Five-Year Review Report

Fourth Five-Year Review Reportfor

Lang Property Superfund SitePemberton Township

Burlington County, New Jersey

June 2016

PREPARED BY:

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 2.

New York, New York

Date:

Walter E. Mugdan, DirectorEmergency and Remedial Response Division

3932251111111111111111111111111111111I11111111

Five-Year Review Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... iii Five-Year Review Summary Form ............................................................................................ iv I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 II. Site Chronology .....................................................................................................................1 III. Background ............................................................................................................................1

Physical Characteristics ......................................................................................................1 Land and Resource Use ......................................................................................................2 History of Contamination ...................................................................................................2 Initial Response ...................................................................................................................2

Basis for Taking Action ......................................................................................................2 IV. Remedial Actions ..................................................................................................................3

Remedy Selection ...............................................................................................................3 Remedy Implementation .....................................................................................................4 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance .................................................................5 Institutional Controls .........................................................................................................6

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review .......................................................................6 VI. Five-Year Review Process ...................................................................................................7 Administrative Components ...............................................................................................7 Community Involvement ....................................................................................................7 Document Review ...............................................................................................................7 Data Review ........................................................................................................................7 Site Inspection .....................................................................................................................8 VII. Technical Assessment ............................................................................................................8

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ...............8 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? ...................................................................................................................................9 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................10 Technical Assessment Summary .......................................................................................10

i

VIII. Issues ....................................................................................................................................11 IX. Protectiveness Statement ...................................................................................................11 X. Next Review .........................................................................................................................11 XI. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................12 Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events Figure 1-1 - Site Location Map Figure 2-1 - Boring, Monitoring Well, and Microwell Location Map Sheet 1 - Final Survey

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A five-year review for the Lang Property Superfund site, located in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, was completed in June 2016. The remedy selected in the Record of Decision for the site included excavation of contaminated shallow soil and waste materials, with disposal at an off-site landfill; restoration of the excavated area by filling and grading with clean soil, including the removal of surface debris as necessary; extraction and on-site treatment of contaminated groundwater, with reinjection of treated water; installation of a security fence to restrict site access; and appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action. The site achieved construction completion status in 1995. This five-year review was conducted as a matter of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy. The triggering action for this policy review was the signing of the third five-year review which EPA completed on August 24, 2010. Based upon a review of the Record of Decision, the Preliminary Close Out Report, monitoring reports and federal and state inspections of the site, it has been concluded that the site remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Groundwater monitoring is now being performed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) with oversight by EPA. This review recommends that NJDEP establish a frequency for groundwater well sampling to continue to ensure that sufficient data are collected to inform contaminant trend analysis and to continue to ensure that the plume is not migrating off site.

iii

Five-Year Review Summary Form

Issues/Recommendations

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: LANG PROPERTY

EPA ID: NJD980505382

Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Pemberton/Burlington County

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? No

Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA If “Other federal Agency” was selected above, enter Agency name: Click here to enter text.

Author name (federal or state Project Manager): Lawrence A. Granite

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: August 2010 to June 2016

Date of site inspection: June 18, 2015

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: August 24, 2010

Due date (five years after triggering action date): August 24, 2015

No new issues or recommendations have been identified since the completion of the third five-year review and the third five-year review addendum.

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)

Protectiveness Determination: Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable):N/A

