Five-Year Review Report

Second Five-Year Review Report for

Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Cities of Millville and Vineland

Cumberland County, New Jersey

March 2014

PREPARED BY:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

Walter E. Mugdan Superfund Division Director U.S . EPA, Region 2

New York, New York

Date:

/9 Zo/V /

24676 5

llllllllllllllllllllll lll/lll/llll/l lll/

Five-Year Review Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... .iii

Five-Year Review Summary Form ............................................................................................ iv

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Site ChronQlogy ..................................................................................................................... 1

III. Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 Physical Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 1 Land and Resource Use ...................................................................................................... 2 History of Contamination ............................................... : ................................................... 3 Initial Response .................................................................................................................. 3 Basis for Taking Action ...................................................................................................... 3

IV. Remedial Actions .................................................................................................................. 4 Remedy Selection ............................................................................................................... 4 Remedy Implementation ..................................................................................................... 5 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance ................................................................ 7 Institutional Controls ..................................................... : ................................................... 8

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ....................................................................... 8

VI. Five-Year Review Process .................................................................................................. 9 Administrative Components ............................................................................................... 9 Community Involvement .................................................................................................... 9 Document Review .............................................................................................................. 9 Data Review ....................................................................................................................... 9 Site Inspection .................................................................................................................. 11

VII. Technical Assessment .......................................................................................................... 11 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? .......... , .. 11 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? .............................................................................. , ........................................... · ...... 12 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? ........................................................................................... 13 Technical Assessment Summary ....................................................................................... 13

1

VIII. Issues ................................................................................................................................... 13

IX. Protectiveness Statement ................................................................................................... 13

X. Next Review ......................................................................................................................... 13

XI. Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 14

Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events

Table 2 · - Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Remedial Action Levels

Figure 1 - Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Location

Appendix 1- EPA's Administrative Determination

Appendix 2 - Conservation Easement

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A five-year review for the Nascolite Corporation Superfund site, located in the cities of Millville and Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey, was completed in March 2014. The remedy selected in the Records of Decision for the site included on-site treatment of contaminated soils, provision of an alternate water supply for potentially affected residents, and remediation of groundwater contamination. The alternate water supply, which provides public water to residences on Doris Avenue, was constructed in 1989. As a result of information obtained during the remedial design for the soil portion of the remedy, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences which modified the remedy for the contaminated soils from on-site treatment to off­site treatment and disposal. The site achieved construction completion status in 2003. The triggering action for this review was the signing of the first five-year review which EPA completed on August 28, 2008.

Based upon a review of the Records of Decision, the Explanation of Significant Differences, the Preliminary Close Out Report, a number of reports prepared by a contractor and inspections of the site, it has been concluded that the remedies at the site function as intended by the Records of Decision as modified by the Explanation of Significant Differences and protect human health and the environment in the short term. Potential impacts of contaminated soil were addressed through removal of the contaminated soil. The groundwater contamination is being addressed through an on-site remediation system. Overall, the groundwater contaminant concentrations have been declining or stable since initiation ·of the operation of the groundwater remediation system. Operation of the groundwater remediation system is ongoing. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a deed notice needs to be filed for the contamination on the Conrail property.

111

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION ]'

Site Name:

EPA ID:

Region: 2

I

NASCOLITE CORPORATION

NJD002362705

State: NJ City/County: Cities of Millville and Vineland/Cumberland

SITE STATUS 11

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs?

Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion?

Yes '

REVIEW STATUS I

Lead agency: EPA If "Other federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name: "." ,,, \_')

Author· name (federal or state Project Manager): Lawrence A. Granite, CHMM

Author· affiliation: EPA

Review period: August 2008 to March 2014

Date of site inspection: September 24, 2012

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 2

Triggering action date: August 28, 2008

Due date (five years rifler triggering action date): August 28, 2013

I

. Issues/Recommend~tions 1

II

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

01

IV

II II

..

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

I Issues and Recommend~~[dentified in the Five-Year Review: -OU(s): OU2 Issu gory: Institutional Controls

r-----· ISSUI

e Cate

e: Ani nstitutional control has not yet been implemented. ,..-·

Rec( >mmen dation: Draft a deed notice with Conrail and NJDEP.

Affect Current Affe Protectiveness Prot

No Yes

ure tess

ct Fut ective1

Implementing Oversight Party Milestone Date Party

EPA/State EPA March 31, 2017

.----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Operable Unit: ou 1

Protectiveness Statement:

Protectiveness Determination: Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable): NIA

The groundwater remedy at OU 1 is protective of human health and the environment. -----.-------------------~-----~----------------------------------------------------~ Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date

(if applicable): OU2 Short-term Protective NIA

Protectiveness Statement: The soil remedy at OU 2 protects human health and the environment in the short-term because the remedy has been completed and there is no known exposure pathway. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a deed notice for the contamination on the Conrail property needs to be filed.

e Protectiveness Statement! (if applicable)

Protectiveness Determination: Addt:ndum Due Date (if applicable): Short-term Protective NIA Protectiveness Statement: The remedies at the site protect human health and the environment in the short-term because the remedy has been completed and there is no known exposure pathway. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a deed notice for the contamination on the Conrail property needs to be filed.

v

I. Introduction

Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Cities of Millville and Vineland, New Jersey

Second Five-Year Review

This second five-year review for the Nascolite Corporation site, located in the cities of Millville and Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey, was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) review team headed by Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Lawrence Granite. The five-year review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of five-year reviews is to ensure that implemented remedies are protective of human health and the environment and that they function as intended by the decision documents. This document will become part of the site file.

The remedial action for the site was divided into two operable units (OUs): operable unit 1 (OU 1) addressed the contaminated groundwater, and operable· unit 2 (OU 2) addressed other contaminated source areas, such as buildings, soil and debris.

Construction of the groundwater remediation system under OU 1 was completed in 1996 and the system continues to operate. The OU 2 remedy was completed in 2003. The trigger for this second five-year review is the first five-year review which was signed by EPA on August 28, 2008.

II. Site Chronology

See Table 1 for site chronology.

III. Background

Physical Characteristics

The Nascolite Corporation site is located at the western end of Doris Avenue on the municipal boundary of the cities of Millville and Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey (see Figure 1). The Maurice River is located approximately one mile to the southwest of the site. The river runs north to south, feeding and draining the man-made Union Lake.

Currently, much of the site is underlain by clean remediation backfill. The deepest soil excavation performed during EPA's remedial action at the site was approximately 16 feet below ground surface.

1

The underlying geology at the site consists of alternating layers of sand and silt of the Cohansey Formation. The permeable zones include the "Upper Zone" extending to a depth of approximately 25 feet, "Zone A" from approximately 38 to 65 feet deep, and "Zone B" from approximately 80 to 120 feet deep. These permeable zones are separated by finer-grained deposits of silt and clay that restrict, to a degree, the vertical movement of water.

Wetlands are located in the southern portion of the site.

Land and Resource Use

The Nascolite property covers an area of about 17.5 acres. Seven dilapidated structures that were formerly occupied by the Nascolite Corporation were demolished as part of EPA's remedial action at the site.

Access to a groundwater remediation system at the site is limited by a gated fence. The remediation system includes groundwater extraction wells, underground conveyance piping to a treatment plant building, tanks and groundwater injection wells. In addition, an access road and groundwater monitoring wells are present.

Comail railroad tracks lie on the site's western border. The area surrounding the site is zoned for both residential and industrial use.

EPA signed an Administrative Determination in June 2011 which documented that certain parcels owned by the Nascolite Corporation were not considered by EPA to be part of the Nascolite Corporation Superfund site. These parcels, which largely consist of forested land, are hydrogeologically upgradient. It was anticipated that the Administrative Determination would facilitate land conservation and reuse. A copy ofEPA's Administrative Determination is attached to this five-year review report (See Appendix 1 ).

