanup Levels and Area Recommended ............ 4-47for Remediation - SJCC

4-9 Phase 1 and 2 Soil Sampling Locations -North of Atlantic Avenue .................................................................................... 4-53

4-10 Private Well Sampling Results - March, 1989 ................................................... 4-59

4-11 Transformations of PCE and TCE ...................................................................... 4-72

4-12 Groundwater Contamination - Phase 1 .............................................................. 4-74

4-13 TCE Concentration Contours - Phase 1 ............................................................ 4-75

4-14 PCE Concentration Contours - Phase 1 ............................................................ 4-76

4-15 Groundwater Contamination - Phase 2 .............................................................. 4-81

4-16 TCE Concentration Contours - Phase 2 ............................................................ 4-82 w

o4-17 PCE Concentration Contours - Phase 2 ............................................................ 4-83oo

DC *•-oo

UST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

4-18 VOC Groundwater Contamination Cross Section A-A' - Phase 2 .................... 4-84

4-19 Contour of TCE Sol Emission Rates at SJCC .................................................. 4-92

4-20 Contour of PCE Sol Emission Rates at GSC.................................................. 4-94

6-1 Estimated Hazard Indices for Current Exposure Media .................................... 6-42

6-2 Estimated Hazard Indices for Future Exposure Media ..................................... 6-48

6-3 Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimates for Current Exposure Media .............. 6-55

6-4 Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimates for Future Exposure Media................ 6-63

en8oo

UST OF TABLES

Table Eflgfi

1-1 Site History, South Jersey Clothing Company .................................................. 1-10

1-2 Site History, Garden State Cleaners .................................................................. 1-15

1-3 Soi Sampling Results- May- July 1981, South Jersey Clothing Company ... 1-17

1-4 Soil Sampling Results - June 1982, South Jersey Clothing Company ............ 1-19

1-5 Well Construction Summary, SJCC and NJDEP Wells.................................... 1-22

1-6 Groundwater Sampling Results - SJCC WellsTCE Concentration (PPB) .................................................................................. 1-23

1-7 SoU Sampling Results - May and June 1984, Garden State Cleaners ........... 1-26

1-8 Groundwater Sampling Results - NJDEP Wells . .............................................. 1-27

2-1 Well Construction Summary, EPA Phase 1 and 2 Wells................................... 2-24

2-2 Phase 1 Monitoring Well Location and Depth ................................................... 2-25

2-3 Phase 2 Monitoring Well Location and Depth ................................................... 2-26

3-1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Results....... 3-12

3-2 Geotechnical Analysis Results ........................................................................... 3-13

3-3 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results (Field K) ......................................... 3-16

3-4 Groundwater Level Data, February, 1990 ......................................................... 3-18

3-5 Groundwater Level Data, March 1991 ............................................................... 3-21

3-6 Horizontal and Vertical Gradient-Shallow, Intermediate and Deep Wells ....... 3-24co

3-7 Horizontal and Vertical Velocities ....................................................................... 3-25 o

oo

xi

UST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Eflflfi

4-1 NJDEP Soi Cleanup Levels ................................................................................ 4-10

4-2 South Jersey Company - Phase 1 Headspace Results ................................... 4-14

4-3 South Jersey Company - Phase 1 CLP Results ................................................ 4-16

4-4 South Jersey Company - Phase 2 Headspace Results .................................... 4-22

4-5 South Jersey Company - Phase 2 CLP Results ................................................ 4-23

4-6 South Jersey Company - Phase 1 Soi Boring (SB8) Headspace Results .... 4-32

4-7 South Jersey Company - Soi Boring (SB-8) CLP Results ............................... 4-33

4-8 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 1 Headspace Results ..................................... 4-36

4-9 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 1 CLP Results ................................................. 4-37

4-10 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 2 Headspace Results ..................................... 4-43

4-11 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 2 CLP Results ................................................. 4-44

4-12 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 1 Soi Boring (SB-9) Headspace Results ...... 4-50

4-13 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 1 Sol Boring (SB-9) CLP Results ................. 4-51

4-14 Atlantic Avenue - Phase 1 Headspace Results ................................................. 4-54

4-15 Atlantic Avenue - Phase 1 CLP Results ............................................................. 4-55

4-16 Split Spoon Sample CLP Results ....................................................................... 4-57

4-17 Groundwater Sampling - Phase 1 CLP Results ................................................... 4-62

4-18 Groundwater Sampling - Phase 2 CLP Results ................................................... 4-65o

xi

UST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

5-1

6-1

6-2

6-3

6-4

6-5

6-6

6-7

6-8

6-9

6-10

6-11

6-12

6-13

6-14

Physical - Chemical Properties of Selected Organics .....................................

Description and Use of Data Qualifiers ............................................................

Comparison of Detected Chemical Concentrations inDowngradient Wells with Upgradient Well ........................................................

Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Soil - SJCC ....................................

Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Soil - GSC ......................................

Potential Pathways of Human Exposure Under Currentand Future Site Use Conditions ........................................................................

Chronic Toxidty Values for Selected Chemicals of Concern .........................

Extimated Hazard Indices for Current Exposure Routes ................................

Total Estimated Hazard Indices for Current Exposure Media ........................

Estimated Hazard Indices for Future Exposure Routes ..................................

Total Estimated Hazard Indices for Future Exposure Media ..........................

Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimates for Current Exposure Routes ..........

Total Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk for Current Exposure Media ....................

Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimates for Future Exposure Routes ............

Total Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk for Future Exposure Media .....................

5-3

6-4

6-8

6-10

6-11

6-15

6-33

6-39

6-41

6-43

6-45

6-52

6-53

6-57

6-58

COOo

OO

XIII

xiv

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

7-1 South Jersey Company - Phase 1 CLP Data Summary................................... 7-3

7-2 South Jersey Company - Phase 2 CLP Data Summary................................... 7-4

7-3 Garden State Cleaners - Phase 1 CLP Data Summary.................................... 7-5

7-4 Garden State Cleaners • Phase 2 CLP Data Summary .................................... 7-6

7-5 Groundwater - Phase 1 CLP Data Summary..................................................... 7-8

7-6 Groundwater - Phase 2 CLP Data Summary..................................................... 7-10

0)

oo

00

APPENDICES

Appendix A LJthoiogic Logs for the Remedial Investigation Soil Borings

Appendix B Geophysical Logs of Monitoring Wells

Appendix C Geotechnical Analysis Results

Appendix D Rising Head Test Graphs

Appendix E Well Installation Logs

Appendix P SJCC Well Installation Logs

Appendix G Survey Report

Appendix H Regional Data Assessment Summaries

Appendix I Laboratory Methods and Detection Limits

Appendix J Risk Assessment Calculations

CO

8o

vo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Garden State Cleaners (GSC) and South Jersey Clothing Company (SJCC) Sites are locatedin the Town of Minotola, Atlantic County, New Jersey. SJCC manufactured mSitary uniforms andemployed a dry cleaning process using trichloroethene (TCE). The facility is not currentlyoperating. Disposal of sludge and liquid waste containing TCE and other chemicals occurredbehind the currently-abandoned manufacturing building until the early 1980s.

GSC is a small, currently-operating dry cleaning facBity which uses tetrachloroethene (PCE) as itsprimary cleaning solvent PCE was released from the building onto the ground surface through twosteam condensate discharge pipes and a boiler blowdown pipe. This discharge was discontinuedin the mid-1980s.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) inspected the SJCC facflityfollowing a complaint by a nearby resident concerning contamination of her private water supplywell. As a result of this complaint, samples of soO, waste and run-off were collected by NJDEP atSJCC. The results of these samples indicated that wastes containing volatile organic compounds(VOCs) had been disposed of improperly at SJCC.

A limited soil removal was conducted by SJCC in 1981. Detailed records regarding thisinvestigation are not available but it was reported that thirty-three 55-gallon drums of contaminatedsoD were removed.

During the early 1980s, SJCC installed and periodically sampled 12 shallow monitoring wells at, anddowngradient of, their facility. Sample results from SJCC Well 6, just downgradient of GSC,contained unexpectedly high concentrations of PCE. A follow-up investigation (including collectionof soil samples) by NJDEP indicated that GSC was responsible for PCE contamination of soil andground water.

ES-1

oo

NJo

During 1985, a public water supply system was installed in Minotola alleviating much of theimmediate public health threat associated with the contaminated groundwater. This system, whichserves 50 per cent of the Borough land area and 75 per cent of the population, extendsapproximately 4,000 feet downgradient of the sites. In 1985, SJCC installed a groundwaterextraction and treatment system. SJCC has been operating the system since its installation. Since1984, sample results from the majority of the SJCC monitoring wells indicate a general decreasein contaminant concentrations in groundwater and in the size of the shallow groundwater plume.

A remedial investigation, the subject of this report, was conducted in two phases. The first phaseextended from December 1989 to February 1990 and the second phase from January 1991 to April1991. Primary Phase 1 activities included shallow and sub-surface sol sampling, shallow andintermediate monitoring well installation, and groundwater sampling. Primary Phase 2 activitiesincluded shallow sol sampling, intermediate and deep monitoring well installation and groundwatersampling.

Most of the sol samples collected during the Rl contained low levels of VOCs which were abovebackground concentrations. Consequently, current New Jersey sol cleanup guidance was usedin lieu of background concentrations to provide a more useful delineation of sol contamination.Results of sol sampling at SJCC from both phases identified an area of contaminated sol extendingfrom the northwest comer of the abandoned manufacturing bulding to the nearby ralroad bed.The primary contaminant detected was TCE. Results of sol sampling during both phases of theinvestigation at GSC identified a small area of contaminated sol adjacent to the north wall of theGSC building. The predominant contaminant in sol at GSC was PCE.

Sol samples collected in other areas near to, and downgradient of, the sites did not indicate thepresence of a sol contamination problem. Based on the results of sol sampling efforts during theRl, two areas of sol contamination are present The first is an area of TCE contaminated sol near

SJCC and the second is an area of PCE contaminated sol near GSC. These areas are the source 01of continuing migration of contaminants into the groundwater. o

ooM

ES-2 M

A total of thirteen monitoring wells (four shallow, seven intermediate, and two deep) were installedduring the Rl at locations near to, and downgradient of, the two sites. Groundwater contaminationplumes forTCE and PCE were developed using data from Phase 2 sampling results which includedall SJCC, NJDEP and EPA wells. Generally, the contaminant plume is concentrated in the shallowzone near the source areas although seven ug/l of PCE were detected in the deep monitoring wellimmediately downgradient of the sites. High concentrations (greater than 100 ug/l) of TCE areconfined to the vicinity of the source area whBe TCE concentrations of greater than one ug/l extendto the vicinity of the deary School, approximately 2,000 feet from the source areas.

High concentrations of PCE contamination in groundwater (greater than 100 ug/l) exist near thesource areas and in a second isolated, downgradient zone near EP-6I. It appears that the SJCCextraction wells are capturing some of the PCE contamination emanating from GSC, however, aportion of this contamination is moving downgradient The plume of PCE concentrations greaterthan one ug/l extends downgradient to a location between Wheat Road and Louis Avenue. Theexisting SJCC groundwater extraction and treatment system was fairly effective at capturing TCEcontamination from SJCC in the shallow aquifer.

A flux chamber measurement survey was conducted by EPA's ERT/REAC subcontractor at eachof the sites to determine the emission rate for volatile organic compounds from contaminated soiland/or groundwater. Resulting data were used to evaluate potential risks associated with theseemissions.

A public health evaluation was conducted to determine the magnitude and probability of actual orpotential harm to public health, welfare and the environment from contamination detected duringthis Rl. This public hearth evaluation was based on chemical data obtained during the Rl andaddresses the potential human health and environmental effects associated with the South JerseyClothing Company and Garden State Cleaners Sites under the no-action alternative.

oo

ES-3

Chemicals of concern were selected based on the analytical results and potential toxtety. Thechemicals of concern for sol at GSC included methylene chloride, acetone, TCE, PCE, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachkyoethane.

The chemicals of concern for sol at SJCC included methylene chloride, acetone, 1.2-dfchloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane. TCE, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, benzene, PCE, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, toluene, and chlorobenzene.

Chemicals of concern for groundwater near and downgradient of both sites include cnlorometnane,tis-1,2-dichloroethene, chloroform, 1,1,1-tricnloroethane, carbon tetrachloride. TCE, PCE and1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethane.

Emission data for TCE and PCE was evaluated and modeled during the flux chamber measurementsurvey by ERT/REAC. Concentration data for these chemicals were presented in the ERT/REACreport and were used as the basis for evaluation of health effects for the air pathway.

Considering current and future site uses, potential pathways of human exposure from contaminatedsol were identified as inhalation of volatle organics, dermal contact and incidental ingestion.Potential exposure pathways from contaminated groundwater were identified as inhalation of volatileorganics, dermal absorption and ingestion.

Human health effects were assessed based on estimates of exposure and toxkaty of eachcompound. The major conclusions of this assessment are as foBows:

o For noncardnogenic effects, under the present scenario, none of tha exposureroutes are likely to cause any health effects.

o For noncarcinogenic effects, under the future scenario, ingestion of wtetrachloroethene in groundwater and dermal absorption of tetracNoroethene insurface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site pose a likelihood of health effects. o

ES-4 £U)

For carcinogenic risk, under the present scenario, LECR values are within EPA'sacceptable risk range.

For carcinogenic risk, under the future scenario, ingestion of tetrachloroethene andtrichloroethene in groundwater, inhalation of trichloroethene in groundwater anddermal absorption of tetrachloroethene in surface soD at the Garden State CleanersSite and inhalation of trichloroethene in ambient air at the South Jersey ClothingCompany Site pose a potential risk.

Tetrachloroethene is the primary contributor of all the noncarcinogenic healtheffects, and tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene are the primary contributors forall the carcinogenic risks.

Ioo

ES-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The primary objective of this Remedial Investigation (Rl) was to determine the nature and extentof soil contamination and the nature and extent of groundwater contamination associated with theGarden State Cleaners (GSC) and South Jersey Clothing Company (SJCC) Sites.

The area investigated includes the GSC facility and surrounding property, the abandonedmanufacturing building at SJCC and adjacent portions of SJCC property and the plume ofcontaminated groundwater which underlies the Town of Minotola and other areas south of the GSCand SJCC faculties. Although these two sites are considered discreet entities, the results of theirinvestigations have been combined into a single Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)dueto the facilities relative proximity and overlapping contaminated groundwater plume.

Ail data were collected using procedures presented in the approved Field Operations Plan (FOP)dated August 1989 (Ebasco, 1989). Information generated during the Rl was used to define the

<. concentration and location of contaminants and the extent of their migration, and to conduct a sitespecific risk assessment of human health and the environment The data and analysis containedin this report will be used to develop the Feasibility Study (FS) report, which will develop and screenappropriate remedial response actions and evaluate remedial alternatives for addressingcontaminated soil and groundwater at the GSC and SJCC Sites.

The remainder of this section describes the study area, the history of the sites, and the previousinvestigations conducted at the study area. The field activities which comprised the RemedialInvestigation are described in Section 2.0. The physical characteristics of the Study Area arepresented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 presents analytical results of the Rl for the various affected <amedia along with a discussion of the nature and extent of contamination. A discussion of the fateand transport of the contaminants is presented in Section 5.0 including contaminant persistence o

and potential routes of migration. Public health evaluation and risk assessment are discussed inSection 6.0.

The summary and conclusions are presented in Section 7.0. Supporting data are presented in theappendices.

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Site Description

Both the SJCC and GSC fadities are located in a mixed residential, commercial, and light industrialarea known as Minotola, located in Buena Borough, Atlantic County, New Jersey (Figures 1-1 and1-2). The geographical coordinates are: 39 degrees 31* 13* latitude and 74 degrees 56' 58'longitude for SJCC, and 39 degrees 31' 06* latitude and 74 degrees 56' 58* longitude for GSC. Thearea surrounding Minotola is predominantly rural and one of New Jersey's prime agriculturalregions.

SJCC, once operated as a small clothing and uniform manufacturing facility, is located south of arailroad grade (not currently operating) north of Atlantic Avenue and west of Central Avenue (Figure1-3). The area of the SJCC property is approximately 1.2 acres (52,300 ft*). The primary area ofinterest at SJCC includes an area of sol contamination near an abandoned, on-site manufacturing

buBding.

GSC, a small dry cleaning fadfty, is located on Summer Avenue, approximately 500 feet south ofSJCC (Figure 1-4). The area of the GSC property is approximately 3,000 ft*. The area of interestat GSC is an area of sol contamination adjacent to the bulding which houses the dry cleaningoperation.

CO

oo

1-2 ga\

Franklinville

LPorchtown

NewfieldOownstown (SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING

____ CO./GARDEN STATE/ |V^7 1 CLEANERS SITES

/Minotol iandisvilleBrotmanville

Alliance

A+j Richland

E.Vmcland

.

Counfy Co*.SJCC AMD OSC SITCtDouKhtys

SCALEAS SHOWN

ARCS H

DATEMAY 1991_________________

C.C.JOHNSON ft MALHOTRA.P.C

Am;a 11SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITESSITE LOCATION MAP

H

LZll TOO DDS

EXTRACTION WELLSSA-IOGPMM-IOGPM (ESTIMATED)12-15 6PM

INJECTION WELL4A-25 6PM

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING toCO.

ATLANTIC AVCNUC

GARDEN STATECLEANERS—JL

BABES VILLA6EINN WELL

MART IN EL LI AVE

CLEARY SCHOOL WELL

COARI AVENUE

ÎRRIGATION WELLO7-SJCC MONITORIN6 WELLNJI-NJOEP MONITORING WELLA -PRIVATE WELL

CLEARY SCHOOLB.NJ4

• NJ5SOUTH AVENUE

S C A L ET-5001

ARCS IISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESLOCATION OF SITES AND SELECTED WELLS

D A T EJUNE 1991

C.C.JOHNSON & M A L H O T R A . P . C .

1-4

6211 TOO DOS

SUMMER AVENUE

•ENTRANCE

GARDEN STATECLEANERS

LO U

PCE RECYCLE TANK

Oa

LEGEND

— FACILITY BOUNDARY— STEAM CONDENSATE PIPE— BOILER BLOW DOWN PIPE

CO

oO

S C A L ET - 15'

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCS IISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESGARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITE

FIGURE

1-4

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C.1-6

1.2.2 Site History

1.2.2.1 South Jersey Clothing Company

The SJCC facility operated at its present location from the 1940s to 1990. The facility is notoperating at the present time. As part of the manufacturing process, assembled garments weretreated by an on-site dry cleaning unit utilizing trichioroethene (TCE) to remove wax marks andnylon basting thread. Waste generated by SJCC included the following:

• Water separated from TCE which was flushed to the sewer• TCE sludge which was removed from the dry cleaner• Waste mineral o3 from sewing machines

According to one of the company owners, the disposal method from 1972 until early 1981 was todischarge the waste on the ground in areas around the building and railroad tracks (NJDEP, June1982). Approximately 26,000 gallons of TCE were used at the facility from 1972 to 1982. Inaddition to TCE, tetrachioroethene (PCE), chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, p-dichlorobenzene,ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, toluene, xylene, styrene, and 1,2-dichloroetnane were subsequentlydetected in soil behind the facility (NJDEP, June 1981). The source of these compounds wasprobably sludge or liquid waste containing TCE and waste mineral oD. The facilities which mayhave been contamination sources at SJCC are shown on Figure 1-3. Several facilities shown onFigure 1-3, including the former dumpsters, drum storage area and former TCE tank are no longerpresent at the site.

In addition, SJCC's owners reported that a fire at the facility in 1979 resulted in release of anestimated 275 gallons of TCE from an on-site storage tank. After the fire, all operations wererelocated from a masonry building on the eastern portion of SJCC's property to a metal buBdinglocated on the western portion of the property (not shown on Figure 1-3). o

oo

1-7

On Apr! 3, 1981. a resident of Minotoia called the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP) and complained of a noxious odor emanating from her drinking water. Asubsequent investigation by NJDEP revealed that water from the resident's well had levels of TCEas high as 12,000 parts per bUton (ppb), along with lesser amounts of other volatie organiccompounds (VOCs). The investigation then focused on the adjacent SJCC manufacturing fadtywhere it was discovered that liquid and solid industrial waste had been discharged onto the groundbehind the facility. NJDEP Test Report No. SR7351, October 7,1982, revealed concentrations ofTCE as high as 940,000 ppb and PCE concentrations as high as 340,000 ppb in fadity sols.

In May, 1981, SJCC hired the East Coast Pollution Company to excavate and drum the soi thathad become contaminated. A total of 33 55-gallon drums were filed. In October, 1981, GraveResource Management removed 49 drums from SJCC for disposal at Grave's treatment, storage,and disposal faciity. SJCC owners were uncertain about the source and contents of the additional16 drums.

SJCC agreed with NJDEP to install four groundwater monitoring wells (Wells 1 through 4 on Figure1-2) on its property at locations specified by NJDEP on October 7,1981. On December 8,1981,representatives of SJCC and NJDEP sampled the four weds located on the site for VOCs.Laboratory analysis indicated the presence of a variety of volatie organic compounds. Highestconcentrations were detected in SJCC Well 2, located southwest of the abandoned manufacturingbuilding.

On various dates from May 1981 to March 1982, representatives of NJDEP sampled approximately27 potable water weds in the Borough of Buena. Analysis of samples from four of the wedsindicated the presence of volatie organic compounds, particularly TOE The levels of TCE in theseweds were such that NJDEP's Bureau of Potable Water recommended that they not be used fordrinking or consumptive purposes.

1-8

01

oo

u»NJ

On April 14, 1982, NJDEP Division of Enforcement issued SJCC a Notice of Penalties and a

Unlateral Administrative Order. Under this order, SJCC was required to undertake an extensivehydrogeological study and prepare a remedial plan for possible groundwater extraction andtreatment

Due to the TCE and other contaminants in the local groundwater, Buena Borough officialscontracted a firm to test the surrounding residential wells in late 1981 and early 1982. Of the 213wells tested, 87 wells failed to meet EPA's standards for VOCs. This evidence of contaminationresulted in the installation of a municipal water supply system in 1984.

On January 1, 1984 NJDEP and SJCC executed an administrative consent order whereby SJCCagreed to expand its hydrogeological investigation. A groundwater extraction and treatment systemwas installed and put into operation by SJCC in July 1985. The treatment system, consisting oftwo air strippers in series, has a total capacity of 25 gallons per minute and is currently operating.An additional extraction well pumps at a rate of approximately ten gallons per minute anddischarges directly to the BBMVA sewer system.

In June 1986, NJDEP recommended GSC and SJCC for inclusion on EPA's National Priorities List(NPL). USEPA proposed adding the sites to the NPL in June 1988. In September 1988, USEPAissued work assignments (WA#s 264-2L3S, 263-2L3R) to Ebasco Services Inc. under the REM IIIContract for Remedial Investigation and Feasibiity Study Activities. Phase I investigation fieldactivities were initiated during November 1989 and completed during March 1990. The projectswere transferred to the ARCS II Contract in October 1990 (WA#s 034-2L3S and 034-2L3R) at theexpiration of the REM III Contract Ebasco Services, Inc. and C.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C., thePhase I RI/FS contractors, were retained to complete the work. The second phase of fieldactivities was initiated during February 1991 and completed in April 1991.

A detaied site history for the SJCC site is presented in Table 1-1.en

oo

1-9

TABLE M

SITE HISTORYSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY

Apr! 3. 1981 NJOEP received a complaint from Mrs. Jane Gtovanazzi, Central and AtlanticAvenues, MinotoJa. Buena Borough, New Jersey. She believed that her weflwas polluted and was worried because a nearby dothing factory dumps ablack waste onto the ground.

April 6. 1981 A representative of NJDEP visited the complainant and sampled her waterat an outside tap for general chemical parameters. During the sampling itwas noted that the water had a chemical odor. Mrs. Gtovanazzi stated thatmembers of her famly have constant Ilnesses, she has stopped drinking thewater, and that a nearby factory dumps a black waste onto the ground. TheNJDEP representative visited SJCC and met with the owners, Mr. FrancisSparanga and Mr. Angelo Sparanga, Jr. A black, liquid waste and a blacktar-like' waste were observed on the ground behind the plant A steamdischarge was also observed. The owners stated that

• The company manufactures miitary uniforms and during the cleaningprocess substances such as TCE are used.

• The liquid waste is discharged directly onto the ground from the drycleaning machine. Samples of this waste could not be obtainedbecause the discharge was not taking place during the inspection.

• The black tar-like' substance is a solidified form of the liquid waste.

• The steam is from the dry cleaning machine. Samples of thisdischarge were collected and trace amounts of pollutants werefound.

• Non-contact cooling water is discharged directly into an on-siteseptic tank.

Mav 4.1981 A representative of the NJDEP Hazard Management Division investigatedSJCC and sampled the liquid waste, the solid waste, and a puddle of runoffwater located behind the plant

CO

Ro !o :M I

1-10 MU)

TABLE 1-1 (Continued)


May 18. 1981 Representatives of NJDEP Bureau of Potable Water sampled Mrs.Giovanazzi's well water.

Mav 19. 1981 A NJDEP staff member visited SJCC and observed the East Coast PollutionCo. removing waste and placing it into drums. Mr. Francis Sparangainformed the staff member that approximately 33 barrels of waste werecollected at a cost of $5,000 to his firm.

June 14. 1981 Representatives of NJDEP Potable Water and Ground Water Divisionssampled ten domestic wells within a 1/4-mile radius of Mrs. Giovanazzi'swell to determine if the same pollutants were extensive throughout the area.

June 30. 1981 NJDEP Bureau of Potable Water informed the Atlantic County HealthDepartment of the condition of Mrs. Giovanazzi's water and recommendedit not be used for drinking or consumptive purposes.

July 30. 1981 Representatives of NJDEP and the Atlantic County Health Departmentsampled six additional domestic wells in the area. It was also noted thatSJCC was discharging waste into a rusted, broken barrel that was leakingpollutants onto the ground. NJDEP staff sampled the contents of the barrelfor VOCs. A cooling water discharged into an on-site septic tank was alsosampled.

Sep 24. 1981 NJDEP Bureau of Potable Water informed the Atlantic County HealthDepartment of the presence of contamination in of the Reynolds well waterand recommended it not be used for drinking.

Oct 7. 1981 NJDEP met with representatives of SJCC. The following items were agreedupon:

• SJCC will install and sample four monitoring wells.

• All barrels will be removed by a USEPA approved hauler.enoo

1-11 win



• SJCC wi discharge into barrels and not onto the ground.

Nov 20. 1981 Four monitor wells were installed at the SJCC site.

Dec a 1981 The monitor weds were sampled. Samples were split for analysis by SJCCand NJDEP.

Feb 16. 1982 NJDEP contacted the Atlantic County Hearth Department to obtain watertrucks to supply drinking water for residences in the areas of contamination.

March 26. 1982 A consultant's investigation performed for SJCC pinpointed SJCC as asource of contamination.

Apr! 14. 1982 NJDEP issued SJCC a Unaateral Administrative Order and Notice of Intentto Assess CK/i Administrative Penalties.

Sep. 1982 Three additional monitoring wells were installed by SJCC.

Jan 3. 1984 SJCC entered into an Administrative Consent Order with NJDEP.

Apr!. 1984 NJDEP determined elevated levels of PCE in SJCC Well 6 were emanatingfrom GSC.

Nov. 1984 NJDEP installed five monitoring wells located downgradient of the two sites.

1S85 Construction was initiated on a public water supply system in BuenaBorough.

July. 1985 Pursuant to the January 1984 Administrative Consent Order issued byNJDEP, a groundwater pumping and treatment system was constructedconsisting of two pumping wells discharging to the aquifer after treatmentby an air stripping system. An additional pumping well discharges to theBuena Borough Municipal Utilities Authority sewer system.

en8oo

1-12



June. 1986 NJDEP recommended SJCC for inclusion on EPA's National Priorities List(NPL).

June. 198B USEPA proposed SJCC for inclusion on the NPL

Sep. 1988 USEPA issued a Statement of Work to a contractor to initiate Joint RemedialInvestigation and Feasiblity Study activities for SJCC and GSC.

Dec. 1988 USEPA conducted a site visit

Jan and April. 1989 USEPA conducted Phases I & II sofl gas surveys and gamma logged sixmonitoring wells.

1989 SJCC begins installation of a limited sol vapor extraction and treatmentsystem in the vicinity of the TCE storage tank that reportedly ruptured in1979.

Oct. 1989 SJCC was included on the NPL

Nov. 1989 to USEPA contractor conducts Phase I Remedial Investigation field activities.March. 1990

Feb. 1991 to USEPA contractor conducts Phase II Remedial Investigation field activities.Apri. 1991 This completed all field activities associated with the Remedial Investigation.

COnooo

1-13 MU)

1.2.2.2 Garden State Cleaners

GSC is a small dry cleaning facility which has been in operation at its present location since 1966.A site history for the GSC site is presented in Table 1-2.

.The only chemical positively identified as part of the dry cleaning process at GSC is PCE.Unknown quantities of waste from the cleaning process have been discharged onto facilityproperty. The wastes were discharged from two steam condensate pipes and one boiler blowdownpipe, all of which protrude from the walls at the rear of the building as shown in Figure 1-4.

In May 1984, during the investigation by NJDEP of off-site groundwater contamination associatedwith SJCC, elevated levels of PCE from SJCC Well 6 (located due east of GSC) led NJDEP tosuspect GSC as a possible source. During the ensuing inspection of GSC, the owners

•acknowledged discharging wastes onto the ground without a NJPDES permit Soy samplesobtained from the immediate area of the discharge pipes contained PCE. This discharge endedas of February 1985, and all effluents were then disposed of in accordance with the guidelinesestablished by NJDEP.

No discharges were observed during the May 2,1984 inspection. Four soQ samples were obtainedfrom beneath both condensate pipes, the blowdown pipe and a PCE recycle tank located alongthe east wall. The highest concentrations of PCE (43,000 ppb), TCE (16,500 ppb) and 1,2-dichloroethane (24,000 ppb) were detected in a sample taken from beneath the steam condensatepipe located on the north wall. Lower concentrations of contaminants (PCE; TCE; 1,2-dichloroethane; toluene) were detected in a sample taken from beneath the north wall blowdownpipe. PCE was detected at 100 ppb in a sample collected beneath the condensate pipe and a PCErecycle tank along the east wall. A sample collected from the front lawn of GSC near SummerAvenue contained 560 ppb of PCE

1-14

Ol

oo

u*00

TABLE 1-2

SITE HISTORYGARDEN STATE CLEANERS

r

Mav 2. 1984

Nov. 1984

Feb. 1985

Dec 12. 1985

June. 1986

July. 1987

June. 1988

Sep. 1988

Dec. 1988

Jan andApril 1989

March. 1989

Nov. 1989 toMarch. 1990

Feb. 1991 toApril. 1991

NJDEP representatives met with the owners of GSC and collected soilsamples from beneath the condensate and blowdown pipes.

NJDEP installed five monitoring wells downgradient of the two sites.

GSC discontinued discharge of solvents through condensate pipes.

NJDEP drafted an Administrative Consent Order for GSC requiring aninvestigation to determine the extent of on- and off-site soil and groundwatercontamination . The Consent Order was never signed by GSC.

NJDEP recommended GSC for inclusion on the NPL

NJDEP issued a Unilateral Administrative Order and Notice of CivilAdministrative Penalty Assessment

USEPA proposed GSC for inclusion on the NPL

USEPA issued a Statement of Work to a contractor to initiate joint RemedialInvestigation and Feasibility Study activities for GSC and SJCC.

USEPA conducted a site visit

USEPA conducted Phase I and II soil gas surveys and gamma logged sixmonitoring wells.

GSC was added to the NPL

USEPA contractor conducts Phase I Remedial Investigation field activities.

USEPA contractor conducts Phase II Remedial Investigation field activities.This completed all field activities associated with Remedial Investigation.

CO

oo

1-15u>

Samples from groundwater monitoring wells that are located hydraulically upgradient from GSChave shown low concentrations of PCE. Samples from monitoring wells that are adjacent to orhydraulically downgradient from GSC, SJCC Well 6 and SJCC Well 8, have shown elevatedconcentrations of PCE. The analyses of samples collected from these wells on August 16, 1988indicated PCE in SJCC Well 8 at 450 ppb and SJCC Wen 6 at 6,100 ppb. GSC has faied torespond to the Uniateral Administrative Order issued by NJDEP on July 8, 1987.

In June 1986, NJDEP recommended GSC and SJCC for inclusion on the National Priorities List(NPL). USEPA proposed adding the sites to the NPL in June 1988. In September 1988, USEPAissued a statement of work to Ebasco Services under the REM III Contract for RemedialInvestigation and Feasiblity Study Activities. Phase I field activities were initiated during November1989 and completed during March 1990. The second, and final, phase of field activities, performedunder the ARCS II Contract, was initiated during February 1991 and completed during Apr! 1991.

1.2.3 Results of Previous Investigations

On May 4,1981, a representative of the NJDEP Hazard Management Division inspected the SJCCfacility and collected samples of liquid waste, solid waste and a puddle of surface water from thearea beneath the discharge pipe on the northwest comer of the buiding. On July 30, 1981, anadditional sample was collected of a liquid/sludge material which was being collected in a leakingdrum located Just east of the abandoned manufacturing buiding. Results from the analysis of thesesamples are presented in Table 1-3. VOCs were detected in each of the four samples withconcentrations ranging as high as 620,000 ppb.

NJDEP representatives collected three sol samples from the SJCC property on June 18, 1982.TCE, PCE and chloroform were al detected. The highest concentrations of TCE and PCE wereidentified in sol sample CE 150, at 940 ppb and 340 ppb, respectively. Sample locations andanalytical results are presented in Figure 1-5 and Table 1-4, respectively.

oo

1-16

TABLE 1-3

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY SITE

NJDEP SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS

MAY AND JULY 1981

WASTE SEDIMENT/LIQUID RUNOFF DISCHARGE®ANALYTES SLUDGE (4) PUDDLE (4) PUDDLE (4)

Ethyl Benzene 4,188N-Propyl Benzene 4,653Tert-Butyl Benzene 2,380Sec-Butyl BenzeneN-Butyl BenzeneP-Bromo FluorobenzeneChlorobenzeneBromobenzeneP-DichlorobenzeneP-Xylene 2,623O-Xylene 6,757M-XyleneTolueneO-Chlorotoluene 564A,A,A-TrifluorotoiueneStyrene 1,1601,2-DichloroethaneHexachlorobutadiene

3,450

1,6954,530

9,189

561

1,210

8,400

1,9001,200

8,300

28,9006,500

8,000620,000

82,431

6,095169,928

4,9601,670

304,050493,12778,699

6,488

25,715

Notes:1) All units are in parts per billion2) Blank space indicates that analyte was not detected.3) No map of exact sample locations was available4) Sampled May 4,1981 by NJDEP5) Sampled July 20,1981 by NJDEP6) All samples were collected on SJCC property in the area of the abandoned

manufacturing buildingCO

oo

1-17

LEGEND

DRYnCLEAN INGSTILL UNIT

CE 151A

SOUTHJERSEYPROPERTY

CEI50

SHED

REMNANTSOF MASONRYBUILDING

ONE STORYMASONRYBUILDINGCLOTHINGPRODUCTIONAREA

r

D

FACILITYBOUNDARYSOIL SAMPLELOCATIONTANK

REYNOLDS PROPERTY

GROUNDWATERTREATMENTPLANT ————— tr

GIOVANAZZI PROPERTY

ATLANTIC AVENUE

w

w

CO

oo

SCALEI" -60'

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESSOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS OCTOBER, 1982

FIGURE

1-5

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C. MB

TABLE 1-4


NJDEP SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS

JUNE 1982

ANALYTE

Chlorofora

|Trichloroathyl«rw

| Tatracholoroethy l«n«

NJDEP SAMPLE NUMBERS.........r- - -SR7351-1CE149

7.8

390.0

70.0

SR7351-2CE150

17.0

940.0

340.0

SR7351-3CE151

47.0

20.0

Notas:1) All units ara axprassad «s ug/g.2) Blank sp*c* indieatas that analyta was not dttaetad.

03

oo

M9 CO

Between November 1981 and December 1983, SJCC installed 12 monitoring wens near to, anddowngradient from, the faciity. The primary contaminant detected in these weds, particularly thosenear SJCC, was TCE. Consequently, TCE was used as an indicator of groundwater contaminationin the area. SJCC weHs were sampled for TCE periodically from December 1981 to February 1990.

TCE concentrations were highest in wells near to, and downgradient of, the abandonedmanufacturing buiding at SJCC. The highest concentration of TCE, 79,000 ppb, was identified inSJCC Wen 2 during Jury 1984. Concentrations have generally decreased over time. This isprobably due to the effects of the groundwater extraction and treatment system. Locations of theSJCC monitoring wefls are shown in Figure 1-6. Construction detais and TCE concentrationsdetected in samples from these wells are presented in Tables 1-5 and 1-6, respectively.

On May 11, 1983, NJDEP conducted a pump test and a constant head seepage test using SJCCWell 5. Both tests yielded similar results with resulting hydraulic conductivity values ofapproximately 3.3 X 10* cm/sec.

In early 1984, given the concentrations of PCE detected in SJCC Wells 6 and 8, NJDEP began tosuspect that GSC may be a potential source of contamination. So! samples were collected fromthe vicinity of the GSC faciity during May and June, 1984. The additional sampling conducted inJune was to establish background conditions. Sample locations and analytical results arepresented in Figure 1-7 and Table 1-7, respectively. Sampling results indicated that elevated levelsof PCE were emanating from GSC.

In November 1984, five monitoring weds were installed by NJDEP downgradient of GSC and SJCC.Locations of these wells are shown on Figure 1-6. Construction details and analytical results arepresented in Tables 1-5 and 1-8, respectively. Four VOCs were detected during two samplingevents. The maximum VOC concentration detected was 2.2 ug/l of PCE in NJDEP well 4.

en

1-20

*«* *»vt

tOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING »oCO.

GARDEN STATECLEANERS-SC

BABES VILLAGEWELL

MARTINELLI AVE

CLEARY SCHOOL WELL

COARI AVENUE

ÎRRIGATION WELLOT-SJCC MONITORING WELLNJI-XJOEP MONITORING WELL

-PRIVATE WELL

CLEARY SCHOOLSOUTH AVENUE

S C A L El"«BOO'

ARCSSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESLOCATION OF SELECTED WELLS

D A T EJUNE 1991

CO8oo

C.C.JOHNSON 4 MALHOTRA.P .C .1-21

TABLE 1-5


WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY & NJDEP WELLS

WELLMJH8EI

SJCC 1233 A E44 A I567891011 E12 E

NJDEP 11 A2345

DATEINSTALLED

11/8111/8111/8104/8611/8104/8609/8209/8209/8209/8209/8212/8312/8312/83

10/8410/8410/8410/8411/8411/84

DEPTH(FEET)

4541354739484943454543474743

684034404833

SCREENEDINTERVAL(FEET)

25-4521-4115-3527-4719-3928-4829-4923-4325-4525-4523-4327-4727-4723-43

58-6820-4014-3415-4038-4823-33

DIAMETER(INCHES)

44444642242444

222222

Not*:1) All Mils «r« constructed of PVC.2) E • Extraction twlls.3) I • Injection w*ll.

1-22

CO8oo

TABLE 1-6


GROUNDWATER SAMPUNG RESULTS - SJCC WELLS

TCE CONCENTRATION (PPB)

| REPORT| DATEIj 12-08-81(08-24-82| 12-09-82(OV10-83j 10-12-83|01-05-84(02-08-84|03-07-84JOA-06-84(06-06-84

19-84J5-84

| ,0-09-84j 10-18-84| 12-05-64101-18-85|03-22-85|04- 12-85JOA-25-85105-31-85|06-24-85(07-18-8509-16-8510-24-85|02-13-86103-13-8604-29-86,05-15-86j 07-09-86'09-08-8610-17-86|11-11-86j 12-23-86

„-" —— "•"•

LAB

NJOEPKaatlaNJDEPROMRotaRotsROMRossRot*ROMRossROMROMROMRot*RotsRossRossRossRossRossRossRossRossRossRossRossRossMACMACMACMACMAC

WELL 1(45ft)

6

WELL 2(41ft)

9860298006000600036000

200001500030000

79000

19000

24000

34000

9800

7200

6100

16000

1700

31000

WELL 3(35ft )

2861200015400320007200

320035003200

13000

4800

6600

5200

4600

370042003200

250

1900

• I

WELL 3A(47ft)

430

460340

WELL 5<49ft)

169008767200

1700055002600

47000

78000

5000

9500

5300

5504

4100

3300

1300

WELL 6 |(43ft)

380258700

300850600

190

210

270

95

33

301

130

82

62

WELL 7(45ft)

6000190014000

41000

32000

2100

25000

20000

9000

5100

47099

72

78

45

WELL 8(45ft)

1000119

74

95

22

26

25

64

15

2318

14

6

12

WELL 9<43ft)

52

WELL 10(47ft)

1400170023001800

26001400

240

1600

2100

360

3701800

3800

200

4100

WELL 11(47ft)

150004200065000680005400041000150003600028000330008000500043004200350033003100280021001300

110094012009801100870580

WELL 12(43ft)

22000380009500

10000

36000

22000

900011000

10400

82004400

380058006800100001000013000•600 ]

COoooo

1-23

TABLE 1-6 (CONTINUED)


GROUNDWATER SAMPUNG RESULTS - SJCC WELLS

TCE CONCENTRATION (PPB)

| «POtT| OATI1|01-14-87|01- 30-87J02-06-87J03- 14-87|04- 16-87J04-22-87J04-30-S7| 06-17-87|07- 13-87|0a- 17-17|09-22-«7J10-20-87j 10-30-87J12-28-87(12-31-87|OJ- 16-88J03-31-881 04-24-88JOS-31-88J07-1V88JM-U-MJ04-04-88J10-06-M| 10- 17-88| 12- 14-88| 01 -10-84| OS- 17-84|03- 24-84J04-14-84J04-Z7-84JOS-26-84J06-00-89| 08-31-84J04-07-84J04-28-89J02-14-40J02-28-91

LM

_____MACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMACMAC

EPA-arEPA-ttP

WELL 1(*5*t)H BBMV B

«

1

WELL 2(41ft)

•__V^^____B__

30000

10000

67000

5700

28000

23000

MOO

50000

30000

13000

130004500

HELL 3(35ft)^ M B B

250510

7200

1700

1

1300

400

1000

470

240•8

WELL 3A(47»t)

360

240330

440570

260200270200

180W•6

WELL 5(49ft)

^ —— «••«_»

1500

11000

37000

13000

BOO

2100

2800

820

430

70003000

WELL 6(43ft)

^^——— M^MM

54

580

81

120

160

31

20

27

WELL 7(45ft)

_

35

47

6

45

33

23

56

30

80

1201300

WELL 8(45ft)__

54

11

4

67

380

15

1223

WELL 9(43ft)

r - __ __

WELL 10(47ft)™«-^»™™™»

3100

1400

220

5200

320

1800

530

540

55

WELL 11(47ft)

^_____i««_

600

770570310

200200250140180740074010013060533261477264324178

6884

6070

506555230

WELL 12(43ft >

__ _ ______

75008000

54004400

3800120005400720063002300220001200070005800

2600

44003700160014003200480078

40005000

3400340028003100

33005400140

SOURCE: South J*r««y Clothing Company

1-24

SGC 001 1148

r

ATLANTIC AVENUE

m

MINATOLARESCUE —

A 27364

SPEZIALI

A27363

•28019

280I4AAA28OI6128017

OSC-

k27362

omzH70

SUMMER AVENUE

A 27361

LEGEND

A -SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION27363-NJOEP SAMPLE NUMBER

CAFARELLI

A2736O

MATTIOLI

S C A L E

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCSSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITES

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS, MAY/JUNE, 1984

FIGURE

1-7

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C.Ton oos

TABLE 1-7

GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITE

NJDEP SOIL SAMPUNG RESULTS - MAY AND JUNE 1984

ANALYTE

|1,2-0<chloroethylene

| Tetreeholoroethy leneI(Toluene

|Tr iehloroethylene

27360 (3)

..........

27361 (3) 27362 (3)

..........

560

NJI

27363 (3)

..........

)EP SAMPLE

27364 (3)

..........

NUMBERS

|28014 (4)

..........

420

7,520

430

375

28015 (4)

..........

24,000

43,000

16,500

[28016 (4)

..........

1,350

725

|28017 (4)

100

Not**:1) All units are expressed as pert* per billion.2) Blank spec* indicates that analyta was not detected.3) Sampled 6-21-84.4) Saapled 5-2-84.

01

oo

1-26eno

TABLE 1-8


GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS - NJDEP WELLS

SCREENED INTERVAL (ft)

ANALYTE8

Toliwna

Tatracholoroathylana

Tr <cMwe*thylww

Tran«-1 ,2-Dfehloroathylana

— . —— .

.........1

58-68

........

1A20-40

1.51

Saptwfc*

Vail Nt

213-33

r 1985

Mb*r«

315-40

........

0.89

437-47

........

2.20

523-33

........

1.45

.........

.........

1 I58-68

0.06 JB

1A20-40

........

D*e*ab*r

U»ll Nt

213-33

0.10 JB

1988

•b«r»

315-40

0.90 J

437-47

0.06 JB

0.04 J

523-33

ro

Notes:1) Alt unltt «r» In ug/l.2) Blank sp«e« Indleat** that analyt* MM not <fet*ct«d.3) B<o«peund Mat d»t«et«d In th« blank." '-e«t«»at»d quantity.

From 1986 until initiation of the RI/FS, SJCC sampled their monitoring wets quarterly. Except forthe monitoring of groundwater contamination levels, little additional sampling and analysis wereperformed in the vicinity of these two sites until initiation of the RI/FS. Monitoring data for SJCCwells (for TCE only) are presented in Table 1-6. The effects of the groundwater extraction andtreatment system are evident upon review of these data. Concentrations of TCE are decreasingin most wells during this period. Relatively high concentrations of TCE were detected in samplesfrom the wen at Babe's Viiage Inn during this period. Most notable were the detections of 38,000ug/l and 2,100 ug/l during October 1982 and January 1983. respectively. The source of these highTCE concentrations cannot be conclusively determined. This wen was not sampled again afterJanuary 1983, consequently, no results were avalabte for use in plume plots for subsequent years.No information is available regarding quality assurance or control procedures utilized duringcollection and analysis of these samples. A sample collected from the 163 feet deep well of OearySchool in Apri, 1984 had a TCE concentration of 14.1 ppb. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was detectedat approximately 1,000 ppb during this sampling event The changes in the TCE plume can beseen in Figures 1-8 through 1-16 which are isoconcentra'acn maps of TCE in groundwater for theyears 1982 through 1990. It should be noted that the shape of the plume depicted on these figuresis influenced by the alignment of the monitoring weO network and the avaBabBrty of data fromvarious sample points during various years.

1.2.4 Current Conditions

SJCC no longer manufactures clothing at the faciity at the intersection of the rairoad tracks andAtlantic Avenue. The owners maintain limited office hours to conduct their remaining businessactivities. These activities are conducted in a bulding located on the western portion of theirproperty. The original manufacturing bulding in the northeast comer of the property remainsabandoned. SJCC has been pumping and treating the groundwater beneath the site since July1985 pursuant to the Administrative Consent Order issued by NJDEP. Groundwater is extractedfrom two wells (12 and 3A on Figure 1-12) near the SJCC faciity at a continuous combined rate oof 25 gallons per minute. Water from these wells is treated by a system consisting of two air o

o

1-28

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING COMPANY

GARDEN STATECLEANERS —*v

ARCTIC AVENUE

JONAS

r;—BABES VILLAGEINN WELL

AVENUE

WILLIAMS AVENUE

COARI AVENUE

LEGENDO-SJCC MONITORING

9 WELL

SOUTH AVENUE

MARTINELLI AVE.

NOTE;SAMPLE FROM BABES VILLAGE INNWELL OBTAINED OCTOBER, 1962,WITH A CONCENTRATION OF 36,000PPB.

CLEARY SCHOOLD

CO

oo

WHEAT ROAD

IISCALE" • 500'D A T E

MAY 1991

ARCS XXSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 12-09-82

FIGURE

1-8

C.C.JOHNSON ft MALHOTRA.P.C.1-29


NTIC AVENUE

GARDEN STACLEANERS

BABES VILLAGEINN WELL

CLEARY SCHOOLDNOTE:SOUTH AVENUE

LEGENDO - SJCC MONITORING

WELLWHEAT ROAD

SAMPLE FROM BABES VILLAGE INNWELL OBTAINED JANUARY, 1963,AND HAD A CONCENTRATION OF2,100 PPB.________________

11S C A L Ef-5001

D A T EMAY 1991

AROSESOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COyGARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 10-12-83

FIGURE

1-9

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.P .C .1-30


GARDEN STATEXCLEANERS—<O\

+ ^-BABES VILLAGE INN WELL

MARTIN ELLI AVENUE

COARI

LEGENDl B^^«M^*M*«M^» «•

5O-SJCC MONITORINGWELL

AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE-

WHEAT ROAD

NOTE;SAMPLES TAKEN PROM BABES VILLAGEINN WELL IN OCTOBER, 1962 ANDJANUARY, 1983 HAD CONCENTRATIONSOF 38,000 AND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

CLEARY SCHOOLD

CO

S C A L EI"- 500'D A T E

MAY 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING C07GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 7-19-84

FIGURE M

HO Ulen

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P .C .1-31


ATLANTIC AVtNUC

GARDEN STATECLEANERS-"!^

BABES VILLAGEWELL

MARTINELLI AVE

SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,

N ,. 1982 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 38,000AND 2.100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

CLEARY SCHOOLDSOUTH AVENUE

WHEAT AVENUE

-O-SJCC MONITORINGWELL

NJI«-NJDEP MONITORINGWELL

11S C A L El"« 500'D A T E

MAY 1991

ARCS XXSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 4-25-85

FIGURE

Ml

C.C.JOHNSON & M A L H O T R A . P . C . 1-32

***

NOTE'EXTRACTION WELLS

3A-IOGPM11-IOGPM (ESTIMATED)12-15 GPM

INJECTION WELL4 A-25 GPM

ARCTIC

JONA8

WILLIAMS

COARI

LEGEND•

O-SJCC MONITORING —i5 WELL

NJI9-NJDEP MONITORINGWELL

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

WHEAT ROAD

7^


GARDENCLEANERS

BABES VILLAGEWELL.

NJ2

nf\t

NJ3•

MARTINELLI AVE.

