PB95-963812
                                 EPA/ROD/R02-95/258
                                 February 1996
EPA  Superfund
       Record of Decision:
       Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Co,
       Berkeley Township, Ocean County, NJ
       9/29/1995

-------
  SEP 28 1995
 Record of Decision
 Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site

 Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director
 Emergency and Remedial Response Division

 Jeanne M.  Fox
 Regional Administrator

 Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for
 the  Denzer & Schafer Superfund site,   The site is located in
 Berkeley Township,  Ocean County,  New Jersey.

 The  Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company is engaged in the reclamation
 of silver from microfilm and x-rays.   Past activities at the
 facility have included the reclamation of silver by chemical
 stripping and incineration of spent film.  In 1974, the company
 switched from incineration to a caustic soda and salt silver
 reclamation  process.   Between 1974 and 1981,  the facility
 disposed of  its stripping solution by discharging it to the
 plant's subsurface  sanitary septic system.  The septic system has
 subsequently been abandoned and filled with sand-  Currently, the
 process wastewater  is  stored in above-ground tanks prior to
 disposal off site.

 The  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
 conducted  a  remedial  investigation at the site from 1986 to 1991,
 and  supplementary ground water investigations from 1992 to 1995.
 The  results  of the  latter investigations indicated that site-
 related ground water contamination,  which was found during the
 earlier investigative  effort,  no  longer poses a threat to public
 health  under current or likely future land use scenarios.
 Therefore, no further  action is required pursuant to CERCLA.
 However, since low  levels of ground water contamination continue
 to exist in  the immediate vicinity of the site,  a monitoring
 program of ground and  surface waters will be implemented.

 The  Proposed Plan for  the site was released on June 30,  1995 and
 a public meeting held  in Berkeley Township on July 20.   The
 public  comment period  continued through August 7, 1995.   The
 community supported the proposed  no action with monitoring
 remedy.

The ROD has  been reviewed by NJDEP and the appropriate program
offices  in Region II,  and their comments have been incorporated
 into the attached document.
JSYIWX —>

I SURNAME —>

•ATE	>
  ^S
ELLIMO
             NJP
FRISCO
                ORC
KARLEN
                 ERRO
                 ERRD
PAVLOU
CALLAHAN
                  OEP
RANOOL
                  DRA
                         NUSZYNSKI
                   RA
FOX

-------
                               -2-

If you have any questions concerning this ROD, I will be happy to
discuss it at your convenience.

Attachment

-------
                       DECLARATION  STATEMENT

                        RECORD OF DECISION

                  Denzer & Schafer X-Ray company


 Site Name  and  Location

 Denzer  & Schafer  X-Ray Company
 Berkeley Township,  Ocean County, New Jersey


 Statement  of Basis  and Purpose

 This decision  document presents the selected remedial action for
 the  Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site.  The remedial action was
 chosen  in  accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
 Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
 as amended (CERCLA), and to the extent practicable, the National
 Oil  and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
 This decision  is based the administrative record for the site.

 The  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs
 with the selected remedy.


 Description of the  selected Remedy

 The  selected remedy for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site
 is to take no  action with monitoring of ground and surface
 waters.

 The  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection conducted
 a remedial investigation at the site from 1986 to 1991, and
 supplementary  ground water investigations from 1992 to 1995.  The
 results of the latter  investigations indicated that site-related
 ground water contamination, which was detected during the earlier
 investigative  effort,  no longer poses a threat to public health
 under current  or likely future land use scenarios.  Therefore, no
 further action is required pursuant to CERCLA.

 However, since ground  water contamination continues to exist in
the  immediate  vicinity of the site, albeit at relatively low
 levels, a monitoring program of ground and surface waters will
be implemented.  In addition, the underground storage tank and
 stripped film  debris at the site will be addressed by the State
of New Jersey  under its enforcement authorities.

-------
                                -2-
Declaration of Statutory Determinations

In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, I have
determined that no remedial action is necessary to protect human
health and the environment at the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company
site.  However, a program to monitor ground and surface waters in
the vicinity of the site will be implemented under the No Action
with Monitoring Alternative.

Because this remedy will result in low levels of hazardous
substances remaining on the site above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted within five years to ensure that the
no action with monitoring remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that its
response at the Denzer & Schafer site is complete.  Therefore,
the site now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction
Completion List.
Jeanne M. FO   's^                           Datfe
Regional A

-------
               DECISION SUMMARY









    DENZER AMD SCHAFER X-RAY COMPANY SITE






 BERKELEY TOWNSHIP, OCEAN COUNTY/ NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY






                  REGION II

-------
                        Table of Contents


 Section                                                      page

 Site Name, Location  and Description	1

 Site History and Enforcement Activities	1

 Highlights of Community Participation	3

 Scope and Role of Action	3

 Site Characteristics	3

 Summary of Site Risks  	6

 Summary of Remedial Alternatives	7

 Selected Remedy	8

 Explanation of Significant Changes	10


 Tables

 1. Summary of Significant Ground Water Results from the Remedial
 Investigation Report - 1987 and 1989 Sampling Rounds	11

 2. Summary of Significant Ground Water Results from the 1992
 Sampling Round	12

 3. Summary of Significant Ground Water Results from the 1994 and
 1995 Sampling Rounds	13


 Figures

 1. Site Location Map	14

 2. Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Super fund Site	15

 3. On-Site Soil and Ground Water Sampling Locations	16

 4. On-Site and Off-Site Monitoring Well Locations	17


Attachments

 1. Responsiveness Summary	

 2. Proposed Plan	

-------
            DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

                 DENZER AND SCHAFER X-RAY COMPANY

 SITE  NAME,  LOCATION AND  DESCRIPTION

 The Denzer  &  Schafer X-Ray  Company is  located on Block 858, Lot
 46A on  the  north  side of Hickory Lane  approximately 4,700 feet
 west  of Route 9 in  the Bayville area of  Berkeley Township.  (See
 the Site  Location Map -  Figure  1).  The  size of the property is
 approximately 10  acres.   Barnegat Bay  is approximately two miles
 to the  east of the  site  and Toms River is two miles to the north.

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

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

 The Denzer  &  Schafer facility is located on a local topographic
 high  about  50  feet  above mean sea level  (MSL).  The immediate
 surrounding area  is gently  sloping, undeveloped and covered with
 pine  trees.  The  wetlands associated with Potter and Mill Creeks
 are at  an elevation of 30 feet  above MSL.

 The site  lies  within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic
 Province.   The coastal plain is  a wedge  shaped series of
 unconsolidated sediments composed of clay, silt, sand and gravel
 of Tertiary and Cretaceous  Age.   The surficial soil is classified
 as the  Downer  Loamy Sand.   Typically,  the soil is well drained,
grayish brown, loamy sand.


SITE HISTORY AND  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

The Denzer  & Schafer X-Ray  Company is  engaged in the reclamation
of silver from microfilm and x-rays.   Past activities at the
 facility have  included the  reclamation of silver by chemical
stripping or incineration of spent film.  The Denzer & Schafer
X-Ray Company  is  not regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act  (RCRA).  In 1974, the company switched from
 incineration to a caustic soda and salt  silver reclamation

-------
 process.   Between  1974  and  1981, the  facility disposed of its
 stripping  solution by discharging  it  to the plant's subsurface
 sanitary septic  system.

 Additionally,  shredded  and  stripped film generated during the
 same  time  period (1974  to 1981) was stock piled in an area just
 north of the process building  (See Figure 2).  The stock pile of
 film  waste was subsequently transferred to an off-site landfill.
 However, for the past four  years, the stripped film waste has
 again been stored  around the site  in  cardboard containers.

 The old sanitary septic system which  received the process
 wastewater has since been abandoned and filled with sand.  Until
 1990,  process  wastewater was transferred to an on-site process
 wastewater storage tank for periodic  off-site disposal.
 Currently, the process  wastewater  is  stored in above-ground tanks
 prior to disposal  off site.  Two septic systems currently serve
 the site.  Both  reportedly  are used for the disposal of sanitary
 waste only.

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

 Two Administrative Orders (one in January 1977 and the other in
 May 1981) were issued to the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company by
 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).  The
 DEP required Denzer & Schafer to immediately cease the discharge
 of wastewaters to  its septic system,  to submit a proposal to DEP
 for permanent  treatment and off-site  disposal of its wastewater,
 and to install a ground water monitoring system.  In late 1981,
 as a  result of these requirements, Mr. John Schafer, the owner of
 the facility,  funded a ground water study which included the
 installation of nine shallow monitoring wells and two deep wells.
One additional shallow well and three piezometers were installed
 in mid-1984.   Periodic  sampling of these wells since August 1981
and analyses of soil samples collected at the site indicate that
waste from past operations has contaminated ground water at the
site  (See Figure 3).

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

-------
 HIGHLIGHTS  OF  COMMUNITY  PARTICIPATION

 At  the  onset of  the  Remedial  Investigation in 1987, the DEP
 established records  repositories at the Berkeley Township
 Municipal Building and the  Berkeley Township Library.  All major
 site-related documents were sent to these locations.  A central
 location for a comprehensive  collection of all records relating
 to  this site is  the  DEP  main  office in Trenton.

 Since 1987, the  DEP  has  held  two public meetings in Berkeley
 Township regarding the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company site.
 The first meeting was held  on February 26, 1987 to announce
 initiation  of  the Remedial  Investigation.  The second public
 meeting was held on  July 20,  1995 to summarize the findings of
 the Remedial Investigation  and Supplementary Ground Water
 Investigation  and discuss the Proposed Plan.  DEP held a public
 comment period on the Proposed Plan from June 30, 1995 to August
 7,  1995.  A summary  of the  questions and comments received at the
 public  meeting and during the comment period and DEP's responses
 are included in  the  Responsiveness Summary section of this
 document.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION

This ROD presents the selected remedial action for the Denzer and
Schafer X-Ray Company site, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive. Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980  (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act  of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).  The selection of the remedy described in
this ROD is based upon documentation comprising the
administrative record.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study was undertaken by
DEP under a cooperative agreement with EPA in 1986.  A two-phased
Remedial Investigation conducted by SMC Environmental Services
Group was completed in April 1991.  DEP conducted additional
ground water sampling from 1992 to 1995.

