Gregg F. Paster, Esq. Gregg F. Paster & Associates 18 Railroad Ave., Suite 104 Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662 Tel: (201) 489-0078 Fax: (201) 489-0520 Attorney for Borough of Dumont

IN RE DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

BOROUGH OF DUMONT DPW INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEE BERGEN COUNTY-NEW JERSEY

REPORT OF FINDINGS December 20, 2011

This office was requested to assist in the investigation of the Dumont DPW

Remediation and to report findings therefrom. The Dumont DPW Investigatory

Committee is chaired by Council President Carl Manna. Council Members Matthew M.

Carrick and Ellen Zamechansky serve as the other members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFATORY NOTE ................................... . . ................................................................... 1

PART I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

PART II. INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS .................................................................... 3

A. Initial Response by the Borough .................................. , ............ '" ....................... 3

B. Summary of documents from Nowell Amoroso and NJDEP .. ............................ .4

C. 2010-2011 depositions ..................................................................................... 23

i. December 2010 depositions of DPW workers .............................................. 23

ii. January - February 2011 depositions of former Councilmen and former DPW Superintendent John Cook ......................................................................... 26

Ill. April 2011 creation of DPW Investigatory Committee; October 2011 deposition of former Chief of Staff Jack Eckel; unsuccessful attempts to obtain testimony from former Mayor Donald Winant and former Councilman Michael Licameli .................................................................................................... 28

PART I I I. SUMMARY A ND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 31

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... a

PREFATORY NOTE

Due to the voluminous nature of the documents relied upon in creating this

report, only those documents that are highly relevant to the summary and conclusion

are attached hereto. All other documents will be held on file by the Borough Clerk and

can be made available pursuant to a duly submitted OPRA request.

PART I. INTRODUCTION

This report arises out of an investigation into facts surrounding an allegedly

chronic state of environmental contamination that has been in place at and around the

Dumont Department of Public Works ("DPW") grounds for more than twenty (20) years.

Members of the current governing body became aware of the existence of this

contamination on or around 10/01/2010, when Mayor Matthew P. McHale ("Mayor

McHale") received a nine (9) page letter of 09/29/2010 from the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP"), Responsible Party Investigations Unit, outlining

the nature and history of the contamination as per the NJDEP's information. See

09/29/10 Letter from Rodney F. Murray, NJDEP Responsible Party Investigations Unit,

annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

According to the 09/29/2010 letter from the NJDEP, the contamination at or

around the DPW resulted from several incidents of discharges of hazardous

substances, as follows:

• 09/1986 discharge of gasoline resulting from an overfill of an underground storage tank ("UST") (contaminated soil excavated but no additional information provided to NJDEP regarding remediation);

• 10/1986 through 04/1987 leaking 4,000-galion gasoline UST at 1 Aladdin Avenue ("DPW Site") (UST removed in April 1987, contaminated soil excavated and backfilled but no additional investigation/remediation conducted);

1

• 05/1990 discovery of leaking 1,OOO-galion abandoned gasoline UST at Aladdin Park ("Aladdin Park site" located at Twinboro Lane and Aladdin Avenue), estimated to have leaked approximately 600 gallons of gasoline (UST removed); and

• 09/1990 fire caused by hazardous substances in a garbage truck coming from Dumont High School extinguished at DPW grounds (all garbage and fire fighting waste water collected and disposed of off-site).

Within the 09/29/2010 NJDEP letter, the NJDEP advised the Borough that it was

legally obligated to remediate the discharge of hazardous substances pursuant to the

Site Remediation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10C-1, et seq. ("SRRA"). Failure to comply

with the SRRA, the NJDEP wrote, could result in a variety of consequences, including

loss of decision making power with regard to remediation activity at the site, liability for

three times the costs expended by the NJDEP to remediate the site, and any other

enforcement actions permitted under the SRRA.

Prior to receiving the NJDEP letter, the 2010 governing body of Dumont was

unaware of any ongoing contamination within the Borough, specifically at and around

the DPW grounds. In fact, an initial review of Borough Hall records failed to uncover

any documentation of the contamination described in the NJDEP letter. As will be

described herein, the lack of records and the seriousness of the contamination

described by the NJDEP, not to mention to the potential consequences the Borough

faced, prompted the governing body to authorize an investigation into the circumstances

and actions surrounding the contamination. See 11/09/2011 Borough Council

resolution authorizing investigation, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The following report

contains details of the investigation and findings, as well as a summary of conclusions

drawn therein.

2

PART II. INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS

A. Initial Response by the Borough

Sometime between 10101/2010 and 10107/2010, the Borough contacted the

Hackensack based law firm of Nowell Amoroso Klein Bierman ("Nowell Amoroso"),

which had represented the Borough during the years in question, in an attempt to obtain

documents related to the alleged contamination. At the request and direction of the

Governing Body, Borough Attorney Gregg F. Paster ("Attorney Paster") of Gregg F.

Paster & Associates, and staff, conducted an initial review of the approximately 500

hundred pages of documents obtained from Nowell Amoroso. Attorney Paster

summarized the contents of the Nowell Amoroso records in a chronological timeline

fashion and shared that time line of events with Borough representatives at a special

meeting held on 10/18/2010, the purpose of which was to discuss the correspondence

from the NJDEP and the nature of the contamination.

Upon reviewing and discussing the NJDEP letter and the timeline developed

from the Nowell Amoroso documents, it became clear to Borough representatives that

the Borough was facing a serious problem of chronic environmental contamination

which was largely due to serious mismanagement of remediation efforts by the previous

Borough administration. The records obtained from Nowell Amoroso indicated, at best,

serious historical inaction by the previous Borough administration. At worst, the issue

was consciously ignored without regard to potential consequences.

Further consensus among Borough representatives was that a proper

reconstruction of the relevant documents should be created by obtaining documents

from the NJDEP. Accordingly, Attorney Paster made an OPRA request for NJDEP

documents. The files were so voluminous that it was decided that a site visit would be

3

the most appropriate way to review the documents, so on or about 12/10/2010, Meghan

V. Tomlinson ("Attorney Tomlinson"), then of counsel to Gregg F. Paster & Associates,

visited NJDEP file headquarters in Trenton, NJ to conduct a file review the NJDEP

file(s) for the Dumont DPW contamination. At that time Attorney Tomlinson tagged

approximately 700 hundred pages of documents for copying to complete the Borough's

file.

The record constructed as per the NJDEP files and the Nowell Amoroso

documents is summarized in Section B. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a timeline of

those documents generated by Gregg F. Paster & Associates.

B. Summary of documents from Nowell Amoroso and NJDEP

Formal remediation efforts began in 1990, when the Borough retained EEC

Environmental Inc. ("EEC") to investigate the state of contamination at the DPW

grounds. See 10/15/1990 letter attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Borough's primary

focus at that time was the abandoned 1,OOO-galion gasoline UST which had been

discovered leaking some five (5) months earlier. In the course of its investigation, EEC

developed an initial schedule of activities for compliance purposes, which included

installation of several monitoring wells at the Aladdin Park site. However, by 02/1991,

EEC determined that, according to the monitoring well samples, the downgradient of the

abandoned 1 ,OOO-galion gasoline UST was clean and therefore the investigation should

focus on the leaking 4,000-galion gasoline UST that had been removed in 04/1987.

