Upload
jhasenfus94
View
143
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Comprehensive report based on CERCLA. a United States environmental law. This was a group report written for an "Environmental Pollution and Regulation" course at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in 2012.
Citation preview
2012 The Richard Stockton College of
New JerseyENVL Pollution & Regulation ENVL 3241- 001 Professor Tait Chirenje Group #2 Members: Justin Hasenfus, Liz Burnham, Keith Mulligan, Kelly Kohler & Brian Santoleri
PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
2 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Table of Contents (T.O.C.)
Abstract 4
What is CERCLA and how did it start? 5
How has CERCLA changed over the years? 6
Brief History of Price Landfill 6
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation 7
Precautions for exposure reduction 8
Monitoring/Preventative Measures 8
NPL Status 9
Feasibility study 10
Contaminants and Distribution 11
Record of Decision 11
Remedial Design/Action 12
Site Review 14
Suggested Site Use 14
Does Superfund Work? 15
Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund 16
3 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Works Cited 17
Appendix
Appendix Summary 19
Appendix A 20
Appendix B 25
Appendix C 30
Appendix D 38
4 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Abstract
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
alternately referred to as Superfund, has been utilized in the forefront of protecting the health
of the general public from the dangers of hazardous pollutants, created by small-scale and large
scale companies alike, and monitoring the standing of sites given the Superfund status. The cost
of the remediation processes far exceeds the cost of what preventative measures would have
cost, had they been deployed to begin with, as we will see. Money aside (and that’s a BIG
aside), the time and effort that goes into the cleanup of a Superfund site is just plain
monotonous. Not only is the remediation process is a long one, but it is directly correlated with
the basic foundation of the health of Atlantic County’s population. This paper seeks to answer
questions regarding exactly how the Price Landfill #1 Superfund site (referred to as “Price
Landfill” throughout this paper), located in Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey,
functions under CERCLA and how well the remediation team responds to the rectification
process of cleaning up said site and a brief history of the Price Landfill is also covered.
5 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
What it CERCLA and How Did it Start?
Before 1980, America’s chemical companies’ dumping practices were not very heavily
regulated. Some companies were not interested in the fact that those chemicals and hazardous
waste might be affecting the environment, or the people around them. Environmentalist and
activist from the EPA collectively brought an idea to congress for stricter laws, fines and the
accountability of responsible parties for cleaning up contaminated sites. (EHSO,2011)
In 1980, congress passed CERCLA, the law that the EPA and environmentalists had proposed.
This law would put a tax on all chemical companies who were releasing hazardous materials. These
materials were deemed to produce potentially harmful effects on the public and the surrounding
environment. All the money accumulated from this tax, was to be deposited into an account, or a
“Superfund”, that would pay for the cleanup of these waste sites created by the chemical companies. This
Superfund is known as The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or
CERCLA. (EPA, 2011). CERCLA requires that the companies are held accountable for the environmental
messes they have generated. Accountability would include undertaking stricter guidelines and regulations
on how to handle different chemicals, and claiming responsibility for the integral cleanup of these sites
(EHSO, 2011). These clean ups can be classified as either short term or long term. The short term cleanup
process involves actions concerned extreme or copious releases of hazardous wastes which need to be
dealt with in a prompt manner.
Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers
associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not
immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's
National Priorities List (NPL). These actions can and are to be carried out exclusively on sites
mentioned in the National Priorities List (NPL) on EPA’s website (EPA, 2011).
CERCLA is used to fund the clean-up of superfund sites that are listed on the National Priorities list.
6 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
How Has CERCLA Changed Over the Years
Over the years CERCLA has gone through many changes, as well as additions. In 1986,
CERCLA was amended by a federal agency called the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). This amendment allowed the same regulations to be put in place for not only privately owned
companies, but federally owned ones as well. These federal companies must now adhere to the same
regulations, pay the same taxes and make certain they are just as much a part of the integrative cleanup as
the other parties (HSS, 2012). SARA greatly strengthened CERCLA and required the EPA revise the
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), a system created to assess the comparative nature of prioritizing the
contaminated sites by level of express importance (Superfund, SARA Overview, 2011).
