&ERA
United States
Environmental Protection	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Agency	Washington, DC 20460	September 2014
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule - Pierson's Creek

-------
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule
Pierson's Creek
September 2014
Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460

-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary	iii
Introduction	iv
Background of the NPL	iv
Development of the NPL	iv
Hazard Ranking System	v
Other Mechanisms for Listing	vi
Organization of this Document	vi
Glossary	vii
1.	List of Commenters and Correspondence	1
2.	Site Description	2
3.	Summary of Comments	5
3.1	Support for Listing	6
3.2	Request for Extension of Comment Period	7
3.3	Adequacy of Documentation	7
3.4	Definition of Site	8
3.5	Liability	9
3.6	Site Name	10
3.7	Purpose of Listing/Alternatives to Listing	11
3.8	Delay Listing	12
3.9	Delay in Cleanup	13
3.10	Socio-Economic Impact	13
3.11	Potential Future State Requirement	15
3.12	Consistency with Guidance	15
3.13	Danger to Human Health and the Environment	 15
3.14	Hazardous Waste Quantity	17
3.14.1	TierB -Hazardous WastestreamQuantity	21
3.14.2	Tier B - Data Extrapolation - Consistency with Guidance	26
3.14.3	Tier A - Hazardous Constituent Quantity Based on Sediment Data	27
3.15	Likelihood of Release - Current Release	28
3.16	Likelihood of Release - Attribution	30
3.17	Human Food Chain Threat: Food Chain Individual	34
3.18	Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands	38
3.18.1	Wetland Frontage	38
3.18.2	Documentation of Wetland Delineation	44
3.18.3	NJDEP Designation of Pierson's Creek	45
3.19	Consideration of Revisions in Mercury River Persistence Value	46
3.20	HRS Score	47
4.	Conclusion	50
l

-------
Attachment 1	Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup and Disposal Plan, February 29, 2012
Attachment 2	Wetland Delineation Report, June 2014
Attachment 3	Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation - Line Verification, November 21,
2006
li

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Executive Summary
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.
This document provides responses to public comments received on the Pierson's Creek site, proposed on
December 12, 2013 (78 FR 75534). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under EPA's
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2014.
in

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Introduction
This document explains the rationale for adding the Pierson's Creek site in Newark, New Jersey to the National
Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and provides responses to public comments received
on this site listing proposal. The EPA proposed this site to the NPL on December 12, 2013 (78 FR 75534). This
site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule
published in the Federal Register in September 2014.
Background of the NPL
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180),
pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further
revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth
guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in
response to SARA.
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include
criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United
States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account
the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.
Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a
short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in nature and
involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101).
Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP
(47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in
response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to
prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.
An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score
of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested
by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on May 12, 2014 (79 FR
26853). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most
recent proposal was on May 12, 2014 (79 FR 26922).
Development of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
IV

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public
those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a
facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or
operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to
any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions
will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.
The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is
intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and
extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-
financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA
believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are
identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed
remedial action.
CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain
enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to
use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain
types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later
determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider
placing them on the NPL.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically
based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations ~ the preliminary assessment and
site inspection — to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS
scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the
information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of
contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not
necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in
some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more
detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.
The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to
factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories.
Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:
•	likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the
environment;
•	characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and
•	people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
•	Ground Water Migration (Sgw)
- drinking water
v

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
•	Surface Water Migration (Ssw)
The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and
ground water to surface water.
-	drinking water
-	human food chain
-	sensitive environments
•	Soil Exposure (Ss)
-	resident population
-	nearby population
-	sensitive environments
•	Air Migration (Sa)
-	population
-	sensitive environments
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using
the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100:
If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only
one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous
sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can
contaminate drinking water wells, but ~ if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile
-- not surface water or air.
Other Mechanisms for Listing
There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these
mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one
site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:
•	Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has
issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;
•	EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
•	EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency
removal authority to respond to the site.
Organization of this Document
The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of the
Pierson's Creek site on December 12, 2013 (78 FR 75534). The site discussion begins with a list of commenters,
followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding
statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.
VI

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Glossary
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:
%	Percent
Agency	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ASD/PDC	Albert Steel Drum/Prentiss Drug Company
ATSDR	Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CCNJ	Chemistry Council of New Jersey
CI AN J	Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey
CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42
U.S.C. Sections 9601 etseq., also known as Superfund
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
D.C. Cir	United States Court of Appeals - District of Columbia Circuit
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR	Federal Register
HRS	Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP
HRS score	Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100
ID	Identification
Inc.	Incorporated
LLC	Limited Liability Corporation
MCCC	Morris County Chamber of Commerce
mg/kg	Milligram per kilogram
NCP	National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300
NJ	New Jersey
N JBIA	New Jersey Business and Industry Association
N JDEP	New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NOV/OOS	Notice of Violation and Offer of Settlement
NPL	National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP
NS	Not scored
NY	New York
OSMIP	Office of Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment
OSWER	U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
p.	Page
pp.	Pages
PPE	Probably Point of Entry
PRP	Potentially Responsible Party
vii

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
PVSC
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission
Rl
Remedial Investigation
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCDM
Superfund Chemical Data Matrix
TAL
Target Analyte List
TCL
Target Compound List
TDL
Target Distance Limit
WWTP
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Vlll

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
1. List of Commenters and Correspondence
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0004
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0005
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0006
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0007
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0008
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0009
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0011
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0012
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0013
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0014
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0015
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0016
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0017
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013 -0635-0018
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0019
Correspondence, dated August 9, 2011, from Bob Martin,
Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.
Comment, dated January 7, 2014, from Cynthia Taub, Steptoe &
Johnson LLP on behalf of Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
Correspondence, undated, posted January 14, 2014, from Terry
Jeng, OSWER/OSRTI/ARD/SARDB.
Correspondence, dated January 13, 2014, from Douglas Ammon,
Chief, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch.
Correspondence, dated January 14, 2014, from Ildefonso Acosta,
National Priorities List Coordinator - Region 2.
Comment, dated January 28, 2014, from Rodney P.
Frelinghuysen, Eleventh District, New Jersey, United States
House of Representatives.
Comment, dated January 29, 2014, from the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 560.
Comment, dated January 30, 2014, from Hal Bozarth, Chemistry
Council of New Jersey.
Comment, dated February 19, 2014, from Blonnie R. Watson,
President, Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of Essex
Comment, dated February 18, 2014, from Joe Pennacchio,
Twenty-Sixth District, New Jersey State Senate.
Comment, dated March 12, 2014, from Ronald L. Rice, Twenty-
Eighth District, New Jersey State Senate.
Comment, dated March 18, 2014, from Louis D. Greenwald,
Majority Leader, New Jersey General Assembly.
Comment, dated February 10, 2014, from Paul A. Boudreau,
President, Morris County Chamber of Commerce.
Comment, dated February 11, 2014, from John Galandak,
President, Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey.
Comment, dated March 24, 2014, from Melanie Willoughby,
Acting President, New Jersey Business & Industry Association.
Comment, dated March 20, 2014, from Deborah Mans, NY/NJ
Baykeeper, and Bill Sheehan, Hackensack Riverkeeper.
1

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013 -063 5 -0020
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013 -063 5 -0021
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0022
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0023
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0024
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0025
2. Site Description
Comment, dated January 29, 2014, from Anthony R. Bucco,
Twenty-Fifth District, New Jersey State Senate.
Comment, dated March 27, 2014, and attachment, from Cynthia
Taub, Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of Troy Chemical
Corporation, Inc.
Comment, dated March 27, 2014, from Marcie R. Horowitz,
Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., on behalf of 429
Delancy Associates LLC.
Comment, dated March 27, 2014, from Francis J. Giantomasi,
Esq., Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster LLC, representing
Troy Chemical Corporation.
Comment, dated March 27, 2014, from Rocco Ruggiero, Public
Commenter.
Comment, dated March 24, 2014, from Melanie Willoughby,
Acting President, New Jersey Business & Industry Association.
The Pierson's Creek1 site (the Site) as scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal consists of mercury-
contaminated sediments in Pierson's Creek resulting from a historical release from a facility owned by Troy
Chemical Corporation2, located at One Avenue L, Newark, New Jersey. Pierson's Creek originates just south of
the Troy Chemical facility and flows through channels and culverts to Newark Bay located approximately 1.5
miles downstream of the facility (See Figure 1 of this support document).
The HRS Site score is based on the threat posed by the release of mercury to environmental targets in Pierson's
Creek and the potential threat from the release to the human food chain fishery in Newark Bay and environmental
targets in and along the New York-New Jersey Harbor and nearby water bodies. In October 2012, the EPA
conducted an investigation of Pierson's Creek documenting a release of mercury attributable to the former Troy
facility. Elevated sediment mercury concentrations in the Creek start at the discharge point just south from the
Troy Chemical facility and extend, for a distance of at least 0.25 mile downstream of the Troy Chemical facility.
The zone of mercury contamination includes approximately 0.15 mile of wetland frontage contiguous to Pierson's
Creek immediately downstream of the Troy Chemical facility. The wetland frontage within the zone of actual
contamination was delineated based on the presence of the wetland extending from the Conrail property north
across the 429 Delancy property to Delancy Street (see Figure 2 of this support document). In addition,
approximately 29 miles of wetland frontage downstream of the Site are evaluated as subject to potential
contamination.
1	At proposal, the site was named "Troy Chem Corp Inc" however, as discussed in section 3.6, Site Name, in this support
document, the site name has been changed at promulgation to Pierson's Creek.
2	Troy Chemical Company asserted that two different owners operated the Troy Chemical facility under the name "Troy
Chemical Corporation" during the period discussed in this support document. Accordingly, for purposes of this HRS
evaluation, when referring to any operation or action at the facility prior to June 1980 this support document refers to the
facility as the "former Troy facility." When referring to any operation or action at the facility post June 1980, this support
document refers to the facility as the "Troy facility" or "current Troy facility."
2

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
The release also threatens a human food chain fishery. Fishing for consumption has been reported at the 69th
Street American Veterans Memorial Pier, along the eastern edge of the Upper New York Bay, located
approximately 13 miles from the Site. The fishery is evaluated as subject to potential contamination. The Newark
Bay, which is part of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary sensitive environment identified under the
National Estuary Program, is also considered potentially threatened by the release of mercury and is evaluated as
subject to potential contamination.
Historically, Pierson's Creek originated north of the Site and flowed in a concrete channel through the Troy
Chemical facility. Pierson's Creek was joined south of the Troy property by an intermittent tributary that flowed
along the eastern portion of Troy Chemical property. In 2007, a rerouting of the City of Newark's stormwater
management system resulted in the perennial portion of Pierson's Creek emanating just south of the Troy
Chemical facility, where it receives stormwater from a box culvert as well as from the concrete channel
previously containing the northern portion of Pierson's Creek and the east ditch on the Troy property. The point
just south of the Troy Chemical facility where the perennial portion of Pierson's Creek now begins, is the
probable point of entry (PPE) to surface water from the facility, as evaluated in the HRS documentation record at
proposal. Due to the rerouting of Pierson's Creek in 2007, a shift in the location of the PPE to surface water may
have occurred.
The former and current Troy facilities (see footnote 2 of this support document) manufactured mercury
compounds from approximately 1956 until 1987. A mercuric oxide manufacturing process was reported to be the
primary source of mercury-bearing wastewater at the former Troy facility, accounting for approximately 7,000
gallons of wastewater per week. Spills and leaks from manufacturing processes involving mercury and cleaning
related to these processes were additional sources of mercury-bearing wastewater at the facility.
From 1956 until 1965, the former Troy facility discharged untreated mercury-bearing wastewater directly into
Pierson's Creek. Beginning in 1965 and continuing until 1976, a sulfide precipitation pretreatment was used to
treat mercury bearing wastewater generated from the former Troy facility prior to being discharged directly to
Pierson's Creek. In 1976, the Troy Chemical facility began discharging wastewater to the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commission (PVSC) sewer system. The facility also began diverting wastewater from the mercury
pretreatment system to a plant-wide wastewater treatment system, where wastewater was treated prior to
discharge to the PVSC sewer system.
Other releases of mercury-bearing wastewater from the facility to Pierson's Creek have been documented
following the facility's connection to the PVSC sewer system in 1976. An April 28, 1980, inspection completed
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) identified both stormwater and wastewater
entering Pierson's Creek and its tributary from runoff, pipes, cracks in the creek's concrete walls adjacent to a
Troy building and tank farm, and overflow from Troy's industrial wastewater collection sump. Analyses
completed on samples of these waters documented the presence of mercury within these waters.
3

-------
Pierson's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
1
2	Figure 1 - Map of the surface water pathway in Pierson's Creek. Map includes the zone of contamination,
3	wetland frontage, surface water and sediment sample locations and the location of the Troy Facility.
Troy Chemical
Facility
^ SW24
S, SD24A ,JR ™ "'fKi
» SD24B g SW21 3
g, . SD21A -vT
TB SD21B *3
SW17 m. n ¦
8017 A
SD17B
SW23
SD23A
SD23B
SW22
SD22A
SD22B
SW16
SD16A
SD16B
SD13A
SD13B
SW11
SD11A
SD11B
SW08
SD08A
SD08B
SW07
SD07A
SD07B

SW15

SD15A |

SD15B
* '"riTT-jf

' SW14

[ SD14A
1 SD14B
J/J


SW18 i

gj SD18A ;

SD18B r
SD14C(Dup)
SW13
SW29 Dup
SW09
SD09A
SDQ9B
Access Gate
r	-vv. —f
B mii ,
a swo4 EJwfc -», t .*
^/\ 5D04A X*',	'
SD04B %ff.. /' H ;'\
' ' '"'llr *-
#	' ti * ¦¦¦<*
5W01 Kl
SD01A "v /
SD01B >> £
SW05
SW03 (Dup)
SD05A
SD05C (Dup)
SD05B
SW02
SD02A
SDQ2B
SW27
SD27A
SD27B :
SW06
SD06A
SD06B
Graphic Scale In Feet
NOTE
1 All samples IDs are preceded fty "PC-"
SOURCES
1	N J Office of information Technology (N JOIT). Office of Geographic information
Systems (OGIS) New Jersey 2012 2013 High Resolution Ofthophotography.
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles March 2013
https /frlfgin stale nj.u5/NJ_N JG INExpk>rer/jview«»r jsp?pg=2012_Ortho Imagery
2	Rel 5. pp 10-40. 43-62. 6. pp 5-14
Sample Location
Access Gate
Zone of Contamination
Wetland Frontage
Pierson's Creek
Feeder Streams
1 (Unnamed Tributaries)
Facility Boundary
f PHOJIrCT
Troy Chem Corp Inc
Surface Water Pathway Zone of Contamination
Troy Chem Corp Inc
Newark, Essex County, NJ
August 2013
4

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
3. Summary of Comments
The NJDEP and one public commenter, the Hackensack Riverkeeper and NY/NJ Baykeeper, supported placing
the Site on the NPL. The main reasons for support of the placement of the Site on the NPL were concerns that
contamination associated with the Site may be posing human and ecological impacts, impacting water quality and
resulting in elevated levels of contaminants in fish.
A total of 16 commenters opposed placing the Site on the NPL, identifying concerns regarding HRS scoring
issues, perceived economic impacts, possible delays in the ongoing remediation at the Troy facility, and an
alleged lack of a threat posed by the Site to human health or the environment. The current Troy Chemical
Corporation, Inc. (Troy) opposed the placement of the Site on the NPL for several reasons, asserting the Pierson's
Creek Site did "not meet the criteria for NPL listing." Troy further commented that the proposed listing is
unwarranted due to the current remediation of the Site under a New Jersey state program. Troy asserted that the
proposed remedial actions pursuant to the state program eliminate "the 'surface water migration pathway' upon
which the proposed listing is based."
The Chemistry Council of New Jersey (CCNJ), Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey (CIANJ),
New Jersey Business and Industry Association (NJBIA), the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and New Jersey State
Senators, Anthony R. Bucco, Ronald L. Rice and Joe Pennacchio all commented in opposition of the proposed
NPL listing on the basis that Troy is already implementing environmental remediation at the Site and should be
allowed to complete its remedial actions. Troy, New Jersey State Senator Anthony R. Bucco, and Morris County
Chamber of Commerce (MCCC) asserted that there is no ongoing release.
Troy, CCNJ, and 429 Delancy expressed concern for perceived economic and stigmatizing effects of the proposed
NPL Listing of the Site, asserting the proposed NPL designation will stigmatize the area, hurt redevelopment
efforts, lower property values, cause businesses to rethink investing in nearby facilities and operations, and
unnecessarily stigmatize neighboring facilities.
Troy and other commenters asserted that EPA guidance was not followed in naming the Site. Troy commented
that the proposed Site name, Troy Chem Corp Inc, does not take into account the history of the drainage channel
and fails to consider the geographical context of Pierson's Creek. New Jersey State Senators Anthony R. Bucco,
Ronald L. Rice, and Joe Pennacchio commented that if the listing is to go final the Site name should be changed
to Pierson's Creek.
Troy submitted several other comments, alleging issues with aspects of the HRS scoring of the Site. In particular,
Troy challenged the hazardous waste quantity assigned and the delineation of the actually contaminated wetland.
Regarding the hazardous waste quantity, Troy asserted:
•	The quantity of hazardous wastewater discharged from the facility was overestimated.
•	The wastestream discharge rate used to evaluate the hazardous wastestream quantity was from the period
when the Former Site Owner discharged wastewater to the PVSC sewer system and not to Pierson's
Creek.
•	The 63 million pounds of wastewater discharged to Pierson's Creek during 1957-1976 as calculated by
the EPA was inaccurate because the filtrate from the mercuric oxide unit, from which the discharge rate
was derived, was only in operation during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
•	The EPA did not follow current EPA guidance in evaluating the hazardous wastestream quantity and
inappropriately extrapolated a single short-term wastestream discharge rate over many years.
Troy challenged the assignment of the food chain individual factor, commenting that mercury in Pierson's Creek
was not a threat to fisheries in Newark Bay and New York Harbor. Troy asserted that the HRS evaluation did not
5

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
take into consideration the implausibility of sediment and mercury migration into the Newark Bay and New York
Harbor from Pierson's Creek. Troy commented that mercury discharged to the Creek is contained in Creek
sediments due to rapid settling of mercury into sediments, low flow rates in the Creek, tidal gates at the mouth of
the Creek preventing tidal intrusions, and low water velocity within the Creek limiting sediment re-suspension.
Troy also asserted that sediment and mercury transport modeling indicated that the Creek was not a significant
source of mercury to Newark Bay or New York Harbor. Troy contended that due to the implausibility of sediment
and mercury transport from Pierson's Creek to Newark Bay or the New York Harbor, a food chain individual
factor is incorrectly scored.
Troy also questioned the adequacy of documentation included in the HRS package, commenting insufficient
documentation of the wetland delineation was provided to allow for Troy to "meaningfully comment on the
proposed listing." Troy and 429 Delancy both challenged the presence of wetlands contiguous to Pierson's Creek,
commenting that the stretch of Pierson's Creek along the 429 Delancy property has been designated as "state open
waters" by NJDEP, and that such designation means that stretch is not a wetland. Troy took further issue with the
wetland delineation along Pierson's Creek, commenting:
•	The wetland length contiguous to Pierson's Creek was overestimated.
•	One of the wetland evaluation soil boring locations (SB-9) should not have been classified as wetland.
•	SB-9 did not exhibit hydrophytic vegetation in excess of 50% of the total vegetation and, therefore, this
location does not meet HRS wetland criteria.
•	Inadequate information was provided in the HRS package to determine what the impact of the
mischaracterization of SB-9 would be on wetland length measurements.
Troy concluded that the HRS Site score was incorrectly calculated and the appropriate Site score did not meet or
exceed the standard for NPL listing of 28.50. Troy assigned a hazardous constituent quantity of 7,300 pounds,
resulting in a hazardous waste quantity of 100 and a waste characteristics value of 320. Troy also asserted that
there were no actually contaminated environmental targets or a fishery subject to contamination migrating from
Pierson's Creek, resulting in an appropriate Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component and Surface
Water Migration Pathway scores of 0.002, and resulting HRS Site score of 0.001.
3.1 Support for Listing
Comment: The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection nominated and supported the
placement of the Pierson's Creek site on the NPL, commenting that contamination associated with the Site had
reached "levels of concern for both human and ecological impacts." The Hackensack Riverkeeper and NY/NJ
Baykeeper submitted comments in support of placing the Site on the NPL in a timely manner. The Hackensack
Riverkeeper and NY/NJ Baykeeper commented that the EPA should place the entire Site on the NPL and stated
that subsequent remediation of the Site is necessary to restore ecological function, to address impacted water
quality resulting from contaminated sediments, and to mitigate the consumption of fish with elevated levels of
contaminants.
Response: The Pierson's Creek site is being added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action
funding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the
EPA will examine the Site to determine the appropriate response action(s). Actual funding may not necessarily be
undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores, however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be
necessary at all in some cases. The EPA will determine the need for using Superfund monies for remedial
activities on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State priorities, further site investigation,
other response alternatives, and other factors as appropriate.
6

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
3.2	Request for Extension of Comment Period
Comment: Several commenters requested an extension of the comment period for the Pierson's Creek site. On
January 7, 2014, Troy requested a 90-day extension of the comment period that would have ended on February
10, 2014. Several commenters subsequently asked for additional extensions to the comment period. Specifically,
the New Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader Louis Greenwald requested an additional 6-month extension
of the public comment period to allow Troy's current remediation actions to continue and to allow for review of
remediation progress made. Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster LLC and Rocco Ruggiero requested an additional
60-day extension of the comment period that would have ended on March 27, 2014, to allow submittal of
information on remediation related to the Site.
Response: On January 13, 2014, the EPA granted a 45-day extension of the comment period until March 27,
2014, to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments. The extension was documented in a
memorandum to the docket from Doug Ammon, Chief of the EPA Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions
Branch, dated January 13, 2014 (docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0007) and from Terry J eng. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, on January 14. 2014 (docket ID EPA-IIQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0006). The
extension was also documented in a letter to Ms. Nicole Sullivan from Ildefonso Acosta, EPA Region 2 -
National Priorities List Coordinator, dated January 14. 2014 (docket ID EPA-I IQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0008).
The EPA considered that the 45-day extension allowed ample opportunity for public comment. Requests to
extend the comment period for an additional 60 days or 6 months to allow for delivery of ongoing remediation
information were not granted. As discussed in section 3.9, Delay in Cleanup, of this support document, all site
investigation work, as well as any remediation performed to date or currently proceeding will be considered in
other steps of the Superfund remediation process, such as when performing a Superfund risk assessment for the
Site. The request for an additional six-month extension of the comment period to allow remedial efforts to
continue unabated has not been granted. As discussed in section 3.8, Delay Listing, of this support document,
listing a site on the NPL is not delayed for negotiations to continue, and the listing does not prevent current or
ongoing remedial actions from continuing or being completed.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.3	Adequacy of Documentation
Comment: Troy commented that the EPA provided inadequate documentation related to the wetland delineation
and asserted that "[t]he failure to provide adequate information on where the borings were has deprived Troy of
the opportunity to meaningfully comment on this aspect of the proposed listing." Troy specifically requested a
map to show soil boring locations related to the delineation of wetlands scored as subject to Level II actual
contamination, and photographs documenting vegetation and soil conditions at these boring locations. Troy noted
that it is essential to the notice and comment process that the EPA "provide sufficient factual detail and rationale
for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully."
Response: The HRS docket for the Pierson's Creek site at the time of proposal was appropriate and sufficient for
the public to review and comment on the HRS evaluation of the Site and the proposed NPL listing. While the
EPA is adding information to the listing docket at promulgation, as identified in later sections of this support
document, the EPA has added this information to specifically address the issues raised in the comments. The
information added to the listing docket at promulgation only provides further support for the values assigned in
the HRS documentation record at proposal and does not result in any change to the HRS score or rationale or in
the decision to place the site on the NPL. Specific comments regarding the adequacy of wetland documentation
are addressed in Section 3.18.1, Wetland Frontage, and 3.18.2, Documentation of Wetland Delineation, of this
support document (which explain that the documentation in the HRS package at proposal was sufficient to verify
the wetlands frontage scored as subject to Level II actual contamination).
7

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.4 Definition of Site
Comment: Troy, CIANJ, CCNJ, NJBIA, the Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 560, and New Jersey State Senators
Anthony R. Bucco, Ronald L. Rice, and Joe Pennacchio made comments equating the Troy property or the
facility with the Pierson's Creek site. These commenters generally stated that the Troy "property" does not meet
the criteria for Superfund listing and that the contaminants on Troy's property are contained and are currently
being remediated. Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster, representing Troy Chemical Corporation, and Rocco
Ruggiero commented that the Site consists of Pierson's Creek and the surrounding properties.
Troy made many comments implying that the Troy property was the Site. For example, Troy commented that:
•	Because all of the sediments in the man-made concrete-lined channel on the Troy property have been
contained, the potential migration of contamination from the facility to downstream areas has been
eliminated.
•	The Site consists of sediments in Pierson's Creek rather than at the Troy facility.
•	The contamination on the Troy property is currently being remediated and the approved remedial plans
remove the technical basis for listing the Site.
New Jersey State Senators Ronald L. Rice and Joe Pennacchio similarly commented that the Troy property is
being remediated and mentioned that remediation within the boundaries of its current property should be
considered before listing.
The Hackensack Riverkeeper and NY/NJ Baykeeper further commented that EPA should not separate upland and
in-water portions of the Site and should place the entire Site on the NPL.
Response: Troy, CIANJ, CCNJ, NJBIA and the New Jersey State Senators, referenced above, incorrectly identify
the "Site" to be the Troy property. HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines the term "site" as:
area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has
otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources, and may include the area
between the sources.
As also explained in the proposed rule to add the Troy Chem Corp Inc site to the NPL (78 FR 75534), a site is not
defined by facility or property boundaries during an HRS evaluation. Specifically, page 75537 of NPL Proposed
Rule No. 59, published December 12, 2013 clarifies that:
[T]he NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and
the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the "boundaries" of the site. Rather,
the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any
other location where that contamination has come to be located or from where that contamination
came.
This definition of site is consistent with CERCLA. CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A) requires the EPA to list
national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is
on the release, not precisely delineated property boundaries. Further, CERCLA Section 101(b) defines a "facility"
as the "site" where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located."
The "come to be located" language gives the EPA broad authority to clean up contamination when it has spread
from the original source. On March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13298), the EPA stated:
8

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that
a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, the EPA contemplates that
the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will need to be refined
and improved as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be
located; this refining step generally comes during the RI/FS stage.
Furthermore, the HRS documentation record at proposal does not state that the Troy facility itself is the site;
rather, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 15 states that the "site as scored consists of sediments
in Pierson's Creek contaminated with mercury as a result of the historical releases from the chemical
manufacturing facility located at One Avenue L." Therefore, the HRS "site" evaluated is not associated with
property or facility boundaries and the Pierson's Creek site is not confined to the Troy property boundaries;
similarly, the Site is not separated into upland or in-water portions and is evaluated consistently with the HRS
definition of a site as quoted above in this section.
The Agency notes however, that the full extent of a "Site" for Superfund purposes is not determined at the time of
listing. Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation, in accordance with the HRS, of a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. That the EPA initially identifies and lists the release
based on a review of contamination at a certain parcel of property does not necessarily mean that the site
boundaries are limited to that parcel.
Until the site investigation process has been completed and a remedial action (if any) selected, the EPA can
neither estimate the extent of contamination at the site, nor describe the ultimate dimensions of the NPL site. Even
during a remedial action, such as removing contaminated soils or sediments, the EPA may find that the
contamination has spread further than previously estimated, or is not as extensive as estimated and the site
definition may be correspondingly changed.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.5 Liability
Comment: Several commenters discussed issues dealing with possible liability issues for the Site contamination
and remedial costs. Troy commented that there were many contributors to the contamination identified in
Pierson's Creek and not just contamination that originated from the Troy property. Troy commented that any
operations, discharges, or releases prior to June 1980 are not the responsibility of the current Troy Chemical
facility and at no point during current Troy's ownership has the facility been a source of mercury contamination
to Pierson's Creek. Troy commented that naming the Site after Troy Chemical implies Troy is responsible and
will confuse the public as to who is responsible for the contamination in Pierson's Creek.
Similarly, 429 Delancy, the MCCC, CCNJ, and New Jersey State Senators Anthony R. Bucco, Joe Pennacchio
and Ronald L. Rice commented that there were multiple upstream contributors to the current condition of the
contamination in Pierson's Creek and it is unfair to single out Troy when numerous other facilities contributed to
the contamination. MCCC and CCNJ further commented that the EPA is unfairly implying that the current Troy
has a majority of the responsibility for the contamination in the Creek.
Response: In as much as these comments concern liability for the mercury contamination at the Pierson's Creek
site, liability is not considered when evaluating a site under the HRS, nor is liability established or apportioned
based on the decision to place a site on the NPL. The NPL serves primarily as an informational tool for use by the
EPA in identifying those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment. It does
not reflect a judgment on the activities of the owner(s) or operator(s) of a site. It does not require those persons to
undertake any action, nor does it assign any liability to any person. This position, stated in the legislative history
of CERCLA, has been explained more fully in the Federal Register (48 FR 40759, September 8, 1983 and 53 FR
9

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
23988, June 24, 1988). See Kent County v. EPA. 963 F.2d 391 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Specific comments regarding to
other scoring factors and other possible sources are addressed in other sections of this support document.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.6 Site Name
Comment: Troy, MCCC, Teamsters Local 560, CCNJ and CIANJ all commented that the Site name should be
changed to Pierson's Creek. US Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen requested that the EPA consider alternative
names for the Site, including the suggested name, "Pierson's Creek." New Jersey State Senators Anthony R.
Bucco, Ronald L. Rice, and Joe Pennacchio also commented that if the listing is to go final the Site name should
be changed to Pierson's Creek.
Troy asserted that the proposed name, Troy Chem Corp Inc, failed to consider the history of the drainage channel
and fails to consider the geographical context of Pierson's Creek. Troy claimed that the Troy facility is no longer
a source of contaminants and at no point during its ownership has the present facility been a source of mercury
contamination to Pierson's Creek; therefore, naming the Site after Troy implies that Troy is responsible and
confuses the public.
Troy and CCNJ contended that the Creek has been impacted by numerous industrial facilities over the decades,
and as a result the EPA should designate a geographical name for the Site rather than single out one entity. Troy
commented that EPA's guidance states that if the principal operator cannot be definitely identified or if there are
more than three potentially responsible parties, then it is appropriate to assign a geographical name.
Troy commented that the HRS documentation record indicates that the Site consists of sediments in Pierson's
Creek, rather than at the Troy facility. Troy argued that the listing states that the primary purpose of the name is to
provide geographical context, but naming the Site Troy Chem Corp Inc fails to do so. Because the Site was
proposed based on contamination in downstream Creek sediments rather than the Troy facility, Troy asserted that
the Site's name fails to identify the geographic location of the contamination and suggests naming the Site
"Pierson's Creek."
Troy claimed that the proposed name does not inform the public of the primarily responsible parties, and misleads
the public to believe that the current Troy facility is responsible for the contamination. Troy commented that the
current Troy facility was not involved in historical discharges of mercury process waters into the Creek. Further,
Troy commented that while EPA guidelines suggest naming a site after what "appears to be the primary source(s)
of the problems at the site," naming the Site Troy Chem Corp Inc is unfair because the alleged primary source is
no longer in existence, and another entity now carries the Troy name.
Troy commented that the Site is commonly known as Pierson's Creek and noted that the State of New Jersey
refers to the Site as Pierson's Creek. Troy noted that EPA guidance3 states "if the site is widely known by another
name ... the public interest may be best served by assigning that name . . ." Troy stated that the Site is better
known as Pierson's Creek. Troy, MCCC, Teamsters Local 560, CCNJ, and CIANJ commented that the Site
should be named Pierson's Creek to correctly inform the public of the Site's geographical location and to avoid
unfairly implying that the current Troy Corporation is responsible for the contamination.
Response: The Site name has been changed to Pierson's Creek at promulgation. The HRS documentation record
at promulgation has been revised to reflect this change. For the limited purpose of the NPL, as stated in RSR
Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency No. 95-1559 (D.C. Cir. 1997), when naming a site, the "EPA
prefers names that accurately reflect the location or nature of the problems at a site and that are readily and easily
3 Troy cites OSWER Directive 9345.1-08, Regional Quality Control Guidance for NPL Candidate Sites, Appendix F,
December 26, 1991.
10

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
associated with the site by the general public" and "listing does not require any action of any private party, nor
does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site." Accordingly, a primary purpose of a
NPL listing is to inform the public that the EPA has determined that a site warrants further investigation, and the
new name in this rulemaking adequately satisfies that purpose.
It is important to note that the name of the Site is not considered as part of the HRS evaluation and changing the
Site name does not impact the Site score or the decision to place the Site on the NPL. Further, the change in Site
name does not impact the definition of the Site or change the source(s) associated with the Site as established in
the HRS documentation record at proposal. As noted above in section 3.4, Definition of Site, of this support
document, the Site consists of sediments contaminated with mercury as a result of the historical release of
mercury from the former Troy facility. Nothing submitted by the commenters refutes or disproves that historic
releases of mercury occurred at the Site and remain at the Site. The Site evaluation is not based on releases from
other facilities; however, the full extent of contamination and site boundaries are not known at the time of NPL
listing, nor has liability been assigned at this point.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.7 Purpose of Listing/Alternatives to Listing
Comment: Several commenters questioned the need for placing the Site on the NPL, pointing to existing levels of
investigation completed, and currently implemented/planned remediation efforts. Troy stated that at this site,
"further investigation is unwarranted, as the Troy site and surrounding area has been thoroughly investigated and
the results well-documented." Troy further commented that placing the Site on the NPL is unnecessary because it
would duplicate efforts that have already been undertaken at the Site that were approved by NJDEP and the EPA.
Troy commented that the contamination at the "Site" is currently being remediated under the State of New
Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act and the New Jersey Site Remediation Reform Act to address
contaminated sediments on Troy property as well as in portions of Pierson's Creek and placing the Site on the
NPL is unwarranted and unnecessary. Troy asserted that EPA should reconsider the proposed listing to conserve
EPA's resources for sites that truly warrant an NPL listing. Troy summarized the status of the ongoing remedial
actions at the Site and claimed that the proposed remedial actions eliminate any potential migration from the
facility to downstream areas and "eliminates the 'surface water migration pathway' upon which the proposed
listing is based."
CCNJ, CIANJ, NJBIA, the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and New Jersey State Senators, Anthony R. Bucco,
Ronald L. Rice, and Joe Pennacchio all commented that Troy is already implementing environmental remediation
at the Site and should be allowed to complete its remedial actions and protect public health and the environment.
State Senator Rice stated that "Troy should be provided a reasonable timeframe to implement its plan under the
direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection" and EPA can re-evaluate the Site after
remedial efforts are completed.
Further, the NJBIA commented that corporate citizens should not be discouraged from voluntary clean-up efforts.
429 Delancy urged the USEPA and the NJDEP to work together to craft a practical, streamlined approach to
addressing the contamination in Pierson's Creek.
Response: Listing the Site on the NPL is an appropriate step in the Superfund process, and an HRS site score
above 28.50 represents the EPA's determination that the Site poses a risk relative to other sites evaluated under
the HRS and may warrant further action. The EPA has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites where
releases of substances addressed under CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites on the NPL,
evaluating the nature and extent of the threats at such sites, responding to those threats, and deleting sites from the
NPL. The purpose of the initial two steps (identifying sites where releases of substances addressed under
CERCLA have occurred, or may occur and placing such sites on the NPL) is to develop the NPL, which identifies
11

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
for the States and the public those sites that appear to warrant remedial action. This site has been through these
steps in the process and may warrant further action
Troy, as well as any other potentially response party (PRP) or member of the public, may affect the remedy
selection through the public comment process, and listing a site on the NPL does not prevent a PRP or another
entity from undertaking voluntary response actions. The EPA makes decisions during all stages of the procedure.
However, PRPs may also undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA
supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities
of CERCLA or those of other statutes). The listing process does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering
into these agreements. The EPA has entered into such agreements between proposal and promulgation at other
sites, and such an alternative is available to Troy.
Regarding assertions that Troy's future planned remedial actions should be considered prior to listing the Site on
the NPL, future remedial actions are not considered during the HRS evaluation of a site, as the HRS site score is
based on current conditions. Part III Section Q of the Preamble to the HRS, Consideration of Removal Actions
(Current Versus Initial Conditions, 55 FR 51568, December 14,1990), explains that the "EPA will evaluate a site
based on current conditions provided that response actions actually have removed waste from the site..." As
proposed future actions, such as those outlined by Troy, have not removed the contamination from the site, they
are not considered in an HRS evaluation. Moreover, mercury contaminated sediments are still present at the Site,
as documented by the results of sampling completed by EPA in October 2012 as part of the HRS evaluation, and
as explained below in section 3.13, Danger to Human Health and the Environment, of this support document, an
HRS site score above 28.50 represents EPA's determination that the Site may pose a relative risk to human health
and the environment.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.8	Delay Listing
Comment: New Jersey State Senators Anthony R. Bucco and Joe Pennacchio, CIANJ, and the Board of Chosen
Freeholders commented that the EPA should delay listing the Site to allow for state and federal officials to
thoroughly review and analyze the ongoing remediation efforts. (CIANJ and the Board of Chosen Freeholders
requested a minimum six-month delay in listing.)
Response: Placing a site on the NPL is not delayed to allow negotiations regarding response actions or ongoing
response actions to be completed. Proceeding with the listing process need not inhibit efforts to determine
response actions or carry out currently planned response actions. If any designated PRP wishes to expedite
cleanup efforts, it may continue negotiations with the EPA and undertake removal actions under supervision of
the EPA and pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of
CERCLA or those of other statutes). Placing a site on the NPL does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering
into these agreements. The EPA has entered into such agreements before and after a site's promulgation to the
NPL, and such an alternative is available to others. Furthermore, NJDEP has supported moving forward with
placement on the NPL at the present time (see August 9, 2011 correspondence from NJDEP, docket ID EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2013 -063 5 -0004).
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.9	Delay in Cleanup
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that listing the Site on the NPL would cause delay in currently
planned remedial actions. Troy commented that listing the Site would serve no purpose other than to delay the
ongoing remedial efforts and hinder redevelopment. Troy and CCNJ commented that adding the Site to the NPL
12

