In September of 1983 the site was added to the NPL. The site was added to the list based on the threat to the health of residents and that of the ACMUA well field. The threat of the groundwater contamination was so severe that the EPA called the risk “… the most severe environmental problem in the country” (Janson, 1981). Due to the severity of the problem Price’s Pit did not require HRS ranking or State declaration to be listed as other sites have required. Considering this significant threat, in addition to fencing off the site, the ACMUA well fields were recommended to be abandoned, and in the mean time a treatment system set up should the plume reach the field prior to new wells being online, and local residents using wells were provided with bottled water and then access to local city water (EPA, 1986). These control implemented prior to site remediation show the severity of the problem, since the potable water near the site was abandoned for use. In fact the abandonment and relocation of the ACMUA well field was a priority enough that the ACMUA began relocation efforts prior to acknowledgement of reimbursement from Superfund or other sources (Janson, 1981). Though the contamination of groundwater led the complete abandonment of the area for potable water purposes, residents and businesses remain in close proximity to the site.
The Record of Decision’s recommendation to relocate the ACMUA well field to a new location outside of the range of the plume from Price’s Pit also include four (4) alternative remediation methods for the site. The first alternative was to take no action, however considering the contaminants in the plume and its modeled path through the groundwater this was not considered a viable option. The second alternative required abetment of the plume via numerous groundwater pumps which would prevent the plume from reaching the well field, but would ultimately still allow significant levels of contaminants into nearby waterways and some of the wells, at which time these wells would be temporarily shut down until contaminant levels reached suitable concentrations. Options three and four both featured a containment wall, plume abatement, and option four added in flushing of the system. These options feature the method used in option two, as well as construction of an 80 foot deep containment wall to isolate the majority of the contaminant source at the landfill. Option four’s flushing system would reinject the treated water pumped from the groundwater wells back into the landfill, speeding up the natural processes of chemical leaching from the landfill (EPA, 1986).
These methods all had significant issues, either due to not sufficiently treating the problem, or the unreliability of the technologies when compared to the relocation of the well field. Ultimately the recommended alternative method was option two, which featured plume abatement. This was deemed preferable to no action since it prevented the deterioration of the aquifer under option one, and was more reliable and cost effective than options three and four, which provided additional mitigation, but at higher costs that did were not justifiable based on expected results. Additionally, with the relocation of the well field concern about concentrations of contaminants above required levels for drinking water were no longer at issue (EPA, 1986).
Example of a pump and treat system - National Academies Press
The initial remediation action for the site was the relocation of the ACMUA well field, this process, as previous discussed, was originally undertaken at the cost of the ACMUA without assurances from EPA or NJDEP of reimbursement on the relocation costs prior to the Record of Decision being released, and was completed by 1985 at a cost of nearly $10 million (Donohue, 1983). Additionally, the relocation of wells, as opposed to pump and treat options, has not typically been funded by the Superfund process, however, since this site work occurred recently after the implementation of Superfund, various political pressures caused the reimbursement of well relocation by EPA and NJDEP to occur, such that a prominent and successful case could be shown, which would not have occurred had pump and treat been the only mitigation option at Price’s Pit (N. Goldfine, personal communication, April 18, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment