SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
D'IMPERIO PROPERTY SUPERFUND SITE
ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
&
£
<
33
%
N PRO^
T>
Z
LU
o
.0*
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York, New York
August 2014
Approved by:
Date:
dter E. Mugdan, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
202866
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iv
Five-Year Review Summary Form v
Introduction 1
Site Chronology 1
Background 1
Physical Characteristics 1
Site Geology/Hydrogeology 1
Land and Resource Use 2
History of Contamination 2
Initial Response 2
Remedial Actions 3
Remedy Selection 3
Remedy Implementation 4
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance.... 7
Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 8
Five-Year Review Process 9
Administrative Components 9
Community Involvement 9
Document Review 9
Data Review 9
Site Inspection 12
Interviews 12
Institutional Controls Verification 12
Technical Assessment 12
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 13
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? 13
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 14
Technical Assessment Summary 14
Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 14
Protectiveness Statement 15
Next Review 15
Tables 16
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events 16
Table 2: Remediation Goals for Groundwater (all concentrations in fig/L) 17
ii
-------
Table 3: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year Review ..18
Figures 21
iii
-------
Executive Summary
This is the second five-year review (FYR) for the D'Imperio Property Superfund site located in
Mays Landing, New Jersey. The purpose of this FYR is to review information within the last five
years to determine if the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment.
The triggering action for this policy FYR was the first FYR signed on July 31, 2009.
The previous FYR did not identify any issue or make any recommendation because the remedy
is expected to be protective of human health and/or the environment, and in the interim, exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
Excavation and removal of waste material and contaminated soils have reduced the source of
groundwater contamination. Long-term monitoring indicates the groundwater extraction,
treatment and reinjection system is effectively remediating the three aquifer plumes (Bridgeton,
and Upper and Lower Cohansey). The groundwater plumes have been defined and no drinking
wells are installed within the area of the plumes. The remedy was amended to include vapor
extraction and treatment of contaminants from the subsurface soil which continues to reduce the
source of contamination to the groundwater. Performance monitoring indicates the soil remedy is
effectively remediating the contaminated subsurface soils. A Classification Exemption Area and
Well Restriction Area (CEA/WRA), which restricts groundwater wells within the area of the
plume, was included as a component of the remedy by the Explanation of Significant Difference
(ESD) issued in 2010.
The five year review concluded that the remedy currently protects human health and the
environment.
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
v
-------
Introduction
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health
and the environment and is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The methods,
findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in the FYR. In addition, FYR reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
This is the second five-year review for the D'Imperio Property Superfund site (site), located in
Mays Landing, Atlantic County New Jersey. This FYR was conducted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Michael Zeolla.
The review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). This report will become part of the site file.
The triggering action for this policy review is the completion date of the previous FYR. A five-
year review is required at this site due to the fact that the remedial action will not leave
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, but requires five or more years to complete. The site consists of
three components, addressed under one operable unit (OU). The FYR will evaluate all
components under this OU.
Site Chronology
See Table 1 for the site chronology.
Background
Physical Characteristics
The site is located within a triangle formed by the intersections of U.S. Route 322 (Black Horse
Pike), U.S. Route 40 and Cologne Avenue in Mays Landing, Atlantic County, New Jersey. It
includes a 15-acre parcel of undeveloped property identified as Block 1134, Lot 3.03 on the tax
map. Within the parcel is an inactive waste disposal dump that encompasses an area of
approximately 11/2 acres where wastes were illegally disposed. A trailer is utilized on the
property and a private fence restricts access to the site.
The site is situated in a semi-rural region of Atlantic County within the New Jersey Pinelands
National Reserve. This designation allows for commercial, industrial and moderately high
residential development. Several commercial businesses surround the site and many residential
developments exist in the area. The nearest surface water bodies are two wetlands to the north
and south of the site, approximately 2,000 and 4,000 feet away, respectively. The northern
wetland is named Babcock Swamp and is drained by Babcock Creek which is tributary to the
Great Egg Harbor River. The southern wetland is unnamed and is drained by Gravelly Run,
which is also a tributary to the Great Egg Harbor River.
Site Geology/Hydrogeology
The site, located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, consists of seven
stratigraphic units which are described as follows, in descending order, the undifferentiated
Bridgeton (6 to 26 feet thick), the Middle Bridgeton "Clay" (2 to 12 feet thick), the Bridgeton
Sand (2 to 47 feet thick), the Lower Bridgeton "Clay" (1 to 26 feet thick), the Upper Cohansey
1
-------
Sand (7 to 45 feet thick), the Middle Cohansey "Clay" (0 to 28.5 feet thick) and the Lower
Cohansey Sand (78 to 87 feet thick).
The Kirkwood underlies the Cohansey Sand and consists of silt and clay. The Bridgeton Sand,
Upper Cohansey Sand and Lower Cohansey Sand are the primary aquifer units underlying the
site; they are capable of sustaining high water yields suitable for residential, industrial and
agricultural purposes. These aquifer units are bounded by aquitards, defined as the Middle
Bridgeton Clay, Lower Bridgeton Clay and Middle Cohansey Clay. The aquitards provide partial
confinement and hydraulic separation between the aquifer units. Because the Cohansey Sand is
porous and permeable, it is easily recharged by precipitation and provides several hundred
gallons per minute to production wells. The Middle Cohansey Clay influences the groundwater
at a depth of about 50 feet, but quickly thins out towards the northwesterly direction.
Land and Resource Use
The land use in the vicinity of the site is classified as a Regional Growth Area. This designation
allows for commercial, industrial and moderately high residential development. Several
commercial businesses surround the site. In addition, a number of residential developments exist
in the area. One housing development is located approximately 300 feet west of the site. Two
adjacent properties are being considered for development - one as a commercial strip mall to the
northwest, and the other for residential housing to the south. There are no current plans for reuse
of the site property.
History of Contamination
The D'Imperio family has owned this property since 1968. The property had been used by the
Lightman Drum Company (LDC) Inc., and Jerome Lightman as a site for illegal dumping of
hazardous waste material beginning in mid-1974 through 1976. The disposal area consisted
mainly of partially buried and ruptured metal drums. Many of the drums contained metals and
various organic compounds including solvents. The groundwater is contaminated and a plume
has been identified in several aquifers.
During the 1970s, LDC and Jerome Lightman were engaged in the business of reconditioning
steel drums and transporting hazardous waste material. LDC would pick up drums containing
hazardous substances from a number of generators, and transport the waste material to numerous
unauthorized disposal sites. The generators of this waste material, along with LDC and Jerome
Lightman, have been identified by EPA as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for this site.
In the late 1970s, the Atlantic County Public Health Department learned of the illegal waste
disposal area behind the Dennis Motel (a motel located east of the D'Imperio property) and
informed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) of its existence.
Initial Response
NJDEP believed the disposal area was part of the motel property, and directed the Dennis Motel
to investigate and dispose of the waste material. The motel did not comply with this directive
from NJDEP. In 1980, a limited field investigation conducted by a potential developer of the
property indicated that the groundwater underlying the site was contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Subsequently, NJDEP performed a more thorough investigation.