NOTE:SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,I9B2 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 36,000AND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

CLEARY SCHOOLD jNJ4

•NJS

11

en8oo

in-jSCALEf • 500*

D A T EMAY 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 5-15-86

FIGURE

1-12

C.C.JOHNSON & M A L H O T R A . P . C .1-33

_*»** DRIVE


3A-IO GPM11-10 GPM (ESTIMATED)12-15 GPM

INJECTION WELL4A-28 0PM

•SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING COMPANY

[ATLANTIC AVENUE


PACIFIC AVENUE

SUMMERu tr>

AVENUE

ARCTIC AVENUE

JONAS AVENUE


NJI

WILLIAMS AVENUE

NJ3

COARI AVENUE

MARTINELLI AVE.NOTE;SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,1962 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 38.0OOAND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

LEGENDO-SJCC MONITORING

5 WELL

NJ I«-NJDEP MONITORINGWELL

SOUTH AVENUECLEARY SCHOOL

D.NJ4• NJ5

oo

Ul00

WHEAT ROAD

11S C A L El"- 5001

D A T EMAY 1991


FIGURE

M3



3A-IOGPMII -10 GPM (ESTIMATED)12-15 GPM

INJECTION WELL4A-25 GPM

ARCTIC

JONAS

WILLIAMS

COARI

LEGENDO-SJCC MONITORING ^

0 WELL ~

NJI0-NJDEP MONITORINGWELL


GARDENCLEAN ERS

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

WHEAT ROAD

NJ2

BABES VILLAGE INN WELL

NJS

MARTINELLI AVENUENOTE;SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,1962 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 36,000AND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

CLEARY SCHOOLD

CO.NJ4•NJS

ii Uito

S C A L Ef • 500*D A T E

MAY 1991

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE IN GROUNDWATER (PPB) FOR 3-16-88

F IGURE

1-14


NOTEt

EXTRACTION WELLS3A-IOGPMII TO 10 GPM (ESTIMATED)12-19 GPM

INJECTION WELL4A-25 GPM

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING CO.

ATLANTIC AVCMUC

GARDENCLEANERS

/BABES VILLAGEINN WELL

MARTINELLI

LEGEND

O T- SJCC MONITORING WELLNJI-NJOEP MONITORING WELL

NOTE- PUBLIC WATER SUPPLYIS AVAILABLE NORTH OFWHEAT ROAD.

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

NJ3•

NOTE:SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,1962 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 36,000AND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

CLEARY SCHOOL

• NJS

WHEAT ROAD

oO8 C A L E

!"• 5001

D A T EMAY 1991


FIGURE

1-15

C.C.JOHNSON A M A L H O T R A . P . C .1-36

NOTE'•MMBMM

EXTRACTION WELLSSA-IOOPMII TO 10 GPM (ESTIMATED)12-19 0PM

INJECTION WELL4A-25 CPM NOTE:

SAMPLES TAKEN FROM BABESVILLAGE INN WELL IN OCTOBER,1982 AND JANUARY, 1983 HADCONCENTRATIONS OF 38,000AND 2,100 PPB RESPECTIVELY.

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHINQ toCO,

EP-IS1C AVtNUC

GARDEN STATE \CLEANERS

ARCTIC AVtNUt 50

'EP-5S

JONAf AVCNUCNJ2

BABES VILLAGE•JHH WELL

, «NJI

MARTINELLI AVE.

WILLIAMS AVENUE

A - EPA MONITOR WELLSAND SOIL BORINGS

OT-SJCC MONITORING WELL• NJI-NJDEP MONITORING WELL

• -RESIDENTIAL WELL

NOTE' PUBLIC WATER SUPPLYIS AVAILABLE NORTH OFWHEAT ROAD

COARI AVENUE

NJJ ^CLEARY SCHOOL WELL

EP-61 EP-7S

• IRRIGATION WELL

SOUTH AVENUECLEARY SCHOOL

O.NJ4• NJ5

WHEAT ROAD

S C A L E!"• 500*D A T E

MAY 1991


C.C.JOHNSON * MALHOTRA.P .C . 1-37

strippers connected in series. A third well (11 on Figure 1-12) located on Summer Avenue,continuously extracts groundwater at an estimated ten gallons per minute and discharges directlyto the BBMUA sewer system.

Treatment system effluent is discharged to the groundwater via an injection well. Groundwater fromthe 12 monitoring wells installed by SJCC is sampled quarterly as required by the State. To date,no measures have been taken to restrict site access.

GSC continues to operate as a dry cleaning fadity. Currently, concentrated liquid waste from thefacility is being transported off-site by a licensed waste hauler. Wastewater containing less than5.5 ppb of PCE is being discharged into the Buena Borough sewer system with approval from theMunicipal Utility Authority.

COoooo

2.0 STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION

The primary objective of this study was to collect data to determine the nature and extent of* contamination at, and migrating from, the GSC and SJCC Sites. While all environmental media

were considered, the investigation focused on soil and groundwater contamination. Informationfrom previous soB and groundwater investigations at the sites was reviewed and carefullyconsidered during development of the Phase 1 field investigation. Phase 2 was designed to fill datagaps remaining after completion of Phase 1 sampling and a careful review of Phase 1 samplingresults.

Mobilization and fieldwork for the Phase 1 field investigation at the GSC and SJCC Sites continuedfrom November 13, 1989 to March 2, 1990. MobUization and fieldwork for the Phase 2 fieldinvestigation extended from January 30,1991 to April 19,1991.

During both phases, the ARCS II Team (or REM III Team) was responsible for establishing a siteoffice, work areas, storage facilities and equipment mobilization which entaBed ordering andpurchasing sampling equipment needed for the field investigation. The ARCS II Team alsocoordinated shipment of samples to, and receipt of data from, CLP analytical laboratories. DuringPhase 1 of the investigation, facilities were established on the grounds of the Buena BoroughMunicipal Utilities Authority (BBMUA). Phase 2 facilities were established adjacent to theabandoned manufacturing building at SJCC. Each phase of the field investigation requiredprocurement of subcontractors to perform soD boring and monitoring well installation activities aswell as surveying of completed monitoring well locations. Subcontracts for soO boring andmonitoring well installation were awarded to Hydro Group Inc. and Empire Soil Investigations Inc.for Phases 1 and 2, respectively. The drilling subcontractors supplied all 55-gallon U.S. Departmentof Transport (DOT) specification 17 drums for containerizing waste. They were also responsiblefor transporting the drummed waste generated at each well site to the designated storage locations. w

The ARCS II Team contracted Code Environmental Inc. to properly dispose of waste resulting from oPhase 1 activities. A subcontractor will also be obtained for disposal of Phase 2 waste materials. o

oTwo separate contracts were awarded to LJppenoott Engineering for surveying of the completed *"*

M(-•0>

2-1

Phase 1 and 2 monitoring wells.

The following sections describe the methodologies for the various activities conducted during theremedial investigation.

2.1 SURFACE FEATURES

Obtaining information concerning surface features and site area topography was one of the initialtasks undertaken during the remedial investigation. Topographic maps of the area were obtainedfrom the U.S. Geological Survey. These maps were useful but limited because of their large scaleand resultant lack of detail. Tax maps were obtained from Borough of Buena representatives whichprovided detailed information concerning property boundaries and street locations. These mapswere extremely useful during monitoring well siting and installation.

A report containing historical aerial photographs of the sites was prepared in November 1989 bythe U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas, Nevada. TheEMSL report provides photographic coverage of the sites for various years between 1940 and 1984.These photographs clearly show new construction, alterations to the ground surface and othermajor changes in the area.

2.2 SOIL GAS SURVEY

U.S. EPA's Emergency Response Team/Response Engineering and Analytical Contract(ERT/REAC) subcontractor performed an initial soil gas survey in January 1989 to assist indetermining the areal extent of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the sites. Based onpreliminary results of the January 1989 sampling effort, additional samples were collected duringMarch 1989. Figure 2-1 shows sampling locations for the two sofl gas sampling efforts.

The methodology used to collect sol gas samples during the two sampling efforts was consistentwith standard ERT/REAC soi vapor survey techniques. A 3/8 inch diameter hole was created to

2-2

oo

•

OS(

• •

•

• • •

Thi!SUMMER

•

. . «

•

• • •

3Ul

• • •

» • •AVENUE

• •

• • • •AVENUE

ARCTIC AVENUE

JONAS AVENUE MARTINELLI AVENUE CO

LEGENDSOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION

S C A L El"- 300'

D A T EJUNEI99I

ARCS IISJCC AND GSC SITESSOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATIONS:JANUARY MARCH 1989

FIGURI

2-1

en


a depth of seven feet by driving solid steel bars into the ground. A hollow probe was than insertedinto the hole and sealed from the ambient air. Tubing was used to connect the probe to an airpump and three volumes of air were removed from the hole. The probe of an Hnu was thenconnected to the tubing to provide a preliminary indication of the extent of soil gas contamination.

One-liter Tedlar air sampling bags were placed in a vacuum desiccator and connected to the probeusing teflon tubing. An air pump was then used to evacuate the desiccator filling the bag with 500to 600 ml of soO vapors drawn from a seven foot depth.

The soil gas samples were analyzed using a Photovac Gas Chromatograph (GC) equipped witha 10.2 eV photoionization detector. Eleven standards were used consisting of common aromaticand chlorinated volatile organic compounds including TCE and PCE. Selected samples were usedfor sorption onto Tenax tubes. These tubes were then desorbed and analyzed for specific ionsusing a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) at the U.S. EPA laboratory facilities inEdison, New Jersey. GC/MS analysis defined a broader range of compounds and also confirmedthose compounds identified by the GC. Detailed information concerning this effort is available inthe May 1989 final report prepared by the Roy F. Weston/REAC Project for the U.S. EPA (U.S.EPA, May 1990).

Results of this survey are discussed in Section 4.1 of this report

2.3 FLUX CHAMBER MEASUREMENT SURVEY

ERT/REAC performed a flux chamber measurement survey during May 1990 to determine If arelease was occurring from contaminated soDs and groundwater into the air, creating a long termrisk. Measurements were made at selected locations at both GSC and SJCC based on 1989 soilgas survey results. These locations are shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.

CO8The flux chamber survey was conducted using modified methods and equipment from

•Measurements and Gaseous Emission Rates from Land Surfaces Using an Emissions Isolation Flux §M

2-4 L.9k

S U M M E R A V E N U E (ACTUAL LOCATION)

©

(APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET SOUTH)

©S I D E W A L K


O U

© ©

©

L E G E N D0-MEASUREMENT L O C A T I O NO-BOILER BLOW DOWN PIPED - S T E A M C O N D E N S A T E PIPE

.—— FACILITY BOUNDARY

© enoo

o\

SCALEI" 15'D A T E

JUNE 1991

ARCS IISJCC AND GSC SITESFLUX CHAMBER MEASUREMENT LOCATIONSMARCH, 1989

FIGURE

2-2

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C. 2-5

8911 TOO

LEGENDo - MEASUREMENT LOCATION

——— FACILITY BOUNDARY

CENTRAL AVENUE

REMNANTS OFMASONRYBUILDIN.6

ONE STORYMASONRYBUILDING

(UNOCCUPIED)

RESIDENCE(OCCUPIED)

RESIDENCE(UNOCCUPIED)

O O

D A T E

JUNE 1991

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITESFLUX CHAMBER MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS NEAR SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHING COMPANY MARCH, 1989___________________

JSON ft MALHOTRA.P.C.

Chamber, User's Guide,' (EPA/600/8-86/008, February 1986). In summary, surface emissions are"swept" through an exit port of the chamber by a sampling pump set to a draw rate of two litersper minute. Ambient air was used as the sweep gas except in areas where there was concern ofcontamination due to ambient levels (for example, near the air stripper and active dry cleaningoperation) in which case Ultra Zero air was introduced as the sweep gas. The flow of air wasmaintained for 20 minutes creating a five chamber volume capacity turnover through the chamber.At the cessation of this 20 minute process, a sample was drawn from the chamber utilizing adesiccator and a Tedlar bag which was then analyzed using a Photovac GC for the targetcompounds, chlorinated hydrocarbons. Those bags indicating elevated concentrations were drawnonto Tenax/Carbonized Molecular Sieve tubes for confirmatory analysis by GC/MS at the ERTlaboratory facility.

The emission rates were calculated based upon the surface area isolated by the chamber, thesweep rate, and the concentration of the contaminant measured in the sample.

Contours of the emission rates were generated using Surfer, a Golden Software package, whichperforms a krigging analysis of the data generating an area emission profile. These numbers areused to generate an area source term by looking at the Krig area, defining the area of concern,calculating the square meters in the area, then averaging the flux measurements for that krig andin turn total emissions for the entire area. The resulting numbers generate the source term whichwill be used to model the emissions.

Details of this effort are described in the October 1990 report by U.S. EPA (U.S. ERA, October1990). Results of this investigation are discussed in Section 4.4 of this report

2.4 SURVEY OF HUMAN POPULATIONS, LAND USE AND AQUIFER USE

Land in the vicinity of the Town of Minotola is employed in a wide variety of uses includingresidential, commercial, industrial, transportation and institutional/governmental. Large tracts of Rcropland and small pockets of forestiand dominate the less densely populated areas surrounding 0ot-t

2-7 CONVO

the town. Primarly, land use in the area near the sites is residential and commercial, however,some light industry is also located in the vicinity.

According to previous investigators, a population of 3775 was recorded within Buena Borough in1984. Since 1985, Borough residents downgradient (south) of GSC and SJCC have beenconnected to a municipal water supply provided by two weds located hydraulicaUy upgradient ofthe sites. Prior to the avalabBity of the public water supply system, all residents used private wellsas their water source.

The two water supply wells are operated by the Buena Borough Municipal Utility Authority(BBMUA). The wells are both approximately 470 feet deep and are located within 50 feet of eachother, at a distance of approximately 4500 feet northeast of the GSC and SJCC sites.

An aquifer use survey was conducted in the vicinity of the sites during November and Decemberof 1989. The purpose of this survey was to determine the condition and use, if any, of private wellsimmediately downgradient of the sites. The area surveyed included residences in a largerectangular area bounded by Wheat Road to the south, SJCC to the north, Cass Avenue to the •east, and West Avenue to the west (see Figure 1-2). Names of property owners within this areawere obtained from the Buena Borough tax collector and questionnaires were mailed or handdelivered to residents. Information requested included the construction and condition of privatewells, as well as the extent and nature of any groundwater use. A copy of the questionnaire isincluded as Figure 2-4. All information received was tabulated and used to assess the use of, andexposure to, contaminated groundwater in the area. Results of the aquifer use survey arediscussed in Section 3.6.

2.5 PRIVATE WELL SAMPLING

COEPA's ERT/REAC subcontractor cotected and analyzed groundwater samples from seven «residential water supply wells and one irrigation wen for VOCs during March 1989. The purpose oof this effort was to obtain groundwater quality data at a significant distance downgradient of the 2

2-8

FIGURE 2-4

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS

AQUIFER USE SURVEY

Date:

Owner or User Name:.

Address: ______

Business or residence?.

If business, what type?.

Are you currently using the Buena Borough public water supply system?.

Is well sealed?

Is well being used?.

What is water being used for? (circle all that apply)

Drinking Irrigation of Garden (If yes, are plants consumed?)

Cooking Lawn watering

Bathing car washing

Livestock watering

Estimate the frequency and quantity of water withdrawn for each item circled above.

Location of well:

Any noticeable water quality problems (odor, taste).

Type and volume of holding or pressure tank _________________________

————————————————————————————————————————————————— o.

oo

2-9

FIGURE 2-4 (CONTINUED)

Type of home treatment system? (carbon, charcoal, water softener)

Can we sample well?.

Name of drDlen ___

Date of construction________________ Depth of well.

Casing material __________________ Screen material.

Well diameter ___________________ Screen interval _

Drilling log available? ___________________________

Type of material well is screened in.

Depth to water level.

Well yield _____

Ground surface elevation (may be estimated from maps).

Type of pump _____________________

Depth of pump.

Type of plumbing (copper, PVC)

to

oo

2-10

source areas. Six of the residential wells were located adjacent to, and south of, Wheat Road.One residential well was adjacent to the north side of Wheat Road. All of the residential wells arewithin the area served by the municipal water supply system. The irrigation well was located in afield, north of Wheat Road, approximately 700 feet east of the deary School. This well wasapproximately 200 feet deep and screened at two intervals. Figure 2-5 shows the locations of thewells sampled and the well depths for the residential wells and the irrigation well.

The following sampling procedures were used to collect water samples from the private residencesalong Wheat Road.

The cold water system was turned on and the system purged for 10 to 20 minutes. Well waterconductivity and pH were monitored and documented in order to determine when drawn water wasstable. Stability was assumed to be achieved when three consecutive, consistent pH andconductivity readings were recorded. Four VOA vials were then collected at each location afterpurging, at the kitchen faucet, or the outdoor faucet If a water treatment system was in place atthe residence, the four VOA samples were collected at a faucet between the well and thepurification system. If no treatment system was in place, the sample was collected at the kitchenfaucet All samples, including trip blanks, were stored on ice.

The irrigation well was sampled using the following procedures.

Three volumes of water were removed from the well prior to sampling utilizing a three inch diametersubmersible pump. Samples were then collected using a two inch diameter Teflon bailersuspended by nylon twine. The bailer was lowered to the depth of the screen before retrieving asample. Four VOA samples were collected. Field measurements including pH, temperature, andconductivity were taken. The samples were stored on ice and returned the same day to the REAClaboratory for analysis.

This effort is described in greater detailed in the May 1989 final report prepared by the Roy F.Weston, Inc. REAC ProjeSection 4.3 of this report

CO

8Weston, Inc. REAC Project for the U.S. EPA/ERT. The results of this effort are discussed in §

U)

2-11

pACinc

W ft

GARDEN STATE "2CLEANERS^

r


ATLANTIC AVENUE

SUMMER AVENUE

AVENUE

EP-21

38 AEP-3S

ARCTIC AVENUE 10 EP-9I

JONAS

AEP-5S

AVENUE

r ——\

BABES VILLAGE INNWt LLi

1 NJfA• « «NJI

WILLIAMS AVENUE

OEP-HICOARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

Q -A

0 7-• NJI-3

(52)

LEGEND

EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLSEPA PHASE 1 MONITOR WELLS AND SOILBORINGSSJCC MONITORING WELLNJDEP MONITORING WELL

RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONIRRIGATION WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONWELL DEPTH(FEET"BELOW SURFACE)

MARTINELLI AVE.

CLEARY SCHOOL WELL

EP-6.IRRIGATION WELL

SCHOOL »NJ9

WHEAT ROAD

OEPH2I 700'

1

<T|)2 5 4 6 7

(-50) WO) (62) (52)

LOUIS ^*VENUE

cnOo

g

EP-IOOSCALE

I" - 500'DATE

JUNE 1991

ARCS IESOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITES

EBBSff fflJr1- SAMPUNG LOCATIONsFIGURE

2-5


2.6 SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLING

PHASE 1

As part of Phase 1, an initial round of shallow soil samples were collected at GSC, SJCC and ata location north of Atlantic Avenue and east of Central Avenue during the period from November

13,1989 to December 7,1989. The purpose of this effort was to define the extent of near surfacesoy contamination in the vicinity of each of the fadities and to provide additional informationconcerning the source of contaminants detected in soil gas samples collected at the location north

of Atlantic Avenue. The total numbers of Phase 1 samples collected and screened at each of theselocations were as follows: GSC-53; SJCC-80; and north of Atlantic Avenue-6. The locations ofPhase 1 sofl samples collected at each of these areas are shown on Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8,respectively.

In an effort to provide complete coverage of the potentially-contaminated area and to reduce thenumber of samples submitted to the Contractor Laboratory Program (CLP), a stepwise approachwas employed during collection of shallow soi samples. Initial sampling locations were chosenbased on the results of previous sampling efforts at each of the three locations. At GSC, this areawas located along the north wall of the building beneath the boiler blowdown pipe; at SJCC, effortswere initiated along the west wall of the abandoned manufacturing building; and at the locationnorth of Atlantic Avenue, initial samples were collected at a distance of approximately 300 feet eastof Central Avenue. At each initial sampling location a hole was dug to a depth of two feet usingpost hole diggers or a hand auger. A sample was then collected from the two to three foot depthinterval using a decontaminated stainless steel core sampler. One portion of this sample wasplaced in two 40 milfliter VOA vials for possible CLP laboratory analysis. A second portion of thesample was placed in an eight-ounce, wide-mouth glass jar. After approximately three ounces ofsoi were placed in the eight ounce jar, the top was covered tightly with aluminum foil and the jarwas placed in a water bath (90°F) for 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the portable monitoringinstrument was turned on and the instrument response to ambient air was noted. This established o

ooh-i

2-13 MM

Cn

SUMMER A V E N U E

'SIDEWALK

G A R D E N S T A T EC L E A N E R S

•TANK

LEGEND• PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATION€» PHASE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION—— F A C I L I T Y BOUNDARYO STEAM CONOENSATE PIPED BOILER BLOW DOWN PIPE

COoO

SCALEI' - 15'D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCSIISJCC AND GSC SITESPHASE I AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONSNEAR GARDEN STATE CLEANERS

FIGURE

2-6

C.C.JOHNSON 4 MALHOTRA.P.C. 2-14

REMNANTS OfMASONRYtUILOlNC

ro_AOl

CENTRAL AVENUE

II

) ONE STORY1 MASONRY1 BUILDING1 (UNOCCUPIED)

rrru:

RESIDENCE(OCCUPIED)

RESIDENCE .(UNOCCUPIED)!

GROUNOWATERJ 2TREATMENT «

PLANT »

•TRAILERS

x.c

LEGEND•FACILITY BOUNDARY"PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATIONPHASE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION

L CHURCHBUILDINO

SCALEI1 50'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCSHSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. / GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITES

PHASE I AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NEARSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY _______

FIGURE

2-7

C.C.JOHNSON I MALHOTRA.P.C.

o>

SO. JERSEYCLOTHING CO.

zlil

BANK OFMINOTOLA PRIVATE RESIDENCE

ATLANTIC AVE JUE

LEGEND

• -SAMPLE LOCATION

8Z.lt TOO D9S

NOTE: NO SOIL SAMPLES WERECOLLECTED DURINGPHASE 2 AT THISLOCATION ____

ZUlu

V)

mzcm

SCALEI" - 100*

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS USOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITESPHASE I AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS-NORTH OF ATLANTIC AVENUE

FIGURE

2-8

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.P.C.

the background concentration. The foB was then pierced by the probe of the instrument and theconcentration of accumulated organic vapors in the jar headspace was measured and theconcentration in excess of the background concentration was recorded.

Boreholes at each location were then hand augered to a depth of four feet and a sample wascollected from the four to five foot depth range using a decontaminated stainless steel coresampler. The procedure for sample packaging and headspace measurement described for thetwo to three foot depth sample was then repeated.

Additional samples from the nine to ten foot depth range were collected based on the relativeconcentrations of the headspace readings from the four to five foot range. When the decision was

made to sample this range, a hand auger was used to increase the borehole depth from five tonine feet. A decontaminated stainless steel core sampler was then used to collect a sample fromthe nine to ten foot depth interval. The samples were then packaged and headspacemeasurements recorded as discussed previously.

This screening data was also used to determine whether to collect additional samples at greaterdistances from the source areas. Sampling continued at increasingly larger distances from thesource areas until headspace results indicated relatively low organic vapor concentrations.

At the end of each day's sampling activities, headspace data for samples collected that day werereviewed to determine which samples were sent for CLP laboratory analysis. Selections were madesuch that resulting CLP data, used in conjunction with headspace results, would allow delineationof the areas of contaminated soi at each location. The following numbers of samples weresubmitted to a CLP laboratory from each of the locations: GSC-19, SJCC-42, and the area northof Atlantic Avenue -3 (as shown in Figures 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8).

oo

2-17 Cito

PHASE 2

A second round of shallow soy samples was collected to a depth of ten feet from GSC and SJCCfrom March 19 to March 21, 1991. The purpose of this second round of sampling was to refinethe estimated boundaries of the zone of contaminated sofl identified using Phase 1 results.Procedures used during Phase 2 were the same as those described for Phase 1 except that adecontaminated stainless steel split spoon sampler was used in lieu of a decontaminated stainlesssteel core sampler for collection of some samples. This change was made because the split spoonsampler was easier to drive into the ground during collection of samples from the nine to ten footdepth interval. Phase 2 soil sampling locations are shown on Figures 2-6 and 2-7.

The total numbers of Phase 2 samples collected and screened at GSC and SJCC were eight and44, respectively. Of these totals, six samples from GSC and 27 samples from SJCC were submittedto a CLP laboratory for analysis. The samples were analyzed for TCL organic compounds.

2.7 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

2.7.1 Split Spoon Sampling

2.7.1.1 Monitoring Well Locations

Soil samples were collected from each monitoring well location during both phases of the remedialinvestigation. Well locations from both phases of the field investigation are shown on Figure 2-9.The standard sampling interval was five feet with a contingency to collect continuous samples, ifwhile sampling, a day layer of significant thickness was encountered. These samples wereprimarily used to provide information on subsurface lithology in the study area.

COoo

oo

2-18 ooo

A - SB SOIL, BORING^ - PHASE 1 MONITORING WELL

O - PHASE 2 MONITORING WELL® - IRRIGATION WELL SAMPLING

LOCATIONNJI-NJDEP WELLS -SHALLOW WELL

19V?

COao

oo

CP-lOOSCALE

1' • 500'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESPHASE AND 2 MONITORING WELL ANDSOIL BORING LOCATIONS

FIGURE

2-9

C.C.JOHNSON A M A L H O T R A . P . C . 2-19

Split-spoon samples were collected using a 2-inch O.D., 24-inch long, carbon steel sampler drivenby a 180-pound hammer. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recordedin six-inch intervals. When the split spoons were opened, organic vapor concentrations weremeasured using a portable monitoring instrument and recorded in the logbook. The percentrecovery and sol sample descriptions were also recorded.

All Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring wells were located some distance downgradient of the sourceareas. For this reason, subsurface sol contamination in these areas, if present, was consideredto be a likely result of adsorption of contaminants being transported through the groundwater ontosubsurface sols rather than a result of the disposal of contaminants onto the ground at otherdowngradient locations. To provide data concerning subsurface sol contamination downgradientof the sites, six split spoon samples were selected (on the basis of screening results) for CLPlaboratory analysis for Target Compound List (TCL) organic compounds. During Phase 2, splitspoon samples were screened for VOCs but, on the basis of Phase 1 sample results, none weresent for CLP analysis.

In situations where a Phase 2 well was installed near the location of an existing Phase 1 well, splits

spoon sampling was not conducted in the zone previously sampled during Phase 1 well installation.For example, split spoon sample collection was initiated at 100 feet at Phase 2 well location 8Dbecause a lithologic log was avaOabie to a depth of 110 feet from the installation of nearby Phase1 Well 21.

2.7.1.2 Sol Boring Locations

Two soa borings were completed to the water table in the vicinity of the GSC and SJCC faditiesduring Phase 1. No monitoring weds were installed in these borings and split spoon samples werecollected continuously during drilling. These samples were used to provide detaled informationconcerning subsurface lithotogy near the areas where disposal allegedly occurred. In addition, w

these samples provided insight into the depth and concentration of sol contamination in these °areas. Locations of the two sol borings are shown in Figure 2-9. o

2-20

The sampling equipment and methodologies employed were the same as those described InSection 2.7.1.1, Monitoring Well Locations. Split spoon samples from the soil borings wereimmediately collected for CLP analysis and on-site headspace analysis using a portable monitoringinstrument The procedures for sampling and screening of these samples were the same as thosedescribed in Section 2.6, Shallow Soil Sampling. Headspace readings were measured, recordedand used to determine which split spoon samples were submitted for CLP analyses. Two splitspoon samples from each soil boring were sent to a CLP laboratory for TCL organic analysis. Noadditional soil borings were undertaken during Phase 2.

2.7.2 Geophysical Well Logging

Twenty-six wells were logged utilizing a natural gamma tool to characterize subsurface Irthology andhydrogeologic characteristics during three phases of geophysical field investigation activities.

The geophysical logs were correlated with information from split spoon samples or well logs to aidin determination of aquifer thickness, fades changes within the strata and the location of formationcontacts. An initial geophysical logging effort was completed during April 1989. Wells loggedduring this effort were those for which no geophysical data were available and included an irrigationwell, NJDEP Wells NJ-1 and NJ-4, and SJCC Wells SJ-2, SJ-6 and SJ-10. The irrigation well wassampled by ERT/REAC in March 1989 (Section 2.5) and is shown on Figure 2.5. A second effortwas undertaken during March 1990 after installation of Phase 1 monitoring wells. Wells loggedduring this effort included existing wells not logged during the April 1989 effort (SJCC Wells SJ-1,SJ-3, SJ-4, SJ-5, SJ-7, and SJ-9) and the new EPA Phase 1 wells. A third and final geophysicallogging effort was conducted during April 1991 and included the seven intermediate and deep wellsinstalled during the second phase of monitoring well installation.

The gamma ray log measures the natural radioactivity of the formation by counting the emissionof gamma rays caused by decay of radioactive elements. Generally, day and shale formations m

yield the highest counts because these formations contain concentrated radioactive elements, ooo

2-21 M00u»

namely potassium-40, uranium and thorium. Sand dominated units generally are depleted in these \elements. ^^^

2.8 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

The two phases of the hydrogeotogte investigation consisted of drlling 15 boreholes (Figure 2-9),collecting two rounds of water level measurements and two rounds of sampling of all existing andnewly installed monitoring wells. Of the 15 borings, four were completed as shallow monitoringwells, seven were completed as intermediate monitoring wells and two were completed as deepwells. No monitoring wells were installed in the remaining two boreholes. The shallow wells werescreened at the water table, the intermediate wells were screened at depths of between 90 and 140feet, while the deep wells were screened at depths between 190 to 220 feet

During Phase 1, four shallow (approximately 45 feet deep) and two intermediate depth wells(approximately 110 feet deep) were installed. The shadow weds supplemented the existing networkof shallow weds installed by SJCC and NJDEP and were sited to provide information on lateralmigration of contaminants. The intermediate weds were installed along the estimated center of theplume at various distances from the source areas. These weds were intended to determinewhether, and where, the contaminant plume reached a depth of 90 feet

After Phase 1 results indicated that contaminants had reached a depth of 90 feet, Phase 2concentrated on delineating the plume in the 120 to 140 feet depth zone and determining the depthof plume migration. Seven wells were installed for this purpose. Five of these weds werecompleted at an approximate depth of 140 feet and two wells were completed at an approximatedepth of 220 feet

COoo

oo

2-22 £CO

2.8.1 Monitoring Well Installation

A total of four shallow, seven intermediate, and two deep monitoring wells were installed during thetwo phases of field activities at the GSC and SJCC Sites. Well locations are provided in Figure 2-9.Data related to well construction is provided in Table 2-1. The purpose of both phases of wellinstallation was to determine the extent of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of, anddowngradient from, the SJCC and GSC Sites. Existing monitoring wells were generally shallow andrelatively dose to the contaminant source locations (GSC and SJCC). For this reason, wellsinstalled during the remedial investigation were generally deeper or further downgradient than theexisting SJCC and NJDEP (Figure 2-9) monitoring wells.

With noted exceptions, all monitoring wells were dried and constructed according to EPA RegionII and NJDEP Standards under the continuous supervision of a CCJM geologist Phase 1 wellswere drilled, installed and developed by Hydro Group Inc. Phase 1 shallow monitoring wells wereinstalled by a Guspek Brat 22R dril rig using the hollow stem auger drilling method. Phase 1intermediate wells were installed by the same drill rig using the mud rotary drilling method. Thehollow stem auger drilling method is preferred because it does not require use of drilling fluids.However, based on the experience of both the Phase 1 and 2 driling subcontractors as well asCCJM staff, it was determined that the hollow stem auger method would not be effective past adepth of approximately 75 feet at the sites due to cave-in of the borehole walls. The justificationfor the depth and location for each Phase 1 well is presented in Table 2-2.

Phase 2 wells were drilled, installed and developed by Empire Sol Investigations Inc. All wells weredrilled using the mud rotary method. Drll rigs used during this effort included a Mobile B-61, aMidway 1300, a CME 75 and a CME 750. The justification for the depth and location for eachPhase 2 well is presented in Table 2-3.

CO

8oo

2-23 »

TABLE 2-1


WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARIES

EPA PHASE 1 AND 2 WELLS

SCHEMEDWELL DATE DEPTH INTERVAL DIAMETEINUMEI INSTALLED (FEET) (FEET) (INCHES)

EP IS 1/90 47 29-44 4EP 21 1/90 110 90-110 4EP 35 1/90 41 23-38 4EP 5S 1/90 a 1«-33 4EP 61 1/90 110 90-110 4EP n 1/90 40 23-37 4EP 80 2/91 225 197-222 4EP 91 2/91 140 112-137 4EP 100 2/91 215 1S7-212 4EP 111 2/91 140 112-137 4EP 121 2/91 140 112-137 4EP 131 2/91 124 96-121 4EP 141 2/91 130 102-127 4

Net*:1) All Mils arc eonstnicud of MlMduU 40 PVC, •M«pt EP-SO

•nd EP-100, MMcti «r« constructed of •ehMJul* (0 PVC.

CO8

2-24 MM00

TABLE 2-2


PHASE 1 MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND DEPTH

Monitoring Wells

PHASE 1

EP-1S

EP-2I

EP-3S

WellDepth (ft)

47

110

41

EP-5S

EP-6I

EP-7S

33

110

40

Purpose and Location

To aid in determining the source of high VOCconcentrations in soil gas samples north ofAtlantic Avenue and east of Central Avenue.

To aid in determining the depth of thecontaminant plume with distancedowngradient from the site.

To help determine the source of high VOCconcentrations in soil gas samples north ofAtlantic Avenue and east of Central Avenueand to help determine the extent of which thiscontamination is migrating. In addition, thiswell provided information regarding lateralplume migration to the east

To help determine the extent of lateral plumemigration to the west

To aid in determining the depth of thecontaminant plume downgradient from thesites.

To help determine the extent of lateral plumemigration to the east

CO

2-25 oo

TABLE 2-3


PHASE 2 MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND DEPTH

Monitoring Wells

PHASE 2

EP-8D

EP-91

EP-10D

HP-Ill

EP-121

WellDepth

225

140

215

140

140

Puroose and Location

To aid in determining the identity andconcentrations of contaminants in the vicinityof the sites at the bottom of the formation.

To aid in determining the depth of thecontaminant plume at intermediate depth withdistance downgradient of the site.

To aid in determining whether thecontaminant plume has reach the bottom ofthe formation downgradient of the sites.

To help determine the extent of lateral plumemigration to the east at intermediate depth.

To help determine the depth of thecontaminant plume with distancedowngradient of the sites.

EP-131 124 To help determine the depth of thecontaminant plume with distancedowngradient of the sites.

EP-141 130 To help determine the extent of lateral plumemigration to the west at intermediate depth.

2-26

W

8oo

0000

The casing and screen for all monitoring wells were constructed of 4-inch ID., polyvinyl chloride(PVC). EPA Region II and NJDEP generally require monitoring wells to be constructed of Type 304stainless steel. In this case, because all existing SJCC and NJDEP wells were constructed of PVC,it was decided by EPA, with concurrence from NJDEP, that PVC would be acceptable. Thisprovided for consistency in construction materials among the existing and newly-installed monitoringwells in addition to reducing the cost of the well installation task Phase 1 shallow and intermediatewell screens were 15 and 20 feet long respectively, with a 0.02 inch continuous slots. Phase 2screens were 25 feet long with 0.02 inch continuous slots. A 3-foot length of dosed casing wasadded immediately below the screened interval to serve as a sit reservoir. A one foot length ofclosed casing was used on several Phase 1 wells due to the unavattablity of three foot sections.Shallow and intermediate wells were constructed of schedule 40 PVC. The two deep wells wereconstructed of schedule 80 PVC in accordance with NJDEP requirements. Phase 1 drilling activitiesbegan on January 8, 1990 and were completed on January 30, 1990. Phase 2 drilling activitieswere initiated on February 18,1991 and were completed on March 14,1991.

A coarse-sand filter pack was placed around the screen. Initial attempts to install the sand packusing a tremie pipe were unsuccessful due to the tendency for bridging of the sand within the pipe.It was determined that letting the sand free-fall down the hole and using the tremie pipe to measurethe depth of the resulting sand pack was more effective. This method was used for all wellsinstalled during both phases of the remedial investigation. A two to three foot thick seal ofbentonite pellets was placed above the filter pack. After allowing the pellets to swell for a minimumof three hours, the remainder of the annulus was filled with a bentonite-cement grout using a tremiepipe from the top of the bentonite seal to approximately two feet below the ground surface. Thegrout consisted of one 94-pound bag of Portland cement mixed with three to five pounds ofbentonite and five to seven gallons of potable water. All wells were equipped with a protective steelcasing and locking cap. Generally, wells constructed near public roads were completed with flushmount protective casings whie wells in fields or other remote locations were completed with aprotective steel casing extending approximately two feet above ground surface. In all cases, aconcrete pad was constructed around the protective casing. The approximate dimensions of the oconcrete pads were four feet by four feet and six inches in thickness. The surface of the pads

oo

2-2700to

have a gentle slope to drain water away from the well. Monitoring well construction detals areshown in Figures 2-10 and 2-11.

Monitoring weds were developed by air surging followed by pumping with a submersible pump.Compressed air was used to force heavy sediment and water out the top of the wed. This wasfollowed by pumping using a decontaminated stainless steel submersible pump and flexiblepolyethylene tubing.

Development continued until conductivity, temperature and pH stabDized and the developmentwater was free of visible sediments.

2.8.2. Surveying of Monitoring Wells

The location and elevation surveys for monitoring wells installed at the GSC and SJCC sites wereconducted by LJppencott Engineering under separate contracts for Phase 1 and 2 wells.

Locations of each well were provided with respect to the New Jersey Plan Coordinate System andelevations were provided relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

2.8.3 Aquifer Conductivity Testing

Rising head permeablity tests were performed on all of the shallow, intermediate and deep wellsinstalled during both phases of field activity to provide estimates of hydraulic conductivity.Hydraulic conductivity is an important parameter for determining groundwater flow and contaminantmigration rates. Data were obtained using a data logger/pressure transducer system. The datawere printed at the completion of each test to determine acceptabBtty.

W

oo

2-28

LOCKING CAPAND PADLOCK

WELL CAP

VENT HOLE

CONCRETE PAD

GROUNDSURFACE

PROTECTIVE STEEL CASING 5* LONG, 6" ID

STICK-UP 2 INCHED BELOWPROTECTIVE CASING

DRAIN HOLE

BOREHOLE DIAMETER' 8"

CASING DIAMETER' 4N

MATERIAL' SCHEDULE 40 PVC

GROUT MATERIAL ' CEMENT-BENTONITE

BENTONITE PELLETS

SAND PACK MATERIAL' WELL SORTEDOTTAWA OR EQUIVALENT QUARTZ SANDSETTING' 2 ABOVE SCREEN

SCREEN MATERIAL' SCHEDULE 40 PVCLENGTH'25'OPENING SIZE: 0.020 INCHES

COUPLING: SLUSH COUPLE, SCREWIN TYPE (No «lu«s)

SUMP 3 FEET SCHEDULE 40 PVC

BOTTOM CAP

PLUG (Rtquirtd If cloy i* ptnetroted)

Co

oo

REF: NJDEP/EPA STANDARDS

S C A L ENO SCALE

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCSTJSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESSHALLOW OR INTERMEDIATE WELL

FIGURE

2-10


VENT HOLE

LOCKING CAPAND PADLOCKWELL CAP,

VENT HOLEGROUNDSURFACE

PROTECTIVE STEEL CASINO 9* LONG, 8" 10CONCRETE PAD

STICK-UP 2 INCHES BELOW PROTECTIVECASING

BOREHOLE DIAMETER* 12"OUTER CASING DIAMETER' 8"MATERIAL* SCHEDULE 80 PVC

CASING DIAMETER*4"MATERIAL' SCHEDULE 80 PVC

GROUT MATERIAL* CEMENT-BENTONITE SLURRY

BENTONITE PELLETS

SANDPACK MATERIAL* WELL SORTED OTTAWAOR EQUIVALENT QUARTZ SANDSETTING* 2 ABOVE SCREEN

SCREEN MATERIAL* SCHEDULE 80 PVCLENGTH* 25'TYPE* CONTINUOUS SLOTOPENING SIZE* 0.020 INCHES

COUPLING! FLUSH COUPLE, SCREW IN TYPE(No «!UM)

-BOTTOM CAP

PLUG (Riiqulrtd If cloy U ptnttrottd)

SUMP: 3 FEET SCHEDULE 80 PVC

toto

S C A L ENO SCALE

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCS ISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. /GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESDEEP WELL

FIGURE

2-11


During each test, a pressure transducer was placed in the well a significant distance below thestatic water level. This transducer was connected to a data logger capable of accurately recordingminute changes in water level. Next, the static water level was reduced using either a slug or airpressure method.

Using the slug method, a PVC slug was lowered into the wen until the water level was allowed toequiibrate. The slug was then quickly removed, decreasing the water level. The rate at which therecovering water level returned to its former static level was then measured by the transducer andrecorded by the data logger. This method was employed for all shallow wells because thescreened interval of these weds extended above the water table; a condition which makes use ofthe air pressure method for reducing the water level inappropriate, as the pressurized air will escapethrough the portion of the screen which is above the water table.

Using the air pressure method, a pneumatic well head assembly was placed on the well andattached with an air-tight seal. This device was connected to an air compressor. When airpressure within the well head was increased, the water level in the well was forced downward.When this altered water level stabilized, the air pressure was released and the rate at which therecovering water level returned to its former static level was measured and recorded by thetransducer/data logger assembly. This method was employed for the intermediate and deep wellsbecause the water level in the well could be lowered from 5 to 15 feet, thereby increasing thevolume of the aquifer analyzed by the test The method did not require the lowering of equipmentinto the well.

The slug method was used during testing of all Phase 1 shallow monitoring wells. At EPA's request,Phase 1 intermediate wells were tested using both the slug and air pressure methods. Hydraulicconductivity values resulting from the use of these two methods were nearly identical. The airpressure method was used for testing of all Phase 2 wells (intermediate and deep only).

2-31

CO

oo

voCO

2.8.4 Geotechnical Sampling

Split spoon samples from various portions of the study area were submitted to a laboratory for thefollowing analyses: grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, total organic carbon (TOG) and cationexchange capacity (CEC). The general purpose of this sampling effort was to provide informationconcerning the physical and chemical properties of the sols from various portions of the studyarea. Samples were collected from locations both near to, and significantly downgradient from, thesource areas. Efforts were also made to obtain samples from a variety of depths including samplesfrom both the vadose and saturated zones in order to provide a characterization of the entiresubsurface.

Results of grain size and Atterberg limit analyses are specifically useful in determining physicalcharacteristics and engineering properties of area sols. Grain size data combined withassumptions can also be used to determine a hydraulic conductivity value for comparison with theaquifer conductivity test results. Results of CEC and TOC analyses are used to estimate thepotential for contaminant attenuation to, and contaminant migration through, subsurface soBs.

•s

2.8.5 Water Level Measurements

Water levels in all SJCC, NJDEP and EPA wells were measured on three occasions during the fieldinvestigation. During the initial round, conducted in November 1989, measurements were obtainedfrom SJCC and NJDEP wells only because the EPA wells had not yet been installed. During theFebruary 1990 effort, measurements were obtained from SJCC, NJDEP and EPA Phase 1 wells.

In March 1991, measurements were obtained from all monitoring wells.

The data were used to verify the direction of groundwater flow and to develop potentiometriccontour maps. All measurements were collected within approximately 24 hours to minimizetemporal variations. Measurements were made from a surveyed reference point at each well oolocation and all measurements were referenced to a common datum (elevation above msl). Nosurveyed reference points were available for the NJDEP wells. Consequently, although

o

104fc

2-32

measurements were obtained from these wells they were not used during development of the

potentiometric surface map.

2.8.6 Groundwater Sampling

A round of groundwater samples was collected during each of the two phases of the remedialinvestigation to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination downgradient of thesites.

The first round of groundwater sampling was completed at the end of the first phase of field workand included all existing SJCC and NJDEP wells and new EPA Phase 1 wells. The second round,conducted following Phase 2 monitoring well installation, included all SJCC, NJDEP and EPA Phase1 and 2 wells. In addition, a large body of existing data was available for the SJCC wells. Datafrom these wells was carefully evaluated. Phase 1 samples were analyzed for TCL organics whilePhase 2 samples were analyzed for TCL VOAs only. Phase 2 samples were analyzed for TCLVOAs only, because no significant concentrations of non-volatile contaminants were identifiedduring analysis of Phase 1 samples. In addition, historical information concerning processesemployed at GSC and SJCC did not indicate significant use of materials containing non-volatilecompounds.

Additional samples were collected for general water quality parameter analysis during Phase 1 inorder to characterize the quality of groundwater in the area. This information was useful forevaluating the applicability of various water treatment technologies.

Procedures used for groundwater sampling were in accordance with EPA Region II and NJDEPStandard Operating Procedures (SOPs). All monitoring wells were purged approximately two weeksafter installation and before collecting the groundwater samples. Purging procedures used wereas follows:

oo

2-33

o A water level indicator was used to determine the water level in the well. Water volumewas calculated using total well depth and casing diameter.

o For four-inch diameter wells, a decontaminated submersible pump with a PVC dischargehose rinsed with certified analyte-free deionized water was used to purge the well. DuringPhase 1, a bailer was used to purge the two inch diameter wells prior to sampling. Astainless steel airlift purge pump with teflon tubing rinsed with certified analyte-freedeionized water was used for purging two inch wells during Phase 2. At NJDEP Well 2(NJ-2), a peristaltic pump and dedicated teflon tubing were used for both purging andsampling. The casing of this well was bent such that it was impossible to lower a baileror other similar device into the well. All purging equipment was decontaminated betweenwells. The decontamination procedure included cleaning the pump with soapy waterfollowed by tap water and certified analyte-free deionized water rinses.

o The pump intake was set at the static water level. When purging commenced, the pumpwas lowered until the drawdown level was in equilibrium with the pumping rate.

o The flow rate in gallons per minute was determined by the time required to fill a containerof known volume. The minimum required duration of purging was determined by dividingthree well volumes by the flow rate.

o Purging continued until conductivity, temperature and pH readings stabilized and after theminimum required duration of pumping was met

Groundwater samples were collected using a teflon bailer. Prior to sample collection, the bailerswere decontaminated in accordance with EPA Region II SOPs and were wrapped in aluminum foiluntil their next use. Bailers were lowered into t:.,= - yj using a decontaminated, stainless steel,teflon-coated wire. Sample bottles were filled directly from the bailer with as little agitation aspossible. Volatile organic samples were collected first to minimize volatilization. At locations where

oo

2-34

duplicate samples were taken, each bailer was split between the bottles to be filled. All samplingwas completed within three hours of purging. All sample bottles and preservation methodscomplied with EPA Region II SOPs.

03

8oo

2-35 Mt-<<o

3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

3.1 SURFACE FEATURES

The site topography in the vicinity of the SJCC faciity is flat with no predominant slope direction.

Surface elevations on the SJCC property range from approximately 120 to 123 feet, NationalGeodetic Vertical Datum (IMGVD), (Figure 3-1). A line of the Central Railroad runs adjacent to thenorthwest property boundary of SJCC. The track grade is approximately one to three feet belowthe elevation of the SJCC property. Two buidings are located on the SJCC property, one is theabandoned, bumed-out manufacturing building in the northeast comer of the site. This building,near the area of suspected contamination has an area of approximately 16,000 square feet. Theother building is located in the western portion of the site and is currently used for active

operations. In addition, two single family residences are located along Central Avenue just southof the abandoned SJCC manufacturing building. The building nearest to the SJCC building wasoccupied during the site investigation.

The topography at the GSC site is also flat Surface elevations range from approximately 121 to122 feet NGVD, (Figure 3-1). There is one small building on the GSC property that is used for drycleaning operations.

No surface water features are present in the vicinity of either of the sites. The nearest surfacewater is a stream called Deep Run, located approximately 1.2 mOes northeast of the sites. Stormdrains collect runoff from Minotola and discharge to Deep Run. The nearest catch basin isreported to be approximately 600 feet from SJCC but does not appear to receive runoff from thesite. Deep Run empties into Pancoast Lake. Surface water runoff at SJCC apparently flows intoa drainage ditch along the railroad tracks adjacent to the property and subsequently percolates intothe soi.

CO

8oo

3-1VO00


GARDENSTATECLEANERS

chads—

' ..:

BOUNDARY OF SITEINVESTIGATION AREA

SOURCE; USGS BUENA QUADRANGLE. NJ 7.5 MINUTE SERIES I

ARCS IISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTOPOGRAPHY MAP

DATEJUNE 1991 SGC 001 1199

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C. 3-2

GSC is located on a small piece of property, a significant portion of which is occupied by the GSCbuilding which has an approximate area of 1,800 square feet. Consequently, only a small area isavailable for surface run-off. Based on the flat topography of the area and visual observations atthe site, it appears that any surface water run-off in the vicinity of GSC would inffltrate at, or near,where it falls.

3.2 METEOROLOGY

Buena Borough has a humid, temperate climate. The area is substantially influenced by thetempering effects of the ocean. The average daily maximum and minimum temperatures forJanuary are 43 and 25°F, respectively. The average daily maximum and minimum temperaturesfor July are 88 and 64°F, respectively. The length of the growing season is 192 days. The averagedate of the last killing frost is May 7, and that of the first is October 2. Generally, temperatures donot remain low for a sufficient period of time to freeze the soil deeply.

The average annual precipitation is 44.1 inches per year. Monthly rainfall averages indicate a fairlyeven distribution per month with slightly more rainfall in the summer months due to thunderstorms.

Nearly every year, there are periods when rainfall is inadequate and irrigation is required foragriculture. The average annual snowfall is 16 inches per year. The average number of days peryear with snow cover is 12.

Most winds during the winter and early spring blow from the northwest Wind duration and velocityare greatest in March. Coastal storms are responsible for high winds during the summer and occurprimarily from the southwest (Gale Research Company, 1987).

oo

N>OO

3-3

3.3 GEOLOGY

3.3.1 Regional Geology

The GSC and SJCC sites are located in the New Jersey Coastal Plain which is underlain by awedge-shaped mass of unconsolidated sediments composed of thousands of feet of day, slit, sandand gravel layers. The entire sediment wedge is considered an independent and isolated hydrologicsystem, bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Delaware River, and the rocky Appalachian Highlandsof Northern New Jersey (Vowinkel and Foster, 1981). Figure 3-2 presents a general regionalhydrogeologic cross-section. The cross-section is located about 40 miles northeast of Vineland,NJ.

The aquifer beneath the sites is the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System, comprised of the Tertiary-age Cohansey Sand and the underlying Miocene-age Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System underlies approximately 3,000 square miles of the New Jersey CoastalPlain. The basal surface for this water table aquifer is the top of a day bed lying within theKirkwood Formation. This day bed lies approximately 270 feet below the ground surface, at anelevation of approximately -155 feet mean sea level (msl) (Zapecza, 1984).