The RI was designed to characterize the physical conditions of
the area, delineate the nature and extent of contamination,
identify contaminant migration pathways, and characterize any
potential environmental impacts and human health risk resulting
from site contamination.

The scope of the RI included the collection and analysis of soil,
ground water and air samples, an aquifer testing program which

-------
 included a pump test and borehole Gamma  Ray  logging, a  surface
 Electromagnetic Conductivity survey,  tank  testing, test pit
 excavation and sampling,  and process  wastewater  sampling  (See
 Figure 3).

 The Quaternary Age Cape May Formation directly underlies  the site
 and is 20  to 30 feet thick.   It  consists primarily of medium to
 coarse sand interbedded with fine gravel and silt.  Beneath the
 Cape May is the Tertiary age Cohansey Formation.  It consists of
 medium to  coarse sand interbedded with silt,  gravel and clay.
 The clay is usually not continuous and does  not  act as  an
 aquitard.   The Cohansey Formation is  up  to 250 feet thick in the
 Berkeley Township area.   It acts as the  major source of potable
 well water.   The two formations  are hydraulically connected and
 act as a single,  unconfined,  extremely porous aquifer.  The depth
 to  the ground water table ranges from eleven to  twenty-three feet
 below the  surface.

 The Denzer  &  Schafer facility is in a recharge zone.  There is a
 ground water  high under the site.   The water table slopes away
 from the process building resulting in a radial  pattern of ground
 water flov:  in the shallow aquifer,  which mimics  the local
 topography.   Ground water flow in the deeper aquifer is to the
 northeast.  A downward vertical  gradient exists  between the two
 aquifers, consistent with a recharge  zone.   Average ground water
 flow velocity is about 185 feet  per year.

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

 A second ground water sampling round,  which  included newly
 installed monitoring wells,  was  conducted  in 1989.  The volatile
 and  semi-volatile results were,  in general,  similar to  data
 collected in  1987.   While more compounds were detected  in the
 1989  samples,  the levels  of  some contaminants, particularly
 toluene  and benzoic acid,  were significantly reduced.   Several
 metals continued to be elevated.   While  no single well-defined
 ground water  plume  was identified,  a  number  of wells contained
 contaminants  which  were  identified in Denzer & Schafer  process
 wastewater samples.   Table 1  presents the  range  of concentrations
 for  the  significant contaminants found in  the ground water during
 the  RI.

 Subsequent to  issuance of the RI report, the DEP along  with EPA
 decided  that  additional off-site wells and ground water sampling
were needed to  determine  whether any  potential threat existed to
 off-site potable  well  users.   This additional work was  carried

-------
 out from 1992  to 1995 and is  detailed  in a Supplemental Remedial
 Investigation  Report.  The results  of  these studies are briefly
 summarized below.

 In 1992,  the DEP installed off-site monitoring wells at nine
 locations (See Figure 4).   These wells and all of the previously
 installed wells were sampled  for volatile and semi-volatile
 organics and metals.   The significant  results of this sampling
 event  are summarized in Table 2.  Both the number and
 concentrations of  all of the  volatile  and semi-volatile
 contaminants,  which were detected during the original
 investigation,  were significantly reduced,  with respect to
 organic  contaminants,  no MCLs were  exceeded in any of the wells.
 Chloroform levels  in several  wells  did, however, slightly exceed
 the New  Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards.  Metal levels,
 particularly chromium and lead, exceeded MCLs even at the most
 downgradient locations.   Based on this data, it was concluded
 that the organic contamination related to the Denzer & Schafer
 site,  has degraded and/or dissipated to levels which no longer
 pose a significant threat.

 The DEP  conducted  a series of focused  investigations in late 1994
 and early 1995.  The  investigations were designed to evaluate the
 effect of different sampling  techniques on metal contaminant
 levels in the  shallow aquifer.  It  was suspected that the high
 levels of chromium and lead in the  ground water might be due to
 the high  pump  rate,  unfiltered sampling collection procedures
 used in  the  1988 through 1993 sampling events.  At high flow
 rates, the unfiltered sampling technique mobilizes small,
 naturally occurring particles which contain these metals.  A low-
 flow micropurge sampling method was utilized during these most
 recent investigations.   This  low-flow  method, when performed
 properly,  is believed to more accurately reflect ground water use
 patterns  and produce  analytical results which are more
 representative  of  mobile species in ground water under natural
 gradients.

 All  wells which had previously shown metal concentrations
 exceeding MCLs  were then resampled  using the new method.  The
 resultant data  is  summarized  in Table  3.  The data showed that
 MCLs for  all metals with the  exception of lead were not exceeded
 in  any monitoring  well.   The  drinking  water level for lead was
 slightly  elevated  in  three  monitoring  wells, two of which were
 located  in the  former leach field of the Denzer & Schafer
 facility.  The  data further indicated  that the lead present in
 these  wells is  not very  mobile and, consequently, does not appear
 to pose a  threat to downgradient ground water users.

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

 Surface water samples  were  collected from the standing water pool

-------
 west of the Denzer & Schafer facility.  The  samples were
 generally free of priority pollutant  compounds.  However,
 coliform bacteria,  evidence of a  sanitary wastewater discharge,
 were present in the surface water downgradient  from the sanitary
 wastewater system.

 Surface soil samples were collected from the area where film
 waste was stock piled.   The resultant analytical data  indicate
 that the contaminant levels do not exceed levels of concern.

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

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

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

As part of the RI, an evaluation was conducted to estimate the
potential human health problems that could result if the ground
water contamination was not addressed.

Ecological risks were not characterized because the contamination
found is associated with ground water and no ecological exposure
pathway exists.

Human Health Risk Assessment

The RI and supplemental investigations concluded that lead in the
ground water is the only contaminant that exceeds Federal and
State Drinking Water Standards.  Currently, there is not a
verified toxicity factor for lead that can be used in normal risk
assessment methodologies to determine the health risks associated
with this contaminant.  However, EPA has developed the IEUBK
Model as a useful tool to aid in making more informed decisions
about the concentrations of lead in the environment that might be
expected to impact human health.

-------
 The IEUBK Model  was designed to model exposure from lead in the
 environment to predict blood levels  in children.  Incorporating
 site-specific soil  and ground water  data  into the model predicted
 that 100  percent of the population would  be below the threshold
 of  10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) for children exposed to
 lead off  site.   For children exposed to lead on site, 99.99
 percent of the population would be below  the threshold of 10
 ug/dl.  These results indicate that  for both future residential
 land use  on and  off site, the levels are  consistent with
 Superfund's lead directive  that employs a level of protectiveness
 which results in 95% of the population distribution falling below
 10  ug/dl.

 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

 CERCLA requires  that each selected site remedy be protective of
 human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply with
 other statutory  laws,  and utilize permanent solutions and
 alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery
 alternatives to  the maximum extent practicable.  In addition, the
 statute includes a  preference for the use of treatment as a
 principal  element for the reduction  of toxicity, mobility, or
 volume of  the hazardous substances.

 For the Denzer & Schafer site, the remediation goals were to
 prevent any human exposure  to contaminated ground water.  Toward
 this end,  a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study  (RI/FS)
 was prepared which  evaluated five ground  water remedial
 alternatives.  It should be noted that the RI/FS was initiated
 based on the earlier sampling data indicating that site
 contamination represented a significant and unacceptable risk.
 The more recent  data,  including that resulting from the low-flow
 sampling method  previously  discussed, suggest the site does not
 pose such  an unacceptable risk.  Under these circumstances,
 preparation of an FS would  not have  been  necessary.  The remedial
 alternatives described below are those evaluated in the RI/FS and
 are  provided for information purposes.  An addendum to the RI/FS
 reflecting the more recent  sampling  data  and current site
 conditions was prepared and included as part of the
 administrative record for the site.

Alternative OW-1: NO Action with Ground Water Monitoring  (Natural
Attenuation)

No  action  would  be  taken at the Denzer &  Schafer X-Ray Company
site under this  alternative to remove, remediate, or contain
contaminated ground water.   A ground water monitoring program
would be implemented to assess contaminant migration and the
effects of  natural  processes such as degradation, attenuation and
dilution of  the  concentrations of the ground water contaminants
over time.

-------
 Alternative  GW-2:   Connection  to Public Water supply

 This  alternative would  include the connection of 129 residential
 and commercial  potable  wells that could theoretically be impacted
 by site  contaminants  to the Berkeley Water Company and the
 Berkeley Township Municipal Utility Authority public water supply
 systems.  All private wells would be sealed and abandoned.

 Alternative  GW-3:   Point of Entry Treatment

 Under this alternative,  Point-Of-Entry-Treatment (POET) household
 water treatment units for removal of volatile organic compounds
 and metals from drinking water would be installed at each of the
 potentially  affected  potable wells in the vicinity of the site.
 A  POET device reduces the levels of contaminants in drinking
 water before it is  distributed throughout the building or
 residence.

 Alternative  GW-4:   Ground water Extraction, Off-site Treatment at
 Publicly  Owned  Treatment Works (POTW)

 This  alternative involves the  recovery of contaminated ground
 water underlying the  Denzer &  Schafer site utilizing a series of
 collection wells.   The  extracted ground water would be pumped to
 the Ocean County Utilities Authority (OCUA) wastewater treatment
 plant for treatment and disposal.

