Approved by:

George Pavlou Superfund Division Director U.S. EPA, Region 2

Five-Year Review Report

Second Five-Year Review Report for

Diamond Alkali Superfund Site City of Newark

Essex County, New Jersey

July 2006

PREPARED BY:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

Date:

-1-

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Five-Year Review Summary Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. Site Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Land and Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8History of Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Initial Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Basis for Taking Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IV. Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Remedy Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Remedy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

VI. Five-Year Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Administrative Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Data Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Site Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, and InstitutionalControls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

VII. Technical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data,cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Question C: Has any other information come to light that couldcall into question the protectiveness of the remedy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Technical Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

-2-

IX. Protectiveness Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

X. Next Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TablesTable 1 - Chronology of Site Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 2 - Documents, Data, and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Table 3 - Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, andInstitutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 4 - Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

-3-

List of Acronyms

AOC Administrative Order on Consent

CAG Community Advisory Group

CD Consent Decree

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIC Community Involvement Coordinator

CLH Chemical Land Holdings, Inc.

DDT p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

NCP National Contingency Plan

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJPDES DSW New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Surface Water

NPL National Priorities List

OCC Occidental Chemical Corporation

OMR New Jersey Department of Transportation Office of Maritime Resources

OU Operable Unit

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

RAO Rem edial Action Objective

RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD Record of Decision

RPM Remedial Project Manager

TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TSI Tierra Solutions, Inc.

USACE United States Arm y Corps of Engineers

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

W RDA W ater Resources Development Act

-4-

Executive Summary

This is the second five-year review conducted for the Diamond Alkali Superfund Sitelocated in the City of Newark, Essex County, New Jersey. This Site has three operable units(OU): the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue are OU-1; the Lower Passaic River is OU-2;and Newark Bay is OU-3. An interim remedy for OU-1 has been implemented and is the subjectof this statutory review. The Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay are still in the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase and there are no selected or implemented remediesfor these OUs to be reviewed. The remedial actions for OU-1 included capping of contaminatedsoils and debris on Site, and pumping and treating of the contaminated groundwater. Allconstruction activities were completed on June 2, 2004.

This five-year review found that the interim remedy for OU-1 protects human health andthe environment from exposures to hazardous substances contained within the properties at 80and 120 Lister Avenue in the short-term as long as the engineered, access and institutionalcontrols associated with these properties are properly operated, monitored, and maintained.

-5-

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name (from WasteLAN): Diamond Alka li Company

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NJD980528996

Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: City of Newark/Essex County

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: O Final G Deleted G Other (specify)

Remediation Status (choose all that apply): G Under Construction G Operating O Complete

Multiple OUS? O YES G NO Construction completion date: 06/02/2004

Are portions of the site in use or suitable for reuse? O YES G NO G N/A

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: O EPA G State G Tribe G Other Federal Agency

Author name: Elizabeth Butler

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 07/13/2001 - 07/13/2006

Date(s) of site inspection: 03/29/2006

Type of review:G Post-SARA G Pre-SARA G NPL-Removal onlyG Non-NPL Remedial Action Site G NPL State/Tribe-lead

G Regional Discretion G Policy O Statutory

Review num ber: G 1 (first) O 2 (second) G 3 (third) G Other (specify)

Triggering action:

G Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #1 G Actual RA Start at OU #G Construction Completion O Previous Five-Year Review ReportG Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 07/13/2001

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 07/13/2006

Does the report include recomm endation(s) and follow-up action(s)? O yes G noAcres in use or suitable for use: restricted: all unrestricted: N/A

-6-

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions

This report did not identify any issue or make any recommendation for the protection of publichealth and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the OU-1 decisiondocuments. OU-1 has ongoing operations, maintenance, and monitoring activities as part of theselected remedy. As anticipated by the decision documents, these activities are subject to routinemodification and adjustment. This report includes some suggestions for improving, modifying,and/or adjusting these activities.

Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls

Currently, no chemical data is being collected from the on-site monitoring wells. Sampling hasbeen recommended in order to periodically evaluate any possible changes in groundwater qualityand to further evaluate the effectiveness of the slurry wall.

