FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

Date:

~ 23 2 o/f7 -------------------~--------------

Walter E. Mugdan, Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division

282477

11111111111111111111111111111111 1111 1111

ii

Table of Contents

Five-Year Review Summary Form ............................................................................................ iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Site Chronology ............................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

Remedial Actions .......................................................................................................................... 3

Remedy Implementation .............................................................................................................. 3

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ........................................................... 4

Progress Since Last Five-Year Review ....................................................................................... 4

Five-Year Review Process ............................................................................................................ 5

Administrative Components ........................................................................................................ 5

Community Involvement.............................................................................................................. 5

Data Review ................................................................................................................................ 6

Site Inspection ............................................................................................................................. 7

Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 7

Institutional Controls Verification .............................................................................................. 7

Technical Assessment ................................................................................................................... 8

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ....................... 8

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action

objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid.................................................................... 8

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the

protectiveness of the remedy? ................................................................................................... 10

Technical Assessment Summary ............................................................................................... 10

Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions .................................................................. 10

Protectiveness Statement ............................................................................................................ 10

Next Review ................................................................................................................................. 10

Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events .......................................................................................... 11

Table 2a: Remediation Goals for Soil (all concentrations in μg/kg) ........................................ 12

Table 2b: Remediation Goals for Groundwater (all concentrations in µg/L) .......................... 12

Table 3: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed ............................................................. 13

Attachments ................................................................................................................................. 14

Attachment 1: Figure 1 ............................................................................................................. 14

iii

Executive Summary

This is the third five-year review for the Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site

(site) located in the Townships of Florence, Mansfield and Springfield, in Burlington County,

New Jersey. The purpose of this five-year review is to review information to determine if the

remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The

triggering action for this statutory review was the approval of the seco five-year review at the

site.

The contamination associated with the site was addressed in one remedial phase described in the

1986 Record of Decision (ROD). The major components of the selected remedy were:

construction of a landfill cap; construction of a slurry containment wall; construction of an up-

gradient groundwater interceptor system; construction of a new storm water management

system; leachate treatment and disposal; gas collection and treatment; removal and disposal of

lagoon liquids and sediments, and other surface debris; construction of a fence with warning

signs; and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the constructed remedy. The remedy also called

for supplemental sampling of groundwater, surface water, and sediments during design. All work

was completed by March 1994. An O&M plan followed requiring continued maintenance of the

landfill cap and periodic sampling.

In March of 2004, the site was deleted from the National Priorities List.

This five-year review found that the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document

and is protective of human health and the environment.

iv

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Florence Land Recontouring Landfill

EPA ID: NJD980529143

Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Florence, Mansfield, Springfield/all in

Burlington County

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: Deleted

Multiple OUs?

No

Has the site achieved construction completion?

Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: State

[If “Other Federal Agency”, enter Agency name]: NJDEP

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Richard Ho

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 4/1/2009 - 4/1/2014

Date of site inspection: 2/27/2014

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 3

Triggering action date: 7/30/2009

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 7/30/2014

v

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

01

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy is protective of public health and the environment.

1

Introduction

The purpose of a five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a

remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health

and the environment and is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The methods,

findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in the five-year review. In addition, five-

year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document

recommendations to address them.

This is the third five-year review for the Florence Land Recontouring Landfill site, located in the

Township of Florence, Mansfield, and Springfield, Burlington County, New Jersey. This five-

year review was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Richard Ho. The review was conducted pursuant to Section

121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., and 40 C.F.R. 300.430(f)(4)(ii) and in

accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-

03B-P (June 2001). This report will become part of the site file.

The triggering action for this statutory review was the approval of the last five-year review on

July 30, 2009. A five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure. The site consists of one operable unit, which is evaluated in this five-year

review.

Site Chronology

See Table 1 for the site chronology.

