Illiii. 109561

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT HIGGINS DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE

CITY OF KINGSTON, FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

Prepared by:

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II New Jersey Remediation Branch

Emergency and Remedial Response Division New York, New York 10007-1886

February 2011

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT HIGGINS DISPOSAL SOPERFUND SITE

CITY OF KINGSTON, FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executiva StlDlllla.ry ...••.•••••••.•.....••••.••••••.•••.••••.•. 111

Five-Year Review StlDlllla.ry Fo~ ................................. 1V

I. Introduction............................................. 1

II. Sita Chronolo9l' ...................... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

I I I. Backqround \ . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Physical Characteristics ..... '" .......................... 1 Geology/Hydrogeology .................................... 2 Land and Resource Use .... ~ ............................... 3 History of Contamination . ~ .................... ~ .......... 3 Initial Response ......................................... 4 Basis for Taking Action .................................. 5

IV. Ram.adial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Remedy Selection .......................................... 6 Remedy Implementation ......................... ~ .......... 7 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance .............. 9 Institutional Controls .................................. 10

V. Five-Year Review Process ................................ 10 Administrative Components ............. ; .... ~ ............ 10 Comm.unity InvolvemelJ.t ................................... 11 Document Review ............ .................... It •••••••• • 11 Data .Review ............................................. 11 Interviews .............................................. 13 Site Inspection .......................... '................ 13

VI. Technical As••aSlll8nt.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ...................................... 13 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? ... 14 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Technical Assessment Summary .................. ........ . 17.;

i

VII. Issues Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ............ 17

VIII. Protectiveness Statement ................................ 17

xx . Next· Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 7

Attachments -

Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events Table 2 - PCE and TCE Concentrations in Shallow and Deep Aquifers Figure 1 - SiteJLocation Map Figure 2 - Total Combined VOCs Figure 3 and 4 - Contaminants of Concern Influent Cqncentrations Figure 5 thiu 8 - PCE and TCE Concentrations in Individual Wells

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMNARY

A five-year review for the Higgins Disposal Superfund Site (Site), located in the City of Kingstori,Franklin Townsh{p, Somerset County, New Jersey has been completed. This is the first five-year review for the Site.

Between 1990 and 1999, several removal actions were conducted at the Site by EPA and/or the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). The actions were conducted in order to secure the Site, excavate and remove containers and contaminated soils, and remove an on~site landfill. All contaminated soils were excavated and removed from the Site. The soils now allow for unrestricted use/unlimited exposure.

A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 30, 1997 which selected a groundwater remedy for the Site.. The remedy included a waterline extension and connection to the public water supply for residences on Laurel Avenue and the Higgins' Residence; the installation of on-site recovery wells; the construction of a pipeline to convey contaminated groundwater to the Higgins Farm Site for treatment and discharge; and the implementation of a monitoring program to ensure groundwater achieves federal and state maximum concentration levels (MCL~) and the promulgat~d New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards (NJGWQS). The waterline extension and connection were completed in April 1999.

An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), modifying the ROD, was signed on December 9, 2002. Conveyance of contaminated groundwater via a pipeline to the Higgins Farm Site·for treatment was changed to an on-site treatment system. The on-site treatment system was completed in February 2006. The Site is now considered construction complete, after the signing of a Preliminary Close-OUt Report on June 27~ 2006.

Based upon a review of the ROD, ESD, reports prepared by the PRPs, and an inspection of the Site, it has been concluded that the remedies at the Site continue to be protective of human health and the environment.

iii

Five-Year Review Summary Form

Site Nama {from Wa.t~: Higgins Disposal Superfund Site

BPA ID (~c. Wa.teLAN): NJD980529416

NPL Status: • Final o Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation Status (choose all that apply): 0 Onder Construction. Operating • Complete

Mn1tip1e OOs? 0 YES • NO Construction Camp1etion Date: 06/27/2006

Are properties associatad with the site in use? • YES 0 NO 0 N/A

REVIEW STATUS

Lead aqancy: • EPA o State o Tribe o Other Federal Agency

Author Nama: Michael Zeolla

Author tit1e: Remedial Project Manager

Author Af~i1iation: EPA

Review Period:** June 2006 to June 2011

pate (s) of Site Inspection: October 25, 2010

'1'ype o~ Review: • Post-SARA o Pre-SARA o NPL-Removal only o Non-NPL Remedial Action Site o NPL State/Tribe-lead o Regional Discretion • Policy o Statutory

~iew number: • 1 (first) o 2 (second) o 3 (third) o Other (specify)

Triggering action: o Actual RA Onsite Construction at OOi o Actual RA Start at Ooi • Construction Completion o Pr,e-vious Five-Year Review Report o Other (specify)

Triggering Action Date (frc. Wa.teLAN): 6/27/2006

Due Date (five year. after triggering action date): 6/27/2011

Does the report inc1uda recommendation(s) and fo11ow-up action(s)? 0 Yes • No Is the remedy protective of the environment? • Yes o No o Not Yet Determined

iv

Five-Year Review Summary For.m (continued)

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

Protectiveness Statement The remedy currently protects human health and the environment because exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The removal actions conducted by EPA and the PRP have removed all soil contamination. A waterline extension and connection of Laurel Avenue residents have eliminated the current risk to contaminated groundwater. The pump and treat system is operating and monitoring indicates that the system is effectively controlling contamination migration and remediating· the shallow and deep aquifer plumes. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, a Classification Exception Area (CEA) , an institutional control, needs to be implemented.

v

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT BIGGINS DISPOSAL SUPERFOND SID

CITY OF KINGSTON, FRANKLIN TOIINSBIP SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

I. INTRODUCTION

This first five-year review for the Higgins Disposal Site, (Site) located in City of Kingston, Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey, was conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Michael· Zeolla, 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 implemented remedies are protective of human health and the environment and that they function as intended by the Site decision documents. This document will be part of the Site file.

The removal actions conducted by EPA and/or Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) addressed the source contamination on the Site. The excavation and off-site disposal of containers and contaminated soils is complete. The remedial action for the Site addresses the contaminated groundwater under the Record of Decision (ROD) and Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD).An on-site recovery and treatment system of contaminated groundwater with discharge to an on-site· surf~ce water body is fully operational. The groundwater remedy is intended to restore the aquifer to drinking water standards. In accordance with Section 1.3.2 of the five-year review guidance, a policy five-year review is triggered by the signature date of the Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR). The trigger date for this first five-year review is June 27, 2006, the approval date of the PCOR. This five-year review found that the selected re'medy remains protective of' human health and the environment.

