Nutley Site Remediation. Project No. S TRC Project No Soil Remedial Action Report

Transcription

1

2 Nutley Site Remediation Project No. S TRC Project No Soil Remedial Action Report Investigative Area 10 Northern Portion (IA-10N) NJDEP Required Forms Prepared for: Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. 800 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 127 Nutley, New Jersey Prepared by: TRC Environmental Corporation 41 Spring Street, Suite 102 New Providence, NJ April 26, 2017

3

4

5 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Site Remediation Program REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FORM Date Stamp (For Department use only) SECTION A. SITE Site Name: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Investigative Area 10 (IA-10) - Soils/Northern Portion Program Interest (PI) Number(s): Case Tracking Number(s) for this submission: NJD This form must be attached to the Cover/Certification Form SECTION B. SCOPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT 1. Does the RAR address: This RAR addresses soils in the entire IA-10 (northern). Area(s) of Concern (AOCs) Only Entire Site (Based on a completed and submitted Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation) 2. Total number of contaminated AOCs associated with the case: 3 3. Total number of contaminated AOCs addressed in this submission: 3 4. Are there any outstanding contaminated AOCs associated with the case where the remedial action has NOT been performed?... Yes No 5. Does this RAR address a discharge/release from a federally regulated UST?... Yes No When answering the remaining questions on this form consider only the AOCs addressed in this submission. SECTION C. GENERAL 1. Does this submission include Remedial Action Permit Application(s) that require Site Remediation Program approval?... Yes No 2. Was a remediation initiated after May 6, 2010, for new construction / change in the use of the site proposed for the purpose of residential use, use as a licensed child care center or use as a school?... Yes No If Yes, was an unrestricted use or a presumptive remedy implemented?... Yes No 3. Was an alternative remedy approved by the NJDEP?... Yes No If Yes, provide the date of the approval: 4. Has the remediation varied from the Technical Rules?... Yes No If Yes. provide the citation(s) from which the remediation has varied and the page(s) in the attached document where the rationale for the variance is provided. N.J.A.C. 7:26E- Page N.J.A.C. 7:26E- Page N.J.A.C. 7:26E- Page 5. Were the laboratory Reporting Limits below applicable remediation standards/screening levels criteria required for the contaminants of concern for the AOCs addressed in this submission?... Yes No 6. Have past NJDEP-documented deficiencies been addressed in this submission?... Yes No N/A 7. Did the remediation deviate from that proposed in the Remedial Action Workplan?... Yes No If Yes, specify the section/page(s) in the report where the deviation(s) are discussed: Section 4.7 / Page Did the remedial action render the property unusable for future redevelopment or for recreational use (N.J.A.C. 7:26C-6.4(b)?... Yes No Remedial Action Report Form Page 1 of 4 Version /27/15

6 SECTION D. SITE CONDITIONS 1. At any time, was there any radiological contamination detected at the AOCs addressed in this submission?... Yes No 2. At any time, did any of the AOCs addressed in this submission contain Ordnance and Explosives/ Unexploded Ordnance (OE/UXO)?... Yes No 3. Did the remedial action involve containment of free product?... Yes No 4. Has dioxin been detected at levels above NJDEP s interim direct contact soil screening level of 50 ppt dioxin TEQ (TCDD Toxicity Equivalence Quotient) in any AOCs addressed in this submission?... Yes No 5. Have any of the following contaminants ever been detected in sediment above the ecological screening levels at the AOCs addressed in this submission?... Yes No If Yes, check all that apply: Arsenic Dioxin Mercury PCBs Pesticides 6. Is remediation complete in all affected media at the AOCs addressed in this submission?... Yes No 7. Did contaminants from the AOCs addressed in this submission discharge to surface water?... Yes No 8. Did contaminants from the AOCs addressed in this submission discharge to an Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource (ESNR)?... Yes No 9. Are any of the following conditions currently present for the AOCs addressed in this submission? (check all that apply): Groundwater: Soil: Contaminated ground water in the overburden aquifer On-site discharge(s) impacting soil off-site Contaminated ground water in a confined aquifer Chromate Chemical Production Waste/COPR Contaminated ground water in the bedrock aquifer Munitions and explosives of concern Contaminated ground water in multiple aquifer units Contaminated soil in the saturated zone Multiple distinct ground water plumes Historic pesticide impacts to soil Contaminated ground water migrating off-site Residual or free product Natural background ground water contamination Radionuclides Contaminated ground water discharging to surface water or Historic Fill Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource (ESNR) Natural background only above Impact to Ground Residual or free product Water Cleanup Criteria Radionuclides Natural background above Direct Contact Remediation Standards Soil contamination in an ESNR SECTION E. APPLICABLE REMEDIATION STANDARDS 1. Were Default Remediation Standards used for all contaminants?... Yes No If Yes, check all that apply: Direct Contact Impact to Ground Water Soil Screening Levels Ecological Screening Levels 2. Has compliance averaging been utilized to determine compliance with the Soil Remediation Standards?... Yes No If Yes, check all that apply: Compliance Averaging Method Utilized Spatially Arithmetic 95 Percent Weighted 75 Percent/ Pathway Mean UCL Average 10X Procedure Ingestion-Dermal Pathway Inhalation Pathway Impact to Ground Water Pathway Remedial Action Report Form Page 2 of 4 Version /27/15

7 3. Has a compliance option been utilized to determine compliance with the Impact to Ground Water Pathway? (If Yes, check all that apply)... Yes No Immobile Compounds Data evaluation for metals and semi-volatiles Data evaluation for volatile organics derived from discharges of petroleum mixtures 4. Was an interim standard used for a contaminant where a standard does not exist?... Yes No 5. Were Alternate Remediation Standards used for the Ingestion/Dermal Pathway?... Yes No 6. Were Alternate Remediation Standards used for the Inhalation Pathway?... Yes No 7. Were Site Specific Standards used for the Impact to Ground Water Pathway?... Yes No If Yes, check all that apply: Soil-Water Partitioning Equation SPLP Sesoil Sesoil/AT123D DAF Modification 8. Were Site Specific Ecological Remediation Goals used?... Yes No 9. What is the ground water classification for this site as per N.J.A.C. 7:9C? (check all that apply) Class I-A Class II-A Class I-PL Pinelands Protection Area Class III-A Class I-PL Pinelands Preservation Area Class III-B SECTION F. ALTERNATIVE AND CLEAN FILL USE 1. Was alternative fill used?... Yes No 2. Was clean fill used?... Yes No 3. Was material sent off-site for use as alternative and/or clean fill?... Yes No If Yes, specify the section/page in the RAR where it states the SRP site receiving this alternative and/or clean fill: 4. Was material sent off-site for use as alternative and/or clean fill at a non-srp site?... Yes No If Yes, specify the section/page in the RAR where it states the non-srp site receiving this alternative and/or clean fill: 5. Was alternative fill used in excess of the amount required for the remedial action?... Yes No If Yes, was the NJDEP s preapproval obtained pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.2(b)3?... Yes No SECTION G. REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT INFORMATION Soils 1. Did the remedy include a remedial action for soils?... Yes No If No, skip to Ground Water 2. Is a restricted use required?... Yes No If Yes, indicate the type of restriction being implemented. Engineering and Institutional Controls 3. If applicable, has consent from all involved property owners been obtained (i.e., for institutional or engineering controls)?... Yes No 4. Was an engineering control required?... Yes No If Yes, indicate the receptor(s) each engineering control is intended to protect. (check all that apply) Human Ecological Offsite Impacts Ground Water 5. Did the remedy include a remedial action for ground water?... Yes No If No, skip to Ecological 6. Is a restricted use required for ground water?... Yes No Remedial Action Report Form Page 3 of 4 Version /27/15

8 7. Is a revised CEA required?... Yes No 8. Do any contaminant levels in ground water currently exceed the vapor intrusion ground water trigger?... Yes No Ecological 9. Did the remedy include a remedial action for Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resources (ESNRs)?... Yes No If No, skip to Indoor Air 10. Was post-remedial sampling performed to determine whether contaminant levels currently meet ecological screening levels or ecological remediation goals?... Yes No 11. Did the remedial action require filling of State open waters or wetlands?... Yes No 12. Have ecological risk-based remediation goals been developed?... Yes No If Yes, have the ecological risk-based remediation goals been approved by NJDEP?... Yes No 13. Have Risk Management Decision (RMD) goals been developed?... Yes No If Yes, have the RMD goals been approved by NJDEP?... Yes No Indoor Air 14. Have any vapor intrusion engineering controls/mitigation systems been installed in order to mitigate a vapor condition in a structure?... Yes No If Yes, check each type of engineering control that was implemented: Subsurface Depressurization System Subsurface Ventilation System Soil Vapor Extraction System HVAC Positive Pressure Other (specify): SECTION H. LABORATORY DATA 1. Were all data submitted in the appropriate full and/or reduced formats according to the deliverables defined in N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2?... Yes No 2. Do all data submitted meet the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements incorporated by reference in N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2 for: sampling... Yes No analysis... Yes No 3. How was it determined that the data complied with the QA/QC requirements? Laboratory non-conformance summary/narrative Laboratory correspondence LSRP review Independent contractor review Other: 4. Has any data been qualified and used?... Yes No 5. Has any data been rejected and used?... Yes No 6. Provide the page number for the Reliability of Data section of the report: 16 Remedial Action Report Form Page 4 of 4 Version /27/15

9 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Site Remediation Program RECEPTOR EVALUATION (RE) FORM Date Stamp (For Department use only) SECTION A. SITE Site Name: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. - Investigative Area 10 (IA-10) - Soils/Northern Portion Program Interest (PI) Number(s): Case Tracking Number(s) for this submission: NJD This form must be attached to the Cover/Certification Form if not submitted through the RIR Online Service Indicate the type of submission: Initial RE Submission Updated RE Submission Indicate the reason for submission of an updated RE form Submission of an Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) source control report; Submission of a Remedial Investigation Report; Submission of a Remedial Action Report; Check if included in updated RE The known concentration or extent of contamination in any medium has increased; A new AOC has been identified; A new receptor is identified; A new exposure pathway has been identified. SECTION B. ON SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY USE 1. Identify any sensitive populations/uses that are currently on-site or surrounding property usage within 200 feet of the site boundary (check all that apply): On-site Off-site None of the following... Residences or residential property... Public or Private Schools grades K Child care centers... Public parks, playgrounds or other recreation areas... Other sensitive population use(s) Explain If any of the above applies, attach a list of addresses, facility names, type of use, and a map depicting each location relative to the site. 2. Current site uses (check all that apply): Industrial Residential Commercial Agricultural School or child care Government Park or recreational use Vacant Other: Site Under Development 3. Planned future site uses and off-site use within 200 ft of site boundary (check all that apply): Industrial Residential Commercial Agricultural School or child care Government Park or recreational use Vacant Other: Unknown Provide a map depicting the location of the proposed changes in land use. N/A Receptor Evaluation Form Page 1 of 5 Version /07/15

10 SECTION C. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAMINATION 1. Identify if any of the following exist at the site (check all that apply): Free product [N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.8] identified is LNAPL* or DNAPL**. Date identified: Residual product [N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.8] Other high concentration source materials not identified above (e.g., buried drums, containers, unsecured friable asbestos) Explain: * LNAPL measured thickness of.01 feet or more **DNAPL See US EPA DNAPL Overview 2. Soil Migration Pathway Has soil contamination been delineated to the applicable Direct Contact Soil On-Site only Remediation Standard?... Yes No Are all soils either below the applicable Direct Contact Criteria or under an institutional control (i.e. deed notice)?... Yes No 3. If this evaluation is submitted with a technical document that includes contaminant summary information, proceed to Section D. Otherwise attach a brief summary of all currently available data and information to be included in the site investigation or remedial investigation report. IA-10 North Soil RAR attached SECTION D. GROUND WATER USE 1. Has the requirement for ground water sampling been triggered?... Yes No Unknown If No, proceed to Section F. If Unknown, explain: 2. Is Ground water contaminated above the Ground Water Remediation Standards [N.J.A.C.7:9C]?... Yes No Unknown Or Awaiting laboratory data with the expected due date: If Yes, provide the date that the laboratory data was available and confirmed contamination above the Ground Water Remediation Standards. Date: 06/01/1993 If Unknown, explain: If No, or awaiting laboratory data proceed to Section F. 3. Has ground water contamination been delineated to the applicable Remediation Standard?... Yes No 4. Has a well search been completed?... Yes No Date of most recent or updated well search: 02/04/2016 Identify if any of the following conditions exist based on the well search [N.J.A.C.7:26E-1.14(a)] (check all that apply): Potable wells located within 500 feet from the downgradient edge of the currently known extent of contamination. Potable well located 250 feet upgradient or 500 feet side gradient of the currently known extent of contamination. Ground water contamination is located within a Tier 1 wellhead protection area (WHPA). 5. Is a completed Well Search Spreadsheet or historical well search table attached and has an electronic copy of the spreadsheet been submitted to srpgis_wrs@dep.state.nj.us.... Yes No If No, explain: provided with April 30, 2014 Site-Wide Receptor Evaluation Update - no changes 6. Are any private potable or irrigation wells located within ½ mile of the currently known extent of contamination?... Yes No If Yes, was a door to door survey completed?... Yes No If survey was not completed explain: 7. Has sampling been conducted of potable well(s) and /or non-potable use well(s)?... Yes No If No, provide justification then proceed to Section E. Receptor Evaluation Form Page 2 of 5 Version /07/15

11 8 Has contamination been identified in potable well(s) above Ground Water Remediation Standards that is not suspected to be from the site? (If Yes, provide justification)... Yes No 9 Has contamination been identified in potable well(s) that is above the Ground Water Remediation Standards or Federal Drinking Water Standards?... Yes No Provide date laboratory data was received: 09/25/2013 Or awaiting laboratory data with the expected due date: If Yes for potable well contamination not attributable to background, follow the IEC Guidance Document at for required actions and answer the following: Has an engineered system response action been completed on all receptors?... Yes No Provide a brief narrative description: NA Date completed: NJDEP Case Manager: 10. Were Non-potable use well(s) sampled and results were above Class II Ground Water Remediation Standards?... Yes No Provide date laboratory data was received: Or awaiting laboratory data with the expected due date: 11. Has the ground water use evaluation been completed?... Yes No SECTION E. VAPOR INTRUSION (VI) 1. Contaminants present in ground water exceed the Vapor Intrusion Ground Water Screening Levels that trigger a VI evaluation. (see NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance).... Yes No Unknown Or Awaiting laboratory data and the expected due date: Provide the date that the laboratory data was available and confirmed contamination above the Vapor Intrusion Trigger Levels. Date: 10/01/ Other existing conditions that trigger a VI evaluation. (see NJDEP Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance) Wet basement or sump containing free product or ground water containing volatile organics Methane generating conditions causing oxygen deficient or explosion concern Other human or safety concern from the VI pathway (i.e. elemental mercury, unsaturated contamination, elevated soil gas or indoor vapor (explain): N/A Donna Gaffigan If you answered No, or awaiting laboratory data to Question 1., and did not check any boxes in Question 2, proceed to Section F, Ecological Receptors, otherwise complete the rest of this section. 3. Has ground water contamination been delineated to the applicable Ground Water Vapor Screening Level?... Yes No 4. Was a site specific screening level, modeling or other alternative approach employed for the VI pathway?... Yes No 5. Identify and locate on a scaled map any buildings/sensitive populations that exist within the following distances from ground water contamination with concentrations above the Vapor Intrusion Ground Water Screening Levels or specific threats (check all that apply): 30 feet of petroleum free product or dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in ground water 100 feet of any non-petroleum free product or any non-petroleum dissolved volatile organic ground water contamination No buildings exist within the specified distances 6. The vapor intrusion pathway is a concern at or adjacent to the site (if No, attach justification)... Yes No Receptor Evaluation Form Page 3 of 5 Version /07/15

12 7. Has soil gas sampling of the building(s) been conducted?... Yes No N/A If No, or N/A, proceed to #12 8. Has indoor air sampling been conducted at the identified building(s)?... Yes No If No, proceed to #12 9 Has indoor air contamination been identified but not suspected to be from the site? (if Yes, attach justification)... Yes No 10. Indoor air results were above the NJDEP s Rapid Action Levels.... Yes No Provide the date that the laboratory data was available. Date: Or Awaiting laboratory data with the expected due date: If Yes to #10 above, follow the IEC Guidance Document at for required actions. The IEC engineering system response for control was implemented for all identified structures... Yes No Date: NJDEP Case Manager: 11. Indoor air sampling was conducted and results were above the NJDEP s Indoor Air Screening Levels but at or below the Rapid Action Levels... Yes No Provide the date that the laboratory data was available. Date: 04/01/2013 Or Awaiting laboratory data with the expected due date: If Yes to #11 above, answer the following: Has the Vapor Concern (VC) Response Action Form notifying the NJDEP of the exceedances been submitted?... Yes No Date: Has a plan to mitigate and monitor the exposure been submitted?... Yes No Date: Has the Mitigation Response Action Report been submitted?... Yes No Date: 12. Has the vapor intrusion investigation been completed?... Yes No If No, is the vapor intrusion investigation stepping out as part of the site investigation or remedial investigation. (If No, attach justification)... Yes No SECTION F. ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS 1. Has an Ecological Evaluation (EE) has been conducted? [N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16]... Yes No Date conducted: 01/30/ Do the results of an EE trigger a remedial investigation of ecological receptors? [N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8].... Yes No 3. Has a remedial investigation of ecological receptors been conducted?... Yes No Date conducted: 04/14/ Provide the following information for any surface water body on or within 200 feet of the site: Stream Antidegradation Surface Water Body Name Classification Designation St. Paul's Brook FW2/NT C2 Trout Production Trout Maintenance Receptor Evaluation Form Page 4 of 5 Version /07/15

13 5. Does the site contain any features regulated by the Land Use Regulation Program (LURP)? (e.g. wetlands, flood hazard area, tidelands, etc.).... Yes No If Yes, identify the type(s) of features: 6. Have any formal LURP jurisdiction letters or approvals been issued for the site?... Yes No If Yes, what is the LURP Program Interest (PI) number(s) for the site? 7. Have any applications for formal LURP jurisdiction letters or approvals been submitted the NJDEP?... Yes No If Yes, what is the LURP Program Interest (PI) number(s) for the site? 8. Is free product or residual product located within 100 feet from an ecological receptor?... Yes No 9. Does available data indicate an impact on Ecological receptor(s), Surface water, or Sediment?... Yes No If Yes, a) Check all that apply: Ecological receptor(s) Surface water Sediment b) Submit with this evaluation either a technical document that includes contaminant summary information, or a description of the type of contamination, a schedule, and a description of all actions to be taken to mitigate exposure. Completed forms should be sent to the municipal clerk, designate health department, and: Bureau of Case Assignment & Initial Notice Site Remediation Program NJ Department of Environmental Protection H PO Box 420 Trenton, NJ Receptor Evaluation Form Page 5 of 5 Version /07/15

14 ATTACHMENT 1 Properties within 200 Feet of IA-10

15 Attachment 1 Properties Within 200 Feet of IA-10 Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. - Nutley, New Jersey Block Lot Property Address Municipality Owner Name Property Class Erie Place Nutley Owner Norfolk Southern Railway 2 51 Erie Place Nutley Owner Norfolk Southern Railway Allwood Road Clifton Pennsylvania Lines LLC 5A: Railroad Class I Route 3 Clifton State of New Jersey 15C: Public Property 2 East-Main Ave-Railroad Clifton City of Jersey City, Daniel Sarpa 1: Vacant Land 6 40 Isabella Street Clifton MFG Realty LLC 4B: Industrial Kingsland Street Clifton Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 4A: Commercial Bloomfield Avenue Clifton International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers B: Industrial Bloomfield Avenue Clifton Mark Gold LP 4B: Industrial Bloomfield Avenue Clifton Mark Gold LP 4B: Industrial Joerg Avenue Nutley Lillian Franco & Christopher Cullari 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Oscar & Alicia Buenafe 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley James & Lynn Mosior 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Gateano & Jane Re 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Ronald Montrose 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Paul Sarabando 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Christopher & Imelda Callanta 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Albert Ashley & Venessa Brower 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Frank & Jacqueline Gabriele 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Jan Michael Timonera 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Edward & Laura Duda 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Joseph & Lisa Liaci 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Richard Sadowski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Kevin Corcoran & Christine Coree 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Robert Allan & Carol Bender 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Joerg Avenue Nutley Tara Kulbaba & Samer Haghour 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Monica Shields 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) 3 27 Windsor Place Nutley John & Dorothy Kaplonski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) 4 23 Windsor Place Nutley Jatin & Bharati Patel 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) 5 19 Windsor Place Nutley Michelle Baltazar 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) 6 15 Windsor Place Nutley J. Matrona & E. Maguire 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Gregory & Theresa Weber 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 4A: Commercial Kingsland Street Nutley Charles Brunnquell 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Stanley & Jane Kempczynski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Beverly Piegaro 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Omar & Anabel Fernandez 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Richard & Michelle Barone 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley John Tomaszewski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley William & Dawn Dick 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Paul & Deborah Lechthaler 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Antonio & Margarida Oliveira 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Jerry & Patti Diorio 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley David Morehouse 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kenzel Avenue Nutley Sandra & Carmine Rizzi 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Ivonne Depascual 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Margaret & Charles Micucci 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Bonnie Lockard 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Raymond & Susan Feiner 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Christine Rodriguez 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Anthony & Hanna Poloyapoy 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Wilfredo Rodriguez 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley James, Jennifer & Lorraine Toppeta 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Robert & Renee Hoarle 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Rachel Manalang 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Yuk-Tung Li 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Colleen O'Mara 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Windsor Place Nutley Patricia & Jeffery Oscilowski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Windsor Place Nutley Maryann & Robert Romas 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Windsor Place Nutley Nicholas Zarra & Fina Antunes 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Windsor Place Nutley Viola Bazan 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Windsor Place Nutley Jason & Leslie Wallace 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Bloomfield Avenue Nutley Township of Nutley 15C: Public Property Bloomfield Avenue Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 1: Vacant Land Bloomfield Avenue Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 1: Vacant Land Bloomfield Avenue Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 1: Vacant Land Kingsland Street Nutley Township of Nutley 15C: Public Property Edison Avenue Nutley Matthew & Erika Francello 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Robert Carcich & Diane Letorneau 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Michael & Marion Grogan 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Elio & Catherine Gencarelli 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Ahmed Alalwan 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Esad Mrkulic 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Brookdale Avenue Nutley John Francischetti 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Brookdale Avenue Nutley Joseph & Constance Guarino 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Brookdale Avenue Nutley Salvatore & Phyllis Lubertazzi 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Brookdale Avenue Nutley Jason Stauss 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Ralph & Nina Mitrano 4A: Commercial Kingsland Street Nutley Ralph & Nina Mitrano 4A: Commercial Kingsland Street Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 1: Vacant Land Bloomfield Avenue Nutley Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Tax Dept 4A: Commercial Alexander Avenue Nutley Richart & Joan Murawinski 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Oakley Terrace Nutley Philip & Linda Bruno 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Estate of Joseph Mraz 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Daniel & Maria Remuszka 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) Kingsland Street Nutley Didier Ruiz 2: Residential Property (1 4 Family) TRC Project No IA-10 RE_Properties within 200 Feet of Site_ _JO

16

17 Soil Remedial Action Report Investigative Area 10 Northern Portion (IA-10N) for the Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. Facility Nutley, New Jersey Prepared For: Hoffmann - La Roche Inc. 800 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 127 Nutley, NJ PI ID # Prepared By: TRC Environmental Corporation 41 Spring Street, Suite 102 New Providence, NJ April 26, 2017

18 Soil Remedial Action Report Investigative Area 10 Northern Portion Revision: 1 Date: April 26, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION SITE INFORMATION Site Description Topography and Site Surroundings Geology and Hydrogeology Receptor Evaluation Receptor Evaluation Land Use Receptor Evaluation Groundwater Receptor Evaluation Vapor Intrusion Receptor Evaluation Ecological Pertinent Site Documents Regulatory Timeframes AREAS OF CONCERN SUMMARY AOC 22 Former 20,000-Gallon No. 6 Fuel Oil UST at Former Building AOC 53 Former Building 106 Former Raw Material Storage Area AOC 54A Building 106 Permitted TSD Area I AOC 66 Former Industrial Fill Area AOC 131 Former Drum Storage Area East of Former Building AOC 179 Former Building 103 Solvent Drain and Dry Well Groundwater TECHNICAL OVERVIEW Prior Interim Remedial Measures for Soil Description of Soil Remedial Area RAW-Approved Applicable Remedial Standards Contractors and Sub-Contractors Data Reliability and Potentially Influencing Factors Factors Influencing Data 17 i of iv

19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Section No. Title Page No. 4.7 Variance and Deviations SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Site Preparation Excavation and Post-Excavation Sampling Backfill Material Staging, Treatment and Disposal Dewatering and Storm Water Management Perimeter Air Monitoring Engineering and Institutional Controls Remedial Action Permits Remedial Action Costs CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES 26 ii of iv

20 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) List of Figures Figure No. Title 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Plan with Areas of Concern IA-10 North 3 Remediation Areas Proposed in IA-10 North RAW 4 Extent of Excavations with Post-Excavation Analytical Results 5 Post-Remedial Action Site Conditions IA-10 North Table No. Title List of Tables 1 Soil Sample Summary IA-10 North Post Excavation 2 Summary of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Soil IA-10 North Post Excavation Appendix A B C D E F G List of Appendices Title Copies of NJDEP Forms and Approvals Public Notification Advertisements Electronic Data Deliverables and Laboratory Data Packages Fill Documentation D1 Clean Fill Analytical Results D2 Clean Fill Certifications D3 Clean Fill Shipping Documentation Disposal Documentation E1 Soil Disposal Documentation E2 Asphalt Recycling Documentation Emilcott s January 29, 2016 and November 9, 2016 IA-10 North Closeout Report DRAFT Deed Notice Termination and DRAFT Deed Notices iii of iv

21 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) List of Attachments Attachment Title 1 Properties within 200 Feet of IA-10 iv of iv

22 1.0 INTRODUCTION NJDEP PI NO SOIL REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT INVESTIGATIVE AREA 10 NORTHERN PORTION (IA-10N) HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INCORPORATED 340 KINGSLAND STREET NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY On behalf of Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (Roche), TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Soil Remedial Action Report (RAR) Investigative Area 10 Northern Portion (IA- 10N) to summarize the soil remedial actions (RAs) completed in IA-10N, located in the western portion of the former Roche Nutley facility at 340 Kingsland Street, Nutley, Essex County, New Jersey. A map showing the location of IA-10N is provided on a United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle in Figure 1 (Site Location Map). As discussed in the April 24, 2015 Investigative Area (IA) 10 Northern Portion - Soil Remedial Action Workplan (IA-10N RAW) (TRC 2015a), IA-10 has been divided into two portions: the Northern Portion, including a fill area and co-located AOCs, and the Southern Portion. The AOCs and the boundaries of the Northern Portion of IA-10 are presented on Figure 2. IA-10N is located in Clifton, Passaic County, New Jersey and is comprised of Block 79.04, Lots 10 and 21. This soil RAR for IA-10N was prepared in accordance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection s (NJDEP's) Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (TRSR) and associated NJDEP technical guidance documents. The purpose of the RAR is to document the performance of the remedial actions proposed in Roche/TRC s April 24, 2015 IA-10N RAW and July 2, 2015 Response to IA-10 Northern Portion Remedial Action Workplan Verbal Comments (IA-10N Verbal Comment Response Letter) (TRC 2015b), approved by the NJDEP in a letter dated July 27, 2015; July 6, 2016 Reuse of Site Soils in IA-10 North (IA-10N Reuse Letter) (TRC 2016a), approved by the NJDEP in a letter dated August 9, 2016; and October 28, 2016 Soil Remedial Action Workplan Modification Investigative Area (IA) 10 North (IA-10N RAW Modification) (TRC 2016b), approved by the NJDEP in a letter dated November 4, The NJDEP approval letters are included in Appendix A. The Roche Site is subject to the NJDEP Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) and is also an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility. Under the EPA/NJDEP Coordination Agreement, the Roche facility was determined to be an "NJDEP lead" site. Therefore, investigation and remediation have been conducted under the NJDEP's TRSR (N.J.A.C. 7:26E) (NJDEP 2012). To address facilities such as Roche, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(f) specifically 1 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

