final interim remedial measures work plan...

Submitted to: Submitted by:PPG Industries AECOMAllison Park, Pennsylvania Piscataway, New Jersey

60137548.4061June 2010

Environment

Final Interim Remedial Measures Work Plan #1900 Garfield Avenue – PPG Site 114Jersey City, New Jersey

Submitted to: Submitted by:PPG Industries AECOMAllison Park, Pennsylvania Piscataway, New Jersey

60137548.4061June 2010

Environment

Final Interim Remedial Measures Work Plan #1900 Garfield Avenue – PPG Site 114Jersey City, New Jersey

__________________________ _________________________________Prepared By Lead EngineerHue Quan, P.E. Craig MacP hee, P.E.

_________________________________Reviewed ByScott H. Mikaelian, Program Manager

AECOM Interim Remedial Measures WP#1 Environment

http://portal.env.aecomnet.com/projects/PPGChrome/GarfieldAve/WorkplansReports AECOM only/IRMWP-1/Final Submittal/2010_06_24 AdditionalComments/2010-06 FINAL IRMWP1_FD.docx July 2010

i

Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-11.1 Project Background..................................................................................................... 1-2

1.1.1 Site History ................................................................................................... 1-21.1.2 Seep Collection System ................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Report Organization .................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) ........................................................................ 2-12.1 Surface and Subsurface Concrete Results ................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Soil Results ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Groundwater Results .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................................ 2-22.4.1 Shallow Soil – Fill Material ............................................................................. 2-32.4.2 Intermediate and Deep Soils.......................................................................... 2-42.4.3 Bedrock ........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.5 Hydrogeologic and Subsurface Infrastructure Factors on Groundwater Flow Patterns ... 2-42.5.1 Horizontal Flow ............................................................................................. 2-42.5.2 Vertical Flow ................................................................................................. 2-52.5.3 Soil and Groundwater Contaminant Distribution Summary .............................. 2-5

3.0 Goals for IRM#1 ......................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Sampling, Laboratory Analysis, and Data Quality Objectives ................................. 4-1

5.0 Permits ...................................................................................................................... 5-15.1 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) ........................................................ 5-1

5.2 Well Abandonment/Decommissioning .......................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Treatment Works Approval .......................................................................................... 5-4

6.0 Construction Activities ............................................................................................. 6-16.1 Site Preparation and Mobilization ................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Dust Control, Health and Safety Plan and Air Monitoring Plan ...................................... 6-1

6.3 Well Protection ........................................................................................................... 6-1

6.4 Site Truck Routes ....................................................................................................... 6-2

6.5 Soil and Sediment Erosion Control .............................................................................. 6-2



ii

6.6 Buried Utilities Location and Handling .......................................................................... 6-2

6.7 Perimeter Excavation and Excavation Shoring ............................................................. 6-3

6.8 Demolition of Concrete Slabs ...................................................................................... 6-3

6.9 Dewatering ................................................................................................................. 6-4

6.10 Treatment and Disposal Option for Extracted Water ..................................................... 6-4

6.11 Excavation Protocols, Field Screening, Sampling and Analysis ..................................... 6-56.11.1 Western Portion of IRM#1 Area ..................................................................... 6-66.11.2 Eastern Portion of IRM#1 Area ...................................................................... 6-76.11.3 Field Screening ............................................................................................. 6-7

6.12 Loading and Disposal.................................................................................................. 6-8

6.13 Backfilling and Grading ............................................................................................... 6-9

6.14 Excavation Demobilization .......................................................................................... 6-9

7.0 Other Related Program and Project Documents ...................................................... 7-17.1 Health and Safety Plan ............................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Field Sampling-Quality Assurance Project Plan ............................................................ 7-1

7.3 Air Monitoring and Control of Dust ............................................................................... 7-17.3.1 Air Monitoring Plan (AMP) ............................................................................. 7-27.3.2 Dust Control Plan (DCP) ............................................................................... 7-2

7.4 Traffic Safety and Control Plan .................................................................................... 7-3

7.5 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) ........................................................ 7-3

7.6 Stockpile Management Plan ........................................................................................ 7-3

8.0 Waste Management Procedures ............................................................................... 8-18.1 Excavated Material Management ................................................................................ 8-1

8.2 Stockpile Sampling and Waste Classification ............................................................... 8-28.2.1 Soil Stockpile Sampling ................................................................................. 8-28.2.2 Concrete and Debris Stockpile Sampling ....................................................... 8-2

8.3 Off-Site Disposal ......................................................................................................... 8-3

8.4 Stormwater and Stockpile Management ....................................................................... 8-3

9.0 Community Relations during IRM Activities ............................................................ 9-1

10.0Schedule and Reporting ......................................................................................... 10-1

11.0References .............................................................................................................. 11-1



iii

List of Tables

Table 4-1 Sample Summary

Table 5-1 Well Decommissioning

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Site Location Map

Figure 2-1 Stratigraphic Cross Sections

Figure 2-2 Estimated Extent of Mixed Fill/COPR

Figure 2-3 Estimated Extent of Green Gray Mud

Figure 2-4 Estimated Extent of Peat

Figure 3-1 Proposed IRM Location

Figure 3-2 Conceptual Site Layout

Figure 3-3 Detailed Cross Section of IRM Location

Figure 5-1 Well Abandonment Locations

Figure 6-1 Proposed Site Grading Plan

Figure 6-2 Test Pit Locations

Figure 12-1 Preliminary Draft Schedule



iv

List of Appendices Appendix A Dewatering Calculation, Treatment and Supporting Documentation

Appendix B Health and Safety Plan (HASP)

Appendix C Dust Control Plan (DCP)

Appendix D Air Monitoring Plan (AMP)

Appendix E Traffic Safety and Control Plan (TSCP)

Appendix F Stockpile Management Plan (SMP)

Appendix G AECOM SH&E SOP No. 726 Identifying Underground Installations

Appendix H Approved Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP)

Appendix I Well Abandonment Reports



1-1

1.0 Introduction

On behalf of PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), AECOM has prepared this Interim Remedial Measures WorkPlan #1 (IRMWP #1) for the Garfield Avenue Site 114, in Jersey City, New Jersey (Site). The location ofthe Site is shown in Figure 1-1. This IRM Work Plan describes excavation activities designed to removeChromium Chemical Production Waste (CCPW) as well as buried structures and utilities that are presentbeneath the footprint of the 900 Garfield Avenue slab (the IRM#1 Area). The IRM#1 Area is depicted inFigure 3-1.

The western and eastern portions of the IRM#1 Area will each be addressed with a different objective:

In the western portion of the IRM#1 Area, all source materials (chromium ore processing residue(COPR) and Green-Gray Mud) and buried debris will be removed. This area will subsequently bebackfilled and prepared for future feasibility study, pilot testing of reductant injections to treat remainingnon-source material soils and groundwater. In this area, some material will remain above the currenthexavalent chromium cleanup criteria of 20 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) after completion of this IRM,although these soils will have significantly lower concentrations of hexavalent chromium than theshallower source soils which will have been removed.

In the eastern portion of the IRM#1 Area, the most impacted material, Green-Gray Mud, will be targetedfor excavation and removal in addition to the subsurface debris. Some COPR material and other soilwith concentrations above cleanup criteria will remain in place. The remaining materials in the westernand eastern areas of IRM #1 will be remediated as part of future feasibility study activities (as part of aFeasibility Study Work Plan (FSWP)) or mass removal actions (as part of a Remedial Action Work Plan(RAWP)).

After implementation of IRM#1 and future pilot scale studies to evaluate remedial technology(ies), theremaining impacted soil in this area will be treated in situ with reductant additives or excavated. Thedesign and implementation of these future activities will be detailed in future submittals. Therefore,IRM#1 is not intended as a final remedial action for the area.

Analytical testing of Site soil and groundwater supporting the proposed IRM activities are focusedprimarily on the treatability of total chromium and hexavalent chromium. A summary of samplingactivities to be performed during IRM and FS activities is summarized below in Section 4. Anyadditional constituents of concern (COCs) at the Site will be addressed as part of a future Site-wideRAWP. As described in more detail in subsequent sections of this IRM#1WP, site activities included inIRM#1 will be generally performed in three phases (see Figures 3-1 through 3-3):

1. 900 Garfield Avenue Slab Removal - Former warehouse floor slabs and foundations will beremoved for off-Site disposal.

2. Shallow Zone Soil Excavation and Subsurface Slab and Foundation Removal - Sourcematerial beneath the surface slab will be excavated, along with any subsurface structuresencountered, and removed for off-Site disposal. Confirmatory and characterizationsampling will be completed, as appropriate.



1-2

3. Site Restoration – The area will be restored with vegetative cover that will provide a slope todrain storm water toward the center of the Site.

As part of the IRM, it is estimated that approximately 30,000 to 50,000 tons of impacted material andconcrete debris will be removed from one of the most highly impacted areas on-site.

Adequate notice, consistent with the recent Public Notification Guidance issued by New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Office of Community Relations, has been provided toproperty owners and NJDEP before proceeding with remedial activities.

1.1 Project Background1.1.1 Site History

The Site is a 16.6 acre property formerly used for the processing of chromium ore. The western half ofSite 114 was the location of a former chromate production facility that operated between approximately1924 and 1963. The chromate operation included a COPR storage pile located at the southeasternquadrant of Site 114. The locations of the plant and COPR storage pile were previously determinedfrom aerial photographs and a more detailed discussion of chromate plant production processes areprovided in the April 2003 Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP). In the northeastern portion of Site114, a former manufactured gas plant (MGP) facility operated between 1886 to the mid-1930s.

Subsequent to 1963, the property was sold and three warehouses were built. In the late summer of2002, PPG Industries, Inc. began demolishing the warehouses. The demolition was completed in early2003. At the present, the site remains vacant with three warehouse slabs and approximately 4 acres ofpaved areas (roadways and parking), including Dakota Street, which bisects the Site in an east-westdirection starting at Garfield Avenue. Dakota Street is not currently a public right of way; it is currentlyincluded within the fenced area of the Site. The IRM# 1 Area, also referred to as the 900 GarfieldAvenue slab is the northwestern-most slab. Site 114 is currently completely enclosed by a barrier fenceand remains secure.

1.1.2 Seep Collection System

In 2005, a seep collection system was installed along the western edge of the IRM#1 Area in order tomaintain hydraulic control and reduce the potential for groundwater seep expression along GarfieldAvenue. Between January and March 2005, PPG contracted GES Inc. of Wall, NJ to install numeroussumps within and adjacent to the 900 Garfield Avenue foundation slab. Specifically, four sumps (S1 -S4) were installed within the foundation slab along its western wall. Two additional sumps (S5 and S6)were later installed in 2008. The locations of the sumps are depicted on Figure 3-1.

The sump bottoms were generally set 10 feet below the surface of the slab. With the exception of sumpS6, the sumps are constructed of 24-inch diameter corrugated, perforated acrylonitrile butadiene styrene(ABS) piping. Sump pumps are installed in each sump that operate on float switches set to activateeach pump to adequately control hydraulic flow in this area. Sump pumps are connected to 2-inchpolyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping and ultimately discharge to four fractionation (frac) tanks on-site. Thesystem is winterized with heat tape and insulation and controlled by an integrated control panel on-site.The water within the frac tanks is removed and shipped off-Site to regulated disposal facilities.

An integrated control panel houses switches for each of the pumps and controllers. Each of the collectortanks contains high water level switches. A high water level in any of the tanks will trigger a relay in the



1-3

control panel that shuts off all the pumps to prevent an overflow of the tanks. An automated systemnotifies appropriate personnel when any high water level switches are triggered.

1.2 Report OrganizationSection 2 provides a summary of the Site 114 Remedial Investigation (RI) results. Section 3 providesan overview of the goals of the IRM#1. Section 4 provides information related to sampling and analysisas well as data quality objectives during the IRM#1. Section 5 provides details of the IRM#1 design andpermitting. Section 6 presents a construction activity summary that includes site preparation andmobilization, buried utilities location and handling, demolition of the concrete slabs, and soil andsediment erosion control. Subsequent sections include those detailing information regarding the Healthand Safety Plan (HASP), Field Sampling Plan / Quality Assurance Project Plan (FSP-QAPP), AirMonitoring Plan, Dust Control Plan, Traffic Safety and Control Plan, Soil Erosion and Sediment ControlPlan (Section 7), waste management (Section 8), including Stockpile Management Plan, communityrelations (Section 9), reporting and scheduling requirements (Section 10), and the proposed IRM#1schedule (Section 11).


http://portal.env.aecomnet.com/projects/PPGChrome/GarfieldAve/WorkplansReports AECOM only/IRMWP-1/Final Submittal/2010_06_24 AdditionalComments/2010-06 FINAL IRMWP1_FD.docx

July 2010

2-1

2.0 Remedial Investigation Report (RIR)

Remedial activities at Site 114 have included multimedia sampling and monitoring to characterize anddelineate subsurface conditions. During RI activities, concrete coring, soil boring, and monitoring welland piezometer installation and sampling activities were conducted at Site 114 and on surroundingproperties. Concrete, soil, and groundwater samples were collected and submitted to NJDEP-certifiedlaboratories for analysis. In addition to RI activities, samples were also collected in October 2005 toevaluate the feasibility of future remedial options and the treatability of the materials encountered on-site. This section presents a summary of RI activities performed at Site 114. The most stringent (non-residential) chromium soil cleanup criteria (CrSCC) of 20 mg/kg for hexavalent chromium, and the moststringent (residential) soil cleanup criteria of 120,000 mg/kg for trivalent chromium, was utilized for soildelineation purposes pursuant to the Chromium Soil Cleanup Criteria (NJDEP, September 2008, lastrevised April 20, 2010).

2.1 Surface and Subsurface Concrete ResultsThe analysis of concrete cores from surface slabs indicated that hexavalent chromium concentrationswere detected above NJDEP most stringent (non-residential) CrSCC of 20 mg/kg but were limited tosmall areas on the 880 and 900 Garfield Avenue concrete slabs. Subsurface concrete slabs were alsoencountered at the site. Results of subsurface concrete slab investigations indicate that the majority ofthe subsurface slab structures shown on historic Sanborn Maps®, located during drilling and excavationactivities, are located between 1.5 and 9.0 feet below surface grade.

