I SDMS Document
103078
FINAL SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT EMMELL'S SEPTIC LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY Work Assignment No. 135-RICO-02JW May 30, 2007
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 290 BroadAvay ii New York, New York 10007-1866
Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation 125 Maiden Lane, 5* Floor New York, New York 10038
EPA Work Assignment No. 135-RICO-02JW EPA Region 2 Contract No. 68-W-98-210 CDM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. : 3223-135-RA-ECRA-06698 Prepared by : CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION Site Manager Demetrios Klerides, P.E. Telephone Number (212) 785-9123 EPA Remedial Project Manager Joseph Gowers Telephone Number (212) 637-4413 Date Prepared May 30, 2007 P I 300598 Rantan Plaza I Raritan Center Edison, New Jersey 08818-3142 tel: 732 225-7000 fax: 732 225-6147 May 30, 2007
Mr. Joseph Gowers Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway - 20* Floor . New York, NY 10007-1866
PROJECT: RAC II Contiact No.: 68-W-98-210 Work Assignment No.: 135-RICO-02JW
DOC CONTROL NO.: 3223-135-RA-ECRA-06698
SUBJECT: Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Superfund Site Remedial Investiagation/Feasibility Study Galloway Township, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Gowers: ii CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) is pleased to submit seven bound and one lurbound copies of the Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment for the Emmell's Septic Landfill Superfund Site in. Galloway Township, New Jersey, as partial fulfillment of Subtask No. 7.2 of the Statement of Work.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Demetiios Klerides at or me at (212) 785-9123.
Very truly yours,
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
Jeanne Litwin, REM RAC II Program Manager
Enclosure cc: F. Rosado, EPA Region II (Letter Only) D. Butler, EPA Region II (Letter Only) R. Goltz/PSO File, CDM D. Klerides, CDM J. Mayo, CDM N. Luke, CDM f RAC II Document Contiol 300599
I consulting • engineering • construction • operations or r
300600 Contents
Section 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Objectives 1-1 f 1.2 Report Organization 1-2
Section 2 Problem Formulation 2-1 2.1 Environmental Setting 2-1 2.1.1 Site Location and Description 2-1 2.1.2 Site History 2-1 2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 2-2 2.1.4 Habitat and Biota .2-3 2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments 2-3 2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 2-4 2.2.1 Surface Soil Sampling 2-4 2.2.2 Background 2-5 2.3 Risk Questions 2-5 2.4 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 2-6 2.4.1 Sources of Contamination 2-6 2.4.2 Exposure Pathways 2-6 2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints 2-7 2.5 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 2-8
Section 3 Exposure Assessment 3-1 3.1 Chemical Properties of COPCs 3-1 » 3.1.1 Bioavailability 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Persistence 3-2
Section 4 Ecological Effects Assessment 4-1 4.1 Literature-Based Effects Data 4-1 4.2 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data 4-1
Section 5 Risk Characterization 5-1 5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach 5-1 5.2 HQ-based Risk Estimates 5-1 5.3 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data 5-2 5.4 Approach of Evaluations 5-2 5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern 5-2 5.5.1 Aluminum 5-6 5.5.1.1 Fate and Transport 5-6 5.5.1.2 Toxicity 5-6 5.5.2 Aroclor 1254 5-7 5.5.2.1 Fate and Transport 5-7 5.5.2.2 Toxicity 5-7 5.5.3 Barium 5-8 5.5.3.1 Fate and Transport 5-8 5.5.3.2 Toxicity 5-8
f CDM Final SLERA I 300601 Table of Contents Final SLERA
5.5.4 Benz;aldehyde 5-8 5.5.4.1 Fate and Transport 5-8 r 5.5.4.2 Toxicity 5-9 5.5.5 Cadmium 5-9 5.5.5.1 Fate and Transport 5-9 5.5.5.2 Toxicity 5-9 5.5.6 Chromium 5-10 5.5.6.1 Fate and Transport 5-10 5.5.6.2 Toxicity 5-10 5.5.7 Cyanide 5-11 5.5.7.1 Fate and Transport 5-11 5.5.7.2 Toxicity 5-11 5.5.8 Iron 5-12 5.5.8.1 Fate and Transport 5-12 5.5.8.2 Toxicity 5-12 5.5.9 Lead 5-13 5.5.9.1 Fate and Transport 5-13 5.5.9.2 Toxicity 5-13 5.5.10 Mercury 5-14 5.5.10.1 Fate and Transport 5-14 5.5.10.2 Toxicity 5-14 5.5.11 Seleruum 5-14 5.5.11.1 Fate and Transport 5-14 5.5.11.2 Toxicity 5-15 5.5.12 Silver 5-15 5.5.12.1 Fate and Transport 5-15 5.5.12.2 Toxicity 5-16 5.5.13 Vanadium 5-16 5.5.13.1 Fate and Transport 5-16 5.5.13.2 Toxicity 5-16 5.5.14 Zinc 5-17 5.5.14.1 Fate and Transport 5-17 5.5.14.2 Toxicity 5-18 5.6 Risk Summary 5-18
Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment 6-1 6.1 Problem Formulation 6-1 6.2 Exposure Assessment 6-2 6.3 Effects Assessment 6-2 6.4 Risk Characterization 6-3
Section 7 Summary and Conclusions 7-1
Section 8 Literature Cited 8-1 f CDM I Final SLERA 300 602 Table of Contents Final SLERA
List of Tables 2-1 Dominant Vegetation List f 2-2 Observed Wildlife Species 2-3 Summary of Surface Soil Samples Collected 2-4 Summary of Soil Screening Results 4-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Surface Soil
List of Figures 1-1 Site Location Map 2-1 Site Boundary and Surrounding Habitats 2-2 Location of Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat 2-3 Surface Soil Sampling Locations 2-4 Aroclor 1254 Detections in Surface Soil Samples 2-5 Preliminary Site Conceptual Exposure Model (SCEM)
Appendices Appendix A Letters from tlie United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and tJie Neiv Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Appendix B Analytical Results H Appendix C Data Quality Assessment Report
p CDM I Final SLERA 300603 Table of Contents Final SLERA f Acronyms amsl above mean sea level ACHD Atlantic County Health Department BERA baseline ecological risk assessment bgs below ground surface CCE Churchill Consulting Engineers CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation CEC cation exchange capacity COPC chemical of potential concern CSM conceptual site model DDT dichlorodiphenyl tiichloroethane EC exposure concentiation EcoSSL Ecological Soil Screening Level EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ERT Environmental Response Team ESL ecological screening level FS feasibiUty study HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient kg kilogram » km kilometer MCL maximum contaminant level mg milligram mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter NJ New Jersey NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJGQS New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level NPL National Priorities List PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PRG preliminary remediation goal QAPP quality assurance project plan RAB Removal Action Branch RAC Response Action Contiact RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI remedial investigation RTECS Registiy of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment SMDP Scientific Management Decision Point SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TAL target analyte list P TCL target compound list CDM I Final SLERA 300604 IV Table of Contents Final SLERA
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TOC total organic carbon r USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound
h
f CDM I Final SLERA 3 00605 n % o 9
300606 I Section 1 !» Introduction CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) received Work Assignment Number 135- RICO-02JW under the Option Period Response Action Contiact (RAC) II program to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Emmell's Septic Landfill Superfund Site (the site) located in Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey (NJ). The overall purpose of the work assignment is to investigate the nature and extent of contamination at the site and,to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives, as appropriate. This screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) evaluates the ecological risks at the Emmell's Septic Landfill site.
The site is located in a rural area of Galloway Township, NJ (Figure 1-1). It was historically used for the disposal of septic waste and sewage sludge. Other wastes including chemical waste, drums of paint sludge, gas cylinders, household garbage, and constiuction debris, were also reportedly disposed of at the site.
. The site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) in April 1999, and was placed on the NPL on July 22,1999. The United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency for the site and has primary responsibility for conducting remedial actions there. 1.1 Objectives The objective of this SLERA is to evaluate the potential ecological impact of contaminants at the site. Conservative assumptions were used to identify exposure pathways and, where possible, quantify potential ecological risks. This report.was prepared in accordance with the following documents:
• EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final (ERAGS) (EPA 1997)
• EPA's Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1998)
The SLERA consists of Steps 1 and 2 of the eight step process presented in the EPA Guidance (EPA 1997). In Step 1 of the Guidance, the screening level problem, formulation and ecological effects evaluation, descriptions are developed of: the environmental setting; contaminants known or suspected to exist at the site and the maximum concentiations present in each medium; contaminant fate and tiansport mechanisms that might exist; mechanisms of ecotoxicity associated with contaminants and categories of receptors that may be affected; potentially complete exposure pathways; and screening ecotoxicity values equivalent to chronic no- observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) based on conservative assumptions. In Step 2 of the ERAGS, the screening level preliminary exposure estimate and risk calculations, risk is estimated by comparing maximum documented exposure concentiations with the ecotoxicity screening values identified in Step 1. The process concludes with a Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) at which it is determined that: (1) ecological threats are negligible; (2) the ecological risk r assessment should continue to determine whether a risk exists; or (3) there is a CDM I Final SLERA 3 00607 1-1 I
Section 1 V Introduction potential for adverse ecological effects, and a more detailed baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA), incorporating more site-specific information, is needed. Per EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA 1997), a SMDP will be made by risk managers.
1.2 Report Organization This SLERA is composed of eight sections and three appendices. The follow^ing overview presents the organization of the report and the contents of each section.
Section 1 Intioduction - provides a description of the site and an overview of the objectives and organization of the report.
Section 2 Problem Formulation - presents the environmental setting, nature and extent of contamination, risk questions, conceptual site model (CSM), and the process for selecting chemicals of potential concern (COPCs).
Section 3 Exposure Assessment - presents chemical properties of COPCs, the magnitude and distiibution of COPCs, and describes assessment endpoints and primary routes of exposure.
Section 4 Effects Assessment - presents literature based assessments of the acceptable ("no risk") COPC exposure concentiations (ecological screening levels [ESLsJ) and presents the results of comparisons of COPC concentiations on site to ESLs.
Section 5 Risk Characterization - integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and expands upon discussion of chemical properties of identified COPCs to evaluate risk to representative ecological receptors.
Section 6 Uncertainty Analysis - discusses the uncertainties associated with assumptions utilized in this SLERA.
Section 7 Summary and Conclusions - summarizes the significant findings of the SLERA.
Section 8 References - provides a list of the references cited in this SLERA.
Tables and figures are presented at the end of the text. In addition. Appendix A presents letters received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Natural Heritage Program of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regarding the threatened and endangered species at or in the I vicinity of the site. Appendix B provides analytical results of soil samples used to develop this SLERA. The Data Quality Assessment Report is included in Appendix C. ^ CDM I Final SLERA 300608 1-2 o 9 14
300609 I Section 2 V Problem Formulation The problem formulation for this initial SLERA contains overviews of the environmental setting, nature and extent of contamination, potential sources of contamination, the initial tier of assessment endpoints selected for the initial SLERA, the potential exposure pathways, and the process for identifying COPCs.
2.1 Environmental Setting This subsection describes the site location and history, site geology and hydrogeology, ecological habitat and biota observed, and threatened and endangered species that may occur at or in the vicinity of the site.
2.1.1 Site Location and Description The site covers approximately 38 acres and is located at 128 Zurich Avenue approximately 0.8 mile northwest of Stockton State College, in Galloway Township (Figure 1-1). The site is in the pine barrens and bounded by upland forestal areas and residential properties.
2.1.2 Site History From 1967 to 1979, the site was used for the disposal of septic wastes and sewage sludge, which were reportedly disposed of in tienches and lagoons. Other material including chemical wastes, drums of paint sludge, gas cylinders, household garbage, and constiuction debris were also reportedly disposed of at the site. Based on information provided by the EPA RAB that performed the excavation and removal of contaminated soils from this site, approximately two acres w^ere directly impacted by disposal activities. This area is located in the center of the property, with access through Zurich Avenue. Based on historical aerial photographs, the majority of the historical site activities took place within the excavated area. An additional five acres around the landfill were used as support areas. Maps or drawings depicting the tienches or lagoon areas are not available.
Sampling conducted in 1984 by NJDEP indicated the presence of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site. Also in 1984, the Atlantic County Health Department (ACHD) sampled residential wells in the vicinity of the site. Five of those sampled contained elevated concentiations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Based on the results of the residential well sampling, the ACHD recommended that water from the affected wells not be used for cooking or drinking. The contaminated wells were subsequently closed and replaced with deeper wells.
From 1996 to 1998, NJDEP and consultants for Galloway Township conducted additional investigations at the site. Results for groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed for Galloway Township by Churchill Consulting Engineers (CCE) indicated the presence of VOCs at levels exceeding New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards (NJGQS). Volatile organic compounds were also detected in samples from temporary well points and monitoring wells installed at the
CDM I FinalSLERA 300610 ^-1 I
Section 2 Problem Formulation
V site by NJDEP. A 1997 Expanded Site Inspection Report prepared by NJDEP attiibuted the VOC contamination in closed wells to releases of hazardous substances from the site. Contamination was not detected in the deeper wells.
In 1997 and 1998, EPA's RAB and Environmental Response Team (ERT) conducted soil and groundwater investigations at the site to evaluate potential sources of VOC contamination found in the residential wells. A number of VOCs were detected in soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples, including tiichloroethylene and its associated degradation products and various chlorinated benzene compounds. Metals w^ere also detected in soil and groundwater samples. Waste materials, including paint-like substances, sludge, and drums, were observed in test pit excavations. Concentiations of lead in the paint-like substances exceeded the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limit of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Data from these investigations indicated that the landfill was a continuing source of contaminants, including VOCs, to groundwater.
In May 1999, EPA's RAB collected groundwater samples from 26 residential wells in the vicinity of the site. Results indicated the presence of lead at levels exceeding EPA's Action Level in two residential wells. Methylene chloride exceeded the NJGQS, but w^as below EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL), in one residential well sample. EPA conducted a lead isotope study which concluded that the lead detected in these wells was attributable to household plumbing rather than to site contamination.
A removal action initiated by the EPA in August 1999 confirmed the presence of buried drums, gas cylinders, paint waste, and contaminated soil. During the removal action, the landfiU portion of the site was removed and filled with clean soil.
2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology The site is located within the New Jersey Coastal Plain Physiographic Province . A history of coastal submergence and emergence spanning the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era is reflected in the present day geology of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. The Cretaceous deposits unconformably overlie crystalline and sedimentary basement rocks of Precambrian and Lower Paleozoic age.
The site's shallow subsurface is composed of the Cohansey Sand, which is a fine to coarse grained quartz sand. The sand also contains many lenses of silt and clay of varying lateral extent. These clay layers were encountered on site and may act as local confining units (Roy F. Weston, 1998). Surface water infiltiates into the ground very rapidly because of the sandy soil.
Based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, surface drainage on the site appears to flow in a southerly direction. However, topography in the former disposal area is relatively flat, and there are no defined drainage pathways from the disposal area. The surface elevation across the site ranges from 50 to 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (USGS 1956). The low gradient, absence of ^ CDM I FinalSLERA 300611 ^'^ I
Section 2 V Problem Formulation distinct drainage pathways, and highly permeable sandy soil indicate that contaminant tiansport via surface runoff is unlikely. Infiltiation tests conducted at the site by CDM in connection with design of the interim remedy indicated high infiltiation rates of six to eight inches per hour. A rainfall rate of 3.49 inches per hour is expected to occur at the site at an estimated frequency of once every 100 years.
Groundwater onsite is encountered from 8.5 to 15 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater flow in both the shallow and deep zones of the aquifer is toward the east based on water level measurements conducted during the RI (CDM 2006). The Morses Mill stieam is located approximately 1,200 feet south of the site.
2.1.4 Habitat and Biota During remediation activities in 1999 and 2000, the landfill portion of the site was removed and filled with clean soil. In aerial photographs taken in 2001, this area appears to be barren w^ith a sandy cover (Figure 2 -1). On October 12-13, 2005, an ecological reconnaissance (i.e., site visit for field ecological characterization) was performed at the site in accordance with the CDM Final Work Plan (CDM 2002). For this field characterization, several references were examined: USGS topographic maps; soil survey for Atlantic County, New Jersey; and aerial photos of the site and immediate vicinity.
During the ecological reconnaissance, the remediated area w^as dominated by lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), with eastern red cedar {Juniperus virginianus) and pitch pine {Pinus rigida) beginning to recolonize. The site was surrounded by pine/ oak woodlands, which are characteristic of the pine barrens of New Jersey and associated w^ith sandy, w^ell-dratned soils such as those evident onsite. These soils typically have low pH and organic contents. While there is one small moist area dominated by conmxpn reed {Phragmites australis), its value as a productive wetland is likely to be very limited. Some tiees, such as a sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and aspens (Populus sp.), appear to have been planted near the entiance to the site.
Very little wildlife was observed in and around the site during the site visit in October 2005. The wildlife species identified during the ecological survey are listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Wildlife species expected to use the site are those typical of the New Jersey pine/ oak barrens, including white-tailed deer, raccoon, eastern cottontail and other small mammals; titmice, chickadees, woodpeckers, crows, and hawks; as well as reptiles, such as box turtle, that are typical of dry environments. There was no standing water, nor any evidence of groundwater discharges present on site.
2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments Information about threatened and endangered species and ecologically sensitive environments that may exist at or in the vicinity of the site was requested from the Natural Heritage Program of NJDEP and the USFWS. Letters received from both agencies in reply are presented in Appendix A.
CDM FinalSLERA 300612 2-3 I
Section 2 V Problem Formulation The USFWS indicated that except for an occasional tiansient bald eagle {Haliaeetus leucocephalus), no other federally listed, proposed endangered, or threatened species of flora or fauna under the USFWS jurisdiction are known to occur within the vicinity of the site, although bald eagle foraging habitat occurs approximately 2.4 kilometers (km) to the northeast (Figure 2-2). Suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles was not evident within the site boundary.
A search of the New Jersey State Natural Heritage Program database indicated that habitat may be present at the site for barred owl (Strix varia), coastal plain milk snake {Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum x L. t. elapsoides), eastern box turtle {Terrapene Carolina), eastern kingsnake {Lampropeltis g. getula), and pine barrens tieefrog {Hyla andersonii) (Appendix A). Seven of the property's 38 acres were impacted by remedial activities and consisted of two acres where contaminated materials were excavated and five acres that were used as support areas. Following remediation, habitat within the impacted portion of the site has been dominated by Lespedeza spp, which does not provide suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species and is beginning to infiltiate the surrounding oak/pine woodland. Habitat surrounding the impacted area is expected to be utilized by species typical of the region.
An additional six rare species and habitats (including carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes; Cooper's hawk, Accipiter cooperii; Fowler's toad, Bufo woodhousii fowleri; and red headed woodpecker, Melanerpes erythrocephalus; as weU as colonial waterbird and tern foraging habitat) were listed to occur within 0.25 miles of the site. With the exception of the red-headed woodpecker and Cooper's hawk, these listings are dependent upon the presence of wetlands, w^hich were not evident at the site.
2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination Potential ecological risks due to contamination of surface soil are evaluated in this SLERA. Risks associated with exposure to surface water or sediment are not assessed as these media are not present on site; thus the lack of these habitats at the site. Risks associated with exposure to groundwater are not assessed, because exposure is unlikely or extiemely limited for most ecological receptors.
2.2.1 Surface Soil Sampling Nineteen surface soil (0-1 foot) samples were collected from onsite locations during July and August 2002 (Figure 2-3). Three of these samples (SSOl, SS02, and SS03) were taken from an undisturbed area in the southern portion of the site and represent background samples. Samples were taken in accordance with the Final Addendum to tine Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM 2002). Samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) VOCs, TCL semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), target analyte list (TAL) metals, and cyanide. A summary of sample locations, the rationale for their location, and analyses performed is provided in Table 2-3. Analytical results of surface soil sampling are presented in Appendix B. Data Usability Assessment Report is presented in Appendix C.
CDM FinalSLERA 3 00613 2-4 I
Section 2 V Problem Formulation Volatile organic compounds, SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs, and inorganic substances were all detected at the site. Detection frequency of chemicals are listed in Table 2-4. The highest detection frequencies were seen for inorganic compounds ranging from 25 to 100 percent (Table 2-4). Four SVOCs, including benzaldehyde, phenol, acetophenone, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected at frequencies ranging from 25 to 75 percent. Polychlorinated biphenyls are of particular concern for the RI. Only one PCB, Aroclor 1254, was detected at a frequency of 69 percent (Figure 2-4); the pesticide, alpha-chlordane, was found at a frequency of 13 percent. Finally, two VOCs, carbon disulfide and 2-butanone, were detected at low frequencies of approximately 6 and 13 percent, respectively.
Maximum contaminant concentiations were most often measured in samples SSI 7 and SS19. The sampling location for SS17 was in a tiench located just south of the remediated area; sample SS19 was taken from a pit located just southwest of the remediated area.
2.2.2 Background Background samples were taken from an undisturbed area in the southwest portion of the site. Although topographic maps indicate a potential for surface drainage to flow in a southerly direction, it is unlikely that contaminants have been tiansported to this portion of the site (see Section 2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology for discussion). In addition, no evidence of impacts were observed in the southwest portion of the site, indicating that this was a suitable area for reference samples.
Site-specific background values for surface soils were determined by calculating the average concentiation of each detected chemical among the three samples (SSOl, SS02, and SS03). In the case of non-detects, one half the detection limit was used in the calculation of the mean. Background concentiations were not used in the selection of COPCs, but are presented for informational purposes only (Table 2-4). Background concentiations for organics, antimony, cobalt, thallium, and cyanide were below reporting limits.
2.3 Risk Questions Risk questions summarize important components of the problem formulation phase of the SLERA. Risk questions are directly related to testable hypotheses that can be accepted or rejected using the results of the SLERA. Selected risk questions to be answered in this SLERA follow.
• Are site-related contaminants present in surface soil wJiere ecological receptors may be exposed?
This question is addressed in the Exposure Assessment phase of the SLERA (Section 3).
CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00614 2-5 I
Section 2 Problem Formulation
• Wliere present, are tire concentrations of site-related contaminants sufficiently elevated to impair ilm survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?
This question is addressed in the Effects Assessment and Risk Characterization phases of the SLERA (Sections 4 and 5).
• Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site-related contaminants to cause adverse population-level or community-level effects?
This question is addressed in the Risk Characterization phase of the SLERA (Section 5).
2.4 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model The conceptual site model (CSM) integrates information regarding the sources and types of site contamination with information about the biological properties of animals and plants likely to be present at the site; biogeochemical properties of contaminant classes; and site geology, hydrology, and physical conditions. Thus, the conceptual model is essentially a contaminant fate-and-tiansport diagram that illustiates the likely pathways along which COPCs might move from the sources of contamination through potentially affected habitats to important ecological receptors. This section presents a discussion of the sources of contamination, modes of tiansport of contaminants, and potential exposure pathways used to develop the CSM. Also discussed is the selection of assessment endpoints (values to be protected) and specific risk questions that will be used to evaluate the potential for harmful effects to the selected assessment endpoints.
2.4.1 Sources of Contamination Drums and other sources of contaminated waste were previously buried at the site. These sources of contamination were remediated by EPA, with contaminated soil from the landfill portion of the site being removed and filled with clean soil. As discussed in Section 2.1.2 Site History, this was the primary source of contamination at the site. The only other potential source of contamination is the surrounding support area where uncontiolled releases may have occurred during disposal activities.
2.4.2 Exposure Pathways An exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are tiansported from a source to ecological receptors. For this SLERA, surface soil represents the source of potential contaminants. Although contamination has been found in underlying groundwater, it is unlikely that ecological receptors would be exposed to contaminants in groundwater. Typically groundwater table is 8.5 to 15 feet bgs. There are no groundwater discharges at the site, nor are water bodies such as ponds or lakes r present to which contaminated groundwater could have discharged. CDM I FinalSLERA 300615 2-6 Section 2 Problem Formulation
There are off-site lakes and stieams in the area, but it is unlikely that site-related contaminants have reached them via off-site tiansport. Due to the high soil infiltiation rates and lack of defined runoff pathways from the site to surface water bodies, transport of contaminants to surface water bodies via surface runoff is unlikely. In addition, tiansport of contaminants to surface water bodies through discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water also is very unlikely. The plume boundary in the shallow zone does not intersect Moss Mill Stieam or its associated impoundments. The shortest distance from observed ground water contamination to the Moss Mill Stream is approximately 1,200 feet south of REAC MW-101, on the Stockton College Property. The stieam in this area is located perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow (east).
Ecological receptors at the site may be exposed to contaminated soil via direct contact or incidental ingestion. Contaminants in surface soil may also become air or water borne via wind or water erosion (e.g., following a precipitation event), subsequently re-deposited at the soil surface or on vegetation, or, in the case of airborne contaminants, inhaled by ecological receptors.
Exposure of ecological receptors to contaminants in soil may occur via direct contact with contaminated surface soil. Exposure of higher tiophic-level receptors can also occur through food chain exposure (though the ingestion of prey that have become contaminated through site-related exposure). The complete pathways are illustiated on the site conceptual exposure model (Figure 2-5).