Protectiveness Statement

The interim remedy for OU-1 protects human health and the environment from exposures tohazardous substances contained within the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue in the short-term as long as the engineered, access, and institutional controls associated with these propertiesare properly operated, monitored, and maintained. A final remedy decision for OU-1 must bemade some time in the future. For the Site to be protective in the long-term the final remedy(ies)for OU-2 and OU-3 needs to be selected, designed, and constructed. It should be noted that someexposures could persist after construction of the Site remedies and it may take many years of longterm remediation before this Site will be fully protective of human health and the environment.

-7-

Diamond Alkali Superfund Site

Newark, New Jersey

Second Five-Year Review Report

I. Introduction

This is the second five-year review for Operable Unit One (OU-1) of the Diamond AlkaliSuperfund Site (Site), located in the City of Newark, Essex County, New Jersey. It wasconducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager(RPM), Elizabeth Butler. This five-year review was conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), asamended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii), and in accordance with theComprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of a five-year review is to assure that implemented remedies protect public healthand the environment and function as intended by the decision documents. This report willbecome part of the administrative record for this Site.

The Site has three operable units (OUs): the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue are OU-1;the Lower Passaic River is OU-2; and Newark Bay is OU-3. The interim remedy for OU-1 hasbeen implemented and is the subject of this statutory review. OU-2 and OU-3 are still in theRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase and there are no selected or implementedremedies for these OUs to be reviewed. The remedial actions for OU-1 included capping ofcontaminated soils and debris on site, and pumping and treating of contaminated groundwater.This review covers the period from July, 2001 though July, 2006. The trigger for this five-yearreview was the completion of the previous five-year review report.

II. Site Chronology

Table 1 (attached) summarizes the Site-related events from discovery until present.

III. Background

Physical Characteristics

The Diamond Alkali Site consists of two properties located on 80 Lister Avenue and 120 ListerAvenue adjacent to the Passaic River in the Ironbound Section of Newark, New Jersey. Newarkis a city of roughly 270,000 residents, located in Essex County. The Ironbound Section coversapproximately 4 square miles and is home to a sizeable Portuguese and Brazilian population. The Site is bounded by several industrial properties and the Passaic River. The two propertiestotal approximately 5.8 acres and have been designated as Operable Unit 1 (OU-1). In additionto the facility property, the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site includes the 17-mile tidal stretch ofthe lower Passaic River and its tributaries from the Dundee Dam in Garfield, New Jersey to the

-8-

confluence with Newark Bay, designated as OU-2, and the 6-mile long and 1-mile wide NewarkBay and the extent of contamination in the Hackensack River, the Arthur Kill and the Kill VanKull, designated as OU-3.

Land and Resource Use

The Diamond Alkali Site has been used for manufacturing by numerous industrial companiesfor over 100 years. From the mid-1940's to 1969, activities at the Site included chemical andpesticides manufacturing. All manufacturing operations at the Site ceased in 1983.

The current land use for the area is industrial, but neighboring areas have a dense residentialpopulation. The Passaic River is used for rowing and fishing. Although there are several groupslooking to redevelop this area, it is anticipated that the immediate area will continue to becommercial/industrial. This Site is one of many sites being considered for redevelopment as partof the Lister Avenue Brownfield Development Area. The Site is currently fenced and has anelectronic, automated security system. The contaminated soils and debris are contained withinthe fenced area under an impermeable cap.

The groundwater aquifer underlying the Site is currently not used as a drinking water source. The dominant groundwater flow direction is to the north towards the Passaic River.

History of Contamination

The mid-1940's marked the beginning of the manufacturing operations related to the currentSite conditions, including the production of DDT and phenoxy herbicides by Kolker ChemicalWorks, Inc. Kolker was acquired by the Diamond Alkali Company (subsequently known as theDiamond Shamrock Chemicals Company) in 1951, and from 1951 to 1969 Diamond Alkaliowned and operated a pesticide manufacturing plant at 80 Lister Avenue. Subsequent ownersused the property until 1983, when sampling by EPA and NJDEP at the Site, as a result of EPA’sNational Dioxin Strategy targeting facilities which produced 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and/or itspesticide derivatives for sampling, revealed high levels of dioxin. Dioxin, especially the dioxincongener known as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD, is an extremely toxic chemicaland an unwanted byproduct of the manufacture of certain chemicals which were produced at theSite. Operations at the Site and an explosion in 1960, caused contamination of soils, sedimentsand groundwater. Dioxin, pesticides and other hazardous substances have been found in the soilat 80 Lister Avenue and, to a lesser extent, at 120 Lister Avenue. Other properties in the areaalso had dioxin-contaminated soils and debris. Dioxin, pesticides, volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and other hazardous substances have been found in groundwater at the Site. Thesediments of the lower Passaic River and Newark Bay are contaminated with dioxin, PCBs,mercury, DDT, pesticides, metals and other hazardous substances from the industrial activities ofnumerous companies in the area since the 1800's.