 Alternative  GW-5:   Ground Water Extraction/On-Site Treatment and
 Reinjection

 This  alternative also involves the recovery of contaminated
 ground water underlying the site.  A series of collection wells
 would be  installed  to extract  the contaminated ground water.  In
 contrast  to  the previous alternative, the extracted ground water
 would be  treated in a wastewater facility to be constructed on
 the site.  The treated  water would be reinjected.
SELECTED REMEDY

Section 121 (d), Degree of Cleanup  (1), of CERCLA and SARA,
states "Remedial actions selected under this section or otherwise
required or agreed to by the President under this Act shall
attain a degree of cleanup of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants released into the environment and of control of
further release at a minimum which assures protection of human
health and the environment.  Such remedial actions shall be
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances presented by the
release or threatened release of such substance, pollutant or
contaminant".

As previously discussed, field investigations of the Denzer &

                                8

-------
 Schafer site indicate that  the  site  no  longer poses a significant
 risk to human health or the environment.  The organic
 contaminants,  found in the  ground water some time ago, have
 degraded and/or  dissipated  to acceptable  levels.  Similarly, the
 most recent sampling of ground  water, utilizing a low-flow
 collection  method  believed  to more accurately represent ground
 water conditions,  did not reveal unacceptable levels of
 inorganic/metals contamination.  As  a result, the risk posed by
 the  site is negligible.  Any residual ground water contamination
 (involving  lead) appears limited to  a small area of the site.  In
 view of the above,  DEP and  EPA  have  determined that no action is
 required for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site.

 However,  since the aquifer  still exhibits low levels of
 contamination at the site itself, EPA and DEP believe that a
 monitoring  program is warranted to ensure that the current
 situation does not change.   Based on the roost current RI data,
 low-level ground water contamination exists in a relatively
 confined area near the former waste  disposal field.  DEP and EPA
 will develop a monitoring program which will include monitoring
 of ground and surface waters and sediment, including the
 intermittent pond  directly  east of the  Denzer & Snhafer X-Ray
 Company building,  Potter Creek  to the south and Mill Creek to the
 north.   DEP will also establish a Classification Exception Area
 based on the ground water monitoring to ensure that new wells
 will not be installed in the area without appropriate
 precautions.

 The  proposed decision is based  on the following facts:

      the  remedial  investigation and  subsequent investigations
      indicate  that  the high concentrations of organic
      contaminants  found in  the  ground water have degraded and/or
      dissipated  to  acceptable levels, and inorganic contaminants
      previously  found in the underlying aquifer were not truly
      indicative  of  the actual conditions in the ground water, but
      were caused by the  method  of sampling;

      the  only  ground water  contamination currently found above
      MCLs exists in a relatively confined area near the former
      waste  disposal  field;

      the Risk  Assessment showed that the chemicals of concern
      present at the Denzer  & Schafer site do not pose a
      significant health  threat; and

      the previous source of contamination (the process wastewater
      in the  septic  tank) no longer exists.

However, since the  facility is  still active, there is a potential
for  future  contamination to the environment from future
uncontrolled releases.   There are some  existing conditions on the

-------
 site that are likely to cause future releases if not corrected.
 These conditions  include a release from the existing uncontained
 storage of processed film at the site and future unauthorized use
 of the existing underground storage tank.  While these conditions
 cannot be addressed under CERCLA, they will be addressed by DEP
 utilizing authorities it possesses under New Jersey's
 environmental laws.
Explanation of Significant Changes

The Proposed Plan for the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site was
released to the public on June 29, 1995.  This plan identifies
the preferred alternative, Alternative GW-1, No Action with
Monitoring.  The No Action alternative includes a recommendation
to conduct a five year review and an ecological assessment at the
time of the first review.   The review will be conducted within
five years after commencement of the monitoring program to ensure
that the no action with monitoring remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.

EPA and DEP reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted
during the public comment period.  Upon review of these comments,
EPA found no cause to modify the remedy as outlined in the
Proposed Plan.
                                10

-------
   Table 1  -
Summary of Significant Ground Water Result*
 from the Remedial Investigation Report  -  1987
 and 1989 Sampling Rounds
                 Concentration Range
                             Federal/State
                          JJrinkino Water Std,
Organic a
Chloroform
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,2 Dichloroethane
1,2 Dichoropropane
Phenol
2 -Methylphenol
4 -Methylphenol
Benzoic acid
(ppb)
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
34
42
32
54
1600
8
8
250
42
210
13000
(ppb)
100*
29
1
1
1000
2
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inorganics

Chromium
Lead
Arsenic
Mercury
Silver
           ND
           ND
           ND
           ND
           ND
397
127
51 -
 5
102
100
 15
 50
  2
 NA
NA - There is no primary State or  Federal Drinking Water
     Standard for this compound/element
* - Chloroform is part of the trihalomethane class of
    compounds.  The Standard for the total concentration
    of trihalomethanes is 100 ppb

ppb - parts per billion
                           11

-------
   Tabl* 2  -  Summary of Significant Ground Water Results
             from th« 1992 Sampling Round

                                         Federal/State
Concentration Ranae
Organic s
Chloroform
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,2 Dichloroethane
1,2 Oichoropropane
Phenol
2 -Methylphenol
4 -Methylphenol
Benzoic acid
(ppb)
ND -
ND
ND
ND
ND -
ND
ND
ND -
ND -
ND -
ND -
37



100


35
42
16
66
Drinkina Water Std .
{ppb)
100*
29
1
1
1000
2
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inorganics

Chromium               ND - 522                100
Lead                   ND - 237                 15
Arsenic                ND - 40                  50
Mercury                ND - 3                    2
Silver                 ND - 197                 NA
Antimony               ND - 39                 ,6
Nickel                 ND - 147                100
Cadmium                ND - 9                    5
Thallium               ND - 2                    2


NA - There is no Primary State or Federal Drinking Water
     Standard for this compound/element
* - Chloroform is part of the trihalomethane class of
    compounds.  The Standard for the total concentration
    of trihalomethanes is 100 ppb

ppb - part* per billion
                        12

-------
  Table 3 - Summary of Significant Ground Water Results
            from the 1994/1995 Sampling Rounds

                                         Federal/State
	Concentration Range    Drinking Water Std

Inorganica               (ppb)                  (ppb)

Chromium               ND - SI                 100
Lead                   ND - 48                  15
Mercury                ND -  .4                   2
Antimony               ND                        6
Nickel                 ND - 34                 100
Cadmium                ND - 2                    5
Thallium               ND                        2

ppb - parts per billion
                           13

-------
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Denzer and Schafer X-Ray
 Company Superfund Site
Berkeley Township
Ocean County \
                              DENZER AND SCHAFER
N

-------
Figure 2
Denzer & Schafer
X-Ray Co.
Superfund Site
                   WASTEWATER
                   STORAGE
                   TANK
                                                    EXISTING
                                                    SEPTIC
                                                    SYSTEM
*OLD
 SEPTIC
 SYSTEM
     DENZER&
     SCHAFER
     PROCESS
     BUILDING
                                     EXISTING
                                     SEPTIC
                                     SYSTEM
                 PONDED
                 WATER
                 AREA
       STRIPPED FILM
       STOCKPILING
       AREA

-------
     Figure 3
     On-Site Soil and Ground
    -Water Sampling Locations
O MW14
a\
                                                    SEPTIC
                                                    SYSTEM
                        STRIPPED FILM
                        STOCKPILING
                        AREA
                                                                      MW9
                                                                  EXISTING
                                                                  SEPTIC
               DEMZERft
               SCHAFER
               PROCESS
               BUHJMNO
                 ft
~"T"]BUILDINO  j
          EXISTING
          SEPTIC
          SYSTEM
                                                         !/«£22-	PONDI
                                                                   WATER
                                                                   AREA
    ft Monitoring Well
    O Soil Sample

STEWATEI
)RAGE
IK
G
1
- 	 ^
0
f
wft
MW11

ED
*
O
^
R
LU

O
0
^^H^m^

-------
    p^sc

          MW7W
     MW7
     O
MW12
 O
         MW13
          O
MW3
 O
        °MW17
                  mi\4
     OMWI
    OMW11
                MW15
              OMW5W
        °MWBW
                   O
                   MW2W
                          O
                          MW3W
                           IW
     Figure 4
     On-Site and Off-Site
     Monitor Well Locations
                       17

-------
                      RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

            DENZER AND SCHAFER X-RAY COMPANY SUPERFUND
 A.  OVERVIEW

 This  is  a  summary  of  the public's questions and comments
 regarding  the  Proposed  Plan to  address ground water at the Denzer
 and Schafer X-Ray  Company  Superfund site and the New Jersey
 Department of  Environmental Protection's (DEP's) responses to
 those comments.

 The public comment period  extended from June 30, 1995 through
 August 7,  1995 and provided interested parties the opportunity to
 comment  on the Proposed Plan, the Remedial Investigation  (Rl)
 reports, and other documentation related to the Denzer and
 Schafer  X-Ray  Company Superfund site.  On July 20, 1995 at 7:00
 p.m., the  DEP  held a  public meeting at the Berkeley Township
 Police Headquarters Courtroom on Pinewald-Keswick Road to discuss
 the reports and the preferred remedy.

 In  the Proposed Plan, the  DEP recommended no further action to
 address  the residual  lead  contamination in the septic leach field
 at  the Denzer  and  Schafer  X-Ray Company facility.  In addition,
 the Proposed Plan  recommended monitoring of ground water, surface
 water and  sediments,  and establishing a Classification Exception
 Area  at  the site to monitor the ground water criteria exceedances
 and to ensure  that new  drinking water wells will not be installed
 without  proper precautions.

 B.  BACKGROUND  ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

 The Denzer  and Schafer  X-Ray Company Superfund site is an
 operating  facility located on Hickory Lane in Berkeley Township,
 Ocean County.  The facility reclaims silver from x-ray negatives.
 Between  1974 and 1981,  Denzer and Schafer discharged process
waste solution into the facility's subsurface sanitary septic
 system.  In  addition to  the Denzer and Schafer facility,
Microindustries Inc., a microfilming service company, is located
at  the site. Microindustries Inc. also discharged microfilm
processing  waste into the  facility's septic system prior to 1981.