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

v

Lang Property Superfund Site Pemberton Township, New Jersey

Fourth Five-Year Review I. Introduction This fourth five-year review for the Lang Property site, located in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) review team headed by Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Lawrence Granite. The five-year review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of five-year reviews is to ensure that implemented remedies are protective of human health and the environment and that they function as intended by the decision documents. This document will become part of the site file. The remedial action for the site was divided into two separate phases. The first phase involved the excavation and removal of contaminant source materials from the site. The second phase addressed the groundwater contamination at the site. It is EPA’s policy to conduct five-year reviews for remedial actions that, upon completion, will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but require five years or more to complete. The trigger for this fourth five-year review is the third five-year review which was signed by EPA on August 24, 2010. II. Site Chronology See Table 1 for site chronology. III. Background Physical Characteristics The Lang Property site is located in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. The site is located on a 40-acre parcel of land in a rural area just south of New Jersey Route 70 off of City Line Road (see Figure 1-1). The site is in close proximity to the Brendan T. Byrne State Forest (formerly known as the Lebanon State Forest) and is located within New Jersey’s Pinelands National Reserve, which is recognized as one of the nation’s valuable environmental resources. Specifically, the site is located within the Central Pine Barrens Water Quality Critical Area and the Pinelands Preservation Area District. Currently, much of the site is underlain by clean remediation backfill.

-2-

The immediate underlying geology at the site consists of unconsolidated coastal plain sediments that include thin surficial sands with interbedded silts resting unconformably on the Cohansey Formation. The Cohansey is a major water-bearing unit that, in addition to providing groundwater to wells, also functions as a recharge source to other coastal plain aquifers. The Cohansey was identified to a depth of 70 feet at the site and is underlain by the Kirkwood Formation. Groundwater generally flows to the northwest. Land and Resource Use The disposal of hazardous wastes occurred on a two-acre area within the 40-acre parcel. There are no residences on the property. The site is flat and currently contains fields of blueberry plants that are no longer cultivated, and wooded areas. Access to the two-acre area is limited by a gated fence. A groundwater treatment facility is present on the site, as well as one former extraction well, six injection wells, and 24 monitoring wells. Operation of the treatment facility, and the extraction and injection wells, was discontinued after more than 10 years of use. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) assumed the lead management responsibility for the site in December 2006 and now utilizes the site for the storage of a somewhat limited quantity of clean and potentially reusable equipment from other sites. The site is located within New Jersey’s Pinelands National Reserve and is considered ecologically valuable. History of Contamination In June 1975, between 1,200 and 1,500 drums of unidentified chemical waste were discovered in a clearing at the end of an unpaved road leading to the Lang Property site. Prompted by legal action by the NJDEP in 1976, the site owners hired a contractor to remove the drums and contaminated soils from the site. Before the drums were removed, however, their contents were apparently spilled onto the ground or disposed of in what have been historically described as “on-site lagoons,” resulting in the contamination of soil and groundwater. Initial Response From 1977 through most of 1979, repeated sampling by the Burlington County Health Department and the NJDEP determined that groundwater contamination was present. In 1980 and 1981, additional site inspections were conducted by state and local authorities. Basis for Taking Action Following the listing of the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982, EPA began a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives to determine the most cost-effective and environmentally sound remedy. The RI indicated that surficial soils (0 to 2 feet deep) and subsurface soils in the two-acre area where disposal took place

-3-

were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and, to a lesser degree, metals. The most severe contamination was in the surficial soils and included toluene, xylenes, phenol, tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. Shallow groundwater beneath the disposal area was also contaminated with VOCs and metals. The principal contaminants of concern in the groundwater were 1,1-dichloroethene, benzene, tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. Contaminants had migrated approximately 300 to 500 feet from the disposal area, principally to the northwest, and extended to a depth of 30 feet. Potable wells in the immediate area were hydraulically upgradient from the site and, therefore, not threatened by the contamination. During the RI, a review of site conditions, toxicological information concerning plant uptake of chemical contaminants, and sampling of blueberries near the site, indicated that there was no evidence of contamination of nearby vegetation attributable to the Lang Property site. During the RI/FS, risk associated with chemical contamination at the site was assessed with respect to current use of the site as well as potential future uses. The current-use scenario, which involved direct contact with soil at the site, was found to pose a risk to human health. The future-use scenarios, which involved use of groundwater as a drinking water source and direct contact with soil, was found to pose substantial human health risks. In addition to the aforementioned human health risks, the RI/FS indicated that there were significant environmental concerns associated with the site. The site is located within the Central Pine Barrens Water Quality Critical Area and the Pinelands Preservation Area District. Since the site was contaminated, and located in critical areas of the Pinelands, it constituted an endangerment to the environment. Although estimates of exposure and risk to critical animal species could not be quantified, the concentration of several contaminants in site media appeared to be sufficiently high to pose hazards to amphibians, certain mammals and birds, etc. IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS Remedy Selection