See 02/26/1991 NJDEP report of phone call, attached hereto as Exhibit E.

According to the 09/29/2010 NJDEP letter, EEC conducted supplemental

investigations which allowed it to identify five (5) additional areas of concern at the DPW

4

grounds, as follows: a former gasoline UST and releases of waste oil and residuals

from home heating oil tanks northeast of the DPW facility; a second gasoline UST and

storm sewer line north of the DPW facility; reports of historic releases of waste oil east

of the DPW facility; an active waste oil tank and possible surface discharges of gasoline

south of the DPW facility; and a former. waste water treatment plant on an adjacent

property.

In 04/1991, EEC sent a letter to the NJDEP confirming an oral understanding that

had been reached between representatives of EEC and the NJDEP, that the Borough's

Discharge Investigation Corrective Action Report ("DICAR"), which was required by the

NJDEP as part of the remediation activities, would be delayed because additional

investigation was required with regard to the leaking 4,000-galion gasoline UST. See

04/09/1991 letter from EEC, attached hereto as Exhibit F. Refocusing its investigation,

the Borough requested and the NJDEP granted, by letters of 06/26/1991, 07/03/1991,

and 07/17/1991, a 90-day extension of time to submit its final report.

By letter of 10/03/1991, the NJDEP transferred the case to the Division of

Responsible Party Site Remediation, and on 11/19/1991 the Division of Responsible

Site Remediation advised the Borough that it was to immediately initiate free product

recovery. See 11/19/1991 letter from NJDEP, attached hereto as Exhibit G. In turn

EEC developed a free product recovery plan which involved training DPW employees

how to hand bail the free product into drums for offsite disposal. See 12/02/1991 letter

from EEC, attached hereto as Exhibit H.

By 01/1992, EEC had submitted a DICAR Summary to the NJDEP on the

Borough's behalf by letter dated 01/17/1992. Little documented record of activity exists

5

between then and 10/30/1992, when the NJDEP sent correspondence of even date to

former counsel to the Borough Joseph A. Ferriero, Esq. ("Attorney Ferriero"), former

Borough Administrator Marvin Katz ("former Administrator Katz") and former DPW

Superintendent John Cook ("former Superintendent Cook"), advising that the NJDEP

was concerned about several environmental issues at the DPW site and the Aladdin

Park.

The NJDEP broke down its concerns into UST-related concerns and non-UST-

related concerns, and ordered the Borough to do the following:

• As to non-UST-related issues:

o Determine the source of contamination affecting nearly all soil borings provided to date;

o Provide information regarding the September 1990 chemical fire that was extinguished on the DPW grounds;

o Determine the source of ground water gasoline contamination, as same could not be traced to a UST source; and

o Examine historical records to determine whether: (a) other unknown USTs might still exist at the DPW site or the Aladdin Park site; (b) other floor drains other than the ones noted and connected to the active 250 gallon waste oil UST ever existed at the sites; and (c) any dry wells exist or ever existed at the two sites.

• As to UST-related concerns:

o Conduct soil sampling to ensure that no soil contamination existed;

o Sample ground water monitoring wells for various volatile organics, base/neutral organics, and lead,

o Continue to delineate ground water contamination; and

o Depict all monitoring wells on a scaled map, plot the results of the well search, and provide information with regard to the results of the well search.

See 10/30/1992 letter from NJDEP, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

6

Finally, the NJDEP stated that the Borough had 90 days to submit to the NJDEP

a Remedial Action Workplan ("RAW"), and that the Aladdin Park site and the DPW site

were to be registered separately from one another. Id.

EEC replied to the NJDEP on the Borough's behalf by letter dated 02/04/1993,

explaining that the conditions at the site were complex and that the remedial

investigation was being conducted in a phased manner. At that time, EEC submitted a

revised schedule of supplemental investigation activities that would provide the Borough

and EEC more time to investigate the entirety of the contamination at the two sites. The

NJDEP granted the extension sought by EEC by letter dated 02/19/1993, which gave

the Borough until 07/06/1993 to submit sample results and a RAW.

By OS/26/1993, EEC had been renamed Harding Lawson Associates ("HLA"),

and HLA had determined that it required yet another extension of time to submit the

RAW due to the fact that the Borough needed to obtain an access agreement for

installation of an off-site well. HLA and the NJDEP agreed, as set forth in a letter

dated 5/26/1993, that a revised outline of activities would be submitted to the NJDEP

once the access agreement was obtained.

Meanwhile, during the summer of 1993, Borough engineering firm Boswell

McClave ("Boswell") represented the Borough in a UST closure plan. That plan

involved contracting one outside company (Castle Excavating) to remove a 275-gallon

waste oil tank, a 2000-gallon diesel tank, and a 3000-gallon unleaded gasoline tank, as

well as contracting another company (Metro-Tank, Inc.) to install a 500-gallon waste oil

tank and a dual compartment 5,000-galion diesel and unleaded gasoline tank.

Administrative and statutory requirements such as applications, approvals, and requests

7

for bids carried the removal portion of the project into 01/1994. The installation portion

began in 02/1994, as mentioned in a letter dated 02/15/1994, however a letter of

03/30/1994 to the Borough from installation contractor Metro-Tank reveals the fact that

installation procedures were repeatedly delayed due to the Borough's indecision as to

possible modification of the UST system being installed.

The record as it related to NJDEP remediation requirements did not pick back up

until 08/1994, when Mary Anne Kuserk, NJDEP BUST Section Chief ("Section Chief

Kuserk") wrote a letter dated 08/19/1994 to former Administrator Katz, former

Superintendent Cook, and former Borough Attorney John Dudas ("Attorney Dudas") to

remind the Borough that it was necessary to address the contamination at the DPW site

and the Aladdin Park site as two separate NJDEP cases. The NJDEP further advised

the Borough in that letter that certain contamination at the DPW site from an unknown

source required supervision by the Bureau of Field Operations ("BFO"), thus a

Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") was required for that component of the

contamination. The Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks ("BUST") would continue to

monitor the discharge from the USTs, however if the Borough desired to have one case

manager for both the UST issues and the unknown source contamination, then it was to

indicate so to the BFO using the MOA.

Shortly thereafter, Attorney Ferriero wrote to the NJDEP on 08/25/1994 to

indicate the Borough's desire to designate the two areas into one case number.

Attorney Ferriero asked that the NJDEP contact him to discuss the matter in greater

detail, however according to a letter of 10107/1994 from Section Chief Kuserk to

Attorney Ferriero, reciprocal attempts to make contact by the phone were unsuccessful.

8

Section Chief Kuserk then went on to document the reasons why the NJDEP thought it

would be beneficial to separate the two sites into two cases.

