Superfund Program U.S. Environmental Protection Proposed Plan Agency, Region II a o MONITOR DEVICES, INC./INTERCIRCUITS, INC. OPERABLE UNIT - 2 (FOR SOILS) %L ^ August 2006 R EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN This Proposed Plan describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposal for addressing soils at the Monitor Devices, Inc./Interciruits, Inc., Superfund site, commonly referred to as the Monitor Devices site, and provides the rationale for that preference. The Monitor Devices site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites in 1986. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with a variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) selected a remedy for the groundwater in September 2005. EPA's studies of the soils have not identified any areas of soil contamination that would pose an unacceptable current or future risk to human health or the environment; therefore, EPA is recommending no action for the soils. This Proposed Plan summarizes the data considered in making this no action recommendation. This document is issued by EPA, the lead agency for site activities. EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, the support agency for site activities, will select the final remedy for the site after reviewing and considering all information submitted during a 30-day public comment period. EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, may modify the preferred alternative or select another response action presented in this Proposed Plan based on new information or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment on all the information presented in this Proposed Plan. EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its community relations program under section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund). This Proposed Plan summarizes information that can be found in greater detail in the Remedial Investigation Report (RI) and the Feasibility Study Report (FS), and other documents contained in the Administrative Record file for the site. EPA and NJDEP encourage the public to review these documents to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the site and Superfund activities that have been conducted at the site. Dates to remember: MARK YOUR CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 11 - September 11, 2006 U.S. EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed Plan during the public comment period. PUBLIC MEETING: August 30, 2006, 6:00 pm U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study. Oral and written comments will also be accepted at the meeting. The meeting will be held at the Wall Public Library Branch, 2700 Allaire Road, Wall Township, New Jersey. For more information, see the Administrative Record at the following locations: U.S. EPA Records Center, Region II 290 Broadway, 18th Floor. New York, New York 10007-1866 (212)-637-4308 Hours: Monday-Friday - 9 am to 5 pm Wall Public Library Branch 2700 Allaire Road, Wall, New Jersey 07719 (732) 449-8877 ------- SITE DESCRIPTION The Monitor Devices site is located in Wall Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey. The former facility occupies two acres in the industrial park section of the Monmouth County Airport (also known as the Allaire Airport) off Route 34 (see Figure 1). Monitor Devices formerly occupied Building 25 in the industrial park, which is located along the airport access road at the intersection of George and Edward Streets. Building 25 is currently used as a repair and storage facility. The area surrounding the site and the Monmouth County Airport is zoned for mixed residential, commercial, and light industrial use. Several industrial parks, light industry, and commercial properties and undeveloped areas border the airport to the south and west. The airport and commercial park are currently active. It is anticipated that for the foreseeable future, the property will continue to be used for light industrial and commercial purposes. SITE HISTORY Monitor Devices, Inc. operated in Building 25 from 1977 to 1980. The Monitor Devices operation primarily involved the manufacture and assembly of printed circuit boards used by companies in the computer industry. As part of the manufacturing process, circuit panels were plated with copper, lead, nickel, gold, and tin. The various plating processes required both electrolysis and electroplating lines. Effluent from the electrolysis and electroplating lines was directed to three pipes that discharged to the rear of the building. The pipes discharged rinse waters from the nickel-gold plating and electrolysis, rinse water from the copper and lead electroplating line, and alkaline washing solution. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) were used as solvents and cleaners in a variety of facility operations. In early 1980, site inspections by the Monmouth County Department of Health, NJDEP and EPA noted effluent pipes discharging wastewater directly onto the ground. Sampling identified elevated levels of copper, lead, and mercury in the effluent and in stained soils. Wastewater that was not percolating into the ground was observed to be flowing around the building and along an access road. A small dam had been constructed to control the migration of manufacturing effluent, resulting in a small unlined pond. Drums of acetone, isopropyl alcohol and a variety of acids were also stored at the site, apparently to be used as part of the facility operations. NJDEP determined that Monitor Devices never possessed the required permits to discharge wastewater, and in May 1980, assessed a penalty and issued an administrative order to the company. The order required the cessation of all wastewater discharge, the installation of monitoring wells, and groundwater sampling. The company never fully complied with this order. In 1980, Monitor Devices changed its name to Intercircuits, Inc., and moved its operation to Lakewood, New Jersey. Monitor Devices/Intercircuits declared bankruptcy in 1988 and eventually went out of business. The Monitor Devices site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1985, and formally placed on the NPL on June 1, 1986. NJDEP initiated an RI/FS field investigation; however, after completing a phase of the field investigation work, NJDEP requested that EPA assume responsibility for the site. After several phases of soil and groundwater studies, EPA's environmental consultant completed field investigations in 2004, and prepared a RI Report summarizing the results. In August 2005, a FS Report was completed for the site, assessing soil and groundwater; however, NJDEP requested further time to review the soil data, and EPA elected to move forward with a remedy for the groundwater contamination only. In August 2005, EPA, with NJDEP concurrence, released a Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 (OU1), the groundwater. After an opportunity for public comment, on September 30, 2005, EPA issued a Record of Decision for OU1. The selected remedy calls for enhanced bioremediation of the VOC plume. EPA has initiated the remedial design for the OU1 remedy, which is expected to take approximately two years to complete. After further evaluation, EPA concluded that the existing soil data adequately represents site conditions, which has resulted in the issuance of this Proposed Plan for OU2. The results of the 2005 RI report are discussed below, and formed the basis for the development of this Proposed Plan. ------- SITE CHARACTERISTICS NJDEP's initial field investigations in 1987 identified contaminants near the discharge area around Building 25. VOCs such as TCE and methylene chloride were found above the soil-specific screening criteria. ("Screening criteria" are selected during site investigations to evaluate contaminants detected in various media, such as soil or groundwater, at a site.) TCE was found at 1,800 parts per million (1,800 ppm) and methylene chloride at 6.5 ppm in soils. Other VOCs such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane were detected below the screening criteria. Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were sporadically detected in the shallow soils below the soil-specific screening criteria. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was detected in surface soils at 22 and 8.3 ppm. For inorganic analytes, only arsenic and chromium were found slightly above the soil screening criteria. EPA used this data to target its soil investigations for soil sampling performed in several phases in 1998 and 2001. The EPA RI indicated the following: Soils EPA sampled surface soils (within the first two feet of the ground surface) and subsurface soils to investigate soil contamination. The soil investigation initially focused on the area surrounding Building 25; however, groundwater sampling suggested a possible source area near Building 62-C of the industrial park (see Figure 1), and additional soil sampling was also performed there. Samples were analyzed for metals, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs and pesticides. A total of 37 surface samples were collected around Building 25. Arsenic was the only chemical that exceeded its respective screening criteria. Table 1 shows the most frequently detected contaminants and their levels in comparison with the screening criteria that was used for these compounds. A total of 29 subsurface samples were collected around Building 25, at depths between 8-10 feet, 16-18 feet and 48-50 feet below the ground surface. All the contaminants found in the subsurface soils were below the screening criteria. The RI samples collected around Building 62-C consisted of three borings, with soils collected at between 0 to 0.5 foot, 8 to 10 feet, 16 to 18 feet and 48 to 50 feet below ground surface. Arsenic was detected in the subsurface soils at 2.9 ppm within the 8 to 10 foot sampling interval around Building 62-C. This value is only slightly higher than the 2.2 ppm screening criteria for surface soils. However, based on the results of the human health risk assessment, discussed below, arsenic should not pose a threat to human health. The RI also collected surface soil and sediment samples from a small marshy area found approximately 2,000 feet south-southeast of Building 25. It is a small ponded area at the end of the airport runway. During the RI, it was unclear whether this ponded area was a groundwater discharge point, and whether the groundwater contaminant plume might have transported contaminants to this area. The RI concluded that it was perched water, probably runoff from the runway, and that it was not in contact with the groundwater. While some measurable contaminants were found in this area, such as lead and hexavalent chromium, none of it is believed to be site-related and the concentrations are below the site- specific screening criteria. Results from the