Existing below the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System are four additional major aquifer systemsand confining beds, which are shown on Figure 3-2. The thickness of the sediments comprisingthese aquifers is just under 1,000 feet Generally, the sediments dip gently to the southeast andwere deposited from the lower Cretaceous Period through the middle Eocene Epoch. The RaritanFormation is the lower-most unconsolidated formation in the section. Underlying the RaritanFormation is consolidated bedrock consisting of Precambrian to Paleozoic-age igneous andmetamorphic rocks.

oo

3-4

rett«oo-i

SEALEVEL

•100-

-4OO-

-•00-

••00-

-1000-

-ItOO-

•1400-

A

-IBOO-

2OOO-

-MOO-

5-105 5-4405-388 5-683 5-676

29-547

A-A* LINE OFSECTION

N

-SITE

-100

'LEVEL

—too

--400

-••00

--•00

'1000

--itoo

--I400

--•00

--ttoo

HORIZONTAL SCALE0 « 4 MILES

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION St.l

SOURCE • MODIFIED FROM ZAPECZA, 1964

S C A L EAS SHOWN

D A T EMAY 1991

ARCS II

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITES

REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION

FIGURE

3-2

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C. ZQZl 100

The Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer is one of the most widely used aquifers in the state and is tappedby wells for domestic use, industrial use, public water supply, and irrigation. Reported well yieldsvary from 10 to 1,440 gpm. The maximum yield reported from the Buena area was approximately200 gpm. Reported specific capacities of these wells range from 2.4 to 43 gpm per foot drawdown(USGS, 1968).

3.3.2. Site Geology

Two hydrogeologic cross-sections were constructed from the lithologic and geophysical logs of theboreholes drilled during the remedial investigation and they extend north to south and east to westacross the downgradient portion of the aquifer that was found to contain site-related contaminants.These cross sections were correlated with geophysical and lithologic logs of other site monitoringwells, constructed by the SJCC and the NJDEP. The lithologic logs for the remedial investigationsoil borings are provided in Appendix A, and were derived from field descriptions of soil boringsamples. The geophysical logs are all natural gamma logs of the EPA, SJCC and NJDEP wells andan irrigation well, and are provided in Appendix B. The location and depth of the irrigation wellis shown oh Figure 2-5. Figure 3-3 provides the locations of the cross sections which are shownin Figures 3-4 and 3-5 as, respectively, cross sections A-A* and B-B'.

The hydrogeologic units shown in the cross sections are comprised of sediments which havedistinct hydrogeologic properties. Groundwater within individual units wPI likely have different flowrates relative to the adjacent units. x

The shallowest hydrogeologic unit, unit 1, extends from the ground surface (approximately 120 feetmsl) down to 50 feet msl. The water table is found at approximately 100 feet msl. The saturatedportion of the unit is composed of medium to coarse sand with little silt Poorly sorted fine tocoarse sand and discontinuous layers and lenses of day were generally found within the upper halfof the unit, between the ground surface and the water table.

CO

8o

3-6 2

MtoO00

SOUTH JERSEYSB-6 CLOTHING CO.

ATLANTIC AVENUE



MARTINELLI AVE

LEARY SCHOOL WELLEP-IIIB'

• IRRIGATION WELLCOARI AVENUECLEARY SCHOOL

D• NJ4,NJ5 (DEP-I2I

SOUTH AVENUE

WHEAT ROAD

A "ERA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS AND SOILBORINGS

O-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLS

O 7-SJCC MONITORING WELL• NJI-NJDEP MONITORING WELL

NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE 3-4 FOR CROSSSECTION A-A1

REFER TO FIGURE 5-5 FOR CROSSSECTION B-B1

SCALEI" - 500'

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESCROSS SECTION LOCATIONS

DATEAPRIL 1991


"1«o-4

•0-

TO-

M-

M

4O

10

'I10-1

IttSLO

•10 •

-1•10-1

•4O

•son•to•10

••on•t»J

no•40 •

•MO-

ATLANTIC AVI.fUMMCM

AVI.

TO-2« TO-24

COdo

-MCIFK /-ANTIC AVI.AVI. /

/ /— MANTMILLIEP-'9I / »«• Ep.6|IZ0.6 /_______ijLlr -WMAT AVC.

TO-142

X-SeCTON LEGEND

HYOMOMOLMK UNITS

COMM BAND «M> NOM.V (OUTIO 'ME TO COMIH•*HO (MTN LITTU TO MM ««-T ANO CtAY, ANDOMCONTMUOU* LATtM AW UMMI OF CtA» OH MAVCt.

fWi TO MOHM UNO WITH LITTLC TO MM! SILT.

~g CUAt AM ALTIMUTMC LAVIM Of FMC TO MCOWM|H> MNO AMD CLAY.

FlUt TO MtMUM (AND MTH UTTlf TO MM WLT.WCHUMN MOMATKW Of MtT WITH OCPTN.

TO - TOTAL KPTN OT MMNOU«_-«NTIM TAHI

TO-II2

VENTKAL.

100 D3SNOTE: sec r« «-i FON

LOCATION OFCMOIS SICTION

TO-232

-«—I I .1—»—sooNOIIIIONTAL

MALI

SCALEAS SHOWN

DATEMAY Ittl

co-/aAR06MHYOR06EOL06ICAL CROSS SECTION A-A1

FMUMC

3-4

TO-

•O-

•O-

40-

•0-

10-

IO-

e-•»-•«o-•M-

-«O-

•TO-

CtHTML «M EP-6I

BEP-III113.9

DEPTH Of LITHOLMTMLOW E»-OIMTI«-MH.ATIO r«0«l »-»'.

VtHTICM.KALE

NOTI: MC no. I-S FMLOCATION VCNMI MCTMM

X-SECTION LEGEND

HYOROGEOLOGIC UNITS

COARSE SANO AND FOOM.Y SORTED HUE TO COARSE•AMD WITH LITTLE TO SOME SILT AND CLAY. ANDDISCONTINUOUS LAYERS AND LENSES OF CLAY OR ORAVEt

rim TO MEDIUM SAND WITH LITTLE TO SOME SILT.

2^, CLAY AND ALTERNATING LAYERS Or FINE TO MEDIUMr-I-_ SAND ANO CLAT.

riNE TO MEDIUM SANO WITH LITTLE TO SOME SILT,INCREASING PROPORTION OF SILT WITH DEPTH.

TD - TOTAL DEPTH OF •OftCHOLE_B_-WATER TABLE

9OO'HORIZONTAL

SCALE .

SCALEAS SHOWN

DATEMAY 1991

9QZI TOO

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GAROEN STATECLEANERS SITESHYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION B-B1

FIGURE

3-5

All of the monitoring wells at the site penetrate unit 1. AH of the shallow water table weds wereconstructed within the unit, including the SJCC wells, the NJDEP wells and the shallow EPA wells.Thus, a large amount of geophysical and lithological information is avaiable on this unit No daylayer, or a layer comprised of a day matrix, can be correlated between any wells over thehorizontal extent of the unit The day layers that were found were generally less than 0.5 feet thick,although two layers, found at EP-6I and EP-10D, were approximately two feet thick. Verticalgroundwater flow within the unsaturated soils is likely to be slowed by the discontinuous daylayers and layers comprised of a day matrix.

The second hydrogeologic unit, unit 2, is comprised of medium to fine sand with little to some sitThe unit has discontinuous layers of medium to coarse sand and thin lenses of gray silt or day.This unit is found between 50 feet msl and approximately -10 feet msl. Groundwater is likely toflow slower in unit 2 than in unit 1 as the saturated portion of unit 1 is comprised of coarsersediments.

Unit 3 is comprised of fine to medium sand and day. The unit is found between approximately•10 feet and approximately -30 feet msl. Beneath EP-10D this unit appears to extend to -70 feet

msl. Beneath the north end of the site between EP-8D and EP-9I, the unit is comprised ofalternating layers of fine to medium sand and day, and may extend north beneath the GSC andSJCC facilities, although no wells of sufficient depth are available near the sites confirm thepresence of the unit

Unit 3 is comprised of day at EP-121 and EP-131. At EP-10D the unit is comprised of 20 feet ofday and alternating layers of medium to fine sand and day. The top of the day layer at EP-10Dis found at a lower elevation than the day identified in EP-131 which indicates that unit 3 cannot bepositively correlated between the two boreholes. The thickness, elevation and lithotogy of unit 3

CO

8oo

3-10

varies across the site so it is not likely that the layer is impermeable to the movement ofgroundwater and contamination. Vertical groundwater flow may be slowed by unit 3. All of theintermediate EPA wells were completed within units 2 and 3.

Unit 4 is comprised of medium to fine sand with little to some s9t and occasional lenses of sUt andday, similar to the (ethology of unit 2. Beneath EP-8D, the percentage fraction of sit in the lithologyincreases with depth from 10% to greater than 30%. The lithology of this unit is uncertain as it waspenetrated by only two boreholes, EP-8D and EP-10D. The top of the unit is found atapproximately -30 feet msl, although it is found at -70 feet msl beneath EP-10D. The elevation ofthe bottom of unit 4 is not known, though it is likely below -130 feet msl, the deepest elevationreached in EP-8D and EP-10D. Alternating layers of medium to fine sand and day were found atthe bottom of both EP-8D and EP-10D and may indicate a change in lithology below -115 feet msl.Groundwater flow within unit 4 is likely to be slower than in unit 2 due to the greater fraction of siltand the possible presence of day layers below -115 feet msl. The bottom of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System likely occurs at -150 msl (Zapecza, 1984).

3.3.3 Geochemical and Geotechnical Characteristics

Soil boring samples collected in shallow, intermediate, and deep boreholes were analyzed for totalorganic carbon (TOC) and cation exchange capacity (CEC). These analytical results provideinformation on the geochemical properties of the soD and the aquifer. Soil boring samples werealso analyzed for grain size and Atterberg limits, providing information on the geotechnicalparameters of the soil. The TOC and CEC data are presented in Table 3-1. The grain size analysisand other geotechnical data for the soil boring samples are presented in Table 3-2.

Five TOC samples were taken from hydrogeologic unit 1. The highest and lowest TOC analyticalresults from unit 1 were 500 mg/kg and <100 ug/kg, respectively. Two TOC samples were taken wfrom unit 2, and the values were 180 ug/kg and 350 ug/kg. Two TOC samples were taken from ounit 4, and the values were 703 ug/kg and 1,363 ug/kg. 0

o

3-11

too00

TABLE 3-1


TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC), CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) RESULTS

PARAMETERS

TOC

CEC

SAMPLE LOCATION)

LAB NUMBER...............

DEPTH (ft.)

HYDROGEOLOGICUNIT

...............

UNITS

•g/kg

MO/IOOo.

SB-01.........5197B-3

40-42

1

<100

0.47

SB-02

51978-2.........

70-72

2

.........

350

0.66

SB-03.........51978-4.........

38-40

1

<100

0.14

SB-06

51978-1.........

95-97.........

2

.........

1BO

0.97

SB-07.........51978-5.........

20-22

1

190

0.10

SB-OB.........

51978-6.........

4-6

1

320

2 J

SB-09

5197B-7.........

4-6

1

.........

500

0.59 J

SB-080.........60868-72

210-212

4

.........

703

•

SB- 100

6086B-71.........

205-207

4

1,363

•

SB-080

60868-69.........

210-212.........

4

.........

•

2.6

SB- 100

6086B-66.........205-207

4

•

3.3

Not*:• • Not Analyzed

6021 TOO

TABLE 3-2


GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Lib Nusfcar:Saapla Location:

Data Saaplad:Dapth (ft):

Hydrogaologlc Unit:

52308-04SB -0101/18/9020-22

1

52308-02SB-0201/11/9065-67

1

52308-05SB-0301/22/9010-12

1

52308-03SB-0501/17/9025-27

1

52308-01SB-0601/09/9095-97

2

52308-06SB-0801/26/900-2

1

60868-70SB-8002/22/91215-217

4

60868-67SB -10003/04/91215-217

4

Nona

Non-Plastic Non-Plastic Non-Plastic

Co•JkCO 3.0

4.068.016.03.85.2

0.01.05.0

72.011.011.0

9.00.0

62.014.05.29.8

3.011.070.08.52.15.5

0.00.0

43.051.03.52.5

18.08.0

26.021.013.813.2

0.06.0

26.057.05.06.0

0.01.0

27.060.04.08.0

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC INDEX

X LITHOL06IC CLASS

Gravel (4.76 M to 76.2 M)Coarsa Sand (2.00 M to 4.76 M)Madius Sand (0.25 M to 2.00 M)Fina Sand (0.075 M to 0.25 M)Silt (0.003 M to 0.075 M)Clay (<0.003 M)

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) (Datarainad from grain siza distribution)

METHOD: Fair-Hatch Equation fro* Fraaza t Charry, 1979

1C (c»/»): 4.77E-03 1.39E-03 3.84E-03

CLAY HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST

Lab Nuatoar: 60868-73Sanpla Location: SB-8D

Data Saiplad: 2/25/91Dapth (ft): 242-244

Hydrogaologle Unit: 4

K (cm/*): 2.90E-08

OT2I TOO DOS

18

1 Non-Plattie

20

8

1.83E-02 3.93E-03 1.53E-03

Non-Plastic

2.02E-03

38

13

2.01E-03

Four CEC samples were taken from hydrogedogic unit 1, the highest and lowest CEC analyticalresults from unit 1 were 0.1 meq/100 g and 2 meq/100 g, respectively. Two CEC samples weretaken from unit 2, and the values were 0.66 meq/100 g and 0.97 meq/100 g. Two CEC sampleswere taken from unit 4, and the values were 2.6 meq/100 g and 3.3 meq/100 g.

The geotechnical analysis shows that most of the samples had low or no liquid limit or plasticity.The sol grain size distribution test results have been converted to lithdogic classes. The hydraulicconductivity of the samples was estimated in an analysis of the grain size distribution data, usingthe Fair-Hatch Equation (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p. 351). This data is shown on Table 3-2 andwill be discussed in the Hydrogedogy section, and the calculations are presented in Appendix C.A sample of the day in unit 4 taken from a depth of 242 feet at EP-8D was submitted forgeotechnical analysis and was found to have a hydraulic conductivity (K) of 2.9 x 10"* cm/s (Table3-2).

3.4 SOILS

The dominant sol types in the vicinity of the sites are the Aura-Downer-Hammonton units. TheAura series consists of nearly-level or gently-sloping, well-drained, loamy sols that have firm,gravelly, sandy, day loam in the lower part of the subsol. These sols are on the highest hlltopsand divides of the area. They are underlain by thick, crossbedded sand or gravel deposits.

Sols in this area are described as loamy sand, sandy loam and gravely sand and have beenclassified as SM, SP, and SP-SM under the Unified Sol Classification System. The Atlantic CountySol Survey describes the typical sol in this series as having the foiowing components: sand (70%),sit (20%), and gravel (10%). The general description does not account for the localized presenceof matrix day and day lenses in sol at some locations near the sites. The fines have beendassified as non-plastic.

en

oo

3-14

These soils have medium natural fertility and moderate organic content The Aura soils are very

acidic with an average pH of 4.5. Natural sol moisture is about ten percent and varies greatly withrainfall events. The Aura and Downer are naturally well drained due to their generally high sandcontent although this may vary in localized areas with high day content or day lenses present

Surface vegetation of SJCC is fairly light and consists mainly of weeds with sandy soil visible overmuch of the area. Surface vegetation at GSC consists primarily of grass. Although vegetation islight, erosion is not appreciable because the topography is flat at both sites.

3.5 HYDROGEOLOGY

This section presents the results of the aquifer test and water level measurements performed during

Phases 1 and 2 of the Rl at the GSC and SJCC sites. Vertical and horizontal groundwatergradients and flow velocities were calculated using the Phase 2 water level measurement results.

3.5.1 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Tests

The Bouwer and Rice method (Bouwer, 1989) was used to analyze the aquifer test data. This

method is valid for fully or partially - penetrating wells in unconfined aquifers. Hydraulic conductivity(K) values were calculated from the rising head test results. The values for the hydraulicconductivity are presented in Table 3-3. There is no definite pattern in the range of hydraulic

conductivity values. For Phase 1 wells, the values range from 4.01 x 10* to 5.14 x 10"* cm/sec.

For Phase 2 wells the values range from 6.46 x 10"* to 6.05 x 10"* cm/sec. The rising head testgraphs are presented in Appendix D. The hydraulic conductivity (K) results based on the grain size

analysis data (Table 3-2) are generally in the same orders of magnitude (10*2 to 10*3 cm/sec) as the

results of the rising head test data. The values from the grain size analysis range from 1.83 x 10"2

to 1.39x1 0* cm/sec.

N)3-15

TABLE 3-3

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY/GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITE

FIELD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

TEST RESULTS

Phasa 1

1

CO

O)

Monitoring IMl Location

...............................To>t Oat*Tast •Tast TypsMydrogaologie Unit

Hydraulic Conductivity (K)K (FT/MIN)-K (CM/SEC >•

Phaaa 2

Monitoring Wall Location

...............................Tost DataTast fTait TypaHydrogaologlc Unit

Hydraulic Conductivity (K)K (FT/MIN).K (CM/SEC)*

EP-1S

............2/23/90TOSlug1

0.0022291.13E-03

EP-80

4/12/91TSAir4

0.0033751.71E-03

EP-21

2/27/90TOAir2

0.0066073.36E-03

EP-91

4/11/91TO

Air2.3

0.0127136.46E-03

EP-21

—— —— ...2/28/90

T4Slug2

0.0073563.74E-03

EP-100

4/12/91T6

Air4

0.0040312.05E-03

EP-3S

2/23/90T2Slug1

0.02356B1.20E-02

EP-111

4/11/91T2

Air2,5

0.0011916.05E-04

EP-5S

2/23/90T3Slug1

0.0790284.01E-02

IP- 121

. ————— ..4/11/91

T1Air2,3

0.01001S.09E-03

EP-6I

2/27/90T2Air2

0.0010125.14E-04

EP-131

4/12/91T4

Air2

0.0025411.29E-03

EP-61

2/28/90T5Slug2

0.0011035.61E-04

EP-141

4/12/91T3

Air2

0.012556.38E-03

EP-7S

2/23/90T4Slug1

0.0029151.48E-03

NOTE: Tha graphs of tha rising hoad tast data ara includad in tha Appandloas

TOO DOS

3.5.2 Water Levels and Groundwater Flow

Water level measurements were taken at the sites on two separate occasions. Phase 1 water levelmeasurements were taken for all EPA Phase 1, SJCC and GSC monitoring wells on February 12,1990. Phase 2 measurements were taken on March 20, 1991 for EPA's Phase 1 and Phase 2,SJCC and GSC monitoring wells. The surveyed elevations used to analyze and prepare thegroundwater elevations, groundwater contour map and hydraulic gradients were provided byUppencott Engineering Inc. These elevations are relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

Groundwater contour maps were developed for all shallow, intermediate and deep wells at the siteexcept for the NJDEP wells (no surveyed elevations were avaiable). Monitoring wells were definedas shallow, intermediate and deep based on the depth in which their respective screens wereinstalled. All shallow wells were screened at the water table aquifer, within hydrogeologic unit 1(see Section 3.3). The water table at the sites is approximately 25 to 30 feet below ground surface,approximately 100 feet msl (all SJCC wells are shallow monitoring wells). The intermediate wellswere screened within hydrogeologic units 2 and 3, whle the deep wells were screened withinhydrogeologic unit 4.

As discussed in Chapter 1, SJCC Wells 3A, 11 and 12 are operating as extraction wells, pumpingbetween 10 and 15 gallons per minute. SJCC Well 4A is an injection well, injecting approximately25 gpm. SJCC Well 8 is also an extraction well, but it is not presently being operated. Theextraction well system is operated by SJCC.

The Phase 1 groundwater level data is presented an Table 3-4. The groundwater contour mapis shown on Figure 3-6, and includes both the shallow and intermediate EPA Phase 1 weds, andthe SJCC wells. SJCC wells 3A, 4A, 8, 11, and 12 contain pumping equipment and have noaccess ports for water level measurements, so water levels are not reported for these wells.

CO

8oo

3-17

TABLE 3-4


PHASE 1 GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA

FEBRUARY 1990

HELLNUMBER

MV-EP-1SMU-EP-2IMW-EP-3S

IMW-EP-SSJMM-EP-6IJMM-EP-7SJNU-SJ-1JMf-SJ-2|MW-SJ-3JMW-SJ-4(MW-SJ-5MW-SJ-6NU-SJ-7MU-SJ-9MV-SJ-10

INNER CASINGELEVATION

(MSL FT)

126.34126.07123.32117.27121.42115.88124.89123.41121.80119.01125.28122.67125.72123.13120.45

DEPTH TOGROUNMMTER

FROMINNER CASING

(FT)

27.0227.3024.7718.9824.1818.6626.9525.2022.5418.3526.4724.2527.3824.6822.64

GROUNOUATERELEVATION

(MSL FT)

99.3298.7798.5598.2997.2497.2297.9498.2199.26

100.6698.8198.4298.3498.4597.81

Noto:(1) SJ - SJCC Veils(2) EP - EPA Wells(3) S - Shallow Monitoring(4) I - Intermediate Monitoring (toll(5) Wells SJ-3A,4A,8,11 and 12 contain puaping •quiptwnt

and aooaM for iiatarlav*! prob* MM not available(6) U»U EP-4 was net installed(7) Water levels obtained February 12, 1990

oo

3-18

10!-•UI

NOTE: ISEE TABLE 3-4 FOR WELL IDATA '

LEGEND07-SJCC MONITORING WELL

X -EXTRACTION WELLN -INJECTION WELL

A -ERA PHASE I WELLX -INTERMEDIATE WELL

NA-NOT ACCESSIBLE-98--GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

97. 24

CLEARY SCHOOLD

A 97. 22 CO

oo

N>

WHEAT ROAD

S C A L EI*- 3001

D A T Ei JULY (991

ARCS ITSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESGROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP, PHASE I, 2-12-90

IGURE

3-6


The Phase 1 groundwater map shows that the water levels generally decrease toward the southeastindicating that groundwater moves northwest to southeast across the site. The groundwatercontours near the SJCC extraction and injection wells deviate from the general southeast flow. Twocones of depression, defined by the 98.5 feet msl contour line, are found around SJCC well 3A,and around SJCC Weds 11 and 12. The water level around SJCC Well 4A is higher than theadjacent weds, and is likely due to the injection of water at the weU. The axis of the cone ofdepression between SJCC Wells 11 and 12 appears to extend between these two wells.Groundwater contours upgradient (99 feet msl) and downgradierrt (98.5 feet msl) appear to deviatefrom a northeast-southwest trend due to the influence of the extraction and injection wells.

The Phase 2 groundwater level data is presented in Table 3-5. The groundwater contour map isshown on Figure 3-7, and includes both the shallow and medium EPA Phase 1 and 2 wells, andthe SJCC wells. As in Phase 1, water levels could not be obtained for SJCC Wells 3A, 4A, 8, 11and 12.

As in Phase 1, the Phase 2 groundwater map shows that the water levels generally decreasetoward the southeast confirming a northwest to southeast flow across the site. The groundwatercontours near the SJCC extraction and injection wells, as in Phase 1, deviate from the generalsoutheast flow. A cone of depression, defined by the 98.5 feet msl contour line, is found aroundSJCC Wells 11 and 12. The water table elevation around SJCC well 4A is higher than the adjacentwells, and is likely due to the injection of water at the wed. A cone of depression likely existsaround SJCC Well 3A, as shown in the groundwater contour map, but is not observed in theadjacent wells. The axis of the cone of depression between SJCC wells 11 and 12, as in Phase1, appears to extend between these wells. Groundwater contours upgradient (99 feet msl) anddowngradierrt (98.5 feet msl) appear to deviate from a normal northeast to southwest trend due tothe influence of the extraction wells.

en

oo

3-20 MtoM-J

TABLE 3-5


PHASE 2 GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA

MARCH 1991

WELLNUMBER

MW-EP-1SMW-EP-2IMW-EP-3SMW-EP-5SJNW-EP-61IMW-EP-TSMW-EP-8DMW-EP-9JNU-EP-100NU-EP-11INU-EP-12IJNW-EP-13IJHU-EP-UIJHW-SJ-1JMW-SJ-2JMW-SJ-3JMW-SJ-4JMU-SJ-5JMW-SJ-6MW-SJ-7MW-SJ-9MW-SJ-10

INNER CASINGELEVATION(HSL FT)

126.54126.07123.32117.27121.42115.88126.07120.30103.66115.55114.48102.80111.22124.89123.41121.80119.0112S.28122.67125.72123.13120.45

DEPTH TOCROUNDUATER

FROMINNER CASING

(FT)

27.0027.2124.6618.7524.0018.5827.4222.0110.3318.5217.837.5214.0025.7524.5422.5017.5026.4524.2527.2023.5822.42

GROUNDUATERELEVATION(MSL FT)

99.3498.8698.6698.5297.4297.3098.6598.2993.3397.0396.6595.2897.2299.1498.8799.30101.5198.8398.4298.5299.5598.03

Nota:(1) EP • EPA wall*(2) SJ - SJCC tells(3) S - Shallow Monitoring Well(4) I • IntarMdiata Monitoring Uall(5) D • Oaap Monitoring Wall(6) Wall* SJ-3A,4A,8,11 and 12 contain punping aqgipMnt

and accas* for watar laval proba was not available(7) Mall EP-4 was not inatallad(8) Uatar lavals obtainad on March 20, 1991

3-21

COaooo

toM00

PACIFIC

101.51•100

499-34SgTLANTIC AVENUE 99

V.—96.5

\96-52 SUMME*

X

AVENUE

98.42-2 *-x34198.86

3NA

AVENUE

A96.66

ARCTIC

98.5

AVENUE 96.03-«r*vj

JONAS

WILLIAMS

98.52,A-

AVENUE

198.29

MARTINELU.AVE.*•* 97.5

AVENUE

QI97.22

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

NOTE: SEE TA6LE 3'5 FOR WELL DATA

LEGEND

07-SJCC MONITORING WELLX -EXTRACTION WELLN - INJECTION WELLA-ERA PHASE I WELLQ-EPA PHASE 2 WELLI -INTERMEDIATE WELL

NA-NOT ACCESSIBLE— 98——GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MSL

CLEARY SCHOOLD

0196.65 96.5

LOU8

96

^^ --95.5

SCALEI". 500'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS TISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITES

FIGURE

3-7

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P .C .

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP, PHASE 2, 3" 20- 91SGC 001 1219

3-22

The horizontal and vertical velocities of the groundwater were determined from the Phase 2 waterlevel measurements and the vertical and horizontal spacing of the SJCC and EPA wells. Thehorizontal groundwater velocity was determined from the difference in water levels (dh) and thehorizontal distance (L) between EP-3S and EP-7S, using a form of Darcy's Law (V=K ((dh/L)/n).The hydraulic conductivity (K) was taken as the average of the rising head test results (Table 3-3)for the two wells, and the porosity (n) was estimated to be 0.30, an average porosity for sands(Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p. 37). The difference in the water levels of EP-3S (98.66 feet msl) andEP-7S (97.3 feet msl) is 1.36 feet and they are separated by a horizontal distance of 1300 feetThe resultant horizontal gradient is 1 x 10*. The vertical groundwater velocity was determined fromthe difference in water levels (dh) and the difference in elevations (msl) of the centers of the wellscreens (dx) of three pairs of wells using a version of Darcy's Law (V = K1 ((dh/dx)/n), where n= 0.30. Each pair of wells consists of two adjacent wells, separated by a maximum horizontaldistance of 15 feet that are screened in different elevations of the aquifer. The three pairs providevalues for the groundwater velocity between shallow and intermediate wells (SJ-10 and EP-9I, EP-7S and EP-111) and between intermediate and deep wells (EP-21 and EP-8D). Unconsolidatedsediments have a lower hydraulic conductivity in the vertical direction than in the horizontaldirection. The hydraulic conductivity (K') for vertical flow was calculated to be one-tenth of theaverage of the rising head test results (Table 3-3) for each well pair (EPA, 1987, p.74). The verticalgradients for the three well pairs are shown in Table 3-6, and the vertical and horizontalgroundwater velocities are shown in Table 3-7. The horizontal groundwater velocity wasdetermined to be 6.36 x 10* ft/day. The vertical groundwater velocities between the shallow andintermediate wells were 2.57 x 10* ft/day (SJ-10 and EP-9I) and 3.31 x 10* ft/day (EP-7S and EP-111). The vertical groundwater velocities between the intermediate and deep well pair was 5.63 x10* ft/day. The direction of vertical groundwater flow was downward at EP-7S and EP-1 11, andat EP-21 and EP-8D. The direction of vertical groundwater flow was upward at SJ-10 and EP-9I.The horizontal groundwater velocity (6.36 x 10* ft/day) is approximately three to ten times greaterthan the vertical velocity.

oo

CO

3-23 °

TABLE 3-6


VERTICAL GRADIENT

SHALLOW. INTERMEDIATE AND DEEP WELLS

Well Niflber

......................

j Sallow / Intermediate

|SJ-10, EP-91

IEP-TS, Ep-iuI(Intermediate / Deep

I|EP-2I, EP-80I

Screened Elevation(Nil.)

x1

83.55

71.38

6.07

———x2

..........

•4.20

-8.95

-83.43

Mater Levels(HSL)

hi

98.03

97.30

98.86

h2..........

98.29

97.03

98.65

Vertical Gradient

h2-h1 / x2-x1

2.96E-03

-3.36E-03

-2.35E-03

NOTES; D - DMp MilS • Shallow n»UI - Intermediate wellEP - EPA wllSJ - South Jar«^ Clothing Company Hallx - Elevation of center of nail screenh - Elevation of water levelA negative sign preoaeding the gradient

indicate* a downward direction

cn

oo

10

3-24

TABLE 3-7


HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL VELOCITIES

03

| HORIZONTAL VELOCITY

...........................

EP-38, EP-7S

...........................VERTICAL VELOCITY

...........................

Shallow / Intermediate|SJ-10, EP-91IEP-TS, EP-ni1| Intermediate / DeepJEP-21, EP-801

K (ft/Min)(average)

1.32E-02

K' (ft/Bin)(average)

1.81E-032.05E-04

4.99E-04

K (ft/day)(average)

..................

19.0678

K' (ft/day)(average)

..................

2.60640.2952

0.7187

Gradientdh / L

1.00E-03

Gradientdh / dx

2.96E-03-3.36E-03

-2.35E-03

Porosity(n)

..................

0.30

Porosity(n)

0.300.30

0.30

Velocity(ft/day)

6.36E-02

Velocity(ft/day)

2.57E-023.31E-03

S.63E-03

Notea:Principel Eopation: Velocity » K (dh/dx)/nHorizontal K values are the average of the Mils' rising heed test resultsVertical K' values are the average of the wells' rising head test results Multiplied by 0.10SJ-10 K value Mas essuaed to be the sea* as EP-3SSJ- South Jersey Clothing Company wellsEP- EPA WellsS-ShallowI-Intermediate0-DeepA negative sign proceeding the vertical gradient indicates a downward flow

100

3.6 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE

According to the 1984 census, 3,775 people reside within Buena Borough. Less than half of thesepeople live downgradient (south) of the sites. The area downgradient (south) of the sites isprimarty a residential and light commercial area, deary Junior High School is locatedapproximately 2,000 feet south of the sites. There is a recreational area adjacent to the school.The area in and around Buena Borough is used for agriculture and is irrigated. Only one irrigationwell is known to exist between the sites and Wheat Road.

The SJCC property is adjacent to a retirement community, a municipal bulding and a recreationarea to the north and single famiy homes and small businesses in all other directions. Two singlefamily dwellings are immediately south (downgradient) of the SJCC abandoned manufacturingbuilding. No access restrictions are currently in place at SJCC and site trespassers are free totravel through the area of sol contamination.

The GSC property is surrounded by residential dwellings and small commercial establishments.Currently, no measures have been taken to restrict access to the area of sol contamination atGSC.

All residents in the vicinity of SJCC and GSC are connected to a municipal water supply. The twoweds which provide water for the municipal supply are located approximately 2,000 feet northeast(generally upgradient) of the sites. The nearest downgradient (south) residents who usegroundwater from private wefls as a potable water source reside on Vine Avenue which is morethan 4,000 feet downgradient of the sites. The contaminated groundwater plume is estimated toextend approximately 3000 feet downgradient of the sites.

When the public water supply system was installed in Minotota in 1985, many of the existing privatewells were sealed. However, sealing of existing wells was not a requirement for connection to the

COmunicipal water system and no records were maintained indicating which weds had been sealed $and which remained operational. 0

o

3-26 toto

To collect additional information regarding the condition (sealed or open) and use, if any, of the

residential wells in the site area, an aquifer use survey was conducted in Minotola. The boundariesof the survey area were SJCC to the north, Wheat Road to the south, Cass Avenue to the East andWest Avenue to the west Information was requested concerning well construction detais and useof well water. Results of the survey are as follow:

o 162 surveys were distributed.

o 62 completed or partially-completed surveys were received.

o 49 respondents indicated that their wells were sealed when their homes wereconnected to the municipal water supply system.

o 7 respondents did not know whether their wells were sealed or not but indicatedthat they did not use well water for any purpose.

o 6 respondents indicated that they were using their well water for non-consumptivepurposes such as lawn watering or car washing.

Results of the survey indicate that water from residential wells is used on a limited basis for non-consumptive purposes.

3.7 ECOLOGY

The GSC and SJCC sites are situated in an area where the natural environment has been severelyaltered by development Aerial photographs indicate that the area has been largely developed forat least 50 years. No sensitive environments such as wildlife refuges, endangered species habitats,

COwetlands, or wild and scenic rivers occur within the vicinity of the sites. <a

oo

to3-27 K

Most animate native to the area are concentrated in the undeveloped woodland and meadow areasbeyond town limits. This is a natural response to the level of development and the constant humanpresence associated with the town of Minotola. It is Hkery that some of these creatures, particularlybirds, are frequent visitors to some sections of town in the vicinity of GSC and SJCC. In thepresent situation, the natural environment and associated widlife habitat have been replaced by anuttered environment dominated by man-made structures and domesticated plants and animate.

CO

oo

to3-28 w

4.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

4.1 SOURCES

Information concerning sources of groundwater and soil contamination was obtained from existingdocuments related to previous investigations at and near the sites, site visits, interviews with thefacSity owners and other local residents and officials, aerial photographs, and a soil gas surveyconducted by ERT/REAC. In this section, historical information related to contaminant sources willbe discussed for GSC and SJCC individually. The soil gas investigation conducted by ERT/REACwas an area-wide survey which encompassed the areas near and downgradient of both GSC andSJCC including the area surrounding SJCC's groundwater treatment system. For this reason,results of this investigation will be presented and interpreted simultaneously for both sites.

A complaint from an adjacent homeowner concerning the quality of their well water prompted aNJDEP investigation of SJCC. Subsequent sampling efforts and interviews with the owners ofSJCC revealed that contamination there was the result of on-site disposal of waste from SJCC'sdry cleaning process. Facility owners reported that wastes were routinely dumped onto the groundadjacent to the abandoned manufacturing buiding and along the adjacent rairoad tracks. Inaddition, the owners reported that a fire in 1979 may have resulted in the release of an estimated275 gallons of TCE, the primary solvent used at SJCC, from an on-site storage tank located alongthe west wall of the abandoned manufacturing building.

Additional discussion concerning SJCC site history and previous investigations is contained inSection 1.2. A map showing locations of contaminant source areas is shown in Figure 1-3.

Elevated levels of PCE were detected in a SJCC monitoring well located due east of GSC duringa NJDEP sampling effort conducted in 1984. This discovery ted NJDEP to suspect GSC as apossible contamination source. During a subsequent inspection of the facility, the owner oacknowledged discharging wastes onto the ground from two stream condensate pipes and oneboiler blowdown pipe, all of which protrude from the outside walls of the building. This discharge

oo

toto

4-1 m

was discontinued in 1985.

Later sampling investigations conducted around the GSC bulding indicated the presence of VOCs,primarly PCE, in nearby sols.

Additional discussion concerning GSC site history and previous investigations is contained inSection 1.2. A map showing the locations of contaminant source areas is shown on Figure 1-4.

4.1.1 Sol Gas Survey

An initial sol gas survey was conducted by ERT/REAC during January 1989 with additionalsamples collected during March 1989. The survey was intended to provide information concerningsources of contamination as well as the extent of migration of contaminants in groundwater. A briefdiscussion of the results of the survey is presented in this section.

Sol gas sampling results from the January/March 1989 effort are presented in three parts: TCE,PCE, and total voiatie organics CTVOs). TVOs include TCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, 1,1-

dichloroetnene, t-1,2-dtenk>roethene, ethylbenzene, meta-xylene, ortho-xylene. and styrene.Concentration contours for TCE, PCE and TVOs are shown in Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3,respectively.

The following was concluded from the sampling results:

o The highest TCE concentrations were found adjacent to the SJCC property.Concentrations above background were also present near GSC. The highest PCEconcentrations were found near GSC with above background levels also presentnear SJCC. These results were expected based on the primary cleaning solventsused at each fadity. These results confirmed the locations of suspected source w

oareas. ooo



PA CtflC

AfiCTtCG

JONAS MA R TINE I. if

LEGEND• SOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION

—too—ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURSOURCE: u,s. EPA ERT/REAC SOIL SAMPLING REPORT MAY, 1939

S C A L E300*I

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERSSOIL GAS - TCE (PPB)

F I G U R E

4-1




10,000

• SOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION—loo—ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR

SOURCE; u.s. EPA ERT/REAC SOIL SAMPLING REPORTS C A L E

300'ID A T E

JULY 1991

ARCSH

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERSSOIL GAS - PCE (PPB)

F I G U R E

4-2

C.C.JOHNSON & M A L H O T R A . P . C .

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHINQ COMPANY


LEGEND• SOIL GAS SAMPLING

LOCATIONISOCONCENTRATIONCONTOURSOURCE: us. EPA ERT/REAC SOIL SAMPLING REPORTJ

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERSSOIL GAS-SUM OF ORGANICS DETECTED (PPB)

D A T EJULY 1991

C.C.JOHNSON i M A L H O T R A . P . C .

4-5

o A separate area or plume of contamination extends east of Central Avenue fromArctic to MartineBi Avenues. This is due to operation of the groundwater extractionand treatment system. Extraction of groundwater from SJCC Well 1 1 (see Figure1-2) apparently has the greatest influence.

o The concentration contours for TCE and TVO are the same except for the GSCarea Differences in this area are due to the presence of PCE at the GSC site. Thissimlarity also indicates that TCE is the major contaminant in the study area,

An area of high contaminant concentrations was detected north of Atlantic and east of CentralAvenues. Detected compounds included TCE, PCE, benzene, toluene, ortho-xylene and styrene.It was suspected that contamination at this location may be have been due to another source area,based on the lack of sol gas contamination between this location and the GSC and SJCC sourceareas. Also, several contaminants other than TCE and PCE were found at this location whie inother areas the contamination was due almost entirely to TCE and PCE. To investigate the sourceof these contaminants, a shallow monitoring weH was installed at this location during Phase 1 ofthe remedial investigation. Groundwater from this wefl was sampled and analyzed twice during theRl. TCE (three ug/l) and dieJdrin (0.12 ug/l) were detected during Phase 1. Benzene, toluene,meta and para xytene, and 1,3,3-trimethylbenzene were detected during the Phase 2 groundwatersampling effort None of the contaminants detected during Phase 2 were present at aconcentration greater than one ug/l. No additional conclusions could be reached regarding thesource of sol gas contamination at this location based on the Phase 1 and 2 groundwater samplingresults.

4.1.2 Source

Sol gas survey results correlated wei with historical data with respect to the identification ofcontaminant source areas. PCE was detected near GSC, where it was used and disposed of. »

nTCE, the primary solvent used at SJCC, was detected near that fadity along with lowerconcentrations o

of PCE. Contaminants at both facilities were generally concentrated in areas identified by thehistorical data as disposal locations.

The origin of contamination detected in soil gas samples collected from north of Atlantic Avenue

could not be determined by the results of the Rl.

According to facBity owners, on-site waste disposal, the source of soil contamination at both GSCand SJCC has not occurred at these facilities since 1985 and 1981, respectively. Consequently,no additional soil contamination is occurring at either facility and concentrations of contaminants

adsorbed onto soil particles are likely to be declining steadily over time. Although on-site disposalhas been terminated, desorption of contaminants from soB particles at both facilities remain as asource of groundwater contamination. The extent of contaminant desorption and the mass of

VOCs migrating into the groundwater from this process have, like the concentration in soil, probablybeen decreasing steadily since the termination of disposal activities. While no active source ofcontamination to the soil currently exists, previously-contaminated soil is still serving as a sourceof groundwater contamination at these two sites.

4.2 SOILS AND VADOSE ZONE

Shallow soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from the vicinity of the sites and from alocation north of Atlantic Avenue during November and December 1989 and March 1991. Theprimary purpose of this effort was to define the limits of shallow soil contamination in the area at,and near, the two sites. The resulting data, along with results of split spoon sample analysis froman on-site boring near each source area, was used to estimate the limits of sol contamination.An additional objective was to obtain information regarding the source of soil gas contaminationdetected north of Atlantic Avenue by ERT/REAC.

cThe procedure used for collecting samples and measuring and recording headspace organic vapor oconcentrations in described in Section 2.6. 0

o

Ul4-7 *

Headspace results were used to help determine which samples to send for subsequent CLPanalysis. In addition, headspace data provided screening results from a large number of locationsthroughout both sites. This data was of much lower quality and is much less reliable than CLPdata, but when the two data sets are used together a more complete delineation of the area of solcontamination is possible. Generally, samples from locations where significant organic vaporconcentrations were detected in sample headspace contained relatively high VOC concentrationswhen analyzed by a CLP laboratory. Locations where organic vapor concentrations were very lowor non-detectable generally corresponded to locations where very low concentrations of VOCs weredetected in CLP samples. Phase 1 samples sent to CLP laboratories were analyzed for TCLorganics. Phase 2 CLP laboratory samples were analyzed tor FCL VOCs.

Background samples collected from properties adjacent to the two sites were free of VOCs. NearlyaU of the other samples collected during the sol sampling effort contained detectableconcentrations of VOCs. Consequently, comparison to background sample concentrations wouldresult in delineation of a very large area of sol with generaly low VOC concentrations. In orderto provide a useful delineation of the zone of contaminated sol, the current New Jersey cleanuplevel guidance was used in lieu of comparison to background sample concentrations, as directedby EPA.

4.2.1 Proposed Sol Cleanup Levels

Sol cleanup levels for the sites were determined using criteria presented in NJDEP's "PreliminaryDraft Regulations for Cleanup Standards" which was released for interested party input during lateMay 1991. This preliminary draft document was used as guidance at the request of the U.S. EPA,however, it should be noted that cleanup levels contained in the NJDEP document are preliminaryand may be modified following receipt of comments from EPA or other interested parties.

Consequently, the cleanup levels proposed for use at the GSC and SJCC sites are preliminary and osubject to subsequent revision pending EPA review of the proposed NJDEP cleanup standards and

othe basis for their development Should such a review result in changes to the cleanup levels °

to

presented here, the revised cleanup standards would be used during the actual remediation of thesites.

NJDEP's preliminary draft regulations for deanup standards consider the health effects fromingestion of contaminated surficial soy and from inhalation of contaminants volatilizing fromcontaminated surficial soil. Additional consideration was given to the effects on groundwater of

leaching of contaminants from subsurface soil.

Table 4-1 presents the most stringent proposed soil deanup level options developed forcontaminants detected at GSC and SJCC. For the contaminants detected in soils at SJCC andGSC, the deanup levels resulting from consideration of contaminant leaching and its effect ongroundwater quality were the most stringent considered in all cases.

For purposes of choosing soil deanup levels for these sites, GSC was considered an industrial siteand SJCC was considered non-industrial. SJCC cannot be considered an industrial site becauseit is not currently operating.

SoD type, an important consideration in selection of proposed dean-up levels based on leachingof contaminants from subsurface soB, was considered to be a sandy loam on the basis of lithologicsample descriptions generated during the site investigation. Of the three soil types considered inthe guidance, sandy loam most dosely matches the site area soils.

4.2.2 South Jersey Clothing Company

PHASE 1

During Phase 1 soil sampling activities at SJCC, a total of 80 samples were collected and screenedCO

using the headspace analysis method described previously. Samples numbers and locations at oSJCC are shown on Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Figure 4-4 shows all samples collected at SJCC and the 0

o

U)

4-9 *>

TABLE 4-1


CLEAN-UP LEVELS BASED

ON CURRENT NEW JERSEY GUIDANCE

11| CONTAMINANT

11 — — ————————— —— ——|M»thylene Chloride1(Acetone1|1,2-DCEI(ChloroformI(2-ButanoneI(1,1,1-TCA1(TCE1(1,1,2-TCAI| BenzeneIIPCEI(1.1,2,2-PCAI(TolueneI(ChlorobenteneI

CLEAN - UPLEVELS

49

50

1

1

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

10

Notes:1) All units are in parts p«r •UUen.2) All cleanup l«v«l» MSOM Mndy le«* soil.3) • • Standard based en surface soil effects for non-idustrlal site.

CO

oo

(jtUl

4-10

REMNANTS OFMASONRYtUILOlNC

CENTRAL AVCNUE

ONE STORYMASONRYBUILDING

(UNOCCUPIED)

*-*-5 14 13

20 15• . • 7

Êol*

10

LEGEND

— PROPERTY BOUNDARY» PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATION) PHASE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION

"1RESIDENCE(OCCUPIED)

RESIDENCE .(UNOCCUPIED*

OROUNOWATElf 2TREATMENT I «

PLANT | ^

•TRAILERS • 32

L CHURCH•UILDINO

36NOTE: REMAINING SAMPLE NUMBERS ARE SHOWN ON FIGURE 4-5

S C A L EI" - 50'

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS USOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. / GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITESPHASE I AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN THE VICINITY OFSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMC

TOOC.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C.

FIGURE

4-4

oo

10OJ-J

LEGEND

-PHASE I SAMPLE LOCATION-PHASE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION-PHASE I SOIL BORING LOCATION

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHINGCOMPANY

09

O MONITORINGWELL 3A

• 17

112

16

110 "I

33

• 3

20

S C A L El" » 20'

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS H

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER OFABANDONED SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY BUILDING

FIGURE

4-5

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C.

surrounding area. Figure 4-5 shows sample locations near the northwest corner of the abandoned

the manufacturing building. This area was the most contaminated and was the focus of Phase2 soil sampling efforts. Headspace results for Phase 1 SJCC samples are provided in Table 4-2.Forty-two of these samples were submitted to a CLP laboratory for TCL organics analysis. Resultsfrom CLP laboratory analysis of Phase 1 SJCC soil samples are shown in Table 4-3.

CLP samples from at least one depth interval (two to three feet, four to five feet, or nine to ten feet)at the following locations contained TCE at concentrations exceeding the current New Jersey soilcleanup guidance value of 1 ppm (1,000 ug/kg): 9,16, 18, 19, 25, and 29. Samples from eachdepth range submitted for analysis exceeded current New Jersey soil cleanup guidance values forTCE at locations 9, 29 and 18. These locations were closest to the abandoned building. Thesample collected from the two to three foot depth range from location 25, along the adjacentrailroad tracks, exceeded the current TCE soil cleanup guidance value. The other samplesubmitted for CLP analysis from this location was from the nine to ten foot depth range andcontained a TCE concentration of 990 ug/kg, just below the current New Jersey soil cleanupguidance value. Analytical results for samples from locations 16 and 19 were less consistent withexceedance of current TCE soil cleanup guidance values occurring at one depth range while

relatively low TCE concentrations were detected at a second depth range at the same location.The current TCE soil cleanup guidance value was exceeded in the four to five foot depth sample

at location 16 and in the two to three foot depth sample at location 19.

The spatial distribution of these contaminated sample locations indicates that the area of greatestsoil contamination is adjacent to the western wall of the northwest portion of the SJCC abandonedmanufacturing building and extends northwest to the nearby railroad tracks. This is consistent withreports by the facility owner that liquid waste was discharged from a pipe in the northwest comerof the building. The waste then reportedly flowed into the bed of the adjacent railroad andinfiltrated into the soil. Samples collected near the former location of the tank (location 3) whichreportedly leaked 275 gallons of TCE in 1979 did not exceed the current TCE soil cleanup guidance w

ovalue. The maximum TCE concentration detected was 300 ug/kg from the two to three foot depth ^range. TCE concentrations detected in samples from the four to five and nine to ten foot depth o

4-13 £oo

TABLE 4-2


PHASE 1 SOIL HEADSPACE RESULTS

LOCATION

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

HNU IEADINC(pf»)

0.1

86

0.4

0.6

14.8

' 4.2

8.0

2.3

0.6

5.2

10.0

6.8

0.4

1.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.1

0.5

50.0

LOCATION

9

9

10

10

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

U

U

U

15

15

16

16

16

17

DEPTH(ft)

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

HNU READING<*>•>

48.0

80.0

0.5

12.0

4.0

7.4

86

0.8

4.0

86

3.6

4.4

3.5

1.0

6.0

8.0

9.5

4.5

1.0

0.1

Notts:1) 86 » Background Concentration2) NA « Not Analyzed

CO

oo

toUJvo

4-14




LOCATION

17

18

18

19

19

19

20

20

20

22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

25

26

26

DEPTH(ft)

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

HNU READING(B»>

0.1

11.5

6.0

20.0

20.0

12.0

10.0

30.0

26.0

5.5

0.5

0.8

0.5

0.6

HA

38.0

25.0

15.0

11.0

6.0

LOCATION

27

27

28

28

29

29

29

30

30

31

31

32

32

33

33

33

34

35

36

36

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

HNU READING(W»>

2.0

0.8

35.0

BG

150.0

100.0

150.0

2.0

1.0

3.5

4.0

6.0

1.0

9.0

4.5

3.0

1.0

2.5

1.5

0.2

OTOO

oo

to4k.O

Not«s:1) BG » Background Concentration2) NA * Not Analyzed

4-15

TABLE 4-3


PHASE 1 SOIL CLP RESULTS

1 1| MIAMETEIS1-- — ------ .« -I VOLATILEJMethylene Chloride|AoOtOnO

|V-Dlchloroetneno (total)(Chloroforo|2-Butenone|1,4,1-Tr<chloroatheno|Trtchloroethene|1,1,2-Trlchloroethone(Benzene

| Tetrech loroethene1 1 ,1 ,2,2-TetrecMoroethene|Chlorobenzeno| SEMI -VOLATILE| 1 ,3-DlehlorobonzeneJBonsolc Acid|OI-n-Butylphthalete|Fluorenthene|»yreno|Bls(2-othylhexyl)phthalote1 PESTICIDES|4,4'-DOE| 4,4' -DOT

SS-03-01 |•CO 00

7

300

87

450 J120 J

120 J

SS-03-02 |BCD 01

43

•

II

SS-03-03BCD 02

25

48

1 J8

1 J

110 J310 J140 J

110 J

$$-04-01•CD 03.........