2.2 Soil ResultsHexavalent chromium represents the primary COC detected in the soil at Site 114. It was detectedabove the most stringent (non-residential) chromium soil cleanup criteria (CrSCC) CrSCC of 20 mg/kg in55% of the samples analyzed and represented the most frequently-detected parameter in excess of theNJDEP clean-up criteria in on-site soils. In general, concentrations of total chromium are three to fivetimes higher than concentrations of hexavalent chromium in on-site soils, but significantly below soilcleanup criteria for total chromium. The highest concentrations of total and hexavalent chromium wereassociated with the Green-Gray Mud. These source materials are encountered above a confining layerof peat commonly called the meadow mat, which is typically observed approximately 16 feet belowground surface (bgs). Elevated concentrations of hexavalent chromium above the CrSCC are presentprimarily in shallow (<16 feet bgs) soils. However they have also been detected in the intermediatezone (16 to 40 feet bgs) soils and are generally limited to areas where the meadow mat layer is absent.The hexavalent chromium concentrations detected in the intermediate soils are believed to be due tocontaminated pore water. However, concentrations of hexavalent chromium are substantially less insoils in the deep zone compared to intermediate zone and shallow zone soils.

2.3 Groundwater ResultsAt Site 114, depth to groundwater ranged from ground surface (0.04 feet bgs) to 10.97 feet bgs andgroundwater elevations typically ranged from 7.60 to 10.16 feet above the North American Vertical



July 2010

2-2

Datum (NAVD) of 1988. Groundwater flow directions in the shallow groundwater zone are multi-directional with components of flow toward Garfield Avenue, Carteret Avenue, Halladay Street, andForrest Street. At the southern end of the Site, flow appears to divide and flow both to the southwestand southeast. This division may be influenced by the lower permeability of the former Morris Canal.Shallow groundwater elevations appear to fluctuate with specific precipitation events rather more thanseasonal variations at Site 114. Potential groundwater recharge areas tend to be limited by imperviousstructures such as pavement, buildings, and subsurface structures. Groundwater flow from theintermediate zone appears to flow toward Garfield Avenue, Carteret Avenue and Halladay Street.Groundwater elevations in the deep zone indicate groundwater flow towards the south/southeast. Inaddition, an upward vertical gradient from the deep groundwater zone to the intermediate zone wasobserved.

In general, the most elevated hexavalent chromium concentrations in shallow groundwater werepredominantly detected on the western portion of the Site.

In the intermediate groundwater zone, groundwater concentrations of hexavalent chromium follow asimilar pattern as the shallow zone. Higher concentrations were observed in the north central portion ofthe Site and lower concentrations observed on the northern and eastern edges. Unlike the shallow zonehowever, higher concentrations of hexavalent chromium were observed at the southern boundary of Site114. Several factors may influence intermediate groundwater concentrations including the absence of ameadow mat in some areas, a downward vertical gradient allowing hexavalent chromium concentrationsfrom the shallow zone to be transferred into the intermediate zone, and an upward vertical gradient fromthe deep to intermediate zones. Hexavalent chromium concentrations in deep zone groundwater weremarkedly lower than those detected in the intermediate and shallow zones on-site.

Data was reviewed from several monitoring wells that are located in the northern area of the site in thevicinity of the proposed IRM during the conceptual design of this phase of the IRM#1. These wellsinclude MW-1S&D, MW-2A&B; MW-3A&B; MW6A,B,&C; PZ-6; PZ-7; PZ-8; MW-9A,B&C; PZ-9; andMW-11A&B. One or more TAL metals were observed above Groundwater Quality Criteria (GWQC) ineach of these according to RI sampling results. In addition, MW-1S&D, MW-6A&C, MW-2A&B, MW-3A&B, and MW-9B contained volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or semi-volatile organic compound(SVOC) concentrations of one or more constituent above GWQC. Each well within the northernquadrant contained total chromium results above the GWQC of 70 ppb.

2.4 Conceptual Site ModelThe Conceptual Site Model (CSM) represents an assessment of the Site hydrogeological conditions andcontaminant distribution, including estimates of waste material volumes. In general, the CSM suggeststhat the distribution of total and hexavalent chromium in soil horizontally and vertically correlates directlyto the presence of waste materials (Green-Gray Mud, COPR, mixed fill). Where present, the low-permeability meadow mat provides a barrier to downward groundwater migration and is a naturalreductant, as supported by lower concentrations of total and hexavalent chromium observed below themeadow mat.

The overall fate and transport of hexavalent chromium is most likely a function of the location of thesource material and leaching of hexavalent chromium from the source material, horizontal migration ofhexavalent chromium in the groundwater zones, vertical migration of groundwater in the absence of the



July 2010

2-3

meadow mat, and possible sorption and desorption of hexavalent chromium onto intermediate nativesoils, which may serve as a secondary source to groundwater.

The following sections provide additional information regarding the CSM at Site 114.

2.4.1 Shallow Soil – Fill Material

The shallow soils (including fill and buried industrial by-products) at Site 114 were characterized toidentify the nature and extent of the chemicals associated with these soils. Findings indicate that theshallow soils are physically characterized by non-native silts and sands. Man-made materials included:cinders, construction debris, and COPR, the dominant by-product of the chromate production process,and Green-Gray Mud; also a chromate production by-product.

The distributions of the different types of shallow soils were interpreted site-wide using theEnvironmental Visualization System® (EVS®) model. Based on the field visual characterizationinformation from the subsurface soil sampling conducted at the various borings and monitoring welllocations, a three dimensional subsurface geologic data visualization model was constructed. Cross-sections and three dimensional images of this model are included on Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 andare summarized as follows.

Mixed fill containing varying percentages of COPR is found across the majority of Site 114. Green-GrayMud was observed most frequently at the northwest and southeast portions of Site 114 and along andwithin the former Morris Canal. The occurrence of Green-Gray Mud in the southeast portion of Site 114extending to the south is consistent with the location of the former storage pile.

Figure 2-4 shows the interpreted EVS® model image of the extent of meadow mat across the Site 114.This layer represents evidence that a historic shoreline was once present in the Site area. Meadow matwas not observed in portions of the northwest and northeast portions of the Site, as well as some areasproximate to the former Morris Canal. Cross-sections B-B’ and C-C’ in Figure 2-1 show the absence ofmeadow mat in the northwest portion of Site 114. This absence is noted beneath portions of the existing900 Garfield Avenue slab (primary location of the former Chromate Plant). The absence of the meadowmat may be attributed to possible excavation of former meadow mat in these areas during constructionof the former Morris Canal and Plant structures, and the shallower bedrock along the western boundaryof Site 114. Cross-sections A-A’, C-C’ and D-D’ depict the absence of meadow mat where GarfieldAvenue exists. The absence of meadow mat in the northeastern portion of Site 114 may be due to aglacial deposit that elevated that portion of site above 10 feet mean sea level (msl). This would limit theinundation of the water to this area from the transgressing bay or river. The top of the observedmeadow mat layer is located at the bottom of the fill and typically is a natural vertical demarcationbetween the shallow and intermediate soil zones.

The meadow mat layer, where present, is approximately 15 to 20 feet bgs, typically close or at 0 feetmsl, and can range from approximately one to ten feet thick, depending on the location. Meadow matthickness generally increases toward the south and east (Section C-C’, Figure 2-1). Figure 2-2 showsthe estimated areal extent of mixed fill and COPR; and Figure 2-3 shows the estimated areal extent ofGreen-Gray Mud identified at the Site.

Aquifer testing was also completed to estimate the groundwater flow of the shallow saturated soils atSite 114. The groundwater velocity for saturated soils ranged between 0.04 to 0.13 feet per day.



July 2010

2-4

2.4.2 Intermediate and Deep Soils

Intermediate and deep soil zones are believed to be native below the meadow mat, and arecharacterized by a general lack of COPR, Green-Gray Mud, and other man-made material.Interbedding of silt, clay, and sand generally describes the intermediate soils. With depth, grain-sizetends to increase and lenses of clay and coarser sands were observed. The bottom of the intermediatesoil is generally defined by a low permeability silt or clay zone that is fairly laterally extensive and isfound between 32 to 40 feet bgs. The thickness of the intermediate zone is approximately 20 feet andgenerally ranges from the bottom of the meadow mat to 40 feet bgs. The deep soil zone extends to thetop of the bedrock which increases with depth towards the south and east. Beneath Site 114, siltstended to be the predominate lithology of the deep soil zone. Aquifer testing was completed to estimatethe velocity of the intermediate aquifer soils at Site 114; a velocity of 0.03 feet per day is consideredrepresentative of these soils. To date, aquifer testing has not been completed for the deep zone aquifer,but given the soil characteristics, the velocity is expected to be greater than 0.26 feet per day.

2.4.3 Bedrock

Bedrock was encountered between 58 and 77 feet bgs inside the boundaries of Site 114, with shallowerbedrock observed on the western portion of the site, along Garfield Avenue. Bedrock is generallycharacterized by competent diabase, with a gradational contact and/or interfingering with the Lockatongand Stockton Formations which may exist near the site. The diabase consists of fine-grained dikes;medium to coarse grained intrusions of dark greenish-gray to black diabase. The diabase is dense,hard, and sparsely fractured.

Hydrogeologic properties of the diabase bedrock are not well-documented. Groundwater is extremelysparse and the dikes are variably fractured; therefore, the diabase is generally a poor aquifer. Thewater-bearing properties of the bedrock aquifer (i.e., storage capacity and transmissivity) are due tosecondary porosity and permeability, which is characterized by flow within fractures. The thickness ofwater-bearing zones is small, with estimates ranging from a few inches to 20 feet. Groundwateroccurrence and flow is controlled either by vertical or near-vertical fractures. Well yields range from afraction of a gallon per minute (gpm) to five to ten gpm, with yields generally decreasing with depth.Groundwater is found in unconfined to semi-confined conditions depending upon discontinuities in theoverlying meadow mat, the local extent of silty clay lenses in the intermediate and deep zones and thelocal extent of the till layer at the bedrock surface.

2.5 Hydrogeologic and Subsurface Infrastructure Factors on Groundwater FlowPatterns

2.5.1 Horizontal Flow

Groundwater elevation data in the shallow groundwater zone were used to define the groundwater flowdirections at Site 114. An evaluation of this data indicates that shallow flow is multi-directional and likelydriven by overburden heterogeneities, areal variations in recharge during rain events, preferentialpathways due to infrastructure, and sewer leaks within the shallow soils. Intermediate groundwater flowdirections are also multi-directional, but trend in general toward the south. Deep groundwater flowsuggests components of flow both to the south and southeast. The potentiometric surface of deepgroundwater drops drastically southeast of Halladay Street. This may be due to the sharp decline of thebedrock surface (all wells were set just above bedrock). These flow patterns appear to be generallyconsistent with the distribution of hexavalent chromium in groundwater. Due to the limited number of



July 2010

2-5

bedrock wells and the relative lack of interconnected fractures and flow zones, groundwater elevationcontouring of the bedrock zone was not evaluated.

In addition, the general extent of subsurface concrete slabs in the western portion of Site 114 wasconfirmed during the RI efforts through the compilation of auger and probe refusal data collected duringthis RI effort. The subsurface concrete slabs were predominantly identified on the 900 Garfield Avenueparcel and the 880 Garfield Avenue parcel (Lots 1 and 2A, respectively) at Site 114. Subsurfaceconcrete slabs were generally encountered between 1.5 and 9.0 feet below slab surface grade and/orpavement grade, where refusal was observed during drilling activities. Based on an evaluation of thisrefusal location data, refusal locations are consistent with the previously-estimated locations of theformer plant structures based on historic Sanborn maps. Furthermore, the presence of thesesubsurface slab features also effects shallow groundwater flow in the Site 114 area.

2.5.2 Vertical Flow

At Site 114, water levels are generally higher in shallow wells than in intermediate wells. At Site 114,water levels in deep wells are higher than intermediate wells. Water level differences betweengroundwater zones can be caused by: 1) presence of a geologic heterogeneity, such as a zone of verylow or very high permeability: 2) proximity to a recharge boundary, where groundwater would enter thesystem: 3) proximity to a discharge boundary, where groundwater would leave the system. At Site 114,the meadow mat, where present, acts as a geologic heterogeneity, which retards groundwater flow.

At Site 114, the data generally support the conclusion that the vertical gradient between the shallow andintermediate groundwater zones is downward. The absence of meadow mat in the northwest corner ofthe property provides a higher permeability conduit for increased downward groundwater flow.

At Site 114, the water levels are generally higher in deeper wells than in the intermediate. This wouldsupport a vertical gradient that is upward between the deep and intermediate zones. This effect is likelyto be a remnant of a former era, when this area was a regional hydrogeologic discharge zone to UpperNew York Bay. These upward gradients, coupled with the clay layer observed at depth would beexpected to impede the transport of groundwater toward bedrock.

2.5.3 Soil and Groundwater Contaminant Distribution Summary

The key factors which characterize chromium distribution and fate and transport at Site 114 can bedescribed by the following:

Horizontal and vertical distribution of total chromium and hexavalent chromium in soil is stronglycorrelated to the presence of waste materials (Green-Gray Mud, COPR, mixed fill).

Concentrations of hexavalent chromium in soil decrease with depth.

Average concentrations of total chromium and hexavalent chromium in samples collected fromwithin the meadow mat layer are significantly less than the Green-Gray Mud, COPR, and mixedfill, indicating that the absence of source material results in lower concentrations.

High concentrations of hexavalent chromium in shallow soils are the source of the highconcentrations of hexavalent chromium in shallow and intermediate zone groundwater.

Chromium in groundwater is typically present as hexavalent chromium at Site 114.



July 2010

2-6

The highest concentrations of hexavalent chromium in intermediate zone groundwater appear tobe located where the meadow mat is absent (in the northwestern portion of the site), along theformer Morris Canal.

As hexavalent chromium in groundwater migrated into the intermediate zone from the shallowzone it may have resorbed onto the intermediate zone soils and may now be desorbing backinto groundwater, thus the weakly bound hexavalent chromium in intermediate soils may act asa secondary source of hexavalent chromium to groundwater at Site 114.

Overall, the fate and transport of hexavalent chromium at Site 114 is a function of:

Location of source material;

Leaching of the hexavalent chromium from source material;

Horizontal migration of hexavalent chromium in the shallow, intermediate and deepgroundwater;

Vertical migration of hexavalent chromium where meadow mat is absent; and

Sorption and desorption of hexavalent chromium onto intermediate native soils, which then act as asecondary source to groundwater.



3-1

3.0 Goals for IRM#1

The IRM#1 activities described in this Work Plan were designed to achieve several goals within theIRM#1 Area of the Site. The goals and how they will be achieved are as follows:

IRM#1 will make progress toward site-wide clean-up by removing a significant volume ofchromium “source” materials from one of the most impacted areas at the Site. It is estimatedthat approximately 30,000 to 50,000 tons of impacted material and concrete debris will beremoved from the IRM#1 Area;

IRM#1 is expected to eliminate the seep expression along Garfield Avenue and therebyeliminate the need for the seep collection system. Contaminated materials in this area will beremoved and drainage improved.