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
would add layers of federal approvals and indefinitely delay the remediation that is otherwise set to be completed
within the next year. Troy stated that only by withdrawing the proposed listing can "current remediation of
Pierson's Creek be completed on a timely basis." Additionally, New Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader
Louis D. Greenwald commented that remedial efforts currently underway at the Site must be allowed to continue
without delay. Majority Leader Greenwald added that Troy is poised to have its remedial actions completed by
2015, and that adding Superfund status to the Site could add 10 or more years to the cleanup effort.
NJBIA, 429 Delancy, CCNJ, and the Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 560 commented that placing the Troy site
on the NPL would impose cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming administrative requirements that would
require additional resources and would impede both the current cleanup process and future efforts of other
downstream owners to redevelop their own properties.
Response: Commenters' concerns that listing would delay cleanup or plans for redevelopment of the property or
other downstream properties, are unfounded. Placement of the Site on the NPL does not necessarily lead to delay
of planned response actions or associated negotiations. All site investigation work, as well as any remediation
undertaken by Troy performed to date and that which is currently proceeding will be considered in other steps of
the Superfund remediation process, such as when performing a Superfund risk assessment for the Site. Then,
based on the findings of the risk assessment, a determination of what further remedial actions, if any, are
necessary will be made.
Furthermore, as explained in section 3.7, Purpose of Listing/Alternatives to Listing, of this support document,
listing does not prevent PRPs from undertaking response actions if a PRP desires to expedite cleanup efforts.
Further, regarding commenters' concerns that listing would result in a costly process delaying cleanup, the
addition of a site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup efforts (in addition to the
potential for Federally financed remedial actions). Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States
increased support for funding responses at particular sites.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.10 Socio-Economic Impact
Comment: Troy commented that besides being disparaging to Troy, the proposed NPL designation will stigmatize
the area, cause economic and reputational harm to Troy, hurt redevelopment efforts in the Ironbound District,
lower property values, and cause businesses to rethink investing in nearby facilities and operations.
Commenter 429 Delancy commented that EPA has previously downplayed the potential role of stigma at a typical
NPL site, but that NPL listing may indeed have stigmatizing effects on downstream properties Similarly, CCNJ
argued against NPL listing based on concerns that the Site and neighboring facilities will be unnecessarily
impacted by the stigma of an NPL listing. Troy commented that because "Pierson's Creek is already being
remediated, the NPL listing will serve no purpose other than to stigmatize the area."
Additionally, Troy, NJBIA, CCNJ, 429 Delancy, and New Jersey State Senator Ronald L. Rice commented that
placement of the Site on the NPL would impede the cleanup process, hinder the redevelopment of the Ironbound
District, discourage businesses from investing in nearby facilities and operations, and jeopardize future
manufacturing opportunities in the area. New Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald,
New Jersey State Senators Ronald L. Rice and Anthony R. Bucco, CIANJ, and the Board of Chosen Freeholders
commented that listing the facility as a Superfund site would have an adverse effect on Troy's future business,
hurt the economic well-being of the County, and would only serve to harm the employees and the city of Newark.
New Jersey State Senators Anthony R. Bucco and CIANJ also commented that singling out Troy, which has spent
resources addressing contamination, is unfair and will lead to adverse impacts to the future business of Troy as
well as other companies.
13

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Troy, New Jersey State Senator Ronald L. Rice, and CCNJ commented that placing the Site on the NPL would
lower property values in the area. New Jersey State Senator Ronald L. Rice also commented that placing the site
on the NPL would lead to greater property tax appeals due to reduced property values and ultimately a reduction
in tax revenue.
Additionally, CCNJ commented that placing the Site on the NPL will increase the time frame and costs for
completing remedial actions. Troy, CCNJ, NJBIA, CIANJ, the New Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader
Louis D. Greenwald, and New Jersey State Senators Anthony R. Bucco and Ronald L. Rice all commented that
Troy has already invested significant time and resources into developing a remediation plan to specifically
address the mercury and other contamination in the concrete-lined ditch and portions of Pierson's Creek. New
Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald commented that CERCLA is a cost-prohibitive
process for a company that is already performing environmental remediation. Commenters 429 Delancy and
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 506 stated that listing the Site on the NPL would impose cumbersome, costly,
and time-consuming administrative and other requirements that only serves to harm Troy financially.
Response: Economic factors such as those raised by the commenter are generally not considered in the assessment
of whether a site belongs on the NPL based on an HRS evaluation. Inclusion of a site or facility on the NPL does
not in itself reflect a judgment on the activities of the owner(s) or operator(s), but rather reflects the EPA's
judgment that a significant release or threat of release has occurred and that the site is a priority for further
investigation under CERCLA. The EPA notes that there are both costs and benefits that can be associated with
listing a site. Any negative impacts noted by the above commenters would be engendered by the contamination in
the area, not the result of placing the site on the NPL. Among the benefits are increased health and environmental
protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for Federally
financed remedial actions, the addition of a site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup
efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at
particular sites. As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high-risk
chemicals, and higher quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any
perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or development opportunities that may result from
contamination may also be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and any necessary
cleanup are completed.
Regarding commenters' concerns that listing the Site on the NPL would increase costs associated with
remediation, the discussion of costs in NPL rules in the Federal Register clearly states that including a site on the
NPL does not cause the EPA necessarily to undertake remedial action; it does not require any action by a private
party, nor does it assign liability for site response costs (56 FR 21462, May 9, 1991). The cost discussion outlines
the EPA's perception of average potential costs per site that may occur in association with events generally
following the proposed listing of a site. Any EPA actions that may impose costs on parties are based on
discretionary decisions and are made on a case-by-case basis. Also, responsible parties may bear some or all the
costs of the RI/FS and subsequent work, or the costs may be shared by the EPA and the States. Therefore,
expenditures cited by the commenter are associated with events that generally follow listing the site, not with the
listing itself. The EPA has not allocated costs for this site at this time.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.11 Potential Future State Requirement
Comment: New Jersey General Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald commented that new legislation
in New Jersey that has passed the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee would require a public
hearing prior to recommending a site for inclusion on the federal Superfund list.
Response: This comment has no effect on the decision to list the Site on the NPL. And, this possible State
legislation imposes no additional requirements on the current NPL listing decision. If Majority Leader Greenwald
14

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
is implying that this site should not be listed until this law is in place, the EPA notes that this comment is not
germane to the NPL listing decision at hand. Also, see section 3.8, Delay Listing, of this support document.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.12	Consistency with Guidance
Comment: Troy questioned whether EPA had followed relevant guidance in several aspects of the HRS
evaluation. Specifically, Troy commented that EPA guidance was not followed in naming the Site "Troy Chem
Corp Inc", estimating hazardous waste quantity, and delineating the wetland frontage, and asserted that HRS
guidance should have been followed. Troy asserted that because relevant guidance was not followed, the Site
should not be placed on the NPL.
Response: The EPA followed the HRS regulation to place the Site on the NPL. Furthermore, unlike the HRS
regulation itself, the HRS Guidance Manual is not a regulation and imposes no mandatory requirements on the
agency. Regardless, the Interim Final HRS Guidance Manual was also applied appropriately in the HRS
evaluation based on the facts and circumstances known to be present for this site at proposal; any variation in
applying the HRS Guidance Manual was carried out to reflect site-specific conditions. The HRS Guidance
Manual states that:
[t]he procedures set forth in this document are intended as guidance to employees of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and other government agencies. EPA officials
may decide to follow the guidance provided in this directive, or to act at variance with it, based
on analysis of specific site circumstances.
In evaluating whether a site merits NPL listing, the EPA complies with the HRS and uses the HRS Guidance
Manual as just that—guidance to determine how best to perform the HRS evaluation based on the facts or
circumstances presented at each site. The HRS Guidance Manual is consistent with the HRS (this was not
challenged by Troy) and the EPA has followed the HRS in scoring the Site and applied the HRS Guidance
Manual, as appropriate, depending on the facts presented by this site.
The technical aspects of these comments, are addressed in this support document in sections 3.6, Site Name; 3.14,
Hazardous Waste Quantity; and 3.18, Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands.
These comments result in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.13	Danger to Human Health and the Environment
Comment: Troy commented that placing the Site on the NPL is unnecessary because of currently implemented
and planned remediation actions related to the Troy property and portions of Pierson's Creek. Troy claimed that
the remedial actions being undertaken at the Site will eliminate "any potential migration" of contaminants and
therefore "eliminates the 'surface water migration pathway.'" Troy further commented that the EPA approved its
work plan.
Troy asserted that there is no threat to the fishery because it is implausible mercury will migrate from Pierson's
Creek through the Port Newark Channel to Newark Bay and New York Harbor and pose a future threat to any
fishery. Troy commented that the EPA assumed sediment and mercury from Pierson's Creek will migrate into
Newark Bay and New York Harbor, and that Troy considered the EPA assumption of the sediment fate and
transport characteristics in the Creek, the Bay, and the Harbor "contrary to known facts about mercury migration."
15

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
New Jersey State Senator Anthony R. Bucco and MCCC commented that the Site does not pose a risk to public
health and safety.
Response: Consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, the Site is being placed on the NPL based on an HRS
evaluation of the relative risk posed by a release of mercury to Pierson's Creek and the threat that the release
poses to downstream human food chain fisheries and wetland communities. Following listing, a site-specific risk
assessment may be performed to determine the actual risk posed by the release from the former Troy operations to
determine what remedial action, if any, is needed to protect human health and the environment. Troy's actions to
date do not address the mercury already released to Pierson's Creek. Neither CERCLA nor the NCP require that
the site contain a hazardous substance that is currently being released or that is currently migrating into the
environment to be considered for inclusion on the NPL. Additionally, as scored at proposal, the Site consists of
mercury released into Pierson's Creek from the operations at the former Troy facility; this mercury remains in
streambed sediments and continues to pose a threat to the environment. This contamination is sufficient to place
the site on the NPL as scored per the HRS.
Regarding the plan that EPA has approved for remedial actions being undertaken at the Troy facility, the plan
states that contamination in Pierson's Creek south of the facility will not be addressed as part of the actions.
Specifically, in Attachment 1 of this support document, the February 29, 2012, Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup
and Disposal Plan, Troy states that "remediation of these ditches [referring to Pierson's Creek to the immediate
south of the property and an unlined drainage ditch on the eastern edge of Troy's property] are not included in the
scope of work outlined herein." Hence, Troy has not demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk posed by the
historical release of mercury that remains in Pierson's Creek regardless of the current containment of
contaminants on the Troy facility.
The NPL is intended to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the risk
associated with the site; and, that the HRS evaluation and score above 28.50 represents EPA's determination that
the Site poses a risk to human health and the environment relative to other sites evaluated under the HRS. See 78
FR 75534 (Proposed Rule, Troy Chem Corp Inc Site, December 12, 2013); see also 55 FR 51532 (Final Rule,
Hazard Ranking System, December 14, 1990). CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(a) requires EPA to determine NPL priorities
based on the "relative risk or danger to public health or welfare, or the environment." The criteria EPA applies to
determine this relative risk or danger is codified in the HRS, and is the Agency's primary tool for deriving a site
score based on the factors identified in CERCLA.
The issue at hand is the placement of the Pierson's Creek site on the NPL based on an HRS evaluation, and
comments submitted on the proposal to place this Site on the NPL do not show any error in the HRS evaluation
that changes the decision to promulgate the Site's Listing. As part of the standard Superfund process, once the
Site is on the NPL, the investigations performed to characterize the Site will be evaluated for completeness,
further information will be collected if deemed necessary to adequately characterize the risks posed by the Site,
and based on this information, a risk assessment decision will be made determining if and what remedial action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Regarding Troy's comments that there is no threat to a fishery because sediments and mercury will not migrate
from Pierson's Creek into the Port Newark Channel, Troy has not demonstrated that mercury cannot be
transported down Pierson's Creek into the Port Newark Channel. Further, evidence of such transport is not
required for an HRS evaluation to show a release of hazardous substances has occurred or to substantiate the
fishery scored as subject to potential contamination. In fact, Troy identifies that such transport could occur. Troy
comments that contaminated sediments that have become suspended in Pierson's Creek will reach the Port
Newark Channel by stating that during high-flow events "sediments entering Port Newark Channel from
Pierson's Creek will settle into the bed of Port Newark Channel." Therefore, according to Troy, mercury
contaminated sediments are entering the Port Newark Channel from Pierson's Creek and thus could pose a threat
to the documented fishery. (See also section 3.15, Likelihood of Release - Current Release, of this support
document explaining that an observed release of mercury to the surface water pathway has occurred; and see
16

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
section 3.17, Human Food Chain Threat: Food Chain Individual, of this support document, explaining that the
EPA correctly evaluated and documented the human food chain threat in the HRS documentation record at
proposal.)
Regarding any ongoing remedial actions at the Troy facility, even if remediation were completed in accordance
with the New Jersey technical requirements for site remediation, these remedial actions might or might not
coincide with EPA's technical requirements for site remediation. Whether or not the areas still pose a risk and the
effects of prior response actions will be determined at a subsequent stage in the Superfund process.
Finally, the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection nominated and supported the placement
of the Pierson's Creek site on the NPL, commenting that contamination associated with the Site had reached
"levels of concern for both human and ecological impacts."
These comments result in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.14 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Comment: Troy questioned the assigned hazardous waste quantity value used in the HRS evaluation of the Site.
The Source 1 hazardous waste quantity estimate (the only source included in scoring) was based on an estimate of
the amount of mercury-bearing wastewater discharged from the facility. Troy commented that the estimate of the
mass of hazardous waste discharged into Pierson's Creek was based on an "incomplete data point" and was
overestimated. Troy commented that the hazardous waste quantity evaluation used data that was insufficient and
of "questionable relevance" and should not have been used to estimate discharges to Pierson's Creek; Troy
commented that using this data to extrapolate a hazardous waste quantity is contrary to HRS guidance.
Additionally, Troy asserted that the quantity of mercury present in Pierson's Creek would be more accurately
estimated by using the "extensive set of sediment data that has been developed over many years of testing." Troy
commented that the present quantity of mercury in Pierson's Creek is lower than the estimate provided by the
EPA in the HRS documentation record.
Response: Based on information the Agency had at the time of proposal, the hazardous waste quantity evaluation
for Source 1, the historic discharge of mercury bearing wastewater from the Troy facility, was completed
consistent with the HRS in the HRS documentation record at proposal; the source hazardous waste quantity value
of 12,600 was appropriately assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal using an estimate of the
amount of historical mercury-bearing wastewater discharged to Pierson's Creek from the Troy facility. (However,
as is further detailed in section 3.14.1, Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, of this support document in
response to comments provided by Troy, because of alleged uncertainty surrounding the documentation of
mercury releases from the Troy facility, the Tier B hazardous wastestream quantity estimate has been revised at
promulgation to undetermined but "greater than zero." This revision still results in a site score greater than 28.50
and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.)
The HRS instructs how to determine the waste quantity for all eligible sources. A source is considered eligible for
inclusion in a pathway evaluation if it has a containment value for that pathway of greater than zero. HRS Section
2.4.2, Hazardous Waste Quantity, provides the following instructions for evaluating hazardous waste quantity for
an HRS pathway:
Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first assigning each source (or area of observed
contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value as specified below. Sum these values to
obtain the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway being evaluated.
A hazardous waste quantity is determined after it has been established that a source is eligible for
inclusion in a pathway evaluation. HRS Section 2.4.2.1, Source hazardous waste quantity, describes the
process for evaluating source hazardous waste quantity. It states in relevant part:
17

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
For each of the three migration pathways, assign a source hazardous waste quantity value to each
source (including the unallocated source) having a containment factor value greater than 0 for the
pathway being evaluated. Consider the unallocated source to have a containment factor value
greater than 0 for each migration pathway.
For all pathways, evaluate source hazardous waste quantity using the following four measures in
the following hierarchy:
•	Hazardous constituent quantity.
•	Hazardous wastestream quantity.
•	Volume.
•	Area.
HRS Section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous constituent quantity, directs how to evaluate Tier A, the hazardous
constituent quantity of a source. It states in relevant part:
Evaluate hazardous constituent quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination) based
solely on the mass of CERCLA hazardous substances (as defined in CERCLA section 101(14), as
amended) allocated to the source ...
Based on this mass, designated as C, assign a value for hazardous constituent quantity as follows:
•	For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for hazardous constituent
quantity using the Tier A equation of table 2-5.
If the hazardous constituent quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination) is
adequately determined (that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the
source and releases from the source [or in the area of observed contamination] is known or is
estimated with reasonable confidence), do not evaluate the other three measures discussed
below. Instead assign these other three measures a value of 0 for the source (or area of observed
contamination) and proceed to section 2.4.2.1.5. [emphasis added]
If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined, assign the source (or area of
observed contamination) a value for hazardous constituent quantity based on the available data
and proceed to section 2.4.2.1.2.
HRS Section 2.4.2.1.2, Hazardous wastestream quantity, describes how to evaluate Tier B, the hazardous
wastestream quantity. It states:
Evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination)
based on the mass of hazardous wastestreams plus the mass of any additional CERCLA pollutants
and contaminants (as defined in CERCLA section 101[33], as amended) that are allocated to the
source . . .
Based on this mass, designated as W, assign a value for hazardous wastestream quantity as
follows:
18

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
•	For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for hazardous wastestream
quantity using the Tier B equation of table 2-5....
Do not evaluate the volume and area measures described below if the source is the unallocated
source or if the following condition applies:
•	The hazardous wastestream quantity for the source (or area of observed contamination)
is adequately determined—that is, total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and
CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source (or for
the area of observed contamination) is known or is estimated with reasonable
confidence, [emphasis added]
If the source is the unallocated source or if this condition applies, assign the volume and area
measures a value of 0 for the source (or area of observed contamination) and proceed to section
2.4.2.1.5. Otherwise, assign the source (or area of observed contamination) a value for hazardous
wastestream quantity based on the available data and proceed to section 2.4.2.1.3.
HRS Sections 2.4.2.1.5 and 2.4.2.2 direct the scorer in calculating a source hazardous waste quantity
value and a resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway being evaluated. HRS Section
2.4.2.1.5 Calculation of source hazardous waste quantity value, states in relevant part:
Select the highest of the values assigned to the source (or area of observed contamination) for the
hazardous constituent quantity, hazardous wastestream quantity, volume, and area measures.
Assign this value as the source hazardous waste quantity value. Do not round to the nearest
integer.
HRS Section 2.4.2.2 Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, states in relevant part:
Sum the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources (including the unallocated
source) or areas of observed contamination for the pathway being evaluated and round this sum to
the nearest integer, except: if the sum is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1. Based on this
value, select a hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway from Table 2-6.
Table 2-6 assigns a hazardous waste quantity factor value. This factor value is proportional to the magnitude of
the estimated sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources. HRS Section 2.4.2.2
Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value further directs the scorer in assigning a hazardous waste
quantity factor value. It states in relevant part:
For a migration pathway, if the hazardous constituent quantity is adequately determined (see
section 2.4.2.1.1) for all sources (or all portions of sources and releases remaining after a removal
action), assign the value from Table 2-6 as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the
pathway. If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or more
sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases remaining after a removal action) assign a
factor value as follows:
•	If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations
(see section 2.5), assign either the value from Table 2-6 [Hazardous Waste Quantity
Factor Values] or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity
factor value for that pathway.
19

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
The HRS documentation record at proposal first established that a containment value of greater than zero was
present for Source 1, the source being evaluated at the Site, satisfying the requirement in HRS Section 2.4.2.1,
Source hazardous waste quantity (quoted above/ Page 22 of the HRS documentation at proposal record states:
The Troy facility discharged untreated mercury wastewater directly to Pierson's Creek until 1965,
and partially treated mercury wastewater directly to the creek from 1965 until 1976 [Ref. 18, pp.
4-5; 30, pp. 2-3], The October 2012 EPA investigation confirmed that mercury has migrated from
the source; analytical results for sediment samples downstream of the historical releases indicate
the presence of mercury [see Section 4.1.2.1], Based on the historical lack of containment and the
current evidence of overland hazardous substance migration from the source, a surface water
containment factor value of 10 is assigned for this source [Ref. 1, p. Table 4-2].
The HRS documentation record at proposal documented that the hazardous constituent quantity could not be
adequately determined. It states on page 24 that:
The hazardous constituent quantity for Source 1 could not be adequately determined according to
the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances in the source is not known and
cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1]. There are insufficient
historical and current data (Manifests, PRP records, State records, Permits, Waste concentration
data, etc.) available to adequately calculate the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances
in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient
information to evaluate the associated releases from the source to calculate the hazardous
constituent quantity for Source 1 with reasonable confidence, and hazardous constituent quantity
is not scored (NS).
Consistent with the HRS, a hazardous wastestream quantity was determined because the hazardous constituent
quantity could not be adequately determined with reasonable confidence. Page 24 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal documents the determination of the source hazardous wastestream quantity for Source 1, as
follows:
The Troy Chemical facility initiated manufacture of mercury-containing products in 1957, and
the facility discharged its mercury-bearing wastewaters directly into Pierson's Creek until 1976
[Ref. 17, pp. 4, 6, 8, 22; 18, p. 5; 28, p. 2; 30, pp. 1-3], The mercuric oxide manufacturing process
was reported to be the primary source of mercury-bearing wastewater at the facility, accounting
for approximately 7,000 gallons per week [Ref. 17, p. 22; 18, p. 4; 30, p. 2], . . .
Based on this information, 7,000 gallons per week during the period when Troy Chemical
discharged its mercury-containing wastewater into Pierson's Creek (1957-1976) is considered a
minimum estimate of hazardous wastestream quantity for Source 1. This estimate accounts for
only one of several wastestreams, and it does not account for the documented discharges that
occurred after 1976. Whether a whole year of discharge occurred in the first year (1957) or the
last year (1976) is uncertain based on the available documentation, so only full years of operation
(1958 through 1975 - 18 years) are evaluated. Using an average of 50 operating weeks per year,
the volume of mercury-containing wastewater discharged to Pierson's Creek during that 18-year
period would have been 6,300,000 gallons. HRS Table 2-5 uses a conversion rate of 2,000
pounds per 200 gallons, or 10 pounds per gallon [Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1]. Therefore, an estimated
total mass of 63,000,000 pounds of mercury-containing wastewater were discharged into
Pierson's Creek from 1958 through 1975. The hazardous wastestream quantity in pounds (W) is
divided by 5,000 to obtain the assigned value, as shown below [Ref. 1, Table 2-5],
Mass of source (lb): (7,000 gal/wk) x (50 wk/y) x(18y)x(10 lb/g) = 63,000,000 lb
20

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value: 63,000,000/5,000 = 12,600
The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values was determined from the source hazardous waste quantity
value for the only source evaluated, Source 1, consistent with HRS Section 2.4.2.2. Page 35 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal explains the assignment of the pathway hazardous waste quantity factor value.
It states:
The sum corresponds to a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 in HRS Table 2-6
[Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2], Therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 is assigned
for the surface water migration pathway.
Accordingly, based on documentation available at the time of proposal, the EPA evaluated the hazardous
wastestream quantity consistent with the HRS. The EPA first evaluated the hazardous constituent quantity of
mercury for Source 1 and determined that the total mass of mercury in the source cannot be estimated with
reasonable confidence and is not adequately determined. The EPA then followed the HRS and proceeded to
estimate the hazardous wastestream quantity. Based on the information available at proposal, the EPA determined
that a mercury-bearing wastewater generation rate of 7,000 gallons per week extrapolated for 18 years of
documented mercuric oxide manufacturing at the facility resulted in 63 million pounds of mercury-containing
wastewater. Using Table 2-5 of the HRS, a hazardous wastestream quantity value of 12,600 was assigned for
Source 1 in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Because the source hazardous wastestream quantity was
sufficient, volume or area measure values were not determined.
Using a hazardous wastestream quantity value of 12,600, the EPA proceeded to HRS Table 2-6 and assigned a
resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000. Therefore, based on information available at the time of
proposal, the EPA evaluated the source hazardous waste quantity of the historical wastewater discharge from the
Troy facility and assigned a resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 in the HRS documentation
record.
The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding the hazardous waste
quantity evaluation in the HRS documentation record at proposal:
•	3.14.1 Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
•	3.14.2 Tier B - Data Extrapolation - Consistency with Guidance
•	3.14.3 Tier A - Hazardous Waste Quantity Based on Sediment Data
3.14.1 Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Comment: Troy commented on two aspects of the Source 1 hazardous wastestream quantity estimate in the HRS
documentation record at proposal. Troy commented that the quantity of hazardous wastewater discharged from
the facility was miscalculated and overestimated. Troy challenged the:
•	Documentation of the quantification of mercury-bearing discharges to Pierson's Creek
•	Relevance of data used to calculate hazardous wastestream quantity
Regarding mercury-bearing discharges, Troy commented that there is "no documentation of any mercury
wastewater concentration in any of the Former Site Owner's discharges between 1957 and 1976." Troy asserted
that the hazardous wastestream quantity calculation was inaccurate, because it was based on a single report by a
NJDEP inspector that states that filtrate from a mercuric oxide unit produced "approximately 700 gallons of
wastewater per batch with an average of 10 batches per week," and, because this data was then extrapolated over
too long of a time period. Additionally, Troy commented that there is no documentation of discharges to Pierson's
Creek during the period that was used to extrapolate the hazardous waste quantity.
21

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Troy concluded that the use of a single value (7,000 gallons per week) from a unit that operated briefly to
extrapolate for an 18-year period, as done in the HRS documentation record at proposal, resulted in an
overestimation of the hazardous waste quantity and did not properly document the mercury-bearing wastewater
discharges over the 18-year period from 1958 to 1975.
Regarding data relevance, Troy commented that the data used to determine the hazardous wastestream quantity
were "irrelevant to the question of discharges to Pierson's Creek and should be disregarded." Troy asserted that
the wastewater discharge rate of 7,000 gallons per week used to calculate the mass of contaminated wastewater
discharged to Pierson's Creek from 1957-1976 is not relevant because it was obtained from a single NJDEP
inspection performed in 1979. Troy made several comments about the relevance of the data used in the hazardous
waste quantity calculation, including the following:
•	Troy stated that this 1979 "information is not relevant to the time when the Former Site Owner discharged
wastewater directly to Pierson's Creek (1957-1976)."
•	Troy noted that during the time of the inspection, 1979, the Former Site Owner discharged wastewater to
the Passaic Valley Sewage Commission (PVSC) sewer system and not to Pierson's Creek.
Troy commented that the estimate of 63 million pounds of wastewater discharged to Pierson's Creek during the
period of evaluation (1958-1975) is inaccurate because the process that was the basis for the 7,000 gallons per
week estimate—mercuric oxide processing and the related filtrate—was only in operation "for a relatively short
period of time during the late 1970's and possibly the early 1980's" according to "knowledgeable former
employees." And, Troy asserted during this short period of the process (1958-1975), discharges were to the sewer
system.
Response: In responding to Troy's comments, the EPA has revised the HRS evaluation of the hazardous
wastestream quantity value and the HRS documentation record at promulgation to reflect the revised source
hazardous wastestream quantity value and resulting pathway hazardous waste quantity factor value. As explained
below, this change in the source hazardous waste quantity value results in the hazardous waste quantity factor
value being revised from 10,000 in the HRS documentation record at proposal to 100 at promulgation. This
assigned value is consistent with HRS section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value,
based on the presence of targets subject to Level II concentrations and a Tier B hazardous wastestream quantity
estimate of undetermined but "greater than zero" (The responses below in this section show that at least some
undetermined amount of mercury-bearing wastewater was discharged to Pierson's Creek). As will be set out
below, the HRS documentation record shows that historic releases of mercury occurred at the Site and this
revision to the hazardous waste quantity factor value still results in a HRS score above 28.5, and no change in the
Agency's decision to place the Site on the NPL.
HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, states in relevant part how to assign a
hazardous waste quantity factor value when the hazardous constituent quantity cannot be adequately determined
with reasonable confidence4:
Sum the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources (including the unallocated
source) or areas of observed contamination for the pathway being evaluated and round this sum to
the nearest integer, except: if the sum is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1. Based on this
value, select a hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway from table 2-6.
4 See section 3.14.3, Tier A - Hazardous Constituent Quantity Based on Sediment Data, of this support document for why the
hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined at the Site.
22

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
Table 2-6—Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Values
September 2014
Hazardous waste quantity value
Assigned value
0
0
rto ioo
lb
Greater than 100 to 10,000
100
Greater than 10,000 to 1,000,000
10,000
Greater than 1,000,000
1,000,000
aIf the hazardous waste quantity value is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1 as specified
in text.
bFor the pathway, if hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined, assign a value
as specified in the text; do not assign the value of 1.
For a migration pathway, if the hazardous constituent quantity is adequately determined (see
section 2.4.2.1.1) for all sources (or all portions of sources and releases remaining after a removal
action), assign the value from Table 2-6 as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the
pathway. If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined for one or
more sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases remaining after a removal action)
assign a factor value as follows:
• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations
(see section 2.5), assign either the value from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever is
greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway, [emphasis added]
Estimation of the Quantification of Mercury-Bearing Discharges to Pierson's Creek
Regarding comments on the documentation of discharges of mercury-bearing wastewater from the former Troy
facility to Pierson's Creek, the HRS documentation record at proposal provides sufficient documentation of
mercury-bearing wastewater discharges to Pierson's Creek. As further detailed in HRS documentation record
citations below, the HRS documentation record at proposal documents that mercury-bearing wastewater was
discharged to the Creek in several ways:
•	The HRS documentation record at proposal contains information documenting the general discharge of
mercury-bearing wastewater to Pierson's Creek.
•	The HRS documentation record at proposal identifies that mercury-bearing wastewater was discharged
directly to Pierson's Creek without treatment until 1965 when former Troy installed a mercury
pretreatment system.
•	The fact that the mercury pretreatment system was installed around 1965 without documentation that the
manufacturing process had changed at the same time, supports that the facility had been discharging
mercury to Pierson's Creek prior to 1965.
•	Between 1965 and 1976, even though a mercury treatment system was in place for wastewater, some
levels of mercury would have still been discharged to Pierson's Creek because the treatment process was
not 100% effective.
23

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
• The mercuric oxide manufacturing process (and generation of the related mercury-bearding filtrate
wastewater) was active prior to the 1976 switch from discharging to Pierson's Creek to discharging to the
PVSC.
As presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the documentation of the discharge of mercury-
bearing wastewater from the Troy facility to Pierson's Creek and the associated source hazardous wastestream
quantity value determined in the HRS documentation record at proposal were estimated based on the information
the Agency had at proposal. As quoted above in section 3.14, Hazardous Waste Quantity, of this support
document, the HRS documentation record at proposal relies on quantities of wastewater generation from the
mercuric oxide manufacturing process to evaluate the hazardous wastestream quantity. The HRS documentation
record at proposal identifies and documents that Troy began manufacturing mercury containing products in 1956
and continued the process through 1976. Page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
The facility initiated manufacture of mercury-containing products in 1956 or 1957 [Ref. 17, pp. 4,
22; 19, p. 14; 20, p. 14; 28, p. 2; 30, p. 1],
The Troy Chemical facility discharged its mercury-bearing wastewaters directly to Pierson's
Creek without treatment until 1965, when the facility's mercury pretreatment system was
installed west of Building 56 at the edge of the creek [Ref. 17, p. 6; 18, p. 5; 20, pp. 14-16, 49,
63; 30, p. 3], From 1965 to 1976, the mercury-bearing wastewaters were discharged to Pierson's
Creek after a sulfide precipitation process in the pretreatment system [Ref. 17, pp. 6, 8; 18, p. 5;
19, pp. 13-14], In 1976, the facility connected to the PVSC sewer system, and began diverting
wastewater from the mercury pretreatment system to the facility WWTP, where wastewaters were
treated by settling, removal of suspended solids and oil, and neutralization before subsequent
discharge to the PVSC system [Ref. 17, p. 22; 19, pp. 14-15],
Reference 30 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, cited in the HRS documentation record quote above,
supports that the Troy Chemical facility discharged its mercury-bearing wastewaters directly to Pierson's Creek.
Page 3 of Reference 30 states:
Mr. Nowak [Vice President of Research and Production for Troy Chemical Corporation] stated
that since 1965 the mercury bearing waste water has been treated by sulfide precipitation. Up to
1976, the treated mercury waste water was discharged directly into Pierson's Creek rather than
the septic tank-leach field system.
The HRS documentation record at proposal also explains that even following pretreatment, wastewater would still
contain mercury; it states on page 21:
Even these additional levels of treatment at the WWTP did not remove all mercury from the
process wastewater - the mercury contribution to PVSC was calculated to be approximately 327
pounds per day tested in 1979, and the facility discharged an average of more than 30,000 gallons
per day of mercury-bearing wastewater to the PVSC sewer system for a 91-day period in 1986
[Ref. 23, p. 1; 35, p. 1],
Reference 23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, cited in the HRS documentation record quote above,
states on page 1:
Working with [Office of Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment] OSMIP, PVSC began
taking split samples in January, 1979....
24

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Troy Chemical has contributed approximately 327 pounds per day to PVSC on those days tested
in the Heavy Metals Study.
Further, the HRS documentation record at proposal provides detail regarding the mercuric oxide manufacturing
process at the facility, implying that it was indeed in operation well before the "late 1970's and possibly the early
1980's," and operating within the timeframe used to generate the estimate of hazardous wastestream quantity.
Page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
The mercuric oxide manufacturing process took place near Building 56 (constructed prior to 1954
on the east side of Pierson's Creek) until 1971, when the process was moved across the creek to
Building 40 [Ref. 19, pp. 14, 135; 20, pp. 15, 49, 63],
Reference 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, cited in the HRS documentation record quoted above,
states on page 14:
Mercuric oxide manufacturing near Building 56 was discontinued around 1971. Around this time,
Building 40 (on the other side of the ditch) was built. It was used for the manufacture of dryers
and mercuric oxide.
Additionally, as discussed in section 3.15, Likelihood of Release - Current Release, of this support document, an
observed release by direct observation to Pierson's Creek of mercury bearing wastewater was identified and
documented in the HRS documentation record at proposal. The identification of the direct observation of a
discharge of an undetermined mercury-bearing wastewater quantity to Pierson's Creek was not challenged by
Troy in its comments.
Relevance of Data Used to Calculate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Regarding Troy's comments on the relevance of the data used in the evaluation and specifically regarding the
statement that the NJDEP investigation report was the only documentation upon which the wastewater discharge
rate was based, the EPA did use data collected during an investigation by the NJDEP performed in 1979 to help
support documentation that mercury-bearing wastewater was historically discharged to Pierson's Creek, but did
not solely rely on this data for support.
As stated above, the EPA used many reports and historical evidence to document that a historical release of
mercury-bearing waste was discharged from the former Troy facility, and that the mercuric oxide manufacturing
process was active during the time frame evaluated in the hazardous wastestream quantity estimate. In addition,
Troy did not present any evidence showing that the supporting information contained in the HRS documentation
record at proposal was incorrect. Simply because the site inspection occurred after former Troy began discharging
mercury-bearing wastewater to the PVSC does not negate that historical discharges of mercury-bearing
wastewater occurred. Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal documentation sufficiently
documents that mercury-bearing waste was discharged from the former Troy facility to Pierson's Creek and
provides support for the rationale employed in calculating a hazardous wastestream quantity value.
Troy does not directly contend that no mercury-bearing waste was discharged from the operations at the former
Troy facility but only that the quantity used in the hazardous wastestream quantity calculation was not
appropriately documented. Troy contended that the hazardous wastestream quantity was miscalculated and over-
estimated. As explained above, the HRS documentation record at proposal documented that the mercuric oxide
process was an active process generating mercury bearing wastewater during the period when the Troy facility
directly discharged mercury-bearing wastewater from the former Troy facility to Pierson's Creek.
However, in response to these comments regarding alleged uncertainty in the actual quantity of mercury-bearing
wastewater discharged, the HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised; the hazardous
25

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
wastestream quantity value has been changed to undetermined but greater than zero. Based on the evidence
offered above, it is clear that at least some mercury-bearing wastewater was discharged to Pierson's Creek.
Therefore, following the HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, quoted
above, the resulting pathway hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 based on a source hazardous waste
quantity of undetermined but greater than zero and the presence of Level II targets at the Site (see section 3.18,
Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands, of this support document).
The source hazardous wastestream quantity value and resulting pathway hazardous waste quantity factor value
have been revised in the HRS documentation record at promulgation. However, the site score remains above
28.50 as explained in section 3.19, HRS Score, of this support document, which contains an explanation of
scoring changes. This comment results in no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.14.2 Tier B - Data Extrapolation - Consistency with Guidance
Comment: Troy commented that the hazardous waste quantity calculated in the HRS documentation record was
not calculated consistent with current EPA guidance.5 Troy asserted that the hazardous waste quantity evaluation
used data that was insufficient and of "questionable relevance" and should not have been used to estimate
discharges to Pierson's Creek; Troy commented that using this data to extrapolate a hazardous waste quantity is
contrary to HRS guidance. Troy specifically commented that the extrapolation of a single short-term waste stream
discharge rate over many years was not consistent with EPA guidance. Troy commented that HRS Guidance
states "[e]xtrapolating short-term waste stream data over much longer periods (e.g., six months of data
extrapolated over 20 years of operation) is generally not acceptable." Troy asserted that extrapolating a single
wastewater discharge rate over an 18 year period is not consistent with HRS guidance and "fails to meet this
HRS-defined standard."
Response: As discussed in section 3.14.1 above, after considering Troy's comments, the EPA has decided to
revise the hazardous wastestream quantity to undetermined but greater than zero, removing extrapolation of
wastestream data from 1979 to an earlier time frame. However, as stated in section 3.12, Consistency with
Guidance, of this support document, HRS guidance is not a regulation and imposes no mandatory requirements on
the agency. HRS guidance is intended only to provide a scorer with guidance regarding the implementation of the
HRS and as explained above in sections 3.14, Hazardous Waste Quantity, and 3.14.1, Tier B - Hazardous
Wastestream Quantity, of this support document, based on the information available at proposal, the hazardous
waste quantity was estimated consistent with the HRS.
Regarding Troy's assertion that the HRS evaluation at proposal inappropriately extrapolated the data pertaining to
the hazardous wastestream quantity evaluation, the EPA considered site-specific information and determined that
at proposal the best documentation available indicated that the data extrapolation was a conservative estimate
(likely less than the actual amount of mercury-bearing wastewater discharged from the facility) and was
appropriate and consistent with the HRS. Additionally, Troy did not present any documentation showing that
either mercury-bearing wastewater was not being produced at the facility during the extrapolated time frame, or
that the wastewater was not being discharged to Pierson's Creek. As discussed in sections 3.14, Hazardous Waste
Quantity, and 3.14.1, Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, of this support document, it was determined that
the information used to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity was representative of discharged wastewater
from former Troy and the estimation of the hazardous wastestream quantity for the 18-year period was
reasonable.
Nevertheless, although the EPA appropriately determined the hazardous wastestream quantity at proposal, the
Agency (in response to Troy's comments) has revised the hazardous wastestream quantity to undetermined but
greater than zero (in effect, removing extrapolation of data from the scoring of this value). Therefore, the HRS
documentation record at promulgation remains consistent with the HRS and all contended guidance documents.
5 Troy cites the draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992.
26

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.14.3 Tier A - Hazardous Constituent Quantity Based on Sediment Data
Comment: Troy commented that the hazardous waste quantity calculation would be more appropriately evaluated
using a calculation of the current mercury mass in sediments in Pierson's Creek (Tier A, hazardous constituent
quantity) rather than evaluating the amount of mercury in discharges (Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity), as
completed in the HRS evaluation. Troy asserted that the quantity of mercury within Pierson's Creek sediments
based on sediment data collected from 2008 to 2012 would provide a more appropriate estimate of the mass of
mercury discharged and the hazardous waste quantity and would provide more certainty to the estimation of the
amount of remediation required. Troy further commented that the HRS evaluation only quantified mercury-
bearing wastewater discharged by former Troy and did not consider contributions to Pierson's Creek from all
industrial sources in the area.
Troy commented that "the mass of mercury present in Pierson's Creek is significantly less than that estimated by
the EPA." Troy commented that the hazardous waste quantity factor value of 10,000 for the surface water
pathway used in the HRS scoring overestimated the mass of mercury present in sediments in Pierson's Creek and
overestimated the mass of mercury discharged by the former "Site" owner (referring to the pre-June 1980 owner
of the facility, Troy Chemical Corporation). Specifically, Troy commented that an estimated value of 7,300
pounds of mercury is currently retained in Pierson's Creek sediments, as determined by Troy from sediment data
collected from 2008-2012. Troy asserted that this value should be used to determine the hazardous constituent
quantity (Tier A) at the Site instead of the hazardous wastestream quantity of 63 million pounds. Troy commented
that its estimate would result in a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 and a hazardous waste
characteristics factor category value of 320.
Response: Troy's assertion that a more appropriate source hazardous waste quantity evaluation would use a
hazardous constituent quantity of 7,300 pounds is incorrect. The value provided by Troy in its comments was
developed by determining the mass of mercury present in sediments in only a portion of Pierson's Creek. Further,
the hazardous constituent quantity value provided by Troy did not adequately determine the mass of hazardous
substances in Source 1, as the mass includes contributions from all potential contributors in the area instead of
solely the release from Site Source 1.
As discussed in section 3.14, Hazardous Waste Quantity, of this support document, the HRS documentation
record at proposal did not provide a hazardous constituent quantity for Source 1, consistent with the HRS, because
there was insufficient data to adequately determine the mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source
and releases from the source with reasonable confidence. Following the HRS, outlined in section 3.14, Hazardous
Waste Quantity, of this support document, the estimation of a source hazardous waste quantity scoring proceeded
to the next tier in the hierarchy.
Even if the hazardous constituent quantity provided by Troy was derived entirely from Source 1, the evaluation
would still proceed to Tier B (hazardous wastestream quantity) because this Tier A estimate only includes a
portion of Pierson's Creek and does not provide a reasonable estimate of the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous
substances. The hazardous constituent quantity evaluation provided by Troy in its comments is only a partial
hazardous constituent quantity calculation that estimates the quantity of mercury retained in Pierson's Creek
sediments from the PPE to a location approximately 2/3 mile downstream of the PPE (see Exhibits of the Troy
Chemical comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0021). Pierson's Creek flows for an additional
approximate 2/3 mile past the point where Troy's hazardous constituent quantity evaluation ceased evaluating
Pierson's Creek sediments, and eventually discharges into Newark Bay; and contaminated sediments are still
likely present in this second 2/3-mile stretch (see Exhibits of the Troy Chemical comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2013-0635-0021). Therefore, the estimate completed by Troy includes only an assessment of the
mercury retained in sediment in a portion of the length of Pierson's Creek. Following the HRS, as detailed in
27

