SDMS Document

Third Five -Year Review Report 11111111111111111111111111111111 ~111l1

109587Williams Property Superfund Site

Middle Township

Cape May County, New Jersey

Prepared by:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

May 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the third five-year review for the Williams Property Superfund Site. The Site is located in Middle Township, Cape May County, New Jersey. Currently, the Site remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents and is protecting human health and the environment.

,­

2

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Five-Year Review Summary Form

Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions

This report did not identify any issue or make any recommendation for the protection of human health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the Site decision documents. There are no recommendations or follow-up actions associated with this review.

Protectiveness Statement

The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the environment because the on­going operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment system is able· to reduce· concentrations of contaminants as well as manage the migration of impacted groundwater. However,· in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, continued extraction, treatment and monitoring of groundwater will be required to restore the aquifer to drinking water standards and ensure long-term protectiveness. In the interim, exposure pathway~ that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

3

Five-Year Review R~port

- Table of Contents . .

I. Introduction ......................................... , ............................................................................... 6

II. Site Chronology ................... ; ................................................................................................ 6 .\

III. Background .............................................. : ............................................................................. 6 Site Location .............................. ; ............... ................................................... ; ............ , ....... 6· Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................... 6 .Geology/Hydrogeology ................................................ .-..................................................... 7 Land and Resource Use ...................... : ............................................................................... 7 History o/Contamination ............................... : ....... ............................................................. 7 Initial Response ............................................................................................ .".................... 7 Basis/or Taking Action· ............................................... ....................................................... 8

IV. Remedial Actions ................................................. : .................................................................. 8

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ................... : .................................................... 10.

VI. Five-Year Review Process ............... ; ........................... : ..................................................... 11 Administrative Components .......... : ................................. ................................................... 11 Community Notification and Involvement ...... ................................................................... 11 Document Review .............................. : ...................................... ~ ...................................... 12 Data Review .................. : ............................. ..................................................................... 12 Site Inspection ........... ;·...................................................................................................... 13 Site InterView .............................................. : ...................................................... : ............. 13

VII. ,Technical Assessment ........................................................................................................ 13 . Question A .......... ; ........................... , ................................. , .............................. : .. ; ............ 13

. Question'B ........................................................................................................ ~ ............... 14 f Question C ..................................................... ............... : .................................................. 15

VIII. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ....................... : ........ : ...................................... 15

IX. Protectiveness Statement ......... : ....... : ................................................................................ .15

X. Next Review .................................................................................................................. : .... 16

4

Attachments:

List of Acronyms

Figures:

Figure 1 - Site Plan

Table 1 -Chronology of Site Events Table 2 - Groundwater Monitoring Data - Targeted Compounds: March 2010

. Table 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Data - SVOC Tentatively Identified Compounds January 1996 - April 2006 .

Table 4 - Groundwater Monitoring Data - SVOC Tentatively Identified Compounds July 2006- March 2010

Table 5 - Groundwater Monitoring Data - 1,4 Dioxane July 2006 - March 2010

5

Williams Property Superfund Site Cape May County, New Jersey Third Five-Year Review Report

I. Introduction '

The third five-year review for the Williams Property Site (Site) was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Ira Perry Katz in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7- ' 03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of a five-year review is, to ensure that a remedial action remains protective of the public health and environment and is functioning as intended by the Site decision documents. This report will become part of the Site file. '

This review includes the five-year periodfrom September 2006, when the second five-year review was completed. The first five-year review ,of the Site was signed on September 27, 2001. The second five-year review of the Site was signed on Sep,tember 27, 2006. , Subsequent five-year reviews are due within'five-years of the signature date of the l~st review. Consequently, this review is due prior to September 27,2011.

This five-year review is conducted as ~ matter of EPA policy because response activities are continuing until cleanup levels allowing unlimited use and unrestricted exposure are achieved. .

II. Site Chronology - Table 1 (attached) summarizes the site-related events from discovery to the present.

III. Background

Site Location

The Williams Property Site is located on Siegtown Road in Middle J:ownship, Cape May County, New Jersey. It is located less than three miles southeast of the Timber Beaver Swamp Fish and Wildlife Management An~a, a major aquifer recharge zone, 'and is bordered by prime wetlands habitats. The nearest surface water is about 700 feet north/northwest from the Williams Property in the form ofwater-filled sand and gravel pits. There are no natural surface stteams located in the iinmediate vicinity of the Site. The nearest stream is Deep Creek, which is approximately 3,000 feet southeast ofthe Site.