Brief History of Price Landfill
In the 1960’s, Price Landfill (Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township) was used as a sand
and gravel quarry. Usage changed in the 1970’s when they began to use the pit as a landfill and
later accepted the dumping of chemical materials and hazardous waste, with the permission of
the owner, Charles Price (EPA, 2000). Even though the landfill stopped accepting waste in the
early 70’s. The chemicals infiltrated into the groundwater, causing a contaminated groundwater
plume that migrated towards public drinking wells. The area was recognized as contaminated in
the early 80’s and was proposed as a potential superfund site because of the threat posed on
public health due to contamination of the groundwater.
The Price family owned the landfill during its operative period, before the site’s
contaminated status was declared. NJDEP conducted the initial investigation of Price Landfill
after it was proposed to the EPA. The sum of $17 million was received form the companies and
individuals responsible for the site contamination and was deposited in an account to help fund
the clean-up. CERCLA provided emergency funds to clean water to effected residents and
7 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
reconnected their water lines to a clean source. The NJDEP and the EPA received a $16 million-
dollar grant from the American Resource and Recovery Acts fund (ARRA) to clean up the
ground water and put a cap on the site. (Superfund,2011)
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation
The NJDEP came in and did the preliminary assessment and site investigation under
advisement of the EPA. From the time of the preliminary assessment to when they actually
finished the site investigation, approximately three years had passed. (Superfund, 2011) In this
time, they determined that there was an excessive amount of chemicals contaminating the
groundwater. These harmful chemicals were metals and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Benzene, cadmium, lead, vinyl chloride, and toluene were among the most prominent chemicals
found that caused rising concern about their expedient removal (EPA, 2012). High amounts of
naturally occurring iron was also found in the ground water which was found to be a problem at
the ACUA water treatment plant (Katz, 2012). The release of these chemicals came most directly
from the county’s allowance of chemical drums being disposed of on the site, as well as
chemicals that were openly poured into the ground.
The contaminated grounds of Price Landfill were determined to be a result of the
percolation of these harmful chemicals through the soil, facilitated by rainfall and capillary
action in the underlying soil (Superfund, 2011). Although New Jersey’s soil consists of a variety
of sandy, silty, and clay-like consistencies, the soil around the Price Landfill is predominantly of
the silty and sandy contents. It is because of this, that rainwater percolated more quickly through
the ground, carrying the toxins with them due to the high permeability of the soil. The majority
of the contamination was found in the groundwater.
8 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Precautions for Exposure Reduction
The effect on human health could have been disastrous in the Atlantic county area if they
didn’t realize the groundwater was contaminated. The EPA and the State of New Jersey worked
together to alter the distribution of water available to residents, so as to provide it from a
different water source. In 1981, trucks of bottled water were supplied to the people in the area.
The EPA took control of the project and implemented measures, to be taken by ACUA, that
would treat the water and therefore, control what was being released to the public. Unfortunately,
37 residents were affected by the contaminated groundwater before it could be treated (EPA,
2011).
Monitoring and Preventative Measures
Fear of the contamination spreading to the nearby Absecon Creek led the EPA to make
the decision to move the public water supply wells, nixing the possibility of further cross-
contamination (EPA, 2011). Even though this site was being treated as a top priority, it still took
almost an entire year for it to be added to the NPL. It was in that year that they discussed how to
make the best plans for the cleanup. They came up with eight steps for containment. The
placement of a cap onto the infected area and the erection of a fence around the area of the
landfill for future monitoring and construction were just a couple of the steps taken (EPA, 2012).
The purpose of the fence was to keep the public out of the working areas around the landfill and
to prevent anyone from wandering onto the site and getting hurt.
