«FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR SHARKEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Prepared by U.S. Environmental ...»
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
SHARKEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York, New York
Walter E. Mugdan
Superfund Division Director
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Table of Contents
Land and Resource Use
History of Contamination
Basis For Taking Action
System Operations/Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Progress Since Last Five-Year Review
Five-Year Review Process
Data Review and Evaluation
Institutional Controls Verification
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?....... 11 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid?
Questions C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Next Five-Year Review
i Table 1 – Site Chronology
Table 2 - Documents, Data, and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year Review.. 19 Table 3
Table 4 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
ii Executive Summary
This is the second five-year review (FYR) for the Sharkey Landfill Superfund site located in Parsippany-Troy Hills, Morris County, New Jersey. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This statutory review is triggered by the signature of the previous FYR that was issued in May 2009.
The remedy at the site includes capping of the landfill, surface water controls, a gas venting system, extraction and treatment of shallow groundwater, securing fencing, and environmental monitoring. The remedy has been constructed and is currently in the operation and maintenance phase. The second FYR found that the implemented remedy currently protects human health and the environment because all exposure pathways have been addressed by the engineered remedy.
However, in order to be protective in the long term, deed notices restricting future use of the property need to be put in place and the effects of turning off the treatment system need to be evaluated.
Lead agency: EPA If “Other Federal Agency” was selected above, enter Agency name Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Pamela J. Baxter, CHMM Author affiliation: EPA Review period: May 2009 – July 2014 Date of Site inspection: April 24, 2014 Type of review: Statutory Review number: 2 Triggering action date: May 26, 2009 Due date (five years after triggering action date): May 26, 2014
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU1 Short-term Protective (if applicable):
The OU1 remedy currently protects human health and the environment because all exposure pathways have been addressed by the engineered remedy. However, in order to be protective in the long term, deed notices restricting future use of the property need to be put in place and the effects of turning off the treatment system need to be evaluated.
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable) For sites that have achieved construction completion, enter a sitewide protectiveness determination and statement.
Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
The implemented remedy currently protects human health and the environment because all exposure pathways have been addressed by the engineered remedy. However, in order to be protective in the long term, deed notices restricting future use of the property need to be put in place and the effects of turning off the treatment system need to be evaluated.
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment and is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in the FYR. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
This is the second FYR for the Sharkey Landfill site, located in Parsippany-Troy Hills, Morris County, New Jersey. This FYR was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Pamela J. Baxter, CHMM. The review was conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii), and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). This report will become part of the site file.
The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. A FYR is required at this site due to the fact that the remedial action will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but requires five or more years to complete. The site consists of one operable unit, which is the subject of this FYR.
Site Chronology See Table 1 for the site chronology.
Background Physical Characteristics The Sharkey Landfill site is located in the Townships of Parsippany-Troy Hills and East Hanover, in Morris County, New Jersey. The site is bounded by Route 46, New Road, and the Rockaway River and extends south beyond Interstate Route 280 between Troy Meadows and the Hatfield Swamp.
The site is approximately 90 acres in size, is one operable unit, and is divided into five separate landfill areas: North Fill, South Fill, Northwest-North Fill, Northwest-South Fill, and the Southwest Fill. The North Fill is an approximately 26-acre island in the Rockaway River and is located at the northern end of Sharkey Road in Parsippany-Troy Hills. The South Fill is an approximately 32-acre area adjacent to the Rockaway and Whippany Rivers and the ParsippanyTroy Hills wastewater treatment plant. The Northwest-North and Northwest-South Fills are about 11 and 15 acres in size, respectively, and were originally one fill area. The two Fill areas were separated as a result of the construction of Interstate 280. The Southwest Fill is an approximately 9-acre area located along the Whippany River southeast of Ridgedale Avenue in East Hanover, which received fill material excavated during the construction of Interstate 280.
See attached site map.
Site Geology/Hydrogeology The site is located in the Piedmont Physiological Province. It is characterized by a swampy low land with a few surrounding ridges and isolated hills rising above the plain. Most of the area lies between the elevations of 170 to 440 feet above mean sea level. Rocks underlying Pleistocene era and younger unconsolidated deposits in this area are predominately of the Brunswick Formation consisting of red shale and sandstone. Also present in this area, and forming the topographic relief of the Watchung Mountains, are Triassic-age basalt flows.