Physical Characteristics

The Site covers a 5.6-acre tract of wooded land in a mixed agricultural and residential area. It contains a groundwater remediat~on system, comprised of two contaminated groundwater recovery wells, a plant to treat the groundwater, re-injection of treated groundwater after treatment with 10 ie-injection wells, and a group of monitoring wells. The two,recovery

, wells and additional monitoring wells are located across Siegtown Road downgradientfrom the original zone of contamination nearby the treatment plant. See Figure 1.

6

Geology/Hydrogeology

The Williams Property is situated on an outcrop of the Holly Beach aquifer. The Holly Beach aquifer is an unconfined, unconsolidated aquifer of recent age, composed primarily of coarse to fine-grained sa,nd with varying amounts ofgravel, known as the Cape May Formation. This formation is approximately 60 feetthickat the Site.

Underlying the Holly Beach aquifer is the Cohansey aquifer, which consists of coarse to fine­grained sand with traces of gravel. This formation is at least 30 'feet thick at the Williams Property Site.

The two aquifers are separated by an intervening clay layer with some traces of silt int.ermixed. This clay is typically 15 to 35 feet thick locally.

Groundwater movement in the Holly Beach aquifer is to the east-northeast, while the groundwater movement in the Cohansey aquifer is almost directly opposite, i.e., to the southwest. This indicates that the intervening clay layer effectively separates the two . aquifers. .

Land and Resource Use

The area surrounding the Site is zoned for agricultural and residential use. Residential property is immediately to the northwest and tothe southeast. Jhere are gravel pits, some of which contain water for at least part of the year, to the northwest, southwest and southeast. Further aWay, to the east and southeast are saltwater marshes, then inland waterways and major coastal communities. Municipal water systems serve the surrounding community.

History ofContamination

In August 1979, approximately 150 drums ofliquid chemicals and sludge were emptied on the Site by the property owner (Theodore Williams), adjacentto the Williams residence.

Initial Response

In response to the release of the chemicals, the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) undertook extensive investigations to determine the impact of the spill on the environment, and in particular, on the groundwater. These investigations showed that both the soils and groundwater had been contaminated. As a result ofthese findings, NJDEP conducted an emergency cleanup of the spill site in 1980 that removed approximately 1200 cubic yards ofsoil and sludge.

In 1983/1984, Middle Township provided public water to local residences and businesses that were potentially affected by the Site. '

The Site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1983.

7

Basis for Taking ACtion

Through a Cooperative Agreement with EPA, the NJDEP completed a Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study (RIlFS) for the Site in 1987. The investigation found a plume of volatile and semi-volatile organic contaminants in the groundwater beneath the Site emanating from the original spill area and extending at least 600 feet downgradient. Some residual soil contamination was also found. .

The chemicals of concern (COCs) selected were as follows: bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, bis (2­ethylhexyl) phthalate, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, I, I, I-trichloroethane, total xylenes, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Subsequent investigatory work conducted during design activities determined that acetone, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) {MEK}), arid 4-methyl-2-pentanone (methyl isobutyl ketone {MIBK}) were al,soCOCs.

Groundwater migratiori is the primary transport pathway for COCs from the Site. Potentially exposed populations included downgradient potable well users, although remedial actions, subsequently taken included the connection of local downgradient homes to a public water supply; Remedial actions taken to addre'ss the COCs and potentially exposed population are further described in Section IV.

Although not required by a ROD, on April 19, 1999, the NJDEP issued a Classification Exemption Area/Well Restriction Area (CEAlWRA) pursuant to NJDEP regulations for Holly Beach groundwater aquifer impacted by the Site. The CEAlWRA prevents the installation of a drinking water well in the contaminated portion of an aquifer.

,IV. Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

On September 29, 1987, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for selection of a remedy to clean up the groundwater and soil. There is one operable unit at this Site addressing cOritaminants. The major components of the' remedy selected in the 1987 ROD include the following:

• extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater on-site using air stripping to remove volatile organics and carbon adsorption to remove remaining volatile organics and semi­volatile organics;

• r~charge ofthe treated groundwater to the aquifer on-site;

• provision of an alternate water supply to residents with individual wells impacted by the Site;

• excavation of the contaminated soils above the action level 'at the original spill area;

• removal of the excavated soils to an approved ~ff-site disposal facility for incineration; and,

• re-grading the Site with clean fill, re-vegetation arid restoration of the Site.

