FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Scientific Chemical Processing Superfund Site

Carldstadt, Bergen County, New Jersey

Prepared by:

Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
New York, New York

January 2003

*139810*
139810
 Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Scientific Chemical Processing

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NYD070565403

Region: 2 State: NJ City/County: Carlstadt, Bergen

SITE STATUS
NPL status: € Final ~ Deleted ~ Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): ~ Under Construction € Constructed € Operating

Multiple OUs?* € YES ~ NO Construction completion date: N.A.

Has site been put into reuse? ~ YES € NO ~ N/A

REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: € EPA ~ State ~ Tribe ~ Other Federal Agency

Author name: Jon Gorin

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA

Review period:** 09/29/1998 to 08/12/2002

Date(s) of site inspection: 7/10/2002

Type of review:
~ Post-SARA ~ Pre-SARA ~ NPL-Removal only
~ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site ~ NPL State/Tribe-lead
~ Regional Discretion  Statutory

Review number: ~ 1 (first) € 2 (second) ~ 3 (third) ~ Other (specify)

Triggering action:
~ Actual RA On-site Construction at OU # ~ Actual RA Start at OU#
~ Construction Completion € Previous Five-Year Review Report
~ Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 09/30/1998

Does the report include recommendations(s) and follow-up actions(s)? ~ yes € no

Is human exposure under control? € yes ~ no ~ not yet determined
Is contaminated groundwater under control? € yes ~ no ~ not yet determined

Is the remedy protective of the environment? ~ yes ~ no € not yet determined

* [“OU” refers to operable unit.]

** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Five - Year Review
Scientific Chemical Processing Superfund Site
Carldstadt, Bergen County, New Jersey

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 has conducted

a five-year review pursuant to Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as
amended (CERCLA), Section 300.430 (f)(4)(ii) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and OSWER Directive
9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of a five-year review is to
ensure that implemented remedies are protective of public health and
the environment. This document will become part of the site file.

The Scientific Chemical Processing (SCP) site is being addressed in

three remedial phases. Operable Units 1 and 2 address the cleanup of
the contaminated soils and shallow ground water. Operable Unit 1 (OU1)
was an interim remedy which was completed in June 1992. A Record of
Decision for OU2, which is the final remedy for soils and shallow
groundwater, was issued on August 12, 2002. A planned third Operable
Unit (OU3) remedy will address deeper groundwater and the adjacent
Peach Island Creek.

In accordance with Section 1.2.1 of the five-year review guidance, a

statutory five-year review is triggered for this site since hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain on site.

The Remedial Action that triggered a five-year review at this site was
the interim remedy, Operable Unit 1 (OU1), selected in a September
1990 Record of Decision (ROD). The interim remedy mainly consisted of
containment of the Site’s fill area using a soil-bentonite slurry
wall, a polythelyene infiltration barrier, an extraction system for
shallow groundwater and a chain link fence surrounding the property.

The OU1 remedy was constructed from August 1991 through June 1992.
Supplemental studies were conducted after the selection of the interim
remedy to evaluate methods to permanently address the

1
Site’s fill area. That work was conducted as part of the Operable Unit
2 (OU2). The RI/FS was completed in 2001. On August 12, 2002 the OU2
ROD was issued which describes the OU2 selected remedy. In addition,
the OU2 ROD assessed the effectiveness of the interim remedy, detailed
the site’s history, described the site’s characteristics, and
described the remedial objectives for the site. It is Region 2’s
policy to recognize RODs as the Five Year Review of interim remedies.

When a remedy is re-evaluated in a subsequent Record of Decision, the

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 believes that the
final Record of Decision constitutes a five year review. For this
site, the ROD issued on August 12, 2002 evaluated the OU1 remedy and
therefore constitutes the Five Year Review. EPA Headquarters requires
that a separate Five-Year Review Report be prepared in addition to the
Final ROD. This report has been prepared in order to satisfy this
requirement from EPA Headquarters.

II. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND HISTORY

The Site’s Characteristics and History are described in the August 12,
2002 OU2 ROD.