27

1 J3 J

2I| 330 J| 240 J| 220 J

410 J

$$-05-01 |•CD 04

13

6

1

1

| 78 J1| 100 J

SS-05-02 |•CO OS

342,000 J

18

99

92 J

110 J

$$-05-03•CO 06

100210 J

3J

91J

$$•06-02•CD 07

*J

110 J

$$•09-01 |BCD 09

3 J

153,900

2 J

37017 BJ2 J

160 J280 J

120 J

$$-09-02 |BCD 10

J J

5,9002J

57

140 J

$$-09-03BCD 11

150 J

860 J

1,500

190

9BJ

100 J

SS- 10-01BCD 12

11

120 J

O)

en

oo

to

Notes:1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8>

All units are ug/kgBier* ifMM Indicates that oontMtMnt IMS not dvtootodJ • EstiMtod valu*B • PoMlblo blank oontwiMttonE • Concentration •»e«*dt calibration rang* of fit . tMtruMntSaiplo nu or onding in -01 (e«aiplo:*S-03-01> M»ra oolloetod fro* dtpth of 2 to 3 footSMplo nuater onding In -02 (aio^>la:SS-03-02) wara oolloetod fro* dipch of 4 to 5 foottoBple nuobor onding In -03 (o«oiplo:U-03-03) «oro oollootod fro* depth of 9 to 10 footdepth




1 1| PARAMETERS1 — ""—"—"—-——| VOLATILEJNathylane Chloride| Ac* ton*|1,2-Dichloroothen* (total)| CM or of or a|2-Butanon*|1,1,1-Trlehloro*thane(Trlchloroethene|1,1,2-Trlchloro»than*|B*nz*n*| Tetrechloroethene| 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroathan*| Ch I or obenzene

SEMI-VOLATILE1 ,3-Dtchlorobenxen*Benzole AcidX-n-Butylphthalateluortnthen*yreneli(2-ethylh*xyl )phthalat*| PESTICIDES|4,4'-DDE| 4, 4' -DOT

SS-11-03BCD IS

1 J8

16

1,200 J82 J

140 J

SS- 13-02BCD IB.........

11

4.2 J

SS- 14-02 |BCD 19

50 J

1

SS- 15-02BCD 20

63

17 J

3647

SS- 16-01 |BCD 21

390 B1,500 J

SS- 16-02 |BCD 22

1,300 J

410 J

SS- 17-01 |BCD 31

120 B

13 J

3J

SS-1B-01 |BCD 24

1,200 J

820 J

SS- 19-01 |BCD 25

1,000 J

42 J

12 J

SS- 19-03 |BCD 26

9J

I

SS-20-02 |BCD 27

55

140

21 J

13 J

SS-20-03BCD 28

340B

96 J

46

II

SS-22-01BCD 29.........

1 J

SS-23-01BCD 30

310 J

22JUlo

to

Not**:1) All unit* *r* ug/kg2) Blank apac* Indicates that contaminant wat not dat*et*d3) J " EstiMtad valu*4) B • Posilbl* blank contamination5) E « Concentration *xc**d* calibration rang* of GC/MS <n«tri«*nt6) Saapl* n^b*r ending In -01 (*x»apl*:S$-03-01) w*r* collected fro» depth of 2 to 3 feet7) Saaple nuafcor ending In -02 (exa^>l*:SS-03-02) were collected fro* depth of 4 to 5 feet0) Seaple nuafcer ending In -03 (o*aBple:SS-03-03) were collected frca> depth of 9 to 10 feet




1 1| PMAHETEM

| VOLATILEJNothylono Chlortda|Ao*ton*|1,2-OtchloroothoM (total)ICMoroforu|2-Butanon*|1,1,1-TrlchloroothonaJTHofcloroathona|1.1,2-Trlehloroathan*|B*nt*neJTatrachloroathono|1,1,2,2-T*traohloroathon*|CMorobanson*| KNI-VOLATILE|1,3-OiehlorobanMn*jt*nn<c Acid|OI-n-*jtylphthalata(Fluoranthon*(•yrona|BU(2-*thylh*Kyl )phtKalata| •ESTICIDfS|4,4'-DO€|4,4'-DOT

$$-25-01 |•CD 33.........

16

1,200 J

•IJ

$$-25-03 |•CD 34.........

22

•40 J

100 J

$$-26-01 |•CO 35

U-28-01 |•CO 36

520 •960 BJ

$$-29-01•CO 37

12 J

1.400 J

MOJ

$$-29-03 |ICO 38.........

520J

•6

3,400

•*

91 J150 J

$$-30-01 |•CD 39.........

6

11111

$•-30-10 |•CO 40.........

$$-32-01 |BCD 64

$$-33-01 |•CO 65

9 J

$$-33-03 |•CO 66.........

340 J

$$-34-01 |•CO 67.........

52J

SS- 35-02•CO 68

'

71 J

$$-36-01BCD 69

54J

COoooo

to*»OJ

Not**:1) Ad unit* ara ugAg2) Blank apaeo Indleata* that eontaaiinant wa* not datoetad3) J • Eatioatad valuo4) • • Feasible blank contaotnatton5) E « Conoontratlon aneoad* eallbratlon rang* of OC/M ln*tr«*ant6) Saapl* n*t»r andlng in -01 (*«aapl*:S$-03-01) nara oollactad froa> dapth of 2 to 3 foat7) Saapl* lubor ending In -02 (aiaapU:$$-03-02) «or* oolloetod froo dapth of 4 to 5 foot«) Soaplo rMbor andlng in -03 <aiaMpU:$$ 03-03) Hero ooUootad froa, -oth of 9 to 10 foot

ranges were 43 and 48 ug/kg, respectively. Other samples collected from the general vicinity ofthe former tank location contained TCE concentrations ranging from three to 140 ug/kg. The lowconcentrations of TCE in this area may be attributable to the removal of contaminated soi in thisarea by the facility during May 1981. Reportedly, a contractor hired by SJCC excavated 33 55-gallon drums of contaminated soH which were removed from the facility during October 1981. Theremoval of the bulk of the contaminated material may have resulted in the unexpectedly low TCEconcentrations detected during the Rl. No records were available concerning the area! extent or

depth of this soil removal activity. As mentioned previously, the two to three foot depth samplefrom location 3 contained 300 ug/kg of TCE indicating that remnants of the TCE which leaked from

>,the tank are still present although the bulk of the contamination was apparently removed.

PCE was detected in 19 of the 42 Phase 1 soil samples but did not exceed the current PCE soil

cleanup guidance value of 1 ppm (1,000 ug/kg) in any sample. The maximum PCE concentrationdetected was 820 ug/kg in the two to three foot sample at location 18. The sample from four tofive feet at location 16 had the second highest PCE concentration (40 ug/kg). Samples from bothof these locations (16 and 18) exceeded the current New Jersey soO cleanup guidance value forTCE. Since PCE was not detected in any Phase 1 soil sample at concentrations exceeding thecurrent soi cleanup guidance value, and the two samples with the highest PCE concentrationswere at locations where TCE soil cleanup guidance values were exceeded, any delineation of thearea! extent of soi contamination using TCE as an indicator will be unchanged by considerationof analytical results for PCE.

In addition to TCE and PCE, eight other VOCs were detected in Phase 1 soil samples from near

SJCC. The VOCs detected at the site, the number of times they were detected in the 42 SJCCPhase 1 soil samples and their maximum detected concentrations are as follow:

oo

to4-19

Contaminant No. of Detections Max. Concentration fua/kal

TCE 28 5,900

PCE 19 820

1,2-Dichloroethene 7 22Chloroform 1 82-Butanone 3 860

1.1.1-Trichloroethane 1 151.1.2-Trichloroethane 2 2

Benzene 2 11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 17Chlorobenzene 3 2

Except for TCE, none of these detections exceeded the proposed soil cleanup guidance values forthe contaminants listed above. Consequently, consideration of the detected concentrations of.these compounds would be consistent with a delineation of the areal extent of soil contaminationbased on TCE concentration and proposed TCE soil cleanup guidance value exceedance.

Several semi-volatile compounds and pesticides were detected during Phase 1 soil sampling atSJCC. Bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate and dki-butyl phthalate were the most commonly detected. Themaximum detected concentrations for these two compounds are 410 and 280 ug/kg, respectively.These concentrations are over 100 times below the current New Jersey soil cleanup guidancevalues for these chemicals. None of these compounds appeared to be site-related in terms ofcontaminant identity and spatial distribution of detections. The processes responsible for thecontamination problem at SJCC are well known and early sampling efforts by NJDEP whichincluded sampling of waste, sludge and soil provide a characterization of the materials dischargedby SJCC. None of the semi-volatile compounds or pesticides detected would be expected to resultfrom operations at SJCC. The locations where these compounds were most frequently detected(SS-3 and SS-4) are not within the area of high VOC concentration resulting from disposal activitiesat SJCC.

oo

4-20 ui

PHASE 2

The purpose of the second phase of so3 sampling at SJCC was to refine the estimate of the arealextent of contaminated soB developed using data from Phase 1. Efforts were directed towardfurther delineation of the area of contamination adjacent to the west wall of the northwesternportion of the abandoned manufacturing buiding (includes Phase 1 sample locations 9,16,18,19,25 and 29) and extending northwest to the adjacent raflroad tracks. The sampling technique used

during Phase 1, including the headspace analysis routine, was used during Phase 2 with minormodifications. More-detailed discussion of the sampling methods employed during both phasesof soi sampling is contained in Section 2.6 of this report

A total of 52 samples from various depths were collected at 22 locations at SJCC during Phase 2.

These samples were subjected to headspace analysis and 28 were submitted to a CLP laboratory

for analysis. Results of headspace screening and CLP laboratory analysis for TCL VOAs for Phase2 SJCC soy samples are provided in Tables 4-4 and 4-5, respectively.

Samples were collected from five locations near Phase 1 soil sample location 16, the southern-mostportion of the contaminated soil zone identified during Phase 1. The purpose of these samples wasto define the southern and southwestern limits of the area of soB contamination and to determinewhether the area between Phase 1 locations 16 and 9 was contaminated. Results of theheadspace analysis for these samples did not indicate a high potential for contamination. CLPsample data indicated that no contaminants were present at concentrations approaching the current

TCE soy cleanup guidance value in any of the four samples. The maximum concentration of TCEdetected in these samples was 180 ug/kg (location 110, depth range of two to three feet).

co

oo

to.u0>

4-21

TABLE 4-4



LOCATION

101

101

101

102

102

102

103

103

103

104

104

104

105

105

105

106

106

107

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

HNU READING(»»>

700.0

1,100.0

400.0

400.0

250.0

45.0

10.0

450.0

700.0

750.0

280.0

NA

20.0

15.0

40.0

80.0

12.0

700.0

LOCATION

107

108

108

109

109

110

110

111

111

112

112

113

113

114

114

115

115

116

DEPTH(ft)

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

HNU READING(*»>

300.0

2.0

2.5

70.0

20.0

10.5

7.5

3.5

6.0

3.0

6.0

3.5

8.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

4.5

24.0

LOCATION

116

116

117

117

118

11«

119

119

120

120

121

121

121

122

122

122

DCPTN(ft)

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

HNU READING<*»>

22.0

60.0

2.0

3.0

80.0

100.0

2.0

6.0

2.0

K

190.0

55.0

110.0

100.0

30.0

50.0

NOTES:1) BG « Background Concentration2) NA « Not AnalyMd

w8oo

ro

4-22

TABLE 4-5



i

JSS-101-2 |$S- 102-2 JSS-102-3 |$S- 105-2PARAMETERS (60868-001 |60B6B-002|60868-003 60868-004

VOLATILE

|1,2-0ichloro»th*M (total)|Trtehloro«th»n»| T«tr«ehlere«th«n*iToluww

110 J790 J

1 J

4 J

1 J

3 J 4 J

5S-105-360868-005

1 J

$$-106-1 JSS-106-2 |$$- 107-260e6e-006|6086B-007|60e6B-008

90 J10 J6 J

30J

10 J

—— ---

640 J68,000 J5.800 J

23 J

S$-108-260868-009

4 J

SS-109-360868-010

32 J7 J

SS-109-30|S$-110-1 |S8-111-2 |$$-112-2 |60868-011 J6086B-012|6086B-013|6086B-014|

63 J13 J

—————

180 J13 J

—————

150 J6 J

35 J5 J

|SS-113-2 |$$-1U-2 |$$-115-2 |$$-116-2 |$5-116-3 |$$-117-1 |S$-118-2 JSS-119-2 |$$-120-2 (SS-121-2 JSS-121-3 |SS-122-1 |S$-122-2 |$S-122-3 |PARAMETERS |6086B-016|6086e-017J60e6S-01S|6086B-01BJ60«68-020|&086»-019|60«6e-021|60e6B-022| |6086B-027|6086B-029|

VOLATILE

|1,2-Dlchloro*thww (total)jTrlchleroathanajTatraehloroathanajTolUMW

.........

6 J

.........

34 J4 J

.............................

1 11 11 1

28 J | 110 J | 5 J30 J | 83 J |

1 I 1 J

15 J10 J

8 J 12 J

3 J

7 J 16 J 150 J12 J

208 J120

7

.........

11 J

.........

10 J550 J

2 J1 J

NoUt:1) All unit* «•• ug/kg2) Blank ip*c« Indictt*! that contMlnant WM net d»t«ct*d3) J • EtttMUd v»lu»4) SMpU nurtwr* wtdtng in -01 («xMpl*: 8S-03-01) wtr« eell«et*d fro* depth of 2 to 3 foot5) SMpl* nu«b«r» ondlng In -02 (*KMpl«: SS-03-02) uar« ooll*ot*d fro* d th of 4 to 5 fMt6) SMpl* nutors ending in -03 («xMpl*: SS-03-03) M«r« eoll«et*d frea d th of 9 to 10 fMt

100

Additional samples were collected from four locations (105, 106, 114 and 120) to refine theestimated western and northwestern boundaries of the area of contaminated sol. Headspaceresults indicated that samples from these locations were not highly contaminated. This wasconfirmed by the results of the six samples submitted for CLP laboratory analysis from theselocations; a maximum TCE concentration of 90 ug/kg was detected at location 106 from the twoto three foot depth range.

Samples were collected and screened from locations 103 and 104 to characterize the areasbetween locations where the current TCE sol cleanup guidance value was exceeded in Phase 1samples (at sample locations 9,18, 25 and 29). These locations are situated within an area whichserved as a pathway for runoff of liquid waste which was discharged from a pipe protruding fromthe northwestern comer of the bulding and flowed to the adjacent rairoad bed. Headspacereadings for samples from these locations were among the highest recorded during the Phase 2sol sampling task. It was determined that on the basis of their location and screening results thatthese samples were contaminated (most likely with TCE) at concentrations in excess of sol cleanupguidance values. This allowed CLP laboratory slots to be reserved for other locations where it wasmore difficult to estimate whether contaminant concentrations exceeded sol cleanup guidancevalues.

Samples were collected at six locations (101,102,115,116,117, and 119) adjacent to the northernwall (near the northwestern comer) of the abandoned manufacturing bulding. Samples were firstcollected from locations 101 and 102. Headspace measurements from these two samples indicatedthe presence of contamination and so samples were collected from locations 115,116,117 and119. The highest TCE concentration detected by CLP laboratory analysis of samples from theselocations was 110 ug/kg from the four to five foot depth intervals at locations 101 and 116. Thisconcentration is well below the current TCE sol cleanup guidance value of 1,000 ug/kg.

oo

4-24

The sample from the four to five foot depth range at location 101 contained PCE at a concentration

of 790 ug/kg which is approaching the 1,000 ug/kg current PCE soy cleanup guidance value. ThisPCE concentration is the probable source of the elevated headspace measurement at location 101.

Twelve samples were collected at five locations to determine the extent of soil contamination alongthe bed of the Central Railroad adjacent to the northern boundary of the SJCC property. Eight ofthese samples were submitted for CLP laboratory analysis. It was reported during inspections ofthe facility in the early 1980s that water discharged from the SJCC manufacturing building ran offto the adjacent tracks where it percolated into the soil. This pattern of drainage was confirmed byobservation of surface water runoff during several intense precipitation events which occurredduring the field investigation. Initially, samples were collected at locations 107 and 108. Thesewere located east and west of Phase 1 soil sample location 25 where a TCE concentration in

excess of the current soil cleanup guidance value was detected.

On the basis of headspace measurements, samples were collected from additional locations alongthe tracks to the west in an effort to determine the extent of sol contamination in that direction.Screening and sampling continued west along the tracks to Phase 1 sample location 26. Location26 was determined to be uncontaminiated during Phase 1 based on extremely low headspaceconcentrations from the two to three and four to five foot depth ranges as well as the absence ofdetectable concentrations of contaminants in results from the CLP laboratory analysis.

Results of CLP analysis confirmed that location 108 was relatively free of contamination. A sample

from the four to five foot depth range contained four ug/kg of TCE. No other contaminants weredetected in the sample. CLP results also confirmed that samples from location 107 contained TCE(68,000 ug/kg) and PCE (5,800 ug/kg) at concentrations well in excess of their 1,000 ug/kg currentsoil cleanup guidance values. This sample also contained the highest concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethene (640 ug/kg) and toluene (23 ug/kg) detected in Phase 2 soil samples from SJCC. 03

£The next sample location along the tracks in a westerly direction is 116. A sample from the four °to five foot depth range at this location contained eight ug/kg of TCE. Finally, samples were §

Olo

4-25

collected from locations 122 and 121. The maximum concentrations of TCE detected in samplesfrom these two locations were 550 ug/kg and 120 ug/kg, respectively.

The pattern of VOC detections along the railroad tracks (see Figure 4-5 for locations) was unusualin that extremely high concentrations were detected at locations 25 (Phase 1) and 107 (Phase 2),relatively-low concentrations were detected at Phase 2 locations 108 and 118 and moderate VOCconcentrations were detected at Phase 2 locations 121 and 122.

In addition to TCE, other compounds were detected in Phase 2 soO samples at SJCC. Theseincluded PCE, 1,2-dichloroethene and toluene. PCE was detected in 15 of the 28 samples analyzedby CLP laboratories. The highest concentrations of PCE detected include 5,800 ug/kg and 790ug/kg at locations 107 (depth range of four to five feet) and 101 (depth range of four to five feet),respectively. The sample from location 107 also contained the highest concentration of TCEdetected in Phase 2 SJCC soil samples (68,000 ug/kg). Both TCE and PCE were present atconcentrations above the current soil cleanup guidance value at this location. The sample fromlocation 101, which contained 790 ug/kg of PCE, also contained 110 ug/kg of TCE. This issurprising because SJCC used TCE as the primary cleaning solvent during its operations. No othersample collected from SJCC during either phase of soil sampling contained such a predominanceof PCE relative to its TCE concentration. The source of the PCE in this area is not known. Inaddition, low concentrations of PCE (relative to TCE concentrations) have consistently beendetected in the nearest downgradient SJCC monitoring well. TCE and PCE concentrationsdetected in the Phase 2 groundwater sample from SJCC Well 2 were 4,500 and 39 ug/l,respectively.

Of the remaining two compounds detected, toluene was detected in ten of the 28 CLP sampleswith a maximum concentration of 23 ug/kg. This is much less than of the current soil cleanupguidance value of 100 ppm (100,000 ug/kg). The sample containing the highest tolueneconcentration came from the four to five foot depth range at location 107. TCE and PCE were J£detected at concentrations exceeding their current soil cleanup guidance values in the sample fromthat location. The other compound detected was 1,2-dichloroethene. This contaminant was °

Mts}

4-26 «»

detected twice in Phase 2 soil samples with a maximum detected concentration of 640 ug/kg atlocation 107 (depth range of four to five feet). The current cleanup guidance value for thiscompound is one ppm (1,000 ug/kg). As discussed above, TCE and PCE exceed current soilcleanup guidance values at this location.

It is apparent from this discussion that, as in Phase 1, the predominant contaminant detected in

Phase 2 samples at SJCC was TCE. The only other contaminant detected at concentrationsgreater than its respective soil cleanup guidance value was PCE which exceeded its current soilcleanup guidance value in one sample. This sample also contained TCE at concentrationsexceeding the current cleanup guidance value. The sample in which the maximum concentrationsof toluene and 1,2-dichloroethene were detected also contained TCE at concentrations in excessof current cleanup guidance values. Consequently, any delineation of soil in excess of cleanupguidance values based on TCE data will also effectively deal with the other contaminants detectedin soD.

After considering all historical data as well as all of the sample data generated during both phasesof the field investigation, a map was prepared showing the areal extent of soils exceeding thecurrent TCE cleanup guidance values (see Figure 4-6). The pattern of waste discharge from thepipe protruding from the northwest comer of the bulding and draining to the railroad bed is evidentfrom the figure. The tighter definition of the areas of contamination provided by the addition ofPhase 2 sample results show an isolated area of contaminated soil around location 16. The reasonfor this detached area of contamination is not known, however, it may be the result of activities

related to the removal of contaminated sol during the early 1980s. It is possible that this area mayhave been overlooked or that contamination may have been inadvertently moved to this locationduring the removal operation.

Depth of contaminated sol at SJCC was estimated using primarily the hand augered soil samples.CO

Additional data considered include results of split-spoon samples collected from a soil boring near £the northwest comer of the SJCC building and results of groundwater samples from nearby shallow 0

downgradient monitoring wells. *~>

NJ4-27 N»

SOUTH JERSEYCLOTHINGCOMPANY

CO

oo

roenu)

LEGEND

AREA WHERE VOCS EXCEEDPROPOSED SOIL CLEAN UPLEVELS

BOUNDARY OF AREARECOMMEDED FORREMEDIATION

MONITORINGWELL 9A

SCALEI" - 20'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS U

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERSAREA OF SOIL EXCEEDING VOC CLEAN UP LEVELS AND AREARECOMMENDED FOR REMEDIATION

FIGURE

4-6

C.C.JOHNSON & MALHOTRA.P.C.

Sample locations within the area where contamination seems to extend deepest include 9,29,104,18, 103, 25 and 107. Locations within the zone of contamination identified on Figure 4-6 wherecontamination seems restricted to relatively shallow depths include 16 to 19. Location 16, anisolated location to the south of the main contaminated area, contained 1,300 ug/kg of TCE in thefour to five foot sample whie nine ug/kg was detected in the two to three foot sample. The reasonfor such an abrupt concentration change is not known but could be related to past contaminatedsoil removal activities or the drainage pattern at the time of waste disposal. A CLP sample was notsubmitted for the nine to ten foot sample at this location because the headspace reading, whichwas significantly lower than those from other zones, indicated that the sample was relatively

uncontaminated.

Location 19, west of the northwest comer of the abandoned building contained 1,000 ug/kg of TCE

(equal to the proposed cleanup guidance value) in the two to three foot depth range and nineug/kg in the nine to ten foot depth range. It would appear from the sample results that TCEconcentrations decrease significantly with depth at this location. Concentrations in samples fromthis location are generally lower than those from samples within the area delineated in Figure 4-6which were doser to the abandoned building. The lower concentrations in this area may be dueto its distance from the primary pathway for runoff of liquid waste. The area near location 19 mayonly have received standing wastewater during larger disposal events.

Samples from locations 9 and 29, both located near the waste discharge point at the comer of thebuilding, contained TCE at concentrations exceeding current soy cleanup guidance values at allthree depth levels. TCE concentrations from location 9 were highest at four to five feet ( 5,900

ug/kg) and decreased in the nine to ten foot sample (1,500 ug/kg). Location 29 had the greatestTCE concentrations in the nine to ten foot sample (3,400 ug/kg).

No samples from location 104 were sent for CLP analysis. Headspace concentrations indicatedCO

that this area had relatively high concentrations of VOCs. Location 18 contained 1,200 ug/kg of £TCE in the two to three foot depth range. Headspace readings for samples at this locationdecreased with increasing depth. It is assumed on the basis of the exceedance of the current TCE

oo

toen

4-29 *>

cleanup guidance values in the two to three foot'sample and the fact that this location was on thedirect drainage way for liquid waste runoff, that this location is likely to be contaminated to asignificant depth.

No samples from location 103 were submitted for CLP laboratory analysis. Headspaceconcentrations encountered at this location were among the highest measured during the soilsampling effort These results also increased with depth providing an indication of exceedance ofTCE soil cleanup guidance values to the nine to ten foot depth range. The fact that this locationis on the direct drainage way for former liquid waste runoff supports the likelihood that it iscontaminated.

Locations 25 and 107, located along the railroad bed, both appear to be contaminated to the tenfoot depth level. Samples from two to three feet and nine to ten feet contained TCE concentrationsof 1,200 and 990 ug/kg, respectively. SoD at this location should be considered contaminated toa depth of ten feet The four to five foot depth interval sample for location 107 was submitted toa CLP laboratory and contained 68,000 ug/kg of TCE. PCE was detected in this sample at 5,800ug/kg. The magnitude of these exceedances of current sol cleanup guidance values indicates aprobability of contamination to a depth of ten feet or greater.

On the basis of the hand augered soil samples, the soil underlying the area outlined on Figure 4-6is contaminated to a depth of ten feet or greater. Exceptions to this are the areas in the immediatevicinity of locations 16 and 19. Soils in these areas appear to be contaminated but apparentlyreach concentrations below current cleanup guidance values before a depth of ten feet (see Table4-3).

*••SOIL BORING

A soU boring was completed at SJCC at a location several feet from the northwest corner of the w

abandoned manufacturing building. The location of this boring is shown in Figure 4-5. Split spoon o

samples were collected continuously unty completion of the boring at the water table (approximately oo

4-30 N>

24 feet below ground surface). Headspace concentrations were measured for these samples usingthe procedure employed for the hand augered soy samples. Headspace screening results areprovided in Table 4-6. Headspace readings indicated contamination near the ground surface.

Readings for the remaining samples were inconclusive as they were all within a concentration rangethat does not provide a strong indication of the presence or absence of TCE in excess of cleanupguidance values. On the basis of headspace results, samples from the four to six and six to eightfoot depth ranges were submitted to a CLP laboratory (Table 4-7). TCE was detected at fourug/kg in the six to eight foot sample. The reason for this relative absence of contamination froma location along the former liquid waste runoff drainage way and in dose proximity of a largenumber of other contaminated samples is unknown. Acetone was also detected in the six to eightfoot sample at a concentration of 240 ug/kg. Acetone was used during the decontamination ofsoil sampling equipment.

Concentrations of several phthalates were also detected in the CLP samples with a maximumconcentration of 10,000 ug/kg of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate detected in the four to six foot depthsample. Based on the deaning process employed at SJCC, it is unlikely that these contaminantsare site related. In addition, all detected concentrations are well below their respective current NewJersey soil deanup guidance values. The current deanup guidance value for bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is 49 ppm (49,000 ug/kg). Condusions regarding the area of soil contamination will be

based primarily on the data provided by the hand augered soil samples.

COMPARISON TO GROUNDWATER AND SOIL GAS

A final consideration involves the contamination of shallow groundwater near SJCC. Two nearbyshallow downgradient wells (SJCC Well 2 and SJCC Well 5), screened at the top of the water table,have both been shown to contain significant concentrations of TCE over the past ten years. Phase

2 groundwater samples from these wells contained 4,500 and 3,000 ug/l of TCE, respectively. All odisposal of waste and sludge containing TCE or other contaminants was discontinued by SJCC

oover ten years ago. A groundwater extraction and treatment system was installed over five years 2

eno\

4-31

TABLE 4-6


PHASE 1 SOIL BORING (SB-8) HEADSPACE RESULTS

BORINGNUMBER

S8-8

j1

SAMPLEDEPTH

0-26-810-1212-1414-1616-1818-2020-2222-24

HNUREADING

1204062367040322215

DATE

1-26-90

Not««:1) All results «r« in ppa

01

ooH*

toU1-J

4-32

TABLE 4-7


PHASE 1 SOIL BORING (SB-8) CLP RESULTS

11| PARAMETERS

JAcatona(Triehloroathana|0i-n-butylphthalatajSutylbanzylphthalata|Bis(2-athylhaxyl)phthalata

SB-8-3<4'-6')BCD 91

10,000180 J510

SB-8-4(6' -8')BCD 89

240 J4 J

110 J

270 J

Not**: (1) All results ara ug/kg(2) Blank spaces indicata that contaminants M»r« not datactad.(3) J • EstiMtad valuas

COoooo

Cnoo

4-33

ago to remediate shallow groundwater. Since no contamination has been disposed of for at leastten years and a groundwater extraction and treatment system has been operating for at least fiveyears, the presence of 4,500 ug/l of TCE in SJCC Well 2 indicates that a viable source of TCEmigration to the groundwater remains present The source is the contamination remaining insubsurface soils within the contaminated zone.

The concentrations of TCE in shallow groundwater near the site indicate that significant leachingof TCE is occurring from the ground surface to the water table. Since soil within the contaminatedarea has been determined to extend to a depth of at least ten feet, and significant contaminantleaching is occurring through the entire area, it is reasonable to assume that TCE concentrationsin portions of the subsurface between ten feet and the water table exceed soil cleanup guidancevalues for TCE. For purposes of the RI/FS, the area within the heavy dashed line on Figure 4-6will be considered contaminated from the ground surface to the water table.

Results of the soil gas survey correlated well with soil sampling results in the vicinity of SJCC.During both investigations, TCE was detected at higher concentrations than any other analyte. Thesoil gas survey identified an area of highest concentrations along the ra'ilroad tracks northeast ofthe abandoned SJCC manufacturing building near soil sample location 107 where the highest TCEconcentrations were detected.

4.2.3 Garden State Cleaners

PHASE 1

During Phase I soil sampling activities at GSC, at total of 53 samples were collected and screenedusing the headspace analysis method discussed previously. Sampling locations from Phases 1 and2 are shown on Figure 4-7. Results of headspace analysis for GSC Phase 1 sofl samples areprovided in Table 4-8. Nineteen of these samples (from various depths) were submitted to a CUPlaboratory for TCL organics analysis. CLP laboratory results for Phase 1 soil samples are provided ooin Table 4-9.

ooM

4-34 >-Njtn

67153

63•

152

60

151

57

56

«AftDCN STATCCLEANERS 69

154

53 155 51 156

-TANK •52

59

64 5568•

62 (8 FEET TO EAST)•

LEGEND

• PHASE I SAMPLE UDCATION© PHASE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION• PHASE I SOIL BORING LOCATION

61

65 66

COfflO

oo

to<y\o

7O

SCALEI" • 15'

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS nSJCC AND GSC SUESPHASE t AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING .LOCATIONSNEAR GARDEN STATE CLEANERS

FIGURE

4-7

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.P .C .4-35

TABLE 4-8



LOCATION

50

50

50

51

51

51

52

52

52

53

53

54

54

55

55

55

56

56

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

4-5

9- 10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

HNU READING<PP»

4.5

5.0

0.6

500.0

300.0

120.0

120.0

50.0

35.0

35.0

60.0

3.0

4.5

3.5

4.0

6.0

5.0

2.0

Nous:1) 8G • Background Concentration2) HA « Mot Analyzed

LOCATION

57

57

57

58

58

59

59

59

60

60

60

61

61

62

62

63

63

63

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

2-3

*'5

2-3

4-5

9-10

HNU READING<**»>

2.0

12.2

5.5

1.0

4.0

5.0

1.0

9.0

3.5

8.0

2.8

K

2.0

0.4

1.0

2.0

5.5

0.2

LOCATION

64

64

65

65

66

66

67

67

67

68

68

68

69

69

69

70

70

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

9- 10

2-3

4-5

HNU READING(*»>

0.4

1.0

12.2

2.0

2.0

0.2

11.0

6.5

8.5

6.0

6.0

20.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

0.5

3.5

CO

8oo

to<y\

4-36

TABLE 4-9



1| PARAMETERS

| VOLATILEJMathylana ChloridajAcatonajTrichloroathana| Tatrachloroathana| 1 , 1 ,2 ,2-Tatrachloroathana(Toluanaj SEMI-VOLATILE(Banzoic AcidJNaphthalana|2-MathylnaphthalanajAcanaphthylanaJDiathylphthalataJFluoranajPhananthrana| Anthracana|Di-n-Butylphthalata|FluoranthanajPyrana| BanzoC a ) Anthracana(Chryaana|BU(2-athylhaxyl)phthalata|Di-n-Oetylphthalata|Banzo(b)Fluoranthana|Banzo(k)Fluoranthana| BanzoC a )Pyranaj I ndano( 1 ,2 ,3-cd)Pyrana| D ibanz (• ,h ) Anthracana|Banzo(g,h,i )Parylanaj PESTICIDES|Gaa»a-BHC (Lindana)|4,4«-DDEI A ^* *ODD\4t A' "DOTJMathoxychlorJAlpha-ChlordanaJGaaaa-Chlordana

(SS-50-02BCD 42

3 J

(SS-51-01BCD 43

841,300,000

250 J

5,000 BJ

17 J110240510140 J

|SS-51-03BCD 44

800 J

610 J12 JN

392134

|SS-51-3DBCD 45

2,800

7,20073 JN

304189

JSS-52-01BCD 46

8,100 J

660 J11 JN

15 J9 J6.7 J

JSS-52-03BCD 47

80

6

JSS-54-02BCD 49

120

9

Not**:1) All unit* ara ug/kg2) Blank spec* indicatas that contaminant Mas not dataetad3) J « EsttMtad valua4) B « Po»»ibla blank contamination5) E * Concentration axoaad* calibration rang* of 6C/MS instrxMant6) Saapla ixabar and ing in -01 (axaipla:S$-03-01) tiara collactad fro* dapth of 2 to 3 faat7) Saapla nM»r and ing in -02 (axa*pla:S$-03-02) wara collactad fro* dapth of 4 to 5 faat8) Saapla n»b*r and ing in -03 (axaapla:SS-03-03) Mara collactad fro» dapth of 9 to 10 faat

WOooo

to

4-37




1j PARAMETERS

| VOLATILEJNethylene Chloride| AcetoneJTriehloroatheneJTatraehloroathanaj 1,1 ,2,2- Tetrachloroe thane(Toluenej SEMI -VOLATILE(Benzoic Acid(Naphthalene|2-MathylnaphthalanaJAoenaphthylanaJDiathylphthalataJFluorene(Phenanthrene(Anthracene|Di-n-Butylphthalata(Fluor anthene(Pyrene(Benio(a)Anthracane(Chrysene|Bis(2-*thylhexyl )phthalata(Oi -n-Oetylphthalata(Benzo(b)Fluor anthene| Benzo(k )Fluor anthene|B*nzo(a)Pyrenej Indanod ,2,3-od)Pyrana|Diben<(a,h)Anthraoone| Benzo(g ,h , i )Parylanaj PESTICIDES(GaaM-BHC (Lindana)|4,4'-DOE|4,4'-DOO|4,4'-DDTJHethoxychlorJAlpha-ChlordanaJGaaaa-Chlordana

$$-55-03BCD 53

200 J

2 J

2 J

87 J110 J

96 J150 J720 J92 J

560 J660 J380 J490 J110 J

210 J480 J160 J170 J

$$-57-02BCD 50——— ...

910 J

2,800

140 J

100 J170 J

110 J220 J

80 J

SS-58-02BCD 52

2,300

120 J

150 J

90 J150 J

100 J130 J

90 J

$$-60-02BCD 51

4,700 J

2,000 J

100 J

130 J1,200

1,1001,500490 J830510 J

390 J590 J420 J330 J180 J470 J

20 J19 J51

$$-61-01BCD 55

79 J

250 J96 J

300 J190 J240 J280 J

140 J120 J

20 J20 J

ISS-62-02BCD 56

500 BJ

Net**:1) All units ara up/kg2) Blank spaca indicate* that cental inant was not datactad3) J » Estiaatad valua4) B « Possibla blank conta*(nation5) E « Concentration axoaads calibration rang* of QC/NS instrusant6) Saaple n*bar anding in -01 <exaBpla:SS-03-01) wera oollaetad frea depth of 2 to 3 faat7) Saapla nusbar anding in -02 (axaBpla:$S-03-02> wara eollaetad froa depth of 4 to 5 faat8) Saapla nuabar anding in -03 (axaspla:$$-03-03) wara oollaetad from dapth of 9 to 10 faat

COOnoo

CO

4-38




1| PARAMETERS

| VOLATILEJNathylana ChloridaJAcatonajTrichloroathana| Tatraehloroathana| 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tatrach loroathana(Toluanaj SEMI -VOLATILE(Banzoic Acid(Naphthalene|2-MathylnaphthalanaJAeanaphthylaneJDiathylphthalata(FluoranajPhananthrana{Anthracanaj D i-n- But ylph thai ata(Fluoranthana(Pyrana|Banzo( a ) AnthracanajChrysanaJBis(2-athylhaxyl)phthalata|Di-n-Octylphthalata| Banzo (b ) F I uoranthana| BanzoCk )Fluoranthana|Banzo(a)Pyranaj Indanod ,2,3-cd)Pyrana|Dibenz(a,h)Anthracana|Banzo(g ,h , i )Parylana| PESTICIDESJGama-BHC (Lindana)|4,4'-DDE|4,4'-DDD|«,4'-DDTJNethoxychlorJAlpha-Chlordana(Gaaaa-Chlordana

[SS-63-01BCD 63

[SS-65-01BCD 57

2 J

170 J

210 J280 J150 J200 J

290 J150 J

{SS-65-1DBCD 58

2 J

SS-67-01BCD 60

180 J

1,900 J

86 J

SS-68-03BCD 62.........

92 J

85 J

SS-69-01BCD 61

1,200 EJ

130 J

Notas:1} All units ara ug/kg2) Blank spaca indicates that contaminant was not datactad3) J « Estiftatad valua4) B * Possibla blank contamination5) E = Concantration axcaad* calibration rang* of GC/HS instruaant6) Saapla nuabar anding in -01 (axaapla:SS-03-01) wara collactad froa7) Saapla nuabar anding in -02 (axaapla:SS-03-02) wara collactad fro* dapth of 4 to 5 faat8) Saapla nuabar anding in -03 (axaapla:SS-03-03) wara collactad froa dapth of 9 to 10 faat

COOO

OO

dapth of 2 to 3 faat

4-39

Samples from at least one depth interval at the following locations contained PCE at concentrationsexceeding the current soil cleanup guidance value of 1 ppm (1,000 ug/kg): 51, 60, 67, and 69.Only samples from location 51 (two to three and nine to ten foot depth ranges) exceeded currentPCE soP cleanup guidance values in more than one depth interval. At this location, a sample fromthe nine to ten foot depth interval contained 7,200 ug/kg. On the basis of this sample result thesoil at the nine to ten foot depth zone is considered contaminated. The sample from Phase 2location 155 significantly exceeded the current TCE soil cleanup guidance value in the two to threefoot depth sample (1,100,000 ug/kg). Analysis of the sample from the nine to ten foot depth zonedetected 810 ug/kg of PCE. On the basis of this result, this area is considered likely to becontaminated at a concentration at, or near, the PCE soil cleanup guidance value.

Both locations yielding samples from more than one depth interval with PCE concentrationsexceeding cleanup guidance values (51 and 155) are adjacent to the north wall of the GSC building.The other three locations (60, 67 and 69) where PCE concentrations exceeded cleanup guidancevalues are located in grass covered areas east, north and west of the GSC building. PCE wasdetected in the two to three foot depth interval at locations 67 and 69 at concentrations of 1,900and 1,200 ug/kg, respectively. The four to five foot sample at location 60 contained 2,000 ug/kgof PCE.

Results of the Phase 1 sofl sampling at GSC indicate that the greatest concentrations of VOCs insoil occur in a small area adjacent to the center of the north wall of the GSC building.Concentrations in samples from these locations were orders of magnitude greater than thosedetected at any other location. In addition, based on site history, contamination would be expectedat this location. Disposal at GSC reportedly occurred through discharge of solvent-contaminatedliquid and steam through a boiler blowdown and two steam condensate pipes. One of the steamcondensate pipes was located near the area of highest contaminant concentrations.Concentrations detected in samples near the other two pipes were much lower.

4-40oo

to<3\cn

The source of the PCE concentrations which exceeded soil cleanup guidance values in samplesfrom locations 60,67 and 69 is not known. These three sample locations are in grass-covered lawnareas ten to fifteen feet from the GSC building. Location 69 is approximately two feet from GSC'sdriveway. These locations are considered to be beyond the primary area of soil contaminationadjacent to the middle portion of the north wall of the GSC building. None of these samples werecollected near locations where disposal activities reportedly occurred, in addition, VOCconcentrations there are much lower than those from samples adjacent to the north wall of theGSC building.

Other VOCs detected in Phase 1 soil samples at GSC include methylene chloride, acetone, TCE,1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane and toluene. These VOCs are listed along with the number of times theywere detected and their maximum detected concentrations:

Contaminant No. of Detections Max. Concentration (ug/kg)Methylene Chloride 1 180Acetone 10 8,100

TCE 1 84

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3 73Toluene 1 2

None of these contaminants were detected in any sample at concentrations exceeding theirrespective current soil cleanup guidance values (see Table 4-1). The maximum concentrations oftwo of these five compounds were detected in samples from location 55, the Phase I locationwhere PCE concentrations exceeded cleanup guidance values. Considering this and the relativelylow concentrations detected for VOCs other than PCE, use of PCE as an indicator of soilcontamination would be effective in determining the area of soil at GSC which requires remediation.

A variety of semi-volatile compounds and pesticides were detected in samples from around GSC.None of these compounds appeared to be site-related in terms of contaminant identity and spacialdistribution. The processes responsible for the contamination problem at GSC are well understoodand soil samples collected by NJDEP in 1984 provide a further characterization of materialsdisposed of by GSC. None of the semi-volatile compounds or pesticides detected here would be

4-41

expected to result from operations at GSC. The locations at which these non-volatle contaminantswere detected also indicate that they were not site-related. The locations where the largest numberof non-volatle contaminants were detected include 55, 57, 60, 61 and 65. These locations arescattered throughout the areas north and east of the GSC bulding. Location 61 is approximately75 feet from the primary disposal area and was intended as a background sample. Very few ofthese compounds were detected at location 51 where high concentrations of site-relatedcontaminants were detected. FinaNy, ad of the semi-volatte compounds and pesticides are atrelatively low concentrations. After consideration of these issues, the ARCS II Team and EPAagreed to analyze Phase 2 sol samples for VOCs only.

PHASE 2

The purpose of Phase 2 sol sampling at GSC was to refine the estimate of the areal extent ofcontaminated sol developed using Phase 1 data. Sample locations were added to provide a moreaccurate estimate of the limits of the area of contaminated sol adjacent to the north wal of theGSC building (near Phase 1 location 51). Additional samples were also collected from the vicinityof Phase 1 locations 60, 67 and 69. These were locations where disposal is not expected to haveoccurred but where PCE concentrations exceeded the current sol cleanup guidance values.

A total of 13 samples were collected at various depths from six locations at GSC during Phase 2.These samples were subjected to headspace analysis and seven were submitted for analysis bya CLP laboratory. Results of headspace screening and CLP laboratory analysis are provided onTables 4-10 and 4-11, respectively.

Samples were collected at two locations (155 and 156) to further delineate the area of solcontamination adjacent to the north wal of the GSC bulding (near Phase 1 locations 51 and 53).To investigate exceedances of current PCE sol cleanup criteria at Phase 1 sample locations 60,67 and 68, four additional samples were collected.

GO

oo

toen4-42

TABLE 4-10



LOCATION

151

151

152

152

153

153

154

154

155

155

155

156

156

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

9-10

2-3

4-5

HNU READING(Pt»)

BG

BG

BG

BG

0.5

4.5

2.5

0.5

1,500.0

NA

NA

4.5

BG

Not*s:(1) BG « Background Concentration(2) NA - Net Analyzed

CO

oo

00

4-43

TABLE 4-11



4**

| PMANETHSII • — — — — " — — — — — — • • "|Nathylww Chlortd*JAoOtOna

|1,2-Dtohloroathww (total)|2-ButanoMJTriehloroothana|Totraehloroathan*JToluafl*

$8-151-260868-031

3 J

2 J

$8-153-2 |8S- 154-260868-032 I6086B-034- —— » | ———————

IIII

41 J | 8 J130 J j 25 J

3 J |

88-155-1 |60868-033

6,100 J1,100,000 J

$8- 155-3060668-030............

5 J35 J

88- 155-3 |60868-037

77 J19 J

810 J1 J

88- 156-260868-035..........

Notts:1) All utltt *ro2) 8lonk ipao* Indfectti that oontMirant •*•• not d*t«ot«d3) J • EttlMttd v«lu»4) 8MpU nutfwr* onding in -01 («KMpl«: 88-03-01) twr* ooll«ct*d fro* o^pth of 2 to 3 f**t5) 8Mpl* nuMtora ond<ng in -02 (ana«pl«: 88-03-02) twr* eollaotad fro» a»pth of 4 to 5 faat6) 8aapl* ntabara onding in -03 (•xMpl«: 88-03-03) Mara eollootad fro* dapth of 9 to 10 fa*t

TOO

Samples from Phase 1 location 52 provided information regarding the northern extent of thecontaminated zone adjacent to the north wall. Headspace measurements indicated highconcentrations of VOCs in samples from location 155 and relatively low concentrations in samplesfrom location 156. CLP sample results confirmed indications provided by the headspace analysis.A sample from the two to three foot depth range at location 155 was submitted to a CLP laboratoryand found to contain 1,100,000 ug/kg of PCE. The nine to ten foot samples from this locationcontained PCE at a concentration of 810 ug/kg. It appears likely that soil from the nine to ten footdepth range at location 155 is potentially contaminated at, or just below, the PCE guidance value.No VOCs were detected in the sample from the four to five foot depth range at location 156.

Samples were collected at locations 151 and 152 to confirm the presence of PCE concentrations(2,000 ug/kg) exceeding soil criteria in samples from Phase 1 location 60. This exceeds currentPCE son cleanup guidance values. Headspace measurement was performed on two samples fromeach location with detection of background concentrations in each case. A confirmatory samplewas sent from the four to five foot depth interval at location 151. The total concentrations of allVOCs detected in this sample was five ug/kg.

Samples were collected at location 153 to investigate the detection of 1,900 ug/kg of PCE in thetwo to three foot sample from location 67. Headspace concentrations in samples from this locationwere relatively low. PCE was detected in the CLP sample sent from this location (four to five footdepth) at 130 ug/kg.

Samples were collected at location 154 to investigate the detection of 1,200 ug/kg of PCE in thetwo to three foot sample from location 69. Headspace concentrations in samples from this locationwere low. The four to five foot sample from this location was submitted to a CLP laboratory andcontained 25 ug/kg of PCE.

Results of Phase 2 samples indicate that the 'hot spots' identified by samples from Phase 1 wolocations 60, 67 and 69, are small isolated areas. Samples from Phase 2 locations 151 and 155

(near Phase 1 locations 60 and 69) contained PCE concentrations that were undetectable and 25 §

A AK4-45

ug/kg, respectively. These concentrations are ar least an order of magnitude below the currentPCE sol cleanup guidance values. A PCE concentration of 130 ug/kg was detected in a samplefrom Phase 2 location 153 (near Phase 1 location 69). This concentration is stiV less than one-seventh of the current PCE sol cleanup guidance value.

Based on the results of the Phase 2 samples discussed above, the areas near Phase 1 samplelocations 60, 67 and 69 will not be included in the area of so! requiring remediation. Based onPhase 2 sampling these areas of sol exceeding PCE cleanup guidance values appear to beisolated areas. An additional indication is the relatively small exceedance of cleanup guidancevalues by contaminated Phase 1 samples.

As in Phase 1, PCE was the predominant contaminant detected during Phase 2. Other VOCsdetected included 2-butanone, TCE and toluene. Only TCE, detected at a concentration of 6,100ug/kg in the two to three foot sample from location 155, was detected at a concentrationexceeding current sol cleanup guidance values. PCE also exceeded current sol cleanup guidancevalues in this sample. Consequently, since the only detection of a VOC other than PCE at aconcentration greater than its sol cleanup guidance value occurs at a location where PCE alsoexceeds its current cleanup guidance value, PCE is an effective indicator of sol contamination.

After considering all historical data as wel as an sample data generated during Phases 1 and 2 ofthe field investigation, a map of sol exceeding PCE cleanup guidance values was developed forthe GSC site (see Figure 4-8). The area of contamination is limited to a fairly narrow strip alongthe northern wall of the GSC building. The contaminated zone appears to be quite localized withcontaminant concentrations decreasing rapidly with distance from the contaminated zone. Phase2 has provided more samples and a better data base for delineation of sol contamination. Theprobable source of this contamination is the steam condensate discharge pipe on the north sideof the GSC building.

CO

8oo

4-46


LEGEND

AREA WHERE VOCSEXCEED PROPOSEDCLEANUP LEVELS

_ BOUNDARY OF AREARECOMMENDED FORREMEDIATION

enoo

oo

to• C A L EI' - 15'

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS IISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITES

AREA OF SOIL EXCEEDING VOC CLEAN UP LEVELSAND AREA RECOMMENDED FOR REMEDIATION

FIGURE

4-8

C.C.JOHNSON A M A L H O T R A . P . C .4-47

Data from the hand augered sol samples were used in determining depth of soil contamination atGSC. Additional data considered include results of split spoon samples collected from a sol boring ^near the northeast comer of the GSC bulding and results of groundwater samples from a nearbydowngradient well (SJCC Well 6).

A total of 26 sol samples were collected from aO three depth intervals at GSC and submitted toCLP laboratories during both phases of the field investigation. At both of the relatively highlycontaminated sol sample locations at GSC (locations 51 and 155), samples from the two to threeand nine to ten foot depth intervals were sent for CLP analysis. The two to three foot sampleswere highly contaminated with PCE concentrations of 1,300,000 (location 51) and 1,100,000(location 155) ug/kg. A sample from nine to ten feet at location 51 contained PCE at aconcentration of 7,200 ug/kg. A sample from the nine to ten foot depth range at location 151contained 810 ug/kg of PCE. These results indicate that near-surface soHs exceed PCE cleanupguidance values and subsurface sols exceed cleanup guidance values in at least part of the area.Headspace concentrations measured in samples from the three depth intervals at location 51indicated a decrease in concentration with depth. The headspace concentration for the two tothree foot sample at location 155 was among the highest measured. Headspace concentrations swere not measured for the four to five and nine to ten foot samples because the organic vapordetector was being used for monitoring air quality during sample collection. Based on thismonitoring, it was concluded that the samples from four to five and nine to ten feet at location 155would be likely to exceed current VOC cleanup guidance values. Results of hand augered solsamples indicate that the sol underlying the area outlined on Figure 4-7 is contaminated to a depthof ten feet or greater.

SOIL BORING

A sol boring was continuously sampled and completed to the water table several feet from thenortheast comer of the GSC bulding (See Figure 4-7). Headspace concentrations were measured w

for all samples and, based on these measurements, samples from the two to four and four to six o•

foot depth intervals were submitted for CLP analysis. Data from headspace monitoring and CLP o

u>

analysis for split spoon samples from the so! boring are provided in Tables 4-12 and 4-13,respectively. PCE concentrations detected in these samples were 760 and 350 ug/kg,respectively. Acetone was detected at 1,200 ug/kg (four to five foot depth) and TCE, 1,2-dichloroethene and phenanthrene were detected at relatively low concentrations (24, 14 and 51ug/kg, respectively). None of these contaminants were present at concentrations approaching

available current cleanup guidance values. Results from the boring are inconclusive in terms ofdetermining depth of sol contamination in the area immediately adjacent to the GSC building. First,the boring could not be located within the extremely small area of contaminated soil at GSC dueto access limitations for the drilling equipment Second, the samples with the highest headspaceconcentration which were submitted for CLP analysis were both from a depth of less than ten feet.

