grand street mercury site hoboken, new jersey remedial action … · 8.5 groundwater elevations 8-4...
TRANSCRIPT
R E P O R T
SDMS Document
92557
Grand Street Mercury SiteHoboken, New Jersey
Remedial Action Report
Volume I of XIX
General Electric Company
March 2005Revised July 2005
Second Revision August 2005
; BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.| engineers, scientists, economists
502651
Tabld of Contents
Section 1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 General 1-11.2 Background Information 1-1
1.2.1 Site Description 1-21.2.2 Previous Removal Actions 1-2
1.2.2.1 Removal Action Conducted by the USEPA 1-2; 1.2.2.2 Removal Action Conducted by GE 1-3; 1.2.3 Previous Site Investigation Activities 1-3
i; 1.3 Project Responsibilities 1-3'! 1.3.1 Subcontractors and Subconsultants 1-4;' 1.4 RA Report Objective 1-6• j 1.5 Organization of RA Report 1-6
HSection 2. Notice of Completion 2-1
Section !3. Modifications to the FRD Report and RA Work Plan 3-1• i
3.1 General 3-13.2 Description of Modifications 3-2
Section 4. Mobilization/Site Preparation Activities 4-1; ij: 4.1 General 4-1:j 4.2 Pre-RA Meeting 4-1I! 4.3 Mobilization 4-1I 4.3.1 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications 4-1ij 4.4 Site Security 4-2i' 4.5 Site Preparation 4-2M
Section 5. Building Demolition Activities 5-1
[j 5.1 General 5-1(| 5.2 Project Meetings 5-1
5.2.1 Pre-Demolition Inspection 5-25.2.2 Daily Site Safety/Coordination Meetings 5-25.2.3 Weekly Progress Meetings 5-2
5.3 Pre-Demolition Activities 5-25.3.1 Air Handling System... 5-35.3.2 Water Measurement Controls Measures and Temporary Water TreatmentSystem ; 5-35.3.3 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 5-45.3.4 Removal of Miscellaneous Items...: 5-5
5.3.4.1 TSCA-Regulated Equipment 5-55.3.4.2 Containerized Household Waste 5-55.3.4.3 Fire Extinguishers 5-65.3.4.4 Smoke Detectors 5-6
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC,
i engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Gtind_SliKI\Rcpons and PresenlMJons\Final\24150842_Reviscd_RA_Rcpon_2.doc 502652
5.3.4.5 Household Appliances 5-75.3.4.6 Equipment Containing Refrigerants/CFCs 5-75.3.4.7 Hydraulic Oil 5-75.3.4.8 Batteries 5-75.3.4.9 Mercury-Containing Thermostats 5-75.3.4.10 Lighting System 5-85.3.4.11 Chimney Ash and Debris 5-8
5.3.5 Loose Lead-Based Paint Removal 5-85.3.6 Asbestos Abatement 5-9
5.3.6.1 ACM Sampling Activities 5-95.3.6.2 Asbestos Abatement Activities...... 5-10
5.3.7 Interior Nonstructural Wall/Floor and Residential Improvement Removal 5-115.3.7.1 Nonstructural Wall/Residential Improvement Removal 5-115.3.7.2 Common Wall Plaster/Paint Removal 5-125.3.7.3 Porous Flooring Removal 5-125.3.7.4 Wood Floor/Wood Subfloor/Tar Paper Removal...! 5-12
5.3.8 Brick Scarification 5-135.3.9 Utility, Alarm, and Mechanical System Deactivation and Removal 5-14
5.3.9.1 Sanitary Waste System Decommissioning 5-145.3.9.2 Roof Drain System Decommissioning 5-145.3.9.3 Potable Water System Deactivation 5-155.3.9.4 Natural Gas System Removal 5-155.3.9.5 Fire Protection System Removal 5-155.3.9.6 Heating System Removal 5-155.3.9.7 Security Alarm System Removal 5-165.3.9.8 Power Distribution System Removal 5-16
5.4 Demolition Preparation 5-165.4.1 Fire Department Decontamination Area Relocation 5-165.4.2 Relocation of Overhead Utilities :...5-165.4.3 Construction of Waste Material Chute 5-17
i 5.4.4 Construction/Installation and Operation of Hoist and Scaffolding 5-175.4.5 Installation of Temporary Fencing 5-17
i 5.4.6 Plugging and Capping 5-17i 5.5 Garage Demolition 5-17f 5.6 Demolition of Unit 2A Study 5-18
5.6.1 Unit 2A Study Floor System Removal 5-18; 5.6.2 Unit 2A Study and Former Boiler Room Demolition 5-18' 5.7 Chimney Demolition 5-18; 5.8 Elevator House Demolition 5-19| 5.9 Demolition of Attached Townhouse 5-19
5.9.1 Attached Townhouse - Temporary Wall/Floor/Ceiling Support System Installation;' 5-20'• 5.9.2 Attached Townhouse - Roof/Subfloor Demolition/Removal 5-20i 5.9.3 Attached Townhouse - Fire Protection System Deactivation 5-20i 5.9.4 Attached Townhouse - Ceiling Demolition/Removal 5-20i 5.9.5 Attached Townhouse - Masonry (Brick) Wall Demolition/Removal 5-21i 5.9.6 Common Wall Structural Modification 5-21; 5.9.7 Adjacent Townhouse Roof Repair 5-21! 5.10 Demolition of Former Industrial Building 5-21
5.10.1 Former Industrial Building - Temporary Wall/Floor/Ceiling Support System', Installation 5-22I 5.10.2 Former Industrial Building - Roof/Subfloor Demolition/Removal 5-22
5.10.3 Former Industrial Building - Fire Protection System Deactivation 5-235.10.4 Former Industrial Building - Ceiling Demolition/Removal 5-23
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
8/24/os ' j engineers, scientists, economistsV:VGEJjraM)_Strea\Repom »nd Prescnlations\FinaI\24150M2_Revised_RA_Rcport_2.doc 502653
5.10.5 Former Industrial Building - Masonry (Brick) Wall Demolition/Removal 5-235.11 Building Concrete Slab Demolition and Improvements Removal 5-235.12 Subsurface Structure/Pipe Cleaning 5-24
' 5.13 Site Winterization 5-24
Section 6. Residential Property and Perimeter Area Soil Removal 6-1
6.1 General 6-1.' 6.2 Residential Property Soil Removal 6-1;. 6.2.1 Pre-Removal Activities 6-1
6.2.1.1 Project Meetings 6-26.2.1.2 Residential Property Survey 6-3
- •; 6.2.1.3 Pre-Removal Assessment 6-3:; 6.2.1.4 Mobilization/Residential Property Soil Removal Preparation
Activities 6-36.2.2 Soil Removal Activities from Adjacent Residential Properties 6-4
;! 6.3 Soil Removal from Perimeter Area 6-5; 6.3.1 Pre-Removal Activities 6-5
r 6.3.1.1 Project Meetings 6-5ij 6.3.1.2 Mobilization/Soil Removal Preparation Activities 6-6i 6.3.2 Soil Removal Activities from Perimeter Area 6-6' 6.4 Residential Property and Perimeter Area Restoration 6-6
•i 6.4.1 Backfilling 6-7;< 6.4.2 Topsoil and Sod 6-7;: 6.4.3 Fence Restoration 6-7;; 6.4.4 Concrete Restoration 6-8; 6.4.5 Deck Restoration 6-8.'] 6.5 Decontamination/Demobilization 6-8:; 6.5.1 Decontamination 6-8ji 6.5.2 Demobilization 6-8•: 6.6 Post-Removal Assessment 6-8' 6.7 Air Monitoring 6-9,: 6.7.1 Meteorological Monitoring 6-9:| 6.7.2 Work Area Monitoring 6-9! 6.7.3 Work Area Perimeter Monitoring 6-9.' 6.8 Water Management 6-10;i 6.9 Handling, Transportation, and Offsite Disposition of Waste Materials ..6-10i j
Section ;i7. 720-732 Grand Street Soil Removal 7-1' !
: 7.1 General 7-1l ] 7.2 Former Building Footprint Investigation 7-1
7.3 Former Building Footprint Soil Removal ; ....7-17.4 Previous Foundation Investigation 7-37.5 Foundation Material Removal Activities 7-37.6 Previous Parking Lot Soil Investigation 7-47.7 Parking Lot Soil Removal... 7-4
Section 8. Post-Demolition Groundwater Investigation 8-1
8.1 General 8-18.2 Monitoring Well Installation 8-18.3 Groundwater-Level Measurements.... 8-28.4 Groundwater Sampling 8-3
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/24/os |: engineers, scienf/sfs. economistsV:\GE_OramJ_Slrca\Rcpons and Presailations\Final\24150842_Rcvised_RA_Report_2.doc 502654
8.5 Groundwater Elevations 8-48.6 Groundwater Analytical Results 8-4
' 8.7 Groundwater Monitoring Well Abandonment 8-5
Section 9. 720-732 Grand Street Restoration, Decontamination, and Demobilization 9-1
9.1 General 9-19.2 720-732 Grand Street Restoration 9-1
9.2.1 Backfill .: 9-19.2.1.1 Riprap Backfill 9-29.2.1.2 Type 2 Backfill 9-29.2.1.3 Type 1 Backfill 9-2
9.2.2 Infiltration Trench Installation 9-29.2.3 Storm Sewer Inlet and Pipe Installation 9-29.2.4 Retaining Wall Installation '. 9-3
, 9.2.5 Topsoil 9-39.2.6 Hydroseed 9-39.2.7 Perimeter Fence Installation 9-39.2.8 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration Activities 9-4
' 9.3 Decontamination 9-49.4 Demobilization 9-5
9.4.1 Pre-Final Inspection 9-5'.< 9.4.2 Final Inspection 9-5
9.4.3 Demobilization of Equipment and Materials 9-69.4.4 Transfer of Site Maintenance Responsibilities 9-6
Section !10. Air Monitoring 10-1
:-, 10.1 General 10-1i 10.2 Background Air Monitoring 10-1
10.3 Meteorological Monitoring 10-210.4 Work Area Monitoring 10-210.5 Work Area Perimeter Monitoring 10-310.6 Site Perimeter Monitoring 10-3
Section 11. Handling, Transportation, and Offsite Disposition of Waste Materials 11-1
'I 11.1 General 11-1' 11.2 Waste Material Handling 11-1
;• 11.3 Waste Characterization 11-1'•' 11.4 Waste Transportation and Disposition 11-3
Section 12. Construction Quality Control 12-1' i
! 12.1 General 12-112.2 Review of Contractor's Submittals 12-112.3 Quality Control Meetings/Inspections/Reviews 12-212.4 Quality Control Testing 12-2
12.4.1 In-Place Soil Density Testing 12-212.4.2 Physical Analysis 12-3
" 12.4.3 Chemical Analysis 12-312.4.4 Air Monitoring 12-412.4.5 Temporary Water Treatment Testing Control Procedures 12-412.4.6 Vibration Monitoring 12-4
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.8/24/05 ,', engineers, scientist, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Succ1\Repoiu ami Prcsenlalions\Final\24l50842_Rcviscd_RA_Rcport_2.doc 502655
12.5 Reporting 12-412.5.1 Daily Logs 12-412.5.2 Weekly Progress Reports 12-512.5.3 Photo Documentation 12-5
12.6 Community Assessment 12-512.6.1 Pre-Demolition Assessment Activities 12-512.6.2 Post-Demolition Assessment Activities 12-612.6.3 Bimonthly Monitoring 12-612.6.4 Vibration Monitoring 12-7
:; 12.6.5 720 Grand Street - Common Wall Demolition Monitoring 12-7
]'. 12.6.6 Pre-Removal Assessment Reports 12-7' 12.6.7 Post-Removal Assessment Reports 12-7
12.7 Summary of Construction Problems and Solutions 12-7
Section ; 13. Record Drawings 13-1
Section ;14. Certification
Acronyms; and Abbreviations1 1
References
.14-1
Tables
1A Waste Characterization Sample Summary1B Waste Characterization Analytical Results - NHSA Discharge Parameters1C Waste Characterization Analytical Results - TCLP Mercury and Total Mercury1D Waste Characterization Analytical Results - TCLP Lead1E Waste' Characterization Analytical Results - PCBs1F Waste Characterization Analytical Results - TCL VOCs1G Wast£ Characterization Analytical Results - TCL SVOCs1H Waste Characterization Analytical Results - TAL Inorganics11 Wast^ Characterization Analytical Results - TCLP VOCs, SVOCs, and Metals1J Waste Characterization Analytical Results — Corrosivity, Ignitability, Reactivity, Oil & Grease, and TPH2 Treated Water Discharge Summary3 Waste; Disposition Summary4 Post-Excavation Sample Analytical Results5 Foundation Material Analytical Results6 Monitoring Well Construction and Water Level Summary7 Grouhdwater Field Parameters8 Groundwater Analytical Results9 Monitoring Well Soil Boring Analytical Results
l{Figures i!
5 i
j !1 Site Location Map2 720-732 Grand Street Pre-Demolition Features Map3 720-732 Grand Street Post-Demolition Subsurface Features Map4 Soil Ex'cavation Delineation and Sampling Results5 Residential Property Soil Excavation Delineation6 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map - December 16, 2004
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/24/05 . engineer, scientists, economistsV:\GE_GiaMj_Strea\Rcpons and PrcsoMMions\FuiaI\24]50842_Rcvis«J_RA_Rcport_2.dDC 502656
Drawings
RD-1 720-732 Grand Street Features MapRD-2 Residential Property Features Map
Appendices
A Meeting MinutesB Weekly Progress ReportsC Air Monitoring Logs for 720-732 Grand Street RA ActivitiesD Waste Characterization DataE Asbestos Abatement Monitoring Reports and Sample ResultsF Sabre Demolition Corporation SubmittalsG Pre-Removal Assessment ReportsH Backfill Analytical Results for the Residential Property and Perimeter Area Restoration ActivitiesI Compaction Reports for the Residential Property and Perimeter Area Restoration ActivitiesJ Post-Removal Assessment ReportsK Air Monitoring Logs for the Residential Property and Perimeter Area Soil Removal ActivitiesL Nonhazardous Waste Manifests for Residential Property and Perimeter Area Soil Removal ActivitiesM Certificates of Disposal for Residential Property and Perimeter Area Soil Removal ActivitiesN Data Validation Reports for Post-Excavation and Post-Demolition SamplesO Well Construction LogsP Well Permits and RecordsQ Groundwater Sampling LogsR Gamma Radiation Survey for the 720-732 Grand Street Restoration ActivitiesS Compaction Reports for the 720-732 Grand Street Restoration ActivitiesT Backfill Analytical Results for the 720-732 Grand Street Restoration ActivitiesU Concrete Testing ResultsV Signed Waiver Letter to Mr. NotaroW Nonriazardous Waste Manifests for the 720-732 Grand Street RA ActivitiesX Hazardous Waste Manifests for the 720-732 Grand Street RA ActivitiesY Certificates of Disposal for Waste Generated from 720-732 Grand Street RA ActivitiesZ Photo! DocumentationAA Post-Demolition Assessment ReportsAB Vibration Monitoring Reports
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/24/05 . engineers, scientofs, economistsV:\GE_Grand_SlrMl\Rcpons and Picscntations\FinaJ\24150842_Rcvisnl_RA_Rcpon_2.doc 502657
7. Introduction
1.1 General
This Remedial Action Report (RA Report) describes the implementation of the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency- (USEPA-) selected remedy to address chemical constituents (primarily mercury) in buildingmaterials any environmental media at the Grand Street Mercury Site (site) in Hoboken, New Jersey. This RAReport also: describes the implementation of soil removal activities at the adjacent residential properties and theperimeter area. This RA Report was prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BEL) at the request of theGeneral Electric Company (GE). This RA Report was prepared in general accordance with the followingdocuments:?!
', i
• RecordpfDecision (ROD) (USEPA, 1997a);; 1
• Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action (UAO) (USEPA, 1998a,amended June 18, 1998);
• Statement of Work for Remedial Design and Remedial Action (SOW) (USEPA, 1998b; revised June 18,1998); i!
• irj
• Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan (BBL, 1998; first revision December 1998; second revision May 1999;approved by the USEPA August 1999);
. i
• Final Remedial Design (FRD) Report (BBL, 2000a; revised August 2000); partial approval by the USEPAon October 19, 2000 (demolition portion); full approval by the USEPA on September 26, 2002;
• Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan (BBL, 200la; revised October 2001; approved by the USEPA onNovemb'erl6, 2001);
;j
• Soil Removal Work Plan for Former Building Footprint (SRWP) (BBL, 2003a; revised March 2004);
• Soil Removal Design Plan for Off-Site Soil (SRDP) (BBL, 2002a; approved by the USEPA on May 29,2003); [I
r l
• Explanation of Significant Difference (BSD) (USEPA, 2003); and
• BSD (USEPA, 2004).
1.2 Background Information
Relevant site history and background information used to develop the strategy for implementing the USEPA-selected remedy were previously presented in the FRD Report and are not reiterated in this RA Report. A briefsite description, a description of previous removal actions, and previous site investigation activities conducted atthe site are presented below.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 '', engineers, scienfe/s, economistV:\GE_GTOd_Strea\Rejxms and Prcsonuion5\Fmal\24150842_R<rvi5edJlAJlcpoit.doc 502658
1-1
1.2.1 Site Description
The site is'.located at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street (720-732 Grand Street), and includes five adjacentresidential properties in the City of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey. The perimeter area is locatedbetween the! 720-732 Grand Street property and the adjacent streets (8th Street, Adams Street, and Grand Street).The 720-732 Grand Street property currently is a vacant lot surrounded by a 6-foot-high chain-link fence. Threestormwater catch basins are located onsite. The site formerly included an industrial building (722-732 GrandStreet), an attached townhouse (720 Grand Street), and an adjacent paved parking area. A site location map isincluded on; Figure 1. Pre-demolition site features and adjacent residential properties are shown on Figure 2.Post-demolition site features are shown on Figure 3.
1.2.2 Previous Removal Actions
The following two removal actions were initiated at the site prior to the USEPA approval of the FRD Report andthe RA Work Plan:
iM
• Removal action conducted by the USEPA; and• Removal action conducted by GE.
Each removal action is summarized below.
1.2.2.1 Removal Action Conducted by the USEPA
The USEPA conducted the following removal action activities at the site between December 1995 and August1997: i
:|
• Established site security;
• Temporarily relocated residents by providing benefits such as temporary housing, utility costs, storage costs,building maintenance, and moving expenses;
i
• Provided scanning of residents' possessions with a mercury vapor analyzer (MVA) to confirm thatunacceptable levels of mercury-impacted materials did not leave the site buildings;
i|
• Conducted air monitoring of each residential unit using personal sampling pumps to assess the presence ofmercury; in the building;
i ,
• Conducted an investigation of the site, including but not limited to, the building and parking lot, through theuse of intrusive and nonintrusive methods to evaluate the presence of mercury in site media and to developremediation alternatives; and
• Provided temporary shelter to accommodate the contents of the cargo trailer located in the parking lot untiltransportation and disposal arrangements could be made.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, sc/enfisfs, economists 1-2V:\GE_OrMd_Strea\Reponj and PrcsraU«ions\FiB«I\24]50842_Rcvis*d_RA_Repon.doc 502659
1.2.2.2 Removal Action Conducted by GE
GE (and its contractors BBL and BBL Environmental Services, Inc. [BBLES]) began conducting removalactivities at the site on August 5, 1997, in accordance with the Unilateral Administrative Order for RemovalResponse Activities (Removal Action UAO) issued by Region n of the USEPA to GE and John Pascale, ST.,dated February 24, 1997, revised May 6, 1997, and effective May 9, 1997 (USEPA, 1997b), and the USEPA-approved site Work Plan, dated July 1997, and prepared by BBL (BBL, 1997). The removal activitiesconducted at the site by GE and its contractors are listed below:
• Maintained site security, including the wireless security system installed by the USEPA and the presence ofa 24-hour security guard;
• Provided scanning and decontamination, when requested by the USEPA, of residents' possessions with anMVA to'confirm that unacceptable levels of mercury-impacted materials did not leave the site buildings;
• Conducted regular inspections, service, and maintenance of the buildings located at the site, including, butnot limited to, the central boilers, the passenger elevator, all windows, the roof of the building, and the firesprinkler system; and
- i
• Provided sampling, analysis, transportation, and disposal of the accumulated mercury-impacted flooring(i.e., flooring removed by the USEPA during site assessment activities and flooring removed by formerresidents), debris, personal protective equipment (PPE), USEPA-generated sampling debris, and labpack-sized containers generated during previous remediation efforts by the USEPA at the site and USEPAassessment activities at the site.
1.2.3 Previous Site Investigation Activities
Several site investigations (including building material, soil and groundwater) were conducted at the GrandStreet Mercury Site. The results of the investigations (with the exception of the post-demolition groundwaterinvestigation'that is discussed in Section 8) are discussed in the following documents:
• Design Activities Report (DAR) (BBL, 2000b, revised August 2000);• Supplemental Design Activities Report (SDAR) (BBL, 2000c);• Design Activities Report Addendum (DARA) (BBL, 2001 b);• Supplemental Investigation Report (SIR) (BBL, 2002b) (residential properties); and• SRWP. '
1.3 Project Responsibilities
This subsection describes the responsibilities of the each party (GE and the USEPA) and their subcontractorsand subconsultants.
I
The following table presents the responsibilities of GE, BBL, BBLES, Sabre Demolition Corporation (Sabre),USEPA, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 '' engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grmd_Strca\Rcports «nd Prcsa>l«tioi]s\FinaI\24]508«_Rcvis«l_RA_Repoit.doc 502660
1-3
GE
BBLBBLES
Sabre
USEPA
USAGECH2M Hill
Organization that assumed the overall project management and directionof the RA activities.Consulting Engineer to GE; Independent Quality Assurance Team (IQAT).GE's subcontractor; coordinated waste transportation and disposition forwaste materials.GE's selected RA Contractor. Implemented the RA activities as requiredby the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and SRDP.Regulating agency for the RA activities in accordance with Section 106(a)of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA), as amended under Title 42 Section 9606(a) of theUnited States Code (42 USC 9606(a)).USEPA's onsite Oversight Representative during RA activities.North Hudson Sewerage Authority's consultant; oversight of waterdischarges to the North Hudson Sewerage Authority's sewer system.
1.3.1 Subcontractors and Subconsultants
During the RA, BBL, BBLES, and Sabre used subcontractors and subconsultants for assistance in completingselect work tasks. The following table presents BBL's subcontractors and subconsultants and their associatedresponsibilities.
Accutest Laboratories (Accutest)Clayton Group Services (Clayton^James M. Stewart, Inc.LZA; Technology (LZA)Severn Trent LaboratoriesJSTL)SGS, Environmental Services, Inc. (SGS)U.S. Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (USEL)Vibra Tech
Laboratory analytical services.Asbestos abatement monitoring activities.Surveying services.Structural consulting services.Laboratory analytical services.Well drilling and well maintenance activities.Geotechnical testing services.Vibration monitoring services.
The following table presents BBLES' subcontractors and subconsultants and their associated responsibilities.
' ?fef! a^NarheaSf;BBLES?>^^^ |:-»*-.- \ ' : ' : ; ^^^^vJ^^-" '.-:-f fr^K~'t fl&i tX^yS '%' ^SubcbritractorySubceh^1 sl Precinct SecurityChemical Waste Management, Inc.
CWM Chemical Services, LLC
Horwith Trucking, Inc. (subcontractor to WasteManagement, Inc. and CWM ChemicalServices, LLC)
Haig's Service Corporation (Haig's)Hackensack Meadowlands DevelopmentCommission (HMDC)
^Project Re^pofisibllity7Si6rvic6s ProvldedrflProvided and removed remote security system.Transportation and offsite disposal of selectwaste.Transportation and offsite disposal of selectwaste.Transportation of select waste materials to theChemical Waste Management, Inc. facility inEmelle, Alabama and the CWM ChemicalServices, LLC facility in Model City, New York.Provided and removed fire alarm system.Transportation and offsite disposal of selectwaste.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grmd_Suca\Reports and Presentatk>ns\Final\24150842_Revis«d_RA_RepOTl.doc 502661
1-4
Ken's Marine Site maintenance activities during sitewinterization from December 2003 throughSeptember 2004.
Onyx Environmental Services, LLC (Onyx) Transportation and offsite disposal of selectwaste.
Land N Sea Environmental Services, Inc. Transportation of select nonhazardous waste toHMDC.
Falesto Brothers, Inc. (subcontractor to Land NSea Environmental Services, Inc.J
Transportation of select nonhazardous waste toHMDC.
Waste Management of PA Transportation and offsite disposal of selectwaste.
Wills Trucking, Inc. (subcontractor to WasteManagement of PA)
Transportation of select nonhazardous waste tothe Waste Management Tullytown/GROWSfacility located in Pennsylvania.
The following table presents Sabre's subcontractors and subconsultants and their responsibilities.
Absolute Security Network, Inc. (Absolute)
ACE Scaffolding (ACE)
Active Environmental Technologies (AET)Allied Engineering Associates (Allied)
Anchor Stone and Stucco Co. (Anchor Stone)Best Control Environment Corp. (BCEC)
Burns International Security Services, Inc.(Bums),
Environmental Assurance Company, Inc.(EACI)i!Environmental Cleaning Services, Inc. (ECS)
'' t
Guardian FenceHydroseed ProJames M. Stewart, Inc.Karabiriachak Bros. Inc. (KBI)
i '
ii ,
The Kachele Group, Consulting Engineers(Kacheie GrouplP.L. CaufieldPOW/R/SAVE, Inc.Proline Electrical Contractors, LLP (Proline)
Safety Source Consultants, Ltd.
:^SfPS | ^p^^>^^^^S^^^^p^^^^^^§^ jfef ^^M^pPni!Bi(iiy/§e'm.pfo i;?c!)s8^W^^SOnsite security services during non-working hours atthe site (September to December 2004).Installation and maintenance of scaffolding aroundthe former industrial building and townhouse duringdemolition activities.Brick scarification.Design services for the scaffolding and temporarywall/flooring/ceiling support system.Common wall modification activities.Asbestos abatement services during the soil removalactivities (December 2004).Onsite security services during non-working hours atthe site during building demolition activities (2002-2003).Asbestos and lead abatement services.
Subsurface pipe cleaning services, lead abatementservices, video inspection of subsurface utilities.Installation and maintenance of fencing.Placed hydroseed at the site.Surveying services.Utility disconnect services (natural gas, fireprotection, electrical), construction services forretaining wall, deck, and storm sewer inlets (andassociated^ ipingLSubconsultant to ACE; provided design services forthe scaffolding.Surveying services for the retaining wall.Refrigerant removal services.Subcontractor to KBI; Conducted electricaldisconnection services.Health and safety services.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 '• engineers, scien/isfs. economistsV:\OE_Orand_Slreo\Rcporu and PTcsanalions\FinaW4150842_Revisa)_RA_Rcpon.doc 502662
1-5
Power Fasteners, Inc. Conducted pull testing services for the common wallmodifications.
DeCarlo Landscaping Street sweeping services.
1.4 RA Report Objective
The overall objective of this RA Report is to provide a detailed description of the RA activities (and associatedconstruction' quality control [CQC] procedures) implemented at the 720-732 Grand Street property, adjacentresidential properties, and perimeter area in accordance with the USEPA-selected remedy.
1.5 Organization of RA Report
This RA Report is organized into the sections described below. The RA activities discussed in this report arepresented in' the general order in which they occurred.
» ?3 ssass3(j ^ «! ^>iwii ?B6 ;aHP3BasiS!sgii1 - Introduction
2 - Notice Of Completion
3 - Modifications to the FRD Report and RAWork Plan :4 - Site Preparation/Mobilization5 - Building' Demolition Activities6 - Residential Properties and PerimeterArea Remedial Activities7 - 720-732 ,Grand Street Soil Removal
8 - Post-Demolition GroundwaterInvestigation9 - Site Restoration, Decontamination, and
Demobilization10- Air Monitoring
1 1 - Handling, Transportation, and OffsiteDisposition of Waste Materials
12 - Construction Quality Control
1 3 - Record Drawings14 -Certification
e^&sm^^mi s^e r f ^ss^^vvs t j viJ ts i ssisBs^a^s^^^s&fi ^Presents relevant background information, site description,previous removal actions and site investigation activities, projectobjectives, and organization of RA Report.Provides notice that the work was completed in accordance withthe UAO and that performance standards were attained.Discusses modifications to the FRD Report and RA Work Plan.
Describes the site preparation/mobilization activities.Describes the pre-demolition and building demolition activities.Describes the remedial activities conducted at the residentialproperties and perimeter area.Describes the soil removal activities that were conducted on the720-732 Grand Street property.Describes the post-demolition activities that were conducted atthe site.Describes the site restoration, decontamination, anddemobilization activities.Describes the air monitoring activities that were conductedduring the RA activities.Describes the handling, transportation, and offsite disposition ofwastejjenerated during the RA activities.Summarizes the procedures for implementing the ConstructionQuality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP) during the RAactivities.Presents the record drawings.Documents that the performance standards were met inaccordance with the UAO.
In addition, this report is supported by figures, record drawings, tables, and appendices, as listed in the Table ofContents.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
7/6/05 engineers, scienfis/s, economistsV:\CE_Ormd_Suea\Repons and Prcscntations\Fin»A24150842_Revisai_RA_Report(toc 502663
1-6
2. Notice of Completion
This notice .documents that the Remedial Action was fully performed and the Performance Standards wereattained in accordance with the UAO, SOW, ROD, ESDs, FRD, RA Work Plan, SRWP, and the SRDP, and allnecessary and appropriate modifications as documented in this report dated March 2005; first revision July2005; second revision August 2005.
Margaret^. Carrillo-Sheridan, P.E.N.J. Professional Engineer Lie. No. 038667
BLASLAND, BOUCK 8. LEE, INC.8/18/05 engineer, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Gnmd_Strca\Rcpons and Prcsmtarions\FjnaI\24]50842_Rcviscd_RA_Rcpon_Z<kK 502664
2-1
3. Modifications to the FRD Report and RA WorkPlan
3.1 General
This section presents the modifications to the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and SRWP. The modifications werediscussed and approved by the USEPA prior to implementation. The modifications to the FRD Report, RAWork Plan, and SRWP are listed in the table below.
Meteorological system heightElevator usePaniculate monitor equipmentAir handling system equipmentMVA equipmentTemporary water treatment system licensing requirement
Refrigerant removal subcontractorParticulate stop work action levelBrick scarification subcontractor and equipmentFloor removal subcontractorSoil removal due to meteorological system installationMercury vapor work area stop work action levelsTownhouse common wall joist anchor
Rear and front corner construction associated with the townhousecommon wall design
ScaffoldUnit 5D wall removal
Loose lead-based paint removalConcrete ceiling removalWaste managementSubfloor decking removal equipmentSubfloor decking removalSchedule -First floor demolition sequenceTownhouse common wallSubsurface structure/piping cleaning subcontractorConcrete floor slab and removal of subsurface pipingPost-demolition soil investigation activities
Onsite securitySoil removalFoundation material removal
• ?M«&s*£mgy^Request Datefifl^w^Ais-.-sa /i ?
2/8/20022/8/20022/8/20022/8/2002
2/28/20023/14/20024/9/2002
4/10/20024/19/20025/2/2002
5/28/20027/17/20028/13/2002
9/20/2002
10/31/200210/31/2002
11/5/200211/5/200211/5/2002
12/20/200212/20/20021/31/20033/27/20034/25/20035/7/2003
5/20/20037/3/2003
11/20/20038/11/20048/11/2004
iP^ fiiiPP
3/5/20023/5/20023/5/20023/5/20023/4/20024/4/2002
4/16/20024/18/20024/23/20025/9/2002
See section 3.27/24/20028/15/2002
10/10/2002
11/1/200211/1/2002
11/7/200211/7/200211/7/20021/2/20031/2/2003
1/13/20033/28/2003
See section 3.25/9/2003
5/20/20037/15/200311/25/20038/19/2004
8/19/2004
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientefs. economis/sV:\GE_Grand_Suca\Rtpons and PrcsoitMions\FiMM41S0842_Rcvucd_RA_Rejiort.doc 502665
3-1
Post-excavation soil sampling 9/29/2004 10/5/2004Gamma radiation screening 9/29/2004 10/5/2004
Additional backfill material (riprap) 10/13/2004 10/14/2004Modified Type 3 fill material 11/16/2004 11/18/2004Post-demolition groundwater investigation See Section 3.2 11/30/2004Asbestos removal contractor (ARC) 11/29/2004 12/2/2004
The soil removal activities that were conducted at the residential properties and perimeter areas were notincluded in the FRD Report, the RA Work Plan, or the SRWP and are considered a modification to the RAactivities. The soil removal activities conducted at the residential properties and perimeter area are discussed inSection 6. The design for implementing residential properties soil removal activities is presented in the SRDP(BBL, 2002a).
3.2 Description of Modifications
This section describes the modifications (and associated USEPA approvals) to the FRD Report, RA Work Plan,and SRWP.
Meteorological System Height Modification
The FRD Report (Section 2.4 of Appendix G) indicated that the meteorological monitoring would be conductedusing a Met ;One meteorological system that included a 13.2-meter (40-foot) tower. On behalf of GE, BBLsubmitted a letter to the USEPA dated February 8, 2002, requesting the height of the tower be reduced to 30feet. The USEPA agreed to this modification in their letter to BBL dated March 5, 2002.
Elevator Use Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.11) indicated that the RA Contractor, Sabre, would not use the elevator to transportequipment and/or materials to and/or from upper floor levels. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to theUSEPA dated February 8, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to use the elevator during the interiornonstructural wall/floor and residential improvement removal activities. The USEPA agreed to thismodification in their letter to BBL dated March 5, 2002.
• iParticulate Monitor Equipment Modification
The FRD Report (Section 2.2 of Appendix G) and the RA Work Plan (Section 17.3) specified that the Mffi DataRAM ™ Portable Particulate Monitor be used for monitoring airborne particulates at the site. On behalf of GE,BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA dated February 8, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to usethe Air-Aide Model 2000 airborne paniculate monitor. The USEPA agreed to this modification in their letter toBBL dated March 5, 2002.
Air Handling System Equipment Modification
The RA Work Plan (Appendix C, Attachment B of Volume H) specified that the air handling system use theDwyer TF21xx Flo-Sensor with the TM2 Digital Rate Meter. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to theUSEPA dated February 8, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to replace the Dwyer TF21xx Flo-
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economistsescntalk>QsVFinaJ\24l50842_Rcvised_RA_Rcport.doc 502666
3-2
sensor with the VelociCalc Rotary Vane Anemometer. The USEPA agreed to this modification in their letter toBBL dated March 5, 2002.
Mercury Vapor Analyzer Equipment Modification
The FRD Report (Section 2.2 of Appendix G) and the RA Work Plan (Section 17.3 of Volume II) specifiedusing the Jerome MVA to monitor mercury vapor. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPAdated February 28, 2002 requesting the use of a VM-3000 MVA, in addition to the Jerome 431-X monitor.During the March 4, 2002 Pre-Demolition Inspection, the USEPA concurred with this modification.
Temporary Water Treatment System Licensing Requirement Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.20.3) specified that the system operator of the temporary water treatment system bea New Jersey licensed system operator. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA dated March14, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to remove the requirement of a licensed system operator.The USEPA agreed to this modification in their letter submitted to GE on April 4, 2002.
Refrigerant Removal Subcontractor Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 5.3.4 of Volume II) specified that the refrigerant removal subcontractor would beJimmy's Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA datedApril 9, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to use POW/R/SAVE as their refrigerant removalsubcontractor instead of Jimmy's Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. The USEPA agreed to this modificationin their letter to BBL dated April 16, 2002.