In  1981,  the DEP ordered the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company to
cease the discharge of process  wastewaters to the septic system.
The DEP  also required the  company to install ground water
monitoring wells to determine whether ground water quality at the
site had become degraded due to the past discharges.  Between
1981 and 1985,  the owner of the facility installed ten shallow
and three deep ground water monitoring wells at the site.
Sampling of the wells and  analysis of soil samples indicated that
past operations had contaminated the ground water at the site

-------
 with organic compounds and metals.   In  1985, the site was placed
 on the federal  National Priorities  List (NPL).  In  1987, the DEP
 initiated  a  Remedial  Investigation  and  Feasibility  Study (RI/FS)
 to assess  the extent  of the contamination at the site and
 evaluate remedial  alternatives.  The RI/FS was followed by a
 Supplementary Ground  Water Investigation in 1992 to determine
 whether the  ground water contamination  presented a  risk to
 residential  wells  in  the vicinity of the site.  The Supplementary
 Ground Water Investigation was completed in 1995.

 Community  interest in this site has historically been low.  The
 DEP held two public meetings in Berkeley Township during the
 Remedial Investigation phase.  The  first meeting was held on
 February 26,  1987  to  announce initiation of the Remedial
 Investigation.  The second public meeting was held  on July 20,
 1995 to summarize  the findings of the Remedial Investigation and
 Supplementary Ground  Water Investigation.  Attendance at the
 first meeting was  fairly high, with over 100 members of the
 public present; however,  fewer than 10  citizens attended the
 second meeting.

 Over the years, the DEP has received inquiries about this site
 from the developer of the Sonata Bay residential community which
 closely borders the site to the north,  as well as from people
 interested in purchasing properties in  the area.

 C.  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING  THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 AND DEP RESPONSES

 Questions and comments raised during the July 20, 1995 public
 meeting to discuss the findings of  the  Remedial Investigation and
 Feasibility  Study  and Proposed Plan, and received during the
 comment period which  ran from June  30,  1995 to August 7, 1995 are
 summarized below.

 Questions and Comments

 1.  In  1988/  contamination was discovered at the Butler Boulevard
 area which is only down  the street  from where the Denzer and
 Schafer site  is located.   Is  there  any  reason why Denzer and
 Schafer doesn't have  to  clean the area  and others do?

 No  cleanup is required at the Denzer and Schafer site because
 there  is no  significant  contamination left to be removed.
 Initially,  it was  determined  that a discharge of a  high pH saline
wastewater with low levels  of contaminants into the facility's
 septic  system had  resulted  in ground water contamination.  The
discharge was stopped, and  the contaminants have dissipated to
 levels that are not of concern due  to natural attenuation and/or
biodegradation.

2. Is it possible  that the  ground water contamination at the

                                2

-------
 Butler Boulevard site is  related  to  the Denzer and Schafer site?

 The Butler Boulevard site,  which  is  located about a mile
 southeast of the Denzer and Schafer  site,  is under investigation
 by the DEP's Bureau of Site Assessment to  address benzene
 contamination in the ground water.   There  does not appear to be
 any connection between the  Denzer and Schafer site and the Butler
 Boulevard site.   Further, the  sampling of  ground water monitoring
 wells  has indicated that  contamination at  the Denzer and Schafer
 site has  not migrated off-site.

 3.  What was buried at the Denzer  and Schafer site that has been
 removed?

 The septic tank which received the wastewater has been removed
 and the septic field was  filled with sand  and abandoned.

 4.  About  two-tenths of a  mile  northeast of the Denzer and Schafer
 site/  across Route 9,  there are 16 contaminated potable wells.
 Due to the contamination/ several of these residences were
 connected to the Berkeley Water company water supply in the early
 1990s.  Is it possible that this  problem is related to the Denzer
 and Schafer site?

 The 16 contaminated potable wells are not  believed to be related
 to  the Denzer and Schafer site.   Sampling  of the outer ring of
 ground water monitoring wells  which  were installed around the
 Denzer and Schafer site as  part of the supplementary ground water
 investigation have not shown any  contamination.  The
 contamination at the Denzer and Schafer site would have been
 detected  in the  outer ring  of  wells  before it reached the wells
 in  question.   In addition,  the anomalous levels of sodium and
 elevated  pH that characterize  the wastewater discharge at the
 site have not been detected in off-site monitoring wells or
 potable wells,  indicating that the affect  of the site discharge
 has not reached  that far  northeast.  (Please note that the
 two-tenths  mile  distance  in the question is incorrect.  Route 9
 is almost one mile northeast from the Denzer and Schafer property
 boundary).

 5.  (Follow  up to Question 4  above) Is it possible that one or
more of the ground water monitoring  wells  that make up the outer
 ring of monitoring wells may have been installed through a clay
 lens/  thereby allowing a plume of contamination to pass by the
wells undetected?

The borings  for  the outer wells were gamma logged prior to well
 installation.  As  such, the  wells were screened in the more
permeable  zones  where  the contamination would more likely
migrate.  In  addition,  because the wells in the outer ring are of
multiple  depths,  it is  unlikely that a plume of contamination
could have bypassed the outer  ring of wells without being

-------
 detected.

 6.  Will  the monitoring wells  at  the  site continued to be
 monitored?

 The DEP  will continue  to monitor the area that comprises the
 Classification  Exception Area for as long as the lead remains at
 elevated levels,  or  until  it  is  determined that the lead levels
 fall below  the  drinking water standards.  Monitoring wells other
 than those  in the Classification Exception Area may be sampled
 also,  and based on the results of that sampling it will be
 determined  whether to  continue to sample them or not.

 7.  Are the  monitoring  wells kept locked?

 Yes.

 8.  Are tbe  monitoring  wells of different depths?

 Yes.   The wells range  up to 90 feet  in depth.  Wells in the area
 of  the site were  frequently installed in clusters of two or three
 wells, with each  screened  at  a different depth

 9.  What  is  the name  of the aquifer that was contaminated?

 The name of the aquifer is the Cohansey.

 10. Was  anything  done  to actually purge the contaminants from the
 ground water?

 No  actions  were taken  by the  DEP to  purge the contaminants from
 the ground  water.  The contamination dissipated due to natural
 attenuation and/or natural biodegradation.  However, there was a
 pump test done at the  site to  determine the aquifer
 characteristics wherein ground water was pumped at approximately
 80  gallons  per minute  for  about  two  days.  The water collected
 during the  pump test was sent  to the local publicly-owned sewage
 treatment plant.

 11. How many homes have wells  in the immediate area?

There are 129 homes with wells within a one-mile radius of the
 site according to a survey that  was  conducted in 1992.

 12. Was a health survey done of  the  families that live in
 residences with private wells, and that may have been drinking
 contaminated ground water  perhaps even before the site was placed
on the Superfund List?

The Agency  for Toxic Substances  and  Disease Registry (ATSDR)
reviews every Superfund site to  determine whether a health study
 is necessary.  A health study has not been done, but the New

-------
 Jersey Department  of Health  and ATSDR are considering follow up
 activities  for  those residents that may have been exposed to past
 contamination from this  site or any other source in the area.

 13. Who will pay for the testing of the ground water monitoring
 wells?

 The state government will assume the full cost of the of the
 ground water monitoring.

 14. Will DEP continue to oversee the operations at Denzer and
 Schafer until the  company is no longer in business?

 The activities  related to the discharge of any hazardous
 substances  at the  Oenzer and Schafer site would be monitored by
 DEP as long as  such monitoring is warranted.

 15. The chairperson of the Berkeley Township Environmental
 Commission  expressed concern that at least one person had
 recently decided against purchasing property at the Sonata Bay
 development due to the neighboring Denzer and Schafer Superfund
 site.

 DEP has sent letters to  the  Sonata Bay management company stating
 that the Denzer and Schafer  Superfund site does not pose a threat
 to the residents of Sonata Bay because the residences are
 connected to the public  water supply.

 16. What is the rank or  number of this site on the Superfund
 list?

 The site is not designated a number on the NPL.  Both DEP and the
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no longer rank the sites on
 the Superfund list according to severity.

 17. Is  there any way of  removing the lead that is in the water
 table  so that it doesn't contaminate the deeper aquifers?  As
 long as there is lead contamination in the ground water in an
 area where there are private wells/ and the potential exists for
 impacts to Potter's  Creek and Mill creek, it will continue to be
 a concern.

The amount of lead in the ground water is so small that it would
not be  cost-effective to  remove it.  In addition, it is unlikely
that the lead in the ground  water will travel very far.  A more
likely  scenario is that  the  lead will slowly spread outward and
the concentrations will  decrease due to dilution.

The DEP will establish a  Classification Exception Area in the
area where the lead  in the ground water exceeds drinking water
standards.  This will  ensure  that new wells are not installed in
the area without proper  precautions.  In addition, the DEP will

-------
 also develop a ground water monitoring program to make certain
 that in the  future  the lead contamination does not present a
 threat to  private wells in the  area.

 18.  The mayor and the chairperson of the Berkeley Township
 Environmental Commission requested that future ground water
 sampling results be provided to the township.

 DEP  will provide future ground  water sampling results to the
 Berkeley Township Office of Emergency Management, the
 Environmental Commission and the Ocean County Health Department.

 19.  The DEP  is incorrect in its statement that the ground water
 at the site  flows to  the northeast.  A half-mile east of the
 Denzer and Schafer  site is a creek that flows across Hickory Lane
 southeast  to Potter's Creek.  The Sonata Bay development outfall
 line for the retention basin also comes across Hickory Lane and
 goes to Potter's Creek.   All the surface water flows southeast to
 Potter's creek, not in a northeasterly direction.

 Surface water and ground water  can flow in different directions.
 In this case,  the surface water and ground water are all flowing
 in the same  general direction.  The surface water is flowing
 southeast  and the ground water  is flowing northeast, both are
 generally  heading east,  towards the ocean.  Ground water level
 measurements,  conductivity data, and the presence of certain
 organic contaminants  all  indicate that the principal ground water
 flow direction at the facility  is to the northeast.

