Dana Kelly

6 November 2019
ENVL 3242
Toms River Sites Remediation Review

The ciba-geigy site spans 1,400 acres across a largely wooded area in Toms River, New
Jersey. It’s directly situated by Cohansey Sand and the Kirkwood Formation; these consist of
clays, sands, and aquifers. Outside of the site resides a recreational area, a residential area, and
industrial and commercial properties. In wells connected to these areas levels deemed
unacceptable by the EPA in respects to VOCs, mercury, and metals were found. While the
mercury levels were found to be not completely connected to the site, other chemicals and
substances were directly caused by the disposal of waste drums and general disposal areas. Some
of these drums were disposed of illegally, as discovered by the NJDEP.
The procedural disposal methods of ciba-geigy continued to infect ground water as well
as surface water. Carcinogens such as arsenic and benzene were found, raising concern in regard
to the nearby residential and recreational areas. To prevent human exposure, one remediation
method used was the sealing of contaminated irrigation wells. Sealed wells greatly reduce the
risk of further contamination and should have wall casing that runs the depth of the well as well
as two feet above to protect surface water. Air should be able to enter the wells.
Once the drums were removed from the sites and there was no potential for further
contamination from them, the sealing of the wells was an efficient preventative measure. One
reason for this is that wells in vicinity of ciba-geigy that had been tested and found still viable are
used currently. The sealing of contaminated irrigation wells prevents water from these wells from
contaminating the viable wells. The sealing prevents surface water from being lost to the
contaminated groundwater, which prevents the contamination traveling further.
Another important influence for sealing contaminated wells specifically relates to the fact
the two aquifers at the site are separated by a thirty foot thick semi-confining layer of silt and
clay. The groundwater in the upper aquifers flows into Toms River, the upper aquifer being
where the contamination was found. The layer of silt and clay has been attributed to preventing
site related contimatination from reaching the lower aquifer. Following the removal of drums,
chemicals could still continue to leach further into the ground, but sealing the wells prevents this.
Protecting the not yet affected groundwater can aid in further remediation methods such as
extraction.
In relation to extraction, sealing contamination irrigation wells can assure that the results
of extraction are effective. Any clean water would no longer be affected by the contaminated
water as it would be prevented from affecting surface and groundwater.
Initial public health evaluations found that without interference, the population could be
exposed to a significant risk. This would be caused by contamination of private drinking water
wells located south and southeast of the site. The risk comes from the possibility of groundwater
contamination migrating to these wells. Fishing and swimming could also pose risks if nearby
areas were affected. The contaminated groundwater was deemed the most significant risk.
However, follow up reports by the EPA have deemed that there is currently no risk of
human exposure and that it’s under control. This shows that the remediation method of sealing
contaminated wells prevented human exposure to some extent and allowed for clean water to
remain sufficient. Follow up reports have also deemed that groundwater migration is also under
control; there is currently no unacceptable discharge to surface water. Monitoring is conducted to
assure contaminated groundwater migration is stabilized.
Considering that shows that the sealing of the irrigation wells was a sufficient step in
remediation. Furthermore, being that the primary toxins were a result of improper disposal, and
further disposal no longer occurs, closing the issue and maintaining it within a confined space
seems to be a valid method. It prevents the past damage to cause future damage. The
implementation of this remediation method was a good one.
Another result of disposal methods done by ciba-geigy was that sediment/soil in nearby
marshland was contaminated. If an individual were to walk in the area incidental ingestion and
dermal ingestion from direct contact could occur. This wasn’t a major risk due to the fact the area
was fenced off and covered, however, it could prove a risk if not remediated. Contaminated
sediment/soil could infect nearby surface water as well as groundwater that reaches contaminated
soil. The contaminants could also spread if carried by migrating surface water.
Bioremediation was used on the soils to remove contamination. Bioremediation is a
process in which microorganisms are placed in an area where they will then ingest contaminants
and break them down into nonhazardous components. The environmental conditions in the area
can be altered to encourage the growth of these microorganisms thus encouraging further
degradation of pollutants.
Treating the soils as well as the water is pivotal as the northern end of the ciba-geigy site
is where some of the treated water is recharged. That water can’t have elements surrounding it
that pose a risk for recontamination, and contaminated sediment/soil would pose this threat.
Bioremediation was called for on about 145,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils. As
mentioned above, metals were found during the initial testing of ciba-geigy. Metals can
contribute to the growth of these microorganisms, thus making them a suitable choice for
remediation at the site. The soil/sediment at ciba-geigy was found to have chlorobenzene as well.
The microorganisms have the ability to take a mix of chlorobenzene and oxygen and convert
them into carbon dioxide and water.
The downsides to bioremediation are that it can take longer than physical and chemical
processes and target levels may not be able to be achieved through bioremediation alone.
However, as mentioned above, soil didn’t pose a great risk due to the fact the areas that could
lead to human exposure were fenced off. The biggest issue with soils was the potential for further
contamination which has been solved through the remediation methods. In addition to that, on
the site backfilling of soils was in place as well thus expediting the soil clean up process versus
what it would have been with bioremediation alone.
Based on five year reviews that agree on the continuation of this process, as well as the
way bioremediation effects certain contaminants that are at the ciba-geigy site, bioremediation
was an efficient decision. Highly contaminated soils were shown to have a great contribution to
affected surface water; specifically the soils where drums were buried.
Additional information that shows bioremediation was a positive choice is that the
inorganic chemicals tended to be localized within their source areas. Bioremediation works well
when the area it’s required can be identified, which was the case in ciba-geigy. The issue was,
despite the fact the inorganic chemicals mostly swelled specifically in areas with direct sources,
the chemicals were migrating with surface water.
As mentioned above though, migration is currently under control according to the EPA.
While it was also mentioned that soil didn’t pose a great risk as areas were fenced off, human
exposure is also under control completely. Thus, bioremediation was overall a sufficient
remediation choice.
Reich Farms is located in Dover Township, New Jersey. The site is three acres and is
surrounded completely by wooded areas except to the west, where commercial areas reside. No
floodplains or wetlands were affected by the site. Well/ground water on the other hand was
effected. The source of contamination was drum storage on the site; 4,500 drums were stored.
Petrochemical contamination was discovered in the groundwater as a result of the stored
drums. Chemicals such as chlorobenzene and acetone were found in the water as well. This
caused private wells to be closed and a new zoning ordinance was established.
One remediation path taken to prevent migration and contamination was treatment of
extracted groundwater through air stripping and carbon absorption. Granular activated carbon is
used when organic contaminants need to be removed to undetectable levels, and can be a part of
the process if nonvolatile contaminants are present. Air stripping is capable of 95-99 percent
reduction of volatile contaminants. The treated water was then reinjected into the ground.
The extraction and reinjection of the water at this site makes sense as the site is much
smaller in comparison to ciba-geigy. Aside from groundwater, nearby environmental effects were
not present at this site, thus making for a small area of groundwater to sterilize. The process was
to be continued until the standards reached the maximum practicable extent. The pumping and
cleaning also protects unaffected wells.
The site displayed significant differences in 1995, and then again in 1998 and 2015. The
1995 and 1998 reports state that discharged treated water was reused as drinking water. All
performance measures met standards, including sitewide anticipated use readiness. Being that
water extraction was one of the primary cleanup methods, it can be deemed as a valuable choice
that heavily aided in the current status of the site.