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
section 3.14, Hazardous Waste Quantity, of this support document, the evaluation would still proceed to Tier B,
hazardous wastestream quantity, consistent with the evaluation in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
As indicated in section 3.14.1, Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, of this support document, the Tier B
hazardous wastestream quantity value has been lowered from 12,600 to "undetermined but greater than zero"
(yielding a source hazardous waste quantity value of greater than zero) and the resulting hazardous waste quantity
factor value has been lowered from 10,000 to 100 in the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
Therefore, even if the EPA used Troy's estimate of 7,300 pounds of mercury as a partial estimate of the hazardous
constituent quantity, this value would only add to the source hazardous waste quantity value evaluated for the Site
at promulgation, resulting in a source hazardous waste quantity of 100 from Table 2-6, and would have no effect
on the pathway hazardous waste quantity value or the Site score.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.15 Likelihood of Release - Current Release
Comment: Troy, New Jersey State Senator Anthony R. Bucco, and MCCC submitted comments related to a
contention that the release to Pierson's Creek from the Troy facility is not ongoing. Troy asserted that placing the
Site on the NPL is unnecessary because all of the sediments in the man-made concrete-lined channel on the Troy
property are contained, are currently being remediated, and are no longer a threat to the environment. New Jersey
State Senator Anthony R. Bucco and MCCC commented that there is no ongoing release of contamination at the
Site. Further, Troy commented that because contaminants are contained, the remedial actions being undertaken at
the Site will eliminate "any potential migration" of contaminants and therefore eliminate the surface water
migration pathway.
Troy asserted that the mercury that has been discharged into Pierson's Creek "mostly remains in the sediment"
and that fate and transport characteristics in the Creek will not allow for contaminant migration.
Response: Inasmuch as these comments call into question the observed release to Pierson's Creek established at
the Site in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the likelihood of release value of 550 is correctly assigned
and documented based on an observed release of mercury to Pierson's Creek from the operations at former Troy.
The release need not be currently occurring for this value assignment. The HRS documentation record at proposal
lists the mercury release as a historical discharge of mercury-bearing wastewater from the Troy facility and an
observed release of mercury contamination by both direct observation and chemical analysis to Pierson's' Creek.
Specifically, in establishing an observed release to the surface water migration pathway, the HRS does not require
that a release of hazardous substance is ongoing, it only requires that a "site has released a hazardous substance".
Insomuch as these comments imply that there is no current risk from the scored historical release of mercury, see
section 3.13, Danger to Human Health and the Environment, of this support document for an explanation of the
current risk.
HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, contains the directions used to establish an observed release to surface
water:
Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the site has
released [emphasis added] a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this
demonstration on either:
28

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
• Direct observation:
-A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen
entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered surface
water through direct deposition, or
• Chemical analysis:
-Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the
concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the
background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3).
-Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background
concentrations - for example, compare surface water samples to surface
water background concentrations.
-For benthic samples, limit comparisons to essentially sessile organisms.
-Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to
establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of
contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is
required.
If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release factor value
of 5 5 0 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4-1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.3. If no
observed release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0
to that watershed, enter this value in table 4-1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.2.
The HRS documentation record at proposal documents an observed release by direct observation. It states on page
28:
Observed release by direct observation is supported by numerous reports of mercury-containing
wastewater and stormwater discharging from the Troy facility directly into Pierson's Creek and
its unnamed tributary [Ref. 18, pp. 5, 12-21], On March 25, 1977, NJDEP issued Troy Chemical
a Notice of Violation and Offer of Settlement (NOV/OOS) indicating that waste chemicals were
allowed to enter a tributary to Newark Bay; Troy settled the NOV/OOS as stipulated [Ref. 17, p.
11]. During an inspection on April 28, 1980, NJDEP observed stormwater and wastewater
flowing into Pierson's Creek and the unnamed tributary via runoff, pipes, cracks in the creek's
concrete walls adjacent to a Troy building and tank farm, and overflow from Troy's industrial
wastewater collection sump [Ref. 32, pp. 1-2], NJDEP collected and analyzed samples C27080
(Stormwater runoff sample, flowing into a tributary of Pierson's Creek directly east of tank farm
A), C27091 (Liquid sample, containing mercury droplets, collected at the same location as
sample No. C27080), C27081 (Stormwater pipe flowing into Pierson's Creek), C27082
(Groundwater/stormwater sample flowing into Pierson's Creek through a crack in the Creek wall
adjacent to Troy's Blue building), C27083 (Overflow from Troy's industrial wastewater collection
sump; discharge was on the east side of Pierson's Creek approximately 50 feet downstream from
the [old] locker room discharge), C27084 (Groundwater/stormwater sample flowing into
Pierson's Creek through a crack in the creek wall adjacent to Troy's tank farm E), and C27085
(Stormwater flowing into Pierson's Creek on the south side of Troy's maintenance building) [Ref.
29

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
32, pp. 1-9]. The laboratory analyses indicated the presence of mercury in all of these
wastestreams observed flowing into Pierson's Creek and its tributary; copper, lead, arsenic, and
zinc were also detected in multiple samples [Ref. 32, pp. 3-9],
Additionally, the HRS documentation record at proposal documents an observed release of mercury by chemical
analysis. Page 28 of the HRS documentation record at proposal summarizes results of the sampling effort in
Pierson's Creek and pages 30-33 contain the background and observed release sample data showing a threefold
increase in mercury concentrations in the observed release samples. (See section 3.16, Likelihood of Release -
Attribution, of this support document for why the observed release evaluated in the HRS documentation record at
proposal is attributable to the Site.) Specifically, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 28 states:
In October 2012, EPA collected surface water and sediment samples for TAL metals and TCL
organics analysis from the open-water segments of Pierson's Creek along the in-water segment of
the surface water migration pathway downstream of the Troy facility site source, and at
background locations along unnamed tributaries (i.e., feeder streams) [Figure 3; Ref. 5, pp. 9-18;
6, pp. 3-14], The sampling and analysis by EPA showed the presence of mercury at
concentrations significantly above background concentrations in sediment samples collected
along the downstream in-water segment of the surface water pathway [Figures 3, 4; see Tables
below]. The observed release by chemical analysis is documented along the surface water
migration pathway downstream of the site source, between the sample PC-SD25B at the PPE and
sample PC-SD13B, approximately 0.25 mile downstream [Figure 3],
As quoted above, the HRS documentation record at proposal describes that a release of mercury-contaminated
wastewater has been documented via direct observation and chemical analysis at the former Troy facility. The
release is documented by a direct observation of mercury-bearing wastewater directly entering Pierson's Creek
and by chemical analysis of sediment samples showing a site-attributable significant increase in mercury
contamination in Pierson's Creek immediately downstream of the PPE from the Troy facility. Specifically, the
observed release by chemical analysis is documented by mercury contamination in Pierson's Creek immediately
below the PPE (sample PC-SD25B: 1,770 mg/kg mercury) containing more than 10 times the mercury
concentration than that of the highest background sample (sample PC-SD09A: 121.51 mg/kg mercury).
Regarding Troy's assertions that sediments on the Troy property are contained and remedial actions will eliminate
any potential migration, Troy is referring to further migration of contamination, and therefore is acknowledging
the sediment contamination is the result of a release. Additionally, Troy has provided no documentation to
support its claim that sediments are contained; nor is there any requirement that the release be documented to
migrate further to identify that a release has occurred. (And regardless of any containment/remedial actions on the
Troy property, the release of mercury to the creek sediments has occurred and that contamination remains present
in the creek and unaddressed.)
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.16 Likelihood of Release - Attribution
Comment: Several comments were received related to the attribution of the significant increase in mercury
contamination in sediments to the Site that were used to identify the observed release by chemical analysis. Troy,
MCCC, CCNJ, and New Jersey State Senators Joe Pennachio and Ronald L. Rice commented that the
contamination in Pierson's Creek was the result of many contributors. Commenter 429 Delancy asserted that
downstream properties were not contributors to the contamination identified in the HRS evaluation. Troy
specified that the former Engelhard facility and dredging of the creek were other sources of contamination to
Pierson's Creek. The MCCC asserted that "many entities contributed to the current conditions of the Creek," and
Troy was not primarily responsible for the contamination in Pierson's Creek. CIANJ stated that Pierson's Creek
30

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
"is part of a heavily industrialized area" and "has been impacted by the operations of numerous industrial
companies for almost a century," and asserted that singling out Troy is unfair.
Troy and NJ State Senator Rice commented that (current) Troy was not a contributor to creek contamination
where Troy further asserted that, during (current) Troy's ownership of the facility, Troy was not a contributor of
mercury to Pierson's Creek. Troy also commented that the EPA only identified historical discharge as a source.
Troy also commented that the Site name of Troy Chem Corp Inc misinforms the public of the primarily
responsible parties for the contamination in Pierson's Creek.
Troy further commented that contamination found in Pierson's Creek contains PCBs and volatiles that are not
attributable to the operations at the Troy facility while under previous ownership. Specifically, Troy commented
that under a false bottom in a portion of Pierson's Creek, an additional layer of sediment contaminated with
contaminants other than mercury was identified; Troy asserted that this contamination came from other facilities
in the area.
Response: The attribution of the significant increase in sediment mercury concentrations in the zone of
contamination is properly attributed, at least in part, to the Site, consistent with the HRS. The former Troy facility
is documented to have used mercury in its manufacturing processes and is documented to have discharged
mercury-containing wastewater directly into Pierson's Creek. Further, the HRS documentation record at proposal
presents an analysis of sediment samples taken from Pierson's Creek (both background samples and samples
taken just downgradient of the probable point of entry (PPE)) that show a significant increase in mercury
contamination directly downgradient from the PPE leaving the Troy facility and identify the zone of
contamination. The zone of contamination, as identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal, extends
from the PPE to the most downstream sample that meets observed release criteria (PC-SD13B). (See Figure 1 of
this support document.)
Further, in conducting this HRS evaluation, the EPA did not locate any sources of mercury other than Troy in the
area that could be meaningfully contributing to the significant increase of mercury in the zone of contamination,
and the EPA documented a direct discharge of mercury from the former Troy facility to the Creek. Nor did Troy
or any other commenter identify any other off-site sources to the zone of contamination. Thus, the HRS
documentation record documented that the mercury in the zone of contamination is attributable, at least in part, to
the historical discharge of mercury-containing wastewater from the former Troy facility.
The HRS does not contain specific instruction regarding the methodology for establishing attribution for an
observed release by chemical analysis. On the subject of attribution for all HRS pathways, however, HRS Section
2.3, Likelihood of release, states in relevant part:
Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance
into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical analysis of samples
appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). The minimum standard to
establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical evidence of a hazardous
substance in the media significantly above the background level. Further, some portion of the
release must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in table 2-3 as the standard for
determining analytical significance, [emphasis added]
For the surface water migration pathway, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, contains the directions used to
establish attribution for establishing an observed release by chemical analysis:
-Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to
establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of
contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is
required, [emphasis added]
31

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
The significant increase in mercury concentrations was shown to be attributable to the Site in two steps. First, it
was documented that the former Troy facility used and discharged mercury. Second, it was established that no
other facility could be found that historically discharged or currently discharges mercury upstream of the zone of
contamination or directly into the zone of contamination.
As identified in section 3.15, Likelihood of Release - Current Release, of this support document, an observed
release by direct observation has been properly established at the Site, demonstrating that the former Troy facility
has released a hazardous substance to the surface water. The HRS documentation record at proposal documents an
observed release by direct observation; on page 28 it states:
Observed release by direct observation is supported by numerous reports of mercury-containing
wastewater and stormwater discharging from the Troy facility directly into Pierson's Creek and
its unnamed tributary [Ref. 18, pp. 5, 12-21], On March 25, 1977, NJDEP issued Troy Chemical
a Notice of Violation and Offer of Settlement (NOV/OOS) indicating that waste chemicals were
allowed to enter a tributary to Newark Bay; Troy settled the NOV/OOS as stipulated [Ref. 17, p.
11]. During an inspection on April 28, 1980, NJDEP observed stormwater and wastewater
flowing into Pierson's Creek and the unnamed tributary via runoff, pipes, cracks in the creek's
concrete walls adjacent to a Troy building and tank farm, and overflow from Troy's industrial
wastewater collection sump [Ref. 32, pp. 1-2], NJDEP collected and analyzed samples C27080
(Stormwater runoff sample, flowing into a tributary of Pierson's Creek directly east of tank farm
A), C27091 (Liquid sample, containing mercury droplets, collected at the same location as
sample No. C27080), C27081 (Stormwater pipe flowing into Pierson's Creek), C27082
(Groundwater/stormwater sample flowing into Pierson's Creek through a crack in the Creek wall
adjacent to Troy's Blue building), C27083 (Overflow from Troy's industrial wastewater collection
sump; discharge was on the east side of Pierson's Creek approximately 50 feet downstream from
the [old] locker room discharge), C27084 (Groundwater/stormwater sample flowing into
Pierson's Creek through a crack in the creek wall adjacent to Troy's tank farm E), and C27085
(Stormwater flowing into Pierson's Creek on the south side of Troy's maintenance building) [Ref.
32, pp. 1-9]. The laboratory analyses indicated the presence of mercury in all of these
wastestreams observed flowing into Pierson's Creek and its tributary; copper, lead, arsenic, and
zinc were also detected in multiple samples [Ref. 32, pp. 3-9],
The HRS documentation record at proposal also documents the attribution of the significant increase in mercury
concentrations in Pierson's Creek to the operations at the Troy facility. It states on page 34:
The Troy Chemical facility manufactured mercury compounds from 1956 or 1957 until 1987
[Ref. 17, p. 4, 22, 57; 18, p. 2; 19, pp. 12-14; 20, p. 14; 28, p. 2; 29, pp. 2-3, 6-7; 30, pp. 1-2; 37,
p. 1; 38, pp. 13, 29-30], The facility discharged its mercury-bearing wastewater directly into
Pierson's Creek until 1976, and there were additional discharges, leaks, and spills to Pierson's
Creek after the facility connected to the PVSC sewer system in 1976 [Ref. 17, pp. 6, 8, 14-15; 18,
pp. 5, 12-21; 30, p. 3; 32, pp. 1-9; 34, p. 2], Troy Chemical has considered surface water and
sediment conditions in Pierson's Creek and its unnamed tributary to be the principal
environmental concerns associated with the site, and the company has reported that its former
operations have contributed to the mercury detected in sediment within the concrete ditch and
downstream areas ofPierson's Creek [Ref. 19, p. 11; 38, pp. 59-60, 84; 39, pp. 9, 16, 29],
In July 1979, EPA collected a sediment sample from Pierson's Creek just downstream of the
mercury wastewater treatment system and reported a mercury concentration of 22,400 mg/kg,
compared to upstream concentrations of 140 and 191 mg/kg; mercury was also detected above
background in samples collected downstream of the facility [Ref. 30, pp. 4-7], . . . The observed
32

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
release to Pierson's Creek and associated wetland areas is supported by the October 2012 EPA
sampling data.
Although there are other possible sites in the vicinity of the Troy Chemical facility, the release
samples show concentrations of mercury, a site-attributable contaminant, that are significantly
above the concentrations in background samples [Figure 3], . . .
In 2010, Troy Chemical assessed other point source and non-point source contributions to
sediment contamination, including industrial properties in the immediate vicinity of the Troy
Chemical facility and Pierson's Creek: Former Red Star property to the immediate south, Globe
Metals property to the immediate east, Former Albert Steel Drum/Prentiss Drug Co. (ASD/PDC)
property to the immediate north, and Former Engelhard property to the south of Former Red Star
[Ref. 38, pp. 3-4, 35-42]. None of these properties were identified as a contributor of the sediment
mercury contamination [Ref. 38, pp. 35-42], Based on the assessment, Troy concluded that the
historical information and available sediment data indicate at least a partial contribution of
mercury from Troy Chemical operations [Ref. 38, pp. 3-4],
Based on these considerations, the observed release to surface water is considered to be at least
partially attributable to the Troy Chem Corp Inc site.
As identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the EPA correctly documented that the Troy facility is
associated with manufacturing mercury compounds and documented that mercury-bearing wastewater was
discharged into Pierson's Creek. As also identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal, References 17,
18, 19, 20 and 30, as identified on page 34 of the HRS documentation record at proposal and in the quoted text
above, provide documentation that the discharge of mercury-bearing waste from the Troy facility directly to
Pierson's Creek occurred over several years between 1956 and 1976. The Site, as scored in the HRS
documentation record at proposal, is based on a historical release of mercury to Pierson's Creek that is
attributable to the former Troy facility; the EPA is not attributing mercury contamination to ongoing operations at
the current Troy facility for purposes of this rulemaking.
The EPA also documented further evidence of mercury-bearing waste being released from the former Troy
facility to Pierson's Creek, supporting that mercury contamination in Pierson's Creek is attributable, at least in
part, to historic operations at the Troy facility. As quoted above, during a site inspection, the NJDEP observed and
documented that uncontrolled runoff leaking out of pipes and cracks from facility operations and containing
mercury was entering directly into Pierson's Creek. In addition to documented mercury-bearing waste leaving the
Troy facility and entering directly into Pierson's Creek, the EPA also considered whether other downstream and
upstream facilities were potential contributors to the mercury contamination in the zone of contamination. While
there may have been multiple contributors of general contamination to the creek, the EPA was unable identify any
other sources of mercury that could be contributing to the significant increase of mercury contamination in the
zone of contamination for purposes of this rulemaking. Thus, as discussed above in this section, some portion of
the significant increase in the release of mercury at the Site is attributable to the Troy facility
The mercury contamination that was identified in the zone of contamination was determined to contain the
highest concentration of mercury at sample SD-25B located immediately downgradient of the PPE; mercury
concentrations downgradient from sample SD-25B decreased as the distance from the PPE increased. This
decreasing concentration of mercury in the sediment downgradient of the Troy facility indicates that there are no
other significant contributors of mercury to the contamination identified in the zone of contamination in Pierson's
Creek. Further, commenters did not document any other release of mercury into the identified zone of
contamination or to Pierson's Creek in general, and, as quoted above, Troy noted that the mercury contamination
in Pierson's Creek was, at least in part, attributable to historical operations at the former Troy facility. Thus, EPA
rationally determined that the significant increase in mercury contamination was not the result of contamination
from other nearby facilities.
33

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Background samples were also used to screen out other potential contributors of mercury to the zone of
contamination. At this site, background samples were collected from feeder streams in the vicinity of Pierson's
Creek to ensure that observed release criteria were met and to search for other possible contributors to the
mercury contamination. As explained in section 3.15, Likelihood of Release - Current Release, of this support
document, an observed release by chemical analysis was correctly established at the Site. Therefore, these
background samples further support that other facilities are not contributors to the significant increase in mercury
contamination in the zone of contamination, and that the observed release of mercury in sediments is attributable,
at least in part, to the release of mercury-bearing wastewater from the former Troy facility.
Regarding Troy's assertions that additional contaminants, other than mercury, found in Pierson's Creek were not
attributable to operations under previous ownership at the Troy facility, the HRS documentation record at
proposal only evaluates mercury contamination at the Site and attributes only mercury contamination in Pierson's
Creek to operations at the former Troy facility. The HRS does not require that every hazardous substance present
be evaluated at a Site.6 Other contaminants, as identified by the commenters, were not attributed to sources and
releases from sources from the Site, and thus, other contaminants are not included in the scoring of the Site.
However, the full extent of the release from the Site is not conclusively determined upon placement on the NPL
and the EPA may revise the extent of contamination at the site upon further investigations during the Superfund
process.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.17 Human Food Chain Threat: Food Chain Individual
Comment: Troy submitted several comments alleging the mercury in Pierson's Creek does not pose a threat to
fisheries in Newark Bay or New York Harbor. Based on these comments, Troy concluded that the assigned food
chain individual factor value of 20 "is not justified." Troy stated that:
EPA's analysis assumes that fish are caught at the American Veterans Memorial Pier (69th Street
Pier) in Brooklyn, New York, which is located on New York Harbor, approximately 13 miles from
Pierson's Creek . . . [t]here is no assessment of the plausibility of mercury transport through the
estuarine surface water environment of Newark Bay and New York Harbor.
Troy claimed that "mercury releases into Pierson's Creek cannot conceivably migrate into either Newark Bay or
New York Harbor" where fisheries are located, and therefore pose no threat to the human food chain. Troy
asserted that this statement is supported by scientific studies and bases these claims on the following comments:
• Troy stated, "mercury that was discharged into Pierson's Creek is likely still contained in the creek
sediments." Troy offered several reasons for this conclusion.
o Mercury releases to Pierson's Creek would "rapidly settle" into creek sediments as a result of the
tendency of mercury to adhere to particulate and organic carbon,
o According to hydraulic studies, as the majority of Pierson's Creek is at a lower elevation than
Port Newark Channel, there is "little or no mean flow in the creek."
o "Tide gates at the mouth of Pierson's Creek prevent tidal intrusions and create stagnant
conditions except under rare, high-flow events."
6 The NPL has a very narrow purpose: to establish, quickly and inexpensively, a rough list identifying and prioritizing sites
that may warrant response action under CERCLA. See Wash. State Dep't of Transp. v. EPA. 917 F.2d f309, 1310 (D.C. Cir.
f 990). As stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate
Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]), the NPL serves primarily as an informational and management tool.
34

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
o Because tide gates "restrict discharges and the conveyance capacity of the entire Pierson's Creek
channel is low," velocities in Pierson's Creek are therefore "expected to be small;" thus, re-
suspension of mercury deposited in sediments is unlikely.
•	Modeling of sediment transport and mercury transport for Newark Bay "indicates that Pierson's Creek is
not a significant source of mercury to Newark Bay or New York Harbor."
•	Even if contaminated creek sediments do migrate into the Port Newark Channel, they would settle near
the Pierson's Creek outfall "in the deep, dredged shipping channel" within approximately 500 feet of the
mouth of the creek, and would not reach any shallow sub-tidal flats.
•	The Port Newark Channel is regularly dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The volume of
sediment dredged—60,500 cubic yards per year on average between 1951 and 2002 —"far exceeds any
potential contributions from Pierson's Creek, and therefore any mercury that was discharged from
Pierson's Creek into Port Newark Channel has likely already been removed by routine dredging."
•	Sediment transport models show that sediment moves from New York Harbor to Newark Bay via Arthur
Kill and Kill van Kull. This is "contrary to the transport direction that would have to occur if Pierson's
Creek were to cause impacts to New York Harbor."
•	Even during rare major storms that could temporarily reverse the direction of sediment transport, any
Pierson's Creek sediment deposited in Port Newark Channel would not move into Newark Bay or New
York Harbor. Such events would not affect deep sediments in shipping channels like the Port Newark
Channel, as it is too deep for tidal/wave action to mobilize sediment and acts as a strong sink for sediment
in the Bay.
Based on these comments, Troy asserted that "there is no potential food chain threat caused by mercury from
Pierson's Creek," and the food chain individual score of 20 assigned at proposal should instead be zero.
Response: The human food chain threat is correctly evaluated and documented in the HRS documentation record
at proposal and correctly assigns the food chain individual factor value of 20, in accordance with the HRS
requirements. The HRS documentation record at proposal identified an observed release of mercury to Pierson's
Creek; mercury is assigned a bioaccumulation potential factor value of greater than 500; additionally, the EPA
documented that a fishery is present within the 15-mile target distance limit (TDL) and therefore correctly
assigned the Food Chain Individual Factor Value of 20.
The HRS Sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.3.3.1 contain directions for assigning the human food chain individual factor
value. HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, states:
Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both
factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential human food chain
contamination.
In addition, consider all other fisheries that are partially or wholly within the target distance limit
for the watershed, including fisheries partially or wholly within the boundaries of an observed
release for the watershed that do not meet any of the three criteria listed above, to be subject to
potential human food chain contamination. If only a portion of the fishery is within the target
distance limit for the watershed, include only that portion in evaluating the targets factor
category.
35

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
HRS Section 4.1.3.3.1, Food chain individual, states:
Evaluate the food chain individual factor based on the fisheries (or portions of fisheries) within
the target distance limit for the watershed. Assign this factor a value as follows:
•	If any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level I concentrations, assign a value of
50.
•	If not, but if any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level II concentrations, assign a
value of 45.
•	If not, but if there is an observed release of a hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation
potential factor value of 500 or greater to surface water in the watershed and there is a fishery
(or portion of a fishery) present anywhere within the target distance limit, assign a value of 20.
The HRS documentation record at proposal documents the human food chain threat at the Site and documents that
the food chain individual factor value was correctly assigned meeting the HRS requirements for assigning a food
chain individual factor value of 20. Pages 36 and 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal state:
The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary within the 15-mile TDL, including the Newark Bay
Complex and other water bodies, is used for consumption fishing [Ref. 49, p. 1; 50, pp. 9, 14-16;
5 l,pp. 5-7], There are fishing access locations to Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Upper
New York Bay, The Narrows, and the tidal rivers that flow into the harbor [Figure 4; Ref. 52, pp.
18-21; 53, pp. 13-14, 29-30; 54, p. 15], One example of a specific location within the TDL where
consumption fishing has been reported is the 69th Street American Veterans Memorial Pier,
located in Brooklyn along the eastern edge of Upper New York Bay [Figure 4; Ref. 53, pp. 29-30;
54, pp. 15, 22, 29; 55, p. 1], The available documentation does not demonstrate that the fishery is
located within the zone of contamination; therefore, the target fishery is evaluated for potential
contamination [Figures 3, 4; Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3; Ref. 50, p. 14],
4.1.3.3.1	Food Chain Individual
There is an observed release to surface water of at least one hazardous substance (mercury) with a
bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater and there is a fishery present within the
15-mile TDL [see Sections 4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.3.2.1, and 4.1.3.3], Therefore, a food chain individual
factor value of 20 is assigned [Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1],
Sample ID:	PC-SD25B, PC-SD23A, PC-SD23B, PC-SD17B, PC-SD14A,
PC-SD14B, PC-SD14C, PC-SD13B
Hazardous Substance:	Mercury
Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000
References:	See Section 4.1.2.1.1
The human food chain threat targets and the food chain individual factor value were correctly established in HRS
documentation record at proposal. As identified in section 3.15, Likelihood of Release - Current Release, of this
support document, an observed release of mercury was correctly established in accordance with the HRS. The
HRS assigns mercury a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 50,000 (this value was not challenged by the
commenters) and a fishery is documented in the HRS documentation record at proposal to be located within the
15-mile TDL.
Troy acknowledges the presence of fisheries within the TDL in its comments when it is refuting sediment
transport by stating that it is "implausible that any Pierson's Creek sediment could have migrated into either
36

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Newark Bay or New York Harbor where fisheries are located" [emphasis added] (Troy Chemical comments,
docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0021). Additionally, Troy comments that contaminated sediments are
not likely to migrate to the fisheries, but in its rescoring of the Site, Troy scores the Potential Human Food Chain
Contamination factor value the same as the HRS documentation record at proposal of 0.0000003 (which, per HRS
Section 4.1.3.3.2.3, Potential human food chain contamination, would only receive a score if a fishery is present
within the TDL).
As cited above, to assign a food chain individual factor value of 20, the HRS requires documentation of an
observed release to surface water of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or
greater, and documentation that a fishery is present in the TDL. The HRS documentation record at proposal
documents that both requirements are met and, therefore, the food chain individual factor value was correctly
assigned.
Regarding the specific comments that the analysis assumes that fish are caught at the American Veterans
Memorial Pier, the EPA did not assume that fish were caught or consumed, the EPA documented in the HRS
documentation record at proposal that fish are caught for consumption on the 69th Street American Veterans
Memorial Pier, located in Brooklyn along the eastern edge of Upper New York Bay. References 49, 50, 51, 53, 54
and 55 of the HRS documentation record at proposal were all cited as primary references to support the actual
presence of a fishery within the TDL; specifically, these references document that fishing occurs for consumption
by humans at the 69th Street American Veterans Memorial Pier.
Sediment Transport
Regarding Troy's comments that mercury in Pierson's Creek sediment will likely not migrate into either Newark
Bay or New York Harbor except under high flow events and that contaminated sediments cannot migrate to the
documented fisheries, the HRS does not require documentation that contaminated sediments migrate at all, as
contaminated sediments are not required to be documented within a fishery to score targets subject to potential
contamination at the site. The EPA correctly applied the HRS as explained in this section and documented an
observed release of mercury and a fishery within the 15- mile TDL.
To the extent that the commenter is claiming that mercury contamination in Pierson's Creek cannot migrate
because it adheres to sediment in a creek that has "little or no mean flow," this is also not correct. Pierson's Creek
is not stagnant, and as the commenter points out, during high flow events the average 24-hour storm flow rate in
Pierson's Creek can reach 3 feet per second at the mouth of the Creek. Troy further points out that this rate is only
14.4 % of the calculated peak flow rate, meaning that flow rates in Pierson's Creek are not stagnant and are
capable of transporting any sediment that has not been contained. Sediments in Pierson's Creek have not been
contained, and the commenters did not assert that sediments in the Creek have been contained. Nor has Troy
provided any documentation supporting its claim that mercury contamination in Pierson's Creek cannot migrate.
While the HRS does not consider the availability of contamination in sediments or the dynamics of sediment
transport, in its comments Troy admits that during storm events contaminated sediments will migrate from
Pierson's Creek into the Port Newark Channel. Specifically, Troy stated that "[i]n the unlikely event that
impacted sediment does migrate from Pierson's Creek into Port Newark Channel, it would be deposited near the
Pierson's Creek outfall" (Troy Chemical comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0635-0021). Further Troy
stated that "entrained sediments [during high flow conditions] entering Port Newark Channel from Pierson's
Creek will settle to the bed of Port Newark Channel" (Troy Chemical comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2013-0635-0021). Therefore, even though not required by the HRS, Troy agrees that mercury contamination does
migrate from Pierson's Creek into bodies of water where Troy admits that fisheries are present.
Regarding Troy's comment that the annual dredging in the Port Newark Channel would remove mercury
contaminated sediments from the Channel, as stated above, the HRS fishery target value of 20 was assigned for
the Food Chain Individual factor value based on the observed release of a hazardous substance into surface water
37

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
with a bioaccumulation factor of 500 or more, and the presence of a fishery within the target distance limit. In this
case, mercury was released into Pierson's Creek and fisheries are present in the New York Harbor, which is
within the 15 mile target distance limit. The HRS does not require documentation that the released contaminant
has migrated, or is continuing to migrate, to the location of the fishery. Furthermore, the Agency notes that the
mercury contaminated sediments in Pierson's Creek are uncontained and can continue to migrate into Port
Newark Channel and continue to pose a threat to the downstream fishery. Therefore, the dredging of the Port
Newark Channel does not change the assigned target value, the site score or impact the listing decision.
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.18 Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands
Comment: Troy and 429 Delancy submitted comments calling into question the delineation/identification of
wetlands in Pierson's Creek. These comments included the following:
•	Troy asserted that the wetland length scored was based on several wetland evaluation soil boring
locations, but that one of these locations (SB-9) should not have been classified as wetland.
•	Troy claimed there is inadequate information in the HRS package to determine what the impact of the
mischaracterization of SB-9 would be on wetland length measurements.
•	Troy and 429 Delancy both contended that the stretch of Pierson's Creek along the 429 Delancy property
(the former Engelhard property) has been designated as "state open waters" by NJDEP, and that such
designation means that stretch is not wetland.
Based on the above points, Troy argued that the sensitive environments Level II score should be reduced from 25
in the HRS documentation record at proposal to zero.
Response: The wetlands were correctly identified and scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal,
consistent with the HRS. As shown in subsections below, the locations of the soil borings were not directly used
to calculate wetland length—the length was based on the final determination of the wetlands expert conducting
the delineation; and soil boring location SB-9 was correctly classified as representing the border of the wetland.
Additionally, the information in the HRS package at proposal was sufficient to verify the length of wetlands
scored as subject to actual Level II contamination. Further, in response to these comments, the EPA verified the
intent of the authors of the October 2012 wetland delineation presented in Reference 5 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal. This verification is contained in a June 2014 Wetland Delineation Report (included as
Attachment 2 of this support document), which confirmed the conclusions of the October 2012 wetland
delineation. Finally, the NJDEP designation of the Pierson's Creek stretch along the 429 Delancy property as
"state open waters" for state purposes does not preclude the existence and proper identification of wetlands for
CERCLA and HRS purposes along the creek.
Specific comments are addressed in the following subsections:
•	3.18.1 Wetland Frontage
•	3.18.2 Documentation ofWetland Delineation
•	3.18.3 NJDEP Designation of Pierson's Creek
3.18.1 Wetland Frontage
Comment: Troy asserted that the delineation/identification of the wetlands adjacent to Pierson's Creek and the
related length (frontage) of the Level II wetlands are incorrect.
38

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Citing page A-20 of the draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992, Troy stated that "[b]ased on
HRS guidance, a wetland must support the prevalence of rooted emergent hydrophytes (hydrophytic species must
be at least 50% of the total vegetation)." Troy added that "HRS wetland criteria require the presence of hydric
soils" and that absent hydric soils, an area may be classified a wetland only if hydrophytes are established.
Troy noted that 9 soil borings were collected during the wetlands evaluation, and contended that "[b]ased on the
data obtained at 4 boring locations on the former Englehard | sic | property 0.15 miles of wetlands was delineated."
Troy asserted that for the 4 locations—SB-1, SB-4, SB-7, and SB-9—"Weston (EPA's consultant) noted that soils
and vegetative conditions indicated the presence of a wetland" (citing to field logbooks included as Reference 5 of
the HRS documentation record at proposal). However, Troy commented that one of these borings, SB-9, did not
exhibit hydrophytic vegetation in excess of 50% of the total vegetation; Troy argued this location does not meet
HRS wetland criteria and should not have been designated as wetland.
Response: The delineation and identification of the wetlands contiguous to Pierson's Creek were correct based on
the HRS definition of wetlands, and the resulting length of wetland frontage used in HRS scoring was accurate in
the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the HRS. The extent of wetlands identified was not
solely based on soil boring locations, but rather the complete assessment carried out by the wetlands scientist
performing the delineation. Soil boring SB-9 was not designated as wetlands; it was instead determined to be
characteristic of the upland border of the wetlands. The wetlands rating value for wetland frontage in Pierson's
Creek subject to Level II actual contamination was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at
proposal.
HRS Section 4.0.2, Surface water categories, identifies the water classifications eligible for evaluation by the
HRS. It states:
Rivers include:
• Perennially flowing waters from point of origin to the ocean or to coastal tidal waters,
whichever comes first, and wetlands contiguous to these flowing waters, [emphasis added]
While the commenters did not challenge the identification of Pierson's Creek as perennial, the HRS
documentation record at proposal states that Pierson's Creek is perennial and therefore the creek and wetlands
contiguous to the creek are eligible for inclusion in the HRS evaluation. Page 27 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal states:
Due to a drainage improvement project completed in 2007 (* - see Note below), the perennial
portion of Pierson's Creek now begins just south of the Troy Chemical facility, where it receives
stormwater runoff from a large culvert as well as the concrete channel and east ditch on the Troy
property [Ref. 5, p. 6; 38, pp. 14-21, 80],
HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs how wetland frontage scored as subject to Level II actual
contamination is measured for the HRS evaluation. It states:
For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, assign an additional value from Table 4-24
Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that is,
wetland frontage) in the area of Level II concentrations and assign a value from Table 4-24 based
on this total length. Estimate this length as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1, except: for an isolated
wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to the surface water is in the wetland,
39

-------
Pier son's Creek NPL Listing Support Document	September 2014
use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to Level II (not Level I) concentrations as
the length.
HRS Table 4-24 identifies not only the rating values, but also cites in a footnote to the definition of wetland to be
used for HRS purposes.
Table 4-24—Wetlands Rating Values for Surface Water Migration Pathway
Total length of wetlands3 (miles)
Assigned value
Less than 0.1
0
0.1 to 1
25
Greater than 1 to 2
50
Greater than 2 to 3
75
Greater than 3 to 4
100
Greater than 4 to 8
150
Greater than 8 to 12
250
Greater than 12 to 16
350
Greater than 16 to 20
450
Greater than 20
500
a Wetlands as defined in 40 CFR section 230.3. [emphasis added]
As cited in the footnote to Table 4-24, 40 CFR section 230.3 provides the following definition:
The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.
Thus, wetlands meeting this definition are eligible wetlands for HRS purposes. The 40 CFR section 230.3
definition of wetlands does not specifically require that 50% of the total vegetation be hydrophytic species. It
requires under normal conditions "a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions." Such language does not mandate a simple majority; rather it requires that the dominant vegetation
type must be vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
The HRS documentation record at proposal discusses the identification of wetlands scored as subject to Level II
actual contamination. Page 40 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
The zone of contamination (i.e., area where observed release by chemical analysis is documented)
along the surface water migration pathway downstream of the site source extends from the PPE at
sample location PC-SD25B south to sample location PC-SD13B approximately 0.25 mile
downstream [Figure 3; see Section 4.1.2.1.1], There are HRS-eligible wetlands along the zone of
contamination, and the total wetland frontage considered as subject to actual contamination is
approximately 0.15 mile [Figures 2, 3; Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1; 5, pp. 43-62], There are no
media-specific benchmarks for sediment, so the target wetlands are subject to Level II
concentrations [Ref. 1, Sections 2.5 and 4.1.4.3; 2, pp. BII-8],
40