23 acknowledges this dual authority and allows for selection of remedies pursuant to either the NJDEP or EPA administrative processes. Furthermore, as discussed in the IA-10N Verbal Comment Response Letter, TRC coordinated with and received approval from Dr. Jim Haklar, the USEPA Region 2 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Coordinator, to remove and properly dispose of all PCBs greater than or equal to 50 parts per million (ppm) as a performance-based cleanup in accordance with 40 CFR (b). In addition, Dr. Haklar agreed that post-excavation sampling in accordance with the NJDEP s requirements is acceptable in lieu of USEPA s verification sampling requirements. Although Roche is subject to NJDEP Traditional Oversight, remediation work including field activities and reporting have been conducted under the oversight of, and reviewed by, a New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP). In addition, the regulatory compliance strategy for the Roche site was articulated in the Remediation Road Map Document (the Road Map) submitted by Roche to the NJDEP in September 2012 (TRC 2012a). The Road Map was approved by the NJDEP on October 11, A Road Map Amendment, which included additional public notification tasks was submitted to the NJDEP in March 2013 and received NJDEP approval in August Roche submitted an Enhanced Notification and Public Outreach Plan to both NJDEP and EPA in April 2013, which met both NJDEP and EPA requirements for public notification and outreach provisions. In accordance with the Road Map, TRC submitted a No Further Action (NFA) Summary Report for IA-10 to the NJDEP on July 3, 2013 (TRC 2013a). NJDEP approved the NFA Summary Report in a letter dated September 24, Furthermore, the December 19, 2013 IA-10 Soil Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) (TRC 2013b) addressed all areas of concern requiring investigation in IA-10N, including AOCs 22, 53, 54A, 66, 131 and 179. The RIR proposed NFA determinations for AOCs 53, 54A and 179, further investigation of AOC 66 and no further investigation for AOCs 22 and 131. The remedial actions for AOCs 22, 66 and 131 are the subject of this report. The NJDEP provided comments regarding the RIR in a July 23, Comments were addressed via technical meetings and additional sampling, analysis and/or further evaluation. Where still relevant, TRC and Roche provided responses in the IA-10N RAW. Roche complied with the public notification and outreach provisions by placing an advertisement in the local papers on November 27, 2014 and December 4, Copies of the public notification ads are included as Appendix B. In addition to the public notification and outreach provisions included in the April 2013 Enhanced Notification and Public Outreach Plan, Roche held a public meeting on December 9, 2014 to describe the December 2, 2014 Investigative Area IA-10 Northern Portion - Feasibility Study for Development of Soil Response Actions (FS) (TRC 2014a) 2 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

24 prepared for IA-10N, including the development and screening of soil remedial alternatives, and Roche s proposed remedy. On July 2, 2015, TRC/Roche responded to verbal comments by the NJDEP on the IA-10N RAW; The NJDEP approved the IA-10N RAW and the July 2, 2015 response in a letter dated July 27, Verbal comments on the IA-10N RAW were provided by the NJDEP Case Manager and TRC/Roche subsequently responded in July 2, 2015 letter. The NJDEP approved the IA-10N RAW and the July 2, 2015 comments response in a letter dated July 27, This soil RAR does not address remediation of groundwater. The RIR concluded that the very limited number of ground water quality standard (GWQS) exceedances in IA-10N should be addressed as part of the Site-Wide Groundwater RI. Remedial actions for ground water are being developed and will be submitted to the NJDEP in future submittals. As discussed in this report, soils with PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm were excavated for off-site disposal at a properly licensed and approved facility. Post-excavation samples were collected in accordance with NJDEP regulations and the excavations were backfilled. Subsequently, an engineering control (six-inch asphalt cap) was installed over the entirety of IA-10N. The existing site Deed Notice, which was established prior to completion of the remedial action in IA-10N, will be terminated and a new Deed Notice will be established for the site that includes the engineering controls in IA-10N. A draft Deed Notice Termination and drafts of the new Deed Notices for the Roche Site and the Jersey City Right of Way property are included with this submittal. Based on the results of the investigation and remediation conducted in IA-10N, no further action regarding soils is warranted for IA-10N. Therefore, following NJDEP approval of the RAR, the establishment of the Deed Notice, and the NJDEP approval of a Soil Remedial Action Permit (RAP), a Response Action Outcome (RAO) letter for soils for IA-10N will be issued by the IA-10 LSRP. Supporting technical information referenced within this RAR can be found in previous reports including the IA-10 RIR dated December 19, 2013 and the IA-10N RAW, dated April 24, A complete list of submittals and approvals for IA-10N can be found in Section 7.0. This document is organized into the following seven sections: Section 1.0 Introduction; Section 2.0 Site Information; Section 3.0 Area of Concern Summary; Section 4.0 Technical Overview; Section 5.0 Summary of Remedial Activities; Section 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations; and 3 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

25 Section 7.0 References. Supporting figures, tables and appendices are also attached. Copies of the NJDEP forms are included in Appendix A. 4 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

26 2.0 SITE INFORMATION This section provides a summary of site conditions. A detailed description of the Site history is provided in the NJDEP-approved Preliminary Assessment/RCRA Facility Assessment Report, dated May 1998 (TRC 1998). The Roche Site has an address of 340 Kingsland Street, Nutley, New Jersey, and is situated in both the City of Clifton, Passaic County and the Township of Nutley, Essex County, New Jersey. The northern area of IA-10 is located on Clifton Tax Block 79.04, Lots 10 and 21. A site map with AOCs is included as Figure 2. On November 19, 2013 Roche submitted a General Information Notice (GIN) for IA-10 to the NJDEP to separate it from the main Site s PI No On January 7, 2014, Ms. Donna Gaffigan of the NJDEP issued an to Ms. Dawn Pompeo of TRC stating that they had received the November 19, 2013 GIN. The NJDEP subsequently assigned PI No , Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) Case No. E , and Activity No. Reference RPC to IA-10 (NJDEP 2014a). 2.1 Site Description The former Roche Nutley facility was developed in 1928 for the manufacturing of vitamins, fine chemicals, pharmaceuticals and research and development. Prior to development in 1928, the property was used for agricultural purposes. The main campus was used by various firms for various purposes, and purchased in parcels over a period of several decades. The northern portion of IA-10 is located in the western portion of the Roche Site, and is bounded to the west by private residences, privately owned commercial businesses, and the former Deluxe Check Site (SRP PI# ); to the south by IA-10 South; to the east by a Norfolk Southern railroad easement and to the north by an active New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) yard and State Highway Route 3. The portion of IA-10 addressed by this RAR occupies the northern 7.4 acres of IA-10, as shown on Figure 2, which was acquired by Roche in 1967 from Morningstar Paisley. The northern portion of IA-10 is presently covered by asphalt pavement. AOCs co-located with the fill area (AOC 66) include the following: AOC 22 Former 20,000 gallon No. 6 Fuel Oil underground storage tank (UST) at former Building 103; AOC 53 Former Building 106 Former Raw Materials Storage Area: AOC 54A Former Building 106 former outdoor RCRA-permitted drum storage area; AOC 131 Former Drum Storage Area East of former Building 103; and AOC 179 Former Building of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

27 The northern portion of IA-10 was previously used by Roche primarily for parking, fuel and equipment storage, raw material and hazardous waste storage, facility recycling, warehousing, central receiving and mail distribution. This portion of the Roche Site is unique from the rest of the site in that the majority of the land and buildings in IA-10N were acquired after the property had been developed. As such, there is generally less available historical information regarding IA-10, particularly for the time periods before Roche took ownership, than the rest of the Site. However, based on aerial photographs included in the RIR, it has been documented that the area was previously used as an industrial fill area between approximately the 1930s and the 1960s, prior to Roche ownership. 2.2 Topography and Site Surroundings A map showing the location of IA-10 within the Roche Site is provided on a USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle as Figure 1. In general, the surface grade in IA-10 slopes from west to east and from north to south. The elevation of the northern portion of IA-10 ranges from about 125 to 115 feet above mean sea level (ft. amsl). The nearest surface water body, St. Paul s Brook (a Third River tributary), flows from northwest to southeast along the eastern boundary of IA-10, predominantly within an enclosed subgrade structure. Localized storm water runoff from the eastern portion of IA-10 is directed into this brook. In addition, Springer Creek, also enclosed in a subgrade, borders part of the southern edge of the northern portion of IA-10. St. Paul s Brook ultimately discharges to the Passaic River (via the Third River). No wetlands are located on or adjacent to IA Geology and Hydrogeology Based on numerous subsurface soil borings completed, the northern portion of IA-10 is covered with up to 14 feet of previously-placed, manmade fill. The surficial soils comprising this fill material consist primarily of reworked red-brown silt and sand, typical of overburden soils for the area, along with assorted construction and demolition debris, metal, and glass. Fill material thickness varies across the northern portion of IA-10N between approximately 1 and 14 feet. The fill is present beyond the IA-10N boundary to the north and west. This information, along with the findings at adjacent IA-1, demonstrates that the presence of fill material in this area is a regional issue and not specific to IA-10N nor associated with Roche s activities. Beneath the fill, TRC encountered natural overburden soils, consisting of intermittent layers of clay and silty clay above bedrock, which was encountered at a depth of 5 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). The bedrock underlying the Roche Site and IA-10N is the Passaic Formation, which is composed primarily of reddish brown shale and siltstone with some localized sandstone. 6 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