COMPARISON TO GROUNDWATER AND SOIL GAS

Results of groundwater samples from SJCC Well 6, immediately east of the GSC building anddowngradient of the area of soil contamination, were also used to evaluate the depth of soilcontamination. This well, screened at and above the water table, has contained relatively highconcentrations of PCE over the past several years. The Phase 2 groundwater sample from SJCCWell 6 contained 1,700 ug/l of PCE. Since disposal of PCE was discontinued over six years ago,

contaminated soil has been the source of groundwater contamination. The consistency and

concentration of PCE detections in SJCC Well 6 indicate that significant quantities of thecontaminant have leached, and are continuing to leach from the ground surface to the water table.

Considering this, the concentrations of contaminants detected in shallow soil and the limited depthto the water table (approximately 25 feet), it is reasonable to assume that the PCE concentrationin a significant portion of the subsurface soil in the area shown on Figure 4-8 exceeds current soilcleanup guidance values.

COoo

oo

4-49 Mto

TABLE 4-12


PHASE 1 SOIL BORING (SB-9) HEADSPACE RESULTS

BORINGNUWEt

SB-9

SAMPLEDEPTH

...........

8-1010-1212- 14H-1616-1818-2020-2222-24

HNUREADING

20223210

12.218.624

15.4

DATE

1-26-90

Not**:1) All r««ulti «r« in ppa

COO

oo

10>JUI

4-50

TABLE 4-13


PHASE 1 SOIL BORING (SB-9) CLP RESULTS

II| PARAMETERSI-""— — ————————jAcatOna

|1,2-DichloroathanajTrichloroathana| Tatrachloroathana(Phananthrana

SB-9-2(2'-*')BCD 91

1424760 J

SB-9-3<4'-6')BCD 92

1,200 J

6350 J51 J

Notes: (1) All ra«ult» «ra ug/fcg(2) Blank apaca* indicate that contMiinants M*r» not <tot*ct*d(3) J • EstiMtad valuas

CO<nooo

4-51

Results of the soil gas survey correlated well with soil sampling results in the vicinity of GSC.

During both investigations, PCE was detected at higher concentrations than any other analyte. The

soil gas survey identified an area of highest PCE concentrations along Summer Avenue south ofGSC. This soy gas sampling location was the closest to the contaminated soil area near the GSCbuilding in the downgradient direction.

4.2.4 Area North of Atlantic Avenue

During Phase 1, soil samples were collected from a location just north of Atlantic Avenue

approximately 300 feet east of Central Avenue. The purpose of this effort was to investigate thesource of VOCs detected in soil gas samples in this area (see Section 4.1.1, Soil Gas Survey). Itwas suspected that these contaminants may be from a source other than GSC or SJCC. This wasbased on the lack of soil gas contamination between this location and the GSC and SJCC sourceareas. In addition, a relatively large number of contaminants were found at this location while inother areas the contamination was due almost entirely to TCE and PCE.

A total of six samples from three locations were collected and screened using the methodsdescribed earlier in this report Sample locations are shown in Figure 4-9. Results of headspace

screening for these samples are provided in Table 4-14. Three of the six samples were submittedfor CLP laboratory analysis. CLP analytical results are provided in Table 4-15.

Headspace concentration measurements were all low. CLP results detected benzene at four ug/kgin the four to five foot depth range sample from location 81.

The only other contaminants detected in Phase 1 samples north of Atlantic Avenue were pyrene(87 ug/kg) and bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthaiate (160 ug/kg) in the four to five foot depth range atlocation 82. Results of these samples do not provide additional insight into the source of soil gas

COcontamination north of Atlantic Avenue, however, it seems likely that GSC and SJCC are not the osource. o

oM

MNJ

4-52 3

COoo

SO. JERSEYCLOTHING CO.

ui

UJ

•BANK OF MINOTOLA PRIVATE RESIDENCE

EP-ISA81 80 82

ATLANTIC AVENUE

LEGEND• - SAMPLE LOCATIONH-LOCATION OF HIGH DETECTION

OF TCE (OVER I.OOO PPB) INSOIL GAS SURVEY

A-EPA PHASE I MONITORINGWELL

NOTE: NO SOIL SAMPLES WERECOLLECTED DURINGPHASE 2 AT THIS LOCATION

_J<QCt-ZUIo

mzcm

Is*->!00

SCALEI'-100*

DATEJULY 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITESPHASE I AND 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS-NORTH OF ATLANTIC AVENUE

FIGURE

4-9

C.C.JOHNSON t MALHOTRA.P.C.

TABLE 4-14

ATLANTIC AVENUE


LOCATION

80

ao

81

81

82

82

DEPTH(ft)

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

2-3

4-5

HNU READING(«->

0.8

1.0

8G

1.4

8G

K

Notes:DBG * Background Concentration2)NA • Not Aiwlynd

CO

oo

M

4-54

TABLE 4-15

ATLANTIC AVENUE

PHASE 1 SOIL CLP DATA

1| PARAMETERS

| VOLATILE(Benzene(Pyrene|Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate

SS-80-01BCD 70

SS-81-02BCD 71

4 J

SS-B2-02BCD 72

87 J160 J

Notes:1) All units are ug/kg2) Blank spec* indicates that contaminant Mas not detected3) J « EstiMtad valua4) Saaple maters anding in -01 (example: SS-03-01) Mere collected fro* depth of 2 to 3 feat5) Saaple numbers ending in -02 (exaaple: SS-03-02) were collected fro* depth of 4 to 5 feet6) Saaple nutoers ending in -03 (exaaple: SS-03-03) Mere collected fro* depth of 9 to 10 feet

CO8oo

GOO

4-55

A monitoring well (EP-1S) was installed at the location north of Atlantic Avenue during Phase 1 andsampled during Phases 1 and 2. TCE (3 ug/1) and diekJrin (0.12 ug/l) were detected during Phase1. Benzene (0.6 ug/l), toluene (1 ug/l), xylene (1 ug/l) and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (0.9 ug/l) weredetected in the Phase 2 groundwater sample from this well. Groundwater sample results arediscussed in detal in Section 4.3 No additional conclusions could be reached regarding the sourceof soi gas contamination at this location based on groundwater sampling results.

From the results of sol and groundwater sampling, sols in the area north of Atlantic Avenue donot appear to be contaminated. Sol sample results faied to detect contaminants at concentrationsgreater than their respective current sol cleanup guidance values. Groundwater sampling resultsdetected TCE at a concentration exceeding its MCL The source of the contaminants detectedin sol gas in this area is not known. Based on the avalable evidence, it may be due tocontaminants from sources other than SJCC and GSC migrating through the shallow groundwaternear the sample location.

Sols in the area north of Atlantic Avenue are considered uncontaminated. Contamination ofgroundwater in this area wi be addressed along with entire contaminated groundwater plume inthe portion of the report addressing groundwater contamination (see Section 4.3).

4.2.5 Sol Samples Collected During Monitoring Well Installation

Split spoon samples were collected at five foot intervals or changes in stratigraphy during drillingof Phase 1 monitoring wells. Organic vapor concentrations were measured using a portableorganic vapor detector when each split spoon was opened. In nearly afl cases, the organic vapordetector faled to detected above-background concentrations of VOCs. A total of six samples andone duplicate were submitted to a CLP laboratory for TCL organics analysis. Results of theseanalyses are presented in Table 4-16. Locations of the monitoring wells are shown in Figure 2-4.Four VOCs were detected in the seven samples, including acetone which appeared in six of the $seven samples with a maximum concentration of 1,800 ug/kg. Acetone was the solvent used forsplit spoon sampler decontamination during collection of the sol samples. The maximum detected o

h-4N>

4-56 S

Ui

TABLE 4-16


SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CLP RESULTS

11| PARAMETERS

1 • " " - " "|H*thylMW ChloHdt|Ac«torw|1,2-D<chlorMth*n«|THehloro»th«rM| T*tr aeh lorotthwwJToluww|Ph*n«nthr*rwJDt-n-butylphthaUt*JButyltwnzylphthalat*|BU(2-«thylh«xyl)phth.l«t«

MU-EP1-1

BCD 83

100 B

130 JI

MW-EP2-1 |

BCD 76

800 DJ

3 J

120 J

MW-EP2-2(10'-12») |

BCD 77

150 J

2 J

120 J

MW-EP5-2

BCD 79

HU-EP6-1 |(0'-2'>BCD 74

...........

1800 DE

2 J12

320 J

HU-EP7-2 |(10'-12«) |

BCD 85

29 J

150 J

160 J

MW-EP7-2D(10' -12')

BCD 86

28 J

180 J

250 J

Not*: All result* «r» In ug/kg

too

concentration of acetone was wen below the NJDEP current sol cleanup guidance value of 50 ppm(50,000 ug/kg). Other VOCs included TCE (two ug/kg) and PCE (12 ug/kg) which were detectedin the sample collected during drilling of EP-2I. Toluene was detected in two of the seven sampleswith a maximum concentration of three ug/kg. The current New Jersey sol cleanup guidancevalue for each of these three compounds is one ppm (1,000 ug/kg).

Three semi-volatle compounds were detected in the samples collected during well drilling. Theseincluded: di-n-butylphthalate, detected in two samples at a maximum concentration of 180 ug/kg;butylbenzylphthalate, detected in one sample at 130 ug/kg, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,detected five times at a maximum concentration of 320 ug/kg. Al of these detections were atconcentrations significantly below their current New Jersey sol cleanup guidance values.

The analytical results of these split spoon samples confirm that contamination of vadose zone solat locations downgradient of the GSC and SJCC source areas is not a concern.

4.3 GROUNDWATER

4.3.1 ERT/REAC Groundwater Sampling. March 1989

EPA's ERT/REAC subcontractor sampled seven residential wells and one irrigation well during then-March 1,1989 sol gas sampling investigation. Al of the residential wells were located along WheatRoad, east of Central Avenue. The irrigation well was located north of Wheat Road in the yard ofthe Cleary School, approximately 500 feet east of the east wall of the school. The samplelocations, well depths and analytical results are shown on Figure 4-10.

The seven residential well locations were selected to intercept contamination in the aquiferdowngradient of the contaminated SJCC wells. As shown on Figure 4-10, the wells range in depthfrom approximately 50 to 71 feet Well construction data was not available for Residential Wells 5

CO

oo

4-58 M

00U)

PACIFIC^

•o

GARDEN STATE 12CLEANERS


ATLANTIC AVENUE

AVENUE

SUMMER

->X-EP-AEP-2I

AVENUE

AEP-3S

ARCTIC AVENUE

JONAS

AEP-SS

AVENUE Lj2

r——BABES VILLAGE INN

NJIA• NJI

WILLIAMS AVENUE

QEP-I4I

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

LEGENDA -EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS AND SOIL

BORINGSO-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLS07~SJCC MONITORING WELL

• NJI-NJDEP MONITORING WELL

'0-RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING LOCATION^-IRRIGATION WELL SAMPLING LOCATION(52) WELL DEPTH (FEET BELOW SURFACE)

ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/L

MARTINELLI AVE.

CLEARY SCHOOL WELL

IRRIGATION WELL

SCHOOL- »NJ9

__ _(1,2,5 - TRICHLOROBENZCNE « O.SJl,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE«0.4lN

700'f »

WHEAT ROAD

\

2 3 4 t 7(-50) WO) (62) (52)

fPCE * 13(CHLOROFORMS o.eL U-DICHLOROETHENE « 0.7

LOUIS

CO

Oo

to00

OEP-ODSCALE

I" « 500'DATE

JUNE 1991

ARCS ISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITES

RESULTS

FIGURE

4-10

C.C.JOHNSON « MALHOTRA. .P .C . 4-59

and 7. The irrigation well was chosen because it was also located downgradient of the SJCC wells,to a depth of 208 feet, which would provide sample data from a deeper portion of the aquifer.

The sample results show that most of the wells have no PCE or TCE contamination. ResidentialWell No. 1 contained 13 ug/l of PCE, and less than one ug/l of chloroform and 1,1-dichloroethene.The irrigation well sample contained three compounds, each at less than one ug/l: 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (0.5 ug/l), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (0.4 ug/l), and naphthalene (0.8 ug/l).

Residential Well No. 1 is located at the southeast comer of Central Avenue and Wheat Road andthe remaining residential locations are located to the east, along Wheat Road. The detection of 13ug/l of PCE indicates that there is PCE contamination at 70 feet below the ground surface. Thisresidence was reportedly connected to the municipal water supply system. PCE was not detectedin shallower Residential WeU Nos. 2 (approximately 50 feet deep), 3 (approximately 50 feet deep),and 4 (62 feet deep). The difference in the depths of Residential Well Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is notmore than 21 feet, however, this does not consider the variations in ground surface elevationbetween these locations. The lateral separation of Residential WeU No. 1 from the other locationsis approximately 800 feet The PCE contamination along Wheat Road may be confined toResidential Well No. 1 which extends to a greater depth that any of the SJCC wells (maximumdepth of 49 feet BGS at SJCC WeU 5). PCE contamination may extend between the SJCC wellsand Residential WeU No. 1, or the PCE may have migrated down into the aquifer as it moveddowngradient with the groundwater flow. Residential WeU Nos. 5,6 and 7 are located too far eastto be directly downgradient of the groundwater flow from the SJCC and GSC Sites, as describedin Section 3.5 of Chapter 3.

The contaminants in the irrigation well do not appear to be related to the PCE contamination. Theabsence of PCE in the irrigation well indicated that contamination from SJCC and GSC had notspread to the screened interval of the well (the screen extends from a depth of 145 to 155 feet, andfrom 166 to 206 feet).

01

4-60

oo

to00Ul

4.3.2 Groundwater Investigation

The vertical and horizontal extent of groundwater contamination was assessed from the analyticalresults of groundwater samples taken from the SJCC, NJDEP, EPA Phase 1 and EPA Phase 2wells. All of the analytical results from the CLP laboratories were subjected to data validation usingEPA Region II protocol.

Groundwater sampling for the remedial investigation was conducted in February 1990 and March1991 for Phases 1 and 2, respectively. The Phase 1 analytical results, from the SJCC, NJDEP, andEPA wells, were used to determine the locations of the Phase 2 monitoring wells. Analytical resultsfrom the following groundwater sampling efforts were compared to the more recent remedialinvestigation results to assess the extent of contamination at the GSC and SJCC and the changesin the contamination pattern over time:

o SJCC quarterly sampling effort, 1981 to presento ERT/REAC residential sampling, March 1989o NJDEP residential sampling, 1981 to 1982o NJDEP monitoring well sampling, 1985 and 1988

The analytical results of the SJCC sampling program and the NJDEP investigations were presentedin Chapter 1. The analytical results for Phases 1 and 2 of the Rl are presented in Tables 4-17 and4-18, respectively. Compounds which were not detected in the Phase 1 and 2 groundwatersamples were not reported in the tables.

All remedial investigation groundwater samples were collected in accordance with the proceduresoutlined generally in Chapter 2 and specifically in the Site Field Operations Plan. All of the wellswere purged prior to sample collection. The samples, field blanks and trip blanks were sent to aCLP laboratory for analysis. The Phase 1 groundwater samples were analyzed using CLP SAS co

r?(Special Analytical Services) procedures for TCL VOC compounds. TLC semivolatile and pesticideoo

4-61 w

TABLE 4-17


PHASE 1 GROUNDWATER CLP RESULTS

MUV

UEU. PEW (FT)SCIEENEO INTEIVM. (FT)

MUtTIUS

ChloroMtlunt

1,1-DlchlOTMthww1,1-»tcMora*th*f»:t*-1,2-Dlehlora*Uwn» (2>IreaadicMaroMUMm (1)Ehlor*«*ra (1)l,1,1-Tri*M*ra*tli*n*Urtan T*tr*cM*rl*rr1eM*ro*th*i»r*tr«ehtorMth«n»!-N*iman*1 , 1, 1 .2-T«tr«ohlero>tlMn*N*th.l*»

SEMI -VOLATILE*lt»(2-»tl»ylh«yl)pMh»l««

PESTICIDESh.ldrln

MITOIJM 1IS LAI HUNIS IM MUM

US NCU

7

70no100200555

nutIEI(El

HJ ICL*

2

101001002*211

NU-EP1-1523M-12•a •»

47(29-U)

3

0.12

52301-13•CM SO

110(10-110)

0.7

10

NU-EP3-1S230I-11

•CO f7.........

41

.........

•2

0.4

5 t

HH-EF5-152301-10

•CO %.........33

(1S-33)

MH-EN-1523M-31KM 44

..........

110(•0-110)..........

4

3*7*

7 i

HU-EP7-15230«-35KM M.........

40(22-37).........

10

NH-U1-1S23M-21KM 57

..........

45(25-45)..........

1

O.I

HM-SJ2-1S230I-21KM 44

41(21-41)

171

77 J1113

13,000240 J

• 1

Not**: 1) NJDEP and F*daral Mas ara for Total TrihaloMthanas2) NJDEP and Fadaral Ma* ar* for Total 1,2-Diehloroatnana (Cis and Traits)3) All units ara in ug/l4) Blank spao* indicatas analyta Mas not dstaetad5) US Ma « U.S Safa Drinking Watar Act MCL6) NJ Ma * N*M J*r**y Safa Drinking Watar Act in ugM7) EP « EPA Phasa 1 and 2 Monitoring WallsS) SJCC • South Jars*y Clothing Co. Monitoring Walls9) NJ « NJDEP Monitoring W*lls10) J • Estisiatad valua11) B • Coapound d*taet*d in field or trip blank

CO

oo

NJ00




NtI)U

MEU DEPTH (FT)SCIEENED INTEIVAL (FT)

VaATILES

Oiler «Mth«MBilere»th«v1,1-Dtehlere»thMM1,1-OiehloroBt»Mn*Ei«-1^-0«ehlero«tlMn* (2)IraaodlohleroMthciw (1)Chlorafora (1)I,1,1-Trieh(oro*thwwUrban T«tr«cMoMd»'rlehloro*th«n*r«tradtlere*th»n»Mtoianon*I,1,1,2-T*traehloro>th«rwlaphtlMlww

SEMI-VOLATILES1 i«(2-»thylh«)tyl )phthaUt«

PESTICIDESXaldrin

M1TOC1N6 1IS LAB NUMIS Ul MUM

USMCL*

7

70100100200555

(ELLSER |El

NJ MCLl

2

1010010026

211

NW-SJ3-152308-27•CM 62.........

35(15-35).........

14

0.7

24013

Mf-UM-152306-22KM 56

47(27-47)

2

964

HU-SJ4-152306-23KM 59..........

99(19-39)..........

0.7 J

510.9

5 J

MW-SJ5-152306-18KM 54..........

49(29-49)..........

56

7,00065

14

MU-SJ6-152301-37KM 70

43(23-43)

22

50 J1,900

2

6 J

MM-SJ7-1 {52306-38KM 71.........

45(25-45)

5

1209

30

HW-SJ8-152308-36•CM 69.........

45(25-45)

12

121,000

0.6

MU-SJ9-152308-24•CM 60

43(23-43)..........

6

5 J

Notes: 1) NJDEP and Fadaral MCU ara for Total TrihaloMthanas2) NJDEP and Fadaral MCLa ara for Total 1,2-Dichloroathana (Cia and Trans)3) All unit* ar« in ug/l4) Hank apao* <nd<eat*s analyt* was not dataetad5) US HCL • U.S Safa Drinking Vatar Act NCL6) NJ NCL • Haw Jaraay Safa Drinking tfatar Act in ug\l7) EP « EPA Phasa 1 and 2 Honitoring Walla•) SJCC « South Jaraay Clothing Co. Monitoring Walla9) NJ • NJDEP Monitoring Wall*10) J • EatiMtad valua11) •« Coapound dctaetad In fiald or trip blank

COOooo

to0000

4-63




NONITORING WELLS |MW-SJ10-1|MW-SJ11-1 (MW-SJ12-1SAS LAB NUMBER J5230B-30RAS LAB NUMBER

WELL DEPTH (FT)SCREENED INTERVAL (FT)

VOLATILES

ihlorocthww1,1-0ichloro*th«fw1,1-Diehloro*than«CU-1,2-Diehloro>thww (2)IreaodichloroMthan* (1)Chlorofora (1)1.1,1-Trfehleretthan*Csrtaon T«tr«chtorid*>tchloro«th«n*'•traehlero«th«n«i-H*xMwn*1,1,1 ,2-T«tr*ehlero»th«wlaphthalMw

SEMI-VOLATILESH«(2-«thyllwxyl )phtlMltt«

PESTICIDES>i«ldrin

us MCLI |NJ Ma»

7

70100100200555

—

2

1010010026211

BCM 65

47(27-47)

1

1551

0.12

52308-20BCM 56

47(27-47)

2 J

100 J43 J

MW-NJ1-152308-19 (52308-34

BCM 55

43(23-43)

13

11 J

5,40069

BCM 67

68(58-68)

21

MW-NJ1A-1 JMW-NJ3-1S230B-08 (52308-28

BCD 94

40(20-40)

2

2

BCM 63.........

40(15-40)

,12

MW-NJ4-15230B-14

BCM 51

48(38-48)

6 J

MW-N45-152308-15

BCM 52..........

33(23-33)

3

7 J

Not**: 1) NJOiP and F«d»rcl HCU mrm for Total TrihaloMthww*2) NJOEP and Fadaral NCLt «r« for Total 1,2-DiehloroathMW (CU and Trans)3) All unit* aro <n ug/l4) tlank apaoo Indieatas analyta waa not dataetod5) US Ma • U.S Safa Drinking Watar Act HCL6) NJ MCL • Now Joraay Safa Or Inking Wator Act In ug\l7) EP • EPA Phaaa 1 and 2 Nonitoring Valla8) SJCC • South Joraay Clothing Co. Monitoring Walla9) NJ • NJDEP Nonitoring Walla10) 4 « Eatiaatad valua11) • « Coapound dataetod in flaid or trip blank

CO

oo

to0010

4-64

TABLE 4-18



MONITORING WELLS (MU-EP1-2 (MW-EP2-2 MU-EP3-2 (MW-EPS-2• SAS LAB NUMBER |60B68-OSO|6086B-057|o086B-OB6|60868-087

WELL DEPTH (FT)SCREENED INTERVAL (FT)

(US Ma*

| Ac« ton.(Carbon OituLfid*|1,1-Oichloro«th*M|1.1-Dichloro»th»n.|Cii-1,2-Oiehloro*th*n* (2)(Chlorefora (1)|2-Butanorw(1 ,1 ,1-Tr ichlorocthnw(Carbon Tetrachlor id*jlroMdicMoroMthtrw (1)|1,2-Dichloroprop»n»(Triehloroethww1 1 ,1 ,2- Tr iehtorocthan*|B«nz*n*|T»traehLoro*theiw(Toluww(Ethylb*nz*n*(Styran*(HtP XyUn* (3)(1,3-DiehlorotMnzen*|1,4-0iehlorob*nz»n*|4-Chlorotolu«n*|tr*ns-1,2-Diehtoro*ttwrw (2)

(Naphthclww|n-Propylb»nz*n*1 1 ,1 ,1 ,2-T«traehloro*than*j 1 ,2,3-Tr iehlorob*nz»n*1 1 ,2,4-Tr iehlorotenzen*1 1 ,3,5-Tr iaethylbenzen*

7

70100

2005

10055

55

1,000700100

10,000

75

100

|O-Xyl«n* (3) (10,000

NJ NCL*

2

10100

262

100

1

11

4460075

10

aa

44

47(29-44)

0.6

1.0

1.0

.

0.9

110(90-110)

0.3 J0.2 J0.50.4 J

0.6

1.01.0

0.3 J

0.3 J

1.0

0.9

41(28-38)

33(18-33)

MW-EP6-2 (MH-EP7-2 |60868-078 160868-089

110(90-110)

7.0

36.0

940.0

40(22-37)

KW-EP-80-260868-079

225(197-222)

0.5 J

11.0 J

0.9

7.0

MU-EP-91-260868-080

140(112-137)

1) NJOEP and Federal HCLt ara for Total Trihalomathana*2) NJDEP and Federal HCLt ara for Total 1,2-Dichloroathana (Cis and Trans)3) NJDEP and Federal MCL* ara for Total Xylanas <0,M,and P)4) All unit* ara in ug/l5) Blank spaca indicates analyta was not detactad6) US MCL * U.S Safa Drinking Watar Act MCL7) NJ MCL = Haw Jersey Safa Drinking Watar Act8) EP = EPA Phase 1 and 2 Monitoring Walla«) SJCC = South Jaraay Clothing Co. Monitoring Walls10) NJ * NJDEP Monitoring Walls11) J * Estiiatad value12) 8 * Conpound detactad in f iald or trip blank

4-65

CO8ooM

NJ10O




MONITORING WELLS

SAS LM NUM8E8................................................

WELL DEPTH (FT)SCHEMED INTEIVM. (FT)

(US NCL» |«J HCl>

Acetone|Cwbon OiHilf id«|1,1-DichlorMthm|1,1-Diefctoro»tlMn*|Ci»-1.2-Oichloro*tlim (2)(Chloroform (1)

|1,1,1-THehlorooth*n>(Carbon Totroehlor Id*|lro>ooHc»itoraMth*n* (1)|1,2-DicMoroprop*n»JTMchlorovtlMM|1,1,2-TricMoro»thm|8*flMn»|Totr*chloro*thoMJToluonolEthylbonzon*jstyrwwJWP Xylon* (3)|1,3-DtehleratowuwMj1,4-CieMorob»nwn>j*-CklarotetuMMjtr«n*-1,2-Diehiora(thm (2)|H*Mehlaretautadi«»|iup»ith*t«ra

1 1 ,2,3-Tr tchtorob*nnn>j 1 ,2,4-Tr idilerobwum1 1 ,3,5- Tr iMthyltoucm

7

70100

200S

10055

55

1,000700100

10.000

75

100

|0-Xylw« (3) 1 10 ,000

—— —— .

2

10100

262

100

1

11

4460075

10

88

44

NW-EP- 100-160868-088

215(187-212)

0.2 j

0.1

0.2 J2.01.0

1.01.00.60.7 J

HM-EP-111-260868-090

140(112-137)

0.3 J

MW-EP- 121-160868-062

140(112-137)

0.4 J

12.034.00.7

0.93.02.0

2.0

MW-E»-13I|W-EP-14I-160868-082J69868-054

124(46-121).........

130(102-127)

0.4 J

0.5

NH-EP-14ID-1I60868-060

130(102-127)

0.2 J0.5

1

1

NW-S41-2 |60868-048

45(25-45)

4.0 i

NN-SJ2-2 |60868-045

41(21-41)

2.0 i0.8 J

51.0 J0.8 J

27.0 J0.6 J0.6 i

4,500.0 J6.0 i

39.0 t

1.0 )

NW-SJ3-3 |60868-083 I

35(15-35)

5.0

88.0

6,9

1) NJOEP end Federal MCLt are for Total TrihaloiMthenes2) NJDEP and Federal MCI.8 are for Total 1,2-Dichloroethene (Ci* and Tran>)3) NJOEP and Federal HCLi are for Total Xylenes (0,M,and P)4> AU units are in ug/l5) Blank space indicates analyte was not detected6) US HCL * U.S Safe Drinking Water Act KCL7) NJ MCL = New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act8) EP * EPA Phase 1 and 2 Monitoring Wells9) SJCC = South Jersey Clothing Co. Monitoring Wells10) NJ * NJDEP Monitoring Wells11) J « Estisiated value12) B * Compound detected in field or trip blenk

W

oo

tovo

4-66




»1

1

1VOLATILE:

Ac*ton»Cvtan Diulf id>1,1rOiehlera*Uwn>1,1-0tehlera»thw»Ci*-1,2-OidilwMtlMM (2)CMerofen (1)2-SutmM1,1,1-TriehlernthmICwbon T»tr«ehlerid>|6r«MdiehtareMth«n> (1>|1,2-Diehlorepr*«n.lnchlex-o«th«n»1,1,2-Triohtoro»th«n.|6M»«.

|T«tr«etil«re*th«MjTolum|EthylbM>MMIttyrMK\mr xyiww (3>|1,3-0ichlerab*nnn*[1,4-OiehlerBb»n2ww4-Chleretelum!trin«-1,2-DiehterMthMV (2)NuwMorebutidimMcphtlwlwwn- ropylbtnzwM1,1,1,2-T«tr»chloro«th«n»1,2,3-Trichlorob«ii»n»1,2,4-lriehlerabwuww1 ,3,5- Tr iMthrltenxww0-Xyl»n» (1)

HNITOtlNCMS LM «*

WELL DCPT>tCtEENED 11

US NCL>

7

70100

2005

100

5

55

1,000

10044

100

WELLS•ED

(FT)TEtVAL (F

NJ NCLl

2

10100

262

1

11

600n

10

68

44

MM-SJ3A-260666-064...........

47(27-47)

2.0

66.0 i

MW-SJ4-260666-053

99(19-39)

1

NW-SJ5-260666-046

49(29-49)

14.01.0

4.0

3,000.0 J1.0

41.0

0.4 J

MU-SJ6-260666-040

43(23-43)

13.0

27.0

1,700.0 J

NW-SJ7-260666-044

45(25-45)

2.0 J

2.0 J

W.O J

1,300.0 J

14.0 J

Mf-S.18-2fcOBM-077

45(25-45)

18.0

23.0

1,300.0 J

0.5

1.0

I

NK-SJ9-260661-039

43(23-43)

•.0 8

I

NW-SJ10-2 |60666-049

*7(27-47)

0.5 J

3.0 J

0.6 J

0.6 J0.6 i0.4 41.0 J

0.4 J0.5 J0.3 J

0.4 J

0.6 i

NW-SJ11-260666-076

47(27-47)

0.7

1.0

7.0

230.0

110.0

1) NJDEP and Federal HCLs are for Total Trihalonwthanes2) NJDEP and Federsl MCL» are for Total 1,2-Diehloroethene (Cis and Trans)3) NJDEP and Federal HCLs ar* for Total Xylenes (0,H,and P)4) All units ar« in ug/l5) Blank space indicates analyte was not detected6} US HCL * U.S Safe Drinking Water Act NCL7} NJ MCL = New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act8) EP * EPA Phase 1 and 2 Monitoring Wells9) SJCC = South Jersey Clothing Co. Monitoring Wells10) NJ = NJDEP Monitoring Wells11) J * Estimated value12) 6 = Compound detected in field or trip blank

CO

oo

NJvoN>

4-67




*1

so

1VDLATILES

lAoetem[Cartoon Diiulfid*|1,1-Dichloro*th*r»!1,1-Dichloro«then*|Ci«-1,2-Oiehlore*thon* (2)IChlorelore (1)|2-6ut*non*|1,1,1-Tr«ehloro»th«w[Cartoon T*trachlor<d>|Bro*adiehlaraMthm (1)1 1 ,2-Diehloraprepww|TMoMoro»th«f»1 1 , 1 ,2-Tr iehtoro»t»wn»|B*nxon»| TotraehloreottMiw|Toluom[EthylbonMno|Styren*HU> Xylen* (3)|1,3-0iehlorab*n«*n»|1,4-Dichlorob»ni»n»|4-CMerotoluwwtren*-1,2-Dichlora*th*m (2)lltoiwehlorobutcdim*N«phth«l*n*

|1,1,1,2-T»tr«chloro»th«n»| 1 ,2,3- Tr iehtorob«ni*n»|1,2,4-Tr<eliterob*nz»n*[ 1 ,3,5-Tr iMthylbtnzofw|0-XyUrw (3)

ONITORIHGAS LAB HUM

HELL DEPTHEENED INTE

US HCL* {

7

70100

2005

100ss

5S

1,000700100

10,000

75

100

10,000

WELLSBEI

(FT)JtVAL (FT)

NJ MCL*

2

10100

262

100

1

11

44WO75

10

86

44

MW-SJ12-260866-063

43(23-43)

1.00.2 J

1S.O

12.0

190.0 J

47:0 J

NW-NJ1-2 |60866-043

68(58-68)

'

MU-NJ1A-260668-042

40(20-40)

MU-NJ2-2 |60866-100 |

34(14-34)

1.0

NU-NJ3-2 I60666-054 |

40(15-40)

HU-NJ4-260866-056

48(38-48)

NW-NJ5-260666-061

33(23-33)

1) NJDEP and Federal MCL* arc for Total Trihaloaethanes2) NJDEP and Federal MCL* are for Total 1,2-Diehloroethene (Cis and Trans)3) NJDEP and Federal MCLs ara for Total Xylene* (0,N,and P)«) All units ara in ug/l5) Blank space indicate* analyta Mas not detected6) US MCL = U.S Safe Drinking Water Act MCL7) NJ MCL * New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act8) EP * EPA Phase 1 and 2 Monitoring Wells9) SJCC = South Jersey Clothing Co. Monitoring Wells10) NJ = NJDEP Monitoring Wells11) J s Estimated value12) B = Compound detected in field or trip blank

CO

oo

10u>

4-68

compounds were analyzed using CLP Routine Analytical Services (RAS) procedures. The VOC

laboratory analysis included lower detection limits for the VOCs which allowed effective evaluationof compliance with NJDEP Maximum Contamination Limits (MCLs). The Phase 2 groundwatersamples were analyzed, using CLP SAS procedures, for the same compounds as Phase 1 exceptfor the elimination of semivolatile and pesticide compounds. The Phase 1 groundwater samples

had detections of VOCs, one semi-volatile compound and one pesticide compound. Thesemivolatile compound, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and the pesticide compound, dieldrin, were notrelated to the cleaning processes employed at GSC or SJCC. This was the basis for EPA's decisionconfine Phase 2 analysis to VOCs. Details on the results of the Phase 1 semi-volatile and pesticideanalysis will be discussed in the succeeding pages.

Table 4-17 and 4-18 show the Federal and NJDEP MCLs. The Federal MCLs are referenced from

the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act for Public Water Supplies, published in the Federal Register onJanuary 30, 1991 (56 CFR 3526). The NJDEP MCLs are referenced from the New JerseyAdministrative Code 7:10-16.7, MCLs for Hazardous Contaminants (Revised as of September 1,

1989).

The CLP analysis of the Phase I groundwater samples showed detectable concentrations of 14volatile organic compounds, one semi-volatile organic compound, and one pesticide compound(Table 4-17). The shallow monitoring well NJDEP-2 was not sampled during Phase 1 because itscasing was bent preventing insertion of a baler for sampling .

VOCs detected in the groundwater samples were also detected in the sofl samples. The soilsample analytical results for Phases 1 and 2 report the total quantity of cis-1,2-dichloroethene andtrans-1,2-dichloroethene as single compound: 1,2-dichloroethene (total). The groundwater sampleanalytical results for Phases 1 and 2 report the individual quantities of cis-1,2-dichloroethene andtrans-1,2-dichloroethene. In the following discussion. 1,2-dichloroethene (total) in soil wil beassumed to represent the source of both cis and trans-1,2-dichloroethene in the groundwater. o

vo4-69

Chloroform, cts-1,2-dtchloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCE, and PCE, were found in both thePhase 1 groundwater and sol samples. These five volatile compounds have NJDEP and/orFederal drinking water MCLs. Three additional volatile compounds, 1,1-dichloroethene,bromodichtorornetnane, and carbon tetrachloride, which were found only in the groundwater, haveNJDEP or Federal drinking water MCLs. In total, eight volatile compounds were detected in thegroundwater which have NJDEP or Federal drinking water MCLs, five of which were detected inthe sol samples.

The remaining seven voiatie compounds, which were detected only in the groundwater and haveno MCLs, were detected at concentrations of eight ug/l or less. Dieldrin, a pesticide, was foundin the groundwater at concentrations below one ug/l. The semi-volatie compound, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaJate, was found in both the Phase 1 groundwater and sol samples. Thiscompound, detected at concentrations of up to 30 ug/l, was detected in SJCC Well No. 9, whichupgradient of the SJCC fadity. There is no NJDEP or Federal MCL for dieldrin or bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtnalate.

The CLP analysis of the Phase 2 groundwater samples showed detectable concentrations of 31VOCs (Table 4-18). Six of the volatile compounds were found in both the sol and groundwatersamples: cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene; trans-1 ,2-dichloroethene; TCE; PCE; 2-butanone; and toluene. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene, PCE, and TCE had also been found in the Phase 1 sol and groundwatersamples. 2-Butanone and toluene had been found only in the Phase I sol samples. All six of thesevolatile compounds except 2-butanone have NJDEP or Federal drinking water MCL's. Chloroformand 1,1,1-trichloroethane, found in both the Phase 1 sol and groundwater samples, were foundonly in the groundwater in Phase 2. Fifteen compounds found only in the groundwater haveNJDEP or Federal drinking water MCLs: 1,1-dichloroethene; chloroform; 1,1,1-trichloroethane;bromodichloromethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; carbon tetrachloride; benzene; ethylbenzene; xylene(M and P); styrene; xylene (O); 1,3-dichlorobenzene; 1,4-dtehlorobenzene; 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene;and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. 1,1-Dichloroethene, bromodichloromethane and carbon tetrachloride

COwere also found in the Phase 1 groundwater samples. In total, twenty compounds were detected ftin the Phase 2 groundwater samples which have Federal or State drinking water MCLs. Five of 0

o

4-70voen

these were also found in the soil samples. 2-Butanone, found in the soil and groundwater samples,has no MCL The remaining VOCs, which do not have MCLs and were found only in thegroundwater samples, were detected at levels of four ug/l or less.

Compounds which were detected that exceeded the Federal and NJDEP drinking water MCLs inthe Phase 1 groundwater samples included 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, carbontetrachloride, TCE, and PCE. The MCLs were exceeded by the same five volatile organiccompounds in the Phase 2 groundwater samples, and by an additional two compounds: benzeneand 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The discussion of the nature and extent of contamination from the GSC

and SJCC sites will thus be focused on TCE, PCE 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene andcarbon tetrachloride. TCE and PCE are the predominant waste materials disposed of at the SJCCand GSC facilities, respectively, and they are the predominant contaminants in the soil andgroundwater. The maximum concentrations of TCE and PCE detected in the groundwater duringboth phases of the investigation were 13,000 and 1,900 ug/l, respectively. The maximum individualconcentration of the three other compounds was 77 ug/l.

As discussed previously, several other VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples aside fromPCE and TCE (Tables 4-17 and 4-18). These additional VOCs are predominantly degradation

products of PCE, TCE and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Figure 4-11 shows the degradation pathways forPCE, TCE and other chlorinated hydrocarbons. The degradation products found in the Phase 1and 2 groundwater samples include 1,1 -dichloroethene, 1,1 -dichloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethane,and 1,2-dichloroethene (cis and trans). Other VOCs detected in the Phase 1 and 2 groundwatersamples except 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethene(cis and trans) may be degradation products, however, they were not indicated as such by areview of available literature and none of these compounds were detected at concentrations above12 ug/l in Phase 1 and 2 samples. The degradation pathways are produced by the biodegradationof the chlorinated hydrocarbons (Vagel, Criddie, McCarthy, 1987). In addition, the biodegradation

CO

8oo

4-71

Transformations of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbonsCH3COOHAcetic acid

7rans-1.2-DCE|——»| VC

1,1-DCE

PCXTCA

1,1-DCACis-1,2-DCE

CAPCETCE

Trans-1,2-DCEVC

1,1-DCE

Footnotes- Minor Pathway» Tetrachloroethane %-1,1,l-Trichloroethane- 1.1-Dichloroethanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneChloroethaneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneTrans-1,2-DichloroetheneVinyl Chloride1,l-Dichloroethene

Cis-1,2-DCE is generated atapproximately 30 times theconcentration of Trans-1,2-DCE and by a factor of 25:1.

Transformations shown aredocumented as predominantlyoccurring under anaerobicconditions.

Source: Davis and Olsen, 1990

EthanolCH3CH2OH

ICO2 + H2O

SCALENONE

D A T EJUNE 1991

ARCS XSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./6ARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTRANSFORMATIONS OF PCE AND TCE

4-11

C.C.JOHNSON 4 MAL'HOTRA.P.C.

4-72

reactions occur under anaerobic conditions in the saturated zone, below the water table, and donot occur in dry unsaturated sols (Davis and Olsen, 1990). Biodegradation reactions generallyoccur at a pH of 5.5 to 8.5. The pH of the groundwater in the monitoring wells beneath and

"downgradient of the sites, measured prior to sampling of the wells, had a range of 5.3 to 7.5, andonly four wells had a pH of less than 5.5.

' PCE and TCE were detected in the groundwater and soys at both the GSC and SJCC Sites(Phases 1 and 2). Because PCE is not a degradation product of TCE, the PCE detected at SJCCprobably originated from the same sources as the TCE, and subsequently contaminated the sofland the groundwater. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane was found in one Phase 1 soil sample from the SJCCsite, and in several of the Phase 1 and 2 groundwater samples, but as shown in Figure 4-10, doesnot result from degradation of PCE or TCE. Vinyl chloride is another chlorinated degradationproduct of TCE and PCE. It however, has a very short biodegradation half-life in groundwater(approximately 60 days) and is therefore difficult to detect Vinyl chloride was not found in any ofthe Phase 1 or 2 groundwater samples.

The Phase 1 and Phase 2 groundwater sampling results wit be presented separately in thesucceeding pages. Phase 1 groundwater sampling results will include, where applicable, discussionof results of the SJCC and NJDEP sampling efforts. Phase 2 groundwater results will include,where applicable, a discussion of Phase 1 results, and results of the SJCC and NJOEP samplingefforts.

4.3.2.1 Phase 1 Groundwater Sampling

As shown on Figure 4-12 and the contamination contour maps in Figures 4-13 and 4-14, thehighest levels of TCE contamination (over 100 ug/l) in Phase 1 groundwater samples were confinedto an elongated zone extending northwest to southeast from the SJCC Well 3 to SJCC ExtractionWell 11. An intermediate well located in this area (EP-2I), with a screened interval of 90 to 110 o

oo

NJ

4-73 CD

N

Q/0/6 ÔX 96/4/104

ARCTIC

I300O/260/I3IIO/

7000/63/7121

5O/I90O/I974X

AVENUE

JONAS

WILLIAIIS

SI/0.9/33

j^ 3/0/3ATLANTIC AVENUE

X 5400/69/5493SB 120/9/134

SUMMER

.X100/43/143.10/0/0.7I2/IOOO/I023

AVENUE

0/0/10.6

33/1/58

NOTE: PHASE IE WELLSHAD NOT BEENCONSTRUCTED ATTIME OF PHASE ISAMPLING(FEBRUARY, I99O)


. O/O/O

0/0/0 ^ JCLEARY SCHOOL WELL

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUC

LEGENDA -EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS AND SOIL

BORINGSO-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLS

O 7-SJCC MONITORING WELL• NJI-NJOCP MOMITORMG WELL

B/O/3-TCE/PCE/TVO (TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS)ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/L

N-INJECTION WELLX-EXTRACTION WELLI-INTERMEDIATE DEPTH WELL

NS-NOT SAMPLED

MARTINELLI AVE.

• IRRIGATION WELL

CLEARY SCHOOLQ

WHEAT ROAD

LOUIS ^

SCALEI--50O'

DATEJUNE, 1991

ARCS HSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. /GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, PHASE I

C.C.JOHNSON 4 MAIHOTRA.P.C.4-74

N^

PACIFIC

ARCTIC

JONAS

AVENUE

AVENUE

ISATLANTIC AVENUE

SUMM

WILLIAMS

PLUME MIGRATES FROMSHALLOW AQUIFER TOINTERMEDIATE AQUIFERSOUTH OF MARTINELLIAVENUE ——————————

NOTE-: PHASE 2 WELLS ————HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTEDAT TIME OF PHASE ISAM PL ING (FEBRUARY, 1990)

AVENUE

10

AVENUE

iAEP-38

\nBABES VILLAGEINN WELL

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

LEGENDA -EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS


SHALLOW A4UIFER CONCENTRATION...100 — CONTOUR INTERVAL

INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER CONCENTRATIONCONTOUR INTERVAL (u« /L )CONTOURS DASHED WHERE INFERRED

\ VMARTINELLI AVE.

LEARY SCHOOL' WELL

A IRRIGATION WELL^CLEARY§CHOOL

LOUIS ^* AVENUE

SCALE|«. 500'

DATEJUNE lt»l

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS - PHASE I

FIGURE

4-13

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.F.C.4-75


•W* .CLEARY SCHOOL WELLPLUME MIGRATES FROMSHALLOW AQUIFER TOINTERMEDIATE AQUIFERSOUTH OF MARTINELLIAVENUE ——————————

NOTE: PHASE 2 WELLS ———HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTEDAT TIME OF PHASE ISAMPLING <FEBRUARY, 1990)

COARI

SOUTH AVENUE

<£ •IRRIGATION WELL

XXEARY SCHOOL

•NJ5

WHEAT ROAD

LEGENDA-EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS


-loo— SHALLOW AQUIFER CONCENTRATION• CONTOUR INTERVAL (ufl/L )jt,00w INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER CONCENTRATION^ °^c~CONJO\tH INTERVAL (ug/L)

CONTOURS DASHED WHERE INFERRED

OT

0o

«-oms ^

SCALE1" « 500'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS II 'SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. /GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESPCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS - PHASE 1

FIGURE. ,„4~14


feet, contained no TCE or PCE and less than one ug/l of VOC contamination. This zone is parallelto the general flow of groundwater at the site. A larger zone of contamination above one ug/l ofTCE (the NJDEP MCL) extends horizontally from the SJCC Wells 3 and 4 southwest to SJCC Well10. EP-2I, screened from 90 feet to 110 feet, contained no TCE or PCE. The zone of shallow oneug/l contamination does not extend east or west to the location of wells EP-3S, EP-5S, NJDEP-1and NJDEP-1A, as samples from these wells contained no PCE or TCE. A TCE concentration of51 ug/l was detected in SJCC Well 4, which is adjacent to SJCC Injection Well 4A. VOCs,including TCE, had contaminated the monitoring wells through hydraulic transport and dispersion,driven by the natural groundwater flow and the action of the extraction wells. It is not known howTCE reached SJCC Well 4.

PCE in a majority of the SJCC wells was detected at much lower concentrations than was TCE,except in SJCC Wells 6 and 8. As shown in Figure 4-14 the zone of PCE contamination above oneug/l, the NJDEP MCL, in the shallow aquifer matches that of the TCE contamination, extendingfrom SJCC Well 3 southwest to SJCC Well 10. The lateral extent of shallow PCE contaminationis also similar to that of the TCE contamination, except the one ug/l PCE plume does not extendto EP-1S. The highest PCE contamination, however, was found in SJCC Wells 6 and 8.

A plume of PCE and TCE contamination was also found at an intermediate depth at EP-6I(screened interval 90 to 110 feet). No PCE or TCE was detected, however, in the adjacent shallowwell, NJDEP-3. Shallow PCE and TCE contamination was also not found east of EP-6I in EP-7Sor to the south in NJDEP wells 4 and 5. The depth of PCE and TCE contamination of EP-6I likelybegins at a depth of less than approximately 90 feet BGS because the top of the EP-6I well screenis at 90 feet BGS, and the adjacent shallow well NJDEP-3 has a screen which extends to a depthof 40 feet BGS. PCE and TCE were detected in groundwater to 49 feet BGS in wells upgradientof EP-6I, and is not likely that the groundwater between the water table and 90 feet BGS at EP-6Iis completely free of contamination. The PCE and TCE contamination detected in the shallow andintermediate wells indicates that the VOCs are in the shallow portion of the aquifer between SJCC

CoWells 3A and 4 and Martinelli Avenue. South of Martinelli Avenue it appears that the contaminants fthave migrated downward within the aquifer, resulting in positive detections at EP-6I and none in 0

oA~l

4-77 £

the adjacent shallow wells (NJDEP Wells 3, 4, and 5 and EP-7S). There are no intermediate wellswith similar screened depths to EP-61 at lateral locations (relative to the groundwater flow) to theeast or west nor are there any wells with deeper screened depths (below 112 feet BGS) locatednear EP-6I. Therefore, the Phase 1 data does not provide insight concerning the total depth orlateral extent of contamination near EP-6I, which is 110 feet deep.

The pattern of TCE contamination in Phase 1 data is similar to that found in the 1981 to 1990 SJCCwell data shown on Figures 1-8 to 1-16. The plume of TCE contamination above one ug/l in Figure4-13 is dearly similar to that found in 1988, except that the concentration of TCE in SJCC Well 10has decreased. The highest concentrations of TCE in the Phase 1 and the 1988 SJCC well datawere found in SJCC Wells 2,5 and 12. The presence of high levels of contamination in these threewells confirms the probable location of a TCE contaminant source upgradient of SJCC Well 2,where soil contaminated with VOCs was identified during Phases 1 and 2 soil sampling activities.The area of contaminated soy, containing TCE, PCE and other VOCs, is located between thenorthwest comer of the SJCC building and the adjacent railroad tracks. As discussed previously,the predominate contaminants found in the Phase 1 soil and groundwater samples at SJCC areidentical. The horizontal shape of tha one ug/l TCE contour is likely a consequence of themovement of contamination to the southwest with the general groundwater flow.

The pattern of PCE contamination shown in Figure 4-14 indicates, as had been discovered in theNJDEP investigation in 1984, that the majority of PCE is originating at the GSC facility, althoughPCE was also detected at lower concentrations in the wells near SJCC. The concentrations of PCEin the Phase 1 groundwater samples from SJCC Wells 6 and 8 are higher than the TCEconcentrations, a ratio not apparent in any of the SJCC wells upgradient of GSC where theconcentrations of TCE are higher than those of PCE. The likely source of the PCE contaminationis upgradient from SJCC Well 6. As discussed previously, soil contaminated with PCE was foundadjacent to the north wall of GSC, and the predominant contaminants found in the Phase 1 soilsamples at GSC and in the Phase 1 groundwater sample from SJCC Well 6 sample were identical. oo

oo

4-78 5

Higher concentrations of PCE were detected in EP-61 than in SJCC Well 10. As discussedpreviously, the contaminant plume of PCE and TCE appears to migrate downward as it moves withthe general groundwater flow. The contaminant plume may be at a higher concentration beneathSJCC Well 10, with the well intercepting the upper edge of the contaminant plume. The contrastin PCE concentrations may also be due to past variations in the pumping rates of the SJCCextraction wells, which would create variations in the PCE and TCE concentrations along theresultant zone of contamination.

The sample from EP-6I detected a higher concentration of PCE than TCE and is likely part of thePCE plume extending south from GSC in SJCC Wells 6 and 8. However, the ratio of PCE to TCEis lower than that found immediately downgradient from GSC, in SJCC Wells 6 and 8. TCE mayalso result to some extent from degradation of the PCE to TCE.

The VOCs other than TCE and PCE which were detected in Phase 1 groundwater samples arecomprised primarily of PCE and TCE degradation products and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (Table 4-6).The highest concentrations of degradation products (except TCE from PCE) are found in the wellsclosest to the SJCC and GSC faculties. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene is found above 10 ug/l in SJCCWells 3, 6, 8 and 12 and above 50 ug/i in SJCC Wells 2 and 5. 10 ug/l is the NJDEP MCL for 1,2-

dichloroethene (total). Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was also found in EP-6I at four ug/l. Trans-1,2-dichloroethene was not found in any of the Phase 1 groundwater samples. 1,1,1-Trichloroethanewas found at concentrations up to 13 ug/l in SJCC Wells 2, 7,11 and 12. The NJDEP MCL is 26ug/l.