Based upon the findings of the RI/FS, EPA selected a remedy in a Record of Decision (ROD), signed on September 29, 1986, which included the following major elements:

• Excavation of contaminated shallow soil and waste materials, with disposal at an off-site landfill;

• Restoration of the excavated area by filling and grading, including the removal of surface debris as necessary;

• Extraction and on-site treatment of contaminated groundwater, with reinjection of

treated water;

• Installation of a security fence to restrict site access; and

-4-

• Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action.

While the ROD noted that subsurface soil was contaminated to a depth of approximately 20 feet, the ROD assumed that the contaminants in the saturated zone would be removed through the groundwater extraction process. The ROD indicated that soil sampling would be performed at the conclusion of the groundwater remedy to confirm that assumption. Remedy Implementation Under an Interagency Agreement (IA) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a soil excavation contract was awarded in July 1988. Approximately 13,200 tons of contaminated surficial soil, two dozen crushed drums, and miscellaneous debris were removed from the site and disposed of at an EPA-approved off-site facility. The excavated area was backfilled with clean fill, graded, and seeded. As part of the soil cleanup work, a security fence was installed at the site. This work was completed in November 1988. Construction activities for the groundwater remediation system began in August 1994 and were completed in 1995. Following a one-year start-up and operational-testing period of the groundwater extraction and treatment system, long-term remedial action (LTRA) activities commenced. Three extraction wells, with a combined pumping capacity of approximately 150 gallons per minute (gpm), were installed about 20 feet deep in the contaminated groundwater. A treatment plant building was constructed which contains a laboratory, an office, and the treatment units. The treatment units include two biological sequential batch reactors, an aqueous-phase carbon adsorption system, a chemical precipitation unit, and a sand filter. The treatment facility also includes sludge conditioning/dewatering and vapor-phase carbon adsorption. Six injection wells and nine monitoring wells (MWs) were also installed as part of the remedial construction. Additional MWs were installed during the LTRA. To supplement the contaminant removal by the three extraction wells, three shallow groundwater collection trenches were installed in summer 1996. To further optimize the groundwater cleanup, based on additional site investigation activities, EPA identified and excavated residually contaminated source material. The contractor mobilized to the site in June 2005 and completed the actual excavation in September 2006. The residual source, primarily consisting of clay stringers, was identified via numerous soil borings. The stringers contained VOCs such as trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene and xylenes at concentrations up to 300 parts per million (ppm), 1,200 ppm and 14,200 ppm, respectively. Material was excavated based on the soil boring results and the work was enhanced by observations of the difference in color between the stringers and the surrounding soil. For planning purposes, the residual source was divided into four areas, all of which were within the fenced area (see the

