Fifth Five Year Review Report for CIBA GEIGY Superfund Site Ocean County New Jersey


FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
CIBA-GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

£

<

30

\

4



^L rrO^^

a

T

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York, New York

Digitally signed by Pat

Pat Evangelista S022213:23*3	February 22, 2023

-05'0Q'

Pat Evangelista, Director	Date

Superfund and Emergency Management Division

-------
Table of Contents

LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS	iii

I.	INTRODUCTION	1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM	2

II.	RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY	3

Basis for Taking Action	3

Response Actions	4

Status of Implementation	6

IC Summary Table	8

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance	8

III.	PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW	10

IV.	FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS	11

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews	11

Data Review	11

Site Inspection	13

V.	TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT	14

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?	14

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action

objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?	15

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?	16

VI.	ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS	16

VII.	PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT	17

VIII.	NEXT REVIEW	17

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST	18

APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL TABLES	19

TABLE 4 - ESD EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMIT	20

Table 5 - Groundwater Remediation Levels Compared with Residential Risk-Based Concentrations 21
TABLE 6 - SITE-WIDE MONITORING PROGRAM - ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS	22

APPENDIX C - SITE FIGURES	23

APPENDIX D- CLIMATE CHANGE TOOLS	24

li

-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

ARAR

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

BLA

Backfilled Lagoon Area

CD

Consent Decree

CEA

Classification Exception Area

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CIC

Community Involvement Coordinator

COCs

Chemicals of Concern

DDA

Drum Disposal Area

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

EQ Basins

East and West Equalization Basins

ESD

Explanation of Significant Differences

FCD

Filtercake Disposal Area

FSD

Former South Dye Area

FYR

Five-Year Review

GERS

Groundwater extraction and recharge system

GTS

groundwater treatment system

ICs

Institutional Controls

LGAC

Liquid granular activated carbon

LCOH

Lower Cohansey

LTMP

Long term management plan

MCL

Maximum contaminant level

MWDC

Megawatt direct current

NCP

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NERA

Northeast Recharge Area

NJDEP

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NPL

National Priorities List

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OU

Operable Unit

PAC

Powdered Activated Carbon

PCOH

Primary Cohansey

PHE

Public Health Evaluation

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

RAO

Remedial Action Objectives

RI

Remedial Investigation

RPO

Remedial Process Optimization

ROD

Record of Decision

RPM

Remedial Project Manager

SWMP

Site-wide management plan

TBC

To be considered

TCOC

Total contaminants of concern

UU/UE

Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure

voc

Volatile Organic Compound

yds3

cubic yards

111

-------
I. 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. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as
this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document
recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121,
consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and
considering EPA policy.

This is the fifth FYR for the Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site. The triggering action for
this statutory review is the date of the last FYR, May 7, 2018. The FYR has been prepared due to the
fact that hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

The Site consists of two operable units (OUs), both OUs will be addressed in this FYR. OU1, which
involves the extraction, treatment and on-site recharge of contaminated groundwater, is operational.
OU2, which addresses contaminated material and buried drums in source areas on the Site, is complete.

The Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site FYR was led by Diane Salkie, EPA remedial
project manager (RPM). Other EPA participants included Marian Olsen (human health risk assessor),
Michael Clemetson (ecological risk assessor), David Edgerton (hydrogeologist), and Patricia Seppi
(Community Involvement Coordinator, or CIC). The current potentially responsible party (PRP), BASF,
was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on 6/1/2022.

Site Background

The Site is located in Toms River Township, (formerly known as Dover Township), Ocean County,
New Jersey. On-site structures include piping associated with the groundwater collection system, the
groundwater treatment plant, remediation facilities and recently added solar power arrays. Of the
original 1,320 acre Site, approximately 1000 acres were never developed and remain in a natural state.
Approximately 320 acres were developed and used for manufacturing operations, waste treatment,
disposal activities, and administrative and laboratory facilities. An undeveloped portion of the Site that
is in Manchester Township, comprising approximately 70 acres, was transferred to Manchester
Township as conservation land around 2003. The 1,250 acres of the Site remaining today is all in Toms
River Township and consists of approximately 1,210 acres of industrially zoned land on the west side of
Oak Ridge Parkway and approximately 40 acres of conservation-residential zoned land on the east side
of Oak Ridge Parkway. Based on soil sampling, approximately 750 acres are outside the area requiring
remediation and no restriction on their future use is necessary. Approximately 410 acres are within, or
close to the remediation zone and are not appropriate for residential use and are therefore restricted to
Commercial/Industrial/Recreational use. Finally, the waste management zone comprises 90 acres, the
use of which is restricted to waste management activities. The entire Site is fenced with restricted
access.

Production operations at the Site began in late 1952. At the time, the Site was owned by the Toms River
Chemical Company, which was later merged into the Ciba-Geigy Corporation. From 1970 through

-------
1981, the Site was jointly owned by Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz Corporation. In 1981, Sandoz transferred
all interest to Ciba-Geigy. In 2008, Ciba-Geigy was purchased by BASF and all remedial activities are
currently BASF's responsibility.

Residential neighborhoods, recreational areas, small commercial establishments and light industrial
complexes are present near the Site. The commercial areas are situated primarily southwest of the Site.
The area to the west is zoned for industrial use, light manufacturing and warehousing operations. A large
recreational area, which includes several parks and the Toms River, is east of the Site. Residential areas
exist along the northern and southeastern portions of the Site. Municipal water systems serve Dover
Township and the surrounding communities. No residential or commercial drinking water wells are
within the confines of the contaminated groundwater plume. Surface waters from the Toms River are not
used as potable water.

The seven uppermost geologic members underlying the Site in descending order are: the Upper
Cohansey Member, Cohansey Yellow Clay, Primary Cohansey Member (PCOH), Cohansey/Kirkwood
Transitional Member, the Lower Cohansey Member (LCOH), Upper Kirkwood Member and the
Kirkwood Number 1 Member. At some locations, a perched water system is present in the Upper
Cohansey. This perched water system is referred to as the Upper Cohansey Aquifer. The perched water
system can provide a pathway for movement of contaminants to lower geologic units. The Primary
Cohansey Member is a water-bearing unit, referred to as the Primary Cohansey Aquifer, and is a source
of drinking water in an area of New Jersey beyond the plume.

The three major Site activities were production-related activities, wastewater treatment operations and
solid waste disposal. The two source areas associated with production are the Former South Dye Area
(FSD) and the Building 108/Underground Storage Tank Area. During Site operations, a wastewater
treatment plant existed for the treatment and disposal of process wastewater. The major source areas
associated with the wastewater treatment operations are the East and West Equalization Basins (EQ
Basins) and the Backfilled Lagoon Area (BLA).

Several solid waste disposal areas are known to have operated at different times during operations at the
Site which include the Filtercake Disposal Area (FCD), Lime Sludge Disposal Area, Drum Disposal
Area (DDA), Standpipe Burner Area and the Borrow/Compactor Area, (see Figure 1).

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation
EPA ID: NJD001502517

Region: 2

State: NJ

City/County: Toms River, Ocean County

SITE STATUS

| NPL Status: Final |

1 Multiple OUs?

Has the site achieved construction completion? 1

| Yes

Yes |

-------
REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA

[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Diane Salkie

Author affiliation: EPA Region 2

Review period: 6/1/2022 - 12/31/2022

Date of site inspection: 10/20/2022

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 5

Triggering action date: 5/7/2018

Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 5/7/2023

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action

In 1984, EPA began a remedial investigation (RI) of the Site. The RI concluded that contaminated
source areas on Site resulted in groundwater contamination. Based on this investigation, EPA defined
the following OUs: OU1 - pertaining to groundwater; and OU2 - pertaining to known or suspected
source areas.

