--------i-··--

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FORWILLIAMS PROPERTY SUPERFUND SITE

CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

Prepared by

u.s. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 2

New York, New York

"~£./L----------------------~~ ~~g~-~~

DateWalter E. Mugdan, Division DirectorEmergency and Remedial Response Division

43748111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111

Table of Coimteinite I. INTRODUCTION 3

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4 II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4

Basis for Taking Action 4 Response Actions 5 Status of Implementation 6 IC Summary Table 7 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 7

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 8 IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 9

Community Notification and Involvement 9 Data Review 9 Site Inspection 10

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 10 QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 10 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? 11 QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 12

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 12 VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 13 VIII. NEXT REVIEW 13

FIGURES TABLES APPENDICES

1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

CAS Chemical Abstract System CEA Classification Exception Area CIC Community Involvement Coordinator coc Chemical of Concern EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Differences FYR Five-Year Review FS Feasibility Study GAC Granular activated carbon LTRA Long-Term Remedial Action MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEK methyl ethyl ketone MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone NCP National Contingency Plan NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJGWQC New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria OU Operable Unit OSWER Office Solid Waste & Emergency Response PCE T etrachloroethylene PPb Parts per billion RAO Remedial Action Objective RI Remedial Investigation ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager SVOCs Semi-volatile Organic Compounds TCE T richloroethylene TCPP tris (l-chloro-2 isopropyl) phosphate TIC Tentatively Identified Compound -USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WRA Well Restriction Area

2

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP)(40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.

This is the fourth FYR for the Williams Property Superfund Site (Site). The triggering action for this review is the September 2011 completion date of the previous FYR. The remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. .However, it is the policy of the EPA to conduct five-year reviews when remedial activities including monitoring, will continue for more than five years. Because it will take more than five years to attain federal or state drinking water standards, EPA has conducted a policy review.

The Site consists of one Operable Unit (OU1) for contaminated groundwater and soil and it is addressed in this FYR.

The Williams Property Superfund Site FYR was led by Ira Perry Katz, EPA Region 2 Remedial Project Manager. Participants included:

o Diana Cutt, EPA Region 2 Hydrogeologist; o Charles Nace, EPA Region 2 Risk Assessor; o Pat Seppi, EPA Region 2 Community Involvement Coordinator; o Steve Wohleb, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Case Manager; and o Dave VanEck, NJDEP Hydrogeologist.

The review began on 1/11/20

Site Background

The Site is located on Siegtown Road in Middle Township, Cape May County, New Jersey. It is located less than three miles southeast of the Timber Beaver Swamp Fish and Wildlife Management Area, a major aquifer recharge zone, and is bordered by prime wetlands habitats. The nearest surface water is about 400 feet northeast from the Williams Property in the form of water-filled sand and gravel pits. There are no natural surface streams located in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The nearest stream is Deep Creek, which is approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the Site.

3

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

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

Lead agency: State [If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Ira Perry Katz

Author affiliation: EPA Region 2

Review period: 1/11/2016 - 7/8/2016

Date of site inspection: 2/8/2016

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: 9/27/2011

Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/27/2016

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action

In response to the release of the chemicals discovered in 1979, the NJDEP undertook extensive investigations to determine the impact of the spill on the environment, and in particular, on the groundwater. Based on the results of those investigations, response actions farther described below were implemented beginning in 1980.

4

Through a Cooperative Agreement with EPA, the NJDEP completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 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 (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, total xylenes, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Subsequent investigatory work conducted during design activities determined that acetone, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone {MEK}), and 4-methyl-2-pentanone (methyl isobutyl ketone {MIBK}) were also COCs.

Groundwater migration is the primary transport pathway for COCs from the Site. Potentially exposed populations included downgradient potable well users and direct contact with contaminated soils. Remedial actions taken to address the COCs and potentially exposed population are further described in Section IV.

