REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OF VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER VINELAND, NEW JERSEY VOLUME I FINAL Prepared For NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Prepared By E.C. JORDAN CO. Portland, Maine SEPTEMBER 19897.89.19 0002.0.0 INtRopUeTION PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. . been REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION HAS REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ‘TALE OF CONTENTS POTABLE WELL WATER SAMPLING 2... ee ee INSTALLATION AND SAMPLING OF MONITORING WELLS . . 5 PCB SOIL SAMPLING . . LEAL A EBL EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION AND ASSOCIATED SAMPLING. . . SITE-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. . . 2.5.1 Site No. 1: Investigation . . . Potable Well Sampling 1 2 Monitoring Well Installation 3 Conductivity Survey... .. % 5 1 1 1 1.4 Exploratory Test Pits. 1.5" Surficial Soil Sampling... ....- ++ 2 Site No. 1: Results «os. +: 2. 2 2 Potable Well Sampling Results. . Monitoring Well Sampling Results . Conductivity Survey Results. . . Exploratory Test Pit Results . Surficial Soil Sampling Results Potable Well Survey. « Site No. Investigation . Site No. 3: Results... 00... 00 ee 2 3 4 +5 Site No. 4: Investigation . . . . 6 7 8 Site No. 4: Results... .. Site No. 5: Investigation . Site No. 5: Results... . SE I - SITE-WIDE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . . 1 Observation Wells... 1... 2 Deep Geologic Boring . . . 3 Geophysical Surveys... 1... 2. 4 Private Well Sampling. $ Soil Borings. . . . 6 7 E 1 Monitoring Wells . . . Analytical Programs... 1... ee eee = SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . . Site No. 1 3.2.12REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title 3.2.1.2 Soll Borings . 2. ee ee ee es 218 3.2.1.3 Monitoring Wells. 22/1 + 6s + + 3°20 32:2 SiS NO, Sc Fens eeg Ree Ee yh 3-26 3.2.2.1 Geophysical Results... +++ +» 3-26 FAT Gh Meligiacawadmeae gs See 3.2.2.3 Monitoring Wells... +--+ ++ 3-30 U29 Stele. GO. eed eee Fb 3.2.3.1, Geophysical Results. . aia DSSS 3.2.3.2 Soil Borings . . .. - tee 3-35 3.2.3.3 Monitoring Wells... + + + + = 3-38 3.2.4 Site No. 5 Yn EO ee OE . 3-38 3.2.4.1 Geophysical Results... 5. 5-5 = 3:39 3.2.4.2 Soil Borings ... ee ee es 3°99 3.2.4.3 Monitoring Wells. oe es + 304d 3.3. PHASE IT - SITE-SPECIFIC PROGRAM DESCRIPTION... - 3-42 4-0 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING, ©... se ee ee Med 4.1 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY . 2... sghs ahr e Wengte:, ESH 4.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY «oo eSB 4.3, GROUNDWATER USE. 2 ee GIR 5-0 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 6 5. 02 ee So Sud: INTRODUCTION Ts ¢ Then es. eles 5a eke Sol 5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF CHEMICALS |). 2. ss. 5 a) HBR SBME Sa FS kaw Os he dw rage EE 5.2.2 Site-specific Descriptions... 5... ss 5°68 SVB SeeMon Ty ed ates cia. wee S222 Slew NOP SES a 5 6 sicae Bey SHE203: BiCB NEY Bowe ss alge lie ate Sziz RIE NO. SO goose ae EEO 5-15 3.219. Groundvatersrg 1 ale SHE oa 5-15 3.3 ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL DATA... oe eee Seah 5.3.1 Comparison to Background Concentrations... . 5-21 $.G1)1" Stew NOL Loa ah ee cine 53S B.3)152 BAGONG She an nies eee a SERS Ags Bicone Ge sd pid ea SRE 5.3.1.6 Site No.5. ee 526 5.3.2 Laboratory and Sampling Assessment . . . 5-27 5.3.3 Treatment of Non-detects..... 1s eee (SR 5.3.3.1 Detection Limit Assessment. . . . . 5-29 5.3.3.2 Spatial Distribution of Chemicals . . 5-30 7.89.19 0003.0.0REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Sectio n Title Page No. 5.3.4 Statistical Analysis... 001+ 5-31 5.3.4.1 Methods... tae a, 5.3.4.2 Analytical Adjustments... « 5-35 5.3.5 Environmental Fate and Transport . + + 5-37 5:4 CHEMICALS OF CONCERN SUMMARY... .. 00s 5°39 $-0 BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT... + + 61 6.1 SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS... . ee 6.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION... 0 se 6-7 6.2.1 DDT and Derivative “G0 and DUE). + « 6-7 6.2.2 Dieldrin. se. ee 5-9 6.2.3 Carcinogenic Pills. | 2... se es 6-10 GUR Bead ML TMG as aid 6-13 6.2.5 Mercury. | | Dr bia ways 6-15 6.2.6 Noncarcinogenic Pills |... 2. + + 6-17 6.3 DOSE/RESPONSE ASSESSMENT... se se oo) 6.3.1 Carcinogenic Effects... . 11. + 6-20 6.3.2 Noncarcinogenic Effects... . . 2. 6-26 6.3.3 Integrated Risk Information System... . 6-30 6.3.4 Relative Absorption Factor... ....- 6-34 6.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT... 2 ee 6-35 6.4.1 Groundwater Exposure Assessment. . . . 6-36 6.4.2 Soil Exposure Assessment... 2... 6-39 6.4.3 Estimating Exposure-Dose Levels... . . « 6-58 6.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS TO REGULATORY STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. 2... ee ela 6-58 6.5.1 Groundvater. 21) 1 tlle ee 6-61 SARE AERIS 5 5 eee 98% Fe 66m 6.6 PUBLIC HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION... . 6-65 6.6.1 Current Potential Risks... --... 5k 6-71 6.6.2 Future Potential Risks ||. | 6-75 6.6.3 Uncertainties and Limitations in Risk Assessment... . sre 6-78 6.7 BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . e 6-81 7.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT... . . . oe 7.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT... 2... 7-2 7.1.1 Identification of Ecological Receptors . 7-2 7.1.2 Evaluation of Exposure Pathvays. ... 2. 7-6 7.89.19 0004.0.0REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page No. 7.2 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN... -- +++ 7-8 7.2.1 Groundwater. 2... ee eee ee eee 7-8 PF eIMBRAL: 33g les p Maast, dig, aha BEN, 2 7-8 7.3. TOXICITY EVALUATION. 2... eee ees 7-3 7.3.1 Pals... miaghesig ae Bele 7.3.2 DOT and Transformation Products... 5... 7-13 PSF DMMdeIN ai. she ie ga net os se 7-15 TES Me Tab 5 PRG Loree oh Ca Me bi kthy at 7-16 BIS MMarcwe ys UI Mrieh veel oe ve seh aia 2. TM 7.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION | | Steyn we FEE 7.5 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: SUNMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... Tinea beeen 7-23 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED RESPONSE... ......--- 8-1 8.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION. 2 ee ee BL 8.2 BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT. © 25. 5. . 8-6 8.3 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT... . 