r
I Superfund Proposed Plan * , Global Landfill Superfund Site Operable Unit 2 , Old Bridge Middlesex County, iMew Jersey
December 1996
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, ,\ “ T ■ «, This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alter and Section 300.430(f) of the National Contin natives considered for addressing ground water gency Plan (NCP). The alternatives summarized ♦ ♦ and sediment contamination associated with the here are described in the remedial investigation Global Landfill Superfund site, and identifies •the-' -and feasibility study (RI/FS) reports, as well as preferred remedial alternatives, with the rationale the addendum to the final feasibility study report, for this preference. The primary goal of this which should be consulted for a more detailed second part of the site cleanup, known as "Oper- description of the various alternatives. able Unit Two", dr OU-2, is to prevent further
degradation of the wetlands from shallow This Proposed Plan is being provided as a sup-., ground-water contamination and potential human plement to the RI/FS reports to inform the public and ecological exposure to existing contaminated of NJDEP’s and EPA’s preferred remedy, and to sediments. The first operable unit (OU-1), solicit public comments pertaining to all the which dealt with the landfill itself, resulted in a remedial alternatives evaluated, as well as the cleanup plan set forth in a Record of Decision preferred alternatives. ' (ROD) signed in September 1991. The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is The Proposed Plan for OU-2 was developed by the preferred remedy for the site. Changes to the the New Jersey Department of Environmental preferred remedy, or a change from the preferred Protection. (NJDEP) as lead agency, with support remedy to another remedy may be made, if from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency public comments or additional data indicate that (EPA). NJDEP is issuing this Proposed Plan as such a change will result in a more appropriate part of its public participation responsibilities remedial action. The final decision regarding the under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive selected remedy will be made after NJDEP and
------■ i ■-v J:35226:WP;Opef-Untct2
COMMUNITY ROUE IN SELECTION PRO Old Bridge Public Library 1 Old Bridge Plaza CESS Old Bridge, NJ 08857 Tel (908) 721-5600 Hours: 9:30 - 9 Mon - Thurs NJDEP and EPA rely bn public input tp ensure 9 - 5 Friday' 10 - 5 Saturday that the concerns of the community are consid 12:30-5 Sunday j ered in selecting an effective remedy for each Sayreville Public Library Superfund site. To this end, the RI/FS reports, 1050 Washington Road Proposed Plan, and supporting documentation Parlin, NJ 08859 Tel: (908 727-0212 have been made available to the public for a Hours: M, T, Th. F 9:30-8 public comment period Which begins on January Wed - Closed SaL - 930 - 1 \ 9 and concludes on February 7. Sun.-1-5
A public meeting will be held during the public comment period at the Old Bridge Township Municipal Building on Thursday, January 23, Oates to remember 1997 at 7:0Q pm to present the conclusions of MARK YOUR CALENDAR the RI/FS, to elaborate further on the reasons for The public comment period is January 9 - recommending the preferred remedial alterna through February 7 tives, and to receive public comments. Public comment period on RI/FS report, Proposed Plan, and remedies considered
The public meeting date is Thursday, Janu Comments received at the public meeting, as ary 23, 1997 at the Old Bridge Township '' Municipal Building: | well as written comments, will be documented in One Old Bridge Plaza the Responsiveness Summary Section of the- Old Bridge, NJ 08857 at 7:00 pm ROD, the document which formalizes the selec tion of the remedy. All written comments should be addressed to:
J:35226:WP;Op»-Untct2(mmKcpKcp)(cp) 01:08:97:11:10 . Donald J. Kakas, Supervisor In April 1984, a slope failure occurred on the Bureau of Community Relations southeastern side of the landfill adjacent to tidal Site Remediation Program wetlands. The failure caused the opening of a NJDEP.CN 413 fissure approximately 60 feet wide, 600 feet Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0413 long, and 40 feet deep. Approximately 1,5 acres of tidal wetlands were impacted by the slope SITE BACKGROUND failure. A court order was issued on April 27, 1984, requiring Global to cease operations. The The Global Landfill Site (the "site") is located in court order was in response to the sideslope the drainage basin of Cheesequake Creek in the failure, and Global’s noncompliance with accept Town of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, New ed landfill operating procedures, The order Jersey. The landfill is situated along a tidal required that a remedial plan for the slope failure marsh approximately three-quarters of a mile be developed along with, a closure plan in com- southeast of the intersection of Emston Road and ' pliance with N.J.S.A. 13:15-100 et seq. and Route 9 (Figure 1-1). The Site includes the 58- N.J.A.C 7:26-2.9. ■ - . acre landfill, which consists of a 51-acre mound ed fill area and a 6.5-acre filled extension area, Global Landfill Reclaiming.v Corporation was which is northwest; of the mounded area. The Ordered to establish an escrow account for clo-
. • \ landfill is bordered to the northeast, southwest, sure of the landfill, and on April 23, 1986, the and southeast by wetlands (Figure 1-2). The Site Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex Coun- also represents the areal extent of contamination . ty, appointed an Administrator to oversee the emanating from the landfill to the ground water closure fund. Later in 1986, the Administrator and the surrounding wetlands. of the closure fund authorized the consulting firm of E.T. Killam Associates of Millbum, New The Site was used primarily for solid waste dis Jersey* to conduct an investigation at the site. A posal from approximately 1968 to 1984. The slope stability study was performed which landfill was operated by Global Landfill Re showed that the sideslopes adjacent to the wetla claiming Corporation and was permitted to nds generally did not meet acceptable safety accept waste classified by the State of New levels. Jersey as ID-10 (Municipal Waste), ID-13 (Bulky Waste), ID-23. (Vegetative Waste) and ID-27 Witnesses atieg&jt that large numbers of drams (non-hazardous industrial waste), . containing hazardous waste were disposed of at the landfill. These allegations led to an explor atory excavation of the 6.5-acre extension area