In the process of conducting IRM#1, information will be obtained that will help in the design offuture remedial actions. Issues such as the best approach to shoring and dewatering will beevaluated during the IRM. Also, the IRM will provide data on production rates for the variousoperations. The rate of water recharge and methods to handle extracted water will be keyissues for future remedial actions. In IRM#1, groundwater recharge rates for large-scaleexcavation will be obtained. Furthermore, the contaminants levels and other parametersnecessary to determine the optimal disposal approach for extracted water will be obtained.

IRM#1 is also designed to create conditions suitable for future testing of in-situ soil andgroundwater treatment methods in the western portion of the IRM#1 Area. Removal of concreteand other debris in the IRM#1 Area will facilitate future drilling of injection wells in the westernportion, or deployment of soil mixing equipment (or future excavation) in the eastern portion.Also, IRM#1 includes a high permeability, low organic content, backfill in the western portion ofthe area that will facilitate future application of treatment solutions.

The area will be left in a stable and protective condition until future remedial actions areundertaken.

As discussed previously, IRM#1 is not intended to be the final remedial action at the Site or in theIRM#1. Additional remedial actions are planned as part of the overall Site remediation.



4-1

4.0 Sampling, Laboratory Analysis, and Data QualityObjectives

Waste classification and post-excavation soil sampling and analysis will be performed during fieldactivities and subsequent to IRM#1. Additional details on the specific sampling to be conducted forIRM#1 are provided in Section 6 and Section 8. Since the primary objective of IRM#1 activities is toremove surface slabs and buried foundations to facilitate source material removal and improve sitedrainage as well as to prepare the Site for subsequent IRM activities, laboratory analyses will be focusedon parameters that are required by the disposal facilities for acceptance of source material and concreteand other debris. All sampling will be performed in accordance with the FSP-QAPP.

For all soil sampling activities, visual classification of soil samples will be performed. Post-excavationbottom samples will be collected from within the IRM#1 area as indicated in Table 4-1. The approximatelocations of the IRM#1 post-excavation bottom samples are shown on Figure 6-2. In addition to post-excavation soil samples being collected from the IRM#1 area, field screening and analytical testing willbe conducted outside the IRM#1 limits as part of the IRMWP #2 and Feasibility Study (FS) activities.The anticipated field screening of sample locations from within the IRM#2 and FS areas are included inTable 4-1 and on Figure 6-2. Soils will be visually logged and field screened with a PhotoionizationDetector (PID) for VOCs. Other field screening to be conducted during FS activities may include: 1) testpit profiling, 2) physical screening for screen size, 3) visual screening for percent COPR, 4) XRFscreening for metals, and/or 5) calcium field screening with hydrochloric acid. Separate from post-excavation sampling and test pit field screening, waste classification samples will be collected inaccordance with the Stockpile Management Plan in Appendix F.

Soil and subsurface debris samples for laboratory analysis will be placed in pre-cleaned containers. Thecontainers will be clearly labeled with the same identification, depth, date of collection, and analysis tobe performed. Standard chain-of-custody procedures will be followed. In general, soil samples will beanalyzed for total chromium and hexavalent chromium (including Eh and pH), and waste classificationparameters as necessary. The anticipated IRM post-excavation and field screening, feasibility study,and waste classification sample parameters are shown in Table 4-1. The final list of waste classificationsample parameters will be dependent upon disposal facility selection.

Analysis of all samples will be performed by a NJ certified laboratory. Analyses will be performed inaccordance with EPA- and NJDEP-approved analytical protocols and the revised FSP-QAPP, whichwas submitted to NJDEP under separate cover. Quality assurance analytical measures will beimplemented in accordance with the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E;TRSR) and will comply with the requirements for a NJDEP-certified laboratory. Quality assurancesamples (field blanks, trip blanks and field duplicates) will be collected in accordance with the NJDEPField Sampling Procedures Manual (FSPM); however, quality assurance samples will not be required forwaste classification sampling activities.

In general, the validation of analytical data will be conducted using NJDEP validation StandardOperating Procedures (SOPs) as discussed in the FSP-QAPP. Guidelines will be adapted for SW-846methodologies where appropriate.



4-2

New Jersey Soil Remediation Standards (SRS), adopted June 2, 2008, pursuant to the RemediationStandards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D et. seq.), last amended November 4, 2009, will be utilized for soil delineationpurposes for non-chromium compounds. The most stringent (non-residential) chromium soil cleanupcriteria (CrSCC) of 20 mg/kg for hexavalent chromium, and the most stringent (residential) soil cleanupcriteria of 120,000 mg/kg for trivalent chromium, will be utilized for soil delineation purposes pursuant tothe Chromium Soil Cleanup Criteria (NJDEP, September 2008, last revised April 20, 2010).Groundwater results will be compared to the Ground Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9C), lastamended November 4, 2009. Development of site-specific Impact to Groundwater (IGW) and AllergicContact Dermatitis (ACD) standards for hexavalent chromium at the Site is being deferred, as NJDEPhas previously indicated was allowable at other Hudson County Chromium sites. Development of thesestandards will be addressed at a later date as part of Site wide remedial activities.



5-1

5.0 Permits

Prior to implementation of the IRM#1 activities, the following permits will be obtained:

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) approval from Hudson-Essex-Passaic SoilConservation District (HEPSCD).

Permits required by the City of Jersey City and/or Hudson County will be obtained prior toinitiation of IRM activities. These permits may include, but are not limited to: building permit (forelectrical power to air monitoring stations), zoning department approval for large excavations,and temporary sidewalk/road closure.

Well abandonment permits for removal of wells in the target area.

New Jersey One-Call will be contacted prior to any intrusive actives to assure that buried utilitiesare marked to the property line. In addition, a private utility location/geophysical contractor willbe contacted to locate possible buried utilities within the boundaries of the IRM. Anyabandonment of on-site utilities will be coordinated with the appropriate utility companies andthe City of Jersey City.

Treatment Works Approval for groundwater storage tanks and/or for discharge to storm sewers.

The SESCP, Well Abandonment, and Treatment Works Approval are discussed in more detail below inSection 5.1 through Section 5.3. Requirements of some of these permits and activities, and progress todate obtaining the permits are discussed in subsequent sections. Additionally, a Water Use Registrationapplication has been submitted to the NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation due to the anticipatedcombined capacity to pump groundwater at a rate equal or greater than 70 gallons per minute (gpm)during remedial activities.

5.1 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP)

The site work will disturb an estimated 90,172 square feet of land in IRM#1. The IRM#1 Area consistsmostly of concrete pavement and gravel. Vegetation is minimal. A SESCP has been developed toassure that silt laden runoff is not transported outside the IRM#1 Area. A revised SESCP was submittedto the Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District (HEPSCD) on March 19, 2010 and wasapproved by the HEPSCD on April 14, 2010. A copy of the approved SESCP is provided in AppendixH.

5.2 Well Abandonment/Decommissioning

Due to the ground disturbances associated with the demolition and excavation activities, it is necessaryto abandon all shallow wells within the confines of the area of disturbance in accordance with N.J.A.C.7:9D prior to the start of work. Deeper wells will be saved, if possible. The following intermediate anddeep monitoring wells will remain in place: MW-6C, MW-6D, MW-9B, MW-9C, and MW-11B.

Figure 5-1 depicts the locations of the wells that were recently abandoned in preparation of IRMactivities. Table 5-1 provides a complete list of all of the wells that were abandoned during the well



5-2

decommissioning activities performed on April 8 and 9, 2010. All remaining wells will be protected to theextent possible during remedial activities.

All decommissioning activities were conducted in accordance to New Jersey Administrative Code(N.J.A.C.) 7:9D by a New Jersey licensed driller, East Coast Drilling Inc. All wells were abandoned inplace; no wells were removed from the site. The well decommissioning field work at Site 114 wasconducted under the supervision of an AECOM representative and according to the PPG ProgramHealth and Safety protocols. A site walk was conducted prior to any intrusive activities to identify thewells to be abandoned. During the site walk, two wells (D-1 and PZ-8) were found to be previouslyabandoned from other site activities.

The majority of the decommissioned shallow wells were all located within the IRM #1 and IRM #2 areas.Since these areas are anticipated to be excavated to below the upper level of the s creened interval ofthe w ells, all wells loca ted w ithin this s hallow aquifer zone w ere requ ired to be prope rlydecommissioned. Wells WW-1, WW-2, WW-3, WW-4, PPG-114-2A, and PPG-114-2B located betweenGarfield Avenue and the west side of the 900 Garfield Avenue foundation (see Figure 5-1) are within anarea where shoring will be installed. These wells were decommissioned due to the potential for damageduring t he insta llation o f the s horing ass ociated w ith IRM#1 ac tivities. The sha llow wells locatedadjacent t o the IR M#1 and IR M#2 ar eas ( SW-1 and SW-3) were also deco mmissioned due to t hepotential for damage during the excavation. T he piezometers located on Dakota Street (PZ-3, and PZ-4) were damaged beyond repair as a result of snow removal activities this past winter. The damage tothe wells is also attributable to weekly tanker load out activities (for the seep collection system). B othwells required proper decommissioning. Piezometer PZ-3 could not be located. The protective casingand concrete pad associated with PZ-3 was found to be completely dislocated from the casing of PZ-3.An attempt was made to expose the casing of PZ-3 by hand digging to approximately two feet in depthat the location where the protective casing concrete pad was previously installed; however, the well wasunable to be not found. The hole was then grouted to the surface by the driller.

During the decommissioning activities, the depth to bottom of the wells were verified with an water levelindicator to confirm the well identification and to compare the a ctual depth to the depth shown on t heconstruction r ecords. Well abandonment repo rts for the de commissioned per mitted we lls (w ith t heexception of PZ-3 because the well was not found) have been completed and filed with the Bureau ofWater Systems and W ell Permitting by t he driller. Copies of the Well Abandonment Reports areincluded herewith in Appendix I. T he unpermitted piezometers (see Table 5-1 below) were used forgroundwater gauging purposes only and do not require an abandonment report from the driller.



5-3

Table 5-1 Well Decommissioning

Well ID Well PermitNumber

OriginalWell Depth

(ft)

ActualWell Depth

(ft)*

ScreenInterval

Depth (ft)

Well Type WellDiameter

(in)PPG-7-P1 26-00071-097 10 9.5 5 to 10 Flush 8PPG-114-2A 26-00069-765 10 10.2 5 to 10 Flush 2PPG-114-2B 26-00069-769 26 24.6 16 to 26 Flush 2PPG-114-6A 26-00069-767 15 14.0 5 to 15 Flush 2PPG-114-6B 26-00069-776 31 31.85 21 to 31 Flush 2PPG-114-9A 26-00076-991 17 17.0 3 to 17 Flush 2PPG-114-11A 26-00076-988 16 16.4 4 to 16 Flush 2PZ-3 26-00076-981 16 NG 1 to 16 Flush ¾PZ-4 26-00077-982 16.5 14.4 1.5 to 16.5 Flush ¾PZ-5 26-00077-019 18 17.3 13 to 18 Flush ¾PZ-6 26-00077-020 18 17.6 13 to 18 Flush ¾PZ-7 26-00077-021 17 16.4 7 to 17 Flush ¾PZ-9 26-00077-023 15 13.55 10 to 15 Flush ¾PZ-10 26-00077-024 19 15.3 14 to 19 Flush ¾PZ-11 26-00077-025 18 17.4 13 to 18 Flush ¾PZ-12 26-00077-026 18 16.65 13 to 18 Flush ¾PZ-13 26-00077-017 17 14.45 12 to 17 Flush ¾PZ-14 26-00077-018 20 17.7 15 to 20 Flush ¾EW-1 NA 13.5 8.0 10.5 to 13.5 Flush ¾EW-2 NA 16.3 3.65 10.5 to 13.5 Flush ¾F-1 NA 16.5 6.45 10.5 to 16.5 Flush ¾F-2 NA 16 6.65 10.5 to 16.0 Flush ¾F-3 NA 16 6.4 10.5 to 16.0 Flush ¾F-4 NA 16.2 5.35 10.5 to 16.0 Flush ¾F-5 NA 16.1 6.6 10.5 to 16.1 Flush ¾F-6 NA 16.2 6.7 10.5 to 16.1 Flush ¾F-7 NA 16.2 7.0 10.5 to 16.2 Flush ¾SW-1 NA 13 6.0 10.5 to 13 Stick-up ¾SW-2 NA 16.1 6.7 10.5 to 16.1 Flush ¾SW-3 NA 15.8 4.35 10.5 to 15.8 Stick-up ¾SW-4 NA 16.1 6.7 10.5 to 16.1 Flush ¾WW-1 NA 4 7.8 1 to 4 Stick-up ¾WW-2 NA 4 7.9 1 to 4 Stick-up ¾WW-3 NA 5 5.5 1 to 4 Flush ¾WW-4 NA 10.8 9.5 9 to 10.8 Stick-up ¾NW-1 NA 15.9 6.4 10.5 to 15.9 Flush ¾NW-2 NA 16.2 7.0 10.5 to 16.2 Flush ¾NW-3 NA 14.3 5.4 10.5 to 14.3 Flush ¾NW-4 NA 16.1 5.95 10.5 to 16.1 Flush ¾

NA – These wells were non-permitted wells and were used for groundwater gauging purposes only.NG – Not gauged due to well damage.* - Depth of well measured on date of well decommissioning.



5-4

5.3 Treatment Works Approval

AECOM has submitted a General Industrial Treatment Works Approval application to NJDEP for reviewand approval for proposed holding tanks to collect dewater related to proposed remedial activities at880-900 Garfield Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. The Treatment Works Approval application wassubmitted as required for holding tanks used to store construction water that will be disposed of off-siteat a rate greater than 8,000 gallons per day. Seven (7) 21,000-gallon tanks are proposed for theremediation project. The holding tanks will temporarily contain construction water (groundwater fromdewatering activities during excavation, storm water that contacts and accumulates within the excavationtrenches, and washdown water utilized for construction vehicles).

The stored construction water will be transported to one of three receiving facilities via tanker truck:

DuPont Secure Environmental Treatment facility located in Deepwater, New Jersey; Envirite facility located in York, Pennsylvania; or Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission facility located in Newark, New Jersey.

The receiving facility will be determined by the concentrations of pollutants, particularly hexavalentchromium in the construction water as determined via laboratory analysis. The concentrations areexpected to fluctuate through the remediation period.



6-1

6.0 Construction Activities

6.1 Site Preparation and Mobilization

Prior to intrusive activities, Site preparation tasks will include installing SESCP measures, setting-up Sitetrailers, sanitary facilities, implementing proactive dust control components, construction of stockpile andwash water containment areas, construction of truck wash and decontamination pads, and mobilizingexcavation equipment to the Site. New utility service is expected to be limited to electrical service for airmonitoring stations and construction trailers. The Site is currently secured with a perimeter chain linkfence. A security guard is currently and will continue to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week duringIRM#1 activities.

