),)7+FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT)25

(:$13523(57<683(5)81'6,7(
%85/,1*721&2817<1(:-(56(<

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2
New York, New York

Pat Evangelista Digitally signed by Pat Evangelista

Date: 2024.02.05 19:08:26 -05'00'
February 5, 2024
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Pat Evangelista, Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division

*704671*
704671
 Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ............................................................................. 2

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ......................................................................... 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4
Basis for Taking Action .......................................................................................................... 4
Response Actions .................................................................................................................... 5
Status of Implementation......................................................................................................... 5
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance ...................................................................... 6
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW ............................................................................. 7
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS .......................................................................................... 7
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews ...................................................... 7
Data Review ............................................................................................................................ 8
Site Inspection ......................................................................................................................... 9
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 9
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ............ 9
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
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 11
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT .................................................................................... 11
VIII.NEXT REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A – Climate Change Assessment ............................................................................. 12
APPENDIX B – Tables ................................................................................................................ 17
APPENDIX C – Figures ............................................................................................................... 21

1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
CEA Classification Exemption Area
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIC Community Involvement Coordinator
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FYR Five-Year Review
HI Hazard Index
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NPL National Priorities List
NTUs Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OU Operable Unit
PFAS Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
RAO Remedial Action Objectives
RD Remedial Design
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
ROD Record of Decision
ROs Remedial Objectives
SVOCs Semi-volatile organic compounds
TBC To be considered
UU/UE Unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
μg/L Micrograms/liter

2
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 pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 121,
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
(40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and considering EPA policy.

This is the fifth FYR for the Ewan Property Superfund Site (Site). The triggering action for this
policy review is the June 26, 2019 completion date of the previous FYR for the Site. This 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 remedial phases, or operable units (OUs). Operable Unit 2 (OU2) which
is evaluated in this FYR, addresses contaminated groundwater and residually contaminated soil.
The Operable Unit 1 (OU1) remedy addressed buried drums, disposal trenches and contaminated
soil. OU1 is not part of this FYR because the contaminants have been remediated to provide for
UU/UE of soil.

The Site’s fifth FYR team included Michael V. Pantliano, EPA (remedial project manager),
Michael Scorca and William Yeung, EPA (hydrogeologists); Marian Olsen, EPA (human health
risk assessor); Abigail DeBofsky, EPA (ecological risk assessor); Yvette Hamilton-Best, EPA
(attorney); and Natalie Loney, EPA (community involvement coordinator). The potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and the local government officials were notified of the initiation of the
FYR. The review began on 3/29/2023.

Site Background

The Site is located in Shamong Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, off Tuckerton Road,
near the intersection of Route 206 (see attached Site Location Map). The Site is shown on the
Shamong Township tax map as Block 23, Lots 31.01 and 32.02.

The Site is 43 acres, of which nine acres are fenced. The original bulk disposal-site area, known
as Area A, is roughly four acres. The property that constitutes the Site is privately owned. In
June 2011, the owner conveyed a Deed of Conservation Easement for the property to the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Conservation Easement will
assure that the conservation value of the property will be conserved and maintained in perpetuity.
This Site is located within the Central Pine Barrens Preservation Area of the New Jersey
Pinelands and is viewed as an ecologically sensitive area.

3
For more details related to the Site background, physical characteristics, geology/hydrogeology,
and land/resource please see the documents found in the Site repositories or at
www.epa.gov/superfund/lcp-chemicals.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: EWAN PROPERTY SUPERFUND SITE
EPA ID: NJD980761365/NJD0200791
City/County: Town of Shamong, Burlington
Region: 2 State: NJ
County

SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs? Has the site achieved construction completion?
Yes Yes

REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Michael V. Pantliano
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: 3/29/2023 – 6/26/2024
Date of site inspection: 11/20/2023
Type of review: Policy
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 6/26/2019
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 6/26/2024

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action

EPA’s 1989 OU2 human health risk assessment concluded that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the Site, if not adequately addressed, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

4
The risk assessment evaluated direct exposure to contaminants through direct contact with skin,
ingestion of the soil by a young child playing in the area, and direct ingestion or inhalation of
contaminants in groundwater. The major health risk posed by the Site was determined to be the
potential ingestion of contaminated groundwater from the aquifer with risks of 1 x 10-3 (or one in
a thousand risk of cancer), which exceeds the NCP risk range and a noncancer hazard index (HI)
if 1.9, which exceeds the goal of an HI = 1.

EPA also conducted an ecological risk assessment, which indicated that the contaminant
concentrations found at the Site were below levels of concern.