-9-

Initial Response

The discovery of dioxin led to the 80 Lister Avenue property being secured by a fence and by24-hour security guard service. Exposed soils on the property were covered with geofabric toprevent potential migration of contamination. At other properties, dioxin-contaminated soils anddebris were removed by excavation, vacuuming, and other means, and were transferred to 120Lister Avenue for storage. This work was initiated by the EPA and NJDEP in 1983. EPAproposed the Site for the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983, and it was finalizedon the NPL on September 21, 1984. Also, in 1984, NJDEP and Diamond Shamrock ChemicalsCompany entered into two Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC), the first for theinvestigations and immediate response work at 80 Lister Avenue and the second forinvestigations and response work at 120 Lister Avenue. On August 1, 1987, EPA published anotice of completion of the RI/FS and of the Proposed Plan identifying EPA’s preferred interimremedy. This publication started the period for public comment.

Basis for Taking Action

Contaminants

The results of the Remedial Investigation indicated that the Site was contaminated by a largenumber of hazardous substances including dioxin, semi-volatile compounds, VOCs, herbicides,pesticides, PCBs, and metals. The contamination was widespread and affected most mediaincluding soils, groundwater, air, surface water and building structures. The chemicals that weredetermined to present the greatest risks due to their toxicities and concentrations were TCDD andDDT. The routes of exposure to the hazardous substances included direct on-site contact (whichwas controlled by the initial response actions taken), migration of hazardous substances to thePassaic River, migration of hazardous substances to deeper aquifers, and migration of airbornehazardous substances.

IV. Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

The Diamond Alkali Site has three operable units: the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue(OU-1), the Lower Passaic River (OU-2) and Newark Bay (OU-3). An interim remedy for OU-1was selected and documented in a September 30, 1987 Record of Decision (ROD). The remedialaction objectives included preventing direct exposures to the contaminated soils andcontaminated buildings and debris, preventing ingestion of the contaminated groundwater,preventing further migration of the contaminated groundwater, and preventing surface runoff ofstormwater. The components of the ROD consisted of the following:

• Construct a slurry trench cutoff wall encircling the properties tying into the silt layer underlyingthe properties.

• Construct a flood wall to protect the properties from the 100-year flood.

-10-

• Disassemble and decontaminate all non-porous permanent structures and materials to themaximum extent practicable for off-site reuse, recycling or disposal.

• Transport off-site for treatment or disposal drums containing hazardous substances butcontaining less than 1 ppb of dioxin.

• Demolish all remaining structures on-site and secure all materials contaminated above 1 ppb ofTCDD on-site. Secured materials shall be segregated to the maximum extent practicable toafford access to and facilitate removal of the more highly contaminated materials, should suchremoval be selected as a remedy at a later date.

• Stabilize and immobilize the contents of the remaining drums of dioxin contaminated materials.• Locate and plug inactive underground conduits and reroute active systems.• Haul, empty, spread and compact the contaminated materials presently stored at 120 Lister

Avenue, and decontaminate the shipping containers for off-site reuse, recycling or disposal.• Install, operate, and maintain a groundwater withdrawal system designed to maintain a

hydraulic gradient preventing the migration of groundwater within the slurry wall.• Install, operate, and maintain a treatment system for groundwater and other aqueous liquids.• Construct a surficial cap consisting of suitable materials designed to meet the requirements of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.• Implement suitable monitoring, contingency, operation and maintenance, and Site security

plans to ensure the protection of human health and the environment during and after theinstallation of the selected alternative.

• Place and cap on-site all sludge generated from the wastewater treatment processes until suchtime that an alternative method of sludge management is approved.