In the meantime, on 10104/1994, Lee Hendricks, NJDEP BUST Unit Supervisor

("Unit Supervisor Hendricks") wrote to former Administrator Katz, former Superintendent

Cook and Attorney Dudas, warning them that the Borough had not submitted the

required RAW, despite receiving an extension of time to submit the same. Within that

letter, the Borough was instructed to, within 10 days, either submit a RAW or indicate to

BUST that the Borough would enter into an MOA with the BFO for all concerns, both

UST and non-UST related. Failure to respond within time, the NJDEP warned, could

result in the case being referred to the Bureau of Applicability and Compliance ("BAC")

for review and enforcement action.

The record does not reveal a response within the requisite 10 days, however

Gregory Albright, Senior Geologist of HLA ("Geologist Albright"), wrote to the NJDEP on

10/21/1994 with a schedule of tasks that the Borough had authorized HLA to perform,

the task's status, and scheduled completion date. Geologist Albright then requested by

letter dated 10/21/1994 that the Borough be permitted to have until 12/16/1994 to

submit the required report. The NJDEP approved the Borough's request by letter dated

10/27/1994.

It appears that the 12/16/1994 date came and went, as the next correspondence

to come from the Borough with regard to the RAW report occurred on 01104/1995, when

Geologist Albright wrote to the NJDEP to indicate that the reports were being sent to the

Borough for review and would be submitted to the NJDEP on 01118/1995. In due

course, on 01/18/1995, Geologist Albright submitted to the NJDEP four (4) volumes of

9

supplemental remedial investigation reports and proposed what purported to be a

remedial action for the DPW site and Aladdin Park site.

The NJDEP responded to the Borough's submissions approximately five (5)

months later. On 06/12/1995, Unit Supervisor Hendricks wrote to the Borough with

regard to the Aladdin Park site, indicating that the document could not be approved as a

RAW but was conditionally approved as a remedial investigation workplan ("RIW"). Unit

Supervisor Hendricks outlined remaining deficiencies as follows:

• Soils:

o Soil sampling required in the area where the 1 ,OOO-gal UST was removed and soil excavated; Borough to· submit a scaled site diagram indicating where the locations of the borings and other pertinent information;

o Backfill documentation required certifying that the material used as backfill is free of contaminants and meets statutory requirements

• Ground Water:

o Required to submit a scaled site diagram indicating exact location and outline of the former UST and its components relative to the monitoring wells

o Additional ground water monitoring wells required to fully delineate the extent of ground water contamination

o Monitoring wells to be sampled semi-annually and certain documentation required to be submitted for each sampling event

o Classification Exception Area ("CEA") to be established at the time of the RAW

• Receptor Evaluation

o Identify possible interconnection of ground water to the subsurface sanitary sewer and natural gas lines located along Aladdin Avenue

o Determine whether basements are present along the portion of the northern side of Armour Place, between Aladdin Avenue and Hirshfeld Brook

• Quality Assurance: various standards to be followed

10

• Other

o All work related to tank service must be conducted by or supervised by a certified individual

o Required to notify the assigned BUST case manager prior to implementation of field activities

o Required to submit an Effectiveness Analysis and Certification

• Administrative Requirements

o Required to submit a revised RAW within 90 days. Revised RAW to detail all activities conducted to comply with the above requirements and present a comprehensive remedial proposal for all soil and ground water contamination

See 06/12/1995 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit J.

Unit Supervisor Hendricks then wrote to the Borough a week later on 06/20/1995

with regard to the DPW site, with a similar response: the document, as it related to the

former UST, could not be approved as a RAW but it could be conditionally approved as

a RIW. Unit Supervisor Hendricks outlined remaining deficiencies as follows:

• Soils

o Required to sample and analyze excavation where 3,000-galion gasoline UST was removed

o Required to delineate, sample and analyze excavation area where 4,000-gallon gasoline UST, 2,000-galion diesel UST, and 250-gallon waste oil UST were removed

o Required to sample and delineate extent of contamination where 275-gallon waste oil UST was removed and analyze same

o Required to submit scaled site diagrams with regard to the three areas of concern

o Required to certify that the backfill material is free of contaminants and advise as to the status of the excavated soils

• Ground Water

o Required to install additional monitoring wells for investigation purposes

11

o Required to delineate ground water contamination

o Required to conduct sampling, including that of monitoring wells and recovery wells, until the ground water RAW is approved

o Required to submit scaled maps and tables to present information as to each sampling event

o Required to submit a revised ground water RAW once delineation wells have been installed and sampled

• Receptor Evaluation

o Required to canvass the neighborhood to locate nearby wells, sample and analyze same

o Evaluate possible interconnection of ground water to subsurface utilities

o Canvass immediate area to determine presence of gasoline vapors in nearby basements and subsurface utilities

o Inspect storm sewer and Hirshfield Brook semi-annually

• Quality Assurance: various standards to be followed

• Other

o All work related to tank service must be conducted by or supervised by a certified individual

o Required to notify the assigned BUST case manager prior to implementation of field activities

o Required to submit an Effectiveness Analysis and Certification

• Administrative Requirements

o Required to submit a revised RAW within 90 days. Revised RAW to detail all activities conducted to comply with the above requirements and present a comprehensive remedial proposal for all soil and ground water contamination

See 06/20/1995 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit K.

In both letters, Unit Supervisor Hendricks explained that the non-UST portions of

the report would have to be forwarded to another group within the NJDEP that had the

12

statutory authority to handle non-UST issues, and that the Borough would be required to

enter into an MOA in order to have one department oversee both the UST issues and

the non-UST issues.

On 08/09/1995, HLA submitted to the Borough, pursuant to a request by Attorney

Ferriero, a work proposal to respond to the NJDEP's concerns as laid out in the

06/12/1995 and 06/20/1995 letters. HLA proposed two costs to the Borough to

represent two different scenarios, one at $112,645 ($80,507 for DPW site and $32,138

for Aladdin Park site) and the other at $86,278 ($65,690 for DPW site and $20,588 for

Aladdin Park site).

Apparently the Borough never responded to HLA's proposals. Indeed, two

months later, on 10/03/1995 (and beyond the time the RAW was due to the NJDEP),

HLA wrote to the Borough inquiring as to the status of the Borough's review of the

proposal. At that point, HLA also advised the Borough that it was owed a total of

$27,605.72 for work it had already done for the Borough.

Again, the record does not reveal any formal written response from the Borough

with regard to HLA's proposal or to the past due invoices.

In 1996 the Borough appointed two new attorneys: Joseph Pojanowski

("Attorney Pojanowski") became Borough attorney, while Henry Amoroso ("Attorney

Amoroso") of Nowell Amoroso became Borough litigation attorney, taking over the

Dumont leaking fuel tank matter from Attorney Ferriero.

On 01/31/1996, Attorney Pojanowski wrote to then Dumont Mayor Winant

("former Mayor Winant") confirming a meeting scheduled for 02/12/1996 to discuss the

13

status of the DPW site. The record does not reveal what came of that meeting or if it

indeed occurred.

In 02/1996, approximately eight (8) months after the NJDEP deficiency letters of

06/1995, the Borough apparently resolved to authorize HLA to prepare the necessary

documentation for the NJDEP to consolidate the review work for this matter with one

case manager.

