SDMS Document

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIII! 110854

Third. Five-Year Review Report

For

Denzer and Schafer X-.Ray Company Superfund Site

Berkeley Township, Bayville,

Ocean County, New Jersey

Prepared by:

u.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2

New York, N.Y.

May 2011

Executive Summary

This is the third Five-Year Review for the Denzer & Schafer X -Ray Superfund Site (Site). The first Five-Year Review was signed on September 27,2001 arid concluded that remedial actions remained protective of public health and the environment and were flinctionipg as designed. Sampling conducted for the first Five-YearReview indicated that low levels of lead still remained in the shallow aquifer near the source area but the contamination was not very mobile. The remedy specified in the Record Of Decision (ROD) (no action with monitoring) is expected upon completion to be protective of human health and the environment, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

The second Five-Year. Review was signed on September 27,2006 and since there was no sampling performed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) during the period between September 2001 and September 2006, there was no verification that the plume was not migrating and no protectiveness determination could be made.~A Five-Year Review Report Addendum was signed in June 2007, where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluated the data provided by NJDEP on March 26, 2007.

Since the conduct of the second Five-Year review at the Site in 2006, and the addendum in 2007, there has been additional grOl;mdwater sampling conducted by EPA. Monitoring continues to verify that the groundwater plume is not migrating. Long-term protectiveness will continue to be verified by obtaining additional groundwater samples in the next five years.

The remedy at the Denzer & Schafer X-ray Company Site is expected to be protective upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. In addition, NJDEP has established a Classification Exception Area to further prevent exposure to contaminants until groundwater cleanup standards are achieved.

2

-- --

Five-Year Review Summary Form

I I SITE IDENTIFICATION '" .

Site name (from CERCLlS): Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Superfund Site

EPA ID (from CERCLlS): NJD046644407

Region: ,2 City/County: Berkeley/Bayville/Ocean County State: NJ

I I SITE STATUS ' ,

NPL status: 0 Final • Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction 0 Constructed 0 Operating • Complete'

Multiple OUs?* 0 YES • NO I Construction completio~ dat~: September 28, 1995

Has site been put into reuse? II YES 0 NO 0 NIA

REVIEW STATUSI I Lead agency: o EPA. State 0 Tribe o Other Federal Agency

Author name: Matthew Westgate

Author title: Remedial Project Manager IAuthor affiliation: U.S. EPA Region 2

Review period:** 09/0112006 to 04/0112011 (

Date(s) of site inspection: 01103/2011

Type of review: • Post-SARA 0 Pre-SARA o NPL-Removal only D.Non-NPL Remedial Action Site o NPL StatelTribe-lead , o Policy o Regional Discretion

. Review number: o 1 (first) 02 (second) .3 (third) o Other (specify)

Triggering action: D Actual RA Onsite Construction arOU # o Actual RA Start at OU# o Construction Completion • Previous Five-Year Review Report 09/27/20 II o Other (specify) Preliminary Close Out Report

Triggering action date (from CERCLlS): 09/27/2006 "

Does the report include recommendation(s) and follow-up action(s)? Dyes • no

Is the remedy protective of the environment? • yes Ono

* ["OU" refers to operable untt.] ** [Reviewperiod .should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]

3

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.

Remedy Assessment Summary

According to the data collected and reviewed and the site inspection, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. There are no drinking water wells within the C¥ea of site groundwater contamination. There have been no changes in the physical condition of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. .

Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

There are no sig'nificant issues, recommendations and follow-up actions at this time, based on the results of this Five-Year Review.

Protectiveness Statement(s):

The remedy at the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Site is expected to be protective upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being- controlled.

In addition, the State has established a Classification Exception Area to prevent exposure to contaminants· until groundwater cleanup standards are achieved. .

~(., ' ~,.:" ..

4

/ Five-Year Review Report

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................... ~ ..........................................................•...................... 7

II. Site Chronology .................................................................. : ............................................. 8

"111.' Background .................................................. : ................................................................... 9 Site Location .................... : ............................................................................................. 9 Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................. 11 Site Geology and Hydrology................................ · ............. ..........................•............. " .. 11 Land and Resource Use .................................... ; .......................................................... 11 History o/Contamination ........ ; ................................................................................... 12 Initial Response ......................•.................................. ; ................................................. 13 Basis/or'Taking Action ............................................................................ ; ................... 13 Enforcement Activities ... ................... : ................. , .............................................. 15

IV. Remedial Action ............................................................................................................. 16

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................ : .......................... : .......... 17

VI. Five-Year Review Process ....... : ..................................................................... · ................ 17 Administrative Components ....................................... .................................................. 17 Community Notification and Involvement ............................ : ...................................... 17 Document Review .. ....................................................................................................... 17 Data Review .................................................................................................................. 17 Site Inspection .................... ·! ............................ .............................................................. 18 Interviews ................................................ ..................................................................... 18

