Five-Year Review Report
for
Lang Property Superfund Site
Pemberton Township
Burlington County, New Jei-sey
2005
PREPARED BY:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II New York, New York
lllllllllllililllllllllllilll 139748 Five-Year Review Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Five-Year Review Summary Form . iv
I. Introduction ; 1
II. Site Clironology 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 ./...... ;..... 3 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance ! . . . 4 I Institutional Controls ' , 4
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 5
VI. Five-Year Review Process 5 Administrative Components • .5 Community Involvement . . . : . 5 Document Review •...:.... ;..... 5 Data Review ...... './...:.. •. . . . 5 Site Inspection ; 6
V VII. Technical Assessment 6 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 6 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? 6 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 8 Technical Assessment Summary 8
VIII. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 9
IX. Protectiveness Statement 9
X. Next Review 9
XI. Bibliography for Lang Property Superfund Site 10
Tables Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events 11
Table 2 - Comparison of maximum groundwater contaminant concentrations to NJ GWQC and MCLs, Federal MCLs, and EPA Region 9 PRGs 12
Figure Figure 1-1 - Site Location Map
n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A five-year review for the Lang Property Superfund site, located in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, was completed in September 2005. The remedy 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, including the removal of surface debris as necessary; extraction and on-site treatment of contaminated ground water, 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 with the signing of the Preliminary Close-Out Report on September 13, 1995. This five-year review was conducted as a matter of EPA policy. The triggering action for this policy review was the first five-year review which EPA completed on September 25, 2000.
Based upon a review of the Record of Decision, the Preliminary Close-Out Report, a number of reports prepared by the on-site contractor and inspections of the site, it has been concluded that the remedies at the site function as intended by the Record of Decision and protect human health and the environment. Potential impacts of contaminated shallow soil was addressed through removal of the contaminated soil. The ground water contamination is.being addressed through an on-site pump-and-treat system and through optimizing measures. Long-term response action activities are ongoing.
in Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): LANG PROPERTY
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NJD980505382
Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Pemberton/Burlington County SITE STATUS
NPL status: • Final D Deleted n nthpr (gpprify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): • Under Construction • Constructed • Operating
IVIultiple OUs?* DYES • NO Construction completion date: 9/13/95
Has site been put into reuse? Q YES • NO D N/A REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: BEPA QState D Tribe D Other Federal Appnry
Author name: Lawrence Granite
Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA
Review period:** September 2000 to September 2005
Date(s) of site inspection: 6/17/05 and 7/14/05
Type of review: D Post-SARA D Pre-SARA D N PL-Removal only D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site D NPL State/Tribe-lead • Policy D Regional Discretion
Review number: n 1 (first) • 2 (second) n 3 (third) n other (specify)
Triggering action: n Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #1 • Actual RA Start at 0U# 1 Q Construction Completion • Previous Five-Year Review Report • Other (specify)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 09/25/00
Does the report include recommendation(s) and follow-up action(s)? Q yes • no
Is the remedy protective of the environment? • yes D no D not yet determined * ["OU" refers to operable unit.] ** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]
IV Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
Issues. Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions
This report did not identify any issue or make any recominendation for the protection of public health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the site decision documents.
Protectiveness Statement
The implemented remedy for the Lang Property Superfund Site protects human health and the environment. There are no current exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected. Lang Property Superfund Site Pemberton Township, New Jersey Second Five-Year Review
I. Introduction
This second 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) Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Lawrence Granite. The five-year review was conducted pursuant to policy and 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 public health and the environment and that they fiinction as designed. 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 contaminated materials from the site. The second phase involves addressing the ground water contamination present at the site.
It is the policy of EPA to conduct five-year reviews at sites where the remediation will take longer than five years. Construction of the ground water remediation system began in 1994 and the system continues to operate. The trigger for this second five-year review is the first five-year review which was signed by EPA on September 25, 2000.
This five-year review found that the selected remedy remains protective of public health and the environment.