-5-

attached final survey drawing). Documentation soil samples were taken at the bottom of all excavations and the excavation continued until soil sample results indicated that VOCs were no longer detected. Approximately 9,500 tons of contaminated material were disposed of off-site at facilities which were acceptable to EPA. Car parts and other debris were also excavated and disposed of off-site. The groundwater collection trenches and two of the extraction wells were removed during the excavation of the residual contaminant source. Former extraction well EW-1A was left at the site as a monitoring point. Groundwater sumps were installed during the excavation activities approximately two feet below the excavation bottom to dewater the areas. Five sumps remain at the site: they are designated as 2D, 2E, 3A, 5 and 6. The sumps consist of buried vertical perforated piping that is surrounded by pea gravel. The buried pipe is 12 inches in diameter, with 0.010-inch slots, and made of polyvinyl chloride. The sumps were connected by above-ground single-walled piping to above-ground pumps and were used as groundwater extraction points. The pumps were the contractor’s property and they were removed in December 2006. The sumps can be utilized as extraction points in the future, if necessary. Site restoration activities were completed in autumn 2006. The groundwater remediation system was shut down when NJDEP became the lead agency for the site in December 2006. System Operations/Operation and Maintenance The objective of the soil remedy was to eliminate the threat of direct contact with contaminants and to remove a source of groundwater contamination. There currently is no operation, maintenance or monitoring associated with this remedial action. The groundwater remedy consisted of extracting the contaminant plume, treating the contaminated groundwater on site, and reinjecting the treated effluent back into the aquifer. Operation, maintenance and monitoring activities were conducted by Sevenson Environmental Services, Incorporated (Sevenson) under contract with the USACE through an IA with EPA. These activities were covered by an approved Operation and Maintenance Manual. The groundwater was treated to meet federal and state discharge levels identified by the state in its December 14, 1993 New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Groundwater Permit Equivalent for the Lang Property site. Samples were taken quarterly and summarized in quarterly reports. EPA’s groundwater extraction and treatment system operation activities terminated in December 2006, at which time NJDEP became the lead agency for the site. Groundwater contaminant concentrations appeared to have reached groundwater cleanup numbers. NJDEP, in consultation with EPA, decided to shut down the treatment system and monitor groundwater. Groundwater monitoring continues to be conducted by NJDEP.

-6-

Potential site impacts from climate change have been assessed, and the performance of the groundwater monitoring is currently not at risk due to the expected effects of climate change in the region and near the site. Institutional Controls Although not required in the ROD, existing state institutional controls apply to the site. Conventional residential, commercial and industrial development is largely prohibited within the Pinelands Preservation Area District. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6, NJDEP established a Classification Exception Area (CEA) with respect to the site in December 1993. The CEA protects potential users of the groundwater. V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review A third five-year review was completed by EPA in August 2010 as a matter of EPA policy. It concluded that the surface and subsurface soil contamination had been removed and, therefore, presented no actual or potential threat to human health or the environment. However, the 2010 five-year review concluded that a protectiveness determination of the groundwater remedy could not be made until further information was obtained. The five-year review indicated that further information would be obtained by collecting and analyzing groundwater data during monitoring events in 2010 and 2011 to determine groundwater plume contaminant levels and their extent. It was expected that these actions would take up to two years to complete, at which time a protectiveness statement might be made. NJDEP collected groundwater samples at the site in November 2010. In addition, EPA collected groundwater samples in April 2011. EPA completed a five-year review addendum in September 2012 which indicated that, based on the collection and assessment of data, the implemented remedial actions protected human health and the environment. The 2012 five-year review addendum stated that there were no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and, as recommended in the 2010 five- year review, NJDEP should continue sampling groundwater on at least an annual basis to evaluate trends in volatile organic compound concentrations on site. Groundwater sampling has taken place since the completion of the five-year review addendum in September 2012. EPA collected groundwater samples in October 2012. NJDEP collected groundwater samples in March 2013, July 2013, January 2014, April 2014, July 2014, October 2014, March 2015 and June 2015. The results of these events are discussed in Section VI.

-7- VI. Five-Year Review Process Administrative Components The five-year review team included Lawrence Granite (EPA-RPM), Sharissa Singh (EPA-Geologist), Chloe Metz (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor) and Michael Clemetson (EPA-Ecological Risk Assessor). Community Involvement EPA’s RPM, Lawrence Granite, called the Township Clerk’s office in October 2012, August 2013 and June 2014 to inform the Township about the planned five-year review. Mr. Granite also spoke with the Township Business Administrator in June 2014. No concerns regarding the site were identified. When this five-year review is completed, copies will be sent to the Township Clerk, the Township Business Administrator and to a local site repository. On November 19, 2015, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be reviewing site cleanups and remedies at 32 Superfund sites and four federal facilities in New York and New Jersey, including the Lang Property site. The announcement can be found at the following web address: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/fy_16_fyr_public_website_summary.pdf. Document Review The documents, data, and information which were reviewed for the five-year review are summarized in Section XI at the end of this document. Data Review For this five-year review period, NJDEP collected groundwater samples at the site in November 2010, March 2013, July 2013, January 2014, April 2014, July 2014, October 2014, March 2015 and June 2015. Also, EPA collected groundwater samples in April 2011 and October 2012. It is recommended that NJDEP continue to sample wells in the future. Analytical results of the sumps (S-1 through S-6) that were sampled indicate that site COCs are still present above regulatory standards, however, there appears to be an overall decreasing trend with seasonal variations. The maximum concentration of 1,1,1-trichloroethane was detected at 256 ug/L in March 2013 in Sump 3 and has decreased overall to concentrations of non-detect over the past five years.

