,.

•

•

•

Ac :a.:=-:me:-:t a

CDM CAMP DRESS~ & Mct<EE INC

,,.fOI',.,,., '"9"'"'·· SC:Jttilrlll.

0''""'''· & '"'"'9fl'l'"' conaulflttfl

Seotemner 18. 1985

Mr.·Ronald J. ~orselllno. P.E. Regional Site ProiP.ct Officer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

· Emergencv and Remedial Resoonse Division 26 Feder~\ Plaza -Room 711 New York. New York 10278

Pro.i ec t: REM tl - EPA Contract No: 68-01-6939

Document Control No! 104-Rt1-EP-8NHP-1

Subject: LiPari Landfill Resoonse to Comments by R~hm & Haas Comnany

Rentan Plua ut Rantatt Cetttet' ECI•SOtt. New Jtrwv 08811 201 225·7000

Re: Final Uraft Reoort. Onsite Feasibility Study

Dear Mr. Borsellino:

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to resoond to comments (see enclosed) on tne suoiect reoort which were recentlv forwarded to USEPA by Mr. Bradf-ord F. wnitman of Decnert Price & Rhoads. legal counsel to the Rohm & Haas Comoanv. These comments were nreoared by Ronm & Haas' technical consultants. 8CM Eastern. Inc •• ~nd generally address the issue of an ad~iti~nal remedial alternative to be evaluated as oart of the Onsit! Feasit)ilitv Study oreoared bv the REM II team. This alternativP. was inltiallv oronosed bv 8CM in tneir Mav 1982 Preliminary Engineering St·Jdv of tne LiP~tri Landf;ll sitP.. BCM recommended ·at that time. and continues to recommend, tne installation of a groundwater diversion system to be located uogradient of the landfill site. Such a system. according to SCM. woulj. serve the ouroose of diverting clP.an uogradient groundwater around tne landfill SO iS utO cease the discharge of any contamination from within tne landflll. to ornt~ct tne onvsieal inteqrity of the slurry wall, and to prevent tne downward migration of c:ontami nants to tne l(i rkwood sands."

Alternative Oesc:riotion

'Jur r'!view of SCM's 1982 reol)rt rP.vealed that tnP. svstP.m orooosed would consist of a diversion trench runnin~ along the northwestern. western. and southwestern oortions of tne site (8CM sneet 2 of 3l. Tne bottom of tne trenen would consist of a 6-incn diameter PVC pioe ~cting as an underdrain. A 3-foot wide Oy 6-foot nign SP.Ction of broken stone or gravel (size 314-incn to l-inen di~eterl waul~ surround r.ne perforated PVC oioe. Two lavers of plAStic filter clotn wl)uld be wraooed aroun1 the stone. Th'!

272388

Ln 0 I

.-1 0 0 I

Ln Ln 0

IIIIIIIIIDIDIII~IIIl I 056

..

•

•

•

CAMP O~ESSE~ & McKEE INC .

•Jnd~,.ctri!in svstem would oe installed witn a ~i!Ji'l ooint ell!vation 107 h!': above ~.:l~n Su Lev.al (MSLI on tne west si1e of ti'l'! landfill. Oiscnarqe t" tne lowe,. end of tne P.~istinq LiPari aitcn (el~vation 104 feet\ and Rabc,t ~un (elevation iOS feP.tl would ~P. accomolished by thP. use of e~it headwalls. The high ooint of tne underdrain svstem was designelj tn corresoond to the susoected low ooint elevation of the landfi lled w-1st~ materials.