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 nafion's valuable environmental resources. Specifically, the site is located within the Central Pine Barrens Water Quality Critical Area and the Pinelands Preservation Area District. The site is immediately underlain by 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 ground water 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. Ground water generally flows to the northwest.
Land and Resource Use
The disposal of hazardous wastes occurred over a two-acre area within the 40-acre parcel. There are no residences on the property. Abandoned vehicles, a large number of tires, and other debris were scattered throughout the site prior to remediation. The site is flat and currently contains fields of blueberry plants, most of which are no longer cultivated, and forested areas. Access to the two-acre area is limited by a fence. A ground water treatment facility is present on the site, as well as extraction, injection, and monitoring wells. 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 the 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 ground water.
Initial Response
From 1977 through most of 1979, repeated sampling by the Burlington County Health Department and the NJDEP determined that ground water contaminafion 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 NPL in 1982, EPA conducted an RI/FS to better delineate the nature, extent and impact of contamination at the site, and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. The RI indicated that surficial soils (0 to 2 feet deep) and subsurface soils in the two- acre area where disposal took place were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and, to a lesser degree, metals. The most severe contamination was in the surficial soils. Shallow ground water beneath the disposal area was also Contaminated with VOCs and metals. 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 upgradient from the site -3- and, therefore, not threatened by the contamination. 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.
IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Remedy Selection
Based upon the findings of the RI/FS, EPA selected a remedy in the 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 ground water, 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.
While the ROD noted that subsurface soil was contaminated to a depth of approximately 20 feet, it assumed that the contaminants would be removed through the ground water extraction process. The ROD indicated that soil sampling would be performed at the conclusion of the ground water remedy to confirm that assumption.
Remedy Implementation
Under an Interagency Agreement (lAG) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), a soil excavafion 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 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. -4-
Construction activities for the ground water remediation system began in August 1994 and were completed in 1995. Following a one-year start-up and operational testing period, long-term remedial action (LTRA) activities commenced. To date, approximately 300 million gallons of ground water have been treated at the site.
Three extraction wells, with a combined pumping capacity of approximately 150 gallons per minute (gpm), were installed about 20 feet deep in the contaminated ground water. A treatment plant building was constructed which contains a laboratory, an office, and the treatment units. The unit treatment processes 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 action. To supplement the contaminant removal by the three extraction wells, three shallow ground water collection trenches were installed in summer 1996.
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 ground water contamination. There is no operation, maintenance or monitoring associated with this remedial action.
The ground water remedy consists of extracting the contaminant plume, treating the contaminated ground water on-site, and reinjecting the treated effluent back into the aquifer. Operation, maintenance and monitoring activities are conducted by Sevenson Environmental Services, Incorporated under contract with the USAGE through an Interagency Agreement with EPA. These activities are covered by an approved Operation and IVIaintenance Manual. Samples are taken quarterly and summarized in quarterly reports. The costs of the operation, maintenance and monitoring activities are paid for by the federal and state governments as an LTRA cost. Annual payments to the LTRA contractor total approximately $660,000.
It is anticipated that the LTRA activities will conclude in October 2006, at which time the NJDEP will become the lead agency for the site.
Institutional Controls
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, the NJDEP established a Classification Exception Area (CEA) with respect to the site in December 1993. The CEA protects potential users of the ground water. -5-
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
The first five-year review for the site was completed in September 2000. This is the second five- year review for the site.
Since September 2000, LTRA activities have continued. The primary activities have been operation of the ground water remediation system and sampling of ground water at the site. Soil sampling has also been performed, and a chemical oxidation pilot test was performed in 2003. The remediation of the ground water contamination is now being optimized via excavation of residual source areas.
VI. Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components
The five-year review team included Lawrence Granite (EPA-RPM), Diana Cutt (EPA-Geologist), Chloe Metz (EP A-Human Health Risk Assessor) and Natalie Loney (EP A-Community Involvement Coordinator). This is an EPA-lead site.