28 Although groundwater is not addressed in this soil RAR, for the reasons explained above, the groundwater has been monitored with a site-wide monitoring well network. The monitoring well network continues to grow as part of the site-wide groundwater investigation, with greater than 1000 monitoring wells and boreholes installed to-date. The depth to overburden groundwater varies across the northern portion of IA-10 and has been measured from just below the surface to over 10 feet bgs. The direction of groundwater flow in IA-10 is southerly to southeasterly and regionally toward the Passaic River. 2.4 Receptor Evaluation The TRSR requires completion of a receptor evaluation (RE) which includes four components, Land Use, Groundwater, Vapor Intrusion and Ecological. The Initial Receptor Evaluation was submitted in February 2011 (TRC 2011). Updates to the RE are required with certain remedial phase reports (e.g., with the RAR). Roche submitted the Site-Wide Receptor Evaluation Update for the entire Roche Nutley facility on April 30, 2014 (TRC 2014), which included IA-10N. The following sections include updated RE information applicable to IA-10N Receptor Evaluation Land Use IA-10N is located in a predominately commercial area of Clifton, New Jersey. Residences border the Roche Site to the west and are within 200 feet of IA-10N. There are no schools, child care centers, parks, playgrounds, or other sensitive population use properties within 200 feet of IA- 10N. A list of the properties within 200 feet of IA-10 and a map with their locations are included as Attachment Receptor Evaluation Groundwater Due to the presence of groundwater contamination at the Roche Site, a well search was originally conducted in 2001 and updated in 2009 and All available NJDEP, county and local records were requested to identify all wells located within one-half mile of the Site and all irrigation, industrial wells and wells with water allocation permits located within one mile of the Site. In addition, in accordance with NJDEP requirements, a 1/2-mile radius well record search and a 1- mile radius search of high-capacity wells was conducted using the NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation (BWA) well record database to identify potentially active wells in the area surrounding the Site. No permitted potable groundwater wells are located within one mile of IA-10 or within the delineated extent of the groundwater contamination. One active irrigation well located downgradient of the Site was sampled as reported in the April 30, 2014 Site-Wide Receptor 7 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

29 Evaluation Update; volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations were well below the NJDEP groundwater quality standards (GWQS) Receptor Evaluation Vapor Intrusion Since all buildings in IA-10N have been razed and the land is currently vacant, vapor intrusion is not a concern for IA-10N. Therefore, no action is warranted for IA-10N under the current site conditions Receptor Evaluation Ecological In accordance with the TRSR, an Ecological Evaluation was completed as part of the RE for IA- 10, as described in the RIR. Potential ecological impacts in IA-10 have been assessed through previous investigations conducted from 2008 to 2012 in association with AOC 118 (Storm Water Outfall - St. Paul s Brook). These investigations are discussed in the RIR for AOC 118, which was submitted to NJDEP in April NFA was confirmed in a September 17, 2013 NJDEP letter. 2.5 Pertinent Site Documents Please note that a majority of these documents cover both the northern and southern portions of IA-10, however this RAR discusses only IA-10N. Document Date PA/RFA Report May 1998 Remediation Road Map for the Roche Facility September 17, 2012 Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared by TRC November 20, 2012 and August 2013 Remediation Road Map for the Roche Facility Amendment March 25, 2013 IA-10 Remedial Investigation Workplan January 8, 2013 NJDEP Final Comments IA-10 RIWP February 27, 2013 Response to NJDEP Final Comments on IA-10 RIWP May 7, 2013 IA-10 NFA Report July 3, 2013 NJDEP Approval of NFA Report September 24, 2013 IA-10 Remedial Investigation Report December 19, 2013 NJDEP IA-10 RIR Draft comments March 12, 2014 Site-Wide Receptor Evaluation Update April 30, 2014 NJDEP Comments IA-10 RIR July 23, 2014 NJDEP HFM and CEA guidance letter September 9, of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

30 Document Investigative Areas IA-10 Northern Portion Feasibility Study (FS) for Development of Soil Response Actions* Investigative Area 10 (IA-10) Northern Portion Soil Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) Response to IA-10 Northern Portion Remedial Action Workplan Verbal Comments NJDEP IA-10N RAW and IA-10N Response to IA-10N RAW Verbal Comments Approval Letter Date December 2, 2014 April 24, 2015 July 2, 2015 July 27, 2015 IA-10N Reuse of Site Soils in IA-10 North July 6, 2016 NJDEP IA-10N Reuse of Site Soils in IA-10 North Approval Letter August 9, 2016 IA-10N Soil Remedial Action Workplan Modification October 28, 2016 NJDEP IA-10N Soil Remedial Action Workplan Modification Approval November 4, 2016 *The above noted FS was the subject of a public meeting held on December 9, Regulatory Timeframes Pursuant to the SRRA [N.J.A.C. 58:10C-27a(3)], any discharge discovered before May 7, 1999 must have a complete and submitted RIR by May 7, Roche submitted the IA-10 RIR on December 19, In addition, soil remedial actions at the site subject to the statutory timeframe must be completed by May 7, This timeframe includes completing the soil remedial action as described in the April 2015 IA-10N RAW, submitting the Soil RAR and issuing an RAO letter. Because the Roche Site is under NJDEP Traditional Oversight, the Department must approve the IA-10N Soil RAR before an RAO letter can be issued. 9 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

31 3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN SUMMARY This section provides a brief summary of remedial investigation and pre-design investigations (PDI) conducted in IA-10N between February 2013 and December Details and results were presented in the December 2013 IA-10 RIR and the April 2015 IA-10N RAW. Based on information presented in the December 2013 RIR, IA-10N, the former industrial fill area, contains contaminants such as VOCs, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, and pesticides at concentrations that exceed the NJDEP s Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRS) and/or NJDEP s Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (NRDCSRS). As described in the April 2015 IA-10N RAW, the constituents of concern requiring remediation in IA-10N were PCBs above 50 ppm. The following AOCs were evaluated during the IA-10 RI and IA-10N PDI (Figure 2): AOC 22 Former 20,000-gallon No. 6 Fuel Oil Underground Storage Tank (UST) at former Building 103; AOC 53 Former Building 106 Former Raw Materials Storage Area; AOC 54A Former Building 106 Permitted TSD Area I; AOC 66 Former Industrial Fill Area; AOC 131 Former Drum Storage Area East of Building 103; and AOC 179 Former Building 103 Solvent Drain and Dry Well. 3.1 AOC 22 Former 20,000-Gallon No. 6 Fuel Oil UST at Former Building 103 AOC 22 consists of one former UST located at Building 103. The capacity of the former UST was reportedly 20,000 gallons and it was used to store No. 6 fuel oil. The construction and installation date of the tank are unknown. The tank was removed in There is conflicting evidence regarding the specific location of this UST; however, the three potential locations reported on available historical facility drawings generally coincide and/or overlap, and previously completed Site Investigation (SI) sampling in AOC 22 provided coverage throughout and extending beyond each potential UST location. The previous investigation included 11 soil borings (S-22-2 through S-22-12) installed along the centerline of the potential UST locations. The soils were field-screened with a photoionization detector (PID) and select soil samples were collected and analyzed for extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) and target compound list (TCL) PAHs. No PID readings were detected and no compounds were detected above the soil remediation standards. 10 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

32 The extent of the tank excavation is unknown and there are no post-excavation confirmatory sampling data available for evaluation. In addition, there are no data or documentation available concerning the quality of the material used to backfill the space previously occupied by the former UST. Further, based on a review of the SI data, the soil samples may not have been collected from beneath the invert of the tank, which would have been greater than 10.5 feet bgs (a typical 20,000- gallon UST has a diameter of 10.5 feet and is approximately 31 feet long). RI activities, including soil and ground water sampling, were completed to assess soil and ground water conditions in AOC 22. Results indicated that limited PAH soil contamination detected in several borings has been delineated horizontally and vertically. As discussed in this report, this area is being addressed with engineering and institutional controls; therefore, no further action is appropriate. 3.2 AOC 53 Former Building 106 Former Raw Material Storage Area AOC 53 consisted of the former raw materials (acids, bases, solvents, gases, etc.) storage area at former Building 106, which was covered concrete slab with a roof and no walls. The area was confined within a locked fence, raised above the surrounding ground, diked and paved with asphalt. Materials stored within former Building 106 were segregated by chemical property, with most areas located beneath canopies. The area sloped towards grated troughs that bordered the east side of the storage unit to control drainage. Six-inch curbing around the remaining sides served to direct drainage into the troughs which emptied into two 300-gallon closed catch basins. The former Building 106 area also housed Roche s Hazardous Waste 90-day storage area. During the RI, soil and ground water sampling were conducted to assess AOC 53. Results of the soil sampling indicated the soil was impacted primarily with PCBs, PAHs and lead; however, the source of these contaminants was the former industrial fill area (AOC 66) and not the former raw material storage area. Therefore, the NJDEP has agreed that no further action was warranted for this AOC. 3.3 AOC 54A Building 106 Permitted TSD Area I AOC 54A consisted of a former outdoor RCRA permitted drum storage area located south of Building 106. NJDEP confirmed clean closure of the storage area on August 12, 2002, and subsequent drum storage was terminated by June No documented or observable evidence of releases were observed in either AOC 54A subsequent to the 2002 closures. On June 30, 2006, Roche proposed no further action for AOC 54A based on the clean closure and lack of subsequent releases. However, subsurface soil sampling had not been performed in either former drum storage area comprising AOC 54 before Therefore, RI activities were conducted to assess conditions in 11 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

33 AOCs 54A. Soil results indicated PCB concentrations above the remediation standards, however the contamination was attributed to the former industrial fill area (AOC 66) and not a discharge. Therefore, the NJDEP agreed no further action was warranted for this AOC. 3.4 AOC 66 Former Industrial Fill Area AOC 66 consisted of Parking Lot 905 and an adjacent recycling area located in the northwest corner of the Roche Site. Based on available historic aerial photographs, the area was previously used as an industrial fill area between approximately the 1930s and The entire area is currently paved. In 2005, soil sampling activities were conducted in the northwest corner of AOC 66 (borings RF- 1 and RF-2); and in 2009, soil sampling activities were conducted along the southern end of AOC 66 (borings L through L ). Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals. Analytical results indicated concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), several PAHs and metals were detected above NJDEP standards. In September 2010, Roche completed a geophysical investigation of AOC 66 to assess subsurface conditions in the former industrial fill area and to evaluate the extent of solid waste and buried debris. The investigation included a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey which identified 40 subsurface metallic anomalies and differential materials. Soil and ground water conditions in AOC 66 were assessed during RI and PDI sampling. Based on the results, the extent of fill material has been delineated and extends south under former Building 103, west under former Building 106 and off-site to the north and west. Concentrations of PCBs, pesticides, metals, VOCs and SVOCs were detected above the applicable criteria in most of the soil samples collected from inside the filled area. As discussed in this report below, PCBs were delineated to below 50 ppm in soil and removed during remedial activities. Following removal of PCB-impacted soil, an asphalt cap was installed over the entirety of AOC 66. Therefore, no further action, with the exception of a Deed Notice, is appropriate. 3.5 AOC 131 Former Drum Storage Area East of Former Building 103 AOC 131 consisted of the former drum storage area east of former Building 103. Note that there was originally thought to have been a second drum storage area located to the west of Building 103 that was also designated AOC 131, as reflected in the NJDEP Case Inventory Document. 12 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