• Perform a Feasibility Study every 24 months following the installation of the selected interimremedy to develop, screen and assess remedial alternatives and to assess the performance of theselected remedy.

EPA is also evaluating contamination in the Lower Passaic River (OU-2) and Newark Bay(OU-3). EPA and Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) entered into an AOC in April 1994to perform a RI/FS (RI/FS) for a 6-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. However, thesampling results from the investigation performed under that AOC demonstrated that evaluationof a larger area was necessary. Therefore, in January 2001 EPA directed OCC to suspend work. Pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) received Congressional appropriations to conduct an ecosystem restoration study withits local sponsor, the N.J. Department of Transportation, Office of Maritime Resources (OMR). Because of the many overlapping information needs, the three agencies formed a partnership toidentify and address water quality improvement, remediation, and restoration opportunities in the17-mile tidal stretch of the lower Passaic River from Dundee Dam to the confluence withNewark Bay and its tributaries. This study is known as the Lower Passaic River RestorationProject and is being conducted by EPA under the authority of CERCLA and by USACE andOMR under WRDA. In June 2004, EPA entered into an AOC with 31 potentially responsibleparties (PRPs) to fund the RI/FS portion of the joint Superfund-WRDA study for the 17-milestretch of the Lower Passaic River.

Because of the tidal nature of the Passaic River, the areal extent of contamination extends

-11-

beyond the mouth of the Passaic River. To determine the boundaries of the extent ofcontamination a study is being performed by Tierra Solutions, Inc. (TSI) of Newark Bay and itstributaries pursuant to an AOC which EPA executed in February 2004. EPA is working closelywith the state and federal Natural Resource Trustees on the coordination of both of these studies.

Remedy Implementation

A Consent Decree (CD) was filed on December 4, 1989 between OCC, Chemical LandHoldings (CLH), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and EPArequiring OCC to undertake cleanup activities at the Site. The U.S. District Court approved theCD on November 19, 1990. OCC is a successor to the Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company. Therefore, OCC is liable for the cleanup activities at the Site.

During development of the remedial design plans, OCC initiated activities at the Site in 1995by performing certain initial components of the remedy. These actions included removal of thesteel pile from 120 Lister Avenue (structural material from the warehouse demolition, steel tanksand miscellaneous steel). This steel pile was sampled and material that met the EPA criteria foroff-site disposal was disposed at an off-site facility. Any material that was not deemedacceptable by the receiving facility was placed on-site at 80 Lister Avenue property for finaldisposal during future construction activities. In addition, of the 635 drums at the Site, thecontents of 261 drums were not listed dioxin wastes. The contents were processed through thetemporary treatment plant and disposed off-site. The empty drums were returned to thewarehouse, cut in half and staged. Disposal of these drums was to be addressed during futureconstruction activities. The remaining 374 drums were considered listed dioxin waste. Thesedrums were grouped into water-soluble liquids, non-aqueous liquids and solid/sludges and storedat the warehouse for disposal during future construction activities.

As required under the CD with EPA and the NJDEP, OCC submitted remedial design plans forconstruction of the interim remedy of OU-1. Prior to approving the design plans, EPA, at therequest of the Community Advisory Group (CAG), explored the potential for implementing analternative to the interim remedy selected in 1987. EPA considered innovative technologies aswell as on-site and off-site thermal treatment options. EPA met with the CAG extensively duringthe summer of 1998. Due to the nature of the material to be remediated (listed dioxin waste), newinnovative technologies were deemed inappropriate and no off-site option was available. Onealternative, on-site incineration, was deemed technically appropriate; however, the communitypreferred the on-site containment remedy to incineration.

On September 23, 1999, EPA and NJDEP approved the Final Modified (100%) RemedialDesign Report, and CLH began construction in the spring of 2000. The flood wall and slurrytrench cutoff wall were constructed. The warehouse and other structures at the Site weredemolished. The contents of the drums and shipping containers were stabilized and immobilizedand then disposed in the contaminated area of the Site. The empty drums and shipping containerswere either recycled or crushed and disposed in the contaminated area of the Site. The surficialcap, the stormwater management system, the groundwater withdrawal system and the groundwater

-12-

treatment plant were constructed, in accordance with the approved remedial design plans. Additionally, the CD required the use of institutional controls to restrict the use of the property toindustrial and/or commercial uses that will not alter or impact the remedy in place. EPA iscurrently working with TSI, the successor to CLH, in the development of the text for the requireddeed restriction.