Carbon tetrachloride, which is not a known degradation product of PCE, TCE, or 1,1,1-trichloroethane, was found in NJDEP-1A and SJCC Well 10 at levels of two and one ug/l,respectively. The NJDEP MCL is two ug/l. The source of the carbon tetrachloride is not evidentas it was also not detected in any of the Phase 1 soil samples. Chloroform was detected in thesoil samples at SJCC, in SJCC Wells 1, 2, 9 and 10, and NJDEP Wells 1A and 5; there was, w

ohowever, no discernable pattern or source area for the chloroform and it was detected at levels °below six ug/l. Bromodichloromethane was not detected in any of the soil samples but was °

4-79

detected in SJCC Wed 2 at one ug/l. The NJDEP MCL for trihalomethanes, like chloroform andbromodichlofomethane, is 100 ugA

4.3.2.2 Phase 2 Groundwater Sampling

The Phase 1 groundwater data formed the basis of the location of weNs installed during Phase 2of the investigation. Two intermediate wells were located to the east and west of EP-61 todetermine the lateral extent of contamination within the 115 to 140 foot depth range. Two additionalintermediate wens and one deep wen were 'mstaHed downgradient of EP-6I to assess the southwardextent and depth of the contamination. An intermediate wen was also installed adjacent tocontaminated SJCC Well 10 to assess the depth of contamination below that shallow well. A deepwell was installed at the southern end of the heaviest TCE contamination zone, adjacent to EP-2I,and located near the SJCC extraction wells. The purpose of the deep well next to EP-2I was todetermine if any contaminants had migrated into the deep portion of the aquifer.

The Phase 2 groundwater sampling results for the shadow and intermediate weds wi be discussedfirst in the succeeding pages, followed by sampling results for the deep wells. The Phase 1 resultswil be discussed where applicable. The Phase 2 groundwater data is provided in Figure 4-15 andTable 4-18, and the contamination contours are shown on Figures 4-16 and 4-17. A vertical profileof the Phase 2 VOC contamination is shown on Figure 4-18.

Shallow and Intermediate Wed Results, Phase 2

The most concentrated TCE contamination (over 100 ug/l) in the Phase 2 groundwater sampleswas found in a zone extending southeast from the SJCC fadtty, a pattern simiar to that found inthe Phase 1 and previous SJCC sampling efforts. The Phase 2 results, however, show that lessthan 100 ug/l of TCE was detected in SJCC Well 3 (88 ug/l) and less than 1,000 ug/l of TCE wasdetected in SJCC Wen 12 (190 ug/l). Both concentrations are lower than those detected in these ooweds during Phase 1. More than 1,000 ug/l of TCE were detected in SJCC WeU 7 (1,300 ug/l).

oo

u>4-80 S

N

X86o/o/e^»o

6/0/8886/6/99

PACIFIC

ARCTIC

45OO/39/4629J

30OO/41/3061

I7/I700/I740XDO.9/7/19.4.

AVENUC

o/o/o

0/0/3.5ATLANTIC 4J/ENUI

JO* AS

WILLIAMS

NOTE: PHASE nSAMPLINGCONDUCTED INMARCH, 1991

^X190/47/265«. I3OO/I4/I337~x————n^ SUMMER

10/0/6.5

AVENUE

0/0.8/9.310/0/0

BAKS VILLAGEINN WELL

0/0/D

LEAKY SCHOOL WELL

COAM AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUC

LEGEND

A -EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS AND SOILBORINGS

O-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLSO 7-SJCC MOMTOftWC WELL

• WJt-NJDCP MONITOftMG WELL8/0/3 TCE/PCE/TVO (TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS)

ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/LN-INJECTION WELLX-EXTRACT I ON WELLI-INTERMEDIATE DEPTH WELLD-DEEPWELL

MARTINELLI AVE.

IO/D/O.3

• IRRIGATION WELL

CLEARY SCMCXJLD

o/oA>

LOUIS ^

D 0/O/te.B

SCALE

IDATE

JUNE, 1991

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. /GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, PHASE 2

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.P.C.4-81

N

PACIFIC

ARCTIC

AVENUE

AEP-3S

JONAS

WILLIAMS

PLUME MIGRATES FROMSHALLOW AQUIFER TOINTERMEDIATE AQUIFERSOUTH OF MARTINELLIAVENUE——————————

NOTE:PHASE 2 """SAMPLING CONDUCTED INMARCH, 1991

AVENUE

AEP-

AVENUE

» \j——BABES VILLAGEi Y INN WELL

AVENUE

QEP-I4I

COARI AVENUE

SOUTH AVENUE

MARTINELLI AVE.

)EP-IIZ

• IRRIGATION WELL

CLEARY SCHOOL

•NJ5

WHEAT ROAD

A-ERA PHASE I MONITOR WELLSO-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLS

O 7-SJCC MONITORING WELL» NJt-NJDEP MONITORING WELLaa SHALLOW AQUIFER CONCENTRATION"""CONTOUR INTERVAL (M/L )iea<H_INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER CONCENTRATION

"""CONTOUR INTERVAL («I/L)CONTOURS DASHED WHERE INFERRED

LOUIS ^ AVENUE

OEP-OOSCALEr-soo1

DATEJUNE lt

ARCS SSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESTCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS-PHASE 2

C.C.JOHNSON I MALMOTRA.P.C.4-82

LANTIC AVENUE

PLUME MIGRATES FROMSHALLOW AQUIFER TOINTERMEDIATE AQUIFERSOUTH OF MARTINELLIAVENUE \ ^/OO—-"^ ' •IRRIGATION WELL

VLEARY SCHOOL\D<-\- »NJ3 OEPj-ttl

SOUTH AVENUENOTE: PHASE 2SAMPLING CONDUCTED INMARCH,1991

LEGENDA-EPA PHASE I MONITOR WELLS AND SOIL

BORINGSO-EPA PHASE 2 MONITOR WELLS

O 7-SJCC MONITORING WELL• NJI-NJDEP MONITORING WELL,„« SHALLOW AOUIFER CONCENTRATION'°°~ CONTOUR INTERVAL (ufl/L )

„ o INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER CONCENTRATION** """CONTOUR INTERVAL (uf l /L)

CONTOURS DASHED WHERE INFERRED

V CO

LOUIS ^ÂVENUE QEP-I3I

OEP-ODSCALEI"«50O'

DATEJUNE 1991

ARCS nSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESPCE CONCENTRATION CONTOURS-PHASE 2

C.C.JOHNSON A MALHOTRA.P.C.4-83

fe.do

140-

oo-oo-IW-

-on>--oso

4O

toto

10-MSLO

-w

-«o-

10-

-40-

-90

-«o

-n-so--so

-«o

-ao-

-i«o-

X-SECTION LEGEND

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS

(3) P---

COMSC SAND AND fOOHLY SORTED FMC TO COMSCMHO WITH LITTLE TO SOME SILT AND CLAY. AMInSCOHTMUOUS LAYERS AND L£NSCS OF CLAT ON OUAvtL.

FINE TO MEDIUM SAM) WITH LITTLE TO SOME SILT.

CLAY AND ALTEMUTINO LATCKS OF FME TO MCMUMSAND AND CLAT.

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITN LITTLE TO SOME SILT.MCMASM0 PMPONTION OF SILT «ITN OEPTN.

TO - TOTAL KPTN OF MMEHOLC_B_-«»Tf« TABLESJ-4 -SJCCMaNlTOMNBMILLNJ-S - NJOEP MONITOIIINa «CLL

0 WO - TmCNLMOCTNENE| »T - TCTIIACHLONOETHENEQMS - TOTAL VOLATILE OMANICS

>——— SOKENCO INTEDVAL OF MILLALL UNIT IN UC/L

i - CITMACTUN WELLS

^——— - TCE, IU6/L— .—-PCE.IU6/L

TO-2S2

NOTt: SEE FIG. 4-19 ILOCATION OFCROSS SECTION

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESVOC GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATIONCROSS SECTION A-A, PHASE 2

FIGURE

4-18

TOO

This concentration is higher than that found in Phase 1. The concentrations of TCE detected inall of the SJCC wells during Phase 2 were less than those detected during Phase 1, except atSJCC Well 7.

The intermediate well EP-2I, as in Phase 1, contained less than two ug/l of total VOCs with nodetection of TCE or PCE. Therefore, the zone of shallow concentrated TCE contamination (over100 ug/l) extends from SJCC Well 2 to SJCC Well 11 and parallel to the general flow ofgroundwater in the area. The larger zone of shallow groundwater containing one ug/l or more ofTCE extends horizontally from SJCC Well 3 to SJCC Well 8. Unlike Phase 1, no TCEcontamination was found in SJCC Well 10, indicating that the plume of one ug/l shallowcontamination extends only past SJCC Well 8. The plume of shallow one ug/l TCE contaminationdoes not extend east or west to the locations of wells EP-3S and 5S, NJDEP-1,1A and 2 as noTCE or PCE was detected in these wells. No TCE was detected in SJCC Well 4 and EP-1S, incontrast to the Phase 1 samples. The pattern of contamination indicates that VOCs, includingTCE, were transported to monitoring wells through hydraulic transport and dispersion driven by thenatural groundwater flow and the action of the SJCC extraction wells.

PCE during Phase 2 was detected in most of the SJCC wells at much lower concentrations thanTCE, except, as in the Phase 1 samples, at SJCC Wells 6 and 8. The levels of PCE in the Phase2 samples from the SJCC wells were less than in Phase 1, except for SJCC Wells 7 and 8. NoPCE was detected in SJCC well 3A, in contrast to the Phase 1 results. As shown in Figure 4-17the zone of shallow PCE contamination above one ug/l, the NJDEP MCL, matches well with thatof the shallow TCE contamination, extending from SJCC Well 3 to SJCC Well 8. The lateral extentof shallow PCE contamination also matches well with that of the TCE contamination.

The groundwater sample result from SJCC Well 10 had a detection of 0.8 ug/l of PCE and nodetection of TCE. The concentration of PCE and TCE was higher in SJCC Well 10 in Phase 1. w

However, the concentration of PCE in SJCC Well 8 had increased (1,300 ug/l) along with that of o

TCE (23 ug/l). oo

4-85

u>t-fo

During Phase 2 sampling, TCE and PCE contamination was detected, as in Phase 1, at theintermediate wet EP-6I (38 ug/l and 940 ug/l, respectively) and was not detected in the adjacentshalow well NJDEP-3. No PCE or TCE was detected in the intermediate well EP-9I to the north.However, PCE was detected in the adjacent shallow wen SJCC Wen 10 (0.8 ug/l). No PCE or TCEwas detected east of EP-61 in the intermediate well EP-111 or the adjacent shallow well EP-7S, norwas any found to the west in EP-141. PCE contamination was detected to the south in intermediateweO EP-121 at 34 ugA However, no TCE contamination was detected at EP-121, and, as in Phase1, no TCE or PCE was detected in the adjacent shallow NJDEP Wells 4 and 5. No VOCs weredetected in intermediate wel EP-131, located south of EP-121 and Wheat Road. The concentrationsof PCE in EP-61 and EP-121 were greater than their respective TCE concentrations.

The pattern of TCE and PCE contamination in the shallow and intermediate wells in Phase 2 wasslmiar to that found in the Phase 1 sampling. In the shallow zone of the aquifer (to less than 90feet BGS), the overall concentrations of all VOCs, including PCE and TCE, dropped from Phase1 to 2. At SJCC Weds 7 and 8 the concentration of PCE and TCE Increased. The reason for theincrease in VOC concentrations within these two wells is not known. However, there is a normalvariablity in the concentration of TCE in the SJCC monitoring wells, as seen in Table 1-6, whichshows TCE concentration data generated by the SJCC sampling program. It is likely that the PCEconcentrations in the SJCC wefls would exhibit similar variabltty. The greatest concentrations ofTCE in Phase 2 sampling were found in SJCC Wells 2, 5 and 11 (over 1,000 ug/l). SJCC WeHs2 and 5 contained high concentrations of TCE in the SJCC sampling efforts prior to 1989 (seeTable 1-6) and during Phase 1, thus showing that a persistent source of VOC contamination existsupgradient from SJCC Well 2. As SJCC Well 2 has shown the highest levels of TCE in both phasesof EPA sampling and during the SJCC sampling effort, the location of the contaminant source islikely the VOC contaminated sol identified during Phase 1 and 2 sol sampling at the northwestcomer of the SJCC facirty. The contaminated sol is located upgradient of SJCC WeH 2.

01oooo

u>4-86 M

The Phase 1 and 2 groundwater sampling results show that the concentrations of PCE in SJCCWells 6 and 8 are substantially higher (over 1,000 ug/1) than those detected in the other SJCCwells. The wells upgradient of GSC do not show a simBar level of PCE. Results from Wells 6 and8 seem to verify the NJDEP's initial identification of GSC as a likely source of PCE contaminationin the groundwater. The location of the likely source of PCE contamination is the VOCcontaminated sol adjacent to the north wall of the GSC facflity, identified in Phase 1 and 2 soOsampling. Some of the PCE in SJCC Wells 6 and 8 is likely being captured by the SJCC extractionwells, as indicated by the level of contaminants in SJCC Well 11. The ratio of TCE to PCE in SJCCWell 11 is approximately two to one in both the Phase 1 and 2 samples, though the actualconcentrations are different This ratio is higher than that found in the other SJCC wens (exceptfor SJCC Wells 6 and 8, located immediately downgradient of GSC), where the ratio of TCE to PCEconcentrations is approximately ten to one. SJCC Extraction Well 11 is likely interceptingcontamination that is a mixture of PCE and TCE from both GSC and SJCC, though thepredominant TCE concentration is probably from SJCC.

The vertical profile of the Phase 2 VOC contamination is shown on Figure 4-18. The figure wasmodified from the hydrogeologic cross section A-A', presented in Chapter 3. It is dear from thisvertical profile and from the maps views of the Phase 2 groundwater sampling data in Figure 4-16and 4-17 that the PCE and TCE contamination migrates deeper into the aquifer as it travels furtherfrom the source areas. The plume continues to migrate downward and is detected in EP-6I andEP-121. No PCE nor TCE was detected in EP-21, EP-91, or any of the EPA wells downgradient

from EP-121.

The additional concentrations of volatile organtes in Phase 2 shallow and intermediate groundwatersamples consist primarily of the same compounds identified as degradation products of TCE andPCE and 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the Phase 1 samples. The highest concentrations of thesecompounds (except TCE from PCE) were detected in the wells around the SJCC and GSC fadities. oo

oo

to4-87

Several other VOCs were also detected in the Phase 2 samples which were not identified asdegradation products of PCE, TCE, or 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Carbon tetrachloride was detectedat SJCC Wells 2 and 10 at concentrations of 0.6 ug/l and 3 ug/l, respectively. Carbon tetrachloridewas detected in SJCC Well 10 and NJDEP-1A during Phase 1, and exceeded the NJDEP MCL oftwo ug/l in SJCC WeB 10 during Phase 2. The carbon tetrachloride detections in the Phase 1 and2 samples were primarly at SJCC Well 10 and NJDEP-1A, which are located within 1,000 feet ofeach other. The source of the carbon tetrachloride is not known. The EP-121 sample containedbenzene at a concentration of 12 ug/l, exceeding the NJDEP MCL of one ug/l, xyiene at a levelof two ug/l (NJDEP MCL is 44 ug/l), 1,3-dichlorobenzene at a level of three ug/L (NJDEP MCLis 600 ug/l) and 1,4-dfchlorobenzene at a concentration of two ug/l (NJDEP MCL is 75 ug/l).Toluene was detected in EP-1S at one ug/l (Federal MCL is 1,000 ug/l). Styrene was detected inEP-2I and SJCC Well 10 at one ug/l (Federal MCL is 100 ug/l). Xyiene, as mentioned previously,was detected in EP-121, and was also found hi EP-1S and EP-2S at one ug/l (NJDEP MCL is 44ug/l). Bromodichloromethane was detected in SJCC WeB 2 at 0.6 ug/l (NJDEP MCL is 100 ug/l).1,2-Dichloropropane (Federal MCL is 5 ug/l) was detected at SJCC wells 2 and 10 at 0.6 ug/l.Ethyibenzene was detected at SJCC Well 10 at 0.4 ug/l (Federal Ma is 700 ug/l). Theseremaining VOCs not discussed were detected with no discemable pattern or source area and atconcentrations below four ug/l.

The degradation products of TCE, PCE, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were detected In four of theintermediate wells where no PCE or TCE had been detected. Cis-1,2-dicnloroethene was detectedin EP-111 and EP-21 at 0.3 ug/l and 0.4 ug/l, respectively. 1,1-Dichloroethene was detected in EP-21 and EP-141 at 0.5 and 0.2 ug/l, respectively. Cis and trans-l,2-dichioroethene and 1,1-dichloroethene have low values of K* (less than 100 ml/g), the organic carbon partition coefficientand, therefore, tend to be transported faster in the groundwater than their parent compounds. NoPCE or TCE contamination was detected in EP-111 or EP-141, but it appears that they have beeneffected by contamination from the SJCC and GSC taciities, as the faster moving degradation w

products have reached their locations. EP-111 and EP-141 are located at the edge of the TCE and oPCE contaminant plume detected in EP-61 and EP-121, as their faster moving degradation products o

ohave dispersed along a wider lateral distance. M

4-88

Deep Well Sampling Results. Phase 2

EP-8D had been installed a short distance downgradient from the GSC and SJCC sites todetermine if there was any deep PCE or TCE contamination directly beneath the sites. EP-10D hadbeen installed at approximately the same depth as EP-8D but at a point downgradient from thecontaminated shallow and intermediate wells sampled during Phase 1.

PCE and TCE were both detected in the Phase 2 groundwater sample from EP-8D, at levels ofseven ug/l and 0.9 ug/l, respectively. As noted previously, neither compound had been detectedin EP-2I, which is located adjacent to EP-8D. However, some of the highest PCE and TCEcontamination was detected in the SJCC shallow wells located vertically above, and horizontallyupgradient from, EP-2I and EP-8D. No PCE or TCE was detected in EP-10D. The detections in

EP-8D may be the remnant of non-aqueous PCE and TCE that previously descended to the bottomof the aquifer.

The TCE and PCE may have been transported down through the aquifer by the pumping of watersupply wells. There is a well at GSC, which was previously used for water supply. This well hasnot been used since 1985, when the public water supply became available. The well at GSC is 113feet deep and was found to be contaminated with TCE when sampled by the NJDEP in October1981 (30 ug/l) and December 1981 (18 ug/l). No pumping records are available for the GSC well.The GSC well was probably contaminated by transport of VOCs from the shallow aquifer, due tothe vertical gradients mentioned previously and active withdrawal of groundwater by the well.Active pumping of the well would have increased the downward vertical gradient at the welllocation, which is near the location of EP-8D and EP-21. The TCE could also have moved downthrough the aquifer along the well casing itself or its surrounding installation materials. Dependingon the method of well construction and types of installation materials, highly permeable zones could

COhave been created along the length of the water supply wen. The 1981 TCE contamination in the ^GSC well confirms that the organic compounds had once been transported vertically down into the 0

ointermediate depths of the aquifer directly below the GSC and SJCC Sites. M

4-89

The TCE and PCE contamination in EP-80 discussed previously, was accompanied by 11 ug/l of2-butanone. This compound was not detected in any other groundwater sample in Phase 1 or 2.2-Butanone was found in two Phase 1 soi samples from SJCC and one Phase 2 sol sample fromGSC and is more soluble than PCE, TCE, or any of their degradation products.

The degradation products found at EP-10D are likely a downgradient extension of the zone ofcontamination found at EP-6I and EP-121. As discussed previously, cis and trans-1 ,2-dichloroethenehave lower K_ values and wH be transported faster in the groundwater than their parentcompounds. It is unlikely that the 1 ,2-dichloroethene (ds and trans) in EP-10D could be the resultof the contamination at EP-80. The rate of degradation and/or dispersion of PCE and TCEobserved between the shallow wells near the GSC and SJCC Sites and the downgradientintermediate wells results in low concentrations (less than one ug/l) of degradation products inthose downgradient intermediate wetts (EP11I, EP12I, and EP-141). The low concentrations of

degradation products results from an upgradient source, the GSC and SJCC Sites, that has acomparatively high level of PCE and TCE (over 1,000 ug/L) in the groundwater. However, if thecontaminants observed in EP-61 and 121 are not migrating to EP-10D, then the contaminationdetected in EP-8D may be the source of the contaminants detected in EP-10D.

4.4 AIR

Contamination of the air by VOCs volatilizing from contaminated sol and/or groundwater wasevaluated at GSC and SJCC. To investigate contaminant migration from soi or groundwater to theair and to quantify these emissions, a flux chamber measurement survey was performed byERT/REAC as part of the Ri during May 1990. This survey technique allows differentiation betweenair emissions from nearby sources (dry cleaning equipment or air stripping tower) and emissionsfrom contaminated soi or a contaminated aquifer. Delated descriptions of the flux chambermeasurement survey are contained in the ERT/REAC report to EPA dated October, 1990 (EPA,October 1990).

oo

u»

4.4.1 South Jersey Clothing Company

Emission rates were measured at SJCC at the locations shown in Figure 2-3. Emission ratesmeasured ranged from non-detect to 146 ug/m'-min for PCE and from non-detect to 1463 ug/m8-min for TCE. Because TCE was the primary contaminant at SJCC, contours of TCE emission ratesnear SJCC were generated to show an area emission profile. Results of this effort are shown inFigure 4-19. These measured values were used along with the SCREEN model to produce 24 houremission values. The SCREEN model considers dispersion of the contaminant in ambient air andis reportedly one of the most conservative available. For example, SCREEN assumes the receptoris always downwind of the source. Realistically, variations and yearly deviations in wind directionplace a typical receptor in a downwind position approximately ten per cent of the time.Consequently, values generated using the SCREEN model should be considered very conservativeand interpreted with caution.

Using the SCREEN model, the emission concentrations for receptors at various distancesdownwind of SJCC and 1.5 meters above the ground were determined. These emissionconcentrations are as follows:

Distance (m) ug/m3

100 44.32

500 6.79

1,000 2.52

5,000 0.27

10,000 0.11

Usable values for receptors closer than 100 meters were not generated by the SCREEN model orpresented in the EPA report The TCE value for SJCC at 100 meters, 1.5 meters height is 44.32ug/m3. This is higher than the past published value of 0.77 ug/m3. Because of the conservative w

ocharacteristics of the SCREEN model, this value should be viewed with the utmost discretion. °Potential hearth effects associated with these emissions wfll be discussed in the Public Hearth £oEvaluation found in Section 6 of this report

4-91

Ul(->a\

LEGENDLOG (10) TCEEMISSION RATES(ug/m! min.)SAMPLING LOCATION

CO

8oo

UJ

F10

SOURCE :U.S. EPA E R T / R E A C FLUX SAMPLING S U R V E Y .

S C A L EI" =30'

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS ISOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESCONTOUR OF TCE SOIL EMISSION RATES AT SJCC

FIGURE

4-19

C.C.JOHNSON & MAL'HOTRA.P.C. 4-92

4.4.2 Garden State Cleaners

Emission rates were measured at GSC at the locations shown in Figure 2-2. Emission ratesmeasured ranged from non-detect to 10,955 ug/m* min for PCE and from non-detect to 447 ug/m9

min for TCE. Contours of PCE emission rates near GSC were generated to show an area emissionprofile. PCE was the primary contaminant used at GSC. Results of this effort are shown in Figure4-20. These measured values, along with the SCREEN model, were used to produce 24 houremission values. As discussed previously, the SCREEN model is extremely conservative and valuesgenerated should be considered as such.

Using the SCREEN model, the emission concentrations for receptors at various distances

downwind of GSC and 1.5 meters above the ground were determined. These emissionconcentrations are as follow:

Distance fml ug/m3

100 0.0024

500 0.0010

1,000 0.00057

5,000 0.00037

10,000 0.00026

As discussed for SJCC, no usable emission concentration values were generated for receptorsdoser than 100 meters downwind of the source. The PCE value for GSC at 100 meters, 1.5 metersheight is 0.0024 ug/m9. The only avalable references to which this value can be compared are the1989 Hearth Effects Assessment Summary Table. In these tables, the PCE value correspondingwith 10* Lifetime Risk values is 1.1 ug/m3. On the basis of comparison with these criteria,

COemissions from the vicinity of GSC are below the value of concern. These potential health effects oassociated with these emissbns wll, however, be evaluated in the Public Health Assessment in oSection 6 of this report 2

OJh-«00

4-93

LEGENDLOG (10) PCEEMISSION RATES(ug/m.* mln.)SAMPLING LOCATION


FC6OTOo

oo

u*Mvo

SOURCE : U.S. EPA E R T / R E A C FLUX SAMPLING SURVEY

S C A L E

D A T EJULY 1991

ARCS XSOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO./GARDEN STATECLEANERS SITESCONTOUR OF PCE SOIL EMISSION RATES AT GSC

FIGURE

4-20

C.C.JOHNSON A MAL'HOTRA.P.C.4-94

5.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the Rl Report presents information on contaminant fate and transport It evaluatesthe manner in which the contaminants identified in the various media are expected to behave underthe present and future conditions at the sites. Of particular concern are the fate of thesecontaminants (La, how the materials may be affected or transformed by chemical, physical and/orbiological processes present at the sites) and the transport of these contaminants (Le., how thecontaminants, in either their original or their transformed state migrate from the sites). Informationobtained as a result of this analysis wil help in determining the extent to which site contaminationmay present a hazard to public hearth and the environment Contaminants with detections abovemaximum contaminant levels (MCLs) pose the most significant risk to human hearth and theenvironment Consequently, emphasis is placed on the following contaminants: benzene, carbontetrachloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene (tisand trans), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCE andPCE. All of these compounds are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Risk Assessment inChapter 6 will establish the complete list of contaminants of concern for the Garden StateCleaners/South Jersey Clothing Sites. Potential routes of contaminant migration and exposure aredescribed in this section along with the physical and chemical properties of the contaminants ofconcern. Then, contaminant persistence and migration pathways are discussed.

As shown in Chapter 4, the contaminants identified at the source areas at the GSC and SJCC Siteshave already migrated into the sols beneath the sites and groundwater downgradient of the sites.This chapter wil focus on the transformations and migration routes which wil occur or continueto occur under present and future conditions at the sites and in the contaminated groundwater.

511 Potential Contaminant Migration Routes to8

The potential routes for contaminants at the GSC/SJCC Sites include migration through soQ, oK->

migration through groundwater, and migration into air by volatilization. i-tu>

C 1 **>5-1 o

• Surface sol samples at the GSC and SJCC fadities have identified VOCcontaminants within the sol that are the result of disposal of PCE, TCE, and otherwastes onto the ground surface. These VOC's may continue to migrate downthrough the sol due to percolation of precipitation, and enter the groundwater.

• Groundwater samples beneath and downgradient of the site have identified VOCcontamination in the aquifer. VOCs may continue to be transported downgradientby groundwater flow, though some may be removed by the SJCC extraction wells.PCE, TCE, and their degradation products are the dominant contaminants in thegroundwater.

• VOCs that have been identified in the sol may vdatlize and enter the atmosphere,VOCs In the groundwater may also volatilize, entering the sol and subsequently theatmosphere. Measurements have been taken of the flux of VOCs, including PCEand TCE, from the sol, confirming the movement of contaminants into theatmosphere.

5.1-2 Contaminant Physical and Chemical Properties

VOCs have been detected at concentrations above MCLs at the site. The potential for exposureto these chemicals wi be influenced by their distribution in the environmental media, their mobiitywithin and between media, and/or their persistence in the environment

The behavior of chemicals in the environment can be described by examining several chemical andphysical properties of the selected chemicals. Typically, important physical/chemical propertiesof contaminants include the organic carbon partition coefficient, log of the octanol wate< .rtitioncoefficient, water solublity, vapor pressure, Henry's Law constant, and density. Degradationpathways of PCE and TCE in groundwater were presented in Chapter 4 and wil be reviewed in the £*discussion of contaminant persistence in this chapter. Table 5-1 lists some important chemical-specific parameters for selected VOCs detected at the sites. o

005-2 N>

TABLE 5-1


PHYSICAL - CHEMICAL PROPORTIES OF SELECTED ORGANICS

Ol

ChMleel Mas* CM 0 HoleWeight(g/M»le)

WaterSolubility(•g/L)

VaporPressure(MHg)

Nenry's LewConstant

roe(•t/g)

Log row Density

Volet lie Orgenle*

Trlehloroethone (TCE)Tetraehloroetheno (PCE)* 4 4-TrlisKI th

(Cls)-1,2-Dlehloroethone(TransM ,2-D1ohlorootheno8ennne1,1-DlchloroethenoCarbon Tetroehlorlds

79-01-6127-18-471-55-6156-59-2156-60-571-43-275-35-456-23-5

131.39165.83133.4096.9496.9*78.1196.94

153.82

1.1.1.3.6.1.

106*0350E«02506*03506*03306*03756*03

2.25E«037.576*02

5.79E«011.786*011.236*022.086*023.246*029.526*016.006*029.00E«01

92176532

.106-03

.596-02

.44E-02

.586-03

.566-03

.596-03

.406-02

.416-02

1.266*023.646*021.526*024.906*015.896*018.306*016.506*014.396*02

2.2.2.0.0.1.1.2.

385650704892

.47

.63

.35

.27

.26

.8784 1.2264 1.58

Not**: Teble Includes OMpound found above NJDE* or Federal MCLt in the toll ond grounduoter Maples.

100 DOS

The organic carbon partition coefficient (KJ is a compound specific factor which describes theextent to which an organic compound partitions itself between groundwater and organic carbonhi the sol. Koe reflects the potential of a compound to be bound by the organic matter found insol and sediment The distribution of a pollutant or adsorbate between the sol and aqueousphases is dependent on many factors, the most important being the organic fraction of the sol andmolecular structure of the compound. The organic carbon content of the sediments beneath anddowngradient of the sites was determined from the sol samples, and the results were presentedin Chapter 3. A higher K« value means that a greater fraction of the compound wll be partitioned,or adsorbed, onto the organic carbon of the sol. A sol with a higher organic carbon content wllabsorb more of the compound. A greater K. of the compound and a higher organic carboncontent of the sol, wll result in a greater fraction of that compound being adsorbed onto the sol.As a consequence, the transport of the compound by groundwater is retarded, or slowed relativeto the groundwater velocity. In general, compounds with higher solublity have lower K* values.KK is used to determine K* the retardation coefficient, which is the value used in calculations ofcontaminant transport velocity. The K* values of compounds at the sites vary from 2.2 to 439mg/1 and the values for PCE (364 mg/1) and TCE (126 mg/1) are among the highest

Water solublity is an important property affecting the fate of organic chemicals in unsaturated sols.Highly soluble chemicals typically have low organic carbon partition coefficients, can be leachedfrom sols by infBtrating precipitation and are generally moble in sol and water. Water solublitiesfor organics range from less than one mg/1 to miscible in water, with most common organics fallingbetween one mg/1 and 10,000 mg/1. The VOCs detected at the GSC/SJCC sites have watersolublities ranging from 150 to more than 268,000 mg/1 and the value for PCE (150 mg/1) is thelowest and the value for TCE (1,100 mg/1) is average.

Volatilization of compounds found at the site from an environmental medium wil depend on itsvapor pressure (VP), water solubiityfS), and partition coefficient Highly water soluble compoundsgenerally volatilize to a lesser extent than compounds having tow water solublity. If a highly watersoluble compound has a high vapor pressure, it wll volatlize to a greater extent than one with alow vapor pressure. Vapor pressure, a relative indicator of the volatility of chemicals in their pure

5-4 £u>

state, ranges from 0.001 to 760 mm Hg, and is higher for liquids than for solids (10''°mm Hg). TheHenry's Law Constant (H), which relates vapor pressure and solublity (i.e., H= VP/S), is moreappropriate than vapor pressure alone for estimating releases to air from water. Compounds withHenry's Law Constants in the range of 10"* atm-m'/mol and greater can be expected to volatiizereadily from water. Those with values ranging from 10* atm-m'/mol volatilize from water only toa limited extent The organic compounds at the sites have Henry's Law Constants of 10* to 10*atm-m'/mol, and the values for TCE and PCE are approximately 10* atm-m'/mol.

The density of a contaminant is another physical parameter which affects contaminant transportPetroleum based contaminants like benzene and toluene have lower specific gravities than waterand volatilize at ambient temperatures. Such volatile compounds are, therefore, more likely to beconcentrated near the top of the upper aquifer than in deeper sections of the aquifer. Chlorinatedaliphatic compounds, such as TCE and PCE and most of the other organic compounds found atthe sites, are sinkers and have densities greater than water. These compounds tend to movedownward within an aquifer, as well as laterally.

The octanol-water partition coefficient (K,J is a compound-specific value which provides a measureof extent of chemical partitioning between water and octanol, an organic liquid, at equiibrium. Thegreater the K , the higher the fraction of a chemical which wil partition to octanol rather thanremain in water. The properties of a compound which determine K*. are the same as those whichdetermine K , and both values can be used to determine the partitioning of a compound betweenthe groundwater and the organic carbon of the soi matrix. K , is used to determine Kd, theretardation coefficient, which is used to calculate contaminant transport velocity. A compound witha high K^ will likely have a high

5.2 CONTAMINANT PERSISTENCE

03Contaminant persistence in the environment is governed by a variety of chemical, physical and ^biological processes. These include volatilization, sorption, photolysis, oxidation, hydrolysis, 0

bioaccumulation, biotransformation, and biodegradation. The rate at which these processes take *-»~iCO

5-5 *>

place is influenced by the physical and chemical properties of the contaminant and the physical,chemical and biological characteristics of the medium.

The persistence of VOCs found in the sol wll be a consequence of the volatility , biodegradablity,and the KM of the compounds. The K« and soJubity together describe the extent to which acompound wll be leached from the sol by infltrating groundwater. PCE and TCE, the predominantcontaminants in the sol, have high K., values (364 and 126 mg/L, respectively) and low solubiities(150 and 1,100 mg/L. respectively) and wW therefore tend to persist in the sol. As discussed inChapter 4, chlorinated hydrocarbons bkxJegrade in the groundwater. In the unsaturated sol,chlorinated hydrocarbons degrade but at a slow rate. Hydrocarbons found at the site, includingbenzene, biodegrade quickly in the unsaturated sol. All of the VOCs have vapor pressures over10mm Hg, and can volatilize from the sol into the atmosphere.

The persistence of the VOCs found in the groundwater wH be a consequence of the K^ density,Henry's Law Constant, and biodegradablity. The K. value describes the extent to which acompound wll adsorb onto the sol from the groundwater. Greater adsorption wll retard thetransport of the compound relative to groundwater flow. Compounds with higher K^ valves, likePCE and TCE, wi be detected in smaller concentrations and at a later time in downgradient weHlocations, relative to simlar concentrations of compounds with smafler K. values, like 1,2-dichloroethene (cis and trans), 1,1-dichloroethene, and benzene. Retardation of contaminants wllbe greater in sol units with higher total organic carbon content The Henry's Law Constant definesthe extent to which a compound wll volatilize from water into the air. Most of the VOCs are above10* atm-m'/mole and wi tend to volatilize from the groundwater table into the unsaturated sol.All of the VOC's shown hi Table 5-1 found at the site have densities greater than 1 g/cm', and wltend to migrate down into the aquifer. BkxJegradation of the chlorinated VOCs in the aquiferproceeds by the pathways shown in Chapter 4 and Figure 4-11. The groundwater samples haveshown the presence of many of these degradation products, including 1,2-dichloroethene (cis andtrans), 1,1-dichloroethene, and 1,1-dichloroethane. These biodegradation reactions wll continue m

in the aquifer as the chlorinated hydrocarbons are transported downgradient Aromatic ohydrocarbons, including benzene, wll biodegrade slowly in the groundwater. o

5-6 wto(Jl

5.3 CONTAMINANT MIGRATION

Contaminants found in the soil samples at the SJCC and GSC fadities indicate that contaminantshave and may continue to migrate into the sol. Groundwater samples indicate that there arecontaminants in the groundwater below and downgradient of the sites, and these contaminantsmay continue to migrate in the groundwater. Flux chamber measurements indicate thatcontaminants can and may continue to move into the atmosphere.

Migration into Soil

Surface soil samples at the northwest comer of the SJCC facility and north of the rear wall of theGSC facirty contain high concentrations of PCE, TCE, and other volatile organics. These

contaminants will move through the soil as a result of downward migration of liquid wastes and/orby leaching of the soluble contaminants in the soB by infttrating precipitation. Periods of heavyprecipitation will cany contaminants that are adsorbed onto soi particles, in liquid wastes, or insolution with the precipitation across the ground surface to areas of lower elevation. Adsorbed orliquid contaminants have low solublity and higher K.. values.

Sampling of soil and adjacent wells at both sites confirms downward migration of contaminantsfrom source areas at the surface through the unsaturated soil to the groundwater table.Contaminants have also been moved overland by heavy precipitation events from the source areaat SJCC to the adjacent railroad tracks.

Migration into Groundwater

Groundwater contamination at and downgradient of the sites was confirmed in both Phase 1 and2 groundwater sampling. The contaminants in the groundwater consist of PCE, TCE and other

03VOCs and likely resulted from the downward migration of liquid wastes through the unsaturated «zone of the soB and leaching of soluble contaminants from waste or surface soil by infiltratingprecipitation. M

»-»U)

5-7 £

VOC contaminants that have entered the groundwater with infitrating precipitation would be carriedby the groundwater flow to the SJCC extraction wells and EPA's wells located further downgradientHydrodynamic dispersion would move the contaminants vertically and laterally, widening the zoneof contaminated groundwater. The contaminants that are denser than water would migrate downinto the aquifer. The combination of downward migration and hydrodynamic dispersion wouldresult in a zone of contaminated groundwater that becomes wider, vertically and horizontally, asit moves deeper into the groundwater. VOCs with higher K«. values wi be adsorbed onto organicmaterial in the sol and transported at a slower rate relative to groundwater flow.

Migration into the Atmosphere

VOCs in the sols at the GSC and SJCC can volatilize and move into the atmosphere. The shallowgroundwater below and downgradient of the sites also contains VOCs, which can volatilize fromthe groundwater into the sol, and then migrate up into the atmosphere. The extent of migrationinto the air is controlled by the volatility of the contaminants, their concentration in the sol andgroundwater, and the porosity of the sol. Flux Chamber Measurements taken above thecontaminated sol at SJCC and GSC indicate that PCE, TCE and other VOCs may volatilize intothe atmosphere as discussed in Section 4.4 of Chapter 4. The VOCs which enter the atmospherewould undergo atmospheric dispersion and dlutioa

CO

8oo

_ _5-8

6.0 BASEUNE RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This baseline risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential threat to human health andthe environment in the absence of any remedial action. It provides the basis for determiningwhether or not remedial action is necessary and the justification for performing remedial action.

The risk assessment follows U.S. EPA guidance for risk assessments in general and for Superfundsites in particular (Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health EvaluationManual, U.S. EPA, December 1989), and is based primariy on data generated during the twophases of Remedial Investigation (Rl) as summarized in previous sections of this report In keepingwith U.S. EPA guidance, this risk assessment incorporates conservative assumptions aboutcontaminant exposures, intakes, and risks. Pathway-specific models are used to characterizecontaminant release and transport mechanisms, behavior patterns, and processes leading topotential contaminant exposure. Standard U.S. EPA risk characterization models and lexicologicalparameters were used to develop quantitative estimates of risk for each exposure pathway andpotentially exposed population.

Section 6.2 describes the methodology used to evaluate the environmental sampling data. Themethods used to evaluate spatial patterns of contaminant distribution and to identify the site-relatedpollutants are described. This section concludes with the selection of chemicals of concern in thevarious environmental media. These chemicals of concern are then used for the quantitative riskanalysis.

In Section 6.3, exposed populations and potential present and future routes of human exposure areidentified. The pathway-specific models used to calculate the intake of contaminants are also odescribed.

6-1OJto00

Section 6.4 provides a brief discussion of the toxicologic properties of the chemicals of concernat the site and presents toxidty values used in the quantitative risk assessment

Section 6.5 presents the results of the quantitative risk assessment The uncertainties associatedwith the quantitative risk estimates are also identified.

Potential impacts on nonhuman receptors and the environment resulting from the chemicals ofconcern present hi various environmental media are evaluated in Section 6.6.

6.2 DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

6.2.1 Data Evaluation

The data used for the risk assessment for the site were collected from the Rl activities summarizedin the previous sections. Chemical analyses from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 field investigations wereused in the selection of chemicals of concern and in the quantitative risk assessment All thesurface sol (0-3 feet deep) samples from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Rl were utilized for the riskassessment Pursuant to an agreement between U.S. EPA and NJDEP, it was decided to use onlyPhase 1 groundwater data for the risk assessment The use of Phase 1 groundwater samples wHresult into more conservative estimates of risk, as Phase 1 groundwater samples were collectedfrom the more contaminated shallow portion of the aquifer and Phase 2 groundwater samples werecollected from the less contaminated deeper portion of the aquifer. All Rl chemical data wereobtained through EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) and were validated in accordance withEPA protocols.

The data were reviewed and evaluated using the following criteria:

CO• Evaluate data qualifiers. Data qualifiers used by the laboratory may differ in identity or o

meaning from those used for data validation. Both laboratory and validation data qualifiers,their definitions, and the determination if data with the qualifier is acceptable for use in the

oo

6-2vo

quantitative risk assessment are presented in Table 6-1. If data had both laboratory and validationqualifiers, and they appeared contradictory, the laboratory qualifier was ignored and the validationqualifier was used.

• Identify sample locations to serve as estimates of local background concentrationsfor groundwater and soils.

• Determine which contaminants are present at concentrations greater thanbackground concentrations.

• Identify chemicals which could be linked to she activities, either due to site-relatedconcentration gradients or using historical data concerning the wastes disposed ofat the site.

• Select site-related chemicals of concern which are most likely to pose risks to publichealth.

• Estimate exposure point concentrations for chemicals of concern and definechemical concentration distributions to serve as inputs for the risk assessment

To assist in identifying the chemicals of concern and in determining their representativeconcentrations, the following criteria were used to evaluate the analytical data:

• The chemicals detected in upgradient groundwater samples were compared withdowngradient or contaminated samples. All the surface sol (0-3 feet deep) samplesfrom Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Rl were grouped into two categories of surface soilsamples from Garden State Cleaners Site and South Jersey Clothing Company Site.

0}All of the Phase I Rl groundwater samples were considered together. ^

oot-t

6-3 £o

TABLE 6-1

DESCRIPTION AND USE OF DATA QUALIFIERS

Qualifier Definition Useable Data

ORGANIC CHEMICAL DATA

C^p Laboratory Data Qualifiers

U Compound was analyzed for, but not detected YesJ Value is estimated YesC Pesticide results were confirmed by GC/MS YesB Analyte found in associated blank as well as in

sample YesE Concentration exceeds calibration range of

GC/MS instrument YesD Compound identified in an analysis at a

secondary dlution factor YesA The Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) is a

suspected aWoJ-condensation product No

Validation Data Qualifiers

U The compound was analyzed for, but not detected YesJ The associated numerical value is an estimated

quantity YesR Quality control indicates that data are unusable NoI Interference problems Yes

Source: EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I, Human Health EvaluationManual (Pan A), December 1989. £

o

6-4

• For duplicate samples, the higher of the two values were used to obtain aconservative risk assessment

• For non-detected results, one-half of the sample quantitation limit (SQL) was usedas a proxy concentration. This arbitrariy selected value (one-half) is commonlyassigned to non-detects when averaging data for risk assessment purposes sincethe actual value can range from zero to a value just below the detection limit

• Analytical results for tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were reviewed as partof data analysis. On the whole, the TICs did not comprise a significant portion ofthe detected compounds in any medium. There was also no consistent patternof occurrence of identifiable compounds in any medium. Consequently, TICs werenot included in the quantitative risk assessment

• The upper 95 percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean was used as therepresentative concentration (C-mean). If the upper 95 percent confidence limit ofthe arithmetic mean was greater than the maximum detected value then themaximum detected value was used as the representative concentration.

The upper 95 percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean was calculated using the followingstatistical equation:

C-mean = x + t^ S.Where:C-mean = Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the

arithmetic meanx « Arithmetic mean w

o= Type 1 error of 0.05 (Calculated from

statistical probablity table) o«= Standard deviation of the mean

MU»

6-5 £

6.2.2 Selection of Chemicals of Concern

The procedure used for the selection of chemicals of concern is designed to identify the "highestrisk" chemicals at the site. The following criteria were used to select a representative andconservative array of chemicals of potential concern:

• Frequency of detection: If a chemical was detected only infrequently (e.g., one outof 20 samples), the chemical was not selected for further evaluation. In addition tolow frequency of detection, the following criteria were also used for eliminating achemical: 1) the chemical was detected infrequently In one or two media; 2) thechemical was not detected in any other media or not detected at highconcentrations, and 3) there was no reason to believe that the chemical was siterelated.

• Common laboratory/field contaminants: Common laboratory and/or fieldcontaminants such as acetone, 2-butanone [methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)], methylenechloride, and toluene were excluded unless their concentrations exceeded themaximum detected field blank concentration by at least ten times.

• Comparison with field blanks: The concentrations of other contaminants (notcommon laboratory and/or field contaminants) were excluded unless theirconcentrations exceeded the maximum detected field blank concentration by fivetimes.

• Comparison with appropriate background samples: Contaminants detected at levelsabove background levels were retained for further evaluation. Representativeconcentrations of chemicals were compared with the background concentrationsto determine if the detected levels were higher than the background levels. woRepresentative chemical concentrations which were less than or equal to therepresentative background values were not retained for further evaluation. Although §

i-»

6-6 MOJu>u>

the background chemicals may be naturally occurring or of anthropogenic origin,the anthropogenic chemicals were not eliminated.

Data were summarized for each environmental medium by determining frequencies of detection,concentration ranges of detected values, and representative concentrations (C-mean). The extentof contamination in the areas sampled and the identification of chemicals of concern by mediumsampled are presented in the following sections.

Downgradient Groundwater - Twenty three groundwater samples were collected during the PhaseI Rl from potentially impacted areas. A summary of the data is presented in Table 6-2. In thistable, the representative concentrations of detected chemicals are compared with levels detectedin upgradient well to assist in the selection of chemicals of concern for risk characterization.

Chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, bromodichloromethane, 2-hexanone, andnaphthalene were eliminated because of their infrequent detection. Although chloroform wasdetected at concentration lower than the concentration in the upgradient well, it was retained forrisk characterization.

The chemicals of concern selected for risk characterization in downgradient groundwater along withtheir representative concentrations are as follows:

Chemical C-mean fug/l)

Chloromethane 4.2ds-1,2-Dtehloroethene 17.2

Chloroform 3.0

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.2Carbon tetrachloride 2.0

Trichloroethene 2497.4 £Tetrachloroethene 328.01,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.0 o

6-7 Cu>

TABLE 6-2COMPARISON OF DETECTED CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN DOUNGRADIENT WELLS WITH

UPGRADIENT WELL

CHEMICAL

(Concentration Units)

Organic* (ug/l)

ChloroMthane

Chloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,1-Dichloroethane

cfs-1.2-DicMoroethene

Chloroforai

1.1.1-Trichloroethane

| Carbon tetrachloride

Trichloroethene

•reMdichloroM thane

| Tetrach 1 oroethene

2-Hexanone

1 , 1 . 1 ,2-Tet rach loroathane

Naphthalene

FREQUENCYOF

DETECTION

2/23

1/23

1/23

1/23

8/23

5/23

5/23

2/23

14/23

1/23

12/23

1/23

2/23

1/23

RANGE OFDETECTED

CONCENTRATIONS

0.7-8.0

2.0

17.0

1.0

2.0-77.0

1.0-3.0

0.7-13.0

1.0-2.0

0.8-13000.0

1.0

0.9-1900.0

0.6

0.6-2.0

0.7

C*liWl

4.2

2.0*

4.8

1.0*

17.2

3.0*

5.2

2.0*

2497.4

0.6

328.0

0.6*

2.0*

0.7*

DETECTEDUPGRADIENT

WELLCONCENTRATION

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

6.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

CHEMICALSELECTEDYes (Y)or No (N)

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Y

N

Y

N

* - Naxiaui DetectedND - Not Detected

Concentration

CO8oo

6-8 u»

Surface Son at South Jersey Clothing Company - Twenty four surface soO (0-3 feet deep) samples

were collected during the Phase I and Phase II Rl from South Jersey Clothing Company. Asummary of the data is presented in Table 6-3.

The chemicals of concern selected for risk characterization in surface sol at South Jersey ClothingCompany along with their representative concentrations are as follows:

Chemical C-mean (ug/kgj

Methylene chloride 105.5Acetone 319.91,2-Dichloroethene 9.9

1.1.1-Trichloroethane 9.8Trichloroethene 779.01.1.2-Trichloroethane 2.0Benzene 1.0Tetrachloroethene 152.71,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10.0Toluene 7.0

Chlorobenzene 2.0

Surface Soil at Garden State Cleaners Site - Seven surface soB (0-3 feet deep) samples werecollected during the Phase I and Phase II Rl from Garden State Cleaners Site. A summary of thedata is presented in Table 6-4.

The chemicals of concern selected for risk characterization in surface sol at Garden State CleanersSite along with their representative concentrations are as fottows:

Chemical C-mean fug/kg)CO

8Methylene chloride109.6 §Acetone 4888.3 M

MU>

6-9

TABLE 6-3SUMMARY OF DETECTED CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL

AT SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY

* * Maxiaui Datactad ConcentrationNO • Not Datactad

(CHEMICAL

(Concantration Units)

Organic* (up/kg)——————————

Htthylana chloridt

Acatona

1,2-Dlchloroathana

|1,1,1-THchloroatbana

(Trichloroathant

|1,1,2-Trichloroathana

jlanzana

j Tat r ach I oroathana

| 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tatrachloroathana

(Toluana

jchlorobanzana

FREQUENCYOF

DETECTION

6/24

3/22

4/20

1/18

16/2*

1/18

1/18

14/24

1/18

2/20

2/18

RANGE OFDETECTED

CONCENTRATIONS

11.0-520.0

16.0-1500.0

3.0-16.0

15.0

6.0-3900.0

2.0

1.0

1.0-820.0

17.0

6.0-7.0

2.0-2.0

C-awan

105.5

319.9

9.9

9.8

779.0

2.0+

1.0*

152.7

10.0

7.0*

2.0*

CHEMICALSELECTEDYaa (Y)or No (N)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

CO

oo

6-10u>u>

TABLE 6-4SUMMARY OF DETECTED CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL

AT GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITE

CHEMICAL

(Conctntration Units)

Organic* (ug/kg)

Ntthyltnt chloride

Acetone

Trichlorotthtnt

Tttrach lorotthtnt

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tttrachlorotthant

FREQUENCYOF

DETECTION

1/7

1/7

2/7

6/7

1/7

RANGE OFDETECTED

CONCENTRATIONS

180.0

8100.0

84.0-6100.0

2.0-1300000.0

11.0

C-man

——

109.6

4888.3

3017.3

88681S.8

11.0*

CHEMICALSELECTEDYtt (Y)or No (N)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

•» • Maxiaun Dtttcttd ConcentrationNO • Not Dtttcttd

0}

8oo

toU)00

6-11

Trichloroethene 3017.3Tetrachloroethene 886815.81,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane 11.0

Ambient Air - An ambient air study was done at South Jersey Clothing Company and GardenState Cleaners Site by the Environmental Response Team (ERT) of the Office of Emergency andRemedial Response (OERR) for U.S. EPA The detals of the study are included in the report "FluxChamber Measurement Survey for Garden State Cleaners and South Jersey Clothing, Buena, NewJersey* submitted to U.S. EPA and have been discussed in the previous Rl sections.