Despite the resolution to authorize HLA work, the record contains a letter of

03/14/1996 from David Terry, Associate at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. ("LBG"),

a professional ground-water and environmental services firm, to former Mayor Winant,

stating that it was a pleasure meeting with him and Councilman [Michael] Licameli

("former COljncilman Licameli") the previous week to discuss environmental issues

related to the gasoline discharge at the DPW. Apparently former Mayor Winant and

former Councilman Licameli requested that David Terry ("Associate Terry") prepare a

proposed scope of work for the Borough, as Associate Terry went on to describe his site

visit findings and a proposed scope of work. Associate Terry also criticized the work

previously done for the Borough and implied that LBG could negotiate with the NJDEP

in order to alleviate the Borough's burden with regard to remediation requirements.

HLA was likely unaware of this private meeting between Associate Terry and

former Mayor Winant and former Councilman Licameli. In accordance with the

resolution of the governing body, HLA drafted MOAs for the Borough and submitted

same to the Borough under cover of letter dated 04/01/1996, indicating that certain input

was required from the Borough in order to complete the MOAs for submission to the

NJDEP.

14

Meanwhile, the Borough continued to engage lBG. A letter of 04/12/1996 from

Attorney Amoroso to Associate Terry confirms a future meeting on 05/01/1996 between

Attorney Amoroso, Associate Terry, former Mayor Winant, former Councilman Licameli,

and William Delorenzo ("Attorney Delorenzo") of Nowell Amoroso. According to a

letter of 05/03/1996, the meeting indeed occurred and Associate Terry documented the

discussions held therein. According to Associate Terry's letter, the agreements made

at the meeting were as follows:

• Nowell Amoroso would prepare an MOA application and send it to lBG for review; Nowell Amoroso would then submit the MOA to the NJDEP

• lBG would begin preparing a summary document for submission to the new NJDEP case manager which would attempt to address as many of the outstanding NJDEP concerns as possible

• lBG would also provide Dumont with a map of the area in which door-to-door well canvassing must be completed; Dumont personnel would complete the survey and return to lBG for incorporation into the summary document.

On 05/06/1996, Attorney Delorenzo received from the NJDEP a statement of

procedures for requesting financial assistance from Hazardous Discharge Site

Remediation Fund. Presumably, this was a follow-up from the information provided by

lBG suggesting that certain funding may be available to the Borough.

Apparently, Nowell Amoroso used the draft MOA previously prepared by HLA, as

Attorney Delorenzo of Nowell Amoroso sent same to Associate Terry under letter dated

05/08/1996.

On 05/09/1996, Attorney Pojanowski wrote to HLA regarding an invoice of

04/19/1996. In this letter Attorney Pojanowski told HLA that the Borough had retained

another engineering consulting firm, and that based upon the new firm's review of the

file, it has been determined that HLA did not perform in an acceptably professional

15

manner concerning the DPW site cleanup. Attorney Pojanowski asserted that the

Borough would not be paying the submitted bill in the amount of $1,103.07. Attorney

Pojanowski went on to state that the Borough discovered that sources of funding may

have been available to the Borough from the State of New Jersey or the Federal

Government to pay for HLA's work and the ultimate cleanup, and that HLA should have

made a diligent inquiry into possible liability of the United States Army for the

contamination at the DPW grounds. Attorney Pojanowski concluded that HLA would

be further advised "as the Borough receives a more formal report".

The NJDEP file contained a memo referring to a phone call on 05/20/1996

between Unit Supervisor Hendricks and former Mayor Winant in which Unit Supervisor

Hendricks advised former Mayor Winant that an MOA must be executed if the Borough

wished to have one case manager. According to the memo, former Mayor Winant

indicated that indeed the Borough would pursue the option of one case manager.

On 05/28/1996, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to former Mayor Winant, providing

him with the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund procedures he had obtained

from the NJDEP. Attorney Delorenzo instructed former Mayor Winant to review the

procedures and contact him to complete the application. Former Councilman Licameli

was carbon copied on this letter.

On 06/10/1996, Associate Terry wrote to former Mayor Winant and Attorney

Delorenzo indicating that the MOA as prepared was deficient because it continued to

separate the properties into two sites. Associate Terry outlined specific changes that

were required.

16

Though the Borough began working with lBG, HLA was still demanding payment

for its services rendered. HLA responded to Attorney Pojanowski's 05/09/1996 letter on

06/18/1996, refuting the Borough's claims that it failed to act in the Borough's best

interest. HLA cited the fact that the Borough had never before criticized HLA's work

until HLA pressed for payment of past due invoices, and reminded the Borough that all

work was performed pursuant to proper authorization from the Borough. As to the

Borough's claims regarding HLA's failure to advise the Borough of possible cleanup

funding sources, HLA stated that, despite the fact that it is ordinarily legal counsel's

responsibility to advise as to statutory funding sources, the Borough was probably

ineligible for funding by the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund and also it was

Attorney Ferriero who had assumed the responsibility of investigating funding from the

Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund. Further, HLA advised, it was not aware

of possible US Army presence until a council member mentioned it at a council meeting

on 11/21/1995, at which point HLA advised that it would not look into the matter until

past due charges approaching 1-year overdue were paid. Noted parenthetically in the

letter was that during the 11/21/1995 meeting that "the [M]ayor assured HLA that a

resolution would be passed at the Januuary [sic] 1996 council meeting that would fund

payment of these past-due charges." Finally, HLA attached invoices for past due bills,

which amounted to $37,812.74, including interest. Attached hereto as Exhibit l is a

copy of the HLA 06/18/1996 letter.

Apparently the January, 1996 resolution authorizing payment of the HLA bills

was not adopted, and still lacking a concrete reason for the Borough's refusal to pay the

HLA bills, Attorney Pojanowski wrote to Attorney Delorenzo on 09/18/1996 requesting

17

specific reasons why the Borough would not be paying the bill. Apparently Attorney

Pojanowski's request went unanswered, as he wrote again to Attorney Delorenzo on

10/16/1996 requesting the same information and enclosing a letter from HLA general

counsel in which HLA stated that it may be forced to file suit if it did not hear from the

Borough by 10/25/1996.

In the meantime Associate Terry wrote to Attorney Delorenzo regarding the

MOA by letter dated 10/11/1996. Associate Terry suggested two (2) minor changes,

which Attorney Delorenzo apparently made prior to submitting revised drafts of the

MOA to former Mayor Winant and former Councilman Licameli on 11/12/1996 for their

review. On the same day Attorney Delorenzo wrote to former Mayor Winant regarding

Attorney Delorenzo's letter of OS/28/1996, suggesting yet again that the Borough

complete the financial assistance package so that it could be processed with the MOA

application.

By 12/24/1996 correspondence, a final draft of the MOA was sent to former

Mayor Winant for his signature, along with a third message to have someone from the

Borough contact Attorney Delorenzo to begin the financial assistance process with the

State. The· MOA· was executed by former Mayor Winant on behalf of the Borough,

apparently on that day. On the same day, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to Associate Terry

requesting advice as to HLA's bill, in accordance with Attorney Pojanowski's request.