8

The primary remedial response objectives of the 1987 ROD include:

• mitigation of migration of contaminated groundwater in the Holly Beach Aquifer;

• remediation of contaminated groundwater in the Holly Beach Aquifer; and • mitigation of leaching from contaminated Site soils into the groundwater and prevention of

direct contact.

The selected remedy in the 1987 ROD was to address organic compounds detected in groundwater during the RI including methylene chloride, acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,1, I-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PC E), xylenes, toluene, 1, 1,-dichloroethane, ethyl benzene, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, isophorone,2­methylphenol, 2-butanone (MEK), 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), di-n-butylphthalate, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, 4-methylphenol, cholorform; phenolS and cyanide. Metals detected included: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,. manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, tin, vanadium and zinc.

In September 1990, the NJDEP completed design field investigations to construct the ground water remediation portion of the remedy. The investigations found that the system outlined in the ROD had to be modified. The groundwater was found to contain significant levels of ketones, such as acetone, 2:-butanone (MEK),and 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), that could not be effectively treated by the air stripping and granular activated carbon (GAC) system selected in the ROD.

Based on the conclusions of subsequent treatability studies on the groundwater, the remedy was modified to exclude air stripping and to include biological treatment for ketone removal. In addition to the biological treatment, the modified remedy includes the following treatment processes: hydrogen peroxide to control hydrogen sulfide odors; .an iron removal system to protect the GAC and the re-injection wells from clogging; sulfuric acid to neutralize the groundwater for re-injection; and ultraviolet light disinfection to prevent bacterial growth in the injection wells.

The changes did not functionally change the groundwater remedy.

In February 1993, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) that provided the rationale for the changes made to the groundwater remedy discussed above. The remedial design was completed by NJDEP in June 1993.

Remedy Implementation

Approximately 140 homes and businesses potentially impacted by the Site were connected to a public water supply system by Middle Township in 1983 and 1984.

, In August 1990, New Jersey awarded a design contract for the soils cleanup and completed the design. At the request of the NJDEP, the EPA's removal program completed the soil cleanup portion of the remedy in July 1991. The soilcleanup included the excavation and removal of approximately 1500 tons of contaminated soil which was shipped off-site for treatment and disposal. In addition, 'EPA removed 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon pails, and gas

9

cylinders from the Site:

In April 1993, a Cooperative Agreement with EPA provided funding to the NJDEP for the remediation of the Site's contaminated groundwater.·

Construction ofthe groundwater remediation system was officially completed in September . 1995 in accordance with the Preliminary Close-Out Report that was signed on September 15,

1995. Physical construction had been completed in December 1994 and the system was put into operation in January 1995. The system is comprised of two groundwater recovery wells, awater treatment plant that includes biological treatment in sequencing batch reactors,GAC adsorption, and re-injection wells for the treated water. A group of approximately twenty­five monitoring wells and well points used in the investigations is available to monitor the progress ofthe remediation.

System Operation and Maintenance

The Operation; Maintenance, and Monitoring Manual for the Williams Property Site specifies the procedures for operating, inspecting and maintaining the remediation system, arid for monitoring the cleanup progress in the affected aquifer.

By the summer 0[2000, sampling showed that much of the plume of contamination had been . \

remediated and that the cleanup. standards for the ketones had been met throughout the affected aquifer.

In response,·the biological treatment unit was shut down along with the groundwater extraction well associated with the apparently clean portion of the original plume. Operations continued using the remaining extraction well along with water treatment centering on the GAC adsorption unit. . .

At this time, approximately 247 million gallons of contaminated groundwater had been extracted, treated and re-injected to the aquifer. Reviews ofongoing monitoring results show that the remainder of the plume was more difficult to clean. The concentration ofTCE has decreased more slowly with time toward its respective New Jersey GroundWater Quality Criteria (NJGWQC). A few semi-volatile tentatively identified compounds· (TICs) were' found at levels that required the re-starting of operations (after a planned shutdown of the treatment plant)Jor control of the plume. The disposition of the TCE and TICs are further discussed in Section V.