 20.  A  resident of Hickory Lane  with a private well expressed
 concern that  during the entire  time that the Remedial
 Investigation was taking place/ he was not notified of the
 existence  of  the site and the potential for contamination of his
well.   He  stated that his well  was never sampled by DEP.

To determine  the potential for  contamination of private wells due
to this  site,  DEP sampled the private wells closest to the site
on three separate occasions.  In 1987, sixteen wells were
sampled, four  of which were located on Hickory Lane.  In 1990,
ten wells were  sampled,  two of  which were located on Hickory
Lane.   Lastly,  in 1994,  nine wells were sampled, five of which
were located  on Hickory Lane.   When sampling of those wells
showed  that they were not being affected by the site, the DEP
determined there was  no reason  to continue sampling wells at
residences further  from the site.  This would include those wells
located on the eastern  end of Hickory Lane.

21.  (Follow up to Question 20)  The resident stated that since
ground water can behave unpredictably, DEP should have sampled
all homes with private wells on Hickory Lane regardless of the
results from sampling the private wells closest to the site.

-------
 The DEP must  make  responsible  use  of the financial resources
 provided for  investigation  of  this and other sites.  This would
 preclude sampling  wells  that,  based on its best scientific
 judgement, were  not  in danger  of being contaminated due to the
 site.   Sampling  of private  wells close to the site did not reveal
 contamination due  to the site.  Sampling of ground water
 monitoring wells around  the site also show no contamination.
 This evidence indicates  that additional sampling of private wells
 beyond  that which  was originally conducted was not warranted.

 22.  (Follow up to  Question  21) At  which homes were private wells
 sampled as part  of the Denzer  and  Schafer Superfund site Remedial
 Investigation?

 The  DEP does  not release the names and addresses of residents
 whose wells were sampled for reasons of privacy.  A total of 35
 homes were sampled,  11 of which were on Hickory Lane.

 23.  (Follow up to  Question  22) What procedure did DEP use when
 the  private residential  wells  were sampled?  Were samples
 collected from the outside  tap?  Were the owners of the homes
 informed that their  wells were sampled?

 Sampling of the  private  residential wells was arranged ahead of
 time through  letters and phone calls.  Samples were collected
 from the outside tap when the  homeowner was not available to
 allow the sample to  be collected from the inside tap.  Before the
 samples  were  collected,  the water  was allowed to run for a period
 of time  to ensure  that a sample was representative of the ground
 water.   The sampling results were  provided to the residents and
 the  local health official in the form of letters.

 24.  The  owner of Denzer  and Schafer X-Ray Company, Mr. John
 Schafer, stated  that the facility  never discharged lead into the
 ground water  at  the  site.   He  stated that lead was not compatible
 with x-ray film, and therefore, the lead contamination could not
 have resulted from the operations  at the site.  He added that
 lead is  known to be  a contaminant  in the ground water in many
 other places  in  New  Jersey,  and it cannot be assumed that the
 contamination is due to  actions of the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray
 Company.

 The  DEP  has not  determined  the source of the lead in the ground
water in this case.   Although  lead is an element present in soil
which may leach  into ground water  in some situations, it is not
 known whether the  lead found in the ground water underlying the
 Denzer & Schafer site represents a naturally occurring condition
 or is the result of  site-related contamination.  Despite Mr.
 Schafer's statement,  the highest levels of ground water
 contamination in the area were found beneath the site.  In either
 event,  DEP believes  it is appropriate to establish a
 Classification Exception Area  and  implement a ground water

-------
 monitoring program.

 25.  Mr.  Schafer  stated  that  the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company
 was  given permission by the  state to use the caustic solution
 which  was discharged into  the  septic system and that all actions
 taken  by the  facility up until the time that the contamination
 was  discovered were  legitimate.  He also noted that he worked
 with the DBF  to  develop an alternative to open burning of the
 x-ray  films when open burning  was made illegal.

 The  DEP  is including Mr. Schafer's assertions as part of this
 record.   The  Superfund  program can address various types of
 contamination problems  that  pose a threat to public health or the
 environment.  The activities leading to these problems can
 include  those of a legitimate  nature that may have been
 authorized at the time  as  well as illegal activities.  In either
 event, the parties responsible for the contamination are liable
 for  cleanup costs under the  Superfund legislation.

 26.  (Follow up to Question 25) If DEP acknowledges that the lead
 contamination may not be a result of operations at the Denzer and
 Schafer  site, will it be taking actions to determine from where
 the  contamination originated?

 The  DEP may take actions to  determine the exact cause of the lead
 contamination if, as  a  result  of the ground water monitoring,
 levels are found to  increase,  which would suggest the existence
 of an ongoing source.   If  the  lead levels dissipate, as they are
 expected  to,  it  would indicate that there is no longer an ongoing
 source of lead contamination.

 27. Are the residents on Hickory Lane eligible for Superfund
 money to  connect  to the  public water supply?

 The residents are not eligible for Superfund money to connect to
 the public  water  supply  since  there has been no demonstrated
 threat to  their wells.

 28.  (Follow up to Question 27) If later there is determined to be
 a risk to those private wells, will Superfund money be made
 available  to  connect  residences on Hickory Lane to the public
water supply?

When the  DEP  connects residences to the public water supply, it
 is usually  an initial reaction to a potential threat to private
wells,  or  it  is a case where it is less expensive to connect the
residence to a waterline than  to monitor a contaminant plume.
Neither of the above  is the case at the Denzer and Schafer site.
The most recent data  indicates that the wells on Hickory Lane are
not at risk from contamination at the Denzer and Schafer site.
If DEP finds that wells are threatened, it will consider action
at that time.

                                8

-------
29. How long will the ground water contamination at the site
continue to be monitored?

Ground water at the site will be monitored during the five year
period following the ROD.  At the end of the first five year
period, the DEP will determine whether additional monitoring is
required.

30. Will DEP and EPA now be taking steps to remove the Denzer and
Schafer site from the NPL?  Given the standard for inclusion of a
site on the NPL/ it would seem clear that the Denzer and Schafer
site clearly no longer merits such classification.

Once the Record of Decision is signed, the DEP will recommend
that the Environmental Protection Agency delete the site from the
NPL.  Deletion of the site is a formal rule making process which
can take several months.

-------
  ' Superfund Proposed Plan
      Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company
 Berkeley Township, Ocean County
                                 June 1995
 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
 This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred remedy for
 the Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site in Ocean
 County, New Jersey, and describes the rationale for
 this preference. The Proposed Plan was developed by
 the New Jersey Department of Environmental
 Protection (DEP), as lead agency, with support from
 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 DEP is issuing the Proposed Plan as part of its public
 participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of
 the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
 amended, and Section 300.430(f) of the National
 Contingency Plan (NCP).

 This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement
 to the Remedial Investigation (Rl) and Feasibility
 Study (FS) reports and Baseline Risk Assessment to
 inform the public of DEP's and EPA's preferred
 remedy and to solicit public comments on this
 preference.


 The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the
 preferred remedy for the site. Changes to the
 preferred remedy or a change from the preferred
 remedy to another remedy may be made, if public
 comments or additional data indicate that such a
 change will result in a more appropriate remedial
 action. The final decision regarding the selected
 remedy will be made after DEP and EPA have taken
 into consideration all public comments. We are
 soliciting public comment on the RI/FS because DEP
and EPA may select a remedy other than the preferred
 remedy.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN THE
SELECTION PROCESS
DEP and EPA rely on public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are considered in selecting
an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this
end, the RI/FS report, Proposed Plan and supporting
documentation have been made available to the
public for a public comment period which begins on
June 30.1995 and concludes on  August?. 1995.
A public meeting will be held during the public
comment period at the Berkeley Township Police
Headquarters Courtroom on Thursday. July 20.1995
at 7:00 pm to present the conclusions of the RI/FS, to
elaborate further on the reasons for recommending
the preferred alternative, and to receive public
comments.


Comments received at the public meeting and written
comments received during the public comment period
will be documented in a Responsiveness Summary
section of a Record of Decision (ROD), the document
which formalizes the selection of the remedy. All
written comments should be addressed to:

            Donald Kakas, Chief
       Bureau of Community Relations
          Site Remediation Program
                  NJDEP
        401 East Stats Strsst - CN 413
           Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
               (609)984-3081
     Jun* 3CT, 1995 through August 7r 199S
           PuMfc Coinmsnt PtrfMT

      Thursday, July 20,19» at 7:00 pun.
    Public Itosting at the BarfcaJay Township
        PoRca Hsadquartars Courtroom
           Plnawald-KaswicfcRoad
                Bayv1He,MJ
              New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                              Site Remediation Program
                   (609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations
                                   Printed on recycled paper
                                          29

-------
  Qenzer and Schafer X-Ray Company
  Copies of the Rl and FS reports. Proposed Plan, and
  supporting documentation are available at the
  following locations:


  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
  401 East State Street
  CN413
  Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
  Phone: (609)984-3081

  Berkeley Township Library
 42 Station Road
 Bayville, NJ 08721
 Phone: (908)269-2144

 Berkeley Township Municipal Building
 P.O. Box B
 Pinewald-Keswick Road
 Bayville, NJ 08721
 Phone: (908)244-7400


 SITF BACKGROUND
 The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company is located on
 Block 858, Lot 46A, on the north side of Hickory Lane
 approximately 4,700 feet west of Route 9 in the
 Bayville area of Berkeley Township. The size of the
 property is approximately 10 acres. Bamegat Bay is
 approximately two miles to the east of the site and
 Toms River is two miles to the north.
The site is situated between two drainage systems.
Potter Creek, which flows east to the Bamegat Bay, is
approximately 2,000 feet to the south. Wetlands
associated with the headwaters of Mill Creek are 2,000
feet to the west and north. Mill Creek is a northeast
flowing tributary of Toms River.