VII. Technical Assessment .................................. : ....... ; ...................................................... 18 Question A ........................ : ................................. '. ........................................................ 19 Question B ................................................. ~ ................................................................. 19 Question C ........................................................ : ........................................... ~ ............... 20

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow Up Actions ....................................... : ............ 20

IX. Protectiveness Statement(s) ........................................................... ~............................. 20 X Next Five-Year Review ... : .............................................................................................. 21

5

Attachments:

Site Map - Figure 1

Tables:

Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events Table 2 - List of Documents Reviewed Table 3 - Standards, Goals, and Other Criteria - Soil Table 4 - Standards Goal, and Other Criteria - Water Table 5 - Groundwater Sampling Results - Lead (Pb)

'.". .~,

6

I. Introduction

This third five-year review for the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site (Site) located in Berkeley Township, New Jersey was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Matthew Westgate in accordance, with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directives 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of a five-year review is to assure that implemented remedies protect public health and the environment and that they function as intended by the decision documents. This report will become part of the Administrative Record file for the Site.

Site soils mee"t standards that allow for unlimited use without restriction. Upon completion of remedial activities, groundwater should meet standards that allow for unlimited use without restriction. It is the policy of EPA to conduct five-y~ar reviews when remedial activities, including monitoring, continue for more than five years. The first five-year review for the Site was completed on September 27,2001. A subsequent five-year review was issued in September 2006, and anAddenduin was completed in June 2007. This is the third five-year review.

7

II. Site Chronology -Table 1 summarizes the Site-related events from the discovery to the present.

T hi e 1 S't I rono ogy a e Ch

ACTION DATE

Denzer & Schafer X-Ray reclamation business started 19607

Micro Industries Inc. (micro-filming company) started 1970

D&S switches from incineration to caustic soda silver salt reclamation process 1974

NJDEP issues Admin. Order to stop dis.charge wastewater to septic system Jan 1977

NJDEP issues second Admin. Order to stop discharge to septic system May 1981

Micro Industries Inc. stopped discharging process waste to septic system 1981

Mr. Schafer conducts groundwater investigation , 1981-1984

Site proposed for National Priorities List (NPL) , Dec 1982

Site listed on NPL Sept 1983

NJDEP conducts Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 1986-1991

Micro Industries and D&S combined process waste w~ter off-site disposal ends 1990

NJDEP conducts additional groundwater sampling 1992-1995

Record ofDecision - No Action with Monitoring Sept 1995

EPA Removal Assessment and Removal Action Apr 1996

NJDEP issues Classification Exception Area-Well Restriction Area Jan 1998

Notice of Intent to Delete from NPL Aug 1998

Final Deletion from NPL . Dec 1998

First Five-Year Review Sept 2001

Second Five-Year Review Sept 2006

Five-Year Review Addendum June 2007·

Third Five-Year Review June 2011

8

III. Background

Site Location

The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company is located on Block 858, Lot 46A on the north side ofHi~kory Lane (number 186) approximately 4,700 feet west of Route 9 in the Bayville area of Berkeley Township. The size of the property is approximately 10 acres. Barnegat Bay is approximately two miles to the east of the ,Site and Toms River is two miles to the north.

The Site is situated between two drainage systems. Potter Creek, which flows east to Barnegat Bay, is approximately 2,000 feet to the south. Wetlands associated with the headwaters of Mill Creek are 2,000 feet to the west' and north. Mill Creek is a northeast flowing tributary of Toms River.

An unpaved aC,cess road runs across the north end of the Denzer & Schafer property roughly parallel to Hickory Lane. Single family residential neighborhoods are locat~d to the north, northeast and east of the Site. Six commercial buildings and one residence are located to the west along Hickory Lane. Approximately 2,000 feet to the west are the Central Railroad of New Jersey tracks. A quarry and the Berkeley Township sewage treatment plant are immediately west of the tracks. A new residentiai development exists to the south across Hickory Lane. (See Figure 1)

9

__ o ).Figure 1 ,.

2~<

On-Site Soil ~nd Ground . ... Water Sampling Locations I I -((

~ ~ ~ I .MW17"... - ...

MW88· '* '.

w z·

~~ ~ 0

SCHAFER 1;( PROCESS .MW1* >­cr .. BUILDING MW11 0

~ U :r:0

EXISTING PONDED SEPTIC WATER SYSTEM AREA

o.

_ 0 Soil Sample

o MW14·

*

DENZER &

:­

* Monitoring VYaIl

STRIPPED FILM STOCKPILING AREA.

*MW12 0

Physical Characteristics

The Denzer & Schafer facility is located on a local topographic high about 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The immediate surrounding area is gently sloping, undeveloped and covered with pine trees. The wetlands associated with Potter and Mill Creeks are at an elevation of 30 feet above MSL: The surficial soil is classified as the Downer Loamy Sand. Typically, the soil is well-drained grayish brown, loamy sand.