-8-

Analytical results of the wells sampled indicate that site COCs are present in the groundwater but, for the most part, the contaminant concentrations are below drinking water standards and exhibit decreasing trends. In wells where trichloroethene was detected in the past five years, it was detected below regulatory standards. Based on groundwater geochemistry and the presence of chlorinated decay products, it appears that there is a conducive environment for biodegradation by reductive dechlorination. Site groundwater concentrations indicate that natural attenuation is occurring, but the well network should continue to be monitored at least annually. Fluctuation in the groundwater data near the sumps suggests that residual soil contamination may still exist at the site. It is also possible that these fluctuations are caused by differences in sampling procedures between the three sampling events analyzed, or, given that the sumps were designed for dewatering purposes during excavation activities, fine particle infiltration may cause skewed sample results. Seasonal fluctuation of the groundwater elevation may also contribute to the contaminant concentration fluctuations. This post-remediation monitoring period should examine possible contaminant persistence, as well as the potential for natural attenuation at the site. It should be noted, however, that the 1986 ROD did not provide for monitored natural attenuation as part of the groundwater restoration remedy. In summary, there has been a significant decrease in groundwater contaminant concentrations at the site. Further sampling by NJDEP will help to better determine aquifer conditions and confirm the limits of the groundwater plume. Site Inspection Since assuming the lead for the site, NJDEP’s Site Manager has been visiting the site about once per month. The RPM visited the site with NJDEP’s Site Manager on June 11, 2014 and with NJDEP’s Site Manager and EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessor on June 18, 2015. The site was observed to be in satisfactory condition during the site visits. NJDEP does not perform maintenance of the groundwater treatment plant building and the site grounds because they are not operating the groundwater remediation system. Except for peeling paint, the building exterior appeared to be in good condition. Site grounds were becoming overgrown with vegetation. However, the gated security fence appeared to be in good condition. VII. Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? The soil remedy selected in the ROD was fully implemented and is functioning as intended. Therefore, the threat of direct contact with contaminated soil was eliminated. A gated fence is also in place to prevent trespassing. Consistent with the ROD, the contaminated groundwater was actively pumped and treated. The groundwater remediation system was shut down in December 2006 as requested by NJDEP. There are

-9-

no known shallow private wells immediately downgradient of the site. Human exposure to contaminated groundwater is not taking place. Based on the analytical data reviewed for the last five years, contaminant concentrations have decreased significantly and appear to continue to decrease. Residual contamination appears to be limited to the central portion of the site, consistent with historical contamination. Additional soil excavation was performed in 2006, removing residual sources in clay material. A review of the last sampling events show that the sumps had higher concentrations of site-related contaminants than the monitoring wells. However, although contaminant concentrations in the sumps are still prevalent, they appear to be decreasing. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? There are no changes in the physical conditions of the site or site uses that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The land use considerations and potential exposure pathways considered in the baseline human health risk assessment are still valid.