Extraction wells and granular activated carbon filtration units were later installed to
prevent the movement of the contaminated ground water (EPA, 1983). Effluent and influent
water is being collected and treated to prevent the contamination of surrounding creeks and
9 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
wetlands. A trench has been dug around the landfill to collect runoff and soil erosion. These
actions are preventing the spread of the contaminated waters. If this was not done, the
contaminated ground water would be able to reach the surrounding creeks and wetlands
potentially leading to exposure of other people. A cap will be put on the landfill once
groundwater extraction and treatment is completed (EPA, 1986). The cap will consist of a multi-
layer system of solids and a synthetic geo-membrane made of polyethylene. The top layer will be
covered in grass that does not have long root penetration; beneath that are a drainage layer and
barrier layer. Constructed from a geo-membrane polyethylene, the barrier layer consists of an
impermeable layer that will prevent surface water from penetrating the waste beneath and
pushing more hazardous waste into the groundwater. The barrier layer would then be placed over
a layer of compacted clay (Salomon, 2012). These steps will all help in the containment of the
contaminated groundwater and in reducing human contact with the area of concern.
NPL Status
Price Landfill was an addition to the NPL in 1983. It was added to the list because of its
threat to the public drinking water supply that was being pumped by wells connecting to the
groundwater. Spread of the contaminated groundwater supply to the remaining aquifers of
Atlantic County was a deep concern voiced by the EPA (EPA, 2012). Clean up of this sight is
still current and is in the construction phase of remediation. It has been about 30 years that the
NJDEP and EPA have been working on cleaning up this site. So far, several steps have been
taken to clean up the site, including the closing of some public water wells showing
contamination. In May of 2012, began the construction of the groundwater treatment facility.
Once that is complete, the EPA will conduct hourly testing of the ground water (Salomon, 2012).
10 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Treatment plants and extraction systems as well as carbon filters were installed to prevent and
track the movement of the contaminated groundwater to nearby creeks and wetlands (EPA,
1986). The on-site treatment plant is responsible for the pretreatment of the ground water. It is
then sent to the ACUA for further treatment before the water is released into the ocean. The
water that is released is required to and does meet the sewage water treatment standards (Katz,
2012). Because the clean up process is still in effect, the site is still listed on the NPL. Air
surrounding the Price Landfill Superfund site is safe of VOC’s and the land has been excavated
to remove any oily or chemical substances in the soil. Despite this, the ground water is still
contaminated (Katz, 2012). The goal is to reach less than 10 part per billion (ppb) of total
contamination in the groundwater (EPA, 1986). When this is achieved, the Price Landfill will be
removed from the NPL and the groundwater will have reached levels that are considered safe for
drinking water.
Feasibility Study
In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a feasibility study and
developed a long-term remedial action plan. The study involved evaluating alternatives
(including carbon treatment) to protect Atlantic City's water supply, containing or eliminating
additional migration of contaminants from Price Landfill, and dealing with contamination that
has already migrated from the landfill. At this time, the EPA only approved about $940,000 for
the work, under a Cooperative Agreement and Superfund State Contract. (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2012) In June of 1993, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) completed a Focused Feasibility Study to evaluate several treatment and
disposal options for the groundwater. (EPA, 2012)
11 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Contaminants and Distribution
Total volatile organics (TVO) concentrations range from 40-50 ppm near the landfill in
the shallow depths of the upper cohansey formation. TVO concentrations range from 10-
100 ppb in the deeper areas of the aquifer, with the plum extending almost one mile from
the landfill and tending to move in an east-northeasterly direction. (EPA ROD, 1986 pg
3)
Contaminants Detected
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Air Soil Other
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE X
1,2-TRANS-
DICHLOROETHYLENE
X
ARSENIC X X
BENZENE X
CHLOROFORM X X
DICHLOROETHYLENES X
LEAD X X X
VINYL CHLORIDE X X
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
X
Graph from (Good Guide, 2011)
Record of Decision
In 1983 the EPA, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) from a remedial investigation done in
1982. The investigation was led by the EPA and NJDEP, under the contractor, Camp Dresser and
McKee.