Particulate Stop Work Action Level Modification
The FRD Report (Section 2.5.1 of Appendix G) and the RA Work Plan (Section 8.3 of Appendix A, Volume I;and Section 8.3 Appendix D, Volume II) specified that the work area action levels for stopping work would be 1milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3) for particulates. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPAdated April 10, 2002 requesting the stop work action level be increased to 5.0 mg/m3. The USEPA agreed toincrease the stop work action level to 2.0 mg/m3 in their letter to BBL dated April 18, 2002.
Brick Scarification Subcontractor and Equipment Modification. I
The RA Work Plan (Section 9 and Attachment A of Volume II) specified that Petroclean, Inc. would performthe brick scarification using the Brock BM150 with Webster Schaffer Transverse Cutting Unit WS15. Onbehalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA dated April 19, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre'srequest to use AET to conduct the brick scarification activities using a combination of handheld equipment(instead of the Brock BM150). The USEPA agreed to the modifications in their letter to BBL dated April 23,2002.
Floor Removal Subcontractor Modification•• in
The RA Work Plan (Section 8.3 of Volume IT) indicated that qualified Sabre personnel would conduct the floorremoval activities. BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA dated May 2, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre'srequest to use ECS to conduct the floor removal activities. The USEPA agreed to the request in their letterdated May 9, 2002.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Streri\Rcporu and PrcsaKationsVFinar\24150842_Revis«J_RA_Rcportdoc 502667
3-3
Soil Removal Due to Meteorological System Installation Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 14 of Volume II) indicated that the soil removal activities would not be conductedas part of the building demolition activities. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated May28, 2002, requesting that the soil that was excavated during installation of the Met One meteorological systembe managed for disposal as a nonhazardous waste (based on existing waste characterization data). Duringtelephone conversations with BBL, the USEPA concurred with this modification.
Mercury Vapor Work Area Stop Work Action Levels Modification
The FRD Report (Section 2.5.1 of Appendix G) indicated that the work area stop work action level for mercuryvapor was 0.5 mg/m3. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated July 17, 2002, requestingthat the work area stop work action level for mercury vapor increase from 0.5 mg/m3 to 1.0 mg/m3. The USEPAapproved the increase in the action level in their letter to GE dated July 24, 2002, but stated that the contractormust continue to use the engineering controls and begin the use of chemical agents, when appropriate.
Townhouse Common Wall Joist Anchor Modification
The FRD Report (Drawing AR-1 of Attachment C) specified angled joist anchors to be used to tie the woodfloor joists in the 718 Grand Street building to the common wall with the townhouse. On behalf of GE, BBLsubmitted a letter to the USEPA, dated August 13, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to use straightjoist anchors;instead of angled joist anchors. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL datedAugust 15, 2002.
Rear and Front Corner Construction Associated with the Townhouse Common Wall Design Modification
The RA Work Plan did not include installing control joints at the front and rear corners of the townhouse. Onbehalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated September 20, 2002 requesting the installation of thecontrol joints at the front and rear corners of townhouse common wall and threaded rods at the front comer ofthe townhouse common wall modification. The requested additional installations were based on LZA's (BBL'sstructural engineer) review of the post-demolition condition of the townhouse common wall and LZA'srecommendations. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated October 10, 2002.
Scaffold Modification
The RA Work Plan (Appendix A of Volume II) specified that the width of the scaffold was to be 5 feet. Onbehalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated October 31, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre'srequest to modify the scaffold width from five feet to three feet on the north side of the former industrialbuilding. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated November 1, 2002.
Unit 5D Wall Removal Modification
The RA Work Plan (Volume D, Section 11/12.11 of Appendix A) specified that the Unit 5D wall would beremoved prior to removing the former industrial building roof. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to theUSEPA, dated October 31, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to remove the Unit 5D wallfollowing removal of the former industrial building roof. The USEPA approved the modification in their letterto BBL dated November 1, 2002.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 3-4V:\GE_Grand_Soca\Rq>oru and Prcsema»ra\FinaJU'4150S'12^RcvisaJJlA_Rq>ort.doc 502668
Loose Lead-Based Paint Removal Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 5 of Volume n) and the FRD Report (Section 7.6) indicated that the loose lead-based paint would be removed prior to demolition of the former industrial building. On behalf of GE, BBLsubmitted a letter to the USEPA, dated November 5, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request to removethe remaining paint (that delaminated following the loose lead-based paint removal) from each floor prior to thedemolition of that floor. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated November 7, 2002.
Concrete Ceiling Removal Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 8 of Volume H) indicated that plaster/sheetrock ceilings would be removed prior todemolition of the former industrial building. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, datedNovember 5, 2002, informing the USEPA that a 2-inch-thick poured concrete ceiling covering a portion of Unit5C was encountered. The letter also indicated that Sabre requested that the concrete ceiling be removed as partof the roof. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated November 7, 2002.
Waste Management Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.6) indicated that all waste be removed from the former industrial building prior todemolition. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated November 5, 2002, requesting thatselect waste remain onsite, staged in the basement adjacent to the south side of the fire wall. BBL indicated thatdemolition would not be initiated on the floors above the waste storage area until the remaining waste wasremoved. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated November 7, 2002.
Subfloor Decking Removal Equipment Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 8.3 of Volume II) indicated that circular saws equipped with high-efficiencyparticulate air- (HEPA-) filtered dust collection systems be used to cut the subfloor decking. On behalf of GE,BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated December 20, 2002, informing the USEPA of Sabre's request touse chainsaws, which are not equipped with HEPA-filtered dust collection systems, to cut the subfloor decking.The letter indicated that Sabre would employ other methods of controlling dust including the following: wettingthe subfloor prior to saw cutting, sweeping the sawdust as it was generated, and vacuuming the area of the sawcut with a HEP A vacuum following saw cutting activities. The USEPA approved the modification in their letterto BBL dated January 2,2003.
Subfloor Decking Removal Modification* •
On behalf ofi GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated December 20, 2002, requesting a modification tothe floor removal procedure. BBL indicated that the modified floor removal method proposed would allow forvisible mercury to be vacuumed prior to removing the subfloor decking and would facilitate furtheridentification and separation of bulk mercury. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBLdated January 2, 2003.
Schedule Modification[
On behalf of;GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated January 31, 2003, requesting modification to theRA schedule presented in the RA Work Plan. BBL indicated that the schedule was updated based on themodification of building demolition methods (i.e., manual demolition of all floors in the former industrial
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists c n o c c oV:\GE_Grand_Strw\Rcporu md PrcsattaIk>ns\FinaI\:4150842_Rcvi5ed.RA_Repoit.dK b U Z D D 3
building). The RA schedule was also modified to incorporate the post-demolition investigation activities. TheUSEPA approved the modification in their letter to BBL dated January 13, 2005.
l" Floor Demolition Sequence Modification
The RA Work Plan (Volume IT) indicated that Sabre would demolish the former industrial building on a floor byfloor basis proceeding column line by column line. The RA Work Plan also indicated that the scaffoldinglocated around the top floor would be removed after the exterior walls are removed. On behalf of GE, BBLsubmitted a letter to the USEPA, dated March 27, 2003, requesting modification to the sequence of the l$l floordemolition sequence. The letter indicated that the material hoist would be removed from the former industrialbuilding following demolition of the 2nd floor walls. Demolition of the 1st floor would begin at the openingcreated by the removal of the material hoist and then proceed with the original demolition sequence. The letteralso indicated that Sabre requested that the 1" floor scaffolding be removed (or reduced to leave one level offrame scaffolding from each bay following demolition of the associated bay). The USEPA approved themodification in their letter to BBL dated March 28,2003.
Townhouse Common Wall Modification
The FRD Report (Drawing AR-2 of Attachment C) indicated that a parapet would be constructed on top of thetownhouse common wall as part of the townbouse common wall restoration. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted aletter to the USEPA, dated April 25, 2003, requesting modification to the townhouse common wall restoration.The letter requested that a parapet wall not be constructed on top of the townhouse common wall and that amodified roof design be constructed. The USEPA concurred with the modification.
Subsurface Structure/Piping Cleaning Subcontractor Modification
The RA Work Plan (Volume n) indicated that Sabre's subcontractor, Petroclean, Inc., would conduct thesubsurface structure/piping cleaning activities. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, datedMay 7, 2003', requesting a modification to the subsurface structure/piping cleaning subcontractor. The letterstated that Sabre requested that ECS of Montaque, New Jersey serve as the subsurface structure/piping cleaningsubcontractor. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to GE dated May 9, 2003.
Concrete Floor Slab and Removal of Subsurface Piping Modification
The RA Work Plan (Section 6 of Volume II) indicated that the subsurface piping would be cleaned prior toconcrete slab removal. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated May 20, 2003, requestinga modification of the concrete floor slab and removal of subsurface piping activities. The letter requested thatthe pipes be removed and capped (but not cleaned) due to the detection of mercury in the subsurface piping andthe encrustation and/or sediment buildup within the piping. The USEPA approved the modification in theirletter to GE dated May 20, 2003.
Post-Demolition Soil Investigation Activities Modification
The FRD Report (Section 8.2) indicated that during the post-demolition soil investigation subsurface soilsampling, 10< shallow soil borings would be installed within the footprint of the demolished buildings and wouldbe installed to the top of the groundwater table. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, datedJuly 3, 2003, requesting that the sampling program be modified to further delineate the extent and nature ofmercury-impacted materials by using a 30-foot by 30-foot sampling grid over the footprint of the formerindustrial building. The two sampling grids located over the footprint of the townhouse were 25-feet by 25-feet.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economisfs 3-6V:\GE_GTOd_Streo\Rcj>ons and Prcsratations\FinaJ\24]50842_RevisoJ_RA_Report.*>c 502670
In a July !5, 2003 telephone conversation between Margaret Carrillo-Sheridan, P.E., of BBL, and JonathanGorin of the USEPA, the USEPA agreed to the modification with some revisions. The USEPA-requestedrevisions were submitted in a July 15, 2003 electronic mail from BBL to the USEPA.
Onsite Security Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.21) indicated that 24-hour site security be maintained until the date of the finaldemobilization. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated November 20, 2003, requestingthat the 24-hour manned site security be discontinued during the winter shut down and resume during soilremoval activities. The USEPA approved the modification in their November 25, 2003 letter to GE.
Soil Removal Modification
The SRWP (Section 5.2) and FRD Report (Section 7.15) indicated that excavations below the groundwater tableduring the soil removal activities would be dewatered by a groundwater removal system, and soil excavatedfrom below the groundwater table would be stockpiled in a dewatering area prior to placement in appropriateUnited States Department of Transportation- (USDOT-) approved waste containers. On behalf of GE, BBLsubmitted a letter to the USEPA, dated August 11, 2004, requesting that the soil located below the groundwatertable be excavated in a saturated state, placed into USDOT-approved containers containing a drying agent (i.e.,kiln dust), and mixed together in the container. The drying agent would absorb water/moisture prior to transportto the designated disposal facilities. The USEPA approved the modification in their August 19, 2004 letter toGE, contingent upon the RA Contractor taking special precautions to minimize water loss from excavatedsaturated soil while placing soil into waste containers. These special precautions were undertaken by the RAContractor.
Foundation Material Removal Modification
The SRWP {Figure 9) indicated that the full depth of select foundation materials of the former industrialbuilding would be removed during soil removal activities. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to theUSEPA, dated August 11, 2004, requesting that the RA Contractor remove only the upper portion (i.e., theportion located above the groundwater table) of select foundation materials. BBL proposed to collect oneadditional sample for total mercury analysis following removal of the upper portion of select foundationmaterial. If the total mercury results indicated the need for further removal (i.e., mercury concentration greaterthan 520 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]), then the full depth of the foundation material would be removed.The USEPA agreed to the modification in their August 19, 2004 letter to GE.
Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.15.2) indicated that two post-excavation verification soil samples would becollected from the parking lot area. On September 29, 2004, the USEPA submitted a letter to GE requiring thateight bottom post-excavation soil samples and six sidewall post-excavation soil samples be collected fromexcavated areas. GE agreed to the additional post-excavation soil samples in a letter to the USEPA, datedOctober 5, 2004.
Gamma Radiation Screening Modification
The USEPA submitted a letter to GE, dated September 29, 2004, requiring gamma radiation screening beperformed in accordance with USEPA Method 901.1 for stone fill materials proposed for the Grand StreetMercury Site. The FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and SRWP did not require gamma radiation screening for any
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, sc/enfefs, economists 3-7V:\CE_Grand^Slrea\Rcpons md Prcsa>lations\Fin»l\24l50842_Rn'isc<iJW_Repon.doc 502671
backfill material. GE agreed to the modification in their letter to the USEPA, dated October 5, 2004, contingentthat GE's protocol for screening (which was attached to the letter) be used because the USEPA Method 901.1was a laboratory method and not applicable to field screening applications. GE's protocol for screening wasaccepted by the USEPA.
Additional Backfill Material (Riprap) Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.22.2 and Drawing G-35) indicated that Type 1 select fill material would be placedand compacted to the top of the groundwater table in areas where excavation went below the groundwater table.On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated October 13, 2004, requesting the inclusion ofriprap (angular stone with a minimum diameter of 3 inches and maximum diameter of 6 inches) as an alternateto the Type 1 select fill. The USEPA agreed to the modification in their letter to GE, dated October 14, 2004.
Modified Type 3 Fill Material Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.22.5) indicated that the infiltration trench located in the southwest portion of the sitewould be lined with Type 3 select fill. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated November16, 2004, requesting that the 2'/z-inch aggregate from the Stavola Quarry in Bound Brook, New Jersey be usedas an alternative to the Type 3 select fill material. BBL indicated that the alternate quarries (that could supplythe Type 3 select fill material) would not allow gamma radiation scanning to be conducted at their quarries. TheUSEPA approved the modification in their letter to GE, dated November 18, 2004.
Post-Demolition Groundwater Investigation Modification
The FRD Report (Section 7.4 and 8.3) indicated that one full round of groundwater sampling and analysis wouldbe conducted followed by abandonment of the groundwater monitoring wells. The FRD Report also indicatedthat the groundwater monitoring wells would be abandoned prior to site demobilization activities. The USEPAsubmitted a letter to GE, dated November 1, 2004, requiring GE to install three shallow wells in the footprints ofthe demolished buildings. The letter also indicated that one soil sample should be collected from eachmonitoring well location (soil/meadow mat interface) and analyzed for mercury. The USEPA submitted anotherletter to GE,; dated November 8, 2004, requiring GE to collect one round of samples from all seven existingmonitoring wells and to analyze the samples for total mercury only. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter tothe USEPA, dated November 24, 2004, indicating that all groundwater monitoring wells except MW-2 andMW-4 (to be abandoned) would remain in place (as requested by the USEPA in the pre-fmal inspection), andthat all groundwater samples be analyzed for total mercury only. The USEPA approved the modification intheir letter to GE, dated November 30, 2004. The November 30, 2004 letter indicated that all existingmonitoring wells would be left in place for future investigation work with the exception of monitoring wellsMW-2 and MW-4.
' !
ARC Modification
The RA Work Plan (Volume II, Appendix B) identified EACI as the ARC for the RA activities. On behalf ofGE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated November 29, 2004, requesting that BCEC serve as the RAContractor's ARC to conduct asbestos removal activities for subsurface pipes encountered in the parking lot inNovember 2004 because EACI was no longer licensed (as of November 2004) in New Jersey to performasbestos removal activities. The USEPA approved the modification in their letter to GE, dated December 2,2004.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfe/s. economis/s 3-8V:\GEJ3rand_Strea\Rcporu and Prnralations\Final\24150842_RevisoMU_Ret»n.doc 502672
4. Mobilization/Site Preparation Activities
4.1 General
This section describes the site mobilization and preparation activities conducted as part of the RA. The sitemobilization and preparation activities were conducted in conformance with the USEPA-approveddocumentation, as previously discussed in Sections 1 and 3, and are discussed below.
4.2 Pre-RA Meeting
Prior to mobilization and site preparation, a Pre-RA meeting was held on December 4, 2001. GE, BBL, Sabre,JMI Management (a GE subcontractor that provided assistance with the waste transportation and disposalplanning), USEPA and the USAGE attended the Pre-RA meeting. On February 28, 2002, BBL distributed Pre-RA meeting minutes to meeting attendees. A copy of the meeting minutes is included in Appendix A.
4.3 Mobilization
Site mobilization activities commenced on January 29, 2002. Sabre and their subcontractors mobilizedmanpower, equipment, and materials to the site. BBL provided visual review of equipment and materialsmobilized to the site to assure conformance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. As part of themobilization activities, several permits and approvals were obtained by Sabre, BBL, and BBLES, as detailedbelow.
4.3.1 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications
Prior to implementing select RA work tasks, Sabre obtained the following applicable state and local permits:
• Street closure and sidewalk closure permits from the City of Hoboken (February 2002).
• Asbestos Work Notifications submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) and the USEPA (March 2002, May 2002, July 2002, September 2002, and April 2003).
• Building permits from the City of Hoboken for the restoration of residential properties (September 2003)and installation of a concrete retaining wall (December 2004).
Sabre obtained approval from the City of Hoboken (May 2003) to use water from the hydrant on the 700 blockof Adams Street as their water source, following demolition of the former industrial building (and disconnectionof the water supply to the site).
BBL and Sabre also inquired (to the City of Hoboken) if a building demolition permit was required fordemolition of the former industrial building and townhouse. The Director of the City of Hoboken Departmentof Environmental Services submitted a letter to BBL on October 18, 2001 indicating that the City of Hobokenwould not require additional permits for demolition of the Grand Street Mercury Site.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_GrMid_Strcea\Reporu and PitsoitBtion$\Finar\24150842_Rcvis«d_RA_Reportdoc 502673
4-1
As part of mobilization activities, BBL obtained the permits and approvals listed below.
• BBL submitted an air equivalency permit application to the NJDEP in November 2001. The NJDEPindicated in their letter to BBL on February 28, 2002 that an air equivalency permit was not necessary forthe air handling system.
• Approval from the North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA) for discharge of treated water (generatedfrom activities conducted at the site) to the combined sanitary and storm sewers located on the comers of 8th
Street and Grand Street, and 8* Street and Adams Street.
• Approval from the USEPA for the use of the disposal facilities identified in the FRD Report and RA WorkPlan.
• Certification of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from the Hudson Essex Passaic SoilConservation District (HEPSCD).
In addition, for waste materials (greater than 10 cubic yards) shipped from the site to disposition facilitieslocated outside of New Jersey, BBL submitted notification letters to the appropriate state environmental officialin the receiving facility's state.
4.4 Site Security
Sabre provided and maintained site security throughout the RA activities. Sabre and Bums provided onsitesecurity during the RA activities in accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. The security guardprovided by Burns International Security Services, Inc. was onsite when Sabre's employees were not onsite(e.g., nights and weekends). The security guard performed periodic inspections to check conditions at variousareas throughout the site.
As previously discussed in subsection 3.2, the USEPA approved GE's request to discontinue 24-hour mannedsite security during the 2003/2004 winter shut down and resume during soil removal activities. The 24-hourmanned site security resumed the week of September 7, 2004. Absolute conducted the security during non-working hours (i.e., weeknights and weekends) during the remainder of the RA activities. Sabre's trailer wasused as the main operating station for the security guard(s). On November 9, 2004 Sabre's trailer wasdemobilized from the site. The security guards used USAGE'S site trailer until the trailer was demobilized fromthe site on December 16, 2004. Security continued using Absolute's personal vehicles for the remainder of theRA activities, which were completed on December 31, 2004. On December 31, 2004 site security wasrelinquished to the USAGE and USEPA.
Electrical power service to the USAGE'S trailer had been disconnected by PSEG on November 30, 2004.
4.5 Site Preparation
Sabre began site preparation activities on January 29, 2002. The site preparation activities are described below.
Sabre obtained access to a potable water source and electrical service. Prior to and during demolition, Sabreused the water from the former industrial building as their water source. Following demolition, Sabre obtainedpermission from the City of Hoboken to use water from the hydrant on the 700 block of Adams Street as their
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7'6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 4-2V:\GE_Gnnd_Strea\Rcporu and Presonations\Fiii«ra4150842_Revised_RA_Repon.doc 502674
water source. Sabre installed a temporary electric panel onsite following deactivation of the electrical service tothe former industrial building.
Sabre verified existing site conditions and identified the location of aboveground and underground utilities,equipment, and structures.
Sabre constructed waste material staging areas in the basement of the former industrial building (which wereremoved to the parking lot during demolition of the 5* floor); a temporary water treatment system (including thesecondary containment area); equipment, material, and personnel decontamination area in the basement of theformer industrial building; and an air handling system. The waste material staging area, temporary watertreatment system, and personnel decontamination areas were relocated to the parking lot as the demolition/RAactivities progressed.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV.\GE_GT3nd_Streo\Repons and Presan«Iions\FinaI\24l50842_Revbed_RA_Rc()ort.doc 502675
4-3
5. Building Demolition Activities
5.1 General
This section presents a task-by-task description of the building demolition activities that were conducted duringthe RA. The following activities were associated with the building demolition:
• project meetings;• mobilization/site preparation;• air handling system;• temporary water treatment system;• loose lead-based paint removal;• asbestos abatement;• pre-demolition activities;• demolition preparation;• garage demolition;• demolition of unit 2A study;• demolition of attached townhouse;• demolition of former industrial building;• building concrete slab demolition and improvements removal;• subsurface structure/piping cleaning;• decontamination;• handling, transportation, and offsite disposition of waste materials;• site control;• site restoration/demobilization; and• post-demolition site investigation.
This section discusses the activities associated with the building demolition in the general sequence that theactivities occurred. Following demolition of the former industrial building and attached townhouse, soil wasremoved from the residential properties and perimeter area as discussed in Section 6. Soil removal activities at720-732 Grand Street property could not be performed until the BSD for soil removal, regarding the soilslocated below the top of the groundwater table, was approved by the NJDEP. The BSD established theRemedial Action Objective (RAO) for average total mercury in subsurface soils located below the top of thegroundwater, table to be 520 mg/kg. The 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities were conducted in 2004,as discussed in Section 7. The post-demolition groundwater investigation activities were conducted during the720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities and are discussed in Section 8.
The waste materials and debris that were disposed offsite, as described herein, were pre-characterized as part ofthe RD activities. Refer to the FRD Report and DAR for additional information regarding the wastecharacterization.
5.2 Project Meetings
Numerous meetings between GE, BBL, the USEPA, the USAGE, and Sabre occurred prior to and duringdemolition activities, including the pre-demolition inspection, daily site safety/coordination meetings, and
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economis/s 5-1V:\GE_Gimd_Strca\Rcports «nd Ptestnmions\Fin«!\2415084J_Rcvis«i_RA_Rcpon.*>c 502676
weekly progress meetings. The meetings are discussed below. Note that the pre-fmal and final inspections arediscussed separately in Section 9.
5.2.1 Pre-Demolition Inspection
The pre-demolition inspection was conducted on March 2, 2002 at the site. The pre-demolition inspectionconsisted of a walk-through of the site by the USEPA, GE, BBL, LZA, Sabre, the USAGE, and CH2M Hill (onbehalf of the NHSA). The purpose of the meeting was to confirm that procedures and equipment necessary tocontrol releases of mercury were in place and operational, and that the site was prepared to efficiently managevarious waste streams that would be generated during the demolition activities. On March 4, 2002 the USEPAsent an electronic mail to BBL approving the pre-demolition inspection.
On March 15, 2002, BBL distributed pre-demolition meeting minutes to meeting attendees. A copy of themeeting minutes is included in Appendix A.
5.2.2 Daily Site Safety/Coordination Meetings
Daily meetings were attended by GE's onsite representative, BBL, the USAGE, Sabre, and Sabre'ssubcontractors. The daily meetings discussed day-to-day operations, daily schedule of activities, health andsafety issues, and general project status.
5.2.3 Weekly Progress Meetings
Weekly progress meetings were attended by GE, BBL, Sabre, the USEPA, and the USAGE. The weeklyprogress meetings discussed project status, schedule, scope of work, proposed deviation(s) from the RA WorkPlan, and overall project implementation. Items discussed in the weekly progress meetings were summarized inthe weekly progress reports, which were prepared and distributed by BBL. Copies of the weekly progressreports are included in Appendix B.
5.3 Pre-Demolition Activities
The objective of the pre-demolition activities was to install environmental controls to mitigate the potential foroffsite migration of site-related constituents of concern during the remediation activities and to facilitatebuilding demolition. The pre-demolition activities were also conducted to remove regulated and/or hazardousbuilding materials and equipment (prior to demolition) in conformance with applicable laws and regulations,and facilitate offsite disposition of the resulting waste stream.
The following activities were conducted as part of the pre-demolition activities:
• Installed the air handling system;• Installed; water management controls;• Installed1 the temporary water treatment system;• Installed sediment erosion control measures;• Removed miscellaneous items;
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfeft. economists 5-2V:\GE_Grand_Strea\Repoiu and Prcsailalioos\Final\24!50842_Revised_RA_Rejxm.doc 502677
• Removed loose lead-based paint;• Performed asbestos abatement;• Removed interior nonstructural wall/floor and residential improvements;• Conducted brick scarification; and• Deactivated and removed utility, alarm, and mechanical system.
The waste materials generated during pre-demolition activities were removed, segregated/consolidated, andcontainerized for offsite disposal and/or reclamation by Sabre and select subcontractors. BBLES coordinatedthe transportation and disposal of the miscellaneous items and hazardous materials. The handling,transportation, and offsite disposition of the waste materials generated during RA activities, including pre-demolition activities, is further discussed in Section 11. Pre-demolition activities are described below.
5.3.1 Air Handling Systemt
Sabre constructed and operated an air handling system in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA WorkPlan. The air handling system provided air control to minimize the migration of airborne particulates andmercury vapors during select RA activities.
The air handling system consisted of negative pressure enclosures, duct systems, mixing boxes (one per floor), abooster blower unit, and a vapor-phase carbon filtration unit with impregnated carbon. The air handling systemwas constructed in the southeastern comer of the former industrial building. The air ducts connected the airhandling system to the mixing boxes located on each floor. The air handling system was operated during thefollowing activities:
• Brick scarification;• Removal of select Unit 5D brick wall;• Removal of Unit 5C brick wall;• Removal of Unit 2A study area floor;• Use of the material handling chute;• Removal of other mercury-impacted wood floor, wood subfloor, tar paper, and/or concrete flooring; and• Segregation and/or collection of bulk mercury from building materials (when required, based on the results
of air monitoring conducted by BBL).
During operation of the air handling system, Sabre monitored the air handling system and performedmaintenance as required in the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and Sabre's Operations and Maintenance (O&M)Manual.
BBL monitored the exhaust of the air handling system to document that the air handling system was operating incompliance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. The readings indicated that the air handling system wasoperating as specified in the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. BBL's air monitoring logs are included inAppendix C.
5.3.2 Water Measurement Controls Measures and Temporary Water Treatment System
Sabre installed water management control measures to reduce the quantity of impacted water generated at thesite. As part of the water management control measures, Sabre installed a waterproofing membrane (GE-40
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-3V:\GE_Grand_Stren\Keports and Prcscnta!ioffi\Fui»]\24150842 J<cvi«<)_llA_Rcpon.doc 502678
membrane) on the floors and the bottom 12 inches of the walls of the townhouse and the former industrialbuilding (4th and 5th floors only). Sabre installed a culvert around the perimeter of the former industrial buildingand townhouse. The culvert was also coated with a waterproofing membrane (GE-50 membrane). The waterthat collected in the coated culvert was pumped to the temporary water treatment system, treated, and released tothe stormwater/sewer system (following approval by the NHSA). The temporary water treatment system isdescribed below.
Sabre constructed and operated a temporary water treatment system in accordance with the FRD Report and theRA Work Plan. The temporary water treatment system was used to treat contact water (water that contactedmercury-impacted building materials) during the RA activities.
The temporary water treatment system consisted of the following components:
• One 4,500-gallon influent storage tank;• Two 25-micron bag filters (one primary and one spare);• Two 10-micron bag filters (one primary and one spare);• Two 1,000-pound granular activated carbon (GAC) units in series;• Two 1 -micron bag filters (one primary and one spare);• Two 4,500-gallon (nominal capacity) effluent storage tanks; and• Three 120-gallon-per-minute process pumps.
The temporary water treatment system was initially staged in the northwest corner of the 1st floor of the formerindustrial building. To allow for demolition, the temporary water treatment system was staged in thenortheastern.portion of the onsite parking lot. External components of the temporary water treatment systemwere staged in a secondary containment consisting of a 12-inch-high berm lined with reinforced polyethylene.BBL reviewed the temporary water treatment system following construction to document that the system wasconstructed in conformance with the RA Work Plan.
Contact water generated during the RA activities was collected and pumped into the influent tank. When theinfluent tank was partially filled, the batch of water was processed through the treatment system. The treatedwater was collected in the effluent tanks. Prior to discharging the treated water to the municipal storm/sanitarysewer system, BBL collected one treated water sample from the effluent tanks for analysis, as required byNHSA. BBL then compared the analytical results to the NHSA's discharge limits. Once the analytical resultsmet the discharge limits, the results were submitted to the NHSA's engineer, CH2M Hill, for approval.Following approval from CH2M Hill, Sabre discharged the treated water to the municipal storm/sanitary sewersystem. During operation of the temporary water treatment system, several batches of treated water wereretreated to meet the discharge limits. The analytical data from the samples collected from the treated water issummarized in Table IB and included in Appendix D. The date and quantity of treated water discharged to themunicipal storm/sanitary sewer system is summarized in Table 2.
During operation of the temporary water treatment system, Sabre monitored the temporary water treatmentsystem and performed maintenance as required in the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and Sabre's O&M Manual.The system was manually operated and controlled by Sabre.
5.3.3 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Sabre provided, installed, and maintained soil erosion and sediment control measures prior to and throughout theRA activities in accordance with the FRD Report, the RA Work Plan, and the HEPSCD-certified Soil Erosion
BLASLAND, BOUC< & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfoh. economists 5-4V:\GE_Grand_Strcel\Reports and PrescntatioiH\Fin»M41508«_Rcvised_RA_Rej»it<loc 502679
and Sediment Control Plan. Sabre conducted the following soil erosion and sediment control measure activitiesprior to and throughout the demolition activities:
• Installed silt fencing along portions of the site perimeter prior to initiating building demolition activities;
• Installed silt fencing around areas where soil was exposed as a result of building demolition and concrete/asphalt removal; and
• Hydroseeded areas as part of the site restoration activities (discussed in Section 9) to provide a vegetativecover to minimize potential soil erosion.
5.3.4 Removal of Miscellaneous Items
Miscellaneous equipment, materials, appliances, fixtures, used PPE, investigation-derived waste (DDW), andcontainerized household wastes were removed prior to building demolition to facilitate segregation of thematerials into appropriate waste/material streams for offsite transportation and disposal.
Sabre removed the miscellaneous equipment, materials, appliances, fixtures, used PPE, IDW, and containerizedhousehold waste in accordance with the RA Work Plan and the FRD Report. BBLES coordinated thetransportation and disposal of the waste materials generated during RA activities. The removal of miscellaneousitems is described below.
5.3.4.1 TSCA-Regulated Equipment
One piece of equipment (an abandoned lift/jack with BBL sample ID BM-482) was characterized as a ToxicSubstance Control Act- (TSCA-) regulated solid waste due to surficial polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)concentrations. Sabre removed the TSCA-regulated equipment and placed it into a USDOT-approved rolloffcontainer. The equipment was managed as a TSCA-regulated solid waste and the equipment was transported byHorwith Trucking, Inc. (Horwith) to the CWM Chemical Services, LLC. Facility located in Model City, NewYork (Model City) for disposal.
5.3.4.2 Containerized Household Waste
Labeled containerized household wastes, including paint, paint-related materials, adhesives, and organicperoxides, were staged at a temporary storage area, placed into appropriate USDOT-approved containers, andtransported (by Horwith) to Model City. The quantity and type of containerized household wastes removedfrom the former industrial building are listed below:
• Two 55-gallon drums of paint-related materials;• One 55-gallon drum of flammable aerosols;• One 55-gallon drum of flammable liquids;• One 5-gallon drum of organic peroxide;• One 55-gallon drum of paint; and• Two 55-gallon drums of adhesives.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.
7/6/05 engineers, scienh's/s, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Slrea\Reporu and PrcsCTtalkjns\FinaI\24150842_Rcvisai_RA_Rcpor1.doc 502680
5-5
Five unlabeled containerized household wastes (blue liquid contained in one 1-gallon container, clear liquidcontained in three 1-quart containers, and blue liquid contained in one 1-quart container) were observed in theformer industrial building during the pre-demolition activities. BBLES' subcontractor Onyx sampled andcharacterized the unlabeled containerized household waste. Based on the analysis, Onyx characterized theliquids into the following USDOT-regulated categories:
• Three containers were toxic liquids, organic, n.o.s., 6.1, UN2810, HI;• One container was waste oxidizing liquids, n.o.s., 5.1, UN3139, II; and• One container was waste corrosive liquid acidic organic, n.o.s., 8, UN3265, HI.
The characterized unlabeled containers were labeled (using the determined shipping name), placed intoUSDOT-approved labpack containers, and transported by Onyx to the Onyx Facility located in Flanders, NewJersey for disposal.
5.3.4.3 Fire Extinguishers
Thirty-four fire extinguishers were collected by Sabre from the former industrial building and the townhouse,evacuated by discharging the extinguisher contents into nonhazardous rolloffs, and placed into four 55-gallondrums. The drummed, evacuated fire extinguishers were then transported by Horwith to Model City for disposalas a nonhazardous waste.
5.3.4.4 Smoke Detectors
Thirty photoelectric smoke detectors were collected by Sabre from the former industrial building and thetownhouse, and placed into a rolloff containing nonhazardous demolition debris. The rolloff was thentransported by Waste Management of Pennsylvania to Waste Management's Tullytown Resource RecoveryFacility located in Tullytown, Pennsylvania (Tullytown) for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
Twenty-one photoionizing smoke detectors were collected from the former industrial building and thetownhouse. The photoionizing smoke detectors contained 0.9 x 10"6 Curies of Americium 241. Thephotoionizing smoke detectors were placed in a 30-gallon drum and transported by Hittman Transport Services,Inc. to the Chem Nuclear Systems Duratek Facility located in Barnwell, South Carolina. However, duringtransportation to the Chem Nuclear Systems Duratek Facility, the USEPA contacted BBLES and indicated thatthe disposal facility was not approved to accept waste from a CERCLA site and indicated that the USEPAwould assist BBLES in identifying a CERCLA-approved disposal facility. The smoke detectors weretransported back to the site.
The smoke detectors were placed in a sealed drum at the site in the drum storage area awaiting proper disposal.On September 22, 2004, BBL opened the drum and discovered that the smoke detectors were not in the drum.GE submitted a letter to USEPA, dated October 15, 2004, detailing the facts regarding the smoke detectors.
On December 8, 2004, BBL discovered that 19 of the missing 21 smoke detectors had apparently been placedback into the original drum and resealed by some unknown person(s). In December 2004, the USEPA agreedthat GE could return the smoke detectors to the manufacturers (BRK Electronics/First Alert, Kidde Lifesaver,Firex) for disposal. On December 29, 2004, BBLES sent the smoke detectors to the manufacturers for properdisposal.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6'05 engineers, scfenfots, economists 5-6V:\GE_Orand_Slrea\Repoiu and frese«atwM\Frna]\24!}08«_Rcvis«J_RA_Rcj>on.doc 502681
5.3.4.5 Household Appliances
Household appliances (except vacuum cleaners and chlorofluorocarbon- [CFC-] containing equipment) in thesite buildings were rendered permanently inoperable by Sabre and placed into the rolloffs containing thenonhazardous demolition debris. The removal, transportation, and disposal of vacuum cleaners and CFC-containing,units are discussed below.