Tecnnici!.l Evaluation

The inherent difficulties envision--a witl'l this svstens as currently orooosed are as follows. The "source" of contamination currently encaosulated bY the slurry wall/synthetic membrane liner system consists of morP. material than iust the landfilled deoris. In actualitv. the Uocer Cohansey sand (generally at an P.levation above 100 feP.tl and the Lower Cohansey sand (generally at an elevation oetween 90 and 100 feetl are both contaminatP1. Contam1nation within tne Lower Cohansey was reoorted as early as 1981 in ~.E. wrignt Associates reoort entitlP.O "Tecnnical Consider~tions for tne Selection of an Abatement Svstem at tne LiPari Landfill. Pitman. New Jersl!v". It should oe noted that this soread l')f contamination into the lower fo~ation occurred orior to installation of the slurry wall in 1983. Because the contamination occurs at least to the too of the Kirkwood clay (elevation 90 feet!. installat,on of a groundwat'!r diversion trench having a nianaoint of 107 f~et. in our ncinion. is inaoorooriate. The maior conc~rn is tnat at some ooint in tne future the slurry wall will become increasingly oermeaole due to chemical t1egradation. With tl'le diversion system as currently orooosed by BCM. a oortion of t!'le uogradient groundwater would be able to seeo into tl'le encapsulation via the Cohansev Fonnat1on ov m1grating oeneatn the diversion trench. pick uo water tran soortao 1 e- contat'lli nants ore sent throuqhout the encaosulat ion. and ca rrv tne contaminants into off-site areas thus perpetuating the existing environmental pro~lems.

~evised ~lternative

Perhaos a better aooroach to uogradient Qroundwater diversion would oe to install the unde.rdrain system at an elevation along the too of tne Kirkwood clay. If ~rooerlv designed and constructed this svstem mav be effective in deoressing uogradient groundwater l~vels in tne trench to tne 90 to 95 foot elevation and oreclude gro•Jndwater from migrating beneat~ot tl'le trench t::lv virtu! of tne less oermeaOlP. Kirkwood clay which would foMm the divP.rsion trench base. To ol!rforll\ sucl"' a task.. orPlimiMry design dictates the following:

o Th~ trl!ncl'l would need to oe located 30 feet awav from the exiStlng slurry wall so as to not impair the integrity of t!'le wa 11

-2-057

..

•

•

•

CAMP DFIESSE~ & McKEE iNC .

o Tne l~~gth oft~~ tre~c~ woul1 be aooroximatelv 2.000 feet

o rn~ ~ase of tne trench would be 3 fe~t widP. with an average deot~ of 30 to 35 feet

o The un~erdrain would consist of a 6-inch diam~ter oerforate1 PVC oioe. The trench would be double-lined with filter cloth and backfille~ with gravel to an el-.vation of at least 115 feet. Thl! trench would then be bacltfilled with clean fill to existing grade

With such a system in olace, it is estimated that the water level within the encaosulation would decrease to an elevation of 93 feet above Mean Sea Level in aooroximately 10 years and reach equilibrium after 20 years at 91' MSL. Contaminated water oresentlv within the encaosulation would continue to leave the encaosulation via the IC.irltwood chy beneath tne site and throu9h the northeast oortion of the slurry wall. Installation of an uograd,ent groundwater ~iversion system will not ·• ••• cease the discharge of any contaminat1on from within the landfill ..... for at least 20 years, if ever •

The deeoer trench system described above: however. also has many orob 1 ems associated witn it -many of which are also aoolicable to the shallower SCM design. For examole:

o The groundwater diversion trench system must oerfoMn its intended function - forever. If it does not. and uoqradient groundwater is aole to traverse the system. water-transoortable contamination within the encaosulation will be able to be D1Cked uo by the groundwater, oarticularly as the slurry wall oecomes more oeMneable. and moved into offsite areas which oresumablv will nave been remediated. This scenario would result in a re-tlirtl'l of the e'(isting environmental oroblems

o MOSt likely, oersonnel will be required at the base of tne trench to orooerl v ol ace the underdrain svstell'l. SCM's 1982 reoort ind1Cated that the 3-foot wide trench would extend vertically from its oase a total of 6-feet before a wider trench ooening would oe necessarv. Because of the nature of the mat-.rHl 1n which such a trench would be -.xcavated (i.e •• sand\ we would oreliminarily suggest that 3:1 side slooes be used. 8as@~ on a 30-foot deeo excavation with only a 3-foot deeo trencn this would result in a too widtl't of tne excavation eQu1valent to 165 feet. Even if 2:1 slooes were utilized a trl!nCh ooening of 111 feet would be necessarv. With such a

-3-058

..