The Williams Property remediation operating cost is currently approximately $95,000 per . year. The long-term remedial action period (L TRA) ended on January 5, 2006, at which time, all Site costs became the responsibility ofthe State of New Jersey.

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

Protectiveness Statement from tbe last Five.:.Year Review

Based upon groundwater sample data and a Site inspection by EPA in May 2006, it has been determined that the remedy selected at the Williams Property Superfund Site continues to be protective of human health and the environment.

10

Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

During the last five-year review period (2001-2006), groundwater monitoring data provfded _ by NJDEP showed the remainder of the groundwater plume was more difficult to remediate. The concentrations of the remaining two contaminants, namely TCE and PCE, decreased more slowly with time toward their respective New Jersey Ground Water Quality Criteria. However, by late summer 2002, TCEand PCE concentrations had fallen sufficiently to allow a monitored four-month temporary shutdown to see if contaminant concentration levels would rebound.

Following the shutdown, there was no rebound of contaminant concentrations. However, a few semi-volatile TICs were found at levels that required the re-starting of operations for control ofthe plume while the TICs were iqentified. EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory conducted an extensive effort to identify the TICs and concluded that they were mainly comprised of isomers oftris (l-chloro-2-isopropyl) phosphate (TCPP), a flame retardant.

NJDEP's Office of Science undertook an effort to derive a site-specific health-based, groundwater concentration for TCPP in 2010. NJDEP concluded that there was a-high degree of uncertainty in the toxicological database for TCPP and therefore, a specific health­based groundwater concentration was not recommended. A generic groundwater criterion for chemicals with no evidence of carcinogenicity of 100 micrograms per liter (ug/L) was

- recommended for TCPP.

Groundwater qualitY at recovery well RW-93-1 has been meeting NJGWQC for several quarters and pumping from this well has been terminated. Recovery well RW-91-1 is the only operating extraction well atthis time. The groundwater treatment system flow is 16-20 gallons per minute.

There are twenty-four monitoring wells at the Site. The concentrations of the primary Site contaminants remaining in the groundwater meet State and Federal standards, with the exception ofTCE, which was detected at low concentrations (2.7 ug/L) in monitoring well OP-91-1B. The NJGWQC for TCE is 1 ug/L. 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from several wells exceeds the New Jersey Interim GWQC of 10 ug/L.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The five-year review team consisted of Perry Katz (RPM), Charles Nace (Risk Assessor) of EPA, Diana Cutt (Hydrogeologist) of EPA, Steve Wohleb (Site Manager) ofNJDEP and Dave Van Eck, (Geologist), NJDEP.

Community Notification and Involvement

The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) for the Williams Property Site,Pat Seppi, published a notice in the Cape May County Herald on March 9, 2011, notifying the community of the initiation of the five-year review process. The notice indicated that EPA would be conducting a five-year review of the remedy for the Site to ensure that the implemented remedy remains protective of public health and the environment and is '

11

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 and the CIC's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process or the Williams Property Site. .

Document Review

The documents that were reviewed in completing the five-year review are listed below:

1) Superfund Five-Year Review Report, Williams Property Site, New Jersey, USEPA, September 27,2001.

,/

2) Memorandum, "Post-Tennination Ground Water Monitoring Data", Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist, February 18, 2003.

3) Memorandum, "Trend of Tentatively Identified Compounds", Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist, November 26,2003.

4) Memorandum, "Semi-Annual Ground Water Data (November 2004 & 2005) Quarterly Extraction Well Data (2004 and 2005)", Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, Geologist, Undated.

5) Memorandum, "Trend of Tentatively Identified Compounds (1996-2006)", Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, Geologist, June 23,2006.·

6) Superfund Five-Year Review Report, Williams Property Site, New Jersey, USEPA, September 27,2006.

7) Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report-1 st Quarter, January-March 2009, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC, April 24, 2009 ..

8) Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report-2nd Quarter, April-June 2009, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, ~LC, Undated.

9) Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report-3rd Quarter, July-September 2009, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC, Undated.

10) Derivation of a Site-Specific Health-based Groundwater Concentration for Tris(l-chloro-2-isopropyl)phosphate (TCPP) - CAS # 13674-84-5, Gloria Post, Ph.D., DABT, Office of S'cience, NJDEP, September 28, 2010.

11) Memorandum, Groundwater Data (2006-2010), Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist, October 21,2010.