One composite sample was collected from the bags of the three vacuum cleaners left in the site buildings by theformer residents. The sample was submitted for leachable mercury using the toxicity characteristic leachingprocedure (TCLP) and total mercury analysis. Analytical results indicated that the composite sample exhibitedthe characteristics of a hazardous waste due to mercury and contained total mercury at a concentration greaterthan 260 parts per million (ppm). Based on the sample results, the vacuum cleaners and vacuum cleaner bagswere placed in a macroencapsulation box and transported to the Chemical Waste Management Facility locatedin Emelle, Alabama (Emelle) for macroencapsulation and disposal.
5.3.4.6 Equipment Containing Refrigerants/CFCs
During pre^demolition activities, POW/R/SAVE inspected potential CFC-containing units, recovered refrigerantusing a vacuum, and transported the CFC-containing units offsite for reclamation. Approximately 4 pounds ofR-12, 2 pounds of R-22, and 6.8 ounces of R-12 were recovered and placed into separate cylinders.POW/R/SAVE transported the refrigerants to Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp. (Abco) located in Totowa, NewJersey. Abco sent the refrigerant cylinders to Hudson Technologies, located in New York, for reclamation.
5.3.4.7 Hydraulic Oil
Hydraulic oil was removed during dismantlement of the elevator in the former industrial building. Sabrecollected the oil and placed the oil into four USDOT-approved 55-gallon steel drums. Prior to disposal, the oilwas sampled for waste characterization analysis. The results are included in Table 1E and Appendix D. Basedon waste characterization analytical results, the oil was handled as a nonhazardous waste and transported byHorwith to Model City for transfer to their reclamation facility.
5.3.4.8 Batteries
During pre-demolition activities, Sabre collected six lead-acid batteries and placed them into two 5-gallonUSDOT-approved plastic drums. Sixty-nine alkaline batteries were collected throughout the pre-demolitionactivities and placed into a 5-gallon USDOT-approved plastic drum. The batteries were handled as a universalwaste and transported by Horwith to Model City for recycling.
5.3.4.9 Mercury-Containing Thermostats
During pre-demolition activities, Sabre collected mercury-containing thermostats from the site buildings andplaced them into two 5-gallon USDOT-approved plastic drums. The thermostats were handled as a universalwaste and transported by Horwith to Model City for disposal.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.1(6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-7V.\GE_Gnmd_Str«\Reporu and Prrsa3taions\FinaI\24150842_Rcvi5oJ_RA_Report.doc 502682
5.3.4.10 Lighting System
During pre-demolition activities, Proline disconnected the electricity to the building. After disconnecting theelectrical power, Sabre removed the lighting system. The lights and ballasts identified in the following tablewere removed from the building.
<Regulatory Status
km?.t*fe<S&«$«^
526 incandescent bulbs Nonhazardous rolloff NonhazardousWaste
Tullytown/Grows landfills(disposal)
100 8-foot fluorescent lightbulbs
Fiber boxes Universal Waste Model City Facility(recycling)
61 4-foot fluorescent lightbulbs
Fiber boxes Universal Waste Model City Facility(recycling)
12 mercury vapor lightbulbs
Fiber boxes Universal Waste Model City Facility(recycling)
148 intact ballasts 55-gallon drums TSCA-RegulatedWaste
Model City Facility(disposal)
28 leaking ballasts 55-gallon drum TSCA-RegulatedWaste
Model City Facility(transshipped to Port Arthur,Texas for incineration)
Following removal of the lighting system, Sabre installed temporary lighting systems in the former industrialbuilding and townhouse.
5.3.4.11 Chimney Ash and Debris
Sabre manually removed chimney ash from the base of the chimney. The ash was placed in a rolloff container(containing nonhazardous debris that contained mercury at concentrations greater than 260 ppm). The ash washandled as a nonhazardous waste and transported by Horwith to Model City for disposal.
5.3.5 Loose Lead-Based Paint Removal
Painted building material surfaces were assumed to consist of lead-based paint. Loose paint (e.g., flaking andpeeling paint) was removed from building material surfaces prior to building demolition to reduce the potentialgeneration of airborne lead particulate matter that might otherwise result during demolition.
During pre-demolition activities, loose lead-based paint was removed from the former industrial building andattached townhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Sabre, EACI, and ECSremoved loose paint chips from the interior of the former industrial building and attached townhouse by firstwetting the'surface and then hand scraping the loose paint. Sabre conducted the loose lead-based paint removalfrom May 2002 to November 2002. However, the moisture in the air (due to dust control measures) causedadditional paint to delaminate from the walls and ceilings after completing the loose lead-based paint removalactivities in November 2002. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, the USEPA allowed Sabre to remove theadditional loose lead-based paint from the walls and ceilings of each floor prior to demolition of each floor. Thepaint chips were then double bagged in plastic bags and placed into two 20-cubic yard rolloff containers. The
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strcd\Rcpora and PrescnlalionsVFinaI\24150842_Rcvised_RA_Report.doc 502683
5-8
paint chips were handled as a hazardous waste and transported by Horwith to Model City for stabilization anddisposal.
5.3.6 Asbestos Abatement
As required by the SOW, asbestos-containing material (ACM) was removed from the buildings. EACI, a NewJersey-licensed asbestos abatement contractor, removed ACM from the former industrial building and attachedtownhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Clayton served as the Asbestos SafetyTechnician for the abatement activities.
EACI submitted the Asbestos Abatement Notification Forms to the USEPA and NJDEP prior to each asbestosabatement activity.
ACMs (friable and nonfriable) were identified during the asbestos survey conducted as part of the designactivities. The ACMs identified in the attached townhouse included the tar caulk (glazing) of the skylights, pipeinsulation, vinyl composite floor tile and mastic, and drywall joint compound. As discussed in the FRD Report,the caulk/glazing associated with the following locations were assumed to be ACMs:
• Windows of the attached townhouse;• First floor of the former industrial building; and• Asphalt roofing/roofing flashing material of the former industrial building and attached townhouse.
5.3.6.1 ACM Sampling Activities
Additional suspect ACMs were observed during pre-demolition activities that were not discussed in the DAR orFRD Report. The suspect ACMs included plaster surfacing (from the second floor of the former industrialbuilding), joint compound (from the south wall of the former industrial building), vinyl floor tile, and associatedmastic located underneath a layer of subflooring in Unit 2D. Samples of the additional suspect ACMs werecollected by Clayton to confirm the presence or absence of ACM.
The window caulking (from the windows located in the former industrial building) and roofing material locatedabove the boiler room roof was originally assumed to be ACM. Samples were also collected from thesematerials to'confirm that these materials were ACM.
Clayton collected 33 bulk samples of the suspect ACM (including the window caulking) and submitted them toEMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL) for analysis. EMSL used polarized light microscopy (PLM) for determiningasbestos fibers in bulk building materials.
Results indicated that the plaster and one type of window caulking (the thin, white caulking sealing the windowframe with the glass pane) were not ACM. The results also indicated that the following materials were ACM:
• Plaster surfacing;• Joint compound;• Vinyl floor tile and associated mastic located underneath a layer of subflooring in Unit 2D;• Window caulking (thicker, darker caulking between the window frame and the building);• Gray caulking from the corner between the front vestibule and the main structure of the townhouse; and• Roof flashing tar.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-9V:\GE_Onmd_Sura\Repons and Presrataions\RMl\24]50842_Revis«l_RA_Report.doc 502684
5.3.6.2 Asbestos Abatement Activities
EACI removed 112 linear feet of friable asbestos-containing thermal systems (pipe) insulation and associatedpipe fitting insulation from the townhouse adjacent to the former industrial building between March and April2002.
EACI removed the nonfriable asbestos in several phases. The first phase was conducted from March to April2002 and consisted of abatement of the following ACMs:
• 960 square feet (sf) of 9-by-9 inch vinyl asbestos (floor) tile and associated asbestos-containing mastic fromthe townhouse;
• 400 sf of asbestos-containing joint compound and associated wallboard from the townhouse; and
• Window caulking from approximately 240 window frames from the former industrial building.
The second, third, fourth, and fifth phases of the asbestos abatement activities were conducted in June 2002;July to August 2002; September to October 2002; and April 2003 and consisted of abatement of approximately15,400 sf of asbestos-containing asphalt roofing and roof flashing materials. The asbestos-containing roofingmaterials were located on the roof of the garage (270 sf), old boiler room (1,200 sf), new boiler room (400 sf),the former industrial building (12,300 sf), and the townhouse (1,200 sf). The asbestos abatement associatedwith the roofing materials was conducted in connection with the removal of the roofing systems for eachbuilding. During removal of the ACM roofing material located above the former boiler room roof, visiblemercury was observed. The ACM roofing material containing visible mercury was removed and placed in theUSDOT-approved macroencapsulation container by Sabre. Recoverable mercury was vacuumed from the roof.The ACM roofing material containing visible mercury that was not recoverable via vacuuming was handled as ahazardous waste and transported by Horwith to Emelle for macroencapsulation and disposal.
The fourth phase of the asbestos abatement activities included the abatement of approximately 1,382 sf of vinylasbestos (floor) tile located underneath subflooring on the second floor of the former industrial building. Thevinyl asbestos tile was discovered during the flooring removal activities conducted on the second floor.
Additional ACM was encountered during the 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities. The abatement ofthe ACM that was encountered during soil removal is discussed in Section 7.
During the asbestos abatement activities, Clayton conducted air monitoring and visual review of EACI'sabatement activities. The air monitoring activities were conducted in accordance with state and federalregulations;,; as well as the FRD Report. Clayton indicated that the results of the post-abatement sampling werebelow the New Jersey and USEPA clearance criterion of 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) and 70 asbestosstructures per square millimeters (AS/mm2). Clayton's reports summarizing the air monitoring and asbestosremoval activities are included in Appendix E.
The ACM (except the above-referenced ACM roofing containing visible mercury) was handled as nonhazardousACM and transported by Waste Management to Tullytown for disposal.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfe/s, economistsV:\OE_Crand_Suea\Rcporu and Pnsanatk>ns\Final\24150842_Rcvis«J_RAJlepon.doc 502685
5-10
5.3.7 Interior Nonstructural Wall/Floor and Residential Improvement Removal
Between March 2002 and October 2002, Sabre conducted the interior nonstructural wall/floor and residentialimprovement removal activities in accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. The interiornonstructural wall/floor and residential improvement removal activities consisted of the following:
• Demolishing and removing nonstructural interior walls, sheetrock walls and ceilings, plaster ceilings, loftareas, and other residential improvements (e.g., counter tops, cabinets, shelving units, carpeting, bathtubs,sinks, and decorations);
• Removing porous flooring materials (e.g., non-asbestos tile flooring, concrete flooring) down to theunderlying subflooring layer; and
• Removing wood flooring, wood subflooring, and tar paper down to the subfloor wood decking layer.
The interior nonstructural removal activities were conducted by Sabre in accordance with the FRD Report andRA Work Plan. The interior nonstructural removal activities are described below.
5.3.7.1 Nonstructural Wall/Residential Improvement Removal
Nonstructural interior walls, sheetrock walls and ceilings, plaster ceilings, loft areas, and other residentialimprovements to the building interiors (i.e., cabinets, sinks, bathtubs, counter tops, mirrors, and decorations)were removed from the former industrial building and attached townhouse between March 2002 and May 2002.The equipment, appliances, fixtures, mirrors, and/or other residential improvements encountered during the RAactivities were rendered permanently inoperable/unusable by Sabre prior to removal from the buildings. Theremoved nonstructural wall/residential improvements were placed in USDOT-approved containers. Theremoved nonstructural wall/residential improvements were managed as a nonhazardous waste. Between March2002 and May 2002, the removed nonstructural wall/residential improvements were transported by FalestoBrothers to Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission l-E North Landfill (HMDC 1-E) for disposal.Between May 2002 and October 2002, the removed nonstructural wall/residential improvements weretransported by Waste Management to Tullytown and Waste Management's G.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility located inMorrisville, Pennsylvania (GROWS) for disposal.
During removal of the sheetrock ceiling located on the fourth floor of the former industrial building, visiblemercury was encountered on top of the sheetrock, became dislodged, and fell to the floor. Sabre collected thevisible, recoverable mercury using a mercury vacuum unit. The collected mercury was placed in USDOT-approved labpacks. The labpacks were then transported by Horwith to Model City for future reclamation.Following floor removal on each floor, Sabre covered the floor with polyethylene sheeting and sealed floorpenetrations with caulking to minimize the potential for mercury to migrate to the floors below.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Gtand_Strea\Reportj and Presentalions\FinaI\24t50842_RcviKd_RA_Repon_2.doc 502686
5-11
5.3.7.2 Common Wall Plaster/Paint Removal
During pre-demolition activities, the plaster located on each floor of the townhouse common wall was sampledand submitted for analysis for TCLP lead. The results indicated that the plaster located on the third and fourthfloors of the townhouse exhibited toxicity characteristics of a hazardous waste due to lead. As a conservativemeasure, Sabre removed the plaster from the townhouse common wall on each floor. Sabre removed the plasterusing scabblers and small chipping hammers and placed the removed plaster into thirty-two 55-gallon drums.The plaster was managed as a hazardous waste and transported by Horwith to Model City for stabilization anddisposal. The analytical results from the plaster samples are presented in Table ID and Appendix D.
5.3.7.3 Porous Flooring Removal
Sabre removed porous flooring materials (i.e., non-asbestos tile flooring and concrete flooring) at select areas ofthe former industrial building and attached townhouse (except for the concrete flooring located on the first floorof the former industrial building and the Unit 2A study area [see Subsection 5.6]), down to the underlying woodsubfloor decking layer. The removed porous flooring was placed into a USDOT-approved rolloff. The removedporous flooring was managed as a nonhazardous waste and transported by Waste Management to theTullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal.
5.3.7.4 Wood Floor/Wood Subfloor/Tar Paper Removal
Bulk mercury (i.e., pooled mercury and mercury beads) was encountered on surfaces of wood flooring, woodsubflooring, and tar paper during site investigations. The wood floor/subfloor/tar paper removal activities wereconducted prior to building demolition to facilitate the segregation of building materials into appropriate wastestreams and to facilitate collection/containerization of encountered bulk mercury (and associated dust, dirt,sediment, or other fine residual material).
Following removal of nonstructural walls, other residential improvements, and porous flooring, the woodflooring materials (wood flooring, wood subflooring, and tar paper) were removed by ECS in accordance withthe FRD Report and RA Work Plan.
Prior to removal of the flooring material, Sabre demarcated (i.e. spray painted) the wood floor material areasthat were to be segregated from the nonhazardous low mercury flooring material (i.e., materials that containmercury at concentrations less than 260 mg/kg). The floor removal activities were conducted on a floor-by-floor basis using pry bars, axes, circular saws equipped with HEPA vacuum shrouds, and scrapers. The wastematerials generated by the floor removal activities were segregated into separate waste streams based on thewood floor and wood subfloor characterization presented in the FRD Report. The table below presents how theflooring materials were handled, transported, and disposed.
Nonhazardous Flooring Containing Mercuryat Concentrations Less than 260 mg/kg
USDOT-Approved RolloffContainer
WasteManagement
Tullytown/GROWS
Nonhazardous Flooring Containing Mercuryat Concentrations Greater than 260 mg/kg
USDOT-Approved RolloffContainer
Horwith Model City
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/06 engineers, sc/enfch, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Slrea\RcportJ and PtcscntMions\Fmal\24150W2_RevisKi_RA_Reporl_2.doc 502687
5-12
Hazardous Flooring (Exhibits IgnitableCharacteristic)
USDOT-ApprovedMacroencapsulationContainer
Horwith Emelle
Hazardous Flooring Containing Mercury atConcentrations Less than 260 mg/kg
USDOT-Approved RolloffContainer
Horwith Model City
Hazardous Flooring Containing Mercury atConcentrations Greater than 260 mg/kg
USDOT-ApprovedMacroencapsulationContainer
Horwith Emelle
During the floor removal activities on the fifth, fourth, and second floors, visible mercury was encountered onvarious floor layers. Sabre collected the visible, recoverable mercury using a mercury vacuum unit. Thecollected mercury was placed in USDOT-approved labpacks. The labpacks were then transported by Horwith toModel City for future reclamation. Mercury-impacted tarpaper debris was screened and sifted by Sabrepersonnel to further separate recoverable mercury. The tar paper debris was then placed into a USDOT-approved macroencapsulation container by Sabre and transported (as hazardous debris) by Horwith to Emellefor macroencapsulation and disposal.
5.3.8 Brick Scarification
Building material investigation results indicated that portions of interior masonry walls in the former industrialbuilding and attached townhouse contained detectable concentrations of total mercury. The results furtherindicated that the greatest mercury concentrations were detected in the first '/2-inch of brick on the interiorsurface of the masonry wall. Brick scarification activities were conducted prior to building demolition toremove the greatest concentrations of detected mercury in the first '/2-inch of brick from select masonry wallsand to minimize the potential for generation of mercury-impacted dust and mercury vapors during buildingdemolition activities.
AET scarified the first !/2-inch of brick from select interior masonry walls in the former industrial building andattached townhouse in accordance with the RA Work Plan, the FRD Report, and all approved modifications thatwere necessary and appropriate. The brick scarification activities occurred between April 2003 and June 2003.
Prior to implementing the scarification activities, AET constructed temporary containment enclosures in eachbrick scarification area and connected the enclosures to the air handling system. The air handling system wasused throughout the brick scarification activities. The air handling system is discussed in Subsection 5.15.
Following construction of the temporary containment enclosures, AET used a combination of tools to conductbrick scarification, including a reloadable cutter hub (FX Tool) with a dust shroud/vacuum attachment, shroudedright angle grinders, and various types of shrouded scaling hammers. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, theequipment used was modified (with the USEPA's approval) from the equipment proposed in the RA Work Plan.The modified equipment was used to scarify to a depth of Vz-inch from the interior face of the masonry wallsindicated on the FRD Report Contract Drawings, with the exception of the masonry wall located adjacent to thebase of the chimney. BBL and their structural engineer, LZA, were concerned that the brick scarificationactivities around the base of the chimney could cause the chimney to become structurally unstable. The bricklocated around the base of the chimney was not scarified, but rather manually removed during demolition of thefirst floor of the former industrial building. The entire first brick wythe located in that area was removed,segregated, and handled as a nonhazardous waste containing total mercury at concentrations greater than 260mg/kg.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
&/23/05 engineer, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strett\Rcpom «nd Prtsoilalions\Final\2'1150842_Revised_RA_Repon_2 doc 502688
5-13
The scarified masonry materials and the masonry removed from the base of the chimney were placed intoUSDOT-approved 55-galIon drums and transported by Horwith to Model City for disposal as a nonhazardouswaste containing total mercury of concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg.
5.3.9 Utility, Alarm, and Mechanical System Deactivation and Removal
Sabre deactivated and removed the utility, alarm, and mechanical systems associated with the former industrialbuilding and attached townhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. Select utility andmechanical systems were deactivated and removed prior to building demolition, while other systems weredeactivated and removed in conjunction with the progress of the demolition activities.
The utility, alarm, and mechanical systems that were deactivated and removed by Sabre under this work taskincluded the following systems:
• Sanitary waste system;• Roof drain system;• Potable water system;• Natural gas system;• Fire protection system;• Heating system;• Security alarm system; and• Power distribution system.
The deactivation and removal of utilities, alarms, and mechanical systems is described in the followingsubsections.
5.3.9.1 Sanitary Waste System Decommissioning
Sabre deactivated and removed the sanitary waste piping located in the former industrial building and attachedtownhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Prior to commencing demolitionactivities, the sanitary waste system was visually reviewed and removed to the floor slab of the former industrialbuilding and townhouse. The sanitary waste system was then capped at the top of the floor slab.
Following removal, the sanitary waste system piping was placed in USDOT-approved rolloff containers andtransported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.The removal of the portions of sanitary waste system located below the concrete floor slab is discussed inSubsections 5.11 and 5.12.
5.3.9.2 Roof Drain System Decommissioning
Two roof drains were located in the central portion of the former industrial building roof. Sabre removed theroof drain system on a floor-by-floor basis. Prior to demolition of each floor, Sabre removed the roof drain fromthat floor. Following removal, the roof drain system piping and other associated waste materials were placed inUSDOT-approved rolloff containers and transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-14V:\GE_Gruid_Strca\RcpDil! and Pr«cmation!\Final\24IS0842_Rcvis«i_RA_Report_2doc 502689
for disposal as nonhazardous debris. Removal of the portions of the roof drain system located below theconcrete floor slab is discussed in Subsections 5.11 and 5.12.
5.3.9.3 Potable Water System Deactivation
Sabre deactivated and removed the components of the potable water system in accordance with the FRD Reportand the RA Work Plan. In April 2002, KBI conducted the potable water system deactivation (except the watersupply associated with the fire protection sprinkler system, the fire department decontamination area, and theheating system boilers). KBI installed a potable water system in the former industrial building stairwell that wasused for dust control and decontamination during demolition activities. The water supply associated with thefire protection sprinkler system was deactivated and removed on a fioor-by-fioor basis in conjunction with thedemolition, as discussed below. The components of the potable water system were also removed on a floor-by-floor basis, and placed in USDOT-approved rolloff containers. Waste Management transported the rolloffcontainers to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
5.3.9.4 Natural Gas System Removal
KBI deactivated and removed the components of the natural gas system associated with the townhouse andformer industrial building in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. In April 2002, KBIdisconnected, air purged, and removed the natural gas system. Components of the removed natural gas systemwere placed in a USDOT-approved rolloff container. Waste Management transported the rolloff to theTullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris. Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG)disconnected and removed the natural gas meters from the site.
5.3.9.5 Fire Protection System Removal
KBI and Haig's deactivated and removed components of the fire protection system in accordance with the FRDReport and the RA Work Plan. Between July 2002 and March 2003, the fire protection system was deactivatedby KBI on a floor-by-floor basis in conjunction with the building demolition activities. In March 2003, Haig'sremoved the1 control panel for the fire protection system (owned by Haig's). With the exception of the fireextinguishers and control panel, the components of the fire protection system were placed in USDOT-approvedrolloff containers. The rolloff containers were transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWSfacilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
5.3.9.6 Heating System Removal
Sabre deactivated and removed the heating system (including pipes, fittings, valves, baseboard radiation heaters,radiators, flow meters, boilers, circulating pumps, unit heaters, and furnaces) from the former industrial buildingand attached townhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The heating system wasdeactivated and removed in April 2002. The components of the heating system were placed in USDOT-approved rolloff containers and transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities fordisposal as nonhazardous debris. Sabre installed portable heaters in the former industrial building in December2002 to maintain interior temperatures above 38° F to minimize the potential for the fire sprinkler system tofreeze.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-15V:\GE_Grand_Slirct\Reports and PrescmationsVFiruM-l 150842_Revised_RA_Repon_2.doc 502690
5.3.9.7 Security Alarm System Removal
In August 2002, BBLES' subcontractor, 1s1 Precinct Security deactivated and removed the security alarm systemin accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. The components of the security alarm system (with theexception of the computer processing board, which was owned by 1st Precinct Security) were placed in USDOT-approved rolloff containers and transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities fordisposal as nonhazardous debris. 1st Precinct Security removed their computer processing board from the site.
5.3.9.8 Power Distribution System Removal
KBI and Proline deactivated and removed components of the power distribution system associated with theformer industrial building and attached townhouse in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan.In March 2002, prior to the interior nonstructural wall/floor and residential improvement removal activities, thepower distribution system (excluding systems associated with the fire protection alarm system and heatingsystem) was deactivated to the main circuit breaker panels located on the first floor of the former industrialbuilding. The power distribution system components associated with the fire protection alarm system andheating system were deactivated and removed by KBI in conjunction with the removal of the alarm system. Thepower system to the first floor of the former industrial building was deactivated in April 2003. The componentsof the power distribution system were placed in USDOT-approved rolloff containers and transported by WasteManagement to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris. PSEG disconnected andremoved the electric meters from the site.
5.4 Demolition Preparation
Sabre conducted preparation activities to facilitate implementation of the building demolition in accordance withthe FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The demolition preparation activities conducted by Sabre are discussedbelow.
5.4.1 Fire Department Decontamination Area Relocation
Sabre relocated the fire department decontamination area prior to demolition in accordance with the FRD Reportand the RA Work Plan. Sabre relocated the fire department decontamination area to the northern portion of thefirst floor of the former industrial building.
5.4.2 Relocation of Overhead Utilities
The relocation of the overhead utilities was performed in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA WorkPlan, and all approved modifications that were necessary and appropriate. Prior to installing scaffolding on thenorth side of the building, PSEG, at Sabre's request, relocated the overhead utility lines located adjacent to thebuilding on 8th Street. The overhead utility lines were moved to provide safe clearance between the utility linesand the scaffolding. Based on the distance PSEG could move the utility lines, the width of the scaffolding wasreduced to provide the necessary safe clearance.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/23/os engineers, scientist, economists 5-16V:\GE_Glimi_SlreM\Rrpom and Prcsemalions\FinaI\24150842_Reviscd_RA_Rcpon_2 doc 502691
5.4.3 Construction of Waste Material Chute
Sabre constructed a waste material chute prior to demolition to facilitate the removal of waste materialsgenerated during demolition activities in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Followingcompletion of the pre-demolition activities, Sabre converted the elevator shaft to a waste material chute toconvey the demolition debris to the first floor of the former industrial building. Sabre enlarged exterior doorsadjacent to the base of the elevator shaft to provide access for a small loader (e.g., bobcat) to remove demolitiondebris from the shaft.
5.4.4 Construction/Installation and Operation of Hoist and Scaffolding
Sabre installed the hoist and scaffolding prior to demolition in accordance with the FRD Report and the RAWork Plan. The hoist was used to convey equipment and materials to and from the floor undergoing demolition.The scaffolding was used to facilitate the demolition activities by providing a safe means of access to and fromthe upper floors during demolition. The hoist and scaffold were both wrapped with an opaque polyethylenesheeting. The polyethylene sheeting provided dust control and minimized visibility into the buildings fromsurrounding areas. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, the RA Work Plan indicated that the width of the scaffoldwould be 5 feet. Sabre, with approval from the USEPA, modified the width of the scaffold located on the northside of the former industrial building from five feet to three feet wide. The modified scaffolding design wasfavorably reviewed by LZA. The reviewed scaffolding design is included in Appendix F.
5.4.5 Installation of Temporary Fencing
Sabre removed the existing chain-link fencing around the site and installed new temporary chain-link fencingaround the perimeter of the site prior to demolition, in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan.A portion of the temporary fencing was located in the parking lanes of Grand Street and 8th Street, and wasattached to jersey barriers. A woven filter-type fabric was installed on the inside of the temporary fence tominimize visibility into the site from surrounding areas.
5.4.6 Plugging and Capping
Sabre plugged and capped the holes, vent piping, and other open areas of the building interiors that wereexposed to the exterior environment and/or areas below the concrete floor slab prior to demolition.
5.5 Garage Demolition
In April 2002, Sabre demolished the garage in accordance with the USEPA-approved FRD Report and RAWork Plan. The demolition was performed using a bobcat. The demolition debris generated as a result of thedemolition was placed into a USDOT-approved rolloff container. Waste Management transported the debris tothe Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.
8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-17V:\GE_Grwid_StrKiWrports and Picsenmions\Final\24l508<t2_Revised_RA_Report_2.<Joc c /•> /j /- Q o
5.6 Demolition of Unit 2A Study
In June 2002, Sabre demolished the second-story Unit 2A Study and the former boiler room (Unit 2A Basement)in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The Unit 2A study was located on the roof of theformer boiler room.
5.6.1 Unit 2A Study Floor System Removal
Prior to implementing the Unit 2A Study floor removal activities, ECS constructed a temporary containmentenclosure and connected portions of the air handling system (i.e., negative air cabinets, ducts) in the Unit 2AStudy. Sabre operated the air control system during demolition activities. Sabre removed the concrete flooringlocated in the Unit 2A Study using hand tools (e.g., pneumatic hammer, prybar, sledgehammer). Soil andvisible mercury were observed between the concrete flooring and the roof of the former boiler room. Sabrecollected the mercury by using a vacuum and placed the mercury in a USDOT-approved labpack. The labpackwas handled as a hazardous waste and transported by Horwith to Model City for transfer to their reclamationfacility.
The soil removed (from the 2A Study floor) by Sabre was placed in a rolloff container designated fornonhazardous material containing total mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg. The soil wastransported by Horwith to Model City for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
The concrete removed by Sabre was placed in a rolloff container designated for nonhazardous materialcontaining total mercury at concentrations less than 260 mg/kg. The rolloff container was transported by WasteManagement to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
5.6.2 Unit 2A Study and Former Boiler Room Demolition
Following floor/soil removal, EACI removed the ACM from the roof of the Unit 2A Study and former boilerroom, as discussed in Subsection 5.3.6. Following ACM removal activities, Sabre manually demolished theUnit 2A Study using hand tools. The former boiler room was then demolished by Sabre using a backhoeequipped with a hammer attachment.
The Unit 2A Study and former boiler room demolition debris (with the exception of the soil and the mercury)was placed into rolloff containers that were transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWSfacilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris. The soil was placed into a rolloff container and transported byHorwith to Model City for disposal as nonhazardous debris containing mercury at concentrations greater than260 mg/kg. The bulk mercury was labpacked and transported by Horwith to Model City for transfer to theirreclamation facility.
5.7 Chimney Demolition
In June 2002, Sabre demolished the portion of the chimney located above the roofline in accordance with theFRD Report and RA Work Plan. Sabre demolished the chimney using hand tools (e.g., pneumatic hammers).The remaining portion of the chimney (below the roofline) was demolished by Sabre on a floor-by-floor basis in
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-18V:\OE_Giand_SlrecI\Repons and Prt5cmalions\Final\24l50M2_Revised_RA_Report_2.doc 502693
conjunction with the demolition of the remaining portion of the former industrial building. Sabre placed thedemolition debris generated as a result of the chimney demolition into USDOT-approved rolloff containers.Waste Management transported the chimney demolition debris (with the exception of the chimney materiallocated at the base of the chimney) to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.Sabre placed the first brick wythe of the chimney generated during demolition of the first floor of the formerindustrial building into USDOT-approved rolloffs. The rolloffs were transported by Horwith to Model City fordisposal as nonhazardous debris containing total mercury at concentration greater than 260 mg/kg.
5.8 Elevator House Demolition
During July and August 2002, Sabre demolished the elevator house in accordance with the FRD Report and theRA Work Plan. Sabre removed the steel tank located inside the elevator house. Prior to cutting the tank, Sabrevisually observed that the tank was empty, there was no visible staining, and that the air monitoring did notindicate the presence of volatile vapors inside the tank. Sabre cut the tank into pieces using reciprocating sawsand dropped the tank pieces into the tank shell to minimize cut pieces from falling outside the tank. The tankwas conveyed to the ground using the hoist. Following removal of the tank pieces, Sabre demolished theelevator house using hand tools (pneumatic hammers). Sabre then modified the elevator shaft into a materialchute for the removal of nonhazardous debris, as previously described in Subsection 5.4.3. Sabre placed thedemolition debris generated as a result of the tank and elevator house demolition into USDOT-approved rolloffcontainers. Waste Management transported the tank and elevator house demolition debris to theTullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
5.9 Demolition of Attached Townhouse
In August 2002, Sabre initiated demolition of the townhouse. Sabre demolished the attached townhouse inaccordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Sabre removed the townhouse front entry extensionusing hand tools and installed a temporary closure on the front of the attached townhouse. Sabre then installedscaffolding on the east and west sides of the attached townhouse. The scaffolding was installed in accordancewith the scaffolding design. The scaffolding was then wrapped with opaque polyethylene sheeting. Thescaffolding system was designed by Allied and the Kachele Group. The design was favorably reviewed by LZAand is included in Appendix F.
Demolition of the townhouse was performed on a floor-by-floor basis and proceeded using the followingsequence for each floor:
• Temporary wall/fioor/ceiling support system installation;• Roof/subfloor demolition/removal;• Fire protection system deactivation;• Ceiling demolition/removal; and• Masonry (brick) wall demolition removal.
Demolition of the townhouse occurred during August and September 2002. The activities conducted under eachof the above-listed items are described below.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-19V \GE_Grand_Slretl\Reports and Picsenla!ions\Final\24l50842_Reviscd_RA_Repon_2.doc 502694
5.9.1 Attached Townhouse - Temporary Wall/Floor/Ceiling Support System Installation
Sabre installed a temporary support system that provided structural stability to walls, flooring, and ceilingsduring the demolition activities. The support system was designed by Allied. The design was favorablyreviewed by LZA and is included in Appendix F. The support system was installed in each floor of thetownhouse prior to commencing demolition activities on that floor. The support system was removed followingthe demolition of each floor.
5.9.2 Attached Townhouse - Roof/Subfloor Demolition/Removal
Sabre conducted the roof/subfloor demolition removal activities using handheld demolition tools. Sabredemolished and removed the roofing materials (including roof membrane/flashing materials, roof deckingmaterial, etc.) in conjunction with the demolition of the ceiling and brick wall. The roof membrane/flashing thatcontained ACM was removed by EACJ, as discussed in Subsection 5.3.6. After removing the townhouse roof,Sabre installed the new roof flashing at the roof edge of the townhouse common wall (i.e., the wall shared by thetownhouse located at 718 Grand Street). Additional modifications to the common wall were performedfollowing demolition of the townhouse and are described below.
As demolition proceeded to the lower floor levels (i.e., after the roof was completely removed), Sabre removedthe subfloor materials in conjunction with the ceiling and brick wall demolition. The subfloor materials wereremoved using handheld tools.
The roofing and subfloor materials were placed into rolloff containers and transported by Waste Management tothe Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
5.9.3 Attached Townhouse - Fire Protection System Deactivation
KBI and Proline conducted the fire protection system deactivation activities. The utilities associated with thefire protection system (including the fire protection sprinkler system and alarm system) were deactivated andremoved in areas undergoing active demolition prior to ceiling demolition for each floor of the attachedtownhouse. As the fire protection system was deactivated, a manned fire watch was implemented.
5.9.4 Attached Townhouse - Ceiling Demolition/Removal
Sabre conducted the ceiling demolition/removal activities using handheld demolition tools (e.g., chainsaws,prybars). Sabre demolished and removed the roof/ceiling joists, beams (girders), and columns in conjunctionwith roofYsubfloor and brick wall demolition.
The ceiling materials (with the exception of the wood ceiling joists located on the first floor) were placed intorolloff containers and transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal asnonhazardous debris. Sabre segregated the first floor wood ceiling joists from the remainder of the joists,beams, and columns. The first floor wood ceiling joists were characterized as a hazardous solid waste (toxicityfor mercury) containing total mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg. The first floor wood ceilingjoists were placed in a USDOT-approved macroencapsulation container. Horwith transported themacroencapsulation container to Emelle for macroencapsulation and disposal.
BLASLAND, BOUCtC & LEE, INC.
8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grajid_Slrea\JicponjandPttscntalions\FinalU4l50842_Revised_RA_Repon_2.doc
5-20502695
5.9.5 Attached Townhouse - Masonry (Brick) Wall Demolition/Removal
Following deactivation of the fire protection system, Sabre demolished the north, west, and east masonry wallsof the attached townhouse. Sabre used handheld equipment to demolish the walls of the attached townhouse.
Sabre placed the removed masonry walls into USDOT-approved rolloff containers. The rolloff containers werethen transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS disposal facilities.