Response Actions

EPA issued the OU2 Record of Decision (ROD) on September 29, 1989. The major components
of the OU2 remedy are:
 Excavation and treatment, via solvent extraction and soil washing, of residually
contaminated OU2 soils, followed by placement of the treated soils back onto the Site,
 Collection and treatment of the contaminated groundwater, and reinjection of the treated
groundwater into the underlying aquifer/on-site re-infiltration,
 Recontouring and restoration of the disposal areas,
 Construction of an on-site wetlands area, and
 Environmental monitoring to ensure effectiveness of the remedy.

No remedial action objectives (RAOs) were identified in the OU2 ROD; however, the ROD
identified remediation goals (termed Remedial Objectives (ROs)) for the restoration of
groundwater. The final OU2 remedial design report (RD Report) provided updated ROs (Table
4) that are being used to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy.

Status of Implementation

On July 13, 1994, EPA issued an explanation of significant differences (ESD) which explained a
change in remedial strategy with respect to soils. Specifically, EPA called for excavation of
residually contaminated soils in OU2, consistent with the OU1 ROD.

The groundwater extraction, treatment and re-infiltration system was designed to achieve the
following objectives:

 Establish hydraulic control of the contaminant plume via a closed loop system.
 Treat groundwater to remove hazardous substance to below health-based levels.
 Re-infiltration of the treated effluent within the plume boundaries.

A group of PRPs performed the remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) of the OU2
remedy pursuant to an administrative order issued by EPA in 1995 and the groundwater
extraction system began operation in 1999. The full-scale treatment system operated from 1999
until 2006. On July 9, 2014, EPA approved the decommissioning and demolition of the
groundwater remedial extraction, treatment, and re-infiltration system.

5
The former groundwater treatment system included four re-infiltration galleries. A Site
restoration plan was proposed and implemented in 2015. Site restoration included planting
several native species of plants and trees in the former footprint of the re-infiltration galleries. In
2020, the PRPs requested to cease restoration activities as the plantings had established
themselves and the goals of the restoration plan had been met. EPA determined, with Pineland
Commission concurrence, that Site restoration activities have been achieved in a letter dated
November 23, 2021. There is a gravel road leading from Tuckerton Avenue to the Site.

IC Summary Table

Table 1: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs

Media, engineered Title of IC

ICs Called
controls, and areas Instrument
ICs for in the IC
that do not support Impacted Parcel(s) Implemented
Needed Decision Objective
UU/UE based on and Date (or
Documents
current conditions planned)
Deed of
Conservation
Site Use Yes No Site Property See below.
Easement,
2011
Classification
Restrict potable use of
Exemption
Groundwater Yes No Site Property groundwater until
Area (CEA),
standards have been met.
1999/2015

To settle alleged natural resource damage claims by the State of New Jersey, a Deed of
Conservation Easement was recorded against the property in Burlington County on May 19,
2011. The Deed of Conservation Easement assures that the conservation values of the property
will be retained forever; to prevent any use of the property that will impair or interfere with the
conservation values; and to encourage stewardship that is consistent with the terms of the
easement and provide for long term protection of the conservation values of the property. The
Deed of Conservation Easement restricts future uses of the property, including development of
the property, to allow the property for perpetual conservation.

In 1999, NJDEP established a CEA and recertified it in 2015 (See Figure 1). The purpose of a
CEA is to define a groundwater contamination plume that could impact human health, and to
place restrictions on the installation and use of groundwater supply wells within a CEA until
applicable groundwater standards have been restored.

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance

As mentioned above, the full-scale treatment system operated from 1999 until 2006. On July 9,
2014, EPA approved the decommissioning and demolition of the groundwater remedial
extraction, treatment, and recharge system.

6
Climate Change

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 (see Appendix A for more information).

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

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

Table 2: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2019 FYR

Protectiveness
OU # Protectiveness Statement
Determination
2 Protective The remedy at the Ewan Properties Site is
protective of human health and the environment.
Sitewide Protective The remedy at the Ewan Properties Site is
protective of human health and the environment.

There were no issues and recommendations in the last FYR.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews

On August 7, 2023, 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, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the Ewan Property Superfund site. The announcement can
be found at the following web address: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/R2-fiveyearreviews.

In addition to this notification, the EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) for the site,
Natalie Loney, posted a public notice on the EPA website
(https://www.epa.gov/superfund/ewan-property) and provided the notice to the Shamong
Township by email on January 11, 2024 with a request that the notice be posted in municipal
offices and on the township’s webpages. This notice indicated that a FYR would be conducted at
the Ewan Property 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
Municipal Clerks Office Shamong Township Municipal Building 105 Willow Grove Road
Shamong, New Jersey 08088 and the EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866. In addition, the final report will be posted on the website. Efforts will be
made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results.