A conservation easement was placed on certain property owned by Nascolite Corporation. The easement, which was recorded by the Cumberland County Clerk's office in July 2011, was executed to NJDEP. The easement addressed two parcels: an approximately 12-acre parcel which was addressed by the Administrative Determination, and an approximately five-acre parcel that is considered to be ·part of the Superfund site. A copy of the conservation easement is attached to this five-year review report (See Appendix 2).

2

History of Contamination

The Nascolite Corporation operated between 1953 and 1980 at the site. It manufactured polymethyl methacrylate (MMA) plastic sheets. During the manufacture ofMMA, solid scrap acrylic, virgin MMA monomer and liquid waste MMA were used as raw materials. The scrap material was reclaimed through a depolymerization or "cracking" process, using a molten lead heat exchange furnace. Wastewaters from non-contact cooling water and other on-site sources were discharged to a ditch southwest of the plant along Conrail railroad tracks.

Initial Response

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an Administrative Order in February 1980 requiring the Nascolite Corporation to stop discharging wastewaters into the ditch. In September 1981, an Administrative Consent Order was signed, and the NJDEP's Division of Water Resources began in-depth investigations at the site. Sampling showed significant concentrations of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in groundwater. These findings led to the site being placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983.

EPA performed a removal action at the site from November 1987 to March 1988. It included removal of drums and storage tanks containing waste material at the site. EPA's removal action also included soi~ sampling. Twenty cubic yards (yd3

) of contaminated soil were excavated and 30 yd3 of asbestos insulation were removed from the abandoned buildings at the site. The wastes were transported off site for disposal at facilities which were acceptable to EPA. Fencing was installed at the site and a plastic tarpaulin was placed over soils contaminated with inorganic compounds.

Basis for Taking Action

Following the listing of the site on the NPL in 1983, EPA began a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. The risk assessment concluded that the groundwater underlying the site was contaminated, particularly with MMA, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and trichloroethene, and there was a potential for the contamination to migrate to downgradient potable wells. In addition, hazardous substances were found in the surface soils which provided an exposure pathway through dermal contact. The primary contaminant of concern in soils was lead. An environmental assessment was conducted at the site. Due to the high concentrations of metals in soils, it was determined that surface soils may pose a risk to burrowing animals.

3

IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Selection

At the conclusion ofthe initial RI/FS, both the NJDEP and EPA determined that a remedy could be selected for the contaminated groundwater at the site, but that additional data were necessary to assess remedial options for the contaminated soils. Therefore, the site was divided into two OUs: OU 1 addressed the contaminated groundwater, and OU 2 addressed other contaminated source areas, such as buildi!lgs, soil and debris.

On March 31, 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU 1. The ROD required the following actions:

• provision for an alternate water supply for potentially affected residents;

• groundwater extraction with on-site treatment and reinjection; and

• performance of additional studies to determine appropriate remedial measures for contaminated soil and on-site buildings.

A supplemental RI/FS was conducted in March 1988 to identify remedial alternatives for site soils and structures. On-site structures were in a dilapidated state and porJ;ions of them were contaminated with asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials, which were in a friable state. On June 28, 1991, EPA signed a ROD for OU 2. The major components of the selected remedy for OU 2 were:

• structure demolition including asbestos abatement with appropriate disposal;

• excavation and solidification/stabilization of unsaturated and wetlands soils contaminated above cleanup standards;

• replacement of solidified soils on the site;

• restoration of affected wetlands; and

• appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in September 2004 to explain a change to the remedy selected in the 1991 ROD. This change was related to that portion of the remedy which addressed the treatment of soil and was the result of information obtained subsequent to the 1991 ROD. The other components of the remedy, selected in the 1991 ROD did not change.

4

The 1991 ROD called for excavation and solidification/stabilization of unsaturated and wetlands soils contaminated above cleanup standards, with replacement of solidified soils on the site. The ROD anticipated that the majority of site soils would meet regulatory levels after treatment. However, the ROD also anticipated that there would be a volume of wetlands soils that would not be amenable to solidification/stabilization. The ROD stated that this volume would be. determined during field activities and that it would be transported for appropriate off-site treatment and disposal. The ROD further stated that localized areas of soil contaminated with organic compounds may be excavated and disposed of off site at an appropriate facility if they were determined to interfere with or be unaffected by the solidification/stabilization process. The ROD indicated that for cost estimation purposes, it was estimated that 1 0 percent of the contaminated soils would not be amenable to solidification/stabilization treatment and would have to be disposed of off site.

The ROD estimated that there were approximately 8,000 yd3 of contaminated soil at the site. The remedial design did not alter the aforementioned estimate. However, sampling performed in November and December 2000 and in July 2002, in anticipation of the remedial action, indicated that the volume of contaminated soil at the site was approximately 21,000 yd3 and that it was somewhat more widely distributed. In addition, the sampling indicated that soils were significantly contaminated with MMA, which was not anticipated. EPA also determined that it would be less economical to incur the costs associated with mobilizing and demobilizing a solidification/stabilization unit at the site than treating soil off site. With no solidified material remaining on site, operation and maintenance costs would not be required and there would be no need for institutional controls. For these reasons, EPA decided to address the contaminated soil by taking it off site for disposal with treatment as necessary, rather than treating and disposing of the soil on site.

EPA also re-examined the cleanup goals which were established in the 1991 ROD. EPA determined that the 500 parts per million (ppm) cleanup concentration for lead was no longer consistent with the EPA and NJDEP residential cleanup goal of 400 ppm. The goal for lead was changed to 400 ppm. As per the ROD, the cleanup goal for MMA was five ppm, and remained unchanged. With regard to other compounds, the action levels selected were the New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria (NJSCC) dated May 12, 1999.

Remedy Implementation

The alternate water supply, which provides potable water to residences on Doris A venue, was constructed in 1989 by two Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA.

The design of the groundwater remediation system was initially undertaken and funded by EPA. The design was subsequently completed by the PRPs under a Unilateral

5

Administrative Order with EPA oversight. The design of the groundwater remediation system was completed in June 1995. The PRPs began construction of the groundwater remediation system in September 1995 and completed the construction in August 1996. The system includes extraction with on-site treatment and reinjection of the treated effluent. The on-site treatment includes equalization, filtration, chemical precipitation and air stripping. Operation of the groundwater remediation syst.em is being performed by the PRPs and is ongoing. To date, more than 948 million gallons of groundwater have been treated at the site.

EPA did not have evidence linking the PRPs with lead, the contaminant identified in the OU 2 ROD as driving the OU 2 remedy. Therefore, the remedial design and remedial action for OU 2, soils and dilapidated structures, were funded by EPA. The remedial design was completed in February 1995. Remedial action funds became available in September 1998. ·

Under an Interagency Agreement (IA) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a contract for the demolition of the dilapidated structures was awarded to CA TI Inc. in October 1999. The demolition contractor mobilized to the site in November 1999. Seven dilapidated structures were demolished. This generated approximately 1,256 tons of material which were transported off site for disposal at facilities acceptable to EPA. The work also included asbestos abatement. The final inspection held in May 2000 determined that the work had been successfully completed.