2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of an environmental resource that is considered of value, operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attiibutes (EPA 1997). In SLERAs, assessment endpoints are usually considered to be any adverse effects from site contaminants to any ecological receptors at the site. The criteria for selection of assessment endpoints include ecological relevance, susceptibility (exposure plus sensitivity), and relevance to management goals.
Specific draft assessment endpoints for the site could include the following:
• Protection of terrestiial plants from deleterious effects of contaminants present in surface soil on growth, reproduction, or survival
• Protection of insectivorous birds and mammals to ensure that ingestion of contaminants in surface soil and prey does not have negative impacts on growth, survival, and reproduction
• Protection of herbivorous birds and mammals to ensure theat ingestion of contaminants in surface soil and plants does not have negative impacts on f growth, survival, and reproduction CDM FinalSLERA .,„„,..,^ 2-7 I 300616 I
Section 2 Problem Formulation V • Protection of omnivorous birds and manunals to ensure that ingestion of contaminants in soils, plants and prey does not have negative impacts on growth, survival, and reproduction
• Protection of carnivorous birds and mammals to ensure that ingestion of contaminants in prey does not have negative impacts on growth, and reproduction
Measurement endpoints are chosen to link the existing site conditions to the goals established by the assessment endpoints and are useful for assessment endpoint evaluation. Measurement endpoints are quantitative expressions of observed or measured biological responses to contamination relevant to selected assessment endpoints. For a SLERA, ecological screening levels (ESLs) are commonly used as measurement endpoints. For this SLERA, measurement endpoints are based on the most conservative ESLs from the sources discussed in Section 2.5.
In this SLERA, surface soil is the only medium evaluated; thus, the measurement endpoints for terrestiial organisms used in this SLERA are the comparison of exposure hazard quotients (HQs) to a reference HQ of one. Exposure HQs are calculated for individual chemicals by dividing the soil concentiations by terrestiial-based screerung levels.
2.5 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern The selection of COPCs focuses on those chemicals that pose the greatest potential risks to ecological receptors, thereby providing guidance that can be used in future risk evaluations and remediation decisions. The COPC selection process involves comparing the maximum contaminant concentrations measured at the site to ESLs. ESLs are "intended to be protective of organisms that commonly come into contact with soil or ingest biota that live in or on soil and to identify contaminants of concern requiring further evaluation." (EPA 2003a). Thus, they are intended to be conservative screening values independent of pathway, and in this way avoid the potential for underestimating risk.
ESLs are concentiations of chemicals that are reasonably considered to be the highest acceptable concentiation, at or below which there should be no adverse environmental effects. Because only contamination of surface soils was evaluated in this SLERA, only soil ESLs were used.
The HQ method was used to estimate risk of exposure to each COPC. This method compares the maximum exposure concentiation (EC) to the ESL and is expressed as a ratio per the following formula:
HQ = EC/ESL f CDM FinalSLERA ' ^„„^,„ 2-8 I 300617 I
Section 2 Problem Formulation
where the ESL represents the "no effect" level for that analyte and assessment endpoint. A calculated HQ > 1 indicates it cannot be concluded that potential risk does not exist; either additional evaluation is necessary to make a risk determination or there is insufficient information to conclude that potential risk from exposure to a contaminant is negligible at the concentiations measured onsite. An HQ < 1 suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that minimal risk exists for the given COPC, particularly since ESLs are based on the lowest measurable concentiation considered to be protective of the most sensitive organisms. Therefore, contaminants for which the HQ is above one are retained as COPCs for potential further evaluation, such as a BERA. Higher HQs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the ESLs used to calculate HQs. However, where confidence in ESLs is equal, higher HQs suggest a greater likelihood of adverse effects.
Analytes for which ESLs are not available were also retained as COPCs. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were removed from further consideration as COPCs because they are ubiquitous, occur naturally in high concentiations, are essential nutiients, and are unlikely to pose risk. In addition, tissue concentiations of these compounds are regulated by living organisms; even at relatively high levels of exposure, internal concentiations generally do not become sufficiently high to cause toxic effects. The COPC selection process for this SLERA is further discussed in Sections 3, 4, and 5. Screening table (Table 4-1) for the COPC section is presented in Section 4.
r CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00618 ^-9 nCD s: o s
300619 Section 3 Exposure Assessment The potential for exposure is assessed via the use of representative receptor groups. The receptor groups represent organisms with reasonable potential to be exposed to site-related stiessors. Exposure scenarios are simplified descriptions of how potential receptors may come in contact with contaminants.
The exposure assessment evaluates and summarizes available exposure data on potential ecological receptors. This section discusses the chemical characteristics of classes of detected COPCs, including bioavailability, environmental persistence, and bioconcentiation and bioaccumulation; the magnitude and distiibution of COPCs at the site; and the potential for receptors to be exposed to COPCs at the site. As indicated previously, only exposure via contaminated surface soils is evaluated.
3.1 Chemical Properties of COPCs Contaminants detected at the site include VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and inorganic compounds. The chemical properties of these compounds, including contaminant fate and tiansport mechanisms (bioavailability, environmental persistence), are discussed below. 3.1.1 Bioavailability BioavaUable chemicals are defined as those that exist in a form that may cause adverse ecological effects or bioaccumulate. While bioaccumulation in itself may not cause significant ecological effects, it provides evidence of exposure and creates the potential for adverse effects to multiple tiophic levels under certain conditions. For example, compounds such as dichlorodiphenyl tiichloroethane (DDT) may be stored in fatty tissues with no apparent ill effects, until fatty tissues are metabolized under energetically stiessful conditions, at which time the compounds become available and toxic. In this respect, toxicity is a function of the amount of a chemical accumulated and retained in a bioreactive form, not simply the concentiation of a compound in an environmental medium.
Bioavailability of a COPC will determine the internal dose (the concentiation of a contaminants absorbed into an orgaivism that reaches the specific site of action) to which an organism is exposed (Ranganef al. 1997). Chemical properties (e.g., degree of chlorination, chemical speciation, or valence state) and environmental conditions (e.g., levels of total organic carbon [TOC], soil particle size) can affect the potential bioavailability and toxicity of many chemicals including PCBs, pesticides, and metals. The chemical form, and thus toxicity, of some contaminants can change rather rapidly with changing environmental conditions (e.g., fluctuations in pH or other conditions related to seasonal weather patterns such as rainfall or snowmelt). For the most part, however, bioavailability (and therefore potential toxicity) of many contaminants, such as pesticides and PCBs, is expected to remain stable within an environment, because these chemicals bind stiongly to organic particular matter. This enables measurements of TOC in soil to be used to generally describe the bioavailable portion of many organic compounds, in that higher levels of TOC in soil reduce bioavailability ^ CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00620 3-1 Section 3 Exposure Assessment
(and thus toxicity), due to binding of contaminants with organic carbon. Soil pH values can similarly affect bioavailability, with low pH increasing the bioavailability of some compounds, such as metals.
Soils present on site are sandy, and by nature, they are typically well-drained, which leads to acidification owing to the loss of calcium through leaching. The association between sandy soils and coniferous vegetation further decreases soil pH because of the added acidity of pine needles. In addition, such soils typically have low organic carbon contents. At Emmell's Septic Landfill site, soil pH values ranged from 4.1 to 4.5, while soil TOC concentiations ranged from 2,400 to 7,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (0.24 to 0.7 percent), with a mean value of 0.44 percent. These TOC concentiations are low compared to an average value for the United States of 12 percent (Kern 1994, as cited by Davidson 1995).
The low soil pH and organic carbon content measured at the site will have significant impacts on bioavailability and chemical form of contaminants. In particular, the potential bioavailability of several compounds, notably pesticides, PCBs, and metals, may be relatively high.
3.1.2 Environmental Persistence Environmental persistence refers to the degree in w^hich a chemical may exist in the environment. Some chemicals, such as PCBs, persist because they are not easily degraded or metabolized; others, such as VOCs are short-lived, being easily degraded by one or more mechanisms including microbial degradation, photolysis, and volatilization. The half-lives of VOCs generally range from hours to days (CCME 2002), but under certain conditions, persistence can be increased.
Many of the COPCs detected at the site, including pesticides and PCBs are considered to be persistent because they are not easily degraded by microbial or other processes. Inorganic COPCs are persistent because they can neither be degraded nor metabolized. In contiast, persistence is assumed to be low for detected VOCs and SVOCs.
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 3QQg21 ^-2 o 9
300622 Section 4 Ecological Effects Assessment An effects assessment includes an evaluation of the available types and sources of effects data and presents media- and chemical-specific screening levels that serve as conservative effect concentiations for the SLERA. Soil effects data for a SLERA are limited to screening level or benchmark concentiations. 4.1 Literature-Based Effects Data This section of the SLERA describes and provides support for the sources and types of effects data (i.e., soil screening levels) selected for use in the SLERA. As appropriate for a SLERA, soil effects data are limited to ESLs. The sources of selected screening levels for the chemicals identified in samples collected for the site are provided in Table 4-1.
Screening values from the following references were applied in a hierarchical fashion to the maximum site specific COPC concentiations as follows:
• EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSL's; EPA 2003b and 2005) - lowest available level among plants, soil invertebrates, birds, or mammals
• Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Ecological Endpoints (Efroymson et al 1997a)
• EPA Region 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screerung Levels (EPA 2003c)
Thus, in this SLERA, the EcoSSL documents were examined first to determine if a screening value was available for a particular compound; if no value was available, the next source listed was examined for a screening value, and so on. If a selected screening level was exceeded, contaminants are retained for further evaluation, such as would be done in a BERA. 4.2 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data Data collected in 2002 were used to describe the magnitude and distiibution of contaminants in soils at the site. Following EPA Guidance (EPA 1997), maximum detected concentiations for each chemical were used to evaluate potential risk for this SLERA. Maximum concentiations of detected chemicals, the sampling location where the maximum contaminant concentiation was measured, and the detection frequency for detected chemicals are presented in Table 2-4. If the maximum contaminant concentiation exceeds the screening level for that contaminant, then the potential for adverse ecological effects may exist.
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 300623 4-1 I
300624 Section 5 Risk Chiaracterization Section 5 Risk Characterization The risk characterization integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and estimates risks to representative ecological receptors. This SLERA relies on the HQ approach, supplemented by site observations, to assess ecological risks at this site.
5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach The HQ approach for estimating risk is based on the ratio of a selected exposure concentiation to a selected ESL or effects concentiation. The general equation is as follows: HQ equals exposure concentiation of COPC divided by effects concentiation of COPC.
More specifically, the HQ calculations for this SLERA are based on the following: HQ equals maximum detected concentiation of COPC in soil divided by the most conservative (i.e., lowest available) ESL.
Following EPA guidance for conducting SLERAs, the maximum detected COPC concentiation in surface soil will serve as the exposure concentiation. The chemical- specific and media-specific screening levels will serve as the effects concentiation. The comparison of these two values allows for calculation of the HQ, which in turn is used to quantify risk estimation. HQs greater than 1.0 indicate a potential for adverse effects. HQs less than 1.0 are considered insignificant and therefore risks are unexpected.
It should be noted that higher HQs between COPCs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the ESLs used to calculate HQs. There are also differences in toxicity endpoints (e.g., body weight reduction vs. reproduction effects) and measurement endpoints (e.g., NOAEL vs. LOAEL). Resultant HQs should not be compared unless the confidence, toxicity endpoints, and measurement endpoints are equal. Where the confidence in ESLs is equal, a higher HQ will suggest a greater likelihood of adverse effects.
5.2 HQ-based Risk Estimates The reliability of HQs to predict actual risks is dependent on the quality of the exposure and effects concentiations used to calculate HQs. There is greater confidence in HQ-based risk estimates when exposure and effects data are based on large databases reflecting extensive sample collection (exposure data) and toxicological information (effects data). The data collected on site provide adequate confidence that detected COPC concentiations represent actual on-site conditions relative to chemical contamination. i» CDM 300625 I Final SLERA 5-1 Section 5 Risk Ctiaracterization
Similarly, screening levels based on a large toxicity database comprised of a wide variety of organisms are preferred over concentiations from a limited database or those not directly linked to adverse effects. Confidence in screening levels are COPC-specific, but for the most part, there are greater uncertainties with the soil screening levels than with the sediment and surface water screening levels. As discussed previously, all screening levels are biased towards over-protection, and it is, therefore, unlikely that risks are underestimated using these conservative screening levels.
5.3 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data Data collected in 2002 were used to describe the magnitude and distiibution of contaminants in soils at the site. Following EPA Guidance (EPA 1997), maximum detected concentiations for each chemical were used to evaluate potential risk for this SLERA. Maximum concentiations of detected chemicals, the sampling location w^here the maximum contaminant concentiation was measured, and the detection frequency for detected chemicals are presented in Table 2-4. If the maximum contaminant concentiation exceeds the screening level for that contaminant, then the potential for adverse ecological effects may exist.
5.4 Approach of Evaluations Approach of evaluations used during this analysis that contiibute to the imcertainty associated w^ith this SLERA include:
• An HQ > 1 indicates the potential for risk from exposure to contaminants at concentiations measured onsite. An HQ of < 1 does not indicate a lack of risk, but suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that minimal risk exists for the given contaminant, since ESLs are based on the lowest measurable concentiation considered to be protective of the most sensitive organism.
• The exposure value for each contaminant used in risk estimations was assumed to be present throughout the site at the measured concentiation all of the time.
• Maximum concentiations of contaminants were used for the risk calculations. The bioavailability of each contaminant was assumed to be 100 percent. No assumptions were considered regarding partitioning or, in the case of metals, ionic species present.
• Background concentiations were not considered.
5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern Chemicals with maximum detected values above their selected ESLs were identified as COPCs, as were detected contaminants for which screening level benchmarks could not be identified. The identified COPCs from surface soil in the sampled area, and r the reason for their selection, are as follows (see also Table 4-1). CDM I FinalSLERA 3 0062 6 5-2 Section 5 Risk Ctiaracterization
• Chemicals with maximum concentiations at the site exceeding ESLs: Aroclor 1254, aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, vanadium, zinc, and cyanide. These contaminants are retained as COPCs.
• Chemical retained as COPCs because no ESLs could be identified: benzaldehyde.
Most of these contaminants are expected to be site-related or may be site-related, with the exception of iron.
Site-related COPCs: The following contaminants are expected to be site-related for reasons disussed in the following section.
• Benzaldehyde was detected in the former active portion of the site but was not detected in the inactive portion of the site at the background sample locations. This is a component in solvents and used chiefly in the synthesis of other organic compounds, ranging from pharmaceuticals to plastic additives. It is also common in household products. There are no other potential industiial sources in the area, and unpermitted disposal of chemicals, paint sludge, gas cylinders, household waste and constiuction debris took place during the period that the landfill was in operation. Therefore, the benzaldehyde detected in soil samples is considered to be site related.
• Aroclor 1254 and cyanide were detected in the samples collected from the former support areas at the site but were not detected in background soil samples collected. Therefore, Aroclor 1254 and cyanide are considered to be site-related compounds.
• Barium was detected at elevated concentiations in the primary source area (former landfill) during previous investigations (Weston 1998). Contaminated soil in this area was removed during remediation. During this investigation, the barium concentiations detected in the former support areas of the site (4 - 1,120 mg/kg) generally exceeded concentiations detected in background soil samples (4.4-13.2 mg/kg). Therefore, barium detected in surface soil samples is considered to be a site-related contaminant.
• Cadmium was detected at elevated concentiations in the primary source area (former landfill) during previous investigations (Weston 1998). Contaminated soil in this area was removed during remediation. During this investigation, the cadmium concentiations detected in the former support areas of the site (0.05 - 2.1 mg/kg) exceeded concentiations detected at background locations (<0.04 - 0.08). Therefore, cadmium is considered to be a site-related contaminant.
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 300627 5-3 Section 5 Risk Characterization
• Lead was detected at elevated concentiations in the primary source area (former landfill) during previous investigations (Weston 1998). Contaminated soil in this area was removed during remediation. During this investigation, concentiations in soil samples collected from the former support areas onsite (<4.6 - 93.1 mg/kg) exceeded concentiations in background soil samples (3.8 - 4.9 mg/kg). Because of the nature of unpermitted disposal activities at the site (household wastes, constiuction debris and paint sludge containing lead), it is likely that lead contamination in soil is site-related.
• Mercury concentiations in soil in the former support areas of the site (0.06 - 0.56 mg/kg) exceeded concentiations at background sample locations (<0.05 - 0.06 mg/kg). It is likely that elevated concentiations are associated with unpermitted disposal activities.
• Silver concentiations detected in soil samples from the former support areas onsite (<0.19 - 31.4 mg/kg) exceeded concentiations at background sample locations(0.1 - 0.44 mg/kg). Therefore, it is likely that elevated concentiations in soil are the result of unpermitted disposal activities.
• Zinc was not identified as a contaminant of concern during previous investigations because concentiations in soil did not exceed NJDEP RDCSCC (Weston 1998). However, concentiations detected in the former support areas of the site (3 - 274 mg/kg) during this investigation are generally similar to concentiations reported from investigations performed before the excavation and generally exceed concentiations at background sample locations (3-6 mg/kg). Elevated concentiations at SS17 and SS19 indicate potential hot spots. It is likely that concentiations detected are the result of unpermitted disposal activities.
Potentially Site-related COPCs: Concentiations of the following constituents may be the result of unpermitted disposal activities. Whether these constituents are site- related is uncertain for reasons discussed in the following section.
• Aluminum concentiations detected in the former support areas of the site (1,590 -17,100 mg/kg) overlap concentiations in the inactive portion (2,680 - 7,620 mg/kg). It may appear that concentiations in the former active portion exceed concentiations in the inactive portion because of the small sample size for background locations. It is also possible that there are a few isolated areas with elevated concentiations (SS04 and SS17) as a result of unpermitted disposal activities or elevated pH, which would decrease the mobility of aluminum. Aluminum toxicity is not a concern above pH of 5.5 because bioavailability is limited. However, soil pH throughout the New Jersey Pinelands is naturally low (3.0-5.0), and pH at the site ranged from 4.1-4.5 (Table 2-4).
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 30062 8 5-4 Section 5 Risk Characterization
Aluminum in the Cohansey Formation and the Pinelands, which is dominated by limonitic (ferrous) quartz sand, is generally low. However, glauconite clay minerals, which have high levels of aluminum, are also present. Because of the naturally low pH of soils in the area, the aluminum in soils have a tendency to leach from soils and result in naturally elevated levels of aluminum in groundwater.
• Chromium concentiations in soil in the former support areas onsite (1.9 - 31.6 mg/kg) overlapped concentiations detected in the background samples collected from locations in the inactive portion of the site (2.7 - 7.7 mg/kg). It may appear that concentiations in the former active portion exceed concentiations in the inactive portion because of the small sample size for background locations. It is also possible that there are a few isolated areas with elevated chromium concentiations (e.g., SS17) as a result of unpermitted disposal activities. Therefore, it is possible that the concentiations of chromium detected are the result of unpermitted disposal activities at the site.
• Selenium concentiations in the former active portion of the site (0.79 - 2.8 mg/kg) were generally similar to concentiations in the former inactive portion of the site (<0.72 -1.2 mg/kg). Because these concentiation ranges overlap so closely, it is likely that selenium in soil in the former active portion of the site is not site-related for most sample locations.
• Vanadium concentiations detected in soil in the former support areas of the site (3.5 - 24.1 mg/kg) overlapped concentiations at background sample locations (5 -12.7 mg/kg). It may appear that concentiations in the former active portion exceed concentrations in the inactive portion because of the small sample size for background locations. It is also possible that there are a few isolated areas with elevated concentiations (e.g., SS17) as a result of unpermitted disposal activities.
COPCs Unrelated to Site Activities: Concentiations of iron in soil are unlikely to be the result of site-related activities for the following reasons:
• Iron was detected at elevated concentiations in the primary source area (former landfill) during previous investigations (Weston 1998). During this investigation, concentiations of iron detected in the former support areas of the site (1,060 - 9,410 mg/kg) completely overlapped concentiations at background sample locations (1,870 - 6,680 mg/kg). The apparently higher concentiations in the former support areas may be the result of greater sample size (n = 16) for site sample locations as compared with background sample locations (n = 3). Soils in the area are composed predominantly of limonitic quartz sand, which contains iron, and naturally elevated soil concentiations of iron and iron ore deposits are found throughout the Pinelands. Therefore, it is unlikely that f concentiations of iron detected in the former active area are site-related. CDM I Final SLERA 3 0062 9 ^'^ Section 5 Risk Characterization
Thus, there are a total of fourteen chemicals retained as COPCs for this SLERA including twelve inorganics (aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, vanadium, zinc, and cyanide), one SVOC (benzaldehyde) and one PCB (Aroclor 1254). Although concentiations of iron detected in soil are unlikely to be site-related, detected concentiations exceed ecological screening values that are considered to be protective of potential ecological receptors. The fate and tiansport, and toxicity of these COPCs are discussed below.
5.5.1 Aluminum 5.5.1.1 Fate and Transport Aluminum is a major constituent of clays and other complex minerals and is ubiquitous and highly variable in the environment. It is a major component of most common inorganic soil particles, with concentiations varying widely and reaching to 30 percent (EPA 2003b, 2005). Aluminum is used for many purposes including building and constiuction, manufacturing of packaging materials, and manufacturing of electionics and other consumer products. Due to the ubiquitous nature of aluminum, the natural variability of aluminum in soil, and the use of conservative soil screening benchmarks, aluminum is often identified as a COPC for SLERAs.
5.5.1.2 Toxicity The conunonly used soil screening benchmark values for aluminum are based on laboratory toxicity testing using an aluminum solution that is added to test soils, which the EPA has deemed inappropriate for assessing potential toxicity in soils. The following conclusions were derived from the available data on the environmental chemistry and toxicity of aluminum in soils to plants, soil invertebrates, mammals, and birds (EPA 2003b, 2005):
• Total aluminum in soil is not correlated with toxicity to tested plants and soil invertebrates. • Aluminum toxicity is associated with soluble aluminum. • Soluble aluminum and not total aluminum is associated with the uptake and bioaccumulation of aluminum from soils to plants. • The oral toxicity of aluminum compounds in soil is dependent upon the chemical form (Storer and Nelson 1968). Insoluble aluminum compounds such as the mineral forms associated with clays or soil particles are considerably less toxic than soluble forms.
Ecological risk associated with aluminum is associated with low pH, EPA recommends aluminum be identified as a COPC only when soil pH is lower than 5.5. At higher pHs, aluminum forms complexes in soil and is generally not bioavailable (EPA 2003b, 2005). At the Emmell's Septic Landfill site, the maximum measured pH was 4.5.
Very few plant toxicity studies on aluminum in soils have been conducted; however, some test have shown a reduction in seedling establishment (Mackay et al. 1990, as J» cited in Efroymson et al. 1997a), along with a reduction in root development (EPA CDM I FinalSLERA 300630 5-6 Section 5 Risk Characterization
2003b, 2005). In animals, aluminum solubilized under low pH conditions exerts toxicologic effects primarily by binding chemically with phosphorus, thereby interfering with phosphorous availability and/ or absorption and resulting in a phosphorous deficiency in an organism. The digestive tiacts of many animals, particularly mammals and birds, have low pH; however, toxicological evidence of adverse effects of aluminum appears to be limited to instances where aluminum is administered in a form that can immediately react with the phosphorous in an animal's system, unlike the insoluble mineral forms of aluminum typically associated with soil particles. Thus, while aluminum in soils can potentially be a source of soluble aluminum as a result of mobility from exposure to low pH water, under most conditions, aluminum ingested via soil would not be expected to impose adverse effects.
5.5.2 Aroclor 1254 5.5.2.1 Fate and Transport Aroclor 1254 is a tiade name for one of the rruxtures of PCBs that was produced. PCBs comprise a class of synthetic compounds that may contain up to 209 different congeners. PCBs were used in electiical capacitors and tiansformers because of their thermal stability, inflammability, and dielectiic properties. They are no longer manufactured or used in the United States; however, because there are no known chemical degradation processes for PCBs, they continue to persist in the environment.
In terrestiial systems, PCBs are not readily leachable in soils and stiongly sorb to soil constituents (Chou and Griffin 1986; Stiek and Weber 1982). Their level in soil is proportional to the organic matter and clay content of the soil (Chou and Griffin 1986). Plants do not readily accumulate PCBs from soil; however, PCBs do settle on and adhere to the outside surfaces of plants (Horn et al. 1979). Because PCBs are lipid soluble and tend to remain stored in fatty tissues, once ingested they bioaccumulate and may biomagnify.
5.5.2.2 Toxicity The general sublethal effect of PCBs to plants is reduced growth via a reduction in photosynthetic activity as a result of diminished chlorophyll content of the plant (Stiek and Weber 1982; Iwata et al 1974; Iwata et al 1976; Weber and Mrozek 1979; Moza et al. 1974). In wildlife including amphibians, fish, and birds, PCBs can produce a wide variety of toxic effects including death, birth defects, reproductive failure, liver damage, impaired growth, and tumor production. The most studied biochemical effect of PCBs in animals is the induction of hepatic mixed function oxidase systems, increasing an organism's capacity to biotiansform or detoxify xenobiotic chemicals; toxicity results because the metabolism of foreign chemicals often produces metabolites that are more toxic than the parent compound (Mitchell et al. 1976). In addition, PCB-induced changes in enzyme activity may also alter enzyme substiate concentiations in other metabolic pathways (Montz et al 1982, as cited in Eisler 1986a). J» CDM I FinalSLERA 300631 5-7 Section 5 Risk Characterization
PCB toxicity in animals is species dependent and varies with congener. In general, mutagenic and carcinogenic effects tend to increase with increasing chlorination of the PCB molecule; Aroclor 1254 is relatively highly chlorinated, with 54 percent chlorine by weight (Eisler 1986a).
5.5.3 Barium 5.5.3.1 Fate and Transport Barium is a yellowish-white, soft metal that is strongly electiopositive. In nature, it is principally found in a combined state, as either barite (barium sulfate) or w^itherite (barium carbonate) (EPA 2003b, 2005). Barium is also found in small quantities in igneous rocks such as feldspar and micas. It is used as a filler for rubber, plastics and resins; for medical purposes (x-ray imaging); and in ceramics and glassmaking.
The solubility and mobility of barium is greater in sandy soils and increases with decreasing soil pH and organic matter content (EPA 2003b, 2005). Additionally, barium is more mobile and likely to be leached from soils in the presence of chloride due to the solubility of barium chloride relative to other forms of barium (ATSDR 1992). Barium mobility decreases in soils w^ith high sulfate and calcium carbonate content, because soluble barium can react with these compounds to form insoluble barium sulfate and barium carbonate salts (EPA 2003b, 2005). Barium is not believed to bioaccumulate.
5.5.3.2 Toxicity The oral toxicity of barium depends on the solubility of its chemical form. The soluble compounds, which include the chloride, nitrate, and hydroxide forms, are the most toxic, while the insoluble sulfate and carbonate forms are relatively nontoxic.
Barium is believed to possess chemical and physiological properties that allow it to compete with and replace calcium in physiological processes, particularly those relating to the release of adrenal catecholamines and neurotiansmitters such as acetylcholine and noradrenaline (EPA 2003b, 2005). The cardiovascular system appears to be a primary target of barium toxicity in laboratory animals (ATSDR 1992). Intermediate and chronic oral exposure of animals to barium has primarily been linked to increased blood pressure, with decreased cardiac contiactility and conductivity being observed at higher doses. Barium has also been found to induce respiratory, gastiointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, developmental and reproductive effects; decreased longevity has been reported in male mice chronically exposed to barium (ATSDR 1992).
5.5.4 Benzaldehyde 5.5.4.1 Fate and Transport Benzaldehyde is a naturally occurring volatile plant product with a characteristic bitter almond aroma. It is found in almonds, apricot, peach, and cherry seeds, and is used in dyes, drugs, perfumes, and flavoring agents. It is also a byproduct of toluene degradation in the atmosphere. ^ CDM I Final SLERA 3 00632 ^'^ Section 5 Risk Characterization
If released to the atmosphere, benzaldehyde will degrade by reacting with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals. Estimated soil organic carbon-water partitioning coefficients (K^J for benzaldehyde suggest that it will leach readily in soils. Additionally, a number of biological screening studies have demonstrated that benzaldehyde is readily biodegradable. It is not believed to bioaccumulate.
5.5.4.2 Toxicity Toxic effects of exposure to benzaldehyde have not been extensively studied in terrestiial organisms. However, laboratory populations of orally tieated rats were found to suffer renal tubular necrosis and forestomach hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis (Kluwe et al 1983).
5.5.5 Cadmium 5.5.5.1 Fate and Transport Cadmium is a naturally occurring, rare, but widely distiibuted element. It may enter the environment through mining, ore processing, and smelting of zinc and zinc-lead ores; the recovery of metal by processing scrap; the casting of alloys for coating products (telephone cables, electiodes, sprinkling systems, fire alarms, switches, relays, circuit breakers, solder, and jewelry); the production of sewage-sludges and phosphate fertilizers; the combustion of coal and fossil fuels, and the use of paint, pigment, and batteries, (Eisler 1985a).
In the environment, cadmium occurs primarily as a divalent metal that is insoluble in water, but its chloride and sulfate salts are freely soluble (Eisler 1985a). If released or deposited on soil, cadmium is largely retained in the surface layers; it is adsorbed to soil but to a much lesser extent than most other heavy metals. Because adsorption increases with pH and organic content, solublization and leaching is more apt to occur under acid conditions in sandy soil.
The bioavailability of cadmium is dependent on a number of factors including pH, Eh (redox potential), concentiation, and chemical speciation (Eisler 1985a). Cadmium enters the food chain through uptake by plants from soils; only cadmium in soil solution is thought to be directly available for uptake (Shore and Douben 1994, as cited in EPA 2003b, 2005). The main routes of cadmium absorption for mammals are via respiration and ingestion, including dietary tiansfer. Factors that appear to affect dietary cadmium absorption from the gastiointestinal tiact include age, sex, chemical form, and protein concentiation of the diet, and is inversely proportional to dietary intake of other metals, particularly iron and calcium (Friberg 197.9).
5.5.5.2 Toxicity Cadmium does not have any known essential or beneficial biological function (Eisler 1985a). It is a demonstiated mutagen and teratogen and a suspected carcinogen (RTECS 1997). Cadmium replaces essential metals (e.g., zinc) at critical sites on proteins and enzymes and may inhibit a variety of enzymatic reactions.
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00633 5-9 Section 5 Risk Characterization
Concentiations increase with the age of an organism and eventually act as a cumulative poison (Hammons et al. 1978).
Cadmium is readily taken up from soil through plant roots and interferes with root uptake of essential elements including iron, manganese, magnesium, nitiogen, and possibly calcium. Symptoms of cadmium toxicity in plants include poor root development, reduced conductivity of stems, tissue necrosis, reduced growth, and reduced photosynthetic activity due to impaired stomatal functioning (Bazzaz et al. 1974, as cited in EPA 2003b, 2005; Efroymson et al. 1997b). Mammals and birds are more resistant to effects of cadmium contamination than are aquatic organisms, but may show toxicological effects including growth retardation, anemia, impaired kidney function, poor reproductive capacity, and birth defects (Eisler 1985a).
5.5.6 Chromium 5.5.6.1 Fate and Transport Chromium is w^idely distiibuted in the earth's crust. Major atmospheric emissions of chromium are from the chromium alloy and metal producing industiies; lesser amounts come from coal combustion, municipal incinerators, cement production, and cooling tow^ers (Towill et al 1978, as cited in Eisler 1986b). Chromium in phosphates used as fertilizers may be an important source of chromium in soil, water, and some foods (Langard and Norseth 1979, as cited in Eisler 1986b).
Chromium can exist in oxidation states ranging from Cr'^ to Cr"^*, but it is most frequently converted to the relatively stable chromium (III) and chromium (VI) oxidation states (Eisler 1986b). The solubility and bioavailability of chromium are governed by soil pH and organic complexing substances, although organic complexes play a more significant role (James and Bartlett 1983a,b, as cited in Eisler 1986b). Hexavalent chromium is not stiongly sorbed to soil components and may be mobile in groundwater; however, it is quickly reduced to chromium (III) in poorly drained soils having a high organic content.
Chromium may biomagnify, although because of its relatively low membrane permeability, chromium (III) generally does not have the biomagnification potential of chromium (VI). However, organo-tiivalent chromium compounds may have very different bioaccumulation tendencies; sonie cases of large degrees of accumulation by aquatic and terrestiial plants and animals in lower tiophic levels have been documented, though the mechanism of accumulation remains largely unknown (Eisler 1986b).
5.5.6.2 Toxicity The biological effects of chromium depend upon the chemical form, solubility, and valence. Chromium (III) is the form usually found in biological materials. Chromium is beneficial, but not essential, to higher plants (Eisler 1986b). It functions as an essential element in mammals and birds by maintaining vascular integrity and efficient glucose, lipid, and protein metabolism (Steven et al. 1976, as cited in Eisler 1986b). However, chromium may also be mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic. ^ CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00634 ^'''° Section 5 Risk Characterization
While EPA regards all chromium compounds as toxic, the most toxic tend to be ^ strongly oxidizing forms of chromium (VI). Toxic effects of chromium in plants include the disruption of carbon, nitiogen, phosphorus, and iron metabolism; inhibition of photosynthesis and reduced growth; poorly developed roots; and curled leaves. Chromium toxicity in birds and mammals is associated with abnormal histopathology, enzyme activity and blood chemistiy; lowered resistance to pathogenic organisms; behavioral modifications; disrupted feeding; and alterations in population stiucture (Eisler 1986b). However, in mammalian species, chromium is considered one of the least toxic tiace elements, because hexavalent chromium is converted to tiivalent chromium under the normal stomach conditions of low pH (Irwin effl/. 1997).
5.5.7 Cyanide 5.5.7.1 Fate and Transport Elevated cyanide levels are found in more than 1,000 species of food plants and forage crops, representing the greatest source of cyanide exposure and toxicosis. Cyanide is produced by species including fungi, bacteria, algae, higher plants, and arthropods in defense against herbivory and predation (Eisler 1991). Anthropogenic sources of cyanide in the environment include certain industiial processes such as the manufacture of synthetic fibers and plastics, electioplating baths and metal mining operations, pesticide use, and the development of cyanogenic drugs and warfare agents.
Cyanide occurs in the environment in many forms, including free cyanide, metallocyanide complexes, and synthetic organocyanides (nitiiles); however, free cyanide (i.e., the sum of molecular hydrogen cyanide, HCN, and the cyanide anion, CN-) is the primary toxic agent. Transport and fate of cyanide in the environment is dependent upon its chemical form; while free cyanide is fairly mobile in soils due to a low soil sorption capability, cyanide is generally complexed by tiace metals, metabolized by microorganisms, or lost through volatilization as HCN (EPA 1978). Mobility is lowest in soils with low pH and high concentiations of free iron oxides and clays. Cyanide does not biomagnify, probably owing to the rapid detoxification of cyanide by living organisms.
5.5.7.2 Toxicity Cyanide is not mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic. The major effect of cyanide on plants is a reduction of respiration via inhibition of the cytochrome oxidase enzyme and a decrease in ATP production and other related processes, such as ion uptake and phloem tianslocation. These physiological disturbancess may eventually lead to the death of affected plants (Towill et al 1978, as cited by Eisler 1991). At lower concentiations, effects include inhibition of germination and growth, although cyanide sometimes enhances seed germination by stimulating the pentose phosphate pathway and inhibiting catalase (Towill et al. 1978; Solomonson 1981, as cited by Eisler 1991). Some plant species can accumulate high concentiations of cyanogenic f glycosides, which can pose a risk to herbivores that ingest them. CDM I Final SLERA 300635 5-11 Section 5 Risk Characterization
In animals, cyanide is a respiratory poison; toxicity is mainly due to a decrease in the f ability of tissues to utilize oxygen, resulting in a state of histotoxic anoxia. Target organs are primarily the cential nervous system and heart, with depression of the cential nervous system (the tissue most sensitive to anoxia) ultimately resulting in respiratory arrest and death (EPA 1978).
Birds and mammals do not accumulate or store cyanide in tissue; sublethal doses of cyanide are rapidly detoxified and excreted as thiocyanate in urine (Eisler 1991). This allows animals to ingest sublethal doses over extended periods without harm. However, chronic symptoms of cyanide poisoning may develop with continuous intake. Organs affected by chronic exposure include the cential nervous system, reproductive system, and thyroid gland (ATSDR 1997). The route of exposure is important in determining toxicity, since exposure via inhalation bypasses the major detoxification route in the liver (EPA 1990).
5.5.8 Iron 5.5.8.1 Fate and Transport Iron is the fourth most common element in the earth's crust. Iron concentiations in soil can range from 0.2 to 55 percent and can vary significantly even within localized areas (Bodek et al. 1988). Iron is used primarily in the production of steel and other alloys. The iron ore formed is dependent upon the availability of other chemicals (e.g., sulfur is required to produce FeSj, or pyrite). Important iron ores are hematite, magnetite, limonite and siderite.
Under typical environmental conditions, iron is found in either the more soluble and bioavailable divalent form (ferrous iron or Fe-i-2) or the less soluble and less bioavailable tiivalent form (ferric iron or Fe-i-3) (EPA 2003b, 2005). Valence state is determined by the pH and Eh of the system. In general, oxidizing and alkaline conditions promote the precipitation of insoluble ferric oxide or hydroxic precipitates, while acidic and reducing conditions promote the solution of ferrous compounds. Iron does not bioaccumulate because it is regulated by the body and excess iron is eliminated.
5.5.8.2 Toxicity Iron is an essential micro-nutiient to most forms of life, from plants to man, and is internally regulated by most organisms. In plants, iron is a critical component of energy tiansformations needed for syntheses and other life processes of the cells. In animals, iron is a component of various enzymes and proteins, including hemoglobin, which carries oxygen to the cells.
If excess ferrous iron is present, toxicity to plants may occur. However, sensitivity to iron is highly dependent upon plant species. In animals, adverse effects of iron toxicity may include renal failure and hepatic cirrhosis. The mechanism of toxicity begins with acute mucosal cell damage and absorption of ferrous ions directly into circulation, resulting in capillary endothelial cell damage to the liver (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984). However, the greatest environmental threat posed by high iron ^ CDM I FinalSLERA 300636 5-12 Section 5 Risk Characterization
concentiations typically relates to the precipitation of iron oxides in aquatic systems, f resulting in the smothering and embedding of the bottom substiate of the water body. Iron in soil generally does not impart significant ecological risk.
5.5.9 Lead 5.5.9.1 Fate and Transport Lead is a naturally occurring element. It occurs in the earth's crust at concentrations typically about 15 grams per ton, or 0.002 percent, primarily as a sulfide in galena (EPA 2003b, 2005). Other mineral forms include anglesite, cerussite, mimetite, and pyromorphite (Budavari 1996, as cited by EPA 2003b, 2005). The main anthropogenic sources of lead in the environment include emissions from coal-fired power plants; ceramics manufacturing; mining, processing, and smelting of lead ores; and refining, production, and use of lead alloys and compounds. Lead may also be deposited as slag, dust, sludge, and residues from manufacturing and waste tieatment processes (NRCC 1978 and EPA 1979, as cited by EPA 2003b, 2005).
Lead in soil is relatively immobile and persistent. It is normally converted from soluble lead compounds to relatively insoluble sulfate or phosphate complexes. It also forms binds to organic matter and clay minerals, which limits its mobility. Lead is most available from acidic, sandy soils, in which leaching of lead can be relatively rapid, especially at highly contaminated sites or landfills (Kayser et al. 1982). Plant uptake can occur via the roots or through absorption of airborne particles on shoots and leaves. The rate of uptake depends on factors including cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil composition (e.g., organic matter content, calcium content, concentiations of other metals), precipitation, light, and temperature, with uptake being greater in soils with low pH values and organic carbon contents (DeMayo et al. 1982b, as cited by Eisler 1988). Lead does not seem to biomagnify, but is considered bioaccumulative.
5.5.9.2 Toxicity Relative to other metals, lead toxicity is influenced to a very large degree by interactions among physical, chemical, and biological variables. In general, organolead compounds are more toxic than inorganic lead compounds, and young, immature organisms are most susceptible to its effects (Eisler 1988). The toxic effects of lead on terrestiial organisms are extiemely varied and include mortality, reduced growth, and reproductive output, and alterations in histopathology and blood chemistiy. In plants, toxic mechanisms include reduced photosynthetic activity, mitosis, and water absorption. In animals, lead inhibits the formation of heme, adversely affects blood chemistiy, and accumulates in hematopoietic organs (Eisler 1988). At lethal concentiations, marked changes to the cential nervous system occur prior to death (Eisler 1988).
^ CDM I Final SLERA 300637 5-13 Section 5 Risk Characterization
5.5.10 Mercury r 5.5.10.1 Fate and Transport Mercury has been used by man for thousands of years, most recently as a fungicide in agriculture, in the manufacture of chlorine, sodium hydroxide, electionics, and plastics, as a slime contiol agent in the pulp and paper industiy, and in mining and smelting operations (Eisler 1987). Mercury is persistent in the environment, with organisms in contaminated habitats showing elevated mercury burdens for as long as 100 years after the pollution source has been removed (Eisler 1987).
Mercury is present in the environment in both inorganic and organic forms. Inorganic mercury exists in three valence states: mercuric (Hg2-i-), mercurous (Hgl-^), and elemental (Hg) mercury. Inorganic mercury compounds are less toxic than organomercury compounds; the mercuric ion is the most toxic inorganic chemical form (Clarkson and Marsh 1982). However, the inorganic forms are readily converted to organic forms by bacteria commonly present in the envirorvment. The organomercury compound of greatest concern is methylmercury, due to its high stability, lipid solubility, and ability to penetiate membranes in living organisms (Beijer and Jernalov 1979). Mercury can become methylated biologically or chemically. Microbial methylation of mercury occurs most rapidly under anaerobic conditions, which are common in wetlands and aquatic sediments but may also be found in soils. Most mercury detected in biological tissues is present in the form of methylmercury (Huckabee et al. 1979), which is known to biomagnify in food chains.
Because of its capacity to bind to clays and other charged particles, mercury sorbs stiongly to soils. Therefore, inorganic mercury in soils is generally not available for uptake by plants (Beauford et al. 1977). However, mercury levels in plant tissues do increase as soil levels increase, with most (95 percent) of the accumulation and retention being in the root system (Beauford et al. 1977, Cocking et al. 1991).
5.5.10.2 Toxicity Mercury is a highly toxic mutagenic and teratogenic compound with no known natural biological function. A number of toxic effects of mercury exposure have been reported, although little information is available regarding its effect on terrestrial plants. In birds, mammals, and fish, mercury acts as a potent neurotoxin, resulting in impaired muscular coordination, vision, and hearing; depressed growth and reproduction; weight loss; and apathy, with early developmental stages being the most sensitive (Eisler 1987). Other effects include changes in enzyme activity levels and histopathology. In mammals, methylmercury irreversibly destioys the neurons of the cential nervous system.
5.5.11 Selenium 5.5.11.1 Fate and Transport Selenium was used as a plant pesticide in the early 1900's and is still used sparingly to contiol pests of greenhouse chrysanthemums and carnations (Rosenfeld and Beath 1964, as cited by Eisler 1985b). The use of selenium pesticides has generally been
^ CDM I FinalSLERA 30063 8 5-14 Section 5 Risk Characterization
discontinued, however, because of their high price, their stability in soils and resultant f contamination of food crops, and their proven toxicity to mammals. Shampoos containing small amounts (about 1 percent) of selenium are still used to contiol dandruff, dermatitis, and mange (Eisler 1985b). Selenium is also extensively used in the manufacture and production of glass, pigments, rubber, metal alloys, textiles, petioleum, medical therapeutic agents, and photographic emulsions. Selenium chemistiy is complex; there are six stable isotopes of varying allopatric forms and valence states. Isotopes Se-80 and Se-78 are the most common. Soluble Selenates (+6), which are readily taken up by plants, occur in alkaline soil and are slowly reduced to less soluble selenites (-i-4). In acid or neutial soils, the amount of biologically available selenium steadily declines; selenites are easily reduced to elemental selenium, which is insoluble and largely not bioavailable, although it is capable of satisfying nutiitional requirements for selenium (Eisler 1985b). Selenium volatilizes from soils at rates that are modified by temperature, moisture, time, season, concentiation of w^ater-soluble selenium, and microbiological activity (Eisler 1985b). Selenium bioaccumulates, but does not appear to biomagnify.
5.5.11.2 Toxicity Selenium is an essential nutiient for some plants and animals, constituting an integral part of proteins and enzymes including cytochrome C, hemoglobin, myoglobin, myosin, glutathione peroxidase, and various ribonucleoproteins (Eisler 1985b). It may also play a role in the formation of other compounds, such as vitamin E and the enzyme formic dehydrogenase. In many systems, selenium deficiency is a greater problem than selenium toxicity, though the dividing line between selenium acting as a micronutiient or as a toxin may be fine. Additionally, sensitivity to selenium varies widely, even among similar taxonomic groups (Eisler 1985b).
Selenium accumulation in certain species of plants may be extiemely high. Plants that accumulate selenium tend to be more deep-rooted than grasses, thereby serving as principal forage for herbivorous animals during dry conditions and potentially leading to high rates of selenium intake. Toxic effects resulting from consumption of selenium accumulating plants include reproductive sterility, congenital malformations, growth retardation, anemia, respiratory failure, chromosomal aberrations, intestinal lesions, behavioral modifications, and death (Eisler 1985b). Selenium appears to bioaccumulate in animals as well as plants, since concentrations tend to be higher in older than in younger individuals. However, some organisms (e.g., rats) appear able to regulate selenium. Excretion occurs primarily through urine, with smaller amounts excreted in feces, breath, perspiration, and bile (Eisler 1985b).
5.5.12 Silver 5.5.12.1 Fate and Transport Silver is a rare but naturally occurring metal, often found deposited as a mineral ore. The principal industiial use of silver is as silver halide in the manufacturing of photographic imaging materials; other uses include jewelry, coins, inks, and silverware. Silver is also used for medical purposes. In the United States, the J» photographic industiy accounts for about 47 percent of all anthropogenically CDM I FinalSLERA 300639 ^'""^ Section 5 Risk Characterization
discharged silver (Eisler 1996). Other sources include mining and smelting ^ operations, the disposal of electiical supplies, coal combustion, and cloud seeding.
Silver occurs naturally in several oxidation states, the most common being elemental silver (AgO) and the monovalent ion (Ag+). The primary silver compounds formed under oxidizing conditions are bromides, chlorides, and iodides; under reducing conditions, the free metal and silver sulfide predominate (ATSDR 1990, as cited by Eisler 1996). Silver is leached from soils by an acidic environment and good drainage; soil organisiris that render nitiogen compounds soluble as nitiates also increase mobility of silver (Smith and Carson 1977). An alkaline environment, potassium clay minerals, negatively charged hydrated iron and manganese oxides, organic matter, and precipitating anions tend to fix silver in the soil. Thus, w^hile the redox potential of soils has little direct effect on silver bioavailability, soil Eh indirectly plays a major role in deternuning the mobility and bioavailability of silver because of its impact on soil processes including the hydrolysis of iron and manganese and precipitation of their oxide hydrates, the production of sulfide ions, and the oxidation of organic material. Silver is considered bioaccumulative; however, considerable differences exist in the ability of animals to accumulate, retain, and eliminate silver (Baudin et al 1994, as cited in Eisler 1996).
5.5.12.2 Toxicity Silver is a normal tiace constituent of many organisms (Smith and Carson 1977). It is not known to be mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic. However, effects of silver toxicity have been documented in a wide variety of organisms including crop plants, numerous aquatic species, avian and mammalian livestock, and laboratory animals, although little research has been done on terrestiial wildlife species. Observed effects include reduced growth and death in plants and weight loss, cardiac enlargement, vascular hypertension, hepatic necrosis, anemia, enzyme inhibition, lowered immunological activity, ocular and neurological impairment, kidney damage, and mortality in animals (Smith and Carson 1977; Eisler 1996).
5.5.13 Vanadium 5.5.13.1 Fate and Transport Elemental vanadium does not occur free in nature but is a component of dozens of different minerals and fossil fuels (EPA 2003b, 2005). Anthropogenic sources include acid-mine leachate, sewage sludge, and fertilizers. It is also a by-product of petioleum refining and the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels (EPA 2003b, 2005). Vanadium is principally used as an alloy constituent, especially in steel, as well as in pigment manufacturing, photography, and insecticides.
Vanadium can take various valence states, from +2 to +5. It is found in rocks and soil in the relatively insoluble tiivalent form, and as vanadates of a variety of metals in the -f-5 oxidation state. (EPA 2003b, 2005). It can also form both cationic and anionic salts. The release of vanadium to soil occurs as a result of the weathering of rocks and from soil erosion, both of which generally convert the less-soluble tiivalent form to the more-soluble pentavalent form. Mobility of vanadium in soils is determined by pH, ^ CDM • FinalSLERA 300640 5-16 Section 5 Risk Characterization
Eh, and organic content. In contiast to most metals, vanadium is fairly mobile in J* neutial or alkaline soils and less mobile in acidic soils. Soluble vanadium in soils appears to be easily taken up by plant roots (Hopkins et al. 1977, as cited by EPA 2003b, 2005). Vanadium is not considered bioaccumulative.
5.5.13.2 Toxicity Toxicity of vanadium has not been demonstiated in plants. In animals, the toxic action is largely confined to the respiratory tiact, because inhalation is the most common route of exposure; absorption of vanadium through the gastiointestinal tract of animals is low. Inhalation of vanadium damages the alveolar macrophages by decreasing the macrophage membrane integrity; damaged macrophages inhibit the ability of the respiratory system to clear itself of other particles. However, ingestion of high concentiations of vanadium compounds (V2O5) may lead to acute poisoning characterized by marked effects on the nervous system, hemorrhage, paralysis, convulsions, and respiratory depression. Subacute exposures at high concentiations may adversely affect the liver, adrenals, and bone marrow (Klassen et al. 1986). In vitio experiments in mice indicate that the mechanism of toxicity of vanadium is by inhibiting sodium-potassium ATPase activity, which inhibits the sodium-potassium pump. This pump is necessary for the tiansport of material across cell membranes (Nechay and Saunders 1978).