An unpaved access road runs across the north end of
the Denzer & Schafatproperty roughly parallel to
Hickory Lane. Singls family residential neighborhoods
are located to the north, northeast and east of the site.
Six commercial buildings and one residence are
located to the west along Hickory Lane.
Approximately 2,000 feet to the west are the Central
Railroad of New Jersey tracks. A quarry and the
Berkeley Township sewage treatment plant are
immediately west of the tracks. A new residential
development is proposed to the south across Hickory
Lane (see Figure 1).
The Denzer & Schafer facility is located on a local
topographic high about 50 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). The immediate surrounding area is gently
sloping, undeveloped and covered with pine trees.
The wetlands associated with Potter and Mill Creeks
are at an elevation of 30 feet above MSL.
The site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. The coastal plain is a wedge
shaped series of unconsolidated sediments composed
of clay, silt, sand and gravel of Tertiary and
Cretaceous Age.  The surficial soil is classified as the
Downer Loamy Sand. Typically, the soil is well
drained, grayish brown, loamy sand.


SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS


The Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company is engaged in
the reclamation of silver from microfilm and x-rays.
Past activities at the facility have included the    '•
reclamation of silver by chemical stripping or
incineration of spent film, the Denzer & Schafer
X-Ray Company is not regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1974, the
company switched from incineration to a caustic soda
and salt silver reclamation process.  Between 1974
and 1981, the facility disposed of its stripping solution
by discharging it to the plant's subsurface sanitary
septic system.


Additionally, shredded and stripped film generated
during the same time period (1974 to 1981) was stock
piled in an area just north of the process building (see
Figure 2). The stock pile of film waste was
subsequently transferred to an off-site landfill. For
lack of a disposal or recycling facility the stripped film
had again been stored around the site from 1989 to
1994. Since then, the stripped film is again being
transferred to an off-site facility.


The old sanitary septic system which received the
process wastewater has since been abandoned and
filled with sand. Until 1990, process wastewater was
transferred to an on-site process wastewater storage
tank for periodic off-site disposal.  Currently, the
process wastewater is stored in above-ground tanks
prior to disposal off site. Two septic systems currently
serve the site. Both reportedly are used for the
disposal of sanitary waste only.
                                                30

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


 Two Administrative Orders (one in January 1977 and
 the other in May 1981) were issued to the Denzer &
 Schafer X-Ray Company by OEP.  The latter required
 Denzer & Schafer to immediately cease the discharge
 of wastewaters to its septic system, to submit a
 proposal to DEP for permanent treatment and  off-site
 disposal of its wastewater, and to install a ground
 water monitoring system.  In late 1981, as a result of
 these requirements, Mr. John Schafe., the owner of
 the facility, funded a ground water study which
 included the installation of nine shallow monitoring
 wells and two deep wells.  One additional  shallow well
 and three piezometers were installed in mid-1984.
 Periodic sampling of these wells since August  1981
 indicate that waste from past  operations has
 contaminated ground water at the site.


 The site was proposed for inclusion on the EPA
 Superfund National Priorities  List (NPL) on December
 30,1982, and subsequently was added to the NPL on
 Septembers, 1983.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY
A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study was
undertaken by DEP under a cooperative agreement
with EPA in 1986. A two-phased Remedial
Investigation conducted by SMC Environmental
Services Group was completed in April 1991. DEP
conducted additional ground water sampling from 1992
through 1995.


The Rl was designed to characterize the physical
conditions of the area, delineate the nature and extent
of contamination, identify contaminant migration
pathways, and characterize any potential
environmental  impacts resulting from site
contamination.
The scope of the Rl included the collection and
analysis of soil, ground water and air samples, an
aquifer testing program which included a pump test
and borehole Gamma Ray logging, a surface
Electromagnetic Conductivity survey, tank testing, test
pit excavation and sampling, and process wastewater
sampling.
Physical Conditions
The Quaternary Age Cape May Formation directly
underlies the site and is 20 to 30 feet thick. It consists
primarily of medium to coarse sand interbedded with
fine gravel and silt.  Beneath the Cape May is the
Tertiary age Cohansey Formation.  It consists of
medium to coarse sand interbedded with silt, gravel
and clay.  Thtf clay is usually not continuous and does
not act as an aquitard.  The Cohansey Formation is up
to 250 feet thick in the Berkeley Township area.  It
acts as the major source of potable well water. The
two formations are hydraulically connected and act as
a single, unconfined, extremely porous aquifer. The
depth to the ground water table ranges tram eleven to
twenty-three feet below the surface.


The Denzer & Schafer facility is in a recharge zone.
There is a ground water high under the site. The
water table slopes away from the process building
resulting in a radial pattern of ground water flow in the
shallow aquifer, which mimics the local topography.
Ground water flow in the deeper aquifer is to the
northeast. A downward vertical gradient exists
between the two aquifers, consistent with a recharge
zone. Average ground water flow velocity is about 185
feet per year.
Ground Water
The ground water investigation was conducted in a
phased approach. The earliest round of ground water
sampling (1987) showed levels of volatile organics
exceeding primary Federal and State Drinking Water
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).  Elevated
levels of several semi-volatile organics were also
found, however, no MCLs were exceeded.  In addition.
several heavy metals were found at levels exceeding
MCLs.

A second ground water sampling effort, which included
newly installed monitoring wells, was conducted in
1989. The volatile and semi-volatile results, in
general, were similar to data collected in 1987. More
compounds, however, were detected in the 1989
samples, but the levels of some contaminants,
                                                 31

-------
  Dcnzer and Schafer X-Ray Company
  particularly toluene and benzole acid, were significantly
  reduced.  Levels of several metals continued to be
  elevated.  While no single well-defined ground water
  plume was identified, a number of wells contained
  contaminants which were also found in Oenzer &
  Schafer process wastewater samples. Table 1
  presents the range of concentrations for the significant
  contaminants found in the ground water during the Rl.


  Subsequent to issuance of the Rl report, the OEP
  along with EPA decided that additional off-site wells
 and ground water sampling were needed to determine
 if there was any potential threat to off-site potable well
 users. This additional work was carried out from 1992
 through 1995 and is detailed in a Supplemental
 Remedial Investigation Report.  The results of these
 studies are briefly summarized below.


 In 1992, the DEP installed off-site monitoring wells at
 nine locations. These wells and all of the previously
 installed wells were sampled for volatile and semi-
 volatile organics and metals. The significant results of
 this sampling event are summarized in Tat'3 2. Both
 the number and concentrations of all of the volatile and
 semi-volatile contaminants, which were detected
 during the original investigation, were significantly
 reduced. With respect to organic contaminants, no
 MCLs were exceeded in any of the wells. Chloroform
 levels in several wells did, however, slightly exceed
 the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standards.
 Metal levels, particularly chromium and lead, exceeded
 MCLs even at the most downgradient locations.
 Based on this data, it was concluded that the organic
 contamination  related to the Oenzer & Schafer site has
 degraded and/or dissipated to levels which no longer
 pose a significant threat.


The DEP conducted a series of focused investigations
in late 1994 and early 1995. The investigations were
designed to evaluate the effect of different sampling
techniques  on metal contaminant levels in the shallow
aquifer.  It  was suspected that the high levels of
chromium and lead in the ground water might be due
to the high pump rate, unfiitered sampling collection
procedures used in the 1987 through 1993 sampling
events. At  high flow rates, the unfiitered sampling
technique mobilizes small, naturally occurring particles
which contain these metals. Ordinarily, these particles
are not mobilized by residential drinking water well
pumps. A low-flow micropurge sampling method was
utilized during these most recent investigations. This
low-flow method is believed to more accurately reflect
ground water use patterns and produce analytical
results which are more representative of actual ground
water conditions.
All wells which had previously shown metal
concentrations exceeding MCLs were resampled using
the new method. The resultant data is summarized in
Table 3.  The data showed that MCLs for all metals
with the exception of lead were not exceeded in any
monitoring well. The MCL for lead was slightly
elevated in three monitoring wells, two of which were
located in the former leach field of the Denzer &
Schafer facility. The data further indicated that the
lead present in these wells is not very mobile and,
consequently, does not appear to pose a threat to
downgradient ground water users.


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


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


Surface Soils
Surface soil samples were collected from the area
where film waste was stock piled. The resultant
analytical data indicate that the contaminant levels do
not exceed levels of concern.
Subsurface Soils
Subsurface soil samples were collected from the area
of the old septic tanks. There were three six-foot high
concrete tanks buried two to three feet below the
surface. No volatiles, base neutral/acid extractables
(BNAs) or pesticides were found above levels that
might indicate a health risk.  A number of metals were
detected in the four samples; however, the
concentrations were below levels of concern.


Subsurface soil samples were also collected from twd
test pits within a magnetic anomaly northeast of the
process building. No volatiles, BNAs or pesticides
were found at levels that might indicate a human

-------
  i3enzer and Schafer X-Ray Company
  health risk. Metals were detected in the samples, but
  again below levels of concern.


  Thirty-nine subsurface soil samples were collected
  from borings during the installation of the monitoring
  wells.  Based on the resultant analytical data, the
  subsurface soils, to a depth of-about twenty feet below
  ground level, do not indicate a human health risk.


 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
 As part of the Rl, an evaluation was conducted to
 estimate the potential human health problems that
 could result if the ground water contamination was not
 addressed.


 Ecological risks were not characterized because the
 significant risk is associated with contaminated ground
 water and no exposure pathway exists.


 Human Health Risk Assessment
 The Rl and supplemental investigations concluded that
 lead in the ground water is the only contaminant which
 exceeds Federal and State Drinking Water Standards.
 Currently, there is not a verified toxicity factor for lead
 that can be used in normal risk assessment
 methodologies to determine the health risks
 associated with this contaminant. However, EPA has
 developed the IEUBK Model as a useful tool to aid in
 making more informed decisions about the
 concentrations of lead in the environment that might
 be expected to impact human health.