III. DISCUSSION OF REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES

Remedial Objective’s for the Site’s Fill Area (i.e., the area
addressed by the OU1 ROD) are described in the August 12, 2002 OU2
ROD.

IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

The interim remedy was implemented by the Potentially Responsible

Parties (PRPs) pursuant to an Administrative Order, dated September
28, 1990. By June 1992 the PRPs had installed the following:

# A lateral soil-bentonite containment slurry wall with an

integral high density polyethylene vertical membrane that
circumscribes the SCP property;

# A horizontal infiltration barrier consisting of high density

polyethylene convering the property;

# A sheet pile retaining wall along Peach Island Creek;

# A groundwater extraction system for shallow groundwater

consisting of five extraction wells which discharge to an

2
 above ground holding tank; and

# A chain link fence surrounding the SCP Property.

An Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) for the interim remedy
was set forth in the Interim Remedy Design Report (Canonie 1992). The
O&M Plan requires the PRPs to submit a monthly report to EPA which
includes a summary of site inspections and maintenance activities;
groundwater levels within the slurry wall, outside the slurry wall and
in the till and bedrock units; and presentation of groundwater and
surface water sampling results.

V. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Involvement

A Proposed Plan and the supporting documentation for OU2 were released
to the public for comment on August 15, 2001. These documents were
made available to the public at the EPA Administrative Record File
Room, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY; and at the William E.
Demody Free Public Library, 420 Hackensack St, Carlstadt, NJ.

On August 15, 2001, EPA issued a notice in the Bergen County Record,
which contained a summary of the Proposed Remedy for OU2 and
information relevant to the public comment period. A public meeting
was held on August 23, 2001, at the Carlstadt Borough Hall located at
500 Madison St., Carlstadt, NJ. In general, the public supported EPA’s
Proposed Remedy for the site. The public’s comments and EPA’s
responses are presented in the OU2 ROD’s Responsiveness Summary.

Site Inspection

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), on behalf of EPA,

has been providing oversight of the PRPs’ ground water monitoring and
other site work. The most recent sampling was performed in September
2002. Therefore, a separate five-year review-related site inspection
was not necessary.

VI TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision

documents?

Yes, the interim remedy is functioning as intended by the OU1

3
ROD.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup

levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy
still valid?

Prior to issuing the 2002 ROD, EPA used current risk assessment
guidelines to re-evaluate the exposure assumptions and toxicity data
relating to the Fill Area. This recent evaluation can be found in the
August 12, 2002 OU2 ROD. Briefly, EPA determined that, without the
interim remedy, the levels found in the soil and groundwater would
pose an unacceptable human health risk. However, the existing interim
remedy eliminates direct contact with contaminated soil and any
potential release of contaminated soil into the air. The interim
remedy also contains the contaminated groundwater in the Fill Area.
These actions prevent exposure to the Fill Area contaminants and their
accompanying human health risks. The remedy selected in the 2002 ROD
will upgrade and make permanent the remedy for the fill area and is
fully protective of public health and the environment.

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

No.

VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

The interim Fill Area remedy was performed in accordance with the 1990
ROD. A final Fill Area remedy will be constructed under EPA oversight
based on the 2002 ROD requirements. EPA is currently overseeing the
PRPs’ Performance of RI/FS activities to address deeper ground water
contamination and the adjacent Peach Island Creek at the Site.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

There are no recommendations or follow-up actions stemming from this

5-year review, other than the ongoing implementation of the OU2 remedy
and the OU3 studies.

IX. STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVENESS

Interim actions taken in accordance with the 1990 OU1 ROD, such as
installation of a fence, cover material, slurry wall, and groundwater
pumping and collection system provide adequate protection of public
health and the environment on the site property until final site
remedies are implemented. Further

4
environmental studies are underway to assess conditions in Peach
Island Creek.

V. NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

The remedy selected in the August 12, 2002 OU2 ROD does not provide
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The remedy includes
establishment of institutional controls to ensure continued
commercial/industrial use of the property. These controls will be
implemented as part of the OU2 Remedy. EPA will conduct another
five-year review within five years of this report.