The investigation included the installation of 22 additional groundwater
monitoring well and 6 soil borings during the spring of 1984. This program was
preceded by a geophysical survey, employing both seismic refraction and ground
penetration radar to better identify the boundaries of the landfill and assist in the
selecting locations for the monitoring wells and soil borings. (EPA, 1986, pg 4)
12 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
The investigation gave the EPA a better idea of the steps that needed to be taken to clean up the
site.
In the 1986 Record of Decision, the EPA selected the following site cleanup actions:
installation of a security fence around the landfill site; installation of groundwater extraction
wells adjacent to the landfill to control the contaminant source; installation of groundwater
extraction wells hydraulically down gradient from the landfill to stop the migration of the
contaminant plume; construction of a groundwater/leachate pretreatment facility at or near the
site; construction of a force main to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority(ACUA) interceptor
system; extraction of contaminated groundwater followed by pretreatment and conveyance to the
ACUA wastewater facility for final treatment; quarterly monitoring of groundwater for
approximately 25 years; and construction of a landfill cap at the conclusion of the groundwater
remediation. (EPA, 1986) The estimated capital cost of the cleanup was $9,050,000 with annual
upkeep and maintenance for years 1-5 of $1,010,000 and $255,000 for years 6-25(EPA, 1986).
Remedial Design/Action
Remedial Design is the phase in Superfund site cleanup where the technical
specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies outlined in the RODs are designed, but
have not yet been implemented. At this point in time, all phases of remedial design have been
completed and the remedial actions are currently underway. Remedial designs for the Price
Landfill site are separated in 4 stages. First, the study of infiltration basins was used to design a
pilot plant for replacing treated groundwater. Then, the design of a groundwater treatment
system would be based off of the results of the pilot plant and when completed, the landfill site
would be capped.
The State of New Jersey began design of the various aspects of the remedy in 1987. “In
November 1997, NJDEP initiated a study to size the infiltration basins for the reinjection of the
13 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
treated groundwater and to analyze the various components of the groundwater treatment
system.” (EPA, 2012) This study, which was completed in July of 1999, proved that the
infiltration basins were not an effective method for discharging the treated groundwater into the
aquifer due to iron fouling of the infiltration basins. As a result, NJDEP decided to use recharge
basins to dispose of the treated groundwater. Testing of the different components of the
treatment system indicated that the treatment components could effectively treat the
contaminated groundwater. (EPA, 2012) In March of 1999, NJDEP completed an interim
remedial design for a pilot plant to evaluate the treatment and discharge of the treated
groundwater into the aquifer. In February of 2001, the pilot plant construction was completed
and pilot plant testing of the groundwater treatment system was initiated. Pilot plant testing was
completed in the summer of 2002 and was operated by NJDEP until 2011, when it was
decommissioned in conjunction with groundwater treatment plant construction. (EPA, 2012)
The groundwater treatment plant remedial design was conducted in several phases. The
first phase was completed in January 2005 by NJDEP, which included the delineation of the
landfill boundaries. Then in 2009, the EPA assumed lead agency of the site. The remedial design
for the groundwater treatment system was completed in 2010 and construction activities began in
July 2010. The groundwater treatment system construction is expected to be completed in late
2012. In 2011, the EPA designed the landfill cap, which is expected to begin construction in
2013 following to the start-up of the groundwater treatment system and will hopefully be
completed in 2014. According to the EPA, the American Resource and Recovery Act (ARRA)
funds were allocated to this site for construction of the groundwater treatment system. This
system will control further migration of groundwater contamination. The Price Landfill site
received ARRA funding in fiscal year 2009. The $16.3 million in ARRA funding for this site
14 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
was used to initiate remedial action activities associated with the cleanup of contaminated
groundwater(Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
Site Review
April 24, 1992 was the last time a site review was conducted at Price Landfill. It was
found that the site was not properly fenced or posted. Illegal dumping was still occurring on the
site; materials consisted of construction debris and household items. Shotgun shells were also
found, indicating that hunting could be occurring on or near the land. The field staff reported
smelling a strong chemical scent in the northern portion of the site that caused headaches and
frequent dizziness, leading them to quickly vacate the site. Several recommendations were made
from this site review. On-site surface soil samples, which checked for metals, was one
recommendation. Perform air monitoring on-site as well as areas downwind of the site for
VOC’s and restricting access to the site was another. This review also recommended further
evaluations of public health. (EPA, 1993)
Suggested Site Use
Although the Price Landfill is still currently being cleaned up and is under construction, it
has been proposed that the land could be used for clean energy sources after the landfill has been
capped. The EPA has suggested a solar site (EPA, 2011). The land will not be open for
residential construction, but could be used for public sports fields (golf course, soccer fields) or
for public storage (Katz, 2012). Of these options, a solar energy field might prove to be the most
effective use of the land, turning a toxic site into a clean energy source. The already-present
power lines on the landfill and sub-station would make this land ideal for a solar site (EPA,
2011).