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
The HRS documentation record at proposal describes the zone of actual contamination7 in Pierson's Creek based
on sediment samples meeting observed release criteria. It states on page 40:
The sediment concentrations meet the criteria for Level II concentrations because there are no
media-specific benchmarks for sediment [Ref. 1, Sections 2.5 and 4.1.4.3.1; 2, p. BII-8]:
TABLE 11. SAMPLES FOR OBSERVED RELEASE
Sample ID
Distance
from PPE
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Reference(s)
PC-SD25B
0 feet
Mercury
1,770
Figure 3; Ref. 10, pp. 27, 61
PC-SD23A
180 feet
Mercury
737 J (402.73)
Figure 3; Ref. 10, pp. 5, 16,
58; 16, pp. 1-8, 18
PC-SD23B
180 feet
Mercury
1,130
Figure 3; Ref. 10, pp. 19, 58
PC-SD17B
700 feet
Mercury
855 J (467.21)
Figure 3; Ref. 9, pp. 3-5, 24,
80; 16, pp. 8, 18
PC-SD14A
1,150 feet
Mercury
694 J (379.23)
Figure 3; Ref. 8, pp. 5, 30, 81;
16, pp. 8, 18
PC-SD14B
1,150 feet
Mercury
1,290 J (704.92)
Figure 3; Ref. 9, pp. 3-5, 10,
75; 16, pp. 8, 18
PC-SD14C
1,150 feet
Mercury
1,400 J (765.03)
Figure 3; Ref. 9, pp. 3-5, 13,
76; 16, pp. 8, 18
PC-SD13B
1,300 feet
Mercury
924 J (504.92)
Figure 3; Ref. 8, pp. 5, 29, 80;
16, pp. 8, 18
J - This flag indicates that the result qualified as estimated; direction of bias is unknown [Ref.
8, pp. 1-5; 9, pp. 1-5; 10, pp. 1-5], These results have been adjusted according to the EPA fact
sheet" Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination";
adjusted values are shown in parentheses [Ref. 16, pp. 1-8, 18],
Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the length of wetlands frontage subject to Level
II actual contamination, and the assignment of a wetlands rating value (and Level II concentrations factor value)
of 25, consistent with the HRS:
There are HRS-eligible wetlands along the zone of contamination, and the total wetland frontage subject to
actual contamination is approximately 0.15 mile [Figure 3; Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1; Ref. 5, pp. 43-62],
TABLE 12. LEVEL II CONCENTRATIONS - WETLANDS
Wetland
Wetland Frontage
Wetlands Rating
Value (HRS Table 4-
24)
Reference
Pierson's Creek
0.15 mile
25
Figures 2, 3; Ref. 5, pp.
43-62
The length of wetlands in Pierson's Creek was not directly based on the soil boring locations. Rather, the soil
boring locations were data points considered in the overall assessment of wetlands in the Creek as explained in
the field logbooks. The HRS documentation record text at proposal, quoted above, cites pages 43-62 of Reference
5 of the HRS documentation record containing field logbooks that document the wetland delineation. Page 44 of
Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal (cited in text quoted above), does indeed state that
"wetland soils/hydrology/vegetation were confirmed at locations SB-1, SB-4, and SB-7" (this is also shown on
data forms on pages 45-46, 51-52, and 57-58 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
However, these soil boring locations did not represent the full extent/boundaries of the wetlands identified. Page
7 The surface water instream segment between the PPE and the furthest downstream observed release samples (HRS section
4.1.1.2)
41

-------
Pierson's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
44 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal noted that "flag locations F-l to F-14 delineated
the edge of the wetland along the creek. Soil boring locations SB-2, SB-3, SB-5, SB-6, and SB-8 showed the
upland areas just upslope from the wetland."
Page 23 of £50
[SOURCES
t NJ OfAcO of Information Tochnology (NJOIT). Olflco oJGoograpfiie Information
Systems (OGIS) N»w Jeremy 2012 - 201 3. High R^solcAion OithopnotGgraphy.
NAOB.4 N J SWW» f-'iflrtn I MrNH) lil»ft Maren 7013
ij'jm slat* m.ui'NJ NJOINExpl«Ji>jiiivitr<™fcii (&p?pg-20t2 OiJIiohriayt-fy
2 Weston Solutions, Ino Fi««d Logbook - wetland#, PieraoiYs CrecWFroy
Chom Cotp inc.. Newark, NJ. TDD* SOS 0013 ltH-015 October 2012.
€> Soil Boring
I I Wetlands Flaa Location
Wetland Frontage
i Pierson's Creek
* Feeder Streams
Pierson's Creek
Wetland Frontage
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ

Figure 2 - Map showing the wetland frontage determined to be present in Pierson's Creek. This map shows
the locations of the soil borings and flag locations that were used in the October 2012 wetland delineation.
In response to these comments, the EPA verified the intent of the authors of the October 2012 wetland delineation
presented in Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. This verification is contained in a June
2014 Wetland Delineation Report (included as Attachment 2 of this support document) that confirmed the
conclusions of the October 2012 wetland delineation (see pages 13 and 23 of Attachment 2 of this support
document). Figure 6 on page 23 of Attachment 2 of this support document contains a plot of the flag locations.
42

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Finally, as shown on page 43 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, following the field
assessment the wetlands scientist describes the wetlands extent, concluding that "there is a small fringe wetland,
at the base of a steep slope, along the east edge of Pierson's Creek, from the Conrail property north across the 429
Delancy property to Delancy Street." This determination made by the wetlands scientist is the basis for the
wetland extent described in the HRS documentation record at proposal (this extent is shown as a purple line on
Figure 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, also cited in text quoted above [See also Figure 1 of this
support document]).
The stretch of the wetlands within the zone of actual contamination corresponds to the 0.15-mile length scored in
the HRS documentation record at proposal. Figure 1 of this support document shows that the zone of actual
contamination (signified by the yellow line) extends from upstream of Delancy Street to the farthest downstream
observed release sample, SD13B. (Thus, the 0.15-mile length corresponds to the distance where the wetland
[purple line] overlaps the zone of actual contamination [yellow line] on Figure 1 of this support document)
Specifically regarding wetland delineation soil boring location SB-9, this location was not designated as within
wetland, but instead was identified as illustrating the upland wetland boundary for this part of the wetland. This
identification is supported in multiple ways.
First, as noted above, the soil boring locations by themselves were not the direct basis for the extent of the
wetlands identified or the length of wetland frontage scored as subject to Level II actual contamination; and this
soil boring location was not used directly to determine the downstream extent of the wetlands subject to actual
contamination (observed release sample SD13B served this purpose).
Further, SB-9 is not described as wetland. Rather, as shown on pages 43-44 and 61-62 of Reference 5 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal, this location was determined to constitute an example of the boundary of the
wetland. Pages 43 notes that "SB-9 is in phragmites near [the] south end of Pierson's [Creek] near [the] Conrail
line . . . SB-9 is characteristic of this entire wetland, both sides of Pierson's Creek (phragmites, wet area—floods),
at [the] southern end of this open section (Conrail & Engelhard)." Page 44 states that "the edge of the wetland was
confirmed at location SB-9," and page 62 again identifies location SB-9 as a "wetland boundary." 8
Regarding Troy's citation of the draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992, in support of its
assertion that to identify wetlands hydrophytic species must be at least 50% of the total vegetation, this guidance
manual imposes no requirements for two reasons. First, as explained above in section 3.12, Consistency with
Guidance, of this support document, guidance only aids the scorer in the HRS evaluation of the Site if needed
depending on site-specific conditions. Second, and more importantly the HRS itself contains the specifications for
identifying wetlands for HRS scoring purposes, and EPA followed the HRS to identify wetlands in this
rulemaking. As quoted above, the HRS refers to the definition in 40 CFR Section 230.3, which specifies in part "a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The HRS Guidance Manual does
not suggest a 50% condition; instead, page A-20 cited by Troy echoes the same 40 CFR section 230.3 language,
using the term "prevalence." In any event, although not an HRS requirement, soil boring locations used as part of
the wetlands delineation and classified as wetlands (SB-1, SB-4, and SB-7) were determined to exhibit >50%
hydrophytic vegetation—as shown on pages 45, 51, and 57 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal, which note >50% of the dominant species at these locations are "OBL [obligate wetland], FACW
[facultative wetland] or FAC [facultative] (excluding FAC- [facultative, less frequently found in wetlands])."
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
8 Page 30 of the June 2014 reanalysis of wetland data in Attachment 2 of this support document also describes location SB-9
as "located at the wetland margin."
43

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
3.18.2 Documentation of Wetland Delineation
Comment: Regarding the extent of wetlands in Pierson's Creek subject to actual Level II contamination and the
alleged mischaracterization of boring SB-9 location as wetland, Troy asserted that there is inadequate
documentation in the HRS package to allow an assessment of the impact of this error on the length of wetland
scored.
Troy commented that there is no map available in the HRS package showing boring locations; Troy claims such
information is needed to measure the length of the wetland. Troy further noted that there is no available
photographic evidence of vegetation/soil at wetland delineation boring locations.
Troy also asserted that "[e]ssential to the notice and comment process is that EPA 'provide sufficient factual
detail and rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.' Fla. Power & Light v. US.,
846 F.2d 765, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1988)." Troy stated that "[t]he failure to provide adequate information on where the
borings were has deprived Troy of the opportunity to meaningfully comment on this aspect of the proposed
listing."
Response: The information contained in the HRS package at proposal was sufficient to reproduce the length of
wetland frontage scored as subject to Level II contamination, soil boring location SB-9 was not used in
determining the length of the wetland frontage, rather, SB-9 was used to establish the upland border of the
wetlands but not itself wetland.
As shown in section 3.18.1, Wetland Length, of this support document, the wetland frontage length subject to
actual Level II contamination was correctly evaluated, consistent with the HRS. The extent of wetlands identified
was based on the complete assessment carried out by the wetlands scientist performing the delineation, and was
directly based on the wetland scientist's determination that wetlands are present along the east edge of Pierson's
Creek, from the Conrail property north across the 429 Delancy property to Delancy Street (shown on page 43 of
Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal)9. The extent of wetlands identified was not solely
based on soil boring locations, although these points were considered in the wetland scientist's assessment. A
wetlands scientist visited the site, made visual observations, collected soil samples, and evaluated vegetation
surrounding the Creek for hydrophytic properties; based on the expert opinion of the wetland scientist, the sum
total of the information garnered from this investigation (See Attachment 2 of this support document) indicated
that a wetland is present along Pierson's Creek as shown in Figure 2 of this support document. Soil boring SB-9
was not designated as wetlands; it was instead determined to be on the upland border of the wetlands. Therefore
Troy's assertion that it was improperly characterized as wetlands is incorrect and this assertion has no effect on
the extent of wetlands identified, or the length of wetlands frontage scored as subject to Level II contamination.
As quoted in section 3.18.1 of this support document immediately above, HRS Sections 4.0.2 and 4.1.4.3.1.2
contain the HRS instructions for identifying HRS eligible wetlands and delineating wetland frontage. In summary,
HRS eligible wetlands, including those evaluated as subject to Level II contamination, are those areas that under
normal circumstances support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions and
are in the zone of contamination as defined by the PPE for the site and the observed release sample locations.
The length of 0.15 mile wetland scored can be verified based on available information in the HRS package:
•	Field logbook information contained in Reference 5 (and detailed in section 3.18.1, Wetland Length, of
this support document) provides the basis for the extent of wetlands identified.
•	The extent of wetlands identified is plotted on Figure 1 of this support document, shown as a purple line.
9 See Figure 1 of this support document. The wetland frontage included in the HRS evaluation ends at sample SW13 (end of
the zone of contamination).
44

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
•	Page 40 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the zone of actual contamination in
Pierson's Creek based on sediment samples meeting observed release criteria. The zone of actual
contamination is also plotted on Figure 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, shown as a
yellow line.
•	Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the length of wetlands subject to Level II
actual contamination, citing Figure 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.
•	Using Figure 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the wetland frontage subject to Level II
actual contamination can be measured based on the portion of wetland frontage within the zone of actual
contamination.
Regarding the lack of a map showing the boring location and photographic evidence of vegetation type, while
these documents are one form of documentation, they are not required by the HRS for documenting the presence
of wetlands. As the soil boring locations themselves were not the direct basis for the extent of the wetlands
identified, a map showing these boring locations is not essential to reproduce the scored length of 0.15 mile
wetland subject to actual Level II contamination. Further, there is no HRS requirement for photographic evidence
to document the presence of wetland vegetation.10 As identified above, the EPA provided field logbooks support
the wetland delineation. (The field logbooks note the street locations and expert descriptions of the vegetation
supporting the presence of a wetland).
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.18.3 NJDEP Designation of Pierson's Creek
Comment: Both Troy and 429 Delancy questioned the extent of wetlands identified in Pierson's Creek based on
NJDEP designations for this water body. These commenters contended that according to a November 21, 2006,
NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation, there are no wetlands adjacent to the Delancy property (the
former Engelhard property) in Pierson's Creek, and that this stretch is instead classified as "state open waters."
Further, commenter 429 Delancy questioned the sensitive environments factor value being based on "presumed
presence of wetlands fronting the entire stretch of the Creek as it passes through the Delancy Property." Troy
asserted that this contradiction contributes to the uncertainty in the length of the wetland scored.
Response: The presence of wetlands contiguous to Pierson's Creek adjacent to the Delancy property (and the
related wetland frontage scored as subject to Level II actual contamination) was correctly identified for HRS
scoring purposes in the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the HRS (See Figure 1 of this
support document). The NJDEP designation of Pierson's Creek as "state open waters" does not negate this.
As quoted in section 3.18.1, Wetland Frontage, of this support document, HRS Sections 4.0.2 and 4.1.3.1.2
provide the HRS instructions for identifying HRS eligible wetlands and delineating wetland frontage. In
summary, HRS-eligible wetlands are those areas that under normal circumstances support a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions and are in the zone of contamination as defined by
the PPE for the site and the sample locations meeting observed release criteria.
As also explained in section 3.18.1 of this support document, the delineation and identification of the wetlands
adjacent to Pierson's Creek were correctly based on the HRS definition of wetlands, and the resulting length of
wetland frontage used in scoring was accurate in the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the
HRS. The identification of wetlands contiguous to Pierson's Creek as part of the surface water body being
evaluated was based on the October 2012 field assessment performed by a wetlands scientist (documented in
Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal), and the assessment concluded that wetlands (meeting
10 Although not required, the June 2014 Wetland Delineation Report (Attachment 2 of this support document) shows soil
boring locations on page 23 (Figure 6) and includes a photographic log on pages 24-30.
45

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
the HRS Table 4-24-specified definition contained in 40 CFR section 230.3) are present along the east edge of
Pierson's Creek, from the Conrail property north across the 429 Delancy property to Delancy Street.11
This determination is governed by the HRS and is not negated by the 2006 NJDEP designation of Pierson's Creek
as "state open waters".12 The identification of wetlands for HRS scoring purposes is dependent on the finding of
wetlands meeting the 40 CFR section 230.3 definition, as specified by HRS Table 4-24 (and such a finding may
or may not coincide with state designations). Furthermore, the NJDEP designation of Pierson's Creek as "state
open waters" applies to the main channel of Pierson's Creek, but does not exclude the existence of wetlands on
the banks of this channel and does not state that there are no wetlands on the edge of the Creek.13
This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.19 Consideration of Revisions in Mercury River Persistence Value
On January 30, 2014, after the Site was proposed to the NPL on December 12, 2013 but before the close of the
public comment period on March 27, 2014, the EPA updated the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). As
part of this update, the river persistence value of mercury was changed.14 To be consistent with prior HRS final
updates that have included chemical value updates, the EPA has considered and revised the mercury river
persistence value in the Pierson's Creek HRS documentation record at promulgation. However, as explained
further below, this change to the mercury river persistence value alone does not affect any factor category value
or the Site score. EPA's revision to the mercury river persistence value is based on an estimate of the volatility of
mercury using up-to-date projection procedures; the river persistence factor value (which reflects the length of
time mercury will remain in rivers under normal conditions before it volatilizes into the atmosphere) for mercury
has been updated from 0.4 to 1.0.
As shown on pages 35 and 39 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation, this change in the river
persistence value for the mercury results in a combined toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x
10s for the human food chain threat (previously 2 x 10s at proposal), and a combined
ecotoxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 10s for the environmental threat (also previously 2 x
10s at proposal) assigned for mercury.
This change results in no new Site score - in other words, the score remains the same and is not revised upward or
downward as a result of this change. Multiplying the revised toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation factor value by
a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 (see section 3.14, Hazardous Waste Quantity, of this support
document) results in a human food chain threat Waste Characteristics product of is 5 x 1010 (previously 2 x 1010 at
proposal) and an environmental threat Waste Characteristics product of is 5 x 1010 (previously 2 x 1010 at
proposal). Applying this change through to Table 2-7, Waste Characteristic Factor Category Values, of the HRS
results in the same Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 320 as both 5 x 1010 and 2x 1010 fall between
the same range of values (1 x 1010 and 1 x 1011) that correspond to an assigned factor category value of 320.
11	See also the confirming results and conclusion on page 11-13 and 23 of the June 2014 reanalysis of wetland data
(Attachment 2 of this support document).
12	The November 21, 2006, NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation is included as Attachment 3 to this support
document.
13	See also the conclusion on page 12 of the June 2014 reanalysis of wetland data (Attachment 2 of this support document),
stating that "Pierson's Creek would in itself constitute a State Open Water, as it does not meet the exclusionary criteria found
inN. J.A.C. 7:7A-1.4 Definitions".
14	For more information on SCDM and the January 2014 revisions, please visit the Agency's website located at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm
46

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Thus, updating the mercury river persistence value in the HRS documentation record at promulgation does not
affect any factor category value or the Site score; this update results in no change to the HRS score and no change
in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
3.20 HRS Score
Comment: As discussed and addressed in this support document, Troy commented that the HRS documentation
record at proposal incorrectly scored several aspects of the Pierson's Creek site. Troy commented that the HRS
documentation record at proposal overestimated the hazardous waste quantity and asserted that a hazardous
constituent quantity of 7,300 pounds should be used to determine the HRS score, resulting in a hazardous waste
quantity value of 100. Troy also commented that, due to the uncertainty in the wetland length, the wetlands
evaluated as subject to actual Level II contamination in the HRS documentation record at proposal should be
excluded from the HRS evaluation. Troy asserted the "sensitive environment - Level II concentration" should be
reduced to zero. Troy further commented that the food chain individual should be removed from the scoring of the
Site due to a lack of threat to a fishery. Based on these points, Troy asserted that the correct HRS score is 0.002
and this score is below the 28.50 threshold for NPL listing.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the changes in the HRS scoring tables provided by Troy and show their estimate of
the overall Site score being calculated at 0.002.
Table 1: Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Human Food Chain Threat Scoresheet
Submitted by Commenter
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD
MIGRATION COMPONENT
Factor Categories & Factors
HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT
MAXIMUM
VALUE
VALUE
ASSIGNED
Likelihood of Release
14. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5)
550
550
Waste Characteristics
15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
*
2.00E+08
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity
*
100
17. Waste Characteristics
1000
320
Targets
18. Food Chain Individual
50
0
19. Population
19a. Level I Concentrations

0
19b. Level II Concentrations

0
19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

0.0000003
19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c)

0.0000003
20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d)

0.0000003
21. HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT SCORE
([lines 14x 17x201/82,500)
100
0.0000006
Notes:
* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category
** Maximum value not applicable
47

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
Table 2: Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Environmental Threat Scoresheet
Submitted by Commenter
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD
MIGRATION COMPONENT
Factor Categories & Factors
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
MAXIMUM
VALUE
VALUE
ASSIGNED
Likelihood of Release
22. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5)
550
550
Waste Characteristics
23. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
*
2.00E+08
24. Hazardous Waste Quantity
*
100
25. Waste Characteristics
1000
320
Targets
18. Food Chain Individual
50
0
26. Sensitive Environments
26a. Level I Concentrations

0
26b. Level II Concentrations

0
26c. Potential Contamination

0.001
26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c)

0.001
27. Targets (line 26d)

0.001
28. ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT SCORE
60
0.002
([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500)
29. WATERSHED SCORE (lines 13 + 21+28)
100
0.002
30. SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD
MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE (S0f)
100
0.002
SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE (Ssw)
100
0.002
Notes:
* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category
** Maximum value not applicable
Response: The HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised in the process of responding to
public comments. The hazardous waste quantity has been revised at promulgation to 100; however, the Site score
still exceeds 28.50 and is sufficient for listing on the NPL.
Sections 3.17, Human Food Chain Threat: Food Chain Individual, and 3.18, Environmental Threat Targets:
Wetlands, of this support document, establish that targets have been appropriately identified and scored at
proposal, and as a result, the target scoring remains unchanged in the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
As explained in section 3.14.1, Tier B - Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, of this support document, the
hazardous wastestream quantity value has been revised to "undetermined but greater than zero". Accordingly, a
hazardous waste quantity of 100 for the surface water migration pathway (based on HRS Section 2.4.2.2,
Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value) and a waste characteristics value of 320 (based on HRS
Table 2-7) have been assigned at promulgation. The resulting surface water migration pathway human food chain
threat and environmental threat scores have been revised to 42.66 and 53.33, respectively. The surface water
migration pathway score has subsequently been revised to 95.99, the sum of the two threat scores (see HRS
Section 4.1.5, Calculation of overland/flood migration component score for a watershed). Therefore, the HRS
Site score has been revised to 47.99 at promulgation. The resulting HRS site score exceeds the 28.50 threshold to
48

-------
Pierson 's Creek NPL Listing Support Document
September 2014
qualify for placement on the NPL. Tables 3 and 4 below provide a comparison of the values assigned at proposal,
the values assigned at promulgation, and the values assigned in Troy's comment scoresheets.
Table 3: Comparison of Human Food Chain Threat Score from Proposal, Promulgation, and Troy's
Comments
Factor categories and factors
Maximum
value
Value assigned in
HRS
documentation
Value assigned in
HRS
documentation
record at
promulgation
Value
assigned by
Troy in its


record at proposal
comments
Likelihood of Release




14. Likelihood of Release
550
550
550
550
Waste Characteristics:




15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
(a)
2.00E+08
5.00E+08
2.00E+08
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity
(a)
10,000
100
100
17. Waste Characteristics
1,000
1,000
320
320
Targets:




18. Food Chain Individual
50
20
20
0
19. Population:




19a. Level I Concentrations
(b)
0
0
0
19b. Level II Concentrations
(b)
0
0
0
19c. Potential Contamination
(b)
0.0000003
0.0000003
0.0000003
19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c)
(b)
0.0000003
0.0000003
0.0000003
20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d)
(b)
20.0000003
20.0000003
0.0000003
21. Human Food Chain Threat Score
([lines 14x 17x201/82,500)
100
100
42.66
0.0000006
49

-------
Pier son's Creek NPL Listing Support Document	September 2014
Table 4: Comparison of Environmental Threat Score from Proposal, Promulgation, and Troy's Comments
Factor categories and factors
Maximum
value
Value assigned in
HRS
documentation
record at proposal
Value assigned in
HRS
documentation
record at
promulgation
Value
assigned by
Troy in its
comments
Likelihood of Release




22. Likelihood of Release
550
550
550
550
Waste Characteristics:




23. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
(a)
2.00E+08
5.00E+08
2.00E+08
24. Hazardous Waste Quantity
(a)
10,000
100
100
25. Waste Characteristics
1,000
1,000
320
320
Targets:




26. Sensitive Environments




26a. Level I Concentrations
(b)
0
0
0
26b. Level II Concentrations
(b)
25
25
0
26c. Potential Contamination
(b)
0.001
0.001
0.001
26d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c)
(b)
25.001
25.001
0.001
27. Targets (lines 18 + 19d)
(b)
25.001
25.001
0.0000003
28. Environmental Threat Score
([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500)
60
60.00
53.33
0.002
29. Watershed Score (lines 13 + 21 + 28 )
100
100.00
95.99
0.002
30. Surface Water Overland/Flood
Migration Component Score
100
100.00
95.99
0.002
Surface Water Migration Pathway
Score
100
100.00
95.99
0.002
HRS Site Score
100
50.00
47.99
0.001
4. Conclusion
The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to comments, the Site score has
been changed in the HRS documentation record at promulgation to 47.99. The final scores for the Pierson's Creek
site are:
Ground Water
Surface Water
Soil Exposure
Air
HRS Site Score
Not Scored
47.99
Not Scored
Not Scored
47.99
50

-------
Attachment 1: Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup and Disposal Plan,
February 29, 2012

-------
THE C 11 I I GROUP
218 Wall Street | Research Park | Princeton NJ 08540
tel 609.683.4848 fax 609.683.0129
www.ExploreELM.com
March 5, 2012
— Via Federal Express --
Ms. Judith Enck, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Mr. John Gorman, Chief Pesticides and Toxic Substance Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Pesticides and Toxic Substance Branch
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-105
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
RE: Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup and Disposal Plan
Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
One Avenue L, Newark, Essex County, New Jersey
Dear Ms. Enck and Mr. Gorman:
The ELM Group, Inc. (ELM), on behalf of Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc. (Troy), submits
the enclosed Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup and Disposal Plan for review and approval.
The Troy Site is located at One Avenue L, Newark, New Jersey and is the subject of a
remediation pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Site Remediation Program. As required by 40 CFR 761.61, the plan presents the
characterization and proposed remedial actions to address Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) in sediment/soil within an out-of-service, concrete-lined, storm water drainage
ditch which bisects the Troy property. The scope of work outlined in the enclosed plan was
developed based on discussions with Jim Haklar.
The enclosed plan has been provided to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, the Essex County Department of Health & Rehabilitation, and the City of
Newark in accordance with 40 CFR 761.61(a)(3).
G:\95127-Troy\RemedyofLined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\CvrLtr-PCB Cleanup Plan-030512.docx
Princeton NJ | Boonton NJ | New York NY | Holicong PA | Bethlehem PA

-------
Ms. Judith Enck and Mr. John Gorman
United States Environmental Protection Agency
March 5, 2012
Page 2
If you have any questions please contact us at 609-683-4848.
Sincerely,
THE ELM GROUP, INC.
J^^jlloore, MS, CHMM	Mark D. Fisher, CHMM
Senior Project Manager	Principal
MBP:kmm
Enclosure
• Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup and Disposal Plan (ELM, 02/29/12)
c: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(as Attachment D to ELM's 2/29/12 Remedial Action Workplan)
Edward Capasso - Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
(as Attachment D to ELM's 2/29/12 Remedial Action Workplan)
Mike Festa - Essex County Dept of Health & Rehabilitation, Environmental Health Office
Marsha McGowan - City of Newark, Department of Health and Human Services
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\CvrLtr-PCB Cleanup Plan-030512.docx

-------
SELF-IMPLEMENTING PCB CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL PLAN
Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
One Avenue L, Newark, Essex County, New Jersey
NJDEP Case No. G000001344
Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
Newark, New Jersey
February 29, 2012
Prepared by:
The ELM Group, Inc.
218 Wall Street, Research Park
Princeton, NJ 08540-1512
www.ExploreELM.com
Prepared for:
Project Manager
Senior Project Manager

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES		iii
LIST OF TABLES	iii
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS	iii
1.0 Introduction	1
2.0 Site Description and Physical Setting	2
2.1.	General Description and Physical Setting of the Troy Property	2
2.2.	Physical Description of the Concrete-Lined Ditch	4
2.3.	Historical Development and Use of the Concrete-Lined Ditch	5
2.4.	Surface Water Conditions/Hydrogeology	6
3.0 Site Characterization	7
3.1.	Characterization Methodology	8
3.2.	Summary of Characterization Results	8
4.0 Self Implementing Cleanup and Disposal of PCB Remediation Waste	9
4.1.	General Remediation Approach	9
4.1.1.	Delineation Sampling	10
4.1.2.	Sealing of Downstream Ditch Box Culvert	10
4.1.3.	In-Situ Stabilization	10
4.1.4.	Excavation, Staging, and Off-Site Disposal	11
4.1.5.	Post-Excavation Verification Sampling	12
4.1.6.	Backfilling of Ditch and Installation of Concrete Cap	15
4.1.7.	Deed Restriction	15
4.2.	Cleanup Levels Based on End Occupancy Use - High Occupancy Use
with an Engineering Control	16
5.0	Schedule	17
6.0	Notification and Owner Certification	17
7.0	Summary of Proposed Remediation	17
8.0	References	19
ii
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup„Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx


-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: General Site Map Showing Construction Details for the Lined Ditch, Limits of
Sediment Removal, and Other Details
Figure 3: Isometric View of Generalized Construction of Concrete-Lined Ditch and
Surrounding Stratigraphy Subsurface
Figure 4: Current and Historic Flow Patterns Associated with the Lined Ditch
Figure 5: Total PCB Data for Lined Ditch Showing Areas Where Concentrations Exceed
50 mg/kg
Figure 6: Proposed Post-Excavation Verification Sampling Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of PCB Analytical Data
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:	Schedule of Implementation
Attachment 2:	Self-Implementing Cleanup Owner's Certification Regarding Location
of Records
iii
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPian_022912.docx

-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 40 CFR 761.61(a), The ELM Group, Inc. (ELM), on behalf of Troy Chemical
Corporation, Inc. (Troy), is notifying the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) that Troy intends to conduct a self-implementing cleanup of poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) at its One Avenue L, Newark, Essex County, New Jersey facility (Figure 1).
Specifically, the cleanup will consist of the removal of sediment/soil from an out-of-service,
concrete-lined storm water drainage ditch (herein "the ditch" or "the lined ditch") which
bisects the Troy property. This document serves as Troy's notification and certification,
and presents a summary of the Site characterization and cleanup plan for the PCB
remediation wastes at the Site. Please note that the proposed remediation outlined in this
Cleanup Plan applies only to the approximately 550 foot extent of the concrete-lined ditch
which bisects the Troy property. Unlined drainage ditches are located along Troy's eastern
property boundary as well as immediately south of the property (to which the concrete-
lined ditch formerly discharged); however, the remediation of these ditches are not
included in the scope of work outlined herein.
PCBs (amongst other contaminants) were detected in sediment/soil inside the ditch at
concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg during the 2008 Remedial Investigation (RI)
conducted pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Site Remediation Program (SRP). As part of an overall remediation strategy, Troy intends
to remove all sediment/soil inside the ditch (including that sediment/soil with PCB
concentrations less than 50 mg/kg), backfill the ditch with NJDEP-certified clean fill, and
install a concrete cap over the backfilled area. The ditch walls and bottom will remain in
place as they provide structural support to buildings and other features abutting the ditch.
Following completion of the remediation efforts described herein, Troy will continue to use
the property as an industrial (i.e., chemical manufacturing) facility. The area to be
remediated is located in an exterior portion of the property bisecting the main
manufacturing area of the plant. Following backfilling and paving of the ditch area, Troy
1
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA^PCB„Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx


-------
intends to use the area for transient support functions, such as product storage. Troy does
not intend to erect any permanent structures in the remediated area.
Because of the nature of the intended reuse of the remediated area, it is unlikely that any
individual will occupy this area for more than 6.7 hours per week. Nevertheless, to allow
for a more flexible reuse, this Cleanup Plan assumes individual occupancy of an average of
16.7 hours or more per week (high occupancy). After all sediment/soil is removed from
the ditch, a concrete cap will be placed over the entire remediated area, and will meet the
criteria for a cap as specified in 40 CFR 761.61.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING
The following sections include a general physical description of the ditch as well as a
discussion of the historic development and hydrogeology of the ditch. For completeness, a
general discussion of the Troy property and its physical setting, as it pertains to the ditch, is
also provided below. A comprehensive discussion of the Troy property is not included
herein as this Cleanup Plan specifically addresses the lined ditch. A comprehensive
discussion of the physical setting of the Troy property was provided in previous
submissions to the NJDEP (ELM, 2010) and can be made available for review upon request.
2.1. General Description and Physical Setting of the Troy Property
Troy operates an active manufacturing facility situated on approximately 5.8 acres located
at One Avenue L in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey (i.e., the Site) (Figure 1). With the
exception of limited landscaped and grassed areas (located remote to the ditch), the
property is entirely covered by surface caps consisting of buildings, concrete, and asphalt
(Figure 2). The property is located in the Ironbound District of Newark; a highly
industrialized section of the city which was developed prior to 1900 by the emplacement of
historic industrial fill over former salt marshes. The Troy property is bounded to the west
by Avenue L and industrial/commercial properties; to the north by a Federal Express
Distribution Center; and to the east and south by commercial/industrial properties
including Continental Hardware and Trading (hardware retailer), Welch, Holme & Clark
2
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPAJ>elfCleanupPIan„022912.docx


-------
Company, Inc. (distributor of crude & refined vegetable oils), and Globe Metals (scrap metal
recycler] (Figure 2).
Two ephemeral storm water ditches (both oriented north to south) are present at the
property (Figure 2): (1) a concrete and gabion-lined ditch which bisects the center of
Troy's operational area (the focus of this Cleanup Plan); and (2) an unlined ditch which
runs along Troy's eastern property boundary. Remediation of the unlined ditch is not
included as part of this cleanup plan. The lined ditch originates at Troy's northern property
boundary and terminates at the southern property boundary. Immediately downstream of
the Troy property, the lined ditch and unlined ditch converge within an underground
concrete box culvert, which discharges to an unlined channel on the Continental property
to the south.
The Troy property is underlain by several unconsolidated strata (ELM, 2004). The
uppermost is a heterogeneous assemblage of historic industrial fill material consisting of
sand and silt with varying amounts of gravel, brick, concrete, and cinders. The fill layer
extends across the entirety of the Troy property and generally extends to a depth of 5-7
feet below grade. Immediately underlying the fill layer is a low-permeability layer of
organic-rich marsh deposits composed of peat and silts which is typically 1- IV2 feet thick.
A low-permeability glacial till, consisting of clay with lesser amounts of silt and trace sand
and gravel, immediately underlies the peat layer. The glacial till layer is generally
encountered beginning at 8-9 feet below grade at the Troy Site. The glacial till
encompasses the entire Troy property and has thickness exceeding 100 feet in the vicinity
of the Site (ELM, 2004). Based on borings and surveying completed at the Troy property,
the glacial till layer immediately underlies/envelopes the bottom of the lined ditch.
Groundwater occurs in two principal water bearing units at the Troy property: the shallow
water bearing unit within the historic fill and peat layers, and the deeper water bearing
unit within the low-permeability glacial till material. On a micro-scale, groundwater flow
within the shallow water bearing unit is highly variable, due to the presence of the two
3
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
elm

-------
ditches at the Site (See Section 2.4, below]. However, regionally, both groundwater and
surface water flow south-southeast towards Port Newark Channel/Newark Bay.
There are no residences, schools, hospitals, or parks within a 1,000-foot radius of the Troy
property, and about 70 percent of the land surface within this area is covered by structures
or other surface caps (asphalt or concrete] (EMCON, 1998; ELM, 2004]. Due to its
industrial history and development with historic industrial fill, soil, groundwater, and
surface water within the Ironbound District of Newark have been contaminated by
numerous anthropogenic sources. Regional contamination of groundwater in the
Ironbound is well documented and includes elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons,
aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, PAHs and heavy metals (2B, 1997]. Similarly, soil,
and surface water in the Ironbound have been documented to contain significantly elevated
levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs and heavy metals (particularly lead and arsenic],
primarily due to the ubiquitous presence of historic industrial fill in the area.
2.2. Physical Description of the Concrete-Lined Ditch
The ditch to be remediated is a completely channelized, fortified (with concrete and gabion
walls] channel which was formerly utilized for storm water conveyance for the Ironbound
(Figure 3], There are currently no storm water inputs to the channel from Troy or
surrounding properties with the exception of precipitation directly falling into the channel.
The length of the lined ditch is approximately 550 ft, spanning the entire north-south
extent of the Troy property, and bisecting the main operational area of the plant. The
width of the ditch varies across its length but, in general, is approximately 18 ft at the
upstream (northern] end, tapering down to approximately 6 ft at the downstream
(southern] end. The areal extent of the ditch is approximately 5,700 square feet. The ditch
is constructed with a combination of concrete and stone gabion walls. Gabion comprises
approximately 30% of the 1,000 ft of ditch wall and is present at both the northern (both
sides] and southern (east side only] extents of the ditch (Figures 2 and 3]. The remainder
of the ditch walls is constructed of concrete. The height of the concrete/gabion walls
relative to the base of the ditch vary significantly along the length of the ditch ranging from
4
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx


-------
approximately 6 to 15 ft. Top of soil/sediment within the ditch is generally 3-4 feet below
grade, except in the northern portion of the ditch where it is approximately 10 feet below
grade. The top of the concrete walls are generally two to three feet above surrounding
grade, while the top of gabion walls are generally half a foot above surrounding grade. A
concrete slab forms the bottom of the ditch.
The ditch liner was constructed at various times spanning from circa 1950 to 1980. The
ditch was lined using variable construction methods over this span to facilitate storm water
drainage and to provide support to structures being constructed proximate to its sides. In
some instances, building foundations are integral to (a part of} the ditch liner. The
concrete walls and bottom of the ditch in the central, operational portion of the property is
constructed of thick (generally greater than eight inches) concrete and was built before
1953 when Troy's predecessor took ownership of the property. The extreme north and
south ends of the ditch were subsequently lined with stone gabion by Troy. The ditch
bottom in these areas is reported to be solid; however, no information is available
regarding the material of construction.
The material located within the ditch is a combination of soil and sediment and is a
heterogeneous, highly organic assemblage of sand and silt with interspersed fill material,
refuse, and vegetative matter. Overall sediment/soil thickness within the ditch ranges from
a maximum of 3.5 feet at the northern end, tapering down to approximately 2.5 feet at the
southern end. From surface to approximately 6 inches below top of sediment/soil (BTS),
the material is similar to a course to fine grained soil with interspersed vegetation and root
matter. Below the surface sediment/soil and extending to the bottom of the ditch is a layer
of fine sand and silt.
2.3. Historical Development and Use of the Concrete-Lined Ditch
The concrete-lined ditch (as well as the downstream, unlined storm water channel) had
previously been used for over 100 years as an urban storm water drainage structure for
Newark's Ironbound District. The ditch was originally constructed as an unlined ditch
5
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCELCleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
ft.

-------
sometime prior to 1892, and served as a drainage feature to facilitate the development of
the Ironbound District. As the Ironbound developed, the ditch became the receiving body
for storm water runoff from approximately 750 acres of industrial properties to the north
of Troy through the Wilson Avenue storm sewer system. As a result, sediment/soil along
the entire length of the ditch (including locations on and off the Troy property) has been
significantly impacted by anthropogenic chemical sources as a result of both point and non-
point source discharges (ELM, 2010).
The ditch previously originated at Wilson Avenue, on the adjacent northern property
currently occupied by FedEx (Figure 4). As discussed above, this ditch served as the
discharge point of the Wilson Avenue storm sewer system. In 2002, the City of Newark
rerouted the Wilson Avenue storm water into a storm sewer installed along Avenue L. The
Avenue L storm sewer discharges to the unlined storm water channel located on the
Continental property via an underground box culvert located immediately south of the
Troy property (Figure 4); bypassing the concrete-lined ditch on the Troy property. A
NJDEP-approved remedial action previously conducted on the FedEx property to the north
of Troy resulted in the backfilling of the ditch to surrounding Site grade, making the Troy
property the origin of the ditch. As part of redevelopment in 2008, storm water
catchments were installed at the FedEx facility routing all storm water runoff to the
Avenue L storm sewer. In December 2008, Troy sealed the underground pipe that
previously conveyed storm water from the unlined ditch on the FedEx property to the lined
ditch on the Troy property, at the property boundary. As such, there are currently no
storm water inputs to the ditch, other than storm water falling on the ditch during rain
events.
2.4. Surface Water Conditions/Hydrogeology
As indicated above, there are currently no significant storm water inputs to the lined ditch,
nor any process discharge. Storm water runoff at the Troy property is managed through a
series of in-ground trenches which connect to the facility's on-site waste water treatment
plant. Treated water is discharged to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (a publicly
6
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
ft.