34 However, aerial photographs of the area indicate there was no storage area located west of Building 103. In September 2010, an SI was conducted that included 11 soil borings (S through S ) within the former drum storage area and one test pit to assess a metal anomaly identified during a prior GPR survey. Soil borings were field-screened with a PID and soil samples were collected and analyzed for TCL VOCs +15, TCL SVOCs +15, TCL pesticides, TCL PCBs, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, EPH and hexavalent chromium. Scraps of sheet metal debris were discovered in the test pit and determined to be the source of the previously-identified anomaly. VOCs, SVOCs, and EPH were not detected above applicable NJDEP standards in the soil samples and no PID readings above 0 parts per million by volume (ppmv) were measured. PCBs were detected above the Default Impact to Groundwater Soil Screening Levels (DIGWSSL) and RDCSRS of 0.2 ppm in one sample, and concentrations of four pesticides (alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, 4,4 -DDD, and/or 4,4 - DDE) were detected above the RDCSRS and/or DIGWSSL in six samples. Concentrations of metals (antimony, lead and/or mercury) were detected above the DIGWSSLs in several samples. The RI included soil and ground water sampling to further assess soil and ground water conditions in AOC 131. Soil results indicated that pesticide- and lead-impacted soils have been delineated and are likely attributable to fill material. As discussed in this report, this area is being addressed with engineering and institutional controls; therefore, no further action is appropriate. 3.6 AOC 179 Former Building 103 Solvent Drain and Dry Well AOC 179 consisted of a dry well and solvent drain that were depicted on a 1971 plan for Building 103. In November 2006, samples were collected from the dry well and solvent drain and analyzed for VOCs, methanol, SVOCs and select TAL metals; analytical results were below the NJDEP standards. In August 2011, ground water samples collected from three temporary piezometers (TPZs) installed in the vicinity of AOC 179 contained concentrations of chlorinated VOCs above the NJDEP s GWQS. Therefore, additional ground water sampling was conducted in AOC 179 during the RI. Based on the results, no contamination was attributed to a dry well or solvent drain, therefore, the NJDEP agreed that no further action was warranted for this AOC. 3.7 Groundwater The results of several rounds of groundwater sampling and analysis from monitoring wells in IA- 10 indicate that groundwater contains chlorinated solvents at concentrations above the GWQS in 13 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

35 shallow bedrock. The VOCs detected in bedrock groundwater in IA-10 are being addressed as part of the site-wide groundwater investigation and remediation. In addition, on December 14, 2016, a Remedial Action Permit Application Soil was submitted with a classification exception area (CEA) to the NJDEP for the entire site including IA-10N to address historic fill material (HFM). 14 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

36 4.0 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW This Section provides a technical overview of the soil remedial activities conducted from August 2015 to January 2017, in accordance with the November 2012 Site-Wide Health and Safety Plan (HASP) (TRC 2012b), the November 2013 Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) (TRC 2012c) and other relevant documents. 4.1 Prior Interim Remedial Measures for Soil There were no interim remedial measures (IRMs) for soil performed in IA-10N. 4.2 Description of Soil Remedial Area IA-10N occupies an approximately 7.4-acre area where fill material is present. The fill identified in IA-10N was characterized during the RI by the excavation of test pits and the installation of soil borings. Typical buried debris observed in the test pits included fragments of metal debris, construction and demolition debris (concrete and brick fragments, rebar, corrugated metal, wood, suspected roofing materials, etc.), tires, a crushed (empty) steel drum, metallic wire/cable fragments, ceramics and copper piping. Several automobile brake pads were observed; one was tested and determined to contain asbestos. The lateral extent of fill extends beyond the northern and western boundaries of IA-10N and is shown on Figure 2. Further investigation was completed following the submission of the RIR. As discussed in the IA- 10N RAW, soil borings were installed to delineate PCBs above 50 ppm. In addition, samples were collected to delineate isolated detections of 2-methylnaphthalene, n-nitrosodiphenylamine and toluene and to further characterize lead concentrations in soil. Furthermore, soil and fill samples from IA-10N were analyzed for lead by the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP). The results of the additional investigations demonstrated the limited mobility of lead in IA-10N. The fill material is found at depths ranging from 1 to 14 feet below surface and contains VOCs, PAHs, metals (primarily lead) and PCBs at concentrations above the soil remediation standards (SRS). Although only soils with concentrations of PCBs above 50 ppm required excavation, the soil required pre-treatment to neutralize lead concentrations prior to off-site disposal. A total of 62 samples had total PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm. These samples were located within four distinct areas of the fill in IA-10N and are depicted as remedial areas A through D shown on Figure of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

37 Following excavation of Areas A through D, post-excavation sampling was conducted in accordance with NJDEP regulations. In addition, areas of damaged asphalt were sampled to confirm that no PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm were present. 4.3 RAW-Approved Applicable Remedial Standards The applicable remediation standards are the most stringent of the RDCSRS, NRDCSRS, or the DIGWSSL for those soils in the unsaturated zone (above the water table). For those soils within the water table, the DIGWSSLs do not apply. Where there are exceedances of DIGWSSLs, NJDEP regulations allow the development of a site-specific Impact to Groundwater Soil Remediation Standard (IGWSRS) to protect against future contamination of groundwater. As documented in the December 2013 IA-10 RIR, IA-specific IGWSRS were developed for lead and selenium. Lead impacts to soil in IA-10 are attributed to fill material. N.J.A.C. 7:26E 5.2 allows for remedies that are protective of human health and the environment through implementation of residential or non-residential soil remediation standards and/or any necessary Engineering and Institutional Controls. Pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB regulations (40 CFR (b)) and NJDEP regulations, remedial action beyond Engineering and Institutional Controls for PCBs in the fill material was not required unless unacceptable risk was found to be present. The NJDEP-approved RAW proposed to remove and dispose of, off-site, at a minimum, soil with PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or greater to provide additional environmental protection. Remedial actions to reduce or eliminate exposure to these contaminants were assessed for the northern portion of IA-10. The remedial actions were developed based on the requirements of the NJDEP Site Remediation Program (SRP), including the TRSR and NJDEP SRP Guidance. 4.4 Contractors and Sub-Contractors The following Roche contractors and sub-contractors assisted in the remedial action conducted in IA-10N: Function Subcontractor Name/Telephone Construction Management Survey & Markout Excavations Sordoni Construction Company (Sordoni) Bedminster Township, New Jersey The Osiris Group, Inc. (Osiris) Sparta, New Jersey Northstar Contracting Group, Inc. (Northstar) East Hanover, New Jersey LVI Demolition Services Inc. East Hanover, New Jersey Michael Meechan Michael Wills (973) John Skinner (973) of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

38 Function Subcontractor Name/Telephone Excavations Air Monitoring Laboratory USA Environment, LP Edison, New Jersey Emilcott Technologies Morristown, New Jersey SGS Accutest Laboratories, Inc. (SGS Accutest) Dayton, New Jersey New Jersey Certification No Kevin Smarz (609) Charles Peruffo (973) Matt Cordova (732) Data Reliability and Potentially Influencing Factors Sample collection activities and laboratory analyses were performed in accordance with the TRSR and the project QAPP. Sample analysis was completed by SGS Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey (SGS Accutest), a New Jersey-certified laboratory. A sample summary is included as Table 1 and the sample results for these additional soil samples can be found in Table 2. The supporting laboratory data packages can be found in Appendix C. Clean fill analytical results can be found in Appendix D1 and certifications can be found in Appendix D2. The data quality and laboratory case narratives/non-conformance summaries included with the laboratory reports were reviewed. The method-specified calibrations and quality control performance criteria were met for the data generated during this investigation. Based on a review of the laboratory reports, the data collected described in this report are usable for their intended purpose and meet the general data quality objectives. 4.6 Factors Influencing Data No significant events of seasonal variations are known to have influenced the sampling procedures or the results of the sampling events reported in this RAR. 4.7 Variance and Deviations There are no known variances from the TRSR. In the July 2, 2015 IA-10N Verbal Comment Response Letter, TRC/Roche documented the coordination with the USEPA regarding TSCA PCB Remediation Waste and post-excavation sampling and the use of engineering and institutional controls to address PCBs, lead, toluene and n-nitrosodiphenylamine in soil and fill material above the DIGWSSL and IGWSRS. The letter was approved by the NJDEP in a July 27, 2015 letter. 17 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

39 In the July 6, 2016 IA-10N Reuse Letter, TRC/Roche proposed the use of 4,125 tons of excavated, un-impacted soils and excess imported fill materials, such as imported gabion stone and dense grade aggregate (DGA), as alternative fill in the IA-10N excavations. The proposal was approved by the NJDEP in the August 9, 2016 letter. In addition, as discussed in the October 28, 2016 IA-10N RAW Modification, and approved by the NJDEP on November 4, 2016, based on future redevelopment of the site, Roche proposed a modified engineering control consisting of six-inches of asphalt or concrete over the entire IA-10 North area. 18 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