II. SID CBllONOLOGY

See Table 1 for the Site chronology.

III. BACKGROUND

Physica~ Charac~eris~ics

The Site, which consists of 37.6-acres, is located in a rural area on Laurel Avenue (Kingston-Rocky Hill Road) in the City of Kingston, Somerset County, New Jersey. Currently, there is a residence on the Site, as well as an equestrian school (Hasty Acres Riding Club) and a truck repair shop. The equestrian school consists of a stable, and an indoor riding ring (See Figure 1).

1

-- ---- ---------~------------

The Site is bounded by residential properties to the south, a commercial property (Trap Rock Industries1 Quarry) to the north, and undeveloped farmland to the east-southeast. The Higgins Farm Superfund Site is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast. Within a three-mile radius of the Site, approximately 10,000 people rely on groundwater as a source of drinking water.

A freshwater wetland is located 300 feet from the Site as well as two on-site ponds that discharge into Dirty Brook, a tributary of the Delaware/Raritan Canal. Dirty Brook, located along the northern and southern property boundaries, is not used for irrigation or drinking water. The Delaware/Raritan Canal, located ~pproximately three miles downstream from the Site, is used for fishing, boating, and swimming. Both the Millstone River located approximately 1,500 feet west-southwest of the Site, and the Delaware/Raritan Canal, flow north and eventually discharge into the Raritan Bay.

Geo~og,y/Bydrogeo~ogy

The geology of the Site is characterized by unconsolidated material (e.g., sand) underlain by fractured bedrock. The Site is underlain

l;>y unconsolidated overburden deposits ranging in thickness from approximately 15 to 84 feet. These deposits vary in composition from clayey silt to sand. Below the overburden is a thick unit of red siltstone interpreted as the red beds of the Lockatong Formation. An apparent graben structure (i.e., an area of land that has depressed between two geologic faults) occurs along the center of the Site in a north~south orientation.

The Site is relatively flat with the highest elevation occurring near its center. From the center, the surface topography slopes downward to the north toward Dirty Brook, and downward·to the south toward the unnamed brook. Storm water drainage generally follows the surface topography, as there are no storm sewers to redirect the flow. The two ponds at the north end -of the property receive overland storm water flow from portions of the property, and discharge into Dirty Brook. Both brooks discharge to the Delaware and Raritan Canal.

Groundwater in the area is classified by the State as Class II-A, which indicates that groundwater is suitable for potable water supply at current levels of water quality and conventional treatment. Groundwater occurs. both in the sandy overburden and in the underlying fractured bedrock aquifer. Regionally, groundwater flow is to the southwest towards the Delaware and Raritan Canal and Millstone River.

The depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 4 to 56 feet below ground surface. Groundwater in the overburden flows west,

2

northwest and southwest away from the landfill and buried waste disposal areas while flow in the bedrock is affected by bedrock fractures.

Land and Resource Use

The Site is located in a predominantly residential area with houses adj acent to the Site on the southwest side. The eastern and southeastern side of the property is not developed. The former landfill area along with the lower field has been re-graded and reseeded with grass and the existing Site access roadway restored as part of the remediation efforts. The treatment plant was constructed adjacent to the former landfill area and is fenced and restricted from public access.

A preservation (agricultural) easement is currently planned for the Higgins Disposal Site property. The property is being donated for the sole purpose of utilizing common farm-site activities such as production, harvesting, storage, grading, packaging, processing and the wholesale and retail marketing of crops, plants, animals and other related commodities and the use and application of techniques and methods of soil preparation and management, fertilization, weed, disease and pest control, disposal of fai:m waste, irrigation, drainage and water management and grazing.

History of Contamination

From the 1950's through 1985, the Higgins Disposal Services, Inc. (HDS) operated a residential, commercial, industrial and construction· waste disposal facility that 'included a waste transfer station and compactor, an underground storage tank, a truck garage repair area, an area for container storage, and an unpermitted landfill on the eastern side of the property.

In early 1982, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) discovered that HDS was operating an unregistered waste transfer station and unpermitted active landfill on the property. Following a September 1982 inspection of the property, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order to HDS in October 1982. The Order required HDS to cease all operations of the landfill and remove the solid waste from the property.

In August 1985, the owner of several residences on Laurel Avenue contacted the Franklin Township Health Department (FTHD) and NJDEP because of medicinal tasting tap water. FTHD and NJDEP sampling of the residential wells on Laurel Avenue revealed the presence of various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Subsequently, NJDEP began an investigation to determine. the source of the contamination. Based on this investigation, NJDEP identified HDS as one of the potential source areas. All residents on Laurel

3.

- - - ----------

Avenue without access to the public water supply line were notified by FTHD and NJDEP to use bottled water and/or install a whole-house point source filter system.

In September 1986, NJDEP instituted an Interim Well Restriction Area (i.e., restricts the installation of new wells for potable use) for the Laurel Avenue area. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988; it was listed on the NPL in August 1990.

Initia2 Res.ponse

In October 1990, a~ part of a Removal Assessment, EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT) collected shallow soil and pond sediment samples from select areas across the Site. The results of the sampling indicated that polychlorinated biphenyls· (PCBs) were present in the surface soils of the Beginners' Riding Ring at the Hasty Acres Riding Ring. A removal action was initiated for the excavation and disposal of 765 tons of PCB-contaminated soil. This removal action was completed in 1992.

During the course of the remedial investigation field work activities in March 1993,· an additional removal action was initiated upon discovery of buried waste in a field on the property, south of the landfill. EPA performed a geophysical survey (including test pit excavation work). These activities uncovered and confirmed the presence of hazardous substances in drums, glassware and containers. Because this contamination posed a significant threat of potential exposure to the riders and horses of the Hasty Acres Riding Club, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommended the immediate placement of warning signs and a fence to restrict access to the property. The fence was erected in May 1993.

Following the placement of warning signs and fence, EPA conducted a second geophysical survey for buried waste in other areas, south of the landfill. This geophysical survey was completed in summer 1993. After reviewing the results of the surveys, EPA began to excavate areas of kno,wn and suspected buried waste in April 1994. Between November 1994 and May 1996, additional buried waste was excavated as part of EPA's continued removal activities. By June 1996, approximately 7,000 containers and 12,000 tons of contaminated soil (other than the soil from the Beginners' Riding Ring) were excavated and transported to off-site permitted disposal facilities.