Trichloroethene at South Jersey Clothing Company and tetrachloroethene at Garden State CleanersSite were identified as chemicals of concern in ambient air. Flux chamber measurements alongwith the SCREEN model were used to estimate very conservative emission rates of the chemicalsin ambient air. This model considers dispersion of the contaminant in ambient air. The closestreceptor considered by ERT was 100 meters from the source area

The emission concentrations of trichloroethene for a receptor at 1.5 m height at South JerseyClothing Company are as follows:

Distance (m) ug/m*

100 44.32

500 6.791,000 2.52

5,000 0.27

10,000 0.11

The emission concentrations of tetrachloroethene for a receptor at 1.5 m height at Garden StateCleaners Site are as follows:

Distance (ml ug/m* w

100 0.06008 I "

500 0.006487 oo1,000 0.002208 M

t-»6-12 Evo

5,000 0.0002204

10,000 0.00008793

6.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

This section addresses the potential pathways by which human populations could be exposed tocontaminants originating from the South Jersey Clothing Company and Garden State Cleaners Site.in identifying potential pathways of exposure, both current and possible future site and nearby landuse conditions were considered.

The potential pathways of contaminant exposure were identified based on data concerning thedistribution of contaminants at the site, physical characteristics of the site, potential routes andmechanisms of contaminant transfer, and identified patterns of land use at the site and surroundingareas.

An exposure pathway consists of four elements:

• a source and mechanism of chemical release (e.g., leaching)• an environmental transport medium (e.g., groundwater)• a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium (e.g., residential

wells)• an exposure route (e.g., ingestion at the point of exposure)

The exposure pathway is considered to be 'complete' if all of the above elements are present Ifone or more elements are not present, exposure does not occur.

w8

6-13 Mu>o

6.3.1 Identification of Exposure Pathways

To determine possible sources of release and transport media, site descriptions and the datacollected from the field investigations were utilized. Site-specific release mechanisms/sources,exposure media, potentially exposed populations, and exposure routes are identified in this section.

There are three primary routes through which Individuals may be exposed to site relatedcontaminants: ingestion, inhalation, and dormal absorption. The following sections describe thepotential exposure pathways for each environmental medium associated with the site under presentand potential future site use conditions.

The Garden State Cleaners Site is an operating fadity and the South Jersey Clothing Company isa closed fadity. The seven receptor groups for which public health risks were evaluated at theSouth Jersey Clothing Company and Garden State Cleaners site are as follows:

1) Adult Worker at Garden State Cleaners Site (Off-Site Resident and Non-Resident ofthe area).

2) Adult Area Resident (On-Stte and Off-Site).3) Adult Off-Site Area Resident and Trespasser.4) Adult Customer of the Garden State Cleaners.5) Adolescent Area Resident (on-Site and Off-Site).6) Adolescent Off-Site Area Resident and Trespasser.7) Chid Area Resident (On-Site and Off-Site).

Potential exposure pathways are summarized in Table 6-5. An identified pathway does not implythat exposures are actually occurring, only that the potential exists for the pathway to be complete.Exposure pathways identified for the sites are described below.

018oo

6-14 Mu>

TABLE 6-5

POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF HUMAN EXPOSURE UNDER CURRENT AMD FUTURE SITE USE CONDITIONS

EXPOSURE MEDIUM POTENTIAL ROUTES OF EXPOSURE POTENTIAL RECEPTORS PATHWAY COMPLETE

Ambient Afr

Surface Soil

Grounduater

Inhalation of volatilecontaminants fn ambientair.

Dermal contact andincidental tngestion ofcontaminated surfacesoil.

Ingestion, inhalation ofvolatile organic* anddermal absorption ofcontaminants inaroundwater.

Current site use:Trespassers, site workers,and customers.

Future site use: Siteresidents, workers,trespassers, and customers.

Currant site use:Trespassers and siteworkers.

Future site use:Trespassers, siteworkers and residents.

Currant site use:Grounduater is not used forhousehold purposes.

future site use:Residents near and on thesite using contaminatedwater.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

O)8oo

6-15 U)itt(o

6.3.1.1 Environmental Media

Aj[ - Tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene were identified as chemicals of concern in the ambientair. The potential population exposed via inhalation are current and future site workers, trespassersand customers, and future site residents.

Surface Sol - Nine volatile organic chemicals at South Jersey Clothing Company and five volatileorganic chemicals at Garden State Cleaners were identified as chemicals of concern in surface sol.The exposure pathways for chemicals of concern in surface sol are incidental ingestion and dermalabsorption by current and future site workers and trespassers, and future site-residents.

Groundwatar - Seven volatile organic chemicals detected in groundwater from on-site monitoringwells have been retained for risk characterization. Although the area residents are connected topublic water supply, the future use of site groundwater was considered. For the future case, it wasassumed that off-site grcundwater contained the same contaminants and contaminant levels as on-site groundwater and that the site would be used for residential purposes. Future off-site residentsand potential on-site residents were evaluated for future risk via the ingestion, inhalation (duringshowering), and derma! absorption of contaminated groundwater.

6.3.1.2 Exposure Routes

Potential exposure routes for the identified media of concern at the South Jersey Clothing Companyand Garden State Cleaners site are as follows:

• Inhalation of ambient air (site workers, trespassers, customers and future siteresidents).

• Incidental ingestion of surface sol (site workers, trespassers, and future site residents).w

• Dermal contact with surface sol (site workers, trespassers, and future site residents). £

ooM

6-16MU»

• Future use of contaminated groundwater (future area residents via ingestion, inhalationof votatfles whle showering, and dermal contact whie bathing or showering).

6.3.1.3 Exposure Populations

The exposure routes discussed above were combined for different groups of receptors. Thereceptor groups and the relevant exposure routes considered are identified below. All the receptorgroups include current and future exposure routes for various environmental media.

Receptor Group

Adult Workers

Adult Residents

Relevant Exposure Routes

Potential future use (ingestion,inhalation while showering, anddermal absorption) of groundwater(for workers who are residents of thesite area).

Dermal contact and incidentalingestion of surface soD (currentand future).

Inhalation of ambient air (currentand future).

Potential future use (ingestion,inhalation whle showering, anddermal absorption) of groundwater.

Dermal contact and incidentalingestion of surface sol (future).

Inhalation of ambient air (future).

CO

6-17

oo

Adult Trespassers

Adult Customers

Dermal contact and incidentalingestion of surface sol (currentand future).Inhalation of ambient air (current and future).

Inhalation of ambient air (current and future).

Adolescent Trespassers

Adolescent Residents Potential future use (ingestion,inhalation while showering, anddermal absorption) of groundwater.



Dermal contact and incidentalingestion of surface sol (currentand future).

Inhalation of ambient air (currentand future).

Potential future use (ingestion,inhalation whle showering, anddermal absorption) of groundwater.



6.3.2 Exposure Assessment Methods and Assumptions

The methods/models used to assess human intakes via each of the potential exposure routes aredescribed in this subsection.

Chid Residents

CO

6-18

oo

u>ifeen

6.3.2.1 Exposure to Ambient Air

Inhalation Exposure - Intakes for inhalation of ambient air were generated using the followingequation:

Intake (mg/kg/day)

Where:

C x IR x ET x EF x EDBW x AT X 365

C - Contaminant concentration in air (mg/m*)IR = Inhalation rate (m'/hr)ET = Exposure time (hrs/day)EF = Exposure frequency (days/yr)ED = Exposure duration (yrs)BW = Body weight (kg)AT = Averaging time (yrs)365 = Conversion factor (days/yr)

The values for the variables used in the above equation are as follows:

"»— Darameter

C(mg/m3)IR (m'/hr)ET (hrs/day)EF(days/yrED(yrs)BW(kg)AT(yrs)

AdultWorker

C-mean2.582502570

25/70**

AdultCustomer

C-Mean0.830.2552307030/70

AdultTrespasser

C-mean0.83224307030/70

AdolescentTrespasser

C-mean1.0260*35*

AdultResident

C-mean0.8324350307030/70

Adolescent/Chad Resident

C-mean0.83/0.8324/24350/350*35/10*

* For noncartinogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and wil not affect the intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

** 25 years for noncarcinogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk.

Source: "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Hearth EvaluationManual' (EPA, December 1989), and "Exposure Factors Handbook" (ERA, March 1990).

01

oo

6-19U)

The exposure time (ET) and exposure frequency (EF) are best professional estimates based oncurrent and future land uses and activities in the site area.

6.3.2.2 Exposure to Surface Sol

Ingestion exposure • Intakes for ingestion of surface sol were generated using the followingequation:

Intake (mg/kg/day) = tC x IR x Fl x EF x EDI(BW x AT x 365 x 10')

Where:

C - Representative concentration (C-mean) of thecontaminant in soil (mg/kg)

IR * Soi ingestion rate (mg/event)R * Fraction ingested from the contamination source

(unitiess)EF - Exposure frequency (events/yr)ED - Exposure duration (yrs)BW = Receptor body weight (kg)AT * Averaging period (yrs)365 - Conversion Factor (days/yr)10" - Conversion factor (mg/kg)

The values for the variables used in the above equation are as follows:

Adult Adult Adolescent Adult Adolescent/• «••«•• • W»WI • »»*• • •»*• • • WM«MW*** • • Wk^MMWWI • • WMMWI t» ^^1 H h* • ITJM^rMTJr •»

C (mg/kg)IR (mg/event)EF (events/yr)ED (yrs)BW (kg)AT (yrs)

C-mean50250257025/70"

C-mean5010247024/70

C-mean20020*35*

C-mean100350247024/70*

C-mean200/200350/350*35/10

CO

8oo

6-20

* For noncarcinogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and will not affect the intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

** 25 years for noncarcinogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk.

Source: "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health EvaluationManual* (ERA, December 1989).

The soil ingestion rates (IR) and exposure frequencies (EF) are best professional estimates basedon current and future land uses and activities in the area of the landfill. A conservative value of 1.0was used for the fraction ingested from the contaminated source (Fl).

Dermal Exposure - Dermal absorption intakes for surface soy were generated using the followingequation:

Intake (mg/kg/day) - tC x SA x AF x ABS x EF x EDI(BWxATx365x10B)

Where:

C = Representative concentration (C-mean) of the contaminant in sol (mg/kg)SA = Exposed surface area of the skin (cm2/day)AF = Adherence factor (mg/cm8)ABS = Absorption fraction of the chemicalEF = Exposure frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure duration (yrs)BW = Receptor body weight (kg)AT = Averaging period (yrs)365 - Conversion factor (days/yr)10' = Conversion factor (mg/kg)

OJ

8oo

6-21

The variable values for the above equation are as follows:

Parameter

C (mg/kg)SA (cm2/day)EF (days/yr)ED(yrs)BW (kg)AT(yrs)

AdultWorker

C-mean3940250257025/70"

AdultTrespasser

C-mean394010247024/70


C-mean274020«35*

AdultResident

C-mean3940350247024/70

Adolescent/Chad Resident

C-mean2740/1580350/350*35/10*

•**

Source:

For noncardnogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and wll not affect the intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

25 years for noncardnogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk

'Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health EvaluationManual* (EPA, December 1989), and 'Exposure Factors Handbook" (EPA, March 1990)

An adherence factor of 1.45, and absorption fractions of 0.1 for volatle organic chemicals and 0.05for semivolatae organic chemicals were used for the intake calculations. The exposure frequency(EF) estimates represent best professional judgments based on current and future land uses andactivities in the area of the landfiU. Fiftieth percentie values for SA along with average body weightwere used because of the strong con-elation between surface area and body weight

CO

6-22 vo

6.3.2.3 Exposure to Groundwater

Inpestion Exposure - Intakes from ingestion of groundwater were generated using the followingequation:

Intake (mg/kg/day) = 1C x IR x EF x EDI(BW x AT x 365)

Where:

C = Representative (C-mean) chemical concentration ingroundwater (mg/L)

IR = Water ingestion rate (L/day)EF = Exposure frequency (days/yr)ED = Exposure duration (yrs)BW = Receptor body weight (kg)AT = Averaging period (yrs)365 = Conversion factor (days/yr)

Values used for the variables are as follows:

Parameter

C (mg/L)IR (L/day)EF (days/yr)ED (yrs)BW (kg)AT (yrs)

AdultResident

C-mean2350307030/70**

AdultWorker/Resident

C-mean2350307030/70

Adolescent/Chid Resident

C-mean1.5/1350/350*35/10*

* For noncarcinogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and wit not affect the intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

** 30 years for noncarcinogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk.CO

Source: "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health "Evaluation Manual* (ERA, December 1989). _

6-23

Inhalation Exposure • Inhalation exposure during showering was estimated using a mass transfermodel developed for this specific exposure route and an intake estimate model. The methodemployed is as follows (Foster and Chrostowski, 1987, and ERA, 1989D):

Intake (mg/kg/day) fS x IR x K x EF x ED)(BW x AT x R. x 10*)

Dt + exo f- Rt D. 1R.-expIR.(D.-DJ]/R.

Where:

SIREFEDBWATR.D.D,10*

Volatie chemical generation rate (ug/m'/min)Inhalation rate (L/min)Exposure frequency (days'1)Exposure duration (yrs)Receptor body weight (kg)Averaging period (yrs)Air exchange rate (mirf1)Shower duration (min)Total duration in the bathroom (min)Conversion factor (mg/ug/m'/L)

The volatie chemical generation rate was estimated using the Foster and Chrostowski masstransfer model which is based on two-phase film theory. The model employs contaminant-specificmass transfer coefficients, Henry's Law constant, droplet diameter, drop time, viscosity, andtemperature to determine the chemical concentration in vapor phase.

The following supplementary calculations were also used:

x FR)/SV

Where:C^ - concentration leaving water droplet (ug/l)FR « shower flow rate (L/min)SV - shower room air volume (m3)

CO

oo

6-24u>Cn

[I - exp (-K . x ts/60xd)J

Where:•= concentration of chemical in water (ug/l)

K^ = adjusted overall mass transfer coeff. (cm/hr)t, = shower droplet time (sec)d = shower droplet diameter (mm)

K, rr, MJ/0". •OS

Where:K,. = overall mass transfer coefficient (cm/hr)T, = calibration water temperature (K) of K^T. = shower water temperature (K)M, = water viscosity @ T, (cp)

M, = water viscosity @ T. (cp)

K, = [I/K, * (R x T) / (H x

Where:K, = liquid phase mass transfer coefficient (cm/hr)Kj = gas phase mass transfer coefficient (cm/hr)

T = temperature at which Henry's Law Constant is estimated (K)

R = Ideal Gas Law Constant (aim x m'/mol/K)

H = Henry's Law Constant (atm x m'/mol)

K, - 20 cm /M"\ (based on CO,)hr \MW/

COoo

oo

6-25 Mu>en

K_ - 3000 on /lfi"\ (based on HaO)hr \MW/

The values of the variable are as follows:

ParameterAdult Adult Adolescent/Resident Worker/Resident Child Resident

C (mg/L)IR (L/min)EF (days-1)ED(yrs)BW (kg)AT(yrs)

C-mean141307030/70**

C-mean141307030/70

C-mean11/111/1*35/10*

**

For noncardnogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and wll not affect the Intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

30 years for noncardnogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk.

Source: 'Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health EvaluationManual' (ERA, December 1989).

An air exchange rate (Ra) of 0.0083 min'1 was used for al receptors. The shower duration (Ds) andtotal duration in the bathroom (Dt) were assumed to be 12 minutes and 20 minutes, respectively.

CO

oo

6-26enCO

Dermal Exposure - Dermal exposure during bathing or showering was estimated as follows:

intake (mg/kg/day) (C x PC x AV x ET x EF x EDI(BW x AT x 109 x 365)

Where:C - Representative (C-mean) chemical concentration in

groundwater (mg/L)PC = Permeability constant of chemical (cm/hr)AV = Skin surface area avaiable for contact (cm2)ET = Exposure time (hrs/day)EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)ED = Exposure duration (years)BW = Receptor body weight (kg)AT = Averaging period (years)10s = Conversion factor (cms/L)365 = Conversion factor (days/year)

This approach is based on the assumption that groundwater contaminants are present indilute form and that percutaneous penetration is controlled by the absorption of chemicalthrough the skin.

The variable values are as follows:

ParameterAdultResident

AdultWorker/Resident

Adolescent/Child Resident

C (mg/L)AV(cm2)ET (hr/day)EF (days/yr)ED(yrs)BW (kg)AT(yrs)

C-mean18,1500.20350307030/70"

C-mean18,1500.20350307030/70

C-mean10,600/5,9000.20/0.20350/350*35/10

CO

8oo

6-27

* For noncardnogenic risk, ED and AT are equal and wi not affect the intake calculation.For carcinogenic risk, ED and AT are not applicable.

** 30 years for noncardnogenic risk and 70 years for carcinogenic risk.

Source: 'Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, HumanHealth Evaluation Manual" (ERA, December 1989), and•Exposure Factors Handbook" (ERA, March 1990).

The following permeabllty constants for chemicals of concern In groundwater were used:

Chemicals PC fcm/hrt

Chloromethane 8.0E-04cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.5E-04Chloroform 1.6E+00

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3.2E-08Carbon tetrachloride 8.0E-04Trichloroethene 3.2E-08Tetrachloroethene 1.5E-041,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.5E-04

Reference

Assumed equal to waterAssumed equal to tetrachloroetheneCalculated from (a)Assumed equal to trichloroetheneAssumed equal to waterCalculated from (a)Calculated from (a)Assumed equal to tetrachloroethene

(a) These were calculated from literature data (ATSDR) assuming the pure compound wasplaced on the skin.

6.4 TOXJCITY ASSESSMENT

In this section, toxicologic properties of each selected chemical of concern are presented. Inaddition, the toxicologic criteria to evaluate human health risks are discussed. The primary sourcesof toxidty information are U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) data base and theHealth Effects Assessment Summary Tables (USEPA, January 1991). »

oo

6-28 u»Ol(SI

6.4.1 Classification of Health Effects

- For the purposes of risk assessment, individual contaminants are separated into two categories ofchemical toxidty depending on whether they exhibit the potential for carcinogenic ornoncardnogenic effects in humans.

6.4.1.1 Health Effects Criteria For Carcinogenic Effects

For chemicals exhibiting carcinogenic effects, it is recognized by U.S. EPA as weU as other scientificauthorities that one or more molecular events can evoke changes in a single ceO or a small numberof cells that can lead to tumor formation. This is the non-threshold theory of cardnogenesis whichassumes that any level of exposure to a carcinogen can result in some finite possibility of causingthe disease. Generally, regulatory agencies assume the non-threshold hypothesis for carcinogeniceffects in the absence of information about the mechanisms of action for a particular chemical.

U.S. EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) has developed cancer slope factors(Le.,dose-response values) for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with various levelsof exposure to potential human carcinogens. The cancer slope factor in units of (mg chemical/kgbody weight/day)'1 is a number which, when multiplied by the lifetime average daly intake of apotential carcinogen (in mg chemical/kg body weight/day), yields the upper-bound lifetime excesscancer risk associated with exposure at that intake. Upper bound is a term used by U.S. EPA toreflect the conservative nature of the cancer slope factors; risks estimated using cancer slopefactors are considered unlikely to underestimate actual risks but they may overestimate actual risksfor a given exposure. This multiplication approach can be used for low doses corresponding tocancer risks lower than 1E-02. Excess lifetime cancer risks are generally expressed in scientificnotation and are probabilities. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06, for example, represents theincremental probability of one in one mllion that an individual will develop cancer as a result ofexposure to a carcinogenic chemical over a 70-year lifetime period under specified exposureconditions. EPA has suggested developing remedial alternatives for deanup of Superfund sites to nachieve total excess lifetime cancer risk ranging from no more than 1E-04 (one in ten thousand) o

oto 1E-06 (one in one million). M

6-29 £

In practice, cancer slope factors are derived from the results of human epidemiology studies orchronic animal bioassays. For the latter, data from animal studies are fitted to the linearizedmultistage model and a dose-response curve is obtained. The 95th percentie upper confidencelimit slope of the dose-response curve is subjected to various adjustments and an interspeciesscaling factor is applied to conservatively derive the cancer slope factor for humans. Thus, theactual risks associated with exposure to a potential carcinogen quantitatively evaluated based onanimal data are not likely to exceed the risks estimated using these cancer slope factors, but theymay be much lower. Dose-response data derived from human epidemiological studies are fittedto dose-time-response curves on ad hoc basis. These models provide the upper limit estimateson lifetime cancer risk. Cancer slope factors based on human epidemiological data are alsoderived using very conservative assumptions and, as such, they too are considered unlikely tounderestimate risks.

In addition, there are varying degrees of confidence in the weight of evidence for cartinogenicityof a given chemical. U.S. EPA (ERA, 1986a) has proposed a system for characterizing the overallweight of evidence for a chemical's cardnogenidty based on the avaiablrty of animal, human, andother supportive data. The weight-of-evidence classification is an attempt to determine thelikelihood that an agent is a human carcinogen and thus qualitatively affects the estimation ofpotential health risks. Three primary factors are considered hi characterizing the overal weight ofevidence for cardnogenidty: (1) the quality of evidence from human studies, (2) the quality of

evidence from animal studies which are combined into a characterization of the overafl weight ofevidence for human cardnogenidty, and (3) other supportive information which is assessed todetermine whether the overaB weight of evidence should be modified. U.S. EPA's final classificationof the overall weight of evidence indudes the following five categories:

Group A-Human Cardnoaen

his category indicates that there is sufficient evidence from human epidemiological studies to0)

support a causal association between an agent and cancer. g

oo

wo «-

Group B—Probable Human Carcinogen

This category indicates that there is at least limited evidence from epidemiotogical studies ofcarcinogenidty to humans (Group B1) or that, in the absence of adequate data on humans, thereis sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (Group B2).

Group C—Possible Human Carcinogen

This category indicates that there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absenceof data on humans.

Group D—Not Classified

This category indicates that the evidence for carcinogenicity in animals is inadequate.

Group E-Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans

This category indicates the evidence for noncartinogenicity in humans (no evidence ofcarcinogenicity in adequate studies).

Quantitative carcinogenic risk assessments are performed for chemicals in Groups A, B, and C.Cancer slope factors are developed based on epidemiological or animal btoassay data for a specificroute of exposure, either oral or inhalation. No slope factors are available for the dermal route ofexposure. Carcinogenic risks associated with dermal exposure have been evaluated using oralslope factors (except in cases where evidence of carcinogenicity is highly route-specific). Forexample, it is inappropriate to use the oral slope factor to evaluate the risks associated with dermalexposure to carcinogens such as benzo(a) pryrene, which causes skin cancer through a directaction at the point of application. Generally, only a qualitative assessment of risks from dermal £?exposure to these chemicals is possible.

oo

u>Or

6-31 oo

6.4.1.2 Health Effects Criteria For Noncardnogenic Effects

For chemicals that exhibit noncarcinogenic effects, many authorities consider organisms to haverepair and detoxification capacities that must be exceeded by some critical concentration(threshold) before the health effect is manifested. For example, an organ can have a large numberof cells performing the same or similar functions that must be significantly depleted before the effecton the organ is seen. This threshold view holds that a range of exposures from just above zeroto some finite value can be tolerated by the organism without an appreciable risk of adverse effects.

Health criteria for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects for use in risk assessment aredeveloped using reference doses (RfDs) developed by the U.S. EPA's RfD Work Group. The RfDis expressed in units of mg chemical/kg body weight/day. The RfD is an estimate of an averagedaiy exposure to an individual (including sensitive individuals) below which there wffl not be anappreciable risk of adverse health effects. The RfD is derived using conservative safety factors(e.g., to adjust from animals to humans and to protect sensitive populations) to ensure that it isunlikely to underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. Doses thatare significantly higher than the RfD may indicate that an inadequate margin of safety could existfor exposure to that substance and that an adverse health effect could occur.

6.4.2 Range of Potential Health Effects for Selected ChemiflaJs of Concern

A brief summary of the critical human health effects associated with long-term (chronic) exposureto each of the selected chemicals of concern is presented in this section. In addition, the toxidtyvalues used in the quantitative risk assessment (cancer slope factors and RfDs for each chemicalof concern) are presented.

Some chemicals exhibit different health effects depending upon the route of exposure (e.g.,inhalation versus oral). For example, a chemical may be associated with an increased risk of o

ocancer when inhaled but may have no evidence of carcinogenicity when ingested. For these

ochemicals, route-specific toxidty values, where avaiable, are used. Table 6-6 presents the oral and 2inhalation toxicity values which were used to estimate quantitative risk. M

u>en

6-32 vo

TABLE 6-6CHRONIC TOX1CITV VALUES FOR SELECTED CHEMICALS OF CONCERH

CHEMICAL

Acetone

Benzene

Carbon tetrachloride

(Chlorobenzene

(Chloroform

|Ch I or one thane

|1,2-Dichloroethene

(Methylene chloride

|1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

JTetrachloroethene

| Toluene

1,1,1-TrichloroethaneI|1,1,2-Trichloroethane

JTrichloroethene

01

RfD (ag/kg/day)

IE-1

7E-4

2E-2

1E-2

--

IE-2

6E-2

IE-2

2E-1

9E-2

4 E-3

• •

UU.

-1SF (a«/kg/day>

—

2.9E-2/A

1.3E-1/B2

--

6.1E-3/B2

1.3E-2/C

7.SE-3/B2

2.6E-2/C

2.0E-1/C

5.1E-2/B2

• •

5.7E-2/C

1.1E-2/B2

INHAI

RfC (ag/kg/day)

ND

• •

ND

5E-3

ND

ND

9E-1

—

ND

6E-1

3E-1

ND

--

-ATI ON

-1SF (ng/kg/day)

2.9E-2/A

1.3E-1/B2

8.1E-2/B2

6.3E-3/C

1.6E-3/B2

2.6E-2/C

2.0E-1/C

1.8E-3/B2

• «

5.7E-2/C

1.7E-2/B2

SOURCE

IRIS

IRIS

IRIS, HEAST

IRIS, HEAST

IRIS. HEAST

HEAST

HEAST

IRIS, HEAST

IRIS, HEAST

IRIS, HEAST

IRIS

IRIS. HEAST

HEAST

IRIS, HEAST

HEAST

Rfd • Refarance DoseRfC • Reference ConcentrationSF • Slope FactorND « Not determined-- - Not availableSource - Integrated Risk Information Systew (IRIS) data base; Health

Effects AssessMent Sunary Tables (HEAST), U.S. EPA, January 1991.A * Hinan CarcinogenB1 or 12 * Probable human carcinogen (B1 indicates United huMn evidence and

•2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in hC * Possible hunen carcinogen

oo

6-33u;o>o

A brief discussion of the toxicologic properties of chemicals of concern is presented below. Theprimary source for toxicologic information is the IRIS data base.

Acetone - Acetone is a volatile chemical and is rapidly absorbed in the respiratory tract wheninhaled. Prolonged inhalation of high concentrations of acetone may produce irritation of therespiratory tract, coughing, headache, drowsiness, and incoordination. The toxic concentration ofacetone in human blood is 200 to 300 ug/ml, with a lethal concentration of 550 ug/ml. Acetoneis not known to have any carcinogenic effects. An oral reference dose (RfD) of 1E-1 mg/kg/dayhas been established for acetone.

Benzene - A cancer slope factor of 2.9E-2 (mg/kg/day)'1 has been established for both ingestionand inhalation exposure routes. This cancer potency estimate is based upon the increased risk ofleukemia among individuals occupationally exposed to airborne benzene. Benzene is a Group Acarcinogen. No RfD or RfC value has been established for benzene.

Carbon tetrachloride • Carbon tetrachloride has been given a weight-of-evidence classification ofB2 (probable human carcinogen) based on carcinogenicity in rats, mice, and hamsters. An oralcancer slope factor of 1.3E-1 (mg/kg/day)'1 and an inhalation cancer slope factor of 1.3E-1(mg/kg/day)'1 have been established for carbon tetrachloride. The RfD for chronic oral exposureto carbon tetrachloride is 7E-4 mg/kg/day.

Chlorobenzene - An oral RfD of 2E-2 mg/kg/day and an inhalation reference concentration (RfC)

of 5E-3 mg/kg/day have been established for Chlorobenzene. No cancer slope factors have beenreported.

Chloroform - Chloroform has been given a weight-of-evidence classification of B2 (probablehuman carcinogen) based on increased incidence of several tumor types in rats and three strainsof mice. An oral cancer slope factor of 6.1 E-3 (mg/kg/day)'1 and an inhalation cancer slope factor %

oof 8.1 E-2 (mg/kg/day) have been established for chloroform. The reference dose for chronic oral

oexposure to chloroform is 1E-2 mg/kg/day. o

i-«u>

6-34 2

Chloromethane - Chloromethane has been given a weight-of-evidence classification of C (possiblehuman carcinogen). An oral cancer slope factor of 1.3E-2 (mg/kg/day)*1, and an inhalation cancerslope factor of 6.3E-3 (mg/kg/day)'1 have been established for Chloromethane.

1.2-Dichloroethene • Information on the health effects of trans-1,2-Dichloroethene is limited. Acuteexposure to higher dose levels can cause narcosis and death in rats. High concentrations alsohave anaesthetic properties in humans. An oral RfD of 1E-2 mg/kg/day for cis 1,2-dichloroetheneand an oral RfD of 2E-2 mg/kg/day for trans 1,2-dichloroethene have been established.

Methvlene chloride - Methylene chloride is absorbed following oral and inhalation exposure.Because of methylene chloride's high solubility in water and lipids, it is probably distributedthroughout all body fluids and tissues. Chronic exposure to the chemical can produce renal andhepatic effects in animals. An oral RfD of 6E-2 mg/kg/day, an inhalation RfC of 1 mg/kg/day, anoral slope factor 7.5E-3 (mg/kg/day)*1 and an inhalation slope factor of 1.4E-2 (mg/kg/day)*1 havebeen established for methylene chloride.

1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane - 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane has been given a weight-of-evidenceclassification of C (possible human carcinogen). An oral cancer slope factor of 2.6E-2(mg/kg/day)*1 and an inhalation cancer slope factor of 2.6E-2 (mg/kg/day)'1 have been establishedfor 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane.

1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane has been given a weight-of-evidenceclassification of C (possible human carcinogen) based on increased incidence of hepatocellularcarcinomas in mice. An oral cancer slope factor of 2.0E-1 (mg/kg/day)*1 and an inhalation cancerslope factor of 2.0E-1 (mg/kg/day)*1 have been established for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.

Tetrachloroethene - EPA has classified tetrachloroethene as a Group B2 carcinogen, probable w

human carcinogen. Based on liver tumors observed in the gavage bioassay for mice, EPA has "derived an oral cancer slope factor of 5.1 E-2 (mg/kg/day)*1 for tetrachloroethene. An inhalation <=>cancer slope factor of 1.8E-3 (mg/kg/day)*1 was determined based on a bioassay for rats and mice M

MU>

6-35

in which leukemia and liver tumors were observed. An oral RfD of IE-2 mg/kg/day has also beenestablished for tetrachloroethene.

Toluene • Toluene is absorbed in humans following both inhalation and dermal exposure. Inhumans, the primary effects of toluene vapors are central nervous system depression and narcosis.An oral RfD of 2E-1 mg/kg/day and an inhalation RfC of 6E-1 mg/kg/day have been establishedfor toluene.

1.1.1 -Trichloroethane - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is rapidly and completely absorbed following bothoral and inhalation exposure. The most notable toxic effects of 1,1,1 •trichloroethane in humans andanimals are central nervous system depression. EPA has established an oral RfD of 9E-2mg/kg/day and an inhalation RfC of 3E-1 mg/kg/day for 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

1.1.2-Trichloroethana - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane has been given a weight-of-evidence classificationof C (possible human carcinogen). An oral cancer slope factor of 5.7E-2 (mg/kg/day)'1 and aninhalation cancer slope factor of 5.7E-2 (mg/kg/day)*1 have been established for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. The reference dose for chronic oral exposure to 1,1,2-trichloroethane is 4E-3mg/kg/day.

Trichloroethene - Trichloroethene has caused carcinogenic responses in rats exposed by gavageand in mice exposed by inhalation. EPA has classified trichloroethene as a Group B2 agent Anoral cancer slope factor of 1.1 E-2 (mg/kg/day)"1 and inhalation cancer slope factor of 1.7E-2(mg/kg/day)'1 have been established for trichloroethene.

6.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Potential human health risks resulting from the exposure scenarios identified in Section 6.3.2 arecharacterized on a quantitative basis in this section. The quantitative risk estimates were calculatedbased on risk assessment methods presented in the U.S. EPA document 'Risk Assessment oGuidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual" (EPA, December 1989). M

M6-36 wot

U> X

Noncarcinogenic risk estimates are presented in the form of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices(His) determined through the comparison of estimated intakes with verified Reference Doses.Incremental cancer risk estimates are presented in the form of dimensfonless probablities basedon verified cancer Slope Factors. The quantitative risk estimates generated do not include risksdue to some chemical contaminants which have been eliminated in Section 6.2 based on U.S. EPArecommended screening methods for chemicals of concern.

Estimated human intakes were developed for each of the specific exposure routes and receptorgroups discussed in Section 6.3.2. Complete calculations and assessment methods for humanintake values and quantitative risks are provided in Appendix.

6.5.1 Noncarcinogenic Risk Assessment

Noncarcinogenic risk is assessed using the concept of Hazard Quotients and His. The HazardQuotient is the ratio of the estimated intake and the Reference Dose (RfD) for a selected chemicalof concern, as follows:

Hazard Quotient « Intake/RfD

Where:

Intake « Exposure level or intake of toxicant (mg/kg/day)RfD «= Reference dose for toxicant (mg/kg/day)

The hazard quotient for noncarcinogenic effects assumes that there is a level of exposure (Le.,Reference Dose) below which it is unlikely for even sensitive populations to experience adversehealth effects.

oo

6-37

To assess the overafl potential for noncardnogenic health effects posed by more than onechemical, a Hazard Index (HI) approach is used (ERA, 1986b). This approach assumes thatsimultaneous subthreshold exposures to several chemicals could result in a cumulative adversehealth effect It assumes that the magnitude of the adverse health effect wi be proportional to thesum of the ratios of the subthreshold exposures to acceptable exposures (Reference Dose). Thusthe Hazard Index is equal to the sum of the hazard quotients as described in the followingequation:

Hazard Index « Dose,/RfD, + Dose^RfD, +......+ Dose/RfD,

Where:Dose, - dose for the P toxicant (mg/kg/day)RfO, « reference dose for the r* toxicant (mg/kg/day)

The HI is not a mathematical prediction of the severity of toxic effects; it is simply a numericalindicator of the possibility of the occurrence of noncardnogenic effects. When the HI exceedsunity, there may be concern for potential health effects. While any single chemical with anexposure level greater than its toxidty value wi cause the HI to exceed unity, for multipleexposures, the HI can also exceed unity even if no single chemical exposure exceeds its RfD.

Although the HI is not expressed as a probablrty of an individual experiencing an adversenoncardnogenic effect, the greater the value of the HI above unity, the greater the level of concern.

Present Risk - The estimated His to potential receptors through present exposure routes aresummarized in Table 6-7. Hazard Quotients for selected chemicals of concern are presented inAppendix. The estimated His for surface sol exposure routes at the South Jersey ClothingCompany range from 4.3E-07 to 1.4E-05. For exposure to surface sol at Garden State Cleaners M

Site, the estimated His range from 1.7E-03 to 5.0E-01. None of the estimated HI values from osurface sol exposure pathway exceed unity (1.0). For ambient air exposure routes, no o

ononcardnogenic health effects could be quantified because of the lack of toxidty values (RfCs) for M

tetrachioroethene and trichloroethene. u>0\en

6-38

TABLE 6-7

ESTIMATED HAZARD INDICES FOR CURRENT EXPOSURE ROUTES

Exposure Routa

Surf act Soil-South Jersey

Surface Soil-Garden State

Air -South Jeraey

Air •Garden State

Ingest ion

Dersttl Absorption

Total

Ingest ion

Dental Abaorption

Total

Inhalation

Inhalation

AdultWorker

..

--

4.3E-02

5.0E-01

5.4E-01

NC

NC

AdultTrespasser

4.3E-07

4.9E-06

5.5E-06

1.7E-03

2.0E-02

2.2E-02

NC

NC


6.9E-06

1.4E-OS

2.1E-05

2.8E-02

5.5E-02

8.3E-02

NC

NC

-• • Represents non-applicable exposure routes.

NC • Not calculated (toxicity values not available).

The individual Hazard Quotiants and the calculations are presentedin Appendix.

CO

oo

CO

6-39

Table 6-8 presents the estimated total His from exposure to surface sol. The HI for eachenvironmental medium is derived by summing the estimated hazard indices from the ingestion anddermal absorption routes for that particular medium. As presented in Table 64, the His for currentexposure to surface sol at the South Jersey Clothing Company and the Garden State Cleaners Siteare less than 1.

The estimated His for surface sol from the South Jersey Clothing and the Garden State CleanersSite have been summed to calculate the total His for potential receptors. Summing the estimatedHis from both the sites is overly conservative in that it assumes that the same individuals wouldconsistently face the 'reasonable maximum exposure* (RME) for each exposure pathway. TheRME estimate for each exposure pathway includes many conservative and upper-bound parametervalues and assumptions (e.g., upper-bound duration of occupancy of a single residence, upper 95thconfidence limit on amount of water ingested). The upper 95th percerrfles of probabiitydistributions are not strictly additive, and hence the RME estimate may become artificially moreconservative. Moreover, under actual situations in which contaminant concentrations vary over timeand space, the same individual may or may not experience the RME for more than one pathwayover the same period of time. However, to be conservative it is assumed that the RME assumptionfor different pathways apply to the same individual and the RME for different pathways arecombined. The total estimated His range from 2.2E-02 for an adult trespasser to 5.4E-01 for anadult worker.

Figure 6-1 is a bar chart which depicts the estimated His from current exposure to surface sol atthe South Jersey Clothing Company and the Garden State Cleaners Site. The estimated His fromsurface sol exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site are greater than the South Jersey ClothingCompany but none of the HI values exceed unity (1.0) for any potential receptor.

Future Risk - The estimated His for potential receptors through future exposure routes aresummarized in Table 6-9. Hazard Quotients for selected chemicals of concern are presented in oAppendix D. Although the future noncartinogenic health effects from exposure to surface sol at o

othe South Jersey Clothing Company and the Garden State Cleaners Site remain the same for M

potential receptors identified under the present risk scenario, the following two assumptions were £

6-40

TABLE 6-8

TOTAL ESTIMATED HAZARD INDICES FOR CURRENT EXPOSURE MEDIA

Exposure Modim

Surface Soll-South Jersey

Surface Soil-Carden State

Air -South Jersey

Air -Garden State

Total

AdultWorker

--

5.4E-01

NC

NC

5.4E-01

AdultTrespasser

5.3E-06

2.2E-02

NC

NC

2.2E-02


2.1E-05

8.3E-02

NC

NC

8.3E-02

-- « Represents non-applicable exposure awdii*.

NC • Not calculated (toxicity values not available).

Oo

u»<f\00

6-41

Figure 6-1Estimated Hazard Indices for Current

Exposure MediaHazard Indices

Legend:

Worker Adult Tretp. Adolescent Treap.

wm ss - sj B ss - QSGS * Garden State Cleaners SiteSJ * South Jersey Clothing CompanySS = Surface SoilTresp. = Trespasser

COon

6-42

TABLE 6-9

ESTIMATED HAZARD INDICES FOR FUTURE EXPOSURE ROUTES

Exposure Route

Groundwater

Surface Soil-South Jersey

Surface Soll-Garden State

Air -South Jersey

Air -Garden State

Ingest Ion

Inhalation

Derail Absorption

Total

Ingest Ion

Dermal Absorption

Total

Ingest Ion

Dermal Absorption

Total

Inhalation

Inhalation

Adult Worker/Non-Resident

--

--

-

--

..

--

4.3E-02

S.OE-01

5.4E-01

NC

NC

Adult Worker/Off-SiteResident

1.0E+00

1.BE-04

2.4E-02

1.0E*00

..

--

4.3E-02

S.OE-01

S.4E-01

NC

NC

Adult Off-SiteResident/Trespasser

1.0E+00

1.0E-04

2.4E-02

1.0E+00

4.3E-07

4.9E-06

5.3E-06

1. 78-03

2.0E-02

2.2E-02

NC

NC

AdolescentOff -SiteResident/Trespasser

1.6E+00

2.8E-04

2.8C-02

1.6E+00

6.9E-06

1.4E-05

2.1E-05

2.8E-02

5.5E-02

8.3E-02

NC

NC

ChildOff-SiteResident

3.6E+00

9.8E-04

5.SE-02

3.7E*00

..

--

-.

--

NC

NC

On-Slte Resident

Adult

1.0E+00

1.8E-04

2.4E-02

1.0E*00

3.0E-05

1.7E-04

2.0E-04

1.2E-01

6.9E-01

8.1E-01

NC

NC

Adolescent

1.6E+00

2.8E-04

2.8E-02

1.6€*00

1.2E-04

2.4E-04

3.6E-04

4.9E-01

9.7E-01

1.5E*00

NC

NC

Child

3.6E*00

9.8E-04

5.5E-02

3.7E*00

4.2E-04

4.8E-04 .

9.0E-04

1.7E*00

1.9E*00

3.6E*00

NC

NC

-- • Represent* non-applicable exposure routes.

NC • Not calculated (toxlclty values not available).

The Individual Hazard Quotients and the calculations ara presented In Appendix.

TOO DDS

utilized to characterize additional exposure under future scenarios: (1) the site is used forresidential purposes in the future, and (2) the off-site groundwater contains the same contaminantsand contaminant levels as on-site groundwater and it is used for residential purposes.

As presented in Table 6-9, the estimated His from ingestion of groundwater are 1.0 for adultresident, 1.6 for adolescent resident, and 3.6 for chid resident The estimated HI values frominhalation and dermal absorption routes for groundwater are al below 1. The HI values forgroundwater exposure routes are the same for off-site and on-site residents because of theassumption that the off-site groundwater contained the same contaminants and contaminant levelsas on-site groundwater. For exposure to surface sol at the South Jersey Clothing Company, theestimated HI value is less than 1 for the ingestion and dermal absorption routes for differentreceptors. For exposure to surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site, the estimated HI rangefrom 1.7E-03 to 1.9E+00. For ambient air exposure routes, no noncarctnogenic health effectscould be quantified because of the lack of toxicity values (RfCs) for tetrachloroethene andtrichloroethene.

Table 6-10 presents the estimated total His for exposure to various environmental media underfuture scenarios. The HI for each environmental medium is derived by summing the estimatedhazard indices from the ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption routes for that particularmedium. As presented in Table 6-10, the HI is below 1 for surface sol exposure at the SouthJersey Clothing Company. For exposure to surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site, the HIis above 1 for an on-site adolescent and chid resident and below 1 for all other potential receptors.The HI is above 1 for on-site and off-site residents exposed to groundwater.

The estimated His for each environmental medium in Table 6-10 have been summed to calculatethe total His for potential receptors. The total HI is above 1 for all receptors except an adult workerwho is not a resident of the site area. Chemicals that have contributed to a Hazard Quotient (HQj

COof more than 0.1 for potential receptors for which the total HI exceeds unity (1.0) are listed below.

6-44

TABLE 6-10

TOTAL ESTIMATED HAZARD INDICES FOR FUTURE EXPOSURE MEDIA

Exposure Medium

Grounduater



Air -South Jersey

Air •Garden State

Total

Adult Worker/Non- Res 1 dent

•-

--

5.4E-01

NC

NC

5.4E-01


1.0E+00

• •

5.4E-01

NC

NC

1.5E+00


1.0E+00

5.3E-06

2.2E-02

NC

NC

1.0E+00

AdolescentOff-SiteResident/Trespasser

1.6E*00

2.1E-05

8.3E-02

NC

NC

1.7E+00

ChildOff -SiteResident

3.7E+00

--

--

NC

NC

3.7E+00

On-Site Resident

Adult

1.0E+00

2.0E-M

8.1E-01

NC

NC

1.8E+00

Adolescent

1.6E*00

3.6E-M

1.5E*00

NC

NC

3.1E+00

Child

3.7E+00

9.0E-M

3.6E*00

NC

NC

7.3E*00

-- • Represents non-applicable exposure Medium.

NC • Not calculated (toxlcity values not available).

roo

(1) Adult Worker who is an Off-Site Resident(Total HI = 1.0):

Chemical Medium Route

Tetrachloroethene Groundwater IngestionTetrachloroethene Surface Sol-Garden Dermal Dermal Contract

HQ % of Total HI

0.90.5

6033

(2) Adult Trespasser who is an Off-Site Resident(Total HI - 1.0):

Chemical Medium Route

Tetrachloroethene Groundwater Ingestion

HQ % of Total HI

0.9 90

(3) Adult Trespasser who is an Off-Site Resident(Total HI = 1.7):

Chemical Medium

Tetrachloroethene GroundwaterCarton tetrachloride Groundwater

Route

IngestionIngestion

HQ % of Total HI

1.3 760.12 7

(4) Off-Site Child Resident (Total HI * 3.7):

Chemical

TetrachloroetheneCarton tetrachloridetis-1,2-Dtahloroethene

Medium Route HQ % of Total HI

GroundwaterGroundwaterGroundwater

IngestionIngestionIngestion

3.10.270.16

847

4

(5) On-Slte Aduft Resident (Total HI = 1.8):

Chemical

TetrachloroetheneTetrachloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Medium

GroundwaterSurface Sol-Garden StateSurface Sol-Garden State

Route

IngestionDermal ContactIngestion

HQ % of Total HI

0.9 500.69 380.12 7

CO

8oo

6-46u>

(6) On-Site Adolescent Resident (Total HI = 3.1):

Chemical

TetrachloroetheneCarton tetrachlorideTetracNoroetheneTetrachloroethene

Medium

Ground waterGround waterSurface Sol-Garden StateSurface Sol-Garden State

Route

IngestionIngestionIngestionDermal Contact

HQ % of Total HI

1.30.120.490.97

424

1631

(7) On-Site Chid Resident (Total HI = 7.3):

Chemical

TetrachloroetheneCarbon tetrachloridecis-1,2-DichloroetheneTetrachloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Medium

Ground waterGround waterGround waterGround waterGround water

Route

IngestionIngestionIngestionIngestionDermal Contact

HQ % of Total HI

3.10.270.161.71.9

4242

2326

Tetrachloroethene in groundwater and surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site dominates thetotal HI, and poses a likelihood of noncardnogenic health effects for the potential receptorsidentified above.

Figure 6-2 is a bar chart which shows the estimated His from future exposure to groundwater,surface sofl at the South Jersey Clothing Company and surface sofl at the Garden State Cleaners

Site for potential receptors. The estimated His exceed unity (1.0) for groundwater exposure. Theestimated His for surface sol exposure at the South Jersey Clothing Company are below 1. Theestimated His for surface sol exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site are below 1 for allreceptors except an on-stte adolescent and chid resident

CO

8oo

(A)

6-47

Figure 6-2Estimated Hazard Indices for Future

Exposure MediaHazard Indie**

Legend:

MM MV/AR-x AR-x/T AdR-x/T CR-x AR-y AdR-y CR-y

IGW ISS-SJ I SS - GS

AdR « Adolescent ResidentAR * Adult ResidentAH - Adult WorkerCR * Child ResidentGS = Garden State Cleaners SiteGU » GroundwaterSO * South Jersey Clothing ConpanySS = Surface SoilT « Trespasserx « Off-Sitey - On-Slte

W

8

U1

6-48

6.5.2 Carcinogenic Risk Assessment

For a carcinogen, risk is estimated as the incremental probabflity of an individual developing cancerover a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen. Incremental cancer riskestimates are generated for each of the exposure pathways using the estimated intake and verifiedcancer slope factor (SF) of a carcinogen, as follows:

Risk * Intake x SFWhere:Risk = A unitless probabiity of an individual developing cancerIntake = Chronic daily Intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg/day)SF = Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)"1

The SF converts estimated daily intake averaged over a lifetime of exposure directly to incrementalrisk of an individual developing cancer. The above equation is valid only at low risk levels (i.e.,below estimated risks oME-02). The risk determined by using this expression is a unitlessexpression of an individual's likelihood of developing cancer as a result of exposure to acarcinogenic chemical present in the exposure media. An incremental cancer risk of 1E-06indicates that the exposed receptor has a one in one milion chance of developing cancer duringtheir lifetime. Alternately, such a risk may be interpreted as representing one additional case ofcancer in an exposed population of one milion people. The U.S. EPA's target risk range for theaggregate lifetime excess cancer risk is 1E-06 to 1E-04. If the calculated lifetime excess cancerrisk is between IE-06 and 1E-04, the need for remedial action varies and is site-specific. For siteswhere the calculated lifetime excess cancer risk is below 1E-06, generally no remedial action isrequired.

If a chemical intake is high and results in risk levels of 1E-02 or higher, an alternate calculationequation is used. The equation used, which is consistent with the linear low-dose model, is as »follows (Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, December 1989):

ooM

f-tU»

0\

6-49

Risk = 1 - exp(-lntake x SF)

Where:Risk - A unitiess probabirty of an individual developing cancerexp « The exponentialIntake - Chronic daiy intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg/day)SF = Slope factor (mg/kg/day)'1

Because the slope factor is often an upper 95th percentie confidence limit of the probabirty ofcancer response based on experimental animal data used in the multistage model (RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, December 1989), the carcinogenic risk estimateobtained by the use of the slope factor wi generally be an upper-bound estimate. Actual humanrisk, while not identifiable, is not expected to exceed the calculated upper limit based on the slopefactor, and in fact, may be much lower.

The cancer risk equation described below estimates the lifetime excess cancer risk for an individualfor simultaneous exposure to several carcino^ns and is based on EPA's risk assessmentguidelines (1986 a, b):

Risk, = Risk, + Risk, +.......+ Risk,Where:Riskr * the total cancer risk, expressed as a unitiess

probablity, andRisk, * the risk estimate for the P1 substance.