By 01/08/1997, the MOA had been executed by both the NJDEP and former

Mayor Winant on behalf of the Borough. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is the 01/08/1997

MOA. The MOA required the Borough to submit the following:

• Preliminary Assessment Report

18

• Site Investigation Report

• Remedial Investigation Workplan

• Remedial Investigation Report

• Remedial Action Workplan

• Remedial Action Report

According to a letter of 01/21/1997 from the NJDEP, the Borough was to submit

a schedule of implementation of the above activities andlor phases by 02108/1997. As

that deadline approached, on 113011997 the NJDEP wrote to Attorney Delorenzo

requesting contact by 02/15/1997. It is unclear whether that contact was ever

established, however it does not appear that the Borough submitted any documents by

the MOA deadline of 02/08/1997. On 02/12/1997 Attorney Delorenzo wrote to

Associate Terry requesting that Associate Terry contact him to discuss the status of the

submission. Attorney Pojanowski, former Mayor Winant, and former Councilman

Licameli were copied on that letter. Astonishingly, the record is completely barren until

11/17/1997, when Attorney Delorenzo wrote to the NJDEP MOA Case Manager Harry

Wertz ("Case Manager Wertz") requesting a meeting. Apparently a meeting occurred,

as Associate Terry issued a letter some weeks later dated 12/12/1997 to former Mayor

Winant and Attorney Delorenzo summarizing agreements reached at a meeting with

Case Manager Wertz. According to Associate Terry's letter, at that point in time there

were three (3) areas of concern ("AOC"); (1) contaminated soils were present across

the entire DPW and were likely due to fill materials, not USTs; (2) the presence of a

dissolved gasoline contaminant plume in the ground water at Aladdin Park, resulting

from UST leaks; and (3) the presence of free-phase gasoline and a dissolved gasoline

contaminant plume in the ground water at the DPW yard, resulting from UST leaks.

19

Associate Terry then laid out a scope of work for the Borough in order to obtain closure

as to those AOCs, in accordance with the steps outlined by Case Manager Wertz.

Associate Terry estimated lBG's services to cost $12,500 and the work to be

completed in increments of 45 days, 30 days, and 45 days.

The record does not reveal any sort of response from the Borough. Indeed, on

01/13/1998 Case Manager Wertz wrote to Attorney Delorenzo stating that he was

looking forward to receiving the Borough's progress report, which he stated Associate

Terry had discussed at the 12/11/1997 meeting.

Following that letter from the NJDEP, the record again goes dry until 06/1998,

when Attorney Delorenzo submitted to Jack Eckel, a long-time Borough employee who

held positions such as Chief of Staff, Acting Borough Clerk and Borough Administrator,

then serving as Administrative Chief of Staff ("former Chief of Staff Eckel"), under cover

of 06/24/1998, an application for a GranUloan Program from the NJDEP's Hazardous

Discharge Site Remediation Fund. This marked Attorney Delorenzo's fourth attempt

over a two (2) year period to bring the funding issue to the Borough's attention. The

record lacks any response from the Borough.

Also on 06/24/1998, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to Associate Terry, requesting an

update as to whether certain information had been forwarded to NJDEP. The record

lacks any response from Associate Terry. Almost four (4) months later, on 10/13/1998,

Attorney Delorenzo wrote to Associate Terry again, requesting an update as to the

status of the environmental report. On the same day, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to

former Chief of Staff Eckel requesting an update as to the status of the financial aid

application.

20

By November of 1998, Associate Terry sent to former Mayor Winant two (2)

copies of the RAW lBG had prepared for submission to the NJDEP under cover of

11/10/1998. Associate Terry instructed former Mayor Winant that the Borough needed

to complete a certification form and submit same with the RAW to the NJDEP. On

11/24/1998, pursuant to Dumont Resolution No. 98-0201, former Mayor Winant signed

a Responsible Party Certification in accordance with N.JAC. 7:26C-1.2(b) which read

as follows:

"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted herein and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant civil penalties for knowingly submitting false, inaccurate or incomplete information and that I am committing a crime of the fourth degree if I make a written false statement which I do not believe to be true. I am also aware that if I knowingly direct or authorize the violation of any statute, I am personally liable for the penalties." See attached hereto as Exhibit M a copy of Resolution 98-201 and the signed certification.

It is understood that the RAW was then submitted with former Mayor Winant's

certification, as Case Manager Wertz wrote to Attorney Delorenzo some nine (9)

months later, on 08/06/1999, stating that he had received the RAW. Case Manager

Wertz advised Attorney Delorenzo that the RAW did not address certain NJDEP

concerns, thus a revised RAW and an update regarding the status of additional

investigations was required. Associate Terry was copied on that letter and, according to

a 10/27/1999 letter from Attorney Delorenzo to Associate Terry, Attorney Delorenzo

had reviewed that letter with Associate Terry and discussed with him the need for lBG

to complete additional work upon receipt of an authorization from the Borough.

21

Associate Terry responded to Attorney Delorenzo shortly thereafter by letter of

11/11/1999. Associate Terry's response is summarized as follows:

• lBG's RIW included the implementation of a natural attenuation remedy to address fuel-related soil and ground-water contamination. The NJDEP responded by letter of 08/06/99 that additional information would be required before the NJDEP could accept that approach.

• lBG then laid out a proposed scope of work for the Borough to address the NJDEP concerns. The proposed scope of work included ground-water monitoring, soil sampling, and a Remedial Investigation Report/RAW Addendum

• lBG's scope of work was estimated to cost $17,500, and lBG could begin the work immediately upon authorization from the Borough

Yet again, the record went dry until 08/23/2000, when the NJDEP terminated the

MOA by letter to Attorney Delorenzo. Within the termination letter, the NJDEP stated

that it had not received any response to its 08/06/1999 deficiency letter and that the site

would be placed on the NJDEP Comprehensive Site List. Nearly four (4) months later,

by letter dated 12/07/2000, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to Associate Terry regarding

Associate Terry's proposed scope of work and the fact that the MOA had been

terminated for failure to respond to the NJDEP deficiency letter. Associate Terry

responded on 12/18/2000, copying former Chief of Staff Eckel on same, and stating that

lBG was prepared complete the work described in its 11/1999 proposal at the same

costs if authorized to do so by the Borough. Another four (4) months later, on

04/09/2001, Attorney Delorenzo forwarded Associate Terry's letter to former Chief of

Staff Eckel, reminding him that the NJDEP had withdrawn the MOA and that lBG was

prepared to do the work required to complete the MOA, if the NJDEP were to reopen it.

Attorney Delorenzo requested from former Chief of Staff Eckel some sort of

confirmation as to whether the Borough wished to proceed with the MOA or not.

Without response, Attorney Delorenzo wrote to former Chief of Staff Eckel nine (9)

22

months later, on 01/09/2002, again requesting advice as to whether the Borough

intended to pursue the cleanup matter. This letter marked the last of any

documentation the Borough recovered with regard to the DPW area contamination.

Needless to say, no documentation that would suggest the cleanup proceeded any

further than the November 24, 1998 resolution and certification by former Mayor Winant

appears in either the NJDEP or the Nowell Amoroso files.