2... . O13 8.4 PROPOSED RESPONSE... ..... Bseiptecaets 8-16 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES (VOLUMES IT AND IIT) VOLUME 11 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L APPENDIX M 7.89.19 0005.0.0 ‘TASK 1 INTERIM REPORT FIELD SAMPLING PLAN NIDEP PHASE IT REPORT OBSERVATION WELL AND MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS BORING Loss SAMPLE ANALYSIS SCHEDULE ANALYTICAL RESULTS GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA ANALYTICAL DATA QUALITY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT CONVERSIONS FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPHS BY SITE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILESREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES (Continued) VOLUME III (Continued) APPENDIX N - DOSE/RESPONSE PROFILES APPENDIX 0 - AIR DISPERSION MODELING APPENDIX P'- RISK ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX Q - PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR REPORTED AT THE VDC APPENDIX R - RARE SPECIES INFORMATION LETTER APPENDIX $ - ECOLOGICAL RISK CALCULATIONS 7.89.19 0006.0.0EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Vineland Developaental Center (VOC) is located in the city of Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey, The VDC is Superfund Site ranking 61st anong the 110 sites in New Jersey presently on the National Priorities List compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The VDC is located in the northwestern part of the City of Vineland. Geographically, Vineland is the largest city in New Jersey, encompassing 2 69-square-mile area. The area Surrounding the VDC is primarily suburban residential, on land that was formerly orchards and agricultural fields. This region of southern New Jersey Mstorically was one of the cost intensively fared areas in the eastern United States. The VDC is a state residential treatment facility for mentally handicapped Women operated by the N.J. Department of Human Services. The 195 acre campus of the VDC is comprised of numerous buildings to house, feed, educate and care for the needs of the approximately 1300 residents at the institution, the administration and maintenance facilities to support the institution's operation, as well as large open areas for recreational purposes. The VDC is ordered on the west by Main Road (NJ Route 555), on the south by Landis Avenue, on the east by Spring Road, and on the north by Maple Avenue. The area surrounding the VDC is primarily suburban residential land that was formerly orchards and agricultural fields. ES-1 7.89.19 0012.0.0‘The VOC Superfund Site consists of five distinct locations identified during 1 or the early 1980's by former and current VDC employees as having potential o been actual releases of hazardous chemicals. These five locations which have be owned designated by NIDEP as Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are located on three state cue 1, 2, and 4 are located on the campus of the as follows: Sit properti Vineland Developaent Center; Site 3 is located on the property of the Vineland Children's Residential Treatment Center (VCRTC) which is a short term y disturbed teenagers operated by h of counseling and treatment center for emotional]; the New Jersey Department of Human Services approximately 1000 feet nort} the VDC campus; and Site 4 is located on a state owned vacant lot at the dead end of a residential street approximately 350 feet east of the VDC campus. Figure 1-2 on page 1-3 is a location map for the five (5) site locations. A description of the alleged hazardous chemical release at each of the five sites follows: Site 1 is located at the northeast portion of the VDC campus between the campground at Spring Road and a recreational pavilion structure. VDC operated an incinerator and disposal area at the site during the 1950(s) and 1960(s). The disposal area adjacent to the incinerator was utilized to bury the ash from the incinerator and materials that could not be incinerated. It was alleged by a former employee that approximately 6000 to 8000 containers of mercury and/or arsenic-based substances (theorized to be pesticides and/or rodenticides) were buried in the disposal pit adjacent to the incinerator. 7.89.19 0013.0.0Site 2 is located in the northwest quadrant of the VDC campus with stor: maintenance buildings to the south, a softball field to the west, an open field to the north, and a parking area to the st, In approximately 1976, @ scrap metal company contracted by VDC to remove and dispose of three electrical transformers spilled oil from the transformers. This oil was subsequently confirmed to be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's). Site 3 is located at the northern portion of the VCRTC property and bordered on the north by a city park, residences on Becker Drive, the VCRTC buildings to the south, and an industrial manufacturer to the It is alleged that this site was used as a refuse dump, similar to Site 1, for about 10 years during the 1950's and early 1960's. Site 4 is located between Spring Road and Megan Court (a dead end street spur off Linwood Avenu The site, a formal gravel pit area and presently @ vacant lot, is alleged to have had transformer oil from retired electrical transformers disposed of here. It was also utilized by the NJ Department of Transportation as a maintenance yard. Site 5 is located in a vacant field between the parking lot near the water tower and a farm storage shed. It is alleged that outdated shelf life pesticides in bags and 5-gallon containers (approximately 10 cubic yards) were buried at this site in the 1950's. ES-3 7.89.19 0014.0.0SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES From the period 1980 to 1985, NJDEP conducted preliminary remedial investigations at tha five sites in response to the information received regarding past disposal practices at the VDC, These investigations included: installation and sampling of groundwater monitor wells at Sitas 1, 3, 4, and 5 potable well sampling at residences adjacent to the site surface soil sampling at Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5 performance of a conductivity survey at Site 1 test pit exploratory excavations at the Site 1 locations corresponding to the conductivity survey anomalies for the purpose of visual inspection and subsurface soil sampling delineation of the extent of PCB contaminated soil at Site 2 In addition, NJDEP conducted a response action in 1984 as a result of the sample results from the five (5) rounds of potable well samples obtained between March 1980 and June 1983 at the eight (8) homes immediately adjacent to the VDC. Specifically, one (1) of the sampled residential wells intermittently exceeded the Federal Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard for mercury (0.002 mg/1). The source of this contamination was not defined by the preliminary data, Although the other seven (7) residential wells did not exceed any drinking water standards, the potential for contamination of these wells along with the confirmed contamination at one of the wells prompted NJDEP to recommend the extension of the Vineland Water Utility's service to these eight 7.89.19 0015.0.0Residences. The actual construction of the water miin extension was carried out by the City of Vineland. The City of Vineland was reimbursed for the cost Of the water line construction by the N.J. Spill Compensation Fund via an arrangement with the eight homeowners in which the homeowners submitted claims fo the Spill Fund and the Spill Fund claim checks were assigned to the City of Vineland by each of the homeowners. 