Response Actions

Initial Response

In August 1979, approximately 150 drums of liquid chemicals and sludge were emptied on the Site by the property owner (Theodore Williams), adjacent to the Williams residence. Investigations conducted by NJDEP showed that both the soils and groundwater had been contaminated. As a result of these findings, NJDEP conducted an emergency cleanup of the spill site in 1980 that removed approximately 1200 cubic yards of soil 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.

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 contaminants. The major components of the remedy selected in the 1987 ROD include the following:

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

o recharge of the treated groundwater to the aquifer on-site; o provision of an alternate water supply to residents with individual wells impacted by the

Site; o excavation of the contaminated soils above the action level at the original spill area; o removal of the excavated soils to an approved off-site disposal facility for incineration;

and, ° re-grading the Site with clean fill, re-vegetation and restoration of the Site.

5

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.

In September 1990, the NJDEP completed design field investigations for the ground water remediation portion of the remedy. The investigations found that the groundwater contained 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. These changes were documented in a February 1993 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD).

To include an institutional control as part of the CERCLA remedy, EPA issued a second ESD on June 20, 2016 to document that an institutional control in the form of a Classification Exemption Area/Well Restriction Area (CEA/WRA) in accordance with the NJDEP regulations, was implemented and is a part of the groundwater remedy for the Site.

Status of 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, NJDEP 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 soil cleanup 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 cylinders from the Site.

After issuance of the 1993 ESD, the remedial design for the modified treatment system was completed by NJDEP in June 1993. Physical construction was completed in December 1994 and the system was put into operation in January 1995. The system is comprised of two groundwater recovery wells, a water treatment plant that includes biological treatment in sequencing batch reactors, GAC adsorption, and re-injection wells for the treated water. A group of approximately twenty-five monitoring wells and well points used in the investigations are available to monitor

6

the progress of the remediation. The Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed on September 15, 1995.

On April 19, 1999, the NJDEP issued the CEA/WRA pursuant to NJDEP regulations for the Holly Beach groundwater aquifer impacted by the Site. The CEA/WRA prevents the installation of a drinking water well in the contaminated portion of an aquifer.

IC Summary Table

Table 1; Summary of Implemented ICs Media, engineered

controls, and areas that do ICs ICs Called for in the Impacted IC

Title of IC Instrument

not support UU/UE based on current conditions

Needed Decision Documents

Parcel(s) Objective Implemented and Date

Block 99.02, Lots 2,3,4,5,12

Groundwater Yes Yes

and Block 98, Lots 19.01, 19.02, 19.03, 16.01, 18.02

Restrict installation of drinking water ground

water wells and ground water use as a drinking water source.

Classification Exception

Area/Well Re striction Area

(CEA/WRA) -April 1999

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance

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

By the summer of 2000, sampling showed that much of the plume of groundwater 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 clean portion of the original plume. Operations continued using the remaining extraction well along with water treatment centering on the GAC adsorption unit. Groundwater monitoring is conducted annually from 8-10 monitoring wells. Samples are analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) + 30 and Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) + 30. As of January 2016, approximately 278 million gallons of contaminated groundwater had been extracted, treated and re-injected to the aquifer.

There are no site changes or vulnerabilities that may be related to climate change impacts not apparent during remedy selection, remedy implementation or operation and maintenance that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

7

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

Table 2: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2011 FYR

ou# Protectiveness Determination Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide Protective The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the environment because the on-going 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.

There were no issues and/or recommendations in the last five year review dated May 2011.

To include an institutional control as part of the CERCLA remedy, EPA issued a second ESD on June 20, 2016 to document that an institutional control in the form of a Classification Exemption Area/Well Restriction Area (CEA/WRA) in accordance with the NJDEP regulations, was implemented and is a part of the groundwater remedy for the Site.