Post-excavation sampling in the summer of 1996 revealed the' presence of additional waste material and containers near the previously defined edge of the landfill. From September through November 1996, EPA excavated and transported approximately 50

4

laboratory containers and 908 tons of contaminated soils from the southern edge of the landfill to an off-site permitted disposal facili ty. As a result of this .excavation, a comprehensive investigation of the landfill was initiated in fall 1996. The results of the investigation indicated that the landfill contained additional buried containers, drums, and other waste materials.

On March 11, 1998, EPA and the PRPS entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the removal of the landfill area at the. .

.Site. Landfill removal activities began in August 1998. Two wells present in the landfill were sealed by an NJDEP-licensed driller from Advance. Drilling, Inc. The PRPs' removal contractor excavated and transported approximately 34,000 tons of soil, debris and non­native. materials, and 16,000 containers to an off-site permitted disposal facility. This removal included the demolition of the former waste transfer station in February 1999. The removal activities along with Site restoration work were completed in June 1999. In addition to these removal activities, a small volume of radioactive and mixed wastes was also removed for off-site disposal in December'1999 and June 2000, respectively.

Basis ~or ~aking Action

EPA began a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) in October 1992. The purpose of the RI is as follows: identify the nature and extent of contaminant source areas; define contamination of groundwater, soils, surface water and sediments; characterize Site hydrogeology; and determine the risk to human health and the environment posed by the Site. The results indicated that a majority of the contaminant concentrations and frequency of detection were found tob.e relatively low in soils, sediments and surface water throughout the Site. The highest concentration of VOCs was observed in the groundwater. These' VOCs present in groundwater above the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,1­dichloroethene, toluene, 1, 1,2, 2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride. As a result of these firidings, a' baseline risk assessment was completed, and it concluded that the exposure to contaminated groundwater. posed a potential threat to residents who utilize groundwater as their potable water supply and/or residents who will utilize groundwater in the future. Post excavation sampling from the removal actions conducted at the Site addressed all soil contamination and allows for unrestricted use of the soils at the Site. A final RIfFS report was issued in August 1996.

5

1.V. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remeqy Se~ection

Based on the results from the final RIfFS report, a ROD was signed on September 30, 1997 which selected a groundwater remedy for the Site. The major components of the selected remedy included the waterline extension and connection to the residences of Laurel Avenue and the Higgins' residence, the installation of on-site extraction wells, the construction of a pipeline to convey contaminated groundwater to the Higgins Farm Site for treatment and discharge to a surface water body, and the implementation of a monitoring program to ensure groundwater achieves the. federal and state MCLs and promulgated New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards NJGWQS.

The Remedial Action Objectiv~s {RAOs} for the ROD are:

• To capture and treat the contaminated groundwater at the Site ·for the purposes of restoring the aquifer to the most stringent Federal and State MCLs and promulgated·NJGWQS;

• To control the migration of the contaminated groundwater for the purpose of limiting future off-site migration; and

• To m~n~m~ze the potential for direct exposure of the populace to the contaminated groundwater.

The basic components of the remedy are as follows:

• Remediation of contaminated groundwater to Federal and State MCLs and promulgated NJGWQS.

• Installation of on-site wells for the extraction of contaminated groundwater.

• Conveyance of the extracted groundwater via a pipeline to the Higgins Farm Superfund Site for treatment, with discharge to surface water.

• If necessary, the on-site groundwater treatment system at the Higgins Farm Site will be enhanced through the· addition of granular activated carbon.

• Connection of the ten neighboring residents on Laurel Avenue who use private well water to a public water supply. Public water would also be provided to the Higgins family. This would be accomplished through the extension of the existing Elizabethtown Water Company pipeline.

6

• Implemen·tation of an environmental monitoring program to ensure the overall effectiveness of the remedy.

Following the completion of the waterline extension, a pre-design investigation (POI) was conducted by the PRPs from October 1999 to September 2000. The purpose of this investigation was to further define the extent of groundwater contamination at the Site. As a result of this new informc;ltion· generated by the POI, a focused feasibility study (FFS) was prepared and submitted. by the PRPs which re-evaluated several remedial response actions for addressing the Site groundwater contamination. Based on the results of the final FFS, EPA selected the installation of on-site extraction and reinjection wells, and the construction of a ten (10) gallons per minute (gpm). treatment plant as the preferred remedy for the Site contaminated groundwater. As part of the groundwater remedy, a Classification Exception Area (CEA) would need to be implemented for the impacted groundwater at the Site until the conta~inant

concentrations meet federal and State MCLs and NJGWQS. The changes are documented in an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) issued by EPA on December 9, 2002.

Remedy IDp~ementat~oZ1

On May 19, 1999, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to the PRPS for the extension and connection of a water supply line to ten residential properties on Laurel Avenue and the Higgins' residence on the Site. However, after the UAO had been issued, two addi tional service connections were included in this response action. The PRPs began the waterline extension and connection activities in March~ 1999. A 12-inch main pipe owned by the Elizabethtown Water Company (EWC) was .extended south along County Route 603 and Laurel Avenue. The construction of the waterline extension and connection to the twelve residential properties and the Higgins' residence was completed in April·1999. In addition, 7 of the 12 residents had their potable well heads sealed. The construction activities are documented in the Laurel Avenue Waterline Extension Remedial Action Report approved by EPA on September 16, 1999.

On September 13, 2004, the PRPs entered into a Consent Decree with EPA to conduct the remedial design and remedial construction of the groundwater· recovery and treatment systems. During the slesign phase, a third recovery well was needed to ensure capture of the groundwater contamination which resulted in several fundamental changes to the basis of design. The increase in volume of water to be treated and estimated hardness and total dissolved solids concentration in the anticipated extracted groundwater required modifications to be made to the design of the groundwater treatment system. Asa result, the equipment and building were re-sized, and

7

the method of discharge changed from groundwater reinjection via infiltration galleries to surface water discharge. A final design for the groundwater remedy was approved by EPA in March 2005. The design called for the installation of three recovery wells, the construction of a thirty (30) gpm (on average) treatment plant and the discharge of treated groundwater to a surface water body (9n­site pond). .