7
Data Review

Groundwater was sampled in five rounds (See Table 3) during this reporting period: October
2019, April 2020, October 2021, October 2022, and April 2023. Review of overall groundwater
quality trends (See Figures 3 through 6) through April 2023 showed that no volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) concentrations in groundwater
were detected above ROs in any monitoring well sampled, with the following exceptions:
 TC-22 - October 2022- benzene (1.19 micrograms per liter (g/L)
 TC-18 - October 2022 - acetone (10.4 g/L)
 TC-22 – April 2023 - benzene (1.51 g/L)

Groundwater results also showed that a subset of metals exceeded the ROs. Most notably are the
exceedances of arsenic at TC-22. Total Arsenic was detected above the ROs in all five sampling
events, ranging in concentration from 116 μg/L to 414 μg/L. In 2023, samples from select wells
were filtered to analyze for dissolved metals. The concentration of dissolved arsenic at TC-22
was 24.9 μg/L. TC-22 sampling logs suggest a turbidity issue persists at this well and the arsenic
results may be an indication of particle entrainment impacting analysis results. EPA will
continue to monitor TC-22 to determine if particle entrainment is the issue.

Total chromium, and in some cases total nickel, historically exceeded the ROs and/or the CEA
criteria in four groundwater sampling locations (TK-4, BC-5, P-2, and TC-34). EPA requested
that three rounds of samples collected from TK-4 and BC-5 be analyzed for dissolved metals.
The first round of results (October 11, 2021) showed that total and dissolved chromium in TK-4
was 162 μg/L and 10.8 μg/L, respectively. At BC-5, the concentration of total and dissolved
chromium was 39.7 μg/L and 17.6 μg/L, respectively. These results suggest the source of the
chromium may be a result of particle entrainment. Speciation analysis also showed that the
chromium in the dissolved sample was the hexavalent form.

The second round of data (October 11, 2022) from both wells showed that total chromium was
below the ROs. The third round of data (April 17, 2023) reported total chromium exceeding the
RO at TK-4 (62.6 μg/L). The dissolved concentration from TK-4 was reported at 14.2 μg/L and
reported hexavalent chromium at 21.0 μg/L (with a J [estimated] qualifier). More recently
exceedances of total chromium were also reported at TC-28 and TC-29 in April 2023. Both wells
exhibited elevated turbidity levels (178 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) and 1,000+ NTUs
respectively) during sampling which may have impacted the results. The nature and source of
the chromium continues to be explored by EPA.

Groundwater from nine domestic wells and the Shamong Township Recreational Center Well
(located near the Township ballfield) were collected (Figure 2) on March 17, April 8, and April
23, 2021. These off-site locations are the closest, hydraulically downgradient wells to the Ewan
site. Samples were analyzed for target compound list VOCs and SVOCs, and target analyte list
metals. None of the residential drinking water wells that were sampled for the five-year review
exceed appropriate drinking water standards with the exception of aluminum (1 sample location)
and iron (4 sample locations). The aluminum and iron concentrations are attributed to
background groundwater quality associated with the aquifer. The sample results suggest that
there has been no impact to off-site groundwater downgradient of the Ewan Site.

8
In April and August 2016, groundwater samples were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane. Perfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), specifically, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorononanoic acid, and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid were sampled in January 2021. 1,4-Dioxane was not detected in
any of the samples and PFAS were detected below the method detection limit at estimated
concentrations an order of magnitude below the NJDEP Groundwater Quality Standards in each
of the wells including the background well. Based on the results, sample collection and analysis
for 1,4-dioxane and PFAS compounds are no longer required.

Site Inspection

The inspection of the Site was conducted on 11/20/2023. In attendance were Michael V.
Pantliano (Remedial Project Manager) and William Yeung (Hydrogeologist) from EPA, David
Russell and Christopher Wong from the PRP contractor AECOM, Lori Mills (co-lawyer) from
PRP Group, and Susan Onorato (Administrator) from Shamong Township. The purpose of the
inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

The 40-acre Site has no structures on it and no paved roads. The Site is secured with chain link
fence with nine gates to access the wells. No issues were observed during the Site visit.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

Based upon the extensive data collected and evaluated, the remedy functioned as intended by the
OU2 ROD and the ESD. Groundwater contamination is controlled, and there are very little to no
detectable levels of VOCs in groundwater. Some metals (arsenic, chromium and nickel) continue
to be detected above ROs. Although the results suggest the source of these metals is related to
well construction and particle entrainment, the nature and source of the metals continues to be
explored by EPA. Analysis of the off-site residential and potable well sampling continues to
demonstrate the absence of any Site-related impacts on tested downgradient wells.

The CEA has been in place at the Site since December 1999. The PRPs’ updated the CEA in
October 2015.

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?