After completing the demolition/removal of the 4th floor of the attached townhouse, Sabre installed theTemporary Wall/Floor/Ceiling Support System on the 3rd floor of the attached townhouse. Sabre then followedthe same procedure for the remaining floors.
5.9.6 Common Wall Structural Modification
The common wall structural modification was conducted in conformance with the FRD Report and the RAWork Plan.
The common wall structural modification activities were conducted by Sabre and included filling the joistpockets with nonshrink grout and installing joist anchors at each floor following demolition.
The Dryvit Outsulation MD system was installed by Sabre's subcontractor, Anchor Stone, in fall 2003 when theambient temperature was above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Prior to installing the Dryvit outsulation MD system, theface of the brick masonry wall was cleaned and masonry surfaces were abraded using handheld tools to exposeclean brick surface. The approved Dryvit Outsulation MD system was then installed.
Anchor Stone installed the subgrade protection board in fall 2004, following excavation of the soil locatedadjacent to the common wall. The protection board specified in the FRD Report was no longer manufactured,therefore W.R. Meadows SealTight PC-3 Heavy Duty was used as an equivalent to the board specified in theFRD Report. The cementitious waterproofing material used was the Aquafin IK. Sabre's modified materialsubmittals for the common wall repair are included in Appendix F.
5.9.7 Adjacent Townhouse Roof Repair
In December 2003, Anchor Stone repaired the adjacent townhouse roof. GE, BBL, and LZA subsequentlydetermined that the roof repair should be modified to reduce the height of the parapet wall to provide a closermatch to the architectural features of the building located at 718 Grand Street. Anchor Stone conductedadditional roof repairs of 718 Grand Street in August 2004, including applying roof flashing to the roof of theadjacent townhouse. The roof flashing was applied in accordance with LZA's modified designs that werepresented in the modification request BBL submitted to the USEPA on April 25, 2003, which was approved byUSEPA.
5.10 Demolition of Former Industrial Building
Upon receiving the USEPA's letter to GE dated November 7, 2002, approving the initiation of the formerindustrial building demolition, Sabre began demolition of the former industrial building. Following demolitionof the attached townhouse, ACE installed scaffolding along the southern portion of the former industrial
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8'23/os engineers, sc/enfe/s, economists 5-21V:\GE_Grand Street\Repons and Prtscnlalions\FinaI\24150842_Revised_RA_Rcport_2.doc C Q o /r Q £
building (which was previously connected to the attached townhouse). Upon receiving the USEPA's letter toGE dated November 7, 2002, approving the initiation of the former industrial building demolition, Sabre begandemolition of the former industrial building.
Sabre demolished the former industrial building using handheld tools on a floor-by-floor basis, proceeding frombay-to-bay in the sequence defined in their Demolition Plan (included in the RA Work Plan). Demolition of theformer industrial building proceeded using the following sequence for each floor:
• Temporary wall/floor/ceiling support system installation;• Roof/subfloor demolition/removal;• Fire protection system deactivation;• Ceiling demolition/removal; and• Masonry (brick) wall demolition removal.
Demolition of the former industrial building was conducted from November 2002 through May 2003. Theabove-listed activities are described below.
5.10.1 Former Industrial Building -Temporary Wall/Floor/Ceiling Support System Installation
Sabre installed a temporary support system that provided structural stability to walls, flooring, and ceilingsduring the demolition activities in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The support systemwas designed by Allied. The design was favorably reviewed by LZA and is included in Appendix F. Thesupport system was installed in each floor of the former industrial building prior to demolition activities on thefloor. The support system was removed following the demolition of each floor.
After completing demolition of the 5th floor of the former industrial building, Sabre installed the TemporaryWall/Floor/Ceiling Support System on the 4th floor of the former industrial building. Sabre then followed thesame wall demolition/support procedure for the remaining floors.
5.10.2 Former Industrial Building - Roof/Subfloor Demolition/Removal
Sabre conducted the roof7subfloor demolition removal activities using handheld demolition tools (e.g.,chainsaws, prybars). Sabre demolished and removed the roofing materials (excluding ACM previouslyremoved) in conjunction with 5* floor ceiling demolition. The roofing contained ACM and was removed byEACI, as discussed in Subsection 5.3.6.
As demolition proceeded to the lower floor levels (i.e., after the roof was completely removed), Sabre removedthe subfloor decking materials, and the joists and beams from the floor above in conjunction with the ceiling andbrick wall demolition. The subfloor materials were removed using handheld tools. The roofing and subfloormaterials associated with the former industrial building were placed into rolloff containers and transported byWaste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as a nonhazardous waste.
During the removal of subfloor decking on each floor of the former industrial building, visible mercury wasencountered. Sabre collected the visible, recoverable mercury using a mercury vacuum unit. The collectedmercury was placed in USDOT-approved labpacks. The labpacks were then transported by Horwith to ModelCity for future reclamation.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/05 engineer, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strtel\Reports and Picsenulians\FinaI\24150B42_Revised_RA_ReportJt.doc 502697
5-22
5.10.3 Former Industrial Building - Fire Protection System Deactivation
KB! and Proline conducted the fire protection system deactivation. The utilities associated with the fireprotection system (including the fire protection system and the alarm system) were deactivated and removed inareas undergoing active demolition prior to ceiling demolition for each floor of the former industrial building.
As discussed and agreed to during the weekly progress meeting held on October 4, 2002, the smoke detectorslocated in the former industrial building were deactivated in October 2002. Sabre initiated a 24-hour mannedfire watch, which was continued until the demolition was complete.
5.10.4 Former Industrial Building - Ceiling Demolition/Removal
Sabre conducted the ceiling demolition/removal activities using handheld demolition tools (e.g., chainsaws,prybars). Sabre demolished and removed the roof/ceiling joists, beams (girders), and columns in conjunctionwith roof/subfloor and brick wall demolition.
During the removal of joists and beams on each floor of the former industrial building, visible mercury wasencountered. Sabre collected the visible, recoverable mercury using a mercury vacuum unit. The collectedmercury was placed in USDOT-approved labpacks. The labpacks were then transported by Horwith to ModelCity for future reclamation.
The ceiling materials (with the exception of the wood ceiling joists located on the fifth floor) were placed intorolloff containers and transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal asnonhazardous debris. Sabre segregated the fifth floor wood ceiling joists from the remainder of the ceilingmaterials. The fifth floor wood ceiling joists were characterized as a hazardous solid waste (toxicity formercury) containing total mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg. The fifth floor wood ceiling joistswere placed in a USDOT-approved macroencapsulation container. Horwith transported the macroencapsulationcontainer to Emelle for macroencapsulation and disposal.
5.10.5 Former Industrial Building - Masonry (Brick) Wall Demolition/Removal
Sabre removed the masonry walls of the former industrial building using handheld equipment. Sabre placed themasonry debris in the former elevator shaft/material chute. Sabre used a small loader (e.g. bobcat) to transportthe debris from the bottom of the elevator shaft/material chute into USDOT-approved rolloff containers. Therolloff containers were then transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS disposal facilities fordisposal as nonhazardous debris.
During the demolition activities, Sabre encountered visible mercury in select brick masonry buildingcomponents on each of the floors. The visible mercury was collected by Sabre using a mercury vacuum unit.The mercury was handled as a hazardous waste and placed in USDOT-approved labpacks. The labpacks werethen transported by Horwith to Model City for transfer to their reclamation facility.
5.11 Building Concrete Slab Demolition and Improvements Removal
Sabre demolished and removed the concrete slabs, subsurface structures, and piping/utilities associated with theformer industrial building and attached townhouse following demolition of above-slab portions of the building.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/05 engineers, sc/enfefs. economists 5-23V:\GE Grand_Su«ORcporu and PTescmMions\FinaI\24150842_Revised_RA_Repon_2.doc 502698
In May 2003, prior to removing the concrete slab, Sabre conducted a video survey of the subsurface structuresand associated piping. The video survey is described in Subsection 5.12. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, thepiping was not cleaned prior to the concrete slab removal due to the detection of mercury in the subsurfacepiping and the encrustation and/or sediment buildup visually observed within sections of the piping.
The concrete slab was removed by Sabre using a concrete saw, an excavator with a hammer attachment, abobcat, and handheld equipment. Sabre placed the concrete slab debris into USDOT-approved rolloffcontainers. The rolloff containers were then transported by Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWSfacilities for disposal as nonhazardous debris.
During the concrete slab removal in select areas, Sabre encountered visible mercury in the soil located below theconcrete slab. Sabre used a shovel to collect the soil that contained visible mercury and placed the soil/visiblemercury into USDOT-approved 55-gallon drums. The soil that contained visible mercury was handled ashazardous soil containing mercury at concentrations greater than 260 ppm. The 55-gallon drums weretransported by Horwith to Model City. The soil was then transshipped from Model City to Port Washington,Wisconsin for incineration. Post-demolition foundation and soil samples were collected as described in Section7.
5.12 Subsurface Structure/Pipe Cleaning
As discussed above, prior to removing the concrete floor slab, ECS conducted a video survey of the subsurfacestructures and associated piping. Fifty pipe openings in the townhouse, former industrial building, and parkinglot were included in the survey. Blockages were observed in most pipes and the blockages were located lessthan 24 inches from the pipe opening. During the survey, mercury was detected (either in vapor form or byvisual observation) in the majority of the structures and subsurface piping surveyed. As previously discussed,the piping was not cleaned prior to removal due to the detection of mercury in the subsurface piping and due tothe encrustation and/or sediment buildup within the piping. Subsurface piping located in the former industrialbuilding and townhouse was removed in conjunction with the slab removal. The subsurface piping locatedbeneath the site parking lot was removed in conjunction with the soil removal. The subsurface piping wasremoved and capped at the property line. The approximate locations of the capped subsurface piping is shownon Figure 3. During subsurface pipe removal, the soil/concrete located around the piping was hand excavated.Polyethylene sheeting was placed underneath the piping and then the piping was cut. Each pipe was tapped toremove free mercury (if any), then the pipe ends were taped, and the pipe was placed in the macroencapsulationcontainer. The pipes were handled as hazardous debris containing mercury at concentrations greater than 260mg/kg. The macroencapsulation container was transported by Horwith to Emelle for macroencapsulation anddisposal.
5.13 Site Winterization
In November 2003, GE informed the USEPA that starting the 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities wasunadvisable at that time of year. Based on safety and water management concerns, the 720-732 Grand Streetsoil removal activities were postponed until 2004. As a result, in December 2003, Sabre winterized the site inaccordance with the USEPA-approved Site Winterization Plan (BBL's November 3, 2003 letter to USEPA).The site Winterization activities included the following activities:
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-24V:\GE_Grind_StTtel\Rcpoits and Prcsenta[ions\Final\2<t]50842_Rcvij«J_RA_Repon_2 doc 502699
• Sabre installed a 30-millimeter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner over the former industrial building andtownhouse footprint area to minimize the potential for soil erosion in the footprint. Four sumps were alsoinstalled to facilitate the collection of non-contact water.
• BBLES coordinated the transportation and disposal of the remaining waste that was staged onsite.
• Guardian Fence installed a chain-link fence around the 720-732 Grand Street perimeter (except the portionof 725 Adams Street that borders the site parking lot where there was existing fence). Sabre also removedthe jersey barrier system from Grand Street and 8th Street.
• Sabre winterized the temporary water treatment system. The winterization of the temporary water treatmentsystem included draining the water from the system. The drained water (that was already treated andapproved for discharge) was discharged to the catch basin at the corner of 8th Street and Adams Street.Sabre also unfastened connection points within the temporary water treatment system to minimize damagefrom freezing conditions.
• Prior to demobilization from the site for the winter, Sabre conducted general site cleanup activities. The sitecleanup activities included storing site equipment and disposal of surplus/damaged equipment and materials.
Sabre demobilized from the site for the winter shut down period on December 19, 2003. Followingdemobilization, BBLES conducted site reviews twice per week until Sabre remobilized to the site in September2004. During the site review, BBLES personnel visually inspected the integrity of the PVC liner, operation ofthe sump pumps, and general condition of the site. If water accumulated in the sumps of the footprint, the non-contact water was discharged by BBLES personnel to the catch basin at the corner of Grand Street and 8th Street.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
8/23/05 engineers, scientists, economists 5-25V:\GE_Grai>d_Sue«^epons and Prescntalions\FinaJ\24I50842_Rcviscd_RA_Repon_2.doc S Q 2 7 0 0
6. Residential Property and Perimeter Area SoilRemoval
6.1 General
This section describes the soil removal activities that were conducted in backyards on residential propertiesadjacent to the former manufacturing facility located at 720-732 Grand Street, and at the perimeter areasbetween the site and adjacent streets (8th Street, Adams Street, and Grand Street). The soil removal activities atthe adjacent residential properties were discussed and agreed to by GE and the USEPA during a meeting at thesite on July 2, 2002.
6.2 Residential Property Soil Removal
On July 11, 2002, on behalf of GE, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA presenting GE's proposal for theremoval of select soils from five adjacent residential properties. By letter of July 22, 2002, USEPA approvedGE's proposal for residential property soil removal. Following the USEPA's approval of the proposal, GEsubmitted the SRDP to the USEPA on September 5, 2002. On April 17, 2003, GE received a copy of the BSD(USEPA, 2003) issued by the USEPA. The BSD modified the soil remedy selected in the ROD to include theremoval of soils at nearby residential properties that had sample results with total mercury at concentrationsgreater than 23 mg/kg. On May 29, 2003, GE received a letter from the USEPA approving the SRDP pursuantto Sections XII (Additional Response Actions) and XIV (EPA Review of Submissions) of the UAO.
The residential property soil removal activities were conducted between July and September 2003 in accordancewith the SRDP (BBL, 2002a). The residential property soil removal activities were conducted at the followingproperties:
• 718 Grand Street;• 717 Adams Street; '• 721 Adams Street;• 723 Adams Street; and• 725 Adams Street.
The residential property soil removal areas are shown on Figure 5.
6.2.1 Pre-Removal Activities
Prior to residential property soil removal, the following pre-removal activities were conducted:
• Project meetings;• Residential property survey;• Pre-removal assessment; and• Mobilization/residential property soil removal preparation.
8LASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineer, scientists, economists 6-1V:\GE_Crand_Strea\RcportsandPrcsOTlalions\Flnal\24l50842_RcvUcd_RA_Repor1.doc ' 502701
Each pre-removal activity is summarized below.
6.2.1.1 Project Meetings
Several meetings between GE, BBL, USEPA, USAGE and Sabre occurred prior to and during the residentialproperty soil removal activities, including the pre-removal meetings, daily site safety/coordination meetings,weekly progress meetings, and pre-final inspection. The meetings are discussed below.
Pre-Removal Project Meeting
Prior to beginning the residential property soil removal activities, a pre-removal meeting was conducted inconjunction with the weekly progress meeting on July 10, 2003. GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGEattended the pre-removal project meeting. The pre-removal meeting consisted of reviewing the currentcondition of the backyards, reviewing the upcoming activities, and reviewing the status of the executed accessagreements for the residential properties.
Pre-Removal Meetings with Property Owners
Prior to conducting soil removal activities, BBL met with each property owner individually to discuss theplanned soil removal and site restoration activities. During these meetings, several property owners indicatedthat they would not like certain vegetation replaced. These meetings were documented in letters BBL sent toeach property owner following the meetings. A copy of each letter was also sent to the USEPA.
Daily Site-Safety/Coordination Meetings
Daily meetings were attended by GE's onsite representative, BBL, USAGE, Sabre, and Sabre's subcontractors.The daily meetings discussed day-to-day operations, daily schedule of activities, health and safety issues, andgeneral project status.
Weekly Progress Meetings
Weekly progress meetings were attended by GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGE. The weekly progressmeetings discussed project status, schedule, scope of work, proposed deviation from the SRDP, and overallproject implementation. Items discussed in the weekly progress meetings were summarized in the weeklyprogress reports that were prepared and distributed by BBL. The weekly progress reports are included inAppendix B.
Pre-Final Inspection
Following completion of the residential property soil removal activities, a pre-final inspection was conducted inconjunction with the weekly progress meeting on October 30, 2003. GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGEattended the pre-final inspection. The pre-final inspection consisted of summarizing the progress of theresidential property soil removal activities and the residential property restoration activities.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfists, economists 6-2V:\GE_Orand_Strca\Rcpons and Presonations\Final\24150842_RcviscdJlA_Rsport.doc 502702
6.2.1.2 Residential Property Survey
After the access agreements for the residential properties were obtained, BBL's surveyor, James M. Stewart,Inc., conducted a topographic survey of each residential property. On July 7, 2003, James M. Stewart, Inc.conducted a survey of each of the backyards scheduled for soil removal (with the exception of the 725 AdamsStreet Property). Due to the delay in obtaining the access agreement, James M. Stewart, Inc. conducted the pre-removal topographic survey of the backyard of 725 Adams Street on July 21, 2003. As further discussed inSection 8, James M. Stewart, Inc. conducted a final survey of the site in January 2005. While conducting thefinal survey, James M. Stewart, Inc. used a global positioning system (GPS) unit to verify the elevation of themonument that had been used throughout the site investigation and remedial activities at the site. The GPS unitindicated that the monument had changed from the published value (increased by 1.32 feet) (possibly fromdamage or settlement). For the final survey, James M. Stewart, Inc. adjusted (decreased) the site datum by 1.32feet.
6.2.1.3 Pre-Removal Assessment
Prior to initiating the residential property soil removal activities, BBL conducted a pre-removal assessment ofeach property scheduled for soil removal. The pre-removal assessment reports document the condition of theproperties prior to the soil removal activities. The pre-removal assessment reports are included in Appendix G.
6.2.1.4 Mobilization/Residential Property Soil Removal Preparation Activities
In June and July 2003, Sabre, GE, and BBL conducted residential property soil removal preparation activities.These activities are discussed below.
Access Agreements
Prior to entering the properties, GE obtained executed access agreements from the property owners of eachproperty that was scheduled to have soil removal conducted (with the exception of the owner of 725 AdamsStreet). The owner of 725 Adams Street did not sign the access agreement GE submitted. The USEPA issuedan Administrative Order (Index No. CERCLA 02-2003-2023, dated June 11, 2003) that ordered Mr. EugenicNotaro to allow the USEPA and its contractors access to his property to conduct the soil removal activities.Although .soil removal was not conducted on the backyard of 716 Grand Street, an access agreement wasobtained by GE to facilitate the construction of a temporary road to access the backyard of 717 Adams Street.
Verification of Utilities
Prior to conducting the soil removal activities, Sabre identified and verified the locations of all aboveground andunderground utilities, equipment, and structures in the backyard of each property scheduled for soil removal.
Installation of Access Road
In July 2003, Sabre installed an access road through the backyards of 718 Grand Street and 716 Grand Street.The owners of 719 Adams Street would not grant.access to their property, therefore the access road wasinstalled on 716 Grand Street although no soil removal activities were scheduled for that property.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7'6'05 engineer, scientists, economists 6-3V:\GE_Grand_Stiea\Rcports and Presmlations\FinafU4l50842_ReviKd_RA_Repon.doc 502703
Decontamination areas were installed at each location where the access road intersected with the backyard of theproperties.
Removal of Fencing
Sabre removed fencing located between the properties to facilitate the installation of the access road as well asto conduct soil removal activities on each property.
Installation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Prior to disturbing the soil or vegetation, Sabre installed soil erosion and sediment control measures inaccordance with the SRDP and the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that BBL had submitted to theHEPSCD. The soil erosion and sediment control measures were maintained by Sabre throughout the residentialproperty soil removal activities. Sabre's soil erosion and sediment control measures included the followingactivities:
• Installed silt fencing along portions of the residential properties prior to initiating soil removal activities;
• Installed silt fencing at the downgradient limits of the residential properties accessed during the soil removalactivities;
• Constructed an access pad on the site adjacent to the removal areas; and
• Installed silt fencing around open soil removal areas.
The soil erosion control measures were removed following the placement of sod in the backyards.
Obtain Permits for Site Restoration Activities
Sabre obtained building permits from the City of Hoboken Zoning Board and Building Department forrebuilding the deck at 723 Adams Street and fence re-installation at the residential properties. Sabre removedthe fences from the properties (in 716 and 718 Grand Street, and 717, 721, 723, and 725 Adams Streetproperties) prior to initiating the soil removal activities and reinstalled the fences following completion of theresidential property restoration activities.
During initial conversations with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the USDA indicatedthat, due to the potential presence of Asian Longhom beetles in the trees in the vicinity of the residentialproperties, a permit would be required from USDA allowing tree waste to be disposed of at Tullytown. OnAugust 25, 2003, the USDA indicated that a permit would not be required for the tree waste because the treeswould be chipped prior to disposal. A New Jersey Department of Agriculture representative observed the treechipping activities.
6.2.2 Soil Removal Activities from Adjacent Residential Properties
Sabre began the residential property soil removal activities in July 2003. Sabre used a mini-excavator and abobcat to remove surface cover and soil from each property. The excavated soil was transported by a rubbertired tractor equipped with a front-end bucket to the USDOT-approved rolloff containers staged on the siteparking lot. The soil was excavated to the depth and areal extent specified in the SRDP. The soil removal
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientist, economists 6-4V:\GE_Grand_Strea\Repons and Prtsralalitras\FinaJ\24150842_Revisa)_RA_Repon.doc 502704
activities generally progressed from property to property in the following order: 717 Adams Street, 718 GrandStreet, 723 Adams Street, 725 Adams Street, and then 721 Adams Street.
Prior to the soil removal activities conducted at 723 Adams Street, Sabre removed the concrete pad, deck, anddebris located below the deck. The deck and debris were placed into a USDOT-approved rolloff container thatwas staged on the site parking lot. The rolloff containers were transported by Waste Management to theTullytown/GROWS for disposal of nonhazardous debris.
During the soil removal activities conducted at 725 Adams Street, BBL collected a sample of the excavated soiland submitted the sample for TCLP volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the SRWP. Theresults indicated that the sample did not contain constituents at concentrations greater than the laboratorydetection limits. The results are presented in Table II and Appendix D.
During rain events, Sabre covered the excavations with polyethylene sheeting and pumped out the water thataccumulated on the polyethylene sheeting to the storm sewer. Water that accumulated within the excavationareas (i.e., in contact with the soil) was pumped out and placed in the temporary onsite water treatment systemand treated prior to discharging the water to the sewer system (as further discussed in Subsection 6.8).
Prior to backfilling, BBL documented that Sabre excavated the soil to the depth and areal extent specified in theSRDP. Sabre's surveyor, James M Stewart, Inc. performed the post-excavation topographic survey followingsoil excavation to confirm the excavation depths and areal extent.
6.3 Soil Removal from Perimeter Area
This subsection describes the soil removal activities that were conducted at the perimeter areas of the site. Theperimeter soil removal areas were presented in the DARA (BBL, 200 Ib) and consisted of five areas locatedbetween the site and the curbline associated with Adams Street, 8th Street, and Grand Street. The perimeter soilremoval areas are shown on Figure 5.
6.3.1 Pre-Removal Activities
Prior to soil removal at the perimeter areas, the following pre-removal activities were conducted:
• Project meetings; and• Mobilization/soil removal preparation.
Each pre-removal activity is summarized below.
6.3.1.1 Project Meetings
Several meetings among GE, BBL, USEPA, the USAGE, and Sabre occurred prior to and during the perimeterarea soil removal activities, including daily site safety/coordination meetings and weekly progress meetings.These meetings are discussed below.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 6-5V:\GE_Gnrnd_Strea\Repons wid Prcscnutions\FinaI\24l50842_Reviscd_RA_Rcpon.(ioc 502705
Daily Site-Safety/Coordination Meetings
Daily meetings were attended by GE's onsite representative, BBL, USAGE, Sabre, and Sabre's subcontractors.The daily meetings discussed day-to-day operations, daily schedule of activities, health and safety issues, andgeneral project status.
Weekly Progress Meetings
Weekly progress meetings were attended by GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGE. The weekly progressmeetings discussed project status, schedule, scope of work, proposed deviation from the SRDP, and overallproject implementation. Items discussed in the weekly progress meetings were summarized in the weeklyprogress reports that were prepared and distributed by BBL. The weekly progress reports are included inAppendix B.
6.3.1.2 Mobilization/Soil Removal Preparation Activities
In June and July 2003, Sabre, GE, and BBL conducted perimeter area removal preparation activities. Theseactivities are discussed below.
Verification of Utilities
Prior to conducting the soil removal activities, Sabre identified and verified the locations of all aboveground andunderground utilities, equipment, and structures in the backyard of each property that was scheduled for soilremoval.
Installation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Prior to disturbing the soil or vegetation, Sabre installed soil erosion and sediment control measures inaccordance with the SRDP and the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that BBL had submitted to theHEPSCD.
6.3.2 Soil Removal Activities from Perimeter Area
Sabre began the perimeter soil removal activities in August 2003. Sabre used a mini-excavator and bobcat toremove surface cover and soil from each perimeter area. The excavated soil was transported by a rubber-tiredtractor equipped with a front end bucket to the USDOT-approved rolloff containers staged onsite. The soil wasexcavated to the depth and areal extent specified in the DARA. Prior to backfilling, BBL verified that Sabreexcavated the soil to the depth and areal extent specified in the DARA.
6.4 Residential Property and Perimeter Area Restoration
Sabre conducted the residential property and perimeter area restoration activities in accordance with the SRDP.The restoration activities consisted of the following activities:
• Placing, compacting, and grading backfill material;• Placing topsoil;
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 6-6V.\OE_Ormd_SuW.Xepons md PttS£nUttiom\FiiiaI\24150S42_Rc¥is«l_RA_Repon.aoc 502706
• Placing sod;• Restoring adjacent, residential properties (e.g., fencing, wood decking) to pre-removal conditions;• Restoring concrete sidewalks and concrete slabs that were removed during residential property and
perimeter area soil removal activities; and• Performing other miscellaneous restoration activities.
The residential property and perimeter area restoration activities are discussed below.
6.4.1 Backfilling
Following the soil removal, Sabre conducted the backfilling activities. Sabre placed, graded, and compacted thesoil fill in approximate 8-inch lifts using a mini excavator and plate compactor. The soil fill material was placedto approximately 6 inches below final grade. USEL conducted the compaction testing in accordance with theSRDP and FRD. Sieve and gradation analyses results from the soil fill material are included in Appendix H.
Sabre submitted a sample of proposed topsoil and soil fill material. USEL analyzed the samples for sieveanalysis, relative density, and compaction testing. BBL also submitted the backfill samples for chemicalanalysis in accordance with the FRD Report. The analysis performed on the backfill samples indicated that thesoil was acceptable for use as backfill. The analytical results for the backfill are presented in Appendix H.
Sabre backfilled and compacted each property and perimeter area following BBL's documentation of the extentof excavation. USEL conducted compaction testing of the backfill to evaluate that the backfill was compactedin accordance with the SRDP and FRD. The compaction testing results are presented in Appendix I.
6.4.2 Topsoil and Sod
Following the completion of the backfilling activities at each of the properties and perimeter areas, Sabre placedand graded the topsoil in approximate 6-inch lifts using a mini excavator and plate compactor. Followingplacement of the topsoil, Sabre installed and watered the sod in areas that were disturbed by the soil removal.The sod was maintained by Sabre in accordance with the SRDP and FRD. Sabre restored each property to pre-removal conditions with the exception of the properties located at 716 Grand and 717 Adams Street. Duringmeetings with the property owners, the owners of the properties located at 716 Grand Street and 717 AdamsStreet indicated that certain trees, planters, rosebushes and a telephone pole should not be replaced and that sodshould cover those areas.
6.4.3 Fence Restoration
Following the completion of the backfilling activities at each of the residential properties, Sabre replacedfencing that was removed from the properties during the soil removal activities. The restored fencing wassimilar to the original fencing with the exception of the height of the fence that bordered the site. The originalsite fencing that bordered the residential properties was 8 feet tall, but the City of Hoboken only permits newfencing to be a maximum of 6 feet high. The final height of the fencing installed was 6 feet high.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfisfs. economist 6-7V:\GE_Grand_Strca\Rcports and Prcsentalk>ns\FinaA24I50842_Rcvis«J_RA_Report.doc S 0 ? 7 D 7
6.4.4 Concrete Restoration
Following the completion of the soil removal activities, Sabre constructed a concrete pad beneath the deck at723 Adams Street to replace the concrete pad removed to facilitate the construction of the new deck. Sabre alsorestored the concrete sidewalks that were removed during the perimeter soil removal activities. The concretepad and sidewalks were restored in accordance with the SRDP and FRD.
Sabre constructed concrete footers (i.e., sonotubes) beneath the deckposts at 725 Adams Street to replace theexisting concrete block post supports that were removed to facilitate soil removal activities.
6.4.5 Deck Restoration
Following completion of the soil removal activities and concrete pad installation in the backyard of 723 AdamsStreet, Sabre constructed a wood deck to replace the deck that was removed. The deck was constructed inconfonnance with the deck designed by BBL and was reviewed and approved by the property owner and theCity of Hoboken. A copy of the deck design was previously submitted to the USEPA on July 29, 2003.
6.5 Decontamination/Demobilization
The decontamination and demobilization activities are discussed below.
6.5.1 Decontamination
Sabre decontaminated equipment, personnel, and materials used during the residential property and perimeterarea soil removal activities in accordance with the SRDP and FRD. Decontamination was conducted indedicated decontamination areas located adjacent to the work areas and access road.
BBL visually reviewed and screened the equipment and materials taken offsite in accordance with the SRDP.Washwater generated by the decontamination activities was collected and treated in the onsite temporary watertreatment system.
6.5.2 Demobilization
Following decontamination, Sabre demobilized their equipment, personnel, and materials from the residentialproperty and perimeter area.
6.6 Post-Removal Assessment
BBL conducted a post-removal assessment for each residential property at which soil removal occurred. Theassessments documented the condition of each property upon completion of the residential property soil removalactivities. The post-removal assessments are included in Appendix J. BBL's subcontractor (James M. Stewart,Inc.) surveyed each residential property following restoration activities. The survey indicated that the properties
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 6-8V:\GE_Grmd_Strca\Repons and Prcsmuilions\Fin»A24150842_Rcvised_RA_Report.doc 502708
were backfilled to pre-remoyal grades. The final grades of the properties where soil removal activities occurredare presented on Drawing RD-2.
6.7 Air Monitoring
BBL and Sabre conducted air monitoring activities in accordance with the SRDP and FRD. During the RAactivities, BBL and Sabre conducted air monitoring activities to evaluate airborne constituent levels todetermine that the work procedures and PPE were adequate. The air monitoring activities were conducted bothprior to and during the soil removal activities. The parameters of concern during implementation of theresidential property and perimeter area soil removal activities were airborne particulates and mercury vapors.The air monitoring activities that were conducted as part of the residential property and perimeter area soilremoval activities include meteorological monitoring and work area air monitoring. The air monitoringactivities conducted are described below.
6.7.1 Meteorological Monitoring
BBL conducted meteorological monitoring in accordance with the SRDP, FRD, and RAWP. Themeteorological monitoring was conducted to determine the upwind and downwind boundaries of the residentialproperty or perimeter area undergoing excavation. The meteorological monitoring was conducted using a MetOne meteorological system with a 30-foot tower. The Met One system measured wind speed, wind direction,and temperature. BBL also used complimentary data from local internet sources.
6.7.2 Work Area Monitoring
During implementation of the residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities, work areamonitoring was conducted to determine appropriate PPE requirements and/or appropriate control measures forthe work area. BBL conducted work area air monitoring in accordance with the SRDP, RA Work Plan, andFRD. Air monitoring was conducted in the work areas at a minimum of four times per hour.
In addition to BBL's work area air monitoring, Sabre conducted work area monitoring in accordance with theirHealth and Safety Plan (HASP). Sabre used the Jerome 431-X MVA to monitor for mercury vapors. Asdiscussed in Subsection 3.2, Sabre used the Air-Aide Model 2000 airborne particulate monitor instead of theoriginally proposed MIE Data RAM.
BBL compared the results of the mercury vapor and airborne particulate monitoring to the action levelspresented in the SRDP, RA Work Plan, and FRD. The work area air monitoring action levels were not exceededduring the residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities. BBL's residential property andperimeter area soil removal activities work area air monitoring logs are included in Appendix K.
6.7.3 Work Area Perimeter Monitoring
During implementation of the residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities, BBL conductedwork area perimeter monitoring at four locations in accordance with the SRDP, RA Work Plan, and FRDReport. The work area perimeter air monitoring was conducted using the MVA and the particulate monitor as
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineer, scientists, economists 6-9V:\CE_Grand_Strea\Rcporu and frcsmwioM\Final\24]50842_Revis«i_RA_Rcjx>n.doc 502709
discussed above. BBL's residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities work area perimeter airmonitoring logs are included in Appendix K.
6.8 Water Management
The temporary water treatment system was used to treat water (i.e., precipitation, stormwater runoff, anddecontamination water) that contacted mercury-impacted materials (e.g., impacted soil) during the residentialproperty and perimeter area soil removal activities. Sabre covered excavation areas with polyethylene sheetingduring precipitation events to minimize the quantity of water requiring treatment.
Impacted water generated during the residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities was collectedand pumped into the influent tank located on the site parking lot. Once the influent tank was filled, the batch ofwater was released into the treatment system. The treated water was collected in the effluent tanks. Prior todischarging each batch of treated water to the municipal storm/sanitary sewer system, BBL collected a watersample from the effluent tanks for analysis. BBL then compared the analytical results to NHSA's dischargelimit. Following approval from CH2M Hill, Sabre discharged the treated water to the municipal storm/sanitarysewer system. Analytical data from the samples collected from the treated water is summarized in Table IB.The date and quantity of treated water discharged to the municipal storm/sanitary sewer system is summarizedin Table 2.
6.9 Handling, Transportation, and Offsite Disposition of Waste Materials
Sabre handled, segregated, and containerized the waste material generated during the residential property andperimeter area soil removal activities in accordance with the SRDP, RA Work Plan, and FRD Report.
Sabre segregated the debris from the residential property and perimeter area residential properties based on thewaste characterization information provided in the SRDP. Sabre directly loaded the soil and debris intoUSDOT-approved rolloff containers that were staged in the parking lot of the site.
BBLES profiled the waste and coordinated the transportation and disposal of the waste generated during theresidential property and perimeter area soil removal activities. The wastes generated during the residentialproperty and perimeter area soil removal activities were transported by Waste Management of Pennsylvania tothe Tullytown/GROWS facilities located in Pennsylvania.
Table 3 summarizes the waste streams, the quantity, and the associated transportation and disposal facility forthe wastes that were generated during the residential property and perimeter area soil removal activities. Theanalytical data for the waste characterization samples are included in Tables 1A through 1J and Appendix D.
The nonhazardous waste manifests are included in Appendix L. The certificates of disposal are included inAppendix M.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineer, scientists, economists 6-10V:VGE_Grmd_Strea\Reponj and PicSCTIMions\FuuU\24150842_Rcviscd_RA_Rrpon.doc 502710
7. 720-732 Grand Street Soil Removal
7.1 General
This section describes the 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities conducted as part of the RA activities.The 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities were conducted to achieve the RAOs for onsite soil. TheRAOs were established by the USEPA and presented in the ROD and the BSD (USEPA, 2004). On July 2,2004, the USEPA issued the ESD to describe changes made to the soil RAOs identified in the ROD. As detailedin the ESD, a RAO for average total mercury in onsite subsurface soils located below the top of the groundwatertable was established to be to 520 mg/kg. The RAO (of 23 mg/kg) for average total mercury in soils locatedabove the top of the groundwater table remained as specified in the ROD. The 720-732 Grand Street soilremoval activities were conducted in accordance with the SRWP, FRD Report, the RA Work Plan, and ESD.The soil removal activities consisted of the following:
• Former building footprint soil removal;• Former building footprint foundation removal; and• 720-732 Grand Street parking lot soil removal.