EPA focused on identifying a remedy for groundwater contamination (OU1) first as part of a multi-
phase remedy for the Site to quickly address potential public health concerns by preventing further off-
site migration of groundwater contaminants. The OU2 RI found that seven source areas continued
releasing contamination to the groundwater and were impacting groundwater quality. The OU2 RI and
subsequent risk assessment also found that one source area, the FCD, presented a direct-contact risk
under a potential on-site worker future use scenario.

A public health evaluation (PHE) in the 1989 OU1 ROD found that cancer risks to future residents
consuming groundwater from the site were 1 x 10"2 (one in 100) exceeding the NCP risk range of 1 x 10"
6 to 1 x 10"4 (i.e., one in a million to one in ten thousand) and the noncancer Hazard Index (HI) was 40
(which is 40 times greater than the goal of protection of an HI = 1) if no action were taken. Other routes
of exposure such as dermal contact and inhalation were within the risk range of 1 x 10"4 (cancer risk of 1
in 10,000) to 1 x 10"6 (cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000) and the noncancer HI was less than 1. Cancer risks
and noncancer HI for recreational exposures to surface water in the Toms River, sediments in the
marshland, and inhalation of air from the river or wetland were within or below the risk range and the
noncancer HI was less than 1.

Contamination from the source areas penetrated through the upper five geologic layers to the Lower
Cohansey aquifer. The groundwater plume in the Primary Cohansey extended off-site toward the Toms
River. The OU1 ROD PHE identified the following indicator chemicals in groundwater: arsenic, barium,

3

-------
benzene, cadmium, chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, nickel, tetrachloroethene, 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene and trichloroethene.

The OU2 ROD developed a list of 12 contaminants of concern (COCs) to characterize the nature and
extent of contamination: arsenic, chlorobenzene, 2-chlorotoluene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, lead, mercury,
naphthalene, nitrobenzene, tetrachloroethene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, trichloroethene and 1,2,3-
trichloropropane. The COCs were chosen based on the following criteria: they pose the greatest
potential risk to human health and the environment; they are found in the highest concentrations in the
source areas and groundwater at the Site; and/or they are most likely to move from the source areas to
the groundwater. The COCs are reported as total contaminants of concern (TCOC) in groundwater
reports.

The OU2 ROD evaluated potential risks from exposure to the FCD. The risks for the future worker from
ingestion were an HI = 1.2 that slightly exceeds the noncancer goal of protection of an HI = 1 and a
cancer risk of 1.1 x 10"4 (cancer risk of 1.1 in 10,000) from inhalation. The risks for the residential adults
from ingestion of groundwater were 3 x 10"4 (cancer risks of 3 in 10,000) and the noncancer HI = 11.
The future risks to the child were 2.9 x 10"4 (cancer risks of 2.9 in 10,000) and the noncancer HI = 92.
The OU2 ROD also evaluated potential risks to construction workers from exposure to the FCD. The
noncancer hazard to the future construction workers was a HI = 9.2. The COCs were arsenic and
mercury.

In 1994, EPA completed a wetlands characterization and ecological assessment to evaluate potential
risks to the environment associated with Site contaminants. The wetlands along the Toms River,
including the Marshland Area and the river itself, represent the most-likely pathway for ecological
impacts related to the Site. The ecological assessment concluded there were no adverse impacts to
terrestrial and aquatic biota in these areas.

Response Actions

Initial Response

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, in response to New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) directives, Ciba-Geigy performed various closure activities and geohydrologic
investigations at the Site. As early as 1979, there were reports of leakage of the double-lined active
landfill and remedial measures were taken under the direction of the NJDEP Solid Waste
Administration. In 1980, EPA completed an identification and preliminary assessment report of the Site
under the Potential Hazardous Waste Site Program. The Site was placed on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1983.

QUI

On April 24, 1989, EPA issued a ROD for OU1 describing the selected groundwater remedy. The major
remedial objectives of the OU1 ROD are:

• mitigation of the effects of groundwater contamination on public health and the environment;
and

• restoration of the upper sand aquifer to drinking water standards.

The major components of this remedy included:

• sealing of contaminated irrigation wells;

-------
•	installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system in a portion of the existing on-site
wastewater treatment plant;

•	extraction of contaminated groundwater until federal and state cleanup standards are met to the
extent that is technically practicable;

•	modify the wastewater treatment plant to treat contaminated groundwater to meet NJDEP
discharge levels;

•	conduct a pilot study to confirm the practicability of achieving discharge levels; and

•	discharge of treated groundwater to the Toms River.

In accordance with the ROD, irrigation wells near the Site were decommissioned and well restrictions
(based on Ocean County Board of Health regulations) were imposed that restrict installation of domestic
wells in the plume.

After EPA issued the 1989 ROD, public concerns related to the proposed discharge to the Toms River
resulted in continued investigation and public involvement to develop an alternate discharge point for
treated groundwater. On September 30, 1993, after conducting a technical review of the groundwater
recharge proposal submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corporation, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD). The ESD eliminated the discharge to the Toms River and called for the on-site
recharge of treated groundwater. The ESD also established appropriate standards for discharging the
treated water (see Table 4). The primary remedial action objective (RAO) of the OU1 ROD and ESD is
aquifer restoration.

OU2

On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a ROD for OU2 describing the selected remedy for the on-site
source areas. The RAOs of the OU2 ROD are to:

•	address the potential risks associated with direct contact with surface soils, and

•	shorten the time frame for the OU1 groundwater remedy to achieve the groundwater restoration
goals established in the 1993 ESD.

The remedy includes the following major components:

•	on-site ex-situ bioremediation of approximately 145,000 cubic yards (yds3) of contaminated
material from the source areas;

•	excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 35,000 drums from the DDA and 5,000 yds3
of soils not suitable for bioremediation;

•	installation of caps and slurry walls in areas of the Site where the Cohansey Yellow Clay is
present. This perched water management system will prevent the movement of contaminants
from the clay into the underlying Primary Cohansey Aquifer. The cap in the filtercake disposal
area will also address the potential direct contact risks associated with the surface soils in this
area;

•	installation of an in-situ bioremediation system in the Equalization Basins to address
contamination below the groundwater table;

•	establishment of deed restrictions to regulate the use of certain areas of the Site and to prevent
intrusive activities in capped areas;

•	optimization of the groundwater extraction and recharge system (GERS) implemented as part
of OU1; and

•	appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the selected remedy.

5

-------
Status of Implementation

OU 1

In 1993, a consent decree (CD) was lodged between EPA and Ciba-Geigy Corporation, which allowed
Ciba-Geigy to design, construct and operate the groundwater extraction, treatment and recharge systems.
All work was conducted with EPA oversight.

The groundwater treatment system (GTS) component for the GERS was constructed from the original
wastewater treatment plant (existing from site operations) and consisted of aerators and powdered
activated carbon (PAC), followed by polishing in granular activated carbon (GAC). The resulting GERS
originally included 43 pumping wells designed to extract a maximum of four million gallons per day
(MGD) of contaminated groundwater (see Figure 2). The systems became fully operational in March
1996.

Three recharge areas were created: the Northeast Recharge Area (NERA), Mideast Recharge Area
(MERA) and the Southeast Recharge Area (SERA). Before recharge began, all recharge water went to
the NERA to eliminate potential for treated water to enter a public water supply well located across the
Toms River. Groundwater electrical conductance is monitored at wells in the NERA to track
groundwater recharge movement and ensure that it does not move to the Pine Lake Park community
located northwest of NERA.