-------
owned treatment works]. Surface water is only present within the lined ditch during, and
immediately following rain events; the result of storm water falling into the ditch. Under
base flow conditions, surface water (if present) generally only exists as isolated pools
within depressions in the sediment/soil surface, with no discernible flow.
Based on the results of previous investigations, some seepage of groundwater occurs to the
lined ditch (Figure 4). This is supported by observations that, in general, sediment/soil
becomes saturated approximately 6 inches to 1 ft BTS; coincident with groundwater
elevations for the Site. Groundwater seepage is predicted to occur primarily in the gabion-
lined sections of the ditch located at the northern and southern extents of the ditch. During
the completion of a pilot stabilization test completed in April 2011, small breaches were
observed in the eastern wall of the ditch, near the center of the Troy property (area of
sampling transect PC-3 (Figure 2]). Based on these observations, groundwater seepage is
likely occurring in the concrete-lined portions as well (Figure 4) in some locations.
Nonetheless, given the low hydraulic gradient, moderate hydraulic conductivity, and small
saturated thickness of the shallow water bearing unit, as well as the presence of low-
permeability peat and/or glacial till layers enveloping the base of the ditch, the
groundwater seepage rate is predicted to be nominal.
3.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Sediment/soil within the lined ditch was characterized for PCBs during two field
mobilizations completed by ELM, during which a total of 58 samples were analyzed. The
first mobilization, completed in May 2008, consisted of the collection of samples at five
transect locations within the ditch. Analytical results from these samples indicated a
concentration of PCBs in excess of 50 mg/kg at three transects (Figure 5, Table 1). To
delineate the areas of PCB-remediation waste, ELM collected additional samples in
August/September 2011 at six additional transects within the ditch. A summary of the
sampling methodology and discussion of the results is presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2,
respectively. A summary of analytical data for those samples analyzed for PCBs is provided
on Figure 5 and Table 1.
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
7

-------
3.1. Characterization Methodology
During the May 2008 event, samples were collected from five transects within the ditch
(PC-1 through PC-5, Figure 5]. Samples were collected by manually advancing two cores to
the bottom of the ditch at each transect. One core was advanced between the centerline
and the eastern wall of the ditch, and the second core was advanced between the centerline
and the western wall of the ditch. In general, sediment/soil thickness ranged from 3.5 feet
at transect PC-1 to 2.5 feet at transect PC-5. At each coring location, sediment/soil samples
were collected at three unique depths: (1] the top six inches of sediment/soil (surface];
(2]	the six inch-interval immediately overlying the base (concrete slab] of the ditch; and
(3]	within the sediment/soil column, biased towards greatest field evidence of impact.
During the August/September 2011 field mobilization, ELM collected sediment/soil
samples from 6 additional transects located 10 and 25 ft south of PC-1; 20 and 50 ft north
and south of PC-3; and 10 and 25 ft north of PC-5 (Figure 5]. Sampling methodologies were
similar to those during the May 2008 event. At each of the six transects, two cores were
advanced manually to the bottom of the ditch. One core was advanced between the
centerline and the eastern wall of the ditch, and the second core was advanced between the
centerline and the western wall of the ditch. Samples were collected at appropriate depths
to delineate PCB detections above 50 mg/kg within each of the three original transects
(PC-1, PC-3, and PC-5], Samples were collected from two discreet depths within each core,
within the exception of those transects north of PC-5, in which samples were collected at
three depths. Samples collected at 2011 transects closest to the original (2008] transects
were released for analysis upon receipt at the laboratory. Samples collected from those
2011 transects farther from the original (2008] transects were held as contingent samples
to be released if needed. The results of the sediment/soil characterization samples are
summarized on Figure 5 and Table 1.
3.2. Summary of Characterization Results
Based on the collective data set, sediment/soil in the ditch is impacted with PCBs; however,
delineation o f PCB remediation waste areas has been achieved. The highest detection of
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_CIeanup_Plan\95127_EPA^SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
8

-------
PCBs in sediment/soil is at depth near the southern boundary of Troy property (PC-5 -
Figure 5) (ELM, 2010). However, concentrations of PCBs in samples collected at transects
upstream of this area and adjacent to Troy operational areas show significantly lower
concentrations - concentrations of PCBs lower than that detected at the most upstream
sampling transect (PC-1). Out of 58 samples analyzed for PCBs, 49 samples contained PCB
concentrations below 50 mg/kg. PCB concentrations ranged from non-detect (ND) to
144 mg/kg, with a mean concentration of 23.2 mg/kg.
In summary, the results of the characterization sampling indicate that sediment/soil with
PCB concentrations exceeding 50 mg/kg are limited to three discrete areas of the ditch
(Figure 5): (1) Area 1 located in the extreme northern portion of the ditch ending from the
northern property boundary to transect PC-1-10S (approximately 15 linear ft); (2) Area 2
located in the central portion of the ditch extending from transect PC-3-20N south to PC-4
(approximately 190 linear feet); and (3) Area 3 located in the southern portion of the ditch
extending from transect PC-5-25N south to the southern property boundary
(approximately 50 linear feet).
4.0 SELF IMPLEMENTING CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL OF PCB REMEDIATION WASTE
The lined ditch on the Troy property is being remediated under the NJDEP SRP. The
sediment/soil within the ditch contains as-found concentrations of PCBs (amongst other
contaminants) in excess of 50 mg/kg - greater than the applicable cleanup objectives.
Therefore, remediation of the lined ditch will be completed in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 761.61.
4.1. General Remediation Approach
The general remedial approach for the lined ditch is the excavation and off-site disposal of
PCB impacted sediment/soil, backfill of the ditch with certified clean fill, installation of a
concrete cap, and execution of a deed notice for the Site. This section summarizes the
general and logistical approach that will be implemented for the completion of the
remedial action.
9
G:\95l27-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx


-------
4.1.1.	Delineation Sampling
In-situ PCB delineation sampling was conducted prior to development of this Cleanup Plan,
and is summarized in Section 3. Delineation of the areas with PCB concentrations in excess
of 50 mg/kg is complete. Therefore, no additional characterization sampling is proposed as
part of remediation of the ditch.
4.1.2.	Sealing of Downstream Ditch Box Culvert
Prior to the initiation of any invasive work within the ditch, the approximately 6 foot
opening to the box culvert located immediately south of the Troy property will be sealed
(Figure 3). The sealing of the culvert will prevent off-site migration of water and
sediment/soil from the work area during remedial activities. Please note that this is the
only portion of the ditch currently which is not walled in by concrete or gabion walls. The
seal will be designed by a licensed New Jersey Professional Engineer such that it will be a
permanent structure to remain in place after the completion of the remediation.
4.1.3.	ln-Situ Stabilization
As discussed previously, the majority of sediment/soil within the ditch is water-saturated.
To facilitate its removal and amend it for proper transportation, sediment/soil will be
stabilized in place within the ditch. The in-situ stabilization will also serve as a method of
minimizing waste water generation during remediation. Stabilization will be accomplished
through mixing of sediment/soil with cement kiln dust (CKD). CKD will be added to and
mixed with the sediment/soil using excavators beginning at the northern and southern
extents of the ditch. After the stabilized sediment/soil in these areas has cured, a small
excavator will be placed into the ditch to stabilize the next section. This process will
continue, progressing to the north and south until all sediment/soil has been stabilized.
The stabilization will be completed in a manner to ensure that areas of PCB concentrations
in excess of 50 mg/kg (Figure 5) remain segregated from the remaining sediment/soil
within the ditch.
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
10

-------
The percentage of CKD added is expected to vary somewhat along the length of the ditch
based on varying conditions; however, based on the results of a treatability study/pilot test
completed by Troy/ELM, it is anticipated that an approximate ratio of 30% by weight of
CKD will be required.
4.1.4. Excavation, Staging, and Off-Site Disposal
Following curing, stabilized sediment/soil will be removed from the ditch by excavators
located in the equipment accessible areas along the northern, central, and southern
portions of the ditch (Figure 2]. The excavation will extend horizontally and vertically until
the ditch walls and bottom are encountered (i.e., complete removal of soil/sediment]. All
sediment/soil adjacent to/atop the liners will be removed; however, removal of the liners
themselves is not practicable as the sidewall liners of the ditch serve to provide structural
support for the foundations of adjacent buildings, or (in some cases] the walls are integral
to the foundation of adjacent buildings (See Section 2.2]. If areas are encountered in which
no concrete bottom exists, the excavation will be extended into the underlying glacial till
material to a depth at which no visual evidence of impact is observed (anticipated to be not
more than 1 foot into the till given its extremely low permeability - measured hydraulic
conductivity of 1.7xl0'6].
Upon removal, stabilized sediment/soil will be immediately containerized in roll-off
containers meeting the requirements of Department of Transportation Hazardous
Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171 through 180], pursuant to 40 CFR 761.65(c](6].
Sediment/soil removed from those areas of the ditch with PCB concentrations excess of
50 mg/kg will be segregated from sediment/soils excavated from outside these areas.
Once full, the containers will be covered and staged in a paved area in the southeastern
portion of the Site (Figure 2] to await transport to the appropriate disposal facility. All
storage of PCB remediation waste will be consistent with the applicable requirements of
40 CFR 761.65. In addition, covered roll-offs will be marked with sign/labels in accordance
with 40 CFR 761.45.
11
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB„Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
ft.

-------
In preparation for off-site disposal, waste samples will be collected of the stabilized
sediment to satisfy Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) characterization
requirements. As PCBs were pre-characterized/pre-delineated in-situ (at-found
concentrations), no additional waste characterization samples for PCBs will be collected
unless unanticipated conditions suggestive of higher concentrations or wider distribution
of PCB remediation waste are found.
Following proper characterization, the stabilized sediment will be transported off site to
appropriate disposal facilities. Sediment/soil excavated from those areas in which PCBs
were detected at at-found concentrations exceeding 50 mg/kg will be disposed of at an
approved chemical waste landfill pursuant to 40 CFR 761.75. Sediment excavated from
those areas in which PCBs were detected at at-found concentrations less than 50 mg/kg
will be disposed of at a licensed facility based on the results of the RCRA characterization
samples and PCB concentrations. Troy will ensure that all transported wastes are properly
received at the facility and will obtain and retain copies of the final disposal manifests.
Pursuant to 761.25(c)(5), all waste characterization analysis and final disposal manifests
will be maintained at the Site.
4.1.5. Post-Excavation Verification Sampling
Post-excavation verification sampling will be completed compliant with the requirements
of 40 CFR 761 Subpart 0. Both the concrete and the gabion material (basalt rock)
comprising the ditch liner (sides and bottom) are considered porous material for the
purposes of developing this sampling plan. Please note that the proposed program is
extremely conservative (entails collection of over 300 subsamples) and will provide the
necessary data distribution and density to thoroughly evaluate post-remedial conditions. A
general overview of the post-excavation verification sampling program is provided on
Figure 6. Due to the variable construction of the ditch walls, sample collection within the
ditch has been subdivided into three segments:
12
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

elm

-------
•	Segment 1 extends from the northern property boundary south approximately 145 feet.
Both the eastern and western walls of the northernmost 75 feet of this segment are
constructed of gabion. The eastern wall of the southernmost 70 feet of this segment is
constructed of gabion, while the western wall is constructed of concrete. A concrete
slab forms the base of the ditch in this segment.
•	Segment 2 is located in the central portion of the property, beginning at the southern
end of Segment 1 and extending south approximately 290 feet. Throughout this
segment, the ditch walls (both eastern and western sides) are constructed of concrete.
A concrete slab forms the base of the ditch in this segment.
•	Segment 3 extends from the southern end of Segment 2 south to the property boundary
(approximately 100 feet). The eastern ditch wall in this segment is constructed of
gabion, while the western wall is constructed of concrete. A concrete slab forms the
base of the ditch in this segment.
In summary, grab subsamples of the ditch liner (sides and bottom slab) will be collected
across ditch transects (east to west) marked out every five feet down the length of the ditch
(Figure 6). At each five foot transect, a minimum of three subsamples will be collected: one
from the concrete base; and one each from the interior of both sidewalls. Wall samples
(concrete or gabion) will strictly be collected from the bottom three feet of the wall (from
base) as this represents the average height of sediment in contact with the walls (currently
and historically). Subsamples of the concrete slab/base will be collected along the
centerline of the base across the entire ditch and two additional concrete slab subsamples
will be collected across the wider portion of the ditch (Segment 1) (Figure 6).
Concrete and gabion subsamples will be composited in accordance with
40 CFR 761.289(b)(l)(i), as depicted on Figure 6. Please note that concrete and gabion
subsamples will not be composited within the same sample. Compositing will be
13
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup„Plan\95127_EPAJielfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
£mn

-------
completed by homogenizing equal weights of concrete or gabion as described further
below:
•	Segment 1: In the northern-most portion of Segment 1 (ditch constructed with gabion
liner on both sides and wider ditch width), three concrete base subsamples will be
collected across each transect and composited every three transects (nine sample point
composite). In addition, on each ditch wall, one gabion subsample will be collected at
each transect and composited every six transects. All six gabion subsamples will be
composited from the same wall (no composite mixing from east to west wall).
In the southern-most portion of Segment 1 (area with gabion liner comprising only the
eastern wall and narrower ditch width), two concrete base subsamples and one
western wall subsample will be collected across each transect and composited every
three transects (nine sample point composite). In addition, one gabion subsample will
be collected at each transect from the eastern wall and composited every six transects.
•	Segment 2: Within Segment 2 (ditch constructed with concrete walls and base) one
concrete base subsample and two concrete wall subsamples (one per wall) will be
collected across each transect and composited every three transects (nine sample point
composite).
•	Segment 3: Within Segment 3 (ditch constructed with a gabion liner along only the
eastern wall, and narrow ditch width), one concrete base subsample and one concrete
wall sample (western wall only) will be collected at each transect and composited every
four transects (eight sample point composite). In addition, one gabion subsample will
be collected at each transect from the eastern wall and composited every six transects.
Composite concrete and gabion samples will be submitted to a New Jersey certified
laboratory for analysis of PCBs via method SW846-8082.
14
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_CIeanup_Plan\95127_EPAJielfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
fife

-------
Should areas be encountered in which the concrete liner is absent or is significantly
degraded, grab samples will be collected from the underlying glacial till material according
to the gridding program described above, with separate composite samples prepared for
soil.
If the results of the verification sampling indicate that PCBs remain above the 10 mg/kg
cleanup goal, additional cleanup and remediation will be completed and post-excavation
verification samples will be recollected in accordance with 40 CFR 761.283(b)(ii).
4.1.6.	Backfilling of Ditch and Installation of Concrete Cap
Following confirmation that the PCB cleanup goals have been met, the ditch will be
backfilled to surrounding grade. In preparation for backfilling, where applicable, the
portions of the concrete ditch walls above surrounding surface grade (never in contact
with sediment/soil) will be cut down to surrounding grade. Concrete generated during this
activity will be containerized on site in roll off bins and will be characterized and disposed
of off site consistent with the NJDEP Guidance for Characterization of Concrete and Clean
Material Certification for Recycling (NJDEP, 2010), which includes sampling for PCBs.
Backfill will conform to the requirements of NJDEP-certified clean structural fill (per
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.4(b)2) (NJDEP, 2011).
Following the installation and compaction of the backfill, the former area of the ditch will
be capped with reinforced concrete. The cap will be designed in coordination with Troy
engineers such that storm water collected on the newly installed cap will be captured in the
facility's existing storm water management system. The concrete cap will be a minimum of
6 inches thick and be designed to meet the requirements of 40 CRF 264.310(a) and
40 CFR 761.75(b)(l)(ii through v).
4.1.7.	Deed Restriction
The NJDEP has previously approved the use of a deed restriction as a final remedy for soil
contamination at the Site. The area of the former ditch will be incorporated into the site-
15
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
ft.

-------
wide deed restriction in accordance with 40 CFR 761.61(a)(8). The format of the deed
restriction will be in accordance with the NJDEP requirements and will be filed with Essex
County.
4.2. Cleanup Levels Based on End Occupancy Use - High Occupancy Use with an
Engineering Control
As discussed previously, the ditch is constructed with a combination of concrete and rock
gabion walls and a concrete slab bottom (Figure 2). Given that the ditch walls and bottom
vary along its length, it is expected that two different media will require post-remedial
verification sampling:
(1)	concrete and gabion walls and concrete bottom of the ditch (porous materials); and
(2)	soil from the underlying glacial till (if concrete bottom is absent or degraded in
portions of the ditch).
The cleanup levels for Site PCBs are based on the occupancy levels as defined by
40 CFR 761.61(a) (4) (i). Currently the area to be remediated is a drainage ditch with no
human occupancy. Following the completion of remediation (including backfill and
capping of the area), Troy intends to use the area for transient support functions, such as
the exterior storage of raw materials or finished product. Troy does not intend to erect any
permanent structures in the remediated area.
Because of the nature of the intended reuse of the remediated area, it is unlikely that any
individual will occupy this area for more than 6.7 hours per week. Nevertheless, to allow
for more flexibility in the reuse of this area, this Cleanup Plan assumes individual
occupancy of an average of 16.7 hours or more per week, which constitutes high occupancy
use. After all sediment/soil is removed from the ditch and the channel is backfilled, a
reinforced concrete cap will be installed over the entire remediated area. The cap will
meet the criteria specified in 40 CRF 264.310(a) and 40 CFR 761.75(b)(l)(ii through v).
16
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA„PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------
Given the use of the cap and high occupancy scenario, the cleanup objective for the
concrete and gabion walls and concrete bottom will be 10 mg/kg.
5.0 SCHEDULE
A schedule for the implementation of the proposed remediation is provided in
Attachment 1.
6.0 NOTIFICATION AND OWNER CERTIFICATION
Submission of this Cleanup Plan serves as 30-day notification to the EPA Regional
Administrator of the start of cleanup operations at the Troy Site. Concurring with this
submission, this Cleanup Plan will also be submitted to the NJDEP and Essex County Health
Department.
A copy of the Owner's Certification prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 761.61(a](3](i](E]
is included as Attachment 2 to this document.
7.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REMEDIATION
Sampling for PCBs has been conducted in the concrete-lined ditch on the Troy Site as part
of an ongoing investigation conducted under the auspices of the NJDEP SRP. Results of this
investigation indicate that sediment/soil with total PCB concentrations exceeding
unrestricted use standard (1 mg/kg] are present in the concrete-lined ditch at the Site. The
selected remediation strategy for addressing the PCB contamination is the complete
removal of all impacted sediment/soil. This self-implementing plan has been developed to
provide details of that remediation including Site characterization data, a description of
how the remedy will be implemented, and how cleanup verification sampling will be
completed.
The proposed cleanup goals for the site have been developed based on the current and
projected future land use for the Site and the area being remediated. Post-excavation
verification sampling will confirm that removal activities have achieved the applicable
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCELCleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlarL022912.docx
17

-------
cleanup levels or additional cleanup and decontamination of gabion will be performed. In
accordance with 40 CFR 761.61(a)(8), the remediated area will be incorporated in the
NJDEP-approved deed restriction for the Site and the remediated area will be capped.
Based on the considerations above, Troy's proposed remediation activities are protective of
human health and the environment. The remediation activities will reduce the PCB
concentrations at the site to the required TSCA cleanup levels and will eliminate potential
exposure pathways to the PCBs at the Site.
18
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------
8.0 REFERENCES
2B, 1997. Petition to Reclassify Ground Water in the Ironbound Section of Newark. 2B
Environmental, Inc. 1997.
ELM, 2010. Remedial Investigation Report for Sediment and Surface Water. The ELM
Group, Inc. July 21, 2010.
EMCON, 1998. Remedial Investigation Report, Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc. EMCON.
February 1998.
NJDEP, 2010. Guidance for Characterization of Concrete and Clean Material Certification
for Recycling. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Updated
January 12, 2010.
NJDEP, 2011. Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E). New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. Last Amended October 3, 2011.
19
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlanJ)22912.docx
s

-------
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
FIGURES
Site Location Map
General Site Map Showing Construction Details for the Lined Ditch, Limits of
Sediment Removal, and Other Details
Isometric View of Generalized Construction of Concrete-Lined Ditch and
Surrounding Stratigraphy Subsurface
Current and Historic Flow Patterns Associated with the Lined Ditch
Total PCB Data for Lined Ditch Showing Areas Where Concentrations Exceed
50 mg/kg
Proposed Post-Excavation Verification Sampling Plan
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\USE-95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------
~ - ~
			——cTT
' •* ^ ' >. • . ?1
^-. 5?a ¦
'¥-
W?
• • • i:"l	/ »
i *	»T *	/	* _ *— —
7	" . < ¦ " ¦ • s
/ . •; ^	i
QUADRANGLE LOCATION

2000
SCALE: Custom
4000
The
Group
21B WALL STREET. PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY OB540
49Z0Y0RX ROAD, SUITE 290, HO U CONG, PENNSYLVANIA 18920 612
MAIN STREET, BOONTON, NEW JERSEY 07005
267 BROADWAY, FIFTH FLOOR. NEW YORK NEW YORX10007
2475 BAGLYOS CIRCLE, BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA 10020
	wwiyJScptoTBKLMxom	
TITLE:
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
LOCATION:
TROY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
ONE AVENUE L
NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
STATE PLANE
COORDINATE (NAD 83):
N 684,225 E 589,105
DATE:
9/26/11
FILENAME:
95127 SITELOC
LAYOUT:
SITE LOCATION
SOURCE:
USGS TO TO, ELIZABETH, NJ-NY, N.J. QUAD

-------

-------
UNLINED DITCH ON
WALL HEIGHT~20' FROM BASE-
SOIL THICKNESS APPROX. 3.5'-
APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 40'
FORMER DITCH ON ADJOINING-
PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY REMEDIATED
FOR PCBs AND FILLED
10-
s
M
S
3
Q
EC
<
5
0.
D
Z
LLI
LLj
A'
LEGEND
CONCRETE
EH
SOIL TO BE REMOVED

an	
s
-i
I
>/*///>/^///,
///////*////,
************ i
GABION WALL
CONCRETE WALL
PEAT (FORMER MEADOW MAT)
HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL FILL {EMPLACED CIRCA 1900)
GRAVEL,, AND CONCRETE)
GLACIAL TILL LAYER
ASPHALT OR CONCRETE COVER
10	15	20
PC-3 CROSS-SECTION A-A'
TITLE: FIGURE 3
ISOMETRIC VIEW OF GENERALIZED CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE LINED
DITCH AND SURROUNDING STRATIGRAPHY SUBSURFACE
LOCATION:
TROY CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC.
ONE AVENUEL
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
Group
DATE: „ „
2/27/12
FILENAME: 95127_ISO_SECTION
Z1H WALL STREET, PRBJCETON, NEW JERSEY 00540
4920 YORK ROAD, SUITE 290. HOLICONG, PENNSYLVANIA 18928 612
MAIN STREET, BOONTON, NEW JERSEY 07005
267 BROADWAY, FIFTH FLOOR. NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
2475 BAGLYOS CIRCLE, BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA 18020
www.KxplorcKLM.CGm
LAYOUT: IS()_SEC

-------
s
E-
AVEIMUE L STORM SEWER (REPLACED FORMER
WILSON AVE SEWER IN 2003/09)
TROY CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
WWTP MANAGEMENT OF
ALL SITE STORM WATER -
DISCHARGE TO PUBLIC
SEWER)
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STORM WATER
COLLECTION ON FEDEX PROPERTY (DEC.
2008)
BOX CULVERT
(CITY OF NEWARK 2007)
FORMER STORM WATER DISCHARGE POINT
FROM FEDEX (SEALED DEC. 20DS)
FORMER EXTENT OF DITCH (FILLED I N AS PART OF
NJDEP APPROVED RA]
TROY CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
UNDERGROUND PIPE
CONNECTING UNLINED
DITCH TO CULVERT
FORMER DISCHARGE POINT FROM WILSON AVENUE STORM
WATER NETWORK
CONTINENTAL
HARDWARE
(FORMER RED STAR)
FEDERAL EXPRESS
(FORMER ALBERT STEEL
DRUM/PRENTISS DRUG SITE)
LEGEND
NOTES:
1. LOCATIONS/EXTENT OF SECONDARY DRAINAGE DITCHES AND
UNDERGROUND CONVEYANCE STRUCTURES (PIPING, CONDUITS, ETC.) ARE
APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW.
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE FOR TROY CHEMICAL
CURRENT EXTENT OF LINED DITCH
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING
SCALE: 1" = 100'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CURRENT STORM SEWER LINES
TITLE;
FIGURE 4
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER WIL50N AVENUE STORM SEWER LINE
CURRENT AND HISTORIC FLOW PATTERNS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LINED DITCH
FORMER UPSTREAM EXTENT OF OPEN DITCH / STORM WATER SEWER
CURRENT SURFACE WATER / STORM SEWER FLOW DIRECTION
SOURCE
"HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY STUDY STREAM PLAN", PREPARED BV
CIVIL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, DATED MARCH 1397, PROJECT NO.
97-048, DRAWING NOS. 4, 5 & 6 OF 11.
NEW JERSEY 2007 2008 HIGH RESOLUTION ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY, NEW
JERSEY OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, TILES #K7Al-07, K6C13-D7, J7B4-07 AND
J6D16-07.
FIGURE ENTITLED "ANALYTICAL SAMPLING RESULTS ABOVE PROPOSED
REMEDIATION GOALS" PREPARED BY L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOC., INC.,
DATED 1/29/9B, REVISED DATE 6/
LOCATION:
TROY CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC.
ONE AVENUE L
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
NOMINAL GROUND WATER TO STORM SEWER FLUX
HISTORIC SURFACE WATER ( STORM SEWER FLOW DIRECTION
Group
DATE;
2/27/12
2 IS WALL STRE ET, PRlMC ETC ti,MEl»JER£EY DB54D
492BYQRK ROAD,SUITE 29B, KDLlCDMG, PEWMSYUfAtflAl£32£6l2
KAl« STREET, BDOMTDM, MElIf JERSEY M305
7i>? BROADWAY, FlFTK FLDDR, WE» YDRK,M EHfYDRKlMO?
2475 BAGLYDS CIRCLE, BETKLEHE»tPEMl4SYLIfAMlAlBB2B
.oara
FILENAME;
95127-07. PIERSONS-DLUR.MTG
LAYOUT:
PCB.PLAN (2)

-------
PC-l
EAST
WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
~ 2 3.5
~ 2.5 3
TOTAL PCBs
3.9 12.4 0.15
14.2 72 60
~~
o
PC-3
EAST
WEST

SAMPLE DEPTH
0 1 2.5
0 1 3.5

TOTAL PCBs
22.4 14.5 33
10.8 7.6 68
PC-5
EAST
WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
~
1
2.5
0
1.5
2
TOTAL PCBs
8.8
16.9
57
6.2
60
144
PC-3-50S
EAST
WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
2 3.5
2 3.5
TOTAL PCBs
18.6 6.2
5.8 115
CULVERT
qB
5C-3-E
PC-4
PIPES
PIPES
a
p/pi:s
PC-3-20S
EAST

WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
2 3.5
2
3.5
TOTAL PCBs
4.1 140
4
11.8
PC-4
EAST
V
VEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
0
1.5
2
0

1.5
2
TOTAL PCBs
1.5
4.4
14.5
4
L6.5
45
PC-5-25N
EAST
WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
1.5 2 2.5
1.5 2 2.5
TOTAL PCBs
5.9 17.9 6.2
26 19.9 33
PC-5-10N
EAST
WEST
SAMPLE DEPTH
1.5 2 2.5
1.5 2 2.5
\ TOTAL PCBs
3.6 2.9 10.7
7.2 15.8 53
ra
50 mg/kg PCB
PC-1
EAST
SAMPLE DEPTH
0
TOTAL PCBs
3.9
ND
TRANSECT LOCATION AND ID
SAMPLE DEPTH
TOTAL PCBs RESULT IN mg/Kg [SSG LEL/5EL = 0.07/53)
NOT DETECTED
NOTES:
1.	ALL RESULTS ARE IN mg/Kg.
2.	BOLD VALUE INDICATES PCB CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS 50 mg/Kg.
3.	LOCATIONS/EXTENT OF UNDERGROUND SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE STRUCTURES
[PIPING, CONDUITS, ETC.) ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON SITE RECONNAISSANCE
AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW.
SOURCE:
1. "HYDRAULICS AND HYDRO LOGY STUDY STREAM PLAN", PREPARED BY CIVIL
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, DATED MARCH 1997, PROJECT NO. 97-048, DRAWING
NOS. 4, 5 & 6 OF 11.
40
SCALE: 1" = 40'
80
TITLE:
FIGURE 5
TOTAL PCB DATA FOR LINED DITCH SHOWING AREAS WHERE
CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED 50 mg/kg
LOCATION:
TROY CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC.
ONE AVENUE L
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
DATE:
2/24/12
FILENAME:
95127_SEDIMENT_RESULTS_REV2
LAYOUT:
TSCA AREAS-B
The
Group
218 WALL STREET, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
4920 YORK ROAD, SUITE 290, HOLICONG, PENNSYLVANIA 18928 612
MAIN STREET, BOONTON, NEW JERSEY 07005
267 BROADWAY, FIFTH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
2475 BAGLYOSCIRCLE, BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA 18020
www.ExploreELM.com

-------
I

-------
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of PCB Analytical Data
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\USE-95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------
Table 1
Summary of PCB Analytical Data
Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
Newark, New Jersey
Table 1



East

Transe
ct PC-1

West



Transect
East
PC-1-10S
West



East

Transe
ct PC-2

West



Sample ID
Laboratory ID
Sample Media
Sample Collection Date
Sample Analysis Date
Sample Depth (feet)
% Moisture
Unit of Measure
PC-l-EO.O
921502
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
0.0-0.5
52
mg/kg
PC-l-E-2.0
921501
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
2.0-2.5
52.6
mg/kg
PC-1-E_3.5
921504
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
3.5-4.0
33.1
mg/kg
PC-1-W-0.0
921506
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
0.0-0.5
24
mg/kg
PC-1-W_2.5
921507
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
2.5-3.0
33.2
mg/kg
PC-1-W_3.0
921508
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
3.0-3.5
25.1
mg/kg
PC-1-10S-E-2.0
AC61243-001
Sediment
8/17/2011
8/23/2011
2.0-2.5
52
mg/Kg
PC-1-10S-E-3.0
AC61243-002
Sediment
8/17/2011
8/23/2011
3.0-3.5
56
mg/Kg
PC-1-10S-W-2.0
AC61243-003
Sediment
8/17/2011
8/23/2011
2.0-2.5
44
mg/Kg
PC-1-10S-W-3.0
AC61243-004
Sediment
8/17/2011
8/24/2011
3.0-3.5
45
mg/Kg
PC-2-E-0.0
921511
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
0.0 - 0.5
57
mg/kg
PC-2-E-2.0
921514
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
2.0-2.5
26.5
mg/kg
PC-2-E-3.0
921515
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
3.0-3.5
19.8
mg/kg
PC-2-W-0.0
921516
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
0.0-0.5
46
mg/kg
PC-2-W-2.0
921518
Sediment
05/21/08
6/2/2008
2.0-2.5
51.7
mg/kg
PC-2-W-4.0
921519
Sediment
05/21/08
6/5/2008
4.0-4.5
32.9
mg/kg
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
















Aroclor 1016
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
U
4.5
U
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
U
0.45
U
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Aroclor 1221
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
U
4.5
u
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
U
0.45
U
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Aroclor 1232
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
u
4.5
u
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
u
0.45
U
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Aroclor 1242
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
56
47
0.31
0.57
0.53
3.5
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
18
Aroclor 1248
2.2
8.4
0.15
10
5.0
u
4.5
u
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
u
0.45
U
10
0.59
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Aroclor 1254
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
u
4.5
u
0.052
U
1.3
1.4
8.2
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
1.9
1.9
2.0
U
Aroclor 1260
1.7
4.0
0.10
U
4.2
16
13
1.2
0.057
U
0.045
u
0.45
U
6.1
0.46
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
3.0
Aroclor 1262
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
u
4.5
u
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
u
0.45
U
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Aroclor 1268
0.14
U
0.71
U
0.10
U
0.88
U
5.0
u
4.5
u
0.052
U
0.057
U
0.045
u
0.45
U
0.78
U
0.091
U
0.084
U
0.12
U
0.14
U
2.0
U
Total PCBs
3.9
12.4
0.15
14.2
72
60
1.5
1.9
1.9
11.7
16.1
1.05
0.084
U
1.9
1.9
21



Transect PC-3-20N







Transect PC-3







Transect PC-3-20S




East


West



East





West




East


West
Sample ID
PC-3-20N-E-2.0
PC-3-20N-E-3.5
PC-3-20N-W-2.0
PC-3-20N-W-3.5
PC-3-E-0.0

PC-3-E-1.0

PC-3-E-2.5

PC-3-W-0.0

PC-3-W-1.0

PC-3-W-3.5

PC-3-20S-E-2.0
PC-3-20S-E-3.5
PC-3-20S-W-2.0
PC-3-20S-W-3.5
Laboratory ID
AC61243-012
AC61243-011
AC61243-013
AC61243-014
921523

921525

921522

921527

921526

921529

AC61243-017
AC61243-018
AC61243-019
AC61243-020
Sample Media
Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment
Sample Collection Date
8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

05/21/08

05/21/08

05/21/08

05/21/08

05/21/08

05/21/08

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011
Sample Analysis Date
8/23/2011

8/23/2011

8/23/2011

8/25/2011

6/5/2008

6/5/2008

6/5/2008

6/5/2008

6/5/2008

6/9/2008

8/23/2011

8/24/2011

8/26/2011

8/24/2011
Sample Depth (feet)
2.0-2.5

3.5-4.0

2.0-2.5

3.5-4.0

LO
o
o
o

1.0-1.5

2.5-3.0

LO
o
o
o

1.0-1.5

3.5-4.0

2.0-2.5

3.5-4.0

2.0-2.5

3.5-4.0
% Moisture
50

35

53

40

57

40.7

39.5

42

49.9

41

44

40

44

39
Unit of Measure
mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)














Aroclor 1016
0.05
U
0.038
U
0.053
U
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
U
0.045
U
4.2
U
0.045
U
0.2 U
Aroclor 1221
0.05
U
0.038
U
0.053
U
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
U
0.045
U
4.2
U
0.045
U
0.2 U
Aroclor 1232
0.05
u
0.038
U
0.053
u
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
u
0.045
u
4.2
U
0.045
u
0.2 U
Aroclor 1242
0.57
2.2
1.6
13
16
8.1
33
0.58
U
0.67
U
32
2.6
110
2.7
9.2
Aroclor 1248
0.05
u
0.038
U
0.053
u
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
7.0
4.9
2.3
u
0.045
u
4.2
U
0.045
u
0.2 U
Aroclor 1254
0.05
u
0.038
U
0.053
u
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
u
0.045
u
4.2
U
0.045
u
0.2 U
Aroclor 1260
0.9
1.1
1.1
8.3
6.4
6.4
2.8
U
3.8
2.7
36
1.5
30
1.3
2.6
Aroclor 1262
0.05
u
0.038
U
0.053
u
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
u
0.045
u
4.2
U
0.045
u
0.2 U
Aroclor 1268
0.05
u
0.038
U
0.053
u
0.42
U
1.6
U
0.56
U
2.8
U
0.58
U
0.67
U
2.3
u
0.045
u
4.2
U
0.045
u
0.2 U
Total PCBs
1.5
3.3
2.7
21.3
22.4
14.5
33
10.8
7.6
68
4.1
140
4
11.8
Bold value indicates concentration exceeds PCB Remediation Waste threshold (50 mg/kg) per 40 CFR 70.61.
Notes:
NS = No Standard
U = Analyte not detected above indicated concentration
Table 1
Page 1 of 2
G:\95127-Troy\RemedyofLinedDitch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\Tables\Tablel_PCB_Datajilsx\Tl-PCB

-------
Table 1
Summary of PCB Analytical Data
Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
Newark, New Jersey
Table 1



Transect PC-3-50S





Transect PC-4







Transect PC-5-25N





East
West


East





West




East



West

Sample ID
PC-3-50S-E-2.0
PC-3-50S-E-3.5
PC-3-50S-W-2.0
PC-3-50S-W-3.5
PC-4-E 0.0

PC-4-E 1.5

PC-4-E 2.0

PC-4-W 0.0

PC-4-W 1.5

PC-4-W 2.0

PC-5-25N-E-1.5
PC-5-25N-E-2.0
PC-5-25N-E-2.5
PC-5-25N-W-1.5
PC-5-25N-W-2.0
PC-5-25N-W-2.5
Laboratory ID
460-30592-1
460-30592-2
460-30592-3
460-30592-4
921070

921068

921062

921060

921059

921063

460-30592-5
460-30592-6
460-30592-7
460-30592-
3
460-30592-9
460-30592-10
Sample Media
Sediment

Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment

Sediment
Sediment
Sample Collection Date
9/2/2011

9/2/2011
9/2/2011
9/2/2011
5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

9/2/2011
9/2/2011
9/2/2011
9/2/2011

9/2/2011
9/2/2011
Sample Analysis Date
9/8/2011

9/7/2011
9/7/2011
9/9/2011
5/31/2008

5/31/2008

5/31/2008

5/31/2008

5/21/2008

5/31/2008

9/7/2011
9/9/2011
9/7/2011
9/9/2011

9/9/2011
9/9/2011
Sample Depth (feet)
2.0-2.5

3.5-4.0
2.0-2.5
3.5-4.0
LO
o
o
o

1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5

LO
o
o
o

1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5

1.5-2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-3.0
1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5
2.5-3.0
% Moisture
47.4

53.5
40.1
42.7
47

41.7

36.6

54

40.4

29.5

42.5
39.1
44.6
50.8

60.8
54.2
Unit of Measure
mg/kg

mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg

mg/kg
mg/kg
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
















Aroclor 1016
0.64
U
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Aroclor 1221
0.64
U
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Aroclor 1232
0.64
u
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Aroclor 1242
0.64
u
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Aroclor 1248
9.2
2.5
2.2
46
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
15
2.1
6.8
2.2
10
6.7
15
Aroclor 1254
5.5
2
1.9
31
0.13
U
1.8
6.1
2
7.1
11
1.9
5.6
2.1
8.5
6.5
12
Aroclor 1260
3.9
1.7
1.7
38
1.5
2.6
8.4
2
9.4
19
1.9
5.5
1.9
7.5
6.7
11
Aroclor 1262
0.64
u
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Aroclor 1268
0.64
u
0.14 U
0.11 U
2.3 U
0.13
U
0.23
U
1
U
0.14
U
1.1
U
0.95
U
0.12 U
0.55 U
0.12 U
0.68
U
0.34 U
0.73 U
Total PCBs
18.6
6.2
5.8
115
1.5
4.4
14.5
4
16.5
45
5.9
17.9
6.2
26
19.9
38





Transect PC-5-10N









Transect PC-5








East





West





East





West



Sample ID
PC-5-10N-E-1.5
PC-5-10N-E-2.0
PC-5-10N-E-2.5
PC-5-10N-W-1.5
PC-5-10N-W-2.0
PC-5-10N-W-2.5
PC-5-E 0.0

PC-5-E 1.0

PC-5-E 2.5

PC-5-W 0.0

PC-5-W 1.5

PC-5-W 2.0

Laboratory ID
AC61243-031
AC61243-033
AC61243-032
AC61243-034
AC61243-035
AC61243-036
921072

921074

921064

921065

921069

921067

Sample Media
Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sample Collection Date
8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

8/17/2011

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

5/20/08

Sample Analysis Data
8/26/2011

8/24/2011

8/23/2011

8/24/2011

8/24/2011

8/24/2011

5/31/2008

5/31/2008

5/31/2008

5/22/2008

5/31/2008

5/31/2008

Sample Depth (feet)
1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5

2.5-3.0

1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5

2.5-3.0

LO
o
o
o

LO
o

2.5-3.0

LO
o
o
o

1.5-2.0

2.0-2.5

% Moisture
37

44

56

40

53

51

45

35.1

39.8

53

31.1

41.8

Unit of Measure
mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/Kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)












Aroclor 1016
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
U
Aroclor 1221
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
U
Aroclor 1232
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
u
Aroclor 1242
1.6
3.8
0.62
2.4
4.8
12
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
u
Aroclor 1248
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
3.9
6.6
4.4
U
2.6
1.9
U
5.8
u
Aroclor 1254
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
2.1
4.7
4.4
U
1.6
22
44
Aroclor 1260
2
6.9
2.3
4.8
11
41
2.8
5.6
57
2
38
100
Aroclor 1262
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
u
Aroclor 1268
0.04
U
0.45
U
0.057
U
0.21
U
0.53
U
1
U
0.24
u
0.52
U
4.4
U
0.14
U
1.9
U
5.8
u
Total PCBs
3.6
10.7
2.9
7.2
15.8
53
00
00
16.9
57
6.2
60
144
Bold value indicates concentration exceeds PCB Remediation Waste threshold (50 mg/kg) per 40 CFR 70.61.
Notes:
NS = No Standard
U = Analyte not detected above indicated concentration
Table 1
Page 2 of 2
G:\95127-Troy\RemedyofLinedDitch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\Tables\Tablel_PCB_Datajilsx\Tl-PCB