Community Involvement
The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the Lang Property site, Natalie Loney, published a notice in the Burlington County Times, a local newspaper, on March 3, 2005, notifying the community of the initiation of the five-year review process. It was also indicated that once the five- year review is completed, the results will be made available in the local site repository. In addition, the notice included the RPM's address and telephone number for public inquiries related to the five- year review process or the Lang Property site. No phone calls or letters from the public were received as a result of the above-described Public Notice.
Document Review
The documents, data, and information which were reviewed in completing the five-year review are summarized in Section XI at the end of this document.
Data Review
The remediation of the ground water at the site is being performed as an LTRA. LTRA activities include operation of the ground water remediation system, maintenance of the security fence, and ground water monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. Monitoring wells are sampled on a quarterly basis and analyzed for organic compounds and metals. Since the system became operational, there has been a significant decrease in contaminant concentrations. Recent analytical results indicate that, with the exception of very shallow ground water in the vicinity of the collection trenches, the aquifer has nearly been remediated. Ground water is sampled using EPA's low flow (low stress) sample collection technique. The iron which has been detected in the ground water at the site is found in naturally high concentrations in the Cohansey Formation.
Because the aquifer appeared to be remediated, the extraction wells were shut down in July 2000 to allow for a period of monitoring under non-pumping conditions. The concentrations began to rise, and the extraction wells were restarted. The shallow trenches continue to collect contaminated ground water at a rate of 15 to 20 gpm.
The ground water and soil sampling data indicates that residual ground water contamination source areas exist in a few isolated, shallow areas where near-surface clay stringers are present. These areas are currently being remediated by the shallow ground water collection trenches. The analytical results from the shallow collection trenches show that trichloroethene (TCE) has been reduced from an initial concentration of 940 ng/l in September 1996 to 45 |xg/l in April 2005. While these levels have greatly reduced due to the shallow flushing, concentrations of VOCs remain above state and federal drinking water standards. A chemical oxidation pilot test was performed in 2003. The results appeared to be inconclusive as to the effectiveness of the chemical oxidation. The remediation of the ground water contamination is now being optimized via excavation of the aforementioned residual source areas. .
Site Inspection
The Remedial Project Manager conducts periodic visits to the site and visited the site with EPA's Human Health Risk Assessor as recently as Jtily 14,2005. Conditions observed indicate that the site is being properly operated and maintained. Further, the USAGE and the treatment plant operators maintain an ongoing presence on the site.
VII. Technical Assessment
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The soil remedy selected in the ROD has been fully implemented. Therefore, the threat of direct contact with contaminated soil has been eliminated.
To date, the ground water remedy has been functioning as intended by the ROD. The remedy has prevented further migration of the contaminant plume and has reduced a potential threat to human health from ingestion of contaminated ground water. LTRA activities are ongoing.
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 selected remedy. The land use considerations and potential exposure pathways considered in the baseline human health risk assessment are still valid. Contaminated surface soil at the Lang Property has been excavated, removing direct contact (i.e., ingestion or dermal contact with soil) exposures to on-site workers, potential trespassers and future residents. Remaining contaminated soil in the subsurface will be excavated as part of an effort to optimize the ground water remedy. A fence is in place around the site. The fence is maintained in good condition. It helps to prevent access to the treatment plant. There is currently no human exposure to contaminated ground water. The area around the site is sparsely populated and there are no known shallow private wells immediately downgradient. Additionally, the slowly moving plume has been contained. An exposure pathway that was not considered in the original assessment is vapor intrusion into indoor air. This pathway is discussed below in Question C.
Aspects of risk assessment have changed since the original assessment for the Lang Property site was performed in 1986. For example, some of the toxicity values used in the original assessment have changed. The oral cancer slope factor for TCE, a primary contaminant of concern, has changed from 1.1x10"^ mg/kg-day to 4.0x10' mg/kg-day. Even though this new slope factor is considered provisional while EPA conducts its reassessment of TCE, it is more conservative than the previous value and means that the cancer risks may have been underestimated in the original assessment. However, because exposure pathways to contaminated soil and ground water have been eliminated, this change in toxicity value does not render the remedy less protective.