Contaminated soils at the Lang Property have been excavated, removing direct contact (e.g., ingestion or dermal contact with soil) exposure to any future on-site workers, potential trespassers and potential future residents. A gated fence is in place around the site. The fence and gates are in good condition. There is currently no human exposure to contaminated groundwater. The area around the site is sparsely populated and there are no known shallow private wells immediately hydraulically downgradient. The exposure assumptions and the toxicity values that were used to estimate the potential risks and hazards to human health followed the general risk assessment practice at the time the risk assessment was performed in 1985. Although the risk assessment process has been updated since 1985 and specific parameters and toxicity values may have changed, the risk assessment process that was used is still consistent with current practice and the decision to implement a remedial action remains valid. Currently, there are no structures on-site except for the treatment plant, which is no longer occupied. Additionally, groundwater contaminant concentrations are currently below a level that would be of concern for vapor intrusion as indicated in EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator. Vapor intrusion would, therefore, not be expected to be a problem. Sampling for 1,4-dioxane in April 2011 indicated that this chemical was not present in the groundwater at a detection limit of approximately 2 ppb. The health-based screening level for 1,4-dioxane in groundwater is 0.46 ppb at the 10-6 cancer risk level, and 2 ppb is within the acceptable risk range (0.46 ppb to 46 ppb). In accordance with the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Standards rules at N.J.A.C. 7:9C-1.7, NJDEP established in

-10-

October 2015 an interim specific groundwater quality criterion of 0.4 ppb for 1,4-dioxane. NJDEP’s future sampling should incorporate a laboratory detection limit for 1,4-dioxane that addresses the October 2015 criterion. Although the Remedial Action Objective of reducing contaminants in the shallow aquifer to levels below applicable groundwater quality standards may not yet have been achieved, human receptors are currently not exposed to contaminated media. NJDEP will continue to sample the groundwater until groundwater cleanup goals are reached.

The ROD is not specific about the cleanup values for groundwater. The goal of the selected remedy was to “reduce contaminant concentrations to levels below the federal, state and local drinking water and groundwater quality criteria.” Since the remedy was selected in 1986, the state of New Jersey has clarified its position on groundwater quality in the Pinelands, which is considered Class I. Class I groundwaters are "nondegradation" waters, meaning “natural quality” should be maintained. Nondegradation standards in the Pinelands are set at the practical quantitation limit (PQL) for constituents or natural background. For several contaminants at Lang, the groundwater quality standards and the PQL are the same (TCE, 1,1-DCE, PCE, carbon tetrachloride). For 1,1,1-TCA, the contaminant most frequently detected at the site, only seven of the 16 sampling results from June 2015 exceed the PQL of 1 ug/L.

Although the ecological risk assessment screening values used to support the 1986 ROD may not necessarily reflect the current values, the exposure assumptions remain appropriate as the surface soil pathway has been addressed. Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? There is no new information that has been developed that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedies. Technical Assessment Summary The soil remedy was performed in accordance with the ROD. At NJDEP’s request, EPA shut down operation of the groundwater extraction and remediation system in December 2006. Groundwater contaminant concentrations still exceed cleanup levels and groundwater monitoring continues. Downgradient monitoring wells indicate that the plume is localized around the former source area and is not migrating off site. NJDEP needs to continue sampling of the groundwater on at least an annual basis to evaluate trends in volatile organic compound concentrations on the site.

-11-

VIII. Issues and Recommendations No new issues or recommendations have been identified since the completion of the third five-year review and the third five-year review addendum that impact protectiveness. NJDEP needs to continue sampling of the groundwater on at least an annual basis to evaluate trends in volatile organic compound concentrations on the site. IX. Protectiveness Statement The remedy is protective of human health and the environment. X. Next Review The next five-year review for the Lang Property site is required in 2021, five years from the date of this review.

-12- XI. Bibliography for Lang Property Superfund Site

- Record of Decision, EPA, September 1986

- New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Groundwater Permit Equivalent, NJDEP, December 1993

- Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report for the Lang Property Site, EPA, September 1995

- Remedial Action Report, EPA, September 1997

- Five-Year Review Report, EPA, September 2000

- Consent Decree related to Civil Action No. 94-3687 (AET), April 2001

- Five-Year Review Report, EPA, September 2005 - Site Transfer Agreement between EPA and NJDEP, December 2006