Data Review

Monitoring data collected by NJDEP during this five-year review period showed that concentrations of the primary site contaminants remaining in the groundwater meet State and Federal standards, with the exception ofTCE, which was detected at low concentrations (2.7 ugIL) in monitoring well OP-91-lB (see Table 2). The NJGWQC for TCE is 1 ugIL.

12

The data also indicate that 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from several wells exceeds the NJ Interim GWQC level of 10 ug/L. However, monitoring data collected by NJDEP during this five-year review period indicate that the concentrations of 1,4 dioxane have generally trended downward from concentrations in the 25 parts per billion (ppb) to 35 ppb range to concentrations in the 15 ppb to 20 ppb range. The most-recent groundwater sample collected for 1,4 dioxane analysisat the furthest down gradient monitoring well location (MW-13B) did not detect this compound. The 1,4 dioxane data is summarized in Table 5.

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, compounds that were tentatively identified as unknown semi­volatile 'chloro-:organiC phosphates were detected in some wells at levels that exceed the NJG WQC of 100 ug/L for individual synthetic organic compounds and 500 uglL for total synthetic organics. EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory subsequently conducted an extensive effort to identify the TICs and concluded that they were mainly comprised of isomers ofTris (l-chloro-2-isopropyl) phosphate (TCPP), a flame retardant. ,

NJDEP's Office of Science undertook an effort to derive a site-specific health-based groundwater concentration for TCPP in 2010. NJDEP concluded that there was a high degree of uncertainty in the toxicological database for TCPP and therefore, a specific health­based groundwater concentration was not recommended. A generic groundwater criterion for chemicals with no evidence of carcinogenicity of 100 ug/L was recommended for TCPl>. A review ofTIe groundwater concentration data obtained during this five-year review period indicated that concentrations have deelined over time. The groundwater data from the latest ­

_ monitoring event (March 2010) indicates the concentrations of TICs were at levels below the NJGWQC.

Site Inspection

A Site inspection was performed on February 14,2011. In attendance were:

Perry Katz, EPA Region II RPM Charles Nace, EPA Risk Assessor Diana Cutt, EPA Hydrogeologist Dave Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist Brian Bausback, HANDEX Operations Manager

The inspection found a well-maintained and functioning facility.

Site Interview

No Site interviews were conducted during this Five-Year Review.

VII. Technical AsSessment

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

The remedy is functioning as intended. The groundwater pump imd treat system has been successful in remediating contaminants that were identified in groundwater at the time of the remedial investigation.

13

Monitoring data collectedhy NJDEPduring this five-year review period showed that concentrations of the primary Site contaminants remaining in the groundwater meet State and Federal Standards, with the exception ofTCE, which was detected at low concentrations (2.7 ug/L) in monitoring well OP-91-1B. The NJGWQC for TCE is 1 ugiL. The data also indicate that 1,4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from several wells exceeds the NJ Interim GWQC level of 10 ug/L. Although the groundwater remediation system is not designed to treat 1,4 dioxane, based on monitoring and effluent data provided by NJDEP, the concentrations of 1, 4-dioxane are being reduced to levels below the NJGWQC of 1 0 ug/L.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, andremedial action objectives used at the time ofthe remedy selection still valid?

Human Health

Over the past five years, there have ;been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. Thei previous five-year review indicated that exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels,' and remedial action objectives were still valid. This information was reviewed for this five-year review and the conclusions reached in the 2006 Five-Year Review Report ate still valid. .

There were several issues that were raised in the previous five-year review, namely the toxicity values for the TICs and the potential for vapor intrusion related to the TICs. Additional analytical evaluations of the TICs, which were identified as tris (l-chloro-2:' isopropyl) phosphate (TCPP) and isomers ofTCPP, as well as an evaluation of the toxicity

.values associated with TCPP and its isomers, were completed over the past five years. The toxicity evaluation, conducted by the NJDEP, concluded thatthere was a lack of data to derive a chemical-specific drinking water value and that a generic value of 100 ug/l should be used for TCPP and its isomers. A review of TIC groundwater concentration data obtained during this five-year review period indicated that concentrations have declined over time. The groundwater data from the latest monitoring event (March 20 I0) indicates the concentrations of TICs were at levels below the NJ GWQC.