Based on a review of flood insurance maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Site does not lie within the 100 or 500-year floodplain for either Mill or Potter Creeks.

Site Geology and Hydrology

The Site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The coastal plain is a wedge-shaped series of unconsolidated sediments composed of clay, silt, sand and gravel of Tertiary and Cretaceous Age. In some areas near the coast, Quaternary and Recent aged deposits overlay the deposits. The Tertiary and Cretaceous deposits begin as a featheredge near the Delaware river to the west, and dip gently southeastward in a thickening wedge that rests directly on the underlying crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks that make up the

. basement complex. Thickness ranges from 0 feet near the fall line (Delaware River area} to 6,500 feet near Cape May County. In Berkeley Township, the Tertiary and Cretaceous age deposits are approximately 200 feet thick and are overlain by about 50 feet of flat lying Quaternary age deposits (Cape May Formation). .

The main lithologic unit in the Site area is the Miocene age CohanseySand Formation, which is composed of yellowish-brown fine to coarse grained quartz sand interbedded with lenses of gravels, silts and clay. In Berkeley Township, it is thought to be about 250 feet thick and· underlain by the Kirkwood Formation. The overlying Cape May Formation is fine to coarse

. quartz sand with interbedded clay and silt. The Cohansey-Kirkwood Aquifer is the major aquifer system ofthe New Jersey Coastal Plain.

Groundwater flow direction in the shallow aquifer is radial, reflecting the topographic high at the Site location. Deeper down, under the Cape May formation, the groundwater flow direction is to the northeast. A significant downward vertical gradient exists beneath the Site. Regional groundwater flow direction in the area is to the east-northeast. Because these two formations are mostly sand, the permeability and hydraulic conductivity are high.

Land Use and Resource Use

The land surrounding the Site is partially undeveloped and forested with sandy soils. The developed land in the area of the Site is currently used for both commercial and residential purposes. During the time that the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray company was operating, the surrounding properties were mainly used for industrial or comme~cial businesses with some residential hous.es to the east along Hickory Lane and a larger residential'development about 500 feet to the north. To the west, there was a lawn and garden service company, some other small businesses, the Ocean County Sewer Authority sewage treatment plant, and a quarry. Dufing the late 1980s to early 1990s, another resid~ntial development consisting of

11

approximately 180 homes was built to the south of the Site across Hickory Lane. Investigators visiting the Site in 2006 were told that a very large residential development was going to be built on the adjacent undeveloped land east of the Site, but as ofJanuary 2011,no new construction has been started. This property is included in the Classificatio,n Exception Area/Well Restrjction Area.

The abandoned Denzer & Schafer X-Ray facility buildings were demolished and shipped off­site for disposal in the mid 1990s by the developer to the south across Hickory Lane who had concerns about selling his homes near a Superfund site. The property was then abandoned and Berkeley Township now uses the Site to store road construction materials.

History ofContamination

The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company was engaged in the reclamation ofsilver from microfilm andX-rays. Past activities at the facility have included the reclamation of silver by chemical stripping or incineration of used film. The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company was not regulated under the Resource Conservation·and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1974, the company switched from incineration to a caustic soda and salt silver reclamation process. Between 1974 and 1981, the facility disposed of its stripping solution by discharging it to the

~ plant's subsurface sanitary septic system .

. Additionally, shredded and stripped film generated during the same time period (1974 to . 1981) was stockpiled in an area just north of the process building. The stockpile of film

waste was subsequently transferred to an off-site landfill. However, toward the latter years :,'>r. of operation, the stripped film waste began to be stored around the Site in cardboard

'·t·:"·

The old sanitary septic system, which received the process wastewater, has since been abandoned and filled with sand. Until 1990, process wastewater was transferred to an on-site process wastewater storage tank for periodic off-site disposal. Two septic systems used to serve the Site and were reportedly used for the disposal of sanitary waste only.

In addition.to the silver recovery business, Microindustries, Inc., a microfilming service company, was located at the Site. Microindustries, Inc. was in operation from about 1970 to 1991 and has operated exclusively as a microfilming service company. Microfilm processing waste, such as photographic developers and fixers, were generated as part of the company's operations. These wastes were discharged to the plant's sanitary septic system prior to 1981. From 1981 to 1990, the microfilming process waste, reportedly about 25 gallons every six weeks, was transferred to the same on-site process wastewater storage tank used for storing the silver recovery process waste.