•

•

•

CAMP O~ESSER & McKEE INC .

larae trencn openinq required. and since tne excavation would be required to be no clnser to the slurry wall than 30 feet. c:on st ruc:t ion of sucl'l a diversion system wou 1 d require tn-. acQuisition of additional land from Mr. Douqlas Zee whose aoo1P and oeach orchards current 1 y surround ti'IP. site

The necessity of opening such a large trench could be elimin~ted if sheeting and bracing were utilize~ to hol~ ooen an excavation of the magnitude envisioned. However. this provision would again add significantly to the cost of tl'lis alternative. An additional consideration should sheeting be used would be the PossioiHty of pyncturing the Kirkwood clay during installation of the sheeting. Such a situation .auld need to be avoided to pr-.clude any chance for groundwater contamination in the Cohanse.,ot migrating into the underlying Kirkwood aquifer ·

o To construct eitt'ler tne shallow or deeo trench will reQuire a large amount of groundwater control. PresumaOly the pumped groundwater could oe discharged into either RaObit Run or Cnestnut Branch if a discharge Denftit is granted by the New Jersey Deoartme~t of Environmental Protection

o Ourinq a trench dewatering ooeration, whether it oe SCM's design or tne "deeoer" alternative, the REM II team's groundwater comPutP.r model indicates a strong probability that contaminated groundwater will be drawn into the trench. Existing water level elevations within the encaPsulation are at 114' MSL. The water levels within the trench during its construction (and after construction) are estimated to oe in tne 90 to 95 foot range, tt'lerefore hydraulic gradients will be reversed from tneir present condition with seeoage of contaminated groundwater tending to flow from the encaosu lat ion area toward the trench. Should contaminated groun~water enter tne trench, diSct'large to Chestnut Branch or Rabbit Run will be proniOited. TnP.refore. utilizat-ion of an onsite treatment plant or c:ollection and disoosal n a permitted nazar"dous waste treatment facility will be necessitated. In addition, tne issue of worter safety wou11 OP.come magnified. Without groundwater contaminat1on in tne trP.ncn. Level lJ personnel protection could oe utilize~. With tne Dresence of tnis contamination: nowevP.r, Level C and oernaps Level 8 would be required - resulting in significantly h1gner construction costs. The head differential oetween the diversion trench and tne water level inside the encapsultion could be diminished if tne contents of tne encapsulation were dewatened. As indicated in tn-. unsite Feasibility Studv, dewaterinQ of tne Upper

-4-

059

•

•

•

CAMP O~ESSEF! & McKEE INC .

Cohansev insid~ t~e P.ncaosulation is f!asiole. If imolemented th1S ooeration could lower t~e water level to an elevation of acorolimatP.lV 100' MSL. thus diminishina the head differential ~etween the diversion trench to aooroxi~ately 5 to 10 feet. This would decrease the rate of seeoage toward the trench but not eliminau it. Seegage into the trP.nch could oernaos be grevented bv installing sheet oiling bet~en the encaosulation and the trench. This ooeration may however significantly imoact the integrity of the slurry wall il'l addition to significantly raising construction costs

It should also b~ ooint~d out that should the water level within the encapsulation not be lowered, the ootential for hydrofracturing of the slurry wall exists in the vicinity of t~e diversion trench since a qreater than 15 foot head differential would exist acr~ss the wall in this area. Oel!fatering t~e encaosulation would allevhte this concern

• o SCM submits in t~eir 1982 reoort that "because the ground

surface elevat1on will be on t~e order of only twelve feet acov~ the gige invert elevation. maintenance or reoair of the underdr~i n oi oe (if reaui red 1 would not be a ma.ior Of"Oblem" • In our opinion, maintenance and repair of the underdrain, should it be located a distance of 35 feet beneath the ground surface, would be a maior oroblem. Particularly imoortant in such a sHuation, for reasons oreviously stated, h the need to insure that during maintenance and reoair or in the event of underdrain failure, uogradient groundwater does not traverse the diversion system

o Moni!oring of t~e diversio" svstem discharge to Chestnut Branch and RabOit Run would nee~ to be oerformed on a regular oasis to note and halt any flow of contamination to these water bodies.