Background

Physical Characteristics

The site (Figure 1) is located on Cedar Lane, in the Townships of Florence, Mansfield and

Springfield, in Burlington County, New Jersey. The property encompasses approximately 60

acres. Out of the 60 acres, the area which contains the actual landfilled wastes is 29 acres, along

with two relatively small leachate collection lagoons. The site is bordered by farmland, the

Assiscunk Creek, which is used for both recreational purposes and irrigation, the Burlington

County Resource Recovery Facilities Complex (BCRRFC) and the Cedar Lane Extension.

Site Geology/Hydrogeology

The site lies above the Raritan-Magothy Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the area.

The Raritan-Magothy Formation comprises 150 feet of interbedded sands, silts and clays.

Separating the site from this aquifer is 50 to 70 feet of Merchantville Clay. Overlying the

Merchantville are Pleistocene deposits varying from zero to 25 feet in thickness, which consist of

sand, silt and clay. The surficial Pleistocene Aquifer is used as a water supply, but to a lesser

extent than the Raritan-Magothy. Flow in both the Pleistocene and Raritan-Magothy is in the

south-southeast direction toward the Assiscunk Creek. Based on existing hydraulic gradients,

2

leachate from the landfill has the potential to flow out of the fill into the adjacent surficial

Pleistocene aquifer. Since groundwater from the Pleistocene Aquifer discharges into the

Assiscunk Creek, the Creek acts as a natural hydraulic barrier to further contain contaminant

transport in the groundwater beyond the creek.

Land and Resource Use

Florence Land Recontouring, Inc., operated the site as a landfill from 1973 to 1981. The site is

now inactive with vegetation covering the entire site and is fenced off from the general public.

The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural and somewhat industrial. Adjacent to most of

the site perimeter are lands owned by Burlington County where the BCRRFC is located.

History of Contamination

During its operation, the landfill was permitted to accept sanitary and industrial (non-chemical)

waste. Due to a history of environmental concerns, including observed leachate seeps, potential

groundwater contamination and emissions to the atmosphere, a Consent Order was issued by the

New Jersey Superior Court in January 1979. Elements of this Order included: a listing of

permitted and prohibited waste types for acceptance at the facility; establishment of a sampling

and analysis program for existing groundwater monitoring wells; specifications for site

preparation, disposal limits, and operations; design and installation of a leachate collection

system; pumping and removal of leachate to alleviate hydraulic head pressures; the construction

of cutoff walls, dikes and waste fill gas vents; provisions for the control of litter, dust, odor,

noise and fire protection; and, the establishment of the final elevation and depth of excavation.

Compliance with the Order was sporadic.

Initial Response Following the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) January 1979

Consent Order, the Florence Land Recontouring, Inc. closed the landfill and terminated

operations by November 1981. In 1982, the waste fill area was capped with on-site clay-like

material and revegetated. A leachate collection system was installed with the resulting leachate

being placed into two lagoons constructed on another section of the property, and eventually

disposed of at an off-site wastewater treatment plant. Carbon adsorption filters were placed on

top of the leachate collection system manholes to collect volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

and control odors.

In September 1984, the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL).

Basis for Taking Action

In 1985/1986, a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) indicated that the main

source of environmental concern at the site was the reported deposition of hazardous waste,

including phthalates, heavy metals and vinyl chloride monomers. Sampling and analysis of

leachate in waste-fill wells indicated the presence of VOCs and heavy metals. At that time,

public health concerns from at the site included:

Contaminated groundwater beneath the landfill that had a potential to migrate into the

adjacent aquifers;

3

Potential for contaminants to migrate to the Assiscunk Creek via surface-water runoff and

groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer. The creek was considered an exposure pathway

through dermal contact and ingestion;

Air emissions which presented an exposure pathway through inhalation; and

Hazardous substances potentially found near the ground surface in the landfill which

presented an exposure pathway through dermal contact.

Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

EPA issued a comprehensive ROD for the site on June 27, 1986, with NJDEP concurrence. The

main objective of the remedy was to control the potential release of contaminants from the

landfill. More specifically, the major components of the selected remedy were: construction of a

synthetic membrane and clay composite cap; construction of a circumferential soil/bentonite

slurry containment wall; construction of an up-gradient groundwater interceptor system;

construction of a new storm water management system; leachate treatment and disposal at a

POTW; gas collection and treatment; removal and disposal of lagoon liquids and sediments, and

other surface debris; construction of a fence with warning signs; and O&M of the constructed

remedy as well as providing supplemental sampling of groundwater, surface water, and

sediments. Table 2 lists remediation goals for soil and groundwater.

Remedy Implementation

The implementation of the design was conducted by Acres International Corporation of Buffalo,

New

York (Acres). The design contract was awarded on December 29, 1987. Under the design

contract, Acres conducted additional investigation work. During the fall of 1988, soil borings

were taken around the perimeter of the landfIll to develop sufficient subsurface information for

the perimeter slurry wall design. In addition, a slurry wall mix design study was done to

determine the optimum soil/bentonite ratio that would achieve the desired permeability. A two

phase Interim Monitoring Program was conducted that involved the sampling and analysis of the

groundwater, surface water, stream sediment and air. During the design phase, Acres developed

the landfill gas collection and transfer system, the electrical and mechanical systems for both the

leachate extraction system and the collection control building.

The construction contract was awarded on November 12, 1991 to Tricil Environmental

Response, Inc., (Tricil) of Houston, Texas. The construction phase of remediation was completed

on August 19, 1994.

Landfill cap construction began in April 1993 and was completed in February 1994. Preparatory

work included placing subgrade material, stabilization of landfill side slopes and installation of a

landfill gas venting system. The areal extent of the cap is approximately 29 acres. The synthetic

membrane cap includes layers of fill material, grading layers, gas collection layers for the gas

venting system, filter fabric, a day layer, an impermeable membrane, a drainage layer, a fill

layer, and a topsoil layer. During construction of the cap, areas of the site were regraded to

provide for surface water management. Following cap construction, the site was revegetated.

Slurry wall construction began in June 1992 and was completed in November 1992. The slurry

wall was installed to an average depth of 25 feet. Construction of the upgradient groundwater

4

interceptor system was competed in June and July of 1992. Groundwater was successfully

diverted around the site to reduce leachate production.

Construction of the leachate collection and treatment system began in September 1992 and was

completed in March 1994. At the conclusion of construction, an administrative issue arose

concerning leachate disposal. The ROD required leachate treatment and disposal at a POTW or

BCRRC. Although the design planned for the leachate to be disposed of at BCRRC, during the

remedial action, the BCRRC was shut down. As a result, NJDEP arranged for leachate to be

disposed of off-site at a public owned treatment works (POTW) (the other option for leachate

disposal in the 1994 ROD).

Lagoon dewatering was begun in March 1992 and completed in June 1992. Dewatering of the

leachate lagoons resulted in the removal of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of lagoon bottom

sediments. The bottom sediments and other material were disposed on site. Following

dewatering and removal, the lagoons were backfilled and graded.

Site fencing was installed between February 1994 and August 1994.

A final Site Preliminary Closeout Report was approved by EPA in September 1998. In March of

2004, EPA deleted the site from the NPL.

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

O&M activities associated with the site continue to be conducted in accordance with the 1994

O&M Plan. These activities include inspections of site security fencing and potential areas of

landfill cap degradation. The following periodic environmental sampling has been performed:

Groundwater sampling of upgradient and downgradient wells;

Surface water sampling;

Sediment sampling;

Soil gas and water level measurements; and

Leachate sampling.

Potential site impacts from climate change have been assessed, and the performance of the

remedy may be impacted by the following climate change effects in the region and near the site:

Increasing frequency of heavy precipitation events;

Increasing intensity of storms (winds/precipitation);

Increase in floods; and

Changes in temperature.

The O&M Plan addresses these impacts by conducting frequent inspections of the site that will

detect and correct any damage sustained by the climate change effects mentioned above.

Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

Previous Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement

The remedy as implemented at the site is intact and in good repair. It continues to protect the

public and the environment from exposure to contaminated materials. An O&M program also is

5

in effect to monitor the cap condition as well as leachate and gas emissions at the site, along with

annual environmental sampling that indicates that the remedy is functioning as intended. The

remedy is expected to remain protective of public health and the environment

Recommendations Identified in Previous Five-Year Review

All wells should have identifying name tags and locks. If damaged, all protective casings

should be repaired.

The unused wells should be abandoned according to NJDEP code, or properly repaired

and maintained.

If there are increases in the manganese levels during the next five-year period, then a

supplemental investigation is recommended to further evaluate the performance of the

landfill slurry wall.

Progress on Recommendations

All wells have identifying tags and locks. Damaged wells were repaired, sealed and

replaced.

Unused wells were abandoned.

Groundwater sampling data did not indicate an increasing trend of manganese, therefore

the slurry wall appears to be intact.

Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The five-year review team included Richard Ho (EPA-RPM), Edward Modica (EPA-

Hydrologist), Lora Smith (EPA Human Health Risk Assessor), Mindy Pensak (EPA Ecological

Risk Assessor) and Patricia Seppi (EPA Community Involvement Coordinator). This is a Fund-

lead site.

Community Involvement

A public notice announcing the five year review was placed on EPA’s website for the site and

also on the Florence, Mansfield, and Springfield Township’s respective webpage. Once the five-

year review is completed, the results will be made available at the local site repository, which is

at the Florence Township Library, 1350 Hornberger Ave, Roebling, New Jersey 08554. In

addition, efforts will be made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results.

Document Review

The documents, data and information which were reviewed in completing this five-year review

are summarized in Table 3.

6

Data Review

Environmental sampling was conducted in 2010, 2012, and 2013 to support this five-year

review. (Please refer to Figure 1 for a site map and monitoring well locations). No sampling was

conducted in 2011 and 2014 (as of the date of this five-year review.) There were issues related

to quality of the 2013 data. Some of the data was qualified for various parameters (i.e., blank

contamination, spike recovery, etc.). EPA concurred with NJDEP’s decision to use the data in

this five-year review since it did not affect the outcome of the review.

Groundwater monitoring data do not indicate the presence of groundwater contamination outside

the landfill at concentrations that are of concern. With the exception of vinyl chloride in the

downgradient well MW-7S at 1.7 parts per billion (1.7 ppb), no volatile organic compounds were

detected above the Class IIA New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards (NJGWQS) during this

five-year review period. Arsenic, beryllium, nickel, and chromium were reported to periodically

exceed the NJGWQS; however, these metals are also found in the upgradient well, MW-4S, and

are therefore most likely attributed to background.

During the 2012 and 2013 sampling events, manganese was detected in the up-gradient well BV-

4S at concentrations ranging from 426 ppb to 517 ppb; and in the downgradient (of the landfill)

wells BV-5S, BV-6S, and MW-7S at concentrations ranging from 451 ppb to 857 ppb compared

to the GWQS of 50 ppb. The comparable levels of manganese upgradient and downgradient of

the landfill is most likely attributable to background. During the last five-year review,

manganese was detected in the downgradient wells (806-2130 ppb) up to 4.5 times higher than

the upgradient wells (475-650 ppb), which suggested that the landfill was leaching beyond the

slurry wall. Based on the current data, this is no longer a concern. Vinyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane

were detected in MW7S above the NJGWQS and Interim Specific Groundwater Criterion,

respectively, in 2012 but not neither chemical was detected in 2013. While both vinyl chloride

and 1,4-dioxane are present in the landfill leachate, it is inconclusive whether vinyl chloride and

1,4-dioxane is a concern based on a detection in a single sampling event.