12

Initial Response

Two Administrative Orders (one in January 1977 and the other in May 1981) were issued to the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company by the NJDEP. NJDEP required Denzer & Schafer to i~mediately cease the discharge of wastewater to its septic system, to submit a proposal to NJDEP for permanent treatment and off-site disposal of its wastewater, and to install a groundwater monitoring system. In late 1981, as a result of these requirements, Mr. John Schafer, the owner of the facility, funded a groundwater study that included the installation

, of nine shallow monitoring wells and two deep wells. One additional shallow well and three piezometerswer,e installed in mid-1984. Sampling of these wells and analysis of soil samples collected at the Site indicated that waste from past operations had contaminated groundwater at the Site.

The Site was proposed for inclusion on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites on December 30, 1982, and subsequently added to the NPL on September 8, 1983.

Basis for Taking Action'

A Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) were undertaken by NJDEP under a cooperative agreement with EPA in 1986. A two-phased RI conducted by the state's contractor, SMC Environmental Services Group, was completed in April 1991. NJDEP conducted additional groundwater sampling from 1992 to 1995.

The RI was designeq to characterize the physical conditions of the area, delineate the nature and extent of contamination, identify contaminant migration pathways, and characterize any

. potential environmental impacts and human health risk resulting from Site contamination. ,

The scope of the RI included the collection and analysis of soil, groundwater and air samples, an aquifer testing program which included a pump test and borehole Gamma Ray logging, a surface Electromagnetic Conductivity survey, tank testing, test pit excavation and sampling, and process' wastewater sampling. '

The groundwater investigation was conducted in a phased approach. The earliest round of groundwater sampling (1987) showed levels of volatile organics exceeding primary Federal and State Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). While elevated levels of several semi-volatile organics were also found, no MCLs were exceeded. However, several heavy metals were found at levels exceeding MCLs. ,

A second groundwater sampling round, which included newly-installed monitoring wells, . was conducted in 1989. The volatile and semi-volatile results were, in general, similar to data collected in 1987. While more compounds were detected in the 1989 samples, the levels of some contaminants, particularly toluene and benzoic acid, were significantly reduced. The levels of several metals continued to be elevated. While no single well-defined groundwater plume was identified, a number of wells contained contaminants that were identified in Denzer & Schafer process wastewater samples.

13

Subsequent to issuance of the RI report, the NJDEP along with EPA decided that additional off-site wells and groundwater sampling were needed to determine whether any potential threat existed to off-site potable well users. This additional work was carried out from 1992 to 1995 and is.detailed in a Supplemental RI Report. The results of these studies are briefly summarized below.

In 1992, the NJDEP installed off-site monitoring wells at nine locations. These wells and all of the previously-installed wells were sampled for volatile and semi-volatile organics and metals. Both,the number and concentrations of all of the volatile and semi-volatile contaminants, which were detected during the original investigation, were significantly reduced. With respect to organic contaminants, no MCLs were exceeded in any of the wells. Chloroform levels in several wells did, however, slightly exceed the New Jersey· ' Groundwater Quality Standards .. Metal levels, particularly chromium and lead; exceeded MCLs even at the most downgradient locations. Based on this data, it was concluded that the organic contamination related to the Denzer & Schafer Site has degraded and/or dissipated to levels that no longer pose a significant threat.

The NJDEP conducted a series of focused investigations in late 1994 and early 19'95. The investigations were designed to evaluate the effect of different sampling techniques on metal contaminant levels in the shallow aquifer. It was suspected that the high levels of chromium and lead in the groundwater might be due to the high pump rate and the unfiltered sampling technique that can mobilize small particles which contain these metals. A low-flow micropurge sampling method including filtration was utilized during these investigations. This low-flow method, when'performed properly, is believed to more accurately reflect

'l:~' groundwater use patterns and produce analytical results which are more representative of mobile species in groundwater under natural gradients.

All wells which had previously shown metal concentrations exceeding MCLs were then resampled using the low-flow method. Samples were filtered before analysis. The data showed that MCLs for all metals with the exception of lead were not exceeded in any monitoring well. The drinking water level for lead was slightly elevated in three moriitoring wells, two of which were located in the former leach field of the Denzer & Schafer facility. ' The data further indicated that the lead present in these wells is not very mobile and, consequently, does not appear to pose a threat to downgradient groundwater users.

Air samples collected during both phases of the RI showed levels of contamination similar to normal background levels.

Surface water samples were collected from the standing water pool west of the Denz~r & Schafer facility. The samples were generally free of priority pollutant compounds. However, coliform bacteria, evidence of a sanitary wastewater discharge, were present in the surface water downgradient from the sanitary wastewater system.

Surface soil samples were collected from the area where film waste was stockpiled. The resultant analytical data indicated that the contaminant levels did not exceed levels of concern.

14

r

Subsurface soil samples were collected from the area of the old septic tanks. There were three six-foot high concrete tanks buried two to three feet below the surface. No volatiles, base neutral/acid extractables (BNAs) or pesticides were found above levels that might indicate a health risk. A number of metals were detected in the four samples; however, the concentrations were below levels of concern.