EPA was notified by the NJDEP of the existence of the waste disposal area in 1981. In early
1982, EPA began an investigation of the site and a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was
completed in August 1982. This report summarized the existing data and identified tasks
2
-------
necessary to complete a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). EPA installed a
security fence around the property in 1982 and the site was placed on the National Priorities List
of Superfund Sites (NPL) on September 1, 1983.
Basis for Taking Action
From September 1983 to February 1985, EPA performed an RI/FS to delineate the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and to develop the remedial alternatives addressing the
contamination found within the soils and groundwater. The investigation indicated that the waste
disposal activities had resulted in groundwater contamination in the Bridgeton and Cohansey
aquifers. The Cohansey aquifer is a source of drinking water for the area. In addition, the soils
adjacent to and underlying the disposal area were also found to be contaminated. A human health
risk evaluation was performed as part of the RI, and the results identified high levels of VOCs,
including 2-butanone (MEK), 1,2-dichlorethane, ethylbenzene, trichloroethene, and toluene, and
metals as contaminants of concern in the groundwater; and base neutrals, acid compounds, and
volatile organics in the soils. The risk assessment concluded that the potential risks to human
health and the environment associated with the source material are direct contact with the
contaminated soils and continued migration of contaminants to the groundwater. Also, an
ecological risk evaluation was completed as part of the remedial alternative screening process.
These results were finalized in a 1986 RI/FS Report for the site.
Remedial Actions
Remedy Selection
Based on the findings of the RI and FS, a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a remedy for the
site was issued by EPA on March 27, 1985. The remedial action is being conducted in one site-
wide operable unit. The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) of the remedy include the
following;
• Eliminate the future risk of contaminated groundwater ingestion by present and potential
users in the vicinity of the site;
• Minimize the risk to the public from exposure to wastes and contaminated soils in the site
area;
• Prevent the migration of contaminants from wastes left on the site; and
• Protect the public and on-site workers from health impacts resulting from the
implementation of the remedial action.
The basic components of the remedy include the following;
• Excavation of 3,900 cubic yards of surface drums and contaminated soils for off-site
disposal at a facility approved under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA);
• Installation of a contaminated groundwater recovery and treatment system for the
Bridgeton and Cohansey aquifers prior to reinjection or surface water discharge
(determined during the design phase) with the goal to restore the groundwater to
appropriate Federal and State standards; and
• Construction of a RCRA Subtitle C cap over the excavated dump area.
After the removal of soils and construction of the groundwater treatment system, the PRPs
performed a number of soil investigations in the former disposal area. In October 1998, the PRPs
3
-------
performed a soil study to determine if any source material remained on site that may pose a
threat to human health and the environment. The soil sample results from this investigation is
summarized in the May 1999 Soils Sampling Report.
Following a review of the results of the Soil Sampling Report, the PRPs performed additional
soils sampling in June 2000 to delineate the nature and extent of the remaining source material
found in the subsurface soils at the former disposal area. The analytical data, presented in the
May 1999 Soil Sampling Report and August 2000 Soils Investigation Report, were utilized to
develop the Soils Evaluation (SE) Report, dated September 2002. The SE Report provided a
detailed analysis of the alternative methods to deal with the residual source material at the former
disposal area, and the basis for modifying the soil remedy (RCRA cap) selected in the 1985
ROD. On July 3, 2003, EPA issued a ROD Amendment that changed the soils remedy from a
RCRA cap to the treatment of contaminated subsurface soils by vapor extraction. The RAOs for
the amended remedy include:
• Reduce or eliminate the risk of human exposure to the contaminated soils;
• Reduce or eliminate further contaminant migration from the soils to the groundwater; and
• Mass removal of contaminants in the site soils.
The major components of the amended soils remedy are as follows:
• Extraction of vapors contaminated with VOCs from the soils above the water table which
exceed the cleanup levels;
• On-site treatment of extracted vapors prior to discharge to the environment; and
• Operation, maintenance and performance monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy. A monitoring program was developed to evaluate the effectiveness, optimize the
operational parameters, determine the parameters for remedy closure, and confirm
compliance with the cleanup goals.
On March 10, 2010, EPA issued an ESD to incorporate the CEA/WRA as a component of the
site selected remedy. The CEA/WRA was established at the site to restrict the construction of all
water supply well types within the area of the contaminated plume(s).
Remedy Implementation
Soil Removal:
From April to September 1985, EPA conducted remedial design activities for the excavation and
removal of waste material from the former disposal area. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACE) began the on-site excavation and off-site disposal of buried drums and contaminated
waste material on November 5, 1986. The removal of about 82 drums and 3,900 cubic yards of
contaminated soils and disposal at an off-site, RCRA-approved facility, was completed in March
1987. The excavation area was subsequently backfilled, graded and vegetated with native plants.
Groundwater:
A groundwater investigation was carried out by the PRPs in two phases: Phase I (Bridgeton and
Upper Cohansey Investigation) was completed in November 1994, and Phase II (Lower
Cohansey Investigation) was completed in February 1996. Results are provided in the Phase 1
and Phase 2 Groundwater Investigation Reports dated April 1995 and June 1996, respectively.
4
-------
In June 1995, the PRPs began construction of the groundwater remedy with the installation of the
extraction and reinjection systems. Nine extraction and nine reinjection wells were installed. This
work was completed in March 1996.
Between December 1995 and July 1996, the PRPs constructed the groundwater treatment plant.
The treatment system consisted of five major processes - equalization and metals precipitation,
suspended solids removal by clarification and granular media filtration, volatile organics removal
by air stripping with air emissions controls, and sludge conditioning and handling.
During the final phase of construction, the PRPs submitted the Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring (LTGWM) plan; approved by EPA in March 1996. Sixteen new monitoring wells
were installed and 19 existing wells were decommissioned by May 1996. The groundwater
extraction, treatment and reinjection systems began operating in August 1997.
Following the completion of construction, the discharge to groundwater permit equivalency was
finalized by NJDEP in August 1996. This permit equivalency included a CEA/WRA Notice that
prohibits the drilling of water supply wells within the WRA and restricted all potable water
supply wells for portions of properties near the site.
After collecting groundwater samples from the Lower Cohansey aquifer in November and
December 1997, the PRPs submitted the Work Plan to Further Delineation of the Lower
Cohansey Plume in February 1998. Three new monitoring wells were installed during the
investigation conducted between March and July 1998. A final Lower Cohansey Plume
Definition Report was submitted in August 1998.
A design/build approach work plan to expedite the Lower Cohansey extraction system
construction was submitted by the PRPs in June 1998. One new extraction well and one new
reinjection well was installed from August to November 1998. These wells began operating in
April 1999. During the well installation, the LTGWM plan was revised in September 1998.
After seven years of groundwater monitoring, the PRPs proposed a supplemental groundwater
investigation (SGI) at the site. A work plan was approved in June 2003 and field activities were
conducted from August 2003 to March 2004. An SGI report submitted in June 2004 found that
the Lower Cohansey plume had spread both laterally and vertically down-gradient.
Five new monitoring wells were installed in the Lower Cohansey in June 2004. These new wells
along with five existing wells were sampled in August 2004. An additional monitoring well was
installed in the Lower Cohansey in October 2004. All six new monitoring wells along with six
existing wells were sampled in November 2004. The results of these activities cam be found in
the Lower Cohansey Plume Delineation Report submitted in January 2005.