18 1986, E.C. Jordan Co. (Jordan) of Portland, Maine was hired by the NJDEP to Q) conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study at Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5 in compliance with CERCLA and SARA, and (2) complete delineation of the extent °f contamination at Site 2, perform a risks assessment to define the “pPrepriate cleanup level for the PCB contaminated soil, and complete the Sesign and bid documents for the removal and disposal of PCB contaminated soil. Yordan completed the PCB contaminated soil delineation and the design for the Femediation (comprised of the Design Report and plans and specifications) in 1987. The cleanup criteria for the renoval and disposal of PCB contaminated soil was based on a public health risk assessment as more fully described in the Summary of Site Risks section and the Design Report. In summary, NJDEP established a clean up level as follows: 5 mg/kg or greater - remove from VDC site and dispose of; greater than 1 mg/kg but less than 5 mg/kg - encapsulate under an asphalt cover. NJDEP utilized these design documents to solicit contract bids for the remediation of Site 2. In February 1988, NJDEP awarded a remedial clean up contract to Chemical Waste Management Inc. of Oakbrook, Illinois. The remedial action at Site 2 consisted of the following: ES-S 7.89.19 0016.0.0relocation of six inch water main that traversed the PCB contaminated soil area = removal and disposal of approximately 3900 tons of PCB contaminated soil and concrete pads to the GWM - SCA Model City hazardous waste facility in Model City, NY = removal and disposal of 112 tons of gasoline contaminated soil discovered during the remedial action for the PCB contaminated soil - removal and disposal of approximately 6 tons of asbestos roofing materials from the two storage buildings demolished = removal and disposal of approximately 61 tons of building rubble and debris and 22 tons of construction material debris - post excavation sampling to ensure the established clean up levels were achieved - installation of an asphalt cap and drainage system = installation of a fence to enclose the asphalt cap 4s 4 result of the Phase I RI, none of the allegations of disposal of large Quantities of hazardous substances (pesticides or transformer oil) at Sites 1, 3, 4, or 5 were confirmed. Surface soils were found to contain background levels of pesticides and heavy metals with sporadic elevated levels of PAK(s) and lead. The geometric mean concentrations of the PAH(s) and lead were much lower than the maximum concentrations found in isolated samples. Groundwater samples at all wells at all sites were below Federal or State Drinking Water Standards. The upgradient well at Site 1 did reveal the pesticide dieldrin, at a concentration of 0.22 ug/l. ES-6 7.89.19 0017.0.0Based on the results of the Phase I RI, NJDEP and USEPA conducted a Phase IT R.I. consisting of (1) soil sampling to further characterize the nature and extent of soil contamination at the surface which the public could potentially be exposed to and (2) groundwater sampling at Site 1 to confirm the existence of dieldrin in the upgradient monitor well at Site 1. The Phase II groundwater sampling at Site 1 indicated no presence of dieldrin nor any other contaminants above Federal or State drinking water standards The fact that (1) characteristics of the site hydrogeology such as a shallow horizontal groundwater gradient, high soil permeability, and acidic groundwater combine to create an environment conducive to contaminant leaching, (2) the burial of waste material from more than 20 years ago should result in chemicals leaching to groundwater under the site specific environment described in 1, (3) present groundwater sampling results are clean, (4) the RI did not substantiate large quantities of waste burial as alleged, and (5) the low levels of PAH's, metals, and pesticides identified in the surface and subsurface soils are highly immobile having strong absorption/adsorption to soils and low water solubility; future leaching to groundwater is not anticipated. In the event that leaching were to occur, private and public wells within the deeper aquifer would not be considered at risk of contamination from the VDC because of their depth and the low levels of contaminants existing at the sites. Accordingly, a groundwater exposure scenario is not considered to exist for the VDC. For soils, 4 comparison of the RI identified contaminant levels to background soils in similar environments in southern New Jersey resulted in the following ES-7 7.89.19 0018.0.0chemicals of concern in soil as the indicator chemicals for conducting a baseline public health risk assessment and an ecological risk assessment: Site No. 1; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Lead Mercury Site No. 3: PAlis DDE Lead Site No. 4: Lead Site No. 5: None BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Current risk levels were quantitated for VDC clients, VDC workers, VCRTC clients, and off-site children. Future risk levels in the absence of any remedial action were projected for these populations and construction workers (in the event that institutional or residential construction would occur at ES-8 7.89.19 0019.0.0Sites No. 1, or 4). Risk was estimated both in terms of predicted excess lifetime cancer risk and lifetime hazard index (HI) for potential adverse effects of noncarcinogens. Human health risks were estimated for each site and for the VDC as a whole. Because of close proximity of the four VDC sites, it is reasonable to assume that certain subpopulations may be exposed to more than one site. Therefore, across the entire VDC, risks from each of the four (4) sites can be combined for each potentially exposed population. Combining risks in this manner effectively results in a total site risk characterization. To evaluate the significance of the resulting total site risk the estimates are compared to target risk levels. USEPA has adopted target risk levels for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens in the Superfund prograa. These target risk levels represent risks which are representative of the risks of adverse effects naturally present for the population. USEPA Sigg ines state the the total incremental carcinogenic risk for an individual resulting from lifetime exposure at a hazardous waste site should not exceed an upper Limit of 10°* (4.e., one increased cancer in a 10,000 population). The lower boundary risk Which may be considered for evaluating a remedial response is 10°” (i.e., one increase cancer in a 10,000,000 population). When the risks are greater than 10™*, it is stated that risks are "above the target range". Noncarcinogenic risk estimates are determined by dividing exposure-dose levels for each noncarcinogen by the appropriate dose/response criterion for the particular contaminant. The resulting ratio is termed a risk ratio. The sum ES-9 7.89.19 0020.0.0Of the risk ratios for individual contaminants is called the hazard index (HI) If this ratio is less than or equal to 1.0, no adverse health effects are anticipated from the predicted exposure-dose level. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks estimates were prepared for two separate sets of circumstances or scenarios; the most probable case and worst case. Both scenarios are developed to estimate the potential for adverse human health effects due to long-term or lifetime exposure to site soils by each of the Teceptor populations. At the concentrations observed at VDC no adverse effects Would be expected to occur from any chemical or group of chemicals as 4 result of short-term or single exposures. The most probable case was developed to provide a conservative estimate of risks considering, to the extent possible, the maximum likely duration and frequency of exposure to site chemicals. Secondly, considering that exposure is long-term or lifetime, the most probable case uses the average concentrations at each site to calculate the long-term or lifetime dose. ‘The worst-case scenario was based on the maximum concentration detected and exaggerated estimates of exposure magnitude and duration. Whereas the most probable case represents the upper bound or maximum probable risks, the worst case estimate is generally an over estimate of long-term risks. This is because the exposure conditions (magnitude and duration) are the maximum and would be very unlikely to represent the long-term average for an individual or for the receptor population. Secondly, because maximum concentrations for each chemical are used