5.5.14 Zinc 5.5.14.1 Fate and Transport Zinc occurs naturally in the earth's crust. It is used primarily in the production of brass and other alloys, galvanization of iron and steel products, and formulation of white pigments. It is also used as a fungicide in agriculture and is applied to soils to prevent zinc deficiency (Eisler 1993). Anthropogenic releases of zinc in the environment occur through smelting and ore processing, mine drainage, sewage, combustion of solid wastes and fossil fuels, road surface runoff, corrosion of zinc alloys and galvanized surfaces, and erosion of agricultural soils (Eisler 1993).
Zinc is not found free in nature, but often occurs in the +2 oxidation state as zinc sulfide, zinc carbonate, or zinc oxide. Zinc compounds also exist in the particulate phase in the atmosphere and are physically removed from the air by wet or dry deposition. Zinc is stiongly adsorbed to soil at pH 5 or greater, and zinc compounds have low mobility in most soils (Blume and Brummer 1991). Clay minerals, hydrous oxides, and pH are the most important factors contiolling zinc solubility. Soluble forms of zinc are readily absorbed by plants. Uptake is dependent on soil type; for example, uptake is lower in coarse loamy soils than in fine loamy soils (Chang et al. 1983, as cited by Eisler 1993).
Zinc is essential for normal grow^th and reproduction in plants and animals and is regulated by the body. It is not known to bioaccumulate.
^ CDM Final SLERA ^ „ o ^ „., 5-17 I 300641 Section 5 Risk Characterization
5.5.14.2 Toxicity J» Because zinc is an essential element, maintaining a balance between excess and insufficient zinc is important. Zinc deficiency occurs in many species of plants and animals and has severe adverse effects on all stages of growth, development, reproduction, and survival (Eisler 1993). Zinc is a component of several essential enzymes that regulate the biosynthesis and catabolic rate of RNA and DNA.
A w^ide safety margin appears to exist between required and toxic zinc intakes. However, high levels of zinc can cause copper deficiency and interfere with metabolism of calcium and iron (Goyer 1986, as cited by Eisler 1993). Terrestiial plants growing in soil with high zinc concentiations (such as beneath corroded galvanized fencing or near zinc smelters) showed poor seedling establishment and decreased photosynthesis, respiration, and seedling root elongation, resulting in negative impacts on measures of species richness and abundance (Nash 1975, as cited by Eisler 1993). Zinc poisoning has also been documented in a variety of animal species, usually through the ingestion of zinc-containing products such as galvanized metal objects, zinc containing coins, and skin and sunblock preparations containing zinc oxide (Eisler 1993).
The pancreas and bone seem to be the primary targets of zinc toxicity in birds and mammals. Signs of acute poisoning include impaired reproduction, anorexia, depression, enteritis, diarrhea, decreased milk yield, decreased growth, excessive eating and drinking and, in severe cases, convulsions and death (Ogden et al. 1988, as cited in Eisler 1993). Zinc preferentially accumulates in bone, where it induces osteomalacia, a softening of bone caused by a deficiency of calcium, phosphorus, and other minerals (Kaji et al. 1988). Pancreatic effects include reduced activity of digestive enzymes, cytoplasmic vacuolation, cellular atiophy, and cell death (Lu and Combs 1988; Kazacos and Van Vleet 1989).
5.6 Risk Summary This section of the SLERA discusses the potential ecological significance of the estimated risks and provides conclusions. Ecological significance considers the limitations and uncertainties (see Section 6) with the quantitative HQ risk estimates. An important first step in understanding the results of this SLERA is to answer the risk questions initially presented in the Problem Formulation phase.
The following risk questions were initially identified as important to the SLERA. The initial results of the SLERA are used to respond to these questions and to help from conclusions. The risk questions and associated responses follow.
• Are site-related contaminants present in surface soil xoliere ecological receptors may he exposed?
Response: Available data show that most COPCs in onsite surface soil are or may be site-related. Only iron is unlikely to be site-related.
^ CDM I FinalSLERA ^^^^^^ 5-18 Section 5 Risk Characterization
Wliere present, are tlie concentrations of site-related contaminants sufficiently elevated ^ to impair tlie survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?
Response: Yes. Many of the COPCs (e.g., Aroclor 1254, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc) in soil have been measured at concentiations that may cause ecological adverse effects in sensitive receptors.
Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site-related contaminants to cause adverse population-level or community-level effects?
Response: Unknown. Population or community level effects could occur given the site area relative to the assumed home or foraging range of upper tiophic level receptors. Terrestiial plants and soil dwelling invertebrates may experience localized community-level effects where the level of contamination is most elevated.
f CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00643 ^"''^ o
OS
300644 Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment f The potential risks from contaminants in soil to terrestiial plant and animal communities or populations at the Emmell's Septic Landfill site were evaluated by comparing the maximum exposure concentiations to ecological screening values representing the lowest level at which harmful effects would be predicted to occur. Inherent in these comparisons is some degree of uncertainty, intioduced during various steps in the evaluation. The sources of this uncertainty are discussed below, as well as whether the assumptions used are likely to over- or under-represent ecological risks from contaminants at the site. In general, because this SLERA used conservative assumptions, risks are likely overestimated.
The main sources of uncertainty include natural variability, error, and insufficient knowledge. Natural variability is an inherent characteristic of ecological systems, their stiessors, and their combined behavior in the environment. Biotic and abiotic parameters in these systems may vary to such a degree that the exposure and response of similar assessment endpoints in the same system may differ temporally and spatially. Factors that contiibute to temporal and spatial variability include differences in individual organism behavior (within and between species), changes in the weather or ambient temperature, unanticipated interference from other stiessors, interactions with other species in the community, differences between microenvironments, and numerous other factors.
6.1 Problem Formulation Sources of uncertainty within the problem formulation phase of the SLERA relate to the selection of assessment endpoints and assumptions within the site conceptual model.
The selection of appropriate assessment endpoints to characterize risk is a critical step within the problem formulation of an ecological risk assessment. If an assessment endpoint is overlooked or not identified, environmental risk at the site will be underestimated. Within this SLERA, the selection of assessment endpoints was performed with the intent of being inclusive for this site. However, given the complexity of the environment and the state of knowledge of organisrn interactions, it is possible that unique exposure pathw^ays or assessment endpoints exist that w^ere not acknowledged within the problem formulation. If additional pathways or assessment endpoints exist, risk may be underestimated.
The site conceptual model presents the pathways by which contaminants are released from source areas to expose receptors. However, some exposure pathways are difficult to evaluate or cannot be quantitatively evaluated based available information. Within this SLERA the inhalation exposure pathway was not addressed. It was assumed this exposure pathway is not significant when compared to COPC exposure via direct contact and incidental ingestion. This may result in underestimating f potential risk. CDM FinalSLERA 6-1 i 300645 Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment r 6.2 Exposure Assessment All exposure assessments have a degree of uncertainty due to necessary simplifications and assumptions, which must be made as part of the evaluation. Major sources of uncertainty in the exposure assessment include the following.
Concentiations used to represent exposure point concentiations and characterizations of the distiibutions of COPCs can be a source of uncertainty. These issues relate to the adequate characterization of the nature and extent of chemical contamination. It is assumed that sufficient samples have been collected from surface soil and appropriately analyzed to adequately describe the nature and extent of chemical contamination in soil resulting from the release of site-related chemicals.
When potential levels of uncertainty could adversely affect the results of the assessment, conservative approaches are taken that may result in over-protection of sensitive receptors. Such an approach is prudent where uncertainties are high and is in line with regulatory guidance for conducting SLERAs. For example, maximum detected concentiations of COPCs are used to assess potential risk at the SLERA stage, and this approach likely overestimated the average concentiations to which receptors may be exposed.
Information concerning speciation of metals was generally lacking. It is widely recognized that bioavailability and toxicity can vary dramatically as a function of metal species. In this risk assessment, it was assumed that COPCs in environmental media were 100 percent bioavailable. This is a conservative assumption that will overestimate risk. Metal toxicity is a function of the amount of a metal accumulated and retained in a bioreactive or toxic form, not the concentiation of total metals in soil. Bioavailability of a COPC will determine the internal dose (the concentiation of metal absorbed into the organism that reaches the specific site of action) (Rangan et al. 1997). Bioavailability can be affected by factors including chemical speciation, sorption onto soils or sediment, complexation, aging, competition with environmental ligands, or precipitation in anoxic environments in the presence of sulphides (Chapman et al. 2003). Soil particle size can also influence exposure concentiations and bioavailability; soils comprised of fine particles will tend to have higher COPC concentiations than coarser textured soils due to the larger surface area and increased number of potential adsorption sites.
6.3 Effects Assessment Uncertainties associated with the effects assessment relate to estimations of toxicity reference values (ESLs), the use of conservative assumptions, and the degree of interaction between site contaminants.
Not all ESLs have the same degree of confidence. For some COPCs, information on toxicity is limited or not available. Additionally, many ESLs were derived from r laboratory animal studies that evaluated exposure to a single chemical under CDM I Final SLERA 300646 ^"^ Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment
contiolled conditions. Wildlife species using the Emmell's Septic Landfill site may be r exposed to a mixture of COPCs under sometimes stiessful envirorunental conditions, which may impact the toxic impact of a contaminant. Additionally, extiapolation of a ESL derived from populations or species different from those at the site may intioduce error because of differences in pharmacokinetics or population and species variability. Further, where ESLs were statistically determined, they do not represent absolute thresholds; they are reflective of the experimental design. Finally, ESLs incorporate error contiibuted by the use of results from many studies incorporating different methods of sample collection, preparation, and analysis. These factors may result in over- or underestimating ecological risk.
Uncertainties can be intioduced by use of unrealistic assumptions in the conceptual model. In SLERAs, conservative assumptions are generally made in light of the uncertainty associated with the risk assessment process. This minimizes the possibility of concluding that no risk is present when a threat actually does exist (i.e., minimizes false negatives). However, the accuracy with which risk was predicted is not known. The use of conservative assumptions likely overestimates potential risk.
Risk estimates were determined for each COPC individually. Hazard indices (His), which are the summation of HQs, w^ere not calculated in this SLERA. It is the general practice within risk assessments to use HI calculations when it is known that several contaminants interact; however, interactions betw^een contaminants may be additive, k antagonistic or synergistic. Because the degree to which interactions between contaminants may affect risk to ecological receptors at the site is not known, this assumption may over- or underestimate risk.
There is also the potential of cumulative stiess from exposure to additional stiessors (e.g., habitat degradation); however, this was not evaluated within this SLERA. If other stiessors exist at the site, and if the effects of those stiessors and the effects of exposure to site related contaminants are cumulative, ecological risks at the site may be underestimated.
6.4 Risk Characterization By definition, uncertainties in risk characterization are influenced by uncertainties in exposure assessment and effects assessment. The adequate sampling and analysis of surface soils minimize the uncertainties in exposure assessment of this medium. Descriptions of the magnitude and distribution of COPCs within the site are considered to be generally representative of current conditions within the site. Since only the maximum detected concentiations are used at this stage of the ecological risk assessment, the range of exposure concentiations is less critical to the results of the SLERA.
Effects data can also contiibute to overall uncertainty in risk characterization. Science and scientific investigations cannot prove any hypothesis beyond doubt. The scientific method is instead based on stating the hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, and either p accepting or rejecting the hypotheses based on the weight-of-evidence provided by CDM Final SLERA ,. „ ^. „ 6-3 • 300647 Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment
test data. Cortfidence in the ability of selected ESLs to assess ecological risks varies for f each data value selected. While all ESLs used in this SLERA are associated with some degree of uncertainty, it is the general tiend described by the comparisons between exposure concentiations and effects concentiations, and the overall confidence in such comparisons, that are most important. Available information suggests that the ESLs selected for use in this SLERA are generally similar to other ESLs, are commonly accepted for screening, and adequate for estimating risk using conservative assumptions.
Another potential source of uncertainty is the small amount of biological or ecological survey data to support this SLERA. The types of surveys needed to aid in the determination of cause and effect relationships, especially at the community or population level, are highly dependent on data quality and data quantity. Such data, however, are not currently available. Recent observations based on a more general site visit/survey are used to qualitatively evaluate habitat quality, habitat use, presence of receptors, and observations of adverse impacts.
Finally, the risk characterization method itself can contiibute to uncertainty. HQs depend on a single value for both exposure concentiation and effects concentiation. Selecting a single screening level, only after consulting multiple sources to ensure some degree of consistency, minimizes the uncertainty associated with any single value. Incorporating site observations into final conclusions also reduces the dependence on stiict quantitative risk estimates that, in some cases, can be highly uncertain.
f CDM FinalSLERA .,«„,r.o 6-4 I 300648 §
300649 Section 7 f Summary and Conclusions Responses to risk questions identified in the Problem Formulation phase of this SLERA indicate that potential ecological adverse effects may exist to receptors exposed to COPCs in surface soil at the site. Based on comparison of maximum detected concentiations of contaminants in surface soils at the Emmell's Septic Landfill site to conservatively derived published ESLs, the potential for ecological risk may occur. Specifically, potential risk may exist from exposure to the following contaminants: Aroclor 1254, aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc. Of note, however, is that several of the HQs were low, with barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and vanadium all having calculated values less than 10. It cannot be concluded that potential risk does not exist from benzaldehyde, since an ESL was not available for this compound.
The COPCs identified at the site were determined based on comparisons of maximum contaminant concentiations detected with conservative ESLs. However, as indicated in Section 5, Risk Characterization, considerations of site specific soil attributes for the Emmell's Septic Landfill site along with chemical specific toxicity characteristics can provide additional information regarding the potential for toxic effects resulting from exposure to identified COPCs. In particular, soils at the Emmell's Septic Landfill site are acidic and have a low organic carbon content. These characteristics will have k significant impacts on the bioavailability and chemical form of contaminants at the site, particularly metals. Conditions at the site will Ukely enhance bioavailabiUty of compounds including Aroclor 1254, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, silver, and zinc. In contiast, bioavailability of copper, cyanide, mercury, selenium, and vanadium is generally lower under low^ pH conditions. However, because 100 percent bioavailability was assumed for all contaminants, actual bioavailability values for aU compounds would necessarily be less at the site than was assumed for this SLERA. Since potential risks are associated with site contaminants based on such conservative assumptions it is recommended a Step 3a evaluation be performed to further refine the list of site-related COPCs. p CDM I FinalSLERA 3°°^^° 7-1 en n n O s QD
300651 I Section 8 Literature Cited
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for Cyanide. U.S. Public Health Service.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registty (ATSDR). 1992. Toxicological Profile for Barium. U.S. Pubhc Health Service.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registiy (ATSDR). 1990. Toxicological Profile for Silver. U.S. PubUc Health Service TP-90-24.
Baudin, J. P., J. Garnier-Laplace, and A. Lambrechts. 1994. Uptake from water, depuration and tissue distiibution of 110m Ag in a freshwater fish Cyprinus carpio L. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 72:129-141.
Bazzaz, F. A., R.W. Carlson, and G.L. Rolfe. 1974. The effect of heavy metals on plants: Part 1. Inhibition of gas exchange in sunflow^er by Pb, Cd, Ni, and Ti. Environ Pollut. 7:241-246.
Beauford, W., J. Barber and A.R. Barringer. 1977. Uptake and distiibution of mercury within higher plants. Physiol Plant., 39:261-265.
Beijer, K., and A. Jernalov. 1979. Methylation of mercury in natural waters. Pages 201- 210 in J.O. Nriagu (ed.). The Biogeochemistiy of Mercury in the Environment. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.
Blume H.P. and G. Brummer. 1991. Prediction of heavy metal behaviour in soil by means of simple field tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 22:164-174.
Bodek, I., W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt. 1988. Environmental Inorganic Chemistiy: Properties, Processes, and Estimation Methods. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 352 pp.
Brooks, L. 1988. Inhibition of NADPH-cytochrome c reductase and attenuation of acute diethylnitiosamine hepatotoxicity by copper. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Budavari, S. (ed.). 1996. The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 922 pp.
CCME (Canadian council of Ministers of the Environment). 2002. Canadian r Environmental Quality Criteria for contaminated Sites. Environmental Quality CDM FinalSLERA "8-1 I 300652 > Section 8 Literature Cited
guidelines Division, Water Quality Branch. Environment Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba. June.
CDM. 2006. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Emmell's Septic Landfill Site, Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey.
CDM. 2003. Final Work Plan, Emmell's Septic Landfill Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Galloway Township, New Jersey.
Chang, A. C, A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, M. R. Resketo, and T. E. Jones. 1983. Accumulation of cadmium and zinc in barley grown on sludge-tieated soils: a longterm field study. Journal of Environmental Quality 12:391-397.
Chapman, P. M., F. Wang, C. R. Janssen, R. R. Goulet, and C. N. Kamunde. 2003. Conducting ecological risk assessments of inorganic metals and metalloids: Current status. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 9(4): 641-697.
Chou, S.F.J, and R.A. Griffin. 1986. Solubility and Soil Mobihty of Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Pp. 101-120 in Waid, J.S. (ed.). PCBs and the Environment, Volume I. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 228p.
Clarkson, T.W. and D.O. Marsh. 1982. Mercury toxicity in man. Pp. 549-568 in: Prasad, A.S. (ed.). Clinical, Biochemical, and Nutiitional Aspects of Trace Elements. Vol. 6. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY.
Cocking, D. R. Hayes, M.L. King, M.J. Rohrer, R. Thomas, and D. Ward. 1991. Compartmentalization of mercury in biotic components of terrestiial floodplain ecosystems adjacent to the South River at Waynesboro, VA. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 57-58:159-170.
Davidson, E.A. 1995. Spatial covariation of soil organic carbon, clay content, and drainage class at a regional scale. Landscape Ecology 10(6):349-362.
DeMayo, A., M.C. Taylor, and K.W. Taylor. 1982a. Effects of copper on humans, laboratory and farm animals, terrestiial plants and aquatic life. CRC Grit. Rev. Environ. Contiol 12:183-255.
DeMayo, A., M.C. Taylor, K.W. Taylor, and P.V. Hodson. 1982b. Toxic effects of lead and lead compounds on human health, aquatic life, wildlife plants, and livestock. CRC Grit. Rev. Environ. Contiol 12:257-305.
Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997a. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. f CDM I FinalSLERA 3^^^^^ 8-2 I
Section 8 Literature Cited
Efroymson, R.A., M. E. Will, G.W. Suter, and A.C. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestiial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Eisler, R. 1996. Silver Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 32.
Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 10.106 pp.
Eisler, R. 1991. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 85(1.23).
Eisler, R. 1988. Lead Hazards to Fish, WildHfe, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.14).
Eisler, R. 1987. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.10).
Eisler, R. 1986a. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.7).
Eisler, R. 1986b. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.6).
Eisler, R. 1985a. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.2),
Eisler R. 1985b. Selenium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.5).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003a. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285-7-55.
EPA. 2003b, 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2003c. Region 5, RCRA Ecological Screening Levels.
EPA 2002. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin. Waste Management Division Freshwater Surface Water Screerung Values for Hazardous Waste Sites. f CDM Final SLERA 8-3 I 300654 I
Section 8 Literature Cited
EPA. 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 530-D-99-001A.
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630-R-95/002F.
EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006.
EPA. 1990. Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Cyanide. EPA/600/8-90/002F.
EPA. 1979. The Health and Environmental Impacts of Lead and an Assessment of a Need for Limitations. EPA/560/2-79-001.
EPA. 1978. Reviews of the Envirorunental Effects of Pollutants: V. Cyanide. EPA 600/1-78/027.
Friberg, L., G. F. Norberg, and V. B. Vouk (editors). 1979. Handbook of the Toxicity of Metals. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, NY. 748 pp.
Goyer, R. A. 1986. Toxic effects of metals. Pages 582-635 in C. D. Klaassen, M. O. Amdur, and J. Doull (eds). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. Third edition. Macmillan, New York.
Hammons, A.S., J.E. Huff, H.M. Braunstein, J.S. Drury, C.R. Shriner, E.B. Lewis, B.L. Whitfield, and L.E. Towill. 1978. Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: rv Cadmium. EPA 600/1-78-026. 251pp.
Harlow, W.H. 1979. Textbook Of Dendrology, Covering The Important Forest Trees Of The United States And Canada.McGraw Hill, New York. 510 pp.
Hatch, R.C. 1978. Poisons Causing Respiratory Insufficiency. In L.M. Jones, N.H. Booth and L.E. McDonald (eds.). Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Ames Press, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa.
Hopkins, L. L., H.L. Cannon, A.T. Musch, R.M. Welch, and F.H. Neilsen. 1977. Vanadium. Geochem. Environ. 2: 93-107.
Horn, E.G., L.J. Hetling, and T.J. Tofflemire. 1979. The Problem of PCBs in the Hudson River System. New York Acad. Sci. 320:591-609.
Huckabee, J.W., J.M. Elwood, and S.G. Hildebrand. 1979. Accumulation of Mercury in Freshwater Biota." Pp. 277-302 in Nriagu, J.O. (ed). The Biogeochemistiy of Mercury in the Environment. New York, NY: Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical f Press. CDM I FinalSLERA 3 00655 ^-4 Section 8 Literature Cited
Irwin, R.J., M. Van Mouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Iwata, Y., F.A. Gunther, and W.E. Westlake. 1974. Uptake of a PCB (Aroclor 1254) from Soil by Carrots Under Field Conditions. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:523-528.
Iwata, Y. and F.A. Gunther. 1976. Translocation of the Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254 from Soil into Carrots Under Field Conditions. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 4L44-59.
James, B. R., and R. J. Bartlett. 1983a. Behavior of chromium in soils: V. Fate of organically complexed Cr (III) added to soil. J. Environ. Qual. 12:169-172.
James, B. R., and R. J. Bartlett. 1983b. Behavior of chromium in soils. VI. Interactions between oxidation-reduction and organic complexation. J. Environ. Qual. 12:173-176.
Kaji, T., R. Kawatani, M. Takata, T. Hoshino, T. Miyahara, H. Konzuka, and F. Koizumi. 1988. The effects of cadmium, copper or zinc on formation of embryonic chick bone in tissue culture. Toxicology, 50:303-316.
Kayser, R., D. Sterling, D. Viviani (eds.). 1982. Intermedia Priority PoUutant Guidance Documents. EPA, Washington, DC. July.
Kazacos, E.A. and J.F. Van Vleet. 1989. Sequential ultiastiuctural changes of the pancreas in zinc toxicosis in ducklings. American Journal of Pathology 134:581-595.
Kemp, S. 1993. Trees of the Smokies. Great Smokey Mountains Natural History Association, Gatlinburg. 128 pp.
Kern, J.S. 1994. Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:439-455.
Klassen, CD., M.O. Amdur, and J. Doull. 1986. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. 974 pp.
Kluwe, W.M., C.A. Montgomery, H.D. Giles, and J.D. Prejeau. 1983. Encephalopathy in rats and nephropathy in rats and mice after subchronic oral exposure to benzaldehyde. Food Chem. Toxicol. 21(3):245-250.
Langard, S. and T. Norseth. 1979. Chromium. Pages 383-397 in L. Friberg, G. F. Nordberg, and V. B. Vouk (eds.). Handbook on the toxicology of metals. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press. p CDM Final SLERA 8-5 I 300656 Section 8 Literature Cited
Lu, J. and G.F. Combs. 1988. Effects of excess dietary zinc on pancreatic exocrine function in the chick. J. Nutiition 118:681-689.
Mackay, A. D., J. R. Caradus, and M. W. Pritchard. 1990. Variation for aluminum tolerance in white clover. Plant Soil 123:101-105.
Mitchell, J.R., W.R. Snodgrass, and J.R. Gillete. 1976. The role of biotiansformation in chemical-induced liver injury. Environ Health Persp. 15:27-38.
Montz, W.E., W.C Card, and R.L. Kirkpatiick. 1982. Effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and nutiitional restiiction on barbituate-induced sleeping times and selected blood characteristics in raccoons (Procyon lotor). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:578-583.
Moza, P. 1. Weisberger, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1974. Metabolism of 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl-14C in two plant-w^ater-soil-systems. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12(5):541-546.
Nash, T. H., III. 1975. Influence of effluents from a zinc factory on lichens. Ecological Monograph 4,5:183-198.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). 1978. Inorganic Lead. Effects of Lead in the Canadian Envir. p.271. NRCC No.l6736.
Nechay, B.R. and J.P. Saunders. 1978. Inhibition by vanadium of sodium and potassium dependent ATPase derived from animal and human tissues. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 2:247-262.
Newcomb, L.N. 1989. Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. 490 pp.
Ogden, L., W. C. Edwards, and N. A. Nail. 1988. Zinc intoxication in a dog from the ingestion of copper clad zinc pennies. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 30:577-578.