OU 2

The design of the OU2 source area remedy was completed in summer 2003 and on-site construction
began in October 2003. Construction activities consisted of erection of a pre-engineered building for the
ex-situ treatment system, an air emissions treatment system, a shed to house the aboveground
components of the in-situ treatment system, excavation of contaminated soil from the source areas and
installation of landfill caps and slurry walls at the DDA/FCD/FSD soil depository.

The OU2 ROD identified a number of discrete, pre-determined volumes at each of the source areas,
called source blocks, which were calculated using fate and transport and groundwater flow models. The
source blocks determined the amount of soil to be removed and treated in the ex-situ treatment system.
Once all end-point concentrations were reached within a source block, the treated soil was placed under
a landfill cap in the DDA/FCD/FSD soil depository. The OU2 ROD required installation of
impermeable caps and slurry walls in the three source areas (DDA/FCD/FSD) underlain by clay, to
prevent movement of contaminants from the clay into the Primary Cohansey aquifer. Ciba-Geigy used
this perched water management system to redirect the flow of groundwater in the Upper Cohansey
around the source areas.

In 2003, 47,055 drums were removed from DDA source area and sent off-site for disposal. Soil was
excavated from the DDA as well as the FCD, treated, and backfilled in place.

Remediation of the EQ Basins included excavation and ex-situ treatment of contaminated soil as well as
in-situ treatment of soil in the saturated zone which could not be effectively excavated. In-situ treatment
was implemented in two phases. Phase 1 installation consisted of a single extraction well and single
injection well, and operated from 2004 through 2006. Phase 2 involved the installation of additional
injection wells and extraction wells, and a horizontal infiltration gallery. Phase 2 operation began in
June 2007. In 2009, one additional injection well was installed. Groundwater from the area was pumped

-------
from the extraction wells, oxygenated and then re-injected to stimulate aerobic, biological treatment of
contamination in the saturated zone. Throughout its operation, the system required extensive
maintenance related to the plugging and corresponding decreases in capacity of the extraction and
injection wells.

Soil was excavated, treated on-site and placed in the DDA/FCD/FSD depository from the remaining
sources: the BLA, the FSD and the borrow compactor area (BCA). Before the ex-situ treatment facility
was demolished, samples of the concrete floors and the secondary treatment pad were collected in
accordance with an EPA-approved decommissioning plan. The treatment building material, which
consisted mostly of metal, was disassembled, decontaminated and recycled. The nonmetal material was
disposed of off-site as nonhazardous waste. EPA allowed the concrete and asphalt rubble to be milled,
blended and used at the DDA/FCD/FSD depositional area for road material. Decommissioning was
completed on November 4, 2010. A Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed in September 2012,
documenting that all on-site construction was completed.

One component of the OU2 remedy is optimization of the GERS implemented as part of OU1. The
GERS optimization was initiated in 2000. In 2003-2004, based on groundwater quality, operation and
maintenance data, and flow modeling analysis, nine of the original extraction wells were idled and three
new wells were installed. In August 2010, BASF conducted a Remedial Process Optimization (RPO)
project to evaluate further optimization of the GERS. One of the recommendations of the RPO was
optimization of the EQ Basins. With EPA's concurrence, the operation of aerobic treatment was
discontinued in August 2011 in preparation for the characterization activities. BASF performed further
investigations and characterizations of the EQ Basins to initiate the optimization process. These
investigations confirmed high concentrations, as well as non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), in the
groundwater within the Basins. A second optimization idled ten extraction wells located in the PCOPH
based on their locations on the periphery of the plume or very low COC mass recovery rates. The
modifications proposed in the report were approved by EPA. Ten extraction wells screened in the PCOH
were idled. Seven wells were idled in 2016 and three wells were idled in March 2017.

In May 2022, as a next step in the OU2 remedy optimization, BASF submitted an Optimization Report
for GERS including the EQ Basins. This plan calls for additional extraction wells to be installed in the
southern end of the plume where increased concentrations of groundwater contamination have been
found. Additional extraction wells and NAPL recovery wells are planned for installation in the EQ
Basins. EPA commented on the report and approved the revised version in October 2022.

In addition, in 2014, BASF upgraded the GTS system from the former wastewater treatment plant to
new, self-contained air stripping and liquid granular activated carbon (LGAC) adsorption system. Due to
the high levels of iron in the aquifer, BASF added an iron removal system consisting of a sludge
thickening unit and geotube. The non-hazardous sludge cake is removed and disposed of at an approved
landfill. The update resulted in a more efficient water treatment system with the same end result of
meeting discharge permit requirements. A final remedial action completion report, which included
optimization of the GTS and GERS was completed by BASF and approved by EPA in 2015.

-------
IC Summary Table

Table 1: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Contro

s (ICs)

Mcdin. engineered
controls. ;iihI ;iiv;is Ihiil do
mil support I 1 /I 1. bused
oil ciiitciH conditions

IC s

Vcdcd

l( s( iillod
lor in (lie
Decision
Documents

lmp;iclcd
Piircolls)

OI>.jcc(i\c

Tide of l(

1 list i n men (
Implemented ;ind
Diilc (or pliiniicd)

Groundwater

Yes

Contaminated
Groundwater

Restrict the use of
groundwater

Classification
Exception Area
2001

Soil

Yes

Block 411,
Lots 6.02 and
6.03

Restrict land use

Deed restrictions
Planned date
2023

The 0U1 ROD required sealing of contaminated residential irrigation wells in the Cardinal Drive area.
Drinking water in the area of the Site is provided by supply wells that are owned by the United Water
Company. In 2001, NJDEP approved a classification exception area (CEA) restricting the installation of
new wells into the Cohansey and Kirkwood aquifers in the vicinity of the Site.

The OU2 ROD requires deed restrictions on the property to prevent any intrusive activities in the capped
areas of the Site. The OU2 ROD contained three conceptual future land use areas for the Site based on
anticipated conditions following remedy implementation: unrestricted use area, restricted waste
management area, and restricted commercial/industrial/recreational use area.

Unrestricted use Area - This area had no known industrial activity. This area which is currently locally
zoned as commercial/industrial, requires no land-use restrictions.

Restricted Waste Management Area - This area which includes the footprint of the groundwater
treatment facilities, DDA, Standpipe Burner Area, Lime Sludge Disposal Area, FCD and industrial
landfill, requires land-use restrictions to prevent any intrusive activities in the capped areas of the Site.

Restricted Commercial/Industrial/Recreational Area - This area, which includes the historical industrial
production areas, requires land-use restrictions to prevent the construction of residential structures.

The deed restrictions for the property to ensure future land use, consistent with the OU2 ROD, are
expected to be implemented in the future. In preparation of the deed restrictions, in 2013, the Township
subdivided the property into three lots with Block 411, lot 6.01, 6.02 and 6.03.

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance

The GERS is currently operated by BASF and their contractor, Brown and Caldwell. The OU1 CD
required Ciba-Geigy (and now BASF) to perform periodic sampling to determine the effectiveness of
the OU1 extraction and recharge system in capturing the groundwater plume. The requirements of this
sampling effort are provided in the annual long term monitoring plan (LTMP) and involve the collection
of on-site groundwater samples and water level measurements. The LTMP incorporates the following
monitoring programs: the site-wide monitoring program (SWMP) to monitor groundwater and the
GERS; the Toms River Monitoring Program for monitoring surface water of the Toms River; and the
NERA monitoring. LTMP annual reports have been submitted from 2005 through 2022. A Wetlands

-------
Monitoring Program was in place from development in 1994 until 2002, when EPA eliminated the
requirement because no changes were recorded.