Subsurface soil samples were also collected from two test'pits within a magnetic anomaly northeast 'of the process building. No volatiles, BNAs or pesticides were found at levels that might indicate a human health risk. Silver was detected in the samples, but again below levels of concern. .

Thirty-nine subsurface soil samples were collected from borings during the installation of the monitoring wells; Based on the resultant analytical data, to a depth of about twenty feet below the ground surface, samples did not show contamination above levels of concern.

The Human Health Risk Assessment completed for the RI indicated that the chemicals of concern present at the Site do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health. Site soils meet standards that allow for unlimited use without restriction. Upon completion of remedial activities, groundwater should meet standards that allow for unlimited use without restriction.

On September 28, 1995,EPAissued a "No Action" Record of Decision (ROD) for the Denzer & Schafer Site that included a monitoring program of ground and surface waters because of the contamination remaining on-site.

Between 1994 and 2000, NJDEP conducted four sampling events on the five shallow monitoring wells in and around the Site to evaluate the concentration of lead in the upper aquifer. The sampling results over this time period generally indicated a downward trend in the lead concentrations in all but one well (See results' in Table 5). Due to this declining trend, NJDEP reduced the frequency of the sampling from approximately annually to every

, five years. .

In January 1998, the NJDEP established a Classification Exception Area (CEA)/ Well· Restriction Area (WRA) for the Cape May - Cohansey Aquifer beneath the Denzer & Schafer property and the adjacent 26-acre property to the east. In establishing a CEA for the impacted area, the NJDEP suspended the designated uses of the shallow aquifer until natural attenuation has restored the groundwater quality to Class IIA drinking water standards. A notice was attached to the deeds for the properties explaining that lead was present in the . subsurface groundwater above health-based levels. Any potential purchasers of the property would be informed so they would not install potable wells in the upper 90 feet of the aquifer.

Enforcement Activities

Two Administrative Orders (January 1977 and May 1981) were issued to the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company by NJDEP. NJDEP required Denzer & Schafer to cease discharging process waste into its septic system and to submit a proposal for permanent treatment and off-site disposal of its wastewater. From 1981 to 1991, process waste was transferred to on-site tanks for disposal off-site. Mr. Schafer conducted a groundwater investigation through mid 1984 which concluded that waste from past operations had

15

,~ " " ' "

contaminated groundwater at the Site. In 1984, the Site was added to the National Priorities List. In 1987, the NJDEP initiated a Remedial Investigation which was followed by supplementary investigations .from 1992 through 1995. . .

After the Record of Decision was issued in 1995, the facility was abandoned by its owner, John Schafer. In April 1996, EPA conducted a Removal Action prompted by public complaints that hazardous materials were abandoned on the Site. Seven 1,000-gallon tanks of caustic liquids, an underground storage tank along with other hazardous substances including 15 gallons of Sodium Thiosulfate, 200 drums and small containers of photographic chemicals, hydrochloric acid, flammable liquids and insecticides were removed.

In 1997; under the authority and supervision ofthe NJDEP, Berkeley Village Development Corp., a housing developer in the area, demolished and disposed of the former facility· building, abandoned and decommissioned the potable well and sanitary septic system and dispoSed ofthe stockpiled plastic and soil. Finally, the Site was landscaped in an effort to improve the aesthetics of this residential area. The ponded surface water bodies were re­graded and no longer exist, therefore, they are no longer available for sampling as specified in the 1995 ROD.

IV. Remedial Action

Following the completion of a RIfFS, a ROD for the Site was issued by EPA on September 28, 1995. The selected remedy was No Action with monitoring of ground and surface waters.

'i:i:...... The Site was abandoned in March 1996. In April 1996, EPA conducted a Removal . .Assessment and Removal Action at the Site prompted by a public complaint of potentially

hazardous materials left on the Site when the property was abandoned in March 1996. As part of this action, the contents of seven 1 ,OOO-gallon tanks of caustic liquids were removed from inside the Site building, an underground storage tank was abandon'ed and removed,and other hazardous substances including 15 gallons of sodium thiosulfate, 200 drums and small containers of photographic chemicals, hydrochloric acid, flammable liquids and insecticides were removed from the Site. The ground surface was re-graded in the vicinity of the ' underground tank to eliminate the surface water pond which was found to contain coliform bacteria, evidence of a sanitary wastewater discharge. This eliminated the need to monitor· the water quality of the surf~ce water pond.

Groundwater sampling, oyer time, does not show significant increases in the lead levels in the upper aquifer around the Site; however, lead levels remain above drinking water quality standards.

As all planned remedial actions are completed and groundwater monitoring is ongoing, EPA· published a Notice ofIntent to Delete the Site from the National Priorities List in the Federal Register on August 18, 1998. The Site was deleted from the NPL on December 29, 1998.