Rangan, U., C. HedIi, M. Gallo, P. Lioy and R. Snyder. 1997. Exposure and risk assessment with respect to contaminated soil: Significance of biomarkers and bioavailability. International Journal of Toxicology 16(4-5): 419-432.
Rosenfeld, I. and O. A. Beath. 1964. Selenium. Geobotany, Biochemistiy, Toxicity, and Nutiition. Academic Press, New York. 411 pp.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1998. Response Engineering and Analytical Contiact (REAC). Technical Memorandum, Emmell's Septic Landfill Site, Site Activity Report. June.
RTECS (Registiy of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) Database. 1997. Published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
CDM I Final SLERA 3 00657 ®"® I
Section 8 Literature Cited
RTECS (Registiy of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) Database. 1991. Published . by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element Concentiations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. Alexandria, VA: USGS. 105 p.
Shore, R. and P. Douben. 1994. The ecotoxicological significance of cadmium intake and residues in terrestiial small mammals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safe. 29:101-112.
Smith, I.e. and B.L. Carson. 1977. Trace Metals in the Environment. Vol 2: Silver. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 469 pp.
Solomonson, L. P. 1981. Cyanide as a metabolic inhibitor. Pages 11-28 in B. Vennesland, E. E. Conn, C. J. Knowles, J. Westley, and F. Wissing (eds.). Cyanide in Biology. Academic Press, New York.
Steven, J. D., L. J. Davies, E. K. Stanley, R. A. Abbott, M. Ihnat, L. Bidstiup, and J. F. Jaworski. 1976. Effects of Chronuum in the Canadian Environment. Nat. Res. Coun. Canada, NRCC No. 15017.168 pp. Avail, from Publications, NRCC/CNRC, Ottawa, Canada, KIA OR6.
Storer, N. L. and T. S. Nelson. 1968. The effect of various aluminum compounds on chick performance. Poult. Sci. 47: 244-247.
Stiek, H.J. and J.B. Weber. 1982. Behavior of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Soils and Plants. Environ. Poll. (Series A). 28:291-312.
Towill, L. E., C. R. Shriner, J. S. Drury, A. S. Hammons, and J. W. Holleman. 1978. Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: III Chromium. EPA 600/1-78-023. 287 pp.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1956. Green Bank, New Jersey Topographic Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series. Photo Revised 1972. Photo Inspected 1977.
Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. 1978. Metal Toxicity in Mammals: 2. Chemical Toxicity of Metals andMetalloids. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Weber, J.B. and E. Mrozek. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls: Absorption and tianslocation by plants, and inactivation by activated carbon. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23:412-417.
CDM FinalSLERA 3^0^33 8-7 300659 Table 2-1 Dominant Vegetation List Emmell's Septic Landfill r Galloway Township, New Jersey Common name Genus and Species ^ American holly Ilex opaca Atlantic white cedar Cfiamaecyparis ttiyoides Black cherry Prunus serotina Black oak Quercus velutina Black tupelo (gum) Nyssa sylvatica Blackjack oak Quercus marilandica Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum Broom sedge Andropogon virginicus Common mullin Verbascum ttiapsus Common reed Ptiragmites australis Deer tongue grass Panicum cladestinum Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginianus Eastern white pine Pinus strobus Flowering dogwood Cornus florida Golden rod Solidago sp. Grape Vitus sp. Grasses unknown Knawel Scleranthis annuus Lawn grasses unknown Lespedeza Lespedeza sp. Northern red oak Quercus rubra Nonway spruce Acer platanoides Pitch pine Pinus rigida Post oak Quercus stellata Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Red maple Acer rubrum Sassafras Sassafras albidum Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea Scrub oak Quercus ilicifoia Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Slender fragrant goldenrod Solidago tenuifolia Sweet everlasting Gnaphalium obtusifolium Sweet pepperbush Ciettira ainifolia Sycamore Platanus occidentalis White oak Quercus alba Wool grass Scirpus cyperinus
Latin genus species names are in accordance with the Newcomb 1989 (wildflowers), Kemp p 1993 (trees and shrubs), and Harlow 1979 (trees and shrubs). CDM I Emmell's Final SLERA 1 of 1 300660 Table 2-2 Observed Wildlife Species Emmell's Septic Landfill Site f Galloway Township, New Jersey
Common Name Genus and Species ' Birds Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla Canada goose Branta canadensis Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Guinea hens Numida sp. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Turkey vulture Cattiartes aura
IVIammals and other species Crickets Gryllus sp. Domestic dogs Canus sp. White-tailed deer Qdocoileus virginianus
Ii ^ Latin genus and species names for birds and mammals are in accordance with Robbins et al. , 2001 and Bowers et al. 2004, respectively.
P CDM Emmell's Final SLERA 1 of 1 I 300661 Table 2-3 Summary of Surface Soil Samples Collected Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Galloway Township, New Jersey
Sample Name Location/Rationale Sample Interval Analyses Located in an undisturbed area in the southern portion of the site 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL r SSOl to be used as background comparison samples. Located in an undisturbed area in the southern portion of the site 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS02 to be used as background comparison samples. Located in an undisturbed area in the southern portion of the site 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL, TOC, to be used as background comparison samples. pH, Grain Size, Bulk SS03 Soil Density Located in the western corner of the site near debris piles. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL, TOC, SS04 pH, Grain Size SS05 Located in the western corner of the site near debris piles. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL Located in the bottom of trenches found on the southwestern 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL, TOC, SS06 side of the area remediated by ERT pH, Grain Size Located in the bottom of trenches found on the southwestern 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS07 side of the area remediated by ERT Located in the Phragmites sp. which is a possible drainage 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS08 collection area. Located in the Phragmites sp. which is a possible drainage 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCLTTAL, TOC, SS09 collection area. pH, Grain Size Located in a possible drainage path leading to the southeast 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS10 from the Phragmites sp. Located a possible drainage path leading to the southeast from 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS11 the Phragmites sp. Located in the wooded area east of the remediated area in a pit. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL This area was disturbed in historical aerial photographs from SS12 1977 and 1979. Located in the wooded area east of the remediated area in a pit. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL ii This area was disturbed in historical aerial photographs from SS13 1977 and 1979. Located at the edge of the wooded area southwest of the 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL SS14 remediated area. Located in the wooded area approximately 50 feet from the road. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL, Bulk This area was disturbed in historical aerial photographs from Soil Density SS15 1977 and 1979. Located southeast of the remediated area near trenches and 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCLyTAL SS16 debris left on the surface. Located southeast of the remediated area near trenches and 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCLTTAL SS17 debris left on the surface. Located in the wooded area east of the remediated area in a pit. 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCL/TAL This area was disturbed in historical aerial photographs from SS18 1977 and 1979. Located west of the Phragmites sp. which is a possible drainage 0 to 1 foot bgs Full TCUTAL SS19 collection area in a pit.
Notes: 1. CDM collected surface soil samples from 19 sample locations using a coring device from a depth of 0 to 1 foot bgs. Each sample was immediately screened with a PID, and logged by the CDM field geologist. An undisturbed sample'from the interval registering the highest field measurement reading was collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If there was no evidence of VOCs using the photoionization detector (PID), the VOC sample will be collected from the midpoint of the core. Acronyms: bgs = below ground surface ERT = Environmental Response Team TCL = Target Compound List Volatile Organic Compounds and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds TAL = Target Analyte List Metals TOC = Total Organic Carbon ^ CDM Emmell's Final SLERA 1 of 1 I 300662 w
Table 2-4 Summary of Soil Screening Results Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, NJ
Minimum Maximum Location of Background Detection Percent Chemical Name Unit Detected Detected Maximum Mean Frequency Detection Concentration' Concentration' Detection Concentration Volatile Organic Compounds Carbon Disulfide pg/kg 1 / 16 6.3 4 J 4 J . SS07 ND 2-Butanone pg/kg 2 / 16 12.5 27 55 SS18 ND Semi-Volatile Organics Benzaldehyde pg/kg 12 / 16 75 190 J 2100 SS13 ND Phenol pg/kg 11 / 16 68.8 62 J 7900 D SS19 ND Acetophenone pg/kg 11 / 16 68.8 190 J 1600 SS19 ND bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate pg/kg 4 / 16 25 700 2000 SS14 ND Pesticides/Polychlorinated Biphenyls alpha-Chlordane pg/kg 2 / 16 12.5 2.9 NJ 23 J SS19 ND Aroclor-1254 pg'kg 11 / 16 68.8 79 100000 D SS17 ND Inorganic Analytes Aluminum mg/kg 16 / 16 100 1590 17100 SS17 4367 Arsenic mg/kg 16 / 16 100 0.71 B 3.8 SS17 1.13 Barium mg/kg 16 / 16 100 4 B 1120 SS19 7.63 Beryllium mg/kg 7 / 16 43.8 0.05 0.31 B SS09 0.063 Cadmium mg/kg 5 / 16 31.3 0.05 2.1 SS19 0,040 Chromium mg/kg 16 / 16 100 1.9 B , 31.6 SS17 4,47 Cobalt mg/kg 10 / 16 , 62.5 0.26 B 1.2 B SS19 ND Copper mg/kg 7 / 16 44 2.2 B 10.9 SS15 1.45 Iron mg/kg 16 / 16 100 1060 9410 SS17 3717 Lead mg/kg 16 / 16 100 4.6 J 93.1 J SS19 4.33 Manganese mg/kg . 16 / 16 100 2.9 B 53.7 SS17 7.33 Mercury mg/kg 7 / 16 43.8 0,06 B 0.56 SS19 0.037 Nickel mg/kg 16 / 16 100 0.62 B 13.4 B SS17 1.70 Selenium mg/kg 6 / 16 37.5 0,79 BJ 2.8 8817 0.642 Silver mg/kg 11 / 16 68.8 0.19 B 31.4 8819 0,22 Vanadium mg/kg _ 16 / 16 100 3,5 B 24.1 J 8817 7,70 Zinc mg/kg 16 / 16 100 3 B 274 SS17 4,07 Cyanide mg/kg 4 / 16 25 0.23 B 4,4 8816 ND General Chemistry pH s.u. 3 / 3 100.0 4.1 4.5 8806 4,2 Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 3 / 3 100.0 2400 7000 SS04 10000
Notes: ND = not detected pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram NA = not applicable S,U, = standard unit 'qualifier: J = estimated value; D = value from dilution analysis; NJ : tentatively identified; B = value below contract required detection limit but o above Instrument detection limit; R = rejected value o en a\ u
CDM Emmell's Final SLERA 1 of 1 9
Table 4-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Surface Soil Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Galloway Township, NJ
Maximum Location of Background Screening Hazard Chemical Name Detected Maximum Concentration Effects Species COPC Rationale" Site-Related?^' Level^ Quotient^ Concentration' Detection Range 1 Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/kg) iCarbon Disulfide 4 J SS07 ND 94.1 c Masked Shrew 0.04 No bsl 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone 55 SS18 ND 89600 c Meadow Vole 0.0006 No bsl Sem/-Vo/ab7e Organics (pg/kg) Benzaldehyde 2100 8813 ND NA NA Yes nl Yes Phenol 7900 D 8819 ND 30000 b Earthworm 0.3 No bsl Acetophenone 1600 SS19 ND 300000 c Masked Shrew 0.005 No bsl ,bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2000 SS14 ND 925 c Masked Shrew 2.2 No bsl Pesticides/PCBs (pg/kg) alpha-Chlordane 23 J 8819 ND 224 c Plant 0.10 No bsl Aroclor-1254* 100000 D 8817 ND 371 b Shrew 270 Yes asr Yes Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg) \ Aluminum 17100 SS17 2680 - 7260 50 d White Clover 342 Yes asl* Maybe Arsenic 3.8 8817 ND-2.8 18 a Plants 0.2 No bsl Barium 1120 SSI 9 4.4-13.2 330 a Soil Invertebrates 3.4 Yes asl Yes Beryllium 0.31 B 8809 ND-0.12 21 a Vole 0.01 No bsl Cadmium 2.1 SSI 9 ND - 0.08 0.36 a Shrew 5.8 Yes asl Yes Chromium 31.6 SS17 2.7-7.7 26 a Woodcock 1.2 Yes asl Maybe Cobalt 1.2 B SS19 ND 13 a Plants 0.09 No bsl Copper 10.9 SS19 0.95-2.0 60 b Earthworm 0.2 No bsl Iron 9410 SS17 1870-6680 200 d Soil Microbes 47 Yes asl No Lead 93.1 J 8819 3.8 - 4.9 11 a Woodcock 8.5 Yes asl Yes Manganese 53.7 SS17 40.7 - 239 100 d Soil Microbes 0.5 No bsl Mercury 0.56 8819 ND - 0.06 0.00051 b Woodcock 1098 Yes asl Yes Nickel 13.4 B 8817 1.1 -2.7 30 b Plant 0.4 No bsl Selenium 2.8 SS17 ND-1.2 0.21 b Mouse 13 Yes asl Maybe Silver 31.4 8819 0.1 - 0.44 2 b Plant 16 Yes asl Yes Vanadium 24.1 J 8817 5-12.7 7.8 a Woodcock 3.1 Yes asl Maybe Zinc 274 8817 3-6 8.5 b Woodcock 32 Yes asl Yes Cyanide 4.4 SSI 6 ND 1.33 c Meadow Vole 3.3 Yes asl Yes General Chemistry | pH(S.U.) 4.5 SS06 4.2 NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) 7000 SS04 10000 NA NA NA NA
o o
CDM Emmell's Final SLERA 1 of 2 •*
Table 4-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Surface Soil Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Galloway Township, NJ
Notes: Bolded entries indicate that chemicals have been identified as COPCs. COPC = chemical of potential concern NA = not available ND = not detected pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram dry weight mg/kg = miligrams per kilogram dry weight PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls S.U. = standard units 'qualifier: J = estimated value; D = value from dilution analysis; B = value below contract required detection limit but above instrument detection limit ^Literature Cited: a -Value is lowest among those presented for plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals taken from: EPA. 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, b - Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary remediation goals for ecological endpoints. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. c - U.S. EPA Region 5. 2003. Region 5, RCRA Ecological Screening Levels. http://www.epa.gov/RCRIS-Region-5/ca/E8L.pdf d - Value Is lowest among those for soil Invertebrates and plants taken from: Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997a. Toxicological benchmarks for contaminants of potential concern for effects oh soil and litter invertebrates and heterotrophic processes. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, A.C. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/rM-85/R3. ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN. •'Hazard quotient = maximum concentration/screening level ''Rationale codes: bsl: below screening level nl: no screening value available asl: above screening level ba: bioaccumulative ^See text in Section 5.5, Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern, for rationale. ""Based on preliminary remediation goal for PCBs 'Aluminum is only considered a contaminant of concern in soils with pH less than 5.5 (EPA 2005^). Maximum measured soil pH on site was 4.5
w o o en a\
CDM Emmell's Final SLERA 2 of 2 •fl
n CD
300666 300667 Site Boundary and Surrounding Habitats
Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Galloway Township, New Jersey
Legend Figure 2-3 9 Sample Location o o © Background Sample Location Note: Surface Soil Sample Locations o\ Site Boundary 88 = Surface Soil Sampling location -J [i:;ii;;i;| Excavation Boundary Emmell's Septic Landfill Site o Feet Galloway Township, New Jersey - - Topographic Contour V Aroclor-1254 SS16 41000 D 1 (^^ ^ Aroclor-1254 • \ SS17 100000 |D J
Aroclor-1254 SS14 11000 |D
Aroclor-1254 SSI 9 6700 |D
NeWjersey
U) o o
Legend Figure 2-4 # Sample Location A Notes; Aroclor 1254 Detections in Surface Soil Samples 0 Background Sample Locatk>n SS = Surface Soil Sampling Location Q 250 500 D = Sample Diluted ^M -^•^ Site Boundary Emmell's Septic Landfill Site All results are in micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) Feet a Galloway Township, New Jersey CDM j:;;!^;nj Excavation Boundary Absence of data for a sample location indicates ttiat Aroclor-1254 was not detected Chemical Release Transport Exposure Exposure Terrestrial Receptor Source Mechanism Medium Medium Pathway Plants Animals
Direct Contact • • Water Erosion Runoff Surface Soil Ingestion — •
Surface Soil
. Wind Air Particulate in Air Inhalation — o
Notes: Incomplet e pathway O = Insignifica nt pathway • = Complete pathway
Figure 2-5
Site Conceptual Exposure Model (SCEM) o Emmell's Septic Landfill Site o Galloway Township, New Jersey
300673 r
Appendix A Letters from Ip the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
p
I 300674 CM*. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE f New Jersey Field Office Ecological Service 927 North Main Street, Building D Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Tel: 609-646-9310 IN REPLY REFER TO: Fax: 609-646-0352 ES-05/NE /fS" http://njfieldoffice.fws.gov .Cr>(y\ MAR 3 0 2005 1 D^^l'K
Attn: A/flx okUj? Fax number: h^^^s-i^.^l
Threatened and endangered species review for:
Project identification: f^Tvi m(='Jl J=> f^-p-ft-Cl- /~C5^ldX C / f Sv<.-riP
Township: ^nL-Wek^.OcW County: A-r/o-^g-Vl..il . , New Jersey Ii The U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service (Service) has reviewed the above-referenced proposed project pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. ,884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.) (ESA) to ensure the protection of federally listed endangered and threatened species. The following comments do not address all Service concerns for fish and wildlife resources and do not preclude separate review and comment by the Service as afforded by other applicable environmental legislation.
Except for an occasional transient bald eagle {Haliaeetus leucocephalus), no other federally hsted or proposed endangered or threatened flora or fauna under Service jurisdiction are known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed project site. Therefore, no further consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required by the Service. This determination is based on the best available information. If additional information on federally hsted species becomes available, or if project plans change, this determination may be reconsidered.
Please refer to this office's web site at http://nifieldoffice.fws.Kov./Endangered^eslist.htm for a current list of federally listed species or candidate species in New Jersey. Candidate species are species under consideration by the Service for federal listing. Although candidate species receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA, the Service encourages you to consider candidate species in project planning. You may obtain the most up-to-date information on federal candidate species and State-listed species in New Jersey firom the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Forestry, P.O. Box 404, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609)984-0097. Information on State-listed wildlife species may be obtained from the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 400, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609)292-9400. If information from either of these sources reveals the presence of any federal candidate species within your project area, the Service should be contacted at the above address immediately to ensure that these species are not adversely affected by project activities. f Authorizing Supervisor: Sect 7 (ES-NE05.fax1 3/14/05 I 300675 r ^tat£ of ^B6T ^ers£^ Richard J. Codey Department of Environmental Protection Bradley M. Campbell Commissioner Acting Governor Division of Parks and Forestry Office of Natural Lands Management Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 404 Trenton; NJ 08625-0404 Tel. #609-964-1339 Fax. #609-984-1427 April 1,2005 Nai-chia Luke CDM Federal Programs Corporation Raritan Plaza One, Raritan Center Edison, NJ 08818-3142 Re: Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Dear Dr. Luke: Thank you for your data request regarding rare species information for the above referenced project site in Galloway Township, Atlantic County. Searches of the Namral Heritage Database and the Landscape Project (Version 2) are based on a representation of the boundaries of your project site in our Geographic Information System (GIS). We make every effort to accurately transfer your project bounds from the topographic map(s) submitted with the Request for Data into our Geographic Information System. We do not typically verify that your project bounds are accurate, or check them against other sources.
We have checked the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project habitat mapping for occurrences of any rare Ii wildlife species or wildlife habitat on the referenced site. Please see Table 1 for species list and conservation status.
Table 1 (on referenced site). Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Grank Srank barred owl Strix varia T/T G5 S3B Lampropeltis traingulum triangulum x L coastal plain milk snake Special Concern t. elapsoides eastern box turtle Terrapene canylina Special Concern G5 S5B eastern kingsnake Lampropeltis g. getula U G5T5 S3 pine barrens treefrog Hyla andersonii T G4 S3
We have also checked the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project habitat mapping for occurrences of any rare wildhfe species or wildlife habitat within 1/4 mile of the referenced site. Please see Table 2 for species list and conservation status. This table excludes any species listed in Table 1.
Table 2 (additional species within 1/4 mile of referenced site). Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Grank Srank carpenter frog Rana virgatipes Special Concem G5 S4 colonial waterbird foraging habitat Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii T/T G5 S3B,S4N Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri Special Concern G5 S4 red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus yn G5 S2B,S2N tern species foraging habitat
We have also checked the Natural Heritage Database for occurrences of rare plant species or natural communities. The Natural Heritage Data Base does not have any records for rare plants or natural communities on or within 1/4 mile of the site.
Attached is a list of rare species and natural communities that have been documented from Atlantic County. If suitable f habitat is present at the project site, these species have potential to be present.
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer 300676 Recycled Paper Status and rank codes used in the tables and lists are defined in the attached EXPLANATION OF CODES USED IN NATURAL J» HERITAGE REPORTS. If you have questions concerning the wildlife records or wildlife species mentioned in this response, we recommend that you visit the interactive I-Map-NJ website at the following URL, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/imapnj/imapnj.htra or contact the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED 'CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NHP DATA',
Thank you for consulting the Natural Heritage Program. The attached invoice details the payment due for processing this data request. Feel free to contact us again regarding any future data requests. Sincerely,
Herbert A. Lord Data Request Specialist cc: Robert J. Cartica Lawrence Niles NHP File No. 05-3907455
Ii
f I 300677 f CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATURAL HERITAGE DATA
The quantity and quality of data collected by the Natural. Heritage Program is dependent on the research and observations oT many individuals and organizations. Not all of this information is the result of comprehensive or site-specific field sun/eys. Some natural areas in New Jersey have never been thoroughly surveyed. As a result, new locations for plant and animal species are continuously added to the database. Since data acquisition is adynamic, ongoing process, the Natural Heritage Program cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition'of biological elements,in any part of New Jersey. Information supplied by the Natural Heritage Program summarizes existing data known to the program at the time of the request regarding the,biological elements or locations in question. They should never be regarded as final statements on the elements or areas being considered, nor should they be substituted for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments. The attached data is, provided as one source of information to assist others in thepresen/ation of natural diversi.ty.
This office cannot provide a letter .of interpretation or a statement addressing the' classification of wetlands as defined by the Freshwater Wetlands ,Act. Requests for such determination should be sent to the DEP Land Use Regulation Program, P.O. Box 401, Trenton, NJ 0862,5-040-1. ' •
The Landscape Project was developed by the Division of Fish .& Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program to map, critica! habitat for .rare animal species. Some of the rare species data in the Landscape Project is in the Natural Heritage Database, while other records were, obtained from other sources, -Natural Heritage Database response letters will list all species (if any) found during a" search- of the Landscape Project. However, any reports that are included with the response letter will oaly reference specific records if they are in the Natural Heritage Database.' This office cannot answer any inquiries about- the Landscape Project. -.All questions should be directed to the DEP Division'of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame'Species Program, P.O. Box 400, Trenton, NJ 08625-0400.
This cautions and restrictions notice must be included whenever information provided by the Natural Heritage Database is published.
NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Parks and Forestry f Naloiral Lands Management I 300678 d» EXPLANATIONS OF CODES USED IN NATURAL HERITAGE REPORTS FEDERAL STATUS CODES
The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service categories and their definitions of endangered and threatened plants and animals have been modified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F.R. -Vol. 50 No. 1 88; Vol. 61, No. 40; F.R. 50 CFR Part 1 7). Federal Status codes reported for species follow the most recent listing.
LE Taxa formally listed as endangered.
LT Taxa formally listed as threatened.
PE Taxa already proposed to be formally listed as endangered.
PT Taxa already proposed to be formally listed as threatened.
C Taxa for which the Service currently has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
S/A Similarity of appearance species.
STATE STATUS CODES
Two animal lists provide state status codes after the Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act of 1 973 (NSSA 23:2A-1 3 et. seq.): the list of •• endangered species (N J.A.C. 7:25-4.1 3) and the list defining status of Indigenous, nongame wildlife species of New Jersey (N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.1 7(a)). The status of animal species is determined by the Nongame and Endangered Species Program (ENSP). The state status codes and definitions provided reflect the most recent lists that were revised in the New Jersey Register, Monday, June 3, 1991.
D . Declining species-a species which has exhibited a continued decline in population numbers over the years.
E Endangered species-an endangered species is one whose prospects for survival within the state are in immediate danger due to one or many factors - a loss of habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, disease. An endangered species requires immediate assistance or extinction will probably follow.
EX Extirpated specles-a species that formerly occurred in New Jersey, but Is not now known to exist within the state.
1 Introduced species-a species not native to New Jersey that could not have established itself here without the assistance of man.
INC Increasing species-a species whose population has exhibited a significant increase, beyond the normal range of Its life cycle, over a long
term period.
T Threatened specles-a species that may become endangered if conditions surrounding the species begin to or continue to deteriorate.
P Peripheral species-a species whose occurrence in New Jersey is at the extreme edge of its present natural range.
S Stable species-a species whose population is not undergoing any long-term increase/decrease within its natural cycle.