40 5.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES As discussed in the NJDEP-approved RAW for IA-10N, remedial activities included excavation, treatment (if necessary) and off-site disposal of soil and fill materials with PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or greater from four areas (Areas A through D), and engineering and institutional controls. The excavations were backfilled with certified-clean fill or alternative fill pursuant to the NJDEP s Fill Material Guidance for SRP Sites, Version 3.0, (April 2015) (NJDEP 2015) and the NJDEPapproved IA-10N Reuse Letter. A summary of the remedial activities is provided below. 5.1 Site Preparation Prior to performing any remedial actions in IA-10N, the area was prepared in accordance with the IA-10N RAW. Preparations included, but are not limited to, update of the HASP, sediment/runoff control and pre-construction meetings. In addition, the proposed excavation areas were surveyed to establish the planned physical extents of the excavations and mark-out any underground utilities. 5.2 Excavation and Post-Excavation Sampling The excavation work in IA-10N was completed from August 2015 to September 2016, under TRC oversight, by Northstar/LVI and USA Environmental. Post-excavation samples were collected per NJDEP regulations; sidewall samples were collected every 30 linear feet and one base sample was collected for every 900 square feet of excavation area. All post-excavation soil samples were submitted to SGS Accutest and analyzed for PCBs. A summary of post-excavation samples is included as Table I; analytical results are summarized on Table II and presented on Figure 4. Between August and December 2015, Northstar/LVI completed the excavations as proposed in the IA-10N RAW. Sidewall and base post-excavation samples collected from Areas B, C and D did not contain PCB concentrations at or above the 50 ppm remediation threshold; therefore no additional excavations were required for these areas. However, sidewall samples collected from Area A contained PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm at three locations (PX5, - PX8 and -PX13); PCB concentrations in all base samples were well below 50 ppm. Between December 10 and 14, 2015, Northstar/LVI conducted additional excavations extending out from the three sidewall samples with elevated PCB concentrations. Samples from seven of the nine sidewall locations contained concentrations of PCBs greater than 50 ppm; no exceedances were detected in the base samples. To determine the approximate extent of the additional PCB-impacted material that required excavation, a series of seven test trenches were conducted by Northstar/LVI. Between December 21 and 23, 2015, test trenches were installed extending out from the recently completed additional 19 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

41 excavations. Sidewall samples were collected every ten feet and only three of the twenty-one samples analyzed had concentrations at or above 50 ppm. The proposed extent of the third and final excavation was then determined based on the results from the test trench sampling. In August 2016, prior to excavation of this area, soil borings were conducted to confirm that the proposed extents were sufficient. Samples from seven sidewall and seven base locations were analyzed and results indicated two locations contained PCB concentrations at or above 50 ppm (sidewall locations PX38 and PX39). Therefore, the proposed excavation was extended north from those locations. In September 2016, USA Environmental conducted the excavation of PCB-impacted material outlined by the test trenches and soil borings. Post-excavation sidewall sampling was conducted in accordance with NJDEP regulations; no samples contained PCB concentrations at or above 50 ppm. Therefore, no further excavation was required. Following excavation of each area, Osiris resurveyed the boundaries of the excavation and TRC approved the boundaries and depth prior to backfilling the excavations. The total area of the combined excavations is approximately 40,400 square feet, and excavation depths ranged from 4 feet below ground surface in Area C to up to 12.5 feet below ground surface in some parts of Area A. Based on TRC s field observations, and as confirmed by final site survey of excavated areas, all PCB-impacted material at or above 50 ppm was excavated from Areas B, C and D to the designated depths as proposed in the April 2015 IA-10N RAW (Figure 3). As discussed above, Area A required additional delineation and excavation to complete the remediation. The proposed and actual depths of excavations and volume removed are summarized in the table below. Excavation Area Proposed Depth of Excavation Areas (ft. bgs.) Anticipated Volume (cy) 20 of 27 Actual Depth of Excavation Areas (ft. bgs.) Actual Volume (cy) A 8 to 12 6,200 8 to ,504 B 4 to C D 4 to 6 1, Total -- 8, ,867 ft. bgs. feet below ground surface cy cubic yards As noted below, the majority of the excavated soils needed to be treated prior to disposal. The treatment included mixing with EnviroBlend to stabilize the elevated lead concentrations. TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

42 Consequently, the weight tickets may not directly correlate to the volume of soils actually removed. 5.3 Backfill A combination of certified-clean material from the Tilcon Riverdale Quarry in Riverdale, New Jersey, the Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry in Mount Hope, New Jersey, and the Tilcon Pompton Lakes Quarry in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey was used to backfill the excavations. In addition, approximately 4,125 tons of alternative fill from IA-10N and other Investigative Areas at Roche were used to backfill excavations. As discussed in the NJDEP approved IA-10N Reuse Letter, the alternative fill was sampled and reused in accordance with the NJDEP s April 2015 Fill Material Guidance for SRP Sites. Please note that although sand from EME in New Egypt, New Jersey was received and stockpiled in IA-10N, the material was used in other IAs and no sand was used to backfill any excavations in IA10N. Laboratory data for certified-clean fill and clean fill certifications can be found in Appendices D1 and D2, respectively. The table below summarizes the total weight and type of clean fill. Several transfers of clean fill material that originated at the facilities mentioned above occurred between IA-10N and other IAs on-site as summarized below. Clean fill shipping documentation is included in Appendix D3. Facility / Transfer Information Type Weight (Tons) Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry, Mount Hope, New Jersey DGA 17, Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry, Mount Hope, New Jersey ASTM # Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry, Mount Hope, New Jersey Rip Rap Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry, Mount Hope, New Jersey ASTM # Tilcon Pompton Lakes Quarry, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey DGA 4, Tilcon Pompton Lakes Quarry, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey ASTM # Transfer of Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry material to IA-10N from IA-7 DGA Transfer of Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry material to IA-10N from IA-3, Rip Rap Building 115 Transfer of Tilcon Mount Hope Quarry material from IA-10N to IA-10S DGA Total Weight: 22, Type Description of material listed on quarry documentation DGA Dense-Graded Aggregate ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM #57 ¾-inch coarse aggregate ASTM #3 2-inch coarse aggregate 21 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

43 5.4 Material Staging, Treatment and Disposal Excavated material from Areas A through D was stockpiled in treatment areas that protected against dispersion of contaminated material using jersey barriers, asphalt, hay bales and plastic sheeting. All soils in the treatment area were mixed with EnviroBlend to stabilize lead concentrations for acceptance at off-site disposal facilities. Treated soils were then transported by rail car for off-site disposal. Once the treatment areas were disassembled, the surface below was inspected for areas of damaged asphalt where PCBs could have migrated to the subsurface. These areas were saw cut and surficial debris was removed and disposed of as PCB-impacted material. TRC then sampled the first six inches to confirm that no migration of PCBs occurred. Concentrations of PCBs in these samples ranged from not detected to 6.3 ppm. A summary of samples collected is included on Table I; analytical results are summarized on Table II and presented on Figure 4. The PCB-impacted material generated as a result of the remedial activities in IA-10N was transported to one of the following facilities for proper off-site disposal: Clean Harbors in Grass Mountain, Utah; Environmental Quality in Belleville, Michigan; or Veolia Environmental Services in Port Arthur, Texas. The table below summarizes the total volume sent to each facility. Soil disposal documentation is included in Appendix E1. Facility Weight (Tons) Clean Harbors 3, Environmental Quality 28, Veolia Environmental Services Total Weight: 32, A total of approximately 32,100 tons of PCB-impacted material was disposed of off-site. However, as discussed above, due to the addition and mixing of EnviroBlend to the excavated material, the total weight of material excavated from the four areas in IA-10N was less than the ticketed total. Additionally, asphalt generated during remedial activities in IA-10N was transported to Tilcon New York, Inc. in West Nyack, NY for asphalt recycling. The table below summarizes the total volume sent to this facility. Asphalt disposal documentation is included in Appendix F2. 22 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

44 Facility Weight (Tons) Tilcon New York, Inc Total Weight: Dewatering and Storm Water Management During remedial activities associated with implementing the RAW and additional excavations in IA-10N, approximately 526,325 gallons of water were generated as a result of excavation dewatering. The water was discharged via process sewer to the regional public treatment works facility (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners [PVSC]) in accordance with Roche s PVSC discharge permit. 5.6 Perimeter Air Monitoring Continuous air monitoring was performed by Emilcott Technologies of Morristown, New Jersey for all ground-intrusive activities, including, but not limited to, soil excavation, treatment and handling. Selected air monitoring response levels were based on TRC s experience with air monitoring programs conducted during similar NJDEP-approved remediation projects. The VOCs and particulate concentrations were monitored during excavation activities as per Section 6.6 of the April 2015 IA-10N RAW. VOCs particulates were not detected above the applicable screening levels. A copy of the January 29, 2016 and November 9, 2016 Air Monitoring Reports are included in Appendix F. 5.7 Engineering and Institutional Controls As discussed in the IA-10N RAW, engineering and institutional controls were proposed to prevent exposure to contaminated soil and fill material and restrict land and ground water usage in the area. The IA-10N RAW outlined a robust engineered cap that consisted of imported material for grading purposes, low permeability barrier layer, barrier protection layer, soil buffer layer and an asphalt cover. However, due to the likelihood of future redevelopment of this area, TRC/Roche requested, in the IA-10N RAW Modification to the NJDEP, a revised engineered cap of six-inches of asphalt over the entirety of IA-10N. The NJDEP approved the request in the November 4, 2016 letter. This modified engineering control was constructed in accordance with the NJDEP s July 14, 2015 Technical Guidance on the Capping of Sites Undergoing Remediation (NJDEP 2015b). In addition, although the underlying materials in IA-10N are no longer subject the TSCA, the thickness of the modified cap complies with the NJDEP s March 1, 2013 Coordination of NJDEP and USEPA PCB Remediation Policies Toxic Substance Control Act Self-Implementing Criteria in Defined Low Occupancy Areas. 23 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