16

V. Progress Since the Last Review

~ince June 2007, an additional round ,of groundwater samples was collected from five monitoring wells on the Site. '

No new housing or wells have been installed in the Well Restriction Area and no one is being exposed to Site groundwater as of January 2011.

The Site is currently being used by the local municipality, Berkeley Township, to store Jersey Barriers and other road materials. Access is controlled by guardrails in front of the property.

VI. . Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The five-year review team consisted of Matthew Westgate (RPM), Grant Anderson (Hydrogeologist) 'Michael Sivak (Human health risk assessor) and Pat Seppi (Public Affairs Specialist). '

Community Notification and Involvement

The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site, Ms. Pat Seppi, published anotice in the Asbury Park Press on February 2, 2011 notifying the community of the initiation of the,Five-Y ear Review Process. The notice indicates that EPA is conducting a five-year review of the Site to ensure that it is protective ofpublic health and the environment and that the implemented components of the remedy are functioning as designed. It was also indicated that once the five-year review is completed, the results will be made available in the local Site repository. In addition, the notice included the RPM's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review

,process or the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site. .

Document Review

The documents, data and information reviewed for this five year review are summarized in Table 2. .

Data Review

Groundwater monitoring data conducted prior to and for the first five-y~ar review (September 27,2001) were evaluated. Samples from wells MW-3S, MW-5S, MW-7S, MW­8S and MW-lOS were collected in 1996, 1997 and 2000. Generally, the lead levels were lower or stayed the same except in well MW-5S which iricreased from 30 ppb to 61 ppb.

As discussed in the 2006/2007 Five-Year Review, lead levels were measured in late'2006. Results indicated that lead had decreased in MW-5S (from 61 to 23 ppb) and increased slightly in MW-3S (from 17 to 18 ppb), MW-8S (from non-detect to 1 ppb), and MW-10S (from 4 to 9 ppb).

17

The January 2011 sampling event included both filtered and non-filtered samples. Previous events only included filtered samples. Results indicate that filtered samples showed a decrease for lead in MW-3S (from I 8 ppb to 14.5 ppb), MW-5S (from 23 ppb to 12 ppb), MW-7S (from 4 ppb in 2000 to 0.7 ppb), and MW-8S (from 1 ppb to 0.2 ppb). However, lead levels increased in MW-I0S (from 9 ppb to 27.9 ppb or'69.5 ppb (duplicate)).

The unfiltered sample results in all five wells contained higher levels of lead compared to the filtered samples. These data are not directly comparable to previous year's data because those were filtered. Four out of five of the filtered lead results from 2011 were below the 15 ppb federal drinking water standard.

Historical analysis of all datacollected does not show significant increases in the lead levels in the upper aquifer around the Site; however, 'sampling results remain above the current drinking water quality standard of 15 ppb for lead. Specifically, the highest recorded results (123 ppb in MW-5S in 1996) during the five-year monitoring program are below pre-ROD monitoring highest result (237 ppb).

Site Inspection

On January 3, 2011,a Site inspection )Vas conducted by the RPM, Matthew Westgate, and the EPA Sampling Team, Christina Leung and Bob Finke. The physical site conditions are the same as they were five years ago in 2006. Site access by vehicles is controlled by guardrails in front of the property. Access is available by foot through the woods. The Site

, has some road construction materials stockpiled such as Jersey Barriers and dirt. There are 1;.; no signs of construction activity to the east, by the township, where a residential housing L' ;"t " development was to be built. The houses to the south across Hickory Lane are the same as in

, ,~. 2006, with no new construction. Most of the Site is rural, wooded and undeveloped. The five monitoring wells are in good shape and were locked. There were no signs of vandalism or trespassing and the vegetation appeared healthy and vigorous.

Interviews

The Berkeley Township Administration was contacted to discuss the Five-Year Review process before the advertisement was published. No specific concerns regarding the Site were relayed. No comments or phone calls from residents or interested parties were received in response to the public notice published on February 2, 2011.

VII. Technical Assessment

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

The 1995 ROD called for no action with monitoring of ground and surface water. The decision was made based in part on the results of the Risk Assessment performed during the Remedial Investigation (RI), which indicated that the chemicals of concern present at Denzer & Schaefer did not pose a significant health risk to human health and the environment. Additionally, residents in the vicinity of the Site are receiving public water; direct exposure to contaminated groundwater through ingestion is hence interrupted. In March 2000, the groundwater sampling frequency was reduced to once per five year period, the number of

18

I

wells to be sampled was reduced to five wells, and the groundwater analytical parameter was limited to lead. This was based on past groundwater results which showed concentrations below the groundwater cleanup standards for all contaminants except lead. To ensure protectiveness, five groundwater monitoring wells continue to be sampled arid analyzed for lead. In January of2011, groundwater was collected from five monitoring wells on the Site; although lead remains above cleanup standards, the overall results indicate t~e remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document.