On August 23, 2001, representatives from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice visitedthe Site to inform TSI of a high pH problem with water being discharged from the Site’sstormwater drainage channels to the Passaic River. TSI promptly took corrective measures to stopthe discharge and based upon an investigation determined that contact of drainage water with theselect fill under the cap was causing the increase in pH. Therefore, to resolve the situation, TSIsubmitted a proposed design modification to the surficial cap, which would restrict stormwaterfrom percolating through the sand layer thereby reducing the volume of Site drainage withelevated pH levels. EPA and NJDEP approved the proposal and implementation of the designmodification was completed on September 13, 2002. Additionally, TSI implemented two phasesof additional stormwater management controls to further segregate stormwater draining from thesand layer under the cap to prevent its flow into the drainage channels.

In November 2001, elevated zinc concentrations were found in treated effluent water from thegroundwater treatment system. Again TSI took corrective measures to reduce the zincconcentrations. It was determined that ferrous sulfate powder, a chemical used to adjust the pH ofthe treated groundwater, had elevated concentrations of zinc. Therefore, TSI replaced the powderwith a ferrous sulfate solution with low zinc concentrations which corrected the zinc exceedanceproblem.

In February 2002, the 24-hour security guard was replaced with an electronic, automated securitysystem. In November 2003, TSI submitted the Supplemental Hydraulic Performance EvaluationProgress Report documenting the attainment of hydraulic gradients preventing the migration ofgroundwater from the materials contained within the slurry trench cutoff wall and the flood walland the establishment of inward hydraulic gradients, in accordance with the CD. EPA agreed withthe conclusions reached in this report at a May 12, 2004 meeting with TSI, thereby triggeringTSI’s notification to EPA of the completion of all construction activities at the Site required bythe CD. TSI submitted this notification on June 2, 2004.

Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance

TSI is conducting long-term monitoring and maintenance activities according to the Operationsand Maintenance Plan approved by EPA on September 23, 1999. The required inspection andmonitoring activities include performance of the following activities on a monthly basis unlessnoted otherwise:

• inspection of the surface of the surficial cap;• inspection of the perimeter and interior drains;• inspection of the interior of the flood wall;

-13-

• inspection of the asphalt and granular roadways;• inspection of the main entrance gate and perimeter fencing;• inspection of the parking area;• inspection of the general housekeeping activities of the Site;• methane gas monitoring of the 14 gas vents (quarterly);• groundwater depth measurements; and • flood wall monitoring from the Passaic River in a boat (quarterly).

These efforts are documented in monthly progress reports submitted to EPA and NJDEP.

All treated effluent and process water is batched into storage tanks on Site and sampled prior todischarge to the Passaic River as required. Upon receipt of validated data achieving thelimitations of the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Surface WaterPermit Equivalent (NJPDES DSW) dated May 2, 2000, the treated groundwater is discharged. Also, in accordance with the NJPDES DSW Permit Equivalent a Discharge Monitoring Report issubmitted monthly to both NJDEP and EPA.

Residual materials generated at the Site are stored in polyethylene containers and stacked on thesteel storage racks in the residual management area. An evaluation is currently being conductedby EPA to determine the appropriate offsite treatment and/or disposal for these residual materials.

In an effort to further control the pH problems encountered with the water drained from the sandlayer under the cap, TSI implemented a pilot study including the use of a carbon dioxide pHadjustment system in the collection tank from October 2004 through January 2005. An evaluationof this system is ongoing.

V. Progress Since the Last Review

The previous five-year review for this Site determined that since the interim remedy for OU-1had not been fully implemented, it was not protective of human health and the environment at thetime. Since then, the last two elements of the design plan have been completed: construction of thesurficial cap and the groundwater withdrawal system and treatment plant. A Final Report forRemedial Construction documenting completion of the remedial construction activities inaccordance with the remedial design plans was submitted in August 2004. Based upon EPA’sreview of this report all construction activities were completed according to the requirements of theapproved remedial design plans. This report is currently being finalized. Finalization of this reportwill trigger the initiation of a groundwater monitoring program and an every two-year remedyreview required by the CD. As part of this two-year review OCC is required to develop, screen andassess remedial alternatives as well as to evaluate the performance of the containment remedyevery two years. These two-year reviews will also be incorporated into future “Five-Year”reviews.