The conceptual Site layout including locations of soil stockpile areas, soil loading areas, and trackingpads is provided as Figure 3-2. Truck routes within the site will be paved prior to the start of excavationand loading work. The final arrangement of these features may be slightly modified in the field by theexcavation contractor, who has not yet been selected. Upon selection of the contractor, additionaltechnical specifications, operation plans, health and safety plans, and related documents pertaining toIRM activities will be forwarded to NJDEP.

6.2 Dust Control, Health and Safety Plan and Air Monitoring Plan

Air monitoring and dust control measures and protocols will be in use prior to commencement ofexcavating the perimeter for installing the sheet piling and for the duration of intrusive activities (seeAppendices B, C and D, for the Health and Safety Plan, Dust Control Plan and Air Monitoring Plan,respectively).

6.3 Well Protection

As discussed in Section 5, several wells need to be abandoned prior to implementation of IRMactivities. It is anticipated that the following wells will remain in place and will therefore require protectionwithin the IRM excavation area: MW-6B, MW-6C, MW-6D, MW-9B, and MW-9C. MW-11B, locatedwithin the proposed IRM#2 Area, will also be protected. Prior to construction activities, these will becircled with high visibility spray paint and marked with a high visibility signpost. The field engineer willclosely supervise excavation activities to ensure excavator operator care is taken not to impact the wellswhile excavating near and around the wells. The field engineer will determine whether any well requiressupport, removal or other action (e.g., cut casing down to grade, or abandonment) and appropriatepermits will be secured and actions taken as necessary.

If a well filter pack is comprised in any way, the well will be properly abandoned. A well will not be savedif the excavation proceeds to a depth where the screen is exposed or if the well casement is damaged.At the conclusion of the IRM, protected wells will be restored, and fitted with new protective casing ifneeded (flush mount or riser type) and locking cap.



6-2

6.4 Site Truck Routes

The construction contractor will follow the Traffic Safety and Control Plan in Appendix E, which detailstruck routes, waiting areas, and other aspects of the transportation of impacted soil. Access to the Sitewill be via the gate on Carteret Avenue. Prior to intrusive activities, all proposed truck routes on-site willbe re-paved with asphalt. The Site truck routes will be maintained, as needed, to provide easy access tothe project area and to reduce tracking of soil out of the excavation area.

A stone-lined anti-tracking pad will be installed near the excavation area. The pad will be constructed ofa 12-inch-thick layer of clean crushed stone. The anti-tracking pad, in combination with truck washingareas, will be used for decontamination of construction equipment leaving the exclusion zone and toprevent the tracking of soils off Site. Inspection and cleaning of trucks is discussed in the Dust ControlPlan (DCP) provided in Appendix C.

6.5 Soil and Sediment Erosion Control

A Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) has been developed in accordance with the Hudson-Essex and Passaic County Soil Conservation District (SCD) requirements and the Standards for SoilErosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. The SESCP includes the necessary drawings, details,and notes for the soil erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented for the proposedIRM activities. A copy of the conceptual approved SESCP is provided in Appendix H for reference.

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to and during constructionactivities. Silt fencing or hay bales secured with rebar will be installed along the materials stockpile areaor where construction activities will occur and will remain in-place during construction activities and untilthe IRM area has been adequately restored.

6.6 Buried Utilities Location and Handling

New Jersey One Call will be contacted for the required utility mark-out to the property line and a privateutility location contractor will be contacted for utility location on-site in the areas of the IRM. If necessary,a geophysical investigation will be performed on-site to identify buried utilities in the excavation area.The locations of utilities will be clearly marked in the field to avoid damage, and to prepare for theirremoval or relocation, if located within the proposed excavation area. In addition to contacting NewJersey One Call and private contractors, previous drawings and investigations will be used to identifyburied utilities, to the extent practical, prior to excavation. Additional information on underground utilitiescan be found in AECOM’s SH&E SOP No. 726 Identifying Underground Installations is provided asAppendix G.

Additional measures to address utilities beyond New Jersey One Call will also be implemented. The siteengineer will discuss the project directly with the Jersey City water department, the local gas company,the local electrical company and other applicable utility companies. If possible, the engineer will meetthe utility companies on-site to discuss the project before starting. The water department and otherutilities will be asked to verify that service is terminated on the Site and to provide locations for thetermination points (valve in the road for example). The on-site engineer will have all utility phonenumbers readily available before the start of construction. The utilities will be contacted to confirmrequirements for sealing abandoned lines on-site. The on-site engineer will be familiar with typical utilitypipe types (materials, diameters) used in the area. As buried utilities are encountered, work will stopuntil a determination can be made whether the utility is active or inactive. If a utility may still be active,the appropriate utility will be contacted to inspect it and advise the course of actions. Techniques for



6-3

identification of active versus inactive utilities may be developed by the site engineer in consultation withthe utility companies. Copies of sewer and water utility maps have been obtained from the Jersey CityMunicipal Utilities Authority (JCMUA). AECOM has also obtained a Schoor DePalma remedialinvestigation report figure that depicts the sewer, water and gas lines for the former Halladay Street GasWorks, to supplement AECOM’s compiled utility map for the Site. Electronic copies of these maps havebeen provided to NJDEP under separate cover.

6.7 Perimeter Excavation and Excavation Shoring

Excavation shoring is required along Garfield Avenue and where deeper excavation is required. Shoringhas been proposed for two primary reasons: to maintain structural stability of Garfield Avenue and theexcavation, and to minimize groundwater infiltration. The anticipated depth of the excavation, the soiltypes anticipated to be encountered, and the proximity of the excavation to an active road requires thatshoring be utilized. A shoring/geotechnical plan will be developed and certified by a ProfessionalEngineer registered in New Jersey and will be submitted to NJDEP prior to shoring installation. Thisengineer will determine the safe distance for sheet pile driving along Garfield Avenue. Notification willbe provided to local authorities, as necessary, prior to commencement of IRM field activities.

The western perimeter of the IRM work area will first be excavated to a depth of approximately five feet.During this initial excavation, care will be taken to quickly identify and minimize damage to any utilities.No active utilities (other than gravity storm drains and possibly abandoned gravity sanitary lines) areknown to exist in the proposed work areas. Abandoned utilities that may be encountered will be cut andsealed with concrete, and handled as described in the preceding section. As necessary, coordinationwith local utility companies and the City of Jersey City will be conducted during utility abandonment.Other area utility owners will be contacted in advance of remedial activities for their procedures. The siteengineer will keep a record of utilities that are encountered as they enter the Site along Garfield Avenue.This will facilitate identifying these same utility lines as they are encountered further into the Site.

The shoring along Garfield Avenue will likely consist of a cantilevered system. For the deeperexcavation in the former canal area, the shoring may need to be driven to bedrock (about 60-70 feetbgs). The final shoring design will take these considerations into account. Other shoring systems suchas trench boxes or slide rail systems may also be deployed where required. It is anticipated that theexcavation strategy will be executed such that an area no larger than 30 feet by 30 feet in size will beopen at any one time to minimize dewatering efforts.

Materials excavated to prepare for shoring will be managed and disposed, as discussed in Section 8.

6.8 Demolition of Concrete Slabs

The contractor will use hydraulic jackhammer mounted on the excavator or other means to break-up theconcrete slabs. Concrete will be broken down to a size suitable for transport and acceptance at thedisposal facility (typically less than 3 feet). Cutting of rebar, if present, may also be needed. Dustcontrol measures will be implemented and dust closely monitored. The site engineer will stop work andrequire changes in approach if dust generation is not adequately controlled. The specific measures andaction levels identified in the Dust Control Plan and the Air Monitoring Plan will be followed.

The contractor will likely choose to break-up all the surface concrete in one pass. Concrete and asphaltmaterials will be segregated and either placed in roll-off containers or stockpiles pending wasteclassification for off-Site disposal or live loaded. These materials will be disposed of as demolition, non-



6-4

hazardous, or hazardous wastes depending upon waste classification sampling results andrequirements of the disposal facility. In addition to breaking the concrete down to acceptable size, cakedon soil will be scraped off prior to loading.

6.9 Dewatering

Excavation work is expected to extend an estimated 2 to 15 feet below the water table. To minimize theneed for managing saturated soils and to allow for better visual examination of the pit bottom,dewatering will be conducted during excavation activities. The existing sump collection system may beutilized during initial excavation work, and alternate sumps will be maintained in this area for the durationof the IRM to ensure that the potential for seep expression on Garfield Avenue is minimized. Howeverthe sump collection system as it is now configured will be removed during the IRM to simplify excavationactivities. At the conclusion of the IRM activities, the sump collection system will be re-installed if it is stillrequired to maintain hydraulic control in this area.

Additional temporary sumps will also be installed in or near the excavation as needed. Dewateringdirectly from the excavation pit is also anticipated. Once the targeted bottom depth of the excavationhas been reached and samples collected, the site engineer may decide to let the excavation fill backwith water while waiting for the laboratory results. Excavated areas will be dewatered again prior toplacement of backfill. All water removed during dewatering will be temporarily stored on-site in 21,000gallon frac tanks.

6.10 Treatment and Disposal Option for Extracted Water

A groundwater extraction test at the proposed IRM#1 Area was conducted to assist in the final design ofthe dewatering and water treatment systems. Based upon the results of the extraction test, the pumpingrate required to dewater the excavation is expected to vary from 3 to 21 gallons per minute dependingon depth of excavation below the water table and time of year the work occurs. Treatment evaluations,dewatering calculations and extraction test information (boring logs, construction logs, well permits,Form Bs, analytical results, water level data and pumping flow rates) are attached in Appendix A.

Bench scale treatability testing of site groundwater was also performed to evaluate whether pretreatmentof water removed from the excavation area may be feasible. An evaluation of treatment and disposaloptions follows:

Treat on-site and discharge to surface water: There is no nearby surface water or sewerdischarging to surface water. This option is not viable.

Untreated discharge to local combined sewer system (Passaic Valley SewerageCommissioners [PVSC]): Raw water expected to exceed discharge limits for chromium, pH, andpossibly other parameters. This option is not viable.

Pre-treat on-site and discharge to a combined sewer system: The chemistry requirements ofPVSC may be lower than achievable treatment goals. Cost and timing to permit, construct, andoperate plant are still being evaluated to see if this is a viable option for the IRM area.

Pre-treat on-site and store for off-Site disposal: If the combined sewer system cannot acceptdischarges, raw water could be treated and stored for off-Site disposal to reduce disposal costs.Cost and timing to permit, construct, and operate plant are still being evaluated to see if this is aviable option for the IRM area.



6-5

Off-Site Treatment and Disposal: Water from sump collection system already beingtreated/disposed of off-Site. This option is currently the most viable and will be used if the pre-treatment options are not cost effective or feasible for the IRM area. Because discharge to thecombined sewer system is prohibited during rain events (and up to 24 hrs following), thismethod will likely be the primary option for treatment/discharge of dewater during rain eventsregardless of the outcome of the pretreatment study.

Discharge of treated water to the city sewers would require approval from the City of Jersey City andPVSC. The type of approval would depend on several factors including the flow rate of the discharge.By keeping the flow rate less than 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) a full Sewer Use Permit would not berequired, and only a Temporary Permit or Letter of Authorization would suffice. Obtaining a full SewerUse Permit would require more time and is less certain to be approved compared to a Temporary Permitor Letter of Authorization. If this option is selected, any flow generated beyond 25,000 gpd would becollected and treated/disposed of off-Site.

Off-Site disposal could be easily implemented, however, the cost may be prohibitive. Thus, if obtainingthe necessary discharge permits is not possible or if on-site treatment proves infeasible, extractedgroundwater will be sent off-site for disposal.

6.11 Excavation Protocols, Field Screening, Sampling and Analysis

Surface soil and buried foundations will be excavated once the groundwater table has been depressedto an acceptable level. Buried concrete slabs and foundations will be removed and sized within thelimits of the excavation. Materials may be stockpiled in the designated area as shown in Figure 3-2 ifdirect loading is not practical. Handling and disposal of debris is discussed in Section 8.

If required by the disposal facility, soil will be scraped or washed from the debris (metal, concrete, etc.),as needed, using a high pressure washer within a bermed area to control runoff. Washed debris will bestored in stockpiles, as needed. Soil removed from debris will be transferred from the bermedcontainment area to a soil stockpile or drummed for disposal. Water used in the removal process will bepumped from the bermed containment area, and transferred to on-site frac tanks for off-site disposal. Allwaste classification sampling, handling and disposal will be performed in accordance with Section 8 ofthis work plan. All waste management activities will be documented in the final IRM Report. Oncedisposal facilities have been selected, waste classification and sampling requirements for solids andliquids will be determined and provided to NJDEP.

Based on available soil data, the total excavation depth is expected to be, on average, approximately 10to 15 feet bgs along the western portion of IRM#1 and extending to approximately 20 feet bgs along theeastern portion of the excavation where the former Morris Canal is located. The excavation progress willbe closely monitored by a remediation engineer or geologist.

While not expected, in the event a significant meadow mat layer (¾- to 1-foot thick, more than 20 by 20feet) is encountered in the former Morris Canal location, excavation activities will be halted as to notdisturb the meadow mat layer. When the meadow mat layer is encountered, the excavator operator willbe instructed to carefully peel back a small patch of the meadow mat with the excavator bucket teeth. Ifthe meadow mat is continuous (greater than 3/4- to 1-foot thickness), the excavator bucket will be usedto level off the disturbed area and no deeper excavation will occur in this area. Typically each 30-foot by30-foot grid area will be tested. If the meadow mat layer does not exceed ¾- to 1-foot in thickness, then



6-6

the excavation will continue at that location until all apparent Green-Gray Mud is excavated. Dewateringwill be conducted to allow visual inspection of the excavation bottom.

Approximately 30,000 to 50,000 tons of material will be excavated during IRM mass removal activities.Excavation limits will be surveyed following the completion of the excavation to document theremediated areas. Soil sampling locations will also be included in the survey. Receiving facility weighttickets will be used to document the quantity of soil disposed. The objectives of the western and easternportions of the IRM#1 Area are presented below. Figure 3-1 depicts the approximate lateral extents ofthe western and eastern portions of the IRM Area and Figure 3-3 depicts the approximately verticalextent of the IRM #1 excavation area (approximate average depth of 15 feet bgs).