Construction activities began with recovery well installation and testing. Two bedrock recovery wells were installed· and testing began in December 2003 and January·2004. An additional bedrock recovery well was installed and tested in June 2005. The PRPs began construction activities for the groundwater treatment system in August 2005. During the effluent pipe installation phase, the PRP's contractor personnel encountered potential waste material while excavating the effluent trench. The work activities ceased while the effluent pipe was re-routed around the suspected area. Later, a geophysical investigation was conducted by EPA's ERT personnel and uncovered no additional waste material in the suspected area. The groundwater recovery and treatment systems began operations in January 2006 and all remedial construction activities were completed by February 2006.

Contaminated groundwater is being extracted using three new bedrock recovery wells. All of the water is piped to the on-site treatment building which consists of an influent equalization tank, a bag filter unit, a greensand filter system, a granulated activated carbon system, an effluent tank and a backwashing tank. The system is designed to treat total suspended solids, iron, manganese, and chlorinated VOCs. Effluent water discharged to the on-site pond is meeting all of the established surface water permit· equivalency requirements from NJDEP. Data collected and reviewed by the EPA oversight contractor in conjunction with the PRPs testing phase indicated that the treatment system is efficiently removing chlorinated VOCs from the groundwater prior to discharge.

In February 2006, a pre-final inspection of the groundwater treatment system was conducted by the PRPs representatives and attended by EPA and NJDEP. No major deficiencies were identified, however, a punch list of outstanding items was developed. These items were completed July 2006. An interim remedial action report documenting the construction activities was approved by EPA in September 2006.

Due to concerns that additional waste material could still be remaining at the effluent trench suspected area, the PRPs agreed to excavate and remove a small area of soils. In May 2006, the PRPs performed the excavation and removal of approximately 29 cubic yards of additional material. After post-excavation sampling revealed no detection of Site-related contaminants, clean soils

8

were backfilled into this small area. The material from this small area was staged on-site and waste characterization was performed prior to disposal at a permitted facility. The results of the ERT geophysical investigation and the PRPs excavation and removal activities "are documented in an Excavation and Material Disposal Report dated December 11, 20Q6.

System Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring

Groundwater Remedy

The groundwater recovery and treatment systems are operated by the PRPs through their consultant, BBL, Inc. In accordance with the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Discharge to Surface Water (NJPDES/DSW) general permit issued by the NJDEP in January 2006, the treatment system effluent is sampled on a monthly basis. Groundwater monitoring is also performed to ensure that the groundwater .remedy remains effective in capturing the contaminated plume. A network of wells is monitored quarterly for groundwater quality and water level measurements (See Figure 1). The requirements of this sampling effort can be found in the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Manual. In addition, the groundwater recovery anq treatment system undergoes weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual routine operations and maintenance performance .checklist,as necessary.

During the initial operations of the groundwater treatment system, there was an algae growth problem in the lower small pond from the effluent outfall pipe. EPA was notified of the problem and the PRPs evaluated and fixed the problem to the satisfaction of the property owner.

In March 2006, the groundwater treatment system was temporarily shutdown to install a pH control system including an inline pH indicator and metering pump. The pH control system was installed because pH levels measured near the lower pH limit of 6 standard units as defined by the NJPDES/DSW. The groundwater treatment· system was fully operational once installation was completed.

On October 30, 2006, the PRPs were issued a Notice of Violation for failure of the quart~rly chronic toxicity test to meet the NJPDES/DSW. The PRPs Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring .contractor (OMM contractor) began performing the chronic toxicity test on a monthly basis beginning in November 2006. Since this violation, the chronic toxicity test results have met the NJDPES/DSW and quarterly testing was restored in June 2007.

In March 2007, the OMM contractor identified that recovery well No.· 2 (RW-2) motor or pump failed. A new motor and pump was ordered and replaced in April 2007 and RW-2 returned to normal operations. .,.

9

---------------------------------

In April 2007, the OMMcontractor observed a small leak from a valve at one of the greensand filter vessels. The vessel was bypassed and the treatment system restarted with one greensand filter vessel operating. A new valve kit was ordered and replaced in May 2007.

Periodically, the change out the grsecondary vessels entrained air.

groundwater anular acti

and have

treatment vated carbon the carbon

system from

soak

is the

to

shut down primary

minimize

to and the

Institationa~ Contro~s

In accordance with the ~tatement of Work attached to the Partial Consent Decree issued in September 13, 2004, a CEA was to be established by the PRPs at the Site for impacted groundwater until contaminant concentrations meet the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards. On December 22, 2006, the PRPs submitted a proposed CEA report to the NJDEP~ NJDEP provided comments to EPA on February 5, 2007. EPA passed these comments along to the PRPs· in a letter dated February 14, 2007. The PRPs provided EPA with response to comments on March 13, 2007. NJDEP did not accept the PRPs response to its comments because several Site boundary wells (MW-101D, MW­101S and MW-107D) continued to show PCE concentrations slightly above the NJGWQS of 1 part per billion (ppb). Instead of installing new off-site monitoring wells showing the delineation of PCE below 1· ppb, the PRPs decided to continue sampling the groundwater monitoring wells at the Site boundaries. Based on data collected during the last five years, groundwater contaminated with PCE has been reduced to below 1 ppb for all Site_ boundary wells. The PRPs are currently preparing a new draft CEA report for submission to the NJDEP and EPA for review and approval.

V. FIVE-YEAR REVln PROCESS

The five-year review team consisted of Michael Zeolla (EPA-Remedial Project Manager), Urszula Filipowiz (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor), Robert Alvey (EPA-Hydrologist), Nicole Bujalski (EPA­Geologist) and Wanda Alaya (EPA-Community Involvement Coordinator) of EPA. This is the first Five-Year Review conducted at the Site.

·Commun.1.ty In'Vo~vement

The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIe) for the Higgins Disposal, Wanda Ayala, published a notice in the Home News Tribune, a local newspaper, on January 7, 2011, notifying the community of the initiation of the five-year review process. The notice

10

---------- --------- - - ----

indicated that EPA would be conducting a five-year review for the Site to ensure that the implemented remedy remains protective of public health and the environment and is functioning as designed. It is 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 Remedial Project Manager's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process or the Higgins Disposal Site.