The SWMP is a groundwater data collection program that monitors water quality and elevation and
provides information used to evaluate the GERS. The groundwater elevation measurements are taken
from 328 wells and one round of water quality data is collected annually from monitoring wells. For the
operation year 2021, water samples were collected in 92 monitoring wells. The groundwater quality
samples are analyzed for all of the 90 parameters listed in Table 6 on odd numbered years (2019, 2021,
etc.). During even numbered years (2018, 2020, etc.) the metals analysis is limited to GERS wells only,
see Table 6. To monitor the performance of the OU2 remedial action perched water management system
of slurry walls and caps, an OU2 LTMP was developed. The groundwater monitoring portion of the
OU2 LTMP was developed as part of the 2009 OU1 LTMP and includes eight extraction wells and 13
monitoring wells located downgradient of the source areas.

The OU2 groundwater LTMP includes two semi-annual rounds of groundwater quality sampling and
analysis from selected monitoring wells and extraction wells located near the OU2 source areas. Of the
seven on-site source areas, based on the 2021 LTMP results, the BCA and Building 108 are not likely to
be a source of groundwater impacts. Based on elevated groundwater concentrations in a downgradient
well, impacts to groundwater from the FSD source may still be ongoing. As part of the optimization,
BASF has agreed to further investigate this area. TCOC concentrations near the BLA and FDA have
declined since the OU2 remedy, however, residual contamination appears to continue to be impacting
groundwater quality at lower concentrations than prior to the OU2 remedy. BLA contamination is
contained within the capture zone. The DDA showed a temporary increase in TCOC concentrations in
nearby wells, which has been attributed to the passing of a slug of contaminants that was liberated
during the implementation of the OU2 remedy in the 2000s. EPA commented on a concern with
increasing TCOC concentrations in monitoring well RI-04D, located at southern end of the plume, close
to the Toms River that may be attributable to the slug of contaminants from the OU2 remedy
implementation. BASF submitted a Southern Plume Investigation Workplan to address EPA's concerns
with increasing TCOC concentrations in monitoring well RI-04D, located at southern end of the plume,
near the boundary of the plume, close to the Toms River. As part of the optimization plan, BASF
submitted a revised workplan in February 2023 which is currently under EPA review. The
contamination found near the DDA and FDA will be addressed with the southern plume optimization.
Finally, the EQ Basins will be addressed by the optimization plan. See Figure 1.

The LTMP requires groundwater monitoring in several off-site areas to determine the impact of the
groundwater extraction, treatment and recharge systems in protecting these areas. Off-site monitoring is
done primarily in two areas; in the parkland east of the Toms River and in the Oak Ridge Area, a
residential subdivision south of the Site. Portions of these areas have been impacted by the contaminant
plume, which comprises all groundwater that exceeds the standards from Table 2 of the ESD, (Table 4
in this document).

The final part of the SWMP, the Toms River Monitoring Program, is in place to evaluate whether the
GERS is effective at containing contaminated groundwater before it discharges to the Toms River,
located to the east of the Site. There are two monitoring locations denoted, TR-1 which is located
upstream of the Site and TR-5, downstream of the Site. The NERA Monitoring program evaluates
changes to flow patterns from recharged groundwater by monitoring groundwater hydraulics and water
quality in the northeast portion of the Site. The goal of the NERA monitoring program is to prevent
recharge water from entering the residential community of Pine Lake Park.

-------
As part of the routine maintenance activities, pipe insulation is repaired as needed, and piping is
cleaned due to the metal oxide deposits when the excessive level deposit is observed. At times, these
deposits have been found to significantly reduce the flow area of the piping. In the past, BASF
addressed the problem of metal oxide deposition by using the deposit control agent FeREMEDE®. The
use of FeREMEDE® was gradually phased out between 2011 and 2012, when it was replaced with other
deposit control agents such as bleach and citric acid to address metal oxide fouling.

It should be noted that the Ciba Geigy Site has been affected by power outages during intense storms
that tend to have a greater effect on the coastal areas of New Jersey. During Superstorm Sandy, the site
was out of power for a week and therefore the PRP was not able to maintain the GERS system during
that time. In 2019, as part of a 35-megawatt direct current (MW DC) grid-tied solar array system, a
smaller 2-MW DC net-metered solar array was installed. This smaller system provides nearly 100% of
the electricity required to power the GERS system. This would protect the system from shutdowns
during large, intense storms. In addition, based on a review of the screening tools identified in Appendix
D, potential site impacts from future impacts associated with climate change have been assessed, and the
performance of the remedy is currently not at risk.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the fourth FYR as well as
the recommendations from the fourth FYR and the current status of those recommendations.

Table 2: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR

ou#

Protectiveness
Determination

Protectiveness Statement

Protective

The OU 1 groundwater remedy is protective of human health
and the environment.

Short-term Protective

The OU2 source control remedy is protective of human health
and the environment in the short-term. However, in order for
the remedy to be protective in the long term, deed restrictions
need to be established.

Sitewide

Short-term Protective

Table 3: Status of Recommendations from the 2023 FYR

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current
Implementation Status

Description*

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

Deed
restrictions have
not been
completed

BASF, NJDEP and
the Township of
Toms River need
to complete the
deed restrictions.

Ongoing

The previous FYR
included an anticipated
date of completion in
2023. To facilitate the
implementation of ICs
over the past five years,
the property was
subdivided by the

Planned 2023

-------

township. Although deed
restrictions have not yet
been implemented,
progress continues.

In 2019, BASF leased 166 acres of the site for a 35-megawatt direct current (MW DC) grid-tied solar
array system. The project is almost entirely within the footprint of the site's former manufacturing area
and connects to an on-site substation. A smaller 2-MW DC net-metered solar array provides nearly
100% of the electricity required to power the groundwater extraction and treatment system. EPA worked
with BASF to make sure all solar arrays on site are ground mounted and do not penetrate the caps. The
design ensures that reuse is compatible with the remedy and the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews

On August 15th, 2022, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be
reviewing site cleanups and remedies at Superfund sites in New York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico,
including the Ciba Geigy site. The announcement can be found at the following web address:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/R2-fivevearreviews.

In addition to this notification, the CIC for the site, Patricia Seppi, posted a public notice on the EPA site
webpage https://www.epa.gov/superfund/ciba-geigy and provided the notice to the Borough of Toms
River by email on January 31, 2023, with a request that the notice be posted in municipal offices and on
the village/town webpages. This notice indicated that a Five-Year Review (FYR) would be conducted at
the Ciba Geigy site to ensure that the cleanup at the site continues to be protective of human health and
the environment. Once the FYR is completed, the results will be made available at the following
repository/ies: Ocean County Public Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ and the EPA
Region 2, Superfund Records Center at 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10007. In
addition, the final report will be posted on the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/ciba-
geigy. Efforts will be made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results.

Data Review

Since the last FYR in 2018, five rounds of annual monitoring well sampling have been conducted in the
spring of 2018 through the spring of 2022 (data from 2022 has not been reported at this time). During
the years 2018-2021, 27 wells comprised the GERS and the overall extraction rate was equal to 46 to 54
percent of the current design rate, both the extraction rates and design rates are expressed as the average
annual values. In addition, 54 pumps were replaced, and 8 wells were redeveloped due to iron fouling; in
2021, 33 pumps were replaced and no wells were developed. While the extraction wells have shown
difficulty in achieving design specifications due mostly to iron fouling, the system has achieved its goal
of reducing and containing contaminated groundwater, as shown through monitoring of the groundwater
and Toms River. In addition, an upgrade of the GTS system from PAC to an air stripper in 2014
continues to meet surface water discharge requirements. The effluent continues to meet standard
requirements specified in the ESD (see Table 4).

-------
The LTMP incorporates the following monitoring programs: the SWMP to monitor groundwater and the
GERS; the Toms River Monitoring Program for monitoring surface water of the Toms River; and the
Northeast Recharge Area monitoring.