Question B Summary:

a. Groundwater. Review of the most recent rounds of groundwater data show that the
maximum concentrations detected across all residential properties were below the federal
and state MCLs with two exceptions, aluminum, and iron, which are associated with
background groundwater quality in the aquifer. In addition, the recent data on chromium
VI indicates the maximum concentrations in on-Site wells exceed risk-based
concentrations for both cancer and non-cancer based on residential screening levels. As

9
 described above, EPA will oversee additional sampling events to determine the
concentrations of chromium VI and other metals over time. The current deed restrictions
prevent potential exposures to the groundwater while sampling activities continue.

b. Vapor Intrusion. Evaluation of the most recent groundwater concentrations at the Site
indicates no sample results exceeded the groundwater screening criteria for vapor
intrusion identified in the Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator. The VISL
concentrations are based on default residential or nonresidential exposure scenarios; a
target cancer risk level of one per million (10-6); and a target hazard quotient of one for
potential non-cancer effects. Therefore, the vapor intrusion pathway is not a concern.

Changes in Standards and TBCs

There have been no changes to any of the applicable or relevant standards or TBCs that affect
EPA’s determination that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

Since the last FYR there have been no changes in the toxicity values for the Site chemicals of
concern in groundwater and soil. Recent sampling events noted that chromium VI
concentrations exceeded risk-based screening levels. Currently, EPA is updating toxicity values
for chromium VI through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA’s consensus
toxicity database. EPA will evaluate any changes in these toxicity values when they are
finalized.

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

There have been no changes in the risk assessment methodologies that would affect the
protectiveness of the remedy.

Ecological Risk

The 1988 environmental effects assessment prepared for the RI indicated that Site-related
contaminants were unlikely to cause significant toxicological effects in biota. Because soils on-
Site were excavated and there is no exposure pathway from the Site groundwater to ecological
receptors, any potential risk has been eliminated and the exposure assumptions related to
ecological risk remain valid and protective to ecological receptors.

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

No new information has called into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

10
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU2

OTHER FINDINGS

 Select metals (arsenic, chromium and nickel) continue to be detected above ROs.
Although the results suggest the source of these metals is related to well construction and
particle entrainment, the nature and source of these detections will continue to be
evaluated in the next FYR period. There is no exposure to any of the areas impacted by
metals.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
OU2 Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Ewan Properties Site is protective of human health and the environment.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Ewan Properties Site is protective of human health and the environment.

VIII.NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Ewan Superfund Site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.

11
APPENDIX A – Climate Change Assessment

12
According to the Region 2 Guidance for Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Five
Year Reviews, three climate change tools were utilized to assess the Ewan properties Superfund
Site (the 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 Shamong Township was The Climate Explorer. As can be seen from
Figure C1 and C2, there is a projected increase in the average daily maximum temperature and
days with maximum temperature above 1000 fahrenheit. Figure C3 illustrates that total
precipitation is not expected to deviate from existing conditions.

The second tool utilized is called the Risk Factor. According to the flood factor portion of the
assessment tool the Site is at Major (5 out of 10) risk of flooding over the next 30 years.
However, as can be seen from Figure C4, most of the Site (outlined by a thick white line) is
outside of the flood risk area with only the northern entrance and southern edge of the Site
boundaries impacted. Risk Factor also assesses risk from fire and shows that the Site has a
moderate (3 out of 10) fire risk over the next 30 years (Figure C5). Finally, the Site is expected
to experience a Major (5 out of 10) heat risk with an increase of 114.3 percent number of days
over 104 degrees fahrenheit (Figure C6). Despite these risks, the Site no longer has any active
remedial components and O&M consists of Site inspections and monitoring only.

The final tool utilized is called Sea Level Rise. The Site is located approximately 30 miles west
of the Atlantic coastline and is not at risk of coastal flooding (Figure C7).

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.

~ Burlington County - Average Daily Maximum Temp ("F)

Average Daily Maximum Temp ("F) •

HMM Map H ·M M Monthly ~ Downloads • About

-
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

• Modeled History =: Lower Em1ss1ons ~ Higher Em1ss1ons

Figure C 1 Average Daily Maximum Temperature

13
 ~ Burlington County - Days w/ maximum temp > 100°F

Days w/ maximum temp > 100°F

MiM Map
M·MM J;. Downloads • About

so 80

-,
-, -,
"
~

§
" eoE

" ~
I " "~
"~
~ "
:€ ~~
•" E
I " g
~ 30 30~

I" J
Q
20 :0

,,
10 •o

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

• Modeled History ~ Lower Em1ss1ons ~ Higher Em1ss1ons

Figure C 2 Days With Maximum Temp Above 100 F

~ Burlington County - Total precipitation

Total precipitation
MiM Map
M·MM Monthly J;. Downloads • About

so
"
-, 30

-,
"
" ~ol
1',,
~

="
C ·sj
~ ·o ~
1il
:§. " J'i
£ 50
5
0

~
"
;§.

