ARTIFACT #1 - EnVL Pollution and Regulation - Price Landfill Project

2012 The Richard Stockton College of

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

PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

2 PROJECT TWO: PRICE LANDFILL #1 SUPERFUND SITE

Table of Contents (T.O.C.)

Abstract 4

What is CERCLA and how did it start? 5

How has CERCLA changed over the years? 6

Brief History of Price Landfill 6

Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation 7

Precautions for exposure reduction 8

Monitoring/Preventative Measures 8

NPL Status 9

Feasibility study 10

Contaminants and Distribution 11

Record of Decision 11

Remedial Design/Action 12

Site Review 14

Suggested Site Use 14

Does Superfund Work? 15

Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund 16


Works Cited 17

Appendix

Appendix Summary 19

Appendix A 20

Appendix B 25

Appendix C 30

Appendix D 38


Abstract

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),

alternately referred to as Superfund, has been utilized in the forefront of protecting the health

of the general public from the dangers of hazardous pollutants, created by small-scale and large

scale companies alike, and monitoring the standing of sites given the Superfund status. The cost

of the remediation processes far exceeds the cost of what preventative measures would have

cost, had they been deployed to begin with, as we will see. Money aside (and that’s a BIG

aside), the time and effort that goes into the cleanup of a Superfund site is just plain

monotonous. Not only is the remediation process is a long one, but it is directly correlated with

the basic foundation of the health of Atlantic County’s population. This paper seeks to answer

questions regarding exactly how the Price Landfill #1 Superfund site (referred to as “Price

Landfill” throughout this paper), located in Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey,

functions under CERCLA and how well the remediation team responds to the rectification

process of cleaning up said site and a brief history of the Price Landfill is also covered.


What it CERCLA and How Did it Start?

Before 1980, America’s chemical companies’ dumping practices were not very heavily

regulated. Some companies were not interested in the fact that those chemicals and hazardous

waste might be affecting the environment, or the people around them. Environmentalist and

activist from the EPA collectively brought an idea to congress for stricter laws, fines and the

accountability of responsible parties for cleaning up contaminated sites. (EHSO,2011)

In 1980, congress passed CERCLA, the law that the EPA and environmentalists had proposed.

This law would put a tax on all chemical companies who were releasing hazardous materials. These

materials were deemed to produce potentially harmful effects on the public and the surrounding

environment. All the money accumulated from this tax, was to be deposited into an account, or a

“Superfund”, that would pay for the cleanup of these waste sites created by the chemical companies. This

Superfund is known as The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or

CERCLA. (EPA, 2011). CERCLA requires that the companies are held accountable for the environmental

messes they have generated. Accountability would include undertaking stricter guidelines and regulations

on how to handle different chemicals, and claiming responsibility for the integral cleanup of these sites

(EHSO, 2011). These clean ups can be classified as either short term or long term. The short term cleanup

process involves actions concerned extreme or copious releases of hazardous wastes which need to be

dealt with in a prompt manner.

Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers

associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not

immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's

National Priorities List (NPL). These actions can and are to be carried out exclusively on sites

mentioned in the National Priorities List (NPL) on EPA’s website (EPA, 2011).

CERCLA is used to fund the clean-up of superfund sites that are listed on the National Priorities list.


How Has CERCLA Changed Over the Years

Over the years CERCLA has gone through many changes, as well as additions. In 1986,

CERCLA was amended by a federal agency called the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA). This amendment allowed the same regulations to be put in place for not only privately owned

companies, but federally owned ones as well. These federal companies must now adhere to the same

regulations, pay the same taxes and make certain they are just as much a part of the integrative cleanup as

the other parties (HSS, 2012). SARA greatly strengthened CERCLA and required the EPA revise the

Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), a system created to assess the comparative nature of prioritizing the

contaminated sites by level of express importance (Superfund, SARA Overview, 2011).

Brief History of Price Landfill

In the 1960’s, Price Landfill (Pleasantville/Egg Harbor Township) was used as a sand

and gravel quarry. Usage changed in the 1970’s when they began to use the pit as a landfill and

later accepted the dumping of chemical materials and hazardous waste, with the permission of

the owner, Charles Price (EPA, 2000). Even though the landfill stopped accepting waste in the

early 70’s. The chemicals infiltrated into the groundwater, causing a contaminated groundwater

plume that migrated towards public drinking wells. The area was recognized as contaminated in

the early 80’s and was proposed as a potential superfund site because of the threat posed on

public health due to contamination of the groundwater.