I:35226:WJ>:Oper-UnLct2(mniKcpXcpKcp) 01:08:97:11:10 3 by Killam Associates in March 1988. Drums of RI/FS of the site to study the landfill’s impact on hazardous waste were encountered during the the ground water, surface water and wetlands. excavation. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY In June 1988, Global Landfill was proposed for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List A series of field investigations, collectively and, in March 1989, the site was officially referred to as the RI, was completed in March placed on the list. As the first step of a site 1995. The purpose of the RI was to determine cleanup, Killam Associates was authorized by the the nature and extent of contamination associated court designated Administrator and NJDEP to with the entire Site including the landfill. The conduct a Feasibility Study (FS) for closure of RI included sampling of surface and subsurface the landfill. The purpose of the Feasibility Study soils, leachate, surface water, sediments, ground was to evaluate alternatives for on-site remediat water, and landfill gases. ion. The final version of the FS report was submitted in February 1991 by Killam Associ The Site lies in the floodplain adjacent to Chees- ates, and centered on engineering controls rela equake Creek, a tidally influenced stream which tive to landfill capping. A ROD for OU-1 was flows toward Raritan Bay approximately 1.5 signed by EPA, with the concurrence of NJDEP, miles northeast of the landfill. on September 11, 1991, and included slope stabilization and capping the landfill, in addition The Site hydrogeology consists of a mounded fill to leachate and gas management systems. layer underlain by a saturated, organic-rich meadow mat (referred to as Upper Water-bearing In September 1990, NJDEP completed negotia Zone (UWZ)), a clayey silt semi-confining unit tions with a group of potentially responsible referred to as Amboy Stoneware Clay, and Old parties (PRPs), resulting in the funding of the Bridge Sand aquifer (referred to as Lower Water OU-2 RI/FS in accordance with New Jersey Spill bearing Zone (LWZ)). The meadow mat and Act Directives. Further negotiations with the Amboy Stoneware Clay are thickest in the owners, operators and a group of PRPs resulted southeast portion of the Site, thinner in a north in the entry of consent decrees in 1991 and westerly direction, and absent under the north 1993. In accordance with these decrees the PRP west comer of the filled area. The Old Bridge Group will be funding and constructing the OU-1 Sand aquifer, a municipal water supply source, is remedy. In March 1991, NJDEP’s contractor, ' semi-confined where the Amboy Stoneware Clay URS Consultants, Inc., initiated a comprehensive is present. In the northwestern portion of the landfill, the Old Bridge Sand aquifer becomes an
. J :35226: WP;Oper-Untct2(mmXq)XcpKcp) 01:08 r97:lt:10 4 unconfmed, water table aquifer. Horizontal flow subsurface soil exhibiting contamination which direction in both the UWZ and LWZ is generally may impact the ground water are being covered to the southeast. However, under present condi by the landfill cap as part of OU-1. tions shallow ground- water flow is radial, away from the landfill mound. Surficial soil samples collected in northern sections of the landfill also indicated the pres The nearest municipal wells drawing from the ence of VOCs, PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and Old Bridge Sand aquifer are located approxi metals. The most contaminated surficial soils mately one mile north (upgradient) of the land occurred within the 6.5-acre extension area to be fill, with additional supply wells being located covered as part of the ROD for OU-1. approximately two miles east (sidegradient) of the site. There are no residential wells near the Leachate seep contaminants included VOCs, landfill. Residential areas, including apartnfent PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, metals, and complexes and single family homes, lie to the inorganics. New Jersey Surface Water Quality west, northwest, and north of the site with the Criteria were exceeded for bne PAH (chrysene), nearest house lying approximately 500 feet from one phthalate ester (bis (2-ethylhexy 1) phthalate), the site, and major apartment complexes horn six pesticides (heptachlor, beptachlor epoxide, 900 to 2,400 feet away (Figure 1-1). endrin, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane and i gamma-BHC), four metals (arsenic, lead, manga The purpose of the environmental sampling nese, and mercury), and two other inorganics program was to chemically characterize the Site, (cyanide and arnmonia). and assess its impact upon human health and the environment. The following describes the sam Surface water in tributaries of. Cheesequake pled media, the detected contaminants and the Creek located on the east side of the landfill, and contaminant transport mechanism from the wetlands near the landfill (east, south, and west landfill. sides), exhibited low concentrations of organic and inorganic chemical constituents, most of Subsurface soil samples collected in the 6.5-acre which were also detected in leachate and shallow extension area of the landfill (see Figure 1-2) ground-water samples. Exceedances of NJDEP and at locations around the landfill perimeter Surface Water Quality Criteria for three pesti indicated the presence of low-levels of volatile cides (4,4-DDE, alpha- and gamma-chlordane), organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic three metals (arsenic, manganese and mercury) hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, poly-chlorinat and cyanide, were limited to two frequently ed byphenyls (PCBs), and metals.: All areas of. sampled locations, both situated adjacent to the
J:35226:WP;Oper-Untct2(mniXcpXcp)(cp) • 01:08:97:11:10 5’ ' ' landfill. Maximum concentrations of ammonia An Additional Ecological Investigation Report (a leachate constituent) were also detected adja was completed by the PRPs in 1996. Organic cent to the landfill. . compounds (mainly PAHs), metals, and ammonia were detected in sediments. Compared to the Sediment sampling was conducted in 1991 to previous sampling results by URS in 1995, the determine whether contaminants from the landfill organic compounds were lower, whereas the were entering the adjacent wetlands and streams, metals were at slightly higher concentrations. either from overland through leachate seeps or Ammonia levels in the 1996 samples were higher underground via the Upper Water-bearing Zone. than the levels detected in the 1995 sam- pies, Thirty-six organic compounds (e.g., VOCs, except for a leachate seep southeast of the land PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, PCBs) and 21 fill. This seep location which was sampled only metals were detected in the samples. Bis(2- in 1995, had the highest ammonia concentration * •• ethylhexyl) phthalate and fluoranthene (a PAH) and was found to have a toxic response in the were detected at the highest concentrations for sediment bioassay. organic compounds (3100 parts per billion (ppb) Ground-water monitoring wells were installed and 930 ppb, respectively). An ecological during the OU-2 RI at nine locations to charac reconnaissance, conducted in conjunction with terize ground-water quality at the site. Samples the 1991 sampling, identified less abundant were collected from these 9 wells and 15 exist biological communities in these areas. ing onsite monitoring wells from OU-1. Most of the ground-water wells are located around the A Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report base of the landfill and.in the 6.5-acre extension was completed in 1995. Samples were collected area. In addition, two wells are located upgradi- to determine the potential ecological risk from ent of the site which serve as background wells. sediments at the Site, The number and distribu tion of detected organic compounds and metals were similar to the 1991 results. Distinct chemi The results of the ground water analysis indicat- cal characteristics (i.e., more organic compounds,' ' ed that the UWZ has been impacted by the land significantly higher ammonia concentrations, and fill, and is extensively contaminated with VOCs lower metals concentrations) as well as ecologi (benzene, chlorobenzene, total xylenes), seini- cal effects (i.e., acute toxicity measured through VOCs (n-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis (2-ethylhex- 4-.rv. . . • ' • .OAT'' a sediment bioassay) were reported for sediments ylj phthalate), pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, alpha- collected in a leachate seep located in the wetla and gamma-chlordane and 4, 4’-DDE), PCBs nds southeast of the landfill. (Aroclor-1242,-1248, arid -1254), metals (alumi num, antimoriy, arsenic, beryllium, chromium,