DoCUDl8Dt Review

The documents reviewed in completing the five-'year review are listed below.

Table 2 List of Documents Reviewed

• Record of Decision (ROD), EPA, September 1997 • Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), EPA, Dec 2002 • Preliminary Close-Out Report, EPA, July 2006 • Monthly Progress Reports prepared by BBL, Inc. for the'FMC

Corporation, 2005-2010 • Interim Remedial Action Report prepared by BBL, Inc for the

FMC Corporation, September 2006 • Pre-Design Investigation Report prepared by BBL, Inc for the

FMC Corporation, February 2001 • Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Manual prepared by

Shaw Environmental for the FMC Corporation, April 2006 • Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540~R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001

Data Review

Groundwa ter -

The groundwater monitoring program include's monthly sampling of the treatment system to determine the effectiveness in removing contaminants from the groundwater. In addition, quarterly groundwater quality data and water levels are collected from shallow and deep monitoring wells, and the recovery wells to continue evaluating the nature and extent of the groundwater plume. Overall, the monitored contaminants of concern continue to exhibit a decline in comparison to the levels detected prior to initiation of the groundwater recovery system.

As of October 2010, approximately 61 million gallons of water have been treated at the Site. The treatment system is currently processing . water at an average monthly pumping rate of approximately thirty (30) gpm, and has maintained hydraulic control

11

- ------------

of the contaminated groundwater plume (s) . The untreated water coming into the treatment system (influent) is sampled monthly and the data results show that the contaminant concentrations have decreased over time since the treatment system began operating in February 2006. Figure 2 (total combined influent) illustrates how the concentrations of total VOCs have decreased between February 2006 and December 2009. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how each contaminant of concern is decreasing over time. In addition, the effluent discharge

water is consistently meeting to surface water limits.

the NJDEP established

Of the 27 monitoring

wells wells

that and 3

comprise recovery

the enwells),

tire 17

well are

network· (24 sampled on a

quarterly basis for groundwater quality while a comprehensive groundwater sample event is conducted once a year. The current sampling frequency can be found in the Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring PI~n. Overall, the analytical data indicates that the contaminant concentrations in the shallow and deep' groundwater portions of the plume. have decreased over the past 5 years. Specifically, PCE and TCE have been reduced in many of the wells throughout the Site (See Table 2).

For the perimeter monitoring wells (MW-101S, MW 101D, MW 102D, MW 102S, MW 106D, MW 107D, MW 108D, MW 108S, MW 1090, MW 109S, MW 110S, MW 110D and MW 112D), analytical results are currently at concentrations approaching the MCL or remaining stable just above the MCL for all VOCs. This trend can be observed in Figure 5, which plots the sum concentration of TCE and PCE in parts per billion against time. The observed decrease in concentration levels detected in the perimeter wells suggests that the plume is laterally shrinking and hydraulic control has been maintained by the current system.

The recovery and monitoring wells within the presumed capture zone (RW-1, RW-2, RW-3, MW-103D, MW-103S, MW-104D, MW-104S, MW-105D and

MW-111D) have historically contained the highest concentrations and remain significantly higher than the perimeter wells. This data additionally supports that the plume continues to be recovered by the groundwater extraction system for treatment and that hydraulic control is maintained. Figures 6 and 7 denote the decrease in concentration, illustrating that significant mass has been removed. Figure 8 contains data for MW-103S, MW-1030 and MW-1110. These are the only monitoring wells displaying a slightly increasing or flat concentration trend. These trends can be attributed to the well locations. The MW~111D trend is most likely a reaction to the influx'of water resulting from its proximity to RW-3 while the MW­103 cluster is close to RW-2 and is within the former source area.

In summary, the concentrations within the intended capture zone are still above applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

12

(ARARs), indicating that the recovery and treatment system will need to continue operation and maintenance activities and performance monitoring will need to be conducted.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with participants of the Site inspection on October 25, 2010. The following items were discussed during the interviews: operation of the groundwater recovery and treatment systems; groundwater monitoring wells analytical data; the nature and extent of the groundwater plumes; the surface water discharge outfall requirements and preparation of the -CEA application.

Site Inspection

A Site inspection was conducted on October 25, 2010. The following parties were in attendance:

Michael Zeolla, EPA Project Manager . Urszula Filipowicz, EPA Human Health Risk Assessor Brian McGinnis, FMC Corporation John Persico, BBL, Inc., an ARCADIS Company Stephen Cox, BBL, Inc., an ARCADIS Company Lucus Cullen, BBL, Inc., an ARCADIS Company

The attendees toured the recovery wells and treatment system, identified monitoring wells on the property and observed the discharge to surface water outfall pipe. Conditions observed indicated that the wells arid.system are being well-maintained and properly operated. In addition, the PRPs contractor travels to the Site on a daily basis to oversee the operations and maintenance program.

VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMBNT

Question A: Is tbe remedy £un.ctioning as intended by tbe decision doCUlllel1ts?

The remedy selected in the 1997 ROD called for contaminated groundwater to be extracted and conveyed via a pipeline to the existing treatment system at the nearby Higgins Farm Superfund Site for remediation to Federal and State MCLs and the promulgated NJGWQS with discharge of treated groundwater to surface water and implementation of the groundwater monitoring program. In addition, the ROD required the ten residences on Laurel Avenue and the Higgins family to be connected to a potable water supply line. Finally, it required the performance of five-year reviews to ensure the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

13

Since the signing of the ROD, a PDI and FFS were carried out. With the information gathered from these studies, EPA recommended a different alternative as the preferred remedy. TheSe changes to the selected remedy were documented in an ESD signed in 2002. The remedy called for installation of extraction wells; on-site treatment from a WWTP (wastewater treatment plant) which includes flocculation, clarification, and filtration followed by two

. granular-activated carbon vessels and pH adjustments; and reinj ection of· treated water into the aquifer. Currently, the treated water is discharged to an on-site pond. Additionally,. the ESD stated that as part of the groundwater remedy, a CEA. would need to be implemented for the impacted groundwater at the Site until the contaminant concentrations meet Federal and State MCLs and NJGWQS.