- Memorandum from Chloe Metz, EPA Human Health Risk Assessor, March 2010

- Five-Year Review Report, EPA, August 2010

- Memorandum from Rebecca Ofrane, EPA Risk Assessor, and Sharissa Singh,

EPA Hydrogeologist, February 2012

- Third Five-Year Review Report Addendum, EPA, September 2012

- Communications with Richard Savino, EPA Investigator, July 2014

- Memorandum from Sharissa Singh, EPA Hydrogeologist, January 2016

- Communications with Chloe Metz, EPA Human Health Risk Assessor

- Telephone communications with Thomas Ferrara, NJDEP

- E-Mail from George Paprocki, Thomas Roche and Daniel Sirkis (USACE representatives)

- The New Jersey Pinelands Commission’s web site, http://www.nj.gov/pinelands

- EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date(s)

Between 1,200 and 1,500 drums of unidentified chemical waste were discovered in a clearing at the end of the unpaved road leading to the Lang Property site.

1975

Prompted by State legal action, the site owners hired a contractor to remove the drums and contaminated soils from the site. Before their removal, however, most of the drum contents either leaked or were spilled onto the ground at the site.

1976

Sampling by the Burlington County Health Department and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) determined that groundwater contamination was present.

1977- 1979

Lang Property site listed on National Priorities List. 1982

EPA conducted a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site. 1985-1986

Record of Decision is signed by EPA. 1986

Under an IA with the USACE, a remedial action contract for the cleanup of the surface soil contamination is awarded.

1988

Cleanup of surface soil contamination is completed. 1988

Construction of the groundwater remediation system. 1994-1995

A one-year start-up and operational testing period of the groundwater remediation system is completed.

1996

LTRA 1996-2006

EPA issued a Five-Year Review Report for the site. 2000

EPA issued a Second Five-Year Review Report for the site. 2005

EPA and NJDEP executed a Site Transfer Agreement.

2006

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

As per NJDEP’s request, operation of the groundwater remediation system ceased.

2006

NJDEP became the lead Agency for the site. 2006

EPA issued a Third Five-Year Review Report for the site. 2010

EPA issued a Third Five-Year Review Report Addendum for the site. 2012

TETRA 1£04 NUS, INC.

FlL£12100490CM04.DWG

REVo

DATE01/11/07

SOURCE:BASE MAP IS PORTlONS OF THE U.S.G.S. BROWNS MILLS ANDWHITING NJ 7.7 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, 1957. PHOTOREVlSED 1971.

o 4000 8000

I~~~I~~~ISCALE IN FEET

SITE LOCATIONLANG SUPERFUND SITE

USACEPEMBERTON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

SCAlfAS NOTED

FlGURE NUWBERFIGURE 1-1

c

'i~~~

/' o••••~'_6"' LMW-5$ ~

t.LMW-4

~ .,/ -, ":

/ '0, a/ ~

/,/

//

/

~~~("../:(.o~-" -~.;.'/,,"

~.;.-:-~/

40a •••••;JI•••••••SCAlE IN FEET

80:1

L£G£NO~ IotONITORIHG WEU..

BORING LOCATION

OMC>. LOCATIONWICRO-ft •••..•.•

e/

/

/I" •

..••"r.:...

-.>"

e.,....

.," .',."'~

~ roM 1tQINUS,_INC._

WEll. ANDBORING. "ONIT~~ ~"'ICRO~PERFUND SITE

LANG USACE NEW JERSEYON TOWNSHIP.PEMBERT

"f121OO49OCWOJ.dw

••••• 'FiOORE 2-1

t .

/j

i

/

, \. "

I

I,I

~ 1.~I FINAL SITE AS-BUiLTTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

-'~ lANGSUPERFUNOSITEBROWNS MiLLS, BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ

(i IUPH1C SCA1.Eu--r j'h.OUNTAJN .

~ 't'v,F:W LA YOUT~ ••••••••.....:; •• ec:wsJlaJCTOlu.OQI1

.1 •••..• • •. '"

MARC J. .CIFON£PIt(Y[S$lOH"l L~D SlJlty[TQIit

_._----'-"-~""-'---...--.----.-----