2012

The Richard Stockton College of New JerseyENVL Pollution & Professor Tait Chirenje Group #2 Members: Justin Hasenfus, Liz Burnham, Brian Santoleri Keith Mulligan, Kelly Kohler & Regulation ENVL 3241- 001

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

Table of Contents (T.O.C.)

Abstract What is CERCLA and how did it start? How has CERCLA changed over the years? Brief History of Price Landfill Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation Precautions for exposure reduction Monitoring/Preventative Measures NPL Status Feasibility study Contaminants and Distribution Record of Decision Remedial Design/Action Site Review Suggested Site Use Does Superfund Work?

4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 14 14 15

Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund 16

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

Works Cited Appendix Appendix Summary Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

17

19 20 25 30 38

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 thats 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 Countys 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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

What it CERCLA and How Did it Start?

Before 1980, Americas 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 EPAs website (EPA, 2011). CERCLA is used to fund the clean-up of superfund sites that are listed on the National Priorities list.

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 1960s, Price Landfill (Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township) was used as a sand and gravel quarry. Usage changed in the 1970s 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 70s. 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 80s 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 sites 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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

reconnected their water lines to a clean source. The NJDEP and the EPA received a $16 milliondollar 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 countys 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 Jerseys 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.

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 didnt 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 crosscontamination (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

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 multilayer 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).

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

10

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 VOCs 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)

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

11

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 10100 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 X X X X X X X Surface Water Air Soil Other

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE ARSENIC BENZENE CHLOROFORM DICHLOROETHYLENES LEAD VINYL CHLORIDE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

X X X X X X 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)

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

12

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

13

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

14

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 VOCs 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).

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

15

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 Superfunds 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 1980s, there was a stigma attached to the waste from Superfund sites. In the case of

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

16

Price Landfill, the ACUA did not want to accept treated wastewater from Price Landfill (2012). In the early 1990s, ACUA changed their mind and agreed to accept the wastewater because the site would become a new paying customer to ACUAs 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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

17

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

18

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

19

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 URLs of 3 suggested articles, relating to the Price Landfill Superfund site, and have been reviewed by Liz Burnham.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

20

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.

Responses of said interviewees are not exact quotes, but rough estimations/synopsises of what was actually said.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

21

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 VOCs, and metals (lead, cadmium, and arsenic), Toluene and BenzeneBenzene 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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

22

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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

23

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 1980s due to a stigma with Superfund sites. In the early 90s 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 relations 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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

24

Contact Information:

Perry Katz, Project Manager: katz.ira-perry@epa.gov Direct Dial: (212)-637-4425 *Perry Katz's email was obtained through Pat Seppi, community involvment coordinator: seppi.pat@epa.gov

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

25

APPENDIX B
Summary: Price Landfill Photos

Figure 1. The map of Price Landfill

**All pictures listed in Appendix B were taken by Kelly Kohler on October 15th, 2012.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

26

Figure 2. Groundwater treatment Plant, located across Mill Rd. from Price Landfill

Figure 3. The Superfund Site Front Gate

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

27

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)

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

28

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

29

Figure 8. Raised area is consolidated landfill material

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

30

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.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

31

**These are the steps that the RCRA take and what the Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation are like.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

32

***Illustrated here is how CERCLAs long term monitoring process is carried out.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

33

****These are the most toxic chemicals in order of their rank.

Where Price Landfill is located in Atlantic County.

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

34

Figure 9. Example of Pump and Treat System

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

35

Figure 10. Map of Zone of Contamination

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

36

Figure 11. Aerial View of Prices Landfill

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

37

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-844b001cc4c002e0.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=firefoxa&rls=org.mozilla:enUS: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=firefoxa&rls=org.mozilla:enUS:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=d2dUm8EvpBdHxM:&imgrefurl=http://nat uraldentistry.us/1310/mercury-more-toxic-than-plutonium/&docid=2M8y-tZ6m7XJM&imgurl=http://naturaldentistry.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cerclalist.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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

38

Appendix D
Summary: The following are the URLs to suggested articles, reviewed by Liz Burnham:

1. Long-term health effects of surrounding neighbors to Prices Landfill

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlanticcity_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