The previous 720-732 Grand Street soil investigations and the above-listed activities are discussed below.
7.2 Former Building Footprint Investigation
Following demolition of the former industrial building and the attached townhouse, BBL conducted a post-demolition soil investigation for the soils located in the footprint of the former industrial building and attachedtownhouse. The post-demolition soil investigation was conducted in fall 2003. The results indicated that selectsoil contained total mercury at concentrations greater than the RAO. The results of this investigation along withthe proposed limits of soil removal were presented in the SRWP.
7.3 Former Building Footprint Soil Removal
The soil removal activities associated with the former building footprint were conducted during September 2004and October 2004. Prior to conducting the soil removal activities, Sabre installed and maintained soil erosionand sediment control measures in accordance with the FRD Report, the RA Work Plan, and the Soil Erosion andSediment Control Plan.
The soil removal activities were conducted using a grid system that was developed during the soil investigationactivities. The grid system is presented on Figure 4. In general, the soil removal activities conducted in thefootprint of the former industrial building and townhouse generally progressed from the southeast to thenorthwest. Sabre used a John Deere 160LC excavator for removal of soil within the building footprint.
Grid 7 and portions of Grids 6 and 15 were excavated to depths below the groundwater table (deep excavations).As discussed in Subsection 3.2, the USEPA agreed to allow excavation below the groundwater table to occurwithout dewatering the excavation area. Sabre excavated the soil beneath the groundwater table in a saturatedstate and allowed the excavator bucket to drain the majority of free liquid. The excavated material was then
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 7-1V:\CE_Grand_Strca\Repoiu and PrcscntBk>ns\Fman24150842_RcvUed_RA_Rqxm.doc 502711
placed into USDOT-approved containers (staged adjacent to the excavation areas) that contained lime. Sabremixed the lime and saturated soil in rolloff containers to stabilize free liquids contained in the rolloff.
Grids 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and portions of Grids 6 and 15 were excavated to the top of the groundwater table.Excavated materials from these grids were placed into USDOT-approved lined rolloff containers and triaxledump trucks. Soil that contained total mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg was transported toModel City for disposal as a nonhazardous waste containing mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg.The soil that contained total mercury at concentrations less than 260 mg/kg was transported to theTullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as nonhazardous waste. The soil located in the vicinity of soil samplePDSG13SB01US was managed as a hazardous high mercury solid waste, and transported to Model City forfuture retort.
After the soil in each grid was excavated to the depth and area! extent specified in the SRWP, post-excavationverification soil samples (bottom and/or sidewall samples) were collected. The post-excavation samples werecollected as required by the USEPA in their letter to GE dated September 29, 2004 and GE's letter to theUSEPA dated October 5, 2004. The validated results of the post-excavation sampling activities are presented inTable 4, Appendix N, and on Figure 4. Seven post-excavation sidewall samples and 15 post-excavation bottomsamples were collected in the former industrial building and townhouse footprint by BBL field personnel. Eachpost-excavation sample was submitted for analysis for total mercury. The validated analytical data are presentedin Appendix N.
Total mercury post-excavation analytical results were evaluated by BBL. As required by the USEPA, if thepost-excavation total mercury analytical result was greater than the associated RAO (above 23 mg/kg for soillocated above the groundwater table and 520 mg/kg for soil located below the groundwater table), Sabreconducted additional soil removal. The USEPA, GE, and BBL agreed that if the results of the sidewallsampling indicated that total mercury was at concentrations greater than the RAO, one additional excavatorbucket would be removed. The additional bucket volume was approximately 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep (into thewall) for the entire depth of the excavation. Additional soil removal was conducted in Grid 1 (bottom of theexcavation [northern portion of the grid]) and Grid 15 (north sidewall). The table below summarizes the post-excavation results and additional excavation that was conducted in Grids 1 and 15.
? Sample ID S-H
PESG1B
PESG1B-R1
PESG1B-R2
PESG1BWPESG1BEPESG15S-N
PESG15S-NR1
: (Total Mercury)1?826 mg/kg
594 mg/kg
312 mg/kg
96.6 mg/kg676 mg/kg36.1 mg/kg
4 mg/kg
f Remedial Action %
520 mg/kg
520 mg/kg
520 mg/kg
520 mg/kg520 mg/kg^23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
Excavate one additional foot of soil from bottom (toapproximately 3 feet below grade) and resample(PESG1B-R1).Excavate one additional foot of soil from bottom (toapproximately 4.5 feet below grade) and resample
Collect one sample west of PESG1B-R2(PESG1BW) and one sample east of PESG1B-R2(PESG1BE).None. Total mercury result less than RAO.Excavate to the meadow mat (6 feet below grade).Excavate one additional bucket of soil from thenorth sidewall and resample (PESG15S-NR1).None. Total mercury result less than RAO.
Figure 4 depicts the areal and vertical extent of additional soil that was removed from the former industrialbuilding footprint.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists 7-2502712
A buried concrete slab covered the southern two-thirds of Grid 1 at a depth that straddled the groundwater table.Figure 3 shows the approximate location of the buried concrete slab. Therefore, the soil removal and post-excavation sample for Grid 1 was limited to the northern portion of Grid 1.
USAGE collected split soil samples from the following sample locations:
• Grid 1 bottom and associated resamples (PESG1B, PESG1B-R1, PESG1B-R2);• Grid 2 bottom (PESG2B);• Grid 3 bottom (PESG3B);• Grid 13 bottom (PESG13B);• Grid 15 bottom (PESO 15B); and• Grid 6 sidewall (PESG6S-S).
BBL collected the samples and filled the USAGE'S glassware for the split soil samples listed above at theUSAGE'S request.
7.4 Previous Foundation Investigation
At the City of Hoboken's request, GE planned to leave in place the foundation materials of the former industrialbuilding and townhouse. However, the USEPA requested that the foundation material be sampled as part of thepost-demolition investigation activities. The results of the post-demolition foundation investigation werepresented in the following documents:
• SRWP (BBL, 2004); and• Letter from BBL to the USEPA dated April 28, 2004.
The results of the post-demolition foundation investigation indicated that a select portion of foundation materialswould need to be removed due to the presence of total mercury in the foundation materials at concentrationsgreater than 23 mg/kg. The results also indicated that a 10-foot section of foundation would require removaland be managed as a hazardous waste.
As discussed in Subsection 3.2, BBL submitted a letter to the USEPA, dated August 11, 2004, requesting thatSabre remove only the upper portion (i.e., the portion located above the groundwater table) of select foundationmaterials. The August 11, 2004 letter stated that BBL would collect one foundation sample for TCLP and totalmercury analysis following removal of the upper portion of select foundation material. If the analytical resultsindicated total mercury concentrations greater than 520 mg/kg, the full depth of foundation material would beremoved. The USEPA agreed to this approach in their August 19, 2004 letter to GE.
7.5 Foundation Material Removal Activities
The foundation material removal was conducted in conjunction with soil removal activities in September 2004.Sabre removed the upper portion (i.e., the portion located above the groundwater table) of select foundationmaterial from the former industrial building footprint in accordance with the FRD Report and the SRWP. Sabreused an excavator equipped with a pneumatic hammer to remove foundation materials within the formerindustrial building footprint. Sabre placed select hazardous foundation materials into a USDOT-approvedmacroencapsulation container transported by Horwith to Emelle, Alabama for macroencapsulation.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 7-3V:\GE_Gnmd_Stroa\Repom and PicsCTtaiions\Fin>r>24150842_RcvisaJ_RA_Report.doc 502713
Nonhazardous foundation materials containing total mercury at concentrations less than 260 ppm weretransported by Waste Management to the GROWS/Tullytown facilities for disposal.
Sabre removed the upper portion of foundation materials and then collected samples from the Grid 1 buriedconcrete slab (not previously sampled) and Grid 7 foundation wall. The samples were submitted to Accutest inDayton, New Jersey for analysis for total mercury and TCLP mercury (Grid 7 sample only). The analyticalresults indicated that the samples contained total mercury at concentrations below 520 ppm. Based on theanalytical results, the remaining portion of the foundation (located below groundwater) remained in place. Theresults of the foundation sampling are presented in Table 5 and the validated analytical data are included inAppendix N. The approximate location of the remaining foundation is shown on Figure 3.
7.6 Previous Parking Lot Soil Investigation
The 720-732 Grand Street parking lot soil investigations were conducted in several phases. The soil locatedbeneath the parking lot was initially investigated by BBL, on behalf of GE, in 1999. The results of the originalsoil investigation were discussed in the DAR (BBL, 2000b). At the request of the USEPA, BBL, on behalf ofGE, conducted an additional soil investigation in 2001. The results of the additional soil investigation werediscussed in the DARA (BBL, 200 Ib). The results of these investigations indicated that select soil located in thesite parking lot contained total mercury at concentrations greater than the RAO.
7.7 Parking Lot Soil Removal
The soil removal activities were conducted from October 2004 through December 2004, with the exception ofGrid SB-20. Sabre excavated the soil located in Grid SB-20 to the required depth of one foot in fall 2003 tofacilitate the relocation of site trailers.
Following removal of the soil and foundation materials from the footprint of the former buildings, Sabre used aJohn Deere 160LC excavator to remove soil and asphalt within the site parking lot. In general, the soil removalactivities conducted in the parking lot were conducted on a grid-by-grid basis and progressed from southeast tonorthwest.
Subsurface piping that was encountered during the soil removal activities in each grid was removed inconjunction with the soil. The pipe removal activities are further discussed in Subsection 5.12.
During soil excavation in Grid SB-46, Sabre encountered a metal tank approximately 18 inches in diameter andthree feet long. The tank did not contain associated piping; however, the tank contained residual sediment/soil.Mercury vapor and volatile organic vapors were not detected in the tank or soil headspace. BBL collected onesample of the residual sediment/soil (in the tank) for analysis of total and leachable mercury (using the TCLPmethod). Sabre cut the tank into manageable pieces and placed the tank and the residual sediment/soil in aUSDOT-approved 55-gallon drum. The tank was handled as a nonhazardous solid waste. The drum containingthe tank and residual sediment/soil was transported by Horwith to Model City for disposal as a nonhazardouswaste containing mercury at concentrations greater than 260 mg/kg.
While removing the soil located in Grid SB-112, Sabre encountered a pipe chase that contained piping whichappeared to be fire suppression system pipes. The piping included insulation and gasket materials that weresuspect ACM. BBL's subcontractor, Clayton, collected bulk samples of the suspect ACMs. The asbestosanalytical results identified the thermal system pipe insulation observed on two pipes within the Grid SB-112
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 7-4V:\GE_Grand_StTCO\Rcporo and PranilatioiH\FiiMj\24l50842_Revijal_RA_Repon.doc 502714
pipe chase as ACM and the rope joint gasket and flange gasket materials associated with fire suppression systempiping as non-ACM. The asbestos results are included in Appendix E.
In December 2004, Sabre's subcontractor (BCEC) removed approximately 3 linear feet of asbestos-containingpipe insulation. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, BCEC served as the RA Contractor's ARC to conduct asbestosremoval activities for subsurface pipes in the parking lot because EACI was no longer licensed to performasbestos removal activities in New Jersey. The asbestos-containing pipe insulation was double bagged andplaced in a 55-gallon drum. Horwith transported the drums to Model City for disposal as nonhazardous,nonfriable ACM.
On behalf of BBL, Clayton observed the asbestos abatement activities. Clayton's reports summarizing theACM abatement activities are presented in Appendix E.
During soil removal, Sabre removed subsurface piping to the property line and plugged the exposed pipe endswith cement grout. Sabre sealed the pipe chase using bricks and mortar.
During excavation of Grid SB-36, the existing catch basin and inlet piping was observed to be damaged. Thecatch basin was replaced in conjunction with the installation of the new catch basin located in the formerindustrial building footprint. The replacement of the catch basin is further discussed in Section 9.
During asphalt removal activities in Grid MW-7, Sabre encountered an empty 2-foot-wide by 2-foot-long by 2-foot-deep metal (tin) box located just beneath the asphalt near the southeast portion of Grid MW-7. The 2-inch-diameter PVC pipe first encountered in Grid MW-4 was observed to terminate at the top of the metal box. Themetal box was observed to be encased in 2-inch-thick concrete. An approximate '/z-inch-thick layer of bluecrystalline residue was observed on top of the metal box. Soil visibly impacted with the blue crystalline residue(due to disturbance during excavation activities) and the metal box were sampled and characterized by BBL inaccordance with the FRD Report. Sabre placed the metal box and the blue crystalline material in a 55-gallondrum. The results indicated that the blue crystalline material was a nonhazardous solid waste. The drum wastransported by Horwith to Model City for disposal as a nonhazardous waste.
Asphalt was also removed from the grids that were not scheduled for soil removal. Sabre placed the excavatedmaterials into USDOT-approved lined rolloff containers and triaxle dump trucks. The asphalt was transportedby Waste Management to the Tullytown/GROWS facilities for disposal as a nonhazardous waste.
After the soil was excavated to the depth and areal extent specified in the FRD Report and DARA, post-excavation verification soil samples (bottom and sidewall samples) were collected . As described in Subsection3.2, the number of post excavation samples increased from the number of post excavation samples indicated inthe FRD Report. A total of 21 sidewall samples and 24 bottom samples (including the additional samples listedabove) were collected by BBL field personnel. The location and results of the post-excavation sampling arepresented on Figure 4. Post-excavation sampling results are presented in Table 4, and the validated analyticaldata are included in Appendix N.
The post-excavation sidewall samples from seven grids contained total mercury at concentrations greater thanthe associated RAO (23 mg/kg above the groundwater table) and required additional excavation. The USEPAagreed with GE and BBL that if the results of the sidewall sampling indicated that total mercury was atconcentrations greater than the RAO, one additional bucket would be excavated.
The sidewalls associated with the post-excavation samples collected from the following grids requiredadditional excavation and additional sampling to meet the RAO:
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientist, economists 7-5V:\GEJjTBnd_Stica\Rcporu am) Prcscnl«k>ns\FiMj\24150842 Jlcvisoi_RA_Rcport.doc R 0 9 7 1 R
• Grid SB-35 South Sidewall;• Grid SB-39 West Sidewall;• Grid SB-37 South Sidewall;• Grid SB-44 West Sidewall; and• Grid SB-111 West Sidewall.
The table below summarizes the results and additional post-excavation sampling that was conducted in the fivegrids.
^S 'Sample.lD« Sl;PESGSB35S-S
PESGSB35S-SR1
PESGSB37S-S
PESGSB37S-SR1
PESGSB37S-SR2
PESGSB39W-S
PESGSB39W-SR1
PESGSB39W-SR2
PESGSB44W-S
PESGSB44W-SR1
PESGSB44W-SR2
PESGSB111W-S
PESGSB111W-SR1
ftbtal'Mercury)^69.5 mg/kg
13.4mg/kg
41 .8 mg/kg
25.1 mg/kg
2.1 mg/kg
96.5 mg/kg
89 mg/kg
2.3 mg/kg
85.8 mg/kg
33.1 mg/kg
3 mg/kg
39.7 mg/kg
5.9 mg/kg
flimeaialJfctiorfi
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
23 mg/kg
^s^ y iR feSii ^SiExcavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB35S-SR1).None. Total mercury result less thanRAO.Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB37S-SR1).Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB37S-SR2).None. Total mercury result less thanRAO.Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB39W-SR1 ).Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB39W-SR2).None. Total mercury result less thanRAO.Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB44W-SR1).Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB44W-SR2).None. Total mercury result less thanRAO.Excavate one additional bucket of soiland resample (PESGSB1 1 1 W-SR1 ).None. Total mercury result less thanRAO.
The additional bucket of soil was taken from an area that was approximately 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep (into thewall) for the entire depth of the excavation.
USAGE collected split soil samples from the following sample locations:
• Grid SB-35 Bottom (PESGSB35B);• Grid SB-37 South Sidewall (PESGSB37S-S); and• Grid SB-111 West Sidewall (PESGSB111W-S).
BBL collected the samples and filled the USAGE'S glassware for the split soil samples listed above at theUSAGE'S request.
BLASLAND, BOUCtC 8. LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Graixi_StiKl\Rcporu «nd PrcSCTUlions\FinaK24)50842_Reviso)_RA_Rcpon.<)oc 502716
7-6
Sabre placed the excavated materials into the lined rolloff containers and triaxle dump trucks for disposal asdescribed below.
Nonhazardous soil and debris containing total mercury at concentrations greater than 260 ppm was transportedby Horwith to Model City for disposal. Nonhazardous low mercury soil and debris containing total mercury atconcentrations less than 260 ppm was transported by Waste Management to the GROWS/Tullytown facilitiesfor disposal.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfe/s, economistsV:\GE_Gnmd_Strca\Rcpon3 and WcsoiuiUons\Finar\24l50842_Rcvisa)_RAJlcpon.<Joc 502717
7-7
8. Post-Demolition Groundwater Investigation
8.1 General
BBL conducted the post-demolition groundwater investigation between November 2004 and January 2005. Thepost-demolition groundwater investigation was part of the post-demolition site investigation that also included afoundation investigation and a soil investigation. Results of the post-demolition soil and foundationinvestigations were presented previously in the SRWP and in the letter from BBL to the USEPA dated April 28,2004. They are not repeated in this report.
BBL performed the post-demolition groundwater investigation in accordance with the USEPA-approved FRDReport, the USEPA's letters to GE dated November 1, 2004, November 8, 2004, and November 30, 2004, andBBL's letter to the USEPA dated November 24, 2004. The post-demolition groundwater investigation wasconducted to determine total mercury concentrations in groundwater beneath the former industrial buildingfootprint and site parking lot.
The post-demolition groundwater investigation included the following activities:
• Installing two monitoring wells in the former industrial building footprint within Grid 15 (MW-8) and Grid7 (MW-9);
• Installing one monitoring well in the former townhouse footprint within Grid 6 (MW-10);
• Collecting and analyzing groundwater samples from existing and newly installed monitoring wells;
• Collecting and analyzing soil samples from newly installed monitoring well soil borings; and
• Abandoning two existing monitoring wells (MW-2 and MW-4).
The USEPA required GE to install three groundwater monitoring wells in the footprint of the former industrialbuilding and to collect one soil sample from each monitoring well location (at the soil/meadow mat interface)for total mercury analysis. The USEPA also required GE to collect one round of groundwater samples fromeach monitoring well for total mercury analysis. As discussed in Subsection 3.2 the USEPA also required thatall groundwater monitoring wells except MW-2 and MW-4, remain in place for future groundwaterinvestigation activities.
The post-demolition groundwater investigation activities are described below.
8.2 Monitoring Well Installation
During November and December 2004, SGS, a New Jersey-licensed drilling firm, installed three shallowgroundwater monitoring wells (MW-8, MW-9, MW-10) using hollow-stem auger drilling methods. Monitoringwell locations are shown on Figure 3.
BIA.SLANO, ROUGE & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 8-1V:\GE_Gnmd_Strca\Reporu and Prcsemaions\FinaJ\24l50842_Revis«l_RAJlcport.doc 502718
SGS completed one soil boring at each of the USEPA-approved locations during the installation of monitoringwells MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10. Each soil boring was completed using a Geoprobe 66DT drill rig, and 5-foot-long, 2-inch-diameter macrocore samplers with plastic liners to continuously sample the borehole soil andlocate the depth of the meadow mat layer.
Soil samples were collected from the fill/meadow mat interface of each soil boring, and were visuallycharacterized for color, texture, and moisture content by a BBL geologist. An MVA and a Multi-RAE®photoionization detector were used to assess the presence or absence of mercury and volatile organic vapors inthe headspace of the soil samples. Soil samples (including quality assurance/quality control [QA/QC] samples)were sent to STL for laboratory analysis for total mercury. Soil sample analytical results are presented in Table9, and the validated analytical data are included in Appendix N.
Two split soil samples from monitoring well soil borings at MW-8 and MW-9 were collected for the USAGE.BBL collected the samples and filled USAGE'S glassware for the collection of the split soil samples.
After the soil borings were drilled, groundwater monitoring wells were installed. Hollow-stem augers were usedto install the monitoring wells to an approximate depth of 6 inches into the meadow mat. Monitoring welldrilling and installation equipment were decontaminated in accordance with Appendix C of the USEPA-approved FRD Report. Each well was installed with an 8-foot-long, 2-inch-diameter PVC well screen (0.010-inch slot size) and riser casing. After setting the well casing, a quartz sand pack (Morie No. 1) was placed in theannulus between the well casing and the borehole wall from the well completion depth to a height ofapproximately 6 to 9 inches above the top of the well screen. The remainder of the annulus was filled withcement/bentonite grout to the ground surface. Each well was completed with a 2-foot-long by 2-foot-wide by'/2-foot-thick concrete pad, 2-foot-long PVC stick up pipe, and protective locking steel casing.
The newly installed monitoring wells were developed to enhance the hydraulic connection between the wellscreen and the surrounding geologic formation, and to remove fine sediment from the well screen and sandpack. Well development included a combination of surging with a 2-inch-diameter surge block and purging thesaturated screen interval with a centrifugal pump and dedicated polyethylene tubing. Well developmentcontinued until turbidity of the purge water was reduced to 50 nephelometric units (NTUs) or less. Soil andwater generated during monitoring well installation and well development were containerized in 55-gallondrums for disposal following characterization. Well construction details are summarized in Table 6 and wellconstruction logs are presented in Appendix O. NJDEP well permits and records for the new and existingmonitoring wells are presented in Appendix P.
After each monitoring well was completed, a reference point was marked on the top of each inner PVC casing.These marks were used by BBL's licensed surveyor (James M. Stewart, Inc.) to establish the top of inner casingelevations referenced to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988. The surveyor also determinedthe horizontal location of the wells in the New Jersey State Plane Coordinate System with the NAVD of 1983.
8.3 Groundwater-Level Measurements
On November 8 and 9, 2004 groundwater-level measurements were collected from each operable existingmonitoring well (monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-4, MW-6, and MW-7). During groundwater-levelmeasurement activities, BBL field personnel observed that monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-5 were blocked bysediment and BBL personnel were unable to remove the blockage. BBL also observed that the riser formonitoring wells MW-3 and MW-5 were detached from the well screen in each well. On December 16, 2004groundwater-level measurements were collected from each existing monitoring well (monitoring wells MW-1,
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 8-2V:\GE_Grand_Strcrt\Reporu nnd PTCscntalbns\FinaT\24150842_Revised_RA_Reportdoc ^0971 Q
MW-3, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10). Monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4 had alreadybeen abandoned at the time of the second round of groundwater-level measurements. As discussed inSubsection 8.7, monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4 were abandoned because they were located in areasrequiring excavation of mercury-impacted soil. The groundwater-level measurements were gauged using anelectronic water-level indicator to the nearest 0.01 foot from the permanent elevation reference point at eachwell.
Groundwater-level measurements from the December monitoring event were converted to groundwaterelevations using surveyed well elevations, and are presented in Table 6 and on Figure 6.
As discussed in Section 9, James M. Stewart, Inc. conducted a final survey of the site in January 2005. Whileconducting the final site survey, James M. Stewart, Inc. used a GPS unit to verify the elevation of the monumentthat had been used throughout the predesign site investigation and remedial activities at the site. The GPS unitindicated that the monument had changed from the published value (increased by 1.32 feet, possibly fromdamage or settlement). For the final site survey, James M. Stewart, Inc. adjusted (decreased) the site datum by1.32 feet. Table 6 and Figure 6 have incorporated the elevation correction factor.
8.4 Groundwater Sampling
Each existing and newly installed monitoring well was sampled during the post-demolition groundwaterinvestigation. Groundwater samples were collected from five monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-4, MW-6,and MW-7) in November 2004 for analysis for total mercury. Groundwater samples were collected frommonitoring wells MW-3, MW-5, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10 on December 16 and 17, 2004.
As discussed above, during the groundwater-level measurement activities, BBL field personnel observed thatmonitoring wells MW-3 and MW-5 were blocked by packed sediment, and were unable to remove the blockageand sample the monitoring well. In November 2004, SGS repaired the riser/well screen connection formonitoring wells MW-3 and MW-5 and each well was then redeveloped using high-pressure water to removethe blockage caused by packed sediment. Redevelopment of MW-3 and MW-5 continued until the turbidity wasreduced to below 50 NTUs.
In accordance with the USEPA-approved RD Work Plan, low-flow sampling techniques were used to purgegroundwater from each monitoring well using a decontaminated stainless steel bladder pump with a dedicatedTeflon bladder and dedicated Teflon-lined polyethylene tubing. For each monitoring well, purged groundwaterpassed through a flow-through cell and was monitored using a Horiba U-22 water-quality meter at five-minuteintervals. The RD Work Plan required that a sample not be collected until groundwater field parametersstabilized for three consecutive readings, as indicated below:
• pH:+/-0.1 unit;• Conductivity: +/- 3%;• Dissolved Oxygen (DO): +/- 10%;• Turbidity: +/-10%;• Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP): +/-10 millivolts (mV);• Drawdown: < 0.3 feet; and• Temperature: Not Applicable.
Drawdown was assessed using an electronic water-level indicator.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 8-3V:\GE_Graad_Strea\RcporU and Presralations\Fu>aI\24150842_Rcvisal_RA_Rcport.doc 502720
Once three consecutive readings met the stabilization criteria listed above for groundwater field parameters, onegroundwater sample (and associated QA/QC samples) was collected from each well. Groundwater samples,including QA/QC samples, were submitted to Accutest under chain-of-custody procedures for analysis of totalmercury.
BBL conducted a QA review of the field parameters associated with the groundwater sampling activities. TheQA review indicated that unstabilized and elevated turbidity measurements were recorded during the purgingactivities associated with monitoring well MW-3. The analytical result for groundwater sample MW-3(collected on December 16, 2004) was rejected by BBL because of the unstabilized and elevated turbiditymeasurements. The elevated turbidity values were likely caused by mechanical problems associated with thepump. On behalf of GE, BBL submitted an electronic mail to the USEPA indicating that the MW-3 groundwatersample result was qualified by BBL as rejected. On January 11, 2005, BBL, GE, and the USEPA agreed thatBBL would collect one additional sample using low-flow sampling techniques. On January 13, 2005,monitoring well MW-3 was purged and resampled by BBL. Purging and sampling activities were conducted asdescribed above. One groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well MW-3 (and associated QA/QCsamples) and submitted to Accutest under chain of custody procedures for analysis for total mercury.
USAGE collected four split groundwater samples from monitoring wells MW-6, MW-7, MW-9, and MW-10.BBL filled the USACE's glassware for the collection of the split groundwater samples.
Groundwater field parameters are presented in Table 7, and copies of the groundwater sampling logs areincluded in Appendix Q.
8.5 Groundwater Elevations
Based on the December 16, 2004 water-level measurements from the shallow monitoring wells (i.e., each sitewell except deep monitoring well MW-7, which was screened in an underlying aquifer), the groundwater tablewas encountered at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 6 feet below ground surface. The water levels wereconverted to groundwater elevations and are presented in Table 6. The groundwater table elevations wereplotted on a site map and contoured so that hydraulic gradients could be evaluated (Figure 6). As shown onFigure 6, the groundwater table appears to be slightly mounded near the center of the site (around monitoringwell MW-3).
8.6 Groundwater Analytical Results
The validated analytical data indicated that four of the groundwater samples (MW-3, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10) contained total mercury at concentrations above the laboratory detection limit. The concentration of totalmercury ranged from not detected above the laboratory detection limit to 1.7 micrograms per liter (ug/L) (thegroundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-9). None of the groundwater samples analyzedcontained total mercury at concentrations above 2 ug/L, which is the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL) and the New Jersey Class n-A Ground Water Quality Criteria presented in New Jersey AdministrativeCode Title 7, Chapter 6-9.11. Groundwater sample analytical results are presented in Table 8, and the validatedanalytical data are included in Appendix N.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.
7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strcc(\Reporti and Prcs«ntalions\FinaJ\24I50842_Revised_RA_RcporLdoc 502721
8-4
8.7 Groundwater Monitoring Well Abandonment
The USEPA sent a letter to GE dated November 30, 2004 indicating that monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4could be abandoned because they were located in areas requiring excavation of mercury-impacted soil, andNovember 2004 results indicated that mercury was not detected within the groundwater samples collected fromthese wells at concentrations greater than the associated detection limit.
In November 2004, SGS abandoned monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4 in conformance with NJDEP wellabandonment procedures. In accordance with the USEPA's November 30, 2004 letter, all remaining wells wereleft in place for future USEPA investigation activities. NJDEP well abandonment permits and records formonitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4 are presented in Appendix P.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfis/s, economists 8-5
x)_Slroct\Rq»m »nd Pn=s<mU!ions\Fuia!\2'l 150842_Rcvi«dJlA_Repon_doc 502722
9. 720-732 Grand Street Restoration,Decontamination, and Demobilization
9.1 General
This section describes the site restoration, decontamination, and demobilization activities that were conductedduring the RA activities. The 720-732 Grand Street restoration and demobilization activities were conducted bySabre and their subcontractors in fall 2003, and fall and winter 2004. Decontamination activities wereconducted by Sabre and their subcontractors throughout the RA activities.
9.2 720-732 Grand Street Restoration
Sabre and their subcontractors conducted 720-732 Grand Street restoration activities in accordance with theFRD Report, RA Work Plan, and SRWP. The majority of the restoration activities were conducted betweenOctober 2004 and December 2004. 720-732 Grand Street restoration included the following activities:
• Place and compact backfill materials;• Install infiltration trench;• Install catch basins and associated piping;• Install retaining wall;• Place topsoil;• Hydroseed;• Install perimeter fence; and• Perform miscellaneous surface restoration activities.
The 720-732 Grand Street restoration activities are discussed below. Note that restoration of the residentialproperties and perimeter areas that were disturbed as a result of the residential property and perimeter area soilremoval activities are discussed separately in Section 6.
9.2.1 Backfill
During November and December 2004, Sabre conducted backfilling activities in accordance with the FRDReport and the RA Work Plan. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, gamma radiation screening of select fill wasrequired by the USEPA. Gamma radiation screening of the riprap material and Type 2 select fill material wasperformed by BBL and observed by a representative of the USAGE at the Stavola Quarry located in BoundBrook, New Jersey A copy of the gamma radiation screening reports is included in Appendix R.
The backfilling activities are discussed below.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfists, economists 9-1V:\GE_Grand_StreaJlepon3 and Presematioru\FiMl\24150842_Rcvisai_RA_Rcpon.doc 502723
9.2.1.1 Riprap Backfill
Sabre placed and compacted riprap (3- to 5-inch diameter) in areas of the former industrial building andtownhouse footprint where the soil excavation extended below the groundwater table. As discussed inSubsection 3.2, the USEPA agreed to use riprap as an alternate to the Type 1 material. Sabre placed the riprapin approximate 8-inch lifts using the bucket of the excavator. Each 8-inch lift was compacted using the back ofthe excavator bucket. The riprap was placed to the approximate depth of the top of the highest observedgroundwater table. A geotextile fabric was loosely placed over the riprap, in accordance with the FRD Report,SRWP, and BBL's October 13, 2004 letter to the USEPA.
9.2.1.2 Type 2 Backfill
Sabre placed a 3-inch layer of Type 2 select fill material (NJDOT Type 1-2) on top of the geotextile fabriclocated within the former industrial building and townhouse footprint. Sabre placed, graded, and compacted theType 2 select fill material in one 3-inch lift using an excavator, bulldozer, vibrating roller, and plate tamper.
9.2.1.3 Type 1 Backfill
The Type 1 soil fill material (NJDOT Type 1-9) was then placed on top of the Type 2 select fill material. Sabreplaced, graded, and compacted the Type 1 soil fill material in approximate 8-inch lifts using an excavator,bulldozer, vibrating roller, and plate tamper. The Type 1 soil fill material was placed to a depth ofapproximately 6 inches below the final grade. USEL conducted compaction testing of the Type 1 soil fillmaterial in accordance with the FRD Report. Compaction testing reports from USEL are included in AppendixS.
Sieve and gradation analyses and analytical results from the above-listed fill materials are included in AppendixT.
9.2.2 Infiltration Trench Installation
In November 2004, Sabre installed the infiltration trench in accordance with the FRD Report. The infiltrationtrench was installed after completing the soil excavation and backfilling activities in the area of the infiltrationtrench. The infiltration trench was installed in the southwest corner of the site using Type 3 select fill.Infiltration trench grading and fill placement by Sabre was conducted using an excavator.
9.2.3 Storm Sewer Inlet and Pipe Installation
In December 2004, KBI installed a 2-foot by 2-foot catch basin in the former industrial building footprint inconformance with the FRD Report. KBI's submittals for the catch basin are included in Appendix F.
As discussed in Section 7, during the soil excavation activities the existing 2-foot by 4-foot catch basin locatedin the northern portion of the site (in Grid SB-36) was observed to be damaged. BBL determined that thecondition of the existing storm sewer inlet in Grid SB-36 warranted replacement. KBI installed an equivalentcatch basin in Grid SB-36 and connected the newly installed catch basin via PVC piping. Sabre also observed
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 9-2V.\GE_Graix)_Strca\Reporu and PresCTtalions\FinaI\24150842_Rcvis«l_RA_Rcpon.doc 502724
that the PVC inlet pipe from the storm sewer inlet (in the former industrial building footprint) located in GridSB-41, to the catch basin located in Grid SB-36, was not intact. KBI replaced this section of PVC inlet pipeduring the catch basin installation activities. KBI submittals for precast concrete catch basin, yard inlets, andgrates are included in Appendix F.
9.2.4 Retaining Wall Installation
During the soil removal activities along the southern boundary of the parking lot, the retaining wall adjacent tothe backyard of the 725 Adams Street Property was uncovered. Based on visual observations, BBL's structuralengineer determined that the retaining wall warranted replacement. Sabre's engineering consultant, Joseph E.Kozic, P.E. designed the replacement retaining wall and BBL favorably reviewed the design. In December2004, KBI constructed the new retaining wall in the footprint of the previous retaining wall in accordance withthe reviewed retaining wall design. KBI's concrete mix design and retaining wall design submittals are includedin Appendix F. USEL conducted concrete testing and inspection services during the retaining wall installation.Concrete testing reports from USEL are included in Appendix U.
9.2.5 Topsoil
In December 2004, Sabre placed the topsoil in accordance with the FRD Report and SRWP. Followingcompletion of the backfilling activities, Sabre placed and graded a 6-inch layer of topsoil over the 720-732Grand Street property (with the exception of the infiltration trench) using a bulldozer. Analytical results for thetopsoil samples are presented in Appendix T.
9.2.6 Hydroseed
On December 10, 2004, BBL spoke to Mr. Delasandra of HEPSCD regarding the use of hydroseeding at thesite. Mr. Delasandra orally approved the application of GeoPerm Plus using the hydroseeding method. InDecember 2004, Hydroseed Pro hydroseeded the site, which included applying the HEPSCD-approved bondedfiber matrix mulch (GeoPerm Plus) to all previously disturbed areas of the site in conformance with projectspecifications. The hydroseed submittals are included in Appendix F.
The vegetation did not establish following seeding to provide complete ground cover. On May 16 and May 18,2005, BBLES reseeded areas of the 720-732 Grand Street property where vegetation did not establish.
9.2.7 Perimeter Fence Installation
In November 2003, Guardian Fence installed a chain-link fence around the 720-732 Grand Street perimeter(except the portion of 725 Adams Street that borders the site parking lot where there was existing fence).
