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.
------- |