U Undetermined species-a species about which there is not enough information available to determine the status. f Status for animals separated by a slash(/) indicate a duel status. First status refers to the state breeding population, and the second status reffers to the migratory or winter population. I 300679 Page 2 r Special Concern applies to animal species that warrant special attention because of some evidence of decline, inherent vulnerability to environmental deterioration, or habitat modiricatlon that would result In their becoming a Threatened species. This category would also be
applied to species that meet the foregoing criteria and for which there is little understanding of their current population status in the state.
Plant taxa listed as endangered are from New Jersey's official Endangered Plant Species List N.J.S.A. 131B-1 5.1 51 et seq.
E Native New Jersey plant species whose survival in the State or nation is in jeopardy.
REGIONAL STATUS CODES FOR PLANTS
LP Indicates taxa listed by the Pinelands Commission as endangered or threatened within their legal jurisdiction. Not all species currently
tracked by the Pinelands Commission are tracked by the Natural Heritage Program. A complete list of endangered and threatened
Pineland species Is included in the New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.
EXPLANATION OF GLOBAL AND STATE ELEMENT RANKS
The Nature Conservancy has developed a ranking system for use In identifying elements (rare species and natural communities) of natural diversity most
endangered with extinction. Each element is ranked according to its global, national, and state (or subnational in other countries) rarity. These ranks are used
to prioritize conservation work so that the most endangered elements receive attention first. Definitions for element ranks are after The Nature Conservancy
(1982: Chapter 4. 4.1-1 through 4.4.1.3-3).
GLOBAL ELEMENT RANKS
CI Critically Imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction.
C2 Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining Individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making It very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 Either very rare and local throughout Its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g.. a single western state, a physiographic region in the East) or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout it's range: with the number of occurrences in the range of 21 to 1 00.
C4 Apparently secure globally; although it may be quite ^sre In parts of its range, especially at the periphery.
C5 Demonstrably secure globally; although it may be quite rare in pans of its range, especially at the periphery.
CH Of historical occurrence throughout its range i.e., formerly part of the established biota, with the expectation that it may be rediscovered.
CU Possibly in peril range-wide but status uncertain; more information needed.
CX Believed to be extinct throughout range (e.g., passenger pigeon) with virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.
G? Species has not yet been ranked. f CNR Species has not yet been ranked. I 300680 Page 3
f STATE ELEMENT RANKS
51 Critically imperiled in New Jersey because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining Individuals or acres). Elements so ranked are often restricted to very specialized conditions or habitats and/or restricted to an extremely small geographical area of the state. Also included are elements which were formerly more abundant, but because of habitat destruction or some other critical factor of its biology, they have been demonstrably reduced In abundance. In essence, these are elements for which, even with intensive searching, sizable additional occurrences are unlikely to be discovered.
52 Imperiled in New Jersey because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences). Historically many of these elements may have been more frequent but are now known from very few extant occurrences, primarily because of habitat destruction. Diligent searching may yield additional occurrences.
53 Rare In state with 21 to 100 occurrences (plant species in this category have on/y 21 to SO occurrences). Includes elements which are widely distributed In the state but with small populations/acreage or elements with restricted distribution, but locally abundant. Not yet imperiled In state but may soon be if current trends continue. Searching often yields additional occurrences.
54 Apparently secure In state, with rhany occurrences.
55 Demonstrably secure in state and essentially Ineradicable under present conditions.
SA . Accidental in state, Including species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or twice or only at very great intervals, hundreds or even thousands of miles outside their usual range; a few of these species may even have fared on the one or two occasions they were recorded; examples Include European strays or western birds on the East Coast and vice-versa.
SE Elements that are clearly exotic in New Jersey including those taxa not native to North America (introduced taxa) or taxa deliberately or accidentally Introduced into the State from other parts of North America (adventive taxa). Taxa ranked SE are not a conservation priority (viable introduced occurrences of CI or C2 elements may be exceptions).
SH Elements of historical occurrence In New Jersey. Despite some searching of historical occurrences and/or potential habitat, no extant occurrences are known. Since not all of the historical occurrences have been field surveyed, and unsearched potential habitat remains, historically ranked taxa are considered possibly extant, and remain a conservation priority for continued field work:
SP Element has potential to occur in New Jersey, but no occurrences have been reported.
SR Elements reported from New Jersey, but without persuasive documentation which would provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting
the report. In some instances documentation may exist, but as of yet. Its source or location has not been determined.
SRF Elements erroneously reported from New Jersey, but this error persists In the literature.
SU Elements believed to be In peril but the degree of rarity uncertain. Also included are rare taxa of uncertain taxonomical standing. More information is needed to resolve rank.
SX Elements that have been determined or are presumed to be extirpated from New Jersey. All historical occurrences have been searched
and a reasonable search of potential habitat has been completed. Extirpated taxa are not a current conservation priority.
SXC Elements presumed extirpated from New Jersey, but native populations collected from the wild exist In cultivation. p SZ Not of practical conservation concern in New Jersey, because'there are no definable occurrences, although the taxon is native and appears regularly In the state. An SZ rank will generally be used for long distance migrants whose occurrences during their migrations i 300681 Page 4
r are too irregular (in terms of repeated visitation to the same locations), transitory, and dispersed to be reliably identified, mapped and protected. In other words, the migrant regularly passes through the state, but enduring, mappable element occurrences cannot be defined.
Typically, the SZ rank applies to a non-breeding population (N) in the state - for example, birds on migration. An SZ rank may in a few instances also apply to a breeding population (B), for example certain lepidoptera which regularly die out every year with no significant return migration.
Although the SZ rank typically applies to migrants. It should not be used indiscriminately. Just because a species is on migration does not mean it receives an SZ rank. SZ will only apply when the migrants occur In an irregular, transitory and dispersed manner.
B Refers to the breeding population of the element In the state.
N Refers to the non-breeding population of the element in the state.
T Element ranks containing a "T" indicate that the Infraspecific taxon is being ranked differently than the full species. For example Stachys palustris^^r. homotrichaii ranked "GSTTSH" meaning the full species Is globally secure but the global rarity of the var. homotricha his, not been determined; in New Jersey the variety is ranked historic.
Q Elements containing a "Q" in the global portion of its rank indicates that the taxon is of questionable, or uncertain taxonomical standing,
e.g., some authors regard it as a full species, while others treat it at the subspecific level.
.1 Elements documented from a single location.
Note: To express uncertainty, the most likely rank Is assigned and a question mark added (e.g., C2?). A range is indicated by combining two ranks (e.g.,
C1C2,S1S3).
IDENTIFICATION CODES
These codes refer to whether the identification of the species or community has been checked by a reliable individual and Is Indicative of significant habitat.
Y Identification has been verified and is indicative of significant habitat.
BLANK Identification has not been verified but there Is no reason to believe It is not indicative of significant habitat.
? Either it has not been determined if the record is indicative of significant habitat or the identification of the species or community may be confusing or disputed. Revised ,March 2005
P I 300682 9
0 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE .DATABASE
COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRANK STATUS STATUS STATUS
'** Vertebrates ACCIPITER COOPERII COOPER'S HAWK T/T GS S3B,S4N AMBYSTOHA TIGRINUM TIGRINUM EASTERN TIGER SALAMANDER E GST5 S2 AMMODRAMUS SAVANNARUM GRASSHOPPER SPARROW T/S GS S2B ARDEA HERODIAS GREAT BLITE HERON S/S G5 S2B,S4N BARTRAMIA LONGICAITOA UPLAND SANDPIPER E GS SIB BUTEO LINEATUS RED-SHOULDERED HAWK E/T GS S1B,S2N CALIDRIS CANUTUS RED KNOT T GS S3N CHARADSIUS MELODUS PIPING PLOVER LT E G3 SIB CIRCUS CYANEUS NORTHERN HARRIER E/U GS SIB,S3N CISTOTHORUS PLATENSIS SEDGE WREN E G5 SIB CLEMMTS INSCLTLPTA HOOD TURTLE T G4 S3 CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII BOG TURTLE E G3 S2 CROTALUS HORRIDUS HORRIDUS TIMBER RATTLESNAKE E G4T4 . S2 EGRETTA CAERULEA LITTLE BLUE HERON S/S GS S2B EGRETTA THULA SNOWY EGRET S/S GS S3B,S4N EGRETTA TRICOLOR TRICOLORED HERON. INC/S GS S3B ELAPHE GUTTATA GUTTATA CORN SNAKE E GSTS SI FALCO PEREGRINUS PEREGRINE FALCON E G4 S1B,S?N HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS BALD EAGLE LT E G4 S1B,S2N HYLA ANDERSONII PINE BARRENS TREEFROG T G-t S3 HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS COPE'S GRAY TREEFROG E GS S2 LATERALLUS JAMAICENSIS BLACK RAIL T/T G4 S2B MELANERPES ERYTHROCEPHALUS RED-HEADED WOODPECKER T/T GS S2B,S2N NYCTANASSA VIOLACEA YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON T/T GS S2B NYCTICORAX NYCTICORAX BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON T/S GS S3B,S4N PAKDION HALIAETUS OSPiJEY T/T G5 S2B O o PITUOPHIS MELANOLEUCUS NORTHERN PINE SNAKE T G4T4 S3 en c» MELANOLEUCUS PLEGADIS FALCINELLUS GLOSSY IBIS D/S GS S3B,S4N 9
30 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECOflDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
COMMON NAME STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRANK STATUS STATUS
PODILYKBUS PODICEPS PIED-BILLED GREBE E/S GS S1B,S3N POOECETES GRAMINEUS VESPER SPARROW E GS S1B,S2N PSEtJDOTRITGN MONTANUS EASTERN MUD SALAMANDER T GSTS SI MONTANUS RYNCHQPS NIGER BLACK SKIMMER E GS SIB STERNA ANTILIARUM LEAST TERN E G4 SIB STERNA HIRUNDO COMMON TERN D/S GS S3B STERNA NILOTICA GULL-BILLED TERN S GS SIB STRIX VARIA BARRED OWL T/T G5 S3B SYNAPTOMYS COOPERI SOtTTHERN BOG LEMMING U G5 S2
*** Ecosystems BRACKISH TIDAL MARSH COMPLEX BRACKISH TIDAL MARSH COMPLEX G4 S2? CAREX STRIATA VAR BREVIS WALTER'S SEDGE COASTAL PLAIN G? S1S3 HERBACEOUS VEGETATION INTERMITTENT POND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION COASTAL DUNE SHRUBLAND COASTAL DUNE SHRUBLAND G4 S2? COASTAL PLAIN INTERMITTENT VERNAL POND G3? S2S3 POND ELEOCHARIS (OLIVACEA, SPIKERUSH (SMALLFRUIT, BRIGHT S2 MICROCARPA, ROBBINSII) - GREEN, ROBBIN'S) - YELLOWEYED XYRIS (DIFFORMIS VAR GRASS (BOG, SMALL'S) COASTAL DIFFORMIS, SMALLIANA) PLAIN INTERMITTENT POND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION HERBACEOUS VEGETATION FRESHWATER TIDAL MARSH FRESHWATER TltJAL t^ARSH COMPLEX (X)MPLEX MARINE INTERTIDAL GRAVEL/SAND MARINE INTERTIDAL GRAVEL/SAND SU BEACH COMMUNITY BEACH COMMUNITY O o PINE BARREN SAVANNA PINE BARREN SAVANNA 00 1^ • 0 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COtlNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRANK- STATUS STATUS STATUS
PINUS RIGIDA SATURATED PITCH PINE LOWLANDS WOODLAND ALLIANCE (UNDI FFEREiWIATED) RHEXIA VIRGINICA - PANICUM VIRGINIA MEADOW-BEAUTY - WARTY VERRUCOSUM HERBACEOUS PANICGRASS COASTAL PLAIN VEGETATION INTERMITTENT POND HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
'*« Invertebrates ACRONICTA ALBARUPA BARRENS DAGGER MOTH G3G4 SU AGROTIS BUCHHOLZI BUCHHOLE'S DART MOTH G2 S2 CALLOPHRYS HESSELI HESSEL'S HAIRSTREAK G3G4 S3S4 CALLOPHRYS IRUS FROSTED ELFIN G3 S2S3 CATOCALA PRETIOSA PRETIOSA PRECIOUS UNDERWING G4T2T3 S2S3 CELITHEMIS MARTHA MARTHA'S PENNANT G4 S3S4 CUCULLIA ALFARATA A MOTH G4 S2? DASYCHIHA LEUCOPHAEA A LYMANTRIID MOTH G4 SH DATANA RANAECEPS A HAND-MAID MOTH G3G4 S3S4 ENALIAGMA PICTUM SCARLET BLUET G3 S3 FARONTA RUBRIPENNIS PINK STREAK G304 S3 GLENA PLUMOSARIA A GEOMETRID MOTH G4 SU GOMPHUS APOMYIUS BANNER CLUBTAIL G4 SI GRAMMIA PLACENTIA PLACENTIA TIGER MOTH G4 S1S3 HESPERIA ATTALUS SLOSSONAE DOTTED SKIPPER G3G4T3 S2S3 HE.-SPERIA LEONARDUS LEONARD'S SKIPPER G4 S2 HETEROCAMPA VARIA A NOTODONTID MOTH G3G4 S3 LIBELLULA AXILENA BAR-WINGED SKIMMER GS S3B,S2N O LITHOPHANE LEMMERI LEMMER'S NOCTUID MOTH G3G4 S2 o MEROLONCHE DOLLl DOLL'S MEROLONCHE G3G4 S1S3 (X) METARRANTHIS PILOSARIA COASTAL BOG METARRANTHIS G3G4 S3S4 en METARRANTHIS SP 1 A GEOMETRID MOTH G3 S2 30 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATimAL COMMIBJITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRAN STATUS STATUS STATUS
MONOLEUCA SEMIFASCIA A SLUG MOTH G4G5 S2S3 NEONYMPHA AREOLATA A SATYR G4T3T4 S3 SEPTENTRIONALIS
PAPAIPEMA STENOCELIS CHAIN FERN BORER.MOTH G4 S3 PROBLEMA BULENTA RARE SKIPPER G2G3 S2 SCOPULA PURATA (3iALKY WAVE G4 S3S4 SEMIOTHISA EREMIATA THREE-LINED ANGLE MOTH G4 SU SOMATOCHLORA PROVOCANS TREETOP EMERALD G4 S2S3 SPARTINIPHAGA (ZARTERAE CARTER'S NOCTUID MOTH G2G3 S2 SYMPETRUM AMBIGUUM BLLTE-FACED MEADOWHAWK GS S2
Nonvascular plants SPHAGNUM MACROPHYLLUM SPHAGNUM G3 S2 SPHAGNUM PORTORICENSE SPHAGNUM G5 S2
Other types BALD EAGLE WINTERING SITE BALD EAGLE WINTERING SITE G7 S? COASTAL HERON ROOKERY COASTAL HERON ROOKERY GU S3 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRD MIGRATORY SHOREBIRD G? S? CONCENTRATION SITE CONCENTRATION SITE
>•• Vascular plants AESCHYNOMENE VIRGINICA SENSITIVE JOINT-VETCH LT LP G2 SI AHARANl'HUS PUMILUS SEABEACH AMARANTH LT G2 SI ARETHUSA BULBOSA DRAGON MOUTH G4 S2 ARISTIDA VIRGATA WAND-LIKE THREE-AWN GRASS GST4TS S2
ARNICA ACAULIS LEOPARDBANE G4 SX.l ASCLEPIAS LANCEOLATA SMOOTH ORANGE MILKWEED GS S2 O ASCi£PIAS RUBRA RED MILKWEED LP G4GS S2 o ASTER CONCOLOR EASTERN SILVERY ASTER LP G4? S2 00 •% 9
0 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATtlRAL HERITAGE DATABASE
NAME COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRANK STATUS STATUS STATUS
BOLTONIA ASTEROIDES VAR ASTER-LIKE BOLTONIA G5T4TS S2 ASTEROIDES CALAMOVILFA BREVIPILIS PINE BARREN REEDGRASS LP G4 S4 CAREX BARRATTII BARRATT'S SEDGE LP G4 S4 CAREX CUMULATA CLUSTERED SEDGE G4? SH CHENOPODIUM RUBRUM RED GOOSEFOOT GS SI CIRSIUM VIRGINIANUM VIRGINIA THISTLE G3 SI CLITORIA MARIANA BUTTERFLY-PEA GS SI COELORACHIS RUGOSA WRINKLED JOINTGRASS GS SI COREOPSIS ROSEA ROSE-COLOR COREOPSIS LP G3 S2 CROTON WILLDENOWII ELLIPTICAL RUSHFOIL LP GS S2 CDSClrTA CORYLI HAZEL DODDER GS S2 CYPERUS POLYSTACHYOS COAST FLAT SEDGE GSTS SI CYPERUS RETROFRACTUS ROUGH FLATSEDGE GS SH DESMODIUM SESSILIFOLIUM SESSILE-LEAF TICK-TREFOIL GS SI DESMODIUM STRICTtM PINELAND TICK-TREFOIL LP G4 S2 ELEOCHARIS EQUISETOIDES KNOriED SPIKE-RUSH LP G4 SI ERIOCAULON PARKERI PARKER'S PIPEWORT G3 S2 ERIOPHORUM TENELLUM ROUGH COTTON-GRASS GS SI ERVNGItm AQUATICim VAR MARSH RAITLESNAKE-MASTER G4T4 S3 AQUATICUM EUPATORIUM COELESTINUM MIST-FLOWER GS S3 EUPATORIim RESINOSUM PINE BARREN BONESET LP G3 S2 GENTIANA AUTUMNALIS PINE BARREN GENTIAN LP G3 S3 GLAOX MARITIMA SEA-MILKWORT GS SX.l GNAPHALIUM HELLERI Sl^ALL EVERLASTING G4G5T3? SH HELONIAS BULLATA SWAMP-PINK G3 S3 LO O HIERACIUM KALMIl CANADA HAWKWEED GST? SI O SEABEACH SANDWORT a\ HONCKENYA PEPLOIDES VAR GST4 S2 00 ROBtlSTA -J 9
30 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COtnJTY RARE SPECIES AND NATtnyiL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
MAME COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL STATUS STATUS STATUS
HYPERICUM ADPRESSUM BARTON'S ST. JOHN'S-WORT G2G3 S2 OTJNCUS CAESAR I ENS IS NEW JERSEY RUSH G2 S2 •TUNCUS TORREYI TORREY'S RUSH G5 SI KtniNIA EUPATORIOIDES FALSE BONESET GSTS SI LEMNA PERPUSILLA MINUTE DUCKWEED GS SI LESPEDEZA STUEVEI STUEVE'S DOWNY BUSH-CLOVER G4? S2 LINUM INTERCURSUM SANDPLAIN FLAX G4 SI LISTERA AUSTRALIS SOUTHERN TWAYBLADE LP G4 S2 LOBELIA BOYKINII BOYKIN'S LOBELIA LP G2G3 SI LOBELIA CANBYI CANBY'S LOBELIA LP G4 S3 LiroWIGIA LINEARIS NARROW-LEAF PRIMROSE-WILLOW LP GS S2 LYGODIUW PALMATl*! CLIMBING FERN LP G4 S2 MALAXIS UNIFOLIA GREEN ADDER'S-MOUTH GS 32 MJU.US ANGUSTI FOLIA VAR SPINY WILD CRABAPPLE G57T2T4 S2 PUBERULA
IWHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS LONG-AWN SMOKE GRASS GST? SI MUHLENBERGIA TORREYANA PINE BARREN SMOKE GRASS LP G3 S3 MYRIOPHYLLUM TENELLUM SLENDER WATER-MILFOIL GS SI NARTHECIUM AMERICTANUM BOG ASPHODEL LP G2 S2 tTYMPHOIDES CORDATA FLOATINGHEART LP GS S3 OENOTHERA HUMIFUSA SEA-BEACH EVENING-PRIMROSE GS S2 OLDENLANDIA UNIFLORA CLUSTERED-BLUETS GS S3 ONOSMODIUM VIRGINIANUM VIRGINIA FALSE-GROMWELL G4 SI OPHIOGLOSStM PUSILLtm NORTHERN ADDER'S-TONGUE GS S3 PANICUM HIRSTII HIRST BROTHERS' PANIC GRASS GI SI PANICUM SCABRIUSCtn.,UM SHEATHED PANIC GRASS G4 S2 PANICUM WRIGHTIANUM WRIGHT'S PANIC GRASS G4 S2 o PASPALUM DISSECTUM Mtrt)BANK CROWN GRASS G4? S2 o PHORADENDRON LEUCARPUM a\ AMERICAN MISTLETOE LP GS S2 00 00 9
> AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMtJNITIES PRESENTLY RECO!?D£D IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL STATUS STATUS STATUS
PLANTAGO MARITIMA VAR SEASIDE PLANTAII* GSTS S2 JUNCOIDES PLATANTHERA CILIARIS YELLOW FRINGED ORCHID LP GS S2 PLATANTHERA CRISTATA CRESTED YELLOW ORCHID LP GS S3 PLATANTHERA INTEGRA YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID E LP G3G4 SI PLUCHEA CAMPHORATA CAMPHORWEED GS SX.l POLYGONUM GLAUCUM SEA-BEACH KNOTWEED E G3 SI POTAMOGETON OAKESIANUS OAKES' PONDWEED G4 S2 PRENANTHES AUTUMNALIS PINE BARREN RATTLESNAKE-ROOT LP G4G5 S2 PRUNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA CHICKASAW PLUM E GST4TS S2 PUCCINELLIA PASCICULATA SALTMARSH ALKALI GRASS G3GS S2 RANUNCULUS CYMBALARIA SEASIDE BUTTERatP B GS SH RHEXIA ARISTOSA AWNED MEAIXIW-BEAUTY B LP G3 SI ftHYNCHOSPORA CEPHTILANTHA LARGE-HEAD BEAKED-RUSH LP GS S3 RHYNCHOSPORA INUNDATA SLENDER HORNED-RUSH LP G3G4 S2 RHYNCHOSPORA KNIESKERNII KNIESKERN'S BEAKED-RtJSH E LP G2 S2 RHYNCHOSPORA MICROCEPHALA SMALL-HEAD BEAKED-RUSH E GSTS SI RHYNCHOSPORA NITENS SHORT-BEAKED BALD-RUSH G4? S2 RHYNCHOSPORA PALLIDA PALE BEAKED-RUSH G3 S3 RHYNCHOSPORA SCIRPOIDES LONG-BEAK BALD-RUSH G4 S2 RUMEX HASTATULUS ENGELMANN'S SORREL GS SH SABATIA DODECANDRA VAR LARGE MARSH-PINK G5?T4T5 S2 DODECANDRA SACCHARUM AIOPECUROIDIM SILVER PLUME GRASS GS SH SAGITTARIA TERES SLENDER ARROWHEAD E G3 SI SCHIZAEA PUSILLA CURLY GltASS FERN LP G3 S3 SCHWALBEA AMERICANA CHAFFSEED E LP G2 SI o o SCIRPUS LONGII LONG'S WOOLGRASS E LP G2 S2 en SCLERIA MINOR SLENDER NUT-RUSH LP G4 S4 00 vo •% 9
30 AUG 2004 ATLANTIC COUNTY RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE
COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL GRANK SRANK STATUS STATUS STATUS
SCLERIA PAUCI FLORA VAR CAROLINA NUT-RUSH S2 CAROLINIANA SENECIO TOMEWTOSUS WOOLLY RAGWORT G4G5 S2 SESIWIUM MARITIMUM SEABEACH PURSLANE G5 S2 SOLIDAGO STRICTA WAND-LIKE GOLDENROD GS S3 SPIRANTHES LACINIATA LACE-LIP LADIES'-TRESSES G4G5 SI SPIRANTHES ODORATA FRAGRANT LADIES'-TRESSES GS S2 STYLISMA PICKERINGII VAR PICKERING'S MORNING-GLORY LP G4T2T3 SI PICKERINGII TIPULARIA DISCOLOR CRANEFLY ORCHID G4GS S3 UTRICULARIA OLIVACEA DWARF WHITE BLADDERWORT LP G4 Sl.l ITTRICULARIA PURPUREA PURPLE BLADDERWORT LP GS S3 UTRICULARIA RESUPINATA REVERSED BLADDERWORT LP G4 SI UVULARIA PUBERULA VAR NITIDA PINE BARREN BELLWORT GST3? S2 VERBENA SIMPLEX NARROW-LEAF VERVAIN GS SI VIOLA BRITTONIANA VAR BRIXTON'S COAST VIOLET G4G5T4TS S3 BRITTONIANA VULPIA ELLIOTEA SQUIRREL-TAIL SIX-WEEKS GRASS G5 SH XYRIS CAROLINIANA SAND YELLOW-EYED-GRASS LP G4G5 SI XYRIS FIMBRIATA FRINGED YELLOW-EYED-GRASS G5 SI
190 Records Processed
O O cn vo o s-
300691 I
Appendix B Analytical Results
¥ I 300692 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SSOl SS02 SS03 SS04 SS05 SS06 SS06-D SS07 SS08 8809 8810 Sample Name SS30 Sample Date 7/31/2002 7/30/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 7/31/2002 7/31/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/23/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ffbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane pg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 74-87-3 Chloromethane ijg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride pg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 74-83-9 Bromomethane ijg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-00-3 Chloroethane pg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 UJ 10 UJ 10 u 11 UJ 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane Mg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene pg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 67-64-1 Acetone pg/kg 12 u 24 u 54 U 12 u u 15 u 16 u 53 U 17 u 10 UJ 11 u 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 4 J 10 u 10 u 11 u 79-20-9 Ivlethyl Acetate pg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride Mg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene pg/kg 10 u 13 U 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Mg/kg 10 u 13 u . 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 78-93-3 2-Butanone Mg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 67-66-3 Chloroform pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 U 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 71-55-6 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 U 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 110-82-7 Cyclohexane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 71-43-2 Benzene Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 79-01-6 Trichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 108-87-2 Methyl cyclohexane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 U 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 U 10 u 10 u 11 u 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Mg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 11 UJ 108-88-3 Toluene Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 10061-02-6 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 591-78-6 2-Hexanone Mg/kg 10 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 12 UJ 10 UJ 10 u 11 UJ 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 U 10 u 11 u 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 100-41-4 Ethyl benzene Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 100-42-5 Styrene MQ/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 75-25-2 Bromoform Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene Mg/kg 10 u 13: u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12: u 10 u 10 u 11 u 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Mg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene pg/kg 10 u 13 u 12 u 10 u u 10 u 10 u 12 u 10 u 10 u 11 u j