-------
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:	Schedule of Implementation
Attachment 2:	Self-Implementing Cleanup Owner's Certification Regarding Location
of Records
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\USE-95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx
e1

-------
ATTACHMENT 1:
Schedule of Implementation
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\USE-95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------

-------
ATTACHMENT 2:
Self-Implementing Cleanup Owner's Certification Regarding Location of Records
G:\95127-Troy\Remedy of Lined Ditch\EPA_PCB_Cleanup_Plan\USE-95127_EPA_SelfCleanupPlan_022912.docx

-------
Self Implementing Cleanup
Owner's Certification Regarding Location of Records
In accordance with 40 CFR 761.61(a)(3)(E) this document serves as the Owner's
Certification that all Sampling Plans, Sample Collection Procedures, Sample Preparation
Procedures, Extraction Procedures and Instrumentation/Chemical analysis procedures
used to assess or characterize the PCB contamination at the cleanup site are on file at the
location identified below and are available for inspection by the USEPA.
Cleanup Site Name/Address: Troy Chemical Corporation, Inc.
One Avenue L, Newark, New Jersey 07105
Location of Records: The ELM Group, Inc.
218 Wall Street, Research Park, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Signature:
Name:
> //<
Company Name:	C oR PagfiTl c kT
G:\95127-TROY\REMEDY OF LINED DITCH\EPA_PCB_CLEANUP_PLAN\ATTACHMENTS\ATTACHB_SELF IMPLEMENTING CLEANUP
OWNERS CERTIF1CATION.DOCX

-------
Attachment 2: Wetland Delineation Report, June 2014

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
PIERSON'S CREEK
NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
New York, NY
Prepared by:
WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.
Edison, NJ


ii
m
a
IB i
June 2014
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
This page has been left blank intentionally.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
Table of Contents
1	Introduction	1
2	Site Description	2
3	Identification of Wetlands in New Jersey	3
3.1	New Jersey Wetlands Program Overview	3
3.2	Wetlands Definition in New Jersey	3
3.3	Criteria Used to Identify Wetlands	3
3.3.1	Hydrophytic Vegetation Criteria	3
3.3.2	Hydric Soil Criteria	4
3.3.3	Wetland Hydrology Criteria	4
4	Study Methodology	6
4.1	Background Information Review	6
4.2	Field Delineation	6
5	Results	7
5.1	Background Information Review Results	7
5.2	Field Investigation Results	7
6	Conclusions	9
7	References	10
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
i

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
List of Tables
1. Wetland Soil Boring/Flag Location Coordinates
List of Figures
1.	USGS Topographic Map
2.	Aerial Photograph of Site
3.	FEMA Floodplain Map
4.	NRCS Soil Map
5.	National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
6.	Wetland Frontage
List of Appendices
A.	Photograph Log
B.	Field Logbooks and Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
C.	Name and Qualifications of Preparer
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
li

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
1 Introduction
Under the Region V Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III (START III)
contract, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 tasked Weston Solutions, Inc.
(WESTON®) with an investigation of the Pierson's Creek site located in Newark, Essex County,
New Jersey. In October 2012, WESTON conducted a wetland assessment and delineation along
the segment of Pierson's Creek located just south of Delancey Street. The reach evaluated is a
tidally-influenced drainage channel located approximately 1 mile northeast of Newark Liberty
International Airport. The project location is shown in Figure 1. The wetland assessment and
delineation included only the immediate eastern bank of Pierson's Creek, as wetlands along its
western bank could not be mapped due to accessibility and safety concerns.
This report includes a brief description of the wetlands identified, a table indicating the
coordinates of each soil boring and flagged location, figures depicting various environmental
features within and around the site and a map depicting the upland-wetland boundary along the
creek bank, a photograph log with captions (Appendix A), copies of the field logbooks and
wetland delineation data sheets (Appendix B), and the name and qualifications of the preparer
(Appendix C).
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
1

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
2 Site Description
Pierson's Creek is predominantly a straightened tidal channel that flows south-southwesterly
from just south of the Troy Chemical facility to the Port Newark Channel portion of Newark
Bay. The northern portion of the approximately 1.5-mile-long creek consists primarily of open
channel, while most of the southern portion flows within underground culverts beneath Interstate
78, Newark Liberty International Airport, and the New Jersey Turnpike. The wetland
assessment and delineation was performed along the portion of the creek that crosses the vacant,
former Engelhard property and the northernmost portion of Conrail's Oak Island rail yard. As
shown in Figure 2, this section of Pierson's Creek is bordered mostly by a wooded area to the
east and by a large vacant lot to the west.
The project location falls within New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Watershed Management Area No. 4. As delineated by Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and shown in Figure 3, the project area lies within the 100-year floodplain of the lower
Passaic River and Newark Bay. Site topography varies and undulates as a result of historic
filling. Pierson's Creek is deeply incised within this fill, and includes channel heights ranging
from 8 to 10 feet. The tidal range is approximately 4 feet, which is consistent with the range
observed at the Kill van Kull Tidal Station operated by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Flow within Pierson's Creek appears to be restricted by trash and
debris at culvert locations beneath Delancey Street and at the southern terminus of the project
area. Flow restrictions appeared more severe during ebb tides when the trash and debris
concentrate at the entranceways to culverts. There is a widening of the wetlands at the southern
portion of the study area which may be caused by the temporary damming of flow by trash and
debris during ebb tide, resulting in the creek overflowing its channel banks.
The region, like many developed areas within the Lower Passaic Watershed, formerly consisted
of tidal wetlands associated with the Passaic River and Newark Bay. These areas were subject to
a significant amount of industrialization and filling, and remaining waterways and wetlands have
been affected by significant historical disturbance. As a result, the soils within the area are not a
consistently reliable indicator upon which to determine the wetland boundary. Overstory and
understory vegetation within the study area consisted of thickets of plant species common to
Newark's disturbed area sites including tree of heaven (,Ailanthus altissima), black cherry
(Primus serotina), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), and monotypic stands of phragmites
(Phragmites australis) and bamboo (Bamboo spp.).
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
2

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
3 Identification of Wetlands in New Jersey
3.1	New Jersey Wetlands Program Overview
New Jersey has a comprehensive state-level program for freshwater and tidal wetlands
administered pursuant to four statutes. It is one of two states nationally that have assumed the
Section 404 program under the Clean Water Act. For wetlands under the NJ 404 Program, the
1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (hereinafter, "the
1989 Manual") with subsequent amendments was adopted by statute. The 1989 Manual
describes technical criteria, field indicators and other sources of information, and methods for
identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands in the United States. The manual was the
product of many years of experience in wetland identification and delineation by four Federal
agencies: EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and Soil Conservation Service (SCS). It is the culmination of efforts to merge existing field-
tested wetland delineation manuals, methods, and procedures used by these agencies. The 1989
Manual draws heavily upon published manuals and methods, specifically USACE's Wetlands
Delineation Manual, EPA's Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual, and SCS's Food
Security Act Manual wetland determination procedure.
3.2	Wetlands Definition in New Jersey
"Freshwater wetlands" or "wetlands" means an area that is inundated or saturated by surface
water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions, commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation; provided, however, that NJDEP, in
designating a wetland, shall use the three-parameter approach (i.e., hydrology, soils and
vegetation) enumerated in the 1989 Manual as defined below. These include tidally influenced
wetlands that have not been included on a promulgated map pursuant to the Wetlands Act of
1970, N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.
3.3	Criteria Used to Identify Wetlands
3.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Criteria
An area has hydrophytic vegetation when, under normal circumstances: (1) more than 50 percent
of the composition of the dominant species from all strata are obligate wetland (OBL),
facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC) species, or (2) a frequency analysis of all
species within the community yields a prevalence index value of less than 3.0 (where OBL = 1.0,
FACW = 2.0, FAC = 3.0, FACU = 4.0, and UPL = 5.0.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
3

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
3.3.2	Hydric Soil Criteria
An area has hydric soils when the following National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) criteria for hydric soils are met:
1.	All Histosols except Folists; or
2.	Soils in Aquic suborders, Aquic sub-groups, Albolls suborder, Salorthids great group, or
Pell great groups of Vertisols that are:
a.	somewhat poorly drained and have water table less than 0.5 feet from the
surface for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing
season, or
b.	poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either:
i.	water table at less than 1.0 feet from the surface for a significant period
(usually a week or more) during the growing season if permeability is
equal to or greater than 6.0 inches/hour in all layers within 20 inches, or
ii.	water table at less than 1.5 feet from the surface for a significant period
(usually a week or more) during the growing season if permeability is less
than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches; or
3.	Soils that are ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season;
or
4.	Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the
growing season.
3.3.3	Wetland Hydrology Criteria
An area has wetland hydrology when saturated to the surface or inundated at some point in time
during an average rainfall year, as defined below:
1. Saturation to the surface normally occurs when soils in the following natural drainage
classes meet the following conditions:
a.	In somewhat poorly drained mineral soils, the water table is less than 0.5 feet
from the surface for usually one week or more during the growing season; or
b.	In low permeability (<6.0 inches/hour), poorly drained or very poorly drained
mineral soils, the water table is less than 1.5 feet from the surface for usually one
week or more during the growing season; or
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011	4

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
c.	In more permeable (>6.0 inches/hour), poorly drained or very poorly drained
mineral soils, the water table is less than 1.0 feet from the surface for usually one
week or more during the growing season; or
d.	In poorly drained or very poorly drained organic soils, the water table is usually at
a depth where saturation to the surface occurs more than rarely. (Note: Organic
soils that are cropped are often drained, yet the water table is closely managed to
minimize oxidation of organic matter; these soils often retain their hydric
characteristics and if so, meet the wetland hydrology criterion.)
2. An area is inundated at some time if ponded or frequently flooded with surface water for
one week or more during the growing season.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
5

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
4 Study Methodology
4.1	Background Information Review
Prior to mobilizing to the field to conduct the assessment and delineation, WESTON reviewed
existing information concerning the presence and possible extent of wetlands at the project site.
Information reviewed included:
•	US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic survey maps of the area;
•	Current aerial photography of the area.
•	Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps consulted to determine whether
floodplains were present on the site;
•	US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps of the area; and
•	US Fish and Wildlife Service (NFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps of the
area;
Prior to delineation activities, WESTON also conducted a half-day field reconnaissance of the
project area to evaluate the site, coordinate site access, and prepare a health and safety plan for
the work.
4.2	Field Delineation
The field investigation was conducted on October 18, 2012 by Gerry Gilliland and Mark
Jaworski of WESTON. Wetlands were identified using the above-referenced methodologies
promulgated in the 1989 Corps Manual and Regional Supplement. Vegetation was visually
identified, soils on the property were sampled using a hand-held soil auger to a depth of at least
eighteen (18) inches, and wetland hydrologic indicators were noted in both surficial and sub-
surface investigations. WESTON flagged the boundaries of the wetlands using flagging tape and
pin flags. Wetland boundaries were assigned a unique alpha-numeric identifier numbered
sequentially. On October 22, 2012, the soil borings used to identify wetland areas (with the
exception of SB-5) and all the flag locations used to delineate the wetland boundary along
Pierson's Creek were recorded using a Trimble® Pathfinder ProXRS backpack Global
Positioning System (GPS). The coordinates for the soil boring and flag locations are presented
in Table 1. Photographs were taken at various observation points to document the vegetation and
other features; Appendix A presents a photograph log. Project location and historical wetland
delineation maps were used to aid in conducting the wetland delineation.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
6

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
5 Results
5.1	Background Information Review Results
Results of the background data review discussed in Section 4 are provided in the following
figures:
•	Figure 1 - USGS Topographic Map
o The topographic map indicates that the general area at and around the site is
approximately 10 feet above mean sea level, and that the site is bordered by
Conrail facilities to the west and south, the New Jersey Turnpike to the east, and
commercial/industrial facilities to the north.
•	Figure 2 - (Date) Aerial photograph
o Current aerial photography indicates that the site contains Pierson's Creek and is
bordered by Conrail facilities to the west and south, the New Jersey Turnpike to
the east, and commercial/industrial facilities to the north.
•	Figure 3 - FEMA Floodplain Map
o The floodplain map indicates that the study area is located within a Special Flood
Area Subject to the 1% Annual Chance Flood Event.
•	Figure 4 - NRCS Soil Map
o The soil map indicates that approximately 47% of the study area is comprised of
Bigapple Loamy Sand (BhgA), 32% contains Rikers Loamy Sand (RkkcA), and
21%) contains Urban Land Complex (URBHGB).
•	Figure 5 - National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
o The NWI map indicates that Pierson's Creek contains Riverine wetlands.
5.2	Field Investigation Results
Wetlands
The field investigation was conducted along the eastern bank of Pierson's Creek, in the reach
south of Delancey Street. The western bank of Pierson's Creek was inaccessible or was too steep
to safely traverse. Nine (9) soil borings and sixteen (16) wetland delineation flags were installed.
Based on the field investigation, WESTON identified that tidal emergent wetlands are present at
the site. Due to the deeply incised nature of Pierson's Creek, the wetlands are mainly present in a
long narrow band at the edge of the channel. The tidal wetlands become much wider near the
culvert that runs beneath the Conrail rail yard in the southern portion of the study area. Tidal
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
7

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
inundation is the main hydrologic feature that is supporting the wetlands. Appendix B presents
copies of the field logbooks and wetland delineation data sheets for the soil boring and flag
locations.
Wetlands were identified based on low-chroma soil matrix and observed conditions including
mottling. Vegetative species were observed and documented, and hydrological indicators such as
soil saturation, water marks, drift lines, and observed drainage patterns were noted. Dominant
vegetation at the locations investigated include: common reed (Phragmites australis) tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black cherry (Prunus serotina), winged sumac (Rhus copallina),
and stands of bamboo (Bamboo spp.). Figure 6 presents a map showing the soil boring and flag
locations and the extent of wetlands encountered during the field delineation activities.
State Open Waters
Pierson's Creek would in itself constitute a State Open Water, as it does not meet the
exclusionary criteria found in N. J.A.C. 7:7A-1.4 Definitions.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
8

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
6 Conclusions
As a result of the on-site investigations at Pierson's Creek, tidal emergent wetlands were
identified adjacent to the Creek that exhibited the criteria necessary to be classified as
jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the 1989 USACE Manual.
•	The areas had a vegetative community that contained a predominance (greater than 50%
aerial coverage) of hydrophytic plant species.
•	Hydric soil conditions were present at these wetland locations.
•	There were indicators of wetland hydrology at each location.
Due to the positive identification of all three features, the wetlands along Pierson's Creek also
meet the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) definition of wetlands in 40 CFR Section 230.3.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
9

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
7 References
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31 USD! U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Services Program, Washington D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), June 2007. Flood Insurance Rate Map Essex
County, New Jersey: Panel 159 of 200. Map number 34013CO159F.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.
New Jersey Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS), March 2013. New Jersey 2012-2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83	NJ	State	Plane	Feet,	MrSID	Tiles.
https://nigin.state.ni.us/NJ NJGINExplorer/iviewer.isp?pg=2012 Ortholmagery.
Reed, Porter B., 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northeast (Region
1); United States Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Soil Conservation Service, 1982. National List of Scientific Plant Names Vol. I and II.; U.S.
Department of Agriculture, SCS-TP-159. Washington D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Soil Survey, June 2004. Geographic
2005 (SSURGO) Database for Essex County, New Jersey (Projected to NJ State Plane Feet,
NAD83). http://www.state.ni.us/dep/gis/digidownload/zips/soil/essssurgo.zip.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2010. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 1981 and 1995. National Geographic TOPO!, 7.5-Minute Series
(Topographic) Quadrangles: Elizabeth, NJ (1995) and Jersey City, NJ (1981).
U.S. Supreme Court, 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
U.S. Supreme Court, 2006. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States.
WESTON, 2012. Weston Solutions, Inc. Filed Logbook - wetlands, Pierson's Creek/Troy
Chem Corp Inc., Newark, NJ, TDD # S05-0013-1111-015. October 2012.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011
10

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
TABLES
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
TABLE 1. Wetland Soil Boring/Flag Location Coordinates
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ - October 2012


Latitude/Longitude
Northing/Easting
ID
Description
(WGS 1984)
(NJ State Plane 1983)


Latitude
Longitude
Northing
Easting
SB-1
Soil Boring 1
40.713102
-74.147644
684875.75
589799.17
SB-2
Soil Boring 2
40.713086
-74.147596
684869.95
589812.44
SB-3
Soil Boring 3
40.713211
-74.147459
684915.77
589850.20
SB-4
Soil Boring 4
40.713361
-74.147297
684970.44
589894.77
SB-5
Soil Boring 5
coordinates not recorded
SB-6
Soil Boring 6
40.714230
-74.146163
685288.13
590208.00
SB-7
Soil Boring 7
40.714480
-74.146077
685379.29
590231.42
SB-8 and F-15
Soil Boring 8 / Flag location 15
40.712973
-74.147819
684828.44
589750.87
SB-9
Soil Boring 9
40.712537
-74.148181
684669.31
589650.95
F-l
Flag location 1
40.713061
-74.147686
684860.78
589787.41
F-2
Flag location 2
40.713129
-74.147588
684885.61
589814.66
F-3
Flag location 3
40.713231
-74.147474
684922.80
589846.08
F-4
Flag location 4
40.713282
-74.147390
684941.70
589869.11
F-5
Flag location 5
40.713370
-74.147262
684973.75
589904.68
F-6
Flag location 6
40.713453
-74.147148
685004.22
589936.08
F-7
Flag location 7
40.713611
-74.146912
685061.98
590001.12
F-8
Flag location 8
40.713689
-74.146800
685090.65
590032.07
F-9
Flag location 9
40.713845
-74.146557
685147.52
590099.25
F-10
Flag location 10
40.713996
-74.146398
685202.62
590143.08
F-l 1
Flag location 11
40.714101
-74.146294
685241.18
590171.83
F-12
Flag location 12
40.714255
-74.146203
685297.26
590196.73
F-13
Flag location 13
40.714472
-74.146060
685376.38
590236.18
F-14
Flag location 14 (fence at intersection of
Pierson's Creek and south side of Delancey St)
40.714796
-74.145879
685494.66
590285.91
F-15
Soil Boring 8 and Flag location 15
same as Soil Boring 8 (see above)
F-16
Flag location 16
40.712649
-74.148159
684710.25
589656.89
Note: All locations were logged electronically with GPS equipment, and differential correction of the data was performed according to
EPA Region 2 SOPs; the table presents the differentially-corrected coordinates.

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
FIGURES
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
i m/f //
u/jf Z/m //st
zW m°i
U )r, Uf \f J
Project Area
SOURCE:
National Geographic TOPO! U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 7.5 Minute
Series (Topographic) Quadrangles: Elizabeth, NJ 1995 and Jersey City, NJ
1981.
PROJECT:
Pierson's Creek
USGS Topographic Map
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
CLIENT NAME:
EPA
June 2014

-------
Pierson's Creek
LEGEND:
Pierson's Creek
Feeder Streams
PROJECT:
Pierson's Creek
@3
June 2014
Aerial Photograph of Site
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
Feeder Stream
I SOURCE:
11. NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS). New Jersey 2012 - 2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles. March 2013.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGINExplorer/jviewer.jsp?pg=2012_Ortholmagery.
Graphic Scale In Feet

-------
NOTES:
1.	AE - Areas subject to inundation by the 1 -percent-annual-chance flood event.
2.	X - Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
SOURCES:
1.	NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS). New Jersey 2012 - 2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles. March 2013.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGINExplorer/jviewer.jsp?pg=2012_Ortholmagery.
2.	Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map
Essex County, New Jersey: Panel 159 of 200. Map number 34013CO159F.
June 2007.
LEGEND:

Zone AE Flood Area
Pierson's Creek
Zone X Flood Area
Feeder Streams
PROJECT:
Piersori's Creek
FEMA Floodplain Map
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
CLIENT NAME:
\W, cfX Ml
DATE:

FIGURE#:

EPA


June 2014

3

-------
URDUNB
URBHGB
RkkcA.
Graphic Scale In Feet
Pierson's Creek
* Feeder Streams
PROJECT:
Pierson's Creek
NRCS Soil Map
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
@5
June 2014
Pierson's Creek
Feeder Stream
NOTES:
! 1. BhgA - Bigapple loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
12.	RkkcA - Rikers loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
13.	URDUNB - Urban land, Dunellen substratum, 0 to 8 percent slopes.
14.	URBHGB - Urban land, Bigapple substratum, 0 to 8 percent slopes.
I SOURCES:
J1. NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS). New Jersey 2012 - 2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles. March 2013.
https://n jg in. state. nj.us/NJ_NJG IN Ex plorer/jviewer.jsp?pg=2012_Ortho Imagery.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Soil Survey Geographic 2005 (SSURGO) Database for Essex County, New
Jersey (Projected to NJ State Plane Feet, NAD83). June 2004.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/digidownload/zips/soil/essssurgo.zip

-------
wm
R4USCX
"i
Pierson's Creek
R4USCX
Feeder Stream

NOTE:
11. R4USCx - Riverine intermittent streambed, seasonally flooded, excavated
wetland.
] SOURCES:
11. NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS). New Jersey 2012 - 2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles. March 2013.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGINExplorer/jviewer.jsp?pg=2012_Ortholmagery.
] 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. October 20110.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands.
LEGEND:
123 NWI Wetlands
Pierson's Creek
Feeder Streams
PROJECT:
Pierson's Creek
NFWS NWI Map
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
@3
June 2014
Graphic Scale In Feet

-------

SOURCES:
1.	NJ Office of Information Technology (NJOIT), Office of Geographic Information
Systems (OGIS). New Jersey 2012 - 2013 High Resolution Orthophotography,
NAD83 NJ State Plane Feet, MrSID Tiles. March 2013.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJG I NExplorer/jviewer.jsp?pg=2012_Ortholmagery.
2.	Weston Solutions, Inc. Field Logbook - wetlands, Pierson's Creek/Troy
Chem Corp Inc., Newark, NJ, TDD # S05-0013-1111-015. October 2012.
© Soil Boring
] Wetlands Flag Location
Wetland Frontage
Pierson's Creek
Feeder Streams
PROJECT:
Pierson's Creek
Wetland Frontage
Pierson's Creek
Newark, Essex County, NJ
CLIENT NAME:
\W, cfX Ml
DATE:

FIGURE#:

EPA
VaA^J^jkJ

June 2014

6

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ


WMmmJm
¦' :x

mm?
4b
-
Jk

J
MMfMfe*
Pierson's Creek study area, looking south from Delancey Street (photograph taken
during reconnaissance in December 2011).
Hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation at soil boring location SB-1.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ
Looking west at location SB-1.
Soil core from soil boring SB-2, located upslope from the identified wetland.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ
Looking west-southwest at location of Soil Boring SB-3.
Hydrophytic vegetation at soil boring location SB-4.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ
Soil boring location SB-4
Soil boring location SB-5.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ
Collecting soil core at soil boring location SB-6
Soil core and hydrophytic vegetation at soil boring location SB-7.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
DCN: 1673-2A-BMBB
Photograph Log
Wetland Assessment and Delineation - October 2012
Pierson's Creek, Newark, NJ
Soil boring location SB-8.
Soil core from Soil Boring SB-9, located at the wetland margin.
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
APPENDIX B
FIELD LOGBOOKS AND WETLAND DELINEATION DATA SHEETS
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
plCLtfc Ufe&OO#
ALL-WEATHER
ENVIRONMENTAL
No. 550F
wet&o/o'i c*e ?< /
-TiOf CWK* CCP-P/fJC
.A»«T
Tfcb* 56*"• ©otf* ///i -of«"

-------
r
At L-WEATHER
< al hel.d &ook

Name
„t , , , ,	^ * }
Phone
- <	, s- > „ .,°'o
This bf«eb .s	on "Rite in tfi,. SalfV Atl.«eather Writing Paper • A
. -v^tfC 'r. -Vtsd »v«n ' Kirras of weather

i. ¦. i,: ¦. .
¦ ¦ '¦¦¦¦
: '¦¦¦¦'	, ¦ M'. ¦¦¦¦	¦:?«-, N«>	;
fctSGSI t tMtJriiCOPP


i

-------
VwtJk rV a JM	; \ t" \**\
~r ^rK
~"~——* t — ————~"——————
«-sa rv-4> C_rv ^cV-i» »<-*
cfcK
£>*r	— Soo	vV vn«-»cV
. ¦ "''¦""""***~~~"»—"-«•• —		—
* *!E> Hknyfifx	*^
«>«•¦< <(\:»«.\ ^\r -kV^ r-i,
*X «*-*, vS xtv«.ik ,	""""¦"~""~™~~~~~~"
^
ft ~	at'm
•?
%	\.	-1-
»	o»-* c«, \»j uwj "t,£» c*^ | O^wv^ -xo* oio^^-s-i
~ k! »3 coro^f" "Ov«.i*.<.AVp«.>^vt.
. Ct> , 1-I™1 t. S'-VA	*S*%
CJ3-IN05 - «W^ - 5 * CA - 
-------
r
Localion . hJb,
Project / C^enl

Date
5iJk
^PVicA w L-o
¦V;.'Vb -\X^vA-V
	 ~«—'1 ' «-» <*«* «S
> »»A - 2_- "V*v. t.rwj.nS 	jX,*, r>*.	.	~
^"2-	->-~^Jr-''- ^Oi? «L
"V 0»*v \ "2> CI <1 o* '" *"•¦ «-«• • ———•*—_»»„»»

r^//#
l.;0£jifsti0p . s„..Jbi«?.i®(i.Misl.	„		, OssIU:;
p« ojBct •' Client t -j i? v w «¦* C««~*»%W Vif^? | t«5 P
—¦» 1 '
. '""'I CW-
>

;
/»
A-1 '5s
-fr** 5

f
*
. i
!
i
PV^'S oj-O rtM
; f^.ifc. o"b1
1 C 1


>
	_	-		i_	

*
j.
? - V 4»
r£.^

l'*»- .
I lyA<
1 /A.
I .c-' ;
/ ip#A,4^
'	i flk il
fc%*2>
"> %
O	•>«»
^Sm ^""	tiS» VW»««%#

-------

I~.r T'- jJ (S-w	' - V3L.-V»\"-\\.
V' '	cr.K».il -a.	k	"I^S
''O1,ZS,- ..Cito«- >Jn»ks~		
gpl^T ^rw^-fc, ^	.'d-f-'C, i\*.!,vsa j
. T" «*VVs.. t	*jfc <-«- .  Vat» IlL-O >^>«* V*O.. ips d"S»
. W "vVV -V»	» . 		—~—~			——.
^	'"^ "•. ,	-op"*»'Wst. r^'vci *w3^,5- ^ ^ 4.1^ CLsO
.Ocmv»&*\ -
£. X V c\ -Sh
\V"^t> ~ «^nj"r <*> ,"t*»	? ^pwc. cri»^ . 	
\\>-KO "* I /SkC.l- dOU- WvJ Asi^AkH.
'
I. *\_C(\s"W.'*V O :fi>^CBVviu «4f- t-*V.-^t-0'»«i.V«%«,c"«9 •
I
. .L**^i o. \S'iV> CM'b'tb ^	. \
VliiikSX-, "^^NairtwiMW^ \
Vr«(4,l3*. \A. . tO e.\'^>vS^AHv*.....««i.	

-------
, ..JhuJt.- iJUkr -

Project i Cftetu •» •v, <• v. \. „ •	i <'Z* ' *
- *"£> - ¦*"*	.W >N ( tS^c-Ct
.V *. -S o» -¦ v«.*- ,, /"v"\«.CT «** licL •»*¦>
*. * ^cvSv^N^j , '	'	'
. <,	~ C.x- o. - k. cȣ> v^ c-Xi-w.
\V3*i> - *v3 •=,•."* Cl#
v v t^~ *" *"** < *> j/^ *~> *""** "* v*** '""" *
"vi -v-.~>-» .'"""NuftVs •>\,iL"¥'¦a-
S -
V
C, \, j"0 <* <•<• "y>V
"2L,<-"-' -^ •>-• -->	wj <.vtv.^
~ .> ,.j <.. * h. •» -> \ -<-, *^»-»-* i. ">	^ v-'
t	"/•*,«. * r-V*-> *T ~ ^=--> *-»•* "»*- "
<1. r-«»**•»¦«
- . <2>u»-s~* C^iA^t'Ay^v^j^. —
» C> *J uv-v-	•»*,	q2»	-~> w S«-oy
* t£ '•••. -. v. ¦£_ > | - -r» -t	*"
v » v ^ . ,-t-^ >	•»*• \~>«vN •••<•	*"*

V >>>-<- V> - N — . ^_— Vj¦«—s «..-V ,
! «. V- t, v> - ^ t
. *	v»	c~^-_> ».  ^u&-TU>	.
•(•'«/»''— >-v\ 11^
or

-------
10
LC	V.	-			_	**
errt
'•*. \« - ««!	v «'• V • • r-C, \— l^Vs.
. • *"** LS	«.>»-'N,V~v a \ -z-r — 	wV^»i *¦ y . •> —.
r~ ><%	*». -*>- st i-M ^ rf!* vv
^.•s. ""yS"
C7v 4-1 * «-s
'¦ »' 	'% »i«j!	"s.«r	i^'r-,: *wi*» i^ltlp	vr	<**#
% v "« **V"	f%- ^ x <«=L i i -	<
S*4_  "X  . -«M»—•
, '\, f tv, <-•¦-. X' r
V tf® '%M» *V «> • .
v»a C >i- ?-< ."V t'C- »C .1. *,, • *-
"i"„-o.	•?,. v. •. * ¦).-•
.. .

-------
Location hmj„
Project / Client *3?
A iV xA.

\ x-'.


TS.
"*\«2»»'" . Vk*«?\«wr~* %»- *> •— ts*"* «-*i» <"> «**•*$»>
v > \ A *\ * , ^ • - Xl V -*"¦	W »
-«-\ -,J '	V v, --v -^k-i > V >- VsJ vK»."l
A- *> ¦ c w\ N> > A.. - •• \ - s T_ **¦ » V,
,. -s- » i «» - <1 « ( "+ s ¦ \ < \ * * s-~ : ** ' '"-
¦ • *\ "•*.«- Xs. ti S. "* • ~ > - „ > "> *	^ - CA > <'>
, X - > \	y. .H iw XV cA'T v
*  > .»^ v> -
c ,_»-.«,- -X - \ -n « k* * . <-'* - » s
^ v ;>	^?j - .*¦ w,»^v \ . IO» W	' ^	'• * • * ^
»„ .- >X «-••-¦ . •„ y	- - "? ¦ >. . \ J < ^sXk^ -S
«»»*• oarva , us « a A *.	« < - >'	...v-.*.'.
v m *-v> •& «.-.|
— \> > •
lvV~ ->¦ «w«- xit *'v> -. ' ' y, *A^-> • ">
C,r«*x.>"S	cA >«J
, \r>  v,^ ' ^
\.,5 .... 1,	->¦ ,» ;n . > -v^ ,
A.rj	j, - <-»v /'
•^'w-3:,r, w'
,'A,, *" >-«- ^ \ • - \ t-E,t

L
^	'" . . 1 -A V
c- t "** •*£»"*'> ., i -- v^i , ^ f> *t
-t, - \ "* > "•>
T if*

A
1 '	--W* i " **- C
• "-- V*i "'V
i-	' -

«.*V
t	... V
. - k, i t.. ,^v
\ '¦ 1 " ;.» *	>1
X,- fs, ,-,. ^ ; \ \.,: V,
«•*
i
<* "-'" r- ^ ^ " V. 75, .-,, -n :. ¦% X.,.'	I
'¦ivwK
A-* , - ^ \ ... w -'t.i , - , », A\ «c»
"C. v_	-¦
A
> ^ a^g ptems ¦(. ~ 1 ."MM f "isffllm	"Tjf
NS—	.»*.»	,. v .. •
c
\
s t . \ \	^ • -V >" , - V « ••*.	••	jl> 1-..
- -	^ ^ f-v ^.\ ¦- « y, i , < Nm , v, ~
-,t» • Y	( "* X-^" C™ -> V „• ' ~ ,N >» 1*' k ^
"A " ¦ y ^	"rt -'-r c~ •" \ T"1 —,
»' -R.
«• 1 " ¦< ^	^ ri s.-v .*v'» ¦ -> ,ti *• i \
,t.	,4- 'I \. % ..	iv
-., ¦ ,-v fev-,« ^ Sc; • ,V. .-"U- < , \ » - t,
't- v..	--->,¦•. v. \ "\\i% ^1% )"&
s...
T

v-t
' f ¦•»-. V,V^ , , v	, „ ,v -v-
X —	¦	^
r.»- /Jr /

-------
Location ..
Projec • V1 %
D ^ 1 ^
13 ^T* t v , ^ -« > '¦" ¦• • ;
. O *»>., .- i %_ ' ^>v -Vs > K> V^fr-I r-, • . '.«
W> ;. v _ •. -r r	«A «-* • MOf1"1 ^ •¦
.. .
tSV-rv^s\^«V-
Locafion .......	« r.A-/JS/.-X	 Date lolttjj 4 .
Project / Client .
	_				
0§"l5" k/Cf-TW	& ,^-r sjr%
Gti-v-(<^vv\ ( (rl-\ ; !W C. v^i^yy (
'W«v
Aer /jU^ €!=**&«,	oF EPA
. ( (-) .——	-trrr
0	$l0	Hctpui Tt~C o-^at^A
M'^o^ (^wk..^ Ccv\ y^'* t® c-^tr I***-* i> n 7>c i/}up*^*t Zf^F-
f aAj<( » (, u^ rt cW O4, y ^ *-'? K>' i ia7
0% i S I/* ^r^iAJk- cJi- , J*"?r n-vj?,- */ A>C
—•—————— <&-
^ 0O f /!» c<«>/Vr/C	t
MrT-tv»c i 1 Zs.UtfJ, <^c-/r
rfc,«> *< ^r»f ^/{? < ^vec	jon^f-t^L,
1	' V^o'C. ;	( /*' > f
\	- 11	1			- ..... 	.1.1 inn 1 1	li » I' 1 ' " '	¦•¦ 1	r—rr
J	.. . ..
©ct Cq^lJ: i^C " ~^G I C (/^X, c -^)>
©130	PC-Rf^..£i r-t^s^i "TifJL,
8'iTV^	"""
0*1 3o	Hi Att-1^^
jCL
-------
t ft J*	<
, , i,i i Q,*si } Ov_AS.lL — ( K»u^|
' 0 0 0 r'ioi' »_i ^	G4rt •+"r oP
^'VA.KiAi'O- t^k-r .	>T"A_C4^*" ' Aj'«_ I f
^kS ->- St, E ,S A a-'** TZ ^:-T frttM e-ff^ ,
to Ao (._i,c.4u^ erf 4 P^- "S^QA \ pi-fayn
»^r° Csi_u^r+;% ft;^M(.A
[|J>P G<-u	fic ~5 g"Q C"'
| 1 t? ^	X-.^tr >o i-JUL/x-riSfJ RL'S^J X
| ^^-47* Ccx-^itcr-fc^ 5u-^ H --------- — ~
(* hOo 0><_-MTc.rU K^iA -—		
^Or€" ;	~f° ,M^ (-- ' ^ ^
S/-PSTfi^flrW\ ptil. /ytcA^5,	j
^l^ffvK, C £ ,
. r ¦ "" v ^ ivvm	¦
\ ^ i ^ Coh_^_k.v_t^.^ Rc - S i^>q X (> ~~
i 3 ^ bV-«- "T-c-	far"	'? fiK-£AK
S*Ci r c^c.'vtiJn P^"	t> -vc
(^C ,"i. ?	/4r ^
I > Oq CtX-ijf cr ^—** St,-^0 ^ ^ pH - £>
I?/ 3	CI25qM
I ") Cv>-t. f ^r~ f^Q ~ S f\ 0 V jS 5
OK^AfJ'C O^brv^"* TMi * Mt, Pi 5 f\&& ,
I60O	Pi^«5.tffc6 pf«. 71W . c cjf^'v
-p eCrue.^ -70 Ai«	^
-p> o/V-y > 5/y aa*' , —		~ ^ ~ ~ ^
o- ^_o
7 yvJ"	to/tt/x.
P i7	~ / y /
1?£X> ->) t-wf
.Vi/''	-Wt, > r*2.fy»^i/,
N,fi..C-j 4;i
6^?*^+€x. . "" "*"
'T V?i	Ct^t. »tCX^- \ •*x<,4.»; j / 7^ -p7~4
i5fr^	^br AJ'Z r"^J
s ''ft	fn tV-->Y ^C44'IC^fUttX, A*
f.VjrtS 7f/	i4fc.£rs -""*" ———-—4c
f"<	t. OC^TTp,^ f^u Co^L4p-tjb. 4f rfl£r<¥ 71O* >
S*TA.t4-« ^ w-r	wr	t
i-JH Still b'i-Hmtrm fr ,TW
ra ?x^	) -, kAru '^cu-vnjv
£ f£yj PC tt- £^a o^ My ^	^
^ L^K. 5^-v'	^Oc> ^•r- :*;. '-rX4<	i •>
Cc-i.- c £"cr€R* w'* 7^A ^ jv*//^_€ r>< r^^n. y
/A) rt S-u T" 7 (^Jr y	"	1 —— - - —— m»
i\u^ sfilAiwatf CCC<.«?C'"^A
.ViTif STTVA^fss	Vc)Ci u^ML
Ct^-i':,W ><>vttA N^cvr 7^
I'^w^^/aCj- R^trfs«> ($ SjCj.IPgst^ j,-^ccx^u j
/h£ r/)o/G? S / nc) %^C6Ia/-^a ia/
71^,4-h iJ(5P4/C4_rti\	"'
\ 'Uf/bj/l J|

-------
m
Location. 					 Date
Project / Client ..£Vfc*a*Ct	9H£sl	-			—	—	
"" ¦ 			
ft.- loUfi -01 : Css^'CcrHW.	.
pC - Su/o • f.
PC. -i €. 11 * 6 % : C<,	->P ..
j t^e»0 < »aJC- .. S	""	'
.^C - /-Q*4Pi^niLt - *3 :	. /^*"-SfeO. ^.
/of £ / D 73 5 Co*lt^c.r«A	,**<** .. '
u c47fW ^ to fc £r r o "~ c. * — ,
Oi*fQ	Or-
It-3
^0fS5 Coi-t£cjrff> ft-S*>oS8.
tJ'^Jr . ... .: * ^t"^7T ;
of (A;'tg r j ^4rtAtotm- -
Lut g^y_ 0»5^ L.tOcuTcrm

-
-------
•	> C/f£< -Tfcoy
/<}0 0	/V^ G"^T	^ •Lfv..c_y
qF* I Kaik. } ^"oort->
*** G»/J4a"- C-v^'Vtr G'< ^ 4«i€si to
^C^T|;f->	7/'» /^ fVC^tast T^jRKk ?£•>-/ ^
»-?^r *vi ^Xi W«tC(ju^r Tb 'Hcf & P^avt Dr»K/'.
( 4-^'v |>t^K.Ai«- Z-oc^ * 0
(5t^«p/i I /m/^4/^7 ) -* 4<£ MOT*"
7X>	P-V<< Cc£ Vi frf 7^4 C«i ft -S
11 DO Av'ti £/^uW€€i oPt- A/R^3 fMft -4-T"
c r Ld~	¦*<-*-i 7ti -&•*-£ S' f S^G^/ -
Lo^tiom	4*/* /U^-rf 7U /r /H?. €,
C v ^lvG'tc^\) - lA 6u-v.'A/»iiti W&w S4Af/»0'^ .
I \3>0 Mo(\u„t TJ. "TO ^Vut. qF /tV'S i-oT-j
-fl-HJeuWH cvn*. j /V* "w	- --------—^~
I / > S" C4.vj-ccrto * f ^rcc
PC ".^>^0 S' - ;-*/."**. 1*4^ ^ *-^r ^ CeK/^'t
Co<-UJCt^s	,VT	——*" *¦*
PC~ s	* m«**£ + r?t.v e^*
I	Cc^c^c r> > ^4»v''»£ rC-	§>
j 3'^	PO
1 3>^0	Tib 5*MU&
i 3 3d Coc.L4t;r^f>	pC.- S jtQfjg*
, A/'4	,,„. ij[n/^
1 i7'{t'^S&-J > (1 K.t >r K " I y
1 ^~OD ^o&'L., ZX.J* fcv- C^t TO
rti-t i^Vip^/AX^-	—-
Coc_c^crt a	Pc ~^iA/0 7
•v< ( OIX.C DfC/v	.«i>^ oT
r»
5> { A.'or n> Xc4-t€^
/l-T /C?j0 ) UK tyvr^ a^c nf
11>	Tbf DP 714^ c^d/e^r Ai'C ,/V0k/
iT"'i	,1 ¦'W^	On?
>rr-t^v» 8&rrt>M ti 4t-c	A'//1 ^.f^.
Cci-tj".cr i.r\.*rt*f,v>~	P-%^ (X/, fi^*c
CF	/fr 72*3. Tl r .
i5^°	?6- sko^A
IS7^*	5Wt^ y ^ ~ SOOlG^
' (j 3i3 f
Horj l\Jk^nr-j	fiA ^ r. ?'*<«
fUn C4^V,^C£ ytt4V/K-t>i'S^r , 		—
(9o^> ^u/OLs, ~m	.		

