Second Five-Year Review Report

For

Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site

Berkeley Township, Bayville,

Ocean County, New Jersey

September 2006

Prepared by:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2

New York, N.Y.

2

Executive Summary

This is the second Five-Year Review for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Superfund Site (Site). The first Five Year Review was signed on September 27, 2001 and concluded that remedial actions remain protective of public health and the environment and are functioning as designed. Sampling conducted for the first Five Year Review indicated that low levels of lead still remain in the shallow aquifer near the source area but it is not mobile. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) established a Classification Exception Area (CEA) and Well Restriction Area (WRA) on January 29, 1998 to suspend designated uses in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the source area and including the 26 acre property to the east of the Site, down to a depth of 40 feet beneath the surface where the contamination is contained. Any well installed in the CEA must be below 90 feet of the ground surface. Since lead does not biodegrade, the projected term of the CEA is indeterminate. Since the conduct of the first five year review at the Site there has been no additional groundwater sampling conducted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Therefore, there has been inadequate monitoring to verify that the plume is not migrating. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be verified by obtaining additional groundwater samples to fully evaluate potential migration of the contaminant plume downgradient from the source area.

3

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

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

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NJD046644407

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

SITE STATUS

NPL status: Final X Deleted Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction Operating X Complete

Multiple OUs?* YES X NO Construction completion date: 9 / 28 / 1995 (ROD)

Has site been put into reuse? X YES NO

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency:__ EPA X State__Tribe__ Other Federal Agency

Author name: Matthew Westgate

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

Review period:** 3 / 1 / 2006 to 8 / 31 / 2006

Date(s) of site inspection: 9 / 11 / 2001 & 5 / 11 / 2006 Type of review: ___Post-SARA___ Pre-SARA___ NPL-Removal only___ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site X NPL State/Tribe -lead ____ Regional Discretion

Review number:___ 1 (first) X2 (second) ___3 (third)___ Other (specify)

Triggering action: Actual RA On-site Construction at OU # Actual RA Start at OU# NA Construction Completion X Previous Five-Year Review Report Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 9 / 27 / 2001

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9 / 27 / 2006

Does the report include recommendation(s) and follow-up actions? - X YES Is the remedy protective of the Environment? X YES * [“OU” refers to operable unit.] ** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]

4

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont’d. Issues: No groundwater sampling was completed by the NJDEP in time for completion of

the second five-year review for the Site. ___________________________________________________________ Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: It is recommended that sampling be performed in advance of EPA’s 5 year review cycle. ___________________________________________________________ Protectiveness Statement(s): A protectiveness determination of the remedy cannot be made at this time until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions. Five on-site wells (MW-5S, MW-3S, MW-8S, MW-10S, and EMW-7S) were sampled in 1996, 1997 and 2000. These wells show persistent lead contamination in the shallow aquifer. EPA notified the State of New Jersey that the groundwater monitoring well sampling will need to be performed to determine if lead contamination persists in the aquifer. It is expected that these actions will take approximately six-months to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made. ___________________________________________________________ Long-term Protectiveness: All immediate threats at the Site have been addressed, and the remedy is expected to be protective of human health and the environment after the groundwater cleanup goals are achieved through MNA in an estimated 30 years. However it should be noted that because of the Classification Exception Area/Well Restriction area established by NJDEP in 1998, no exposure pathways are known to exist at this time. ___________________________________________________________ Other Comments:

5

Five-Year Review Report

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7 II. Site Chronology .........................................................................................................................7 III. Background ...............................................................................................................................7

Site Location ...........................................................................................................................7 Physical Characteristics .........................................................................................................8 Site Geology and Hydrology ...................................................................................................8 Land and Resource Use ..........................................................................................................8 History of Contamination .......................................................................................................9 Initial Response.....................................................................................................................10 Basis for Taking Action.........................................................................................................10

IV. Remedial Action......................................................................................................................13 V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review...........................................................................13 VI. Five-Year Review Process......................................................................................................14 Administrative Components.................................................................................................14

Community Notification and Involvement ............................................................................14 Document Review..................................................................................................................14 Data Review ..........................................................................................................................14 Site Inspection .......................................................................................................................14 Interviews..............................................................................................................................14 Institutional Controls Verification ........................................................................................15

VII. Technical Assessment ...........................................................................................................15 Question A.............................................................................................................................15 Question B.............................................................................................................................15 Question C.............................................................................................................................16

VIII. Issues .......................................................................................................................................17 IX. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................17 X. Protectiveness Statement(s)...................................................................................................17 XI Next Five-Year Review..........................................................................................................17