This equation represents an approximation of the precise equation for combining risks whichaccounts for the joint probabiities of the same individual developing cancer as a consequence ofexposure to two or more carcinogens. The difference between the precise equation and the

01approximation is negligible for total cancer risks less than 0.1. The risk summation equation gdescribed above assumes that the intakes of individual substances are small ft also assumes _oindependence of action by the chemicals involved (Le., there are no synergistic or antagonistic M

chemical interactions and that all chemicals produce the same effect, Le., cancer). M•vl•vi

6-50

present Risk - The estimated lifetime excess cancer risk (LECR) to potential receptors throughpresent exposure routes are summarized in Table 6-11. The detailed risk calculations are presentedin Appendix D. For surface sol exposure routes at the South Jersey Clothing Company, theestimated LECRs range from 1.3E-10 to 1.5E-09 for an adult trespasser. For surface exposureroutes at the Garden State Cleaners Site, the estimated LECRs range from 3.0E-07 to 9.0E-05. Foran adult receptor at a distance of 100 m from the South Jersey Clothing Company, the inhalationof ambient air poses an estimated LECR of 5.0E-07. For receptors at a distance of 100 m from theGarden State Cleaners Site, the estimated LECRs from inhalation of ambient air range from 2.0E-11to 7.6E-09.

Table 6-12 presents the total estimated LECR from exposure to various environmental media. TheLECR for each environmental medium is derived by summing the estimated LECR from theingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption routes for that particular medium. The LECR for apotential adult trespasser exposed to surface sofl at the South Jersey Clothing Company is 1.6E-09.For exposure to surface soil at the Garden State Cleaners Site, the LECR ranges from 3.8E-06 foran adult trespasser to 9.8E-05 for an adult worker. The exposure to ambient air at the SouthJersey Clothing Company poses a LECR of 5.0E-07 for an adult trespasser. The estimated LECRsfor exposure to ambient air at the Garden State Cleaners Site range from 2.0E-11 for an adultcustomer to 7.6E-09 for an adult worker.

The estimated LECRs for each environmental medium presented in Table 6-12 are summed tocalculate the total LECR for potential receptors. The total LECRs range from 2.0E-11 to 9.8E-05.Chemicals that have contributed to a LECR of more than 1.0E-07 for potential receptors for whichthe total LECR exceeds 1.0E-06 are listed below.

(1) Adult Worker (Total HLECR = 9.8E-05):

Chemical Medium Route LECR % of Total LECRCo

Tetrachloroethene Surface Sol-Garden State Dermal Contact 9.OE-05 91 %Tetrachloroethane Surface Soil-Garden State Ingestion 7.9E-06 8 0

o

COV*CD

6-51

TAKE 6-11

LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR CURRENT EXPOSURE ROUTES

Exposure Rout*

Surface Soil*South Jersey

Surface Soil-Cardan State

Air •South Jersey*

Air -Cardan State*

1 noes t ion

Deraal Absorption

Total

Ingestion

Oeraal Absorption

Total

Inhalation

Inhalation

AdultWorker

-

—

7.9E-06

9.0E-05

9.BE-05

--

7.6E-09

AdultTrespasser

1.3E-10

1.5E-09

1.6E-09

3.0E-07

3.5E-06

3.BE-06

5.0E-07

7.2E-11

AdultCustomer

• •

«

--

--

--

2.0E-11

-- • Represents non-applicable exposure routes.

* • Receptor at a distance of 100 •.

The incremental cancer risk calculations are presented in Appendix.

COOooO

6-52u*-Jvo

TABLE 6-12

TOTAL LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK FOR CURRENT EXPOSURE MEDIA

Exposure Route



Air -South Jersey*

Air -Garden State*

Total

AdultVorker

--

9.8E-05

--

7.6E-09

9.8E-05

AdultTrespasser

1.6E-09

3.8E-06

5.0E-07

7.2E-11

4.3E-06

AdultCustomer

--

-

--

2.0E-11

2.0E-11

-- • Represents non-applicable exposure awdiun.

• » Receptor at a distance of 100 •-

CO

oo

u>00o

6-53

(2) Adult Trespasser (Total LECR - 4.3E-06):

Chemical Medium Route LECR % of Total LECR

TetracNoroethene Surface Sol-Garden State Dermal Contact 3.5E-06 81TetracNoroethene Surface Sol-Garden State Ingestion 3.0E-07 7Trichloroethene Air-South Jersey Inhalation 5.OE-07 11

The dermal absorption of tetrachloroethene in surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Sitedominates the total LECR, and poses a carcinogenic risk exceeding 1.0E-05 for site workers andtrespassers identified above. The total LECRs for site workers and trespassers are within EPA'starget risk range of 1.0E-04 to 1.0E-06.

Figure 6-3 is a bar chart which depicts the estimated LECR from current exposure to surface soland ambient air at the South Jersey Clothing Company and the Garden State Cleaners. Thecarcinogenic risk from surface sol exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site exceeds risk fromother exposure media. The estimated LECR from exposure to surface sol at the Garden StateCleaners Site for worker and adult trespasser exceed 1 .OE-06. The estimated LECRs from all othermedia for different receptors are below 1.OE-06.

u>6-54 2

Figure 6-3Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimates

for Current Exposure MediaLifetime Excaaa Cancer Risk Estimates

Legend: r-«J- I Air • OS*

GSSJSS*

Garden State Cleaners SiteSouth Jersey Clothing CompanySurface SoilReceptor at a distance of 100 n.

oo

u»CD

6-55

Future Risk - The estimated LECR for potential receptors through future exposure routes aresummarized in Table 6-13. The detaled risk calculations are provided in the Appendices. Althoughthe future risk from exposure to surface sol and ambient air at the South Jersey Clothing Companyand the Garden State Cleaners Sites remain the same for potential receptors identified under thepresent risk scenario, the folowing two assumptions were utilized to characterize additionalexposures under future scenarios: (1) the site is used for residential purposes in the future, and(2) the off-site groundwater contains the same contaminants and contaminant levels as on-site groundwater and it is used for residential purposes.

For groundwater exposure, the estimated LECRs range from 6.8E-07 for dermal absorptionto 5.2E-04 for ingestion. The estimated LECRs from surface sol exposure routes at the SouthJersey Clothing Company Site range from 1.3E-10 to 5.2E-08. The estimated LECRs from surfacesol exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site range from 3.0E-07 to 1.2E-04. The carcinogenicrisk from the dermal absorption route is higher than that from the ingestion route at the GardenState Cleaners Site. To quantify the cancer risk from inhalation of ambient air, the receptor wasassumed to be at a distance of 100 m from the site. The inhalation of trichtoroethene in ambientair at South Jersey Clothing Company poses an estimated LECR of 5.0E-07 for an off-site adulttrespasser and 8.8E-05 for an on-site adult resident The inhalation of tetrachloroethene at theGarden State Cleaners Site poses a maximum LECR of 1.3E-08 for an on-site adult resident

Table 6-14 presents the total estimated LECR resulting from exposure to various environmentalmedia. The LECR for each environmental medium is derived by summing the estimated LECR fromthe ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption routes for that particular medium. The exposureof an adult resident (off-site and on-site) to groundwater results in a LECR of 9.7E-04. Theestimated LECRs from surface sol exposure at the South Jersey Clothing Company Site range from1.6E-09 for an adult trespasser to 6.1 E-08 for an on-site adult resident The estimated LECRs fromsurface sol exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site range from 3.8E-06 for an adult trespasserto 1.4E-04 for an on-site adult resident The ambient air exposure at the South Jersey Clothing woCompany Site has a LECR of 5.0E-07 for an adult trespasser and 8.8E-05 for an on-site adult °resident The estimated LECRs from ambient air exposure at the Garden State Cleaners Site range §from 2.0E-11 to 1.3E-08. M

M

6-56 «

TABLE 6-13

LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR FUTURE EXPOSURE ROUTES

Exposure Route

Groundwater


Surface Soil-Garden state

Air -South Jersey*

Air -Garden State*

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dental Absorption

Total

Ingestion

Der*al Absorption

Total

Ingestion

DenMl Absorption

Total

Inhalation

Inhalation

Adult Worker/Non-Resident

• *

--

--

--

:;-•

7.9E-06

9.0E-05

9.8E-05

-

7.6E-09


5.2E-04

4.5E-W

6.8E-07

9.7E-04

::--

7.9E-06

9.0E-05

9.8E-05

—

7.6E-09

AdultCustomer

•-

--

—

--

::--

:----

2.0E-11


5.2E-04

4.5E-04

6.8E-07

9.7E-04

1.3E-10

1.5E-09

1.6E-09

3.0E-07

3.5E-06

3.8E-06

5.0E-07

7.2E-11

Adult On- SiteResident

5.2E-04

4.5E-04

6.8E-07

9.7E-04

9.1E-09

5.2E-08

6.1E-08

2.1E-05

1.2E-04

1.4E-04

8.8E-05

1.3E-08

-- » Represents non-applicable exposure route.

* * Receptor at a distance of 100 •.

The incrsauntal cancer risk calculations are presented in Appendix.

0)OO

oo

U)00

6-57

TAitE 6-1*

TOTAL LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK FOR FUTURE EXPOSURE MEDIA

Expeaure Route

Crounduater


Surface Soil-Gardan State

Air -South Jersey*

Air -Cardan State*

Total

Adult Worker/•on-Resident

•-

--

9.BE-05

--

7.6E-09

9.8E-05

Adult Uorker/Off-SiteResident

9.7E-M

--

9.8E-05

--

7.6E-09

1. IE-03

AdultCustomer

•-

--

--

—

2.0E-11

2.0E-11

Adult Off -SiteResident/Trespasser

9.7E-04

1.6E-09

S.8E-06

5.0E-07

7.2E-11

9.7E-04

Adult On-SiteResident

9.7E-M

6. IE-08

1.4E-M

8.8E-05

1.3E-08

1.2E-03

— « Represents non-applicable expeaure e*diua.

• • Receptor at a distance of 100 m.

The IncreMantal cancer risk calculations are presented in Appendix.

COOO

OO

U)00U1

6-58

The estimated LECR for each environmental medium presented in Table 6-14 were summed tocalculate the total LECR for potential receptors. The total LECRs range from 2.0E-11 to 1.2E-03.Chemicals that have contributed to a LECR of more than 1.0E-07 for potential receptors for which

'the total LECR exceeds 1.0E-06 are listed below.

(1) Adult Worker (Total LECR = 9.8E-05):

Chemical

TetrachloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Medium

Surface Soy-Garden StateSurface SoB-Garden State

(2) Adult Worker who is an Off-Site Resident(Total LECR = 1.1E-03):

MediumChemical

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene


Chloromethane

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Groundwater

Chloroform Groundwater

Trichloroethene Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene Groundwater

Carbon tetrachloride Groundwater

Chloromethane Groundwater



Route LECR % of LECR

Dermal Contact 9.0E-05 91Ingestion 7.9E-06 8

Route LECR % of LECR

Ingestion 3.2E-04 29

Ingestion 2.0E-04 18

Ingestion 3.1E-06 0.3




Inhalation 4.4E-04 40

Inhalation 5.6E-06 0.5





W

.8oo

6-59 u>00

Chloroform

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Groundwater

Surface Sol-Garden State


DermalAdsorption

6.2E-07 0.06

(3) Adult Trespasser who is an Off-Site Resident(Total LECR) = 9.7E-04):

Chemical

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene


Chloromethane

Medium

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater



Trichloroethene Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene Groundwater

Carbon tetrachloride Groundwater

Chloromethane Groundwater

1,1,1,2-Tetrachioroethane Groundwater


Chloroform

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Groundwater



6-60

Dermal Contact 9.0E-05 8


Route

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

DermalAdsorption

Dermal Contact

Ingestion

1£CB %QfLECR

3.2E-04 33

2.0E-04 20

3.1E-06 0.3

6.4E-07 0.06

6.1E-07 0.06

2.1E-07 0.02

4.4E-04 45

5.6E-06 0.6

2.5E-06 0.2

3.8E-07 0.04

4.9E-07 0.05

2.1E-06 0.2

6.2E-07 0.06

3.5E-06 0.4 0,

3.0E-07 0.03oo

UiCDVI

Trichloroethene Ambient Air-South Jersey Inhalation 5.OE-07 0.05

(4) On-Site Adutt Resident (Total LECR = 1.2E-03):

Chemical

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene


Chloromethane

1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane

Chloroform

Trichloroethene

Tetrachloroethene


Chloromethane

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane

Chloroform

Chloroform

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

Medium

Ground water

Ground water

Ground water

Groundwater

Ground water

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater

Groundwater



Ambient Air-South Jersey

Route

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

DermalAdsorption

Dermal Contact

Ingestion

Inhalation

LECR

3.2E-04

2.0E-04

3.1E-06

6.4E-07

6.1E-07

2.1E-07

4.4E-04

5.6E-06

2.5E-06

3.8E-07

4.9E-07

2.1E-06

6.2E-07

1.2E-04

2.1E-05

8.8E-05

% of LECR

26

16

0.3

0.05

0.05

0.02

36

0.5

0.2

0.03

0.04

0.2

0.05

10

2

7

6-61 toCDCD

The ingestion of trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene in groundwater and inhalation oftrichloroethene in groundwater pose a significant carcinogenic risk for off-site and on-slte adultresidents. The dermal absorption of tetrachloroethene in surface sol at the Garden State CleanersSite contributes to the majority of carcinogenic risk for an adult worker who is not an area resident

Figure 6-4 is a bar chart which shows the estimated LECR for future exposure to groundwater andsurface sol at the South Jersey Clothing Company and Garden State Cleaners Sites, and ambientair at the South Jersey Clothing Company and Garden State Cleaners Sites. The estimated LECRvalues exceed 1.0E-06 for exposure to groundwater and surface sol at the Garden State CleanersShe, and ambient air at the South Jersey Clothing Company Site. The estimated LECRs fromsurface sol exposure at the South Jersey Clothing Company Site and ambient air exposure atthe Garden State Cleaners Site are below 1.0E-06.

6.5.3 Uncertainties Associated With the Health Risk Assessment

All phases of this Risk Assessment process have involved a factor of uncertainty. On one hand,the Risk Assessment deals with scientifically verifiable findings (Le., chemical concentrations inmedia); on tr.-> other hand, judgement and assumptions (Le., duration of exposure, number ofevents or site visits, cancer slope factors estimated from animal studies, etc.) are utilized.

Uncertainties which apply to the risk evaluation of all of the identified exposure scenarios includethe following:

• The exposure to, and concentration of, contaminants at exposure points was heldconstant over a 70-year lifetime. The contaminants detected and their concentrations wereidentified based upon site and monitoring data which was obtained over a short period oftime. Chemical fate and transport mechanisms associated with the chemicals at the pointsource may alter actual concentrations over time.

6-62

oo

OJ00vo

1.000E-031.000E-041.000E-051.000E-061.000E-07

1.000E-081.000E-091.000E-101.000E-11

Legend:

Flgur. 6-4

Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Estimatesfor Future Exposure Media

Lifetime EXC«M Cancer Risk Estimate*

Wortor Worter/AR-x

GW

Air - 8J«

AR-x/T AR-y

88 - SJ

Air - OS*88-OS

ACARGSGWSJSSTxy*

Adult CustomerAdult ResidentGarden State Cleaners SiteGroundwaterSouth Jersey Clothing CompanySurface SoilTrespasserOff-SiteOn-SiteReceptor at a distance of 100 n.

Wo

UJvo

6-63

• The use of the upper 95 percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean or the maximumdetected value is a very conservative estimate of the representative concentration for thesite-specific chemicals. Consequently, the risks calculated would be significantly higher thanthe actual risk associated with the site.

• The assumptions regarding body weight, average lifetime exposure, intake of contaminants,population characteristics, and lifestyle may not be representative for the actual exposedpopulation. This Risk Assessment utilized EPA established parameters where possible (Le..for body weight, lifetime, daly water ingestion rate, daly inhalation rate. etc.). In thoseinstances where there was no established standard, conservative values quoted in theliterature or a conservative assumption based upon knowledge of the site or professionaljudgement was utilized.

• The SCREEN model was used to estimate very conservative emission rates of the chemicalsin ambient air. The inhalation route of ambient air may hence represent an artificially high risk.

• Summing the Hazard Quotients of multiple chemicals Into a single Hazard Index mayrepresent an overestimation of risk if the chemicals contributing to the Hazard Index do notpossess a similar mechanism of action or toxic endpoint

• Cancer slope factors are primariy derived using laboratory animal studies and when avaiable,human studies. Extrapolation of data from high to low doses, from one species to another,and from one exposure route to another introduces uncertainty in the values of cancer slopefactors. For instance, cancer slope factors are based on the upper 95 percent confidencelimit of the carcinogenic potency of the chemical. As a result, human health riskcharacterization using the slope factors may err on the side of conservatism.

The slope factor for a chemical is based on the upper 95th percentite estimate of cancer &,£potency. The upper 95th percentles of probablity distributions are not strictly additive, and °oo

6-64

hence the estimated total cancer risk may become artificially more conservative as risks froma number of different carcinogens are summed.

• The total cancer risk for multiple substances sums aD carcinogens equally, giving as muchweight to Class B or Class C carcinogens as Class A carcinogens.

• The dermal risk to soB-bome chemicals was calculated using absorbed dose and oral toxidtyvalue. Ideally, when assessing risk for dermal exposure pathways, the oral toxidty value ofa chemical should be adjusted to reflect its predicted oral absorption efficiency. Whle useof oral toxicity value for dermal risk contributes to uncertainty towards dermal riskcharacterization, it is worth noting that the impact should be minimal since volatile organicchemicals are well absorbed orally (necessitating minimal dose adjustment) and that thesechemicals drive risk at the site.

• For dermal exposure to groundwater while showering, the entire chemical concentration wasused in intake calculation. Since there would be partitioning of voiatiie organic chemicalsbetween the vapor and aqueous phase, the dermal risk may represent a slight overestimationof risk.

• The action of two different carcinogens might not be independent The assumption that thereare no synergistic or antagonistic effects of different organic and inorganic chemicals may notbe true.

• The risk assessment is based on the present understanding of the site characteristics.Conditions at the site or understanding of the site may change over time, resulting in eitheran increase or decrease in the risk associated with the site.

The above uncertainties apply to the risk evaluation for all of the identified potential £°receptors/populations.

oo

to

6.5.4 Conclusions

• For noncarcinogenic effects, under the present scenario, the total Hazard Index ranges from2.2E-02 for an adult trespasser to 5.4E-01 for an adult worker. None of the present exposureroutes are likely to cause any noncarcinogenic health effects.

• For noncarcinogenic effects, under the future scenario, the total Hazard Index ranges from5.4E-01 for an adult worker who is not a site area resident to 7.3E+00 for an on-site chidresident The ingestfon of tetrachloroethene in groundwater and dermal absorption oftetrachloroethene in surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site are the primary contributorsto the total Hazard Index for potential receptors. The future exposure routes pose a likelihoodof noncarcinogenic health effects for potential receptors.

• For carcinogenic risk, under the present scenario, the total LECR ranges from 2.0E-11 for anadult customer at Garden State Cleaners Site to 9.8E-05 for an adult worker. The dermalabsorption of tetrachloroethene in surface sol at the Garden State Cleaners Site and inhalationof trichloroethene in ambient air at the South Jersey Clothing Company Site are the primarycontributors to the total LECR for potential receptors. The total LECR for present exposureroutes do not exceed EPA's target risk range of 1.0E-06 to 1.0E-04.

• For carcinogenic risk, under the future scenario, the total LECR ranges from 2.0E-11 for anadult customer at Garden State Cleaners Site to 1.2E-03 for an on-site adult resident Theingestion of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene in groundwater, inhalation of trichloroethenein groundwater, dermal absorption of tetrachloroethene at the Garden State Cleaner Site, andinhalation of trichloroethene in ambient air at the South Jersey Clothing Company Site are theprimary contributors to the total LECR for potential receptors. The total LECR for futureexposure routes exceed EPA's target risk range of 1 .OE-06 to 1 .OE-4 for an adult worker who cois an off-site resident and an on-site adult resident The total LECR for an adult worker who °is an off-site resident is 1.1E-03 where as the total LECR for an on-site adult resident is 1.2E- §

i-j03.

h-iu»6-66

Tetrachioroethene is the primary contributor of the noncardnogenic hearth effects, andtetrachloroethene and trichloroethene are the primary contributors for the carcinogenic risk. All theabove estimated risks are qualified by the uncertainties addressed in Section 6.5.3.

6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL/ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

This section assesses the potential impacts to nonhuman receptors from contamination at the GSCand SJCC sites. The approach used for this assessment parallels that used in the human healthrisk assessment Potentially exposed non-human receptors are identified and available informationconcerning exposure and toxicity is evaluated to assess potential impacts.

The Rl did not include a site-specific assessment of biological resources, however, information wasobtained from site-related correspondence and observations during field investigation activities.

6.6.1 Aquatic Habitats

No viable pathway exist for migration of site contaminants to a surface water body. Wastes weredischarged onto the ground surface at both sites contaminating the soB and underlyinggroundwater. Observations of surface water drainage patterns have been made at both sitesduring intense rain events. At SJCC, rain water falling within the area of soB contamination eitherinfiltrates immediately or flows to the adjacent railroad bed and infiltrates. At GSC, rainfall infiltratesthe nearly level sandy sol in the area of soB contamination. No runoff from the contaminated areaat either site enters a surface water body., The nearest surface water body to the sites is DeepRun which receives discharge from storm drains in Minotola.

Based on the geohydraulic configuration of the groundwater contamination plume described in

Chapter 4, it is extremely unlikely that contaminated groundwater from the GSC or SJCC SitesCO

would discharge into a surface water body. The plume was found to sink to the deeper aquifer ooo

6-67

10•U

with distance from the sources largely precluding the possibility of discharge into a surface water

body.

Since no pathway exists for contaminants to migrate from the source areas to surface waterbodies, surface water and sediments wi not be considered in this assessment Consequently, noimpacts to aquatic or benthic organisms exist as a result of contamination from these sites.

6.6.2 Terrestrial Habitats

Both the GSC and SJCC sites are located within the town of MinotoJa. According to area!photographs, areas near the sites have been the location of intensive residential and commercialactivity for at least 50 years.

Although substantial tracts of woodland, cultivated fields and successional fields are located withinthe region, these areas are generally outside of Minotola and are not in the immediate vicinity ofeither site. The natural plant and animal communities in the site area have been severely alteredand most species currently present are typical of areas of urban or suburban development Thereduction in species diversity is typical of areas where the natural plant and animal communitieshave been altered by the activities of man

Plant species typifying the altered environment near the sites generally include cultivated grassesand weeds typical of vacant urban and suburban areas with occasional deciduous or coniferoustrees. Animal species are also typical of an urban/suburban environment and consist of dogs,cats, squirrels and rabbits. A variety of bird species may travel through the site areas on occasion.

6.6.2.1 Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plants, primarty weeds and grasses, may be exposed to contaminants of concern Qpresent in surface and subsurface sols. For TCE, evidence of btoaccumulation but not

obiomagnfficatkm exists in the avalabte literature, PCE is reported as having moderate potential for 2

6-68 u>votn

btoacculmulation (ERA, February 1983). Considering the contaminant concentrations detected insol at both sites, some btoaccuJmulation may be occurring in the areas of soB contamination atboth GSC and SJCC. The vegetation at either site may potentially accumulate sufficientconcentrations of TCE or PCE to cause sublethal effects, (reduced growth) or death in sensitivespecies. No indications of such effects were present in vegetation at either of the sites.

6.6.2.2 Terrestrial Animals

Animals which may contact the contaminated areas at each site are typical of an urban/suburbanarea and may include domesticated animals such as dogs and cats as well as wOd creatures suchas squirrels, rabbits and mice. A variety of insects, frogs, snakes and birds are also likely to travelthrough the site.

Some of these species may come into contact with contaminated soB, particularly burrowinganimals such as rabbits or squirrels. Evaluations of receptor-specific exposures via inhalation anddermal contact, however, are limited by the lack of appropriate exposure assessment information.

For example, although ft is known that small animals (e.g., rabbits, mice) and birds can ingest soBcontaminants while preening or foraging, it is not known how much sofl is actually ingested duringthese activities. Similarly, the amount of chemical that is absorbed through the skin following directcontact with contaminated soil by widlife cannot be estimated. Therefore, the ecologicalassessment is limited to a qualitative assessment of potential widlife exposures and their anticipatedimpacts.

Unlike plant species, animal species are highly mobile and are not likely to spend a sufficientamount of time in either of these two relatively small contaminated areas to receive significantexposure.

W

8oo

6-69 MCJvo0\

No threatened or endangered species have been identified at either site. The sites are, however,located within the range of the foflowing threatened or endangered species (NJDEP, August 1986):

Pine Barrens Treefrog (Endangered) breeds in shallow sphagnum ponds in boggy lowlands,including those associated with Atlantic white cedar (Chameecyperia thyoides) and returns to aterrestrial habitat after the breeding season.

Pine Snake (Threatened) uses sand flats, dry ridges and piney hills. Small mammals are the majorportion of its diet

Red-shouldered Hawk (Threatened) breeds in moist woodlands in the northern section of thecoastal plain. They generally nest under the forest canopy, placing the nest in the first main crotchof a hardwood. Small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and some small birds are usually taken byhunting from a favorite perch, but few hawks winter within the State.

Barred Owl (Threatened) breeds and winters in swamps, bottomlands and deciduous woods. Mostare usually in a hollow tree or in an old squirrel or crow nest

Red-headed Woodpeckers (Threatened) occupy open forest, farm woodlots and parks. They feedon beetles, ants, grasshoppers, caterpillars, other insects, acorns and wld fruits.

Conditions at the GSC and SJCC sites do not conform to the habitats described for any of thesethreatened or endangered species. None of these species are believed to occur within either sitearea,

6.6.3 Conclusions

The threat to biological resources posed by the GSC and SJCC sites appears to be minimal and GOo

limited to potential impacts to plants exposed to contaminants in surface sols. Bioacculmulation °ooM

6-70 Mu»voVI

could occur but would be expected to be moderate. Effects, if occurring, would be limited to thesmall areas of soil contamination near the GSC and SJCC sites.

Although animal life may occasionally transverse the areas of soil contamination at these sites, theirfrequency of presence would be insignificant It is likely that if these animals are exposed to thecontaminated sois, duration of exposures would be brief and frequency of exposures would be low.Consequently, effects of contamination on terrestrial animals are considered insignificant

The sites are located within the range of several endangered or threatened plant and animalspecies. Conditions at the sites do not provide the habitat preferred by these species andconsequently they are not likely to be present in the site areas or impacted by site contaminants.

Soo

6-71 ui10CO

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

C.C. Johnson and Malhotra, P.C. and Ebasco Services, Inc. conducted a Remedial Investigationat the Garden State Cleaners and South Jersey Clothing Company Sites hi Minotola, New Jersey.The investigation was conducted in two phases. Primary activities during Phase 1 included surfacesoB sampling, subsurface sol sampling, shallow and intermediate well installation, and groundwatersampling. Phase 1 was conducted from December 1989 to February 1990. Primary activitiesduring Phase 2 included surface soO sampling, intermediate and deep well installation, andgroundwater sampling. Phase 2 was conducted from January to April 1991. Results from thisinvestigation are summarized in Section 7.1. Conclusions are presented in Section 7.2.

7.1 SUMMARY

Surface sol samples were collected from both the Garden State Cleaners and the South JerseyClothing Company to a depth of ten feet below the ground surface. Groundwater samples werecollected from 24 wells during Phase 1, including wells installed by SJCC, NJDEP, and the USEPA.Groundwater samples were collected from the same weds during Phase 2 including seven additionalUSEPA wells. Data from the Phase 1 and 2 surface and subsurface so9 sampling and data fromthe Phase 1 and 2 groundwater sampling are summarized in Section 7.1.1. Section 7.1.2 presentsa summary of contaminant fate and transport The baseline risk assessment is summarized inSection 7.1.3.

7.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Surface and Subsurface SoB Sampling

oA limited number of soi samples from both sites were collected and analyzed by NJDEP prior to othe remedial investigation. These data were not sufficient for assessment of the nature and extent o

o

7-1 uivovo

of sol contamination. Phase 1 samples were located on the basis of knowledge of previous siteactivities, NJDEP sampling results and results of a sol gas survey by EPA's ERT/REACsubcontractor. Phase 2 sample locations were based on results of analysis of Phase 1 solsamples. Because most of the sol in the vicinity of both sites contained above-backgroundconcentrations of VOCs, comparison was made to current New Jersey sol cleanup guidancevalues to provide a more useful delineation of sol contamination.

Summaries of the compounds detected at SJCC during Phase 1 and 2 are provided in Tables 7-1and 7-2, respectively. A detaled discussion of the nature and extent of sol contamination at SJCCis provided in Section 4.3. At SJCC, the zone of sol contamination extends from the northwestcomer of the abandoned manufacturing bulding and to the adjacent ralroad bed. TCE was thepredominant contaminant although other VOCs were detected at lower concentrations.

Sample results from Phase 1 and 2 investigations at GSC are summarized in Tables 7-3 and 7-4,respectively. A detaled discussion of the nature and extent of GSC sol contamination is providedin Section 4.3.

At GSC, the zone of sol contamination is confined to a small area adjacent to the north wall of theGSC bulding. PCE was the predominant contaminant detected In sol at GSC.

Sol samples were collected north of Atlantic Avenue and east of Central Avenue to determine thesource of elevated VOC concentrations in sol gas samples collected by EPA's ERT/REACsubcontractor. Analytical results for these sol samples did not indicated the presence of acontamination problem in the area. Split spoon samples collected during installation ofdowngradierrt monitoring wells indicated an absence of contamination in downgradient samples.

In summary, the results of sol sampling efforts during the Rl indicate that an area of TCEcontamination is present from the northwest comer of the abandoned SJCC bulding to the ralroad wbed. An area of PCE contaminated soi is kxated adjacem to tr« rwxth wall of the GSC ouflding. °

7-2 a

TABLE 7-1


PHASE 1 SOIL CLP DATA SUMMARY

COMPOUNDS

..............................

|Methylene ChlorideAcetone1,2-Diehloroathene (total)Chloroforfj2-Butanone1,1,1-TrichloroothaneTrichloroathene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneBenzeneTetrach loroethene1 ,1 ,2,2-TetrachloroathaneTolujtneChlorobenzene

NuBber OfSaaples

41414141414141414141414141

Nuaber OfDetections

............

1**6131

262 |2 |

20 |1 I« I3 1

tang. OfValues

11-520210-2,0001-22•W-860«3-5,90021s-ezo1721-2

New JerseySoil

Guidance Levels

1,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,0001,000

Nuaber ofDetection*

AboveGuidance Levels

0200009000000

|COMPOUNDS |Location of detections(Above New Jersey Soil Guidance Levels

|AcetoneI|TrichloroetheneII

I(SS-05-02, «-16-01,IJSS-09-01, SS-09-02, SS-09-03, SS-16-02, SS-18-01,JSS-19-01, SS-SS-25-01, SS-29-01, SS-29-03I

Notes:1) All concentration* ere in ug/kg2) Date qualifers ere not included.

OO

7-3

TABLE 7-2

SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING COMPANY


| COMPOUNDS

111...............................

|1,2-0ichloroethene(Tried loroethene| Tetraehloroathene(Toluene

Nuaber OfSaaple*

............28282828

Nuaber Of | lange OfDetection* j Valiwi

11

.........................2 J10-640

27 (3-6800015 | 4-58009 (1-23

MM JwwySoil

Gufdwio* Uv*lt

1,0001,0001,0001,000

ftator ofDetection*

Mow*Guiotnc* Uv*ls

0110

(COMPOUNDS1

(Trichloroethen*1(Tetrachloroethene1

Location of detection* |Above New Jaraey Soil Guidanee Level* j

$$-107-2 |1

$$-107-2 |1

Noto<:1) Alt oone«ntration» ar* in ug/kg2) Data qualifier* are net included.

Ul

Oo

Oto

7-4

TABLE 7-3

GARDEN STATE CLEANERS


(COMPOUNDS

IIIj.............................

(Mathylene Chloride| Ac* ton*| Tr ich loroethene| Tatrach loroethene|1 ,1 ,2,2-Tatracholroethane(Toluene

Nuaber Oftaapl.*

161616161616

Nu*»r OfDetection*

............

191

1121

tang* OfValue*

............18080-4,700

"2-2,00011-122

Mew Jeraey | fcflter ofSot I j Oatoctfoiw

Guidtmo* L*v*l» j Miov*JGuidMto* L*v*l»

................|................1,000 |01,000 |31,000 |01,000 |41,000 JO1,000 JO

(COMPOUNDSI

(Location of detections |(Abov* New J*ra*y Soil Guidane* Lavaltj

(AeatoneI|T«trachloro*th*n*

|SS-S2-01,SS-S8-02,SS-60-02,I|SS-S1-01,SS-60-02,SS-67-01,SS-69-01I

Mot**:1} All concentrations ar* in ug/fcg2) Data qualifier* ar* not included.

CO8oo

7-5

TABLE 7-4



COMPOUNDS

JTrichloroethen*| Tetreeh loroetnene| Toluene

Number OfSaaples

0

66

Muster Of | Range OfDetections j Values

11..........................

5 (3-1004 (25-1,100,0002 |2-J

New Jerseytoll

Guidance Levels

...................1,0001,0001,000

Nuiber ofDetectionsAbove

Guidance Levels

110

| COMPOUNDS1

(Trfehloroetnene1| Tetrschloroethene1

(Locstion of detections(Above New Jersey Soil Guidance

.......................................|SS- 155-1I| SS- 155-1I

Levels

Notes:1) All coneentrstions ere in ug/kg2) Dete (sjalifiers ere not included

COOO

No other areas were identified where contaminants were present at concentrations exceedingcurrent sol cleanup guidance values.

Groundwater Sampling

Prior to the Remedial Investigation, groundwater sampling efforts conducted by SJCC and NJDEPbetween 1981 and 1989 identified TCE contamination in the groundwater beneath, anddowngradient of, the SJCC faciity, extending to a minimum depth of 49 feel The zone ofcontaminated groundwater extended from the SJCC facility southwest to private wells at the BabesVillage Inn, the deary School, and a residence at the comer of Wheat Road and Central Avenue.The highest level of TCE in the groundwater was consistently found at SJCC Well 2, indicating thatthe source of the contaminants was upgradient of SJCC Well 2. SJCC had installed a groundwaterremediation system comprised of four extraction weds, an air stripping treatment system, and onereinfection well. PCE was detected at higher concentrations than TCE downgradient of GSC inSJCC Well 6, indicating that the primary PCE source was GSC.

The geology beneath the sites, determined from Phase 1 and 2 borehole logs, is dominantiycomprised of layers of fine to coarse sand, with a unit comprised of fine to medium sand and daylocated at -10 feet to - 30 feet msl (130 feet to 150 feet BGS). The water table aquifer likelyextends to - 155 feet msl (270 feet BGS). Groundwater, as determined from the shallow,intermediate and deep wells flowed to the southeast A cone of depression was detected in wellslocated near the SJCC extraction wells. Horizontal groundwater flow was found to be three to ten

times greater than the vertical groundwater flow. Site Geology and Hydrogeology was discussedin greater detail in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

Five VOCs detected in the Phase 1 groundwater samples exceeded the NJDEP or Federal MCLsfor drinking water, including PCE and TCE. A zone of contaminated groundwater, containing PCE,TCE and other VOCs above the MCLs, extended from shallow wells near the SJCC facility

COsouthwest to EP-6I, an intermediate depth well. Sample results from the Phase 1 groundwater r>investigation are summaned in Table 7-5 and presented in detail in Section 4.3.2. 0

ot-i

7-7 roen

TABLE 7-5


PHASE 1 GROUNDWATER CLP DATA SUMMARY

COMPOUNDS

jChloroMthane|Chloroathane1,1-Diehloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane

|Cis-1,2-Dtchlorootheno (5)|8roMdichloroaethane (4)(Chloroform (4)1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon Tetrachlor ide| Tr tehoroethene| Tetrachloreethens|2-Nexanone1,1,1 ,2-Totrachloroethane

[Naphthalene

Number OfOf

SMRlM

............

2424242424242424242424242424

Umber OfOf

Detections

............

2111•16521412121

langeOf

Values

0.7-8.02.017.01.0

2.0-77.01.0

1.0-6.00.7-13.01.0-2.0

0.8-13,0000.9-1,400

0.*0.6-2.0

0.7

US NO.

............

7

70no1002005s5

MJ HCL

............

2

1010010026211

DetectionsAbove

Lowest NO.

1

6

11311

COMPOUNDS(location of dectection*

AboveHas

1,1-Diehloroethene

Cis-1,2-01chloroethene (5)

Trichor cetnene

|TetrechloroetheneI

SJ-2

SJ-2,SJ-3,U-5,t«-6,SJ-8,SJ-12

|EP-1,E»-6,SJ-2,SJ-3,ftJ-3A,SJ-4,SJ-5,|SJ-6/SJ-7,SJ-8,SJ-10,SJ-11,SJ-12I|E»-6,SJ-2,SJ-3,SJ-3MJ-S,SJ-6, CO

Motes:1) All concentrations in up/I2) US Htt • US Sefe Drinking Water Act NCL3) NJ HCL • NJ Sefe Drinking Wster Act NCL4) NJDEP and Federal Has are for Total TrihaloMthanes5) NJDEP and Federal Has ere far Total 1,2-Dtehloroethene6) Data qualifiers are not included

Ocrt

7-8

For Phase 2, intermediate and deep wells were installed to define the depth of groundwatercontamination. Seven VOCs detected in the Phase 2 groundwater samples exceeded the MCLs,including PCE and TCE. VOCs detected in the groundwater were also detected in the Phase 1 and2 sol samples taken at the SJCC and GSC fadities. The zone of contaminated groundwater,containing TCE, PCE and other VOCs above the MCLs, extended from the shallow wells near theSJCC and GSC facilities to the intermediate wells EP-6I and EP-121. PCE and TCE were alsodetected in EP-8D, the deep wen beneath the two facilities. PCE-dominated contamination in wellsdowngradient of GSC likely originates from the contaminated soi behind the GSC facility. TCEdominated contamination likely originates from the contaminated SOB at the northwest comer of theSJCC fadity. The highest concentrations of contaminants were found in the shallow aquiferbetween the facility and SJCC Well 8. Sample results from the Phase 2 groundwater investigationare summarized in Table 7-6 and presented in detail in Section 4.3.2.

7.1.2 Contaminant Fate And Transport

The predominant contaminants at the sites are chlorinated volatile organics, including PCE andTCE. These compounds have low solubilities and high organic carbon partition coefficients.However, these compounds wfll also volatilize into the atmosphere from sol, waste or groundwater.The VOCs found in the soi and groundwater readily adsorb onto soi. The degradation productsof the chlorinated VOCs have been detected in the groundwater samples. The contaminants wilcontinue to migrate from the source areas through the soi with infiltrating precipitation, enter thegroundwater and be transported downgradient from the sites. The contaminants may also volatilizefrom the soi and groundwater and enter the atmosphere.

7-9

CO

oo

4kO

TABLE 7-6

SOUTH JERSEY CXOTHING COMPANY/GARDEN STATE CLEANERS SITES

PHASE 2 GROUNDWATER CLP DATA SUMMARY

COMPOUNDS

AcetoneCarbon Disulf ids1,1-Dlohloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane

|Ci»-1,2-Dichloroethone (5)|Chlorofor« (4)2-lwtanone1,1,1-TrichleroethaneCarbon Tetrechloride•roeodiehloroMthene (4)1 ,2-Dichlorepropene

Tr ichor aetheno

1,1,2-TrichlorothoneSeniene| Tetreehloroethene

(TolueneEthylbennne[StyroneKtP Xylene (6)1 ,3-Dichlorobentene1,4-Dichlorobenzene4,-ChlorotelueneTrans-1,2-Dichloroethene (5)HexaehlorobutedieneNephtheleneN - Propy Ibensene1,1,1,2-Tetrechloroethane1 ,2,3-Tr ichlorobenzene1 ,2,4-Tr iehlorobenzene1 ,3,5-Tr iMthylbenzene0-Xylene (6)

Nuaber Ofor

343434343434343434343434

343434

34343434343434343434343434343434

Nuefaer Ofor

Detections

13651541521211

2212

3223121611212124

langeor

Values

4.00.3-0.50.2-2.00.2-0.60.2-51.0O.S-8.0

11.04. -27.00.6-3.0

0.60.6

0.9-4500

1.0-6.00.6-12.0

6.0-1700.0

0.6-1.00.4-0.1

1.00.9-1.0

3.00.4-2.0

0.50.2-1.0

2.01.0

0.4-0.31.01.01.0

0.9-0.60.7-2.0

US ntL

7

70100

2005

10055

55

1,000700100

10,000

75

100

10,000

NJ Na

2

10100

262

100

1

11

446075

10

00

44

DetectionsAbove

Lowest Na

Locationof

DetectionsAbove nCLS

——————— t ................\

2 |SJ2,7

5 |SJ2,5,6,0,120

1 JSJ21 JSJ10o|o10 |SJ2,3,3A,S,6,7,

1* !• 44 44 re»_.l.

' ' '

1 JEP-12

|SJ12,EP-6,6,12000000

0

00

0 Rtotes:

1) All concentration* in ug/l2) OS Ha • US Safe Drinking Ueter Act Na3) NJ Na • US Safe Drinking Hater Act Na4) NJDEP end Federal ICLs ere for Total TrihaleMthanes5) NJDEP end Federel Nas ere for Total 1,2-Dichleroethene6) NJDEP and Federal Has are for Total Xylene* (0,N and P)7) Data qualifers sre not included

O00

7-10

7.1.3 Risk Assessment

The exposure risk was evaluated for on-site and off-site residents, workers and trespassers, relativeto exposure to contaminated sols, groundwater, and air. These exposure risks were evaluated forpresent and future uses (residence or workplace) of the sites. Risk factors were calculated for thenon-carcinogenic effects, termed the Hazard Index (HI) and for carcinogenic risk, termed theLifetime Excess Cancer Risk (LECR) factor. An HI greater than one indicates there is a concern

for potential non-carcinogenic health effects. A LECR greater than 1x10"" indicates an incidenceof more than one cancer case for one milion people due to site contamination.

Major conclusions resulting from the risk assessment are as follows:

o For noncarcinogenic effects, under the present scenario, none of the exposureroutes are likely to cause any health effects.

o For noncarcinogenic effects, under the future scenario, ingestion of tetrachlorethenein groundwater and dermal absorption of tetrachloroethene in surface soB at theGarden State Cleaners Site pose a likelihood of health effects.

o For carcinogenic risk, under the present scenario, LECR values are within EPA'sacceptable risk range.

o For carcinogenic risk, under the future scenario, ingestion of tetrachloroethene andtrichloroethene in groundwater, inhalation of trichloroethene in groundwater anddermal absorption of tetrachloroethene in surface soil at the Garden State CleanersSite and inhalation of trichloroethene in ambient air at the South Jersey ClothingCompany Site pose a likelihood of health effects.

o<0

7-11

o Tetrachloroethene is the primary contributor of the noncardnogenic health effects,and tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene are the primary contributors for thecarcinogenic risk.

12 CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective of this Remedial Investigation was to gather data necessary to define thenature and extent of contamination in the unsaturated sols and groundwater, allowing theevaluation of feasible alternatives for remediation of the site. This Remedial Investigation identifiedand characterized the contaminated media, allowing for an evaluation of the exposure risks at thesite and the evaluation and selection of a remedial action. This section discusses data gapsremaining after this study, recommendations for the Feasibility Study, and recommendations forRemedial Action Objectives.

7.2.1 Data Gaps and Data Limitations

The Remedial Investigation provides data to adequately assess the nature and extent of sol andgroundwater contamination for evaluation of remediation alternatives. A few limitations in the dataare discussed below.

The characterization of soi contamination from a depth of ten feet to the water table (approximately25 feet) was based on contaminant concentrations in the shallow soi and the concentration ofcontaminants in groundwater from nearby downgradient wells. Laboratory data confirming thecontamination of the sol from ten to 25 feet was not obtained during the investigation. Samplesfrom this depth are needed in the area near the former TCE tank at SJCC to confirm the absenceof contamination above cleanup levels in this area

Sol samples were not collected from the area immediately north of the ralroad tracks adjacent to "SJCC. Contamination was assumed to be absent in this area on the basis of surface water/runoff

oflow patterns and groundwater flow direction. Although sol samples were collected from the field 2

7-12

north of the tracks for use as background samples, none were obtained from the area adjacent toand north of the ralroad tracks.

Headspace analysis results were used in conjunction with laboratory data to delineate the area ofsoy contamination. Headspace data is useful but is not as reliable as laboratory data and addsuncertainty to the accuracy of the delineation.

ERT/REAC identified an area of soD gas contamination that was investigated in this study. SurfacesoO samples were obtained from the location of highest soil gas concentration. A monitoring well(EP-1S) was also installed in the vicinity. No so! or groundwater contamination was detected. Thesource of the sofl gas contamination has not been indentified.

Carbon tetrachtoride was detected in the Phase 1 and 2 groundwater samples, above the N JDEPMCL in SJCC Well 10 and the NJDEP-1A well. The source of the carbon tetrachloride was notidentified. Benzene was detected in the Phase 2 groundwater sample from EP-121 at aconcentration above the NJOEP MCL The source of the benzene has not been identified.

7.2.2 Recommendation for The Feasibility Study

VOCs were found in the unsaturated soil at the northwest comer of the SJCC facility and north ofthe rear wall of the GSC facility. VOCs were also found in groundwater in an area extending frombeneath the SJCC and GSC faculties to EP-121.

The horizontal and vertical extent of contaminated sol found in this study was estimated usingcurrent New Jersey soil cleanup guidance values. These same cleanup guidance values shouldbe used for estimating contaminated sol volumes in the feasiblity study. Excavation of soil for on-site or off-site treatment, as well as in-situ treatment, appears to be feasible.

0)

The groundwater contamination extends from the water table to an estimated depth of 230 feet 0o

BGS. The most concentrated contamination is found beneath and immediately downgradient of *"*

7-13

the sites. The volume of groundwater to be treated can be estimated from the data provided inthis report The recommended cleanup objectives are the NJDEP MCLs.

7.2.3 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives

Sol and groundwater contamination were identified at both sites. The current New Jersey solcleanup guidance values and the NJDEP MCLs for specific VOCs are applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARARs) for cleanup at the sites. Remediation should also mitigate therisks identified in the Risk Assessment

The remedial action objectives for sol (0 to 25 feet below ground surface) should focus onprotecting human health and the environment, reducing contamination to comply with ARARs andminimizing the potential for contaminant migration into groundwater The recommended remedialaction objectives are:

o Prevent direct contact with, inhalation of, and ingestion of, sol contaminated withTCE and PCE posing a carcinogenic risk in excess of 10"* or a hazard index ofgreater than 1.

o Reduce sol contaminant concentrations to comply with ARARs or other criteria.

o Prevent the migration of contaminants from sol that would result in groundwatercontaminant concentrations in excess of ARARs or would pose a carcinogenic riskin excess of 10"* or a hazard index greater than 1.

o Prevent migration of contaminated surface sol to adjacent uncontaminated surfacesol areas.

w8

The recommended remedial action objectives for groundwater should focus on protecting humanhealth and the environment by oontroHing exposure by dermal adsorption, inhalation or ingestion 2

7-14

of contaminants, complying with ARARs and controlling future migration of groundwatercontamination. The recommended remedial action objectives are:

o Prevent direct contact with, inhalation of, and ingestion of groundwater posing acarcinogenic risk in excess of 10"* or a hazard index of greater than 1.

o Restore the aquifer by reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations to complywith ARARs, including the MCLs of one ug/1 for trichloroethene andtetrachloroethene.

o Contain current groundwater contaminant plume by minimizing migration to

uncontaminated ground and surface waters.

Ioo

7-15

REFERENCES

1. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory (EMSL), November 1989. 'SiteAnalysis • South Jersey Clothing, Garden State Cleaners Sites,* Las Vegas, NV

2. U.S. EPA, February 1986. "Measurements and Gaseous Emission Rates from LandSurfaces Using an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber, User's Guide* 600 8-86/008

3. U.S. EPA's Emergency Response Team/Response Engineering and Analytical Contract(ERT/REAC) Roy F. Weston, Inc.. May 1989, 'Private Well Sampling at South Jersey,Garden State Sites*.

A. U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team (ERT), May, 1990. "Flux Chamber MeasurementSurvey for Garden State Cleaners and South Jersey Clothing*, Buena, New Jersey.

5. Roy F. Weston Inc. for U.S. EPA\ERT, May 1989, *Soi Gas Survey-Buena Soil GasInvestigation,* Buena. New Jersey.

6. Ljppencott Engineering Inc., February 1990. 'Surveying of Monitoring Wells, for GardenState Cleaners and South Jersey Clothing. Buena, New Jersey*.

7. Water Planning and Standards - U.S. EPA, December 1979, "Water-Related EnvironmentalFate of 129 Priority Pollutants,* Volumes 1,2,3.

6. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, May 1991, 'Preliminary DraftRegulations for Cleanup Standards'.

9. The Federal Register. January 30, 1991, (56 CFR 3526). The Federal MCLs - U.S. SafeDrinking Water Act for Public Water Supplies*.

10. NJDEP Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation. 1983. The NJDEP MCLs • New Jersey SafeDrinking Water Act*.

11. U.S. EPA, December 1989, 'Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund," Volume 1, HumanHealth Evaluation Manual.

12. U.E. EPA, March 1990. 'Exposure Factors Handbook.'

13. U.S. EPA, January 1991. 'Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) data base'.

14. U.S. EPA, January 1991. "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables".

oo

REFERENCES (Continued)

15. Hermon Bouwer (University of Arizona). The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test • An Update'Groundwater, Vol. 27, No. 3. May - June 1989. k

16. USGS, 1968; 'Summary of Ground-Water Resources of Atlantic County, New Jersey,' 1968,Water Resources Circular No. 18.

17. Davis, A., and CHson. R.L, 1990. 'Predicting the Fate and Transport of Organic Chemicalsin Groundwater, Part 2' Hazardous Materials Control, Vol. 3, No. 4, Jury-August 1990.

18. Vogel, T.M., Graddle, C.S., and McCarthy, P.L, 1987 "Transformations of HalogenatedAliphatic Compounds,' Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 21, No. 8,1987.

19. Dragun, J., 1988. The Sol Chemistry of Hazardous Materials'. Hazardous MaterialsControl Research Institute, Slver Spring, MD.

20. Istproding, W.C., and Codding, W., 1967. 'Fades Changes in Sediment of Miocene Agein New Jersey* in Geolooy of Selected Areas of New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania.Seymour Subitzky (Ed.), Rutgers University, New Jersey.

21. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1936. 'Supplementary Report on the Groundwater Suppliesof the Atlantic City Region,' Special Report No. 6.

22. Vowinkel, E.F., and Foster, W.K. 1981. 'Hydrogeologic Conditions in the Coastal Plain ofNew Jersey.' U.S. Geological Survey, Open Fie Report 81-405.

23. Zapecza, O., 1984. "Hydrogeologic Framework of the New Jersey Coastal Plain'. U.S.Geological Survey, Open Fie Report 84-730.

24. Gale Research Company, "Weather Almanac - Fifth Edition". Ruffner & Bair, Years 1951 to1980.

enenooO

Documents

arcs ii program - Records Collections