The data also indicate that 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from monitoring/recovery wells exceed the recently developed (October 2015) interim New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria (NJGWQC) of 0.4ppb . 1, 4-dioxane has generally been detected in the 15 - 25 ppb range throughout the monitoring well network (see Table 1). Although the latest sample analysis collected from a sentinel well (MW90-13B) did not detect (detection limit 1.9 ppb) 1,4 dioxane, the establishment of the interim NJGWQC at 0.4 ppb in October 2015 as well as the extent of 1,4 dioxane in the monitoring well network warrants further assessment.

There were several items that were raised in the previous five-year review, namely the toxicity values for the Tentatively Identified Compounds (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 of TCPP, as well as an evaluation of the toxicity values associated with TCPP and its isomers, were completed over the past five years. 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 health-based groundwater concentration was not recommended. A generic groundwater criterion for chemicals with no evidence of carcinogenicity of 100 ppb was recommended for TCPP.

8

3Yo FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS Community Notification and Involvement

On November 19, 2015, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be reviewing site cleanups and remedies at 32 Superfund sites and four federal facilities in New York and New Jersey, including the Williams Property Site. The announcement can be found at the following web address: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11 /documents/fv 16 fyr public website summarv.pdf. The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) for the Williams Property Site is Pat Seppi.

Data Review

Overall, 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 of TCE and 1, 4-dioxane.

TCE

Detections at or exceeding the NJGWQC of 1 ppb for TCE during this five year monitoring period were sporadic and the data were qualified as being estimated and/or having laboratory blank contamination (see Table 2). RW91-1 and 93-1, located in the former source area (Figure 1) had TCE detected at 1 ppb once each over the five year monitoring period. Other than this, all other TCE concentrations in these wells have been below the NJGWQC. OP91-1B and 2B had exceedances ranging from 1.4 ppb to 3.1 ppb over the course of the five year monitoring period with no discernable trend. All other monitoring wells were below 1 ppb. Detections of TCE in the treatment system effluent are below the NJGWQC of 1 ppb.

1,4 dioxane

The data also indicate that 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from monitoring/recovery wells exceed the recently developed (October 2015) interim NJGWQC of 0.4 ppb . 1, 4-dioxane has generally been detected in the 15 - 25 ppb range throughout the monitoring well network (see Table 1). Although the latest sample analysis collected from a sentinel well (MW90-13B) did not detect 1,4 dioxane, the establishment of the interim NJGWQC at 0.4 ppb in October 2015 (resulting in the need for a lower analytical detection limit for subsequent analyses) as well as the extent of 1,4 dioxane in the monitoring well network, including its presence in the treated effluent warrants further assessment.

TICs

During this five-year monitoring period TCPP was not detected at concentrations that exceed the NJGWQC of 100 ppb. Other tentatively identified semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected at concentrations that exceeded the NJGWQC of 100 ppb for individual synthetic organic compounds and 500 ppb for total synthetic organics except when data was qualified as either estimated and/or there was laboratory blank contamination at concentrations comparable to the concentrations detected at the effected wells.

9

Site Inspection

A Site inspection was performed on February 14, 2016. In attendance were: J

Perry Katz, EPA Region IIRPM Diana Cutt, EPA Hydrogeologist Brian Bausback, Handex (NJDEP's Site Operator)

The inspection found a well-maintained and functioning facility. Several monitoring wells were not locked when inspected. The locks were closed properly during the Site visit, with the exception of MW 85-6, which requires a new outer cap.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

Remedial Action Performance

System Operations/O&M

Monitoring data collected by NJDEP during the last five-year review period (2011-2016) showed that concentrations of the site contaminants remaining in the groundwater meet state and federal standards, with the exception of TCE, which was detected sporadically at low concentrations (ranging from 1.4 to 3.1 ppb) in monitoring wells OP-91-1B and OP-91-2B. The concentrations for these data were qualified as estimated and detected in the laboratory blank (see Table 2). The NJGWQC for TCE is 1 ppb. Detections of TCE in the effluent are below the NJGWQC of 1 ppb.