The off-site monitoring results, which are presented in the LTMP Annual reports, show a reduction in
chemical concentrations in areas impacted by the plume and indicate the system has been effective in
preventing the migration of the plume. Figures 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 located in Appendix C, are figures from
the 2021 LTMP showing the plume concentrations of total contaminants of concern (TCOC) in the
Primary Cohansey, Lower Cohansey and Kirkwood Sands aquifers, respectively. A comparison of the
2021 data with the 1995-1996 data indicates both a reduction in contaminant concentrations and in the
number of COCs detected that exceed groundwater restoration standards. Overall, analysis of
groundwater monitoring data indicates the groundwater remedy is functioning as designed in order to
attain the more stringent of the federal and/or state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established
in the 1993 ESD. The overall reduction in plume size is approximately 50 percent of the pre-GERS
extent.

BASF submitted a Southern Plume Investigation Workplan to address EPA's concerns with increasing
TCOC concentrations in monitoring well RI-04D, located at southern end of the plume, near the
boundary of the plume, close to the Toms River. As part of the optimization plan, BASF submitted a
revised workplan in February 2023 which is currently under EPA review.

The 2021 LTMP report concludes the treatment system consistently meets performance criteria. Results
in wells downgradient of the EQ Basins, FSDA, DDA and the FDA still show elevated results and as
stated earlier, additional extraction wells are planned for installation as part of the OU2 remedy
optimization plan. Data will continue to be collected from the downgradient wells, to ensure the OU2
remedy is functioning as designed.

The Toms River has been sampled repeatedly in the past to determine the impact of the Site on river
quality. Surface water, sediment and toxicity samples have been collected in the river. In 2020, two site
contaminants were found in the Toms River, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and chlorobenzene, at levels below
the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria. In 2021, BASF added additional surface water sampling
locations in the Toms River. However, the 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and chlorobenzene found in the 2020
samples were not detected. In fact, there were no VOC detections in 2021. Based on the results of these
samples, it was determined that river quality was not negatively affecting environmental receptors.
Although site-related chemicals have been detected in the river, concentrations have been below New
Jersey's surface water and drinking water standards. Throughout the years, aluminum has been found at
similar levels upstream and downstream and acetone, a common laboratory and field contaminant and
not a site COC, has been detected in the samples.

The 2021 groundwater monitoring results from along the Site's northern border supports the conclusion
that no treated water from the recharge areas has migrated under the Pine Lake Park residential area.

In summary, the 2021 LTMP indicates that:

• While the capture area is reduced (due to prior optimization efforts and iron fouling), TCOC
concentrations at monitoring and pumping wells near the river continue to trend downward,
thereby indicating that the reduced area of capture is not adversely impacting the remedy.

• In addition, sampling in Toms River continues to show the river to be free of significant site-
related contamination. There were no detections in 2021.

-------
• The VOC plume has been reduced in size (magnitude and dimension) over time. The area
covered by the plume core, as defined by the extent of the 1,000-ppb isoconcentration line, has
decreased by approximately 70 percent and 30 percent in PCOH and LCOH, respectively, as
compared to the original size in the pre-GERS period (between mid-1990s and the 2021
monitoring year). The overall plume size (the 10-ppb area) has also decreased. Throughout the
plume, both near the sources and especially away from the sources, the predominant
concentration trends in the monitoring wells are either decreasing or are stable at levels lower
than in the pre-GERS period.

• In the southern plume, a likely migration of a slug of high concentration groundwater is
superimposed on that pattern. This is attributed to the release of mass during the excavation that
occurred in the early 2000s as part of the OU2 source remediation.

In December 2021, BASF submitted an Optimization Report for the GERS that includes installation of
new GERS wells in the key areas of the plume to increase TCOC mass recovery and accelerate aquifer
restoration. The plan includes increased groundwater extraction in the EQ Basins via the installation of
four additional PCOH extraction wells with two located in each of the two EQ Basins. In addition, one
LCOH extraction well will be installed downgradient of the EQ Basins. The optimization plan also
includes increased groundwater extraction in the southern plume area. Three extraction wells would be
installed along the southern property boundary due to elevations in well RI-04D which is located near
the plume boundary. As part of the OU2 optimization of the GERS, a work plan to investigate the EQ
Basins and southern plume via membrane interface probe/ hydraulic profiling tool (MIP/HPT)
technologies to conduct high-resolution delineation of soil and groundwater VOC impacts and
characterize aquifer properties was submitted in November 2022. Based on these results, it is expected
that five monitoring wells will be installed in the EQ Basins and four in the southern plume. The work
plan is under EPA review.

Located on the Ciba Geigy Site, but not a part of the Superfund site, are 3 NJDEP-regulated industrial
waste landfills, known as Cells 1, 2 and 3, where the groundwater and leachate are monitored semi-
annually. In December 2020, NJDEP issued a Major Modification to the permit for monitoring NJDEP's
on-site regulated landfills that added a perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and
perfluorononanoic acid requirement. One well, located to the south of Cell 1 had PFOA detected above
NDEP's Groundwater Quality Criteria of 14 ng/L three different times at 18, 20 and 23 ng/L. BASF is
conducting a remedial investigation, with NJDEP oversight, to determine the horizontal and vertical
extent of the PFOA impacts in groundwater.

Based on these results, EPA requested BASF initiate a PFOA investigation at the entire site, beginning
with influent to the GTS.

Site Inspection

The inspection of the Site was conducted on 10/20/2022. In attendance in person from EPA were Diane
Salkie, RPM, David Edgerton, hydrogeologist. In attendance virtually from EPA were Jeff Josephson,
acting Branch Chief, Frances Zizila, attorney, Marian Olsen, human health risk assessor and Michael
Clemetson, ecological risk assessor. Representing BASF were Steve Havlik and Laura McMahon in
person and Karyllan Mack and Doug Reid-Green virtually. Jeff Caputi, Scott Nelson and Peter
Randazzo of Brown and Caldwell attended in person as well. The purpose of the inspection was to
assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

-------
BASF and Brown and Caldwell provided a presentation consisting of background information as well as
progress and changes made since the last FYR. This included GERS and optimization updates, including
topics concerning the EQ Basins, southern plume and FSD elevated groundwater levels. Deed notice
status was also discussed. Following the presentation, some members accompanied the EPA personnel
on a site tour, visiting the GTS, capped areas, recharge basins, solar fields and groundwater wells. There
were no issues found during the inspections.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Analysis of data over the past five years indicates the groundwater treatment system has consistently
met the treatment standards provided in the 1989 ROD and 1993 ESD. The Pine Lake Park residential
areas have not been impacted by the contaminant plume or treated recharge water. Fencing around the
Site and the continuous security activities that are in place interrupt exposures to potential trespassers.
The effectiveness of the extraction, treatment and recharge system is continually monitored through
groundwater, river and effluent sampling. Optimization of the GTS occurred in 2014 and continues to
meet discharge requirements. An additional optimization to the number of GERS wells was initiated in
2016 resulting in discontinuation of unnecessary extraction wells. Future monitoring will assess the
effect of this action on the plume. NJDEP approved a CEA restricting the installation of new drinking
water wells into the Cohansey and Kirkwood aquifers in the vicinity of the Site.

Remedial Action Performance

According to the 2021 LTMP report, the VOC plume has been reduced in size over time, especially in
those areas farther away from the source areas. Based on model output, the performance of the GERS
over the 2021 operational year has led to a capture envelope that has reduced in size relative to the
design or target envelope. However, throughout the plume, both near the sources and especially away
from the sources, the predominant concentration trends in the monitoring wells are either decreasing or
are stable at levels lower than prior to the GERS. Therefore, the site is making progress toward meeting
the objectives of mitigation of the effects of groundwater contamination on public health and the
environment and restoration of the upper sand aquifer to drinking water standards through optimizing
the groundwater extraction from the remaining source areas.