J:35226:WP-.Oper-Untct2(inmXcp)(cp)(cp) 01:08^7:11:10 6 iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and sodium), and ground water does not pose an unacceptable risk inorganic compounds (ammonia and chloride), at to the public. concentrations which exceeded the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Ground-Water At the time that the RI was issued (June 1992), Quality Standards (GWQS). MCLs are federal it was believed that the Hooks Creek Lake well or State standards established to protect drinking collected ground water from the Old Bridge Sand water, and GWQS are State standards to protect aquifer (LWZ). A well log provided by NJDEP aquifers. In contrast, only limited contamination in October 1993 shows the well to be screened has migrated into the lower Old Bridge Sand in the Farrington Sand aquifer, which is separat aquifer (LWZ), which is separated from the ed from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer by clayey UWZ by the (low permeability) Amboy Stone geologic units approximately 130 feet thick. ware Clay, except for the northwest comer of the Based on this information, it is not likely that Site. Sampling results from on-site ground-water contamination from Global Landfill will migrate monitoring for a period of over two years indi to the Hooks Creek Lake well. cate organic and inorganic compounds are re stricted to primarily one of the ten LWZ wells Landfill gases collected in samples at the ground (MW-5D), which is located in the southwest part surface.: contained several VOCs, hydrogen and of the landfill base, suggesting that a hydrogeol mercaptan sulfide, and methane. Ambient con ogic link may exist between the UWZ and the centrations of these compounds reaching tres LWZ. Exceedances of ground-water quality passers and in nearby residential areas were criteria for organics (VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) estimated to meet air quality standards, as deter- • phthalate), metals (aluminum, iron, and manga mined by a computer model of local air flow and nese), and inorganics (ammonia) were all limited pollutants from the landfill. to MW-5D.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISK The landfill does not pose any risk to the public water supply since there are no residential or Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk ‘ ■ x- s •’ . municipal wells downgradient of the landfill. assessment was conducted to estimate the risks Hooks Creek Lake, which is used for recreation, associated with current and future conditions in and its replenishing well are located in Cheeseqr the different media impacted by the Site, The uake State Park, approximately one mile south baseline risk assessment estimates human health east of the landfill. In addition, a health risk and ecological risks which could result from the assessment was conducted and showed that the contamination at the Site if no remedial action
J:3S226:WP:Oper-UnLct2(inmXcpXcpMcp) 01:08:97:11:10 7 were taken. The analysis assists in evaluating sampling at the Global Landfill Site indicate that whether remediation is necessary. surface soil, leachate, ground water, and air have detectable concentrations of a combination of Human Health Risk Assessment VOCs, PAHs, phthalate esters, pesticides, PCBs, metals, and other inorganics. Contaminants A four-step process is utilized for assessing site- detected in subsurface soils were not considered related human health risks for a reasonable in this risk assessment since exposure to this maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identifica medium is not expected in current or future land- tion— identifies the contaminants of concern at use scenarios because the landfill is going to be the different affected media based on several capped and there will be no risk of direct con factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, tact. Surface water and sediment samples were and concentration. Exposure Assessment—esti collected for consideration in the ecological risk mates the magnitude of actual and/or potential assessment and are not considered media of human exposures, the frequency and duration of concern with respect to human health because of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingest low. frequencies of detection, concentration of ing contaminated well-water) by which humans contaminants, and limited exposure frequencies. are potentially exposed, Toxicity Assessment— determines the types of adverse health effects To evaluate human health risks in the quantita associated with chemical exposures, and the rela- tive assessment, the following seven (7) exposure tionship between magnitude of exposure (dose) pathways were selected for detailed evaluation and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk under current land-use conditions: (1) ingestion Characterization—summarizes and combines out of soil; (2) dermal contact with soil; (3) inhala puts of the exposure and toxicity assessments to tion of fugitive dust; (4) ingestion of ground provide a quantitative (® S-» one-in-a-million water; (5) dermal contact with Hooks Creek excess cancer risk) assessment of the risks to Lake surface water (Hooks Creek Lake is replen human health from the contaminated media. An ished by a supply well); (6) dermal contact with evaluation of the uncertainty surrounding the leachate seeps; and (7) inhalation of airborne ,• r quantitative estimate is useful for making risk chemicals. With the exception, of the inhalation management decisions. pathways, exposure doses were based on con taminant concentrations occurring at the Site. The baseline risk assessment began with select Exposure concentrations for the inhalation path ing contaminants of concern which would .be ways were determined based upon monitoring representative of Site risks. Results from the RI data as well as analytical models. The risk assessment evaluated exposures to teenage
J:33226:WP.Oper-Untct2(mmXcpXcpXcp) ' 01:08:97:11:10 8 trespassers who may come on the Site, adults mated to be 0.9. Dermal contact with leachate and children residing in nearby apartment com was the major contributing pathway, with a plexes, and adults and children swimming in Hazard Index of 0.5 (well below the Federal Hooks Creek Lake. Combined total risk was guideline of 1.0 for maximum acceptable expo determined for the three age groups of receptors sure). The subchronic or short-term Hazard (i.e., children, teenagers, and adults), Index of 0.7 was below the acceptable exposure
t . limit of 1.0 for children. On the basis of current and future land-use information, residential development of areas It should be noted that when the Health Risk adjacent to the site is possible. The first ROD1 Assessment was performed for the RI, it was be included source control measures that will miti lieved that the Hooks Creek Lake well collected gate risk in the future land-use scenario in rela ground water from the Old Bridge Sand aquifer tion to the landfill itself. (LWZ). It was subsequently determined that the well is screened in the deeper Farrington Sand Current federal guidelines for acceptable expo aquifer, With no direct pathway for contamina sures are an individual lifetime excess carcino tion from Global Landfill to migrate to the genic risk in the range of 10"4 tb 10"6 (e g., a Hooks Creek Lake well. Therefore, the overall one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess health risks associated with the Site would be cancer risk) and a maximum health Hazard Index smaller, Additionally, the human health risk will (which reflects noncarcinogenie effects for a be reduced by implementing the ROD for OUL human receptor) equal to 1.0. (A Hazard Index Capping the landfill will, over time, effectively greater than 1,0 indicates a potential of noncar- reduce the groundwater level in the area thereby cinogenic health effects.) reducing the downward movement, of water which previously may have allowed contamina Results of the, baseline risk assessment indicate tion to reach the Old Bridge Sand aquifer. that the media at the Site, i.e. soil, ground water, Leachate collection will reduce surface water and leachate and airborne contaminants fall within sediment contamination. EPA’s acceptable risk range. The carcinogenic risks to children, teenagers, and adults were Ecological Risk Assessment estimated to be l x 10rT, 3 x 1CT3, and 2 x Iff7, respectively. Under the direction of the NJDEP and EPA, an assessment was: performed by URS in 1995 to The total chronic Hazard Index, which measures determine whether the ecological risk from site- long-term noncancer risk for the site, was esti related contaminants detected in estuarine sedi