An additional monitoring well and four observation well pilot borings were completed in the
Lower Cohansey In May and June 2005. These new wells along with three existing wells were
sampled in June 2005. The results were used to confirm the contaminated plume location and
configure the new extraction wells proposed for the Lower Cohansey.
From August 2005 until January 2006, the PRPs conducted the Lower Cohansey extraction
system enhancement (LCESE) activities. These activities consisted of installing four new
extraction wells and one new reinjection well, and perform several other construction activities
which are documented in a LCESE Certification Report dated April 2006.
5
-------
After completing construction of the LCESE, the PRPs began integrating the new extraction and
reinjection wells with the existing extraction system in January 2006, and was fully operational
by February 2006. The PRPs revised the System Operation and Maintenance Plan in March
2007, and the LTGWM Plan in November 2007.
Because of the changes to the Lower Cohansey plume, the NJDEP required the PRPs to revise
the 1996 CEA/WRA. Two new sentinel wells (MW-64 and MW-65) were installed within the
existing Lower Cohansey monitoring well network from August to September 2010. No site
contaminants were found in these wells. However, results from routine sampling conducted in
August 2010 identified a small plume had completely separated from the larger Lower Cohansey
plume. The details on the well installation and sampling, and small detached plume are provided
in a Lower Cohansey Sentinel Well Report dated April 26, 2011.
Following a meeting with EPA in April 2011, the PRPs submitted a Lower Cohansey detached
plume (LCDP) work plan in June 2011 which was approved by EPA in November 2011. This
work plan details the development, construction and post construction activities for the
installation of a new Lower Cohansey extraction well (LC-6E).
From August to September 2011, the PRPs installed a new monitoring well (MW-67) and
observation well (OB-LC6E) on a nearby school property. Results from samples collected in
September and November 2011 found site related contaminants were detected. The results are
provided in the Technical Memorandum (No.l) for Location of New Extraction Well LC-6E
submitted in November 2011. The Technical Memorandum (No.2) for Design of New Extraction
Well LC-6E and the Engineering Design Package for the LCDP were submitted on November
21, 2011 and March 27, 2012, respectively.
As part of the approved LCDP work plan, the PRPs installed new monitoring well MW-66 in
February 2012. Results from samples collected in March and April 2012 found site-related
contaminants had migrated to the southwest of MW-60. These results are provided in the
Analytical Data and Well Construction Log for MW-66 submitted in April 17, 2012.
The technical memorandums (No. 1 and 2) and engineering design were approved by EPA in
May 2012 with the construction activities kicked off in June 2012. The conveyance and control
systems were completed between June and November 2012, and the extraction well was installed
in December 2012.
To complete LCDP delineation, the PRPs installed new monitoring well MW-68 in October
2012. Results from samples collected in October and November 2012 were similar to the
contaminants detected in MW-60 and MW-66.
As a result of samples collected from wells MW-66 and MW-68, the PRPs concluded that LC-6E
would not provide containment and cleanup of the LCDP and that additional delineation of the
LCDP was required. A three-phased approach to delineate the remaining LCDP was proposed by
the PRPs in March 2013. Phase 1 consisted of the installation and sampling of MW-69 which
was completed in April 2013. After completing activities for MW-69, the PRPs submitted a work
plan for the delineation of the LCDP in May 2013 which was approved by EPA in September
2013. Phase 2 consisted of the installation and sampling of three new monitoring wells (MW-70,
MW-71 and MW-72) to delineate the down-gradient extent of the LCDP which were completed
in February 2014. Phase 2 technical memorandum was submitted in March 2014. Phase 3
consisted of additional monitoring wells (MW-73 and MW-75) to be installed and sampled to
delineate the remaining width and length of the LCDP which were completed in April 2014.
6
-------
A review of the sample results from Phase 2/3 activities indicates that the LCDP delineation is
complete. The PRPs are currently preparing a report that details the LCDP delineation activities
and evaluates remedial options for addressing the LCDP to be submitted for EPA review and
approval in July 2014.
Subsurface Soil:
EPA approved a remedial design report for soil vapor extraction in May 2004. It called for a
vacuum to be applied to the subsurface using a blower and extraction wells. Air is drawn from
wells causing flow through the soil, into the wells and air collection system and finally to the
blower. Air flow from the blower is directed to a two-stage vapor phase granular activated
carbon (VGAC) system for treatment before discharging to the atmosphere.
The system consists of eight active extraction wells, five passive air inlet/contingency wells and
a utility building that houses all treatment equipment such as the 15 HP blower, knockout tank,
piping manifolds/gauges, and carbon treatment units. The five passive wells allow fresh air to be
introduced in the soil to improve the subsurface flow, and if the performance monitoring
indicates that the eight active wells are insufficient in achieve the design criteria, the passive
wells would be operated as active extraction wells. Figure 4 shows the configuration of wells.
The treatment area is about 70 feet long by 60 feet wide by a depth of 15 feet with a volume of
about 153,000 cubic feet. The primary treatment goal is physical removal of contaminant mass
from the subsurface but some biological degradation occurs in the source area.
A work plan presenting a design/build approach for a simplified construction of the soil vapor
extraction system was prepared by the PRPs and submitted in May 2004. EPA approved the
final remedial action work plan and construction was completed in June 2004. EPA and the
Corps attended a pre-final inspection in July 2004. The system has been operational since August
2004.
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater Remedy
The groundwater extraction, treatment and reinjection systems continue to be functional and
operated by the PRP contractor de maximis, inc., and their subcontractors, Brown & Caldwell,
and O&M, Inc. This system is currently treating (on average) about 140 gallons per minute
(GPM) of contaminated groundwater through activated carbon units. A discharge to groundwater
permit equivalency issued by NJDEP requires sampling of the treatment system on a monthly
basis. Groundwater monitoring is also performed quarterly to ensure that the groundwater
remedy continues to be effective in capturing each contaminated plume (see Figures 1-3). The
requirements of this sampling effort are found in the November 2007 LTGWM Plan. Also, in
accordance with the 2007 Operation and Maintenance Plan, the system undergoes monthly and
quarterly operation and maintenance activities to ensure cleanup of the groundwater.
After the PRPs have completed developing a remedial alternative and engineering design to
address the LCDP, the 2007 LTGWM and Operation and Maintenance Plan will be revised and
submitted to EPA for review and approval. In addition, the 1996 CEA/WRA will also need to be
revised and submitted to NJDEP for review and approval.
Subsurface Soil Remedy
7
-------
The soil vapor extraction system continues to be functional and operational at removing vapors
from the vadose zone. The air discharge permit equivalency issued by NJDEP requires the soil
vapor system to be screened on a monthly basis using a photo ionization detector. Monthly
performance monitoring is conducted and quarterly air samples are collected from eight vapor
extraction wells. Based on the concentrations, the vacuum and flow rates are adjusted and
extraction wells turned on and off periodically to change the subsurface flow patterns and allow
for the measurement of rebound. Figure 4 shows thirteen vapor extraction wells which operate
while routine maintenance activities are conducted to ensure cleanup of the subsurface soils.
From late 2009 to early 2010, groundwater levels at the site were observed rising during routine
monitoring from the combination of heavier than normal snow and rainfall. By March 2010, the
groundwater levels had risen above the well screens within the vapor extraction wells making it
impossible to extract vapors from the subsurface soils. The PRPs notified EPA that the vapor
extraction system would be shut down until the groundwater levels had receded in these wells.