-14-

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

TSI and NJDEP were notified of the initiation of the five-year review in January 2006. TheDiamond Alkali Five-Year Review team was led by Elizabeth Butler of EPA, Remedial ProjectManager (RPM) for the Diamond Alkali Site, and included members from the Regional TechnicalAdvisory staff: Michael Scorca (hydrogeologist), Marian Olsen (human health risk assessor) andChuck Nace (ecological risk assessor).

Community Involvement

Activities to involve the community in the five-year review were discussed in a February 2006meeting between the RPM and the Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) for the DiamondAlkali Superfund Site, David Kluesner. A notice was published on March 20, 2006 in a localnewspaper, The Star Ledger, indicating that a five-year review was being conducted and invitingwritten comments before April 19, 2006. It also indicated that once the five-year review iscompleted, the results will be made available in the local Site repository. An email stating thesame was also sent to the listserv for all interested stakeholders of the Lower Passaic River Studyand the Newark Bay Study. Comments were submitted, but none expressed concerns over theprotectiveness of the remedy. All comments dealt with concerns regarding the two-year remedyreview requirement.

Document Review

Table 2 (attached) summarizes the documents, data and information reviewed in completing thisfive-year review.

Data Review

The purpose for the groundwater withdrawal and treatment system was to prevent the migrationof groundwater from the volume contained within the slurry trench cutoff wall and the flood walland to establish inward hydraulic gradients. Tables of groundwater extraction volumes andgroundwater elevation graphs contained in the Supplemental Hydraulic Performance EvaluationProgress Report, covered the time period of December 2000 through August 2003, and pursuant toEPA’s request during the Site inspection, noted below, TSI submitted updates to those tables andgraphs to cover through March 2006. A review of the tables and graphs indicates that theextraction system is performing effectively. Six of the ten individual extraction wells hadincreasing yields or achieved their highest productivity in 2005. In a year by year comparison, theoverall system removed its highest total volume of water in 2005, the most recent year of completedata.

Groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells have declined several feet since thecapping and continue to broadly decline. The hydraulic gradients between the shallow wells

-15-

outside and inside of the slurry trench cutoff wall remain directed inward. The hydraulic gradientbetween the shallow fill and the glaciofluvial sand layer under the cap is upward along the PassaicRiver boundary of the Site and downward at the two clusters on the southern boundary of the Site.

Site Inspection

An inspection at the Site was conducted on March 29, 2006 by Elizabeth Butler (RPM), MichaelScorca (hydrogeologist), Marian Olsen (human health risk assessor), and Chuck Nace (ecologicalrisk assessor). The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy,including confirming the integrity of the fencing and security system, the surface of the surficialcap, the stormwater management control system, and the groundwater withdrawal and treatmentsystems.

Interviews

No interviews were conducted for this review.

Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls

Table 3 (attached) summarizes observations and offers suggestions to resolve the issues.

VII. Technical Assessment

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

The review of documents listed in Table 2, the inspection of the Site, and the review of theexisting data indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the 1987 ROD. Under theinterim remedy, the Site is being kept secure and hazardous wastes at the Site are being containedand prevented from leaving the properties via engineering controls including the surficial cap, the slurry trench cutoff wall and the flood wall around the properties, and the groundwater withdrawaland treatment system. The interim remedy is designed to provide protection of human health andthe environment through the on-site containment of wastes.

Operation and maintenance activities have been effective in sustaining the protectiveness of theremedy. Additionally, the required institutional controls will prohibit any future disturbance of theremedy in place. The cap and the surrounding area are undisturbed and the fence around the Site isintact.

The City of Newark supplies public water throughout the City. There are no drinking watersupply wells located in the vicinity of this Site. The NJDEP requires approval of drinking watersupply wells and will not allow groundwater, which has been contaminated by this Site, to be usedas a drinking water supply.

