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
------- |