C. 2010-2011 depositions

In addition to the documents the Borough was able to review for the purpose of

this investigation, the Borough sought to obtain testimony from various individuals with

regard to their recollection of the history of contamination at the DPW. In the interest of

time and efficiency, the Borough Attorney's office was authorized to take testimony from

parties thought to have relevant knowledge of the events surrounding the remediation

process.

i. December 2010 depositions of DPW workers

The Borough, through the office of the Borough Attorney, initially issued

subpoenas to four (4) current DPW workers, all of whom have been working for the

Dumont DPW since the 1970s and 1980s. On or about 12/14/2010, Attorney Tomlinson

deposed the following individuals: William Ebenhack ("Mr. Ebenhack"), currently

serving as Superintendent of Public Works, began working for the DPW in 1979 as a

truck driver/laborer; John Molinaro ("Mr. Molinaro"), currently serving as a road foreman,

began working for the DPW in 1979 as a truck driver/laborer; Timothy Baierwalter ("Mr.

Baierwalter"), currently serving as a foreman, began working for the DPW in 1986 as a

23

truck driver/laborer; and Brian Dew ("Mr. Dew"), currently serving as a

sweeper/operator, began working for the DPW in 1985 or 1986 as a laborer. These

depositions took place at Borough Hall, individually and consecutively, so as to protect

the integrity and confidentiality of the investigation, and all of the deponents chose to

appear without counsel. See Ebenhack Dep., Molinaro Dep., Baierwalter Dep., Dew

Dep.

Mr. Ebenhack recalled a fuel spill at the DPW sometime during 1990. Ebenhack

Dep., 9:5-25. As to remediation efforts, Mr. Ebenhack recalled that a UST had been

removed and that an outside company began coming to the DPW to monitor wells that

had been installed. kL. at 11:7-13, 12:12-20. Mr. Ebenhack was not sure why, but at

some point that company stopped coming and he was tasked with the job of monitoring

the wells, along with Mr. Dew and an individual by the name of Anthony Pierro, who it

was later determined was employed by the DPW for several decades and ultimately

served as a foreman of the DPW. kL. at 12:18-14:7. Mr. Ebenhack indicated that the

monitoring involved removing certain contents from the wells and depositing those

contents into metal barrels. kL. at 12:17-18. According to Mr. Ebenhack, the monitoring

activities ceased once the barrels became full and the DPW supervisors were unable to

obtain further direction as to how to proceed. kL. at 14:8-23, 15:5-14, 15:21-25, 16:17-

17:4, 18:7-15. Mr. Ebenhack went on to state that, years later, sometime during the

early 2000s, DPW workers discovered that the bottoms of the metal drums had rotted

out and the contents leaked back into the ground. kL. at 16:13-16, 18:25-19:20. Mr.

Ebenhack stated that Mr. Baierwalter had then been tasked with disposing of the empty

barrels. Ibid.

24

Mr. Molinaro essentially corroborated Mr. Ebenhack's testimony. Mr. Molinaro

recalled an outside company appearing at the DPW grounds to monitor wells in the

premises, and recalled the discovery of the rotted-out drums sometime in the early

2000s. Molinaro Dep. at 20:1-21:4, 21:14-24. Mr. Molinaro stated that he informed

former DPW Superintendent John Cook ("former Superintendent Cook") of the rotted

out barrels and that he was unsure of whether former Superintendent Cook relayed the

information to anyone, but that former Superintendent Cook's supervisors were, the

members of the Borough Administration, particularly Mr. Eckel. & at 21:5-13, 22:15-

23:4, 24:4-18, 26:5-16. Mr. Molinaro also confirmed that Mr. Baierwalter was the

individual tasked with crushing the rotted-out, empty drums and putting them into a truck

for removal from the DPW grounds. .!.Q., at 25:2-8. Mr. Molinaro reported that former

Superintendent Cook ordered Mr. Baierwalter to do so pursuant to an order from

Borough Hall. & at 25:9-11, 26:14-20.

Mr. Baierwalter's memory was lacking, but he also recalled the installation and

monitoring of wells at the DPW. Baierwalter Dep. at 12:11-13:11. Significantly, Mr.

Baierwalter confirmed that he was ordered by former Superintendent Cook to crush and

remove the rotted-out barrels. Id. at 14:10-19, 15:2-20. Mr. Baierwalter stated that

former Superintendent Cook issued the order pursuant to instruction from Borough Hall.

& at 15:12-15.

The final DPW worker deposed was Mr. Dew, who stated that he ordinarily keeps

to himself and therefore did not know a lot of information regarding the contamination at

the DPW. Mr. Dew did, however, state that former Superintendent Cook had asked him

to monitor the wells at the DPW for some period of time. Dew Dep. at 11 :2-25.

25

ii. January - February 2011 depositions of former Councilmen and former DPW Superintendent John Cook

On or about 12/16/2010, the Borough subpoenaed former Dumont Council

people, as well as former Superintendent Cook, former Chief of Staff Eckel, and former

Mayor Winant, in an effort to ascertain what was known by those who were tasked with

governing and administering Dumont. The following individuals were issued

subpoenas: Edwin Orr; Scott Manno; John Cook; Michael Licameli; Donald Winant;

George DiConstanza; John Eckel; Gary Hemmer; Robert McQuade; Lisa Boyd; Kevin

Gynegrowski; Eric Abrahamsen; and Charles Grillo.

On 12/30/2010, Attorney Paster received correspondence from Robert L.

Galantucci ("Attorney Galantucci"), of Galantucci & Patuto, which is a Hackensack-

based law firm that specializes in criminal defense. Attorney Galantucci wrote on behalf

of former Councilman Licameli, requesting a copy of the Dumont resolution relevant to

the subpoena as well as payment of counsel fees for Mr. Licameli. Upon receipt of

Resolution #2010-285, Attorney Galantucci again wrote to Attorney Paster, arguing that

the council did not have the requisite power to subpoena Mr. Licameli for its stated

purpose. Approximately two (2) weeks later Attorney Galantucci wrote Attorney Paster

to indicate that he had also been consulted by former Mayor Winant with regard to the

subpoena, and that he had advised former Mayor Winant that was under no obligation

to respond to the subpoena.

Former Mayor Winant and former Councilman Licameli did not appear in

response to the subpoenas. In addition, former Chief of Staff Eckel failed to appear in

response to the subpoena, and former Councilwoman Boyd objected to appearing

26

during regular business hours due to her inability to get time off from work. As to Ms.

Boyd, the Borough ultimately concluded that, based upon the record before it, it was

unlikely that Ms. Boyd would be able to provide any useful information as her time on

the council was limited to a four (4) month period during 2004. Accordingly, the

Borough concluded that its resources would not be well spent on obtaining former

Councilwoman Boyd's testimony and she was excused from responding.

In the meantime, between 01/2011 and 02/2011, all of the other reCipients of the

subpoenas appeared without objection to provide testimony with regard to the DPW

contamination.