To understand the current potential risks and hazards associated with chemicals remaining in the ground water at the Lang site, the highest detected concentrations for each constituent in the treatment plant influent from selected months of three and a half years of monitoring data (November 2001 to April 2005) were compared to health-based screening levels developed by EPA, Region 9, called preliminary remediation goals (PRGs), as well as state and federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. The PRGs are values that are equivalent to a cancer risk of one in one million (10"*) or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 0.1. Both National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (MCLs), as well as New Jersey Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Groundwater Quality Criteria (GWQC), are legally enforceable standards designed to protect human health by establishing maximum allowable concentrations of contaminants in drinking water. Table 2 shows a comparison of the maximum detected ground water contaminant concentrations to these values.
As can be seen in Table 2, on-site ground water continues to exhibit concentrations of some contaminants that exceed state and federal standards for drinking water, as well as EPA health-based standards. However, these concentrations are lower than what has previously been observed at the site, showing that the remedy is functioning as intended. Additionally, the values for iron listed in Table 2 represent secondary standards, which are non-enforceable standards based on aesthetic criteria. Although levels of some constituents do not yet comply with the Remedial Action Objective of reducing contaminants in the shallow aquifer to levels below applicable federal water quality standards, ongoing optimization of the ground water remediation is likely to reduce contamination further.
The treatment plant influent data is useful for determining levels and trends of contamination in ground water. However, since influent data is similar to a composite sample from the collection trench and individual monitoring wells, it is not good for illustrating the nature and extent of that -8-
contamination. A review of quarterly data from the individual monitoring wells between 2002 and 2004, however, shows that most of the wells in the monitoring program are absent of contamination, including those most downgradient (MWs 6 and 7), which are consequently no longer sampled. The most contaminated ground water is in the area of the collection trench. TCE was found in this area at 45 |j,g/L during an April 2005 sampling evient.
A comparison of maximum concentrations to risk-based screening numbers indicates that consumption of ground water would present unacceptable cancer risks and non-cancer hazards to those exposed. However, the exceedence of ground water standards does not affect the protectiveness of the remedy since human receptors are not currently exposed to contaminated media.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No.
Currently, there are no structures on-site except for the treatment plant and some trailers that are occasionally used for office work. Vapor intrusion would, therefore, not be expected to be a problem. However, because ground water is shallow, the potential for vapor intrusion, were the property to be developed as a residence in the future, was evaluated. The possibility for soil vapor intrusion was evaluated based on the health-protective assumption that residences could be located above the maximum detected chemical concentrations in the on-site ground water. The maximum concentrations in Table 2 were compared with the health-based screening criteria provided in the "Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (EPA, 2002)." This guidance provides concentrations of chemicals in ground water associated with indoor air concentrations at a cancer risk ranging from one in a million (10"*) to one in ten thousand (10"'') and a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1.0. The concentration of TCE was above the vapor intrusion screening value of 5.3 |J.g/L, which is set at the 10"'' level, by one order of magnitude. Conventional residential development is largely prohibited within the Pinelands Preservation Area District.
Recently, EPA has learned that 1,4-dioxane, which has been used as a stabilizer for 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA), is present at many sites. This chemical has not typically been in the Target Compound List of analytes, but has recently been added. 1,4-dioxane is very soluble in water. Based on recent monitoring data, this chemical does not seem to be present at the Lang Property even though 1,1,1-TCA is found there.
Technical Assessment Summary
The soil remedy was performed in accordance with the ROD. The ground water portion of the remedy remains operational and functional. -9-
VIII. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
There are no recommendations or follow-up actions stemming from this five-year review;
IX. Protectiveness Statement
Because the remedial actions at Lang Property are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.
The surface soil contamination has been removed and, therefore, presents no actual or potential threats to human health or the environment. Subsurface soil contamination is being addressed as part of the optimization of the ground water remediation system.