No opportunities for optimization were observed during this review. However, once the

-16-

evaluation of the carbon dioxide pH adjustment system is complete, it could be included in thestormwater management control system if it shows an improvement in achieving the appropriatepH levels.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial actionobjectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site over the past five years thatwould effect the protectiveness of the remedy. At the current time, the Site has limited accessbased on location within an industrial area, fencing and a security system that limits or preventsaccess to the Site, and the presence of the Passaic River which also further limits on-site access. The current remedy is protective.

Soil and groundwater use at the Site are not expected to change during the next five years, theperiod of time considered in this review. The Site is anticipated to remain industrial and/orcommercial. The Site is currently being evaluated as part of the Lister Avenue BrownfieldsDevelopment Area, however, any redevelopment opportunities considered should ensure that theprotectiveness of the remedy is not impacted.

Changes in Standards and To Be Considereds

The risk assessment for the Site was developed before the Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund Part A was developed in 1989. At that time, the risk assessment evaluated thefollowing pathways: direct human exposure to dioxin in soils where the surficial cap was employedto interrupt the pathway, exposures to dioxin contaminated buildings through particulatesassociated with dioxin emissions, ingestion of contaminated groundwater, and transport ofcontaminants from the Site to the Passaic River. The remedial actions taken at the Site haveinterrupted exposures to the principal contaminants of concern through direct contact with thecontaminated materials by trespassers and other potential users of the Site. The remedial actions atthe Site have also prevented potential exposures to contaminated groundwater and eliminated thecontaminated groundwater and surface water runoff of stormwater pathways to the Passaic River.

Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics

Since the ROD was signed, several toxicity values used in the original risk assessment wereupdated. The ROD identified 1 ppb as the remedial goal for dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). At thecurrent time, an EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directiveidentifies 1 ppb as the remediation level for dioxin until a dioxin reassessment is completed(OSWER Directive 920.4.26 dated April 13, 1998). EPA will continue to monitor thereassessment of dioxin and further evaluate the results of the dioxin reassessment at the next fiveyear review.

Other chemicals identified in the risk assessment as chemicals of concern included 2,4-dimethylphenol (2,4-D), p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy

-17-

acetic acid (2,4,5-T). The ROD did not identify specific remedial action levels for these chemicals. Since the original risk assessment new toxicity values for these chemicals were included on theEPA’s consensus toxicity database the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). However, thesenew toxicity values do not impact the protectiveness of the remedial actions since the cap preventsdirect exposure to the contaminants through ingestion and dermal contact.

In the future, if buildings are constructed on Site soil vapor extraction should be evaluated. Siteinstitutional controls will prohibit any future re-development of the Site from interfering with theintegrity of the cap and the other components of the interim remedy.

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

There is no information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

Based upon the results of the five-year review, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD.

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

This report did not identify any issue or need to make any recommendation for the protection ofpublic health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the OU-1 decisiondocuments. OU-1 has ongoing operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities as part of theselected remedy. As anticipated by the decision documents, these activities are subject to routinemodification and adjustment. This report includes suggestions for improving, modifying, and/oradjusting these activities, see Table 4 (attached).

IX. Protectiveness Statement

The interim remedy for OU-1 protects human health and the environment from exposures tohazardous substances contained within the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue in the short-termas long as the engineered, access, and institutional controls associated with these properties areproperly operated, monitored, and maintained. A final remedy decision for OU-1 must be madesome time in the future. For the Site to be protective in the long-term the final remedy(ies) forOU-2 and OU-3 needs to be selected, designed and constructed. It should be noted that someexposures could persist after construction of the Site remedies and it may take many years of longterm remediation before this Site will be fully protective of human health and the environment.

X. Next Review

The next five-year review for the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site is due before July 2011 or fiveyears from the date of this review.

-18-

OU-1 is also subject to two-year remedy reviews. During each two-year review, EPA willevaluate whether the interim remedy remains protective or whether another remedy is availablethat would provide greater protection or long-term effectiveness.

-19-

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

1940's Manufacturing facility at 80 Lister Avenue, Newark, NJ began producingchemicals and pesticides.

1951-1969 Diamond Alkali Company (subsequently known as Diamond ShamrockChemicals Company) owned and operated a pesticides manufacturing facilityat 80 Lister Avenue. In 1960 an explosion occurred.