Groundwater levels were monitored weekly through June 2010 when the levels dropped allowing
the system to be restarted and air samples collected from the influent stream. Sample results from
the influent stream had increased from the previous year in June 2009 (20,058 micrograms per
cubic meter [ug/m3]) to the restart in June 2010 (24,490 ug/m3). This rebound in concentration
indicates that the system continues to effectively remove contaminants but the system could be
near completion.
For the system to be considered complete, the remedial action objectives and soil cleanup goals
must be achieved. To confirm whether the system has achieved the objectives and cleanup goals,
a three-stage approach using performance monitoring requirements and verification sampling
will be implemented. Stage 1 evaluates the total vapor stream concentration as it approaches
stagnant levels. Stage 2 requires soil vapor samples to be collected during three separate shut
down periods and the results compared to the remedy performance standards. Stage 3 calls for
soil confirmation sampling. A more detailed description of these requirements can be found in
the December 2004 Operations and Maintenance Manual.
With vapor stream concentrations approaching stagnant levels (See Figure 1), this first stage of
performance monitoring is complete. The PRPs submitted an interim soil assessment work plan
which was approved by EPA in March 2014. This work plan consist of collecting soil vapor and
subsurface soil confirmation samples to complete the performance sampling. These activities are
scheduled to begin in July 2014.
Progress Since Last Five-Year Review
The protectiveness statement from the first five year review indicated that: "The remedy is
expected to be protective of human health and the environment, and, in the interim, exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Excavation and removal of
waste material and contaminated soils have reduced the source of groundwater contamination.
Long term monitoring indicates that the groundwater extraction, treatment and reinjection system
is effective in remediating the three contaminated aquifers (Bridgeton, and Upper and Lower
Cohansey). These groundwater plumes have been defined. Recent investigation activities have
defined the extent and nature of the LCDP and an evaluation of remedial options to implement
are being developed for the LCDP. The CEA/WRA ensures that no drinking wells are installed
within the area of the plumes. The final component of the remedy was amended to include vapor
extraction and treatment of contaminants from the subsurface soils which continues to reduce the
8
-------
source of contamination to the groundwater. Monthly performance monitoring indicates that the
soil remedy is effectively remediating the contaminated subsurface soils."
There were no specific recommendations identified in the first FYR for the site. However, in
March 2010, EPA issued an ESD that incorporated the CEA/WRA into the site remedy and
investigations conducted since the last FYR have defined the extent and nature of the LCDP and
a design for the remediation is underway.
Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components
The five-year review team included Michael Zeolla (EPA-RPM), Michael Scorca (EPA-
Hydrologist), Rebecca Ofrane (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor), Mindy Pensak (EPA-
Ecological Risk Assessor) and Pat Seppi (EPA-Community Involvement Coordinator).
This is a PRP-lead site.
Community Involvement
The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the D'Imperio Property site, Patricia Seppi,
published a notice in the Hammonton News, a local newspaper, on July 10, 2014, notifying the
community of the initiation of the five-year review process. The notice indicated that EPA would
be conducting a five-year review for the site to ensure that the implemented remedy remains
protective of public health and the environment and is functioning as designed.
Once the five-year review is completed, the results will be made available in the local site
repository, which is at the Hamilton Township Clerk's Office located at. In addition, efforts will
be made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results.
Document Review
The documents, data and information which were reviewed in completing this five-year review
are summarized in Table 3.
Data Review
Groundwater
The groundwater monitoring program includes monthly testing of the treatment system, and
quarterly collection of water levels and groundwater quality samples to ensure the effectiveness
of the extraction, treatment and reinjection systems in removing contaminants from the ground
water. The monitoring program is undergoing changes due to the LCDP investigation activities,
and after completing the remedial activities for the LCDP, the November 2007 LTGWM plan
will be revised. All discharge permit limits are consistently met, and the monitored contaminants
of concern continue to be reduced.
Currently, eight wells screened in the Bridgeton Aquifer are sampled semi-annually and six more
wells are sampled annually. The groundwater plume in the Bridgeton Aquifer is delineated for
total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs). TVOC is the total concentration of the VOCs listed
in Attachment IV of the August 1993 Administrative Order. Of the 14 wells sampled in August
2013, ten had non-detects for TVOC and the four with TVOC detections are oriented along a
9
-------
fairly linear path from the center of the site. Well BR-3E is the most downgradient extraction
well and it showed the highest TVOC concentration in the Bridgeton aquifer during 2013.
Observations of water-quality trends in the Bridgeton well network indicates that the areal extent
and magnitude of TVOC concentrations have decreased since operations began in August 1997.
The major exception to this trend occurred in early 2010 during a period of high precipitation
which raised groundwater levels. During this time, the rise in groundwater levels caused some
contamination remaining in the subsurface soils to mobilize. Extraction wells, BR-2-E, BR-3-E,
and BR-4-E, along with monitoring wells MW-43 and MW-52 showed higher than previously
observed TVOC concentrations. These TVOC concentrations have now declined from double
digits in 2010 to non-detected levels in 2013/2014.
The current monitoring network for the Upper Cohansey aquifer consists of 20 monitoring and 5
extraction wells. The TVOC concentrations in the Upper Cohansey aquifer have also declined
with time. Wells MW-24-2R, UC-4E, MW-28-2, and UC-6E have TVOC concentrations less
than 100 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in recent years. Well UC-3E has exceeded 100 ug/L only
one time since 2010. The extent of the plume also remains relatively narrow.
The monitoring well network in the Lower Cohansey aquifer consists of 28 monitoring, 4
observation, and 6 extraction wells. Observations of the TVOC trends in the monitoring wells
indicate that the main body of the plume has decreased in width. In particular, perimeter and
side gradient wells MW-50, MW-51, MW-53, MW-54, and MW-58 had non-detections in 2013.
Within the main body of the Lower Cohansey plume, the most recent trends of TVOC
concentrations are generally decreasing or stable, with the exception of well MW-45. In several
plume wells over the past few years, concentrations were observed to rise to a peak, which was
then followed by a decreasing trend. A peak was observed in MW-29-2 during 1998, MW-33-2
during 2004, MW-46 during 2010, and MW-47 during 2007. This pattern illustrates the
progression of the highest contaminant mass in the Lower Cohansey plume as it migrates
downgradient through the monitoring wells and toward the line of extraction wells.
Following the observations of plume migration in the Lower Cohansey aquifer and further
investigations in 2004 and 2005, the extraction system was modified to include four more
downgradient extraction wells in 2006. An additional detached portion of the plume was
observed downgradient of these extraction wells in 2010 and 2011 and investigated from 2012
through 2014. Temporary well borings and permanent wells were installed to complete
delineation of the LCDP. The concentration trends show an increase followed by a significant
decline in these wells. For example, at well MW-60 TVOC reached 193 ug/L in May 2010 and
fell to 7 ug/1 in August 2013. At well MW-66, the observed TVOC concentrations were 91 ug/L
in November 2011 and 5 ug/L in August 2013. EPA will continue to monitor the LCDP to
determine if further optimization is required.