Conclusio!'ls

In conclusion, SCM's or.,oosed groundwater diversion trench h another alternative wnicn can~~ categorized in the terminology of the REM II team's unsite Feasi~i1itv Study as an Enhanced Containment alternative. That is, tne source ~f contamination is not remediated but rather it is 1 eft in ,, ace for eterni tv ~r unt; 1 aooroori ate treatment tecl'lnologi es are develooed and oroven efrective. wnat is different about this alternative: ~owevl!r, as oooosed to t~ose oreviouslv evaluated Ennanced Containment altP.rnativP.S is t~at it does not rP.oresent ~n uend of the gioeu solution. From a technical oersoective, we consider the SCM alternathe ()utlined in t~eir Mav 1982 reoort to oe an unacceotaole solution as it in fact does not offer any "enMnced cont~1nml!nt''· Ratner, seeoage would continue to escaoe

-s-060

...

•

•

•

CAMP DRESSER & Mei<EE INC .

tne encaosulation without anv orov1s1ons for orevention of contaminant migration into offsite areas~ ~arrying the diversion trench idea one s:!o furtner 'v extending the trench to the too of the Kirkwood clay makes tnis alternative a sounder technical solution than the BCM-orooosed shallow trencn but it too is wrought with technical difficulties as discusse1. From an environmental/pubHc health viewooint the diversion trench alternative s~ould be acceptable providing that contaminated groundwater is not drawn into the divP.rsion system and providing that appropriate safety practices for deeo excavations are followed during construction. Institutionally, difficulties may exist with the point discharge of groundwater to Rabbit Run and Chestnut Branch. We are currently discussing this situation with NJDEP and will respond to you with their conclusions under seoaratP. cover. As concerns public acceptability, it is our judgement based upon the August 15, 1985 Public meeting in Pitman that a groundwater d1version trench would meet considerable resistance and be considered by the public to be an unacceotable alternative. Finally, witn regar:1s to cost, w-. to~ave considered two different "deeo" excavation scenarios and costed them accordinglv. These costs are estimted to range from aooroxtmately S2.2 to S2.6 million (see attachment).

we trust tnat you will find thh informatiol"' suitable for inclusion in your evaluation of remedial actions for the onsite portion of LiPari Landfill. Shuld you nave anv Questions or desire any additional infonnation COI'\Cerni ng tl'\e above, o 1 ease contact me at your conveni enc:·e.

Very truly vours.

C~MP DRESSE~ & McKEE lNC.

~ooert ~. Mvde, P.E. Sitt Manager

R~H/rw

Enc: 1 osures

c c:: li. Rief COM/NY b. Benson COMI~J J. Fi llos COM/NY 1(, scnre1ber CUMtSos. L. Partridqe CUM/Bas. c. WinKlenaus - Clement R • Coad - wCC

~ssociat'!S

-6-

061

• J.

... ...

~ I:

I , ...... 0 00 ••••

.· 1

--~-­, t' . .I t, · .. ·.! -. \',:-: . . \'I

. \ ..

" .. ~ ' ',_ 1, •. , .. ~.

\ I ·'' ~ €' .: •

• 4' . ..J

C-8a 14! .7'

~ ......... ···to~•··.

'·•. \' c '• ........ , J

--==~~=::-=-"-I UL 3' ·--=-SlURRY ---i-.

UAll

C-IS 138.6'

•

CURRENT WATER TABL£ ELEVATION (-114' ----. -=-

UPPER COitANSEY SAttDS

. I ,,,

C-21 120.6' C-22

115.5'

102.6'

•

OfPTH OF IC1RI<WOOO CLAY VARIES FROM 9 TO 16 fEEl

1. ·I

' I• .. .. . . II'

I

r;·, ..

II

'" I I•

I

:,

~ . -.. I

:

n 1

"' n

" ... II ...

00 . . . ...

' . .. '

..

... " ·• .­., , .. ... .. II

n ~ Ill •

~ 0 u Ill ... w :1 u u ... "' X ~ u 0

:1 y ,.

I

... ~ u -... .. -. ... 0 ... II 0 ..