For the most part, the deponents' knowledge of contamination was limited to

what was read in recent media reports and what was learned outside of the council (for

example, former Councilmen Gynegrowski and Manno knew of the existence of the

monitoring wells because of their involvement with the local Knights of Columbus, which

was adjacent to the DPW). Gynegrowski Dep. at 10:9-22, Manno Dep. at 5:20-6: 1,

8:25-9:3. Former Councilman Gynegrowski, who served from 1993-2004, recalled only

one discussion of DPW contamination during his tenure. Gynegrowski Dep. at 8:6-16.

Former Councilman Orr, who served from approximately 1980-2004, recalled

contamination discussions during open and closed council sessions, however he did not

state what years those conversations took place nor did he recall any specifics

regarding the conversations. Orr. Dep. at 14:18-25. Indeed, it appears from their

testimony as though the Councilmen were almost entirely in the dark with regard to the

contamination goings-on at the DPW and Aladdin Park. Nevertheless, the general

27

consensus among the former Councilmen was that the council should have been made

aware of the contamination.

Former Superintendent Cook was certainly aware of the state of contamination.

According to former Superintendent Cook, who served in that position from the late

1980s through 2006, former Chief of Staff Eckel specifically asked Mr. Cook to find a

DPW worker to monitor the wells that had been installed. Cook Dep. at 12:12-14:5. To

that end, Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Dew had a private meeting with former Chief of Staff

Eckel wherein Mr. Eckel instructed Mr. Dew how to monitor the wells. Ibid. What Mr.

Eckel's expertise, background and/or training in the area of environmental engineering

is and how he was qualified to give those instructions remains unclear. Mr. Cook also

stated that he reported the discovery of the rotted out barrels in his written monthly

report to the Mayor and Council, and that the Mayor and Council then arranged for

someone to remove the barrels from the DPW grounds . .!fl at 15:15-16:23. Mr. Cook's

statements concerning the removal of the rotted out barrels are in slight contrast to the

information provided by current DPW workers, thus it is unclear what actually occurred

with regard to the rotted out barrels.

iii. April 2011 creation of DPW Investigatory Committee; October 2011 deposition of former Chief of Staff Jack Eckel; unsuccessful attempts to obtain testimony from former Mayor Donald Winant and former Councilman Michael Licameli

In an effort to further the investigation and obtain the testimony of former Mayor

Winant, former Councilman Licameli, and former Chief of Staff Eckel, all of whom were

obviously involved in the remediation efforts as evidenced by the correspondence and

other documents obtained from Nowell Amoroso and the NJDEP, the Borough

established an ad-hoc investigatory committee. The investigatory committee then

28

issued subpoenas to Messrs. Winant, Licameli, and Eckel for appearance in 09/2011.

Attorney Galantucci contacted Attorney Paster prior to the appearance date to indicate

that same conflicted with his schedule, and Attorney Paster agreed to reschedule the

depositions of former Mayor Winant and former Councilman Licameli in an effort to

accommodate Attorney Galantucci. In order to conserve resources, it was decided at

that time to reschedule the deposition of former Chief of Staff Eckel to a time when all

depositions could be obtained. Accordingly, Attorney Paster wrote to Attorney

Galantucci offering three (3) separate dates in 10/2011 to appear with his clients for

depositions. Despite the fact that all proposals were for evening depositions, Attorney

Galantucci responded that none of the dates worked for him because he was involved

in a four (4) week trial. Meanwhile Attorney Galantucci publicly stated that he

suspected the investigation to be politically motivated.

Inasmuch as one member of the investigatory committee expressed his intention

to leave the council at the end of the 2011 calendar year, the investigatory committee

sought to obtain the testimonies of the remaining witnesses as soon as possible in order

to have its report done prior to 12/31/2011. Accordingly, the committee scheduled all of

the remaining depositions for 10/17/2011. All of the remaining deponents appeared at

the 10/17/2011 public meeting, however former Chief of Staff Eckel was the only

individual willing to provide testimony at that time. Former Mayor Winant and former

Councilman Licameli refused to provide testimony without the presence of Attorney

Galantucci.

At the outset of his testimony, Mr. Eckel stated that he was on medication which

caused him to be "very sleepy and at times incoherent", but that he wished to continue

29

with the deposition anyway. Eckel Dep. at 15:11-16:7. In accordance with his wish, the

DPW Investigatory Committee questioned Mr. Eckel about various contamination­

related activities that occurred during Mr. Eckel's 13-year career with the Borough.

What the Committee found was that Mr. Eckel had knowledge relating to pertinent

issues, however when pressed for details Mr. Eckel consistently claimed lack of

memory. For instance, Mr. Eckel knew of the leaking USTs, soil excavation activity, and

the existence of the monitoring wells. !Q" at 17:5-20, 19:7-15, 19:21-20:3, 30:15-19,

33:7-16. However, Mr. Eckel claimed that he never saw or knew of any reports, any

correspondence, or the MOA. !Q" at 18:11-19-19:6, 23:2-6, 23:7-24: 11, 24:21-25:3,

25:12-15, 26:22-25, 27:1-28:20, 47:18-48:1, 48:19-49:18. In this regard Mr. Eckel's

testimony is less than reliable, where the record is replete with copies of

correspondence being sent to Mr. Eckel regarding the Borough's plan of remediation,

applications for financial assistance, and the termination of the MOA.

During the 10/17/2011 meeting, Attorney Tomlinson read into the record

correspondence that Attorney Paster had received from Attorney Galantucci in which

Attorney Galantucci maintained that the scheduling difficulties were due to his own

schedule and not that of his clients, and that former Mayor Winant and former

Councilman Licameli were ready, willing and able to cooperate with the committee, with

or without subpoena.

On 11/11/2011, Attorney Paster sent a final notice of rescheduling to Attorney

Galantucci to obtain the testimony of former Mayor Winant and former Councilman

Licameli. Nevertheless, on 11/21/2011, the afternoon of the evening during which the

depositions were scheduled, Attorney Paster received a letter from Attorney Galantucci

30

stating that Messrs. Licameli and Winant had been advised not to appear to provide

testimony due to the "toxic environment" that had been created. The toxic environment,

according to Attorney Galantucci, supposedly involved a criminal complaint filed against

a family member of a former Dumont Mayoral candidate regarding alleged terroristic

threats toward former Mayor Winant, as well as a civil complaint filed against the

Borough, the Borough Council and Attorney Paster. Attorney Paster assured Attorney

Galantucci that the Borough has a fully staffed police department that could ensure the

safety and security of former Mayor Winant and former Councilman Licameli.

Nevertheless, neither former Mayor Winant nor former Councilman Licameli appeared

at the meeting, and to date neither of them has provided testimony.

PART III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

At present and at all times prior, the primary concern of the Borough of Dumont

has been to learn from its mistakes. Borough officials were astounded to discover that

an unhealthy, environmentally toxic condition could exist for decades on Borough

owned property. Even worse, the Borough officials were saddened to learn that the

contamination appeared to have been severely mismanaged, and at certain points

apparently ignored, by various Borough representatives who were responsible for the

Borough's well-being and involved in the remediation efforts. The documentation

reviewed in connection with this investigation reveals that the reluctance to proceed to a

conclusion with the remediation plan was driven, in whole or in part, by the refusal of the

Administration, primarily Winant and Eckel, to pay for the necessary services promptly,

or perhaps at all.