Surface water monitoring data indicates that the landfill appears to be having minimal impact on

surface water. During this five-year review, the surface water data indicated no exceedances of

NJDEP ecological screening criteria. In general, metals have been detected at very low

concentrations or below the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (NJSWQS). Except for

thallium, metal concentrations are consistent with previous years.

Sediment data indicate exceedances of inorganics (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, manganese,

nickel and zinc) in comparison to the lowest effect levels (LELs) with the most exceedances seen

at location SED 6 which is adjacent to the landfill. These levels appear to be elevated in

comparison to the upgradient location and screening values. The current monitoring plan only

requires one sediment sampling event every five years. Due to the elevated results collected to

support this five-year review, it is recommended that a minimum of two sediment sampling

event occur over the next five-year review period to evaluate if elevated levels may be attributed

to the landfill. In the event that levels are attributed to the landfill, a screening level ecological

risk assessment may be conducted to evaluate potential impacts to the benthic environment.

In addition, there were also organic (PAH) exceedances of screening values, however, values

upstream (SED 5) were similar to downgradient concentrations, indicating that the landfill is not

likely a source of these contaminants.

7

Site Inspection

The inspection of the site was conducted on February 27, 2014. In attendance were Richard Ho,

Ed Modica, Lora Smith, Mindy Pensak, all with EPA; and Greg Neumann and Steve Wohleb of

the NJDEP. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

The site inspection consisted of a physical inspection of the entire remediated landfill

area, security fencing, monitoring wells, and surrounding off-site areas.

The following sections present the results of the site inspection, separated into each inspected

element.

Groundwater Monitoring Wells - There are a number of wells on the site and off-site that are

part of the sampling plan. All wells were undamaged and were determined to be in good

working order. These wells will continue to be inspected throughout the sampling program,

as needed. If there is a need to decommission any wells in the future, the appropriate actions

will be taken.

Security Fencing - Upon inspection, no deficiencies were noted regarding the site security

fencing. Fencing was visible around the perimeter of the former landfill area, ending near the

access gate.

Surrounding Areas - No new construction on neighboring properties or other factors that

might change exposure scenarios were identified.

On-site Drainage System - The drainage system located in the center and along the northern

portion of the site was inspected. No blockages or debris were noted and water was flowing

through the system. New vegetative growth was observed in the surrounding areas.

Off-site Creek Area – The areas where the Assiscunk Creek approaches the site were

inspected. Nothing out of the ordinary was noted.

Interviews

During the five-year review process, interviews were conducted with representatives of the

NJDEP regarding the implemented remedy performance and the current O&M program. The

purpose of the interviews was to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy

that has been implemented to date.

Interviews were conducted on May 20, 2014, with Greg Neumann, technical coordinator and

Beverly Phillips, hydrologist from the NJDEP.

NJDEP indicated that they did not have any specific concerns regarding the remedy or the

existing monitoring program.

Institutional Controls Verification

Although the ROD did not require institutional controls and EPA does not believe they are

necessary at this site for the remedy to be protective, under its landfill closure and post-closure

8

regulations (New Jersey Solid Waste Regulations, N.J.A.C 7:26–2A.9), NJDEP requires

institutional controls, in the form of a deed notice. A deed notice would remain in effect in

perpetuity, and require prior approval from the NJDEP before any future disturbance occurs.

However, the former site owner is defunct and the site is not currently owned by a viable entity.

Therefore, until an entity buys the property or one of the three townships take possession of the

property, a deed notice cannot be placed on the property.

Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

The landfill cap, slurry wall, and groundwater inceptor trench are operating effectively and

preventing leachate contamination of groundwater outside of the landfill boundary. Surface water

sampling data show that the landfill is not impacting the adjacent Assiscunk Creek. However, the

most recent sediment sampling event indicated minor exceedances in comparison to the Sediment

Screening Criteria lowest effect levels (LELs) with the most exceedances seen at location SED 6,

which is adjacent to the landfill. It is recommended that an additional round of sediment samples

be collected and evaluated for the next five-year review.