Under the above-mentioned IA, USACE also awarded a contract to TN & Associates, Inc. in August 2002 for the remediation of the soil. In the second phase of the OU 2 remedial action, contaminated soil was excavated and sent off site for treatment and/or disposal. Construction activities began in December 2002 and were completed in September 2003. Despite the supplementary sampling performed in 2000 and 2002, additional quantities of contaminated soil were discovered during construction. A total of approximately 42,000 yd3 of contaminated soil were excavated and transported off site for treatment and/or disposal at facilities which were acceptable to EPA. The off-site facilities included Clean Earth of North Jersey, Inc. in South Kearny, New Jersey; G.R.O.W.S. Landfill in Morrisville, Pennsylvania; and Taylor County Landfill in Mauk, Georgia. Treatment technologies employed by the off-site facilities prior to landfilling included stabilization and chemical oxidation. Restoration activities were also completed.

The NJSCC provides three cleanup goals for compounds based on differing potential exposure pathways. Those pathways are residential direct contact, non-residential direct contact and impact to groundwater. With limited exceptions, the most stringent cleanup criterion for each compound was used. The exceptions included areas in which excavation could not be performed without compromising the integrity of the Conrail railroad tracks. The limits of excavation in these areas were coordinated with Conrail. These exceptions were documented in the 2004 ESD. Contamination levels left do not

6

pose an unacceptable risk under current and future exposure scenarios. However, the 2004 ESD noted that NJDEP requested the filing of a deed notice for the contamination on a small portion of the adjacent Conrail property.

In the northern area of the site, the soil contamination extended beneath the PRPs' shallow groundwater extraction system. As a result, approximately 16 well-points were removed during the soil remediation. The PRPs were not required to reinstall the aforementioned portion ofthe extraction system because EPA's extensive excavation of contaminated soil removed the source of the shallow groundwater contamination. However, EPA requested that the PRPs evaluate measures to improve the effectiveness of groundwater remediation at the site.

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance

The objective of the soil remedy was to eliminate the threat of direct contact with contaminants and to remove a source of groundwater contamination. There is no operation, maintenance or monitoring associated with this remedial action.

The groundwater remedy consists of extracting the contaminant plume, treating the contaminated groundwater on site and reinjecting the treated effluent back into the aquifer. The groundwater cleanup activities are conducted by the Nascolite PRP Group pursuant to the Partial Consent Decree in the matter of U.S.A. v. American Optical Corporation, et al., entered on April21, 1997. The PRP Group employs Brown and Caldwell, an environmental engineering and consulting firm with an office in Upper Saddle River, New Jer~ey, to coordinate the ongoing groundwater cleanup activities. Oversight ofthe Nascolite PRP Group is performed by EPA. The cleanup activities include monitoring of the groundwater extraction wells which are covered by an approved Operation and Maintenance Manual. The groundwater is treated to meet federal and state discharge levels identified by the state in its March 21, 1996 New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Groundwater (NJPDES-DGW) Permit Equivalent for the Nascolite Corporation site. The NJPDES-DGW Permit Equivalent also requires certain groundwater monitoring wells at the site to be sampled on either a quarterly or annual basis. The cost of the groundwater cleanup activities is paid for by the PRP Group.

Operation of groundwater extraction wells EW-4 and EW-3 were suspended in May 2004 and August 2006, respectively. Analysis of water samples determined that remedial action levels were anticipated to be reached without extraction and treatment at these locations. The improved quality .of the groundwater extracted from EW-4 and EW-3 did not justify their continued operation. EPA requested that EW -4 and EW-3 be maintained so that they could be readily returned to service if warranted by any subsequent sampling results. Subsequent sampling results have not indicated the need to return either the EW -4 or EW-3 extraction well to service. At groundwater extraction well EW-1, the pump failed and the well screen became clogged on several occasions. In order to maintain

7

protectiveness, operation of EW -1 was discontinued and groundwater extraction well EW-1R was installed nearby. EW-1R commenced operation on May 20,2011. The remaining groundwater extraction wells, EW-1R and EW-2, continue to operate and contain the remaining contaminant plume.

Institutional Controls

A Classification Exception Area (CEA) is a reliable institutional control in accordance with the requirements of the NJDEP. It is an area that controls where and what type of groundwater wells can be installed. EPA's remedy for the site does not call for a CEA. However, as per NJDEP's request, EPA suggested the PRP Group complete the forms that were necessary to establish a CEA for the entire site. EPA further requested that the CEA cover the plume, not just the physical property boundary. The PRP Group complied, and NJDEP established the CEA in December 2007.

NJDEP requested the filing of a deed notice for the contamination on the Comail property. Comail has agreed in principle to proceed with the requested deed notice.

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

EPA's previous five-year review for the site, dated August 28, 2008, concluded that the implemented remedies for both OUs were considered protective in the short-term. In order for the OU 1 remedy to be protective in the long-term, the August 2008 five-year review called for collection of samples to rule out vapor intrusion for existing residents and for continued implementation of the OU 1 remedy. In addition, the five-year review recognized that Comail had not put a deed notice in place.

As recommended in the 2008 five-year review, the potential for vapor intrusion was evaluated based on concentrations of volatile contaminants in the sidegradient groundwater wells as well as subslab vapor sampling at an unoccupied residence on Doris A venue just east of the groundwater treatment plant. EPA Region 2' s Hazardous Waste Support Branch, and a contractor, performed sampling at the unoccupied residence in 2009. The only contaminants detected were acetone and toluene, and they were detected far below any concentrations of concern for both subslab and ambient air. Sidegradient wells MW -6S and MW -1 OS were sampled in 2010 and were non-detect for all VOCs analyzed. Therefore, there is no evidence that the vapor intrusion pathway is a concern.

The August 2008 five-year review called for the filing of a deed notice for the contamination on the Comail property. EPA and Comail are in discussions regarding the filing of this deed notice.

8

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The five-year review team included Lawrence Granite (EPA-RPM), Robert Alvey (EPA­Geologist) and Rebecca Ofrane (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor).

Community Involvement

EPA's RPM, Lawrence Granite, called representatives of the City of Millville's Engineering Department and the City of Vineland's Health Department in June 2012 to inform them about the planned five-year review. Neither representative identified any concerns regarding the site. When this five-year review is completed, copies will be sent to the representatives of the aforementioned departments. EPA also plans to send a copy of the completed five-year review to a local site repository.

Document Review

The documents, data, and information which were reviewed for the five-year review are summarized in Section XI at the end of this document.

Data Review

Monitoring results indicate that the groundwater portion ofth~ remedy continues to contain and remediate contaminated groundwater on site. Overall, the contaminant concentrations within the groundwater contaminant plume have been declining or stable.

The PRP Group is performing the groundwater remediation at the site with EPA oversight. The activities include operation of the groundwater remediation system and groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. Groundwater monitoring wells are sampled in accordance with the NJPDES-DGW Permit Equivalent for the site and analyzed for organic compounds and metals. Groundwater is sampled using EPA's low-flow (low-stress) sample collection technique except when there is an insufficient quantity of groundwater in the well to allow for this technique.

The groundwater Remedial Action Levels for the Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site are provided in Table 2. Impacts to groundwater from the site soils were reduced following the completion of the excavation actions. There have been further decreases in contaminant concentrations as a result of the groundwater extraction operations.

9

The contaminants that were above EPA action levels over the last five-year review period include benzene, ethylbenzene, TCE, vinyl chloride, BEHP, aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead and manganese. Aluminum and iron are common constituents of the aquifer in this area, and have come to be expected at these concentrations. Peaks in benzene and ethylbenzene concentrations may be primarily attributable to off-site sources such as a gasoline spill at a nearby facility. A trend analysis of benzene concentrations in monitoring well MW -11 S indicates a declining trend. Concentrations of ethyl benzene in monitoring well MW-12S, however, indicate an increasing trend. The groundwater from both locations is captured and treated by the extraction wells.