to estimate lifetime doses, this factor does not ES-10 7.89.19 0021.0.0Tepresent the true long-term daily dose. This is true because the incidence of Probable encounters with concentrations approaching the maximum for all chemicals is extremely low and the probability that any specific location contains each chemical at its maximum concentration is low. At the YDC the Worst case estimates for soil risks using maximum concentrations are extreme and over-estimates actual risk because the maximum concentrations of indicator chemicals are one to two orders of magnitude (10 to 100 times) above the average value or the next highest concentration. At the VDC sufficient Sampling and analysis was performed to adequately estimate the concentration distribution for indicator chemicals in soils. To achieve an estimate of total site risk, the site-specific risks were combined to yield a total site risk for each population. As expected, VDC clients were determined to be at greatest risk of exposure at Site Nos. 1 and 5, while off-site children were at greatest risk at Site Nos. 3 and 4. The major conclusions of the baseline public health Risk Assessment are summarized as follows. Based on the most probable case scenario, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenie risk estimates for all five populations were below or within target risk levels at each of the four sites individually. Total site risks based on the most probable case scenario were also below or within target risk levels for the five populations. Table ES-1 summarizes the risks for the most probable case. ES-11 7.89.19 0022.0.07.89.19 0023.0.0 Total site carcinogenic risks calculated under the worst-case Scenario were below or within the target risk range of 10° to 10°” for all populations except the VDC residents and off-site children. Table ES-2 summarizes the risks for worst case. For VDC residents, the total site cancer risk was above the target Tange at 9.76x10°*. for the worst case scenario, The maximum concentration of carcinogenic Pas in surface soils was the primary determinant behind the elevated worst-case cancer risk levels for the VOC residents. The elevated cancer risks associated with surface Soils were based on worst-case conditions, which assumed exposure to the maximum concentration of PAHs on each visit to the site. The maximum concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs at Site Nos. 1 and 3 are outlying values and do not represent concentrations to which populations are likely to be exposed on a long-term basis. Therefore, the worst-case risk estimates provide an overestimate of the risk the actual risk is best approximated by the most probable case estimate. For VDC residents the total risk posed by non-carcinogens was above the target threshold (HI greater than 1.0) for the worst case scenario. The elevated total site HI for VDC residents was due almost entirely to the maximum concentration of lead detected at Site No, 1. The maximum concentration of lead represents an extreme value, two orders of magnitude above the average concentration. This results in an overestimate of the actual long-term risks because of ES-127.89.19 0024.0.0 the improbability that residents would be exposed to maximum concentrations repeatedly. For off-site children, the total site cancer risk was only slightly above the target range at 1.13x10°'*, for the worst-case scenario. The carcinogenic risks for off-site children were driven by the maximum concentration of carcinogenic PAHs detected at Site Nos. 1 and 3. As with the case for VDC residents, the maximum concentrations of PAH are an order of magnitude higher than the average. It is highly improbable that off-site children would be exposed to concentrations approaching the maximum as a long-term Situation. The worst-case carcinogenic risk estimates for off-site children, therefore, overestimate the probable risk. For off-site children, the total risk posed by noncarcinogens was above the target threshold (HI greater than 1.0) for the worst case scenario. This elevated HI was due to the maximum concentration of lead in surface soils at both Site Nos. 1 and 4. It is noted that the maximum concentration of lead at Site No. 1 was over two orders of magnitude greater than the geometric mean; and at Site No. 4, the maximum concentration was an order of magnitude greater than the geometric mean. In estimating exposure dose, the geometric mean provides a more representative estimate of potential exposure concentration. Given the outlying nature of the maximum lead concentration and the conservative assumptions used to estimate ES-13Worst case, the HIs calculated for off-site children overestimate risk of adverse effects. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were also estimated for a construction worker population assuming that Site Nos. 1 and 4 may undergo development in the future. Under the worst-case scenarios, Tisks were below or within target levels for all three sites assessed individually. Only when the site risks were conbined was the total site HI slightly elevated, and only under the worst-case scenario. Because it is unlikely that the same worker populations would be involved in construction at both Site Nos. 1 and 4, and because risks were only elevated under worst-case conditions, these sites do not pose a significant risk to construction workers BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ‘The ecological assessment of the VDC indicated that plant and animal species mid-Atlantic states. No evidence of ecological stress beyond that typical of residential/institutional ornamental horticulture was evident. Because of the type of community structure and the nature of the indicator chemicals, songbirds were chosen as a representative sensitive species for development of risk estimates. Risk estimates were prepared on a VDC-wide basis because of the proximity of the individual sites compared to typical songbird home ranges. ‘The HIs calculated for most probable and worst case were far below 10 (i.e., ES-14 7.89.19 0025.0.0the level at which significant biota effects are likely). Because of these Fesults, which are based on extremely conservative assumptions, no current or future impacts to biota are expected from any chemicals detected at the four VDC sites, PROPOSED RESPONSE Section 121 (d)(2)(A), Degree of Clean-up, under CERCLA and Sara, states, “vs the President under this Act shall attain a degree of clean-up of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants released into the environment and of control of further release at a minimum which assures protection of human health and the environment. Such remedial actions shall be relevant and appropriate under the circumstances presented by the release or threatened release of such substance, pollutant or contaminant.” With the completion of the remedial action at Site 2 and the findings contained in the RI report, this document proposes that Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 require no further action. Most probable case (MPC) human health risks estimated to result from exposure to the site chemicals were within the USEPA target range for remedial alternatives (10”* to 10°?) for lifetime excess cancer risks; all MPC scenarios were below 10°* as a target risk level. No adverse health effects were predicted due to exposure to noncarcinogens. The probability of ecological impacts were estimated to be negligible. These baseline estimates, developed considering no further remedial action, indicate that further ES-15, 7.89.19 0026.0.0Tesponse