The Price family owned the landfill during its operative period, before the site’s

contaminated status was declared. NJDEP conducted the initial investigation of Price Landfill

after it was proposed to the EPA. The sum of $17 million was received form the companies and

individuals responsible for the site contamination and was deposited in an account to help fund

the clean-up. CERCLA provided emergency funds to clean water to effected residents and


reconnected their water lines to a clean source. The NJDEP and the EPA received a $16 million-

dollar grant from the American Resource and Recovery Acts fund (ARRA) to clean up the

ground water and put a cap on the site. (Superfund,2011)

Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation

The NJDEP came in and did the preliminary assessment and site investigation under

advisement of the EPA. From the time of the preliminary assessment to when they actually

finished the site investigation, approximately three years had passed. (Superfund, 2011) In this

time, they determined that there was an excessive amount of chemicals contaminating the

groundwater. These harmful chemicals were metals and volatile organic compounds (VOC).

Benzene, cadmium, lead, vinyl chloride, and toluene were among the most prominent chemicals

found that caused rising concern about their expedient removal (EPA, 2012). High amounts of

naturally occurring iron was also found in the ground water which was found to be a problem at

the ACUA water treatment plant (Katz, 2012). The release of these chemicals came most directly

from the county’s allowance of chemical drums being disposed of on the site, as well as

chemicals that were openly poured into the ground.

The contaminated grounds of Price Landfill were determined to be a result of the

percolation of these harmful chemicals through the soil, facilitated by rainfall and capillary

action in the underlying soil (Superfund, 2011). Although New Jersey’s soil consists of a variety

of sandy, silty, and clay-like consistencies, the soil around the Price Landfill is predominantly of

the silty and sandy contents. It is because of this, that rainwater percolated more quickly through

the ground, carrying the toxins with them due to the high permeability of the soil. The majority

of the contamination was found in the groundwater.


Precautions for Exposure Reduction

The effect on human health could have been disastrous in the Atlantic county area if they

didn’t realize the groundwater was contaminated. The EPA and the State of New Jersey worked

together to alter the distribution of water available to residents, so as to provide it from a

different water source. In 1981, trucks of bottled water were supplied to the people in the area.

The EPA took control of the project and implemented measures, to be taken by ACUA, that

would treat the water and therefore, control what was being released to the public. Unfortunately,

37 residents were affected by the contaminated groundwater before it could be treated (EPA,

2011).

Monitoring and Preventative Measures

Fear of the contamination spreading to the nearby Absecon Creek led the EPA to make

the decision to move the public water supply wells, nixing the possibility of further cross-

contamination (EPA, 2011). Even though this site was being treated as a top priority, it still took

almost an entire year for it to be added to the NPL. It was in that year that they discussed how to

make the best plans for the cleanup. They came up with eight steps for containment. The

placement of a cap onto the infected area and the erection of a fence around the area of the

landfill for future monitoring and construction were just a couple of the steps taken (EPA, 2012).

The purpose of the fence was to keep the public out of the working areas around the landfill and

to prevent anyone from wandering onto the site and getting hurt.

Extraction wells and granular activated carbon filtration units were later installed to

prevent the movement of the contaminated ground water (EPA, 1983). Effluent and influent

water is being collected and treated to prevent the contamination of surrounding creeks and


wetlands. A trench has been dug around the landfill to collect runoff and soil erosion. These

actions are preventing the spread of the contaminated waters. If this was not done, the

contaminated ground water would be able to reach the surrounding creeks and wetlands

potentially leading to exposure of other people. A cap will be put on the landfill once

groundwater extraction and treatment is completed (EPA, 1986). The cap will consist of a multi-

layer system of solids and a synthetic geo-membrane made of polyethylene. The top layer will be

covered in grass that does not have long root penetration; beneath that are a drainage layer and

barrier layer. Constructed from a geo-membrane polyethylene, the barrier layer consists of an

impermeable layer that will prevent surface water from penetrating the waste beneath and

pushing more hazardous waste into the groundwater. The barrier layer would then be placed over

a layer of compacted clay (Salomon, 2012). These steps will all help in the containment of the

contaminated groundwater and in reducing human contact with the area of concern.