MW-115 BENZENE 10

~ ~ ~ -........,.

60

'iO

40

ug/1

30

-Ill-BENZENE 20

10

0 00 "' "' "" "' 0 0 ~ 8 .... ..-< ..... ~

0 0 0 0 rl ~· o;-l

~· r1 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0 a a s s s "' ~ N N 2

N N N ....._ -- --- -- -- ::::.- ::::.-...... ..... ...... ...... ..... ~ ..._ -- --·· --· "-· -- --· "-. --· --"' N ... '-" 00 "' ... '-" 00 "' .,.

"' Date

MW-125 ETHYLBENZENE 300

250 ~

/'" 200

./' ug/1 150 ....

100

50 ~ETHYLBENZENE

0 en en en 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N N N N N N N N N N N N ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ r-- en .... .... ('() Ll'l r-- en .... .... ('() Ll'l r--.... .... Date

10

Contaminant trends for arsenic at MW -11 S and MW -11 D also were declining. The maximum detected concentrations at any monitoring well during the last five year period for acetone, cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene, trans-1 ,2-dichloroethene, styrene, and toluene were all below action levels. The remaining contaminants are also showing stable to downward concentration trends over the review period, and the remedial action objective for groundwater remains valid. Monitoring will continue to be conducted to assess the progress of the groundwater remedial action at the site.

One issue that has been raised by the PRP Group is the possibility of groundwater contaminants, such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether, originating from off-site sources unrelated to the Nascolite Corporation site. EPA will consider this matter as it reviews groundwater sampling results for the site.

Site Inspection

The RPM, EPA Geologist, and EPA Human Health Risk Assessor visited the site on September 24, 2012. Conditions observed indicate that the site is being properly operated and maintained. Further, the PRP Group staffs the groundwater treatment plant at the site five days per week. The PRP Group also checks the treatment plant every evening, and twice per day on weekends and holidays, via a remote system. ·

VII. Technical Assessment

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

Yes, the remedy is functioning as intended by the RODs and ESD. The OU 1 (groundwater) remedy consists of an on-site groundwater extraction and treatment system which has been in operation since 1996. A Classification Exception Area (CEA) was implemented for the plume area in 2007, and all nearby businesses and residents along Doris A venue are on a municipal water supply. The original groundwater extraction system consisted of a well-point. system in the Upper Zone, one extraction well in the underlying Zone A and three extraction wells in the deeper Zone B. Since then, the Upper Zone extraction system was discontinued (2003), and two extraction wells in Zone B were removed from service (EW-4 in 2004 and EW-3 in 2006). In 2011, Zone A well EW-1 was replaced with EW-1R, leaving EW-1R and EW-2 as the active extraction wells. Comparison of influent and effluent concentrations shows that upon reinjection, all contaminants are non-detect or below any action levels. OU 2 addressed soils and on-site structures through a 1991 ROD and a 2004 ESD. Remedial actions were completed in 2003, and included demolition of all dilapidated structures, and off-site treatment and disposal of soils (the original remedy was for in-situ stabilization of soils, but was updated to off-site disposal through the ESD). The site is also protected by a locked perimeter fence that is in good condition. A deed notice has yet to be completed for contamination that remained on Conrail property due to inaccessibility during excavation.

11

The contaminants found on the Conrail property (antimony, PCBs, BEHP, MMA) are above residential ARARs, but below non-residential standards, except for MMA which did not have a promulgated cleanup standard (five ppm was selected at the time of the ROD and is considered protective of residential direct contact). The filing of the deed notice would aid in preventing exposure in this area, though it is not expected that this area would be developed residentially in the near future. The remedy continues to prevent direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soils.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

The exposure assumptions and toxicity values that were used to estimate the potential cancer risks and non-cancer hazards in the risk assessment followed the general risk assessment practice at the time and are still valid. Soil cleanup levels were based on risk driven by lead in soils, with an original cleanup goal of 500 ppm, which was updated to 400 ppm in the ESD. Post-excavation sampling confirmed that soils meet this criterion. The cleanup levels remain protective.

The 1988 ROD selected extraction and treatment to restore groundwater to drinking water standards. Contaminants included both volatile and inorganic compounds such as MMA, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, trichloroethene and lead. The cleanup levels remain the more stringent of the federal and state drinking water standards. These standards are considered protective.

The remedial objective for groundwater is to restore groundwater quality to levels consistent with drinking water quality. The remedial action objectives for soils were to prevent direct exposure and prevent groundwater contamination. These goals are still valid.

As recommended in the 2008 five-year review, the potential for vapor intrusion was evaluated based on concentrations of volatile contaminants in the sidegradient groundwater wells as well as subslab vapor sampling at an unoccupied residence on Doris A venue just east of the groundwater treatment plant. EPA Region 2' s Hazardous Waste Support Branch, and a contractor, performed sampling at the unoccupied residence in 2009. The only contaminants detected were acetone and toluene, and they were detected far below any concentrations of concern for both subslab and ambient air. Sidegradient wells MW -6S and MW -1 OS were sampled in 2010 and were non-detect for all VOCs analyzed. Therefore, there is no evidence that the vapor intrusion pathway is a concern. Groundwater contaminant concentrations in this area remain consistent and these vapor intrusion conclusions remain valid.

12

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

Based on the evaluation of the potential human exposures at the site, there is no new information that has been developed that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedies.

Technical Assessment Summary

The soil remedy was performed in accordance with the June 1991 ROD as modified by the ESD. The groundwater portion of the remedy continues to contain and remediate contaminated groundwater on site.

VIII. Issues

Affects Recommendations Protectiveness Party Oversight Milestone Issue and

Responsible Agency Date (YIN) Follow-up Actions

Current Future An IC has Draft a deed notice EPA/NJDEP EPA March 31, No not yet with Conrail and 2017 been NJDEP. implemented

IX. Protectiveness Statement

The groundwater remedy at OU ,1 protects human health and the environment.

The soil remedy at OU 2 protects human health and the environment in the short-term because the remedy has been completed and there is no known exposure pathway. In order for the remedy to ,be protective in the long-term, a deed notice for the contamination on the Conrail property needs to be filed. (

The remedies at the site protect human health and the environment in the short-term. There is no known exposure pat]:lway. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a deed notice for the contamination on the Conrail property needs to be filed.

X. Next Review

The next five-year review for the Nascolite Corporation site is required in 2019, five years from the date ofthis review.

13

Yes

XI. Bibliography for Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site

- Records ofDecision, EPA, March 1988 and June 1991

- Administrative Order, Index No. II-CERCLA-00115, EPA, September 1990

- New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge to Groundwater Permit Equivalent, NJDEP, March 1996

- Request for Approval of a Proposed Settlement in the Nascolite Corporation, Millville and Vineland, NJ Superfund Site, EPA, September 1996

- Partial Consent Decree in the matter of U.S.A. v. American Optical Corporation, et al., Apri11997

- Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report for the Nascolite Corporation Site, EPA, September 2003

- Explanation of Significant Differences, EPA, September 2004

- Remedial Action Report, TN & Associates, Inc., December 2004

- Final Groundwater Classification Exception Area Submittals, HydroQual, Inc., October 2007 and December 2007

- Five-Year Review Report, EPA, August 2008

- Administrative Determination, EPA, June 2011

- Memorandum from Rebecca Ofrane, EPA Risk Assessor, February 2013

- Communications with Robert Alvey, EPA Geologist

- Monthly Progress Reports and Semi-Annual Reports prepared by Brown and Caldwell

- EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews

14

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date(s)

The Nascolite Corporation ope~ated at the site. 1953-1980

Nascolite Corporation site listed on National Priorities List. 1983

A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was performed. 1984-1988

EPA performed a removal action that addressed drums and storage tanks 1987-1988 containing waste material at the site.