15 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Does Superfund Work?
The superfund process does work; however, it is a slow process due to funding issues and
the bureaucratic nature of government. According to the EPA, after Superfund’s inception in
1980, out of 1,313 Superfund sites, a total of 363 have been deleted from the National Priorities
List (2012). In order for a site to be deleted from the NPL it must be determined that there is no
threat to human health, and all the necessary actions were taken to protect human health (EPA,
2012). The deletion of these sites shows that the Superfund process does work. Although the
process is slow human health is protected by emergency response teams, which are quickly
deployed to insure that human health is protected.
According to the NJDEP, Superfund money used to come, “from taxes on the chemical
and petrochemical industries” (NJDEP, 2011). Unfortunately this is no longer the case,
superfund money now comes from general revenues and stimulus money (Broder, 2009). The
superfund money is used when companies or people responsible for the contamination either
cannot be found or do not have enough money to cover the cost of the cleanup of the site that
they contaminated (NJDEP, 2011). According to Perry Katz, the project manager of the Prices
Landfill Superfund site, the reason that the superfund process is slow is due to funding issues and
the approval of the use of the available funds. Mr. Katz stated that they will have the people
available to work and know what needs to be done, but they just need to wait on the approval of
funds to take the necessary action (2012). Katz also stated that coordination between different
entities is also a challenge. It takes time to coordinate things between townships, the state, the
EPA, the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and private contractors (2012). Katz also stated
that in the 1980’s, there was a stigma attached to the waste from Superfund sites. In the case of
16 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Price Landfill, the ACUA did not want to accept treated wastewater from Price Landfill (2012).
In the early 1990’s, ACUA changed their mind and agreed to accept the wastewater because the
site would become a new paying customer to ACUA’s water treatment facility (Katz, 2012).
Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund
A major problem with superfund is funding issues; the problem is that chemical
companies and petrochemical companies use to pay a tax for the amount of pollutants they
produced (NJDEP, 2011). This tax ended in 1995 when the Superfund tax expired and was not
renewed (Broder, 2009). So in the case of the Price Landfill Superfund site, the money to finance
the clean up came from stimulus money (Katz, 2012); therefore, the taxpayer pay for the
cleanup. Instead of having the polluters paying for the cleanup of these contaminated sites, the
American taxpayer ends up paying for it. This could be resolved by reinstating the Superfund
tax, which President Obama is trying to do(Eilperin, 2010). Another problem is that project
managers have to wait for approval when it comes to hiring contractors to remediate a site (Katz,
2012). A way to fix this problem is giving the project managers the authority to make these
decisions on their own. The different groups involved can also work more closely together, such
as state environmental agencies and the EPA, to create less of a lag time waiting for approvals
from different parties. These are ways that Superfund can be fixed; and it does work, however, in
recent years it has been having trouble due to the current economy.