NPL Status

Price Landfill was an addition to the NPL in 1983. It was added to the list because of its

threat to the public drinking water supply that was being pumped by wells connecting to the

groundwater. Spread of the contaminated groundwater supply to the remaining aquifers of

Atlantic County was a deep concern voiced by the EPA (EPA, 2012). Clean up of this sight is

still current and is in the construction phase of remediation. It has been about 30 years that the

NJDEP and EPA have been working on cleaning up this site. So far, several steps have been

taken to clean up the site, including the closing of some public water wells showing

contamination. In May of 2012, began the construction of the groundwater treatment facility.

Once that is complete, the EPA will conduct hourly testing of the ground water (Salomon, 2012).


Treatment plants and extraction systems as well as carbon filters were installed to prevent and

track the movement of the contaminated groundwater to nearby creeks and wetlands (EPA,

1986). The on-site treatment plant is responsible for the pretreatment of the ground water. It is

then sent to the ACUA for further treatment before the water is released into the ocean. The

water that is released is required to and does meet the sewage water treatment standards (Katz,

2012). Because the clean up process is still in effect, the site is still listed on the NPL. Air

surrounding the Price Landfill Superfund site is safe of VOC’s and the land has been excavated

to remove any oily or chemical substances in the soil. Despite this, the ground water is still

contaminated (Katz, 2012). The goal is to reach less than 10 part per billion (ppb) of total

contamination in the groundwater (EPA, 1986). When this is achieved, the Price Landfill will be

removed from the NPL and the groundwater will have reached levels that are considered safe for

drinking water.

Feasibility Study

In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a feasibility study and

developed a long-term remedial action plan. The study involved evaluating alternatives

(including carbon treatment) to protect Atlantic City's water supply, containing or eliminating

additional migration of contaminants from Price Landfill, and dealing with contamination that

has already migrated from the landfill. At this time, the EPA only approved about $940,000 for

the work, under a Cooperative Agreement and Superfund State Contract. (Environmental

Protection Agency, 2012) In June of 1993, the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) completed a Focused Feasibility Study to evaluate several treatment and

disposal options for the groundwater. (EPA, 2012)


Contaminants and Distribution

Total volatile organics (TVO) concentrations range from 40-50 ppm near the landfill in

the shallow depths of the upper cohansey formation. TVO concentrations range from 10-

100 ppb in the deeper areas of the aquifer, with the plum extending almost one mile from

the landfill and tending to move in an east-northeasterly direction. (EPA ROD, 1986 pg

3)

Contaminants Detected

Ground

Water

Surface

Water

Air Soil Other

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE X

1,2-TRANS-

DICHLOROETHYLENE

X

ARSENIC X X

BENZENE X

CHLOROFORM X X

DICHLOROETHYLENES X

LEAD X X X

VINYL CHLORIDE X X

VOLATILE ORGANIC

COMPOUNDS

X

Graph from (Good Guide, 2011)

Record of Decision

In 1983 the EPA, issued a Record of Decision (ROD) from a remedial investigation done in

1982. The investigation was led by the EPA and NJDEP, under the contractor, Camp Dresser and

McKee.

The investigation included the installation of 22 additional groundwater

monitoring well and 6 soil borings during the spring of 1984. This program was

preceded by a geophysical survey, employing both seismic refraction and ground

penetration radar to better identify the boundaries of the landfill and assist in the

selecting locations for the monitoring wells and soil borings. (EPA, 1986, pg 4)

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=107-06-2






http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=EDF-306






The investigation gave the EPA a better idea of the steps that needed to be taken to clean up the

site.

In the 1986 Record of Decision, the EPA selected the following site cleanup actions:

installation of a security fence around the landfill site; installation of groundwater extraction

wells adjacent to the landfill to control the contaminant source; installation of groundwater

extraction wells hydraulically down gradient from the landfill to stop the migration of the

contaminant plume; construction of a groundwater/leachate pretreatment facility at or near the

site; construction of a force main to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority(ACUA) interceptor

system; extraction of contaminated groundwater followed by pretreatment and conveyance to the

ACUA wastewater facility for final treatment; quarterly monitoring of groundwater for

approximately 25 years; and construction of a landfill cap at the conclusion of the groundwater

remediation. (EPA, 1986) The estimated capital cost of the cleanup was $9,050,000 with annual

upkeep and maintenance for years 1-5 of $1,010,000 and $255,000 for years 6-25(EPA, 1986).