J:35226:WPtOper-Unlct2(mmXcpXcpXcp) 01:08:97:11:10 9 ‘ ments or shallow ground water near the landfill ening values (National Oceanic and Atmospheric is significant enough to consider remediation. Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum Also, an additional Ecological Investigation was NOS OMA 52); (2) results of whole-sediment conducted by Golder Associates for the PRPs in laboratory bioassays; and (3) estimation, of 1996 to further assess the potential for site potential effects through the food-chain transfer related adverse ecological impacts on adjacent route, based on contaminant concentrations in wetlands, and to confirm the findings of the fiddler crab tissue. 1995 URS study. Acute toxicity was measured through a bioassay A four-step process, very similar to that used in of five sediment samples collected for the URS human health assessment, was utilized for assess assessment in 1995, and seven sediment samples ing Site-related ecolbjgical risks: Problem Formu collected for the Golder Associates assessment in lation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant 1996. Most of the sampling locations were on release, migration, and fate; identification of con the east side of the landfill where there are taminants of concern, receptors, exposure path known leachate seeps. Laboratory toxicity tests ways, and known ecological effects of the con using sediment from the leachate seep area on taminants; and selection of endpoints for further the southeast side of the landfill resulted in acute study. Exposure Assessment - a quantitative toxicity, measured by zero survivability of two evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and species of test organism (amphipod marine scuds fate; characterization of exposure pathways and and polychaete sand worms; their scientific receptors; and measurement of estimation of names aie Ampelisca abdita and Neanthes arena- exposure point concentrations. Ecological ceodentata respectively). Ammonia, which was Effects Assessment - literature reviews, field detected in 1991 leachate samples and is known studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant to be toxic to aquatic organisms, was also detect concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. ed in the 1995 leachate seep test samples at Risk Characterization - measurement or estima concentrations one order of magnitude above tion of both current and future adverse effects. background levels^ There was gootf survivability in sediments collected from the other four 1995 The following parameters were used to assess the test locations, and from the seven 1996 test ecological significance of sediment and shallow samples, namely, greater than 80 percent in 1995 ground-water contamination at the Global Land and greater than 90 percent in 1996. fill Site: (1) comparison of contaminant concen trations in sediments to ecologically-based scre Chronic toxicity was assessed through an itera tive process. It was assumed that chemicals
J:35226: WP:Opef-Untct2(mmXcpKcpXcp) 01:08:97:11:10 10 4
identified in the background sediment sample ground water. The first ROD includes leachate occur at concentrations representative of the control measures that will mitigate future adverse entire Cheesequake Marsh. The concentrations effects, of chemicals detected in the other four samples were compared to the background sample as well Actual or threatened releases of hazardous sub- as to applicable ecologically based screening stances from this Site, if not addressed by the values, in order to identify - contaminants of preferred alternatives or one of, the other active concern. In general, measured concentrations of measures considered, may present* a current or contaminants in sediments only moderately potential threat to public health, welfare or the exceeded screening guidelines. environment.
/' • • " • • • Chronic toxicity was estimated for sediments that SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION exceeded sediment, criteria, using a quantitative hazard quotient approach, for representative _ This is the second of two operable units, Or mammalian and avian receptors (muskrat, rac- remedial actions, planned for the Site. The first coon, and cattle egret, respectively). Contami- remedial action, selected in the September 1991 nants were .measured in crab tissues at three ROD, included capping the landfill, and the .1994 locations: at the landfill, downgradient of institution of dn-site controls for landfill gases, the landfill, and at the background location. The leachate, and slope stabilization. This operable exposure pathway was ingestion of plant and unit (OU-2) addresses existing and potential animal tissue. Crab tissue concentrations were problems related to contaminated ground water used directly as animal tissue exposure point and* sediments, the two principal threats to concentrations. Sediment concentrations were human health and the environment posed by the basis of calculating plant tissue contaminant hazardous substances migrating from the landfill, concentrations. While the LWZ (a drinking water aquifer) poses Results of the ecological risk assessment indicate no risk to human health at the present time, that contaminated sediments in the immediate < limited exceedences in MCLs in one well sug- vicinity of the landfill pose an acute risk to gest a potential future threat to this drinking benthic invertebrates that are in direct contact water aquifer is possible.. Therefore, the more with leachate contaminated sediments. Ammo- contaminate UWZ needs to be monitored along nia, a leachate constituent, has been identified as with the LWZ, to insure that the landfill cap the primary cause of the acute toxicity. There (OU-1 remedial action) will, over time, effec- are no measurable risks caused by. shallow tively reduce the ground water level in the area,
i J:35226:WP:Oper-Untct2(mmXcpXcpMqi) 01:08:97:11:10 11 and thus reduce the downward movement of CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy v water which previously may have allowed con be protective of human health and the environ tamination to reach monitoring well 5D (MW- ment, be cost effective, comply with other statu 5D) in the LWZ: tory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES recovery alternatives to the maximum extent 4- practicable. In addition, the statute includes a Remedial Action Objectives for OU-2 are specif preference for the use of treatment as a principal ic goals to protect human health and the environ element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or ment. ^ volume of the hazardous substances.