~I -~~{
I , a~
" I I ~

"
"
I~ -, Q
-·o
_. ,
30

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

• Modeled History ~ Lower Em1ss1ons ~ Higher Emissions

Figure C 3 Total Precipitation

14
Figure C 4Flood Risk Report

Figure C 5Fire Risk Report

15
Figure C 6 Heat Risk Overview

Shamong Twp

Figure C 7 Sea Level Rise

16
APPENDIX B – Tables

17
 TABLE 3
Grouodm u n :\IoDitoriog Progr:un
E lTa.D Proper ~- Site
Sh:unooi:, T o'ITDship, ..,elT Jersev

..uu,u.alCr I ?.5 \ " , c.-~ ,,

ptia:

..
uu, wpllD

a.•-1
~'-? TT"
C,
" .
A.M f\"1:IBJ P .. - r.-s.: lu4k• tor P •raDlll!f w.-••
j6\\ . .
- P• - - • •
··"X
X
\\SJft' X
"4"' X
w.s= X
1\\41"' X

.....z.
,"i\'..l r< X
X

., .I X
X
X
X
-6· X
·12 X
c.u• X X
-•s• X X'
C-19 X
•:<I" X
c~1 · X X
i<.:-ll X' X'
C-l.l X X

-
C..!Alt x'
~ X X
.. . :,s X
,.:.:, X
....er.ti X X
X
c . u•.f'T X X
•JJ X X
C•}-4 X
.35• X
c.l6 X X
•Jll X' x·
· Ill X X
:-2 X X
X X
~ X
~7 X X
-2
.5• .. x···
· II X
ec. 1.s• x•
--16 X X
. 17• X X
·IS X X
.,...
·I
x-·· X" ..
.... 10 X
!
?
... ~. X
X
X
•"'-7 X X
•"'-9 X X
P. 1.2 X X
CJ/
--u ... ...
'-U X X

~...
.It X
X
X
X
· 10 X X
-11 X X
· I? X X
-n• X X
IC- U X X
IC• l5 X' x·
><-16 X X
• ~c~ \\'dl SR Lair-~- - . <OUO<I UU4Jle< ltcwCE.\C~
n.1.s.Y_c,,_,. bo~ ·1:d• rof

Por mew
?OU
IIIOIU,OC11Ci~J11'111DIDfmu>IJ" ?01

18
 TABLE 4

Table 3 Remedial Objectives and CEA Compliance Criteria. Ewan Property Site, Shamong, New Jersey
ROD Site Groundwater NJDEP Standara•·• PQL
1999CEA l ffl 1999Pennn \AJITERl
B~a ~ Rem.chi Equv.tent G s Oass l•
PARAMETER Units Goat l'I 95% un."1 0ftellP ODJOCbw • Um! aass llal'I PL 1 2004?1 200!PI 202()1'1