actions to reduce risks of exposure to the substances present at VDC are not warranted, Groundwater is currently not contaminated by site-related substances and, based on the hydrogeologic environment, it is not expected to be contaminated in the future, None of the allegations of disposal of significant quantities of hazardous substances at Site Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (pesticides or transformer and waste oil) were confirmed. Surface soils contained background levels of Pesticides, chromium, and mercury, and sporadic elevated levels of PAHs and lead. Representative concentrations (i.e., geometric means) of these chemicals were far lower than the maximum values. Because of the extensive conservativism of the worst-case exposure scenarios, the low probability of their occurrence, and the large differences between the maximum observed concentrations of PAlis and lead and the mean values, the risk management decisions leading to the proposed response were based on most probable case estimates of hunan health risks. This is appropriate because PAHs and lead are substances ubiquitous in urban and suburban environments. Isolated, sporadic, relatively high values of these chemicals are generally not uncommon in these environments, and do not constitute an unusual or excessive risk to public health. Most probable case human health risks estimated to result from exposure to the site chemicals were within the USEPA target range of 10°* to 10°” for lifetime excess cancer risks; all were far below 107°. No adverse health effects were predicted due to exposure to noncarcinogens. The probability of ecological impacts were estimated to be negligible. These baseline estimates, developed considering no remedial action, indicate that ES-16 7.89.19 0027.0.0Fesponse actions to reduce risks of exposure to the substances present at the VDC are not warranted. ES-17 7.89.19 0028.0.0TABLE ES=1 SUMMARY OF MOST PROBABLE CASE RISKS AT THE VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER INCREASED LIFETIME CANCER RISK PROBABILITY SITE POPULATION SITE NO,1 SITE NO.3 SITE NO.4 SITE NO.5 OVERALL. voc VDC Clients 1.69x10_© = 1.69x10_> VDC Workers 1,97x10°7 = 1.97x10_7 VCRIC Clients - ai 67x10 ie -- 1.67x10_7 Off-site Children 1.94x1077 9.72x1077 - 1.13x1076 Construction Workers 1.64x10"8 - ~ 1.64x10° 8 NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES SITE POPULATION SITE NO.1 SITE NO.3 SITE NO.4 SITE NO.5 OVERALL voc WDC Clients 3.25x10_= == = 3.25x10_5 WDC Workers 2 37x10" == = 2.37x1074 VORIC Clients 1.36x107? = 1.36x1072 Off-site Children 168x107 3.14x10"® 1.821072 5.13x107? Construction Workers 6.90x10* = =~ 1.22x10°3 1.90x10°$ 7.89.19T 0030.0.0TABLE ES-2 SUMMARY OF WORST CASE RISKS AT THE VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER INCREASED LIFETIME CANCER RISK PROBABILITY SITE POPULATION SITE NO.1 SITE .NO.3 SITE NO.4 SITE NO.5 OVERALL VDC VDC Clients 9.761074 = 9.76x10_* VDC Workers 3.254105 3.25x10_ VCRTC Clients 8.76x10_6 Off-site Children 5.13x10_5 aa 1.13x10_4 Construction Workers 1.81x10 & - 1.81x10 © NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES SITE ee eee ee POPULATION SITE NO.1 SITE NO.3 SITE NO.4 SITE NO.5 OVERALL VDC VDC Clients 6.29 -- 6.29 WDC Workers 2.21 - 2.21 VCRTC Clients -- 0.15, - 0.15 Off-site Children 2.38 0.54 -- 7.57 Construction Workers 3.85 -- -- 4.57 7.89.19T 0044.0.0V=/ DELAWARE, DOVER N= FIGURE 1-1 REGIONAL MAP VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER ECJORDANCQ ——VINELAND SITE 3 ‘ | HL avenue LEGEND Ej arene Dy srmonare wre sacar | . col . f t t " | FIGURE 1-2 LOCATIONS OF SITE 1, 2. 9, 4, AND 5 = VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER \ VINELAND, NEW JERSEY EC.JORDANCO:TABLE 2-1 EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION SOLL/WASTE SAMPLE DATA NOVEMBER I, 198% REMEDIAL TNVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER WASTE SAMPLE SOLL SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPE, sND IDENTIFICATION Te-aW _TP-BM _TP-CW _TP-EW _TP-ACW _W-GARAGE TPA COMP, TPB COMP. TPC COMP. _TPD COMP. BLANK Arseaie 98 6.9 81a aL 1.8 <0.002 Cadaium 3:3: ab Ms. Toe ae re 0. 23 <0.02 Lead 278 96.7 = 8029.2 27.8 22.8 28.4 282 <0.05 Mercury 0.27 0.42057 1000.9 0.12 0.20 <0.0002 Seleniua 460 48 79 S28 45 an <0.005 Copper MS 27 6B Tae 22.9 26.6 50.4 0.02 Zine 343-2590 12651524312 59.3 223 - 0.02 Nickel 24 90.6 1828'S, ns 18.9 : <0.05, Antinony 200 4.7 8972 OG 09 LT ¥ <0,005 Beryl Lite O4 OS <0.5 3S «LS »» D 0 xo 0.8 xD Tsophorone 2 xD D xD x xD x xD xD 0 Pyrene BOL 1.2 AL. ND 2.0 BADE DL 0.2 Lz xD Phenanthrene ND BML = BAL BMD xD BDL BDL. 0.2 09 ND Methylene Chloride XD BML BME 1.0 dT, aDL BADE 20 126 Fluorotrichloromethane XD BDL BOL. » DAL xD xD 0 n Toluene XD BXDL | BADLBRDL HDL BMD. BxDL 10 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ND BYE BADE BRL, BDL nD BaD u Teichloroethene ND BAL BADE RRL, ADL BDL ‘ak 2 Chromium (Total) 10.9 27.60 2B OLS 5.0 5.1 8.6 <0.01 Silver eee ee 0.5 ou 0.4 <0.01 Thalliua 36 94 47 28 9.2 <2 x 3.8 <0.10 Phenols (Total) 0.10 <0.10 0.10 «0.10 «0.10 <0.10 0.10 Cadaiua Na NA MA MA MA MA a WA Na MA MA Ma Na NA Caieius TH? 20802220 2601300 as 685 2500, 920184015800 ©1260 20 876 Chrome 7.2 7.0 9.8 by 3.2 Ba 8.2 9.2 47 2 3.7 43 out it Copper 3 is 28 3 9.4 3 i 6 ah 15 9 63 9.6 is Tron. 4670 «5180-5270 30K0 = ST0S««6650« 6330 «6900-3980 10,600 820028007630 AD Lead 37 Es 50 71 B 7 4 51 Ba 30 28 % 48 16 Magnesiun 389 406 152 377 m er sie 1410 581 1009050 SB 594 433 Manganese 31 39 ers 20 31 33 36 rn 2 3 69 2 1 36 Mercury 0.056 XD ND » » x » xo » XD ND 0.071 (0,070 9.087 Nickel ND x 3.5 xo 6 4a u 8 27 12 co} 6.3 5.3 Potassiua 354 435 375 xD 3582 az 4s an i 458 » 380 215 Selenium WA ™A MA MA mA MA ry MA ry NA NA MA MA Silver MA Na MA MA xa NA MA Ma NA NA Na NA NA wa Teallius MA NA MA MA NA NA xa MA MA MA NA Ma NA MA Vanadius 8.6 9.2 8.9 5.4 u B 2 B 6.8 uv 2 5.1 ro 9.5 Zine 36 49 ar 5:6 7 a a 1 2 2 8 is 37 30 Cyanide NA ry Na xa ma xa MA NA MA Ma NA NA Na wa Phenolics MA WA NA Na MA MA MA Na Na NA Ma MA MA NA NOTES Analyses reported in pp NA = Not Analyzed ND = Not Detected 6.89.93 0043-0.0TABLE 23 SURFICIAL SOTL SAMPLE DATA MAY 6, 1985 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER BACKGROUND —_ TAToHT REEVES SITE_AND SAMPLE SITE SITE 3 sig 4 SITES COTTAGE coTTAGe: DUPLICATES: IDENTIFTCATION wee SA BLANK TA D Antimony Be gO ad Fak By eo Sh pe s ¢s 3s Alumina NANA MAMA MANA MANA MAMA NAMA NOWRA OMA Arsenic & ght Ssh se pal & Ia SF Ge? SF (Se Seg os Bariua NANA MA MA MANA MAA MAA NAMA MONA OMA OMA Beryllium a wiht Ca, a fag a da Rt wt Tao a qa eh aS cadaiua ae gag ch gh ad wag a gd St gk fa a a oda Caleiun NAMA MA MAMA MAMA HAMA AANA MAMA MAMA Chromium s %s 1s Gal = fish sibs Beas gs) s s 06 3 Copper 25 81300820 kD SB mw 6s Bee Trot NAMA OMA MAA MAMMA NANA MAMA NANA NAMA Lead a 40 SL ac HD aH ct Magnesiua MA MAMA MANA WA oh WA NA WANA A. Me MANA OMA Yanganese MA NA OMA NA OMA MAMA WA WA WANA MA WANA MA Mercury 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 2 O22 0.22 60.2.2 2.2. Nickel s eb e CeP a Kd es Ss. cee GS 6 $s S$ & Potassiua We NA WK WA MANA MARMARA KA MA MA OMA OWA Seleniua a tog ao og fag a ha* ag ad aay a ate ee, Silver Ss ies Esl & fad ois. oF & esl 6 Ss S$ S$ Thallium «ao oad) dott att ttt Vanadium NANA OMA OMA oA NAMA MAA AMA NA WA NAMA Tine SY BC Ge om fae NS See Ek 6 ou at Bw a Ww BS Cyanide MO MD MDOT OL OO DD. Phenolics > mo moa a Yay aS a & “ae a am wm a NOTES: Analyses ceported in ppa NA Not Analyzed ND = Not Detected 6.89.937 0044.0.0,B ienniFied EXTENT OF FiLL- CED ruse ane WE esting wowronIMG