Land and Resource Use
The general area in which the landfills are located can be described as residential and light industrial to the north and west of the Whippany River, and considerable swamp land to the east and south. Approximately eight miles downstream, the Passaic River is used as a source of drinking water by the Passaic Valley Water Commission.
History of Contamination
During the 1930s, the site was used as a pig farm. In 1945, landfill operations began and the site accepted municipal waste material until September 1972. During that time, the landfill also accepted commercial, industrial, and hazardous waste materials. Records indicate that various organic compounds were disposed of at the site, including toluene, benzene, chloroform, dichloroethylene, and methylene chloride, as well as other "liquid and/or chemical wastes" described as cesspool-type wastes. Although there have been allegations of waste disposal after 1972, the site is believed to have been generally inactive after that date. Some excavation and on-site relocation of some fill material occurred during the expansion of the Parsippany-Troy Hills wastewater treatment plant.
In September 1983, the Sharkey Landfill site was included on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Agency (NJDEP) was the lead agency at the site from December 1983 to April 1994. A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was conducted by the NJDEP from December 1983 to September 1986, to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to develop alternatives for remediation. NJDEP initiated the remedial design (RD) in March 1987 and ceased conducting the RD in April 1994 when EPA took the lead for the site.
Basis For Taking Action
The results of the RI/FS indicated the presence of low concentrations of organic compounds, pesticides, and inorganic compounds in soils, and low levels of organic, including benzene and trichloroethene (TCE), and inorganic compounds in the shallow groundwater beneath the site.
The shallow water-bearing zone beneath the site is isolated from the deeper groundwater aquifer systems. The site is underlain by a continuous varved clay layer which functions as a naturally occurring confining zone to prevent the downward vertical migration of water from the shallow water bearing zone. Water level measurements from piezometers indicate an upward potential flow direction from the lower to upper water-bearing zones due to the confining impact of the clay layer. The shallow groundwater beneath the fill areas discharges directly into the adjacent Rockaway and Whippany Rivers. Sediment, leachate and surface water samples did not indicate that the landfill was significantly impacting the adjacent river(s).
Remedial Actions Remedy Selection Based on the results of the RI, EPA and NJDEP established cleanup goals and objectives for the site. The goals and objectives were to minimize the potential for migration of the low levels of groundwater contamination and minimize the risks to the public from exposure to waste and contaminated soil on the site. To accomplish these goals and objectives, EPA selected a remedy which was described in a Record of Decision (ROD) signed on September 29, 1986.
The ROD included the following elements:
During the design of the remedy, it was determined that full capping of all landfill areas was not necessarily protective of human health and the environment. EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) on October 4, 1993 to change the capping requirement to limited capping, and to modify the cap material. EPA determined that only portions of the North and South Fill areas having slopes of less than or equal to three horizontal to one vertical (3:1) would be capped since the slopes greater than 3:1 would allow a significantly higher amount of precipitation to run off. Capping was considered less necessary on the steeply sloped areas than on the mildly sloped areas, since one of the primary reasons for installing a cap was to reduce the infiltration of rain water into the waste material. The remaining portions of these Fill areas would be covered by soil and vegetated, as necessary. Unlike the larger North and South Fill areas, the smaller Fills areas: Northwest-North, Northwest-South, and Southwest Fill areas are relatively low-lying, with much of their waste material lying below the groundwater table or present under somewhat saturated conditions. Capping these low-lying areas would not effectively reduce the degree of contact between the waste material and the groundwater.
Therefore, those Fill areas were to be covered with additional soil and appropriately vegetated to prevent erosion and exposure of waste material.
The 1993 ESD also modified the liner material. As an alternative to using a two-foot clay layer to meet the performance requirements of RCRA, a synthetic liner was determined to be appropriate. Since the steep slopes were not to be capped under the modified remedy, the use of a synthetic liner was determined to be appropriate on the North and South Fill areas.
The ESD also called for a groundwater monitoring program to be implemented for all five Fill areas in addition to a surface water monitoring program for the Rockaway and Whippany Rivers.
The purposes of the monitoring programs include assessing and monitoring groundwater and surface water quality, determining the need for operation of groundwater extraction systems, and evaluating the effectiveness of operating extraction systems in establishing and maintaining hydraulic control of landfill leachate.