Furthermore, beginning in 2006, 1,4 dioxane has been monitored in all three groundwater
contaminated plumes. This contaminant was constantly observed in wells MW-43 (Bridgeton),
MW24-2R and MW-28-2 (Upper Cohansey), and MW-32, MW-45, MW-47, MW-60, MW-68
and MW-69 (Lower Cohansey). Overall, the data shows that the concentrations have decreased
in some of these wells. For example, at well MW-24-2R levels of 1,4 dioxane reached 430 ug/L
in August 2006 to 110 in August 2013, and at well MW-60 from 50 ug/L in August 2007 to 4.7
ug/L in August 2013. Also, the effluent from the groundwater treatment plant was sampled and
analyzed in July 2014 and the analytical results were below the NJDEP interim groundwater
quality criteria of 10 ug/L for 1,4 dioxane.
10
-------
As of December 2013, roughly 865 million gallons of water have been treated at the site. The
treatment system is currently processing water at an average monthly pumping rate of about 140
GPM, and is effectively capturing the contaminated groundwater plume(s). Monthly effluent
testing of the treatment system ensures that the remedy consistently meets the performance
criteria established in the 1986 ROD. In addition, the influent (untreated water coming into the
treatment system) is also sampled monthly.
During the extraction system modifications between 2005 and 2006, an additional pipeline
(force-main) was installed to convey the expanded Lower Cohansey influent groundwater to the
treatment system. Subsequently, samples were collected and reported for the combined
Bridgeton-Upper Cohansey (BR-UC) influent and the Lower Cohansey (LC) influent. Figure 5
illustrates how these combined influent for TVOC concentrations have continued to decrease
between February 2006 and December 2013. The trends illustrated in Figure 5 shows the range
of TVOC concentrations in the influent from the Lower Cohansey have been fairly stable and
that the large fluctuations in concentrations have been observed in the combined BR-UC
influent. Following the peak in 2010 to 2011, which was related to the period of high
groundwater level, concentrations have decreased significantly. Generally, the influent
concentrations have been reduced to below 50 ug/L which is one of the important criteria for
assessing groundwater cleanup as specified in the 1986 ROD. The other criteria will be to
compare concentrations to the Federal MCL and NJGWQC.
In summary, the analytical data indicates that the TVOCs groundwater plumes for each aquifer
(Bridgeton, Upper and Lower Cohansey) continue to decrease in size and concentration since the
treatment began operating in August 1997.
Subsurface Soils
As of March 2014, the SVE system has removed over 47,000 pounds (lbs) of VOCs from the
subsurface soils at the former disposal area. Since operations began in September 2004, the
average annual VOC removal rate has decreased yearly from about 2,500 lbs/month in 2005 to
40 lbs/month in 2013. Figure 7 shows total VOC mass removed from the subsurface soils. This
trend is typical for vapor extraction systems. The initial years of operation show a significant
rate of removal followed by smaller changes through the subsequent years. The system is
currently in its tenth year of operation.
For the past nine and half years, air samples were collected on a monthly basis during the first
year and quarterly from the second year to the present at eight vapor extraction wells and the
treatment system. A review of the analytical data collected shows a significant decrease in total
VOC concentration from 29,487 ug/m3 in September 2009 to 1,480 ug/m3 in March 2014.
Overall, five of the 8 vapor extraction wells were observed to have significant reduction in vapor
concentrations. Table 4 shows the total vapor concentrations.
Between late 2009 and early 2010, on-site groundwater water levels were observed rising during
routine monitoring which caused the vapor extraction system to be temporarily shut down
between March and June 2010. After the system was restarted in June 2010, the vapor
concentrations had rebounded in the subsurface soils. The vapor concentration in the influent
stream had increased to 29,490 ug/m3 (in June 2010) from 20,058 ug/m3 (in June 2009). A
rebound in concentration is typical during any extended downtime for a vapor extraction system.
However, the rise water levels and system shutdown had little effect on the vapor concentrations
because the average annual VOC mass removal rate had decreased from 60 lbs/month the
previous year (July 2009) to 35 lbs/month the following year (July 2010).
11
-------
The total vapor concentrations in the influent stream continues to show the contaminant mass is
being removed but approaching stagnant levels. However, the system shutdown in September
2008 and between March and June 2010 caused the total vapor stream to increase in contaminant
concentrations. Based on this data, the SVE system is continuing to operate, and in the interim,
subsurface soil and vapor samples will be collected as part of a subsurface soil assessment work
plan approved by EPA in March 2014. The data from these activities will be used to assess the
current soil conditions and whether the remedial objectives and cleanup criteria have been
achieved. The cleanup criteria established in the 2003 ROD Amendment are the New Jersey
Impact to Groundwater Cleanup Criteria (IGSCC) and Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup
Criteria (RDCSCC). These activities are scheduled to begin in July 2014.
Site Inspection
The inspection of the site was conducted on April 2, 2014. In attendance were Michael Zeolla,
EPA Project Manager; Michael Scorca, EPA Hydrogeologist; Rebecca Ofrane, EPA Human
Health Risk Assessor; Mindy Pensak, EPA Ecological Risk Assessor; Robert Darwin, PRP
Project Manager from de maximis, inc.; Scott McMillian, PRP Geologist from Brown and
Caldwell; Robert Gladstone, PRP Lead Attorney; Bob Casselberry, PRP Representative from
Dow Chemical; and Mickey Faigen, PRP Public Relation Consultant from Issues Management,
LLC. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
We met at the on-site trailers where the PRPs provided an update on the current groundwater
investigation and upcoming interim soil remedy assessment/verification activities. This was
followed by a tour of the groundwater investigation area, former disposal area and soil vapor
extraction system. No issues were observed.
Interviews
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted with the participants of the site inspection,
including the project manager and site geologist involved in site activities. The purpose of the
interviews was to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy that has been
implemented to date. Interviews were conducted on April 2, 2014. The following items were
discussed during the interviews: current conditions of the groundwater and soil contamination at
the site, future activities to be implemented for the groundwater and soil remedies including the
installation of new monitoring and extraction wells and performance sampling; past five years of
groundwater and soil analytical data; and nature and extent of Lower Cohansey detached plume.
No additional issues were identified.
Institutional Controls Verification
On March 10, 2010, EPA issued an ESD to incorporate the CEA/WRA as a component of the
site selected remedy. The CEA/WRA was established at the site to restrict the construction of all
water supply well types within the area of the contaminated plume(s). The requirements of the
CEA/WRA can be found in the August 1996 Final Discharge to Groundwater Substantive
Requirements. Several attempts have been made to revise the CEA/WRA. In 2007, following
the completion of construction on the LCESE, two new Bridgeton sentinel wells were installed
and most recently when two new Lower Cohansey sentinel wells (MW-64 and MW-65) were
installed. Once remedial activities are completed for the Lower Cohansey detached plume, the
PRPs will prepare and submit a revised CEA/WRA to NJDEP and EPA for review and approval.
Technical Assessment
12
-------
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The remedies (consisting of soil removal, groundwater treatment, soil vapor extraction, and
institutional controls) continues to function as intended by the 1985 ROD, 2003 ROD
Amendment, and 2010 ESD. The CEA/ WRA requirement, which continues to protect against
drinking water wells from being installed within the boundaries of the contaminated groundwater
plume, was included as a component of the site selected remedy by the 2010 ESD.