wre {ein me i On: ee 50 oo FeeT ‘SESE MER VINELAND OEVE ant cated ER, Le Pet /INELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO shx 1026 K102.4 FI VINELAND DEVEL. VINI FIGURE 5.2 ILL AREAS ~ SITE 3 OPMENTAL CENTER IELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO.LEGEND 42, MW-92.2) EXISTING MONITORING WELL ~ B4tL W@ PHASE 1 son soRInc w-401 “PHASE T MONITORING WELL —--— PROPERTY LINE ir FENCE Lp weseecaanszens Re GC'MEGAN ** CT, z | z 3 190 200 FEET meee Z| SITE 4, SOIL BORING AND a MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS | “ VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER | VINELAND, NEW JERSEY ! ECJORDANCO AlNS ee SRO we = FORMER SEwact DIGESTION HOUSE: —— eka a deny — See iF =o x 2 + 06.7 ¥ - / aw 06.6 f) ZT | a eR ee SPs f a — Scot tee =a. 6s seer a l A PARKING LOT | ay meiner hs | DS) ] ee — | " tua i. 3 ey ay Ek ey! / {i ——— 3 EXISTING MONITORING WELL PHASE I SOIL BORING PHASE I MONITORING WELL \ PHASE ll SOIL SAMPLE Ce Too 200 reer Fane Ss SITE 5, SOIL BORING AND SS le a MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS i BA teh RS VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER f VINELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO.a TABLE 5-5 ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS COMPARISON TO NEW JERSEY BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS* SITE NOS. 1, 3, 4, AND 5 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER MAXIMUM. CONCENTRATION (mg/kg), NJ BACKGROUND SITE cumyrca, EFT O=TZ FT. _ (mg/kg) RANGE _ COMPARISON” 1 Arsenic 5.2 B 0.3-17.1 within Chromium n 36 0.8-20.7 Within? Lead 208 529 ND-44.0 Exceeds Mercury 0.8 3.7 ND-0.26 Exceeds 3 Arsenic <= 2.4 0,317.1 within Chromium -- 8.4 0.8-20.7 Within Lead 48 193 ND-44_0 Exceeds 4 Arsenic oz 2.7 0.3-17.1 Within Chromium 9.8 v7 0.8-20.7 Within Lead 410 410 ND~44.0 Exceeds 5 Arsenic 2.9 2 0.3-17.1 Within Chromium 5.9 18 0.8-20.7 Within Lead 8.9 8.9 ND=44.0 Within NOTES: 1 Fields, 1989. 2 One concentration exceeded the NJ background range at this depth (B-112; 3. to 5-foot depth). All other concentrations were within the NJ background range (Fields, 1989). 3 wWithin" indicates the detected chemical concentration is within the NJ background range. "Exceeds" indicates that concentrations exceed the NJ background range. ND = Non-detect 6.89.93T (0005.0.0TABLE 5-6 ae PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS 7 MPARISON TO NEW JERSEY BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS SITE NOS. 1, 3, 4, AND 5 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION ___ (mg/kg) _—_NJ_ BACKGROUND SITE CHEMICAL 0-2 FT. 0-12 FT. (mg/kg) RANGE COMPARISON? e por 0.150 with: : 0003-4. 600 thin TED 0.020 ES Within UR: 0.120 within Dieldrin 0.068 - within 3 DoT 0.018 0.170 Within Dope 0.021 1.600 within DDE* 0.021 21,000 Within (0-2) Exceeds (0-12) 4 DDT 0.022 0.310 0.003-4.600 Within ppp* 0.018 0.018 - Within ane” = 0.110 - Within Dieldrin 0.023 0.002-1.200 within 5 pr 0.370 0.370 0.003-4.600 within DDE* 0.320 0.320 Within NOTES: 1 Fields, 1989. nis within the NJ 2 "Within" indicates the detected chemical concentratior tions exceed the NI background range. "Exceeds" indicates that concentra background range. kground ranges for these two pesticides. They % There were no specific NJ bacl ‘background range for DDT (see Subsection were evaluated against the NJ 2.278) 6.89.93T 0006.0.0TABLE 5-7 LIST OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN SITE NOS. 1, 3, 4, AND 5 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SITE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN A PAHs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogeni¢) Lead Mercury 2 PAHs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) DDE Lead ie Lead 2) None! NOTE: 1 Low levels of pesticides were detected at Site No. 5; however, vien| commesed to NJDEP background soil concentrations, these levels were within the background concentrations (see Subsection 2.2.2). 6.89.93T 0007.0.0TABLE 5-8 ‘TREATMENT OF NON-DETECTS REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER This table presents an illustration of the effect of using the Method Detection Limit (MDL) to estimate concentrations to represent non-detects. Fifty-percent MDLs was assumed to represent a more-realistic value to use to represent none detects than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) (see Subsection 2.2.4.1). The CRDL was determined to be unrealistically high because it incore porated a significant degree of flexibility to account for possible matrix effects. PAHs were selected for this illustration because the sum of the seven carcinogenic PAHs (or the 10 noncarcinogenic PAHs) is used to represent the chemical concen” tration of carcinogenic (noncarcinogenic) PAHs to which receptors may be exposed. In the event that only one carcinogenic PAH is detected, the other six carcit: ogenic PAHS are assumed to be present in some concentration below the detection Limit. The presence of a single PA is associated with the presence of other PAHs, and one is not expected to be present without the others being present as well. This approach is protective of both public health and the environment. As indicated by this table, if 50% CRDL was used to represent non-detects, the estimated chemical concentrations would be 2.7 times higher than those using 50% MDL. This would result in unrealistically high concentration estimates and would not be appropriate for risk assessment purposes. CARCINOGENIC cRDL % CRDL, MDL MDL PAHs (ug/g) (ug/kg) (g/kg) (g/kg) Benzo(a)anthracene 330 165 260 130 Benzo(a)pyrene 330 165 82 4a Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 330 165 160 80 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 330 165 82 “a Chrysene 330 165 a2 aL Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 330 165 82 a Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 330 165 120 60 TOTAL - 1,155 = 434 6.89.93T 0008.0.0L t (7) sursee same sa QUNe RRARC BENNER TS ae a A = ee. ge Lee p Tame tents ees ~ CAMPGROUND * cD — LEGEND Mawel, EXISTING = WoNITORG weLL | \ Boon + 10% pyase sou sone =~ U 3 rs FENCE ww 101, PHASE I MONITORING ~ x ‘Wet a : uy ° 100 200 FEET re ; FIGURE 5-5 SITE 1, SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PAHs VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER VINELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO.CD sre reemnn one acs sae La EATEA* a) LEGEND PROPERTY Line ASHFILLED AREA PRASE 1 S00. SORNG PHASE 2 SO SAMPLE "ARCINOGEMIC PAN ALL CONCENTRATIONS mgikg wo = Now oerecT FIGURE 5-6 SITE 1 - CHEMICALS OF CONCERN (0-12 FT. CONCENTRATONS) VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTES VINELAND, NEW JERSEY ——_— ae ECJORDANCO:fDENTIFIED EXTENT OF FILL LEGEND = pRoPeRTY ume SD Asi-FiLLeo anew PHASE | SO BORING (22) DEPTH OF FLW FEET TL PHASE? SON SAMPLE rary | VINELAND, NEW JERSEY -ECJORDANCO:Sey: 3 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE GD Asi-FiLteo AREA ~@ PHASE | SOIL BORING (5.2) DEPTH OF FILL IN FEET Ml sPHASE 2 SOIL SAMPLE = CARCINOGENIC PAHs JON-CARCINOGENIC PAHs Pb = LEAD ALL CONCENTRATIONS mg/kg ND = NON DETECT ° 100 200 FEET 5095-92 FIGURE 5-8 SITE 4 - CHEMICALS OF CONCERN (0-12 FT. CONCENTRATIONS) VINELAND OE LORENA CENTER INELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO:\ SK pe & | FORMER SEWAt DIGESTION NOUS e001 a eee I | sae = = VY ~|oor 0 | — DoT ND 7 — e 3989 -—ad200_ND. ! 5/50 . Bs a . 