The OU2 source area remedy was completed in 2010 for all sources except the saturated zone at the EQ
Basins. The EQ Basins were further delineated to define the nature and extent of contamination, define
groundwater flow behavior and update the conceptual site model. The sampling delineated sources in
the groundwater and BASF is currently assessing options for optimization of the remedy, as included in
the OU2 ROD.

Changes in distribution and magnitude of the dissolved-phase impacts are expected to occur as a result
of OU2 implementation and are currently being further investigated.

System Operations/O&M

Analysis of groundwater system monitoring data indicates the groundwater remedy is functioning as
designed in order to treat extracted water to the more stringent of the federal and/or state MCLs as
specified in the 1993 ESD.

-------
In 2014, BASF upgraded the GTS system from the former wastewater treatment plant to a new, self-
contained air stripping and LGAC adsorption system. The update resulted in a more efficient water
treatment system with the same end result of meeting discharge permit requirements.

The OU2 remedy addressing soil contamination was completed in 2012. This remedy addressed
exposure to soils through caps to prevent direct contact exposure and prevent contamination spreading
from the clay into the Primary Cohansey aquifer through the installation of slurry walls. Groundwater
monitoring is in place to ensure the remedy is functioning as designed.

Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures

A CEA has been established to prevent direct exposure through the use of groundwater as a drinking
water source. Consistent with the OU2 ROD, appropriate deed restrictions and ICs will be put in place
and maintained to protect human health from direct exposure to soils based on potential future land use.

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in the physical conditions at the Site that would affect the protectiveness of
the remedy. There have been no changes in the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs), and there are no new standards which would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

Changes in Standards and TBCs

Table 5 provides a comparison of the remediation levels established in the OU1 ROD and updated in
Table 2 of the ESD with their respective current residential risk-based concentrations. The current risk-
based concentration for total arsenic is below the remediation level of 50 micrograms per liter (|ig/L).
The MCL of 50 |ig/L was subsequently updated in 2001 to 10 jj.g/1. Additionally, the ESD revised the
effluent standard to 8 |ig/L. However, due to the GERS treatment and slurry walls, the plume is
contained, and the most recent effluent arsenic result reported in the fourth quarter of 2022 was
undetected at a detection level of 2.0 |ig/L.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

The following chemicals continue to be re-evaluated through the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS): inorganic arsenic, chromium VI, and vanadium and compounds. The toxicity data and cleanup
levels for these chemicals will need to be re-evaluated when the IRIS chemicals are updated and
finalized. Although the risk values may change, the remedial alternatives developed for the Site focus on
addressing the risk by capping the area and preventing direct contact with surface soils. The remedy also
prevents further groundwater contaminant migration through the Perched Water Management System
and groundwater monitoring.

Changes in Exposure Pathways

The exposure assumptions used to estimate the potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards in the risk
assessment supporting the RODs and ESD for human health followed the risk assessment guidance for
Superfund and associated guidance used by the Agency remain valid. During the Site RI, EPA

-------
determined that contaminated soil under current conditions and industrial zoning posed no unacceptable
human health risk from direct soil contact. Under future conditions ingestion of soils from the FCDA by
future residents (adult and child) and construction workers exceeded the risk range. In 2014, EPA's
Superfund program updated exposure assumptions (OSWER directive 9285.6-03). These updates do not
change the conclusions of the risk assessment or the cleanup goals.

Region 2 has evaluated a number of properties with elevated concentrations of groundwater
contaminants where potential vapor intrusion may occur. EPA conducted sampling in October 2007 at
properties near the facility. EPA found that contaminant concentrations in the soil gas beneath the
structures and in the indoor air at these properties did not require any further investigation or
remediation.

Although the ecological risk assessment screening values used to support the OU1 and OU2 RODs may
not necessarily reflect the current methodology, the remedy remains protective of ecological receptors as
the contaminated soil has been addressed by the remedy. Additionally, based on the monitoring the
Toms River does not appear to be adversely impacted by the Site.

The RAOs for the site remain valid.

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?

There is no information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recommendations

()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in (ho l"i\e-Year Rexiew:

OU1

Issues and Recommendations I den t i lied in the Fi\e-Year Rexiew:

OU(s): OU2

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: Deed restrictions have not been completed

Recommendation: BASF, NIDEP and the Township of Toms River need to
complete the deed restrictions

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

Yes

PRP

EPA

2023

Other Findings:

As part of the OU2 ROD, optimization of the OU1 remedy is continuing. This consists of optimization
of the GERS which includes investigating the EQ Basins and the southern groundwater plume and

-------
installation of additional recovery wells and EQ Basins NAPL recovery wells. EPA will continue to
track the progress of these investigations and oversee installation of the optimization recovery wells over
the next five years.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

01	Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The OU1 groundwater remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

02	Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The OU2 source control remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term.
In order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, deed restrictions need to be established.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedies for the Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site are protective of human health
and the environment in the short-term. In order for the remedies to be protective in the long term, deed
restrictions need to be established.

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next FYR report for the Ciba-Geigy Chemical Corporation Superfund Site is required five years
from the completion date of this review.

17

-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

•	Brown and Caldwell. May 2019. 2018 Annual Report for OU1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) and
Groundwater Portion of OU2 LTMP Ciba-Geigy Toms River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	Brown and Caldwell. July 2020. 2019 Annual Report for OU1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) and
Groundwater Portion of OU2 LTMP Ciba-Geigy Toms River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	Brown and Caldwell. July 2021. 2020 Annual Report for OU1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) and
Groundwater Portion of OU2 LTMP Ciba-Geigy Toms River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	Brown and Caldwell. August 2022. 2021 Annual Report for OU1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
and Groundwater Portion of OU2 LTMP Ciba-Geigy Toms River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	Brown and Caldwell. December 2021. Draft Southern Plume Investigation Workplan Ciba-Geigy Toms
River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	Brown and Caldwell. May 2022. Optimization Report for the Groundwater Extraction and Recharge
System Ciba-Geigy Toms River Site Toms River, New Jersey.

•	BASF. June 2018 - June 2022. Operable Unit 1 Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring and Remedial
Process Optimization Progress Report

18

-------
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL TABLES

19

-------
TABLE 4 - ESD EFFLUENT I

HSCHARGE LIMIT (u«/I,)

PARAMETER

STANDARD

PARAMETER

STANDARD









ORGANIC



INORGANIC



1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

15

Total Arsenic

8

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

2

Total Cadmium

3

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

2

Total Chromium

50

1,1 -Dichloroethylene

2

Total Copper

10

1,2,3 -Trichlorobenzene

8

Total Iron

300

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

20

Total Lead

10

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

5

Total Mercury

2

1,2-cis-Dichloroethylene

5

Dissolved Nickel

22

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

77

Total Selenium

10

1,2-Dichloroethane

2

Total Zinc

15

1,2-Dichloropropane

1





1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene

10

PHYSICAL



1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

31

Chloride

250

1,3 -trans-Dichloropropylene

Monitor

Nitrogen, nitrate

10

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

10

Sulfate

250

2-Butanone

150

Total dissolved solids

500

2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether

Monitor

Total suspended solids

40

Acetone

700

PH

SU 5-9

Acrylonitrile

50





Benzene

1





Benzidine

50





Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

30





Carbon tetrachloride

2





Chlorobenzene

3





Chloroform

3





Dibromochloromethane

5.5





Ethylbenzene

32





Methylene chloride

2





Naphthalene

15





Nitrobenzene

10





o-Chlorotoluene

Monitor





p-Chlorotoluene

Monitor





PCBs

0.5





Phenol

10





Styrene

50





T etrachloroethylene

1





Toluene

26





T richloroethylene

1





Vinyl chloride

2





Xylenes, total

20





20

-------
Table 5 Groundwater Remediation Levels Compared with Residential Risk-Based
Concentrations











Chemical

Cleanup standard
(ppb)

Concentration
with Risk Level
of 10-6 (ppb)

Concentration with
noncancer Hazard
Quotient (HQ) = 1
(ppb)

Conclusion











Arsenic

50 (new standard is
10 ppb as of 2001)

0.052

6

MCL (50 ppb) is in
upper bound or risk
range but exceeds an
HI = 1.