The following Remedial Action Objectives were The FS and the addendum to the FS reports established for the media of interest for 011-7: * evaluated a number of remedial alternatives for addressing the ground-water and sediment con (1) Protect the potable Old Bridge Sand aquifer tamination at the Global Landfill Site. Two of (LWZ) from contamination present in the these remedial alternatives, No Action and Upper Water-bearing Zone (UWZ); Limited Action, were addressed on a site-wide basis (ref. Addendum to Final FS Report). No (2) Protect the wetlands from contamination Action and Limited Action, were the only reme present in the Upper Water-bearing Zone dial action alternatives developed for ground (UWZ); and water, based on the health and ecological risk assessments that showed there is no immediate (3) Prevent adverse ecological impacts from risk to the drinking water aquifer. For clarity contaminated wetland sediments. and a better understanding of this Proposed Plan, the various FS alternatives have been reduced to The above objectives were addressed in part by six alternatives, as follows: two alternatives the remedial actions selected in the first ROD (a address ground-water contamination, (no action landfill cap, and a leachate collection and treat and limited action); four alternatives address ment system). The second ROD, the subjdct of sediment contamination (no action, limited this Proposed Plan, addresses all three remedial action, and two removal/disposal options). objectives with respect to ground water and sediments. Periodic ground-water monitoring associated with the OU-1 landfill closure would include a series SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES of new and existing wells located around the
J:33226:WP-.Opef-Untct2(mmXcpKcpHcp) 01:08:97:11:10 12 0
f
landfill perimeter that would be uspd to deter designated for contaminated sediments left on mine the landfill’s impact on the wetlands and site. The DER would serve to notify the public the Upper Water-bearing Zone. The wells on the of statutory and regulatory requirements which north side of the landfill would provide back impose restrictions upon the use of the Site. The ground information, whereas the wells on the DER would require the property owner’s con- remaining three sides would be used, to monitor , currence. All the above mentioned regulations- the quality of ground water migrating from the CEA, WRA, DER - are state laws which will be site, Monitoring of the ecological receptors of implemented mid enforced by NJDEP. the Cheesequake Watershed in the vicinity of the landfill would include biological tissue analysis, GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES chronic bioassays, and chemical analysis on sediments. Alternative GW-1: No Action
♦ *
The estimated capital1 cost, operation and mainte Estimated Capital Cost: None ; nance (O&M) cost, and net present worth cost Estimated O & M Cost every 5 years: $30,000 for each alternative discussed below are provided Estimated Present Worth Cost: $65,000 for comparison. The estimated construction Construction Time: None
timeframes do not include the time to procure v ... • contracts, negotiate with potentially responsible The Superfund program requires that a "No parties, nor the time needed to perform the Action" alternative be considered as a baseline design work, which would vary depending on the for comparison of other alternatives. Under this alternative. alternative,'no further action would, be taken to address ground-water contamination at the Site. Because all of the following alternatives would No environmental monitoring activities would be result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERC- performed other than five-year reviews to deter LA requires that the site be reviewed at least mine. if ground-water contamination has spread. every five years to assure -that the remedies A Classification Exception Area (CEA) would be selected continue to be protective of human established at the site to restrict ground-water use health and the environment In addition, NJDEP of the UWZ. The CEA shall also act as a Well would require that a Classification Exception Restriction Area (WRA). The present worth cost Area (CEA) be designated for the Upper Water estimate above reflects the cost to perform six 5- bearing Zone. The CEA will also act as a Well year reviews over a 30-year period. Restriction Area (WRA). A Declaration of Environmental Restriction (DER) would be Alternative GW-2: Limited Action
J:35226:WP;Oper-Untct2(mmKcpX
l ing water aquifer) is being impacted and whether Estimated Capital Cost: $30,000 further action needs to be taken. Ground-water Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $120,000 use for the UWZ would be restricted by desig Estimated Present Worth Cost: $522,000 (5 years) nating the site a Classification Exception Area $1,520,000 (30 years) (CEA) which shall also act. as a Well Restriction Estimated Construction Time: One Month Area (WRA). This alternative also includes five Estimated Implementation Time: 5 to 30 Years year reviews. The need for ground-water reme dial action would be re-examined at these 5-year As part of the Ground-Water Limited Action intervals. Although it is possible to decrease the alternative, ground-water quality would be tested sampling frequency after the 5-year reviews, the on a quarterly basis over a period of 5 to 30 cost estimate conservatively assumes quarterly years using new and existing on-site wells to sampling over a 30-year period, and four new monitor whether attenuation of contaminants, in wells are included for possible replacement of both the UWZ and LWZ actually occurs. Under the existing ones oyer time. OU-1, the landfill will be capped thereby reduc ing the ground-water level under the Site and SEDIMENT ALTERNATIVES thus reducing the downward mbvement of water which previously may have allowed contamina Alternative SD-1: No Action. tion to reach the LWZ. Ground-water monitor ing would serve a dual purpose since it is also Estimated Capital Cost: None required for OU-1. A detailed ground-water One 5-Year Review: $49,000 monitoring system was not stipulated in the first Estimated Present Worth Cost: $35,000 ROD, recognizing that additional/ remedial Estimated Construction Time: None actions would likely be taken as part of OU-2, at which time a more effective monitoring system Under this alternative, no further action would be could be put in place, which would fulfill the taken to address sediment contamination in needs of the entire site. Under Alternative GW- wetlands at the Site. No environmental monitor? 2, ground-water test wells would be used to ing activities would be performed other than a monitor the change in contaminant levels in the five-year review to determine if contamination in UWZ after the landfill cap is in place. In addi the wetlands has spread. A DER would be tion, the monitoring system would track the established to prevent exposure to contaminants contaminants in the LWZ. The information left on-site. The present worth cost estimate gathered by this monitoring system would be above reflects the cost to perform one five-year used to determine if the LWZ (which is a drink review.
J:35226:WP:Oper-Uiitct2(mmXcpXcpXcp) 01:08:97:11:10 14 Alternative SD-2: Limited Action volume of contaminated sediments to be excavat ed (while minimizing the loss of valuable wetla Estimated Capital Cost: None nds) will be determined during the remedial Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000 design. The volume will be determined by the Estimated Present Worth Cost: $201,000 area of visibly stained non-vegetative sediment to Estimated Construction Time: None a depth necessary to reestablish pew wetland Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years. vegetation. Standard excavation or dredging methods would be utilized. Once removed, sedi The Sediments Limited Action alternative would ments would be dewatered and placed on the consist of an annual sediment monitoring pro landfill prior to the installation of the landfill gram using ecological screening values previous-, cap. The excavated area would be backfilled, ly developed by NJDEP and EPA. This moni graded and revegetated, and sediment control toring program would track environmental condi measures would be taken to prevent future tions over a five-year period in the wetlands erosion and regenerate affected wetlands. During adjacent to the landfill. A DER would be estab the design phase, a post-remediation monitoring lished for the affected sediment area. program will be developed in conjunction with NJDEP and EPA which will include an ecologi Alternative SD-3: Sediment Removal and cal sampling program similar to that performed Disposal during the remedial investigations. In addition to the required review after five years, monitoring Alternative SD-3 A: Localized Removal and On will be performed annually for five years after site Consolidation Under the Landfill Can the remedies for both operable units are in place. The results of this ecological monitoring program.. Estimated Capital Cost: $622,000 will be considered in determining the effective Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000 ness of the remedies in protecting the wetlands Estimated Present Worth Cost: $823,000 and aquatic systems surrounding the Site. A Estimated Construction Time: 1-2 Years DER to be established for the landfill would also Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years prevent exposure to the contaminated sediments placed on the landfill. This alternative provides for the removal of up to an estimated 5000 cubic yards of contaminated Alternative SD-3B: Localized Removal and Off- A; wetland sediments that may be affected by the site Disposal leachate seep area adjacent to the southeast side of the landfill. The precise delineation and Estimated Capital Cost: $1,142,000
J:3J226:WP:Oper-Untct2(nmiKcpXcp)(cp) 01:08:97:11:10 15 Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $49,000 trolled through treatment, engineering con Estimated Present Worth Cost: $1,343,000 trols, or institutional controls. Estimated Construction Time: 6 Months Estimated Implementation Time: 5 Years • Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARsj addresses This alternative is identical to Alternative SD-3A whether or not a remedy will meet all of the in terms of sediment removal and dewatering. applicable or relevant and appropriate re However, the stockpiled sediments would be quirements of other federal and state envi transported off-site to an approved hazardous ronmental statutes and requirements or pro waste facility. Wetland mitigation and post vide grounds for invoking a waiver. remediation monitoring and five-year review would be the same as under Alternative SD-3A. • Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met. During the detailed evaluation of remedial alter natives, each alternative is assessed against nine • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume evaluation criteria, namely, overall protection of through treatment is the anticipated perfor human health and the environment, compliance mance of the treatment technologies a reme with applicable or relevant and appropriate dy may employ. requirements, long-term effectiveness and perma nence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume, • Short-term effectiveness addresses the period short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, of time needed to achieve protection and any agency support, and community acceptance. adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the The evaluation criteria are described below. construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved. • Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a • Implementability is the technical and admin remedy provides adequate protection and istrative feasibility of a remedy , including the describes how risks posed through each availability of materials and services, needed pathway are eliminated, reduced, or con to implement a particular option.
J:35226:WP:Oper-UnLct2(mmKcpXcpXcp) 01:08:97:11:10 16 • Cost ihcludes estimated capital and operation taminants in the ground water. As explained be and maintenance costs, and net present worth fore, ground water does not, at present, pose any costs. risk to human health or the environment, based oh the human health risk and ecological assess • Agency support indicates whether, based on ments. Should there be. any change in this its review of the RI/FS reports and Proposed situation, the monitoring program under Alterna Plait, EPA concurs, opposes, dr has no com tive GW-2 would be most effective in tracking ment on the preferred alternatives. any such trend.
r Community acceptance will be assessed in * Compliance With ARARs the Record Of Decision (ROD) following a review of the public comments received on The three types,of Applicable or Relevant and the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan: Appropriate Regulations (ARARs) used through out this evaluation include chemical-specific The two categories of contaminated media (i.e., ARARs which are the criteria used in meeting ground water arid sediment) are evaluated sepa water quality standards; location-specific ARARs rately utilizing the above criteria. A discussion which restrict activities because they are located of these evaluations is presented below. within sensitive areas such as wetlands or flood- plains; and action-specific ARARs which are part GROUND WATER REMEDIATION ALTER of the remedial action such as discharge criteria NATIVES for ground water.