Volatile Oroanic Comoounds

:=e
:2-Bu'lanone
µgll
µgll
µgll
1111l
5.6
1
5
5.6
1
5
NA

5
6,000
0.2
300
10

2
1
NA
1
NA
10

2
1
10

2
1

Carbon TEtrachloride µgll 2 2 2 0.4 I 2 1 1

Chlorobenzene µg,1. 4 2 4 4 50 1 1 1 1
Chlorofonn µgll 100 100 NA 70 1 1 1 1
1, 1-0ichklroelhane µgll 2 0.96 0.96 50 I 1 1 1
1.2-0ichloroelhane µgll it"l 2 2 2 0.3 2 2 2 2
-ans-1.2-0icNoroethylene µgll 11?' 2 10 10 100 1 2 1 1
lhy!benzale µgll 7<XP 5 700 700 700 2 5 2 2
-Methyl-2-pent.none µgll 5 5 NA
!ethylene Olloride µgll 2 2 2 3 I 2 1 1
Styrene µgll 5 5 5 100 2 5 2 2
1.I.2.2-Telrachloroeih- , µgll I 1 I I I 1 1 1
Te:rachklroelhytene µgll 1111l I 1 0.4 I 1 1 1
Toluene µgll 2,00QPI 5 1,000 1,000 600 I 5 1 1
1, 1.1-Trichloroelhane µgll 25lll 26 26 26 30 I 1 1 1
Trichlcroe µgll 1111J 1 1 I I I 1 1 1
Vinyt Chloride µgll 2 2 5 0.08 I 5 1 1
X..tene (TOlall unA 44;oi
2 44 44 1.000 2 5 2 2
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
1.2-0ichlorobenzene µgll 0Ulr' 5 600 600 600 5 5 5 5
1,3-0ichlorobenzale µgll 600" 5 600 600 600 5 5 5 5
1,4-0ichlorobenzaie µgll 7':fl'l 5 75 75 75 5 5 5 5
2,4.5-Trichlorophenol µgll 10 10 10 700 10 10 10 10
2.4.~ Trichlorophenol µgll 20 20 20 I 20 20 20 20
2,4-0ichlorophenol µgll 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10
,4-0melh)'.p,enol µgll 20 20 20 100 20 20 20 20
-Chi"""""""' ua,1. 20 20 20 4-0 20 20 20 20
-Melll'flnaph!ha\ene µgll 15 15 15 30 10 10
-~ phenol µgll 19 19 19
Methylphenol µgll 17 17 17 50 0.1 0.
Nnrcphenol µgll 19 19 19
Acenaphlhene µgll 10 10 10 400 10 10 10 10
Anthrac:ene µgll 10 10 10 2,000 10 10 10 10
Benzo(a)Arilhrac:ene µgll 10 10 10 0.05 0. 1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Benzo(g.hJ')PE<)! µgll 20 20 20 10Cl'IGC
ois(2-Chloroelh ~!her µgll 10 10 10 0.03 7 10 7 7
ois(2-Elh)'.hexyf)phthllate µgll 6 6 30 2 3 30 3
BU!)4 ber<Z)'I phlhalate µgll 20 20 20 100 I 20 1 1
~oro-3-melh~ol µgll 20 20 20 10Cl'IGC
Diethyl ph e µgll 10 10 10 6,000 I 10 1 1
Dimelhyt ph!halate µgll 10 10 10 100-IGC
Di-n-SU!)4 phlhalate µgll 20 20 20 700 I 1 1
Di-n-Oayt :f'hlh le µgll 10 10 10 100 10 NA 10 10
Auorane µgll 10 10 10 300 I 10 1 1
'laphtrolene µgll 12 12 12 300 2 2 2 2
·'Jtrcbenzene µgll 10 10 10 4 6 10 6 6
Pentadllorophenol µgll I 1 0.3 0.1 I 0.1 o.
Phenantlftne µgll 10 10 10 100-IGC
Pheflol µgll Jt:R'I 10 300 300 2,000 10 10 10 10
P-,rene unA 20 20 20 200 0. 1 20 0.1 0.1

19
Ta ble 3 (continued) Remedial Objectives and C EA Compliance Criteri.1. EWYI Property Site. Shamong. New Jersey
ROD Site Groundwater Effluent NJDEP Standard"' PQL
1999CEA ,,,, 1999?em!l1 \,Urt"<m

~a c:cxrpoa,ce RomecSal EqU'f3'.ell! G , S Class 1-

PARAMETER Units Goal 95"'UTl" 1 Ob)letlYe ntl Oass lla141 PL 2004~" 2009"" 202l)l'CI

Metals
IAJ<minum 119<,_ 6.970 6,970 6.970 6,970 200 6.970 200 30 30
IArcimony 119<,_ NA NA 6 3 20 3 3
iArsenic µg/1.. 5()"1 4.5 8 8 8 3 4.5 8 3 3
[B.na-n l'Q/l. 1,000'1 80.6 200 1.000 1.000 6.000 80.6 200 200 200
Be<ytium 119<,_ NA NA 1 1 20 1 1
Cadmun l'Q/l. 10-" ' 6.3 6.3 6.3 5 4 6.3 2 0.5 0.5
CaJcun l'Q/l. 15.8S6 15.886 1S.886 15.886
Chn:nwm 119<,_ 5(j'I 19.5 10 so 50 70 19.5 10 1 1
Cob.alt 119<,_ NA 250 250 100 0.5 0.5
Copper 119<,_ SO-" ' 28.5 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.300 28.5 1.000 4 4
C 119<,_ 1«f1I 40 200 200 100 6 40 6 6
Iron 119< 300" 29.9 15 29.9 15 29.91 S 300 300 29.9 15 100 20 20
Le 119< ro"1 22.3 10 22.3 15 5 22.3 10 5 5
~tJgnesium 119<,_ 8. 150 8.150 8.150 8. 50 8.150
M3nganese 119<,_ ro"1 16257 162.57 162.S7 50 50 163 6 0.4 0.4
Maa.y 119<,_ 2 0.5 2 2 2 12 0.5 0.05 0.05
[t-idel l'Q/l. 13.4 1026 1026 100 100 100 10
Pocassium 119<,_ 2.482 2,482 2.482 2.482
SElenun l'Qi,_ 1o'1 1.39 10 10 10 40 4 10 4 4
Sihler 119<,_ 5()"1 2.6 26 so 50 40 26 10 1 1
Soclun l'Q/l. 10-" ' 482.000 482.000 482.000 50.000 482.000 400 400 400
Thallium µg,'L 2 2 10 0.5 2 10 2 2
IV.nacn.m 119<,_ 28 28 28 28
~ 119<,_ 5,()()()1'1 383.53 383.53 s.ooo 5.000 2.000 383 30 10 10
~et Chemistry
pH NTU 42-5.8'' 1 42-5,8 4..2 - S.8 42-5.8 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
. .. ~,_ 0. 0.5 o.s 3 0.2 200 200 02
Chloride ~,_ 1cfi 10 10 250 2 2.000 2.000 2
Ferne Iron mg,\. NA 29.91S NA
Fem,us Iron ~,_ NA 29.91S
Fluoride ~'I. 4 4 2 0.5 500 500 0.5
Slffate ~,_ 15171 15 15 250 5 5.000 5.000 5
Toal Phoschorus mn/1 0.7''' 0.7 0.7 NA