The Site was deleted from the NPL in December of 1998.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAO) used at the time ofthe remedy selection still valid?

There have been no physical changes to the Site that would adversely affect the protectiveness of the remedy. Land use assumptions, exposure assumptions and pathways, and clean up levels considered in the decision document followed the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund used by the Agency and remain valid. Although specific parameters may have changed since the time the risk assessment was completed, the process that was used remains valid.

As per the last five-year review, a residential home development was planned to be built on the adjacent tindeveloped land to the east of the Site. As of January 2011, no housing development exists in this location. The area remains an undeveloped wooded lot.

No remedial action objectives were identified in the ROD; therefore, they cannot be evaluated in this review. The remediation goals, however, were to prevent any human exposure to contaminated groundwater. There is no human exposure to the contaminated groundwater at the Site and residences in the vicinity have been connected to the public water supply, Currently, the remediation goals are met and remain valid.

Samples collected from five on-site groundwater monitoring wells were analyzed for lead in January 2011. Both filtered and unfiltered samples were collected and analyzed. Unfiltered groundwater sample results indicate lead concentrations remain above both the action level of 15 ppb and the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards (NJGWQS) of 5 ppb in four of the five on-site w~lls. The only location that had filtered sample results above the lead action level of 15 ppb was from Monitoring Well lOS, along with its duplicate. It had lead concentrations of27.9 ppb and 69.5 ppb. As expected, results from unfiltered groundwater samples generally indicated higher lead concentrations as compar~d with the filtered. This can be attributed to sample turbidity. Turbid groundwater samples are comprised of an increased occurrence of soil particles which frequently contain sorbed metals. The sorption ofmetals to soil particles can overestimate dissolved concentrations of metals such as lead, in· groundwater samples. Therefore, the comparison of filtered versus unfiltered groundwater samples is useful when evaluating groundwater conditions. It should be noted that the in~tial unfiltered lead result from Monitoring Well 7S (MW-7S) was three orders of magnitude greater than the filtered sample results (880 ug/L of lead in unfiltered as compared with 0.70 ppb of lead in filtered samples). Subsequent unfiltered re-analyses of groundwater collected from MW -7S resulted in lead concentration of 51 ppb and 48 ppb, which are significantly less than the initial result. The order of magnitude difference between initial sample results

19

)

may be due t6 extreme sample turbidity and possibility indicative of a "slug" of particulate lead entering the measuring instrument at the time of analysis. In both cases, the elevated conce,ntrations of lead were not likely indicative of true groundwater conditions. Continual monitoring of groundwater will ensure the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

The soil vapor intrusion exposure pathway, which is based on the conservative (health protective) assumption that buildings are located above the maximum detected concentrations ofthe contaminants of concern in the groundwater, was not previously evaluated. The health-based screening criteria provided in the OSWER Draft Guidanc~ for Evaluating the Vapor Inirusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater dnd Soils (USEPA, 2002) is used to evaluate this exposure pathway. This guidance provides concentrations of chemicals in groundwater associated with indoor air concentrations at acceptable level of cancer risk (1 x 10 -6) and non-cancer hazard index (1). Groundwater samples collected from on-site monitoring wells in 2011 were not analyzed for volatiles since results from the 2000 sampling event did not indicate any VOC exceedances. To ensure protectiveness, the highest detects ofVOCs from the sampling rounds reported in the RI report were compared with the groundwater values from the above mentioned Vapor Intrusion Guidance; the evaluation indicates that VOC concentrations fall within an acceptable risk range. Furthermore, no buildings exist at the Site and hence vapor intrusion is not of concern.

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

"', <",I'~

During the RI, total chromium was detected in groundwater sampled in the 1987/9, 1992 and 1994/5 sampling rounds; data indicated decreasing trends of total chromium from 397 ppb to 81 ppb during this time period. The Federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total chromium is 100 ppb and the NJGWQS is 70 ppb. Chromium will be analyze~ in samples taken in connection with the next five-year review. This confirmatory sampling will ensure concentrations ofchromium in the groundwater do not pose an unacceptable risk tohuman health and the environment.

VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow Up Actions

There are no significant issues, recommendations and follow up actions as a result of this third Five-Year Review.

IX. Protectiveness Statement

The remedy at the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site is expected to be protective upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. In addition, the State has established a Classification Exception Area to prevent exposure to contaminants until groundwater cleanup standards are achieved.

20

X. Next Five-Year Review

Since lead contamination above the ROD cleanup goals remains in the upper aquifer at the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site, EPA will conduct another five-year

fore May 2016.