6

Attachme nts : Site Map 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)

7

I. Introduction This second 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 Site’s Administrative Record file. 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. It is the policy of EPA to conduct five-year reviews when remedial activities, including monitoring, continue for more than five years. The first five-year review of the Site was signed on September 27, 2001. Subsequent five-year reviews are due within five-years of the signature date of the last review. Consequently, this review is due prior to September 27, 2006. II. Site Chronology –Table 1 (attached) summarizes the Site-related events from the

discovery to the present. III Background Site Location The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company is located on Block 858, Lot 46A on the north side of Hickory Lane 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 the 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 access road runs across the north end of the Denzer & Schafer property roughly parallel to Hickory Lane. Single family residential neighborhoods are located 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 residential development is proposed to the south across Hickory Lane.

8

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/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 Cohansey Sand 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 of the 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 the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray company was operating, the surrounding properties were mainly used for industrial or commercial

9

businesses with some residential houses 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. During the late 1980s to early 1990s another residential development consisting of 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 to the east of the Site. This property is included in the Classification Area/Well Restriction area. The abandoned Denzer & Schafer X-Ray facility buildings were demolished and shipped off-site 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 of Contamination The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company was engaged in the reclamation of silver from microfilm and X-rays. Past activities at the facility have included the reclamation of silver by chemical stripping or incineration of spent 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 stock piled 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 of operation, the stripped film waste began to be stored around the Site in cardboard containers. 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 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.

10

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 immediately 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 piezometers were installed in mid-1984. Sampling of these wells and analysis of soil samples collected at the Site indicate that waste from past operations contaminated groundwater at the Site. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the 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 designed 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-

11

defined groundwater plume was identified, a number of wells contained contaminants that were identified in Denzer & Schafer process wastewater samples. 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 1995. 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, unfiltered sampling technique that mobilizes small particles which contain these metals. A low-flow micropurge sampling method was utilized during these most recent investigations. This low-flow method, when performed properly, is believed to more accurately reflect 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 new method. 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 monitoring 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 Denzer & 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.

12

Surface soil samples were collected from the area where film waste was stock piled. The resultant analytical data indicate that the contaminant levels did not exceed levels of concern. 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 do 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, EPA issued a “No Action” Record of Decision (ROD) for the Denzer & Schafer Site. As part of the remedy, groundwater monitoring would continue to be performed at the Site. 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 Site. As part of this action, the contents of seven, 1000 gallon tanks of caustic liquids were removed from inside the Site building, an underground storage tank was 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. Between 1994 and 2000, NJDEP conducted 4 sampling events on the five shallow monitoring wells in and around the Site for the concentration of lead in the upper aquifer. The sampling results over this time period generally indicate a downward trend in the lead concentration in all but one well (See results in Table 5). Due to this declining trend, NJDEP has reduced the frequency of the sampling from approximately annually to every five years although no sampling was conducted in time for this five-year review. In January 1998, the NJDEP established a Classification Exception Area (CEA)/ Well Restriction Area (WRA) for Cape May- Cohansey Aquifer beneath the Denzer & Schafer property and the adjacent 26-acre property to the east. The CEA represents an area where

13

a groundwater standard does not apply during the term of the chosen remediation. In establishing a CEA for the impacted area, the NJDEP is suspending the designated uses of the shallow aquifer until natural attenuation has restored the groundwater quality to Class IIA standards. A notice was attached to the deeds for the properties explaining that lead was present in the subsurface 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. A housing developer in the area demolished and disposed of the former facility and landscaped the area in effort to improve the aesthetics of this residential area. IV Remedial Action Following the completion of a RI/FS, a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site was signed on September 28, 1995. The selected remedy for the Site was to take No Action with monitoring of ground and surface waters. The following response activities were completed before the first Five-Year Review: a) Stockpiled soils, x-ray film piles and building materials were classified as ID-27, manifested and landfilled properly off-site; two potable wells which serviced the facility were closed and abandoned by a licensed NJ well driller; and, two sanitary septic systems, which served the facility, were abandoned in accordance with local ordinances. b) Annual lead sampling did not show significant increases in the lead levels in the upper aquifer around the Site; however, sampling results remained above drinking water quality standards. Specifically, the highest recorded results (123 ppm) during the five-year monitoring program are below pre-ROD monitoring highest result (237 ppm). c) The Notice of Intent to Delete from the National Priorities List (NPL) was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 1998 and the Site was deleted from the NPL on December 29, 1998. V Progress Since Last Review Protectiveness Statement from the last Five Year Review Based upon groundwater sample data and a Site inspection by EPA in September 2001, it has been determined that the remedy selected at the Denzer and Scha fer X-Ray Superfund Site continues to be protective of human health and the environment.