17 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Works Cited
Broder, J. M. (2009, April 25). Without Superfund Tax, Stimulus Aids Cleanups. Retrieved October 17,
2012, from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/science/earth/26superfund.html?_r=0
EPA . (2000, March 27) CHAPTER 5: CONTAMINATION OF THE COHANSEY AQUIFER BY
PRICE'S PIT. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from epa.gov:
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0098-02.pdf/$file/EE-0098-02.pdf
EHSO. (2009, 9 2). Superfund - cercla - overview, guidance, links & downloads. Retrieved from
http://www.ehso.com/superfund.php
Eilperin, J. (2010, June 27). Obama move to Reinstate Superfund Tax is Resisted. Retrieved October 17,
2012, from Boston:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/27/obama_move_to_reinstate_
superfund_tax_is_resisted/
EPA. (1993, 4 20). Site Review and Update: Price Landfill #1. Retrieved from US Department of Health
and Human Services:
http://www.state.nj.us/health/eohs/atlantic/pleasantville/price_lf/price_sitereview93.pdf
EPA. (1983, 9 20). EPA Superfund Record of Decision. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0283010.pdf
EPA. (1986, 9). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from National Service for
Environmental Publications (Price Landfill Second Remedial Action):
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100SJKF.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&In
dex=1986%20Thru%201990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRes
trict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField
=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQField
EPA. (1986, 9 29). Record of Decision: Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from www.epa.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0286035.pdf
EPA. (2012, 7 11). Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from www.epa.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200427c.pdf
18 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
EPA. (2011, 12 12). Cercla overview. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm
EPA. (2011, 12 14). Superfund program implements the recovery act. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/price_landfill.html
EPA. (2012, 1 12). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from Price Landfill:
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/pricelandfill/
EPA. (2012, 10 1). National Priorities List. Retrieved October 17, 2012, from EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/
Good Guide. (2011). Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from ww.scorecard.com:
http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/land/site.tcl?epa_id=NJD070281175#maps
HSS. (2012, 8 10). Comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act. Retrieved
from http://www.hss.energy.gov/sesa/environment/policy/cercla.html
Katz, P. (2012, 10 15). Remedial Project Manager of Price Landfill Superfund Site. (E. Burnham, K.
Kohler, K. Mulliga, & J. Hasenfu, Interviewers)
NJDEP. (2004, 7 2). Price landfill: Site discription/resolution of environmental concerns. Retrieved
from http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/community/sites/pi/130532.pdf
NJDEP. (2011, 5 11). Site Remediation Program. Retrieved October 17, 2012, from NJDEP:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/superfund/sf_faq.htm#sf_faq3
Salomon, D. (2012, 10 15). Construction Manager (USACE). (E. Burnham, K. Kohler, K. Mulliga, & J.
Hasenfu, Interviewers)
Superfund, SARA Overview. (2011, December 12). Retrieved October 16, 2012, from EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm
19 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Appendix Summary
The Appendix is split into 4 sections: Appendices A-D. Appendix A includes an
interview of the Project Manager and two Project Engineers of the Price Landfill #1 Superfund
site, as conducted on Monday, October 15th
, 2012 by Keith Mulligan, Justin Hasenfus, Liz
Burnham, and Kelly Kohler. Contact information and a works cited are located towards the back
of Appendix A. Appendix B contains a montage of still photos, taken by Kelly Kohler, of the
Price Landfill Superfund site. Appendix C has in it, a variety of various diagrams pertaining to
the Price Landfill, including the official processes with which the EPA has lined out to follow.
Appendix D simply contains the URL’s of 3 suggested articles, relating to the Price Landfill
Superfund site, and have been reviewed by Liz Burnham.
20 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
APPENDIX A Summary:
INTERVIEW, Conducted on October 15th, 2012
Approximate Time of Total Interview: 1:30 – 3:15 p.m.
Place: Price Landfill #1, 950 Mill Road, Pleasantville, NJ
Parties Interviewed1:
Perry Katz - Project Manager
Daryl Salomon - Project Engineer USACE
Tim Taylor - Project Engineer USACE
Edited Interview Content:
Q: What kind of experience do you have in this line of work?