The IEUBK Model was designed to model exposure
from lead in the environment to predict blood levels in
children.  Incorporating site-specific soil and ground
water data into the model predicted that 99.75 percent
of the population would be below the threshold of 10
ug/dl for children exposed to lead off site. For children
exposed to lead on site, 93.16 percent of the
population would be below the threshold of 10 ug/dl.
These results indicate that future residential use of off-
site land would not pose an unacceptable risk. The
off-site lead levels are consistent with the Reasonable
Maximum  Exposure concept used in Superfund, i.e.,
protecting the 95th-99th percentile. However, for
future residential on-site exposure, the level of
protection is slightly below the Reasonable Maximum
Exposure.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES

CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be
cost effective, comply with other statutory laws, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances.

For the Denzer & Schafer site, the remediation goals
were to  prevent any human exposure to contaminated
ground water. Toward this end, a Feasibility Study
was prepared which evaluated five ground water
remedial alternatives.  It should be noted that the FS
was initiated based on the earlier sampling data
indicating that site contamination represented a
significant and unacceptable risk.  The more recent
data, including that resulting from the low-flow    •
samp':ig method previously discussed, suggest the
site does not pose such an unacceptable risk. Under
these circumstances, preparation of an FS would not
have been necessary. The remedial alternatives
described below are those evaluated in the FS and are
provided for information purposes. An addendum to
the Rl reflecting the more recent sampling data and
current site conditions was prepared and is included as
part of the administrative record for the site.


Alternative GW-1: No Action with Ground Water
Monitoring (Natural Attenuation)
No action would be taken at the Denzer & Schafer X-
Ray Company site under this alternative to remove,
remediate or contain contaminated ground water.  A
ground water monitoring program would be
implemented to assess contaminant migration and the
effects of natural processes such as degradation,
attenuation and dilution of the concentrations of the
ground water contaminants over time.

Alternative GW-2: Connection to Public Water
Supply
This alternative would include the connection of 129
residential and commercial potable wells that could
theoretically be impacted by site contaminants to the
Berkeley Water Company and Berkeley Township
Municipal Utility Authority public water supply systems.
All private wells would be sealed and abandoned.
                                                 33

-------
  Denzsr a.'d Schafer X-Ray Company
                                               6
  Alternative GW-3:  Point of Entry Treatment
  Under this alternative, Point-Of-Entry-Treatment
  (POET) household water treatment units for removal
  of volatile organic compounds and metals from
  drinking water would be installed at each of the
  potentially affected potable wells in the vicinity of the
  site. A POET device reduces the levels of
  contaminants in drinking water before it is distributed
  throughout the building or residence.

 Alternative GW-4: Ground Water Extraction, Off-
 Site Treatment at Publicly Owned Treatment Work*
 This alternative involves the recovery of contaminated
 ground water underlying the Denzer & Schafer site
 utilizing a series of collection wells.  The extracted
 ground water would be pumped to the Ocean County
 Utilities Authority wastewater treatment plant for
 treatment and disposal.

 Alternative GW-5: Ground Water Extraction/On-
 Site Treatment and Reinjectlon
 This alternative also involves the recovery of
 contaminated ground water underlying the site. A
 series of collection wells would be installed to extract
 the contaminated ground water. In contrast to the
 previous alternative, the extracted ground water would
 be treated  in a wastewater treatment facility to be
 constructed on the site. The treated water would be
 reinjected.


 DISCUSSION OF THE NO ACTION
 REMEDY

 Section 121 (d), Degree of Cleanup (1), under
 CERCLA and SARA, states "Remedial actions
 selected under this section or otherwise required or
 agreed to by the President under this Act shall attain a
degree of cleanup of hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants released into the
environment and of control of further release at a
minimum which assurae protection of human health
and the  environment" Such remedial actions shall be
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances
presented by the release or threatened release of such
substance, pollutant or contaminant*.

As previously discussed, field investigations of the
Oenzer & Schafer site indicate that the site no longer
poses a significant risk to human health or the
environment. The organic contaminants,  found in the
ground water some time ago, have degraded and/or
dissipated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the most
recent sampling of ground water, utilizing a low-flow
collection method believed to more accurately  ,<
represent ground water conditions, did not reveal
unacceptable levels of inorganic/metals contamination.
As a result, the risk posed by this site is negligiule.
Any residual ground water contamination (involving
lead) appears limited to a small area of the site.  In
view of the above, OEP and EPA have determined
that no action is required for the Denzer & Schafer X-
Ray Company site.

However, since the aquifer still exhibits low levels of
contamination at the site itself, EPA and DEP believe
that a monitoring program is warranted to ensure that
the current situation does not change.  Based on the
most current Rl data, low-level ground water
contamination exists in a relatively confined area near
the former waste disposal field.  DEP and EPA will
develop a monitoring program for the ground water.
Baseline sampling of surface water and sediment in
Potter Creek, Mill Creek and the intermittent pond east
of the Denzer and Schafer site will also be conducted.
DEP will establish a Classification Exception Area
(CEA) based on the ground water monitoring to ensure
that new wells will not be installed without appropriate
precautions.

The proposed decision is based on the following facts:
                                         •

• the remedial investigation and subsequent
investigations indicate that the high concentrations of
organic contaminants found in the ground water have
degraded and/or dissipated to acceptable levels, and
inorganic contaminants previously found in the
underlying aquifer were  not truly indicative of the
actual concentrations in the ground water, but were
caused by the method of sampling;

• the only ground water contamination currently found
above MCLs exists in a relatively confined area  near
the former waste disposal field;

• the Risk Assessment showed that the chemicals of
concern present at the Oenzer & Schafer site do not
pose a significant health threat;  and

• the previous source of contamination (the process
wastewater in the septic tank) no longer exists.

However, since  the facility is still active, there is a
potential for future contamination to the environment
from future uncontrolled releases. There are some
existing conditions on the site that are  likely to cause
future releases if not corrected.  These conditions
include potential releases from uncontained storage of
processed film at the site and the existing undergroundl
storage tank. Use of the underground storage tank ^j
has been discontinued,  and in order to prevent future
unauthorized use the DEP has referred this matter to
its Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks,(BUST).
                                                 34

-------
   Table 1  •
Summary of Significant Ground Water Result*
 from the Remedial Investigation Report  -  1987
 and 1989 Sampling Rounds
                 Concentration Range
                             Federal/State
                          JDrinking Water Std
Oroanics                 (ppb)

Chloroform            . ND  -  34
1,1,1 Trichloroethane  ND  -  42
Trichloroethene        ND  -  32
Benzene                ND  -  54
Toluene                ND  -  1600
1,2 Dichloroethane     ND  -  8
1,2 Dichoropropane     ND  -  8
Phenol                 ND  -  250
2-Methylphenol         ND  -  42
4-Methylphenol         ND  -  210
Benzole acid           ND  -  13000

Inorganics

Chromium        -       ND  -  397
Lead                   ND  -  127
Arsenic                ND  -  51
Mercury                ND  -  5
Silver                 ND -  102
                                  (ppb)

                                   100*
                                    29
                                     1
                                     1
                                  1000
                                     2
                                     5
                                    NA
                                    NA
                                    NA
                                    NA
                                   100
                                    15
                                    50
                                     2
                                    NA
NA - There is no primary State or Federal Drinking Water
     Standard for this compound/element
* - Chloroform is part of the trihalomethane class of
    compounds.  The Standard for the total concentration
    of trihalomethanes is 100 ppb
ppb - parts per billion

-------
   Table 2  -  Summary of  Significant Ground Water Results
             from the 1992 Sampling Round

                                         Federal/State
Concentration Ranee
Orcranica
Chloroform
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,2 Dichloroethane
1 , 2 Oichoropropane
Phenol
2 -Methylphenol
4 -Methylphenol
Benzole acid
(ppb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
- 37



- 100


- 35
- 42
- 16
. 66
Drinking Water Std.
(ppb)
100*
29
1
1
1000
2
5
NA
NA
NA
MA
Inorganics

Chromium               ND - 522                100
Lead                   ND - 237                 15
Arsenic                ND - 40                  50
Mercury                ND - 3                    2
Silver                 ND - 197                 NA
Antimony               ND - 39                 ,6
Nickel                 ND - 147                100
Cadmium                ND - 9                    5
Thallium               ND - 2                    2


NA - There is no Primary State or Federal Drinking Water
     Standard for this compound/element
* - Chloroform is part of the trihalomethane class of
    compounds.  The Standard for the total concentration
    of trihalomethanes is 100 ppb

ppb - parts per billion

-------
  Table 3 - Summary of Significant Ground Water Results
            from the 1994/1995 Sampling Rounds

                                         Federal/State
                Concentration Range    Drinking Water Std.
Inorganics
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Antimony
Nickel
Cadmium
Thallium
(ppb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
- 81
- 48
- .4

- 34
- 2

(ppb)
100
15
2
6
100
5
2
ppb - parts per billion

-------
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Denzer and Schafer X-Ray
 Company Superfund Site
Berkeley Township
Ocean County \
                              DENZER AND SCHAFER
N

-------
Figure 2
Denzer & Schafer
X-Ray Co.
Superfund Site
                  WASTEWATER
                  STORAGE
                  TANK
                                                    EXISTING
                                                    SEPTIC
                                                    SYSTEM
OLD
SEPTIC
SYSTEM
    DENZER &
    SCHAFER
    PROCESS
    BUILDING
                                     EXISTING
                                     SEPTIC
                                     SYSTEM
                PONDED
                WATER
                AREA
       STRIPPED FILM
       STOCKPILING
       AREA