• • • i u,., I Co:.l .. f -

tiU.:-~~-.,,,,;-,_,_=-:~ ~_j]l._~. "'; _!!-__ ;} _ _ _ _ _ _ j/H•·· !_~leu~~ _. _ . . 4"'·-~t·, 1I-. _..::~--- _ -~~··'·!-I __ L __ •

I I 1:: 'll ;;.a lj • · '"'

• . r, ,.,,""-• , ~ ., .. ,., •... - r .....

r ........ ' .•• .., """;lol~r r. u..... '-.,.,,"" , .I.MA. wn.r ''•f' ~ 'j , b"; , NC, f"'' 1 ... ~1 C.-o.~;.\IIJ. .-,~ J,l.r.- .lo :J"Ji . I ...

~ ...... ~~ .. • 't 1

wclll"' .. l :'1·~ :;(...,1 :.\ua r ... _, •·" \,("'-'d

i ~,.oo/ JJ

·l '3--ic>/~JJ , 3·'50/ 'J. -"

IIJ,oo/1.,t a

f 3.110/ t F

~~~. 60 I 1J. 3

h,ooo/wtl · 1b5ojloY\.

-~- ---- ·-51o,ctHJ

J'o~s IU lc ...- .._., I • oil!------;--; m1~h .... .,e. ~

FA.. ""' ft'ob y It 81 .-,. f'O' l . l)>p~r c1'~(u,..lu ~"e•Sf•"- /,.,.,,(\.,

1 .Jo ~ ol \(,, "..._'

k.o~ I t•Y'(. ~ , 3: I s•ch sl'f' ~ ~ff'A. ~~~ Jlll.•r.,.-lioJt.. :J e~«<Mfl: c,l•l•ta. ~"-"·l f''';J

-

11,/f)I.J /It 3 ' I~ 1, .,.,o - ,-5,.__, ,, .J I ]O 1

tn0

14,7tto ,, 1. I I I~HO _ :Jo-&o l F ~ 1., ""

SbOO 1'' .J 1/ 8..f #0

2o '"'"'s 14 loo', o-oo /l"lo ~s l4

/16S31 rPH>

1 111 5-t,~,~~H>

"~ ,, cHtO .

liJ JUI :~l:._, ':;1\l.()u..,., tJ\..o"f.. IJl(. C4(1l .. \ c..e~L ?'·'~ • ,k~ ~ ,f,_.,,..-~. &4 ,,_.,t '"ducilc. lh C4t.~ OJ .a.,'/ , ......... 1~ .~ Jtt.u.a._,e. 1.. 4-'d~t~ w.~4. .. ~, o~~ ... \...,...,j of ~~...t\.o'J"·-·

1 p,,,.~ «cg"•·.;..'-.. •'fll't .... , l,.fl

Oc('lo.aut'~ 1

f1r c-..a..,I,,IO•"·e. ot i\a u--117.,,(·,-,._ '1fS~V\', ,,,..,.._ (:t~•Jr, tJP~. . .,,. '- f..,,t\ 0 L(J'Ch'c.;,-

\'f"'ll.,.. i ·' 1 . cJt''flaiJl' , No ..:..o.L lor 01•• 1 cJ<\..,.~ /,,.,_,,,, •• .-4 ifo.~-t or uif:.·L.. k_,...,. .. , q{ ·_r,,l o .. ,,,.,l,,t f'i\4-W• ,,,\:::. -::. '"'ltuci',,O.

IV r .. ·~· /'7.-J ) , .. '~ (i\ ( ,. \ .,_._- l J K\)1.1" I·'·-. ...1 rVJ'lr,J,! • (_:1 J",., \ .Q... • ,. J ·:· , ..... ., •fJ j.,d .. Cr .,, ,.,.. o..or ir~·.•t''.'1

• • •

124

+su +sl'l

----·---1 s.2//- 4- s•t + s•r

I

.....

ALCYON LAKE

+w•

- -- LAKESIDE "AVENUE

) ( ( ' ( DDI ICIIIGIMCI ISTIIIATIS AT I SD

UPARI RlaDINliAL lOlL UIIPUIIG UPARI LAIIIII'ILL. PITIIAN, 11 • .1.

CDIITOUIII IN ppll -511. •• 58.

• • , t . . )

--------~······ t . ·_.: . . . . ~.- .

I·

- - - --.

...

Willi IIIIIIL JIB& ··-------- ...... ..._ --..- .,._.... . ...................... _ .... . ........ , _ __ ..,.____ _. ... ., ..... , ........... ~'. . .,.. .-. ........... "---..

====':. IIICIM---...Jr-- __ ...... • c:::.:~ , ..... ._

~~-• 2 '!

, _____ ..._ ......................... . , Ni.-=-.----:.=-----=·-.....-=r. ._- .. 1 -r· '""'==."fir-=~-::.=::::..= •jt. !!!"'!! ____ ., ___ "=' . a.O:."'·:'I.:...--~ .. ·--~- -· -;.. ____ -. ._..._ ___ .. __ ,_._....,..11.:..-' ... -.rl!-.

•

\, .,

·.-

..•... · ··~

• • • -'-·r----,-----.,------------r-------=--:-=--'=r-.,----------~--- ..,.------r----.,---------, .....,.

~· I ,.~· ··--------· ----// -----....