6.11.1 Western Portion of IRM#1 Area

The excavation will proceed in a systematic way. One approach would be to conduct the excavationand backfilling in approximately 30-foot wide strips (Figure 3-2) provides a conceptual depiction of thisstrategy). The actual excavation sequence will be determined by the construction contractor. For thewestern half of the IRM#1, several criteria will be considered in determining the final excavation depth ineach grid. First, excavation will continue until all concrete, utilities and debris are removed. Second,excavation will continue until all visually obvious chromium impacted materials (COPR and Green-GrayMud) are removed. The excavation depth will be closely monitored by both the site engineer andexcavator operator to assure that digging stops if meadow mat is encountered. If the meadow mat hasnot been reached and the pit bottom appears free of chromium impacted materials, the engineer mayelect to complete test pits to assure there is no underlying chromium source materials or debris. Oncethe visibly obvious chromium materials are removed, pit bottom samples will be collected for laboratoryanalysis.

A preliminary goal for pit bottom results proposed for this IRM is 500-1,000 mg/kg hexavalent chromium.There is a reasonable expectation that the subsequent in-situ treatment will be effective for this level ofresidual hexavalent chromium. Thus, leaving behind this level of hexavalent chromium establishesconditions for a realistic test of in-situ treatment.

The excavation bottom will be below the water table therefore a key issue will be the potential forleaching to groundwater. Direct contact with the soils at a depth of 15-feet or more bgs will be unlikely.Saturated soils below the water table that do not contain primary source material (Green-Gray Mud orCOPR) but do contain elevated levels of hexavalent chromium are a potential secondary source for soilimpacts to groundwater. AECOM understands that groundwater leachablity criteria are typically appliedto soils above the water table. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) sampling isdiscussed in the FS Work Plan developed for Site 114 that is being evaluated for use in determining theachievement of groundwater goals.

In the western portion of the IRM#1 area, up to 50 excavation bottom soil samples will be collected on a30-ft by 30-ft grid as depicted on Figure 6-2. Excavation bottom samples will be collected followingprocedures detailed in the FSP-QAPP and, as depicted in Table 4-1, all excavation bottom samples willbe field screened (as discussed in the Field Screening section) and analyzed for total and hexavalentchromium (including Eh and pH). At least 10% of these samples will also be analyzed for Target AnalyteList (TAL) metals, VOC and SVOC. In the western portion, once laboratory results from an excavationbottom sample results confirm that hexavalent chromium levels are within or below the range of 500-1,000 ppm, the grid will be backfilled. If hexavalent chromium concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg,additional excavation will be conducted and the pit bottoms resampled until results meet the objectives.



6-7

A map of sample results, tied to surveyed points, will be prepared once all objectives are met. The mapof pit bottom results will be helpful in determining the effectiveness of subsequent in-situ treatments.

6.11.2 Eastern Portion of IRM#1 Area

One criterion in determining the final excavation depth for the eastern portion of the IRM#1 is similar tothe western portion of IRM#1 in that the excavation will continue until all concrete, utilities and debris areremoved. Second, only the most impacted material, Green-Gray Mud, will be targeted for excavationand removal in this area in addition to the subsurface debris. Some COPR material and other soil withconcentrations above cleanup criteria will remain in place. These remaining materials will be remediatedas part of future feasibility study activities (as part of a FSWP) or mass removal actions (as part of aRAWP). Following IRM#1, the eastern portion will provide a location for possible testing of in-situ or ex-situ treatment under more difficult conditions (presence of COPR) compared to the western section.

In the eastern portion of the IRM#1 area (and in the IRM#2 area, as depicted in the IRM#2WP), a pre-excavation soil sampling program has been developed on a 50-ft by 50-ft grid as depicted on Figure 6-2. Test pits will be excavated at each location and the presence of COPR and Green-Gray Mud will benoted in a test pit log based on visual inspection, and field screening will be performed (as discussed inthe Field Screening section). Examples of COPR and Green-Gray Mud will be retained on-site for visualcomparisons and to assure consistent reporting of soil types. Samples from each grid node will becollected in five gallon buckets. Typically three samples will be collected from each grid node (onesample from 0-5 feet bgs, one sample from 5-10 feet bgs, and one sample from 10-15 feet bgs). Atleast 10% of these samples will also be laboratory analyzed for hexavalent chromium, TAL metals, VOCand SVOC, as depicted in Table 4-1.

6.11.3 Field Screening

All sampling performed in the IRM#1 and #2 areas will undergo field screening which will include:

Screening with an XRF or other field instrument: This equipment can provide real-timemeasurements of total chromium in soil samples. While XRF cannot distinguish betweenhexavalent and trivalent chromium, elevated total chromium levels will provide an indication ofthe potential for higher levels of hexavalent chromium in the sample and can be helpful as a toolto identify if COPR or Green-Gray Mud is present.

Soil will be physically screened on-site. Varying screen sizes will be used to determine therelative proportions of soil in various size distribution ranges between 1 inch and a No. 200sieves. Prior to sieve analysis, soils will be weighed. The nodules are slightly magnetic. If aftersieve analysis, COPR nodules are present, the nodules will be tested for response to themagnet. A percent by weight calculation of the nodules in the sample will be performed.

Soil will be tested for calcium: High levels of calcium (percent levels) would be expected inGreen-Gray Mud and possibly COPR. The XRF may provide an estimation of calcium content.Spot treatment with a drop of hydrochloric acid may also be used to assess the presence ofcalcium.



6-8

6.12 Loading and Disposal

Excavated materials will be segregated according to visual observations and material type, and direct-loaded into trucks for off-Site hazardous disposal, or placed in stockpiles on-site for later classificationand removal. The overall waste management strategy is discussed in Section 8. Soil which is too wetfor immediate shipment will be placed in a dewatering area or dry cell within the excavation boundaries.Any water draining from saturated soils will either drain into the excavation, or will be transferred viapumps to on-site frac tanks pending disposal. Stabilizing agents will be utilized, if needed, prior toloading for transport. On-site stabilization may be needed for off-site transportation of soil to meet thepaint filter test to avoid transport issues and to assure acceptance of the material at the designateddisposal facility. A paint filter apparatus will be set-up on-site. Potential absorbent materials and otherdetails will be identified in the Contractors Technical Execution Plan. Soil in stockpiles will be visuallyobserved and tested using the paint filter test. If a stockpile fails the paint filter test, the absorbentmaterial will be blended with the soil on-site using an excavator bucket or similar means.

The typical stockpile design is provided in the SESCP. All stockpiles will include heavy duty plastic andtear resistant (fiber reinforced) bottom and top liners. All stockpiles will include berms for containment ofany water that drains from the soil. Stockpiles will be inspected at least three times a day and repairedas needed. At the end of each shift, all piles will be securely covered with a heavy duty plastic and tearresistant (fiber reinforced) liner and inspected. It is anticipated that the Contractor will stockpile soiladjacent to the excavation within the IRM area. These temporary soil stockpiles within the work area willbe within the IRM footprint and will be depleted (removed) as the contractor progresses through the IRMexcavation area. As the work progresses to the full extent of the IRM excavation area, the temporarystockpile area outside the IRM area will be used for both IRMs if needed.

Loading of excavated materials for disposal will be performed continuously during slab removal,excavation and backfilling activities. Trucks will be washed with a low pressure rinse and bed liners willbe installed in each truck upon entering the site. Wash water will be collected and routed to on-site fractanks for disposal. Trucks will then be carefully loaded in the designated loading area within theexclusion zone. Truck operators will not be allowed to leave their vehicle upon entering the exclusionzone. Once the trucks are filled, the liners will be closed by on-site personnel and each truck will beinspected and decontaminated prior to leaving the exclusion zone. Prior to leaving the Site, each truckwill again be washed with a low pressure rinse to remove any remaining soil from the truck. Soil washedfrom trucks and wash water will be collected in a truck washing area and routed to frac tanks or soilstockpiles for disposal. Soil and water will be sampled and shipped as appropriately waste classified.Applicable manifesting, licensing procedures, transportation requirements, and disposal requirementsunder RCRA will be followed. Once a disposal facility is selected, additional information regardinghandling, loading and transportation of wet soils will be submitted to NJDEP, in order to demonstratehow the methods used for saturated soil will meet regulatory and disposal facility requirements.

At an excavation rate of approximately 500 tons per day, it is expected that the project will requireapproximately 120 working days to complete. The excavation rate may be increased if dust controlmeasures are effective in keeping dust below action levels. This excavation duration assumes utilizingtwo excavators and one front end loader. The excavation strategy using approximately 30-foot strips willminimize the open area and exposure potential. It is anticipated that the excavation strategy will beexecuted such that an area no larger than 30 feet by 30 feet in size will be open at any one time tominimize dewatering efforts. It is expected that each strip will be completed prior to work on the nextstrip.



6-9

6.13 Backfilling and Grading

For the western portion of the IRM#1, when excavation activities are complete at each strip, apermeable geotextile marker will be placed on the floor of the excavation, and clean fill from an off-sitesupplier will be placed and compacted in layers. Documentation will be submitted to NJDEP regardingthe source and the physical properties of the backfill and to confirm that the material is notcontaminated. The backfill will be durable gravel with no organics or similar material. Backfill will becompacted to a minimum 90% proctor density. Dewatering will continue as necessary, until thebackfilling is completed.

Backfill shall not include debris, roots, or organic matter and the largest particle size shall be less than 3inches. The percentage of fines (less than 200 micron) shall be less than 5%. The backfill will beplaced in lifts and compacted as appropriate. It is estimated that 20,000 cubic yards (in-place) of backfillwill be placed utilizing an excavator, a grader, and a compactor.

The non-porous nature and lack of organic materials in the backfill provides little potential for thematerial itself to become recontaminated due to impacted groundwater intrusion subsequent to the IRMcompletion. Regardless, backfill used during IRM activities may need to be resampled, reevaluated andaddressed if necessary during site-wide remediation activities. The backfill materials will be included ina post-remedial action sampling plan as part of full scale site remediation.

The backfill materials proposed for the western portion of IRM#1 are based on the anticipated futuredevelopment of the site. The selected backfill materials for the excavation are appropriate fordevelopment of building foundations or other construction, as the material can be easily excavated,stockpiled and reused as the future development of the site. Additionally, the minimal fines and loworganic content of the backfill material limits recontamination of backfill by limiting absorption/adsorptionsurface and the increase permeability provides ideal conditions for treating groundwater via in-situchemical injection, if necessary. However, any clean backfill used during IRM activities may beresampled, reevaluated and addressed if necessary during future site-wide remediation activities.

Under later phases of remediation at Site 114, following completion of the Feasibility Study field testingand final technology selection, remaining soil and groundwater impacts within the eastern portion ofIRM#1 will be addressed. Accordingly, to consolidate and manage soils other than Green-Gray Mud tobe removed from the western portion under IRM #1, other soils excavated from the western portion willbe used to grade/backfill areas on the eastern portion where Green-Gray Mud will be removed for offsitedisposal.

The entire IRM area will be completed by installing a geotextile layer, then a graded top soil cover, andhydroseeding. To minimize run-off and the potential for the seep along Garfield Avenue fromreappearing, the IRM#1 will have a gradual slope toward the center of the Site (away from GarfieldAvenue). The area will be covered in grass until subsequent remediation phases are conducted. Theproposed surface finish is shown in Figure 6-1.

6.14 Excavation Demobilization

Following completion of excavation and backfilling activities, the dewatering sumps in the IRM area maybe deactivated and removed. However, depending on their possible utility during potential future IRMactivities or need to continue hydraulic control over the seep expression, the sumps may be left in place.Equipment will be decontaminated in designated areas. Any soil and/or water produced during



6-10

decontamination activities will be stored on-site in appropriate containers for future disposal, or asotherwise described in Section 8. Water storage tanks will be decontaminated following completion ofall other decontamination activities and will be removed from the site, unless maintained on-site forpossible future use to support potential future IRM work or other future remediation at the site. Sheetpiling will be left in place for future remedial activities.

Stockpile containment areas will be demolished and removed from the site. Containment areas will bedecontaminated, dismantled and loose materials will be disposed of off-site. Wash water from thecontainment areas will be pumped into on-site frac tanks for disposal following conclusion of IRM fieldactivities. Since stockpiles will be stored on layers of fiber reinforced liners located on either concrete orasphalt impervious caps, subsurface soil sampling will not be necessary. Any soil observed on theconcrete or asphalt cap that originated from a stockpile will be removed via pressure washer and/orvacuum and properly disposed. Following removal of soil stockpiles and decontamination of frac tanks,any remaining materials (soil, debris, or water) will be contained on-site in 55-gallon drums pendingdisposal or as otherwise described in Section 8.

Excavators, front end loaders, and any other on-site equipment utilized during excavation activities willbe decontaminated by high pressure water and/or steam prior to removal from the site. The trackingpad, decontamination areas, and site trailer will remain in place for use during future IRM activities. Allsoil, debris, and trash will be removed and disposed as described in Section 8. Any infrastructuredamaged on or off-site as a result of IRM activities will be returned to pre-existing conditions followingconclusion of field activities. Site features will be returned to pre-existing conditions following conclusionof all IRM field activities.

A survey of the IRM area will be conducted at the conclusion of remedial activities to develop “as-built”drawings as part of the IRM Report.



7-1

7.0 Other Related Program and Project Documents

PPG has prepared several documents specifically related to the scope of work addressed in this WorkPlan and related to PPG’s overall Jersey City Chromium Remediation Program. These documentsinclude a Health and Safety Plan (HASP), a Field Sampling Plan / Quality Assurance Program Plan(FSP-QAPP), an Air Monitoring Plan (AMP), a Dust Control Plan (DCP), a Traffic Safety and ControlPlan (TSCP), a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP), and a Stockpile Management Plan(SMP), as discussed in the following sections.

7.1 Health and Safety Plan

A site specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) is included as Appendix B. This document presentsprogram health and safety requirements and has been modified to specifically address activities to beperformed during the IRM. The HASP previously submitted to the NJDEP with the original IRMWP #1 isbeing revised to cover IRM and FS activities since these activities will be conducted concurrently.

The HASP establishes health and safety procedures for activities to be conducted at the site. Once anexcavation contractor has been selected and final construction and health and safety specifications havebeen determined, technical specifications and contractor health and safety information will be submittedto NJDEP as an addendum. Requirements such as training program protocols, medical surveillanceprogram, equipment maintenance programs, personal hygiene practices, and other requirements of anon-site specific nature are included in the HASP. The HASP has been and will continue to be updatedas needed to reflect new information, changes in site personnel, etc. Additional HASP(s) developed bythe excavation contractor for IRM field activities will be forwarded to NJDEP as an addendum.

7.2 Field Sampling-Quality Assurance Project Plan

The Field Sampling Plan / Quality Assurance Program Plan (FSP-QAPP) was submitted to NJDEP inMarch 2006, and a revised version was submitted in February 2010. NJDEP provided comments to theFebruary 2010 FSP-QAPP and a subsequent version of the document is currently being developed.The FSP-QAPP establishes the overall quality assurance objectives for the program, and documents thesampling and analytical procedures to be used in collecting and analyzing samples. It also sets forthprocedures for equipment decontamination, sample handling, sample chain-of-custody, and other QAprocedures, which will be standard throughout the program.