#~ /~20I/ Walter E. Mugda ,Director D te . Emergency and Remedial Response Division

) EPA - Region 2

21

(

Table 2. List of Documents reviewed for the Second Five-Year Review

Record of Decision, Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company, Bayville, Ocean County, NJ (9/29/95)

Five-Year Review - Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company, Bayville, Ocean County, NJ (9/27/01)

Five -Year Review - Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company, Bayville, Ocean County, NJ (09/0112006)

Five-Year Review Addendum - Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company, Ocean County, NJ . . (June 1,2007)

22

Table 3 - Comparison of Soil Action Levels identified in the ROD and the current NJ DEP Soil Action Levels and EPA Region 9 Risk-based Screening Criteria for unrestricted (residential) land use.

COPC

NJ DEP Soil Action Level identified in the ROD

(mg/kg)

Current NJ DEP Soil Action Level

(mg/kg)

Region 9 PRG -Residential Land

Use

(mg/kg)

Total Volatile Organics 1 * *

Total Base Neutrals 10 * *

Total Acid Extractable -­

case-by -case * *

Arsenic 20 20 0.39**

Barium 400 700 5,400

Beryllium 1 2 150

Cadmium 3 39 37

Chromium 100 240 210**

Copper 170 600 3,100

Lead 250 400 400

Nickel J 100 250 1,600

Mercury 1 14 23

Selenium 4 63. 390

Silver 5 '110 390

Thallium 5 2 5.2

Vanadium 100 370 78

Zinc 350 1,500 23,000

*Currently, no criteria exist for classes of chemicals; please see response to Question B for additional information. . **The value is devel.oped at the 10-6 cancer risk level. Italicized chemicals indicate those chemicals for which a current ARAR is more stringent than theARAR identified in the ROD.

\

23

Table 4 - Comparison of Groundwater ARARs identified in the ROD and the current NJ NJDEP MCLs, Federal MCLS, and NJ DEP Groundwater Standards.

COPC

Groundwater ARAR

identified in the ROD

(ug/l)

NJDEP Primary

Drinking Water Standard - MCL

(ug/l)

Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard - MCL

(ug/l)

NJDEP Groundwater

Standard

(ug/l)

Toluene 50.* 1,0.0.0. 1,0.0.0. 1,0.0.0.

Benzoic Acid 50* NA NA 30.,0.0.0.

Chloroform 5 NA I

NA 70.

Xylene 44 1,0.0.0. 10.,0.0.0. 1,0.0.0.

Phenol 50.* NA NA 2,0.0.0. .

1,1-Dichloroethane 50.* 50. NA 50.

1,2-Dichloropropane . 5' 5 5 1

4-Methylphenol 50.* , ,

NA NA 10.0.

Cyanide 200 200 200 100

Trichloroethene 1 1 5 1

Benzene 1 1 5 1

Vinyl Chloride 2 2 2 1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 26 30. 20.0. 30.

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 50.* NA NA 10.0.

2-Nitrophenol 50.* NA NA 10.0.

Arsenic 50 50 10 3

Barium 1,0.0.0. 2,0.0.0. 2,0.0.0. 2,0.0.0.

Cadmium 10 5 5 4

Chromium 50. 10.0. 10.0. 70.

Copper 1,0.0.0. 1,30.0. 1,30.0. 1,30.0.

Iron 30.0. 30.0. 30.0. 30.0.

Lead 50 15 15 5

Mercury 2 2 2 2

Selenium 10. 50. 50. 40.

24

.Silver 50 100 100 40

Zinc 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,000

Ammonia 500 200 NA 3,000

Chloride 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

Nitrate 10,000 10,000 '. 10,000 10,000

Sulfate 250,000 250,000 NA 250,000

Sodium 9,180,000 50,000 NA 50,000

Total Coliform 1,000 NA NA NA·

Total Dissolved Solids 500,000 . 500,000 500,000 500,000

NA: No standard is currently available. *: The value is a default generic value. Italicized chemicals indicate those chemicals for which a current ARAR is more stringent than the ARAR identified in the ROD.

25

TABLES Groundwater Sampling results,for Lead, all units in parts per million (ppb)

YEAR 1994 1996 1997 2000 2006 2011 2011 filtered filtered filtered filtered filtered unfiltered filtered

MW-3s· 4 19 29 17 18 28.6 14.5 MW-5S 48 123 30 61 23 37.6 12 MW-7S 16 4 2 4 Not

sampled 880 51,48 (du~licates)

0.7

MW-8S ND 3 ND ND 1 3.2 0.2 MW-I0S 23 12 17 4 9 48.1

42 (duplicate)

69.5 27.9 (duplicate)

• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead is 15 parts per billion (Ppb). Note: 90% of tap samples must meet the following "no-action" levels: Lead 0.015 mg/L (ppm) at tap; 0.005 mg/L (ppm) in system.

26 ,