EPA issued a ROD which embodied EPA's remedy selection process for OU 1. 1988

EPA conducted a supplemental RI/FS to identify remedial alternatives for site 1988-1991 soils, debris, and structures.

An alternate water supply, which provides potable water to residences on Doris 1989 A venue, was constructed by two PRPs under an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA.

EPA signed a ROD for OU 2. 1991

The PRP Group constructed the groundwater remediation system at the site. 1995-1996

Groundwater remediation conducted by the PRP Group with EPA oversight. 1997-the present

EPA demolished and disposed of the dilapidated structures at the site. 1999-2000

Under an IA with the USACE; a remedial action contract for the cleanup of the 2002 contaminated soil at the site was awarded.

Cleanup of contaminated soils at the site was completed. 2003

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences which documented 2004 changes made to the remedy for the contaminated soil.

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

EPA issued a Five-Year Review Report for the site. 2008

EPA signed an Administrative Determination which documentea that certain 2011

parcels owned by the N ascolite Corporation were not considered by EPA to be

part of the site.

Table 2- Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Groundwater Remedial Action Levels

-contaminant Action Level (uj1L) I

Methyl Methacrylate 560 Acetone 700

Benzeme 1

Carbon Disulfide 11 1;4-Dichlorobenzene 0.6-60 ·'

Cis-1, 2-Dich loroethene 10

Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100

Ethyl benzene 700

Styrene 100

Trichloroethene 1

Toluene 1000

Vinyl chloride 2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6

4:-Methylphenol 180 :

Aldrin 0.04 ''

.4;4-DDT 0.10

2,4-Dimethylphenol 100

Aluminum 200 /

Arsenic 8

cadmillm ; 4

Iron 300

Lead 10

Manganese 50

&EPA

Monitoring

Extraction

Reinjection

US EPA Region 2 Map Created 121612013

Figure 1 Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site Location

Millville and Vineland, NJ

Appendix 1

EPA's Administrative Determination

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION II

IN THE MATTER OF: Property at Block 7506, Lots 2 & 9, in the City of Vineland; a Portion of Block 234, Lot 60 in the City of Millville; and the Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended

BACKGROUND

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

(1) The Nascolite Corporation Superfund Site (Site) is located in the cities of Millville and Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey. The Site occupies an area of approximately 17.5 acres. Wetlands are located in the southern portion of the Site. A significant portion of the area is wooded. On behalf of the owner of the Property referenced above, Craig J. Huber, Esquire, requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delete a portion of the Site from the National Priorities List. In response, EPA has decided to issue this Administrative Determination. This Administrative Determination relates to the same parcels which were requested for deletion; i.e., Block 7506, Lot 2 which is located at South Main Road in Vineland; Block 7506, Lot 9 which is located at Doris Avenue in Vineland; and a portion of Block 234, Lot 60 which is located at 517 Doris Avenue in Millville.

(2) On March 31, 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) which selected a remedy to address contaminated ground water at the Site. The ROD required the following actions: provision for an alternate water supply for potentially affected residents; ground water extraction with on-site treatment and reinjection; and performance of additional studies to determine appropriate remedial measures for contaminated soil and on-site buildings. On June 28, 1991, EPA issued a second ROD which addressed buildings, soil and debris at the Site. The 1991 ROD required: structure demolition including asbestos abatement with appropriate disposal; excavation of contaminated soils; and

appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.

(3) The alternate water supply, which provides potable water to residences on Doris Avenue, was constructed in 1989 by two Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. The design of the ground water remediation system for the Site was initially undertaken and funded by EPA, but was subsequently completed by PRPs under a Unilateral Administrative Order with EPA oversight. The PRPs began construction of the ground water remediation system in September 1995 and completed the construction in August 1996. Operation of the ground water remediation system is being performed by the PRPs, with EPA oversight, and is ongoing. Demolition of dilapidated structures at the Site was undertaken and funded by EPA. Seven dilapidated structures were demolished. The work also included asbestos abatement. A final inspection held in May 2000 determined that the work had been successfully completed. Similarly, remediation of the contaminated soils at the Site was undertaken and funded by EPA. The aforementioned remediation activities began in December 2002 and were completed in September 2003. EPA issued a Preliminary Close Out Report and a Five-Year Review Report for the Site on September 30., 2003 and August 28, 2008, respectively.

DEFINITIONS

(4) For purposes of this document, "information" or "conditions" known to EPA shall mean that information and those conditions known to EPA on the date this document is issued by EPA.

(5) The term "response" or "response action(s)" shall have the meanings set forth in Section 101(25) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601(25), as amended.

FINDINGS

(6) Based upon information and conditions known to EPA, certain property, being the entirety of Lots 2 and 9, Block 7506, in Vineland, and a portion of Lot 60, Block 234, in Millville, ·as depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto (the Property), is not considered by EPA to be part of the Site.

(7) Based on information and conditions known to EPA, including sampling results submitted by the PRPs as a part of the ground water remediation, and other information submitted to EPA under

cover of a letter dated January 7, 2009, from Craig J. Huber, Esquire, EPA is not aware of the presence at the Property of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which have resulted in a release or a threatened release under CERCLA which would require a response action at the Property.

DETERMINATION

Therefore, EPA has determined that:

(8) Based on the above findings, no response activities will be performed at the Property pursuant to either ROD, nor does EPA anticipate any future response actions to be taken at the Property other than as specified below.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

(9) Nothing herein contained shall restrict or prohibit EPA from requiring future access to the Property or taking any response actions if new information becomes available, or from pursuing any claims permitted under CERCLA or any other applicable statute, rule or regulation.

(10) Nothing herein implies that the responsibilities of the Nascolite PRP Group pursuant to the Partial Consent Decree in the matter of U.S.A. v. American Optical Corporation, et al., entered on April 21, 1997, have diminished.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT.ECTION AGENCY REGION II

Signature:

~walter E. Mugdan, Director l) Emergency an~emedial Response

~Cf·cfttt~ ()~~'it W11

Division Approved:

Date:

~

" ........ ~

;: ~ ~ ;:

~ X ~

~

-­_____ .,...., ... 46'C

.":~~.h;:;:T, .. ":I::::r.::-.-lllloiiQI'

.-. - I

IILOCA' Ill•

"''' ~'(#MI.

Block 7506 Lot 2 = 11.96+/- Acres

----- -----

GIW'HIC SCALE .,. .,.

-""· , .. ~ ............ ~~ .... .., .• ,T/

~-lt.M1

NOTE:S: 1. --~-.l~Cll ~ ~.OOVV4..--rt

=~-.~.--=-r--·-­MD--1fa& *«N* --"---.. ·-~ •~Ctr..O:..no.rt..-r~IWI:J#IGfrN.II;Q.---t~~~:U:.'?'~ .,....., _,,.......,. ....... .....-;. • ._, .. ...,.WDIIDCP .. Waar4CJC'I' ~ l'lMC' ~

... ..._. .. ., __ ..,_... .... t.:r:"~ ==-===---=-- ... ~~ .. ...,. ~·'- ..... u.u. Olr., ..................... .,. ....._,.._...._....,-. --- 01' SIIIMY BlOCK 234, LOTS 10 .. il

CITY OF loiU.W.U: BLOCK 1121, LOT 2

CITY OF "'NfUHO ~ CWHTI', N(.W ~ ---- ..