45 A New Jersey-licensed survey from Osiris provided pre- and post-elevation measurements to confirm the thickness of the cap. The IA-10N engineering control and post-remediation conditions are presented on Figure 5. To restrict property and groundwater usage associated with IA-10N, a deed notice will be recorded with Passaic County describing the six-inch cap and outlining restrictions for future use. A draft deed notice is included as Appendix G. In addition, on December 14, 2016, a Remedial Action Permit Application Soil was submitted to the NJDEP. As part of the Soil RAP application, a CEA was also submitted to the NJDEP for the entire site including IA-10N to address historic fill material (HFM). 5.8 Remedial Action Permits Upon approval of this IA-10N Remedial Action Report, the existing Deed Notice will be terminated and new Deed Notices will be recorded with Essex County and Passaic County. Draft versions of the Deed Notice Termination and new Deed Notices are included as Appendix G. Once the deed notices are recorded, a Remedial Action Permit Soil application will be submitted to the NJDEP to modify the existing Soil Remedial Action Permit number RAP Following issuance of the Soil RAP by the NJDEP, the LSRP for IA-10 will issue a Soil RAO for IA-10. Groundwater will be addressed separately from this Soil RAR. 5.9 Remedial Action Costs The total cost for the implementation of the remedial actions in IA-10N was approximately $19,174, of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

46 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The NJDEP-approved RAW for IA-10N included removal, treatment and off-site disposal of soil and fill materials with PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or greater and engineering and institutional controls. The remedial activities and selected remedial measures were completed in IA-10N from August 2015 to January 2017, in accordance with the approved IA-10N RAW, IA-10N Reuse Letter and IA-10N RAW Modification. The PCB-impacted soil and fill material was excavated, treated and transported off-site for proper disposal and excavated areas were backfilled with certified-clean and alternative fill material. Following the removal of impacted soils, an engineering control consisting of six-inches of asphalt was verified to cover the entirety of IA-10N; therefore, no further remedial action is recommended for soils and fill material in IA-10N. Following NJDEP approval of this IA-10N RAR, and approval of a Remedial Action Permit for soils, a soils only RAO letter will be issued for the northern portion of IA-10 by the LSRP. 25 of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

47 7.0 REFERENCES NJDEP 2012 N.J.A.C. 7:26E Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, date last amended May 7, NJDEP 2013 NJDEP s Coordination of NJDEP and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) PCB Remediation Policies. March 1, 2013 NJDEP 2014a to Ms. Dawn Pompeo of TRC. Re: Roche GIN submitted November 19, 2013 requesting new ISRA and PI numbers for IA-10. January 7, NJDEP 2015a NJDEP s Fill Material Guidance for SRP Sites, Version 3.0 (April 2015). NJDEP 2015b NJDEP s Technical Guidance on the Capping of Sites Undergoing Remediation. July 14, TRC 1998 PA/RCRA Facility Assessment Report. Prepared for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. by TRC, May TRC 2011 Initial Receptor Evaluation for Hoffman-La Roche Inc. by TRC. February TRC 2012a Remediation Road Map for the Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. September 17, TRC 2012b Site-Wide Health and Safety Plan, Prepared for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. by TRC. November TRC 2012c Quality Assurance Project Plan, Prepared for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. by TRC. November TRC 2013a No Further Action (NFA) Summary Report for AOCs in Investigative Area (IA)- 10, Prepared by TRC. July 3, TRC 2013b Soil Remedial Investigation Report for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. December 19, TRC 2014a Investigative Area (IA) 10 - Northern Portion - Feasibility Study for Development of Soil Response Actions for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. December 2, TRC 2014b Site-Wide Receptor Evaluation Update for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. April 30, of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

48 TRC 2015a Investigative Area (IA) 10 Northern Portion Soil Remedial Action Workplan for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. April 24, TRC 2015b Response to IA-10 Northern Portion Remedial Action Workplan Verbal Comments for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. July 2, 2015 TRC 2016a Resuse of Site Soils in IA-10 North for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. July 6, TRC 2016b Soil Remedial Action Workplan Modification Investigative Area (IA) 10 North for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Facility, Prepared by TRC. October 28, of 27 TRC Project No IA10N RAR - Final

49 FIGURES

50 NUTLEY SITE 1 MILE RADIUS AROUND FACILITY IA-10 NORTHERN PORTION SITE BOUNDARY HOFFMANN - LA ROCHE INC. FACILITY,

51 FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS 104 ISABELLA STREET AOC 66 IA-1 FORMER AOC 66 EXTENT FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE AOC 179 AOC 53 FORMER BUILDING 103 AOC 131 SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS FORMER BUILDING 106 AOC 22 AOC 186 AOC 54A FORMER BUILDING 104

52 FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE 104 ISABELLA STREET FORMER BUILDING 106 FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE FORMER BUILDING 104 SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS AREA A 6,194 CY OF EXCAVATION, TREATMENT, AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL PROTECT EXISTING HIGH-PRESSURE GAS LINE AREA D 1,636 CY OF EXCAVATION, TREATMENT, AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL X X X X AREA B 883 CY OF EXCAVATION, TREATMENT, AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL AREA C 217 CY OF EXCAVATION, TREATMENT, AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL FORMER BUILDING 103 FILL AREA CONTENTS EXTEND OFF SITE SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FILL AREA CONTENTS PROTECT EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERT SOURCE: MODIFIED AFTER THE OSIRIS GROUP, INC. DRAWING NE-STE-S29215,REV 1.0

53 OFF SITE FORMER DUMP CONTENTS EXTEND PX4 PX3 PX2 PX1 PX35 PX39A PX38A IA10N-TT1 PX39B PXB1 PX38 PXB4 PX26 IA10N-TT1-6 PX39 PXB22 IA10N-TT1-5 PXB24 PX5 PX40 PX36 PXB3 PX23 IA10N-TT1-4 PXB2 PX25 PXB8 PCB-N IA10N-TT1-3 PX37 PXB23 PXB7 PX6 IA10N-TT1-2 PX24 PCB-E PCB-W PCB-B PXB5 PX22 PCB-S PXB25 SU PX41 IA10N-TT1-1 SP PXB6 PX28 PXB10 PX7 PXB27 PX33 PX19 PXB12 IA10N-TT2-1 PX34 O F FO R M ER IA10N-PRA7-1 IA10N-TT2-3 D U M P PX9 PXB14 AREA A T IA10N-TT2-2 PX8 PX18 IA10N-PRA10-1 IA10N-TT2-4 IA10N-TT2 PXB21 TE IA10N-PRA8-1 PX32 PXB13 EX N IA10N-PRA8-2 PX27 PX ISABELLA STREET D PXB26 PXB9 PX20 TE IA10N-PRA9-1 PXB11 PX21 EC PXB16 PX17 C O N IA10N-PRA7-2 TE N TS AREAS OF DAMAGED ASPHALT PX10 PXB15 IA10N-PRA6-1 PXB18 PX16 IA10N-PRA6-2 PX11 IA10N-PRA4-1 PXB17 IA10N-PRA3-2 IA10N-PRA3-1 IA10N-PRA4-2 PXB19 PX15 PX12 PX14 E FORM IA10N-PRA3-3 IA10N-TT3-2 PX29 IA10N-TT3-1 PX13 PX31 IA10N-TT5-1 IA10N-TT5-2 P CON R DUM IA10N-TT5-3 IA10N-TT3-3 IA10N-PRA2-1 IA10N-TT5 PXB20 IA10N-TT3 IA10N-PRA3-4 IA10N-PRA3-6 PXB28 IA10N-PRA2-2 PX30 IA10N-PRA3-5 PXB29 S EXT TENT PX43 IA10N-TT4-1 IA10N-TT4 PX44 IA10N-TT4-2 IA10N-TT4-3 F END O IA10N-TT6-1 IA10N-TT6 F SITE IA10N-TT7-1 IA10N-TT7 IA10N-B-PX1 IA10N-B-PX2 IA10N-B-PX3 IA10N-B-PX4 AREA B IA10N-D-PX1 IA10N-B-PXB3 IA10N-D-PX2 IA10N-B-PXB2 IA10N-B-PX10 IA10N-B-PX5 IA10N-B-PXB1 IA10N-D-PX3 IA10N-D-PXB1 IA10N-B-PXB4 IA10N-B-PXB5 IA10N-B-PX9 IA10N-D-PXB2 IA10N-D-PX15 IA10N-B-PX8 IA10N-D-PX17 IA10N-D-PX4 IA10N-D-PX16 AOC 53 IA10N-D-PX19 IA10N-D-PXB7 IA10N-D-PX13 IA10N-D-PXB3 IA10N-D-PXB5 AREA D IA10N-D-PX12 AOC 179 IA10N-C-PX1 IA10N-D-PXB8 IA10N-D-PXB4 FORME IA10N-D-PX5 IA10N-C-PX2 IA10N-C-PXB1 IA10N-C-PX3 R DUM IA10N-C-PXB2 IA10N-D-PXB6 IA10N-D-PX11 P CONT IA10N-C-PX6 IA10N-D-PXB9 IA10N-D-PX6 IA10N-D-PX18 IA10N-C-PX5 IA10N-C-PX4 IA10N-D-PX10 IA10N-D-PXB11 AREA C IA10N-D-PXB10 ENTS E IA10N-D-PX7 IA10N-D-PX8 XTEND FORMER BUILDING 103 IA10N-D-PX9 TE OFF SI SOURCE: MODIFIED AFTER THE OSIRIS GROUP, INC. DRAWING NE-STE-S29215,REV 1.0 IA10N-B-PX6 IA10N-B-PX7 IA10N-D-PX14 FORMER BUILDING 106 SUSPECTED EXTENT OF FORMER DUMP CO AOC 186 NTENTS