2 oe B02 DoT 220 Ex oe 3 poo No | > LEGEND MWS) EXISTING MONITORING WELL £501@ pnase r SOIL BORING 501 pyase X MONITORING WELL &: Lf HI PHASE HSSOL SAMPLE \ ri iaiebeemestaoes pr ft FIGURE 5-9 100 Z00fEET SITE 5, SOIL BORING, MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS AND CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS (0-12 FT.) VINELAND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER VINELAND, NEW JERSEY ECJORDANCO ——6.0 BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT This section presents results of the baseline public health risk assessment for fhe east campus of the VDC. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate potential health risks associated with the four remaining sites of the VDC in the absence of any future remedial actions. ‘The WDC east campus is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Vineland. Geographically, Vineland is the largest city in New Jersey, encompassing a 69-square-mile area. The area surrounding the VDC is primarily Suburban residential. Many of the residences around the VDC are built on land that was formerly orchards. This part of southern New Jersey has been one of the most intensely farmed areas in the eastern U.S. Vineland is home to the world's largest manufacturer of laboratory and pharmaceutical glassware. Glassware manufacturing and related industries are the single largest industry in the county. Other important industries include textile and clothing, lumber, printing and publishing, transportation, utilities, chemicals, metals, and shipbuilding. In addition to the VDC, there are at least seven other areas around Vineland identified by the Vineland Department of Public Health as being contaminated. These include two wells of the Vineland Water District. One well is located west of the VDC and has beon contaminated with TCE. The other is located 4 miles northwest of the VDC and has been contaminated with TCE and PCE. The 6-1 7.89.19 0158.0.0tentatively identified sources of these contaminants are a glass manufacturer and a lightweight metal company located approximately 5 miles north-northwest of the VDC. Other sources of contamination include the Vineland Chemical Site located 5 miles west-northwest of the VDC, the Nascolite Site located 5 miles south-southwest of the VDC, and contaminated groundwater beneath the Town of Buena, located 2 to 4 miles north of the VDC. The VDC east campus is a residential treatment facility for mentally handicapped women. The VDC has been in operation at its current location since the late 1800s. Until the 1960s, the VDC was almost completely self-sufficient, relying on its own farming and Livestock for auch of the food requirements. A hospital/care facility, as well as maintenance shops for painting, carpentry, and plumbing, are located on-site. As was the case for much of this part of southern New Jersey, pesticides were routinely applied to agricultural areas, as well as other areas, for weed control. However, exact records of types and quantities are not available. During the mid-1970s, herbicides such as 2,4-D and SEVIN were applied, primarily to control dandelions. Principal ingredients in these products are 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate and 1-naphthyl-N-methyl carbamate. Since the early 1980s, there has been no known application of pesticides or herbicides on the vDC grounds. ‘The VDC has obtained its water supply from the Vineland Water District municipal supply since approximately 1970. Prior to that time, water needs were met by two on-site wells located near the current paint shop, which were 6-2 7.89.19 0159.0.0abandoned as a water supply because they begea pumping sand. The wells Femained in service for fire emergency purposes until approximately 1975, shen they were permanently sealed, There were originally five distinct areas of contamination at the VDC east campus (i.e., Site Nos. 1 through 5) (see Figure 1-2). One of these sites, Site No. 2, was found to have PCB-contaninated soil. This site has since been remediated and, therefore, was not evaluated as part of this risk assessment Site No. 2 was the focus of a previous report and risk assessment performed by Jordan (E.C. Jordan Co., 1987). Of the remaining four sites, three (Site Nos. 1, 4, and 5) have been linked via allegations to disposal of various hazardous substances, including mercury= and arsenic-based substances (presumably pesticides and rodenticides), transformer oil, and an estimated 10 cy of unspecified pesticides. It was the force of these allegations that resulted in the listing of Site No. 1 on USEPA's NPL i.e, Superfund), Both Site No. 1 and 3 are former landfills used by the VDC for the disposal of refuse and incinerator ash from an on-site incinerator. Site No. 1 is located on VDC grounds, north of the living-unit area and west of a playground. Site No. 3 is located on what is now the property of the VCRTC, which is not affiliated with the VDC. Site No. 4 is a former NJDOT maintenance yard, now owned by the VDC, located in a residential area east of the VDC grounds. Site No. 5 is a small, nondescript area on the western side of the VDC, at the southeastern corner of an agricultural field and adjacent to a parking lot. This site is the reported burial site for the alleged 10 cy of pesticides. 7.89.19 0160.0.0Based on results of the Rouedial Investigation, none of the allegations of disposed of hazardous substances have been substantiated. No evidence was found of the 6,000 to 8,000 metal containers reportedly buried in Site No. or the bags and rusted 5-gallon metal containers reportedly buried in Site No. 3. Similarly, evidence of transformer oil, which could have contained PCBS, Was not found at Site No. 4. tn addition to the Phase I RI sampling conducted by Jordan in 1986, NJDEP conducted various rounds of sampling at the VDC. The latest round, in February 1969, involved groundwater analyses of samples from Site No. 1 and surface soil analyses of samples fron Site Nos. 1, 3, and 5, This sampling round is referred to as Phase II. The compilation of data from Phase I and Phase TI yields a relatively complete description of the contamination present at each site, As described in Sections 4 and 5, lead and pesticide soil data collected by NIDEP in Phase IT were confirmed by USEPA sampling and analysis. In terms of groundwater, inorganic compounds are the only confirmed compounds detected. Subsurface soils at Site Nos. 1 and 3 contained what might be expected for former ash landfills, namely inorganies and PAs. Low levels of a few pesticides were detected in surface soils at Site Nos. 1 and 3 as well. At Site Nos. 4 and 5, contamination is limited to low levels of inorgenics and pesticides in surface soils Based on the nature and extent of contamination detected during Phase I and Phase II sampling rounds, a baseline public health risk assessment was developed to assess potential health risks associated with exposure to each site. The 7.89.19 0161.0.0SsSessment, in accordance with the latest USEPA and NJDEP guidance, consisted of the following subtasks: © selection of contaminants of concern identified at each site that Fepresent potential public health hazards © summarization of possible pathways of exposure and potentially exposed populations at and near each site © identification of the potential hazards associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern and summarization of acute and chronic toxicity of each compound © identification of the dose/response data used to quantitatively assess risk (e.g., USEPA cancer potency factors and reference doses) © comparison of environmental concentrations of chemicals on-site to existing state and federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) © characterization of human health risks associated with exposure to site-related chemicals The following subsections describe the results and conclusions resulting from the public health risk assessment. 