Monitoring data indicate that 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from monitoring/recovery wells exceed the recently developed (October 2015) interim NJGWQC of 0.4 ppb. 1, 4-dioxane has generally been detected in the 15 - 25 ppb range throughout the monitoring well network (see Table 1). Although the latest sample analysis collected from a sentinel well (MW90-13B) did not detect 1,4 dioxane, the establishment of the interim NJGWQC at 0.4 ppb in October 2015 (resulting in the need for a lower analytical detection limit for subsequent analyses) as well as the extent of 1,4 dioxane in the monitoring well network, including the its presence in the treated effluent warrants further assessment.

During this five-year monitoring period TCPP was not detected at concentrations that exceed the NJGWQC of 100 ppb. Other tentatively identified semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected at concentrations that exceeded the NJGWQC of 100 ppb for individual synthetic organic compounds and 500 ppb for total synthetic organics except when data was qualified as either estimated and/or there was laboratory blank contamination at concentrations comparable to the concentrations detected at the effected wells.

Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures

The NJDEP CEA/WRA pursuant to NJDEP regulations is for Holly Beach groundwater aquifer which is impacted by the Site. The CEA/WRA prevents the installation of a drinking water well

10

in the contaminated portion of an aquifer.

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?

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. The 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 2011 Five-Year Review Report are still valid. However, due to a change in the interim NJGWQC for 1,4 dioxane a recommendation for further monitoring and plume delineation is discussed below.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

There were several items 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 TCPP and isomers of TCPP, 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 that there was a lack of data to derive a chemical-specific drinking water value and that a generic value of 100 ppb should be used for TCPP and its isomers.

Cleanup values

Clean-up values for both soil and groundwater are considered to be protective.

In October 2015, New Jersey promulgated an interim NJGWQC of 0.4 ppb. 1, 4-dioxane has generally been detected in the 15 - 25 ppb range throughout the monitoring well network (see Table 1). Although some of the detected concentrations are above the interim NJGWQC, the concentrations are within the USEPA acceptable risk range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4 with a maximum value at a cancer risk of 5.4 x 10"5.

The potential for vapor intrusion to occur from TCPP and its isomers volatilizing from 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 potential to result in vapor intrusion. The Henry's Law Constant for TCPP is 3.3 x 10"6 atm-m3/mol, which is less than criterion listed above. Therefore, the presence of TCPP and its isomers in the groundwater do not present a risk for vapors to intrude into nearby buildings.

VOCs, including TCE have been effectively treated and do not present a risk for vapors to intrude into nearby buildings.

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 northern end of the plume and there is a

11

potential for groundwater to discharge to the quarry. The well (93-1) closest to the quarry, which is screened in the deeper section of the aquifer, has several compounds detected (acetone, methyl tert-butyl ether, naphthalene, pyrene, benzo[a]pyrene and 1, 4-dioxane) at 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 be a large dilution factor if the compounds are discharged to the quarry, it is unlikely that there would be any impacts to ecological receptors in the quarry. Trends of these compounds in this well will continue to be evalaluted to ensure this qualitative assessment remains valid.

Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs

Although the remedy is progressing towards meeting RAOs for the COCs identified in the ROD, 1, 4-dioxane concentrations in groundwater from monitoring/recovery wells exceed the recently developed (October 2015) interim NJGWQC of 0.4 ppb. 1, 4-dioxane has generally been detected in the 15 - 25 ppb range throughout the monitoring well network (see Table 1). Although the latest sample analysis collected from a sentinel well (MW90-13B) did not detect 1,4 dioxane, the establishment of the interim NJGWQC at 0.4 ppb in October 2015 (resulting in the need for a lower analytical detection limit for subsequent analyses) as well as the extent of 1,4 dioxane in the monitoring well network, including its presence in the treated effluent warrants further assessment of the extent of 1,4 dioxane plume.