In December 2004, Guardian Fence conducted the following maintenance activities associated with theperimeter fence:
• Repaired the top rail of the chain-link fence located along Grand Street near the 718 Grand Street residence(as previously identified in the USAGE punch list);
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 9-3V:\GE_Grjmd_Strca\ReportJ and frcsCTt«ions\FinaI\24150842_Revisai_RA_Repon.doc 502725
• Reset posts for portions of the chain-link fence located along Adams Street;
• Installed new 720-732 Grand Street property perimeter chain-link fence south of the retaining wall (alongthe property boundary between the site and the 725 Adams Street Property); and
• Replaced the temporary chain-link gate located at the northwest comer of the site property (comer of 8thand Adams Streets) with permanent chain-link fencing.
In December 2004, Sabre installed plastic mesh (with '/i-inch nominal opening size) at the bottom of the fencingto minimize the gap between the perimeter chain-link fence and the final grade. The plastic mesh was installedapproximately 3 inches into the topsoil and fastened to the chain-link fence with plastic zip ties at approximately3-foot intervals.
9.2.8 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration Activities
As discussed and agreed to during the pre-final inspection, Sabre and Sabre's subcontractors conducted thefollowing restoration activities:
• While removing the asphalt located along the Adams Street site fencing, Sabre damaged a PVC pipecleanout cap associated with the onsite stormwater system. Sabre replaced a portion of the vertical riser andthe riser cap.
• Sabre replaced portions of the sidewalk that were damaged during site investigation and RA activities.Additional portions of the sidewalk were replaced as part of the perimeter area soil removal, which is furtherdiscussed in Section 6.
• Topsoil and seed were placed in the sidewalk area where car tires had caused damage.
The current features of the 720-732 Grand Street property are shown on Figure 3. Following the completion ofthe above-listed site restoration activities, BBL's subcontractor (James M. Stewart, Inc.), conducted a survey ofthe site. The results of this survey are shown on Drawing RD-1. While conducting the final survey, James M.Stewart, Inc. used a GPS unit to verify the elevation of the monument that was used throughout the siteinvestigation and remedial activities at the site. The GPS unit indicated that the monument had changed fromthe published value (increased by 1.32 feet) (possibly from damage or settlement). For the final survey, JamesM. Stewart, Inc. adjusted (decreased) the site datum by 1.32 feet.
9.3 Decontamination
Sabre decontaminated equipment, personnel, and materials used during the RA activities in accordance with theFRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Decontamination was conducted in a dedicated decontamination area. Thelocation and size of the decontamination area varied based on the type of activity. During building demolition,the personnel decontamination area was located in the basement. Following building demolition, the personneldecontamination area was located adjacent to the work area.
Throughout the RA activities, BBL visually reviewed and screened the equipment and materials taken offsite inaccordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. Washwater generated by the decontamination activitieswas collected and treated in the onsite temporary water treatment system until the temporary water treatment
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 9-4V:\GE_Grroi_Streo\Rcports and Prcsmak>iK\FraaM4l50842_Rcvis«MlA_Rcport.doc 502726
system was disassembled. Washwater generated after the temporary water treatment system was disassembledand demobilized was containerized in 55-gallon drums. The containerized washwater was sampled andcharacterized by BBL in accordance with the FRD Report. The washwater was transported by Horwith toModel City for disposal as a nonhazardous waste.
9.4 Demobilization
Demobilization activities were conducted in fall and winter 2004 in accordance with the FRD Report, RA WorkPlan, and SRWP. The demobilization included the following activities:
• Conducting the pre-final inspection;• Conducting the final inspection; and• Removing equipment, materials, and personnel from the site.
9.4.1 Pre-Final Inspection
The pre-fmal inspection was held on November 18, 2004. GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, USAGE, and NJDEPattended the pre-final inspection. The progress of the soil removal and site restoration activities were discussedduring the pre-final meeting. The meeting attendees conducted a site tour and discussed the USAGE'S pre-fmalinspection items.
On November 24, 2004, BBL distributed pre-final inspection meeting minutes to meeting attendees. A copy ofthe meeting minutes is included in Appendix A.
9.4.2 Final Inspection
The final inspection was held on December 28, 2004. GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGE attended the finalinspection.
A discussion of the transfer of site maintenance responsibilities was held during the final inspection. GEindicated that they would transfer all site maintenance responsibilities to the USEPA upon completing theremaining restoration activities and demobilizing equipment. GE also indicated that establishing the grass coverwould remain GE's responsibility and, if necessary, GE would return in the spring to apply more seed. TheUSEPA indicated that they were in agreement with the schedule for transfer of site maintenance activities.
During RA activities, the siding of the 725 Adams Street building may have been inadvertently damaged bySabre. During the final inspection, Sabre indicated that they would pay Mr. Notaro (the owner of 725 AdamsStreet) the agreed upon settlement price after Mr. Notaro signed a waiver letter. The letter is included inAppendix V.
The items discussed during the final inspection were summarized in the weekly progress report for the week ofDecember 27, 2004.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 9-5V:\GE_GTMd_Strea\Rcports and PrcsentanonsVFinar\24150842_Revised_RA_Reporl.doc c A O 'J O H
9.4.3 Demobilization of Equipment and Materials
During December 2004, Sabre and their subcontractors demobilized all equipment and materials from the site inaccordance with the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and SRWP.
9.4.4 Transfer of Site Maintenance Responsibilities
On December 31, 2004, BBL (on behalf of GE) provided USEPA's onsite representative, USAGE, with the keysto the perimeter gate and responsibility for site maintenance.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7'6'(>5 engineers, scienfisfj, economists 9-6V:\GE_Grand_Stroa\Rcporu tad Pnsan«lions\FiMl\24150842_Revisal_RA_Rq»n.<bc 502728
10. Air Monitoring
10.1 General
During the RA activities, BBL and Sabre conducted air monitoring activities to evaluate airborne constituentlevels and document that the work procedures and PPE were appropriate. The parameters of concern duringimplementation of the RA activities were airborne particulates and mercury vapors. BBL and Sabre conductedair monitoring activities in accordance with the FRD Report (including the Air Monitoring Plan [AMP]) RAWork Plan (including the Health and Safety Contingency Plan [HSCP]), SRWP, and SRDP. The air monitoringactivities were conducted both prior to and during the RA activities. Air monitoring activities conducted duringresidential property and perimeter area soil removal are separately discussed in Section 6. The following airmonitoring activities were conducted as part of the RA activities:
• Background air monitoring;• Meteorological monitoring;• Work area air monitoring;• Perimeter air monitoring; and• Offsite air monitoring.
The air monitoring activities are described below.
10.2 Background Air Monitoring
Site-specific background air monitoring was conducted to provide site-specific background values of airborneparticulates and mercury vapors. The information was used during the RA activities to differentiate site-specificbackground concentrations of airborne particulate and mercury vapors from airborne concentrations generatedby project activities. BBL collected site-specific background air monitoring data and conducted the communitybackground air monitoring activities prior to conducting the RA activities.
The site-specific background air monitoring activities were conducted in winter 2000/2001, spring 2001, andsummer 2001, in accordance with the FRD Report. The site-specific background air monitoring includedcollecting real-time air monitoring data for airborne particulates and mercury vapors for a period of one weekduring three seasons (winter, spring, and summer). The mercury vapor was measured using a Jerome 431-XMVA and the particulate levels were measured using the MIE Personal Data Ram Model PDR-1000. Theresults of the winter 2000/2001 site-specific background air monitoring activities were included in the RA WorkPlan. The results of the spring 2001 and summer 2001 site-specific background air monitoring activities werepresented in a letter BBL submitted to the USEPA on September 13,2001.
BBL collected the community background air monitoring data by obtaining the particulate air monitoring resultsfrom the NJDEP Bureau of Air Monitoring, Jersey City Monitoring Station during the months of Septemberthrough December 2001. The NJDEP Jersey City Monitoring Station measures PM2.5 particulates (i.e., theparticulates with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less). The results of the community background air monitoringactivities were presented in a letter BBL submitted to the USEPA on March 14, 2002.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scienfe/s, economists 10-1V:\OE_Gnmd_Strta\Repotu and Prcsentaion5\FuuU\24150842_Rcvis«J_RA_RepCTl.iioc 502729
Based on the community background average dust paniculate concentrations, BBL submitted a letter to theUSEPA on March 14, 2002, proposing that the offsite action level and the site perimeter action level forparticulates be increased from the 0.1 mg/m3 stated in the FRD Report to 0.1254 mg/m3. The USEPA concurredwith this proposal.
10.3 Meteorological Monitoring
The meteorological monitoring was conducted to determine the upwind and downwind boundaries of the site.BBL conducted meteorological monitoring in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. Themeteorological monitoring was conducted using a Met One meteorological system with a 30-foot tower. TheMet One system measured wind speed, wind direction, and temperature. BBL also used complementary datafrom local internet sources.
10.4 Work Area Monitoring
During implementation of the RA activities, work area monitoring was conducted to determine appropriate PPErequirements and/or appropriate control measures for the work area. BBL conducted work area air monitoringin accordance with the RA Work Plan and the FRD Report. Air monitoring was conducted in the work areas ata minimum of four times per hour. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, BBL used the MIE Data RAM particulatemonitor, VM-3000 MVA, and the Jerome 431-X MVA to conduct the air monitoring.
Sabre conducted work area monitoring in accordance with their HASP, which was included in the RA WorkPlan. Sabre used the Jerome 431-X MVA to monitor for mercury vapors. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, Sabreused the Air-Aide Model 2000 airborne particulate monitor instead of the originally proposed MIE Data RAM.
BBL compared the results of the mercury vapor and airborne particulate monitoring to the action levelspresented in the FRD Report. As discussed in Subsection 3.2, the stop work action level for particulates wasincreased from 1.0 mg/m3 to 2.0 mg/m3 on April 18, 2002. In addition, the stop work action level for mercuryvapor was increased from 0.5 rog/m3to 1.0 mg/m3 on July 24, 2002. When the action levels for mercury vaporsand/or airborne particulates were met or exceeded in active work areas, Sabre implemented control measures(e.g., dust/vapor control measures, negative pressure, ventilation) to reduce the airborne concentration ofparticulates and/or mercury vapor to below action levels, and BBL conducted work area perimeter airmonitoring as described below. Sabre also upgraded the level of PPE in accordance with the PPE-upgradeaction levels presented in the HASP and stopped work (if necessary) when the stop work action levels were metor exceeded.
The work area air monitoring action levels for mercury vapor were exceeded only during select activities thatdisturbed residual mercury within the former industrial building (e.g., floor removal). The work area airmonitoring action level for particulates was also exceeded during select activities (e.g., brick scarification).BBL's work area air monitoring logs are included in Appendix C. When the work area monitoring action levelswere exceeded, Sabre implemented the control measures as discussed in the RA Work Plan and the FRD Report.Several of the control measures included wetting down the area, stopping work, increasing suction through theair handling system, operating the air handling system in smaller containment areas, applying mercury vaporsuppression chemicals, and working during cooler hours.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC._7/6/05 engineer, scientists, economists 10-2V:\CE_Onmd_Strea\Repom and PresCT!alions\FiMj\241508«_Rcvisoi_RA J!qx>n.doc 502730
10.5 Work Area Perimeter Monitoring
While implementing the RA activities, work area perimeter monitoring was conducted by BBL in accordancewith the RA Work Plan and the FRD Report. Work area perimeter monitoring was conducted when the mercuryvapors or airborne particulates met or exceeded the work area action levels. Work area perimeter air monitoringwas conducted at three locations in accordance with the FRD Report, using the MVA and the paniculatemonitor as discussed above. The work area perimeter air monitoring action levels for mercury vapor were onlyexceeded during select activities that disturbed residual mercury within the former industrial building. Thework perimeter action level for particulates was also exceeded during select activities. When action levels formercury vapors and/or airborne particulates were met or exceeded at the work area perimeter, Sabreimplemented control measures (e.g., dust/vapor control measures, negative pressure, ventilation) to reduce theairborne concentration of particulates and/or mercury vapors to below action levels. In addition, BBLconducted site perimeter air monitoring as described in Section 10.6. When the work area perimeter airmonitoring action levels were exceeded, the site perimeter air monitoring action levels were not exceeded forsite-related airborne constituents. BBL's work area perimeter air monitoring logs are included in Appendix C.
10.6 Site Perimeter Monitoring
Site perimeter monitoring was conducted by BBL during the RA activities in accordance with the RA WorkPlan and the FRD Report. BBL conducted the monitoring at four site perimeter boundary locations. The formersite perimeter monitoring locations were located near work areas that were most likely to produce fugitive dustand/or mercury vapors. The site perimeter air monitoring was conducted using the same MVA and paniculatemonitors as discussed in Section 10.5.
Site perimeter monitoring was conducted for mercury vapors and airborne particulates at each location once perhour during the RA activities and every 15 minutes during dust generating activities (such as brickscarification). The results of the site perimeter monitoring were compared to the action levels presented in theFRD Report. On November 21 and November 22, 2002, the site perimeter monitoring exceeded the action levelfor particulates. BBL performed a background particulate survey in the site vicinity on both days. The surveyindicated that the background levels of particulates at the site perimeter exceeded action levels. BBL increasedthe action level for particulates by adding the background particulate level to the site action level. The USEPAorally agreed to this approach during a telephone conversation between the USEPA and BBL on November 21,2002 and during the weekly progress meeting held on November 22, 2002. The site perimeter action level forparticulates was only exceeded during the above-mentioned days. The weekly progress reports that summarizethe items discussed during the weekly progress meetings are included in Appendix B.
BBL's site perimeter air monitoring logs are included in Appendix C.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7'6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 10-3V:\OE_Grand_Strca\Rcpons and PrcscoIations\FiMM4l50842_Rcvisc<J_RA_Report.doc 502731
11. Handling, Transportation, and Off siteDisposition of Waste Materials
11.1 Genera!
This section describes the handling, transportation, and offsite disposition of waste materials generated duringthe RA activities. The handling, transportation, and offsite disposition of the waste materials were conducted byBBL, BBLES, Sabre, and BBLES' subcontractors in accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. BBLcollected samples of previously uncharacterized waste streams. BBLES coordinated the transportation anddisposal of the wastes generated during the RA activities. Sabre segregated and placed debris in the appropriateUSDOT-approved containers. BBLES' subcontractors provided the transportation and disposal of the wastematerials.
11.2 Waste Material Handling
Sabre segregated the waste material based on the characterization information provided in the FRD Report. Aspreviously discussed, Sabre constructed a material chute and installed a hoist to transport the waste materialsfrom the upper floors to the ground level and constructed a drum storage area in the basement of the formerindustrial building. Sabre also used the elevator to move waste materials during pre-demolition activities.Sabre placed the waste materials into USDOT-approved rolloff containers, USDOT-approved drums, or intoUSDOT-approved fiber boxes. Drummed waste generated during the pre-demolition and demolitionpreparation activities was staged in the waste storage area prior to offsite disposal. As discussed in Subsection3.2, select waste was staged in the basement (adjacent to the south side of the central fire wall) during selectdemolition activities. The waste was removed from the former industrial building prior to initiating demolitionactivities in the south side of the former industrial building.
11.3 Waste Characterization
The majority of the waste materials generated during the RA was characterized for disposition during the designinvestigations. The Waste Transportation and Disposition Plan (Appendix F) of the FRD Report presented theanticipated waste streams and associated disposition facilities.
Several waste materials encountered during the RA activities were unanticipated and not previouslycharacterized. The unanticipated and uncharacterized materials were sampled by BBL in accordance with theFRD Report. BBL submitted the samples to Accutest, and characterized the waste following receipt of theanalytical data. Analytical results of the sampling activities are included in Tables 1A through U and AppendixD. The previously uncharacterized wastes and corresponding disposal characterization are listed in the tablebelow.
Concrete Floor - Apartment 2A Study Nonhazardous, Low-Mercury DebrisConcrete Boiler Room Roof DeckingPlaster Walls -Townhouse Basement, 1s1
Floor, 2nd Floor. 3rd Floor, and 4th Floor
Nonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisHazardous Lead Debris
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. -
""Bios engineers, scienfoh, economistsV:\GEJjrand_Strcn\Reporu md Presoilatioiis\FiMl\24150842_Rcviscd_RA_Report.doc 502732
11-1
Ash and Debris from Townhouse Triangular AirShaftConcrete Townhouse Ceiling - 2"° FloorTile - 2"° FloorCeiling Insulation - BasementVacuum CleanersConcrete Ceiling - 5in FloorOil from Air Conditioning UnitsOil from ElevatorWood Subfloor Decking - Units 2C, 2D, 4A,and4DCarbon from Air Handling SystemAir Handling System (except carbon)Soil from Subsurface PipingSoil Between Floor Slabs in the Former BoilerRoomRoofing Tar from Boiler RoomWater Proofing System (GE-40)Filter Bags from Temporary Water TreatmentSystemMetal Piping Embedded with Soil and MercuryContainerized Household Wastes
Lead PipingPetroleum Stained Soil - Grid 7Visibly Stained Soil - Grid 10Steel Tank and Contents - Grid SB-46Pipe Insulation - Grid 1 12Temporary Water Treatment SystemComponentsBlue Crystalline Material, Metal Box, andAssociated SoilInvestigation-Derived GroundwaterInvestigation-Derived SoilDecontamination FluidPPE
Nonhazardous, High High-Mercury Debris
Nonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, Low-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, Low-Mercury DebrisHazardous, High-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, Low-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous OilNonhazardous OilNonhazardous, High-Mercury Debris
Nonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisHazardous, High Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, Low-Mercury Soil
Hazardous, High-Mercury Debris containing ACMNonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisHazardous, High-Mercury Debris
Hazardous, High-Mercury DebrisOxidizing LiquidToxic LiquidCorrosive LiquidFlammable AerosolsFlammable LiquidsOrganic PeroxideAdhesivesPaint and Paint-Related MaterialsHazardous Lead DebrisNonhazardous, High-Mercury SoilNonhazardous, Low-Mercury SoilNonhazardous, High-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous Friable ACMNonhazardous, Low-Mercury Debris
Nonhazardous, Low-Mercury Debris
Nonhazardous LiquidNonhazardous, Low'-Mercury DebrisNonhazardous, Low-Mercury FluidPPE was characterized based on thecharacterization of the waste that was handledwhile wearing the PPE
Note:1. The unlabeled containerized household wastes were sampled and characterized by Onyx. The
unlabeled containerized household wastes were characterized as oxidizing liquid, toxic liquid, andcorrosive liquid. The remaining containerized household wastes were characterized by BBL basedupon container labels.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Gnnd_Strea\Repon5 "d PrcSCTtMk>ns\FinaW4]S0842_Revised_RA_Rq>on.doc 502733
11-2
The PPE was characterized based on the characterization of the waste that was handled while wearing the PPE.
The following previously uncharacterized wastes were characterized as nonhazardous waste containing mercuryat concentrations less than 260 mg/kg based on analytical data, but were disposed at CWM Chemical Services,LLC facility located in Model City, New York due to time constraints at the project closeout:
• Pipe insulation;• Temporary water treatment system components;• Blue crystalline material, metal box, and associated soil; and• Investigation-derived soil.
The analytical results of the sampling activities are included in Tables 1A through 1J and Appendix D.
11.4 Waste Transportation and Disposition
BBLES coordinated the transportation and disposal of each waste material prior to transporting the wastematerials offsite. Waste profiles were completed (and accepted by the disposition facility) and the wastemanifests were completed (if required). The wastes generated during RA activities were transported by thefirms listed in the table below.
^ TransportationEldredge, Inc. Nonhazardous Friable ACMFalesto Brothers Nonhazardous Low-Mercury Building Material DebrisFederal Express Ionizing Smoke Detectors
Frank's Vacuum Truck Service Bulk Mercury, Mercury-Containing Thermostats, Leaking PCB BallastsHorwith Trucking Hazardous High-Mercury Debris (D009)
Hazardous Ignitability Wood Subflooring (D001)Hazardous High-Mercury Subsurface Structure Sediment/Debris (D009)Air Handling System Waste (Spent Filters)Hazardous Low-Mercury Debris (D009)Hazardous Lead-Based Paint (D008)Nonhazardous High-Mercury Building MaterialsPCB-Containing Light BallastsBatteries (Lead-acid and Alkaline)Discharged Fire ExtinguishersHazardous Subsurface Structure Sediment/Debris (D008)TSCA-Regulated Solid WasteContainerized Household Waste (Flammable Aerosols, FlammableLiquids, Organic Peroxide, Adhesives Paint, and Paint-Related Materials)Water Treatment System Waste (Sediment and Spent Carbon)Hazardous Lead Plaster and Lead-Based Paint (D008)Bulk MercuryHydraulic OilRCRA Empty DrumsPPE/Disposable EquipmentFluorescent LampsMercury LampsLead Piping (D008)
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/06 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\GE_Grmd_Strca\Repoiu and Prcscniaions\FinaI\24l508«_Revis«i_RA_Rej>ort.doc 502734
11-3
fii lTrartspiortatiorfl-irrh ;v
Onyx Environmental Services,LLC.Pow-R-Save/Abco RefrigerantSupply Corp.Waste Management of PA
Wills Trucking
~:r >: r-^K _^-. • - *-wmxsffi ' ^g^m3g%£m*WB:Nonhazardous Friable ACMNonhazardous High-Mercury SoilNonhazardous Investigation-Derived Waste (Soil and Groundwater)Hazardous High-Mercury Soil (D009)Nonhazardous Decontamination FluidNonhazardous Low-Mercury Blue Crystalline Material and AssociatedNonhazardous High-Mercury Metal Tank and Associated SoilContainerized Household Waste (Oxidizing Liquid, Toxic Liquid,Corrosive Liquid)
Soil
and
CFCs/Refrigerants (R-11, R-12, and R-22)
Nonhazardous Friable ACMPhotoelectric Smoke DetectorsNonhazardous Low-Mercury Building Material DebrisNonhazardous Non-Friable ACMNonhazardous Abandoned Appliances and EquipmentNonhazardous Investigation-Derived Solid WastePPE/Disposable EquipmentNonhazardous Low-Mercury Soil/Debris
The wastes generated during RA activities were transported to the disposition facilities listed in the table below.
Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp.Totowa, NJ
CFCs/Refrigerants (R-11, R-12, and R-22)
BRK Electronics/First Alert Ionizing Smoke DetectorsChemical Waste Management, Inc.Emelle, AL
Hazardous High-Mercury Debris (D009)Hazardous Ignitability Wood Subflooring (D001)Hazardous High-Mercury Subsurface StructureSediment/Debris (D009)Air Handling System Waste (Spent Filters)PPE/Disposable EquipmentLead Piping (D008)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCMode! City, NY
Hazardous Low-Mercury Debris (D009)Hazardous Lead Plaster and Lead-Based Paint(D008)Nonhazardous High-Mercury Building MaterialsPCB-Containing Light BallastsBatteries (Lead-acid and Alkaline)Discharged Fire ExtinguishersHazardous Subsurface Structure Sediment/Debris(D008)TSCA-Regulated Solid WasteContainerized Household Waste (Flammable,Aerosols, Flammable Liquids, Organic PeroxideAdhesives Paint, and Paint-Related Materials)Water Treatment System Waste (Sediment andSpent Carbon)Leaking PCB BallastsMercury-Containing ThermostatsBulk Mercury
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
7/6/05 engineers, scienf/s/s, economistV:\GEJDrand_StrtaUleporn and PresaitatioiB\FuMl\24150842_Rcvised_RA_Rcpon.iioc 502735
11-4
^ ^ ^pDIssjiipsitlpreEaclllt i ^ ^
FirexHackensack Meadowlands DevelopmentCommission 1-E North Landfill (HMDC)N. Arlington, NJKidde LifesaverOnyx Environmental Services, LLC.Flanders, NJWaste Management Tullytown ResourceRecovery Facility (T.R.R.F.)Tullytown, PA
Waste Management G.R.O.W.S. FacilityMorrisville, PA
W^^ I ^^&fia^^StiS f ^^^?^^^Hydraulic OilRCRA Empty DrumsPPE/Disposable EquipmentFluorescent LampsMercury LampsNonhazardous Friable ACMNonhazardous High-Mercury SoilNonhazardous Investigation-Derived Waste (Soil andGroundwater)Hazardous High-Mercury Soil (D009)Nonhazardous Decontamination FluidNonhazardous Low-Mercury Blue CrystallineMaterial and Associated SoilNonhazardous High-Mercury Metal Tank andAssociated SoilIonizing Smoke DetectorsNonhazardous Low-Mercury Building Material Debris
Ionizing Smoke DetectorsContainerized Household Waste (Oxidizing LiquidToxic Liquid, and Corrosive Liquid)Nonhazardous Friable ACMPhotoelectric Smoke DetectorsNonhazardous Abandoned Appliances andEquipmentNonhazardous Investigation-Derived Solid WastePPE/Disposable EquipmentNonhazardous Low-Mercury Building Material DebrisNonhazardous Non-friable ACMNonhazardous Low-Mercury Building Material DebrisNonhazardous Abandoned Appliances andEquipmentNonhazardous Investigation-Derived Solid WastePPE/Disposable EquipmentNonhazardous Non-friable ACMNonhazardous Low-Mercury Soil/Debris
Select wastes were shipped to the CWM Chemical Services, LLC facility located in Model City, New York forfuture retort, incineration, or reclamation to occur at another permitted Treatment Storage Disposal Facility(TSDF). After the wastes arrived at Model City, CWM Chemical Services, LLC became the generator of theselect wastes, and transshipped the waste to authorized TSDFs under a separate manifest. The selecttransshipped wastes and their associated ultimate disposal facility are listed in the table below.
Flammable aerosols
Hydraulic oil
Adhesives, paint, broken light ballasts
Disposal Method and UltimateIncinerated at WTI/Von RollEast Liverpool, OhioIncinerator fuel at SystechPaulding, Ohio
Disposal Facility
Incinerated at Onyx Environmental Services, LLCPort Arthur, Texas
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
7/6/05
V:\GE_Grand_Strtet\Reporu and Preengineers, scientists, economists
nUUions\FiMl\24]50842_Rcvisai_RA_Rcport.doc 50273611-5
Lead acid batteries, bulk mercury, hazardous high-mercury soil, mercury vapor lamps, fluorescentlamps, mercury-containing thermostats
Recycle/retort at Onyx Environmental Services,LLC Port Washington, Wisconsin
Table 3 summarizes the waste streams, quantity, and associated transportation and disposal facility of the wastesthat were generated during RA activities.
Nonhazardous waste manifests are included in Appendix W. Hazardous waste manifests are included inAppendix X. Certificates of disposal are included in Appendix Y.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.7/6/05 engineers, sc/enfets, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strta\Reporu and PresoitMions\RnaI\24150842_RevijoJ_RA_Reportdoc 502737
11-6
12. Construction Quality Control
12.1 General
This section describes the CQC procedures implemented during RA activities at the site. The performance ofthe RA activities was monitored using CQC and the methods described below.
CQC controls were implemented during the RA activities in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA WorkPlan. CQC activities gauged conformance with the requirements of the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan.The CQC activities involved reviewing technical submittals; material/equipment testing; onsite observation,testing, and sampling.
CQC activities performed by BBL at the site during the RA activities included the following:
• Review of Contractor's submittals;• QC meetings/inspections/reviews;• QC testing;• Reporting; and• Community assessment.
Implementation of the CQA/CQC procedures is discussed below.
12.2 Review of Contractor's Submittals
For several elements of construction, the FRD Report and RA Work Plan required that Sabre compile technicaldocuments and data, and submit this information to BBL for review. Submittals required as part of the RAactivities include the following:
• Implementation-related plans and procedures;• Proposed methods/techniques to meet FRD Report requirements;• Performance data;• Engineering drawings;• Installation drawings;• Operation and maintenance descriptions;• Layout drawings; and• Detail drawings.
Sabre's submittals were reviewed by BBL and/or LZA, and were previously provided to the USEPA in the RAWork Plan. Several submittals were modified or were not prepared as of the date of submission of the RA WorkPlan. These submittals were reviewed by BBL and/or LZA and are included in Appendix F.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, sc/enfefs, economis/sV:\GE_Grand_Strcet\Reports and Prescntations\Final\24l50842_Revised_RA_Repon.doc 502738
12-1
12.3 Quality Control Meetings/Inspections/Reviews
QC meetings/inspections/reviews were conducted by BBL prior to, during, and after completing the RAactivities and consisted of the following inspections/reviews:
• Pre-RA meeting;• Pre-demolition inspection;• Daily site reviews;• Pre-task meetings;• Pre-final inspection; and• Final inspection.
The above-listed meetings and inspections were conducted onsite. The pre-RA meeting was previouslydiscussed in Subsection 4.2 and a copy of the pre-RA meeting minutes is included in Appendix A. Theinspections (pre-demolition, pre-final, and final) were conducted by GE, BBL, Sabre, USEPA, and USAGE.The pre-demolition inspection was previously discussed in Subsection 5.2.1. A copy of the pre-demolitionmeeting minutes is included in Appendix A. The pre-final and final inspections were previously discussed inSubsection 9.4. A copy of the pre-final meeting minutes is included in Appendix A. The items discussed duringthe final inspection were summarized in the weekly progress report for the week of December 27, 2004. Theweekly progress reports are included in Appendix B.
Daily site reviews and weekly progress meetings were conducted by BBL during the RA activities to observeday-to-day operations; document that the RA activities were conducted in conformance with the UAO, SOW,FRD Report, and the RA Work Plan; and to review site-related health and safety issues. QC reviews of RAactivities are documented in previous sections of this report. As part of the daily site reviews and weeklyprogress meetings, pre-task meetings were held to review specific tasks that were performed.
12.4 Quality Control Testing
BBL performed QC testing in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The testing included in-place soil density tests, chemical and physical analyses, air monitoring, temporary water treatment systemtesting, and vibration monitoring. These testing activities are further described in the subsections below.
12.4.1 In-Place Soil Density Testing
USEL conducted in-place soil density testing of backfill placed in 720-732 Grand Street and residential propertyand perimeter area excavation areas. The in-place soil density tests indicated that the backfill materials werecompacted in accordance with the FRD Report and RA Work Plan. USEL reports, which summarize the in-place density testing conducted on the residential property and perimeter area, are included in Appendix I.USEL reports, which summarize the in-place density testing conducted on the 720-732 Grand Street properties,are included in Appendix S.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7'6'05 engineers, scientists, economists 12-2V:\GE_Gnmd_Strca\Reporu and PrtsoitMioiis\FuuJ\24 l5084:_Rcviscd_RA_Reporudoc 502739
12.4.2 Physical Analysis
Physical analyses were conducted on the backfill materials that were placed in 720-732 Grand Street andresidential property and perimeter area excavation areas in accordance with the FRD and RA Work Plan. Thephysical analyses were conducted by USEL and included a sieve analysis, modified proctor compaction testing,and relative density testing. Results of the physical analysis indicated that the backfill material used in the 720-732 Grand Street and residential property and perimeter area excavation areas conformed to the requirementsspecified in the FRD Report.
During the 720-732 Grand Street soil removal activities, the USEPA also required that the riprap and Type 2select fill be tested for gamma radiation. BBL conducted a gamma radiation survey of the source of the rip rapand Type 2 select fill. The gamma radiation survey results are included in Appendix R.
12.4.3 Chemical Analysis
Chemical analyses were conducted on uncharacterized waste, temporary water treatment effluent, backfillmaterial, topsoil, groundwater, and soil samples. Chemical analyses were conducted in accordance with theFRD Report and the RA Work Plan. STL and Accutest conducted the chemical analysis. Chemical analyseswere previously discussed in the following sections:
• Uncharacterized waste - Sections 5, 7, and 11;• Temporary water treatment effluent - Section 5;• Backfill material - Sections 6 and 7;• Topsoil - Section 6 and 7;• Groundwater-Section 8;• Soil from the bottom of the soil borings (installed during the groundwater investigation) - Section 8; and• Post-excavation soil - Section 7.
The following tables present the results of select chemical analysis:
• Tables 1A through 1J - Waste Characterization Analytical Results;• Table 4 - Post-Excavation Sample Analytical Results;• Table 8 - Groundwater Analytical Results; and• Table 9 - Monitoring Well Soil Boring Analytical Results.
The following appendices contain the results of the chemical analysis:
• Appendix D - Waste Characterization Data;• Appendix E - Asbestos Abatement Monitoring Reports and Sample Results;• Appendix H - Backfill Analytical Results for the Residential Property and Perimeter Area Restoration
Activities;• Appendix T- Backfill Analytical Results for the 720-732 Grand Street Restoration Activities; and• Appendix N - Data Validation Reports for Post-Excavation and Post-Demolition Samples.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, sc/enfeh, economists 12-3V:\GE_Grmd_Strca'Rcporu and Presenulions\FinaI\24150842_Rcviscd_RA_RepoHdoc 502740
12.4.4 Air Monitoring
During the RA activities, BBL and Sabre conducted air monitoring activities to evaluate airborne constituentlevels to document that the work procedures and PPE were adequate. The air monitoring activities are discussedin Section 10.
12.4.5 Temporary Water Treatment Testing Control Procedures
Sabre installed water management control measures, which included the temporary water treatment system toreduce the quantity of impacted water generated at the site. Sabre constructed, operated, monitored, andmaintained a temporary water treatment system in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan.BBL collected samples from the temporary water treatment system prior to operation, in accordance with theFRD Report and the RA Work Plan, to determine if the water treatment system was operating correctly. Duringthe RA activities, each batch of treated effluent water was sampled prior to discharging the treated water to thesanitary sewer system. The temporary water treatment testing is further described in Subsection 5.3.2.
12.4.6 Vibration Monitoring
Vibra-Tech monitored the ground vibrations around the site during demolition activities in accordance with theFRD Report. The vibration monitoring is discussed in Subsection 12.6.4.
12.5 Reporting
BBL documented the RA activities in accordance with the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. RAdocumentation activities included:
• Daily logs;• Weekly progress reports; and• Photographs.
The RA documentation activities are discussed below.
12.5.1 Daily Logs
BBL prepared a daily log that documented the work performed and completed by Sabre and theirsubcontractors. The daily logs included the following information:
• Date, project name, location and other pertinent site information;• Summary of the work activities conducted on that day;• Summary of relevant communications;• Summary of samples collected;• Summary of test results and retests; and• Record of unusual events/activities.
BLASLAND. 6OUCIC & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientisfs, economises 12-4V:\GE_Grmd_Strea\Rcpons and PrcsCTlalions\Fuiari24150842_Revisa)_RA_Rqx>n.doc 502741
Copies of the daily logs were submitted to the USAGE.
12.5.2 Weekly Progress Reports
During each week of RA activities, BBL prepared and submitted weekly progress reports that summarizedactivities associated with the RA activities. The weekly .progress reports also documented relevantcommunications from the weekly progress meetings. The weekly progress reports were submitted to theUSAGE and USEPA are included in Appendix B.
12.5.3 Photo Documentation
BBL recorded the progress of the RA activities using photographs. The photographs included features of thesite prior to RA activities, specific RA tasks, and the appearance of the site after completing the RA activities.Appendix Z contains select photographs of the RA activities.
12.6 Community Assessment
This subsection presents the community assessment activities that were implemented by BBL in accordancewith the FRD Report and the RA Work Plan. The community assessment activities were conducted to assessand document the conditions at the following properties:
• 719 Adams Street;• 721 Adams Street;• 723 Adams Street;• 725 Adams Street;• 718 Grand Street;• 720 Grand Street; and• 722-732 Grand Street.
The community assessment activities occurred prior to, during, and after the demolition activities, and includedthe following activities:
• Pre-Demolition Assessment;• Post-Demolition Assessment;• Bimonthly Monitoring;• Vibration Monitoring; and• 720 Grand Street - Common Wall Demolition Monitoring.