6-5 7.89.19 0162.0.01_ SELECTION oF ICATOR CHEMICALS e Nos. The chenical concentrations roported in the soils and groundwater at Site No a for 1,3, 4, and 5 were evaluated to develop a subset of chemicals of concern the public health and ecologic risk assessments. The chemicals identified and the concentrations reported by the laboratory were validated, compared to Now Jersey background soil concentrations, and analyzed using appropriate statisti cal methods to determine the chemical concentrations in soil and groundwater, As a result, several chemicals detected at loy concentrations were not included among the chemicals of concern. Phthalates were determined to be the result of laboratory contamination. Chromium and arsenic concentrations were well within New Jersey background soil concentrations (Fields, 1989). With one exception, pesticides were all well within New Jersey background soil concen- trations (Fields, 1989). Four classes of chenicals of concern were identified in soils: PAHs, lead, mercury, and DDE, No chemicals of concern were identified in the groundwater. The chemicals of concern in the soils by site are as follows: Site No. 1 PAHs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) Lead Mercury Site No. 2 PAHs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) Lead DDE Site No.4 Lead 6-6 7.89.19 0163.0.0Site No. 5 None (all chemicals reported were within New Jersey background soil concentrations). Average and maxiun concentrations were determined for each chemical of concern at each site, Concentrations at two different soil depths were determined: Zero to 2 feet and zero to 12 feet. This was done to provide exposure concentrations for the two potential exposure scenarios. The shallow soil concentrations represent those for current site conditions and use. The deeper Soil concentrations are those to which humans could potentially be exposed during excavation activities. 6.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION In this subsection, the principal toxicological properties of the contaminants Of concern for the VDC are reviewed. The vast majority of toxicological effects described are based on observations from animal studies or studies of human populations following accidental exposures to relatively high doses of chemicals. As such, they may not accurately represent the potential adverse health effects that may result from exposure to relatively low levels of chemicals present at hazardous waste sites such as the VDC. DDT and Derivatives (DDD and DDE DDT is a chlorinated pesticide that was widely used from the mid-1940s until 1972. DDT can be converted to DDD and DDE by the action of sunlight (USEPA, 6-7 7.89.19 0164.0.01984a). The pesticide and its metabolites are persistent in soil and water, and they are widely dispersed by erosion, runoff, and volatilization. Leaching Of DUT from soils with high organic content is expected to be slow; however, Teaching to groundvater has been observed. Because of its low water solubility and high Lipid solubility, pDT accumulates to high levels in the tissues of humans and other species (Doull et al., 1980). DOT is efficiently absorbed by humans and other species from the gastro- intestinal (GI) tract. Because of its high lipid solubility, the insecticide an accumulate to relatively high concentrations in adipose tissue. DDT is Poorly absorbed after dermal exposure, especially when applied as a powder or when present as contaminated soil. The acute toxicity in rats, a5 measured by an LD50, is 100-fold greater when DDT is orally administered as opposed to dermally (Doull et al., 1980). DDT has been shown to cause liver tumors in mice and rats, and lymphomas and pulmonary tumors in mice. It is therefore classified as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) by the USEPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) (USEPA, 1984). DDD and DDE have also been shown to produce liver tumors (i.e., hepatomas) in mice. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has therefore classified these chemicals as probable human carcinogens (Klaassen et al., 1986), Because of similar experimental evidence, the DDT transformation products (i.e., DDD and DDE) are also classified as probable human carcinogens (Group B2) by the CAG. 7.89.19 d 0165.0.0Acute exposures to DDT result in neurotoxic effects; however, fatalities have not been reported. Chronic exposure can result in liver toxicity in experimental animals. 6.2.2 Dielérin Dieldrin is a highly persistent, chlorinated cyclodiene pesticide. This compound is manufactured by oxidizing the related pesticide, aldrin. Dieldrin is also @ major metabolite of aldrin (Hawley, 1981). Dieldrin is poorly soluble in water but has high lipid solubility. Because of its chemical and biological stability, it tends to bioconcentrate in animal “issues. Dieldrin's persistence in the environment is aided by its strong absorption to organic matter in soils (Doull et al., 1980). Dieldrin can be absorbed from the GI tract and through the skin. The efficiency of absorption of the pesticide from contaminated soil is unknown. Dieldrin has caused liver tumors in laboratory animals, prompting USEPA to classify it as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen. The USEPA CAG has determined that dieldrin has a relatively high potency, exceeding those of TCE, chlordane, benzene, and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). Dieldrin is also acutely toxic to humans and other species; it has caused human fatalities when inadvertently ingested. Causes of death were related to dieldrin's toxic effects on the nervous system. Dieldrin can also penetrate through intact skin, as is demonstrated by the dose agreement between 6-9 7.89.19 0166.0.0acute lethal doses to rats when given orally or applied deraally ts ause liver subchronic and chronic aninal studies, dieldrin has been shown to CAs damage (Doull et al., 1986; and NAS, 1977). PAlis, also known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are 4 family of : m ed from multiple-ring aromatic compounds commonly found in fossil fuels and form the incomplete coubustion or pyrolysis of organic materials. Several hundred PAH compounds have been identified. PAHs almost always exist as mixtures in the environment. PAlis are poorly soluble in water and tightly absorb to soils Therefore, these compounds are not expected to have high mobility in soils. The major removal mechanism is predicted to be microbial degradation (USEPA, 1984) Some of the PAHs are produced or imported for commercial purposes, for example, naphthalene is used in commerce as a moth repellent. This use accounts for the highest single environmental release of the compound. Naphthalene is also used in the production of other chemical products, such as phthalic anhydride, carbaryl insecticide, dye intermediates, and synthetic tanning agents. Anthracene is used as an intermediate in dye production, as a Wood preservative, as a pesticide, and in special uses in the electronic industry. Acenaphthene, fluorene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene are manufactured or imported in relatively small quantities for special commercial uses, including pharmaceuticals, pigments, plastics, pesticides, and photography. ‘The remaining PAHs (i.e., BaP, acenaphthylene, 6-10 7.89.19 0167.0.