A review of the analytical data over the last five years indicates that the groundwater treatment
system (operating since August 1997) continues to meet the performance standards established in
the 1993 Administrative Order. The extraction, treatment and reinjection system has continued to
reduce the concentrations of contaminants within the plumes and the recent discovery of a small
detached plume migrating from the larger Lower Cohansey plume is being delineated and
remedial options are being developed. This remedy is being monitored through groundwater and
effluent sampling.
Because the removal of contaminated soils and waste material did not eliminate the source of the
groundwater contamination, a soil vapor extraction system over the former disposal area was
installed in June 2004. Data collected since the last five year review indicates that the system
continues to reduce the contaminant concentrations in the subsurface soils. Air samples collected
over the past five years shows that the vapor concentrations are approaching stagnate levels
indicating the system may be nearing the end of its usefulness. To verify that the system has
achieved the remedial action objections and soil cleanup goals established in the 1993 ROD
Amendment, a three phased approach to assess the system in the interim will be conducted
during in the summer of 2014. The remedy effectiveness continues to be monitored through air
samples collected at the extraction wells and treatment system.
Following the completion of remedial activities for the LCDP, the CEA/WRA will be revised to
include the current groundwater conditions at the site and ensure that all water wells are not
drilled within the plume area. In addition, the security fence around the property and treatment
systems continues to prevent trespassers from walking on the property and possible damaging
treatment system equipment.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid?
The risk assessment methods used at the time of the RI did not calculate cancer risks or health
hazards according to the current methodologies, but the process did identify the potential for
human health risk based on the contaminants and their known toxicity at the time. There have
been no changes to exposure pathways since the original assumptions. Land use, exposure routes
and physical site conditions are the same. Contaminants of concern (COCs) have also remained
the same, except for the addition of 1,4-dioxane, which has been identified in the plume since
2006. 1,4-Dioxane is primarily found in the Lower Cohansey aquifer, where concentrations have
declined in most wells. Although concentrations have increased in MW-45 and MW-47, which
correspond to increases in other contaminants, as discussed in the Data Review section above.
The current NJDEP interim groundwater quality criterion for 1,4-dioxane is 10 |ig/L, and while
some wells have exceedances of the criterion, it was not detected above the current interim
criterion in a sample collected from the effluent of the treatment plant in 2008 and again in July
2014. Overall, 1,4-dioxane will continue to be monitored at the site to confirm removal from the
groundwater plume.
13
-------
Groundwater restoration is the goal of the pump and treat remedy. The remediation goal for soils
is the lower of the New Jersey RDCSCC or the IGSCC. The area is supplied by public drinking
water and there is no contact with subsurface soils, so there are currently no complete exposure
pathways.
The potential for vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater has been periodically assessed
at the site. In the 2009 FYR, it was noted that chloroform was detected in the shallow Bridgeton
aquifer (within 40 feet below ground surface) exceeding its vapor intrusion screening value for
groundwater. The screening value for groundwater has been updated since then (from 0.73 to 3.6
|ig/L), and chloroform concentrations (maximum of 28 |ig/L in 2013) in some of the Bridgeton
aquifer wells still exceed this value. However, there is no development over the contaminated
area, and chloroform has sporadic detections throughout the aquifers that may not be site related.
Other contaminants in the plume aquifers are at depths that prevent any potential for vapor
intrusion. Therefore, the vapor intrusion pathway remains incomplete throughout the site.
The extent of the ecological evaluation was completed as part of the alternative screening
process in the FS. One of the alternatives was discharging treated water to a tributary of
Babcock Creek called Adams Branch. This surface water body is located 3,000 |eet to the north
and upgradient of the site. An environmental assessment was completed to address the potential
effects related to the surface discharge of treated water to Adams Branch and the surrounding
wetland area. However, this alternative was not selected.
Only a limited ecological risk assessment was conducted at the time of the ROD; however, the
excavation of contaminated soils and waste material along with the backfill of clean soil as a soil
cover eliminates potential risk from surface soil contaminants to terrestrial ecological receptors
within the excavation area. As there is no surface water in the immediate vicinity of the site and
no groundwater to surface water pathway, there are no potential pathways to ecological
receptors.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
No other information has surfaced that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
Technical Assessment Summary
Based upon the results of this second five-year review, it has been determined that:
• The soil vapor extraction system continues to reduce the source of groundwater contamination
at the disposal area;
• The groundwater treatment system continues to effectively contain the groundwater plume(s)
while reducing contaminant concentrations;
• The remedy continues to meet the performance criteria established in the ROD and ROD
Amendment; and
• Continued performance monitoring is necessary to evaluate the cleanup of the soils and
groundwater.
Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
There were no issues, recommendation or follow-up actions for this site.
14
-------
Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
Click here to enter a date.
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU1 is protective of human health and the environment, and in the interim, exposure
pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Excavation and removal of
waste material and contaminated soils have reduced the source of groundwater contamination. The
groundwater plumes have been defined and no drinking water wells are installed within the area of
the plumes. Long-term monitoring indicates that the groundwater extraction, treatment, and
reinjection system is remediating the three contaminated aquifers (Bridgeton, Upper and Lower
Cohansey). In addition, periodic performance monitoring indicates the vapor extraction and
treatment of contaminates in the subsurface soil continues to reduce the source of the groundwater
contamination.
Next Review
The next five-year review report for the D'Imperio Property Superfund site is required in five
years from the completion date of this review.
15
-------
Tables
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date(s)
Illegal dumping discovery
1974/1976
NJDEP notifies EPA of waste disposal area
1981
EPA installs a security fence around disposal area
1982
Site placed on NPL
1983
ROD issued by EPA
1985
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study completed by EPA
1986
Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and waste material from
former disposal area by EPA
1987
Groundwater design completed by EPA
1992
EPA issues UAO to PRPs to implement groundwater remedy
1993
EPA modified 1993 UAO for additional groundwater investigations
1993
Groundwater investigation completed by PRPs
1995
EPA issues supplemental UAO to additional PRPs
1995
Groundwater RA construction completion
1996
Groundwater treatment system is fully operational
1997
PRPs conducted subsurface soils investigation
1999
EPA modified 1993 UAO for additional subsurface soil investigations
2000
PRPs conducted subsurface soil delineation activities
2000
ROD Amendment issued by EPA
2003
EPA issues UAO to PRPs to conduct soil remedy
2003
PRPs soils remedy design completed
2004
SVE system is fully operational
2004
Preliminary Close-out Report
2004
PRPs supplemental groundwater investigation completed
2005
Lower Cohansey extraction system enhancement is fully operational
2006
Initial five-year review
2009
ESD issued by EPA for inclusion of CEA
2010
16
-------
Table 2: Remediation Goals for Groundwater (all concentrations in |ig/L)
Contaminants of Concern
National Primary
Drinking Water
Standards (Federal
MCLs)
NJ Groundwater
Quality Criteria
(NJGWQC)
Performance
Standards
Benzene
5
1
5(a)
2-Butanone
—
300
100
Chlorobenzene
100
50
(b)
Chloroform
80
70
5(a)
1,1 -Dichloroethane
___
50
(b)
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
2
5(a)
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
1
5(a)
1,2-Dichloroethene(total)
70
70
(b)
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
1
(b)
Ethylbenzene
700
700
(b)
Methylene Chloride
5
3
5(a)
T etrachloroethene
5
1
5(a)
Toluene
1000
600
(b)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
30
200
Trichloroethene
5
1
5(a)
. Semi'Volatile Organic..Co&:potmdsL . _ ' '_
Phenol(c)
300
. .inorganicCoMpanads• \
Arsenic
10
3
50
Chromium
100
70
Background
Copper
1300
1300
1000
Iron
300
300
300
Lead
15
5
50
Manganese
50
50
20
Mercury
2
2
2
Zinc
5000
2000
5000
Chloride
250,000
250,000
10,000
Sulfate
250,000
250,000
15,000
Conventional- - ,
Biological Oxygen Demand
8000-10,000
Notes:
(a) Compounds with limits in the Administrative Order, Attachment IV.