Descriptions of the above-listed activities are discussed below.
12.6.1 Pre-Demolition Assessment Activities
BBL visually assessed the condition of each property listed in Section 12.6 prior to commencing the demolitionactivities. BBL then prepared a Pre-Demolition Assessment Report that documented the condition of each
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. _7/6/05 engineers, scientists, econom/sfs 12-5V:\GE_Grand_Slrea\Reporu and PrescnuIions\FiwJ\24l508'i:_Rcvised_RA_Rcpon.<loc 502742
property prior starting the demolition activities, in accordance with the FRD Report. The Pre-DemolitionAssessment Reports were included in the RA Work Plan.
12.6.2 Post-Demolition Assessment Activities
BBL visually assessed the condition of each property listed in Section 12.6 after completing the demolition andother RA activities. BBL then prepared a Post-Demolition Assessment Report that documented the condition ofeach property following completion of the demolition activities. The Post-Demolition Assessment Reports areincluded in Appendix AA. A summary of the Post-Demolition Assessment Report findings is presented in thetable below:
719 Adams Street
721 Adams Street
723 Adams Street
725 Adams Street
71 8 Grand Street
i i @:Pps>Den litioo:As^e^meh€R6sflltsM»lS^• No notable changes from the pre-demolition assessment
based on visual review• New masonry wall (rebuilt portion) in excellent condition• No other notable changes from the pre-demolition
assessment based on visual review
• New wooden deck in rear yard in excellent condition• New above ground pool in rear yard• No other notable changes from the pre-demolition
assessment based on visual review• North sidewall contained approximately 10 small holes in
siding-age unknown (see Note 1 )• New deck post foundations in excellent condition• No other notable changes from the pre-demolition
assessment based on visual review (except small holes insiding)
• New EIFS system installed on the north wall and inexcellent condition
• No other notable changes from the pre-demolitionassessment based on visual review
Note:1. Sabre paid the owner of 725 Adams Street (Mr. Notaro) a settlement price for the repair of the siding. As
part of the agreement, Mr. Notaro signed a letter stating that the settlement was in full satisfaction of anyrepair claims with Sabre. A copy of the agreement is included in Appendix V.
12.6.3 Bimonthly Monitoring
BBL conducted bimonthly external visual assessments (during relevant RA activities) of the properties listed inSection 12.6, in accordance with the FRD Report. BBL documented the visual assessments in the bimonthlymonitoring reports, which are summarized in the Post-Demolition Assessment Reports included in AppendixAA.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economistsV:\CE_GrBnd_Slrcrt\Reports and PrcsentatioDS\FinaJ\24]50842_Rcvis«J_RA_Report.doc
12-6502743
12.6.4 Vibration Monitoring
Vibra-Tech monitored the ground vibrations around the site during the demolition activities, in accordance withthe FRD Report and RA Work Plan. Vibra-Tech installed and monitored seismographic equipment at selectlocations around the site and performed the following activities:
• Conducted pre-RA vibration monitoring to establish baseline vibrations in the site vicinity;
• Installed vibration monitoring seismographs at locations both onsite at the site boundary (including on thetownhouse common wall) and offsite (adjacent to the sidewalk on the west side of Grand Street); and
• Measured and recorded peak particle velocities during the RA activities.
Vibra-Tech prepared monthly reports presenting the results of the previous month's monitoring program.Vibrations were recorded during the demolition activities that exceeded the site-specific threshold values.However, the exceedences were attributable to electronic interference or localized vibrations caused byequipment use in close proximity to the vibration transducer. Additional information associated with recordedvibrations is presented in the Vibra-Tech vibration monitoring reports, which are included in Appendix AB.
12.6.5 720 Grand Street - Common Wall Demolition Monitoring
BBL and LZA conducted monitoring of the common wall during the 720 Grand Street townhouse demolitionactivities to document that the demolition activities, and common wall alteration and rehabilitation wereconducted in accordance with the FRD Report, RA Work Plan, and USEPA-approved modifications.
12.6.6 Pre-Removal Assessment Reports
BBL visually assessed the condition of each property where soil removal was planned prior to commencing theresidential property soil removal activities. BBL then prepared a Pre-Removal Assessment Report thatdocumented the condition of each property after the residential property soil removal activities were completedin accordance with the SRDP. The Pre-Removal Assessment Reports are included as Appendix G.
12.6.7 Post-Removal Assessment Reports
BBL visually assessed the condition of each property where soil removal occurred after completing theresidential property soil removal activities. BBL then prepared a Post-Removal Assessment Report thatdocumented the condition of each property after the residential property soil removal activities were completedin accordance with the SRDP. The Post-Removal Assessment Reports are included as Appendix J.
12.7 Summary of Construction Problems and Solutions
No significant construction problems occurred during the RA activities. Modifications and issues that may haverequired further action were discussed during the daily and weekly meetings held between BBL, Sabre, GE, the
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineer, sc/enfisfs, economists 12-7V:\GE_Ch7iMi_Sliws\Rcpom md frcsmlM»M\Frn«M4150B«_RrraaJ_RA_Rq>on.<ioc 502744
USAGE, and the USEPA. The modifications and issues that required further action were summarized in Section3 of this report, the weekly progress reports, and are included in Appendix B.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, sciente/s, economistsV:\GE_Grand_Strea\Reports and Presentalions\FinaJ\24l50842_Rcvis«J_RA_ReporLdoc 502745
12-8
13. Record Drawings
Record drawings, as required by the SOW are included as Drawing RD-1 and Drawing RD-2.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.7/6/05 engineers, scientists, economists 13-1V:\GE_GrMd_SooO\Rcports and frramt«»ns\Fuiar\24!50842_Revis«i_RA_Repoadoc 502746
14. Certification
To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that the information contained in oraccompanying this submission is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties forsubmitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Frederick J. KirschenheiterProject Coordinator, on behalf of General Electric CompanyBlasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
BLASLAND, BOUCK 8. LEE. INC.8/18/05 engineer, jc/enf/ste. economists en 9 "7 A 7V:\GE_Grand_Suect\Reporu and PrncncaIions\FinalU4)50842_Rcviscd_RA_Rcpon_2.doc D U ^ / t /
Acronyms and Abbrevlations
Abco - Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp.Absolute - Absolute Security Network, Inc.Accutest - Accutest LaboratoriesACE - ACE ScaffoldingACM - asbestos-containing materialAET - Active Environmental TechnologiesAllied - Allied Engineering AssociatesAMP - Air Monitoring PlanAnchor Stone - Anchor Stone and Stucco Co.ARC - Asbestos Removal ContractorAS/mm2 - asbestos structures per square millimeterBBL - Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.BBLES - BBL Environmental Services, Inc.BCEC - Best Control Environment Corp.Burns - Burns International Security Services, Inc.CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCFCs - chlorofluorocarbonsClayton - Clayton Group ServicesCQC - construction quality controlCQAPP - Construction Quality Assurance Project PlanDAR - Design Activities ReportDARA - Design Activities Report AddendumDO - dissolved oxygenEACI - Environmental Assurance Company, Inc.ECS - Environmental Cleaning Services, Inc.EMSL - EMSL Analytical, Inc.ESD - Explanation of Significant Differencesf/cc - fibers per cubic centimeterFKD - Final Remedial DesignGAC - granular activated carbonGE - General Electric CompanyGPS - global positioning systemHaig's - Haig's Service CorporationHASP - Health and Safety PlanHEPA - high-efficiency particulate airHEPSCD - Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation DistrictHMDC - Hackensack Meadowlands Development CommissionHonvith - Horwith Trucking, Inc.HSCP - Health and Safety Contingency PlanD)W - Investigation-Derived WasteKachele Group - The Kachele Group, Consulting EngineersKBI - Karabinachak Bros. Inc.LZA - LZA TechnologyMCL - Maximum Contaminant Levelmg/m3 - milligrams per cubic metermg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC3/25/05 engineers, scienfete. economis/sV:\GE_Gnmd_StttaSReporo rod PrcsoilatioiB\Fma!\057508«_iicn)nyms.iJoc 502748
V mV - millivoltsMVA. - mercury vapor analyzerNAVD - North American Vertical DatumNHSA - North Hudson Sewerage AuthorityNJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJDOT - New Jersey Department of TransportationNTUs - nephelometric turbidity unitsO&M - Operations and MaintenanceOnyx - Onyx Environmental Services, LLCORP - oxidation reduction potentialPCB - polychlorinated biphenylPLM - polarized light microscopyPPE - personal protective equipmentppm - parts per millionProline - Proline Electrical Contractors, LLPPSEG - Public Service Enterprise GroupPVC - polyvinyl chlorideQA/QC - quality assurance/quality controlRA - Remedial ActionRAO - Remedial Action ObjectiveRCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRD - Remedial DesignROD - Record of DecisionSabre - Sabre Demolition CorporationSOAR - Supplemental Design Activities Reportsf - square feetSGS - SGS Environmental Services, Inc.SIR - Supplemental Investigation ReportSOW - Statement of WorkSRDP - Soil Removal Design Plan for Off-Site SoilSRWP - Soil Removal Work Plan for Former Building FootprintSTL - Severn Trent LaboratoriesTCLP - toxicity characteristic leaching procedureTSCA - Toxic Substances Control ActTSDF -Treatment Storage Disposal FacilityUAO - Unilateral Administrative OrderUSAGE - United States Army Corps of EngineersUSC - United States CodeUSDA - United States Department of AgricultureUSDOT - United States Department of TransportationUSEL - U.S. Engineering Laboratories, Inc.USEPA - United States Environmental Protection AgencyVOC - volatile organic compoundjig/L - micrograms per liter
BLASLAND, BOUCK 8. LEE, INC.3/25/05 engineers, sctenfofs, economistV:\CE_Crand_Strca\Reports and Pr«cniak>ns\FinaN»7508<l2_acn>i]yms.doc 502749
References
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 1997. Grand Street Mercury Site Site Work Plan.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 1999. Grand Street Mercury Site Remedial Design Work Plan.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2000a. Grand Street Mercury Site Final Remedial Design Report.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2000b. Grand Street Mercury Site Design Activities Report.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2000c. Grand Street Mercury Site Supplemental Design Activities Report.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 200 la. Grand Street Mercury Site Remedial Action Work Plan.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2001 b. Grand Street Mercury Site Design Activities Report Addendum.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2002a. Grand Street Mercury Site Soil Removal Work Plan for Off-Site Soil.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2002b. Grand Street Mercury Site Supplemental Investigation Report.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 2004. Grand Street Mercury Site Soil Removal Work Plan for Former BuildingFootprint.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. Record of Decision Grand Street Mercury Site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b. Unilateral Administrative Order for Removal ResponseActivities.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Designand Remedial Action - Grand Street Mercury Site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Statement of Work for Remedial Design andRemedial Action - Grand Street Mercury Site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Explanation of Significant Difference Grand StreetMercury Superfund Site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Explanation of Significant Differences Grand StreetMercury Superfund Site.
BLASIAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC,3/29/05
05750842 References doc
engineers. sc»enfo/s, economists502750
Tables
BLASLAND,_BOUCKJi_LE_E,_INC.engineers, scientists, economists
502751
TABLE1A
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLE SUMMARY
* , vT^^^;^• J - Sample ID J
* ^/^Tcr^APT 2A STUDY
BOILER ROOM ROOF-1
BOILER ROOM ROOF-2
BOILER ROOM ROOF-3
TH-1TH-2TH-3TH-4
TH-Basement082302-01
090402-CONC-01090402-PPE-01093002-TILE-01
101602-INSULATION-01102402-WATER-1102902-COMP-1
11-05-02-CONC-0111-06-02-CONC-01110802-ACOIL-01
110802-ELEVATOR OIL-01111502-WATER-1112202-WATER-1120602-WATER-1
BM801WD01SBM802WD01SBM803WD01SBM804WD01SBM805WD01SBM806WD01S
BM807WD01SBM808WD01S
010603-WATER-1021103-WATER-1022403-WATER-1031203-WATER-1031903-WATER-1040203-WATER-1040903-CARBON-1040903-WATER-1041403-WATER-1041803-WATER-1042503-WATER-1
052703-PIPE-1053003-DRUM-1053003-SLAB-1
061703-WATER-1725A-SOIL
090203-WATER-1
„ -zr^fs#<- ^ l-r r,,' "'"---if „./ Sample Location,
,**. « -; r;~< ; • '^-*£ .. v *. -: ^ H*Concrete Floor - Apartment 2A StudyConcrete Decking - Boiler Room Roof
Concrete Decking - Boiler Room Roof
Concrete Decking - Boiler Room RoofPlaster Walls - Townhouse 1st Floor
Plaster Walls - TownhousePlaster Walls - TownhousePlaster Walls - Townhouse
Plaster Walls - Townhouse BasementAsh and Debris from Townhouse Triangular Air Shaft
Townhouse 2nd Floor CeilingPPE
Tile 2nd FloorCeiling of Basement
Treated Water from TWTSVacuum Cleaners
5th Floor Concrete Ceiling5lh Floor Concrete Floor
Oil from Air Conditioning UnitsOil from Elevator
Treated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSWood Decking - Unit 2CWood Decking - Unit 2CWood Decking - Unit 2CWood Decking - Unit 2CWood Decking - Unit 2DWood Decking - Unit 4A
Wood Decking - Unit 4A Near DoorWood Decking - Unit 4D Near Elevator
Treated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTS
Carbon from Air Handling SystemTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTSTreated Water from TWTS
Sediment from Townhouse SumpSoil From Subsurface Piping
Soil between Concrete Slabs - Former Boiler RoomTreated Water from TWTS
Soil from 725 Adams Street BackyardTreated Water from TWTS
fw t. A^ or
i Date";*Sampled
6/18/20026/18/2002
6/18/2002
6/18/20026/18/20026/18/20026/18/20026/18/20026/18/20028/23/20029/4/20029/4/20029/30/200210/16/200210/24/200210/29/200211/5/2002
11/6/200211/8/200211/8/200211/15/200211/22/200212/6/2002
12/13/200212/13/200212/13/200212/13/200212/13/200212/13/200212/13/200212/13/2002
1/6/20032/11/20032/24/20033/12/20033/19/20034/2/20034/9/20034/9/20034/14/20034/18/20034/25/20035/27/20035/30/20035/30/20036/17/20037/30/20039/2/2003
*, ' V A
Table Reference» f
1C1C
1C
1C1D1D1D1D1D1C
1C, 111C, 11
1C1C1B1C1C
1C1E1E1B1B1B1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1B1B1B1B1B1B1C1B1B1B1B1C
1C, 1E, 111C, 1E, 11
1B111B
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - Summary Page 1 of 2
502752
TABLE1A
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLE SUMMARY
^ * "* £„ *, * t ** , I
Sample ID ^ *% , 'f^ "* "^""
092004-WATER-1BMSG15ESFWCSG7PSS
WCSG7PSS-AWCSG10SSWCGSB46T
102904-WATERWTS-INFLUENT
WTS-EFFLUENT#2WC-GAC-1-COMPWC-GAC-2-COMPWC-SGMW7-BS
WC-WTS-SOLIDS-COMPWC-GW-COMP-1
WC-DECON-1
,A% >y:?^\v^ "^r^r^i^Rv-""V^™»- "J>>- Sample Location r? /*•"- -V. '
Treated Water from TWTSElevator Shaft Foundation - Grid 15
Petroleum-Stained Soil - Grid 7Petroleum-Stained Soil - Grid 7Visibly Stained Soil - Grid 10
Contents from Tank Found in Grid SB-46Treated Water from TWTS
Untreated Influent Water to TWTSTreated Water from TWTS
Spent TWTS Activated CarbonSpent TWTS Activated Carbon
Blue Crystalline Material and Associated Soil - Grid MW-7Sediment from Bottom of TWTS Tank
Post-Demolition Investigation-Derived GroundwaterDecontamination Fluid
;• -/Date" T; Sampled
9/20/20049/23/20049/29/20049/30/200410/7/2004
10/20/200410/29/200411/11/200411/11/200411/11/200411/11/200411/17/200411/29/200412/6/2004
12/14/2004
v *?
Table Reference
1B1C1E
1C, 11, U1C, 1E, 11, U1C, 1E, 11, U
1B1B1B
1C, 1E, 11, U1C, 1E, 11, 1J1C, 1E, 11, 1J
1C, 1E, 11, U1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, U1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, U
Notes:1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL) on the dates indicated.2. TWTS = Temporary Water Treatment System.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - Summary Page 2 of 2 502753
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NHSA DISCHARGE PARAMETERS
ConstituentArsenicCadmiumChromium (total)CopperLeadMBAS (surfactants)MercuryNickelTetrachloroethaneZincBODOil & GreaseTSS
NHSA Limit (mg/L)0.0430.0162.002.040.365100
0.0340.723
0.43.6125050190
102402-WATER-1NO (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.0070.14
0.0016ND (0.040)ND (0.180)
0.13261.2
ND(5.0)13.0
'111502-WATER-1ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.00740.23
0.0024ND (0.040)
NA0.0718
3.9NA
ND (4.0)
112202-WATER-10.0274
ND (0.004)0.03730.06650.05220.73
0.0426ND (0.040)
NA1.72085.4NA
62.2
f, 120602-WATER-li ,(Note 9) '
0.0179ND (0.004)
0.0150.03240.02750.34
0.0164ND (0.040)ND (0.035)
1.17060.7
ND (5.0)36.0
010603-WATER-10.0123
ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.01310.45
0.0092ND (0.040)ND (0.007)
0.58037.2
ND (5.0)26.0
-, r
ConstituentArsenicCadmiumChromium (total)CopperLeadMBAS (surfactants)MercuryNickelTetrachloroethaneZincBODOil & GreaseTSS
NHSA Limit (mg/L)0.0430.0162.002.04
0.365100
0.0340.7230.4
3.6125050190
021103-WATER-10.0052
ND (0.004)0.0200.05280.0521
0.420.0461
NAND (0.007)
NA40.1
ND (5.0)47.0
022403-WATER-1(Note 9)
ND (0.005)ND (0.004)
0.0102ND (0.025)
0.01020.30
0.0064ND (0.040)ND (0.007)
0.92532.8
ND (5.0)17.0
H*,' J031203-WATER-1
0.010ND (0.004)
0.0138ND (0.025)
0.01720.54
0.0092ND (0.040)ND (0.007)
1.450NA (Note 10)
ND (5.0)37.0
r , *031903-WATER*1 f^,(Note 10) T
NANANANANANANANANANA
53.3NANA
i« ! ,,*•; f<;«vj;?^W^•"•'< 040203-WATER-1
ND (0.005)ND (0.004)
0.02320.0667
0.140.59
0.0835ND (0.040)ND (0.024)
0.84086.9
ND (5.0)46.0
enoto
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls -Water (2) Page 1 of 3
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NHSA DISCHARGE PARAMETERS
ConstituentArsenicCadmiumChromium (total)CopperLeadMBAS (surfactants)MercuryNickelTetrachloroethaneZincBODOil & GreaseTSS
NHSA Limit (mg/L) ,
0.0430.0162.002.04
0.365100
0.0340.7230.43.6125050190
040903-WATER-1' (Note 9)
ND (0.005)ND (0.004)
0.01380.02920.0701
0.420.0319
ND (0.040)ND (0.006)
0.34442.5
ND (5.0)22.0
041403-WATER-1ND (0.005)ND (0.004)
0.01320.03540.0687
0.130.0592
ND (0.040)ND (0.006)
0.43313.4
ND (5.0)40.0
041803-WATER-1(Note 9)
ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.0059ND(0.10)
0.0041ND (0.040)ND (0.006)
0.037611.7
ND (5.0)11.0
^042503-WATER-1 'ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
,_ 0.0041ND(0.10)
0.0017ND (0.040)ND (0.006)
0.0258.3
ND (5.0)13.0
« ; , i t ' - ? 'W*?< 061703-WATER-1 W,
ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.003)ND(0.10)
ND (0.0002)ND (0.040)ND (0.006)ND (0.020)
ND (5.0)ND (5.0)
6.0
ConstituentArsenicCadmiumChromium (total)CopperLeadMBAS (surfactants)MercuryNickelTetrachloroethaneZincBODOil & GreaseTSS
,' ' • ' / ' >NHSA Limit (mg/L)
0.0430.0162.002.040.365100
0.0340.7230.4
3.6125050190
090203-WATER-1ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.003)ND(0.10)0.00022
ND (0.40)ND (0.005)
0.0559NO (10)ND (5.0)
7.0
092004-WATER-10.0104
ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.01670.11
0.0017ND (0.040)ND (0.005)
0.6124.8
ND (5.0)13.0
102904-WATER-1ND (0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.0149ND(0.10)
0.004ND (0.040)ND (0.005)
0.5960ND(5.0)ND (5.0)
11.0
.WTS-INFLUENT
NDJ0.005)ND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.01380.39
0.0046ND (0.040)ND (0.005)
0.22712.8
ND (5.0)39.0
*S ;*- r^-'^W»W*S^-WTS-EFFLUENT^''
ND (0.005LND (0.004)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)
0.00450.28
0.0017ND (0.040)ND (0.005)
0.069113.6
ND (5.0)44.0
Uloto-JUlU1
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls-Water(2) Page 2 of 3
ino
in
TABLE 1B
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS • NHSA DISCHARGE PARAMETERS
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for the following constituents:
- Metals using USEPA SW-846 Method 6010B/7470A- Tetrachloroethane using USEPA SW-846 Method 8260B- Biological oxygen demand (BOD) using USEPA SW-846 Method 405.1/SM19 5210B- Oil & Grease using USEPA SW-846 Method 1664- Total suspended solids (TSS) using USEPA SW-846 Method 160.2
3. Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L), which are equivalent to parts permillion (ppm).
4. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey.5. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrations greater
than the associated laboratory detection limit identified in parenthesis.6. Tetrachloroethane is the sum of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane.7. NHSA = North Hudson Sewerage Authority.8. NA = Indicates the sample was not analyzed for the specific compound.9. The previous sample contained total mercury at concentrations greater than
NHSA limits. The batch of water was retreated and then resampled.9. The previous sample contained total mercury at concentrations greater than10. The BOD for sample 031203-WATER-1 was analyzed separately as sample 031903-WATER-1.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls-Water (2) Page3of3
TABLE 1C
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP MERCURY AND TOTAL MERCURY
I/. ^SaMplUNMmBiittiiAPT 2A STUDY
BOILER ROOM ROOF-1BOILER ROOM ROOF-2BOILER ROOM ROOF-3
082302-01090402-CONC-01090402-PPE-01093002-TILE-01
101602-INSULATION-01102902-COMP-1
11-05-02-CONC-0111-06-02-CONC-01
BM801WD01SBM802WD01SBM803WD01SBM804WD01SBM805WD01SBM806WD01SBM807WD01SBM808WD01S
040903-CARBON-1052703-PIPE-1
053003-DRUM-1053003-SLAB-1BMSG15ESFWCSG7PSS-AWCSG10SSWCGSB46T
WC-GAC-1-COMPWC-GAC-2-COMPWC-SGMW7-BS
WC-WTS-SOLIDS-COMP
0.00032ND (0.00020)
0.000350.000300.0220.054
NDJ0.0040)ND (0.00020)
0.0490.39
0.0180.0120.0350.00570.0540.0280.0220.0360.0270.024
ND (0.00020)ND (0.00020)
0.0110.0043
ND (0.00020)0.00048
ND (0.00020)0.00085
ND (0.00020)ND (0.00020)ND (0.00020)ND (0.00020)
iitl3^M<ircury1.303524.0
26.745445623.7
ND (0.096)4.2
7,71090.763.076924.01,11032757.946.934.918.9
4,7206,4903,93030.7
ND (0.031)1,790.0
9.31,490.0
4.46.31.6
77.6
Notes:1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
mercury using USEPA SW-846 Method 7470A and total mercury using USEPASW-846 Method 7471A.
3. Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) for TCLP mercury ormilligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for total mercury, which are equivalent to partsper million (ppm).
4. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, NewJersey.
5. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrationsgreater than the associated laboratory detection limit identified in parenthesis.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls-Mercury Page 1 of 1 502757
TABLE1D
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS -TCLP LEAD
Jj*. Sample Number »vTH-1TH-2TH-3TH-4
TH-BASEMENT
r.*?iCLP0.62
ND (0.50)6.36.5
ND (0.50)
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) lead using
USEPA SW-846 Method 601 OB.3. Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L).4. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey.5. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected at concentrations greater than
the associated laboratory detection limit identified in parenthesis.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls" Lead Page 1 of 1
502758
TABLE 1E
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PCBs
ConstituentAroclor1016Aroclor1221Aroclor 1232Aroclor 1 242Aroclor 1 248Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1 260
110802-ACOIL-01
ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)
110802-ELEVATOR» '.'" OIL-01
ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND(2)ND (2)ND(2)
053003-DRUM-01
ND (0.02)ND (0.02)ND(0.02)ND (0.02)ND(0.02)ND (0.02)ND(0.02)
053003-SLAB-1ND (0.019)ND (0.019)ND (0.019)ND (0.019)ND (0.019)
0.0291ND (0.019)
WCSG7PSSND (0.051)ND (0.051)ND (0.051)ND (0.051)ND (0.051)ND (0.051)ND (0.051)
* ''<"' T'T*""
WCSG10SSND (0.045)ND (0.045)ND (0.045)ND (0.045)ND (0.045)ND (0.045)ND (0.045)
* *«, ^w* -^"^^•"* f x f -frtv *** -v*
WCGSB46T'/ND (0.054)ND (0.054)ND (0.054)ND (0.054)ND (0.054)ND (0.054)ND (0.054)
ConstituentAroclor 1016Aroclor 1221Aroclor 1232Aroclor 1242Aroclor 1 248Aroclor 1 254Aroclor 1260
WC-GAC-1-COMPND (0.043)ND (0.043)ND (0.043)ND (0.043)ND (0.043)ND (0.043)ND (0.043)
|iWe-GAC-2H:OMR«ND (0.040)ND (0.040)ND (0.040)ND (0.040)ND (0.040)ND (0.040)ND (0.040)
fWC-SGMW7-BS?ND (0.037)ND (0.037)ND (0.037)ND (0.037)
L NDJ0.037)ND (0.037)ND (0.037)
WC^TS^SOlilDSSCOMRND (0.042)ND (0.042)ND (0.042)ND (0.042)ND (0.042)
0.534ND (0.042)
WeSGWSCOMPH?ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)ND (0.00056)
WQ£0ECQN2<|!ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)ND (0.00050)
Notes:
inoK)
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls.3. Samples were analyzed for PCBs using USEPA SW-846 Method 8082.4. Concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which are equivalent to parts per million (ppm).5. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey.6. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrations greater than the associated
laboratory detection limit identified in parenthesis.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls -PCBs Page 1 of 1
TABLE1F
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCL VOCs
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichtoroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1 , 1 -Diehloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloropropane2-Butanone (MEK)2-Hexanone4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)AcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneBromoformBromomethaneCarbon disulfideCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethanecis-1 ,2-Dichloroethenecis-1 ,3-DichloropropeneDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneMethylene chlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneToluenetrans-1 ,2-Dichloroethenetrans-1 ,3-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneVinyl chlorideXylene (total)
i|W(G|GW|C<?MR-1:vND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(10)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND(10)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND (4.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)
60.3ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND(1.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND(1.0)0.64 J
ND(1.0)ND(1.0)
1.153.2
ND(1.0)
iWC-DEG0N-lPND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (250)ND(130)ND(130)
116JND (25)ND (25)
ND(100)ND (50)ND (50)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (50)
ND(130)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)ND (25)
Notes:1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. TCL = Target Compound List.3. VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds.4. Samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs using USEPA SW-846 Method
8260.5. Concentrations reported in micrograms per liter (ng/L), which are
equivalent to parts per billion (ppb).6. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at
concentrations greater than the associated laboratory detection limitidentified in parenthesis.
7. J indicates estimated value.8. Laboratory analysis conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New
Jersey.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls- VOCs Page 1 of 1 502760
TABLE1G
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS • TCL SVOCs
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol2,4-Dinitrophenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene2-Chloronaphthalene2-Chlorophenol2-Methylnaphthalene2-Methylphenol2-Nitroaniline2-Nitrophenol3&4-Methylphenol3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine3-Nitroaniline4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol4-Chloroaniline4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether4-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluoranthenebis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanebis(2-Chloroethyl)etherbis(2-Chloroisopropyl)etherbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateCarbazoleChryseneDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1WG2GWIG0MPS1SND(2.1)NDJ2.1JND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND(21)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND(2.1)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND(5.3)ND (5.3)ND(21)ND(2.1)ND (5.3)ND (5.3)ND(2.1)ND(5.3)ND(21)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)NDJ2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)
ftW(£BEGONr11!ND(2.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND(5.0)ND (5.0)ND (20)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND(5.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND (20)ND(2.0)ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND (20)0.54 J
ND (2.0)0.88 J1.6J1.6 J2.1
1.0 J0.69 J
ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0J
8.8ND (2.0)ND (2.0)
1.6J2.1
ND (2.0)ND (2.0)
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls-SVOCs Page 1 of 2
502761
TABLE1G
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLSVQCs
DibenzofuranDiethyl phthalateDimethyl phthalateFluorantheneFluoreneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroethanelndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyreneIsophoroneN-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineN-NitrosodiphenylamineNaphthaleneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthrenePhenolPyrene
B -GMGjQMBSIlND (5.3)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(21)ND (5.3)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND (5.3)ND(2.1)ND(2.1)ND(21)ND(2.1)ND(5.3)ND(2.1)
i CiDEGQNilaND (5.0)
28.0ND (2.0)
3.5ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (20)ND (5.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (5.0)ND (2.0)ND (2.0)ND (20)
3.2ND(5.0)
2.8
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. TCL = Target Compound List.3. Samples were analyzed for TCL semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) using USEPA SW-846 Method 8270.4. Concentrations reported in micrograms per liter (ng/L), which are
equivalent to parts per billion (ppb).5. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at
concentrations greater than the associated laboratory detection limitidentified in parenthesis.
6. J indicates estimated value.7. Laboratory analysis conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New
Jersey.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls -SVOCs Page 2 of 2 502762
TABLE 1H
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TAL INORGANICS
l$nsUtM|nitSAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc
aWCIGWrGOMRIIi945.0
ND (5.0)ND(5.0)ND (200)ND (5.0)ND (4.0)80,600.0ND(10)ND (50)ND (25)2,900.0
40.411,200.0
300.01.7
ND (40)10,200.0ND (5.0)ND(10)98,900.0ND(10)ND (50)
63.4
ayc£DEeoNSi23,200.0ND (5.0)
24.1413.0
ND (5.0)14.7
48,700.0101.0
ND (50)601.0
59,300.01,540.08,010.0966.068.766.4
6,000.0ND (5.0)ND(10)62,900.0ND(10)
68.52,180.0
Notes:1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
2. Samples were analyzed for inorganics usingUSEPA SW-846 Method 601 OB.
3. Concentrations given in micrograms per liter(ng/L), which are equivalent to parts per billion
4 ND indicates the compound was analyzed for butnot detected at concentrations greater than theassociated laboratory detection limit identified inparenthesis.
5. Laboratory analysis conducted by AccutestLaboratories in Dayton, New Jersey.
6. TAL = Target Analyte List.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls- Inorganics Page 1 of 1 502763
v*
TABLE 11
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP VOCs. SVOCs. AND METALS
SS*1* < s+ £ jfc-vxr* •** . <j ivfr ~* "£-U.V "Vci <33£ ^ i Compound .,"*•
- Regulatory "•Vdevef ,*,
JCLP Volatile Organic Compounds',- ><v1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride
0.70.57.52000.50.51006
0.70.50.2
TGLP Semiyblatile i Organic Compounds2-Methylphenol3&4-Methylphenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4-DinitrotolueneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachloroethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPyridineTCLPMetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadSeleniumSilver
200200400
27.5
0.130.130.532
1005
'-
5
10015515
090402-CONC-Olf>??» „,> n -r »
ND (0.010)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.050)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)
ND (0.020)• .
ND (0.50)
ND(1.0)ND (0.010)ND (0.020)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)
ND (0.020)
~"~?.« "'""^ *"090402-PPEVl* / °* - — s
ND (0.010)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.050)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)ND (0.010)ND (0.025)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)ND (0.005)
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)
ND (0.020)
ND (0.50)ND (2.0)
ND (0.025)ND (0.050)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)
ND (0.050)
^"ST5^ ^ "* v
053003-DRUM-1"-;•
ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND(7.5)ND (200)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)ND(100)ND (6.0)
ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND (0.20)
<
ND (200)ND(200)ND (400)ND (2.0)ND(7.5)ND(0.13)ND(0.13)ND (0.50)ND (3.0)ND (2.0)ND(100)ND (5.0)
• -'«*-*-ND(5.0)ND(100)
0.010ND(5.0)
9.3ND(1.0)ND(5.0)
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - TCLP VOCs-SVOCs-Metals Page 1 of 5 502764
TABLE 11
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP VOCs. SVOCs. AND METALS
5?^3^g^F^^^fS* > *"- r Compound R * ./*
•WFWJ"•\Level '"
JCLP Volatile Organic Compounds $t\*1,1-Dichloroethene1,2-Dichloroethane1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride
0.70.57.52000.50.51006
0.70.50.2
TCLR<Semiy6latileSOi ahic"Compbunds £/2-Methylphenol3&4-Methylphenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4-DinitrotolueneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachloroethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPyridineTCLP Metals ir, -- "ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadSeleniumSilver
2002004002
7.50.130.130.532
1005
510015515
*'#^s»$'~?v' /***ft**** , % *v -£053003-SL&B-1*tr3. v*v -
ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND (7.5)ND (200)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)ND(100)ND (6.0)ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND (0,20)
*" •>* i "** ' *,*< -*. , *• •" *»•
ND (200)ND(200)ND (400)ND (2.0)ND (7.5)ND(0.13)ND(0.13)ND (0.50)ND (3.0)ND (2.0)ND(100)ND (5.0)
' "%• . *ND(5.0)ND(100)
0.007ND (5.0)ND (5.0)ND(1.0)ND (5.0)
>25A-SOIL% '• v:* ' - '' '
ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND(7.5)ND (200)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)ND(100)ND (6,0)ND (0.70)ND (0.50)ND (0.20)
~ ? * „ , ' • • 'NANANANANANANANANANANANA
, . ,•
NANANANANANANA
j ^y>pet"WCSG7PSS-A
i «>,¥* ~ *
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)
0.0108ND (0.025)1 *y *
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND(0.20)
ND (0.020)' s *
ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)
2.2_ ND (0.50)
ND (0.010)
•*•«••»'* .w- -$ «v
WCSG10SSJ»V „*
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.025)
-' ' ,ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)
ND (0.020)
•'*'> v«-flh«ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)
2.3ND (0.50)ND (0.010)
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - TCLP VOCs-SVOCs-Metals Page 2 of 5
502765
TABLE 11
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP VOCs. SVOCs. AND METALS
IRfplatSryi
•W^^'l'- H' »•"* --' V .Vi--^W>fc^^>^<> ::jVri*f'iiiXi 1^ .*V^^5^^
TGLP Volatile Organic Compounds;i |l|£S;1,1-Dichloroethene1,2-Dichloroethane1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride
0.70.57.52000.50.51006
0.70.50.2
TCLP Semivolatile Organic Compounds '2-Methylphenol3&4-Methylphenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4-DinitrotolueneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachloroethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPyridineTCLP Metals V^ ,; *'-ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadSeleniumSilver
200200400
27.5
0.130.130.532
1005
"' A-/- < :5
10015515
ivllliiii!iND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.00501
0.0919ND (0.025)
-* ""
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)ND (0.020)
/*
ND (0.50)1.4
0.18ND (0.010)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)
ND (0.010)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.025)•"-' -^ , +.,
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)ND (0.020)
• _ * / • * ' ^
ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)
ND (0.010)
WCIGAC ieOMP
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.025)
_.