Under a separate removal action, EPA excavated and disposed of highly contaminated source materials found in the on-site landfill areas. The source area has been removed and is no longer impacting the on-site soils and groundwater. After completing post excavation sampling, EPA concluded that exposure to the Site soils, surface water and sediment do not pose a significant risk therefore no further action is necessary for those media. Currently, there is no complete exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater at the Site since the on~site and nearby residences are connected to a public water supply. The groundwater recovery and treatment system is operational, and since 2006, the analytical data indicates that the contaminant concentrations within the groundwater have decreased and hydraulic control has been maintained. The vapor intrusion pathway has been investigated both on-site and in nearby residences, and at this time, the pathway remains incomplete. Although a 'CEA still needs to be implemented, currently, the remedy is funct~oning as intended by the decision documents.

Question B: Are the exposure assUZll'tions, toxicity data, c~eanup ~evels, and remedial. action objectives used at the. time of the reme~ sti~~ valid?

There have been no physical changes to the Site that would adversely affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The exposure assumptions and the toxicity values that were used to estimate the potential risks and hazards to human health followed the general risk assessment practice at the time the risk assessment was performed. Although the risk assessment process has been updated and specific parameters and toxicity values may have changed, the risk assessment process that was used is still consistent with current practice and the· need to implement a remedial action remains valid.

The potential ecological risks are considered minimal because of the following: 1) the elevated levels of pesticides is possible due

14

to agricultural land use; 2} the impacts on wetlands are non­existent because of their small size and low functional value; 3} no threatened or endangered species is known to have occurred on the property; 4) no effects from contamination were observed; 5) habitat is limited to use by humans and grazing horses; and 6) horses diet is mostly composed of commercial feed and hay.

The remedial action objectives established in the ROD which remain valid for the Higgins Disposal Site are as follows: 1) capture and treat the contaminated groundwater at the Site for the purposes of restoring the aquifer to the most stringent Federal and State MCLs and NJGWQS; 2) control the migration of the contaminated groundwater for the purpose of limiting future off-site migration; and 3) minimize the potential for direct exposure of the populace to the contaminated groundwater.

To ensure that the first RAO is being met, since 2006, the contaminated groundwater at the Site has been captured and treated using the on-site treatment system. Although the Federal and State MCLs and NJGWQS have not yet been met, with continual extraction and treatment, it is expected that they will be met in the future. VOCs are the risk driving constituents of concern at the Higgins Disposal Site. Three recovery wells (RW-l, -2 and -3) are utilized for extraction of the contaminated groundwater. Generally, TCE and PCE represent the greatest contribution to the total VOC groundwater contamination. Effluent data from the extraction wells indicate that the treatment plant is effectively treating the contaminated groundwater. Overall, the voe trends in the influent have been decreasing in the past five years from treatment while the contamination that remains on-site continues to be reduced.

Along with VOCs, iron and manganese concentrations have also been analyzed in the past five years to· ensure proper capture and treatment of these metals. Recovery well data do not indicate frequent exceedances of these metals. Da,ta collected from Site monitoring wells indicate detection of both; however, these exceedances are not elevated above their respective standards and generally indicate overall decreasing trends. It should be noted that in June 2006, iron was detected above the NJGWQS of 300 ug/L in MW-112D and MW-I02S at concentrations of 102,000 ug/L and 48,600 ug/L, respectively. These highly elevated concentrations were not shown in subsequent years of metal analyses. The maximum manganese concentration was detected in June 2006 at 2,100 ug/L in MW-I03S (NJGWQS of 50 ug/L) . Manganese detected in this well has been decreasing and recently, in 2010, has dropped to 147 ug/L. The Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are risk-based screening values equivalent to a cancer risk of one in one million (10-6

) or a cancer hazard quotient of 1.0. The RSL for manganese and iron are 26,000 ug/L and 880 ug/L, respectively. Although the maximum detected concentrations of iron and manganese exceeded the NJGWQS and their

15

respective RSL values, data collected in more recent years show a reduction in the concentrations of both metals. Currently, the iron and manganese concentrations remain below the actionable levels. Sampling and treatment will continue as necessary to ensure protectiveness. .

The off-site migration of the contaminated groundwater has been effectively controlled, which is the second RAO established for the Site. Groundwater data from the Site perimeter and down gradient monitoring wells (includes the shallow and deep MW-106 through MW­109 clusters), with the exception of MW-107D, did not indicate detection of VOCs above their respective NJGWQS since the 2006 sampling event. The maximum detected PCE concentration in MW-107D was slightly above the NJGWQS of 1 ug/L in June 2006 (3.3 ug/L) but has steadily decreased since June 2006 to below the standard.

The final RAO of minimizing the potential for direct exposure to contaminated groundwater has also been met. As per the ROD, the neighboring residences on Laurel Avenue along with the Higgins property have been connected to a public water supply. None of the residents iri the vicinity of the Site are utilizing the contaminated groundwater as a potable water source. As stated in the ESD, a CEA will need to be implemented for the impacted groundwater at the Site until the contaminant concentrations meet the Federal and State· MCLs and NJGWQS. This will further ensure that the potential for direct exposure to the contaminated groundwater is minimized.

To ensure that vapor intrusion into homes in the vicinity of the VOC plume is not a complete exposure pathway, ·five rounds of subs lab and/or indoor air sampling have been conducted for residents of Laurel Avenue and the on-site Higgins house. Only one home continues to show elevated PCE concentrations in the subs lab ranging from 176 micrograms pe~ cubic meters (ug/m3

) (June 2006 sampling) to 84.8 ug/m3 (March 2010). During a 4-year period, concurrent subslab and indoor air sampling indicated that PCE is not accumulating inside this home; therefore, vapor intrus.ion is not of concern. Since the Voc plume continues to be remediated, it is not expected that the PCE concentrations beneath the subslab will increase. However, to ensure protectiveness, the home of concern will continue to be monitored.

Question C: Bas any other iDfozmation came to ~ight that coul.d cal.l. into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Teclmic:a~ Assessmant Summary

Based upon the results of this five-year review, it has been determined that:

16

--------------- - -- - ---

Mu

• The removal of on-site waste containers and contaminated soils has reduced the contaminant concentration in the groundwater.

• A waterline extension and connection of Laurel Avenue residents and the Higgins house has eliminated the potential for direct contact to the contaminated groundwater.

• The groundwater recovery and treatment system continues to operate to effectively contain the shallow and deep groundwater plumes and reduce the contaminant concentrations;

• The discharge to surface water consistently meets the limits established in the permit; and

• Performance monitoring is necessary to continue evaluating the cleanup of the groundwater against the Federal and State MCLs and promulgated NJGWQS.