14

VI Five Year Review Process Administrative Components The five year review team consisted of Matthew Westgate (RPM), Grant Anderson (Hydrogeologist) and Michael Sivak (Human health risk assessor). Community Notification and Involvement The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site, Ms. Pat Seppi, published a notice in the Asbury Park Press on July 30, 2006 notifying the community of the initiation of the Five Year Review Process. The notice indicates that EPA is conducting a five-year review of the Site to ensure that the Site is protective of public 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 was not collected during this five year review period. Groundwater monitoring data conducted prior to and for the first five year review was evaluated. Site Inspection On May 11, 2006, a Site inspection was conducted by the RPM Matthew Westgate, the Hydro-Geologist, Grant Anderson and the Risk Assessor, Michael Sivak. Interviews During the Site visit EPA met with Donald Van Sant, the owner of Van Sant Porta Potties at 204 Hickory Lane. His business is adjacent and to the west of the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site. He indicated that since the Site was abandoned, except for the stored road construction materials, there was no activity. He also said that the property adjacent to the Site on the east side was going to be developed with residential houses.

15

Institutional Controls Verification In January 1998, the NJDEP established a Classification Exception Area (CEA)/ Well Restriction Area (WRA) for 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 is suspending the designated uses of the shallow aquifer until natural attenuation has restored the groundwater quality to Class IIA standards. A notice was attached to the deeds for the properties explaining that lead was present in the subsurface 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. NJDEP deed notices require periodic verification by the property owner. VII Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? The ROD called for No Action with groundwater monitoring because lead contamination remained in the groundwater in the vicinity of the source area. In addition, NJDEP established a CEA/WRA on the Denzer & Schafer property and the adjacent property to the east. The lead contamination is not mobile and remains near the source area. The remedy was selected based in part on results of the public health evaluation (PHE), which is the risk assessment that was developed as part of the RI, that concluded that no unacceptable risks were estimated based on a future use of groundwater as a residential potable water supply and future residential land use. In March 2000, the sampling frequency was reduced to once per five year period, the network of wells to be sampled was reduced, and the number of contaminants was limited to lead, based on past groundwater results which showed concentrations below the groundwater applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) identified in the ROD. Groundwater samples were not collected in 2005, the scheduled year of sampling. Therefore, current data are not available to determine the effectiveness of the remedy. While it appears that the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents, the remedy has not resulted in restoration of groundwater. Groundwater ARARs will be met when the concentration of contaminants in the shallow aquifer drop below the federal /state drinking water standard. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? There are no changes in the physical conditions of the Site or Site usage that would affect the protectiveness of the selected remedy, and it is not known if there are significant changes in Site use expected over the next five years. A “guard-rail” type fence is in place at the front of the property to prevent vehicle access and potential exposures to trespassers, although it is suspected there may be hunters or other trespassers on foot. Potential exposure to contaminated groundwater has also been eliminated.

16

The PHE considered future residential land use; therefore, even if residential exposures were to occur at the Site, no unacceptable adverse health effects were expected in the PHE. Table 3 (attached) presents the soil action levels identified in the ROD, along with current State and federal soil criteria. Of the inorganic chemicals presented in the ROD for which chemical specific numeric criteria are available, only arsenic, thallium, and vanadium have soil action levels that are slightly above current soil criteria. For thallium and vanadium, the soil action levels only slightly exceed the current criteria; therefore, exposure to either contaminant at these concentrations is not likely to be of concern. The soil action level for arsenic is consistent with the current background level used by the State, and this value is within EPA’s acceptable risk range. Therefore, it is unlikely that exposure to arsenic at these concentrations would present unacceptable risks. Since the ROD was signed, EPA has developed many toxicity values that allow for the derivation of chemical specific remediation goals, including classes of contaminants such as VOCs and BNAs. Therefore, the cleanup goals for soils of 1 part per million (ppm) for total VOCs and 10 ppm for total BNAs should be reevaluated to determine if chemical specific remediation goals can be derived for the specific contaminants of concern. It should be noted that since the NJDEP soil cleanup criteria developed for the protection of groundwater are set at 1 ppm and higher for most VOCs, the soil cleanup goal of 1 ppm for total VOCs is likely to be protective. For this 5 year review, the evaluation of groundwater focused on two primary exposure pathways, direction ingestion (as a potable water source) and the possibility of vapor intrusion. The evaluation of the direct contact pathway showed that all nearby residents are receiving public water, and since there are no residential or public supply wells in the contaminated area in either the shallow or the deep aquifer, there is no exposure. Therefore, the remedy is protective for this exposure pathway. Soil vapor intrusion was not evaluated in the original risk assessment. VOCs are not currently being analyzed as part of the groundwater sampling, due to the fact that dur ing the sampling event in 2000, all VOCs were detected at concentrations below the ARARs identified in the ROD. However, since a few of these ARARs have been lowered since that time (see Table 4 attached), it may be possible that VOCs may be present at concentrations which exceed current ARARs. However, due to the fact that no buildings exist at the Site, vapor intrusion is not a concern. If buildings were to be built and occupied, this potential exposure pathway would need to be revisited. Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? As discussed in Question B, the potential for vapor intrusion may exist if VOCs are present at concentrations above current groundwater ARARs. However, due to the fact that no buildings exist at the Site, vapor intrusion is not a concern. If buildings were to be built and occupied, this potential exposure pathway would need to be revisited.