soil sampling indicated that no organic compounds or metals were detected in soils above the site-specific soil screening criteria, with the exception of arsenic in two samples. Arsenic is not believed to be associated with former Monitor Devices operations, and may be attributable to background soil concentrations. Based on data collected during the RI, site soils are not currently a source of contamination to the groundwater. Results from the soil sampling did not identify any "principal threat wastes" at the site. (See explanation of Principal Threats, below). WHAT IS A "PRINCIPAL THREAT"? The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP Section 300.430(a)(1 )(iii)(A)). The "principal threat" concept is applied to the characterization of "source materials" at a Superfund site. A source material is material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater, surface water or air, or acts as a source for direct exposure. Contaminated groundwater generally is not considered to be a source material; however, Non- Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) in groundwater may be viewed as source material. Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. The decision to treat these wastes is made on a site-specific basis through a detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine remedy selection criteria This analysis provides a basis for making a statutory finding that the remedy employs treatment as a principal element. ------- ENFORCEMENT Based on the findings of County, State and Federal inspections, the NJDEP levied a financial penalty and administrative order in May 1980 for unpermitted discharges. Except for payment of $ 1,500 and installation of three monitoring wells, Monitor Devices failed to comply with the order, particularly the installation of a groundwater recovery and decontamination system. In 1985, Monitor Devices and its president were named in a six-count indictment by a Monmouth County Grand Jury for unlawful release, criminal mischief, and illegal discharge of pollutants in violation of New Jersey Water Pollution Act of 1977. The indictment resulted in a guilty plea and the agreement to pay $100,000 towards the cleanup of the site. The plea agreement was not complied with; in 1988, Monitor Devices went bankrupt and the State of new Jersey decided to take no further action against the company or its president. In 1988, EPA notified Monitor Devices and the property owner, the Wall-Herald Corporation, of their potential liability for cleanup costs under CERCLA. When initiating the RI/FS, EPA concluded that the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) appeared to have insufficient, resources and/or environmental expertise to perform the RI/FS. EPA has used federal funds to perform the RI/FS and to initiate the remedial design of the OU1 groundwater remedy. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE ACTION EPA addressed groundwater at this site in the first operable unit. This second operable unit to address soils is the final remedy planned for the site. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS A human health risk assessment (HHRA) was performed in 2005 to determine the non-cancer hazards and cancer risks associated with exposure to contaminated surface soil from the Monitor Devices site. Since the zoning of the site is industrial, the EIHRA evaluated the following receptors exposure to the surface soil: site worker, adolescent trespasser and construction worker. The HHRA concluded that the constituents detected in the soil do not pose a human health risk to the receptors evaluated. In July 2006, EPA prepared an addendum to the 2005 HHRA that evaluated exposure to surface soil in the area of Building 25 under a residential (unrestricted use) exposure scenario. The purpose of this addendum was to evaluate whether institutional controls such as a deed notice would be necessary to limit the future land uses. The addendum focused on those chemicals that were retained and quantitatively evaluated in the 2005 HHRA. It was determined that any additional chemicals would not contribute significantly to the overall risk if the maximum detected concentrations of chemicals detected in the surface soil were compared to their respective residential risk-based criteria. Therefore, the only constituents that were evaluated as part of the addendum were arsenic, total chromium and chromium VI. Based on EPA's risk evaluation, the total cancer risk associated with a residential exposure to total chromium, chromium VI and arsenic in the surface soil in the area of Building 25 is 4 x 10"6, which is within EPA's acceptable risk range. The HHRA (including the July 2006 addendum) concluded that the surface soils within the area of Building 25 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health. CONCLUSION Based on the data collected from 1998 and 2001 and the conclusion of the EIHRA, the soil does not need to be remediated and is not currently a source of contamination to the groundwater and, therefore, no further action is necessary for these soils. State/Support Agency Acceptance The State of New Jersey is still evaluating EPA's preferred alternative in this Proposed Plan. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION EPA provided information regarding the cleanup of the Monitor Devices site to the public through public meetings, the Administrative Record file for the sites, and announcements published in the Asbury Park Press newspaper. EPA encourages the public to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the sites and the Superfund activities that have been conducted there. ------- WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED? A Superfund baseline human health risk assessment is an analysis of the potential adverse health effects caused by hazardous substance releases from a site in the absence of any actions to control or mitigate these under current- and future-land uses. A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. Hazard Identification: In this step, the contaminants of concern at the site in various media (i.e., soil, groundwater, surface water, and air) are identified based on such factors as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, andfateand transport of the contaminants in the environment, concentrations of the contaminants in specific media, mobility, persistence, and bioaccumulation. Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure pathways through which people might be exposed to the contaminants identified in the previous step are evaluated. Examples of exposure pathways include incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated soil. Factors relating to the exposure assessment include, but are not limited to, the concentrations that people might be exposed to and the potential frequency and duration of exposure. Using these factors, a "reasonable maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur, is calculated. Toxicity Assessment: In this step, the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response) are determined. Potential health effects are chemical-specific and may include the risk of developing cancer over a lifetime or other non- cancer health effects, such as changes in the normal functions of organs within the body (e.g., changes in the effectiveness of the immune system). Some chemicals are capable of causing both cancer and non-cancer health effects. Risk Characterization: This step summarizes and combines exposure information and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site risks. Exposures are evaluated based on the potential risk of developing cancer and the potential for non-cancer health hazards. The likelihood of an individual developing cancer is expressed as a probability. For example, a 10" cancer risk means a "one-in-ten-thousand excess cancer risk"; or one additional cancer may be seen in a population of 10,000 people as a result of exposure to site contaminants under the conditions explained in the Exposure Assessment. Current Superfund guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual lifetime excess cancer risk in the range of 10 " to 10 s (corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk). For non-cancer health effects, a "hazard index" (HI) is calculated. An HI represents the sum of the individual exposure levels compared to their corresponding reference doses. The key concept for a non-cancer HI is that a "threshold level" (measured as an HI of less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects The dates for the public comment period, the date, location and time of the public meeting, and the locations of the Administrative Record files, are provided on the front page of this Proposed Plan. EPA Region 2 has designated a public liaison as a point-of-contact for the community concerns and questions about the federal Superfund program in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. To support this effort, the Agency has established a 24-hour, toll-free number that the public can call to request information, express their concerns, or register complaints about Superfund. For further information on the Monitor Devices site, please contact: Nigel Robinson Natalie Loney Remedial Project Community Relations Manager Coordinator (212) 637-4394 (212) 637-3639 U.S. EPA 290 Broadway 19th Floor. New York, New York 10007-1866 The public liaison for EPA's Region 2 is: George H. Zachos Regional Public Liaison Toll-free (888) 283-7626 (732) 321-6621 U.S. EPA Region 2 2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-211 Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679 5 ------- TABLE -1 MOST FREQUENTLY DETECTED SOIL CONTAMINANTS ( Remedial Investigation Report - 2005) Contaminants Maximum Concentration in Surface Soils (parts per million) Site-Specific Soil Screening Criteria" (parts per million) Volatile Organic Compounds Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.029 1 Trichloro ethylene (TCE) 0.011 0.11 2-Butanone 0.003 50 Methylene Chloride 0.073 1 Carbon Disulfide 0.001 120 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Pyrene 0.36 100 Diethylphthalate 0.37 50 Butylbenzylphthalate 0.035 100 Fluoranthene 0.036 100 Pesticides/PCBs PCB (Aroclorl260) 0.062 0.74 4,4'- DDE (pesticide) 0.03 7 4,4' - DDT (pesticide) 0.11 7 Inorganic Analytes Aluminum 5,790 92,000 Arsenic 2.2 & 2.9* 1.6 Copper 99.9 600 Lead 36.6 600 Mercury 0.11 270 Chromium 267 450 Beryllium 0.38 2 * - Subsurface sample * - See Remedial Investigation Report for source of site-specific soil screening criteria. ------- File Path: c:\ims\gis\monitor_devices\gisprojectfile\monitor_dataevaluaUorisummary_august2004\fig1_sitelocaUon_monitor.apr LEGEND I I Monitor Devices /V Property Boundaries A/ Roads. A/ Airport A/ Buildings A 700 Feet Figure 1 Site Location Map Monitor Devices Site Wall Township, New Jersey CDM. ------- |