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

No other information (e.g. from impacts related to natural disasters or Site changes/vulnerabilities related to climate change) has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recom niendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: None

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Site-wide Issue Category: Monitoring Site-wide

Issue: Extent of 1,4 dioxane plume not defined

Site-wide

Recommendation: Further monitoring to determine extent of 1,4 dioxane

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Party Oversight Party Milestone Date Protectiveness Responsible

12

No Yes State EPA 12/15/20

OTHER FINDINGS

In addition, the following recommendation that was identified during the FYR and improve management of O&M, but does not affect current and/or future protectiveness:

o One monitoring well, MW 85-6, requires a new outer cap.

VISo PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Short-Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the site protects human health and the environment because institutional controls are in place and prevent unacceptable uses of groundwater. In order to be protective in the long term, the extent of 1,4 dioxane plume needs to be further evaluated.

VUL NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Williams Property Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review (September 2021).

IX. REFERENCE LIST 1. Letter, Steve Wohleb, NJDEP to Louis Lamanna, Health Officer - Cape May County -Classification Exception Area/Well Restriction Area Designation, April 19, 1999.

2. Superfund Five-Year Review Report, Williams Property Site, New Jersey, USEPA, May, 2011.

3. Memorandum, "Ground Water Data - October 2011, Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist, October 24, 2011.

4. Memorandum, "Ground Water Data - April and October 2012, May and November 2013, Williams Property Site, David Van Eck, NJDEP Geologist, December 30, 2013.

5. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, June 2011, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

6. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, October 2011, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

13

7. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, April 2012, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

8. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, October 2012, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

9. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, May 2013 Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

10. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report ~ Data Tables, November 2013, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC, Undated,

11. Report (Excerpts), Quarterly Status Report - Data Tables, October 2014, Williams Property Site, Handex Consulting & Remediation, LLC. Undated.

12. Summary Report - NJDEP Sampling Episode, Williams Property, Term Contract A75975, October 21-24 Groundwater Sampling, Handex Consulting & Remediation LLC. Report -December 10, 2014.

13. Summary Table - Steve Wohleb, NJDEP to Perry Katz, EPA/Well/GWTP/Effluent Data July 2014 to November 2015.

14. Groundwater Quality Standard -1,4 Dioxane, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Water Monitoring and Standards, Bureau of Environmental Assessment, Restoration and Standards. October 2015

15. Derivation of a Site-Specific Health-based Groundwater Concentration for TCPP - CAS # 13674-84-5, Gloria Post, Ph.D, Office of Science, NJDEP, September 28,2010.

14

it «} a ^iLun7r>$ faoPEer/ ttiDPLG TWP^ NT

FiGuae X L E G E N D :

© MONITORING WELL LOCATION

A INJECTION WELL LOCATION

H RECOVERY WELL LOCATION

Well \ Date,

MWaS-lA •;

MW8S-XB

MW85-7 .

MW8S-7B

MW85-8B' MW85-9A1

MW90-7A

MW90-10A

MW90-10B

MW90-11A

MW90-11B.

MW90-12A

MW90-128

MW93-5 ,

MW93-SA

MW93-14A

MW93-14B

OP91-2A

0P91-1B

OP91-2B .

RW91-1

RW93-1

MW90-13B

MW90-15B

MW93-148

RW93-4

MW93-6B

MW90-17B

MW90-16A

MW90-16B.