The security fence with warning signs was constructed around the entire landfill. To date, the

fencing continues to be maintained weekly by NJDEP and there was no evidence of trespassing

per the February 27, 2014, inspection. The fence maintenance will continue indefinitely.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action

objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

Risk assessment methodologies have not changed in a way that would affect the protectiveness

of the remedy.

At the time of the ROD, public health concerns from at the site included:

Contaminated groundwater beneath the landfill that had a potential to migrate into the

adjacent aquifers;

Potential for contaminants to migrate to the Assiscunk Creek via surface-water runoff and

groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer;

Air emissions which presented an exposure pathway through inhalation; and

Hazardous substances potentially found near the ground surface in the landfill which

presented an exposure pathway through dermal contact.

Soil vapor intrusion (SVI) is evaluated when soils and/or groundwater are known or suspected to

contain VOCs. One detection in 2012 of vinyl chloride in MW-7S (1.7 ppb) was the only VOC

detected above NJGWQS (1 ppb) since the last five-year review. As a result, the vapor intrusion

pathway remains incomplete at the site.

Land use surrounding the site is predominantly residential and agricultural and is not expected to

change in the next five years. Adjacent to most of the site perimeter are lands recently acquired

by Burlington County for the implementation of a 600-acre solid waste management facility. The

remaining site boundaries are formed by the Assiscunk Creek. The landfill is fenced with

signage and maintained weekly by the NJDEP. It was noted in the State’s 2012 memo that a well

9

was not sampled because it had been vandalized. While trespassing may be occurring, there are

no unacceptable human health risks resulting from trespassing at the site. No new exposure

pathways were identified in the last five years.

Contaminants of Concern

The RI/FS indicated that the main source of environmental concern at the site was the deposition

of hazardous waste, including phthalates, heavy metals and vinyl chloride monomers. The

following were COCs identified in each medium:

Soil: methylene chloride, toluene, pentachlorophenol, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, tetra-

chloroethylene.

Groundwater: 1,1-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, toluene, arsenic.

Surface Water: pentachlorophenol, phenol.

Sediment: pentachlorophenol, phenol.

Over the past five years, VOCs identified as COCs were not present above federal and state

MCLs until 2012. The 2012 groundwater data indicates that only one VOC (vinyl chloride at 1.7

ppb) in well MW7S exceeded its NJGWQS (1 ppb). In addition, 1,4-dioxane in MW7S (20 ppb)

was above the Interim Specific Groundwater Criterion (3 ppb) and PQL (10 ppb). However, the

2013 data indicates that vinyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane were not detected in MW-7S. It is

unclear from the single detection in 2012 that vinyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane are a concern. In

addition to these contaminants, environmental media are still being sampled for metals.

For metals, in 2012, aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel and

sodium periodically exceeded NJGWQS. Tapwater risk screening levels were sporadically

exceeded for: barium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, thallium and zinc. The only contaminants that

exceeded screening levels/standards for downgradient wells but were not detected in upgradient

wells were: lead (GM22) and thallium (GM15D). Continued monitoring of groundwater and

surface water will determine whether there is a real concern for leaching of contamination from

the landfill.

Changes in Standards and TBCs

In February 2012, IRIS released a Final Toxicity Assessment for tetrachloroethylene (PCE). In

the assessment, PCE is characterized as “carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure.

Based on this reassessment, toxicity values and screening levels were modified. While PCE was

detected in soils prior to remediation, it is not present in groundwater, indicating that the remedy

is functioning as intended. As a result, the reassessment for PCE has no bearing on the

protectiveness of the remedy. Additionally, in 2013 a new IRIS assessment was performed for

1,4-dioxane. Prior to that, the NJDEP Interim Specific Groundwater Criterion of 10 ppb, which

is based on the practical quantitation limit, was used.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

As a result of the PCE IRIS reassessment, toxicity values have been updated. Again, PCE has not

been detected in groundwater or surface water so this has no impact on the protectiveness of the

remedy.