A comparison of the groundwater remediation Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would not be in alternatives follows: . compliance with the chemical-specific ARARs determined for . the Site ground water, except ' Overall Protection of Human Health and th«». through natural attenuation. While GW-1 and Environment GW-2 both rely on natural attenuation for im provement, the Limited Action alternative (GW- Alternative GW-1 (No Action) would provide ^ 2) is pro-active in that it can detect potential limited protection by the inclusion of a CEA to problems with the cap or in the UWZ which can the potential for future exposure to contaminated he corrected before it impacts the natural attenu ground water. Alternative GW-2 (Limited ation process for the LWZ and the attainment of Action) would provide added protection of ARARs. There are no location-or action-specif human health by monitoring the levels of con- ic ARARs for these two alternatives. \ - ■ J:35226:WP;Opef-Uiitct2(nimXcpMcpMcp) 01:08:97:11:10 17 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence have minimal short-term impacts associated with the installation and sampling Of monitoring Alternative GW-1 would be minimally effective wells; however, these can be minimized through in protecting human health and the environment proper engineering controls and monitoring tech from any future risk associated with the potential niques. contamination of the LWZ aquifer by restricting the UWZ with a CEA. Alternative GW-2 • Implementabilitv would be. consistent with the long-term effective ness goals for the Site by providing periodic Both alternatives are implementable from an monitoring and a CEA on ground water use. engineering perspective. Each alternative utilizes This level of monitoring would act like an early- commercially available products, monitoring warning system alerting the Agencies to immedi techniques, and services. The technical and ate changes in the conditions of the ground- administrative feasibility of implementing Alter water. Conversely, the 5-year review under natives GW-1 and GW-2 are minimal. Alternative GW-1 can only document conditions years after the fact. The ground-water monitor • Cost ing programs would be used to reexamine the need for ground-water remediation on a timely The estimated present worth costs for the ground basis should that prove, necessary. -water alternatives are $65,000 for Alternative GW-1 (No Action), and $1,520,000 for Alterna * Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume tive GW-2 (Limited Action)for a SO^year period. For the first five years, the respective costs Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would not, by would be $22,000 and $522,000. themselves, decrease the toxicity,, mobility or volume of contamination in ground water from Agency Support the UWZ. However, Alternative GW-2 would more rigorously monitor the expected improve EPA concurs with the preferred ground-water ment in these parameters as a result of imple alternative presented in this Proposed Plan. menting OU-1.
i • Community Acceptance • Short-Term Effectiveness Community acceptance of the preferred alterna Alternative GW-1 would not have any adverse tive will be assessed in the ROD following short-term impacts. Alternative GW-2 would
J:35226:WROper-Untct2(mmXcpXcp)(cp) 01:08:97:11:10 18 review of the public comments received on the primary risk drivers. The leachate discharge will RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan. cease subsequent to the implementation of the OU1 remedy (leachate collection system). SEDIMENT REMEDIATION ALTERNA Therefore, excavation will be limited to those TIVES areas of visibly stained, non-vegetated sediment directly adjacent to the leachate seep. This will A comparative analysis of the sediment remediat ensure removal of sediments containing the ion alternatives follows: . highest concentrations of contaminants while minimizing impacts to adjacent vegetated wetla nds and will facilitate the revegetation of barren areas.
Overall Protection of Human Health and’the The site is not within the coastal zone as defined Environment by the State of New Jersey, and the OU-2 project area is not sensitive to die discovery of cultural Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2 would provide resources. However, the sediment remediation limited protection from exposure to the contami will be designed andconstnicted tp minimize the nants by establishing a DER for the contam disturbance of areas identified as wetlands and to inated sediments left on-site. Alternatives SD-. comply with the requirements of Executive Order 3 A and SD-3B provide the most direct protection No. 11990 for the Protection of Wetlands and to human health and to the environment, through the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. The localized removal and either on-site or off-site requirements of Executive Order No. 11990 will disposal. be adhered to in the restoration of the excavated area to the best extent possible. Before begin • Compliance With ARARs ning remedial activities, an assessment of the remediation in the wedand area would be per There are no chemical-specific ARARs for formed to determine the potential impact. sediment, .however, based on the results of the ecological risk assessments; sediments directly • Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence adjacent to the leachate seep on the southeast side of the landfill appear to pose a risk to Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2 would afford limited ecological receptors. From an ecological per environmental protection by the establishment of spective, leachate constituents appear to be the a DER for the contaminated sediments left on site. Alternatives SD-3A and SD-3B would per-
J:35226:WPtOper-Untct2(!nmXcpXcp)(cp) ' 01:08:97:11:10 ■ 19 manently remove contaminated sediments from Risks under Alternative SD-3A would be limited affected wetlands, although both alternatives to the site during the brief construction-related would require a five-year review and monitoring activity whereas the potential for risks beyond program to confirm their effectiveness. the site boundary increases during the transpor tation phase of off-site disposal under Alternative • Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume SD-3B. However, these risks would be mini mized through appropriate engineering controls, Waste remains on-site under Alternatives SD-1, a comprehensive site health and safety plan, and SD-2 and SD-3A; thus there is no reduction in a site-specific contaminant monitoring program. toxicity or volume. However, the mobility of the contaminants is significantly reduced by placing • Implementabilitv the material on the landfill which will then be capped (Alternative SD-3A). Waste would* be There would not be any significant technical and transferred off-site to a licensed hazardous waste administrative problems associated with imple facility under Alternative SD-3B; this would menting the review and monitoring programs likely result in reductions in toxicity, mobility or under Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2. Both SD-3A volume, based on the treatment and disposal and SD-3B would have to be carefully scheduled methods used by the regulated off-site facility. to allow contaminated sediments to be disposed in the landfill before the cap construction is • Short-Term Effectiveness completed. Off-site disposal (Alternative SD-3B) would require compliance with the procedures Alternatives SD-1 and SD-2 would not have any and regulations which govern transportation and short-term effects. Alternatives SD-3A and SD- the receiving hazardous waste facility, 3B would result in .some unavoidable damage to wetlands during the removal of contaminated • Cost sediments. Excavation, transport, and disposal of collected sediments could result in short-term The estimated present worth costs for the sedi risks to workers. However, these risks would be ment alternatives range from $35,000 for Alter minimized through appropriate engineering native SD-1 (No Action) to $1,343,000 for controls, a comprehensive site health and safety Alternative SD-3B (Removal and Off-site Dis plan, and a site-specific contaminant monitoring posal). program, .. • Agency Support
J:3S226:WP:Opef-Uut.ct2(mmXcpXcp)(cp) - 01:08:97:11:10 20 EPA concurs with the preferred sediment remedi any threats to human health or the environment. ation alternative presented in this Proposed Plan. The estimated present worth cost is $1,520,000 for 30 years of ground-water monitoring. * .( • Community Acceptance The preferred alternative for sediments, SD-3A, Community acceptance of the preferred alterna provides for localized removal of contaminated tive will be assessed in the ROD following sediments and on-site disposal under the landfill review of the public comments received on the cap, restoration of the excavated area, and miti . RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan. gation of any. wetland impacted by the remedy. This, alternative also includes a long-term moni preferred alternative toring program for wetlands and aquatic systems r ' potentially affected by site-related contamination, Based upon the results of the RI/FS reports; arid and the establishment of a Declaration of Envi after careful consideration of the remedial alter ronmental Restriction (DER). Alternative SD- natives, NJDEP and EPA have preliminarily 3A is the lowest cost alternative (estimated selected Alternatives GW-2 (Limited Action) and present worth cost of $823,000) which satisfies SD-3A (Localized Removal of Contaminated the remedial action objectives for on-site' wetlan- Sediments With On-site Consolidation Under the , ds. For cost estimating purposes, the volume of Landfill Cap). These preferred alternatives sediments was assumed to be 5,000 cy; the provide the best balance among the remedial actual quantity of contaminated sediments to be alternatives considered with respect to, the evalu removed will be determined more accurately ation criteria. The RI/FS reports should be during the design phase. consulted for more detailed information on the remedial alternatives. In summary, the preferred alternatives are be lieved to provide the best balance of trade-offs The preferred remedial alternative for ground among the alternatives with respect to the criteria water, GW-2, consists of ground water quality used to evaluate alternatives. Therefore, based monitoring over a 30 year period, and includes on information available at this time, NJDEP and a review of the need for further action (e.g. EPA believe the preferred alternatives would ground-water extraction, treatment, and disposal> provide overall protection of human health and at 5-year intervals and the establishment dLa ' " the environment, and would be cost-effective. Classification Exception Area (CEA) at the site. This alternative would ensure that contamination in the Upper Water-bearing Zone does not pose
J:35226:WP:Opef-UnLct2(nimXcpXcpKcp) 01:08:97:11:10 21 A 4 0 4 4 consultants URS
inc . SCALE SITE
LOCATION
MAP (5) © (5) © ©
NIEUW PARKWOOD LONDON OAK SKY
TOP TREE
AMSTERDAM
TERRACE
FIGURE
APTS. VILLAGE VILLAGE
APTS.