Remedial Design/Action

Remedial Design is the phase in Superfund site cleanup where the technical

specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies outlined in the RODs are designed, but

have not yet been implemented. At this point in time, all phases of remedial design have been

completed and the remedial actions are currently underway. Remedial designs for the Price

Landfill site are separated in 4 stages. First, the study of infiltration basins was used to design a

pilot plant for replacing treated groundwater. Then, the design of a groundwater treatment

system would be based off of the results of the pilot plant and when completed, the landfill site

would be capped.

The State of New Jersey began design of the various aspects of the remedy in 1987. “In

November 1997, NJDEP initiated a study to size the infiltration basins for the reinjection of the


treated groundwater and to analyze the various components of the groundwater treatment

system.” (EPA, 2012) This study, which was completed in July of 1999, proved that the

infiltration basins were not an effective method for discharging the treated groundwater into the

aquifer due to iron fouling of the infiltration basins. As a result, NJDEP decided to use recharge

basins to dispose of the treated groundwater. Testing of the different components of the

treatment system indicated that the treatment components could effectively treat the

contaminated groundwater. (EPA, 2012) In March of 1999, NJDEP completed an interim

remedial design for a pilot plant to evaluate the treatment and discharge of the treated

groundwater into the aquifer. In February of 2001, the pilot plant construction was completed

and pilot plant testing of the groundwater treatment system was initiated. Pilot plant testing was

completed in the summer of 2002 and was operated by NJDEP until 2011, when it was

decommissioned in conjunction with groundwater treatment plant construction. (EPA, 2012)

The groundwater treatment plant remedial design was conducted in several phases. The

first phase was completed in January 2005 by NJDEP, which included the delineation of the

landfill boundaries. Then in 2009, the EPA assumed lead agency of the site. The remedial design

for the groundwater treatment system was completed in 2010 and construction activities began in

July 2010. The groundwater treatment system construction is expected to be completed in late

2012. In 2011, the EPA designed the landfill cap, which is expected to begin construction in

2013 following to the start-up of the groundwater treatment system and will hopefully be

completed in 2014. According to the EPA, the American Resource and Recovery Act (ARRA)

funds were allocated to this site for construction of the groundwater treatment system. This

system will control further migration of groundwater contamination. The Price Landfill site

received ARRA funding in fiscal year 2009. The $16.3 million in ARRA funding for this site


was used to initiate remedial action activities associated with the cleanup of contaminated

groundwater(Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).

Site Review

April 24, 1992 was the last time a site review was conducted at Price Landfill. It was

found that the site was not properly fenced or posted. Illegal dumping was still occurring on the

site; materials consisted of construction debris and household items. Shotgun shells were also

found, indicating that hunting could be occurring on or near the land. The field staff reported

smelling a strong chemical scent in the northern portion of the site that caused headaches and

frequent dizziness, leading them to quickly vacate the site. Several recommendations were made

from this site review. On-site surface soil samples, which checked for metals, was one

recommendation. Perform air monitoring on-site as well as areas downwind of the site for

VOC’s and restricting access to the site was another. This review also recommended further

evaluations of public health. (EPA, 1993)

Suggested Site Use

Although the Price Landfill is still currently being cleaned up and is under construction, it

has been proposed that the land could be used for clean energy sources after the landfill has been

capped. The EPA has suggested a solar site (EPA, 2011). The land will not be open for

residential construction, but could be used for public sports fields (golf course, soccer fields) or

for public storage (Katz, 2012). Of these options, a solar energy field might prove to be the most

effective use of the land, turning a toxic site into a clean energy source. The already-present

power lines on the landfill and sub-station would make this land ideal for a solar site (EPA,

2011).


Does Superfund Work?

The superfund process does work; however, it is a slow process due to funding issues and

the bureaucratic nature of government. According to the EPA, after Superfund’s inception in

1980, out of 1,313 Superfund sites, a total of 363 have been deleted from the National Priorities

List (2012). In order for a site to be deleted from the NPL it must be determined that there is no

threat to human health, and all the necessary actions were taken to protect human health (EPA,

2012). The deletion of these sites shows that the Superfund process does work. Although the

process is slow human health is protected by emergency response teams, which are quickly

deployed to insure that human health is protected.