17

An exposure pathway that was not considered in the original assessment is the potential for exposure to the new residential development on the property to the east which is included in the classification exception area. VIII Issues

1. No groundwater sampling was completed by the NJDEP in time for completion of the second five-year review for the Site.

IX Recommendations 1. It is recommended that sampling be performed in advance of EPA’s 5 year

review cycle. X Protectiveness Statement A protectiveness determination of the remedy cannot be made at this time until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions. Five on-site wells (MW-5S, MW-3S, MW-8S, MW-10S, and EMW-7S) were sampled in 1996, 1997 and 2000. These wells show persistent lead contamination in the shallow aquifer. EPA notified the State of New Jersey that the groundwater monitoring well sampling will need to be performed to determine if lead contamination persists in the aquifer. It is expected that these actions will take approximately six-months to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made. XI Next Five Year Review Since lead contamination above the ROD cleanup goals remain in the upper aquifer at the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site, EPA will conduct another five-year review before September 2011. When additional sampling is conducted a protectiveness determination can be made in the form of a five year review addendum. If this addendum is completed, the next five year review will be due five years from the date this report is signed, not when the addendum is signed. Based upon the sampling data and the results of the protectiveness determination, EPA may decide that no additional five-year reviews are required at the Site. < SIGNED BY GEORGES PAVLOU > < 9-12-2006 >__ George Pavlou, Director Date Emergency and Remedial Response Division

18

Table 1 Site Chronology

ACTION DATE

Denzer & Schafer X-Ray reclamation business started 1960?

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

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

NJDEP issues Admin Order to stop discharge wastewater to Septic system Jan, 1977

NJDEP issue 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 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 water off-site disposal ends 1990

NJDEP conducts additional groundwater sampling 1992-1995

Record of Decision - 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

19

Table 2. List of Documents reviewed for the Second Five Year Review 1. Record of Decision, Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company, Bayville, Ocean County,

NJ (9/29/95) 2. Five Year Review – Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company, Bayville, Ocean County,

NJ (9/27/01)

20

3. 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 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 developed at the 10-6 cancer risk level. Italicized chemicals indicate those chemicals for which a current ARAR is more stringent than the ARAR identified in the ROD.

21

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)

NJ DEP Primary

Drinking Water Standard - MCL

(ug/l)

Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard - MCL

(ug/l)

NJ DEP Groundwater

Standard (ug/l)

Toluene 50* 1,000 1,000 1,000

Benzoic Acid 50* NA NA 30,000

Chloroform 5 NA NA 70

Xylene 44 1,000 10,000 1,000

Phenol 50* NA NA 2,000

1,1-Dichloroethane 50* 50 NA 50

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 5 5 1

4-Methylphenol 50* NA NA 100

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 30 200 30

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 50* NA NA 100

2-Nitrophenol 50* NA NA 100

Arsenic 50 50 10 3

Barium 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Cadmium 10 5 5 4

Chromium 50 100 100 70

Copper 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300

Iron 300 300 300 300

Lead 50 15 15 5

Mercury 2 2 2 2

Selenium 10 50 50 40

22

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.