The potential for vapor intrusion to occur from TCPP and its isomers volatilizingfrom groundwater into nearby buildings was also evaluated. Chemicals that have a Henry's Law Constant that is greater than 1 x 10.5 atm-m3/mol have the potentiiH to result in vapor intrusion. The Henry's Law Constant for TCPP is 3.3 x 1O-6atm-m3/mol, which is less than criterion listed above. Therefore, the presence ofTCPP and its isomers in the groundwater do not present a risk for vapors to intrude into nearby buildings.

) .

. Based on the Site visit, and review of the data, the groundwater exposure pathway has been interrupted and there is no exposure to contamiriated groundwater; therefore, the remedy is protective ofpublic health.

Ecological

. The primary exposure pathway for ecological receptors would be discharge of groundwater to a surface water body. There is a quarry located at the n9rthern end of the plume and there is a potential fot groundwater to discharge to the quarry. The well (93-1) closest to the quarry, which is screened in the deeper section ofthe aquifer, has several compounds detected (acetone, methyl tert-butyl ether, naphthalene, pyrene,benzo[a]pyrene and 1, 4-dioxane) at

14

, I

low concentrations. There are no ecological screening criteria for these compounds; however, a qualitative assessment can be completed. Given that the compounds detected in the well closest to the quarry are at low concentrations and there would bea large dilution factor ifthe compounds are discharged to the quarry, it is unlikely that there would be any impacts to ecological receptors in the quarry. Continued monitoring is recommended to ensure the concentration of compounds remain stable.

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

The presence ofthe TICs was not known at the 'time of the remedy selection. EPA's 'National Exposure Research Laboratory subsequently conducted an extensive effort to identity the TICs and concluded that they were mainly comprised of isomers of TCPP, a flame retardant.

NJDEP's Office of Science undertook an effort to derive a site-specific health-based . . groundwater concentration for TCPP in 2010. NJDEP concluded that there was a high degree of uncertainty in the toxicological database for TCPP and, therefore, a specific health­based groundwater concentration was not recommended. A generic groundwater criterion for chemicals with no evidence of carcinogenicity of 100 ug/L was recommended for TCPP and is considered to be protective of public health.

Tec~nical Assessment Summary

According to the data reviewed and the Site inspection, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The NJDEP soil criteria which are "To Be Considered" have been met. There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of concern that were used in the baseline risk assessment, and there have been no changes to the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

,VIII. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

This report did not identity any issue or make any recommendation for the protection of. human health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the Site decision documents. There are no recommendations or follow-up actions associated with this review.

, IX. Protectiveness Statement

The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the enviroriment because the on­going operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment system is able to' reduce concentrations of contaminants as well as manage the migration of impacted groundwater. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, continued extraction, treatment and monitoring of groundwater will be required to restore the aquifer to drinking' water standards and ensure long-term protectiveness. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. .

15

X. Next Review

The next five-year review will be completed before May 2016.

Walter Mugdan irector 11" 2-Sj ).off

Date Emergency & Remedial Response Division EPA Region 2

16

AITACHMENTS

17

CAS CEA CIC COC EPA ESD FFYR FS GAC LTRA MCL NJDEP NJGWQC

·OSWER PCE· ppb RI

. ROD RPM TCE TCPP TIC ug/L USACE WRA

Attachment 1

.List of Acronyms

Chemical Abstract System Classification Exception Area Community Involvement Coordinator Chemical of Concern (United States) Environmental Protection Agency Explanation of Significant Differences First Five-Year Review Feasibility Study Granular Activated Carbon Long-Term Remedial Action Maximum Contaminant Level New Jersey Department·ofEnvironmental Protection New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria Office Solid Waste & Emergency Response . Tetrachloroethylene

. Parts per billion Remedial Investigation Record of Decision Remedial Project Manager Trichloroethylene tris (l-chloro-2 isopropyl) phosphate Tentatively Identified Compound MicrogramslLiter United States Army Corps of Engineers Well Restriction Area

18

1-1105.000

----_.__.-._---_.- .. _--_.,----_._-_._-_ ..---­

'IHJ8., 9O-1~

9O-1Q\

90-108­+--------_. ------~....-------- ­

93-148

""'26III

¥----7(------------- ­

-1" '9>-7 ~It: ...

6- 184 ~";'l ,~9J":l" . &t-lA' ," •.

'J"-l ·'ASJ-4 93-1

.94-4 ~5

... .. ....