.•

Appendix 2

Conservation Easement

.Ns£ ARCHER&: GREINER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CRAlG J. HUBER

Larry Granite

ONE CENTENNIAL SQUARE HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-0968

856-795-2 I 21 FAX 856-795-0574

www.archerlaw.com

July 20, 2011

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region II, 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866

RE: Former Nascolite Superfund Site Conservation Easement

Dear Larry:

Ernail Address: r buber@ntbtrlaw .com

Dirrct Di•l: (856) 354-JOSO

As discussed on the telephone, I am forwarding to your attention a copy of the Deed of" Conservation Easement which was placed on certain portions of the property owned by Nascolite in both Millville and Vineland, New Jersey. The Conservation Easement was executed to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Block 7506, Lot2 which was fonnerly part of the Nascolite Superfund Site is covered by the Conservation Easement. Additionally, Block 234/Lot 61 in the City ofMillville which is sti11 contained within the Nascolite Superfund Site is also covered by the Conservation Easement.

A copy of the document is enclosed for your records. Again, I wish to thank you and your office for your assistance with the issuance of the Administrative Determination which confinned that certain uncontaminated portions of the property owned by my client the Nascolite Corporation were not part of the Nascolite Superfund Site.

PR/N<. "/'. rtlN 01-F/CF: Fl.I~/INGTON U/-NCI:: /'111/.AVJ:/.I'JIU UNKE. WilMINGTON OFFICF. GWRCiF.TOWN OFFICE NEW YOR.IC OH7Ct: 1/ACKENSAC/C UNJC£ 700 Aluand~r Patk J1laUOne One Libefc)' Plilee r Jlnd Floot lOO OthlwliJ- Aveaue 9 East Mukd Street l Pmn Plaza ll pr.,b.\n Sued, ~ui1e Hl

Su1te 11.>2 I S\-e Route 12. Suilc 20 I 1650 Marht Str~ SsNt' 11'10 PO Bo•971 Suue UOO Cofolfl Plaza Suu.th. Wnt Wi"l l'nncClua, NJ 01~40 flerrUnaton, NJ Oa12lrl722 Ph&lad•lphia, P,\ !IUOt-7)9) W•!minato•. Df. 19801 Gtortecown, DE 19947 New Yorlt, NY 10111 ll>•k.,.saclt, Nl 07cilll· 709S

P o09-SS<J-)700 P qOI-788·9100 P 21~-VOJ-JJOO P l0l·7n.4UO l'·l02·1SI-llll P 212·29l-4QII P ZOI·Hl-6000 I' b09->IO·OUS I r •oa-788· 71H F 111·•63-'»111 F 101-1n.nsz F-102-ISI-1161 f 21 2·619-4161 f 201·1•1·6611

Larry Granite July 20,2011 Page2

Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the foregoing.

CJH/bp Encl. cc: John Pierson, Esquire (w/o encl.)

694S802vl

~L .~HtisER

RECORDING INFORMATION SHEET CUMBERLAND COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 60 WEST BROAD STREET

BRIDGETON NJ 08302

INSTRUMENT NUMBER: DOCUMENT TYPE :

392902 EASEMENT Official Use Only Return Address (for recorded documents)

ARCHER & GREINER ONEC~LSQUARE POBOXJOOO HADDONFIELD NJ 08033-0968

GLORIA NOTO, COUNTY CU~RX CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NJ

-. INSTRUMENT NUMBER No. Of Pages (excluding Summary Sheet) 12 392902

RECORDED ON Recordln1 Fee (excluding Transfo Tax) $140.00 JulyJ,2011 !0:06am ll00K:4083 PAGE:JI6

Realty Transfer Tax so.oo PMR

Amount Charged (Check # 30 1850) $143.00

Parcel Information Block

Lot

Fint Party Name NASCOLITE CORP INC

Second Party Name NEW JERSEY STATE OF

/ MAIL COPY Additional Information (Official Use Only)

NO COPY 1 ENVELOPE .:;

• 111101 mil IIIII IIIII IIm IIIIIIIIIIIR

ADDmONAL STAMPINGS

RECEIVED JUL 14 2011

APi1oFess~ GREJ~ CORfJORAT/oN

************************"****'"DO 1VOT RE.l/OVE TillS PAGE.***************************** COVER S/IEET (DOCUMENT SU,lJit-fARY FORM) IS PART OF CUMBERL-aND COUNTY FILING RECORD

********************RETAIN THIS PAGE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.*****************"**

------------·· -- -- -- --- ---- ------- . -

IJ.-;-

DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT

This Deed of Conservation Easement ("Easement"), made this Ol!J day of ~ 1 0, between Nascolite Corporation, Inc., ("Grantor"), having a former principal

place of business at ,SI7 Doris Avenue, City of Millville, New Jersey, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, having its principal place of business at 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ("Grantee").

Witnesseth:

Whereas, Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of real property that consists of approximately 24 acres of land, designated as Block 1121, Lot 2 (now Block 7506, Lot 2), in the City ofVineland, and Block 234, Lots 60 and 61, in the City ofMillville, on the tax maps of the cities of Vineland and Millville, respectively, County of Cumberland, State of New Jersey, and more particularly described in a metes and bounds description of the property attached to and made a part here of as Schedule A (the " Nascolite Property"); and

Whereas, a 17.27 -acre portion of the Property is the subject of this Easement, Block 1121, Lot 2 (now Block 7506, Lot 2) in the City of Vineland, and Block 234, Lot 61 in the City of Millville, shown on Schedule B, and· as more particularly described in a metes and bounds description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Schedule C, and is open, undeveloped land, free of any easements, with resource qualities that benefit the general public (the "Easement Property"); and

Whereas, the Easement Property has resource qualities that provide natural resource services to the benefit of the. general public by providing, among other such services, watershed protection, water quality protection, aquifer recharge potential, a variety of wildlife habitat r·conservation values"); and

Whereas, the qualities of the Easement froperty are further documented in an inventory of the Conservation Land 'dated ;('une .1)'1 ~

0~d attached hereto as Schedule B ("Present Condition Report"), which consists of reports, maps, photographs, and other documentation that the Grantor hereby represents provides an accurate representation of the Easement Property at the time of this grant and which is intended to serve as baseline information for monitoring compliance with the terms of this grant; and

Whereas, Grantor intends, as owner of the Easement Property, to convey to Grantee the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Easement Property in perpetuity; and

Whereas, this Easement is entered into in accordance with the New Jersey Conservation and Historic Preservation Restriction Act (N.J.A.C. 13:8B-1 et seq.), and shall be binding upon the Grantor its successors and assigns and upon the Grantee, its successors and assigns.

NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration ofthe execution by Grantee of a Consent Judgment, entered. on (Y\ ~ 3 1 20 \ \ , captioned "New Jersey Department of Environmenta) Protection. and· dministrator,New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund. v. Nascolite Corporation, Inc!', brought in the Superior Cowt of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Docket No. CUM-L-000696-07, for the settlement of the Grantee's claims against Grantor for natura1 resource injuries to ground water , the Grantor does hereby convey to the Grantee, a conservation easement in perpetuity, pursuant to the laws ofNew Jersey, for the exclusive purpose of assuring that the Conservation Values will be conserved and maintained forever and that uses oftbe Easement Property that are inconsistent with the Conservation Values are prohibited and will be prevented or corrected.

I. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Easement to assure that the Conservation Values ofthe Easement Property will be retained forever; to prevent any use of the Easement Property that will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values; and to encourage stewardship that is consistent with the terms of this Easement and provide for long term protection of the Conservation Values of the Easement Property.