Perry Katz: “30 years experience working for EPA and in the private sector for environmental consulting
firms, degrees in microbiology and environmental science.”
Daryl Salomon: “Has 20 years experience in the field and is a geological engineer.”
Q: What are your job duties on this site?
Perry: “As project manager I manage the site and coordinate the different entities involved such as: EPA,
NJDEP, USACE, and sub contractors.”Daryl and Tim: “We make sure the construction of the project is
staying within the original design.”
1 Responses of said interviewees are not exact quotes, but rough estimations/synopsises of what was actually said.
21 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Q: How was the site discovered?
Perry: “Locals complained of odors coming from their well water.”
Q: Was the landfill lined?
Perry: “No, the landfill was originally used as a sand and gravel quarry and was then turned into a
landfill.”
Q: What kind of contaminants are at this site and what is the most prevalent contaminant?
Perry: “The ground water is contaminated with VOC’s, and metals (lead, cadmium, and arsenic), Toluene
and Benzene…Benzene is the prevalent contaminant at the site. “
Q: Which direction is the contaminated groundwater plume moving?
Perry: “The plume is moving in a North-to-North Easterly direction towards Absecon Creek.”
Q: Who was found to be responsible for the contamination of this site?
Perry: “Charles Price is the owner of the landfill, and people who disposed of contaminants at the site
were also found to be responsible.”
Q: Were the responsible parties forced to pay for the clean up?
Perry: “Yes. Charles Price and people who disposed of contaminants at the site reached a settlement of
17 million dollars, which was given to the state of NJ the lead agency at the time.”
Q: Why was the site added to the National Priorities List?
Perry: “Prices Landfill was added to the NPL because it was a threat to the public water supply”
Q: Were any nearby residents affected by the contamination?
Perry: “No terrible incidents have been linked to the Price Landfill site.”
22 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Q: What phase of the project are you currently in and what is the current schedule for different parts
of the construction of the remediation plan?
Daryl: “We are in the construction phase the water treatment plant, is expected to be completed at the
end of 2012, and the cap is expected to be installed by 2014.”
Q: What kind of cap will be used? And what is the purpose of the cap?
Daryl: “The cap is a geo synthetic membrane made of polyethylene with multiple layers. It will be
installed and then dirt and vegetation will be put on type of the cap. The vegetation will be mainly grass;
trees cannot be used because roots from trees can puncture the cap. The cap will be used to prevent
contact with the contaminated soil and to also prevent rainwater from infiltrating the contaminated soil
and flushing more contaminants into the groundwater.”
Q: When the site is completed will it require maintenance?
Perry: “Yes, the fence will need to be maintained, the cap will need to be inspected the grass will need
to be cut, and the extraction wells will need to be maintained.”
Q: Will influent to the treatment plant be tested regularly?
Daryl: “Yes, the influent will be tested hourly when the treatment plant is operational.”
Q: What is the total cost of this project?
Perry: “The total cost is going to be approximately 50-60 million dollars.”
Q: How many people are currently employed on the site?
Perry and Tim: “There are between 50 and 70 contracted employees and less then a dozen government
employees involved with the site.”
23 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Q: Was the cleanup expected to take this long?
Perry: No, the NJDEP ran the site for 20 years and the EPA had a supporting role. In 2009 as a result of
stimulus funds for the sum of 16.4 million dollars were given which allowed the EPA to take the lead
role. The Atlantic County Utility Authority did not want to accept the treated wastewater in the 1980’s
due to a stigma with Superfund sites. In the early 90’s ACUA lost some big customers and decided to
accept the treated wastewater from the Price Landfill site because the site would become a new paying
customer.
Q: Were there any problems with property owners surrounding the site?
Perry, Tim , and Daryl: “Yes, nothing major just minor zoning issues.”
Q: How long does a typical remedial investigation take?
Perry: “Typically two years.”
Q: Was there any community involvement in the clean up of this site?
Perry: “Yes. A community relation’s plan was constructed. Public meetings and information sessions
were held. And everything done at the site is public record and can be found either online or in the local
library.”