Ground water in the shallow portion of the aquifer is still contaminated; however, it is currently being contained by the collection trenches and does not extend beyond the site boundaries. In addition, EPA plans to excavate the residually contaminated clay stringers which are the source of this contamination. Therefore, the implemented remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
X. Next Review
The next five-year review for the Lang Property site should be completed by September 2010 unless the ground water remediation is completed before then and the site is deleted from the NPL without the need for fiirther monitoring.
Approved:
:e Pavlou, Director Date ergency and Remedial Response Division -10-'
XI. Bibliography for Lang Property Superfund Site
Record of Decision, EPA, September 1986
Administrative Order, EPA, June 1988
Five-Year Review Report, EPA, September 2000
Consent Decree related to Civil Action No. 94-3687 (AET), April 2001
Trip Report from Ken Woodruff, REAC Task Leader, May 2003 ,
Communications with Wilmot Jobes, Lead Treatment Plant Operator, August 2005
Memorandum from Chloe Metz, EPA Human Health Risk Assessor, August 2005
Cost information from the USAGE regarding the LTRA, August 2005
Monthly Reports prepared by Veolia Water for Sevenson Environmental Services and the USAGE
EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission's web site, www.nj.gov/pinelands •11-
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events Event Date(s) Between 1,200 and 1,500 drums of unidenfified chemical waste were discovered 1975 in a clearing at the end of the unpaved road leading to the Lang Property site Prompted by State legal action, the site Owners hired a contractor to remove the 1976 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 Sampling by the Burlington County Health Department and the New Jersey 1977-1979 Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) determined that ground water contamination was present Lang Property site listed on Natiorial Priorities List (NPL) 1982 EPA conducted a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) for the site 1985-1986 Record of Decision (ROD) is signed by EPA 1986 Under an lAG with the USAGE, a remedial action contract for the cleanup of the 1988 surface soil contamination is awarded Cleanup of surface soil contamination is completed 1988 Construction of the ground water remediation system 1994-1995 A one-year start-up and operational testing period of the ground water remediation 1996 system is completed LTRA 1996-the present -12-
Table 2. Comparison of maximum groundwater contaminant concentrations to NJ GWQC and MCLs, Federal MCLs, and EPA Region 9 PRGs
Chemical Maximum Date of Max NJ NJ Federal R9 Concentration Concentration GWQC* MCL* MCL* PRG* (Hg/L)
1,1-Dichloroethene 1 3/03 2 2 7 34
1,1-Dichloroethane 5 2/05 70 50 NA 81
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6 5/04 30 30 200 320
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6 10/02 600 600 600 37
Acetone 45 3/05 700 NA NA 550
Barium 17 3/05 2,000 2,000 2,000 260
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 5/03 30 6 6 4.8
Chlorobenzene 3 4/04 4 50 100 11
Chromium 7 2/05 100 100 100 11
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 32 11/01 10 70 70 6.1
Copper 41 3/05 1,000 1,300 1,300 150
Ethylbenzene 1 8/04. 700 700 700 130
Iron 3480 2/05 300 300 300 1,100
Tetrachloroethene 7 3/03 1 1 5 0.1
Toluene 3 8/04 1,000 1,000 1,000 7.2
Trichloroethene (TCE) 18 2/05 1 1 5 0.028
Vinyl Chloride 4 10/02 5 2 2 .002
Xylenes 4 8/04 40 1,000 10,000 21
Zinc 69 3/05 5,000 5,000 , 5,000 1,100 * Bolded values indicate exceedences Sources: PRGs, http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfiind/prg/index.htm MCLs, http://wvvTv.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html NJ GWQC, http://virww.state.ni.us/dep/wnun/sgwqt/niac79 6.pdf NJ MCL, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/standard.htm VICINITY MAP
FIGURE I-I LOCATION MAP LANG PROPERTY SITE APPROXIMATE SCALE = l" = 2000*