APTS. APTS.
1-1
AC-9935A ______J:\35226.70\CAD\ 1=400 7/15/96-5 ETM CONSULTANTS. Vffrs *> URS
(
— — £ LEGEND
INC. -
GENERAL DURING (ACTUAL EXISTING WETLAND DITCH ACCESS L \s5? r=^71
DESIGN)
ROAD
LIMITS CONTOURS AREA
OF TO
SEDIMENT BE
DETERMINED SITE
REMEDIATION
PLAN
400 SCALE POND LEACHATE UNFINISHED
IN FIGURE
FEET
400 1-2 Community Relations Program
■ \ i ■ ■ Superfund Site Activities
As part of the state/federal cleanup program at Superfund contaminated sites, a Community Relations Program is conducted to advise local residents and officials about planned actions at major stages of a cleanup project and to receive comments from them. Local briefings and/or public meetings, conducted with elected officials and residents, generally occur at the following times: • ' , 1) The start of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to address concerns of local residents and officials early in the process.
2) The completion of a Proposed Plan which describes the results of an RI/FS and a preferred alternative for remediation. This meeting takes place within a 30-day comment period on the Proposed Plan during which the RI/FS and related documents are available , for review in local repositories, usually a public library and/or a municipal building.
3) Prior to the start of cleanup actions (physical treatment/stabilization/removal) to inform local residents and officials of expected activities.
In addition to the activities outlined above, there is ongoing communication with local officials and residents as needed. Depending on whether the New Jersey Department of Environmen tal Protection (DEP) or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency in conducting remedial actions at a site, the Community Relations Program is con ducted by DEP or EPA. Comments from the public are.welcome throughout the Superfund process.
In New Jersey, DEP's community relations staff in the Site Remediation Program is headed by Donald Kakas, (609) 984-3081. At EPA, Region II, the Chief of the Community Relations Branch is Lillian Johnson, (212) 637-3665.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Site Remediation Program (609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations
2/96 Printed on recycled paper Major Stages in a Superfund Site Cleanup
1.) Site Identified, Assessed and Prioritized
2.) Determination of Lead Agency (State:NJDEP or Federal:USEPA)
3.) Community Relations Plan Activated
4.) Remedial Investigation (Public Meeting Held)
5.) Feasibility Study J
6.) Proposed Plan for Remedial Action (Public Meeting Held) ^7
(7.) Selection of Remedial Action Alternative (Formal Record of Decision)
8.) Engineering Design 3
9.) Cleanup Action (Public Meeting/Briefing Held) 4.
10.) Cleanup Evaluation 3 c T 11.) Operation and Maintenance 3 nU
12.) Site Deleted from Superfund National Priorities List r Public Meeting Evaluation
Please Print
Date:: Meeting Topic (Site): ' (Optional) Name/Affiliation:
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is very interested in what you thought of this meeting so that we can continue to improve future meetings. Please complete this survey before leaving to help us in this effort.
1. How did you hear of this meeting?
__Newspaper Television Posted Notice ____ Other ____ Radio Mailed Notice Word of Mouth
2. Please respond to the following statements using a scale from 1*5, where:
1 = agree strongly 2 = agree moderately 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = disagree moderately 5 = disagree strongly
a. Agency representatives spoke clearly and were easily heard. ____ _ b. Technical aspects were presented in a way I could understand. ____ c. Graphics used were visually clear and understandable. ____ d. Agency representatives clearly explained their actions and plans. ____ e. I had adequate opportunity to talk with agency representatives either during the meeting or privately before or after the meeting. ____ f. My concerns were expressed to Agency representatives either by me or others during this meeting. ____ g. I felt “understood” by agency representatives. ____ h. Agency representatives seemed interested in the opinions and questions of those outside of the agency. ____ i. Agency representatives responded adequately to the questions. ____ j. I understand the issues covered in this meeting. ____ k. I gained better appreciation of the dilemmas to be confronted. ____ l. I feel a need for more meetings. ____ (over) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Site Remediation Program ______(609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations
Printed on recycled paper 3. The thing I liked most about this meeting was:
4. The thing I liked least about this meeting was:
5. Can you suggest ways this meeting could have been improved?
6. Other comments, questions and concerns(if you have questions and want a response, please leave your name and phone number here):
Please leave this form, filled out at the public meeting reception table or mail to:
Bureau of Community Relations New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection CN 413 Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
Thanks to Rutgers University Environmental Communication Research Program (copyright 1988)