7.3 Air Monitoring and Control of Dust

In order to ensure that excavation and other intrusive activities do not pose an air quality hazard to off-site areas, robust air monitoring and dust control programs will be implemented. The program willconsist of perimeter fenceline monitoring prior to commencement of field activities to establish baselineconditions, and perimeter fenceline, exclusion zone, and personnel monitoring during the excavation.The Dust Control Plan is presented in Appendix C and an Air Monitoring Plan is presented at AppendixD. Each plan is described briefly below.



7-2

7.3.1 Air Monitoring Plan (AMP)

Eight air monitoring stations, four permanent and four mobile, will be set up around the perimeter of thesite and baseline air monitoring will be performed for five consecutive 24-hour periods preceding thestartup of planned IRM activities. The baseline air monitoring will be conducted not only to acquireinformation about the site air quality prior to commencement of any site activities, but also to ensure thatall equipment is in proper working order and “debugged.” The background monitoring will consist of thecollection of real-time perimeter air quality data and integrated sampling for total dust and hexavalentchromium (in dust). Integrated sampling for total dust and hexavalent chromium in dust will beconducted at all air monitoring station locations.

Specific dedicated equipment at each station will include equipment for collecting continuous totalparticulate readings, sampling ambient air for total dust and hexavalent chromium analysis, provideprogrammable alarms to alert site personnel of exceedances, radio telemetry equipment tocommunicate to on-site computers and pagers, and environmental enclosures to reduce the likelihood ofequipment damage from the elements. During IRM activities, continuous air quality monitoring andsampling will be conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. During onsite remedial activity periods, dailyand weekly reporting protocols will be established by the site managers with guidance from NJDEP andPPG. These weekly reports will be produced in electronic and/or hard copy formats (including potentialweb updates) to be determined by PPG with guidance from NJDEP. Reports depicting a summary ofthe air monitoring results will be provided on a minimum of a monthly basis. A summary of all airmonitoring and sampling data, including weather station and daily wind rose data, will also be providedas indicated in the AMP.

During intrusive site activities, the air monitoring program will include operation of perimeter fencelinestations, and ongoing monitoring in the work/exclusion zone via mobile units and portable handheld unitsfor worker protection. Work/exclusion zone air monitoring procedures are presented in the site specificHASP included as Appendix B. Air monitoring during site activities will occur for the duration of the sitework. A detailed Air Monitoring Plan is presented as Appendix D.

7.3.2 Dust Control Plan (DCP)

As most of the intrusive activities will occur below the water table, dusty conditions are not expected.However, initial surface excavation work, breaking up of concrete foundations, soil loading, backfilling,truck travel on-site, and the stockpiling of soils have the potential to generate dust. A site specific DustControl Plan (DCP) has been developed for the IRM activities (Appendix C) and includes the following:

Listing of potential dust sources from on-site activities (DCP Section 2);

Explanation of goals for the Dust Control Plan (DCP Section 3);

Description of equipment used for air/dust monitoring perimeter fenceline, exclusion zone, andpersonal monitoring within the exclusion zone (DCP Section 4);

Identification of proactive and responsive controls implemented for dust suppression (DCPSection 5);

Dust control application protocols for the excavation area, on-site transportation routes, andstockpiles (DCP Section 6); and



7-3

Dedicated dust control personnel will be in charge of inspecting all activities, directing any dustsuppression activities, monitor air monitoring/sampling equipment, and applying dustsuppression agents (DCP Section 7).

7.4 Traffic Safety and Control Plan

A Traffic Safety and Control Plan (TSCP) has been prepared for IRM and FS field work to assist in trafficcontrol, and motorist and community safety during the IRM trucking activities, and to facilitate earlydiscussion with stakeholders regarding the potential impact of IRM activities on local traffic and thecommunity. In addition, emergency responders will be informed and consulted regarding the location ofthe truck routes and safety measures described in this plan. The TSCP may be updated as necessaryand also used for future remedial activities at the Site. The TSCP is included as Appendix E.

The purpose of the TSCP plan is to provide a description of protocols to assist in traffic control andsafety during IRM activities at the Site. The TSCP includes specific information about truck travelroutes, truck operator certifications, and perimeter road signage associated with activities at and aroundthe Site during IRM activities. Included in the TSCP are sections describing truck safety measures,travel routes and tracking, truck operator requirements, and recordkeeping procedures.

7.5 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP)

The Site is relatively flat and is developed with asphalt, concrete, and/or processed gravel and poses nospecial concerns for the SESCP. The SESCP erosion control measures will be implemented prior tointrusive activities and will include measures such as hay bales, sediment fences, storm sewer inletprotection, equipment tracking pad, equipment decontamination pad and wash water collection system.In addition, should material unintentionally be deposited on paved surfaces on or off-Site, surfaces willbe vacuumed and/or pressure washed to remove potential for direct contact. Daily inspections ofroadways and sidewalks surrounding the site will be performed to ensure any spilled material is cleanedup expediently. Wash water will be collected and stored in on-site frac tanks for later disposal. The totalarea of disturbance is greater than one-half acre; therefore, a SESCP approval permit is required andhas been approved by the Soil Conservation District. A copy of the approved SESCP is provided asAppendix H.

7.6 Stockpile Management Plan

A Stockpile Management Plan (SMP) has been prepared for this field work to assist in segregatingconcrete for disposal and meet the requirements of respective disposal facilities. The concrete will besegregated into concrete and demolition (C&D) waste, non-hazardous contaminated concrete waste,and hazardous waste. The SMP is provided as Appendix F.



8-1

8.0 Waste Management Procedures

This section describes the material handling procedures to be followed during excavation activitiesassociated with this phase of the IRM. Specifically this section describes the procedures for theevaluation, handling, testing (if applicable) and final disposition of the soil, debris, waste material andgroundwater that may be encountered during these activities.

Construction activities associated with this phase of the IRM will include excavation with potentialdewatering and off-site disposal of soil and other materials. All materials excavated from the IRM areawill be classified as hazardous and disposed in appropriately permitted facilities.

8.1 Excavated Material Management

For the area to be excavated, the primary contaminant of concern will be chromium and hexavalentchromium. Low levels of volatile organics (VOCs) have also been detected in the IRM area; however,significant quantities of wastes and impacts from the former on-site manufactured gas plant (MGP) arenot anticipated in the IRM area. Nonetheless, visual examination of excavated soil and screening of theexcavation limits with a photoionization detector (PID) will be conducted. Should any PID readingsaround the excavation limits be observed above 100 ppm or obvious MGP odors are detected by on-sitepersonnel, the soil will be screened using the PID. If MGP waste is encountered and odor control isrequired, foam may be employed and applied directly to the soils. Stockpile covers will also reduce thepotential for MGP waste odor issues, if encountered. If soil screening reveals PID readings above 100ppm, the soil in question will be segregated within the soil stockpile area (shown in Figure 3-2),headspace readings collected, and soil samples collected for laboratory analysis in accordance withdisposal facility requirements.

Disposal facility sampling requirements will be forwarded to NJDEP upon selection of facilities as anaddendum to the IRMWP, prior to the commencement of IRM activities. The following procedures willbe implemented as part of the excavation process:

The management of excavated materials will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent thespread of contamination and/or contaminated materials. All work must be performed inaccordance with the approved Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP).

Soils and concrete/debris material will be stockpiled on the 880 Garfield Avenue slab, in theareas designated as temporary stockpile area in the Figure 3-2.

Visually impacted chromium contaminated materials (i.e. bright green chromium stainedmaterials, Green-Gray Mud and COPR) will be stockpiled separately from materials not showingvisual impairment.

Soils with visual or olfactory evidence petroleum contamination or with PID readings greaterthan 100 ppm will be segregated separately for further analysis.

Concrete/debris will be stockpiled separately as required by the disposal facilities. Excess soilswill be shaken from concrete/debris to the reasonable extent possible prior to stockpiling.

Detailed records of sampling activities and laboratory analyses will be maintained.



8-2

Sampling procedures will conform to the most recent guidance in N.J.A.C. 7:26E TechnicalRequirements for Site Remediation and the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual.

All wastes generated during the field operations at the Site will be handled as generally detailed in theNJDEP Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils (1998), and the FS-QAPP anddisposed of off-site as either non-hazardous or hazardous waste. Wastes that will be generated includeexcavated soils, concrete and debris, contaminated clothing, decontamination fluids, purge water,dewatering liquids, and general garbage. Solids such as well abandonment cuttings anddecontamination solids will be containerized in USDOT approved 55-gallon drums or stockpiled fordisposal off-site. All drums will be stored on-site in the stockpile area shown on Figure 3-2. Wastecharacterization sampling will be performed as required by the disposal facility.

Excavated materials will be staged in the designated stockpile area, as depicted on Figure 3-2.Dewatering fluids will be pumped directly into frac tanks for off-site disposal as non-hazardouscontaminated waste or as hazardous waste . Stockpiles of saturated soils will allow water to drain,collected in frac tanks, and disposed off-site. All waste will be transported in compliance with regulatoryand the disposal facility’s requirements.

8.2 Stockpile Sampling and Waste Classification

The following discussion applies to segregated materials that are stockpiled during constructionactivities. The following procedures will also be used to determine the appropriate option for the ultimateoff-site disposal of each material.

8.2.1 Soil Stockpile Sampling

If required by disposal facilities, soil will be characterized in place prior to excavation or samples will becollected from soil stockpiles. Sampling frequency and parameters will be determined by the receivingfacility. Sampling of stockpiled material, as required, will be conducted in general accordance withSection V.C.2.a (4) of the NJDEP Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils(1998), or as required by disposal facilities. Any deviation from the guidance documents will bedocumented and addressed with NJDEP. It is anticipated that the majority of excavated material will beshipped and disposed of as hazardous waste. Therefore, a relatively small sampling frequency may beused and all the soil will be assumed to contain elevated levels of chromium dependent upon disposalfacility selection. Soils not exhibiting visual impacts will be segregated and stockpiled separately forwaste classification and off-site disposal.

8.2.2 Concrete and Debris Stockpile Sampling

Stockpiling of concrete and debris (e.g. rebar and underground utilities) is not anticipated, unlessrequired by disposal facilities, during IRM activities. Concrete that is visibly contaminated (e.g., green incolor) will be assumed hazardous and segregated from other concrete not exhibiting visual impacts. Allother concrete that is not visually assumed hazardous will be classified for offsite disposal. Wherepossible, direct loading for offsite waste disposal will be considered when in-situ waste classificationsampling is performed and waste profile acceptance is received prior to exhuming the waste.

To the extent possible, concrete and debris will be demolished inside the IRM excavation limits and liveloaded into lined disposal trucks. Concrete or debris that does not show visual impairment will bestockpiled for waste classification. Concrete and debris sampling and analysis will also be performed ingeneral accordance with the NJDEP Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils, or



8-3

as required by the disposal facilities. If a stockpile is needed for debris, it will be constructed in the samearea as the soil stockpile south of the IRM excavation area as depicted in Figure 3-2. No concrete willbe sent off-Site for recycling.

8.3 Off-Site Disposal

All materials excavated during this phase of the IRM will be handled, transported and disposed of asnon-hazardous contaminated waste or hazardous waste dependent upon waste classification sampling.Waste characterization sampling will be performed as required by the disposal facilities. Detailsregarding waste classification sampling requirements will be determined based on the disposal facilitiesselected. Details regarding sampling requirements by disposal facilities, if any, will be submitted toNJDEP in an addendum when details have been determined with the disposal facilities. Transportationand disposal of all materials will be in accordance with applicable disposal facility requirements andfederal, state, and local regulations. The appropriate transport documentation will be completed beforeany materials are removed from the Site. Transport and disposal documentation will be included in anIRM report submitted to NJDEP following completion of IRM activities.

8.4 Stormwater and Stockpile Management

As necessary, all stockpiles will be placed on a minimum of one layer of 20-mil polyethylene sheeting orsimilar heavy duty plastic and tear resistant (fiber reinforced) liner. Separate stockpiles for soil,concrete, and/debris will be limited in size and located south of the IRM excavation area as shown inFigure 3-2. Stockpiles will be securely covered with a tear resistant, fiber reinforced liner duringinclement weather and when soils are not actively being added or removed from the stockpile. A waterspray will be utilized for dust suppression and foam will be utilized for stabilization of stockpiles, ifnecessary. The containment area will be maintained for the duration of the staging period in order toprevent runoff from contaminated soil, leaching of contaminants into runoff water and fugitive dustemissions. Any stockpiles which may receive saturated soil will be equipped with diversionary structuresin order to contain and collect all water which may drain from the soils. Stormwater which enters anyactive excavation or stockpile location will be collected and containerized for disposal as needed.Detailed information regarding stockpiles is provided in the SMP (Appendix F).



9-1

9.0 Community Relations during IRM Activities

PPG will work with the Site Administrator (SA) under the JCO to conduct public relations with communitystakeholders regarding Site 114 in compliance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.4(a), and to address theDepartment's recent Public Outreach Guidance. The SA is responsible to maintain regularcommunications with community representatives to solicit their opinions and ideas and communicatecommunity concerns to the partnership. PPG continues to coordinate closely with the NJDEP's Office ofCommunity Relations, and has provided numerous fact sheets and other documentation related toongoing and future public relation efforts. The SA will continue to host public meetings and coordinateadditional public outreach to keep the communities apprised of plans and progress. During execution ofthe IRM, AECOM will assist PPG and the SA in these efforts by providing frequent detailed updates ofthe status of field activities, remedial objectives, goals, and schedule.

In the event of an incident with off-site impact, PPG will supplement Jersey City’s municipal emergencycommunications plan with telephone calls and e-mails to a list of community contacts the company hasdeveloped. The list includes elected officials as well as the leaders from area block associations andnon-profit organizations. Additionally, the members of this list have been provided with telephonenumbers and e-mails addresses for contacting the SA or the company’s community relationsconsultants, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In conjunction with the SA, the company will alsodevelop fact sheets for distribution and use at its community information center at the Garfield AvenueRedevelopment Corporation office, located approximately eight blocks from the site and in the heart ofthe neighborhood’s business district.

PPG’s community information center is staffed Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Also,interested parties can schedule appointments with the SA to coordinate discussions with the company’scommunity relations consultants. The center contains a map of Jersey City that lists all sites for whichPPG is responsible, including those that have received NFAs. The center also serves as a repository fordocuments filed with the NJDEP and contains binders with the latest filing for each site. A meeting roomin the rear of the center is made available to community groups in the neighborhood.