VIII. ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

This report did not identify any issues or make any recommendation for the protection of human health and/or the environment that 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 currently protects hUman health and the environment because exposur~ pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The removal actions conducted by EPA and the PRP have removed all soil contamination. A waterline extension and connection of Laurel Avenue residents have eliminated the current risk to contaminated groundwater. The pump and treat system is operating and monitoring indicates that the system is effectively controlling contamination migration and remediating the shallow and deep aquifer plumes. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, a CEA needs to be implemented.

X. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review for this Site should be completed before February 2016, five years from the date of this report.

L tlan, Director Date

Emergency and Remedial Response Division

17

18

TABLES­

19

----~~.~--- -- --- ~-~-~---~------

'rable 1: Site Chronolosa:

Event Date

Higgins Disposal Services operated 1950s to 1980s

NJDEP discovers unregistered waste transfer station & unpermitted active landfill

1982

NJDEP issues ACO for Landfill Closure 1982

NJDEP & FTHD notified about medicine taste in well water 1985

NJDEP institutes a Interim Well Restriction for Laurel_Ave 1986

Site placed on the National Priorities List 1990

Removal Assessment conducted by EPA prior to RI/FS 1990

RI/FS Activities initiated by EPA 1992

Site Fence installed by EPA for Removal Activities 1993

Site RI/FS released by EPA 1996

Site Record of Decision issued by EPA 1997

EPA and PRPs enter into ACO for the Landfill Removal 1998

Waterline Extension & Connectio~ Completed 1999

Pre-:Design Investigation Completed by PRPs 1999 to 2000

Site Focus Feasibility Study prepared by PRPs 2001

Site Explanation of Significant Difference issued by EPA 2002

EPA and PRPs enter into a Partial Consent Decree for the Groundwater RD/RA at the Site

2004

Groundwater Tre-atment System began operations 2005

EPA issues Preliminary Close-Out Report 2006

EPA approves PRPs Interim Remedial Action Report 2006

20

Table 2 - PCE Concentrations for the Deep Aquifer (ppb)

..

NJGWQS MW­10lD

MW­1020

MW­1030

MW­1040

MW­1050

MW:­1060

MW­1070

MW­1080

MW­1090

MW­1100

MW­11lD

MW­1120

Jan-06 1 NS NS NS NS 160 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Mar-06 1 3.2 NS 78 140 170 1 3.3 1 1 9.3 17 NS Jun-06 1 1.4 29 66 160 100 - 1 1 1. 1 3.7 95 1.5 Aug-06 1 1.5 3 63 120 130 1 ' 2.5 1 1 0.8 52 1.7 Nov-Q6 1 1.4 1.1 3 150 NS . 0.7 1.8 1 1 1.6 100 1.7 Mar-07 1 1.5 0.7 72 110 NS 0.4 2.4 0.4 0.4 1 17 2.2 Jun-07 1 1.5 0.5 69 110 110 1 1.5 1 1 1 70 2 Sep-07 1 1.3 0.4 74 42 100 1 ' · 1.2 1 1 1.3 120 3.5 Nov-07 1 1.8 1 82 88 130 1 1.7 1 1 2.2 170 4.2 tJlar-08 1 2 0.5 86 68 NS 1 1.6 1 1 1.2 150 3.8 Jun-08 1 1 0.8 77 90 NS 1 1.5 1 1 1.4 120 3.7 Sep-08 1 0.9 1.2 85 76 NS :.' 1 1 1 1 1.6 120 4.3 Dec-08 1 0.9 0.4 120 140 NS 1 1.1 1 1 1.4 130 6.3 Mar-09 1 1 1 92 74 50 1 1.4 1 1 1.3 120 3.4 Jun-09 1 1.1 0.88 86 76 29 1 1.6 1 1 0.67 120 4.5 Sep-09 1 1.2 1 94 73 NS 1 1.2 1 1 1.2 130 3.4 [}ec-09 1 1.2 1.7 89 81 NS 1 . 1.1 . 1 1 1.5 140 2.9

1

Table 2 - TCE Concentrations for the Deep Aquifer (ppbl

NJGWQS MW­lOlD

MW­1020

MW­1030

MW­1040

MW­1050

MW­1060

MW­1070

MW­1080

MW­1090

MW­1100

MW­1110

MW­1120

Jan-06 1 NS NS NS NS 130 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Mar-06 1 3 NS 140 73 140 1 0.7 1 1 15 50 NS Jun-06 1 1.2 5.6 140 94 120 1 1 1 1 5.1 370 1.8 Auq-06 1 1 1 130 55 130 1 1 1 1 1.7 170 2 Nov-06 1 1 1 8.2 82 NS 1 1 1 1 2.9 350 2.6 Mar-07 1 1 1.1 100 46 NS 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.6 90 2.6 Jun-07 1 1.4 0.4 120 48 130 1 0.5 1 1 2 260 3.5 Sep-07 1 1 1 95 27 66 1 1 1 1 1.7 300 4.3 Nov-07 1 0.8 1 93 44 110 1 1 1 1 1.9 330 4.1 Mar-OS 1 1.2 0.7 92 41 NS 1 0.4 1 1 1 390 4.8 Jun-OS 1 0.7 1.2 66 26 NS 1 . 0.4 1 1 1 250 4.2 Sep-OS 1 1 1.9 71 29 NS 1 1 1 1 1.2 270 4.9 Dec-OS 1 0.6 0.6 77 34 NS 1 1 1 1 1 280 4.1 Mar-09 1 0.6 1.4 69 28 49 1 1 1 1 I 0.8 280 3.8 Jun-09 1 0.58 1.4 59 22 14 1 0.39 1 1 0.86 240 4.2 Sep-09 1 0.61 1.5 64 21 NS 1 0.39 1 1 0.78 270 3.5 Dec-09 1 0.67 1.2 53 20 NS 1 0.21 1 1 0.8 280 2.9

2

Table 2 - PCE Concentrations in the Shallow Aquifer (ppb)