CDM Page 1 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SSOl SS02 SS03 SS04 SS05 SS06 SS06-D SS07 SS08 SS09 SS10 Sample Name SS30 Sample Date 7/31/2002 7/30/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 7/31/2002 7/31/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/23/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 lo 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fVbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs Volatile Organic Compounds 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorot)enzene Mg/kg 10 U 13 U 12 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 12 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Mg/kg 10 U 13 U 12 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 12 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Mg/kg 10 R 13 R 12 R 10 R 11 R 10 R 10 R 12 UJ 10 UJ 10 U 11 UJ 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Mg/kg 10 U 13 U 12 U 10 U 11 U_ 10 U 10 U 12 U 10 U 10 U 11 U Semi-Volatile Organics 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde Mg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 U 1800 1000 240 J 1500 108-95-2 Phenol pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 450 190 J 370 U 1200 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether Mg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 U 370 u 360 U 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol Mg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol Mg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1 -Chloropropane) Mg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 98-86-2 Acetophenone pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 420 450 370 u 700 106-44-5 4-Methylphenol Mg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 621-64-7 N-Nltroso-di-n-propylamine Mg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 UJ 370 UJ 370 UJ 360 U 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 78-59-1 Isophorone pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 U 91-20-3 Naphthalene pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 U 360 u 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline pg/kg 350 UJ 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 UJ 360 UJ 350 U 120 J 370 UJ 360 u 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene pg/kg 350 UJ 340 UJ 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 UJ 360 UJ 350 UJ 370 UJ 370 UJ 360 UJ 105-60-2 Caprolactam pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 U 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 UJ 340 u 360 UJ 350 u 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 U 370 u 370 u 360 u 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol pg/kg 870 u 860 u 860 u 860 u 900 u 880 u 900 u 870 u 930 u 930 u 900 u 92-52-4 1,1'Biphenyl pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 88-74-4 2-Nltroaniline pg/kg 870 u 860 u 860 u 860 u 900 u 880 u 900 u 870 u 930 u 930 u 900 u 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate Mg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene pg/kg . 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline pg/kg 870 UJ 860 UJ 860 u 860 U' 900 u 880 UJ 900 UJ 870 UJ 930 UJ 930 UJ 900 UJ 83-32-9 Acenaphthene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol pg/kg 870 UJ 860 u 860 u 860 UJ 900 u 880 UJ 900 UJ 870 UJ 930 UJ 930 UJ 900 u 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol pg/kg 870 u 860 u 860 u 860 u 900 u 880 u 900 U 870 UJ 930 UJ 930 u 900 u 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 86-73-7 Fluorene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u
CDM Page 2 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SSOl SS02 SS03 SS04 SS05 SS06 SS06-D SS07 8808 SS09 SS10 Sample Name SS30 Sample Date 7/31/2002 7/30/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 7/31/2002 7/31/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/23/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fVbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs Semi-Volatile Organics 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether pg/kg 350 UJ 340 U 340 U 340 U 360 U 350 UJ 360 UJ 350 U 370 U 370 u 360 U 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline pg/kg 870 U 860 U 860 U 860 U 900 U 880 U 900 U 870 U 930 U 930 U 900 U 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol pg/kg 870 U 860 U 860 U 860 U 900 U 880 U 900 U 870 UJ 930 UJ 930 U 900 U 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 U 350 U 370 U 370 u 360 U 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether pg/kg 350 UJ 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 UJ 360 UJ 350 U 370 U 370 UJ 360 U 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene pg/kg 350 UJ 340 UJ 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 UJ 360 UJ 350 U 370 U 370 u 360 UJ 1912-24-9 Atrazlne pg/kg 350 U 340 UJ 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 UJ 370 UJ 370 UJ 360 UJ 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol pg/kg 870 U 860 U 860 UJ 860 u 900 UJ 880 U 900 u 870 U 930 U 930 U 900 U 85-01-8 Phenanthrene pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 12 J 370 U 370 u 360 U 120-12-7 Anthracene pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 U 370 U 370 u 360 U 86-74-8 Carbazole pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 u 370 U 370 u 360 U 84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate pg/kg 350 U 340 U 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 350 u 370 U 370 u 360 U 206-44-0 Fluoranthene pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 17 J 8 J 370 u 360 U 129-00-0 Pyrene pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 U 340 u 360 U 350 U 360 u 21 J 370 u 370 u 360 U 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 U 350 u 360 u 350 u 49 J 11 J 360 U 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorotienzidine pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 U 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 U 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene pgAg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 U 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 U 218-01-9 Chrysene pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 U 350 u 360 u 14 J 24 J 370 u 360 U 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalale pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 380 u 370 u 990 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate pg/kg 350 U 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 U 205-99-2 Benzo(b)(luoranthene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 16 J 370 u 360 U 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 18 J 370 u 360 u 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 8 J 370 u 370 u 360 u 193-39-5 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/kg 350 u 340 u 340 u 340 u 360 u 350 u 360 u 350 u 370 u 370 u 360 u Pesticides/PCBs 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1,8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 319-85-7 Beta-BHC pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 319-86-8 Della-BHC pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 76-44-8 Heptachlor pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 309-00-2 Aldrin jjg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 959-98-8 Endosulfan 1 pg/kg 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 1.9 u 1.8 u 60-57-1 Dieldrin pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 34 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 2.4 J 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 72-20-8 Endrin pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u 72-43-5 Methoxychlor pg/kg 18 u 18 u 18 u 18 u 18 u 18 u 18 u 18 u 19 u 19 u 18 u 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone pg/kg 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.4 u 3.6 u 3.5 u 3.6 u 3.4 u 3.7 u 3.7 u 3.6 u
CDM Page 3 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SSOl SS02 SS03 SS04 SS05 SS06 SS06-D SS07 SS08 SS09 SS10 Sample Name SS30 Sample Date 7/31/2002 7/30/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 8/2/2002 7/31/2002 7/31/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/23/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fVbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde Mg/kg 3.5 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 36 U 3.5 U 3,6 U 3.4 U 3.7 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane pg/kg 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane pg/kg 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene Mg/kg 180 U 180 U 180 U '180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 190 U 190 U 180 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 Mg/kg 35 U 34 U 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 U 37 U 37 U 36 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 pg/kg 71 U 70 U 69 u 70 U 73 U 71 U 73 u 70 U 75 U 75 U 73 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 pg/kg 35 u 34 u 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 U 37 U 37 U 36 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 pg/kg 35 u 34 u 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 U 37 U 37 u 36 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 pg/kg 35 u 34 u 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 U 37 U 37 u 36 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 Mg/kg 35 u 34 u 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 U 8200 D 1200 2000 D 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 pg/kg 35 u 34 u 34 u 34 U 36 U 35 U 36 u 34 Ll_ .37 U 37 u 36 U Inorganic Analytes 7429-90-5 Aluminum mg/kg 2800 7620 2680 11300 5920 6450 .7020 2870 3880 5870 J 1980 7440-36-0 Antimony mg/kg 0.69 UJ 0.69 UJ 0.68 u 0.71 U 0.72 U 0.71 UJ 0.71 UJ 0.81 U 0.87 U 0.93 u 0.84 U 7440-38-2 Arsenic mg/kg 0.58 u 2.8 0.58 u 2 B 1 B 2 B 2.2 1 B 0.83 B 1.6 B 0.71 B 7440-39-3 Barium mg/kg 5.3 B 13.2 B 4.4 B 17.6 B 8.3 B 10 B 10.8 B 5.9 B 73.5 15.5 B 21.9 B 7440-41-7 Beryllium mg/kg 0.05 B 0.12 B 0.04 U 0.17 B 0.08 B 0.05 B 0.06 B 0.04 U 0.05 U 0.31 8 0.04 U 7440-43-9 Cadmium mg/kg 0.04 U 0.08 B 0.04 u 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.05 B 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.14 U 0.15 B 7440-70-2 Calcium mg/kg 53.3 U 53.9 U 67.3 B 141 B 124 B 108 B 112 B 65.7 B 181 B 97.2 B 120 B 7440-47-3 Chromium mg/kg 3 7.7 2.7 12.1 6.1 7.2 7.7 3.3 7.5 6.9 J 2.2 7440:48-4 Cobalt mg/kg 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.41 u 0.66 B 0.44 U 0.43 U 0.43 u 0.21 U 0.31 B 0.43 B 0.26 B 7440-50-8 Copper mg/kg 0.95 B 2 8 1.4 B 3.5 B 2.2 B 2.6 B 2.7 B 2.5 B 49 R 5.3 B 8.8 R 7439-89-6 Iron mg/kg 1870 6680 2600 8890 4260 4650 4990 1860 2830 1970 J 1060 7439-92-1 Lead mg/kg 3.8 4.9 4.3 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 12.9 J 16.7 J 8.6 5.1 J 7439-95-4 Magnesium mg/kg 81.5 B 239 B 40.7 B 295 B 105 B 45.6 B 47.9 B 62.9 B 67 B 79.9 B 32.3 B 7439-96-5 Manganese mg/kg 5.1 13.3 3.6 16.7 8.8 4.2 4.1 3.2 2.9 B 5.4 J 13.2 17439-97-6 Mercury mg/kg 0.05 U 0.06 B 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.06 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 UJ 0.2 J 0.06 U 0.05 UJ 7440-02-0 Nickel mg/kg 1.1 B 2.7 B 1.3 B 3.9 B 2 B 2.8 B 2.8 B 1.2 B 1.4 B 3.1 B 1.9 B 7440-09-7 Potassium mg/kg 110 B 139 B 62 B 145 B 105 B 126 B 133 B 75.5 B 183 B 556 B 95.2 B 7782-49-2 Selenium mg/kg 0.73 U 1.2 J 0.72 U 0.75 U 0.77 U 0.79 BJ 0.75 U 0.67 U 1.2 0.77 UJ 0.69 U 7440-22-4 Silver mg/kg 0.12 B 0.44 B 0.1 B 0.57 B 0.19 B 0.25 B 0.24 B 0.25 U 2.9 0.29 U 0.26 U 7440-23-5 Sodium mg/kg 259 B 253 B 215 B 201 B 189 B 249 B 233 B 73.5 U 79.2 BJ 306 BJ 76.3 U 7440-28-0 Thallium mg/kg 0.85 U 0.86 U 0.85 U 0.88 U 0.9 U 0.88 U 0.88 U 1 U 1.2 B 1.2 U 1.1 U 7440-62-2 Vanadium mg/kg 5 B 12.7 5.4 B 17.1 9.1 B 10.9 11.6 4.9 B 9.5 B 13.4 J 4.3 B 7440-66-6 Zinc mg/kg 3.2 B 6 3 B 8.4 5.5 3 B 2.9 B 3.8 B 13.2 14.4 29.7 57-12-5 Cyanide mg/kg 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.57
o o o\ vo
COM Page 4 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SS11 SS12 SS13 SS14 8815 SS16 SS17 8818 8819 Sample Name Sample Date 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 8/2/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fVbgs Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 U •11 UJ 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 74-83-9 Bromomethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 75-00-3 Chloroethane pg/kg 10 UJ 12 UJ 16 UJ 21 UJ 11 U 12 UJ 19 UJ 12 UJ 14 UJ 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 UJ 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trlfluoroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 U 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 67-64-1 Acetone pg/kg 28 u 140 U 180 U 140 u 53 U 40 u 76 U 400 J 14 UJ 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 U 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 UJ 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dlchloroethene pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 78-93-3 2-Butanone pg/kg 10 u 12 U 27 21 u 11 UJ 12 u 19 U 55 14 UJ 67-66-3 Chloroform pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 110-82-7 Cyclohexane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 71-43-2 Benzene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 79-01-6 Trichloroethene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 U 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone pg/kg 10 UJ 12 UJ 16 UJ 21 UJ 11 UJ 12 UJ 19 UJ 12 UJ 14 UJ 108-88-3 Toluene pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 U 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 10061-02-6 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 591-78-6 2-Hexanone pg/kg 10 UJ 12 UJ 16 UJ 21 UJ 11 UJ 12 UJ 19 UJ 12 UJ 14 UJ 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane pg/kg 10 u 12 U 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 1106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 100-42-5 Styrene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 75-25-2 Bromoform pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 198-82-8 Isopropylbenzene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene pg/kg 10 u 12 u 16 u 21 u 11 u 12 u 19 u 12 u 14 UJ
COM Page 5 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SS11 SS12 SS13 SS14 SS15 SS16 SS17 8818 8819 Sample Name Sample Date 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 8/2/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 It/bgs 0 lo 1 ffbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fVbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs Volatile Organic Compounds 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene pg/kg 10 U 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 u 14 UJ 95-50-1 1,2-Dichloroben2ene pg/kg 10 U 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane pg/kg 10 UJ 12 UJ 16 UJ 21 UJ 11 R 12 UJ 19 UJ 12 UJ 14 UJ 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene pg/kg 10 U 12 U 16 U 21 U 11 U 12 U 19 U 12 U 14 UJ Semi-Volatile Organics 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde pg/kg 190 J 540 2100 1400 340 U 610 330 J 660 1400 108-95-2 Phenol pg/kg 62 J 160 J 2300 1900 340 U 1100 300 J 300 J 7900 D 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether pg/kg 380 U 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 U 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 U 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 U 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 U 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 U 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 u 108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1 -Chloropropane) pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 u 98-86-2 Acetophenone pg/kg 190 J 260 J 980 840 340 u 480 340 J 310 J 1600 106-44-5 4-Methylphenol pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 U 550 u 360 U 460 u 621-64-7 N-Nltroso-di-n-propylamine pg/kg 380 UJ 350 UJ 380 UJ 350 UJ 340 u 380 UJ 550 UJ 360 UJ 460 UJ 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 78-59-1 Isophorone Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 105-67-9 2,4-Dlmethylphenol pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 91-20-3 Naphthalene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 59 J 550 u 360 u 460 u 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene pg/kg 380 UJ 350 UJ 380 UJ 350 UJ 340 u 380 UJ 550 UJ 360 UJ 460 UJ 105-60-2 Caprolactam pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 188-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 195-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol Mg/kg 950 u 880 u 950 u 880 u 860 u 940 u 1400 u 910 u 1200 u 92-52-4 1,1'Biphenyl Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline Mg/kg 950 u 880 u 950 u 880 u 860 u 940 u 1400 u 910 u 1200 u 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 99-09-2 3-Nitroanillne Mg/kg 950 UJ 880 UJ 950 UJ 880 UJ 860 u 940 UJ 1400 UJ 910 UJ 1200 UJ 83-32-9 Acenaphthene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol pg/kg 950 UJ 880 UJ 950 UJ 880 UJ 860 UJ 940 UJ 1400 UJ 910 UJ 1200 UJ 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol Mg/kg 950 UJ 880 UJ 950 UJ 880 UJ 860 u 940 UJ 1400 UJ 910 UJ 1200 UJ 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran Mg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 U 550 U 360 u 460 u 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 86-73-7 Fluorene Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u
CDM Page 6 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SS11 SS12 8813 SS14 SS15 8816 8S17 8818 8819 Sample Name Sample Date 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 8/2/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ffbgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 fUbgs Semi-Volatile Organics 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether pg/kg 380 U 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 U 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 U 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline pg/kg 950 U 880 U 950 U 880 U 860 U 940 U 1400 U 910 U 1200 U 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol pg/kg 950 UJ 880 UJ 950 UJ 880 UJ 860 U 940 UJ 1400 UJ 910 UJ 1200 UJ 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 U 550 U 360 U 460 U 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether pg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 U 460 U 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene Mg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 U 460 U 1912-24-9 Atrazlne pg/kg 380 UJ 350 UJ 380 UJ 350 UJ 340 u 380 UJ 550 UJ 360 UJ 460 UJ 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol pg/kg 950 u 880 U 950 U 880 U 860 u 940 u 1400 U 910 U 1200 u 85-01-8 Phenanthrene Mg/kg 380 u 350 U 380 U 15 J 340 u 380 u 550 U 21 J 460 u 120-12-7 Anthracene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 U 460 u 86-74-8 Carbazole pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 U 460 u 84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 U 460 u 206-44-0 Fluoranthene Mg/kg 380 u 8 J 9 J 23 J 340 u 12 J 31 J 31 J 14 J 129-00-0 Pyrene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 22 J 340 u 22 J 41 J 31 J 460 u 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate Mg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 84 J 340 u 380 u 370 J 360 u 110 J 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 U 350 U 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 u 460 u 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 U 340 u 11 J 17 J 11 J 460 u 218-01-9 Chrysene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 22 J 22 J 340 u 66 J 46 J 25 J 25 J 117-81-7 bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 2000 340 u 380 u 700 360 u 910 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 u 460 u 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 24 J 340 u 33 J 34 J 16 J 37 J 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 17 J 340 u 20 J 27 J 21 J 33 J 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 12 J 340 u 380 u 17 J 21 J 35 J 193-39-5 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 U 360 u 460 u 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u 460 u 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/kg 380 u 350 u 380 u 350 u 340 u 380 u 550 u 360 u_ 460 u Pesticides/PCBs 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 319-85-7 Beta-BHC pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 319-86-8 Delta-BHC Mg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 76-44-8 Heptachlor pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 309-00-2 Aldrin pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 959-98-8 Endosulfan 1 pg/kg 2 u 1.8 u 2 u 1.8 u 1.8 u 1.9 u 2.8 u 1.9 u 2.4 u 60-57-1 Dieldrin pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE . pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 72-20-8 Endrin pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3,8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT pg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u 72-43-5 Methoxychlor pg/kg 20 u 18 u 20 u 18 u 18 u 19 u 28 u 19 u 24 u 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone Mg/kg 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.8 u 3.5 u 3.4 u 3.8 u 5.5 u 3.6 u 4.6 u
COM Page 7 of 8 Table B-1 Analytical Results of Surface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SS11 SS12 SS13 8814 SS15 8816 SS17 SS18 SS19 Sample Name Sample Date 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 8/2/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 7/26/2002 CAS No. Chemical Name Unit W Depth 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 0 to 1 ft/bgs 7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde pg/kg 3.8 U 3.5 U 3.8 U 3.5 U 3.4 U 3.8 U 5.5 U 3.6 U 4.6 U 5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane Mg/kg 2 U 1.8 U 2.9 NJ 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 2.8 U 1.9 U 23 J 5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane pg/kg 2 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 2.8 U 1.9 U 2.4 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene pg/kg 200 U 180 U 200 U 180 U 180 U 190 U 280 U 190 U 240 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 pg/kg 38 u 35 U 38 U 35 U 34 U 38 u 55 U 36 u 46 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 pg/kg 77 u 71 U 77 U 71 U 70 U 76 u 110 U 74 u 94 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 pg/kg 38 u 35 U 38 U 35 U 34 U 38 u 55 U 36 u 46 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 pg/kg 38 u 35 U 38 U 35 U 34 U 38 u 55 U 36 u 46 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 pg/kg 38 u 35 U 38 U 35 U 34 U 38 u 55 U 36 u 46 u 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 Mg/kg 1300 D 1500 D 79 11000 D 34 U 41000 D 100000 D 90 6700 D 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 Mg/kg 38 U 35 U 38 U 35 U 34 U 38 U 55 U 36 u 46 U Inorganic Analytes 7429-90-5 Aluminum mg/kg 5940 1590 2120 4150 4100 7280 17100 2430 9090 7440-36-0 Antimony mg/kg 0.87 U 0.83 U 0.92 U 0.84 U 0.69 U 0.89 u 1.3 U 0.86 u 1 u 7440-38-2 Arsenic mg/kg 1.8 B 0.72 B 1.2 B 1.3 B 1.3 B 2.1 B 3.8 1.2 B 2.5 B 7440-39-3 Barium mg/kg 23.3 B 4 B 25 B 65.8 11 B 55.9 83.9 56.4 1120 7440-41-7 Beryllium mg/kg 0.05 U 0.04 U 0.05 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.07 B 0.11 B 0.04 U 0.28 B 7440-43-9 Cadmium mg/kg 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.14 U 0.37 B 0.05 B 0.14 U 0.61 B 0.13 U 2.1 7440-70-2 Calcium mg/kg 83.2 B 166 B 210 B 283 B 104 B 149 B 1240 B 122 B 800 B 7440-47-3 Chromium mg/kg 4.9 1.9 B 8.1 8.9 3.8 30.3 31.6 3.8 25.8 7440-48-4 Cobalt mg/kg 0.38 B 0.21 U 0.24 U 0.35 B 0.42 U 0.36 B 1.1 B 0.4 B 1.2 B 7440-50-8 Copper mg/kg 16.4 R 2.4 B 11.8 R 59.6 R 10.9 52 R 62 R 10 R 231 R 7439-89-6 Iron mg/kg 3530 1370 1940 3140 2570 4350 9410 2010 6640 7439-92-1 Lead mg/kg 4.6 J 5.9 J 11.1 J 23.1 J 11.7 24.7 J 61.5 J 18.5 J 93.1 J 7439-95-4 Magnesium mg/kg 106 B 55.8 B 81.2 B 85.8 B 55 B 90.4 B 257 B 70.3 B 211 B 7439-96-5 Manganese mg/kg 7.9 4.7 12.1 137 9.9 4.6 53.7 5 11.2 7439-97-6 Mercury mg/kg 0.06 UJ 0.05 UJ 0.06 UJ 0.48 0.06 B 0.2 J 0.14 BJ 0.18 J 0.56 7440-02-0 Nickel mg/kg 2 B 0.62 B 1.2 B 2 B 1.8 B 3 B 13.4 B 1.5 B 4.5 B 7440-09-7 Potassium mg/kg 120 B 59.1 B 94.5 B 153 B 73 B 256 B 414 B 56.9 B 341 B 7782-49-2 Selenium mg/kg 0.82 B 0.68 U 0.75 U 1.1 0.73 U 0.73 U 1.3 B 0.7 U 2.8 7440-22-4 Silver mg/kg 0.27 U 0.25 U 2.1 B 5.7 0.29 B 3.5 2.3 B 3.2 31.4 7440-23-5 Sodium mg/kg 78.6 U 74.8 U 91.6 BJ 102 BJ 207 B 184 BJ 499 BJ 77.5 U 367 BJ 7440-28-0 Thallium mg/kg 1.1 B 1 U 1.2 U 1.1 U 0.85 U 1.1 U 1.7 U 1.1 U 1.3 U 7440-62-2 Vanadium mg/kg 10 B 3.5 B 4 B 9.1 B 5.3 B 13.2 J 24.1 J 5.1 B 20.2 J 7440-66-6 Zinc mg/kg 15.8 4 B 9.7 32.4 12.2 25.1 274 15.2 137 57-12-5 Cyanide mg/kg 0.17 U 0.16 U 0.18 U 0.23 B 0.16 U 4.4 2.1 0.16 U_ 0.2 U 1 u o o •J o o
COM Page 8 of 8 > •a n .»•
300701 Appendix C Data Quality Assessment Report
CDM FinalSLERA
I 300702 Data Quality Assessment - Soil Sampling
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) is performing field activities during the r Remedial Investigation (RI) work for EmmeU's Septic LandfUl Site (Emmell's). These activities include several sampling events for various matrices. The data covered in this report include results for soil samples taken during July and August 2002. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the data collected and to determine whether they meet the quality objectives and user requirements outiined in the CDM Final Addendum to tiie Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM 2002) and the Final QAPP (CDM 2000). The purpose of this sampling is to aid in the characterization of soils and provide information necessary to determine whether concentrations of contaminants are above background levels, screening criteria, or acceptable ecological or human health levels.