LtN~--------------!~=·~-~·~---~·~7~.-~--~·-··-·t·----·-·=··i:··=·=··:·~·=··~·=·=···=·~======~~F=~~~~~~~-~·~t::'::---t-----i---·-~,t-----t--~~-t--------i~~ . ... -··· ---·· .. r---. '•, .. __ .. -··_-_,· ~-----~--------·· ··r----.. _ ·----~ ..

- ...---- -~ _\, .. \

..... ~--~~;_..~ ... ~~--;·/~-J~-~-~--~=~:::;:~~--~!:'!!::-~~=:=~~F======~~==:f=~=tz:===· :!!--~~~~~-~~=--~-\~-·~~~-::-::--~~ ... -i. -:;··1 I ~------·_....- I __ ..,__ ..... ' ... , .. ;.,_ _______ _ -·--+--7-- - -:--1 r· .. ---- .

:::..&.. ... ::.. • -·· L.. ...... ---::-:-.---- --· •lr.:r- . -1--L. ~------~f===~~===f~~==~~~==3===~~====~====~~====~====~~====~======~~======l=::::::::~~;;::::i----------~L-! t"· l

....... Ji ~ --"'!~ i

::-----~L---------L~2L----------~----L-----~~~-------~~--------~~--~--JL ______ _i~-----~-,.~.k ... ~---J!~----~~~-

i j ! ~·-

i~ f ~~ ~ i ... ,. ~i : _.._., • ...... I I ·- - - - ,.

. : I

··~' .. ,

..

r-IIIIIII!IAJIII!IWI

!F'"pma.'

( EOv1 )_a ___ .

--

• • •

'

/ ~· r-, \ \ . ~',\ . //--' l \ ' '\

/ . " / "· "-· ~\ ·I . . "\ \ ~.. . I \ . ',

- .... _.:_~ ----l\ld--_ _,.,..J.......:\~_.:.- t~- --- I , '\ \ I I I

\ I 1 I ·--\ . / I \ /

'\.... I . \ / ·-1----111-•·- ---"1• ~- I ! ! r- ! !

I

....... -._--~

-r---~-----------r----~---------,r-------_;--~--~~~~~--~----~--~----------~~~~~~~-----,·-1,.-" ... ---- -·--------- ---......

--~.~---------~------~-~--~-~------------~------------~---+----~-----------4~----------------~~--~~~----~ ~ ' -.... ___ ... - '

-~=:=:::;::::::====---+----------------------=-.:--:.:-::.:·-~_,.,==-----____::._ ____ -1-..,.. r-=r:wn:l.t"VV - ,._,----- \. ----I ~~/ ·----~--~-4--~------~~----~-------~~-~~-·--·-·--~· -···'. ,- lf=:=::=::: --------.---------'..__:.-- .. ·--....... ---- -------------- ·-··~---~--~·~;;;-~-~u-n_•_f_T~==-t~--------~:::::::~=~p·~·~~~-=~··====--~--=+----~-~==-=·-~=-~-=--=~=--=:===~=-::::::::::::::::=6;:~~======·-=·~~--~---

. ft.f."~:: .... ~ . ---------- ----·· ..... I-'

------------------~------~~=-----~------------------_T+--~~~-=-=~~-~--==·======~~====i~~--~--=-~~--~----------------J--~~~~~=-~~-~-~J~r=~==·~~~·~--~~=·--~-~~~-=~--~ .. ~~~~----~_ ... __ f_W*_.~~k=~~·F=====~~~~~==~ I --·-·

--- -----------------·------~---- --·--·-----------------~----------~----~----------------~----------~-~-~~~~~-~-~---------~~----~-------~-

·-. I EOv1 J ~----

-Glt' :Jill .-.......................... .... _ ... .._ ... ---... . .......... · ----------. -- ·-· ...

----

.... ·-..: t«Jr RlA CXJB1IlcnoN . : I· P.ll·l.liii!AR!I

...... ...ca, .. _ilaa'c. ..... 'J ---

i .....

•

•

•

204650 284595 .,9

FINAL REPORT TECHNICAL RESPONSE TO

i'PHASE 11 REMEDIAL ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIPARI LANDFILL - SUBMITTED BY

ROHM & HAAS COMPANY (February 1986) 11

EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939 Document Control No: 104-ESl-RT-CZDR-1

Prepared for: u.s. Environmental Protection Agency

Region II Federal Plaza