II. Prohibited Aets. Any activity on or use of the Easement Property inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement is prohibited unless Grantor obtains the prior written consent of the Grantee to perfonn such activity or use. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited:

A. Subdivision and Development. Any new development or subdivision of the Easement Property is expressly prohibited.

B. Structures. Construction on the Easement Property of new structures, temporary or permanent is specifically prohibited. Construction of billboards and ceHular phone towers, golf courses, airstrips, helicopter pads, wind turbines and solar panels are expressly prohibited.

C. Mining. No topsoil, sand, gravel, loam, rock, or other minerals shall be deposited on, excavated, dredged, or removed from, the Easement Property.

D. Roads, Driveways and Impervious Cover. No portion of the Easement Property shall be covered with concrete, asphalt. oiled stone, or any other impervious paving material. No new roads or driveways may be constructed on the Easement Property.

2

E. Trash. No dumping or placing of trash or solid waste shall be permitted on the Easement Property.

F. Natural resource protection. No activity sha11 be permitted on the Easement Property that would be detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or soil conservation.

o~ Utilities and Rights of Way. Any new installations ofutilities, utility easements or grants of rights of way on the Easement Property are expressly prohibited.

rn. Rights of Grantor. The ownership rights of the Grantor extend to Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, and include, but are not limited to, the right to sell or otherwise transfer the Easement Property.

IV. Right of First Refusad. Grantor and its successors and assigns agree to give the Grantee a Right of First Refusal to purchase the Property, which right shall be of perpetual duration. The conditions of this Right shall be such that whenever the Grantor receives a written offer from a person or persons to purchase all or any part of the Property, and Grantor accepts the offer subject to this Right of First Refusal, the Grantor shall notify the Grantee via certified mail of the offer. Grantee may elect to purchase the Property at the offered price and upon such other terms and conditions not less favorable to the Grantor than those contained in the conditionally accepted offer. Grantee shall have 90 calendar days to elect to purchase the Property and will notify the Grantor by certified mail of such an election. The Right of First Refusal shall apply to all offers for interests in the Property.

V. Rights of Grantee. To accomplish the conservation purposes of this Easement the following rights are conveyed to the Grantee~

A. Enforcement. Grantee has the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Easement Property.

B. Inspection. Grantee and its agents shaH be pennitted access to, and have the right to enter upon, the Property for the purposes of inspection in order to enforce and assure compJhince with the terms and conditions of this Easement.

VI. Responsibilities of Grantor and Grantee not affected. Other than as specified herein, this Easement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on the Grantee, or in any way to affect any existing obHgations of the Grantor as owner of the Easement Property. This shall apply to:

A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Easement Property.

3

..

B. Upkeep and Maintenance. The Grantor, as owner of the Easement Property, shall continue to be solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Easement Property, to the extent it may be required by law. The Grantee shall have no obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Easement Property. Nothing in this Easement shall require the Grantor to take any action to restore the condition of the Easement Property after any Act of God or other event over which it had no control.

C. Liability and Indemnification. Grantor shall hold hannless, indemnifY, and defend Grantee and its, employees, agents, and contractors, and their successors and assigns from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, or claims including, without limitation, attorneys fees, arising from or in any way connected with injury to or the death of any person or physical damage to any property resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to, or occurring on or about, the Easement Property, regardless of cause, unless due solely to the negligence of any of the indemnified parties. Grantor's agreement to hold hannless and indemnifY Grantee shall not affect any statutory protections available to the Grantor under the Landowner's Liability Act, N.J.S.A 2A:42A-2, et seq.

VII. Remedies. The Grantee shall have the right to prevent and correct violations of the terms of this Easement. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and any failure on behalf by the Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of the Grantee of those rights. This shall be true regardless of the number of violations of the terms of this Easement by the Grantor that occur or the length oftime it remains unenforced. If the Grantee finds what it believes is a violation of the terms of this Easement, it may without limitation as to other available legal recourse, at its discretion take any of the following action:

A. Notice of Violation; Corrective Action. If Grantee determines that a violation of the terms of this Easement has occurred or is threatened, Grantee may give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand corrective action sufficient to cure the violation in accordance with a plan approved by the Grantee.

B. Injunctive Relief. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within 45 days after receipt of written notice from the Grantee, or under circumstances where the violation cannot reasonably be cured within a 45-day period, fails to begin curing such violation, or fails to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Easement, to enjoin ex parte the violation by temporary or permanent injunction, and to require the restoration of the Easement Property to the condition that existed prior to such injury. Grantor acknowledges that any actual or threatened failure to comply or cure will cause irreparable harm to the Grantee and that money damages will not provide an adequate remedy.

4

C. Damages. Grantee shall be entitled to recover damages for violation of the terms of this Easement or injury to any Conservation Values protected by this Easement, including, without limitation, damages for the loss of Conservation Values. Without limiting Grantors' liability, Grantee, in it sole discretion, may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Easement Property.

D. Costs of Enforcement. In any case where a court finds that a violation has occurred, all costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs and expenses of suit, and attorney's fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation of the Easement shall be borne by the Grantor.

VIII. _ Development Rights. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee all development rights or credits that are now or hereafter allocated to, implied, reserved or inherent in the Easement Property, and the parties agree that such rights are terminated and extinguished, and may not be used on or transferred to any portion of the Easement Property as it now or hereafter may be bounded or described, or to any other property adjacent or otherwise, nor used for the purpose of calculating permissible lot yield on the Easement Property or any other property.

lX. Grantor's Warranties.

A. Title. Grantor warrants good and sufficient title to the Easement Property, free from all encumbrances andhereby promises to defend the same against all claims that may be made against it. Grantor warrants the Easement Property to be free from all mortgages, liens, encumbrances, restrictions, covenants, and conditions.

B. Hazardous Substances. Grantor warrants no actual knowledge of the presence on the Property of any hazardous substance, as that term is defined at N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 b. Grantor hereby promises to defend and indemnify Grantee against all litigation, claims, demands, penalties, and damages , arising from or connected with any discharge of hazardous substances or violation of federal, state, or local environmental laws.

X. Amendment of Easement. This easement may be amended only with the written consent of Grantee and Grantor. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the purposes of this Easement and with the laws of the State of New Jersey and any regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws.

XI. Interpretation. This Easement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of New Jersey, resolving any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions so as to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes.

5

XII. Perpetual Duration. This Easement shall be a servitude rurming with the land in

perpetuity. Every provision of this Easement that applies to the Grantor or Grantee shall also

apply to their respective agents, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and all other successors as their interests may appear.

XIII. Notices. Any notices required by this Easement shall be in writing and shall be

personalty delivered or sent by first class mail, to Grantor and Grantee at the folJowing addresses,

unless a party has been notified of a change of address:

To Grantor: Craig Huber, Esq. Archer & Greiner One Centennial Square Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033

To Grantee: New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection c/o Administrator Office of Natural Resource Restoration P0Box404 501 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625

XIV. Throughout this Easeme~t, the singular shall irK:lude the plural, and the

masculine shall include the feminine unless the text indicates otherwise.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunder set his/her/their hand and seal on

the day and year first written above.

Otfi'D

STATE OF NF¥\1/ JER:SEY ) )

By:

ss.

17,er,s~ ,J: u...:. .. ~~ IHfrn•1 ,;., f;cr­f.,r Lvcrefit,. K. v; ft.,...,, S/.dvf.,.7 4,-J ~ $at:.tr1 !J,.se*'lif~ 4reua-hi.,.. [N arne] Grantor

'-rle&edl<J.d f · ~ Signature (7' '"'

Ttl E R.. E- 5'-tl .;T. H /71 N £ .S Print Full Name Signed Above

It TTt2 R NE Y 1/J El}-e T Title

6

..