According to the NJDEP, Superfund money used to come, “from taxes on the chemical

and petrochemical industries” (NJDEP, 2011). Unfortunately this is no longer the case,

superfund money now comes from general revenues and stimulus money (Broder, 2009). The

superfund money is used when companies or people responsible for the contamination either

cannot be found or do not have enough money to cover the cost of the cleanup of the site that

they contaminated (NJDEP, 2011). According to Perry Katz, the project manager of the Prices

Landfill Superfund site, the reason that the superfund process is slow is due to funding issues and

the approval of the use of the available funds. Mr. Katz stated that they will have the people

available to work and know what needs to be done, but they just need to wait on the approval of

funds to take the necessary action (2012). Katz also stated that coordination between different

entities is also a challenge. It takes time to coordinate things between townships, the state, the

EPA, the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and private contractors (2012). Katz also stated

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


Price Landfill, the ACUA did not want to accept treated wastewater from Price Landfill (2012).

In the early 1990’s, ACUA changed their mind and agreed to accept the wastewater because the

site would become a new paying customer to ACUA’s water treatment facility (Katz, 2012).

Funding Issues & Suggested Alterations to Superfund

A major problem with superfund is funding issues; the problem is that chemical

companies and petrochemical companies use to pay a tax for the amount of pollutants they

produced (NJDEP, 2011). This tax ended in 1995 when the Superfund tax expired and was not

renewed (Broder, 2009). So in the case of the Price Landfill Superfund site, the money to finance

the clean up came from stimulus money (Katz, 2012); therefore, the taxpayer pay for the

cleanup. Instead of having the polluters paying for the cleanup of these contaminated sites, the

American taxpayer ends up paying for it. This could be resolved by reinstating the Superfund

tax, which President Obama is trying to do(Eilperin, 2010). Another problem is that project

managers have to wait for approval when it comes to hiring contractors to remediate a site (Katz,

2012). A way to fix this problem is giving the project managers the authority to make these

decisions on their own. The different groups involved can also work more closely together, such

as state environmental agencies and the EPA, to create less of a lag time waiting for approvals

from different parties. These are ways that Superfund can be fixed; and it does work, however, in

recent years it has been having trouble due to the current economy.


Works Cited

Broder, J. M. (2009, April 25). Without Superfund Tax, Stimulus Aids Cleanups. Retrieved October 17,

2012, from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/science/earth/26superfund.html?_r=0

EPA . (2000, March 27) CHAPTER 5: CONTAMINATION OF THE COHANSEY AQUIFER BY

PRICE'S PIT. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from epa.gov:

http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0098-02.pdf/$file/EE-0098-02.pdf

EHSO. (2009, 9 2). Superfund - cercla - overview, guidance, links & downloads. Retrieved from

http://www.ehso.com/superfund.php

Eilperin, J. (2010, June 27). Obama move to Reinstate Superfund Tax is Resisted. Retrieved October 17,

2012, from Boston:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/27/obama_move_to_reinstate_

superfund_tax_is_resisted/

EPA. (1993, 4 20). Site Review and Update: Price Landfill #1. Retrieved from US Department of Health

and Human Services:

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eohs/atlantic/pleasantville/price_lf/price_sitereview93.pdf

EPA. (1983, 9 20). EPA Superfund Record of Decision. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0283010.pdf

EPA. (1986, 9). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from National Service for

Environmental Publications (Price Landfill Second Remedial Action):

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100SJKF.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&In

dex=1986%20Thru%201990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRes

trict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField

=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQField

EPA. (1986, 9 29). Record of Decision: Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from www.epa.gov:


EPA. (2012, 7 11). Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from www.epa.gov:

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200427c.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/science/earth/26superfund.html?_r=0

http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0098-02.pdf/$file/EE-0098-02.pdf

http://www.ehso.com/superfund.php

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/27/obama_move_to_reinstate_superfund_tax_is_resisted/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/27/obama_move_to_reinstate_superfund_tax_is_resisted/