Notes;
• • The 1999 RO are used 10 remedy.
l'Qll.. = micrograms per litE<
~ = minigams per liter
IGC =NJDEP :er'mGenericCrilena
ISC = NJDEP :erm Specfic Critena

Sources:
(1) Backgo<r,d 95% Ult is lhe!Jlll)E( IOler.YICe lini1 with 95o/. confidence. of bac:kgo<r,d metals oonceruations.
(2) Compianc:e c:rileria were based on EP GWOS and/0< POL, Federal MCls and site background oonc:emraoons by Mclaren/Hart.
Remedial Ot,jectives and Compliance Criteria from MclareMbn O&M and G<ounctttater ,ton· oring Plan T ~ 7- 1 and 7-2 (1999).
Nondegradation criteria 'l'E<e lhe lower of existing I. 0< 1he POL, lriess backgrou,d was lighe<.
(3) NJDEP G NOS from NJAC 7:9C. Table 1. LastAmended .M>e I . 2020. PQLs a.-e no<oonsidered occuring and POI.sate used.
(4) Class I waters incble i,ounct,r.iter (pocal)le) exoep1 those o<he<Ylise desig\a:ed. Last amended June 1, 2020.
[5] Class I-PL consists of waters of 1he Plnelands are.a. irdxfng vr.iters of lhe Coh.nsey a-Kl Kir1<wood F0<maoons.
Gta.n! wale< ctieria shall be 1he background q
[6] Remedial Objectives · ROO (Record of Decision) were · sued September 29. 1989.
(7) NJAC 7:9-e.6(a): EP may eslablish a Cbss tion Excepocn Area whe<e applicable stlnd.vds a.-e nee met
(8) NJAC 7:10-5 and NJAC 7:10-7 a,e 1he Sia:e Primary and Secondary Orin • Wa Regula ·ons. respeclively.
(9) 40 CFR 141 and 40 CFR 143 are 1he Federal Prmary and Se<:Onday '1aximm Ccnl.minant levels ACls). ~

20
APPENDIX C – Figures

21
 ~ <MiD C. M:DID'I ISSCQlilD IC DIMICI nt01 '\:T U01 Ml) am. aJD IJ.Ct, ,.,_
SMll'.M . . . . .. UUICllN co.wrr, IU" ..,,. K-..,. CS. ~"D 1-214.
ll'Pll:W, .lfmli A '°.ll'i CQN51.l"ll0 KIIU:RS. c,ww: -,,a °rtk AS--M.i ~
~ - ~OWIIC'IUIJIFJt~i·, ~ ....~
tiltWUril CDIIPMff. I C . . ~ fMl.m. PIIO MilnO W.lC: 'IIDIMDI W1.U'T" -- "-.#.:
POINi nw.. ,s...aau ~ H ~ a 11:i. 11-0GL M. "'°'
'!M'» ,IIJSiQCMlD, tc aw.:; nr.a -...1.r PVtt--OM PIJ'tffi Slt", Stfll)C
La,JICr.)i~• • ~ . OIWill(llC.~~t-JOo.tl..
'°""'
,z,i, IWID 01--u-11.
JYL
,,,,,,.
-
- XW.:l!!!fi!ftlli

--- IWWMCPIOV'Ofll'
... IIIOlllS) CD ~

- - - · - - -- ~U!IC

•
.
•

.
- IICllll(iNtlJ.

- IIM»<--
- ~~
... :IH.PIMCl'MJWIIIII.