1970-1983 80 Lister Avenue went through a series of new ownerships and productionprocesses.

1983 NJDEP and EPA collected dioxin samples at the Site; dioxin detected in thePassaic River and at 80 Lister Avenue. Diamond Alkali proposed by EPA forlisting on the Superfund NPL. NJDEP instituted fish advisories for the PassaicRiver and Newark Bay.

1984 NJDEP and Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company entered into two AOCsfor investigation and immediate response work at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue.Site finalized on EPA’s NPL.

1987 NJDEP and EPA held public meetings to discuss the Proposed Plan forcleanup. EPA selected an interim remedy for the 80 and 120 Lister Avenueportion of the Site, documented in a ROD.

1990 Federal court approved a CD among OCC, CLH, EPA and NJDEP toimplement the ROD.

1994 EPA and OCC entered into an AOC to study the lower six-mile stretch of thePassaic River.

1996-1999 EPA, at the request of the CAG, explored the potential for implementing analternative to the interim remedy selected in the ROD. An alternative was notfound. EPA reviewed and approved the remedial design plan.

2000 Construction of the interim remedy began, including installation of the cap,slurry wall, flood wall, and the groundwater withdrawal and treatment system.

2004 Construction of the interim remedy was completed. EPA and OCC enteredinto an AOC to study Newark Bay and its tributaries. EPA also entered into anAOC with 31 PRPs to fund the Superfund portion of the Lower Passaic RiverRestoration Project.

-20-

Table 2: Documents, Data, and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-YearReview

Document Title, Author Date

Record of Decision for the Diamond Shamrock Superfund Site, Newark, NJ, EPA 1987

Consent Decree (Civil Action No. 89-5064 (JWB)), United States District CourtDistrict of New Jersey

1990

Weekly Progress Reports, Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Newark, NJ, TSI 2002-2004

Supplemental Hydraulic Performance Evaluation progress Report, Diamond AlkaliSuperfund Site, Newark, NJ, TSI/BBL

2003

Monthly Progress Reports, Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Newark, NJ, TSI 2003-2006

Discharge Monitoring Report, Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Newark, NJ, TSI 2003-2006

Final Report for Remedial Construction, Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Newark,NJ, TSI/BBL

2004

Current Groundwater Level Graphs and Extraction Rates Memo, Diamond AlkaliSuperfund Site, Newark, NJ, TSI

2006

Lower Passaic River Restoration Project and Newark Bay Study CommunityInvolvement Plan

2006

EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews and other guidance and regulations todetermine if any new Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements relatingto the protectiveness of the remedy have been developed since EPA issued the ROD.

-21-

Table 3: Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls

Comment Suggestion

Currently, no chemical data is being collectedfrom the on-site monitoring wells. Samplinghas been recommended in order toperiodically evaluate any possible changes ingroundwater quality and to further evaluatethe effectiveness of the slurry wall.

A Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan was submitted by TSI, which EPA recentlyprovided comments on. This plan should be finalized and sampling initiated in 2006.

-22-

Table 4: Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions

IssueRecommendations and

Follow-Up ActionsParty

Responsible

Over-sight

Agency

Mile-stoneDate

AffectsProtectiveness

(Y/N)

Current Future

Since the remedy is an interim remedy,the CD requires a two-year remedyreview upon completion of theremedial construction activities andapproval by EPA. A final long-termremedy needs to be selected andimplemented, when appropriate.

Initial comments on the FinalReport for Remedial Constructionhave been provided to TSI but finalapproval is still necessary. Within90 days of EPA’s approval, TSIneeds to submit a work plan for thetwo-year remedy evaluation,implement the study and submit aRemedy Evaluation Reportsummarizing the findings. Thisprocess will then need to berepeated every two years, so longas the interim remedy is in place.

EPA,NJDEP, TSI

EPA 2008 N N

The full extent of contamination from80 and 120 Lister Avenue needs to bedetermined.

The studies of the Lower PassaicRiver and Newark Bay should becompleted so any potentialremedies can be identified andimplemented.

EPA,NJDEP,Trustees,

TSI

EPA 2011 N N

barcode: *139684*barcodetext: 139684