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eohs/atlantic/pleasantville/price_lf/price_sitereview93.pdf


http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100SJKF.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1986%20Thru%201990&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQField





http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200427c.pdf


EPA. (2011, 12 12). Cercla overview. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

EPA. (2011, 12 14). Superfund program implements the recovery act. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/price_landfill.html

EPA. (2012, 1 12). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from Price Landfill:

http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/pricelandfill/

EPA. (2012, 10 1). National Priorities List. Retrieved October 17, 2012, from EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/

Good Guide. (2011). Price Landfill #1. Retrieved 10 15, 2012, from ww.scorecard.com:

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/land/site.tcl?epa_id=NJD070281175#maps

HSS. (2012, 8 10). Comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act. Retrieved

from http://www.hss.energy.gov/sesa/environment/policy/cercla.html

Katz, P. (2012, 10 15). Remedial Project Manager of Price Landfill Superfund Site. (E. Burnham, K.

Kohler, K. Mulliga, & J. Hasenfu, Interviewers)

NJDEP. (2004, 7 2). Price landfill: Site discription/resolution of environmental concerns. Retrieved

from http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/community/sites/pi/130532.pdf

NJDEP. (2011, 5 11). Site Remediation Program. Retrieved October 17, 2012, from NJDEP:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/superfund/sf_faq.htm#sf_faq3

Salomon, D. (2012, 10 15). Construction Manager (USACE). (E. Burnham, K. Kohler, K. Mulliga, & J.

Hasenfu, Interviewers)

Superfund, SARA Overview. (2011, December 12). Retrieved October 16, 2012, from EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/price_landfill.html

http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/pricelandfill/

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/land/site.tcl?epa_id=NJD070281175#maps

http://www.hss.energy.gov/sesa/environment/policy/cercla.html

http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/community/sites/pi/130532.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/superfund/sf_faq.htm#sf_faq3

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/sara.htm


Appendix Summary

The Appendix is split into 4 sections: Appendices A-D. Appendix A includes an

interview of the Project Manager and two Project Engineers of the Price Landfill #1 Superfund

site, as conducted on Monday, October 15th

, 2012 by Keith Mulligan, Justin Hasenfus, Liz

Burnham, and Kelly Kohler. Contact information and a works cited are located towards the back

of Appendix A. Appendix B contains a montage of still photos, taken by Kelly Kohler, of the

Price Landfill Superfund site. Appendix C has in it, a variety of various diagrams pertaining to

the Price Landfill, including the official processes with which the EPA has lined out to follow.

Appendix D simply contains the URL’s of 3 suggested articles, relating to the Price Landfill

Superfund site, and have been reviewed by Liz Burnham.


APPENDIX A Summary:

INTERVIEW, Conducted on October 15th, 2012

Approximate Time of Total Interview: 1:30 – 3:15 p.m.

Place: Price Landfill #1, 950 Mill Road, Pleasantville, NJ

Parties Interviewed1:

Perry Katz - Project Manager

Daryl Salomon - Project Engineer USACE

Tim Taylor - Project Engineer USACE

Edited Interview Content:

Q: What kind of experience do you have in this line of work?

Perry Katz: “30 years experience working for EPA and in the private sector for environmental consulting

firms, degrees in microbiology and environmental science.”

Daryl Salomon: “Has 20 years experience in the field and is a geological engineer.”

Q: What are your job duties on this site?

Perry: “As project manager I manage the site and coordinate the different entities involved such as: EPA,

NJDEP, USACE, and sub contractors.”Daryl and Tim: “We make sure the construction of the project is

staying within the original design.”

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


Q: How was the site discovered?

Perry: “Locals complained of odors coming from their well water.”

Q: Was the landfill lined?

Perry: “No, the landfill was originally used as a sand and gravel quarry and was then turned into a

landfill.”

Q: What kind of contaminants are at this site and what is the most prevalent contaminant?

Perry: “The ground water is contaminated with VOC’s, and metals (lead, cadmium, and arsenic), Toluene

and Benzene…Benzene is the prevalent contaminant at the site. “

Q: Which direction is the contaminated groundwater plume moving?

Perry: “The plume is moving in a North-to-North Easterly direction towards Absecon Creek.”

Q: Who was found to be responsible for the contamination of this site?