C.l Usability Summary Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the QAPP. No field changes were made to the sampling plan. Except for data qualified as "R" rejected, the data reported herein are usable as reported with the data validation qualifiers added. C.2 Project Objectives Data quality objectives (DQOs) were established during project planning to generate data of sufficient quality and quantity to achieve the above project objectives. Measurement criteria were also established for the data quality indicators (DQI) precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness. These DQIs provide a mechanism for on-going control and evaluating and measuring data quality throughout the project, and are outiined in QAPP and QAPP Addendum Sections 6 and Table 6-7 of the QAPP Addendum. C.3 Summary of Field Activities A summary of the data collected between July and August 2002 and the analyses performed is presented in Table C-1. Samples were collected and shipped to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Contiact Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories, the Division of Environmental Science and Assessment (DESA), and CDM's subcontiact laboratory, GPL Laboratories, in Caithersberg, MD, for analysis.
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs), field duplicates, and field blanks were collected at the frequency described in the QAPP to assess the quality of the field data. MS/MSDs and field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of 5 percent (1 out of every 20 samples). Field blanks were associated with each day of sample collection for weU monitoring.
Samples were given a CDM identification (ID) number, but were submitted to laboratories using a different CLP sample number. Field duplicate samples (blind duplicate samples submitted to the laboratories for corvfirmation analysis) were given a different field identification name and CLP number than the original sample. After f analytical results were received from the laboratory, samples were renamed to their CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3007 03 C-1 Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site CDM identification number; duplicates were given the same identification number as the original sample but with a "DUP" added to signify duplicate. ^ Example: CDM ID number = SS06 CLP Sample number = B0N78 Blind duplicate CDM ID number = SS30 v. Blind duplicate CLP sample number = B0N96 CDM duplicate sample code = SS06-DUP
C.3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures AU field procedures during soil sampling were performed in accordance with the Final Addendum to the QAPP. C.4 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Field quality assurance/quality contiol (QA/QC) objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of field duplicates and field blanks. Analytical QA/QC was assessed by internal laboratory QC checks, method blanks, surrogate spikes, sample custody tiacking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory contiol samples (LCSs) and MS/MSDs. C.4.1 Methods Samples were analyzed using the following methods:
• EPA CLP Statement of Work (SOW) OLM04.2 for volatile orgaiuc compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and % pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) • EPA CLP SOW ILM04.1 for target analyte Ust (TAL) metals and cyanide • American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods D421-85 and D422-63 for grain size • EPA metiiod SW846 9045C for pH • Lloyd Kahn method for total organic carbon (TOC)
The target compound list (TCL) VOCs, SVOCs, pesticide/PCB, TAL metals, and cyanide data were subsequentiy validated by EPA Division of Environmental Science and Assessment (DESA) according to EPA Region II methodologies. Subcontiactor- analyzed general chemistiy parameters, including grain size, pH, and TOC were validated by CDM according to the CDM standard operating procedure (SOP CDM- 029A, dated July 2001, a modification of EPA National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, February 1994). The data validation narratives indicate that the sample analyses generally met the QC criteria cited in the methods. Results associated with QC outliers were appropriately qualified by data validators.
DQI criteria were established to ensure accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and completeness of analyses necessary to meet the data quality objectives. Rigorous QA/QC procedures have been established for EPA DESA and contiact laboratories. Analytical QC procedures followed for this sampling effort are detailed in the then- current revisions of the CLP multi-media, multi-concentiation SOW for TCL organics, OLM04.2, and inorganics, ILM04.1. The analytical accuracy, precision, and sensitivity f DQOs required for this project are also provided in the SOWs. CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3007 04 C-2 Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site C.4.2 Data Completeness Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for ^ collection as listed in the QAPP versus the actual samples collected during the field program (See equation A).
Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (See equation B). Acceptable data includes both data that passes aU of the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass aU of the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but useable data).
A. % Completeness = C x 100 n
w^here, C= actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned
and
B. % Completeness = V x 100 n'
where, V= number of measurements judged valid » n' = total number of measurements made
Analytical results for dU samples and analyses listed in the QAPP wiU be presented in the RI Report. The list of samples collected and parameters analyzed are shown on Table C-1 of this Assessment.
Com.pleteness of the data set achieved by CDM is presented in Tables C-2a and C-2b. The goal was to generate a complete data set for at least 90 percent of the samples plarmed for collection and have at least 90 percent valid among the samples analyzed. From the planned data, 100 percent of the intended number of soil samples were taken, as shown on Table C-2b. Additionally, more than 99 percent of tiie soil data collected was judged usable (Tables C-2a and C-2b).
Based on field observation additional sample borings were taken to better define the extent of contamination. Additional sampling was defined within the CDM Final Addendum to the QAPP as contingency samples. The data quality objective (DQO) of 90 percent completeness for the soil sampling event was achieved. C.5 Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) Achievement of the project's quality objectives were assessed through the monitoring of DQIs. Table 6-7 of the Final Addendum to the QAPP outiines the DQI requirements for the project. These DQIs for measuring data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness. The DQIs provide a mechanism for evaluating and measure data quality throughout the project. These f criteria are defined in the appropriate sections below. CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3 007 05 Q.-T, Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site C.5.1 Accuracy Accuracy is a measurement of agreement for a given measurement against an accepted reference value. It is typically assessed through the analysis of matiix spike and calibration check samples, and expressed as a percent recovery.
Accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to control because several sources of error exist. Errors can be intioduced by any of the following: Sampling procedure Field contamination Sample preservation and handling Sample matiix Sample preparation Analytical techniques
Accuracy was maximized through stiict adherence to field sampling SOPs, the approved QAPP, and the use of EPA approved methods for sample analyses. By following approved procedures, sampling events should provide results that are representative of environmental conditions at the time of sampling. Deviations were addressed by qualifying associated results as indicated in the appropriate validation guidance. Deviations from these procedures are described below.
The temperature blanks for coolers containing samples from several sample delivery groups (SDG) analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TAL metals and cyanide had measured temperatures outside the acceptable range (4 degrees Celsius [C] + 2 degrees C); however, the deviations (aU 4 degrees C + 4 degrees C) were not considered significant enough to warrant qualification of sample results. Additionally, upon arrival at the laboratory several samples analyzed for TAL metals were seen to have leaked sUghtiy. In each case, sufficient sample remained for analysis and no qualifiers were applied.
The extiaction holding time was exceeded in some samples analyzed and re-analyzed or re-extiacted for VOCs and SVOCs. The related sample results were qualified as estimated "J" by the data validator. Some field blank samples were not adequately preserved and as a result were also qualified. "J" flags were also applied to calibration outiiers.
Some samples had high levels of target compounds and were run at dilutions. The dilution results were qualified as "D". Where ICP serial dilution analysis yielded differences outside quality contiol standards, the data validator qualified the data as appropriate according to the validation guidance.
EPA validators reviewed the MS/MSD and/or laboratory contiol sample results. Some laboratory matiix spike recoveries were outside quality criteria. The data validator qualified the data as required by validation guidance.
Some samples had spiked surrogate or contiact required quantitation /detection limits (CRQL/CRDL) standard recoveries outside of contiact specifications. Samples were qualified as appropriate according to the validation guidance. Rejected results included values for mercury (samples FB081302-S, FB080602-S, FB080702-S, FB080902- S, and SB14A) and silver (samples SBOSA, SB03B, SB20A, and SB02B).
Some results were rejected for poor instiument response. Rejected values included results for l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, atiazine, and mercury.
CDM Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3007 06 C-4 , Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site C.5.2 Precision Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is an indicator of agreement between f measurements of the same property, and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations.
RPD is calculated as follows:
RPD = absolute value [(Cl-C2)/{(Cl+C2)/2)}] X 100%
Where: CI = Concentiation of sample #1 C2 = Concentiation of sample #2 Field Data Precision Field dupUcate samples were collected in the same manner as the original samples but were collected in separate containers, given separate sample identifiers and tieated as unique samples by the laboratory. Field duplicate RPDs are presented in Table C-3. Results for compounds not detected in any of the duplicate pairs are not included in the table. RPDs were not calculated when both compared values were detected below the quantitation limit or when one result was not detected the other was detected; the absolute difference was calculated instead. Acceptable RPDs for field duplicates were not presented in the QAPP; however, a value of less than 50 percent indicates good precision for soU samples and an RPD of less than 100 percent is considered reasonable.
The majority of the field duplicate data showed good precision, with RPDs less than 25 percent (Table C-3). One data pair exceeded the 50 percent criterion for aroclor 1254, barium, and zinc. However, the RPDs for barium and zinc were 50.3 and 52.6 percent, respectively; because these are very close to 50 percent, the data are considered acceptable. The RPD for aroclor 1254 was 128 percent. This indicates unreliable data and the values for aroclor 1254 should be considered estimated.
The absolute differences between duplicate parrs, when calculated, generally show^ed good agreement as weU, with the exception of phenol. The absolute differences between duplicate pair of 369 ^g/kg. Therefore, the data for phenol should be considered estimated. However, there is no adverse impact to the usability of the data due to field duplicate results.
Analytical Data Precision The analytical precision for the reported data was determined by review of MS/MSD and laboratory duplicate results as well as review of the field duplicate results. Values outside quality criteria for RPD were qualified by the data validator as appropriate according to validation guidance. C.5.3 Blank Contamination Table C-4 shows the contaminants detected in the field blanks. Field rinsate blanks are used to evaluate the presence of contaminants on sampling equipment following decontamination and the potential for cross contamination during sample collection. Laboratory method blanks are analyzed to indicate possible contamination introduced f by sample handling, preparation, and/or analysis. CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3 007 07 C-5 I Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Field Blanks ^ Field blanks were analyzed for low concentiation VOCs, SVOCs, pesticide/PCBs, and TAL metals. Among VOCs, l,l,2-tiichloro-l,2,2-tiifluoroethane, acetone, methylene chloride, trichloroethene, toluene, styrene, 1,1,2,2-tetiachloroethane, l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, and 1,2,4-tiichlorobenzene were detected in one or more field blanks (Table C-4). The data validator qualified the data "U" or "UJ" as required by the appropriate validation guidance.
Among SVOCs, phenol, naphthalene, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, diethylphthalate, atrazine, di-n-butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate w^ere detected in one or more of the field rinsate blanks associated w^ith soil sampling (Table C-4). No pesticides/PCBs were detected in field blanks.
Among inorganics, aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromiunx, iron, magnesium, manganese, mercury, potassium, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were detected in the field blanks. The data validator qualified the data as appropriate according to validation guidance.
Laboratory Method Blanks Several compounds were detected in samples at levels less than 10 times the laboratory blank contaminant level. The data validator qualified the data as required by EPA Region 2 and EPA National Functional Guidelines. Additionally, several blanks contained tentatively identified compounds including common laboratory contaminants; these results were subsequentiy rejected.
C.5.4 Representativeness and Comparability Representativeness and comparability are achieved by using EPA approved sampling procedures and analytical methodologies. By following approved QAPP procedures for soU sampling, sampling events should yield results representative of environmental conditions at the time of sampling. SimUarly, reasonable comparabUity of analytical resvUts for this and future sampling events can be achieved U the approved EPA analytical methods and standardized reporting units are employed.
C.5.4.1 Representativeness Representativeness is a quaUtative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and depth interval of sample coUection. The sampling scheme, requirements, and procedures for sampling were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness also can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and by performing field audits. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the Final Addendum to the QAPP and laboratory SOWs to ensure that the laboratory analytical results were representative of true field conditions.
Sample representativeness was achieved by CDM through the use of EPA analytical methods, decontaminated sampling equipment, the use of inert materials'to coUect samples, clean sample gloves, and standard sampling procedures for EPA Region II. Samples were kept at 4°C and received intact at tiie laboratories with the exceptions noted in the data validation reports. The generaUy low concentiations of blarUc contaminants as discussed above are an indication that sample results are representative of the site conditions.
CDM Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3007 08 C-6 Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site C.5.4.2 Comparability ComparabUity is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Stiict adherence to standard sample coUection r procedures, analytical detection limits, and analytical methods assures that data from like samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparabUity is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. ComparabUity criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample coUection and analytical procedures are determined to have been foUowed or that variations in procedures did not affect the values reported.
To ensure comparabUity of data generated for the site, standard sample coUection procedures and EPA-approved analytical methods were utUized by CDM. The sample analyses were performed by CLP, DESA, and subcontiact laboratories using the defined, standard methodology. Using such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable w^ith previous data sets generated with simUar methods. Aqueous samples (blanks) were reported in nucrograms per liter (|j.g/L); soU samples were reported in micrograms per kUogram (|ag/kg) or mUligrams per kUograrn (mg/kg).
C.5.4.3 Sensitivity Required quantitation limits based on New Jersey SoU Cleanup Criteria and method detection liauts identified in EPA CLP Statements of Work (SOW) are outiined in the QAPP. AU CRQLs and CRDLs met project action Limits with the exception of the analysis for toxaphene. For this compound, the estimated CRQL was 0.17 mg/kg, whUe the New Jersey Residential Direct Contact Cleanup Criterion is 0.1 mg/kg. Results for this compound demonstiated non-detects up to 0.26 mg/kg. However, as indicated in the QAPP, because this compound is not considered a site contaminant of concern, the CRQL is low enough to meet the proposed applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) for the site. C.6 Project Assessments A series of five self assessments were approved by the QA director in lieu of an office audit. Five self assessments were conducted at the time this report was prepared.
Quality Procedure 2.2, Procuring Technical Services Quality Procedure 2.4, Procuring Measurement and Test Equipment Quality Procedure 3.2, Technical Document Review Quality Procedure 3.3, Quality Assurance Review Quality Procedure 3.4, Records Contiol
These seU assessments included a review of the quality procedures for preparation and submittal of planning documents utUized to conduct field procedures, and measurement reports, and review subcontiact procurements. The self assessments indicated that the project staff met aU quality requirements and procedures.
A field audit was performed for the remedial investigation (RI) and focused feasibUity study (FFS) of the EmmeU's Site in March, 2001, and summarized in an audit report dated AprU 16, 2001. The field audit covered the coUection of groundwater screening samples, for which the auditor noted satisfactory adherence to QA and QC protocols f However, soU sampling was not included. CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 300709 C-7 Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site
C.7 Assessment of Data Usability and Reconciliation f with QAPP Goals Sample results evaluated in this assessment wUl be reported in the EmmeU's RI Report, Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA), and Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), along with other samples evaluated tn other data quality assessment reports. This data quality assessment covers soU sampling conducted between July and August 2002.
The July and August 2002 soU data are suitable for their intended use as stated in the Addendum to the Final QAPP. Data,of unusable quality (0.36 percent of the total) have been rejected and are unusable. The completeness goal for usable data from soU sampling has thus been achieved for the EmmeU's Septic LandfUl Site. C.8 Literature Cited
CDM. 2002. Final Addendum to the Final QuaUty Assurance Project Plan. EmmeU's Septic LandfUl Remedial Investigation/FeasibUity Study (RI/FS), GaUoway Township, New Jersey.
CDM. 2000. Focused FeasibUity Study Final Quality Assurance Project Plan. EmmeU's Septic LandfUl Remedial Investigation/FeasibUity Study (RI/FS), GaUoway Township, New Jersey.
%
f CDM I Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 300710 C-8 Data Quality Assessment Emmell's Septic Landfill Site Data Qualifiers Emmell's Septic Landfill GallowayTownship, New Jersey
Organic OualUiers:
U - Compound was analyzed for but not detected. The associated numerical value is the sample quantitation limit. J - Estimated data due to exceeded quality control criteria, or because value is less than the contiact required quantitation limit (CRQL) and greater than the method detection limit (MDL) D - Compound is identified at a secondary dUution factor. R - Data is rejected due to exceeded quality control criteria. NJ -
Inorganic Qualifiers:
B - Reported value was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) but greater than or equal to the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL). J - Estimated data due to exceeded quality control criteria. U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected. , R - Data is rejected.
CDM Data Usability Assessment - Soil Data 3 00711 C-9 Table C-1 Sample Summary
I 300712 Table C-1 Soil Sample Summary Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey
XXX Xov«?X'^6V^XXXX
Sample Name Date / CDM Page 1 of 2 Table C-1 Soil Sample Summary Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Name Date AfA4^^A^y H MS/MSD = Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate 4^ CDM Page 2 of 2 Tables C-2a and C-2b Data Completeness Reports (Usability Summaries) Table C-2a - Surface and Subsurface Soil Samples - July and August 2002 Table C-2b - Reconciliation of DQI with Measurement Criteria; Overall Data Completeness P I 300715 Table C-2a Surface and Subsurface Soil Samples - Data Completeness Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jearsey Percent Estimated Analytical Method Non-Detected Detected Rejected Estimated Values (Detected Percent Codes Parameter Results Results Data TOTAL Values Values Only) Rejected ASTM-D421 Grain Size Distribution -0 210 -0 210 0 0.0 0.00 ILM04-1-CN CLP Cyanide 40 4 -0 44 0 0.0 0.00 ILM04-1-M CLP TAL Metals (only) 321 681 14 1012 75 7.4 1.38 Lloyd Kahn Total Organic Carbon-soil 1 19 -0 20 0 0.0 0.00 OLM04-2-PP CLP Pesticides/PCBs 1204 28 -0 1232 8 0.6 0.00 OLM04-2-SV CLP Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 2752 107 1 2860 79 2.8 0.03 OLM04-2-V CLP Volatile Organic Compounds 2086 10 16 2112 6 0.3 0.76 SW9045C pH-Soil -0 26 -0 26 0 0.0 0.00 Totals 6404 1085 31 7516 168 2.2 0.41 Percent data rejected 0.41 Percent of detected results qualified as estimated 2.24 (does not include estimated non-detect data) Percent complete (judged valid) 99.59 (Includes all estimated data) CLP = Contract Laboratory Program TAL = Target Analyte List PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl w o o ~j (-' o^ CDM Page 1 of 1 Table C-2b Overall Data Completeness - Soil Sampling Reconciliation of DQI with Measurement Criteria Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Completeness Based on Actual Samples Collected Versus Planned No. of Samples Planned (per No. of Field Sample QAPP No. of Samples Percent Total No. of Duplicates No. of MS/MSD Samples Sample Type Code Addendum 1) Collected Completeness Samples Collected Collected Soil Sampling - Soil Borings SB 10 22 220.0 24 2 2 Soil Sampling - Surface Soil SS 17 19 1H.8 20 1 1 Completeness Based on Valid Samples Analyzed Versus All Samples Collected Target Percent of Detected Percent of Not Detected Compound Estimated Compounds Qualified Data Sample Group Parameter Results Detections Rejected Values Total Values as Estimated Rejected Soil Sampling - All All 6404 1127 • 31 7562 168 2.22 0.41 QC Sample Completeness QAPP Goal Achieved Completeness Goal: 90 percent Yes Field duplicate requirement; 5 percent Yes MS/MSD requirement: 5 percent Yes per equipment type Yes Notes: DQI = Data quality indicators SB = Soil boring QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan SS = Surface soil MW = Monitoring well MS/MSD = Matri spike/matrix spike duplicate No. = Number o o -J H -J CDM Page 1 of 1 f Table C-3 Field Duplicate Pair Sample Results for Soil Sampling Precision Determination based on Relative Percent Differences or Absolute Differences P I 300718 Table C-3 Data Usability Evaluation Field Duplicate Pair Sample Results 2002 Surface and Subsurface Soil Samples Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code SB03B SB03B-D SB12A SB12A-D SS06 SS06-D Sample Name SB20A RPD ABS SB40A RPD ABS SS30 RPD ABS Sample Date CRQU 7/25/2002 7/25/2002 8/7/2002 8/7/2002 7/31/2002 7/31/2002 Chemical Name CRDL 15to18tt/bgs 15 to 18 ft/bgs <50 Notes: pg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram CRQL = Contract required quantitation limit CRDL = Contract required detection limit S.U. = standard units RPD = Relative percent difference, acceptable criteria is less than 50, Results exceeding this criteria are in bold on the table, ABS = Absolute difference, , acceptable criteria is less than CRQL, Results exceeding this criteria are in bold on the table. o ft/bgs = feet below ground surface o NC = Not calculated -J NA = not applicable H U = Not detected VO D = Sample diluted J = Estimated R = Rejected B = Detected in blank and associated sample (organics), or repotted value was less than the contract required detection limit (CRDL) but greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) (inorganics), BJ = Estimated due to QC outlier and reported value was less than the contract required detection limit (CRDL) but greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL), COM Page 1 of 1 I ^ Table C-4 • Field Blank Results Soil Sampling 300720 Table C-4 2002 Surface and Subsurface Soil Samples Field Blank Results Emmell's Septic Landfill Galloway Township, New Jersey Sample Code FB072302-S FB072402-S FB072502-S FB072602-S FB072902-S FB073002-S FB073102-S FB080102-S FB080202-S FB080602-S FB080702-S FB080802-S FB081302-S Sample Name Sample Date CRQLV 7/23/2002 7/24/2002 7/25/2002 7/26/2002 7/29/2002 7/30/2002 7/31/2002 8/1/2002 8/2/2002 8/6/2002 8/7/2002 8/8/2002 8/6/2002 Chemical Name CRDL Volatile Organic Compunds (Mg/L) 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 10 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 4 J 2 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Acetone 10 120 J 56 J 10 UJ 8 J 12 11 10 53 ' 54 9 J 4 J 3 J 36 J Methylene Chloride 10 2 J 2 J 10 U 2 J 0.6 J 1 J 0.8 J 4 J 3 J 2 J 1 J 10 U 31 J Trichloroethene 10 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.6 J 10 U 4 J 3 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Toluene 10 0,4 J 0.5 J 10 UJ 0.4 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 4 J , 3 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Styrene 10 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 0.6 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U . 10 U 10 U 10 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.7 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 10 10 U 10 U 10 U 2 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 U 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 10 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 U. 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 1 J 10 U_ Semi-Volatile Organics (|jg/L) Phenol 10 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.8 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 2 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Naphthalene 10 10 U 0.4 J 10 U 10 U 10 U. 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 10 10 U 10 U 10 U • • 10 U 10 U 3 J 0.4 J 10 U 2 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Diethylphthalate 10 0.3 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.5 J 0.3 J 10 U 10 U 0.5 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Atrazine 10 10 UJ ,10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 R Di-n-butylphthalate 10 1 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.4 J 0.5 J 0.3 J 0.2 J 0.5 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Butylbenzylphthalate 10 0.8 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.4 J 1 J 0.5 J 0.7 J 1 J 1 J 10 U 10 UJ 10 UJ bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 0.5 J 0,6 J 10 U 1 J 2 J 0.6 J 5 J 1 J 0.8 J 10 U 24 10 y_ 10 J Inorganic Analytes (MQ/L) Aluminum 200 194 8 189 B 209 53.6 U 53.6 U 332 208 205 68.2 B 22.2 U 22.2 U 22.2 u 22.2 U Arsenic 10 3.2 U 3.4 B 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 5 BJ 2.8 u 2.8 U 2.8 U 6 U 6 U 6 u 6 U Barium 200 0.5 B 0.46 B 0.85 B 0.68 B 0.56 B 2.1 B 1.2 u 1.2 U 1.2 u 2 U 2 U 2 u 2 U Calcium 5000 83.7 U 212 B 214 B 83.7 U 110 B 257 U 257 u 257 U 257 u 55.6 B 49.6 U 49.6 u 49.6 U Chromium 10 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 0.83 B 0.56 B 0.34 B 0.61 B 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 u 1.3 U Iron ' 100 25.1 B 47.6 B 247 149 45.1 B 107 29.6 B 122 80.1 B 48.5 B 22.3 U 82.7 B 22.3 U Magnesium 5000 37.3 U 37.3 U 37.3 U 37.3 U 83 B 299 B 36.5 B 23.2 B 21.6 U 12.8 B 12 U 12 u 12 U Manganese 15 0.66 B 3.5 B 67 B 2 B 3.2 B 1.9 B 1.1 B 3.3 B 1.8 B 3.5 B 0.88 B 1.7 B 1 B Mercury 0,2 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.2 R 0.2 R 0.2 R 0.2 R Potassium 5000 204 B 185 B 197 B 37 B 32.1 B 317 B 195 B 184 B 135 B 24.2 U 24.2 U 38.5 B 24.2 U Sodium 5000 647 B 510 B 568 B 352 U 352 U 812 B 763 B 789 B 664 B 753 U 753 U 753 U 753 U Thallium 10 4.9 U 4.9 U 4.9 U 5.5 BJ 4.9 U 4.1 B 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 8.8 U 8.8 U 8.8 U 8.8 U Vanadium 50 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1-1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.4 B Zinc 20 1.2 U 2.5 B 5.3 B 1.9 B 2.4 B 12.7 B 4.9 U 4.9 U 9.8 B 13.6 B 2.6 U 2.6 U 7.5 B Notes: CRQL = Contract required quantitation limit CRDL = Contract required detection limit FB = Field blank. pg/L = Micrograms per liter U) o U = Non-detect o J = Estimated . • B = Detected In blank and associated sample (organics), or reported value was less than the contract required detection limit (CRDL) but greater than or equal to the instrument detec K3 R = Rejected CDM Page 1 of 1