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)
ND (0.020)' ' M>
ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)ND(0.50)ND (0.50)ND (0.010)
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - TCLP VOCs-SVOCs-Metals Page 3 of 5
502766
TABLE 11
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP VOCs. SVOCs. AND METALS
S!Ciife\ifolMili ©faaWfetd^pSu8irf ^^^1,1-Dichloroethene1,2-Dichloroethane1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2-ButanoneBenzeneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride
0.70.57.52000.50.51006
0.70.50.2
TCLRiSiemivolatilS Organic Compounds >\>2-Methylphenol3&4-Methylphenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4-DinitrotolueneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachloroethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPyridineTCLR Metals = -\<r ,;, V -ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadSeleniumSilver
200200400
27.5
0.130.130.532
1005
•? v , •„ -5
10015515
Ivi eiMlAflli
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.025)
, •* .— <"* - > < > -,-<ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)ND (0.020)
~ r \ "
ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)ND (0.050)
!w1<§Viil §©Eipsic®iMR
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.050)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.0050)ND (0.025)
ij jt 4 * * ^ «.
ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.020)ND (0.050)ND (0.020)ND (0.20)
ND (0.020)', ~' •* "
ND (0.50)ND(1.0)
ND (0.0050)ND (0.010)ND (0.50)ND (0.50)ND (0.010)
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - TCLP VOCs-SVOCs-Metals Page 4 of 5
502767
TABLE 11
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TCLP VOCs. SVOCs. AND METALS
Notes:1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds.3. SVOCs = Semi-volatile Organic Compounds.4. TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.5. Samples were analyzed for the following constituents:
- TCLP VOCs using USEPA SW-846 Method 1311/8260B- TCLP SVOCs using USEPA SW-846 Method 3510C/8270C- TCLP Metals (including lead) using USEPA SW-846 Method 1311/6010
6. Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L).7. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey.8. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrations greater
than the associated laboratory detection limit identified in parenthesis.9. NA indicates the sample was not analyzed for the specific compound.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - TCLP VOCs-SVOCs-Metals (Notes) Page 5 of 5 502768
TABLE1J
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS - CORROSIVITY. IGNITABILITY.REACTIVITY. OIL & GREASE. AND TPH
Waste Characteristic;', -":?,;'Corrosivity as pH (S.U.)Cyanide Reactivity (mg/kg)Ignitability (Degrees F)Sulfide Reactivity (mg/kg)Oil & Grease (mg/kg)Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
WGSG7PSS-A7.87 NCND(8.1)
>200ND(81.0)
NA560
nr'WCSGIOSS, "'"•7.35 NCND (7.0)
>200242NA
91.2
' WeGSB46TJli7.52 NCND (8.2)
>200ND (82)
NANA
weiGA ieoM^7.69 NCND (6.5)
>200ND (65)
NANA
JVWi<3«C|2^QMi7.76 NCND(6.1)
>200ND(61)
NA43
; Waste Characteristic ''•*> y .. •Corrosivity as pHCyanide ReactivityIgnitability (Degrees F)Sulfide ReactivityOil & GreaseTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons
WC-SGMW^BS7.31 NCND (5.5)
>200ND (55)
NANA
wciwrs-soLips;eoMP8.90 NCND (6.5)
>200ND (65)
NANA
WCiGW-COMP-f5.96 NCND (5.0)
>200ND (50)ND (5.4)
NA
'K:WGrDEqON|1|il2.96 NCND (5.0)
>201ND (50)
8.5NA
Notes:
uiotooo\vo
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for the following:
- Corrosivity as pH using USEPA SW-846 Method Chapter 7- Cyanide reactivity using USEPA SW-846 Method Chapter 7- Ignitability using USEPA SW-846 Method Chapter 7- Sulfide reactivity using USEPA SW-846 Method Chapter 7- Oil and grease using USEPA Method 1664A- Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) using USEPA Method 418.1M
3. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey.4. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrations greater than the associated laboratory detection limit identified in
parenthesis.5. NA indicates the sample was not analyzed for the specific compound.6. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.7. S.U. = Standard Units.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12150146.xls - Waste Characteristics Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
TREATED WATER DISCHARGE SUMMARY
•£. -C Discharge Date ,,—11/12/200211/21/200212/21/20022/4/20032/28/20033/19/20034/18/20034/23/20034/30/20037/8/2003
9/22/20039/29/200411/10/200411/29/20042/1/2005
Total Gallons Discharged:
f Amoijjfgpis!1,399.703,100.381,999.662,800.283,399.913,099.863,300.663,099.603,132.002,900.002,800.002,188.002,300.00728.005.00
36,253.05
Notes:1. Each batch of water from the onsite water treatment system was
approved by CH2M Hill, on behalf of North Hudson SewerageAuthority (NHSA) prior to discharge.
2. Five gallons of groundwater discharged on February 1, 2005 werenot treated by the onsite water treatment system prior todischarge. CH2M Hill, on behalf of NHSA, approved the water tobe discharged.
3. Water was discharged to the municipal storm/sanitary sewersystem.
4. The volume of discharged treated water is based on informationprovided to BBL by NHSA's consultant, CH2M Hill.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11250146.xls Page 1 of 1
502770
TABLE 3
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE DISPOSITION SUMMARY
1,2,3,8,and 25
Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Debris(D009, High-Mercury and D008, Lead)
49.79 Tons(Note 2)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.Emelle, AL
4, 5, 6,and 9
Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Debris(D009, Low-Mercury)
7.91 Tons CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
7 and 10Hazardous Debris
(D001, Ignitability) - Wood Subflooring2.93 Tons Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Emelle, AL
11Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Waste
(D008, Lead) - Lead-Based Paint4.79 Tons
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
12 Nonhazardous Solid Waste(High-Mercury) - Building Materials
242.3 Tons1, 55-Gallon
Drum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
13
323.66 Tons
Nonhazardous Solid Waste(Low-Mercury) - Building Materials
Hackensack Meadowlands DevelopmentCommission 1-E North Landfill (HMDC)
N. Arlington, NJ
5,027.58 Tons
Waste Management Tullytown ResourceRecovery Facility (TRRF)
Tullytown, PA/Waste ManagementG.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility, Morrisville, PA
14Nonhazardous Solid Waste
(Low-Mercury) - Chimney BasinAsh/Debris
NoteSWaste Management T.T.R.F. Tullytown,
PA/Waste Management G.R.O.W.S., Inc.Facility, Morrisville, PA
15 Nonhazardous Solid Waste - Non-FriableACM
35.15 TonsWaste Management T.R.R.F.
Tullytown, PA/Waste ManagementG.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility, Morrisville, PA
16 Nonhazardous Solid Waste - Friable ACM 5.11 Tons Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA
17Fluorescent Light
Ballasts(PCB-Containing)
Non-leaking
2, 55-GallonDrums
1, 30-GallonDrum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Leaking1, 55-Gallon
Drum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 4)
18
Lead-acid
Batteries
1 Drum1, 5-Gallon
Drum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 5)
Alkaline1, 5-Gallon
DrumCWM Chemical Services, LLC
Model City, NY
19 Smoke Detectors - Photoelectric 30 Detectors Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA
20 Smoke Detectors - Ionizing 19 Detectors Specific Manufacturers: BRK Electronics/FirstAlert, Kidde Lifesaver, and Firex
21 Fire Extinguishers4, 55-Gallon
DrumsCWM Chemical Services, LLC
Model City, NY7/6/2005V:\GE Grand Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\24150842_Revised_RA_ReportJable 3.doc
" Page 1 of 5 502771
TABLE 3
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE DISPOSITION SUMMARY
ilss^Miv't-S;
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Waste(D008, Lead) - Subsurface Structure
Sediment/DebrisNonhazardous Subsurface Structure
Sediment/Debris (High-Mercury)(Note 2)
Toxic Substances Control Act-(TSCA-) Regulated Solid Waste
Nonhazardous Solid Waste - AbandonedAppliances and Equipment
Nonhazardous Solid Waste -Investigation-Derived Waste
ContainerizedHouse Hold Waste
MiscellaneousOnsite TemporaryWater TreatmentSystem Waste
Oxidizing Liquid
Toxic Liquid
Corrosive Liquid
Flammable Aerosols
Flammable Liquids
Organic Peroxide
Adhesives
Paint and paintrelated materials
NonhazardousSediment and Tank
Bottoms(High-Mercury)
2, 55-GallonDrums
(350 Ibs)
Note 6
1 abandonedlift/jack
(2,377 kg)
NoteS
Notes 3 and 7
1 Labpack
1 Labpack
1 Labpack
1, 55-GallonDrum
1, 55-GallonDrum
1 , 5-GallonDrum
2, 55-GallonDrums
3, 55-GallonDrums
4.34 Tons
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.Emelle, AL
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA/Waste ManagementG .ROWS Inc Facility Morrisville
PA/HMDCN. Arlington, NJ
Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA/Waste ManagementG.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility Morrisville
PA/HMDCN. Arlington, NJ
Onyx Environmental Services, LLC.Flanders, NJ
Onyx Environmental Services, LLC.Flanders, NJ
Onyx Environmental Services, LLC.Flanders, NJ
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 8)CWM Chemical Services, LLC
Model City, NY(Note 4)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 8)CWM Chemical Services, LLC
Model City, NY(Note 4)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 4)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
7/6/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\24150842_Revised_RA_ReportJable 3.doc
Page 2 of 5 502772
TABLES
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE DISPOSITION SUMMARY
NonhazardousSpent Carbon(High-Mercury)
13,55-GallonDrums
32Miscellaneous AirHandling System
Waste
Hazardous SystemComponents
(High-Mercury)
Note 9Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Emelle, AL
NonhazardousSpent Carbon(High-Mercury)
Note 9CWM Chemical Services, LLC
Model City, NY
33 Removed Plaster and Associated Lead-Based Paint (D008, Lead)
32, 55-GallonDrums
(16.000 Ibs)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
34 PPE/Disposable Equipment Note 10 Note 10
R1 Mercury-Containing Devices(Thermostats)
2, 5-GallonDrums
CWM Chemical Services, LLC.Model City, NY
(Note 5)
R2
Fluorescent Lamps
100,8-footlamps
61,4-footlamps
CWM Chemical Services, LLC.Model City, NY
(Note 5)
Mercury Lamps 12 lampsCWM Chemical Services, LLC.
Model City, NY(Note 5)
R3 CFCs/RefrigerantsR-11 6.8 ouncesR-12 4 IbsR-22 2 Ibs
Abco Refrigeration Supply Corp.Totowa, NJ(Note 11)
R4 Bulk Mercury (and Associated Dust, Dirt,Sediment, or Other Fine Residuals)
29, 5-GallonDrums
CWM Chemical Services, LLC.Model City, NY
(Note 5)
Note 12 Hydraulic Oil 4 DrumsCWM Chemical Services, LLC.
Model City, NY(Note 13)
Note 12 RCRA Empty Drums 235 Drums CWM Chemical Services, LLC.Model City, NY
22Nonhazardous
Soil/Debris(Low-Mercury)
Residential PropertySoil/Debris
Perimeter Area SoilExcavations
495.54 Tons
30.22 Tons
Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA/Waste Management
G.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility Morrisville, PA
16 Nonhazardous Solid Waste - Friable ACM1, 55-Gallon
Drum(50 Ibs)
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
7/6/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\24150842_Revised_RA_Report_table 3.doc
Page 3 oi 5 502773
TABLE 3
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE DISPOSITION SUMMARY
35
Post-DemolitionSoil and
GroundwaterInvestigation Waste
NonhazardousGroundwater
NonhazardousSoil Cuttings
(High-Mercury)
7, 55-GallonDrums
2, 55-GallonDrums
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
36 Post-DemolitionSoil
NonhazardousSoil/Debris
(Low-Mercury)2,213.56 Tons
Waste Management T.R.R.F.Tullytown, PA/Waste Management
G.R.O.W.S., Inc. Facility Morrisville, PANonhazardous
Soil/Debris(High-Mercury)
877.617 Tons CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Note 12Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Soil
(D009, High-Mercury)15, 55-Gallon
Drums
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
(Note 5)1,2,3,8,and 25
Toxicity Characteristic Hazardous Debris(D009, High-Mercury and D008, Lead)
12.25 Tons(Note 2)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.Emelle, AL
Note 12 Nonhazardous Decontamination Fluid 1, 55-GallonDrum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City. NY
Note 12 Nonhazardous Blue Crystalline Materialand Associated Soil
1, 55-GallonDrum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Note 12 Nonhazardous Low Mercury Metal Tankand Associated Soil
1, 55-GallonDrum
CWM Chemical Services, LLCModel City, NY
Notes:
1. Refer to Final Remedial Design (FRD) Report (BBL, 2000) for a complete listing of waste stream numbers.
2. The toxicity characteristic hazardous debris (D008, D009) includes lead piping because field conditions wouldnot allow the separation of visible mercury-containing sediment/debris from subsurface piping, causing thewaste stream to be disposed of as hazardous solid waste high-mercury and lead debris.
3. Quantity included in nonhazardous solid waste (low-mercury) building materials.
4. Waste stream was transshipped by the disposition facility to Onyx Environmental Services, LLC located in PortArthur, Texas under a separate manifest.
5. Waste stream was transshipped by the disposition facility to Onyx Environmental Services, LLC located in PortWashington, Wisconsin under a separate manifest.
6. Quantity included in hazardous solid waste (high-mercury) materials.
7/6/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Rnal\24150842_Revised_RA_Report_table 3.doc
Page 4 of 5 502774
TABLES
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
WASTE DISPOSITION SUMMARY
7. Investigation-derived soil was characterized as nonhazardous solid waste (low mercury) debris and is includedin the waste stream number 35. Investigation-derived waste liquids were sampled and were determined to benonhazardous and were sent through the temporary water treatment system and discharged with permissionfrom the North Hudson Sewerage Authority. The groundwater generated during the post-demolitioninvestigation (following demobilization of the temporary water treatment system) was drummed, sampled, andcharacterized as nonhazardous liquid waste and was sent to CWM Chemical Services, Inc. located in ModelCity.
8. Waste stream was transshipped by the disposition facility to WTIA/onRoll located in East Liverpool, Ohiounder a separate manifest.
9. Carbon from the air handling system was transported for offsite disposal to CWM Chemical Services, LLCfacility located in Model City, NY, as part of the nonhazardous high mercury debris. Remaining air handlingsystem wastes were transported for offsite disposal to Chemical Waste Management, Inc.'s facility located inEmelle, AL, as part of the hazardous high mercury debris.
10. PPE/Disposable equipment was disposed of based on the characterization of the waste handled while wearingPPE and/or using equipment.
11. Waste stream was transshipped by the disposition facility to Hudson Technologies located in Hillburn, NewYork under a separate manifest.
12. Unanticipated waste streams that were generated as a part of field activities and do not have a waste streamnumber.
13. Waste stream was transshipped by the disposition facility to Systech located in Paulding, Ohio under aseparate manifest.
7/6/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\24150842_Revised_RA_Report_table 3.doc
Page 5 of 5 502775
TABLE 4
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
POST-EXCAVATION SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PESG1BPESG1B-R1*PESG1B-R2*PESG1BWPESG1BEPESG2BPESG3BPESG3N-SFD1 01404"PESG6BPESG6S-SPESG7N-SPESG7S-EPESG8BPESG9BPESG10BPESG10N-SPESG12BPESG13BFD092004"PESG14BPESG15BPESG15S-NPESG15S-NR1*PESGMW2BPESGSB17N-SPESGSB18BPESGSB22BFD111604"PESGSB35BPESGSB35S-SPESGSB35S-SR1*PESGSB37S-SPESGSB37S-SR1*PESGSB37S-SR2*PESGSB38BPESGSB39W-SPESGSB39W-SR1*PESGSB39W-SR2*PESGSB44BPESGSB44W-SPESGSB44W-SR1*PESGSB44W-SR2*PESGSB45BPESGSB46B
2-2.53-3.54.5-54.5-54.5-52-2.52-2.5
11
2-2.5111
2-2.52-2.52-2.5
12-2.52-2.52-2.52-2.52-2.5
11
3.5-41
4-4.52.5-32.5-33-3.5
11111
4-4.5111
2-2.5111
3.5-42-2.5
5205205205205205205202323520520520520520520520235205205205205202323520235202323520232323232352023232323232323
520520
J^^^^^^^^^^M'i- 'm^£^»A^ ' ^^Qai &'
82659431296.66769.412.1
87.9
1.2 J0.44
54.5427.41.61.5
0.40 J0.550.3929.31.1
36.14
2.28.76.5106.228.569.513.441.825.12.11.3
96.5892.314.585.833.1
336.760.3
7/6/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11550146 Page 1 of 2
502776
TABLE 4
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
POST-EXCAVATION SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PESGSB111BPESGSB111W-SPESGSB111W-SR1*
2.5-311
232323
17.239.75.9
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for total mercury using USEPA SW-846 Method 7471 A.3. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New Jersey.
4. Concentrations given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which are equivalent to parts per million(ppm).
5. RAO = Remedial Action Objective.6. * after the sample identification number denotes the sample immediately preceding contained total
mercury at concentrations greater than the RAO. Subsequently, additional excavation was conductedfollowed by the collection of the associated sample (denoted with *).
7. ** after the sample identification number denotes duplicate sample for the immediately precedingsample.
8. J indicates the result given is an estimated concentration.
9. The RAO for the soil located above the groundwater table is 23 mg/kg. The RAO for the soil locatedbelow the groundwater table is 520 mg/kg.
10. Sample depths referenced are presented in feet beneath existing grade.
7/1/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11550146.xls Page 2 of 2 502777
TABLE 5
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
DRAFT RA REPORT
FOUNDATION MATERIAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
BMSG1CSBMSG7FW
24.90.45
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for total mercury using USEPA SW-846 Method 7471A.3. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New Jersey.4. Concentrations given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which are equivalent to parts per million
(ppm).5. Sample BMSG1CS was collected from sample grid 1 concrete slab at a depth of 2 ft, which was below
the groundwater table.6. Sample BMSG7FW was collected from sample grid 7 foundation wall at a depth of 2 ft, which was
below the groundwater table.7. The remedial action objective for the foundation material located below the groundwater table is 520
mg/kg.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11650146.xls Page 1 of 1 502778
TABLE 6
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION AND WATER LEVEL SUMMARY
f
Monitoring WellMW-1MW-3MW-5MW-6MW-7MW-8MW-9MW-10
Date Installed11/8/9911/1/99
11/12//9911/10/9911/2/99
11/30/0411/29/0411/29/04
Screen Interval(ft. bgs)
2-122.5-12.5
2-123-13
29.8 - 39.82-10
2.5-10.52.2-10.2
Type of WellCompletionFlush-mount
Stick-upFlush-mountFlush-mount
Stick-upStick-upStick-upStick-up
TIC Elevation(ft. AMSL)
4.957.795.515.758.418.028.588.79
* "YDepth to Water
12/16/04(ft. TIC) t
5.317.005.27
5.50
6.957.458.008.22
• i/,^ j"- • . ,* i«<'j m »,< vvg»j>
GroundwaterElevation (ft. AMSL)
-0.360.790.240.251.460.570.580.57
. ' , - ' ? f' / '^ '•' \• - '>•„;*-• -tjtjjTotal Depth v,V
Installed (ft. bgs)12
12.51213
41.810
10.510.2
Notes:1. ft. = feet.2. bgs = below ground surface.3. TIC = Top of Inner Casing.4. AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level (NAVD 83).5. Depth to water was manually gauged with an electronic water level indicator.6. TIC elevations are based on survey data completed by James M. Stewart, Inc. on January 13, 2005.
UloNJ
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11750146.xls Page 1 of 1
TABLE 7
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS
'.'.r^^Fie'ldf'P.ararrie'terS'. -'-..V.'.;-...; %Sample, Date
Temperature (°C)Specific Conductance (mS/cm)pH (S. U.)ORP (mV)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Turbidity (NTUs)
'« MV^Z-cfe11/8/2004
17.82.386.85-120
015
fi Mw iiif11/8/2004: :
17.751.367.07-79020
!fi|MW-6¥lS'11/8/2004?
14.80.8897.37-1362.66
4
t 11/8/2004if
16.412.587.56-511.5502
lliiMW£lliliv|11:1/9/20041fv
18.031.557.46-1139.9426
iMW^NSt®7)?S£1 2/1 6/2004
13.121.667.28-157
0240
oto-jooo
Fielcl'parameters ? ,>;
Sample Date
Temperature (°C)Specific Conductance (mS/cm)pH (S. U.)ORP (mV)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Turbidity (NTUs)
:r7MW-9 /,, 12/6/2004
10.110.527.31-115
024
MVIW-10 '12/17/2004
9.20.7357.35-500.4814
MW-812/17/2004
8.880.467.95
02.87
*' MW3S'-v&?'12/17/2004
13.391.4
6.89-95028
MW^NSteWf!1/13/2004i
11.971.857.09-178
022
Notes:1. mS/cm = milliSiemens per centimeter.2. S. U. = Standard Units.3. ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential.4. mV = millivolts.5. mg/L = milligrams per Liter.6. NTUs = Nephelometric Turbidity Units.7. Monitoring well MW-3 was resampled on January 13, 2005 due to unstabilized field parameters
during the December 16, 2004 sampling event. The December 16, 2004 field and analytical data was rejected.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\F!nal\11850146.xls Page 1 of 1
TABLE 8
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
%$iR&£MZf »*"}!*•* *w3 tfw?>:"'tfi«K>!>S253^£&:^1
^^SarnpfejlD^SMW-1MW-2BD1 10804*MW-3 (12-16-04)MW-3( 1-1 3-05)FD011305*MW-4MW-5MW-6MW-7MW-8MW-9MW-10
3&-g?es; ft*£f*£$i?-fy'iZ fa$,%&!-&:£&;5??fi£gt£fi&*
lllTiotalMeircurlliND (0.20)ND (0.20)ND (0.20)
5.3 R0.510.64
ND (0.20)ND (0.20)ND (0.20)ND (0.20)
0.691.7
0.98
Notes:
1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.2. Samples were analyzed for total mercury using USEPA SW-846 Method 7471A.3. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New Jersey.4. Concentrations given in micrograms per liter (ng/L), which is equivalent to parts per billion (ppb).5. * after the sample identification number denotes duplicate sample for the immediately preceding
sample.6. ND indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected at concentrations greater than
the associated laboratory detection limit.7. R indicates that the analytical result was rejected based on Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.'s quality
assurance/quality control review.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\11950146.xls"
502781
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 9
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
RA REPORT
MONITORING WELL SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MW-8 (9.0-9.5)MW-9 (9.5-10.0)MW-10 (9.2-9.7)BD1 12904*
7.33.85.23.4
Notes:
1. Concentrations given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm).2. Values in the parentheses indicate the sample depth interval in feet below ground surface.3. * After the sample identification denotes a duplicate sample for the immediately
preceding sample.4. Laboratory analysis was conducted by Accutest Laboratories in Dayton, New Jersey.
3/28/2005V:\GE_Grand_Street\Reports and Presentations\Final\12050146.xls Page 1 of 1
502782
Figures
BLA51AND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.engineers, scientists, economists
502783
REFERENCE: BASE MAP USGS QUADS., JERSEY CITY, NJ, AND WEEHAWKEN, NJ-NY, 1967, PHOTOREVISED 1981.
2000' 0 2000'
Approximate Scale: 1" = 2000'
03/08/05 SYR-D85-DJH KLS40481002/40481 n01.CDR
AREA LOCATION
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITEHOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
SITE LOCATION MAP
3LBLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.engineer*, scientists, economists
FIGURE
1
502784
8th STREET
J I
1(A2<Q
FORMER INDUSTRIALBUILDING
722-7.12 GR4ND STREETSTORY BRICK
BUILDING)
LJUJ
(flQ
o:o
- P*W€Bry UME
- CONC«ETE BLOCX WALL
- rcNCf UNE
STOBM SEWER WUT
MANHOLE
STORM SE«B CATCH BASIN
TtLCPHONC MANHOLE
UT1UTY POLE
UCHT POLE
OAS VALVE
WATER VALVE
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BUILDING
CONCRETE SURFACE COVER
ASPHALT SURFACE COVER
NOTES:
1. ALL LOCATIONS A»C APPROXIMATE.
3. DRAWING BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BYJAMES M. STEWART, INC MARCH J, 1909 AND FEBRUARY 2000.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BASED ON:VERTICAL DATUM ~ NAVDBOHORIZONTAL DATUM - NEW JERSEY STATE PLANECOORDINATE SYSTEM NA083.
7/t/w ra-as-KM) NCI an
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE720-732 GRAND STREET. H060KEN, NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
720-732 GRAND STREETPRE-DEMOLITION FEATURES MAP
BBL
Rtk QTRrrT ..-™,»th blKtt! r 1.1 UK/ rOAS PIPE
WASE „„
'. «' SPmmm svsiru u«M«
FORMER LOCATION OFINDUSTRIAL BUILDING722-732 GRAND STREET
AD
AM
S
ST
RE
ET
II
GRASS
F CHAMUHK FDKZ c
'
8"PVC ~" ^-
o> V."• «
725 ADAMS STREET(RESIDENCE)
723 ADAMS STREET(RESIDENCE)
721 ADAMS STREET(RESIDENCE)
719 ADAMS STREET(RESIDENCE)
BASS
1-7t
^\^^
/ If, >
/-J.JL.r1
T
0
M
/ / GRASS / <
\ / CQNCPtTE WALK / /
W . r - - / * - * » / .
i f / I
i o o / o !i i
- =i ' ri f ~ji 'r ~« i
i 1 !' IT""- -. t ii |l li j1 - -~J ~~ -tyzf ~~J \ ~~ -.
-_J|~ --- ~- } Hi O O ^^ksi.-. i iM i [ o o o !
j ! o o o il T _, j
!""Vr-iL.-^_ii [ r trrriI uw-10 S X |
L:L
;MW 5
e
— - — •
^ •
0MW-6
-— _
LJLJcei—ino
1. 3- SEWR PIPE2. 3/«"-1" ABANDONEDCAS PIPES
[ ' )
0
M
LEGEND:
rOUMOATlON
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
STORM SCTrW INLET
UTUTY POLE
PO.YVIMYL CHLORIDE PIPE
FOUNDATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
ABANDONED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
1. DRAWING BASED ON SURVEY PREPAREDBY JAUES U. STEWART. INC. MARCH1999 AMD FEBRUARY 2000 AND HELDOBSERVATIONS MADE BY BBL INOCTOBCW 200*.
2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FORMER LOCATIONOF TOWNHOUSE720 GRAND STREET
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE720-732 GRAND STREET. HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
720-732 GRAND STREETPOST-DEMOLITION SUBSURFACE
FEATURES MAP
BBU•AJLAMO^KUCX I Iff, NC.
LEGEND:
PROPERTY UHE
FENCE LINE
CATCH BAStN
POST-DEMOLITION MONITORING *ELL LOCATION
GRID ID
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL REMOVED. THE NUMBER INTHE SAMPLING GRIDS REF-RESENT THE DEPTH OF SOIL REMOVAL(•* FEET) CONDUCTED BENEATH EXISTING GRADE {SEE MOTE 5).
TOTAL MERCURY RESULT M mgAo(VALIDATED RESULTS). COMPARED TO REMEDIAL ACTIONOBJECTIVE OF 33 mg/k9.
DEPTH OF SAMPLE IN FEE! BENEATH EXISTING GRADE
ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
/-SAMPLE RESULT PRESENTED FOLLOWWG THE SLASH REPRESENTSOUPUCATE SAMPLE RESULT,
TOTAL MERCURY RESULTS M mqAfl(VAUOATED RESULTS). COMPARED TO REMEDIAL ACTIONOBJECTIVE OF 520 m,Ag.DEPTH OF SAMPLE IN FEET BENEATH EXISTING GRADE
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
SOIL BORttW AND MOH1TORWJ «EU. LOCATIONS BASED OH SUB- fPREPARED BY JAMES M. STEWART. INC., NOVEMBER IM9. APRIL 2001.AND JANUARY 2005.
ESTIMATED AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL THAT WAS REMOVED WAS BASED ONBBL'S RESULTS FROM THE SOIL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN1099. THE ADDITIONAL SOIL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 2001.THE POST DEMOLITION INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 2003. ANOTHE RESULTS OF THE POST-EXCAVATION VERIFICATION SAMPLINGCONDUCTED IN 2004,
DEPTH OF REMOVAL SHOWN FOR PARKING LOT EXCAVATION AREAS WEREMEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OEVAT1ON OF ANY MANMADE SURFACESTRUCTURE (E.G. ASPHALT. CONCRETE).
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE720-732 GRAND STREET. HOBOKEN. NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
SOIL EXCAVATION DELINEATIONAND SAMPLING RESULTS
BBL
<Q<
J I8th STREET
LEGtND:
PROPERTY UNE
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
CHAIN LINK FENCE LINE
BOARD ON BOARD FENCE UNE
STOCKADE FENCE UNE
CATCH BASIN
UTILITY POLE
AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL REMOVED. NUMBER INEXCAVATION AREA IS THE DEPTH OF REMOVAL(IN FEET) AS MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOMELEVATION OF ANY UANMADE SURFACESTRUCTURE (E.C.. CONCRETE)
2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
i «*EAL EXTENT OF SOU. REMOVED WAS BASED ON SSL'S RESULTS FROU THESOIL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 1989 AND THE ADDITIONALSOIL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN 2001.
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE720-732 GRAND STREET. HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ANDPERIMETER AREA SOIL
EXCAVATION DELINEATION
BBL
8th STREETCONCRETE CURB
(-0,36)
ro
OII
o:O
<* - J A—1- *-
0.3(0.24)
LEGEND:
CHAIN UNK FENCE (JNE
STORM SEWER INLET
OEANOUT
UTILITY POLE
MONITORING WELL
POLWINYL CHLOWDt PIPE
flPOUNDWAITB ELEVATION
QftOUMDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
1. DRAWING BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY JAUES M STEWART. INCJANUARY U. JQO5. TOPOGRAPMIC SURVtf BASED CM:VERTICAL DATUM - NAVDB8HORIZONTAL DATUM - NEW JERSEY STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM NADB3.
3. ELEVATIONS PRESENTED IN FEET ABO\t MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL).
DURING THE JANUARY J005 SURVEY. JAMES M. STEWART. INC, OBSERVED THAT THEELEVATION Of THE CONTROL MONUMENT (NJCS f42W) DOES HOT COMPARE *TH ACPS OBSERVATION TO CONTINUOUSLY OPERMIQM REFERENCE STATION (COBS) NJ12SHK1. ZHY1 8> 1.32 FtET. DOE 1O OETEWCflATEO CCKO1T10M OF THE NX1S f*3iOSINCE 2000. THE DATUM SHOWN WAS ADJUSTED TO MEET THE CORS OBSERVATION.
THIS ORAMNO IS THE PROPERTY OF BLASLAND. BOUCX * UEINC AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR ALTERED IN WHOLE OR INPART WTHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BLASLANOBOUCK * LEE, INC.
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE720-732 GRAND STREET, HOBOKEN. NEW JERSEY
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONCONTOUR MAP DECEMBER 16, 2004
BBU FIGURE
6
NOTICE ABOUT OVERSIZED MAP
THIS MAP CAN BE FOUND IN THE SITE FILE LOCATED AT: U.S. EPA SUPERFUND RECORDSCENTER, 290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR, NY, NY 10007. TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO VIEW THE
MATERIAL PLEASE CONTACT THE RECORD CENTER AT (212) 637-4308.
»WttT SON
MOTES.
I. DRAWMC BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY PREPAID) BY JAMES uSTEWART. MC. JANU«Y 13. 2000. TOPOGRAPHIC 5U«lCr BASED 0*VERTICAL DATUM - NAVOMHORIZONTAL DATUM ' ICW JERSEY STAR PLAJC COOKONAICSYSTEM NADU.
i ELEVATIONS PRESENTED M FttT ABO* MEAN SEA LMl (US.).
1 SumCr BENCHMARK: NEW JERSEY MONUMENT ftlK, IUVATKM:4 to (NAWM) NCAA TNC CORK* V »IH STRICT AM) MADISONSTREEt M HOBOKCN. NCV JOSCT.
4. OUMNC THE JANUARr 2009 5URICT, JAMCS M. STEWART. MC.CBSOtvCO THAT THE E1£VATKM Or THE OMTROL MCMJMCNT (XJCSH2X» DOCS NOT COUPUS NTH A CP5 OBSCRVATKM TOCONTINUOUSLY OPCftATON RCfCRCHCC STATION (COOS) NJt2, SHK1.ZNrt BV 1.32 FEET. OUC TO OCTCRIOAATtO CONOtTION OF THE NJCSf«23O SINCE 2OOO. THE DATUM fiHOVM WAS ADJUSTED TO UECT THECORS OBSERVATION.
9. THIS DRAWWC IS THE PROPERTY Or 0LASL.AMD, BOUCK * LEf.»4C . AMD WAT NOT Bt REPROOUCEO OR ALTERED M WHOLE OR INPART KTHOUT THE DPRCSS WlTTE* PERMISSION Of BLASLAM).BOUCK * LEE. HC
MCOKO MAWMMID M BCIT Cf OUR K
«C MOCCT AS
•LAM-AMD. MUCK « L£E. MC.
I DRAWINO: HAM FROM ORAWMO NO. 1. TRACER MO. C/404nO02/RAR/CONTRACT/404«1GOU)WO. DATED J/t/OSI
, »^I BOUCIf fc i£E. MC.
CRAND STREET MERCURY SITE. 720-7M GRAND STREET • HOBOKEN. NEW JERSEYREMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
720-732 GRAND STREET FEATURES MAP Botond. BOCK* * lM. *KCwpwoU M«<xhj>j«l«fm672J Towpo^ ROCK)SITOCUM. NY li2U3{S-4*6-9I20
RD-1
NOTICE ABOUT OVERSIZED MAP
THIS MAP CAN BE FOUND IN THE SITE FILE LOCATED AT: U.S. EPA SUPERFUND RECORDSCENTER, 290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR, NY, NY 10007. TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO VIEW THE
MATERIAL PLEASE CONTACT THE RECORD CENTER AT (212) 637-4308.
7» GRAND STRUT(RE9DENCE)
uufAKc mm * GPS OBSEHVAIXM to ctMmuou&rOfOUIKH RCFtKDKC STABON (COBS) NJI2. MCI,Bin BY I.JJ TOT DUE TO DETERIORATED CONOITKMOF THE *JM ««'J» «•«•* ~>™1 ~ -•-- ——«.. HI I..M .H... i»i. •«/ WKIUOWfAILU IAMUTK)OF DC NXS HIX SMCX 2000. Wt OATUU SHOW
> ADJUSTOI ID MEET THE CODS OBSERVAnON.•AS ,
•D DdAOima MADt FROM OKAWmO NO. 1, TRACE* MO. C/«O4«<OO2/tlAJ>/CO<m>ACT/«O4»KM2J>Wa. DATED
IMC ORAMHC IS THE fOfffXn Of BLASLAW. BOUCX4 l£E. MC. ANO KAY NOT BC RCPSOOOCEO ORALTERED M MOLE OR M PART MTHOUT THE Ctf«ESSwrit* pcRutsaONBOUCX * LEE, MC.
KCOm
BLREMEDIAL ACTION REPORT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FEATURES MAPMARCH 2OO5
aoMond. Bauck * LCorparoU H«o<k)i*rtw672J To^wth RoodSVOCUM. NY tui4315- 446-9120
RD-2