(b) Compounds with the sum of (a) and (b) that shall not exceed 50 ug/L.
(c) Per agreement with EPA, this compound will only be monitored in the treatment effluent.
17
-------
Table 3: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year
Review
Document Title, Author
Submittal Date
Record of Decision, EPA
March 1986
Record of Decision Amendment, EPA
September 2003
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Brown & Caldwell
November 2007
Groundwater Operations and Maintenance Plan, Brown & Caldwell
2007
SVE Operations and Maintenance Manual, O&M, Inc.
December 2008
1st Five Year Review, EPA
July 2009
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, Brown and Caldwell
2009-2013
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports, Brown and Caldwell
2009-2013
Operation and Maintenance Reports, Brown and Caldwell
2009-2013
Site Monthly Progress Reports, de maximis, inc.
2009-2013
SVE System Annual Operation Reports, O&M, Inc.
2009-2013
Lower Cohansey Sentinel Wells Report, Brown and Caldwell
April 2011
Lower Cohansey Detach Plume Remedial Action Work Plan
July 2011
Technical Memorandum No. 1-LCDP Proposed Location of LC-6E
November 2011
Technical Memorandum No. 2-LCDP LC-6E Construction
November 2011
Technical Memorandum No. 3-LCDP Engineering Design Documents
March 2012
Technical Memorandum No. 4-LCDP
May 2012
Technical Memorandum No. 5-LCDP Delineation Results
July 2012
Technical Memorandum No. 6-LCDP MW-68 Installation Results
March 2013
LCDP Delineation Work Plan
July 2013
SVE Interim Assessment Work Plan
March 2014
18
-------
Table 4
Soil Vapor Extraction System
Total Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/m3)
D'Smperio Property Super-fund Site
SVE-1 SVE-2 SVE-3 SVE-4 SVE-5 SVE-6 SVE-7 SVE-8 Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment
Aug-04
37,965.000
12,741,000
1,136,610
6,598,900
827,600
830,060
28,010,300
34.318.000
39,226,000
117,286
Sep-04
8,746,400
496,200
68,506,000
1,910,000
3,523,300
6,123,000
3,910,300
9,284,300
67,083.000
19,650
Oct-04
1,610,360
Nov-04
494,360
Jan-05
817,170
681,262
9,215,400
987,500
34,936
585,300
3,042,500
328,070
220,470
11,692
Feb-05
806,100
1,135,200
2,983,200
887,820
35,042
424,810
602,800
3,048,800
2,855,900
28,210
Mar-05
231,170
595,920
79,140
441,400
23,314
380,000
3,149,600
350,000
919,630
32,557
Jun-05
1,149
2,356
24,924
652,870
90,650
57,667
7,900
10,312
147,430
Sep-05
752,500
2,930,200
2,742,200
997,490
35,995
592,000
4,251,100
5,029,600
2,371,600
55,340
Dec-05
98,470
785,360
3,892,500
93,260
20,105
65,205
940,870
605,700
538,000
Apr-06
43,494
448,850
662,280
14,320
7,725
382,160
2,540,000
593,190
505,190
2,007
Jun-06
27,375
338,167
501,300
68,883
1,476
490,430
634,850
898,910
601,680
Sep-06
13,476
481,200
568,500
54,042
799
336,300
603,500
606,380
517,900
2,678
Dec-06
4,055
195,500
35,248
16,906
2,094
225,640
45,768
329,190
2,326
Mar-07
328
78,140
52,675
2,590
694
156,439
137,240
386,970
125,957
113
Jun-07
1,434
130,110
4,549
1,294
237
7,280
222,270
183,520
137,660
Sep-07
3,792
27,632
58,034
3,551
1,079
10,673
69,084
374,220
44,276
1,009
Dec-07
353
28,680
140,490
1,172
114
9,279
21,357
35,550
8,186
Mar-08
125
79
5,014
390
229
6,777
991
770
2,145
Jun-08
200
15,329
19
113
54
2,331
7,420
28,179
7
Sep-08
237
8,488
26
44,713
375
9,143
7,037
564,824
90,656
680
Dec-08
897
28.854
555,350
37,353
1,651
126,010
29,088
417,640
214,540
Mar-09
42
5,341
37,930
119,430
22
8,283
725
64,130
8,133
1,971
Jun-09
288
19,869
15,870
16,789
205
15,430
9,005
34,906
20,058
Sep-09
313
38,840
38,792
1,549
230
21,509
15,515
35,186
29,487
7,910
Dec-09
341
27,180
2,938
71
211
4,055
110,220
18,620
13,885
Mar-10
No Sampling Conducted. Heavy Precipitation caused High Water Table Above the Extraction Well Screen
Jun-10
1,158
41,290
1,532
74
1,100
9,375
10,626
188,000
29,490
Sep-10
591
14,734
18,869
330,700
2,372
33,210
7,504
77,510
28,730
1,986
Dec-10
695
12797
57440
95160
383
5813
53280
245700
65740
Mar-11
262
18,440
99,334
103,730
345
18,770
13,072
155,520
48,950
4,089
Jun-11
208
4,539
105,560
86,490
534
4,932
31,650
78,500
44,880
Sep-11
118
7,904
112,780
47,030
1,376
4,930
72,560
218,100
94,690
8499
Dec-11
193
9,030
63,060
12,223
169
18,210
13,767
66,740
6,420
Mar-12
162
7,975
6,313
2,281
138
3,992
12,531
11,660
6,627
33,952
Jun-12
198
5,829
29,825
1,758
132
10,972
14,153
59,025
139
Sep-12
222
4,345
30,738
13,119
447
6,878
5,524
58,960
50,759
147
Dec-12
518
7,433
22,041
11,425
359
5,276
10,466
91,914
20,030
Mar-13
433
1,290
74
46
186
5,368
9,659
3,434
2,208
22
Jun-13
220
5,297
157
228
144
927
6,197
4,947
390
Sep-13
172
4,123
4,726
16,792
443
2,629
656
20,103
2,893
144
Dec-13
223
3,564
20,337
519
170
2,134
3,308
48,433
15,480
Mar-14
112
2,182
113
312
86
4.238
1,708
1,580
1,480
11
19
-------
Table 5
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Total Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
D'imperio Property Superfund Site
MW-43
MW-24-2R MW-28-2 MW-23-2
MW-32
MW-33-2
MW-51
MW-50
MW-47
MW-60
3497
1116
496
282
~
2506
907
442
626
3177
1313
BBI
426
2758
4423
140
592
632
400
396
571
1156
2405
433
360
1621
843
539
250
3202
SOB
538
370
2681
130
6B
179
184
mm
67
672
' S5e
BBS
. HSw 1
BBS
327 J
153 J
104 J
41
123 J
2297 J
144 J
149 J
05 J
164 j
30B J
38.9
660 J
15B j
461 J
89 J
! 377 j
37.9
44
612 J
349
14B
69
700
174
152
133 J
355 J
198 a
21 J
233 J
134 J
13 J
610 J
177 J
132; J
.124 J
254 J
60 J
134 J
57 J
3 J
302 j
81 J
420 J
' i$5 j
110 J
5 J
612 j
126 J
04 j
20 S J
156 3
52 j
22 J
US J
10 J
102 J
122 J
43 J
105
60 J
20
6 J
49 J
109 J
33 J
284 J
18 J
21 J
23
¦ 114 J
7 J
ee
SI J
12 J
154 J
4 J
30 J
!i130 J
M 225 ,i
. 69
2 J
42 J
13 J
7 J
106 J
104 J
103 J
¦ifed j
MUM Hit J>MW
2 J
35 J
46 J
NO
25Tj
200 J
1483. Jj
¦ S0S I
1 J
213 J
63 J
14 J
19 J
32 J
1fJo J
46,2 ¦
132 J
65 J
Wj
41 J
4 J
fit- J
.155 J
m «o j.