New York, New York 10278

Prepared by: Camp Dresser & Melee, Inc.

ICF/Clement Associates, Inc. Woodward-Clyde Consultants

July 1986

This document has been prepared for the U.S. -Environmental Protection Agenc.v under Contract No. 68-01-6939. The material contained herein is not to be disclosed to. discussed with, or made available to an.v person· or persons for any reason without the prior express approval of a responsible official of the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency.

(RW28/6S I __ . ___ _ 272392

11111llllllllm111Mll ')01

...... 0 I

...... 0 0 I

\0 LO 0

•

•

•

CDM erM10ftTneflta/ engmeers. SCienllSts . p/allllefS, & management consultants

July 18, 1986

Mr. Ronald J. Borsellino, P.E. Regional Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emergency and Remedial Response Division 26 Federal Plaza - Room 711 New York, New York 10278

Project: REM 11 - EPA Contract No: 68-01-6939

Document Control No: 104-ES1-RT-CZDR-1

Subject: Technical Response to "Phase II Remedial Action Recommendations Report for LiPari Landfill" dated February 1986 Prepared by BCM for Rohm & Haas Company

Dear Mr. Borsellino:

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.

Rafltan Plaza 1 Rantan Center Edoson. New Jersey 08818 201225-7000

In accordance with Work Assignment No. 282-2401.0, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM) and the REM II team are pleased to submit this technical response to the "Phase II Remedial Action Recommendations" report dated February 1986 as prepared by BCM for the Rohm & Haas Compa"y (a potentially responsible party).

Our response to this report has been structured into three sections as described below:

I. Response Conce.r!"irtg Lumped Parameter f4ode1 (LPM) Results

The intent of this section is to address an inconsistency in a data point input to the computer mode 1 ( LPM) uti 1i zed by COM in preparing the Draft Final Onsite Feasibility Study for the LiPari Landfill (August 1985).

II. Response to BCM/Rohm & Haas Critique of Batch Flushing

This section addresses BCM/Rohm & Haas conments conce.rni ng slurry wall integrity, effectiveness of flushing, and suitability of batch f1 us hi ng.

Ill. Evaluation of BCM/Rohm & Haas Remedial Alternative

This section evaluates the BCM/Rohm & Haas alternative from a technical, environme"tal/public health, institutional, and cost viewpoint •

002

•

•

•

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC .

We trust that you will find this technical response suitable for inclusion in EPA •s ove.rall response to the 8CM/Rohm & Haas report. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions regarding this submittal.

Very truly yours,

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.

Robert A. Ryd7P .E. Site Manager

RAH/rw

(RW28/65)

Approved by:

George A. Ri ef, P .E."' Region II Manager

003