NJGWQS MW­1015

MW­1025

MW­1035

MW­1045

MW­1055

MW­1065

MW­1075

MW­1085

MW­1095

MW­1105

MW­1115

MW­1125

Jan-06 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Mar-06 1 NS NS NS 69 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Jun-06 1 NS 3.2 97 160 NS NS NS NS 1 2.2 NS NS Aug-06 1 NS NS 43 110 NS NS NS NS NS 1.7 NS NS Nov-06 1 NS NS 100 89 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Mar-07 1 NS NS 120 46 NS NS NS NS NS 1.3 NS NS Jun-07 1 NS 2.6 290 97 NS NS NS 1 1 1.6 NS NS Sep-07 1 NS NS 67 89 NS NS NS NS NS 0.5 NS NS Nov-07 1 NS NS 85 100 NS NS NS NS NS 1.2 NS NS Mar-08 ·1 NS NS 280 74 NS NS NS NS NS 1.7 NS NS )un-08 1 1 6.3 360 3.2 NS ' NS NS 1 1 1.2 NS NS Sep-08 1 NS NS 96 57 NS NS NS NS NS 0.8 NS NS 'Dec-08 1 NS NS 120 53 NS NS NS NS NS 0.7 NS NS Mar-09 1 NS NS 290 37 NS NS NS NS NS 0.7 NS NS 'Jun-09 1 0.39 3.4 270 22 NS NS NS NS 1 0.81 NS NS Sep-09 1 NS NS 190 15 NS NS NS NS NS 0.82 NS NS Dec-09 1 NS NS 270 30 NS NS NS NS NS 0.59 NS NS

3

Table 2 - TeE Concentrations in the Shallow Aquifer (ppb)

NJGWQS MW­1015

MW­1025

MW­1035

MW­1045

MW­1055

MW­1065

MW­1075

MW­1085

MW­1095

MW­1105

MW­1115

MW­1125

Jan-06 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Mar-06 1 NS NS NS 3.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Jun-06 1 NS 5.4 5.7 9.9 NS NS NS NS 1 1 NS NS Aug-06 1 NS NS 1.5 6.8 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Nov-06 1 NS NS 2 5.8 NS NS NS . NS . NS NS NS NS Mar-07 1 NS NS 1.5 3 NS NS NS NS NS 0.4 NS NS Jun-07 1 NS 0.9 5.2 5.5 NS NS NS 1 r 1 1 NS NS Sep-07 1 NS NS 0.8 5.2 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Nov-07 1 NS NS 2.7 5.9 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Mar-OS 1 NS NS 5.6 3.8 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Jun-OS 1 1 1.3 6.1 0.3 NS NS NS 1 1 1 NS NS Sep-OS 1 NS NS 2.7 3.2 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Dec-OS 1 NS NS 0.6 2 NS NS NS NS ' NS 1 NS NS Mar-09 1 NS NS 4.4 2.1 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Jun-09 1 1 1.3 4.5 1.3 NS NS NS 1 1 NS NS Sep-09 1 NS NS 2.3 0.88 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS Dec-09 1 NS NS 3.2 1.7 NS NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS

10 =Concentration exceeds the NJGWQS (ppb) NS = Not Sampled

4

FIGURES

. 1

~----

x__

~~ ... -- ­ e:::.:-­----......._____ .,..-u.--_..--. v.PPTil? =.u;:::­---..

+ --­===:-..: ­... _....­--- ­--­.. _-. .... ­-.. QIiII'JM' -.•• lID. t.~..._ ....___

-"5.---"-"-­..----"-'" T ! T T--­... IMP

RBI,=rt!MI;­

1

Figure 2 - TOTAL COMBINED VOCs 1,200

- 1,000 .c c. c.-r::: 8000.­.... ('0....... r::: 600<U u r::: 0 u .... 400r::: <U :J-.... r:::- 200

a

1

70

60

1:0 50 Q.

I ~ I S , ::; 40

ttl ' ­c: -QJ u

5 30 u-c: QJ ::s 1: 20

10

o

Figure 3 - Contaminants of Concern --+-- l .ll-TRICHLOROETHANE ____ l .l .ll-TETRACHLOROETHANE ___ I 1 l-TRICHLO OETl-lANE

-ll-OICHLOROETHENE ....... 1 .H>ICHlOROBENZENE

CARBON TETRACHLO IOE -HLOROB6NZENE METHVLENECHLO IDE

--...- ' INYl CHLORIDE

2

Figure 4 - Contaminants of Concern 350

-...-CHlOROFORM ---TETRACHlO'ROETHYlENE(PCE) ----TRICHLOROETHyLENE (TCE)

- 300 ...a a. a.- 250c: 0 .... ~ 200.... c: <IJ v c: 150 0 U .... c: 100<IJ :J

:;:: c:

50

o

3

35

25

-.c 0. 0. 20 -UJ

~ + 15 UJ u c..

10

5

o

-.-MW- 0 0

---MW-lOl

.....-M\,\I-1020

......... MW-102

-"-MW-1060

-+-M W-1070

__MW-1080

MW-108S

-­M W-1090

....-- MW-10 S

- MW·1100

- .VIW-10

M W-11l

o -05 JlIl -06 J n-07 Aug-07 F b-08 S 1)-08 M r-09 {leO 1\·1c'ty-l0 Nov-10

Figure 5

4

300

250

- 200.c 0. 0.-L&J U... 150 + L&J U 0..

100

so

o

- ­ lin r (MW-10-W ) - ­ lin M (MW-IO"'S ) - ­ lin tn (MW-10SO} M\\,-l -W MW-l -IS J\·1W-105D

-05 Jul-O Jan-07 A\lg-07 F b-08 1)-08 Mar-O May- 0 Nov-iO

Figure 6

5

800 - II-RW-l R'I...·-l w-~ --Un('<'u' (RW-l ) --Un r {RW-l ) --lin ar {RW­

700

600

-..cQ. SOO Q.-u LI.I

400 I-­+

LI.I u 300 Q.

200

100

0

Dec-OS Oct-06 Aug-07 JLm-OB MJr-09 Jan-IO

Figure 7 · Recovery Wells

6

500

400

-.c a. .e 300 L.U

~ +

L.U U 0..

100

o

-­ lin r (l l'v I. ~S ) -­ lin ar { MW·l0~O , -­lin ar M\\,-1110 / -e-11 'N-l03S -.-1....1\/\'-1030 M\V-l110

Dec-OS Jul-06 Jan-07 Aug-07 Feb-OS Sep-OS Mar-09 ct-09 r laV-l0 Nov-iO

Figure 8

7