MCL (10 ppb) is
within the risk range
but exceeds the non-
cancer HQ = 1.

Benzene

1

0.46

33

MCL within the risk
range and non-cancer
HQ = 1.

Cadmium

5.0

None

9.2

Below HQ = 1.

Chlorobenzene

4.0

None

78

Below HQ = 1.

Chloroform

NA

0.22

97

No cleanup level in
ROD for comparison.

1,2-dichloroethane

2.0

0.17

13

Level within the risk
range and below HQ =
1.

Nickel

NA

None

390 (based on
soluble salts)

No cleanup level in
ROD for comparison.

T etrachloroethylene

1.0

11

41

Below risk range and
HQ = 1

1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene

NA

1.2

4.1

No cleanup level in
ROD for comparison.

Trichloroethylene

1.0

0.49

2.8

Within risk range and
below HQ = 1.

21

-------
TABLE 6 - SITE-WIDE MONITORING PROGRAM - ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS

Organics (ng/L)

MDL

Organics (ng/L)

MDL

Organics (ng/L)

MDL

Organics (ng/L)

MDL

1,1,1,2-T etrachloroethane

0.3

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

0.3

Dichlorobromomethane

0.2

N-Propylbenzene

0.3

1,1,1-T richloroethane

0.3

1,3-Dichloropropane

0.3

Dichlorodifluoromethane

0.2

O-Xylene

0.4

1,1,2,2-T etrachloroethane

0.3

1,3-T rans-Dichloropropylene

0.2

Diethyl Ether

0.2

P-Chlorotoluene

0.3

1,1,2-T richloroethane

0.3

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

0.3

Ethyl Methacrylate

0.3

Pentachloroethane

0.2

1,1 -Dichloroethane

0.3

2,2-Dichloropropane

0.3

Ethylbenzene

0.4

P-Isopropyltoluene

0.3

1,1 -Dichloroethylene

0.3

2-Chlorotoluene

0.3

Hexachlorobutadiene

2

Sec-Butylbenzene

0.3

1,1 -Dichloropropylene

0.3

2-Hexanone

0.4

Isopropylbenzene

0.2

Styrene

0.3

1,2,3-T richlorobenzene

0.4

3-Chloropropene

0.3

M+P-Xylene

2

T ert-Butylbenzene

0.3

1,2,3-T richloropropane

0.3

Acetone

0.7

Methacrylonitrile

6

T etrachloroethylene

0.3

1,2,4-T richlorobenzene

0.3

Acrylonitrile

0.3

Methyl Bromide

0.3

T etrahydrofuran

0.7

1,2,4-T rimethylbenzene

1

Benzene

0.3

Methyl Chloride

0.2

T oluene

0.2

1,2-Cis-Dichloroethylene

0.3

Bromobenzene

0.3

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

0.5

T rans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene

6

l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

0.3

Bromochloromethane

0.2

Methyl Iodide

0.3

T richloroethylene

0.3

1,2-Dibromoethane

0.2

Bromoform

1

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

0.5

T richlorofluoromethane

0.2

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

0.2

Carbon Disulfide

0.3

Methyl Methacrylate

0.3

Vinyl Chloride

0.2

1,2-Dichloroethane

0.3

Carbon Tetrachloride

0.3

Methylene Bromide

0.3





1,2-Dichloropropane

0.3

Chlorobenzene

0.3

Methylene Chloride

0.3





1,2-T rans-Dichloroethylene

0.3

Chlorodibromomethane

0.2

Methyl-T-Butyl Ether

0.2





1,3,5-T rimethylbenzene

0.3

Chloroethane

0.2

Naphthalene

1





1,3-Cis-Dichloropropylene

0.2

Chloroform

0.3

N-Butylbenzene

0.3





















Inorganics (mg./L)

MDL



Other Parameters







Arsenic

0.016



TSS (mg/L)

1





Cadmium

0.001



TDS (mg/L)

12





Chromium

0.0016



Nitrite (mg/L)

0.04





Copper

0.012



Sulfate (mg/L

1.5





Iron

0.04



Chloride (mg/L)

1





Lead

0.0071











Mercury

0.079











Nickel

0.0021











Selenium

0.016











Zinc

0.0037











MDL - Method Detection Limit

22

-------
APPENDIX C - SITE FIGURES

23

-------
Pine kike Park

NORTH

Borrow Compactor Area

Property Line

South Dye

Equalization Basing

Drum Dispo

Filteroake Disposal Area

LEGEND:

Wastewater T realnient Operations
Waste Disposal
Production Activities

Ciba-Geigy Superfund Site
Source Area Location Map

-------
Legend

Original GERS W«ile
¦ Ac«ye P>»nary Conefisec W€il
X Inactive Primary Ciyisfieey Wei lYear Deactivated)
a Actve Loaw Cetianaey vv«|l
JS IraGturo Icrwor Cotton ooy Will lYoar DoactftalKJl
••• GERS Znno
% Rachargs Points
Extraction Pipt Netwirfi

AOiW
— Not In Use

Rcdinrpt npclinc
CZ1 Source Areas

CIJ Toms Rivsr Site Approximate Propwtf' QuwrrJaiy

S /

i i W3I3

	

^nadM) (BM)

i WKSP
| ^ tMCiwCMOi

M-M*

sr-B-

'	pwi*»i

J	Jn«W lantli

, —*

,-m fWSW	v

• WW a \ tJ \

•HPW-3

Zone 3 !

*

1

^ x	¦*

—T^r IH/ V

aij 'L"-,..—rP*0*

r* . }\
' i;-—.

,4 S

m.'™	Zone 1

|2Jlei 1

I rl~t	LWl-223

,		 _ _ , wwsaJtV I	|

	Ttv""" *;¦"

¦i	V : Zone 2

I

¦\vr_

w

jY"

si	iwto	v

' -....J YS

X

&

J s^« ;J

/ / I



V"'

WZ1>

Figure 2 GERS Original Design

* from the Brown and Caldwell, 2021 Annual Report fo OU-1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) and Groundwater Portion of OU-2 LIMP, Ciba-Geigy Toms
River Site, Toms River, New Jersey, August 2022

-------
/ /
Legend

TCOC Conceit! atari Isufltafi (pyiL)

— Isopletft

| Dashed wlieie interred
GER5 Wed TCOC Concentrations

¦	Noft-CMK* (1 25 pgH.) St* No*
a <10ygrl

S to-100 Mail
i® 10U - 1 !>JJ »gil

¦	>1000 M9l

Monitoring Well TCOC Ocncimlratnns

•	ton* Delect (1 25 H9*l) Sec Mote
3 <10 |jgil.