242 a
¦ 50 i
1 J
.54 .1
07 ,i
13 J
5 J
28 J
n4 j
76 J
m* m
36 J
3 J
17 J
NO
23 J
-51 j
5 J
69 J
Bz 1
33 J
47 4
14 Ji
23 J
¥ ".M
1 J
25 J
15 J
3 J
24 J
28 J
20 J
8 J
23 J
2 J
14 J
32 J
1
18 J
40 J
ND
12 J
16 J
12 J
13 J
1 J
36 J
39 J
ND
CO 8
52 „
19 J
ND
35 J
7 J
5 J
Jun-98
Sep-98
Oct-93
Dec-98
Feb-93
May-99
S«p-9>9
Dec-99
Mar-0Q
Jun-00
Sep-00
Dec-00
Mar-01
Jun-01
Sep-01
Nov-01
Apr-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Dec-02
Feb-03
May-03
Autj-03
Nov-03
Feb-04
May-04
Aug-04
Nov-04
Feb-05
May-05
Aug-05
Nov-05
Feb-06
May-06
Aug-06
Mar-OT
Aug-07
Nov-07
Feb-08
May-OS
Aug-08
Nov-08
Feb-09
May-09
Aug-09
Nov-05
Feb-10
May-10
Aug-10
Nov-10
Feb-11
May-11
Aug-11
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
20
-------
21
-------
Figure i - Bridgeton Sand Aquifer Well Network
tCGEND
TVO CONCENTRATIONS
t
NPN PgTfCT
«
0' '0 «9V
1
<0 >90 Hfll
t
'DC • >occ wg.i
•
«Vfti *0«
B'lO^rc^ me fu"n
CuH"# '0 ufl i Cortpwr
_ — —
KOWt tin#
tu» VMM* TV© * rw Ul» ¦sntarrmor f 9* -OC •
*»o r *'»' wot *• ** *r»" t'*.< Wf
io« Ftiuawg en oft/w-
1
-------
Figure 2 - Upper Cohansey Sand Aquifer Well Network
-------
Figure 3 - Lower Cohansey Sand Aquifer Well Network
tEQtMP
TVO CONCfhrF*'lO*C
• mc* 5Tf?Ct
s e - >t we i
I «1 iSC .
t •« 'sccuj.
S M*l *9! Cf'P*!
L w TVC t ur>*
Outlnt iCupvC9^»<»
— — —
L
e-«* 'cr1
1.9) ' K
mi: oe«
___ ^ ,
-f ® $ <*•
.. V* ;•%«
0C»42
«
WMMt OrjjrHc* TVO » »• w® esnc«o**ci y
vOC* *)M - T« £<"0—i-c* f -i* tsre.«
0«*r »W c«e»-a«s^
»*•' 1JT»? *CtIOftK«i:
Figure 4 — SVE Well Location
3
-------
\
rO rr* .>*?
SVE
Treatment :
System
Shelter ;
\
___ — V, \
"> 'i;
'v V.
\ ^
) } r"\ uc-5^
-
/ /
/ /
-
\ > XSVE2
SVE1X '•) SVE 9
/
/ /
/ -r
/ <
/ \
VEX3E.HH
x SVE WeSJ location (SVE)
XSVE 3 /
SVE 10 ® \
\ v.
\
\
\
¦J4
;•) Passive Air Inlet (SVE)
r- fenoe
N
" 0
S
- E
\ SVE4X \
\ SVE1\*>
V
b
\
\ &
\ V '•
««•/ « V* Hul
" 9 • W »M
*jw
«u «»i a*
»• tt»
»<» WIM^t
WDM
.«•«
w »•»<»
J L<
BR-4-E
SVE5X SvE6*
«S SVE 12 \
\XSVE7
%SVE 13 • /
y
O & M
¦ fcr*- *>
'**• i
tv« Am
inc.
~»« *7J '
<\
\ \
V
<*a. "/vo
UM) » «.r
XSVE 8 J
x i
t
j
__ / .-CO
I Lr
/ ' "
•pufMtn rr
»> J0
t
rs' i
ISSSftwoMl
Area
Hf: AI>:
'» yy**?wr>
t>'swc*»o '»»u
ruKWl) ' llM
*t« "."SI*
'CO »>co
Ml»
C.VC A'CU
MAP
f
( IH FEET )
W
4
-------
Figure 5
Total VOC for Combined Bridgeton and Upper Cohansey and Lowere Cohansey
'if xi
jjv»
Months
— Biuigpto' I lpp*r I i ¦ ,«•< I oh4"t*>v
-------
Bridgeton Sand Wells
Bk 41
Bfi M
MW 4
BR U
_ «**}
sS 800
2
£ '00
|
s Sim
it
| 400
0
Kl 1U)
x
5 ?
/ ** y f j ^ f J ^
Months
Upper Cohansey Wells
/00
3*
=
f.00
c
2
$00
M
400
E
£
100
0
v->
-ft
200
>
J00
0
i)
<*>
si"
¦C ->
cr
^ ^
0*
«* tf> «p
d> ^ / ¦
CK
Months
•P
S>
d-V
~
o
d-v
¦ MW /4 /
»Ut tf
•MW .»H ;
6
-------
^ .IV,
1? 1'
T
J 1 >
I
C
s
u
»<*)
Lower Cohansey Well
& & $ ©A ^ o% & & & & s? nn <>¦ ^ / <#> ^ ^ o> v#> J &¦ „*> ,/ ^ J cf>
Months
MW 29 2
LC IE
MW 32
MW 33 2
250
Is
— 200
£
J
I
C
m
~
o
w
ISO
100
_ 50
¦s
o
Lower Cohansey Wells
\
¦ ¦ ¦
1
1"1
¦
,
\
V
¦-—
d.
'
\/
/
1
\
k~—
—
/I
j
J
—
—
-=
=d=
-
-J
~ ^ # d> ^ ^ >* d> /V * d> ~ //// ^ >V *
¦MW 51
¦MW 50
MW 54
¦ MW 60
Months
7
------- |