0-:~~
.. ClalOl'OD"'~,..
~ - a=IOll!Of'~I\OI
111111
I. IIUS nl '-tmDI caalf'NlDS
/l/e 1t--JtAII ~

...,_,.,_,
i. ""'-Ill ;,,;,.. ~ CIIO.Na.it
.,,._J...--1 ~ • ~a

FIGURE 1 – CEA Boundaries

22

120' 240'

SCA.E
PGURE C-5
PREVIOUS & PRO"OSED CEA 80U~DARIES
A:COM E'i!I.~ PROft:m' SIJPERI\J!IO SIT£
331 TUCl([RT<IH ROIO
511'MClNG _ ., NEW JO!SEY oecas
JJLI 201• 60318164
 FIGURE 2 –Sample Location

TABERNACLE TOWNSHIP

"'~
i

~
·
uJ
'«
'iii i
--;
:z: "'
"'
;;/
~
H
g

•
"'
::,

" ~

EWAN SITE .N

\ s

C
"'
0
:,:
,: C
~
"'
iii
■ MW-287 Approximate &:lmplo Location;
Somple identification numbers ore
correlated to street addresses on
Forked Neck Rood

0 2000 FT

~-.- !
' ' SCALE
SOURCE,
ROAD MAP- ~~
SHAWONG TOWNSHIP
REV. B/2000 . ' - -~$- \
510 CARNEGIE CENTER
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSUL TING ENGINEERS

PROJECT, TITLE,

EWAN PROPERTY SUPERFUND SITE SAMPLE LOCATION MAP

AS'COM ENGINEERING SERVICES AND

SCALE,
1"=2000'
DATE,
04/2016
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
PROJECT NO. "uu"c NO.
SHAMONG TOWNSHIP, BURLINGTON CO. NJ
60488171 2-1

23
 Figure 3 – Well TC-18

:E:w:an Pro~ny Sitt - Total SVOC CoDCtDtntioM onr nm.

TC-IS
_o

18

16

14

~ 12

..
-5
10
>
i0 8

0
2
._____ A
JW --Apr--13
- - Apr-15
- -
....... ........__
Apr-97 Apr--99 Apr--01 Apr--03 Apr--05 Apr-<17 ..\pr--09 Apr-11 ..\pr-17 Apr-19 Apr-- 1 Apr-23

I>.att

E1r.111 Prol)ffty Sitt - Total \"OC Co11cutr:atiom onr TDDt

TC-IS

so ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

40 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

-530 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

>
i
~ _o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 -1---~ ~ ==t-~-+t-+-'....,.._.~. .~~...............__.......t--........-t◄-+--H~.-.-.......--.

A'(x-97 A'(x-99 Apr--0
Datt

24
 FIGURE 4 – Well TC-22

E'lnll Property Sit, - Total SYOC Concutratiom o,·u -nm.

TC-ll
100

0
so

60

>
ll 40
Q

20

0
M.....A
T
~ A ~ • - - -- ~

T- -A

Apr-9 Apr-99 Apr-0 Apr-03 Apr-05 Apr-0 .;\pr-09 Apr- l Apr-13 Apr- 5 Apr-1 Apr-19 Apr--1 Apr-23

Datt

Ew:111 Property Silf - Total YOC Coacutr.atiom ovfl" Tmw

TC-22

3000 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

2,500

- 000

1,5-00
i
"
1,000

500

0 T T ....- TT T T

Apr-97 .;\pr-99 .;\pl"-01 .;\pr-03 Apr-OS .;\pl"-07 .;\pr-09 Apr- Apr- 3 Apr-15 .;\pl"-1 .;\pl"-19 Apr-2 .;\pl"-23
Datt

25
 FIGURE 5 – Well TC 30

Ewa n Propercy· Site - Total YOC Concentrations oHr Time

TC-30

400

350

300

J
~ 250
5
"' 200
0
>
0" 150
!-

100

50

0
I ◄ \j l\ A ....... - ~ - - -
Apr--03 Apr-05 Apr--07 Apr-09 Apr-11 Apr-13 Apr-1 5 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21 Apr-23

Date

Ewan Proper!)· Site - Tomi SYOC Concenn·ations oHr Time

TC-30

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200
3
ci,
-5 1,000
◄
0
>
VI 800
-;;
0
!- 600

400

~
200

0
Apr--03
,I~ -
Apr-OS Apr--07
- ..
Apr--09
..........
-·
Apr-11
.• ........
Apr-13
. ....... .A. -
Apr-15 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21 Apr-23

Date

26
 FIGURE 6 – Wells TK-4, TC-6 and BC-5

Ewan Property Site - Total Chromium Concentrations vs. nme, 2010-2023

TC-6, BC-5 and TK-4
800

600

200

100

0 . .
..
Apr-10 Apr-11 Ap,-12 Apr-13 Apr-14 Apr-15 Apr-16 Apr-17 Apr-18 Ap<-19 Apr-20 Apr-21 Apr-22 Apr-23
Date

- e - - TK--4 -e-- BCS ---+-- TC-6 •• ••• ••• • CEA Compliance Criterion Remedial Objective

27