MW91-2

4/4/12- 10/10/12 - 5/8/U-. 11/26/13-5/9/13 11/27/13

13

Not sampled

10/21/14-

Table 1

1,4 Dioxane Data (ppb) - Selected Monitoring Wells

Williams Property Superfund Site

June 2011 - November 2015

Fourth Rve-Year Review Period

1V4/2014 2/10/2015 3/17/2015 / 4/8/2015 . 5/22/2015 6/9/2015, 7/21/2015 9/9/2015 10/6/2015 V 11/10/2015. -11/24/15-11/25/15

NO ND ND

NO ND ND

15 17 IB 19 16 21 .3sr : ND . ND

23 16 21 ND NO

ND

Obstructed 2.8 1.2J

15 36 26J W . 12 Dry

17' 16 17

. ND ' ND NO 5.2 12 11 9.9 20 >23 16 10

16 15 15 7.4 14

20 Not sampled 6.6 16

Not Sampled Not Sampled 8.2

.10.7

Well \ Date 6/15/11-6/16/11

MW85-1A

MW85-1B •

MW85-7

MW8S-7B

MW85-8B

MW85-9A

MW90-7A

MW90-10A

MW9O10B

MW90-11A

MW90-11B-

MW90-12A

MW90-12B

MW93-5

MW93-5A .72 JB

MW93-14A

MW93-14B

OP91-2A

0P91-1B 1.4 JB

OP91-2B 1.4 JB

RW91-1 .30 JB

RW93-1 1.0 JB MW90-13B

MW90-15B

MW93-14B

RW93-4

MW93-68

MW90-17B

MW90-16A

MW90-16B

MW91-2

10/13/11.* 10/13/11

4/4/12-4/3/12

Table 2

TCE Oata Detections (ppb) - Selected Monitoring Wells

Williams Property Superfund Site

June 2011 - No/ember 2015

Fourth Five-Year Review Period

10/10/12- 5/8/13- 11/26/13-7/22/2014 8/5/2014

10/21/14-10/22/14

.72 Ji

2.9 JO

1.4 JB

1.0 JB

1.9 JB

.25 JB

12/9/2014 2/10/2015 3/17/2015 4/8/2015 5/22/2015 6/9/2015 7/21/2015 8/14/2015 9/9/2015 10/6/2015 11/10/2015

.32 J .43 J .47 J .43 J NO .36 J ND 31J NO .28 J .29 J

NO .37 J NO NO

r/tttllA MVMCMLC OR HtLltMn MO MVMMIMf RCOUIRaCNT:.

SuUti («l •RClO**» (ag/ll

na4M

lag/u

Mi latarla at cimm* Crltarli tog/It

Mi Drinking •atar MCL (ug/ll

•u at Mil* NMltk,C>

Standards Mtlwla (ug/ll (ag/ll

«tec- joti. Da only'*' tOf'1' Claaaue'" (ag/ll (ag/ll (ag/kgl

Oroaalca lg»

Matftrlaaa cdlorlOa Mkl 2 5q(« MataaM

5q(«

200«0> llgllrl

l.l. 1-TrlOlornatkaaa 200 200«0> 20 jjtkl Trlcaloroatnaaa 0 glg> 5(91 1 2.9«4» Tatrachlaroatkaaa lal 5191 1 o.?«" total uylaaa 44o'8' 44 2.200 Toluana 2,000,«' (91 10.100 1, l-Olcfclorontkaaa too'*1 (91 ttkylbaaiaoa too'*1 (9> 5.400 BlalT-ckloroatkyl latttar Isapharoaa 2-4Mtiylptianot Mittoaw (tCKI ,s> 4-Ma»hyl-2-gaataaona

(NI8KI lo* BM<oIC «CN Bwttft ilMtoi 4-Nstlky IpHaaot CM or of or*

OlofkylptitfeUto DNHutyl phtboUto Dl~tt~octy| ^bthalct* PH«mII

ChlorobtntaM

660

100' 9lp»

40««

.010.101 21.000 •9,000

0 (2.01 0 1.001

15.000

2.400 0 (.051

5.200 400 <»•

Ipl 5,190,

0 (0.191

414,000 44,000

5.500

9.0

50 0.0? 0.1

14.4

0.05

1.2

0.0?