Perry: “Charles Price is the owner of the landfill, and people who disposed of contaminants at the site

were also found to be responsible.”

Q: Were the responsible parties forced to pay for the clean up?

Perry: “Yes. Charles Price and people who disposed of contaminants at the site reached a settlement of

17 million dollars, which was given to the state of NJ the lead agency at the time.”

Q: Why was the site added to the National Priorities List?

Perry: “Prices Landfill was added to the NPL because it was a threat to the public water supply”

Q: Were any nearby residents affected by the contamination?

Perry: “No terrible incidents have been linked to the Price Landfill site.”


Q: What phase of the project are you currently in and what is the current schedule for different parts

of the construction of the remediation plan?

Daryl: “We are in the construction phase the water treatment plant, is expected to be completed at the

end of 2012, and the cap is expected to be installed by 2014.”

Q: What kind of cap will be used? And what is the purpose of the cap?

Daryl: “The cap is a geo synthetic membrane made of polyethylene with multiple layers. It will be

installed and then dirt and vegetation will be put on type of the cap. The vegetation will be mainly grass;

trees cannot be used because roots from trees can puncture the cap. The cap will be used to prevent

contact with the contaminated soil and to also prevent rainwater from infiltrating the contaminated soil

and flushing more contaminants into the groundwater.”

Q: When the site is completed will it require maintenance?

Perry: “Yes, the fence will need to be maintained, the cap will need to be inspected the grass will need

to be cut, and the extraction wells will need to be maintained.”

Q: Will influent to the treatment plant be tested regularly?

Daryl: “Yes, the influent will be tested hourly when the treatment plant is operational.”

Q: What is the total cost of this project?

Perry: “The total cost is going to be approximately 50-60 million dollars.”

Q: How many people are currently employed on the site?

Perry and Tim: “There are between 50 and 70 contracted employees and less then a dozen government

employees involved with the site.”


Q: Was the cleanup expected to take this long?

Perry: No, the NJDEP ran the site for 20 years and the EPA had a supporting role. In 2009 as a result of

stimulus funds for the sum of 16.4 million dollars were given which allowed the EPA to take the lead

role. The Atlantic County Utility Authority did not want to accept the treated wastewater in the 1980’s

due to a stigma with Superfund sites. In the early 90’s ACUA lost some big customers and decided to

accept the treated wastewater from the Price Landfill site because the site would become a new paying

customer.

Q: Were there any problems with property owners surrounding the site?

Perry, Tim , and Daryl: “Yes, nothing major just minor zoning issues.”

Q: How long does a typical remedial investigation take?

Perry: “Typically two years.”

Q: Was there any community involvement in the clean up of this site?

Perry: “Yes. A community relation’s plan was constructed. Public meetings and information sessions

were held. And everything done at the site is public record and can be found either online or in the local

library.”

Q: Are there any plans for future use of this site after it has been cleaned up?

Perry: “The site will not be used for residential, because it is already commercially zoned. It may be used

for a commercial site, possibly soccer fields, or there has also been some talk of using remediated sites

for alternative energy such as solar panels.”


Contact Information:

Perry Katz, Project Manager:

[email protected]

Direct Dial: (212)-637-4425

*Perry Katz's email was obtained through Pat Seppi, community involvment coordinator:

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX B2 Summary: Price Landfill Photos

Figure 1. The map of Price Landfill

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


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

Price Landfill

Figure 3. The Superfund Site Front Gate


Figure 4. This is a house located directly adjacent to the landfill -

(Mill Rd house bordering landfill… maybe, 100 ft away)

Figure 5. This trailer (yellow and located behind the trees directly to

the right of the path) is pulled up right next to the fence (Mill Rd…

resident property line ends right at the landfill border)


Figure 6. Concrete extraction wells Located along the road side of the

landfill. Mill Rd

Figure 7. Power lines running through the landfill... Construction plans

communicated with AC Power and electric company since their power

lines run through Price Landfill


Figure 8. Raised area is consolidated landfill material


Appendix C

Summary: Web Images associated with the superfund site

*This picture depicts the process by which a Superfund site operates and in

what order things are determined.


**These are the steps that the RCRA take and what the Preliminary

Assessment and Site Investigation are like.


***Illustrated here is how CERCLA’s long term monitoring process is carried

out.


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

Where Price Landfill is located in Atlantic County.