-------
a'. /ofnf/A
^tW6. 	jL&- - (°!n//±
ft - lOtlJ^-' <%» ; P^'KyV»/rf i ,f7- LcCWHS
p^jt-	F^-	-	~~ ^
fc * lot1 1 -I - o 1 CcX-<-f?c TV/V
AW'tJSL K'**& i Coc/jfcp^v o(- 5-%j4*-/M/-r
;>M/Y.£ PC - St, O^ I, i.			—C*.
_____^^—	4„
f^oTi ; S^HftiAJo	4* to((<•((>-
* 5>\jJ	G0LjL.(t.rr>-^ ,*T- wAr^A'i waA**
l^ifv^cr to isTTcKv^ ^"E-^/Mfc A^'r	tp"vrco-vr4c,;A/Ar«A /f^cMs 5 V^C
fiUcm*^ >i^*~r r*£-v A^oCtR TO !>&.'1£S, crv^A
piAc/TW^ f+o^ec>p^,	ffa/ztoef. ,
Nor* - ^Cc,v	r^A 4^l
5a.\f/^'tTt« SofLuifi dn t>i	>tC/Wm C^x.W ———-—	jW X ^OsP t	0£
/£&*&$f
A^w/s^Ajt; ?	iofll'Ji^
k Gc«CC*
DS'©0 i^L^TO^J ft/l'>/f4 *
•upa^i
Pp AA-c - lA^ftr-fV Sw't.^THr*/!
( CoVvJ"<^T" f«*- ^v,'4<-
^V3o Go- f^r £-iX/< rt^* «4^o€Xf ))g>,v/l
Of VO	f^ff
i/JC"fT-fHA.	T' //<*>; r*-V P^S'Ot*-
H^t^ii/Vi ^ uss^cr^ XaaJpIi f Cc<)<.; -
0? AiC^A^ ?	,vm/./£ cw ftr*
%-v	&>	Th'Z^
CA<-A*A+*\ ~7~H a;a> G&^Si *<-> .
C>rliO^ Ct>^c-€Lr^«>	Pc -5cw> n t
kJCa^ I i^nSj^i C\S{.x C^uA^,\r Ji>u.7U
0^*50 (x>L-uZ S4'^l£ fc- S'V 14 J^Ulc
4,5, Su/( I ^ 0 '"6 '	— —~gj*-
lo <2-Z> Cc^t-lZCrfi S4-4,ft.| rt, - S fc> I / £ t sJ-fifT
t^4Tt»A» fX">-/r' 					
IO J.0 Qb, tf fa -J* P^aCSCis/^- i^tXu 4/^6
i-Kx iv* tr* * G-^5 0«'~v ^

-------
pJ" ^
p*' »T'7-^v'' C^* «l/ j
ft ^9 Qs^-tJ Crv-\ y^VV 	rl^A >
"P'<.iXsj,.o i C^-iF.M A* »V O' V v?'/c /£.VW*« Cv/uu ua>!L
Coll^ vjU	ft- ~1 <4-
/( S'S" Cx> -vA C. rt S S^A.-'e ;^r- '	^
.jOT> }	^
* ,2/yA	T^i "" M«C.^t	'•7J-"^-J i<£^S ,
/+-i,v«/ F?^1.4b^-/r^'i •	¦ —— -w
I $5 5 Co Ct * C„rt: *
(iocrr£ *	p^>h ^ *-<
~z,.zMX 5T*£4-n 4u?/ut~ ^a^'C -T&4CK. C£>	l/S" S|>o ^&
/3~"0^	CtcofcrPA 54#w/£,e R-StVjl , Fk;~
Ajj^-Tit	^T7 4*/ e- F«E££^ Sicf4^ a^ m/ias
(S^y	CouL-f L ri"-^ 34Wt-£ rt -3C>^?...;d" ^ ^
! "5 id	Cc^.Ji Cr^a.	P**C~ 5i>J i B >2 ~';y
&jTV nVv* >'-Hf ^ vr^.-' -K S^7 ' (i*-
ilp Q<6	.9tAA^i.( 7-ft/VM tv4f 1- /^V U-P
ii>5 O -VK« ?u / V v T'cA-^ ,gPf ^ 'Tf	- ^
£w?Xf i ^-dSSjP /^ 0 (rt CAfJ"
TT-Hs. foA-n-i -1 of 7W* i~'£rc.A^ e/Ata/WTM ( TuA vea
£AT0-lf<-W Ki ) /W-">	J -rt ——	' ""
l*i> s/ 1
Uwk^ C ^4-A«. /U ^ .	i I) fi "*{[i X.
O	/- .
Prefect / Cltant /" t	'•* L .* £ * <\	
R+^toL^ v lot i V x
Ft - /o/£M - oof:	?C,-&Hf
PC -iOiif/,1- 001. •	Loqk<«.<~ 5ftu» -#f C*At4MA.r .;
Lot-ATio."*	for-5 C*/If ———
ft -lotW^OQJ: «,«• s*n*&L4L
PC Si-Jtl
pt-/o/g/^-06^;	^'-4T7 «¦ o- *S"tv/X
Pc /J/s'.V - OCT; ^ Mix Tit Ti^L
c-iL.vt.Kr	FC-SiA/t/i ijfSTfm-**
lOtUX" 0C><, . L~£i>kjA!ir A/€ ^f- Cmc^vt* . I
&£A£ATit m+ ^€4^ .t-eQfTte/vJ
F£Ci«(i. s-ffufc***	G»a,^4'v TitAe^ !
R. /oiif/X'oo7: St>*4Fm	i76-SlaJ2 7 :

-------
0f20 QG 4 1XL, orj to
Path* Pm«- <-*<~+no.u*	it^
Fom*k*	m*c> ^7n:	Tofl^f »* b«.«cr IK^U
TO	Mm
rt«aw a^atk^	_—— &- &A(y*<*n-£yuy
Pc)a.tija- ftt	cAcrtc ; -i-a^/Aivr - **«ua 4ct .
|*%rE oP-	^
LqkjKc* /K«-	>{,/<. {*^,1- 5)
jSoO	4r G^f/iy^w	;
/A/ 4f~	, #4A"1	A^^is Tt>
CftffiV 7fchUufc*. J=£ACf
NoO Gp^r^ A>*--naP  "pc^yz,^ >-o£P £ iii
. ¦. WcyA^ tA/r ; /o/^/,
r 1 ' ¦'¦- 1 ^'^Alaiv'i OtiljS^
OfelS"	STC/J 4a a* i «-"T c? V b£C4*A,Y >v
; G-Gj M-C, hC # /^-ni
Cot-€rr< G'^ew^ ("C-ti") <+-mrfjy
LAQuZiiw C~l) —- ~—	¦ 		
fimjyJ Stt\IiuC ^47-^/A /H/'I /C'/c-a/
of i^t^utrf (^uTia^'i A-f^ 1H.AR F*a. Q/iAr,^-
FoA. p»*ur*-- r*r c-"^ *«va Aa*v't-k. i^y-cx ,/^A
0?3o Ak-ux^ Vc29
f^RrV , & t H*j ^ € n~vi(,, y. f
C|44^ic,»H= f r(/^fS'cU "J-fi Tti $L>J fJ?
L>1JS" C v.cter'li T<'M'V*; fC-
^0 C>Cr ^MK. t^0 ^
/h
-------

location 			 Date l V » '•-$! rr.K 1.
C<_,s_ w 7 C..T-K t	L.5 * ^ k ' I	
NfcfVl.. y* />"- ;S» 		———— G^.
/ O "7 CoL4^C^~fcf>	>*W*Pu£ PC - SiV ? *V
fe/\Vr f\VJK AFfR^sr,	fOOlCm OP- ' 5
i XOo Cou^ff c<%b.	^c~ $ Oi^'Z "-1
.^fi'rv	/."i, -/* ' —— "~	'	<
/ y. / S 5»**» <-7 jPL " ?¦ |\ fVL '. W cf
| I T\.l ^ v'r*->/) '	(If:—
f ivc,,^ «N,f.frrV of 5 '-£ ^ \*~v* Le-wvn^ ^ 5c~" y
13/0 &M Termlhcjer will he
on ~5'f£ frd/m r7)&tvx A/ewcr/d
^{WJffClV	_
/3.itE$v25"c^ki *?d ar freshen ih.
iS^O ^B-i'fnc PC- 50/d A com-
135V PC- SO!56 coveted
Hl5~~ PC-Stfib O'KeChtJ.
il'lST PC~ SO/0 ^ ccHei Vr/
MO Pc^WL'drciitifal
. 15*05 Vc - Mi v r csh\ ttii
! /57.r PC-SDHfekered
\ ;53{2 /t'" ^'V " i
! ~~~ r -m (Z,.p A-
/Uemftj MO.
Preyed f Client
w ?
A
/uOO &i>hrto,t
depart S/ Ar. 		
Jlt/O pc^Tt-j Ci'- (i£
-------
nkiaofk yd tjiiit.
l/Hb LUejfafl Sofatiens /He
C(r, TIL OCj onot rn C
Tcq^! 4$
0> //cJ&Jf1
// 14£T
and M^jCf}
tfnws at
	c?: ^ ..
7es2uS^'~~
/?sz>v,cfincj?
ftr	bm\£r--wnc^
p&spe&fo»4
/^wtUc/
4aj.
f/SD y^?m ^
//5J TP)0T C'ikc-krei
//5T C f ph*M.
t(*tT Pc-5QZZPi(hymw)c<>jU<6*i
lb 30 PC- SD2Z&^ co/lcsfcef.
/ 1? 3g (icp^Cc/rh'^rtfa/
, ———
Tntyst- _l/l ei* P&f- o/tP
us yQ/~ ff& ikxyn.—

-------
¦	- PsCr^O/i 3 C' w€„i On kfc/ny :>
t- *zi ,5 (k	^5
ft •» 3:>ro v i - ni.>- J t' ion f r>.v), ^! f \
u-*Jv_i"'t /-'' (TL^ ,11J	!:?•+%on|f\ \ 4,j .o. > ,i cU atl*.'^4) I }J
i> Co«\.|tiu.4. <
Hi + '-'J. rO"7, ! I ^ i'.r y Vvpi 3
U. <\&< i 4 rv* ' •: <* - 0 - DO ffi))
\M^> aj- a_ath »nktvaf1-
)00O"iza>r /jt.1 cud /«> /c*>ttctfn
94.	--¦..A.
) a £ o - A-d> vi ,> ¦4 ; /y itcto. n>c ' ? Lu
I o3 O ' .. .W/- ' (	S'-i 1^. - 7^
t t?t|5v '*> hj L)£> ^ /J k'.f iu^ u>j Li ^ Tl
/)>jt^AjLvf *-1	¦ /v/3>
:¦	• - f;t:r^o\_s
i l/C - xccur\ Ccn\^;k,d Samf//^i
at				—
:no-	itCah^
'\i5- fc.a&±srSJep fhf !QCOJh&n 9M-	|
0 ^ U-#7%4-jr£2. x. n	i-f s-»|
^ -ccT r> £. fccry y,|r,/c ^
. oco rfiSf^ry V'y CtrJ o r-f*i
^.rfaoL rin,'i \A cl^r^rc ¦ —^
'3C - fCS\\i3r a.(		 wi
\!yc{ Sb^5 A ^ ' —"'""" ' ,!
j«/cx» st>as6 c^ivvk:0 •--• ¦• " ' '.
I3C5 SDj'iCC (s^focc.)
!J5D ' >'0 hi^ ftf	ty£. .
\iCl> jp,	S^fu\o t c ;
f tv; f oJr hioi|C,n —
'cXC - ori i	r-jLj ^ tr>r p; 4	. 'UC//) .
/ t».V" 1-€€t ^ (f -4'» tic	'

-------
f tl?c*
' JsTL j£Jl£ 4
ALL-WEATHER
FIELD
N-351
Ttt*«»	/mc
N«wwk,NT
T bb* Sof

jr

-------
ALL-WEATHER WRITING PAPER |Xs ^ 1
Name g-STZPAJ Aot-wt~7«?^-^ , <6i/c..			
Address ^05"			
	g^wu A^vT sr?i7		
Phone	9/7" ^		
Project Pj^ fzhl£± s QqSJsJL jli%£h	(„v.y
	M C-wy,; k /Q -J	. 	 .	
C £f4 fr?¦£" i>T^^T tji- Co.-VTre^O-^
	Tf>i\ ^So^ooti -i/l l~ 0/>	_
Clear Vinyl Protective Slipcovers (Item No 30) are available for this style of notebook
Helps protect your notebook from wear & tear Contact your dealer or the J. L. Darting Corporation
CONTENTS
PAGE
REFERENCE
DATE







i


.

























































-------
p ffJ *, Ca
/D /<* ( 'X G-Cr- C ^ X cu«r t^lTO^
J t Tf Fo> o~» ,r>v «,v % Istl I^C+^W •• i£*
/A/W LS^auoa.	TMfi /sv.ii d' c.
CH^o B *<, <*>	b%L/ Ask
S'/3 ~ Sj/c	-i p^-^c-s.
^	CfeA-F 4/A/S"
£id_ < ^„r£jw\ fto.ti^ /WtffcoC 5-^^)
kyt^ o'-V lolk a/ 1 < * «-tv C M-?
i ' • '(i" /0y|v ^ /1 •**/cry C<>^ ^/	c.
1j	'		
A^rckiA-v
jOlR 5/1 ^£_r y C'i4-y
Ai &Tt : C_< iVt >0 fV£c-0/U>
/ pjlpQf*.	uaJ K^a-M" S H-»c CTS
Cj'^./cr*.^ 5/^-'	S^' ?
^'cri-^a L/aI£ /fc. ewCr C.fVCC< /^fc.C^-TtO
t>^ Fi-.AC~v f-r f ru ir-iY (ficAv? 4-r
»\tt)«\,TM- E /J'^ Vk/^TI 0P	^(j-S	l.	$T~,
£ '•'t. Cw~''V'Vr-H.. ^AVv/vt^ Ar^-^-'ri \ ~* iS4<	»i
C,-*v K'ik^l <3 AiC	F-A-C+" 0-}K ^ , TVt v	'1
/K-.*> fa \ ,)>	y)> p4*rtjs* 0lc«~Qek
/W^ -fo^Tii /rJ~~o T<>a-/?4vc />(t-oP£>lry •
O "/'»// >
Ol££< ^	' °(izji*
•£ O '-1TM-	of	4/€4<
CpAA/\A/c Oa/£ ^ /*JLAs^ F
z'frtyPut- ?C~S>W l \ }
tS Ca*^A<.-nk^.(>Tl^ of 7* /dh o/C
sjO s e-^£t^< (p^ /
£ T" -4^||V f-TL-C*-^ t>S ^ f ,4T >.>-<7^ ^
f>«^> £)f Tff> 0f€TAi r	3
k 1 -TI+JZ+.2 'S -f	-v-^MK-t ^/x.tJ'T
,-4r~ r?r-e £i-*i oc * irft/Z*	,
ft-L-jMs- jit€	£^,f os* r^£cr«A, ^ C^^£c
Gf.oQ^/C pAj?«^.ri, A'^rrr	r?/^
^Axr-^)f<.4Adjt v m-j/'&t/v rt» &Tc4acl/^ s.f.
C ^,"cL.^g4rTXii Sy /x^. L^CtWJi f' f T~i>
f"CH%S\ , I'f4.^( -f»t£ #£_SC	u-4 Tlvf-VSi
P/t,//*G-^ y4/t^'ts 4t-osJ$fe* ^0^ \

-------
Tiff. CA.*Ck /fcLoA*,	A>a?7a* t 4*4
Sow «5#%fcS ar CMXM 4t^uo- TW GiAM^Mm**-
*£ ofE&r
-V - 7^#S *4~%m^M&Ahr *i: GjfCs
fe|V ^<*UjK. ©Af tMftfpjy /t^vA . C«M^HUS(kV ^
b£c.tt*4* ^tTS&. . j.						
W^kct,vw;)i JJ&'.c- s /rt"Y 6 *0-0 ^v/v€*rJE?>t?»^ . ml.
/ft LfiCArtwi	,. S'l"*/, it-^O
S
•1*7 f |tti ©C	t~**
€©'AJ^i«,*i,Ca «f*f" L^e^tn^fy ^ ~	SCC
r*v*"v i ^-/	to P*/V
TrfJi	6C	w^n^A-'A .-r->*v-
t|-f-€. Ot£f#C . ^oit- »Ja4,x/tt- cj>,~*rtAvs ^&~Xf
SS-i(	S§-C» ,**#&' "5"	wc .
u^ovfr AC€/ti jv*t HSj^orf f*0*. tM-€
wd.n_A/J?v ^u*ujl^r^ ,
i^£STp/J >P ,	tp ^£<^0 Jcwc 4&ti/«u
/W*k	LfUT/M;' <•*/ G'°£ •
r	!			/	
}ooo	Cmc&m^/j^) ^v \ £>£<£ ^
G >c~<~/ £  i~^~i^Cr-
c* W Tc*#»#tjE fa-GK.
/"	i
C C*-< pftiA+SWr ,C^t*Ma±. AaJ>fn**/4*. f*t*0
M	|
(£L}0 W^c t-Wpi. ,ns. lsg,4cc,
*oOf-T7«/Vi	to /-vy ACt^ivfr*^
I	J
C&tr* O^ W/LrJ-rfW** • 4*/£ <_«3G-«,£ 4 JPwc

-------
SB-i
fLiUnvJ viAr CM-tk)
DATA FORM
ROUTOE GN9IT5 DETERMINATtqN METHOD1
PtoB—fa , Ci« tlil«»yi Data: /O /it f ( ^
PrejectfSHe:—,—4'	LX*z±zjL-i.—Lr.nt Species
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

*£ifi
Sr
VEGETATION
Indicator
Statue Stratum Dominant Plant Spectee
	Ptif_ u
indicator
Status
Stratum


11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant opecses thai are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
is the hydropbytk: vegetation criterion met? Yes 'v Ho	
Rationale: 		—								
ZBaLit
SeHea^phaae:.	 r ^
is the soil on the hydric soils list?
Is the soli a Hlstosol? Y«jts	^
Is the ©OS: Mottled?
Matrix Color ——Jw*
Other hytfrte soli Indicators
Yes
Yes
Ho
N»
L^rtrfiud^, — Mottle Colon: _
	T..;i 11	
)L
SOILS
	Subgroup:2 _
No	Undetermined _
Histic eplpadon present? Yes
Gteyed? Yes. No
No
h the hydric soil criterion met?
Rationale: _
Yea
No.
HYDROLOGY
_ No V Surface wa^r depth: 	
Is the pound surface Inundated? Yes	
Is the soil sal y rated? Yea No v-
Depth to f we-standing water In pftftoil probe hole:.
Uat other flpM ssykiance of §yrface jnundfitlon oc soil
			—A,—ijL.ijt.L->	^ * W j
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes,
Rationale:.
U^_J < - V
Ms	
i—* i
A-itlKA 
-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetl and* Delineation Manual)
s9")
tr*
Projaiet/Sito 'i ' ."3-oH 5 Lf* A/ J
Applicant/Owner
Date: &.J, ^
County:
Lrsvsstjpator
Stats:
Do Norma! Circumstances Exist or the sits? Yes 
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transact ID:
Rot&
VEGETATfON
Dominant Plant Spades
1.!'M

Stratum Indicator
c mo
si m,iJ
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
10.
11_
12.
13._
14._
15._
16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding F-AO).
Remark®::
210%.
HYDROLOGY
Recordftd
[W(Descr1b8 in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
. Aerial Photographs
	Oltw
No Reworded Data Avaiabte
Field Observations:
. ft	*A
Depth of Surface Water /6^T^T ^ fin.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: } L "N	fin.)
Depth to Seturaad Soli: 3	fin.)
, Saturated In Upp« j£"tnch« (L i>u "t? ^ I
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
tnoodatsd
' """ " (L&u
Water Marks
Drtft Lines
. Sediment Deposits
¦f Drainage Patterns in W^flends
Secondary Indicators {2 qf rnore required):
	Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
__ Watar-Stelnsd Leaves
	Local Soti Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) *f «HtJ»
x<
r\
-mt
Remarks:

-------
SOILS
M»f» IMS
(Striaa «wJ Phwt):.
Tworscsny (Subgroup): _
Que: 	
F lew Otjs«vaSof®
Cftrfbim Mapped Type? Y«
1
NO
Depth
iiDCUBBl Hpfeon
Matrix Color
flaimwii mmi
O- 4>
Ll\
(JbJS -A
i
fctaita Cotes
	MA...
_MM_
Texture, Concmbons.
Structure,. etc.	
	fifJhJt.
Hyrfrtc Soil Indteatora-
	HistiC Epjp&don
_ Suffltte Odor
y, Aquic Moisture Regime
Redueartg CondBJorw
	Gleyed or Low'-Chrome Colors
. Concrete™
. High Organic Content in Surfa ca Layer Sandy So is
. Organic Strsmiung in Sandy Sate
Listed on L ocal Hydric Soils Ust
. Listed on National Mydrtc Soils List
. 01 her (Explain rrt Remarks)
RanMrkr
vUJ io.lf (p Wm/ ff/, U4^tr {p I jp-ij
£ l^^ts 4? fd-i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
11 ttydfrsptTyiic Vegetation Present?
I) Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydrsc Soils Preset?
No (CIrde)
Mo
No
(Girds)
Is Shis Sampling Point VVrthtn a Wetland? (js£ No
Ramart®;

A&xvm by HQUSACt 3.H2

-------
50-2-
are^
Cr^k
DATA FORM
ROUTINE OH91TE DETERMINATION METHOD1
*W Date;
i »*w v ¦¦ wiiviidi vbimi tniiivn uvn «**b> hiww	.<¦	$
FWd toMMptatfa): J^'^r i^-	<2-i * i . (j . tnlM»vJ Dat#. /b/tf j f
AppfcantOwner:
Msw: K a mora detailed elw description is neceeaaiy, use Jha bart of data form or a field nolebook.
County:
Pia/rt Community iiNama:.
Do normal environmental conditions esfei art theplarrt community?	,	,	, 5 n
'£_ (If no, explain an back) P frjfof-i	6W	jrrfi" filing
No.
H» the vegetation, aoSs, and/or hydrology bean significant disturbed?
Y®» ;• No		(» yes, explain on back) v •¦? ? * U <
Dominant Plant Specie#
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6,
8.
10.
1
MJ
Indicator
Status


VEGETATION
Stratum Dominant Plant Spoote3
Indicator
Status
SSrs&m
m.
JjL
11.
12.	¦
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Percent oi dominant spades that are OBL, FACW, andfer FAC	-
Ratten ate:
-ju&jLji—lAftv jo, ',>	Lr	a
	1	—fll.vifc	theZfl •-< |
fc	v f tJJ.—wcijL
fill., mc^.A nc*
Sertes/phasa:
Jjs±jl
SOILS
Ja»t
Yes
1$ the SOS on the hydrte aolb list?
Is the soil a Histosoi? Yes	
Istfieaoil: Mottled? Yes	tyo
Am^uJL
- Subgroup;2
0' ^" to n ifa
No , _ Undetermined.

Matrix Color:
Other hydrte soil Indicators:
Is the hydrte soil criterion mat?
Rationale:	
No v. Hlstfe epipedon present? V«s	
Gteved? Yes	 No <
	Mentis Colors:		
No
Yea
No
-ic *	r11 ik ht 
-------
%
¦ At
'K
&ATA form
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 C0€ Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site:	' < -1

VFJltrl
Applicant/Owner.
Investigator.
Da Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Is tha site significant ^sturbed {Atypical SftuaBon)?
(s the area a potantiafFftSlfem Area?
fir r«ege«i. explain on reverse.)
--
VEGETATION
IT
Community ID:
Transect ID;
Plot ID:
Pcm'nam ,P1aot,Spepip3.
£
-—ph^|^


Stratum indicator
jl. My
k,L rACk/
Dominant Rant Species
Stratum Indicator
w._
11-™
12__
11_
14._
15._
16.
Percent of Dominant Spedes thai are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-)..
RwnBfks:
<
HYDROLOGY
	Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
	Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
	Aerial Photographs
	Other
	No Recorded Data Available
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated m Upper 12 irwties
	Water Marks
	Drift Lines
	Sediment Deposits
___ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators {2 or more required),
		Oxidized Root Channels in Oppef 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soti Survey Dsta
FAC-NeirtrnJ Tost
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Held Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Deoth id Free Water In PK: fin,* ^ ^
Depth to Sakftrted Soil: {in.) k/' li
1

-------
»
i
SOILS
Map UnK Name
(Series and Phase):.
Taxonomy (Subgroup):,
Drainage Class:	
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yea No
EffifllftfifiSSSMSn*
Depth
Bmten.
Matrix Color
iMiss)
JL
Motte Ccicra
fMunsell Moists
HA-
f/A
Mottle
toun^nw'Qagkagt
Tajflure, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
(k"\
A £t/ff '***
i«l f4vc/
ty**, >jk^ <)
Hytiric Soli indicators:
	Htstosol
	Histtc Epipedon
	Suifidic Odor
	Aquic Moisture Regime
	Reducing Conditions
	Gteyed or LowChroma Colors
	Concretions
	Hfgft Organic Content in Surfs cs Layer Sandy SoJSs
	Organic Streaking in Sandy Soiis
	Listed on Local Hydrlc Soils List ,
Listed on National Hydric Soiis 'J& v
	Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
D~| » b dvo/h A f Sjfflr* ( Uf dMflk
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yea
Hydric Softs Present?	Yes
(Circle)
(Clrde)
is this Sampling Point Within a WetSand? Yos {^r~,
AW -g'-l'ti"*
RemarKs-
Apprftad by HQOSACf MS

-------
SB-l
DATA FORM
ROUTINE 0NST1 DETCRMtNATlQtl METHOD1
Bald	_A	IcJtU,. (> <¦ ^' '1%^		 q^.	__	foj f..| / ^ Y
Project/She:—*	1 li	X ff-SSn.. .,¦		 State:, 	County;	_
Applfcsflj/Owrter;				 Plan! Community i/Narrts:.
Not®: ff a mors detailed sits description la necessary, U9# the badk of data term or a told notebook.
Do normal environmental oondttkms exist at the. ptant community? . i	, 'i ^ . j! ,
Ym	No{Hno.«xpl«lrimbask)	^ ^
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology b«®f> significantly dlstuibed?
Yes k No	(If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Indicator	Indicator
Dominant Plant Specks	Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species	Status Stratum
1.		 Fh y . ]C 11.
2.	£K-r*rrt,Hr fco	 .a.av..	12,
2.	Lhrry^^V ^	 Zild±<. >X_ 12,
3.	--	Z?r7? 13.
4.	ISSLo-f Ht^oaSL^ mHL * «,.
5.					 		 		 15. —
6.				 	 .	 18	
7.				17.—
i. —		 		 		 18.-—
9. 	_____		— 		18	
10.		20	
Percent of dominant species thm aim OBL, FACW, and/er FAC _
IS the hydrophytlc vegetation criterion met? Ye®	No	^
Rationale: 		—			
. , ,	SOILS
Sert«a/ph&se:	—	Subgroup:2 		
te the eoN on the hydrfc soils list? Yes	NoJgE Undetermined	d_
ejSpedbr
Is the soil a Hlstoeol? Ybb	No ^	Hlsifc e^spedcn present? Yes	No a.
is the soil: Mottled? Y«	No .* Sieved? Yes	 No /
Malrtx Color:	,)t £¦, iSWZbiJ.	Mottle Colom: 			
Otter hydrie soil Indicators
Is the hydrfc! soil criterion met? Yea	Ho /	, „..
Rstioncle: 			f f	'Ha:		
-	 5f * 4 - .F S ^ 11 »,. 	I					
HYDROLOG?	^
h the ground surfetcs Inundated? Yes ___ No > Surface water depth
tsihs ©oH saturated? Yea	 No '*¦
Depth to freestanding water in pft/soll probe hote:	1			
U$t clher field evidence of surface Inundsalort or soi aa&WMlon.
b the wsfland hydrology criterion met? Yea	 No A
RHtlonste:	
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
la the pfent community a wetland? Yee	 No /
Ratkwslefor-Ju«ctlw«ldfwlfton; , 1	C+<	1 >
p ro X, 3 fpa.> /W# S?.SrK ^ 'J Zrit <,	v A^'CS-1-
^ This date form can be used for the Hydrlc Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Clasgtf teaBort accord^ to *Soll Taxonomy."
8-2

-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
573-3
A
iLr^S s CrtnC
¦q rnjvi
Project/Site: 		
Applicant/Owner: J_	
Investigator,	
JLsL
DatB:
County:
Stats:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?	Y§§
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (gp)	Ncr.
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes	/"rto )
(If needed, explain on reverse.) 		—
VEGETATION
Community ID:.
Transact ID:
Hot ID:
[Dominant Rent Species
n-iztvsL-i

\JyjLdLMLs«

tft-t

Stratum indicator
££__ £&C-.
3C.
~£v_
O .DvLv'
Dominant Plant Spades
9.		
it.
iz_
13._
14._
15._
18.
saaym Ms&m
Percent of Dominant Spades that are 09L, FACW or FAC
(axcJuding FAC-).
Remarks:


HYDROLOGY
	Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauoe
Aeral Photographs
Otnec
	No Recorded Data Available
Wetland hydrctogy Indicators:
Primary indicators:
_____ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Water Marts
Drift lines
Field Observations: ^
u
Deoth of Surface Water: ' (to.\
Depth to Free Weifit m Pit: (m.)
Depth to Saturated Sol!: _£¦' 4l .(*"¦)
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators {2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channate m Upper 12*
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAG-Neutrei Test
	Other (Explain In Remarks)
I Remarks: CkjJ "ft) (¥ . ?0tl ^r) ^ AJ* ^1
1 }o,«v£ pjd |f re*/

-------
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup):,
Drainage Class: 	
Fidci Observations
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yea No
£rpffle Ppscrtfiiaa:
Depth
finches)
CL'i Jl
'tcU- -A
(u? A.
Matrix Color
Hortzan
laHLsh
_S43tyk
Moffie Colore
(Munsetl Moists
JJTk_
-MA
Mc*8e
MUDdga^Contr^M
Texture, Concretions,
Structure. etc.
/c^\
&*aah	c!m]
Hydrlc Soli Indicators:
	Histosol
	HisBc E pipedoo
	Suifidic Odor
	Aquic Moisture Regime
	Reducing Conditiorts
	Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors
	CumaHuiB	* ¦;	+
	High Organic Content In Surfa ce Layer Sonify Sr>'t
	Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
	Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
	Listed on NaUonel Hydric Soils List
	Othaf (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
jit I\a^ tfr> CJ jjfhA
"hJtfi CkStJkM
S-kvp s/o^-t btAr
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Remarks:
tfol	(jji. HAuJ / Z/C I}	2 '
IU ^cLrl cUui FW *u S^j

Appro**} 6y HOUSACE M2

-------
S"g- H ,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERfsSHABON METHOD1
FWd Invaatlgatsrj*):	AiSaW	JAl^fUk/l &... C\i.l'^w Oite: ... ./?// ^ /
PioiMtfSte:	fZLjUJut+i.*		,	stale:C©ur%T_lX^!I
Appllca^TtOwner: —		—	plant Community Miarm:
(1
Nate: If a mora detailed efts description la necessary, um the back ot data form or a field notebook.
Do normal envlranmsntaJconditionsexht atttw ptartrorr^iirtty?	, \ , i j ^ I,
Yea	Ho. t CS to. mrolaln on back) f~i)\ec* t&ndS W	CM ArhKv
Hss the vegetation, softe, andtor hydrology bean significantly disturbed?
Yes K No	(Nyet, explain on bad<) to* * 1
VEGETATION
Indicator indicator
Dominant Plaflt Specks	Status Stratum Dominant Ram Spectee	 Statue Stratum
1.	Jfy		 ^±4 ~Tt~ tt	—	 			
2.	71/ /Krf-		~ ^ES	12.			—		.	
3.	-E^LjauZ^^pjfL,		 	JLiL_ 13	,	.	
4.		!k	 14,		—	 		
5.					 				15.		—			.. 		
8. 		1®. —
7	.		17, —
8.					18. —
9.					18. —
10.				20. —
Percent of dominant epedee that are GBL. FACW, andtar FAC.
Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes -/ No	
Rational:	— 	,	
> Jtig FfkCjS
/ * 7 /K*ie jT
SOILS
Serie&fphaae:.—¦» ; -A.;.-- ...	Subgroup:2	
la the soil on the hydrie soils Set? Yea		 No _ Undetermined t
la the soil a Histosai? Ya® >. No	Hlstlo epipedon present? Yas 		 No K
IstheeoU: Mottled? Ye»„		 No a. Gleved? Ya#	 No V
Matrix Colon —		&4iiWwA?o4tie Colore:					 .
Other hydrie soil indicators:
Is the hydric aoitoitBrion mat? Yes .*	 No	
Rational*:		^L..sja.aj l,	.*?_	i it	
HYDROtOGY
la the ground turiace Inundated? Y©«	£ No V Surface water depth
btteaoa saturated? Yea «. No		. tf
Depth to f?««-standing water In pH/soM probe hoie:			_l
Depth to tnwt-atandlng water In piUsoii probe hoie:			^		 , \
ta the wetland hydrology crtterlon B Assefeement ProcedtS-o and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.	( \
2	CiaasKteatton according to *Sdl Taxonomy."