MMO1"' 1,000

IO.OOO

i.ooo 1,000 1,000

1.000

I in I

10.000 10.000 10,000

14.4 1.4

rnu Ik «micwu oa kuv/wt m mowing mguiROKNft IcentlfiMdJ)

gaafca*®ae®»^Q® mqaftlQD log/SB

ew.'61 9ug/l»

HI Uturte SB Clowes GrKarla u®ni

HI SrBaktae Hxtar eaa. img/tt

HI » BHIHV SIMitfarOa Dug/11

MnlM1" A6vl«e?Bo& (Iteg/6 &

08 «a»yw® lwg/69

w>»® 4ag/80

§©883 CIIMD" ® Dag/tig}

W»t«l»

filualtaaa AnHaiMty 048. 076Mle 4s'®® S®44® . S® 98 © 038 Og/BD 9„© S® IBarliai o0ssea®® o.eoo888 . o„®e9 0o£S8 Ofi§.© ats BST^DIOJSD 0 09*8 eg/0D Codaflws S«QH 0®4'® oe DO 06 0.® s Csl«l«9

jjjCO® S f f i O O P Cferaitas os®40® jjjCO® £9 078 S f f i O O P 3.8 Be® Ccfe©80 C«pp«r o.sss's® Q,C£8(aD 07® D<rca ssaiou

®.S0aCi0 (Lced S©40® fjglil D 99 ®.S0aCi0 so 9.0 DC® ££•0096 6<£3 Pflftwgayago

3«0® 2ooz> 59108

Sterol 3«0® 2ooz> 3 M 16 8.3 0 •Bea*0 S28 ISoO (Pofrrtade©

ggOOD S«ivtr ggOOD S3 so So© 3 SotiBus S9,G901a9 70a \ftEA808C£3 2Dcs S.COSDoD s.es®,M 35®

@tf&67

CtfGsiSOo S&> m JC3.CE0 03

0 0> 0

TMLE 1A WPLtCDOU OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE RE0UIR8CMTS . -(CHtlHMI

" »

NOTESl

a. Unlaw Cental nant level float. b. Nnlaua Coo tool OUT Laval. c. SPA flrioMog eater kaolth advisories, basad oa llfa tlao atfloaure. 4. AaMaot Motor Quality Crltorlo adjaotad to drloklafl ootar only. 0. Toole CharacterIotic leeching Procedure, t. Mao tony toll claaaap criteria tar ECM dltaa. g. IVepos ad valua. b. Organoleptic, ataodard aat based aa taata or odor. 1. latarla MCL. J. Paraatheslied valua correspond t to a It"* leer eased I Hot lea eavar rlah. k. Rateraoce conceatratloos tar potential carclaogaaa, corresponds to a potaatlal cancer. I. Value ol Chroaluol*6l. a. Dlletbf Ikesyl Iphtblata or Blsll-etbylhexyllpbtblate. II Valua lata then detection Halt. n. The Na> Jersey toll cleanup action lavol tor volatllo organlea la I ag/kg and tor hate neutral estractoblea la 10 ag/tg. a. Solo drinking ester aepeturo lavala tor hataaaa developed at EM*a ECHO la Cine least It MM IIT90 ppb>. acatooa 1)900 ppb), sad NIK IITM ppkl p. On an latarla basis, the corrective action criteria tor grouadeater ce 90 ppb apply tn the sue ol cawouadt aotad. «. Tentatively IdentItied nonprlorlty pollutant* vera not Included aa guidelines era not available, r. Kir la Included par Input by IU0EP. a. Secondary standard. v. Entractlon Procedure Toelclty Ckaractarlatlc.

to NCLfl m proposed But sebsoquently elthdraeo, a aau NCLS curreotly under dlacusaloa (USEPA, am, nail, v. Data troa #1 aaapllag only.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 - SITE CHRONOLOGY

Chronology of Site Events Event Date

Site placed on National Priorities List 1982/3 Initial Cooperative Agreement with NJDEP 1987 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 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 Exception Area (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 Fourth Five-Year Review 2016

1