-------
  Figure 3
  On-Site Soil and Ground
-Water Sampling Locations
1  i
                                                                WASTEWATER
                                                                STORAGE
                                                                TANK
                                                             EXISTING
                                                             SEPTIC
                           O.D
                           SEPTIC
                           SYSTEM
                                                    DENZERft. ft-
                                                    SCHAFER ^
                                                    PROCESS
                                                    BUILDING
STRIPPED FILM
STOCKPILING
AREA
                              O
                          EXISTING
                          SEPTIC
                          SYSTEM
                                                              PONDED
                                                              WATER
                                                              AREA
ft Monitoring Well
O Soil Sample

-------

          MW7W
                 °MW17
     MW7
     O
MW12
 O
MW3
 O
  T/
     OMWI
    OMW11
                MW15
              OMWSW
        'MWBW
                   O
                   MW2W
                           MW3W
     On-Site and Off-Site
     Monitor Well Locations

-------
         Public  Meeting Aaeria
                                               ^*     v^
                             Public Meeting
                      to Discuss the Proposed Plan for the
                Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site
                              July 20,1995
                                7:00 p.m.
                Berkeley Township Police Headquarters Courtroom
                          Ptnewald-Keswick Road
                           Bayville, New Jersey
   1. Opening Remarks and
     Introduction
   2. Site History
   3. Project Overview
     and Proposed Plan
   4. Comments/Questions
   5. Closing Remarks
Edward Putnam, Assistant Director
Remedial Planning and Design Element
Division of Publicly Funded Site Remediation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(DPFSR, NJDEP)

Anil Singh, Site Manager
Bureau of Site Management
DPFSR, NJDEP

Steve MacGregor, Technical Coordinator
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment
DPFSR, NJDEP

The floor will be open for comments and questions at
this time.

Edward Putnam
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection- Bureau of Community Relations (609) 984-3081

-------
         Public   Meeting  Notice
                       For the Proposed Plan for Remediation of the
            Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund Site
                            Berkeley Township, Ocean County
Public Meeting:  Thurs., July 20, 1995, 7:00 pm     Comment Period:
                 Berkeley Twp Police Headquarters
                 Courtroom
                 Pinewald-Keswick Road
                 Bayville, NJ Ocean County
                                                                        June 30, 1995
                                                                        August 7, 1995
 Site Background
 The Denzer and Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund site is an operating facility located on Hickory Lane in
 Berkeley Township, Ocean County. The facility reclaims silver from x-ray negatives.  Between 1974 and 1981
 Denzer and Schafer discharged process waste solution into the plant's subsurface sanitary septic system. In
 addition to the Denzer and Schafer facility, Microindustries, Inc., a microfilming service company, is located at
 the site.  Microindustries, Inc. also discharged microfilm processing waste into the plant's septic system prior to
 1981.

 In 1981 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered the Denzer and Schafer X-Ray
 Company to cease the discharge of process waste waters to the septic system. The DEP also required the com-
 pany to install ground water monitoring wells to determine whether ground water quality at the site had become
 degraded due to the past discharges. Between 1981 and 1985, the owner of the facility installed ten shallowed
 three deep ground water monitoring wells at the site.  Sampling of the wells and analysis of soil samples iflft
 cated that past operations had contaminated the ground water at the site with organic compounds and metal?  In
 1985 the site was placed on the federal National Priorities List (Superfund), and in 1987 the DEP initiated a
 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to assess the extent of the contamination at the site and evalu-
 ate remedial alternatives. The RI/FS was followed by a Supplementary Ground Water Investigation to determine
 whether ground water contamination presented a risk to residential wells in the vicinity of the site.

 Current Status
The RI/FS and Supplementary Ground Water Investigation concluded that, with the exception of lead, contami-
nation that was detected in the ground water early in the investigation had largely dissipated, due to natural
biodegradation and attenuation. It was also determined that lead contamination in the ground water did not
pose a risk to private wells in the vicinity of the site.
Based on the information concluded from the RI/FS and the Supplementary Ground Water Investigation, the
DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommend the following for the Denzer and
Schafer X-Ray Company Superfund site:

No Action with Monitoring

Under the No Action remedy, there would be no action to remediate residual contamination that remains in the
ground water at the site.  Ground water, surface water and sediment sampling would be conducted to monitor the
contamination. The DEP will establish a Classification Exception Area (CEA) based on the ground water moni-
toring to ensure that new wells  are not installed without appropriate precautions. _

 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                    Site Remediation Program

      (609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations

-------
 Documents Available for Review in Repositories
 The Remedial Investigation Report, Feasibility Study, Supplementary Ground Water Investigation, Proposed
 Plan and other documents related to this site are available for review at the following locations:
Berkeley Township Library
42 Station Road
Bay ville.NJ 08721
(908)269-2144
          Berkeley Township Municipal Building
          Pinewald-Keswick Road
          Bay ville.NJ 08721
          (908) 244-7400
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street, CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)984-3081
                                        atneRem
ffiinmnn

      he Record <^Dtec&fim
The- final decision dbctimcuC

-------
                                                     V

  Community Relations Program
            Superfund Site Activities
  As part of the state/federal cleanup program at Superfund contaminated sites, a Community
 Relations Program is conducted to advise local residents and officials about planned actions at
 major stages of a cleanup project and to receive comments from them.  Local briefings
 and/or public meetings, conducted with elected officials and residents, generally occur at the
 following times:

  1) The start of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to address concerns
    of local residents and officials early in the process.

  2) The completion of a Proposed Plan which describes the results of an RI/FS and a
    preferred alternative for remediation. This meeting takes place within a 30-day comment
    period on the Proposed Plan during which the RI/FS and related documents are availablj
    for review in local repositories, usually a public library and/or a municipal building.
                              *
  3) Prior to the start of cleanup actions (physical treatment/stabilization/removal)
    to inform local residents and officials of expected activities.

  In addition to the activities outlined above, there is ongoing communication with local officials
and residents as needed. Depending on whether the New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (DEP) or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead
agency in conducting remedial actions at a site, the Community Relations Program is con-
ducted by DEP or EPA. Comments from the public are welcome throughout the Superfund
process.

  In New Jersey, DEP's Bureau of Community Relations (BCR) is headed by Donald Kakas,
Acting Chief, BCR, (609) 984-3081. At EPA, Region II, the Chief of the Community Relations
Branch is Lillian Johnson, (212) 264-2515.
           New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                     Site Remediation Program
                 (609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations
 9/94
Printed on recycled paper

-------
Major Stages in a Superfund Site Cleanup
             1.) Site Identified, Assessed and Prioritized
   2.) Determination of Lead Agency (State:NJDEP or Federal :USEPA))
              3.) Community Relations Plan Activated           j
                            •I
           4.) Remedial Investigation (Public Meeting Held)         .
  (                   5.) Feasibility Study                   V
      6.) Proposed Plan for Remedial Action (Public Meeting Held)  J
  (7.) Selection of Remedial Action Alternative (Formal Record of Decision)
  C                  8.) Engineering Design                  j
          9.) Cleanup Action (Public Meeting/Briefing Held) _ J
 C                  10.) Cleanup Evaluation     _ J
                                                          '
 C               11.) Operation and Maintenance    _ J

                  ' _  six __ __^
        12.) Site Deleted from Superfund National Priorities List

-------
   Public Meeting Evaluation
                                 Please Print
Date:	_
(Optional) Name/Affiliation:.
                             Meeting Topic (Site):
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is very interested in what you thought of this
meeting so that we can continue to improve future meetings. Please complete this survey before leaving
to help us in this effort.
1. How did you hear of this meeting?
      .Newspaper
      .Radio
                 .Television
                 Mailed Notice
.Posted Notice
Word of Mouth
.Other
2.  Please respond to the following statements using a scale from 1-5, where:
1 ss agree strongly
4 a disagree moderately
                        2 = agree moderately    3 a neither agree nor disagree
                        5 a disagree strongly
  a. Agency representatives spoke clearly and were easily heard.
  b. Technical aspects were presented in a way I could understand.
  c. Graphics used were visually clear and understandable.
  d. Agency representatives clearly explained their actions and plans.
  e. I had adequate opportunity to talk with agency representatives either
     during the meeting or privately before or after the meeting.
  f.  My concerns were expressed to Agency representatives either by me
     or others during this meeting,.
  g. I felt "undetstood" by agency representatives,
  h.- Agency repageacatives seemed interested in the opinions and questions
     of those outaifc of the agency.
  L  Agency representatives responded adequately to the questions.
  j.  I understand the issues covered in this meeting.
  k. I gained better appreciation of the dilemmas to be confronted.
  1.  I feel a need for more meetings.
                                                                       i men
           New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                        Site Remediation Program
                  (609) 984-3081 • Bureau of Community Relations
                               Pnivdd on recycled piper

-------
 3.  The thing I liked most about this meeting was:
 4. The thing I liked least about this meeting was:
 5.  Can you suggest ways this meeting could have been improved?
6. Other comments, questions and concerns(if you have questions and want a response,
   please leave your name and phone number here):
           Please leave this form, filled out at the public meeting reception table or mail to:

                ~~~-          Bureau of Community Relations
                    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                         CN413
                                 Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
Thanks to Rutgers University Environmental Communication Research Program (copyright 1988)

-------
                          ROD FACT SHEET
 SITE
 Name            :
 Location/State  :
 EPA Region      :
 HRS Score(date):
 Site ID #       :

 ROD	
 Date Signed:         September  29,  1995
 Remedy      :         No Action
 Operating Unit Number: OU-1
 Capital cost:        $0
 Construction Completion: n.a.
 0 & M:               $0
 Present worth:       $0
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company
Berkeley Township, Ocean County, New Jersey
II
40.36 (12/82)
NJD046644407
LEAD
Remdial/Enforcement:
EPA/State/PRP
     Remedial
     State of NJ Lead
Primary contact  (phone): Anil Singh, NJDEP, 609/984-0980
Secondary contact(phone) Matthew Westgate, U.S. EPA,  212/637-4422
Main PRP(s)              John Schafer
PRP Contact (phone)
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
     metals,  organics
     ground water
     silver reclaiming from film
     mostly dissipated

-------