-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands OeUnaaflon Manual)
s\
*\ I
J J
-i
Preje:r-..^ te L1: .j ¦ ;<:rfc~ Wti-J AFt //J
AppiicsnyOwner:
Date. f.TTFZ
Countv: ' '
Investigator
State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (J®?
Is the area a potanUai Problem Area? Yes (ftcj!
(if need ad, explain on reverse.)
Community ID:
Transact ID:
Pfcrt ID:
VEGETATIO
HYDROLOGY
	Recorded Data {Describe in Remarks).
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
	Aerial Photographs
		 CM*
	No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Primary Indicators:
inundated
_ji_ Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marts
	Drifl Lines
Sedmerrt Deposits
_ Jt. Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or mora required):
_____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
K Wete-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
j, 	FAONeutra! Test
_____ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observadons ^
Depth of Surface Water 
-------
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):.
Taxonomy (Subgroup),
DnaSnsg® Class; 	
Fifrid Observations
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
finchesi rtorfcon.
Matrix Color
fMurtseli Moists
Mottle Colors
fMunseii Moists
Mottle
Abundance/Contrast
jTh
UD

J A
Ail
Texture, ConcreStons,
Stricture. eta	
cLukjeM* X it lai or
Hydnc Soil Indicators:
	Histasoi
	HisUc Epipedon
	Suffidic Odor
	Aqiitc Moisture Regime
	Reducing Conditions
	Gteyed or Low-Chroma Colors
	Concretions
	High Organic Content jn Surfe ce Layer Sandy Sofis
	Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
	Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
	Listed on National Hydric Soils List
	Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte; Vegetation Present? j&K No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ci®?r No
Hydric Soils Present?	PW ^
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? {?m) No
Rsmarts:
C\A0\^ /o*j£r ^)ofL\)bJ 6p
VU i k\ cJW ^	rs mMkd
Kdt Ojck
Approved by HQUSACE 3492

-------
5B - b
4* hrt}fy\
y>H^k
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERNBNATIOHMETHOD1	(
Mm f y if***™'|	i # ~*" .« "H | J J	f /	1
FWd InvMtigctorft^ /J, If.	.^Lt^ i> •Jj		 o«d»:	// V/ i'X	_
fttmtm-	t*. J	 County.	A
Applfauit/Qwnar:	Piam Communffy *JUzmo:	
Note: H a more detailed site description te necessary, u#e the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal srwlronjnentaj owxfrtkjns exist at the plant community'?
Yea	No (ft no, explain on back)
Has the vsgstaUon, soils, an&or hydrology b©en significantly disturbed?
Yea ^ No	_ {if ym, explain on bask)
VEGETATION
Indicator	Indicator
Dominant Plant Species	 Statua Stratum	Dominant Plant Species	Status Stratum
1,	—->C	11. 				¦	—		 		
2.			—LI			12			—	
a —			is.					
4.					—	 		14	——	
5,		_____»„		15			——	-—		
8, - —				18. ——		—		 		
?.				17. _
8.	—	_			 		18, —
«,	—	—		—	-	1ft. —
10.					 		20. —
Percant of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, end/or FAC.
Is the hydrophytfc yageiaifa). criterion met? Yea A No	
ftattofwib:	Pft.u,	
SOILS
Series/phase: ————lii;	Subgroup:2	—.	—
te the soil on the hydric solb Hat? Yes	No	*]_ Undetermined	
b the soil a Hlatasol? Yes	 No v HUtk; &pp&km pre son!? Yes	_ No _
Is the soli: Mottled? Ye® >- No	Gleyedt Yes	 No 	
Matrix Color			wr»		Mottle Colom: ___			—
Other hydrte soil Indicators; -
la the hydrte soil criterion met7 Yes . Mo _
Rationale:		-	^	g.%	^y--
-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
A(V->iw s I reekl
jp-j
r "r* f
-y (-^/n (rfjtt&M
/jalltjrL
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
investigator
¦ A/J
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the sits? Ygs ^No...
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? pc ;
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye® too J
(If needed, explain on reverse.)			
Date: __
County:
Stats:
Community !D:
Transect SCh
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Mnir^LEIanL^ESSlS-
^ / VMW
2.		
3_
4,_
5_
e._
7._
a
stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Spades
StateQ 'relator
10,_
11,
ttv_
1S._
H._
15._
18.
Perseni of Dominant Species ttvat are OBI, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAO)
/Oo
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
	Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks);
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauqe
	Aerial Photograph®
	Other
	No Recorded Date Available
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
	Inundated
	Saturated in Upper 12 inches
	Weter Marts®
Draft Unes
Raid Observations: f
Death of Surface Water V~ ^ (In.)
Death to Free Water In Pit: fln.l
Depth to Saturated Soli; (in.)
Sediment Deposit
. Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary IndicaEsrs (2 or mere required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12*
	Water-Stained Leaves
Locai Soil Survey Pate
	FAC-Neutrai Test ^
	Other (Explefri in Remarks)
Remarks:

-------
SOILS
5
Map UnS Neme
(Series end Phase):.
Taxonomy (Subgroup):.
Drainage CIbss:		
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
jMsPrecdaMi
Depth
finchwl
10-c
Mottle
6^;
oJs
Matrix Color	Mottle Colors
(MurwaU Mo^l
22307:		
i&mfr- -0L
Texture. Concretions,
(Murmall Moists Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
2-* |/4
quuuujrw. wtu.	_
vUX^r|^'k /oj^
%'Am^ (Mftn 4
/( &4so J
Hydric Soil Indicator*:
_ rtstosol
Hisbc Epipetkm
Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Gkeyed or Low-Chroma Colors
	Concretions
	Higb Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
	Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
	Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
	Listed on National Hydric Soils List
	Cither (Explain (n Remarks)
Remarks:
Al'H/or (CCX) f^Hb ^ Rli
(A Uj faj flftbi.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyte Vagatafion Present?
Wetiand Hydrotagy Present?
Hydrtc Soils Present?	Ys
(Circle)	(Cirdfi)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y» lie
Rem arte:
NMfasd] Pftr (t>
-------
S'g-£ Oout*i> tLpfHK
2-4? f V p frf-v/J cf <5)
k.R-
I,*/*
FWd investigators):
Project/Site:	
AppiteaflWOwrwr:
DATA POHM
ROUTINE ON8ITC DETERMN
Jlfr&kJjfy&L, C*
pTgyT^rrCT 7 75^
DATA FORM
DETERMINATION METHOD1
u*u-
pr
Plant Community WName:.
Date: _
County

Nob; V a more detailed she description i@ necessary, un the back of data fonri or * field notebook.
Do nofms! eiwfroryriental conditions exfel at the plant community?
Ye®	No A- (V no, explain on back)
Mas the y*0«a!lon, soils, andtor hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No __ (If yes, explain on back)
Dominant Plant Species
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0.
to.
*£"VE	
iiM4
T
i>i>.. tl
No_>_
is the ground surface Inundated? Yes
Is the aofl ssturatad? Yes	 No	
Depth to Ires-standing water in pft/sol! probe hole	
Uat other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation
HYDROLOGY
No /- Surface water dspth:
f
Affr* 1	Lr*4.t L*k
& 4
Is flte wetland hydrology erUs
Rationale:			
rlon met? Yea
No f

JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes	 No ^
Rationale for jurisdictional decision- 				 .
—	——J-i kn*\ r}°±JL
1 This data form can be used for the Hydrte So8 Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
^ClaeaJfbsJlon according to "Soil Taxonomy."
B-2

-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 CGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
r pu.*
Project/Site: 0,- / C. ¦'' ~'
ADpNcantfOwner.
Date: /c^/Vz '
Countv:
tnvestiqator.
State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the srte*5 Yes (Sa-
fe the site signlficantty disturbed (Atypical Situation)? tigs) No
Is the area 8 potential Problem Area? Yes / fQ
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Corrnminsty ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant P ^ ^
' i i i

-------
SOILS
Map Unft Name
(Series snd Phase):	Drainage Class: 	
FI«W; Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 		Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
.PraMflD«ainte:
Depth	MatlxCoter MotHe Cetera Mottfs	Te*iure, Concmions,
fteriml Hoatena	{MuasaLMoM fiiuntri Mow Nmima&SBlaA		_
d C	rfrnft^	 _____
-..(L L-	 tQ"ki% 	 	.	 dr^itdJer**-!
fUl _	^
My*jnc Sol Indicator*:
_ Hstesrt
_ Hie tic Epipedon
_ SyUkfcOdw
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyud or Lew-Chrome Colors
_ OwwrtoM
	Hign Organic Control in Surface Layer SarvJy So%
	Organic Streafcirtg in Sandy Soiie
	Listen on Local Hydnc Soite List
	Listed on Nationo( HycJrtc SoDs List
	Other (Explain in Remarks}
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
I
Hydrophyte Vegetation Present? Yes
Watiand Hydmtegy Present? Yes
Hydrlc Soto Present?	Yes
(Qrd«)	(QWe)
is this Samp«Ki
-------
56-"i
|J pJ i E*rO m, eJC
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1
HsW	( bs UUUlfty*	 Date: /o/if/1 *>-
	icLUk	—— Stats;.	£j—. County:
ApplfcartOwnot:	Plant Community i/Name:	
Hois: If a more detailed sJts deacrtpflon Is necessity, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal efwironfTWrtaj coodftions exfet at the plant community?
Yes	No	2L ff no. sapSaln on badt)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or bydroiogy been tignificafTtly dotmbed?
Yea 1 No	{H yee, «txplain on back)
Dominant Plant
1.	jifrdax
2.	„rlrf^
Species
Indicator
VEGETATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6,
e.
10.
rf?H$

Mi
Styjjtua^ a return	Dominant Plant Spedee
	S:	 12	
	 13. -———	
	 14.		
	 15.	_____
	 18, ___.	
IndfcfflSor
Status Stratum
17	
18.	—
19.	—
20.	_
Paresoj of dominant apoda® that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC
Is the hydrophyte *eg«ts3fgn criterion mat? Yes X No	
Rationale: —				

'4j®
¦PP
SOILS
Soriaa/phaea:
Ha

ie the soil on the hydric soils fet? Yee __
is the soil a Hlstosol? Yea	 No
lathe soil; Mottled? Yee s No w Giayod? Yea
Matrix Color: —;m_*.	WM	Mottle Colore
Other hydrfc soil Indicate ra;	
- Subgroup;2 -
Undetermined
Htelfc epipadon present? Yea		No
No ,f
"?»«¦> ¦? y*
to the hydrfc sol criterion met? Ye
Rationale:

No 	
-JLi.
Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes	
Is the eo8 saturated? Yes	 No !
Depth to free-standing water In pfWeoff probe hole:	LS.	
List other field evidence of surface Inundation or »oi saturation.
HYDROLOGY
No X Surface water depth:
_fi2	faiLeh.u J faulty
Is the wetland
Ra(kmaie;__
hycjTJtoay criterion me^7 Yee / No . / /
U AWn	. jjfXp'r*' ihp>IS*A' /<*b>x\' t.AfortyK* fmL
Ml-
JURISDICTIONAL DETERNHNATION AND RATIONALE
is the plant com munity s wetland? Yea V No	
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 					.. __
* This data form can be used for the Hydrfc Soli Assessment Procedure and tha Plart Community
Aseeaament Pracaduna.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

B-2

-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
{?
vi,/ /
JV /
>1L^ /
—>>
^ r
>

(w
Protect/Site: FiPDarJ 3 . /JA- J
Data •
Apoiicant/Owner
County:
Investioatan
State:
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ¥@s
Is the sits significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (9jp> No
is the area a potential Problem Area7 Yes j, Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
"X~. Water Morfca
' Drift Unes
Sediment Deposits
		 Drainage Patterns in Wed ends
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
	Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12'
_jtl Water-Stained Leaves
_	Local Sol! Survey Data
	FAC-Neutra! Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Held Observations: (
Death of Surface Water flu.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ¦'' £ (in.)
Owth to Saturated Soil: i Q. (in )
Remarks:

-------
SOILS
Miip Writ Nam®
(SariesmtnwM)-.
Tawfjemy (Subgroup)
OninagsClta: 		
FWO Oteawatton®
Gcntro	Typ«t Yes Mo
Pmffle 0—cripfrw
Depth
MiBfix Color
rmchasH Horiaon	
M>" ..A - MlLll>
/' h
fjK. _
A
Hydrie Sofi Indicate*
__ mtwiol
	His be EyiywCon
	Sulfidir. Ortor
	Aqute Momtum Regime
	Reducing CixulMions
	Gieyed or Low-Chroma Cotorns
Morjo Colors
Moflte
T«tur». Concrations,
r
A-'**
(MuosfilLMffisii mmSmm&mim Mmm.
rn^H
/(J+jii-'.A
V "f /f/V-A.

Remarks;
(Coloration*
Hsg*i Ortjar'ic Cwrteffl in Su'fa as 1 ayw? Sandy Sofe
Organ*. StrsaKirxj in Sandy So(H*
. Ustml on l ocal Hydnc SoHs Us I
Ubsbxi on (National Hydiic Soils Lsri
Othoi (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hyirephytie Vegmfiitton Pwwurtr?
Wettend Hytfratew Pr-wwil?
t+ysJric Soils Present*-1

No (C^dfl)
No
No
Ramaite:
Appnawd NOUSACE ass
" .%

-------
re-r
/J"' Crctlc.	Sbpe)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE OWStTi DETEHWNATtGN METHOD1
. Qata; .
:orU):
4/W/^
County: .
Plant Community fc/Name:,
FWfci inwsstig®!.
Project/Site
Applicant/Owner
Hots: H a more dstaiied site dmertpilon is necessary, use tile back of data form or a field notebook
Do norma]
V«8
anv*rampental cooditfons axtet at the plant community?
.	{If no, axptain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, andtor hygretogy bean aignfficantSy disturbed?
Yes \ No	(H ye», explain on back)
1
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
imtnam Plant Species

fodfcstor
Statue
VEGETATION
Stratum Dominant Plant Specte»
todkaste
Stratum
C
~C
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
1?
18
19
20
Percent a) dominant spades thai are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC.
is the hydrophytk: violation criterion mat? Yes	No >
Rsttenite:—	1,	a.L.,y!—			
softs
Sertas^ohase: 		t - - Surface water 
-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
{1967 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Applicant/Owner	;			
investigator;					
sE ^8
rro/
Date;
County:
Slate:
Do Norma] Circumstances Exist on the site?
is the ate significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)	
w
Ntj
. Nr
Community ID:
Transect iD:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
	Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
		 Aerial Photographs
Other
. No Recorded Data Available
Wetland hydrology indicators:
Primary indicators:
	Inundated
Saturated in Upoer 12 inches
	Water Marks
Drift lines
	_ Sediment Deposrts
	__ Dralnaoe Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
	Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
___ Wster-Steined Leaves
	_ Local Soil Survey Data
	FAC-Neutra! Test
	Other (Explain r Remarks)
Field Observations: ?
Death of Surface Water: ^ (In.)
Death to Free Water in Pit: , fr fin.>
Depth to Saturated Soli / ; (in.)
	—	 	 	 	f	 i :»	 	 	7 t\ \ 	
Remote: A ft/* A I b J? /|C / J tPk^ l,n,i {,
}, i V-W LiJ y ffiMrv / AKif-t ,Jf < < \
= ... 		

-------
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(S«ri« and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup):.
Drainage Class: 		
FWd Amiftm
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yas No
PnMmOmaMm:
Dftpth
A
A-

Textur®, Concretions.
V\_J4«£.
{• *** tlN"?

S&tL
Hydrir. &o;> indicators:
	,McEpip«tort
		 SuBdic Odor
AqUc Moisture Regime
	Radudrtg Conditions
	Glayad or Low-Chroma Colors
. Concretions
^ ttgh Oroantc Contort h Surface Lapr Sao% Soto
. Oqjarsic Streaking tn Randy Soils
liiM on local Hydrfc Sell* List
_ Listed on Nabonal Hydric Soils List
. Other (Explain in Remorte)
I
Remarks
J
WETLAND DETBRMNAHON
Hydrophyte Vegetation Pre&mt?
Yea -!
•p (Orde)
(CWa) ^
Wailand HyOrotogy Present?
Yes H

is th* Sampling Point Wtthm a Wetiand? Yes {#o ¦'
(Hydrfc Sotis Prwert?
Yes )

;
1 OUSACt,

-------
. s<3-w ~~~ *¦ -*¦	* »¦- ———«« <.» - ——.
		^ RA| -k.$. /L,iX	^		
KYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface Inundated? Yes	^ No Surface water depth: -J^UJk	
Is the soil saturated? Yes	 to V:
Depth to f re®-standing water In pftteoH prebehote: ..*i	
List ether field evidence of surface inundsfkwi or toil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes	 No X"
Ration ate: 		
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
te the ptent community a wetland? Yes
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 	
3te: "/t 11^. -piL-J'"til ir_ i	
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Aseeasment Procedure.
* Claasif ication according to *SoJI Taxonomy."

B-2

-------
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1907 COE Wetlands Delineation Manna!)

Proiei^tte:"^ JPL,	^
ArwiliftaAf/rVujnAr	'
AppficantfOwner
Invests gator
Qy
CrtUC
Pate: a\/lx]JSL
Vs jpw inhj"	f
County:
State:
Do Normal Ctrcumstances Exist on the site?	YflfK
ls Ihe site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (. Yes.- Ns
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
Yes trio-
Community ID:
Transact ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spades	
	
2-

Stratum Indicator
O E&ty
C
Dominant Rant Soedes
Stratum Indicator
10,
11,,
12._
11_
14._
15._
16.
Percent of Dominant Species mat are OBt, FACW or FAC
(exciuding FAC-).
Remarks:
7.
.070
HYDROLOGY
	„ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
	Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
	No Recorded Data Available
Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Maries
Drift Lines
	Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels In Uooer 12*
	Water-Stained Leaves
	Local Soft Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
	Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: !'¦•' [! f (in.)
Depth to Free Water In Pit fJl A- fin.)
Depth to Saturated So3; L>J-P-	(|r1')
•

"Z
£

-------
SOILS
Map Unit Nams
(Swiss mi Phaee):.
T«monry (Subgroup):,
Dminags Claso: 	
Flefet Qbaerflrtions
Confine Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth
finchesi Horizon
kJt
Matrix Color
ijf t.
V
A.
—1r
it.
Mottle Colore Mottle	Texture, Conaetlons,
miQSSlLMBtetii Abundance/Contrast £fc
MunsetLMgM	y Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,	
TMifi- Jl)- (ft	fl
V/> 7 /> kj (a / 0 L
n
O'Sf-
my -k-
m?
/; VA i/V
JJifAJU
±'JL-
4Jk.
d.k			Mtt s,frA*<>?
/to
v», i/-
ttydrie Soil Indicators:
. Hlstoaol
' Histic Eprpedton
. Sulfidlc Odor
_ Aqiic Moisture Regime
* Reducing Conditor®
. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors-
, CofYcmSIons
, High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sandy Soils
, Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
. Listed on Local Hydric Sotts List
. Listed on National Hydric Soils List
. Other (Explain in Remarks)
Renarks:
J
WETLAND DETERMINATION
—		-f	
j (Clrcte)
i Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ( Yes Ny

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (No
Wetland Hydrology Present? /feS^N So
Hydric Soils Present?	YSsS^) No
(Orde)
is I
Remarks:
1/AM.ImJ 7o<4rC^/A^ l fc/j tip MtU<oj
Approved by SAUSAGE 3/S2

-------
Document Control No. 1673-2A-BMBB
APPENDIX C
NAME AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARER
I:\WO\START3\1673\47011

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
Qualifications Summary
m Over 20 years of
professional experience.
¦	Experience in performing
natural resource
inventories and identifying
habitat creation,
restoration, and
enhancement projects to
improve degraded
ecological conditions.
¦	Endangered Species
surveys and placement of
wetland boundaries.
¦	Development of GIS-
based site selection
models.
¦	Management of permit
assembly at local, county,
state, and federal levels,
including stream
encroachment permits,
NPDES permits, WQCs,
and erosion and sediment
control plans.
MARK S. JAWORSKI
Fields of Competence
Twenty years of experience in performing and managing
wetland delineations, natural resource assessments,
endangered species surveys, wetland restorations,
ecological assessments, and mitigation banking projects.
Extensive experience in the ecological restoration of
impaired habitats, dredged material sites, and the
development of wetland mitigation plans and
specifications. Developed and implemented several natural
resource management projects in the Northeast and has
managed construction of wetland mitigation sites. Prepared
several types of local, state, and federal permits and has
performed numerous wetland delineations, and natural
resource inventories sensitive habitats.
Credentials
B.S. Environmental Science—Stockton College (1990)
Hazardous Waste Operations Supervisors Training
Department of Transportation HM 181 & 126F Certification
Hydric Soils Certification
New Jersey Assembly Resolution for Environmental
Accomplishment (1990)
Stockton State College Environmental Accomplishment
Award (1990)
Youth Environmental Society Education Award (1990)
Atlantic Audubon Environmental Education Award (1990)
NJ DEP Endangered and Nongame Species Grant (1990)
National Recycling Coalition Award and Scholarship (1989)
Employment History
2001-Present Weston Solutions, Inc.
1999-2001 The IT Group
1991 -1999 ICF Kaiser Environment & Facilities
Group
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	1
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects
Mitigation Banking
Project Manager, Chimento Wetland Mitigation Bank, Little Silver, NJ. Construction
of a 20-acre tidal wetland mitigation bank along Shrewsbury River in Monmouth County,
NJ.. Worked closely with the mitigation bank owner, U.S. Wetlands, Inc., to meet an
aggressive 1-year construction schedule. This included conducting wetland
delineations, securing approval of the work from the New Jersey Freshwater Mitigation
Council, obtaining the necessary NJDEP permits, and procuring specialized and
licensed contractors for the eradication of Ph rag mites australis. This species is an
invasive plant that develops monotypic stands, often providing limited habitat or food
sources for wildlife that inhabit or migrate along New Jersey's coastal environment. The
project also includes revegetating the entire site with wetland plant species native to the
Shrewsbury River ecosystem, which borders the parcel of land to the south.
Project Manager, Newark Wetland Mitigation and Conservation Bank, Newark, NJ.
Established innovative 20 acre wetland mitigation site on one of last remain tidal
wetlands in Newark Bay. This site is one of many that will be incorporated into the final
version of the USACE's Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan
(CRP).Development of the project will provide Newark a sustainable and green solution
by providing the community with credit sale revenue while improving flood storage,
water quality, and wildlife habitat. Integrating communications and IRT mitigation bank
permitting with almost a dozen project stakeholders including USACE, NOAA, EPA,
USFWS and NJDEP. Designed site enhancement improvements for conservation
bank component including endangered species habitat for yellow and black crowned
night herons. Completed habitat assessments and mapping, wetland delineation,
preliminary assessment (PA) and other investigations.
Project Manager, Marshes Bog Brook Mitigation Bank, Howell, NJ. Performed site
selection, wetland delineations, conceptual design, and permit applications for 40-acre
freshwater mitigation bank in New Jersey's Watershed Management Area 12. Utilized
GIS to evaluate over 25 potential site properties. Negotiated project real estate
contracts with landowners on client's behalf. Worked closely with real estate agents,
State, County and local governments and conservation groups. Developed detailed
business plan demonstrating the economic feasibility of the bank and justifying credit
pricing. All work performed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:7A.
Project Manager, Wyckoff Mills Wetland Mitigation Bank, Monroe Township, NJ. -
Project Manager overseeing construction of a 160 acre wetland mitigation bank
servicing Watershed Management Areas 10, 11, and 12. Performed construction
management and QA/QC inspections during field activities and developed monitoring
plan to demonstrate project success.
CORPLAN01|C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOfy\.RY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	^
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
Wetland Delineations and Ecological Assessments
Wetland Delineation, New Jersey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Performed a 10-acre wetland delineation at a Superfund site in the Pinelands of New
Jersey using the New Jersey Pinelands Commission Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Pinelands Area Wetlands, 1991. The wetland areas were composed mostly
of swale networks that were vegetated with Pineland grasses. Met with Pineland
Commission officials on-site to discuss the positioning of the wetlands boundary and
terms for issuance of a Letter of Interpretation (LOI). In weeks following the wetland
delineation, also performed benthic surveys along an adjacent river to determine if the
site had caused alterations to the benthic populations. Findings were presented in a
written report submitted to the client.
Wetland Delineation, U.S. Army, Fort Dix, Burlington County, New Jersey.
Identified and delineated freshwater wetland environments at the Fort Dix Army
Installation, Burlington County, New Jersey. Over 50 acres of wetlands were delineated
during the winter months of 1996 using the New Jersey Pinelands Commission Manual
for Identifying and Delineating Pinelands Area Wetlands, 1991. Completed all of the LOI
application requirements and worked with surveyors to expedite the field mapping
activities, which were performed using GPS. Also met with Pineland Commission
officials in the field to negotiate the placement of the wetland boundary, particularly in
"problem area wetlands." Successful in reducing the size of the regulated wetland areas
by demonstrating to Pinelands Commission officials that a nonnative fill material caused
perched water table conditions in the area, thereby "unnaturally" influencing the
hydrologic conditions of the area.
Wetland Delineation, Confidential Client, Maplewood, NJ. Performed a wetland
delineation on a 3-acre site using the Federal Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands, 1989. Completed the NJDEP application for a LOI in accordance with the
procedures outlined in N.J.A.C. 7:7A. The delineation was especially challenging
because the site had been planted with nonnative trees originating from varying
geographic areas within the continental U.S.
Ecological Survey, Confidential Chemical Manufacturer, Old Bridge, NJ.
Performed an ecological survey and wetland assessment of a 75-acre parcel of land
immediately adjacent to a chemical manufacturing firm. The purpose of the survey was
to identify different types of ecological habitats on the parcel, identify the flora and fauna
within each habitat identified, assess any ecological impacts caused by releases from
the chemical manufacturing plant, and submit a written report documenting
observations made during the survey. Identified over 12 species of trees, 16 species of
shrubs, and 13 species of herbs. Also identified several mammals by visual
observations, foot tracks, or droppings, and identified numerous bird species by visual
observations and bird calls.
Ecological Assessments, PPG Industries, Hudson County, New Jersey.
Participated in an ecological assessment of the Upper New York Bay in conjunction with
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOIM.RY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	J
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
the PPG Nonresidential Chromium Remediation Project. Responsible for the collection
of surface water and sediment samples from the littoral zones within the project areas,
and for identifying flora and fauna observed during the project period. Also
characterized tidal water fluctuations within the coastal estuary and assisted in
assessing the contaminant impacts to the local ecology.
Baseline Ecological Evaluation, U.S. Army, Camp Kilmer, Edison, NJ. Performed a
Baseline Ecological Evaluation (BEE) of a 50-acre parcel of land at a former Army
Base. The purpose of the survey was to identify different types of ecological habitats on
the parcel, identify the flora and fauna within each habitat identified, assess any
ecological impacts caused by releases of chemicals by the facility, and submit a written
report documenting observations made during the survey and evaluating potential
ecological risks.
Ecological Assessments & Restoration
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway Ecological Restoration Feasibility Study,
USACE, Philadelphia District. Project Manager and supervising restoration scientist
for identifying dredge material placement sites, habitat restoration sites, and beneficial
reuse options for maintenance dredging of approximately 70 miles of New Jersey's
Intracoastal Waterway. Through the identification of dredge material disposal and
beneficial reuse sites, developed long-term dredge material placement options.
Approximately 25 innovative dredging technologies and sediment processing
technologies were evaluated to reduce dredge material quantities and placement site
capacity requirements. Major project tasks included evaluation of existing data (such as
reports, land use, bathymetry, aerial photographs); wetlands assessments,
coordination with regulatory agencies including New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); identification of innovative habitat
restoration techniques; and development of detailed site criteria. Responsibilities also
included GIS system construction, design, and implementation of additional site studies;
ranking of placement and restoration alternatives; and preparation of a high-quality draft
and final siting report. Additional data identified and evaluated included historic dredging
records, regional demographics, transportation networks, wetlands, endangered
species habitat, fisheries data, benthic surveys, sediment chemistry, and water quality
data. Successfully identified viable habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement
opportunities within each project reach that will improve degraded ecological conditions
on historic dredge spoils sites and potentially upgrade water quality in the project area.
New techniques such as marsh terracing to raise bay bottom elevations and dredge
hole filling to create fisheries wintering habitat were also evaluated and recommended.
Developed detailed siting criteria to evaluate expansion and continued use of existing
placement areas, and developed a GIS-based site selection model that incorporated
multiple site selection criteria simultaneously. Alternatives for each reach were then
developed, which included placement site creation and management, site reuse and
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOR«ARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	^
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
long-term management, recommendations for modifications to current dredging
practices, channel realignment, and activities that could improve existing ecosystem
conditions. Other beneficial reuse options, including recreational, construction, and
other marketable end-uses, were evaluated, and recommendations made as to their
viability.
Environmental Assessment, Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, AFCEE. As part
of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE), managed development of a stream and wetland mitigation plan to
allow construction of a 40-acre "Red Ramp" for loading and unloading of explosive
cargo at Pope Air Force Base, NC. The Plan included specifications and design for
mitigating 1,010 ft of riverine impacts and 14.4 acres of wetland impacts by constructing
1,125 ft of realigned stream, 3 acres of wetlands, and procuring 29 acres of wetland
mitigation credits at Ft. Bragg, NC. To develop the new reach of stream, a reference
reach of stream was used to design an ecologically productive stream that would
provide beneficial use to aquatic organisms and wildlife, while providing flood control
and erosion prevention during storm events. Based on these data, stream cross
sections, floodplain, channel slope, meander and belt widths, and vegetative
communities were developed. The results of the reference reach survey, including detail
measurements, calculations, and drawings, were presented in the wetlands and
stream mitigation plan. Received praise from the Air Force for plan preparation and
for efforts in coordinating communications between several federal and private entities
involved with the project, including the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington
and Savannah Districts, USAF, U.S. EPA, USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and several contractors. The project was completed in
accordance with the USAF schedule, and resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impacts
(FONSI) and issuance of the USACE Section 404 permit.
Ecosystem Restoration Plans, USACE, Louisville Kentucky District. Under contract
GS-10F-0048J, managed preparation of several ecosystem Preliminary Restoration
Plans authorized under Section 1135 and Section 206 Programs of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 and 1996, respectively. The purpose of this act is
to restore function, structure, and the dynamic relationship to an ecosystem that has
been degraded. The project involved a comprehensive examination of the problems
contributing to the ecosystem degradation, and the development of alternative means
for restoration. Reports prepared included wetlands assessments, project plans,
associated costs, schedules, feasibility analysis, construction procedures, summary of
impacts, cost benefit analysis, and endangered species information. Many of the
restoration plans were prepared for 100+ acre strip mine sites consisting of coal refuse,
highwalls, pits, ungraded spoil piles, acid mine drainage, and impacted streams. Other
plans were prepared for degraded river systems suffering from eroded riverbanks,
nonpoint water pollution, and deforested riparian zones. Arranged site visits, supervised
scientists and ecologists, and assisted in preparing restoration strategies for these
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOfo\RY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	3
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
sensitive ecosystems. Efforts resulted in cutting-edge restoration strategies that were
cost effective to implement and effective in mitigating the ecological impacts.
Habitat Restoration, King of Prussia Superfund Site. Developed a habitat restoration
plan for an 8-acre site following a remedial action at the site, which left the on-site soils
unvegetated and stripped of their nutrient and organic content. Determined cost-
effective means for replenishing the soil's organic and nutrient content, and assembled
a list of native Pineland vegetative species that would be appropriate for site restoration.
Areas previously excavated and requiring restoration included approximately 6 acres of
upland and 2 acres of wetland environments. Conducted wetland delineation and
negotiated the wetland restoration requirements during habitat restoration meetings and
on-site inspections by the Pinelands Commission, and provided knowledgeable verbal
and written comment to the client describing the region's ecosystems. Praised by the
client for invaluable input stemming from knowledge of environmentally sensitive areas,
which resulted in dramatic improvements and cost savings to the restoration strategy
originally proposed by the restoration contractor.
Wetland Mitigation, Ewan Property Site, Shamong Township, New Jersey.
Supervised the creation of a 3-acre wetland comprising over 6,000 plants, including two
wetland cedar bogs. The plantings were composed of indigenous Pineland plant
species. Directed the survey team and earth-moving equipment in a successful effort to
grade the area to the appropriate topographical elevations. Supervised all planting
activities and utilized a global positioning system (GPS), which incorporates the use of
satellites for field mapping purposes. Despite inclement field conditions, directed the
operation such that the project was completed on schedule.
Wetland Mitigation, Confidential Client, Reading, PA. Developed a design for a
wetland enhancement/mitigation project that involved the closure of two paper sludge
settling lagoons at an industrial facility. To avoid the costly excavation, backfilling, and
grading of the lagoons, which occupied approximately 3 acres, developed a more cost-
effective wetland enhancement strategy that reduced the liability of the open lagoons,
satisfied the closure requirements of PADEP, and prevented the off-site disposal of
several thousand tons of material filling the lagoons. Prepared FS report demonstrating
that the wetlands enhancement strategy was the most effective means of addressing
each party's concerns.
Wetlands Permitting
Wetland Permitting Specialist, Columbia Transcom Fiber Optic Cable Project -
Permitting Manager for a 400 mile fiber optic cable installation project extending from
Washington, D.C. to Cleveland, Ohio. Obtained over 80 separate Soil Erosion, Wetland
Crossing, Stream Encroachment, Cultural and Historical Resource, and USACE federal
permits. Met with State and Federal regulators on client's behalf. Worked extensively
in Pennsylvania within several PADEP permitting managers and prepared and obtained
PADEP Water Obstruction & Encroachment & USACE Section 404 Joint Permits.
Performed Environmental Assessments, Supplemental PNDI Searches, and SHPO
CORPLAN01|C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	O
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
coordination. Worked with permitting managers throughout PADEP's Southeast and
Northeast regions.
Wetland Permitting Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard, Atlantic City Station Bulkhead
Replacement and Dredging Improvements. Worked as a subcontractor to Han
Padron to obtain all NJDEP Waterfront and USACE Section 404 and 10 Individual
permits. Prepared all NJDEP sediment and water sampling plans, applications for
NJDEP Dredge Material Alternative Use Determinations (AUD), water quality
certifications, and completed all environmental assessment requirements of NJDEP and
USACE.
Wetland Permitting Specialist, Channel Re-alignment Design, AFCEE, Pope Air
Force Base, N.C. Prepared permits, specifications and designs for stream and wetland
mitigation plan associated with impacts from a 40-acre "Red Ramp" for explosive cargo.
Mitigation included detailed measurements, calculations, and drawings of 1100 feet of
realigned stream, a 3-acre onsite wetland, and a 29-acre offsite wetland. Used Rosgen
Method to evaluate reference reach of stream and to design a new E-5 stream. Stream
cross-sections, floodplain, channel slope, meander and belt widths, and vegetation
presented in plans. Bio stabilization techniques incorporated into design.
Wetland Permit Due Diligence Review, Confidential Client, Various Locations.
Acting for legal counsel, performed an expedited due diligence review and oversaw
corrective actions for wetland permit violations made by a Fortune 500 utility company.
The actions of the utility company and its contractors violated USACE and PADEP,
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for over 100 wetland crossings in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey. The utility company project, valued at over $300 million, was under a
federally enforced Stop Work Order when IT Corporation was engaged by counsel to
identify the nature and extent of the wetland permit violations noted by federal and state
enforcement officials. Responsible for wetland site inspections, detailed ecological
surveys (including detailed endangered species surveys), contractor interviews,
regulatory analysis, state and federal regulatory meetings, client strategy meetings, and
preparation and submission of new wetland permits. Successful in supporting counsel in
its efforts to limit the financial penalties paid by the utility company and lifting the stop
work order placed on the project by the federal government.
Wetland Permit Applications, Confidential Pharmaceuticals Manufacturer, East
Hanover, NJ. Prepared several wetland permit applications to allow future expansion of
a pharmaceuticals manufacturing plant in Morris County, New Jersey. The wetland
permit applications were prepared in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:7A and included the
reclassification of several wetland areas from intermediate resource value to ordinary
resource value to allow for the facility expansion.
Wetland Permit Applications, Pulverizing Services Site, Moorestown, NJ. Prepared
NJDEP GP-4 permit applications to allow for the excavation, backfilling, and restoration
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOfe\RY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	'
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
of approximately 4 acres of wetlands contaminated with chlorinated pesticides.
Performed a cost benefit analysis on behalf of the potentially responsible party (PRP)
group to determine the most cost-effective permitting, excavation, and restoration
techniques. Detailed wetland design plans were prepared in accordance with N.J.A.C.
7:7A.
Ecological Based Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies
Focused Feasibility Study, Picatinny Arsenal, Morris County, New Jersey, Project
Manager. Preparation of a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) conducted to address
sediment and surface water contamination in Green Pond Brook (GPB) and Bear
Swamp Brook (BSB) at the Picatinny Arsenal (PTA), Rockaway Township, New Jersey.
Was tasked by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Baltimore District to conduct the FFS
under the Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC). The FFS was considered
"focused" through the elimination of the remedial alternative screening task and by the
focusing of remedial alternatives on contaminated sediment in GPB and BSB.
Successfully negotiated with regulators overseeing the project that impacted surface
water would require no further action since it will be addressed through the evaluation of
remedial alternatives for sediment, remediation of individual sites at PTA, attenuation of
contaminants to sediments, dispersion of contaminants at low levels in the surface
water matrix, and degradation of organic compounds. Selected FFS over a standard FS
described by U.S. EPA (1988) based on site-specific conditions at GPB and BSB and
remedial action objectives, which made only a few remedial alternatives practical at the
site. Site contaminants included VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and PCBs.
Development of Natural Resource Management Plan, Pinelands National Reserve.
Developed a natural resource management plan for 1,600-acre Stockton State college
campus, located in the Pinelands of New Jersey. Performed extensive natural resource
investigations and summaries for soils, vegetation, wildlife, and surface and
groundwater contained in the Pinelands National Reserve. Conducted fund raising
($7,000 raised through donations) and established the Stockton State College Outdoor
Environmental Education Center. Incorporated Natural Resource Management Plan into
the master plan of the college. Was awarded the 1990 Nongame and Endangered
Species Program Grant for management of endangered plant and animal species,
including the Pinelands Pitcher Plant, and various raptors including the Osprey and
Barred Owl.
Site Selection Studies
Project Manager, Long Island Intracoastal Waterway Dredged Material Site
Selection Study, USACE, New York District. Weston Project Manager performing
dredged material placement siting study using GIS and field verification techniques.
Reviewed available in-house and publicly accessible GIS data to determine and identify
potential placement sites based on engineering, logistical and environmental
considerations. Utilized an aerial photography, Suffolk County real property database
CORPLANOl |C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPOfe\RY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	O
0202

-------
Weston Solutions, Inc.
MARKS. J A WORSICI
Key Projects (Continued)
information, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal
Wetland maps, and available geotechnical data. Assessed and identified tidal
wetlands habitat throughout project area. Established a "Team Link" site which
allowed viewing of over 350 aerial photographs and data layers in an ArcView,
geospatial data format. Following identification of the sites through GIS and aerial
photography, managed field verification of the viability of potential sites which consisted
of visits to approximately 40 sites to verify that they are suitable for the purpose of
dredged material placement and to confirm that the site(s) meet placement criteria.
Prepared the documentation of findings that summarized the work undertaken, including
the data review and results of field visits.
Publications and Presentations
Jaworski, M. 1987. "Desert Processes - Eolian Formation. " Stockton State College, 24 pp.
CORPLAN01|C:\USERS\GILLILAG\APPDATA\LOCAL\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\LVACPOX5\JAWORSKI NATURAL
RESOURCE RESUME.DOC	^
0202

-------
Attachment 3: Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation - Line
Verification, November 21, 2006

-------
matf of Nrui It raff
Department of Environmental Protection
Ion S. Cokzime	Lisa P. Jackson
Governor	Dn 1S1UI1 ol LanJ Usc Regulation	Commissioner
P.O. Box 439, Trenton, New Jersey 08625
FAX 4 (609) 777-3656
Web Siteiwww.state nj us/dep/landuse
Edward A. Kuc
Eastern States Environmental Associates
RR #3, Box 541 Mountainview Drive
Kunkletown, PA 18058
RE: Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation - Line Verification
DI.UR File No.: 0714-06-0004.1
Activity No.: FWW-FWLT4-060001
Applicant: Coca-Cola Enterprises
Block: 5042 Lots: 15 and 95 - 98
City of Newark, Essex County
Dear Mr, Kuc:
TMs letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Interpretation to verify the jurisdictional
boundary of the freshwater wetlands and waters on the referenced property.
In accordance with agreements between the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia and New York Districts, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the NJDEP, Division of Land Use Regulation is the lead agency for
establishing the extent of State and Federally regulated wetlands and waters. The USEPA and/or IJSACQE
retains the right to reevaluate and modify the jurisdictional determination at any time should the information
prove to be incomplete or inaccurate.
Based upon the information submitted, and upon a site inspection conducted on October 4,2006, the
Division of Land Use Regulation has determined that the wetlands and waters boundary line(s) as shown on
the plan map entitled "WETLANDS DELINEATION MAP, COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, LOTS 15
AND 95 THROUGH §8, BLOCK 5042, CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY;"
dated November 7, 2006, unrevised, and prepared by Victor E, Vinegra, L.S. of Harbor Consultants, Inc., is
accurate as shown.
Any activities regulated under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act proposed within the wetlands
or transition areas or the deposition of any fill material into any water area, will require a permit from this
office unless exempted under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, NJ.S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq., and
implementing rales, N.J.A.C. 7:7A. A copy of this plan, together with the information upon which this
boundary determination is based, has been made part of the Division's public records.
Pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules (N.J.A.C, 7;7A-1 et seq,), you are entitled
to rely upon this jurisdictional determination for a period of five years from the date of this letter.
The freshwater wetlands and waters boundary line(s), as determined in this letter, must be shown on
any future site development plans. The lme(s) should be labeled with the above DLIIR File number and the
following note:
NOV 2 1 2006
New Jersey to Am Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable

-------
Letter of Interpretation-Line Vonficar.on
DLUR File No.: 0714-06-0004.1
Page 2 of 2
"Freshwater Wetlands/Waters Boundary Line as verified by NJDEP PI No.: 0714-06-0004.1."
In addition, the Department has determined that the wetlands on the subject property are of
Intermediate and Ordinary resource values. The Ordinary values are. noted on the referenced plan by the
following wetlands location points: A1 - A25, B1 - B25, Wl-1 - Wl-6 and W2-1 - W2 -8. There is no
standard transition area required adjacent to Ordinary value wetlands. The remaining wetlands C1 - C6 and
D1 -- D4 are Intermediate value wetlands and flue standard transition area or buffer required adjacent to these
wetlands is 50 feet. The Department has also identified State Open Waters on the property, they are noted on
the referenced plan by the following points; El - E15 and F1 - F15. Please note that a buffer is not required
adjacent to State open waters under the Freshwater Wetlands Projection Act, but a 25-foot buffer is required
under the Flood Hazard Area Control Act. These classifications may affect the requirements for an
Individual Wetlands Permit (see N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7), the types of General Permits available for the wetlands
portion of this property (see N.J.A.C. 7:7A-5) and the modification available through a transition area waiver
(see N.J.A.C. 7;7A-6), Please refer to the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (NJ.S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq.) and
implementing rules for additional information.
It should be noted that this determination of wetlands classification is based on the best information
presently available to the Department. The classification is subject to change if this information is no longer
accurate, or as additional information is made available to the Department, including, but not limited to,
information supplied by the applicant. Under NJ.S.A. 13:9B-7a(2), if the Department has classified a
wetland as exceptional resource value, based on a finding that the wetland is documented habitat for
threatened and endangered species that remains suitable for use for breeding, resting or feeding by such
species, an applicant may request a change in this classification. Such requests for a classification change
must demonstrate that the habitat is no longer suitable for the documented species because there has been a
change in the suitability of this habitat. Requests for resource value classification changes and associated
documentation should be submitted to the Division of Land Use Regulation, P.O. Box 439, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625.
This letter in no way legalizes any fill, which may have been placed, or other regulated activities,
which may have occurred on-site. Also this determination does not affect your responsibility to obtain any
local, State, or Federal permits which may be required.
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.7, any person who is aggrieved by this decision may request a
hearing within 30 days of the decision date by writing to: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Legal Affairs, Attention: Adjudicatory Hearing Requests, 401 East State Street, P.O.
Box 402, Trenton, NJ 08625-0402. This request must include a completed copy of the Administrative
Hearing Request Checklist.
Please contact Cathryn Schaffer of our staff at (609) 777-0454 should you have any questions
regarding this letter. Be sure to indicate the DLUR file number in all communication.
Sincerely,
Andrew Clark, Supervisor
Bureau of Inland Regulation
c:
City of Newark Construction Official

-------