23

TABLE 5 Groundwater Sampling Results for LEAD

all values reported in parts per billion Sample Location 1994 Result 1996 Result 1997 Result 2000 Result MW 5S 48 ppb 123 ppb 30 ppb 61 ppb MW 3S 4 ppb 19 ppb 29 ppb 17 ppb MW 8S ND 3 ppb ND ND MW 10S 23 ppb 12 ppb 17 ppb 5 ppb EMW 7S 16 ppb 4 ppb 2 ppb 4 ppb

• The 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.

%86 ~d3sn

Five-Year Review Report

Addendum

ct:£t ~0e-te-Nn[

Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site

Berkeley Township, Bayville,

Ocean County, New Jersey

Prepared by:

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 2

New York, New York

June 2007

ZO'd 6cn it9 ZlZ I vdasn 6Z:£1 l.OOZ-lO-Nnr

m'd YJ36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The second five.yeac review for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund site,located on Block 858, Lot 46A on the north side of Hickory Lane approximately 4,700feet west ofRoule 9 in the Bayville area of Berkeley Township was completed in September 2006.

The second five-year review raised a concern regarding what the current concentration of leadremaining in groundwater was since the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP), the lead agency for the site)lad not collected groundwater samplessince 2000. Based upon the collection 9f groundwater samples in 2006. the Recordof Decision (ROD) remedy is expected upon completion to be protective of human healthand the environment, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptablerisks are being controlled.

Vd3sn 6Z:CI ~OOZ-IO-Nnr

I>ll'd %86 tld3S1l

I. Five-Year Review Process

In September 2006, the second five·year review for the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray CompanySuperfund Site (Site) located in Berkeley Township, New Jersey was completed by the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with the Comprehensive Five­rear Review Guidance. OSWER Directives 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). A review of sampleresults from 1994 - 2000 indicated the presence of elevated levels of lead in monitoring wells(Table I). However, there had been no sampling conducted by NJDEP between 2000 and 2006 'adetennine if site conditions had significantly changed. Based upon the lack of data, theprotectiveness detennination was deferred. At the time that the second five-year review wascompleted, EPA estimated it would take approximately six months until the protectivenessdetermination could be made ifNJDEP collected/analyzed groundwater samples and providedthe results to EPA during 2006 or very early 2007. EPA requested the data during 2006 and early2007, and NJDEP provided the data on March 26, 2007. Five on-site wells (MW-SS, MW-JS.MW-8S, MW-IOS, and EMW-7S) were sampled in 1996. 1997 and 2000. Four on-site wellswere sampled in 2006 (MW-SS, MW-3S. MW-8S. and MW-lOS). The 2006 data indicate thatonly monitoring wells MW·5S and MW·3S continue to show lead concentrations that exceed theROD action level.

II. Protectiveness Statement

The ROD remedy (no action with monitoring) is expected upon completion to be protectiveof human health and the environment, and in the interim, exposure pathways that couldresult in unacceptable risks are being controlled. In January 1998, the N1DEP establisheda Classification Exe:eption Area (CEAY Well Restriction Area (WRA) for CapeMay-Cohansey Aquifer beneath the Denzer & Schafer property and the adjacent 26·acre propertyto the east. In establishing a CEA for the impacted area, the NJDEP is suspending thedesignated uses of the shallow aquifer until natural attenuation has restored the groundwaterquality to Class nA standards. Any potential purchasers of the property would be informedso they would not install potable wells in the upper 90 feet of the aquifer.

2

to·d 6Ett l.C9 ZIZ i Vd3sn 6Z:Ei l.OOZ-iO-Nor

III. Next Review

%66 tJd3S11 Zl:[l ~0BZ-le-Nnf

Since lead contamination above the ROD action level remains in the upper aquifer at the Denzer andSchafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site, EPA will conduct another five-year review beforeSeptember 2011.

George Pavlou, DirectorEmergency and RemedialResponse Division

3

good GEtt l.E9 Z H~: 1 Yd3sn

%,,6

Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Groundwater Monitoring Results - Lead (Pb)

Date MWSS MW3S MWSS MW10S MW7S

1994 48 ppb 4 ppb NO 23 ppb 16 ppb1996 123 ppb 19 ppb 3 ppb 12 ppb 4 ppb1997 30 ppb 29 ppb NO 17 ppb 2 ppb2000 61 ppb 17 ppb NO 5 ppb 4 ppb2006 23 ppb 18 ppb 1 ppb 9 ppb NS

NS - not sampledBold =CurrentFYRAddendumdataAction Level 15 ppb

Data provided to EPA by NJDEP.

4

90'd 6cn .l.C9 ZTZ i Yd3Sn 6Z:CT .l.OOZ-iO-Nnr