10-1

10.0 Schedule and Reporting

Upon completion of NJDEP review and approval of this IRMWP, PPG will select the contractor tocomplete the remedial activities. Following contractor selection, technical specifications, contractoroperational plans, HASPs, and other relevant documentation will be submitted to NJDEP. Excavationactivities are expected to begin within 120 days of receipt of NJDEP approval of the IRMWP. Apreliminary draft schedule is provided as Figure 12-1. Following are major milestones and estimatedcompletion timeframes for the proposed activities:

Construction of Air Monitoring Equipment (Completed)

Finalize Bid Specification and Contractor Selection (Completed)

SESCP Revision and Finalize/Approval (Completed)

Acquisition/Approval of Local Building/Construction Permits (Ongoing)

Slab Removal/Excavation (July 2010)

IRM#1 Draft Interim Remedial Action Report (IRAR) Submittal to NJDEP for Review andApproval (Estimated to be submitted in March 2011)

AECOM will submit an IRAR to NJDEP summarizing the overall performance of this IRM implemented atthe Site. The report will include:

Summary of previous investigations;

Description of IRM#1 activities completed;

As-built” survey drawings showing the extent of excavation(s);

Description of site restoration activities; and

Remedial action costs incurred to date.

The overall performance of the remedial measures, excavation and shoring, water management, wastemanagement, dewatering data, laboratory documentation, and air monitoring data will also besummarized and/or included in the report. Supporting tables and figures will be included with the reportdetailing the IRM excavation area, volume of impacted soil removed, and sampling results. Fullyexecuted manifests and weight tickets documenting off-site disposal will be included in an appendix ofthe IRM Report prepared for NJDEP submittal.



11-1

11.0 References

AECOM, 2010, Field Sampling Plan-Quality Assurance Field Sampling Plan / Quality Assurance ProjectPlan Non-Residential Chromium Sites, Hudson County, New Jersey.

Drake, A.A., Jr., Volkert, R.A., Monteverde, D.H., Herman, G.C., Houghton, H.F., Parker, R.A., andDalton, R.F., 1996. Bedrock geologic map of northern New Jersey, US Geological Survey,Miscellaneous Investigations Series, I-2540-A, 1:100,000.

ENSR, 2006. Remedial Investigation Report, PPG Site 114 – Garfield Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.

ENSR, 2006. Off-Site Remedial Investigation Workplan, Site 114 – Garfield Avenue, Jersey City, NewJersey.

ENSR, 2006. Field Sampling Plan / Quality Assurance Program Plan.

ENSR, 2005. Health and Safety Plan, On-Going Remedial Investigations, Non-Residential Site 114,Garfield Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), November 2009. AdministrativeRequirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS), N.J.A.C. 7:26C et. seq., adoptedNovember 4, 2009.

NJDEP, November 2009. Groundwater Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9C), last amended November 4,2009.

NJDEP, November 2009. Remediation Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:26D et. seq., last amended November 4,2009.

NJDEP, September 2008. Chromium Soil Cleanup Criteria, last revised April 20, 2010.

NJDEP, February 2007. NJDEP Commissioner Jackson’s February 8, 2007 Memorandum RegardingChromium Moratorium.

NJDEP, August 2005. Field Sampling Procedures Manual.

NJDEP, July 5, 2005. Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.2 et. seq., datelast amended November 4, 2009.

NJDEP, Soil Cleanup Criteria, last revised May 1999

NJDEP. Letter to W. Michael McCabe. 4 April 2010. Adequacy of Responses to Comments on April2010 Revised Interim Remedial Measures Work Plan #1; 900 Garfield Avenue – PPG Site 114; JerseyCity, New Jersey (AECOM Document No. 60137548.0461).



11-2

SECOR, 2008. Column Study Report, Former PPG Garfield Facility.

USEPA, In Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater Contaminated with Chromium, October, 2000

USGS, 1967, Photorevised 1981, Jersey City-NJ-NY Jersey City Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series.Topographic Map (Northeastern Quadrant-Latitude: 4037.5N Longitude: 7400 W).

USGS, 1898, Staten Island-New Jersey Quadrangle. 15 Minute Series. Topographic Map (NortheasternQuadrant-Latitude: 40.6250 N Longitude: 74.125 W).



11-1

Tables

TABLE 4-1PPG Non-Residential Chromium Remediation Project

Interim Remedial Measures and Pilot TestSample Summary

Page 1 of 4

Sample Location Name Medium Sample Depth1Analytical Parameters Sampling Method

114A1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan




114B1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan









114C1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan









114D1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan









114E1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan









114F1B Soil Excavation Bottom Field Screening, Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH2 Disposable Trowel/Pan









114G1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA







Interim Remedial Measures #1 Sampling/Field Screening Activities

http://portal.env.aecomnet.com/projects/PPGChrome/GarfieldAve/WorkplansReports AECOM only/IRMWP-1/Final Submittal/2010_06_24 Additional Comments/2010-07-06-Table4-1SampleSummary

7/13/2010



Page 2 of 4


Interim Remedial Measures #1 Sampling/Field Screening Activities114H1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA

114H2 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA






114I1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA







114J1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA






114J7 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2NA

114K1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA








114L1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA








114M1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA








114N1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA








Interim Remedial Measures #2 Field Screening Activities


7/13/2010



Page 3 of 4


Interim Remedial Measures #1 Sampling/Field Screening Activities114O1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA

114O2 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA







114P1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA








114Q1 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA







114Q8 Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2NA

114A1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA



114B1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA



114C1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA



114D1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA



114E1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA



114F1A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA





114G4A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA

114G5A Soil Excavated Soil Field Screening2 NA

114-PW1 Saturated Soil/Pore Water3 Field determined Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH Disposable scoop










Feasibility Study Sampling Activities


7/13/2010



Page 4 of 4


Interim Remedial Measures #1 Sampling/Field Screening ActivitiesRMT-## Baseline Composite Field Exam, Cr, Cr+6, SPLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6,

TCLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6, TCLVOC, TCLSVOC,TALMetals, pH of SPLP extract, grain size,permeability, moisture, Atterberg Limits,

strength

Disposable Trowel

Bio-## Baseline Composite Field Exam, Cr, Cr+6, SPLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6,TCLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6, TCLVOC, TCLSVOC,TALMetals, pH of SPLP extract, grain size,permeability, moisture, Atterberg Limits,

strength, Specific Gravity, TOC, Specialty Cr+6analysis

Disposable Trowel/Pan

CaSx-## Baseline Composite Field Exam, Cr, Cr+6, SPLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6,TCLP RCRA 8 plus Cr+6, TCLVOC, TCLSVOC,TALMetals, pH of SPLP extract, grain size,permeability, moisture, Atterberg Limits,

strength

Disposable Trowel

114-A1-YYMMDD4 Waste Classification5 Composite Full TCLP, RCRA, PCB, TCLVOC, TCLSVOC,TALMetals, TPH, Cr+6

Disposable Trowel/Pan

114FYYMMDD Field Blank Composite Cr, Cr+6, Eh, pH, SPLP Cr & Cr+6 NA

114TYYMMDD Trip Blank Composite TCLVOC (aqueous only) NA

Notes:

Cr - Total chromiumCr+6 - Hexavalent chromiumEh - laboratory based oxidation reduction potentialpH - pH standard unitsCOPR - Chromate Chemical Production WasteNA - Not applicableSPLP - Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

Field Exam - Visual and sieve analysis for percent COPR and presence of Green-Gray MudRCRA 8 - 8 RCRA metalsTCLP - Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP)TCLVOC - TCL Volatile organicsTCLSVOC - TCL Semi-volatile organicsTALMetals - Target Analyte List MetalsPCB - Polychlorinated biphenylsTOC - Total Organic CarbonRCRA - RCRA Characteristics of Ignitability, Corrosivity and Cyanide/Sulfide ReactivityTPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

## - Sample number to be determined

In-Situ Treatment

Waste Classification for All Remedial Activities

QA Samples for All Remedial Activities

5 Waste classification samples will be generally analyzed at a frequency of 1 composite per 500 tons. Field sample frequency and/or sample parameters will bedependent upon disposal facility selection.

4 The number of waste classification samples will vary dependent upon the total quantity and type of waste generated for offsite disposal. A1 = Stockpile designationwhich varies. YY = Last two digits of the year; MM = month; DD = day.

2 Soils will be visually logged (test pit profiling, physical screening for screen size, visual screening for percent COPR) and field screened with a Photoionization Detector(PID) for VOCs . Other field screening may include: 1) XRF screening for metals, and/or 2) calcium field screening with hydrochloric acid. 10% of samples will beanalyzed for Cr+6, Eh, pH, TAL metals, VOC, and SVOC.

1 Sample depth for excavation bottom will be field selected.

3 Refer to Section 7.2 of Feasibility Study (Additional Data for Groundwater and Saturated Soil Treatment) .

Soil Stockpile Samples for Ex-Situ Treatment

Biological Treatment


7/13/2010



11-2

Figures

B B'

A A'

CC'

SITE 114

\\uspsw1fp004\Piscataway\Project\PPG INDUSTRIES - PPG\EVS\2010 IRM 1\Figure 2-2 - Extent of Mixed Fill-COPR.doc

Scale: NTSInterim Remedial Measures

#1 Work PlanPPG Industries, Inc.

Allison Park, Pennsylvania

Estimated Extent of Mixed Fill/COPRPPG Garfield Avenue

Jersey City, New Jersey

May 2010 Project No. 60137548.4061

Figure 2-2

www.aecom.com

SITE 114 IRM#1 Area

\\uspsw1fp004\Piscataway\Project\PPG INDUSTRIES - PPG\EVS\2010 IRM 1\Figure 2-3 - Extent of Green-Gray Mud.doc




Estimated Extent of Green Gray MudPPG Garfield Avenue


May 2010 Project No. 60137548.4061

Figure 2-3

www.aecom.com

SITE 114 IRM#1 Area

\\uspsw1fp004\Piscataway\Project\PPG INDUSTRIES - PPG\EVS\2010 IRM 1\Figure 2-4 - Extent of Peat.doc




Estimated Extent of PeatPPG Garfield Avenue


May 2010 Job No. 60137548.4061

Figure 2-4

www.aecom.com

SITE 114 IRM#1 Area

A A'

B B'

3-3

1 OF 1

DET

AIL

ED C

RO

SS S

ECTI

ON

S IR

M #

1PP

G IN

DU

STR

IES

Garfiel

d Ave

nue PARKING

PAVED

PAVED

PAVED

PILES

PILES

PILES

UNPAVED

20

20

14

16

16

14

14

22

14

DAKODA AVENUE

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A !A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A!A

!A!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A !A

!A

IRM # 1 AreaIRM # 2 Area

MW5B

MW10A

MW5A

PZ3

PPG-114-9B

114-MW6DPPG-114-6C

PPG-114-9C

PPG-114-11B

114-MW21A114-MW21B

114-MW23A114-MW23B

MW-1D

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-1S

PZ-13

PZ-14

EW-1EW-2

F-1

F-2

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

F-7

PZ-10

SW-2

SW-3

SW-4

WW-1

WW-2

WW-3

WW-4

NW-1NW-2

NW-3

NW-4

PPG-114-9A

PPG-7-P1

PPG-114-2APPG-114-2B

PPG-114-6APPG-114-6B

PPG-114-11A

SW-1

PZ-4

PZ-5

PZ-6

PZ-7

PZ-9

PZ-11

PZ-12

D-1

PZ-8

!

0 60 12030Feet

J:\W

ater

\Pro

jectF

iles\P

50\0

5510

PPG

\100

_Jer

seyC

ity\G

IS\P

rojec

ts\Si

te11

4slab

Rem

ovalW

ells_

2010

0308

.mxd

Scal

e:

PP

G In

dust

ries

Gar

field

Ave

nue

Pro

ject

Site

, Jer

sey

City

Hud

son

Cou

nty,

New

Jer

sey

Dat

e:P

roje

ct N

umbe

r:03

/08/

2010

6013

7548

.406

2A

s S

how

n

Figure Number:

Sheet Number:1

1

Rev

isio

nsN

o.:

By:

Dat

e:D

escr

iptio

n:

Dra

wn

By:

Che

cked

By:

App

rove

d B

y:

J.E.

B./a

lo

Notes:1. New Jersey State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 Coordinates, U.S. Survey Feet;2. IRM = Interim Remedial Measure;3. FS = Feasibility Study.

Dakota Street

Des

igne

d B

y:

Wel

l Aba

ndon

men

t Loc

atio

ns

!A

!A

!A

LegendWell to be abandonedWell to be protected

Topography

Railroad Tracks

Treeline

IRM # 1 Area

IRM # 2 Area

Buildings

Well previously abandoned

1:720

quanh

Text Box

5-1

quanh

Text Box

Well decommissioned in 2010

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x x x x x x

17.12

17.20

12.67

11.78

11.91

11.95 12.02

12.25

12.59

12.63

12.78

13.34

13.43

13.64

13.99

14.64

13.80

12.39

12.34

11.69

11.62

11.50

11.44

11.33

13.71

12.86

12.45

12.33

12.18

11.75

11.49

11.36

11.30

11.64

11.41

11.85

11.80

11.73

11.79

11.64

12.14

12.93

12.85

12.11

12.40

12.26

12.52

12.67

12.62

13.32

13.50

13.51

12.09

11.95

11.81

11.95

11.70

11.62

11.48

11.41

11.1811.20

11.55

11.20

11.21

16.33

16.11

16.28

16.56

16.91

15.34

15.03

15.26

17.11

17.14

17.20

16.94

17.01

17.01

17.03

16.89

16.98

17.09

17.08

16.94

17.04

16.92

16.97

16.94

16.89

16.99

16.97

16.96

17.03

16.98

17.08

17.00

17.26

17.52

17.22

17.16

17.10

14.15

14.33

14.51

13.80

14.91

14.61

14.11

12.38

12.45

12.3912.08

11.80

12.07

12.32

12.37

12.99

13.86

13.96

15.41

16.24

16.63

16.63

16.60

16.72

16.87

16.99

16.96

16.58

16.48

14.45

15.47

16.97

16.49

15.52

14.78

14.64

16.26

15.94

16.04

16.34

17.01

16.76

16.40

16.36

16.48

16.91

17.06

16.98

17.14

16.99

17.29

17.00

17.10

17.10

17.15

17.06

17.04

17.10

17.17

17.22

17.30

17.32

17.0817.38

17.30

17.42

17.43

17.41

17.34

17.28

17.13

16.98

16.97

17.04

17.23

17.09

17.03

17.11 17.07

17.18

17.25

16.85

17.25

17.18

17.19

17.13

17.08

17.10

17.06

17.23

17.10

17.15

17.25

17.12

17.57

17.10

17.04

17.17

17.15

17.29

17.19

17.20

17.39

17.25

17.16

17.10

17.08

17.12

17.22

17.18

17.43

17.40

17.58

17.80

17.51

16.66

16.72

16.77

16.80

17.02

17.19

17.46

13.85

13.62

14.48

17.30

17.03

16.91

16.97

14.68

14.65

14.11

14.70

14.51

14.29

14.51

14.47

14.23

13.75

13.47

12.78

12.72

12.6812.07

12.73

12.60

11.94

12.01

12.39

13.30

13.79

14.34

14.57

14.64

14.12

14.14

13.85

14.36

14.28

14.58

14.84

14.89

14.59

14.61

14.27

15.70

15.01

15.00

15.15

14.98

14.8714.98

14.60

17.15

15.08

14.94

16.90

16.73

17.21

15.86

15.07

14.13

14.20

14.17

14.90

13.24

13.25

13.76

13.45

12.59

13.08

13.60

14.44

14.60

14.73

14.65

14.70

14.17

14.61

14.84

14.56

14.51

14.46

13.58

12.95

12.89

12.69

12.72

12.46

12.41

11.62

13.19

12.06

12.06

13.18

12.13

13.65

14.79

14.56

14.50

14.49

14.30

14.64

14.79

14.75

14.73

14.33

14.36

13.79

13.10

14.51

13.68

13.38

13.11

13.81

14.57

15.01

14.44

13.83

14.75

15.23

15.60

16.52

15.83

16.22

16.87

16.92

16.80

16.87

16.56

16.54

16.66

13.67

TW 35.69

TW 27.89

TW 28.21

TW 32.50

BW 13.08

BW 14.92BW 14.42

BW 13.73

BW 13.91

BW 14.20

BW 13.93

BW 13.98

BW 13.32

BW 13.11

BW 13.27

BW 13.48

BW 13.77

BW 13.67

BW 14.21

BW 13.96

BW 14.08

BW 15.27

BW 15.03

BW 14.46

BW 16.90

BW 14.80

BW 14.28

BW 13.30

BW

BW 13.52

BW 14.52

BW 14.96

BW 14.81

BW 15.22

BW 14.20

BW 15.50

BW 16.92

BW 16.74

BW 15.43

BW 14.73

BW 14.58

BW 14.43

BW 14.31

BW 14.96

BW 13.25

BW 13.27

BW 13.61

BW 13.31

BW 13.58

BW 13.06

BW 13.24

BW 12.95

BW 14.49

BW 16.82

TC 13.87

TC 13.49

TC 12.82

TC 12.70TC 12.56

TC 12.46

TC 12.32

TC 12.04

TC 11.93

TC 11.89

TC 11.78

TC 11.73

TC 11.54

TC 11.56

TC 11.27

TC 11.43

TC 13.81

TC 13.04

TC 12.72

TC 12.66

TC 12.39

TC 12.05

TC 11.76

TC 11.68

BC 11.03

BC 11.18

BC 11.44

BC 11.14

BC 11.12

BC 11.51

BC 11.84

BC 11.84

BC 11.94

BC 12.11

BC 12.16

BC 12.40

BC 13.10

BC 13.43

BC 11.21

BC 11.35

BC 11.72

BC 11.90

BC 12.02

BC 12.18

BC 12.60

BC 13.40

-G-

CO

BB

WV

MANHOLE

RIM=12.62

-E-

-E-

MANHOLE

RIM=13.06-E-

-E-

-W-

-G--G-

-G-

-G-

INLET

TOP=12.42

GRT=11.60

-E-

-E-

-E- -E-

MANHOLE

RIM=12.33STORM MH

RIM=12.16

MANHOLE

RIM=12.01

-G-

-G-

-G-

-E- -E-

SUMP

PIT

PIT

SUMP

SUMP

PIT

PIT

SUMP

-G-

-E- MANHOLE

RIM=11.64

-W-WV

INLET

GRT=11.33MANHOLE

RIM=11.48

-E-

-G-

MANHOLE

RIM=11.43

-E-

WV

-W-

-G-

MANHOLE

RIM=11.18

-G-

MANHOLE

RIM=13.62

PIT

SUMP

MANHOLE

RIM=12.60

INLET

GRT=11.01

INLET

GRT=13.09

13.74

ASPHALT PATCHES

CONCRETE FLOOR WITH

POOR CONDITION

BUILDING REMAINS

BROKEN ASPHALT

WITH CONCRETE PATCHES

BROKEN

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

WALKS-POOR

CONDITION

WATER=13.60

(NO PIPE VISIBLE)

6" DIP

SEDIMENT 11.1±

(HEALTH CONCERN-WATER CLEAR

LIME GREEN)

MANHOLE

RIM=14.69

6" DIP

SEDIMENT 13.2±

8"±

PIPE

INV=8.8±

INLET

GRT=12.92

8" DIP

4" PIPE

8" TILE?

INV=11.24

INV NE=11.42

INV NW=11.12

8"

TILE?

STORM MH

RIM=13.10

INV=10.75

INLET

GRT=17.11

WV

WV

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

x

x

+

++

+

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

CONC

14.5

11.5

12.0

12.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

13.0

15.0

16.5

16.0

15.5

17.5

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.5

13.0

13.0

13.0

11.5

N52°22'59"E155.84'

GARFIELD AVENUE

DAKOTA STREET

16.50

14.50

15.00

16.00

16.00

15.50

15.00

14.50

14.50

15.00

15.50

15.50

Legend

RAILROAD TRACKS

FENCELINE

PROPOSED CONTOUR LINES14.50

EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB BOUNDARY

(REMOVED DURING IRM)

x xX X X X X

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF

EXCAVATION 6-1

J:\Project\PPG INDUSTRIES - PPG\Cadd\2010 IRM 1\2010-02-03 Fig 6-1 Site Grading Plan.dwg

Scale in Feet

60 30 0 60

FIGURE NUMBER:

SHEET NUMBER:

-

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER:

APPROVED BY:

CHECKED BY:

DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY:

NO.:

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION:

DATE:

BY:

North

AECOM

HQ

AS

SM

RF

PRO

POSE

D S

ITE

GR

AD

ING

PLA

N 900 GAFIELD AVENUE

PPG INDUSTRIES

GARFIELD AVENUE

JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY and

AS SHOWN

02/01/10

60137548.4061

30 KNIGHTSBRIDGE ROAD, SUITE 520

PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY 08854

PHONE: (732) 564-3600

FAX: (732) 369-0122

WEB: HTTP://WWW.AECOM.COM

Piscataway on 'USPSW1FP004'(J)Project/PPG Industries...PPG/Cadd/2010 IRM 1/2010-02-02 Fig 6-1 Site Grading Plan

CLEAN

GRAVEL FILL

6 INCHES TOPSOIL

FILTER FABRIC

FABRIC MARKER

B' - BSECTION

NOT TO SCALE

VEGETATION

WATER

WATER

RW

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

RW

PARKING

PARKING

RW

RWPARKING

PARKING

RW

WALL

GATE

PARKING

WALL

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

WALL

BRUSH

RW

RW

GUY

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

GATE

BRUSH

BRUSH

BRUSH

BRUSH

BRUSH

BRUSH

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

BRUSH

BRUSH

TREES

PARKING

SIGN

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

RWS

SW

SIGN

GATE

CONC

BRUSH

RW

SW

SW

SW

RW

GATE

RAMP

RW

RW

GATE

PARKING

PARKING

RW

RW

RW

RW

GATE

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

RW

GATE

CONC

GUY

CONC

RW

BRUSH

GATE

CONC

RW

PARKING

RW

RW

RW

PARKING

GATE

GATE

GATE

PARKING

RW

RW

CONC

RW

RW

RW

RW

BRUSH

PARKING

GUYCONC

GUYCONC

BRUSH

BRUSH

CONC

PARKING

RW

PARKING

PARKING

DECK

GATE

BRUSH

BRUSH

GATE

WALL

PAVED GUTTER

PAVED GUTTER

PAVED GUTTER

BRUSH

PAVED GUTTER

BRUSH

PARKING

RW

PARKING

BRUSH

GATE

GUY

BRUSH

SIGN

CONC

OPEN STORAGE

GATE

PARKING

PARKING

GATE

GATE

PK

PK

PK

PK

H a l l a d a y S t r e e t

G a r f i e l d A v e n u e

F o r r e s t S t r e e t

CONRAIL

CONRAIL

FORMER MORRIS CANAL (60'

WIDE)

(PER DEED BOOK 2617, P

AGE 1)

North

Scale in Feet

LOCATION REFERENCE MAP

Dakota Street

Carteret Avenue

150075150

NOTES:

1. IRM AREA WILL BE REGRADED TO THE APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN ORDERTO PROMOTE STORMWATER FLOW TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE SITE.

2. THE BACKFILL PLACED IN THE EXCAVATION WILL BE NON-POROUS GRAVEL OR SIMILAR MATERIAL.. TYPE I OR TYPE II BACKFILL WILL BE USED AND COMPACTED TO 90% ORMORE DENSITY.

3. GEOTEXTILE WILL BE PLACED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BACKFILL AND OVER BACKFILLPRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF TOP SOIL.

4. HYDROSEED WILL BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO APPROVED SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.

CLEAN GRAVEL FILL

6 INCHES T

OPSOIL

FILTER FABRIC

FABRIC MARKER

A' - ASECTION

NOT TO SCALE

VEGETATION

A'

B'

B

A

TARGETED

GREEN-GRAY MUD

EXCAVATION

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 Interim Remedial Measures at Site 114 (IRM) 18.76 mo Fri 11/6/09 Fri 5/6/112 Permits 5.25 mo Mon 11/30/09 Thu 4/29/103 Soil Erosion Plan Revision and Finalize/Approval 3.5 mo Mon 12/21/09 Thu 4/1/104 Acquisition of local Building/Construction Permits 3.25 mo Thu 1/21/10 Thu 4/22/105 Prepare/Approval of TWA 5.25 mo Mon 11/30/09 Thu 4/29/106 IRM#1 - 900 Garfield Slab removal and excavation 18.76 mo Fri 11/6/09 Fri 5/6/117 IRM#1 Work Plan 7.5 mo Fri 11/6/09 Fri 6/11/108 IRM#1 - Implementation 18.11 mo Wed 11/25/09 Fri 5/6/119 Remedial action 12.36 mo Wed 11/25/09 Fri 11/19/10

10 Finalize Bid Specification and Contractor Selection 5.1 mo Wed 11/25/09 Thu 4/22/1011 Construction of Air Monitoring Equipment 3.2 mo Wed 3/10/10 Tue 6/8/1012 PPG Contractor install power distribution 1 mo Wed 3/24/10 Tue 4/20/1013 Procure/Fabricate Air Monitoring Stations (AMS) 3 mo Wed 3/10/10 Wed 6/2/1014 Install AMS 0.2 mo Thu 6/3/10 Tue 6/8/1015 Pre-Remedial Site Preparation 1 mo Fri 2/19/10 Thu 3/18/1016 Abandon wells 1 mo Fri 2/19/10 Thu 3/18/1017 Slab Removal/Excavation 5.66 mo Tue 6/8/10 Fri 11/19/1018 Remedial Field Activity Initiation 0 mo Tue 6/8/10 Tue 6/8/1019 Pre Excavation Baseline Air Monitoring 0.16 mo Wed 6/9/10 Mon 6/14/1020 Mobilize for Excavation 0.25 mo Mon 6/14/10 Mon 6/21/1021 Air Monitoring/Oversight 5.5 mo Mon 6/14/10 Fri 11/19/1022 Paving 1 mo Mon 6/14/10 Mon 7/12/1023 Soil Excavation, stockpiling, T&D 4.5 mo Mon 6/21/10 Thu 10/28/1024 Site Restoration (Backfill, grading, liner, topsoil, seed, gravel, as needed) 5 mo Mon 6/28/10 Fri 11/19/1025 Interim Remedial Action Report (IRAR) #1 5.75 mo Fri 11/19/10 Fri 5/6/1126 Draft IRAR preparation 1.5 mo Fri 11/19/10 Wed 1/5/1127 PPG Presentation/Overview Meeting Summarizing Future Submittal 0 days Wed 1/5/11 Wed 1/5/1128 JCO Team Feedback to PPG from presentation 0.25 mo Wed 1/5/11 Wed 1/12/1129 PPG Finalize Draft Submittal to SA, NJDEP, JC, Developer/Owner 1 mo Wed 1/12/11 Thu 2/10/1130 SA provide Report to TC 0 days Thu 2/10/11 Thu 2/10/1131 JC Review and Submit Comments to NJDEP, TC, SA, PPG 0.5 mo Thu 2/10/11 Fri 2/25/1132 Developer/Owner Review and Submit Comments to NJDEP, TC, SA, PPG 1 mo Thu 2/10/11 Fri 3/11/1133 TC Review and Submit Comments/Recommendations to NJDEP 1.25 mo Thu 2/10/11 Fri 3/18/1134 NJDEP Review and Comments to PPG and SA 0.5 mo Fri 3/18/11 Fri 4/1/1135 PPG Revisions and Resubmittal 0.5 mo Fri 4/1/11 Fri 4/15/1136 NJDEP Review 0.25 mo Fri 4/15/11 Fri 4/22/1137 NJDEP Final and/or Conditional Approval 0 mo Fri 4/22/11 Fri 4/22/1138 PPG Finalize Submittal 0.5 mo Fri 4/22/11 Fri 5/6/11

3.5 mo3.25 mo5.25 mo

7.5 mo

5.1 mo

1 mo3 mo0.2 mo

1 mo

0.16 mo0.25 mo

5.5 mo1 mo

4.5 mo5 mo

1.5 mo

0.25 mo1 mo

0.5 mo1 mo1.25 mo

0.5 mo0.5 mo0.25 mo

0.5 mo

Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 22010 2011

Task

Progress

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

Split

External Tasks

Project Summary

Group By Summary

IRM #1 Work Plan ScheduleFigure 12-1

C:\Documents and Settings\mikaelians\My Documents\PPG\IRMWP1\2010-06-07 IRM WP1 Schedule.mpp Page 1



Appendix A

Dewatering Calculation,Treatment and SupportingDocumentation



Appendix B

Health and Safety Plan(HASP)



Appendix C

Dust Control Plan (DCP)



Appendix D

Air Monitoring Plan (AMP)



The Air Monitoring Plan is currently being updated. A finalized AMP will be availableon-site for reference at the start of remedial activities. The AMP will be implementedduring IRMs #1 and #2 and Feasibility Study activities.



Appendix E

Traffic Safety and ControlPlan (TSCP)



Appendix F

Stockpile ManagementPlan (SMP)



Appendix G

AECOM SH&E SOP No. 726Identifying UndergroundInstallations



Appendix H

Approved Soil Erosion andSediment Control Plan(SESCP)



Appendix I

Well AbandonmentReports