Figure 9. Example of Pump and Treat System


Figure 10. Map of Zone of Contamination

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vFDGFLqxrGM/TbXWCY1uAkI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/Ylf0EyyxIhk/s1600/contamination.jpg


Figure 11. Aerial View of Price’s Landfill

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GwmwuS-8cBA/TbXW3fDTqHI/AAAAAAAAAAU/SflwtTHCCH4/s1600/price+map.jpg


Citations for Pictures

#(n.d.). Price landfill. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/e

ditorial/3/ce/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-001cc4c002e0/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-

001cc4c002e0.image.jpg

(2011). Aerial View of Price's Landfill. (n.d.). Retrieved

fromhttp://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .

(2011). Example of Pump and Treat System. (n.d.).Retrieved from

http://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .

(2011). Seher, G. (n.d.). Spreading Poisons. Retrieved from

http://ensc5202gseher.blogspot.com/ .

*(2011). The superfund process. (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/texas/san_jacinto/documents/maps_images/superfund_process.j

pg

**(2011). Rfa, pa and si assestment . (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-

a&rls=org.mozilla:en-

US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=q0lRfujNnmeNnM:&imgrefurl=http://web.

ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/figure2.2.htm&docid=JshA4SRFhvvFlM&imgurl=http://web.

ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/images/figure2.2.gif&w=584&h=504&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5

ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=363&sig=110229258341771383845&page=2&tbnh=127

&tbnw=147&start=30&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:20,i:239&tx=97&ty=77

***(2011). Figure 3.5 long term montering by cercla. (2011). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from

http://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/upload/Fig_3-5.gif

**** (2007). 2007 CERCLA's list of hazardous substances. (2007). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-

a&rls=org.mozilla:en-

US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=d2dUm8EvpBdHxM:&imgrefurl=http://nat

uraldentistry.us/1310/mercury-more-toxic-than-plutonium/&docid=2M8y-tZ-

6m7XJM&imgurl=http://naturaldentistry.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cercla-

list.png&w=674&h=464&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=662&sig

=110229258341771383845&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:5

,s:20,i:173&tx=31&ty=59

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/ce/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-001cc4c002e0/3ce69c24-6878-11df-844b-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg



http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/texas/san_jacinto/documents/maps_images/superfund_process.jpg

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/texas/san_jacinto/documents/maps_images/superfund_process.jpg

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=q0lRfujNnmeNnM:&imgrefurl=http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/figure2.2.htm&docid=JshA4SRFhvvFlM&imgurl=http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/basis/html/ch2/images/figure2.2.gif&w=584&h=504&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=363&sig=110229258341771383845&page=2&tbnh=127&tbnw=147&start=30&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:20,i:239&tx=97&ty=77







http://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/upload/Fig_3-5.gif

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=CERCLA&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1280&bih=900&tbm=isch&tbnid=d2dUm8EvpBdHxM:&imgrefurl=http://naturaldentistry.us/1310/mercury-more-toxic-than-plutonium/&docid=2M8y-tZ-6m7XJM&imgurl=http://naturaldentistry.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cercla-list.png&w=674&h=464&ei=vQR_UMzwEqT5ygH7soCgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=662&sig=110229258341771383845&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:20,i:173&tx=31&ty=59









Appendix D

Summary: The following are the URL’s to suggested articles, reviewed by Liz

Burnham:

1. Long-term health effects of surrounding neighbors to Price’s Landfill

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-

city_pleasantville_brigantine/article_8e8b0e3c-7298-11df-9cf7-001cc4c002e0.html

2. Atlantic County, N.J., funds by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/locale/new-jersey/atlantic/dept/9600

3. Court case against Charles Price and the main site polluters:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/688/688.F2d.204.82-5030.html

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-city_pleasantville_brigantine/article_8e8b0e3c-7298-11df-9cf7-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/atlantic-city_pleasantville_brigantine/article_8e8b0e3c-7298-11df-9cf7-001cc4c002e0.html

http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/locale/new-jersey/atlantic/dept/9600

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/688/688.F2d.204.82-5030.html

ARTIFACT #1 - EnVL Pollution and Regulation - Price Landfill Project

Documents

Transcript of ARTIFACT #1 - EnVL Pollution and Regulation - Price Landfill Project