10

Validity of the RAOs

The Remedial Action Objective for the site is to control the potential release of contaminants

from the landfill. Based on the general exposure pathways, more specific objectives were

established: mitigate downgradient, off-site groundwater contamination; mitigate on-site surface-

water runoff contamination; mitigate off-site air contamination; and, mitigate the potential for

health hazard exposure and enhance on-site safety.

Based on the provided data, it appears that very little site-specific contamination is migrating

into surface water or groundwater; however, this will be reassessed through continued

monitoring. Landfill gas is collected and treated, minimizing the migration of off-site air

contamination. Continued monitoring will ensure that humans are not exposed to unacceptable

levels of risk.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the

protectiveness of the remedy?

No.

Technical Assessment Summary

According to the reviewed data, and the site inspection, the site remedy is functioning as

intended by the decision document.

Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

There are no issues that impact protectiveness. It is recommended that the O&M program and the

annual environmental sampling be continued, and that a minimum of two annual sediment

sampling events be conducted over the next five years to evaluate the landfill impact on

sediments. It is also recommended that data quality issues be addressed and that vinyl chloride

and 1,4-dioxane continue to be monitored in MW7S.

Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy is protective of public health and the environment.

Next Review

The next five-year review report for the site is required five years from the completion date of

this review.

11

Tables

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event

Date

Landfill operations began at the site.

1973

NJDEP conducts site investigation disclosing chemical waste disposal.

1975

NJDEP issues a Consent Order to control further contamination.

1979

Landfill owners issued a final landfill closure plan.

1981

Site placed on National Priorities List.

1984

NJDEP conducts an additional site investigation detecting petroleum

hydrocarbons in nearby water supply.

1986

Site-wide ROD.

June 1986

Remedial action began.

April 1992

Remedial action completed.

Aug 1994

NJDEP initiates five year monitoring period.

Sept 1997

EPA issued FLR site Superfund Preliminary Closeout Report.

Sept 1998

EPA approved NJDEP’s Closeout Report.

Sept 2001

EPA first Five Year Review Report approved.

March 2004

Site is deleted from National Priorities List.

March 2004

12

Table 2a: Remediation Goals for Soil (all concentrations in μg/kg)

Contaminants of Concern Soil - Protection of

Groundwater Human Health Risk Remediation Goals

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 500 - 500

Tetrachloroethylene 1,000 100,000 1,000 Trichloroethylene 500 - 500 Vinyl chloride 500 - 500

Table 2b: Remediation Goals for Groundwater (all concentrations in µg/L)

Contaminants of Concern National Primary Drinking

Water Standards (Federal

MCLs) Remediation Goals

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 70

Tetrachloroethene 5 5

Trichloroethene 5 5

Vinyl chloride 2 2

13

TABLE 3: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year

Review

Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, “Annual Sampling Event Data Results,”

2009 to 2013.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “Florence Landfill Sampling (C150AW00)

O&M Phase”, Trenton, New Jersey, April 2010.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “Florence Landfill Sampling (C150AW00)

O&M Phase”, Trenton, New Jersey, June 2012.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “Florence Landfill Sampling (C150AW00)

O&M Phase”, Trenton, New Jersey, July 2013.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “FLR Landfill – Operation and

Maintenance Monitoring Five Year Review 2008”, Trenton, New Jersey, January 2009.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “Close Out Report, Florence Land

Recontouring Landfill Remediation”, Florence Twp, Burlington County, NJ, November 1991 –

August 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Florence Land

Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey,” Region 2, New York,

New York, June 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Superfund Preliminary Close Out Report, Florence

Land Recontouring Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey,” Region 2, New

York, New York, September 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Five-Year Review Report, Florence Land Recontouring

Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey,” Region 2, New York, New York,

March 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Five-Year Review Report, Florence Land Recontouring

Landfill Superfund Site, Burlington County, New Jersey,” Region 2, New York, New York, July

2009.

14

Attachments

Attachment 1: Figure 1