COUNTY OF SuM I" tl )

On b«.z.;, 2gp, ~s,. J: 1-J:.,~e.G- personally appeared before me who I am satisfied is the person named in and who executed this Instrument and they acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the same as their act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein expressed, and that the full and actual consideration paid or to be paid for this easement as such consideration is defined in P.L. 1969, c49 is reflected in the Consent Judgment, dated

----,----:---" referenced above.

11' j'a~~ C:.. .~\-.~So~ \"-\~......_q,c--'\ ~ f~ r'lAf-Yl-- ,... .. w -~~ ~"' c ........... ,.

Attachments: llllr •••• ,_a wcshll\t Schedule A - Metes and Bounds De~tRMreduced survey Schedule B - Present Condition Report

c ~- }t\J6~

Attx M_<i M li>W

8~\-e... 0 \2- l\>e,w Se<;~

7

May 5, 2011 Block 234, Lot 61 City of Millville Block 7506, Lot 2 City of Vineland

~o·H~ 0~ (. .\VA~G;o

(DRAFI) Conservation Easement Description

G.A. Project# ONRR-11-01 Land N/F NASCOLITE CORPORATION

I') A, S S 0 C I A T E S SURVEYING • PLANNING Vllvvw .. vargoassocfates.c:orn

5.:.1.~'-l

Cumberland County New Jersey

ALL that certain tract or parcel of land situated partly in the City of Millville and partly in the City of Vineland, County of Cumberland and the State ofNew Jersey, bounded and described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point in the municipal division line between the City of Millville and the City of Vineland at the division line between lots 60 and 61, block 234 City of Millville, said point being North 50°21'33" West, a distance of 920.23 feet from the intersection of said municipal line with the northeasterly right of way line of Doris Avenue (30.00 feet wide), said point now evidenced by a concrete monument set, said point having New Jersey State Plane Coordinate System (NAD '83) grid values N 215,212.75 feet, E 342,309.04 feet and in the said bearing system running; thence

l) South 85°32'47" West, along said division line, a distance of796.69 feet to a point in the easterly right of way line oflands now or formerly Conrail (lot 1, block 700, City of Millville), said point now evidenced by a concrete monument set; thence

2) North 13°03'07'' East, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 531.97 feet to a point in the division line between lots 61 and 62, block 234, City of Millville, said point now evidenced by a concrete monument set; thence

3) North 85°32'47" East, p~y along said division line and partly along the division line between lots 1 and 2, block 7506, City if Vineland, passing over an iron pin set l ,278.93 feet from the commencement of this course, a total distance of 1,288.93 feet to a point in the southwesterly right of way line ofN.J.S.H. Rte. 55 (300.00 feet wide); thence

4) r\long said right of way line, on a curve turning to the right (non radial to the preceding course), following a radius of 5,850.00 feet, (chord bearing South 55°08'52" East, chord length 149.33 feet), ~marc length of 149.33 feet to a point now evidenced by a found iron pin; thence

5) South 04°27'13" East, continuing along said right of way line, a distance of 189.87 feet to a point in the division line between Jots 2 and 3, block 7506, City of Vineland, said point now evidenced by a found iron pin; thence

Lands N/F Nascolite Corporation City of Millville City of Vineland Cumberland County, NJ Page2 of2

7) South 67°17'13" East, continuing along said division line, a distance of 138.37 feet to a

point in the aforesaid southwesterly right of way line ofN.J.S.H. Rte. 55, said point now

evidenced by a found iron pin; thence 8) Along said right of way line, on a curve turning to the left (non radial to the preceding

course), following a radius of215.00 feet, (chord bearing South 23°44'22'' East, chord

length 124.47 feet), an arc length of 126.28 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence

9) Continuing along said right of way line, on a curve turning to the le~ following a radius

of 590.00 feet, (chord bearing South 41 °07'41" East, chord length 11.58 feet), an arc

length of 11.58 feet to a point in the division line between lots 2 and 4, block 7506, City

. of Vineland, said point now evidenced by a found iron pin; thence 10) North 67°17'13" West, along said division line (non radial to the preceding course), a

distance of 124.95 feet to a point now evidenced by a found iron pin; thence

11) North 70°42'13" West, continuing along said division line, a distance of 67.39 feet to a point now evidenced by a found iron pin; thence

12) South 85°32'47" West, continuing partly along said division line and partly along the division line between lots 2 and 9, block 7506 City of Vineland, a distance of706.64 feet

to the point and place of BEGINNING.

Containing within said bounds a gross conservation easement area of 17.266 acres. (Block 234, lot 61, City of MillviHe containing 5.298 acres; block 7506, lot 2, City of Vineland containing 11.968 acres.)

The above description was written pursuant to a map of conservation easement designated as Lot 61, Block 234 City of Millville and Lot 2, Block 7506 City ofVineland, County of Cumberland, and State of New Jersey. Said survey was prepared by Vargo Associates, 2771 Delsea Drive, Franklinville, N.J., dated 05/05/2011 and marked as file No. 07250. A reduced copy of said plan

is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Date: May 5, 2011 Project Number: 072SO·N1DEP

Prepared by:

Edward J. Constantine, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor New Jersey License No. 36714

PRESENT CONDmON REPORT

1. The property location information:

(a) Street address,. municipality and county: The property in question does not have a street address inasmuch as it is essentially land-locked. The closest street is Doris Avenue which is located south of the property. Northwest of the property is Route 55. The property is bounded on its western side by railroad tracks owned by Conrail. The property is located in two municipalities Vineland and Millville which are both in Cumberland County, New Jersey.

(b) Municipal tax block and lot numbers: Block 234/Lot 61 in the City of Millville and Block 1121/Lot 2 in the City of Vineland.

2. Property ownership information:

(a) Name and address of each owner of the property- The property is owned solely by the Nascolite Corporation, c/o Archer & Greiner, P.C., One Centennial Square, P.O. Box 3000, Haddonfield, NJ 08033.

(b) Description of any existing legal ·easements or other encumbrances -There are no existing legal easements or other encumbrances. A small portion of the proPertY, the southwest comer of Block 234/Lot 61 in the City of Millville, is subject to a Classification Exception Area imposed by the NJDEP.

3. Property description information:

(a) Size in acres- 17.27 acres.

(b) Land use history of the property and within 1,000 feet radius of the property including a map and written description and location of any past or present utility, building, road or other improvement on the property- The property which is to be set aside for the conservation easement has, to our knowledge, never been utilized for any purpose. It is undeveloped land. A survey map showing the property is attached as Exhibit "A". The land immediately to the west of the property contains a Conrail railroad track line. Beyond the railroad the property is used for industrial purposes. The property immediately to the north of the easement property is used for industrial purposes and beyond that property is the New Jersey State Highway Route 55. The property immediately east of the easement property contains an exit ramp from Route 55. The property located on the southeasterly side of the easement property contains a Boy Scout preserve as well as the Boy Scout's administration building. Properties located to the south of the easement property contain residential properties. The property located southwest o,fthe easement property contains a groundwater treatment building which is treating contaminated groundwater found to the southwest of the easement property.

(c) Contemporary digital photos of the property- Exhibit "A", attached hereto, contains photographs, both from ground level and aerial photos. These photographs show the easement property from different directions and different locations at ground level. The aerial photos show different sections of the easement property and surrounding properties.

The map contained in Exhibit "A" contains a key showing the location and direction of the photographs.

(d) Geographical information systems maps- These are attached as Exhibit dB".

61S2692vl

~ ............

I

1\ \' II. .

j; ~

I

i

I

I

'

\ \

~-~~

!~ \!

\ '

~

--./

~

..... ...... -i I I