Q: Are there any plans for future use of this site after it has been cleaned up?
Perry: “The site will not be used for residential, because it is already commercially zoned. It may be used
for a commercial site, possibly soccer fields, or there has also been some talk of using remediated sites
for alternative energy such as solar panels.”
24 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Contact Information:
Perry Katz, Project Manager:
Direct Dial: (212)-637-4425
*Perry Katz's email was obtained through Pat Seppi, community involvment coordinator:
25 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
APPENDIX B2 Summary: Price Landfill Photos
Figure 1. The map of Price Landfill
2 **All pictures listed in Appendix B were taken by Kelly Kohler on October 15th, 2012.
26 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2. Groundwater treatment Plant, located across Mill Rd. from
Price Landfill
Figure 3. The Superfund Site Front Gate
27 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 4. This is a house located directly adjacent to the landfill -
(Mill Rd house bordering landfill… maybe, 100 ft away)
Figure 5. This trailer (yellow and located behind the trees directly to
the right of the path) is pulled up right next to the fence (Mill Rd…
resident property line ends right at the landfill border)
28 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 6. Concrete extraction wells Located along the road side of the
landfill. Mill Rd
Figure 7. Power lines running through the landfill... Construction plans
communicated with AC Power and electric company since their power
lines run through Price Landfill
29 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 8. Raised area is consolidated landfill material
30 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Appendix C
Summary: Web Images associated with the superfund site
*This picture depicts the process by which a Superfund site operates and in
what order things are determined.
31 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
**These are the steps that the RCRA take and what the Preliminary
Assessment and Site Investigation are like.
32 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
***Illustrated here is how CERCLA’s long term monitoring process is carried
out.
33 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
****These are the most toxic chemicals in order of their rank.
Where Price Landfill is located in Atlantic County.
34 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 9. Example of Pump and Treat System
35 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 10. Map of Zone of Contamination
36 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 11. Aerial View of Price’s Landfill
37 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Citations for Pictures
#(n.d.). Price landfill. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/e
ditorial/3/ce/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-001cc4c002e0/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-
001cc4c002e0.image.jpg
(2011). Aerial View of Price's Landfill. (n.d.). Retrieved
fromhttp://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .
(2011). Example of Pump and Treat System. (n.d.).Retrieved from
http://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .
(2011). Seher, G. (n.d.). Spreading Poisons. Retrieved from
http://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .
*(2011). The superfund process. (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/texas/san_jacinto/documents/maps_images/superfund_process.j
pg
**(2011). Rfa, pa and si assestment . (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-
a&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=q0lRfujNnmeNnM:&imgrefurl=http://web.
ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/figure2.2.htm&docid=JshA4SRFhvvFlM&imgurl=http://web.
ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/images/figure2.2.gif&w=584&h=504&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5
ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=363&sig=110229258341771383845&page=2&tbnh=127
&tbnw=147&start=30&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:20,i:239&tx=97&ty=77
***(2011). Figure 3.5 long term montering by cercla. (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/upload/Fig_3-5.gif
**** (2007). 2007 CERCLA's list of hazardous substances. (2007). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-
a&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=d2dUm8EvpBdHxM:&imgrefurl=http://nat
uraldentistry.us/1310/mercury-more-toxic-than-plutonium/&docid=2M8y-tZ-
6m7XJM&imgurl=http://naturaldentistry.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cercla-
list.png&w=674&h=464&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=662&sig
=110229258341771383845&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:5
,s:20,i:173&tx=31&ty=59
38 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE
Appendix D
Summary: The following are the URL’s to suggested articles, reviewed by Liz
Burnham:
1. Long-term health effects of surrounding neighbors to Price’s Landfill
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-
city_pleasantville_brigantine/article_8e8b0e3c-7298-11df-9cf7-001cc4c002e0.html
2. Atlantic County, N.J., funds by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/locale/new-jersey/atlantic/dept/9600
3. Court case against Charles Price and the main site polluters:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/688/688.F2d.204.82-5030.html