"'-5..:

...,EII nrSIr.tjAJlClN

1101-93-1 1"'-'3-2 ''''-93-3 1\I-93-~

1\I-9J-~

IW-9"":1 1"-9"-2 . JV-94-3 IV-9"-4 1\1-94.-5 H\(-Q5-IA

K\/-85-IB M\.I-8~-IC

K\oI-BS-2A HV-BS-2B MV-8'5-3A '"''''-8:1-3B "\.1-85-6 "",,-85-7 HW-,,"-9A' H\I-85-89 M\i-8S-9A M'J-85-'JIB H\I-90-lOA M\I-'iQ-IOB M\J-90-IlA HV-90-113 M\I-90-12A H\I-9Q-12B H"'-9Q-13A H\I-9O-138 HV-'iQ-7A H\I-'n-2 MV-93-!"A H'w'-'3-14B HV-93-5 HV-'JI3-5A M\I-93-68 MV-X DP91-lA OP91-IB OMI-2A DF"J1-2B RW-9J-1 R'w'-'JIJ-IR RV-91-1

LEGEND:

S MONITORING ""ELL LOCATIIYI

..... INJECH(ta V(LL LOCATltJ'oI

Pi fi'ECQVERY \JELL LOCAT[D--I

C[JrtTOlR IHTE:RVAl .. 0.5 rr. 13. 5 ~DVAl[R ElE:VAfllJI't I" f"[(T AbOVE H[AN SEA l(VU

iliA It:lT CD.l[[TED

C[JrtTD..RS .-R( DASJ£D "'HERE tHr(RR(D o 50 100 ISO 200 400

--E-- GRDJHO'JATER nEJIJ DIR[CT1Dl'f

SCALE (GUAlS I I U«:t-I = 200 fEET co.TOOR lNTERVAL = 21.03 n.o

24 ABEEL .RD MONROE, NJ 089:31

<60'SI) 409-6999

riGORE: 1

SITE PLAN

\oIILLlAMS PROPERTY 7 SUPERFUND SITE CAPE MAY' COURTHOUSE

CAPE MAY COUNTY. NEW JERSEY

5C~- '" - 200' VAn:'- 9/26/07 ~t.iy- " . .1.5. J:;r".,h.- 121M9

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events .

Event Date Site placed on National Priorities List 1982/3 Initial Cooperative Agreement with NJDEP

, 1987

Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Feasibility Study (RIfFS) complete 1987 Record of Decision (ROD) signature 1987 Removal Action for soil remediation 1990/91 Remedial Design completed 1992 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signature 1993 Cooperative Agreement with NJDEP for remedial action 1993 Construction of groundwater remediation facilities initiated 1994

Construction of groundwater remediation facilities completed 1995 Groundwater remediation initiated 1995 Groundwater Classification ExceptionArea (CEA) issued by NJDEP for the Site· 1999 First Five-Year Review 2001 Groundwater remediation temporarily stopped to test for contaminants rebound 2002 EPA analysis to identify TIC 2005 Second Five-Year Review 2006 NJDEP Analysis to Derive Site-Specific Health Based Groundwater Concentration for TCPP

2010

Third Five-Year Review 2011

Table 2. The following table lists the targeted compounds detected in the wells in March 2010, with units of Ilg/l.

Compound I Well

TCE . Ethyl benzene

Chloroform MCH Isopropyl benzene

Isophorone Diethyl phthalate

BEHP

MW85-1B MW93-5A MW93-6B MW90-10B MW90-11B .54JB

. MW90-13B OP91-1 B 2.7 .45J 4.0 2.6 5.9 1.3J .59JB OP91-2B .51 .68 .47J RW91-1 .61 .23J RW93-1 GWQC 1 700 70 - - 40 6000 3

TCE = trichloroethylene MCH = methylcyclohexane GWQC·= New Jersey Ground Water Quality Criteria BEHP = bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

19

Table 3 Total Semivolatile TIC data (Ppb) for selected wells

Williams Property Superfund Site January 1996 - April 2006

1st & 2nd Five-Year Review Periods

20

Table 4 Total Semivolatile TIC data (Ppb) for selected wells

Williams Property Superfund Site July 2006 - March 2010

Third Five -Year, Review Period

21

Table 5 1,4 Dioxane Data (Ppb) for selected wells

Williams Property Superfund Site July 2006 - March 2010

Third Five-Year Review Period

22