$ 10 100 M5)il
a rfift - HWi

•	>1000 M9l

OU-1 Design Envelope in cite Ptlrrsry Cofiansey
I" i Source rtisaa

2021 G£RS rui CapJure Err»ek>pe. Groundwater model
riddles capture ewer al i medti ayera iimJaling the
Primary Cohansey

2021 G£ftS Parlid CapflJie Envelope Groundwater
rrodel inc(ca®8 capture ovar 1-2 or the mode) is»ers
sifrulaSnj the Primary Ccftar se>-
r.-J Tcma Rivsr Srte Approximate Prcpetf Boundaiy

I uwimiumnimimiam***.nj

Caldwell ¦ »wn™pRDoiti

FIGURE 7-1

2021 TCOC CONCENTRATIONS AND MODELED CAPTURE IN THE PRIMARY
«A	COHANS EV MODEL LAYERS 1, 2, 3

-------
Brown mo . ousflfiu,^5RW, 5nii ^5(w,j

Caldwell I aeiiTMPBtfom

FIGURE 7-2

2021TCOC CONCENTRATIONS AND MODELED CAPTURE IN THE LOWER
—A	CGHANSEY MODEL LAYER 5

-------
"Browrv^
Caldwell j

rs i-d«4aj	dwic *rr. A ad

FIGURE 7-3

2021TCOC CONCENTRATIONS AND MODELED CAPTURE IN THE
KIRKWOOD NJUMBER 1 SAND MEMBER MODEL LAYER 7

-------
APPENDIX D- CLIMATE CHANGE TOOLS

According to the Region 2 Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Five Year
Reviews, three climate change tools were utilized to assess the Ciba Geigy Superfund Site. Screenshots
from each of the tools assessed are included below, a red star on the figure depicts the site.

The first tool used to assess Toms River Township was The Climate Explorer. According to this tool,
coastal flooding may increase as global sea level rises 0.5-2 feet. Intense rainstorms in the area are
projected to have a 1% decrease and a 4% increase. As can be seen from Figure Dl, there is a projected
increase of days per year with maximum temperatures > 100 °F. As can be seen on Figure D2 there is a
slight increase in potential drought conditions. A summary of the Top Climate Concerns from the tool
can be seen as Figure D3.

The second tool utilized is called the Risk Factor. According to the flood factor portion of the
assessment tool, there are nearly 12,000 properties in Toms River that have greater than a 26% chance
of being severely affected by flooding over the next 30 years which gives the Township a rating of
Major. However, as can be seen from Figure D4, the Ciba Geigy Site is outside of that major flood risk
area. Risk Factor also assesses risk from fire and shows that Toms River has a moderate fire risk over
the next 30 years. 99% of all properties in Toms River have some risk of being affected by wildfire. See
Figure D5. Finally, Risk Factor also assesses heat factor. Toms River is at severe risk from heat, see
Figure D6

The final tool utilized is called Sea Level Rise. Once again, Toms River Township is vulnerable to sea
level rise, however, the Ciba Geigy site is located farther from the Atlantic Ocean compared to other
parts of the Township. Figure D7 shows the site, notated as "Toms River Cincinnati Chemical Corp", at
current conditions. For comparison, Figure D8 shows the area with a 10-foot sea level rise which shows
the Township affected by the rise, however, the Site itself is unaffected. This can also be seen from
Figure D9 showing flooding frequency.

Based on a review of the screening tools identified above, potential site impacts from climate change
have been assessed, and the performance of the remedy is currently not at risk due to the expected
effects of climate change in the region and near the site.

-------
^ The Climate Explorer

O About the data - < -

O Toms River, NJ

hi Ocean County - Days w/ maximum temp > 100°F

Days w/ maximum temp > 100°F

Map

i Downloads ~

i About

1990	2000

2010	2020

Observations I ¦¦ Modeled History I SS Lower Emissions I S Higher Emissions

ili

Climate Maps

Climate Graphs

1±*

Historical Weather Data

bid

Historical Thresholds

High-Tide Flooding

Figure Dl

-------
¦ft The Climate Explorer

O About the data ~

O Toms River, NJ
Ocean County - Dry Days
Dry Days

i Downloads ~

l About

1980	1990	2000	2010

2020	2030

2040	2050	2060	2070	2080	2090

Modeled History

Lower Emissions

Higher Emissions

i3i

Climate Maps

bi

Climate Graphs

I*

Historical Weather Data

IMI

Historical Thresholds

High-Tide Flooding

Figure D2

-------
-ft The Climate Explorer

0 Toms River, NJ

? Explore planning tools available from our partners

IP Top climate concerns

Top regional hazards for Toms River, NJ, according to the 2018 National Climate
Assessment. These statements compare projections for the middle third of this century
(2035-2064) with average conditions observed from 1961-1990.

I Show full range of projections

Methodology

Temperate guides you through assessing your vulnerability to these
potential hazards.

Get started with Temperate

jjj At Risk Neighborhoods

Ocean County has 7 census tracts where vulnerabilities to climate change exceed the
county median.

PenndeH

Changed seasonal patterns may affect rural ecosystems, environments, and economies.

Annua counts of intense rainstorms - those that drop two or more inches in one day — are
projected to increase by 0%.

Historically, Toms River averaged 1 intense rainstorms per year.

Frequency of coastal flooding may increase as global sea level rises 0.5 - 2 feet, and
relative sea level rise may be amplified in the Northeastern United States

Extreme temperatures on the hottest days of the year are projected to increase by 6°F.
® Historically, extreme temperatures in Toms River averaged 94"F.

Ocean warming and acidification may affect commerce, tourism, and recreation.

3ensalem

^ Burlington

' Willingboro .
mlnson

Lumberton
Mount Laurel!

Modford

oorhees
awnshlp

Florence Chesterfield

Township

Plomsted
Springfield Township

Point Pleasant
Mantoloking

Berlin

Chesilhurst
Winsfow

Shamong
Township

Washington

Manchester

Township Toms Riverj

Berkeley
Township

Woretowri
Bamegat
Stafford
Township

Little Egg Harbor . •

Township Ship Bottom

Q Vulnerable Tract

—Harbor

City

Bass River
Port Republic

Beach Haven

Neighborhoods at Risk provides neighborhood-level information (by j
census-tract) about potentially vulnerable people and climate change. I

Explore Neighborhoods At Risk

Figure D3

-------
Flood Factor*' Toms River< New JerseV

Home About Methodology Environmental Changes Historic Solutions Help Center

Toms River New Jersey
^ Summary

^ Current Protections

^ Where to Start

Historic Flooding
(jj) Flood Risk Explorer
CI Community Solutions
(*£) Environmental Changes

Map View:

Overall Risk

® Points on map

Filter by levels:

~ A"

Minimal

Minor

Moderate

Major
Q Severe
Extreme

Minimal Minor Moderate Major Severe Extreme

\



I***



4T

1 X'v.

- %.%¦ sir

\

w;v

g |	.

V\

L

¦in

'V.'"

9

I /

\ I

Dallas'Dr °



V

" Cokes Dr

v

.1

Mapl|^ae Rd



CtolMsRd

;• v.-

j& "

I-

Walnut S(

Chestnut St

IT*.

Roanoke Or

Figure D4

-------
VIEW BY YEAR

Accretion Rate

Scenario Year

i 2100:6.86ft

High

Intermediate
High

43ft;4 i 2080:4.53ft

25f: - i 2060 : 2.53ft

Intermediate
Low

i 2040:1.25ft

I ~ < 2020:0.46ft
I MHHW

SANDY HOOK, NJ

FOR HIGH SCENARIO

Toms River. NJ, USA

MARSH

Marsh Location

High Intensity
Developed

Medium Ins
Developed

Low Intensity
Developed

Figure D5

-------
Toms River. NJ. USA

VIEW BY YEAR	?

Accretion Rate	Scenario Year

10.0ft

I 3-Sft-j

No Accretion

Intermediate
High



MARSH

$ Marsh Location

High Intensity
Developed

£ Medium Intensity
Developed

^ Low Intensity
Developed



s

- i 2060 : 2.53ft

Intermediate
Low

I " < 2020:0.46ft

SANDY HOOK, NJ

FOR HIGH SCENARIO

Figure D6

-------
Figure D7

-------