31

At early points in the remediation process, it appears as though the Borough was

on the right track. HLA (formerly known as EEC) performed an extensive amount of

remedial investigation for the Borough, which the Borough was able to use toward

engaging in an MOA with the NJDEP. The Borough and/or HLA required several time

extensions throughout the remedial investigation process, therefore it took several years

to get to the MOA. Given the routine course of progress in any such remediation

project, and the numerous spills and cases to sort through, this initial delay is not

surprising. Nonetheless, the NJDEP cooperated with the Borough in getting to that

point and by the time the MOA was fu lIy executed on 01/08/1997, the Borough was on a

proper path toward remediation. From the execution of the MOA, there is no evidence

in the records reviewed by the Committee that any affirmative steps were actually taken

to engage in the remediation program set forth in the MOA.

The record never reveals exactly why the Borough refused to pay HLA for its

services. The Borough initially claimed that it was upset that HLA never advised as to

possible sources of funding, however the Borough's failure to ever make application for

financial assistance in the face of numerous attempts by Attorney Delorenzo to push

the issue tells a different story.

It took the Borough and/or lBG more than two (2) years from the execution of the

MOA to submit a proposed RAW to the NJDEP. When the NJDEP declined to approve

the RAW, lBG prepared an additional scope of work for the Borough. The Borough,

however, never authorized any further work by lBG, and in due time the NJDEP

terminated the MOA.

32

The Borough and the DPW Investigatory Committee have tried to get answers as

to why or how the MOA was abandoned, but those who have provided statements have

provided little information. It appears that members of council and DPW workers were,

for the most part, uninvolved in the remediation efforts. No definitive answers have

been offered as to why the remediation efforts ended almost immediately after the MOA

was executed and despite acknowledgment of the potential consequences, both civil

and criminal, that might result from non-compliance. The major participants appear to

have been Jack Eckel, Donald Winant, Michael Licameli and Marvin Katz (now

deceased), as well as the engineering firms and attorneys contracted by the Borough.

Inasmuch as former Councilman Licameli and former Mayor Winant obviously

held meetings regarding DPW remediation efforts and received correspondence

regarding the same, their testimony was deemed crucial to the investigation. After a

long period of refusal, failure or neglect due to alleged improper legal mechanisms and

them alleged scheduling difficulties, all the while claiming to be willing to cooperate with

the Borough, Mr. Winant and Mr. Licameli ultimately never provided testimony based

upon a so-called "toxic environment" that was apparently attributable to a lawsuit filed

by Mr. Winant and Mr. Licameli. The lawsuit, filed the day after the 2011 election but

not yet served as of the submission of this report, alleges various acts of defamation

and civil rights violations committed in connection with this investigation, but in actuality

appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to preempt or otherwise distract from the

conclusions of the Committee's investigation. Considering their obvious involvement in

the remediation activities, their repeated efforts to avoid providing testimony are nothing

short of suspicious.

33

Former Mayor Winant appears to bear the bulk of the responsibility for the failure

of the Borough to adequately address the remediation requirements. After all, Mr.

Winant was the Mayor of Dumont from 1992 to 2005. During those years Mr. Winant

was the chief executive officer of the Borough, and thus the proverbial buck stopped

with him. It was former Mayor Winant's job to "report annually to the council and to the

public on the state of the municipality", to "recommend any action or programs he

deems necessary or desirable for the municipality to undertake", to "supervise, direct

and control all departments of the municipal govemment", to "supervise the care and

custody of all municipal property", to "assure that all terms and conditions imposed in

favor of the municipality or its inhabitants in any statute, franchise or other contract are

faithfully kept and performed", and more. See N.J.SA 40:69A-40. Indeed, it was

former Mayor Winant who certified under penalty of law that he was familiar with the

1998 RAW and all attached documents. This being the final activity that the Borough

conducted before the NJDEP rejected the RAW and ultimately terminated the MOA, it is

abundantly clear that former Mayor Winant abandoned his duties as they related to the

contamination remediation.

Similarly to former Mayor Winant, the record before the Committee begs the

question of why former Chief of Staff Eckel abandoned his duties with regard to the

contamination. As chief of staff, Mr. Eckel was tasked with "interact[ing] with the

Borough Attorney" and "oversee[ing] the Borough's contractual obligations with outside

vendors and professionals". See Dumont Borough Code, Chapter 47, Article V, Section

52-17. Former Chief of Staff Eckel performed neither of these duties. Between

Attorney Delorenzo and Associate Terry, former Chief of Staff Eckel received three (3)

34

letters regarding the NJDEP's termination of the MOA and two (2) letters regarding

applications for financial assistance. As far as the available record indicates, Mr. Eckel

failed to respond to any of those letters. His lack of memory during his testimony is

unfortunate at best, and contrived, at worst.

Finally, as to former Councilman Licameli, the Borough is unfortunately left in the

dark. It is clear that former Councilman Licameli participated in special meetings

concerning the contamination and that Mr. Licameli was likely the only member of

Council to have direct involvement in remediation activity, however Mr. Licameli's

refusal, failure or neglect to provide testimony prevents the Borough from understanding

exactly what role former Councilman Licameli played in this tortured history.

Other questions that remain are who ordered the rotted out barrels to be crushed

and removed, and how was LBG contracted by the Borough?

At this point, the Borough is and should be less concerned about the events that

caused the contamination as it is the events that lead to the termination of the MOA. It

cannot be denied that there were several missteps along the Borough's failed journey

toward remediation. Gross inactivity, lack of oversight, and failure to promptly respond

(if ever) to correspondence from the NJDEP, attorneys and engineers plague the history

that has been uncovered. But no matter the costs and aggravation, the Borough's top

priority should have been decontaminating the property in the interest of the

environment and the local citizenry. Why the Borough failed to work toward achieving

that goal remains unanswered. The best way to prevent a recurrence of such neglect of

oversight would be to appoint an ad-hoc committee of the Council to monitor and advise

the greater Governing Body and the public if and when such an issue presents itself in

35

the future. Clearly, where the executive authority is vested in just one or two

individuals, the latitude for neglect or misjudgment is far greater than where the

responsibility and authority is distributed among a larger group.

The cost of this episode, in damage to the environment, potential health risks to

area residents and workers, and in dollars and cents will never be fully realized. As

such, the best the Borough can hope to do is complete the remediation and ensure that

such missteps are not repeated in the future.

Respectfully submitted, Dumont DPW Remediation Investigation Committee _ / , "

/ // · . Matthew M. Carrick Carl Man

36

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AOC Area of Concern

BAC New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Applicability and Compliance

BFO New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Field Operations

BUST New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks

CEA Classification Exception Area

DICAR Discharge Investigation Corrective Action Report

DPW Dumont Department of Public Works

EEC EEC Environmental Inc. (later became Harding Lawson Associates ("HLA"))

HLA Harding Lawson Associates (formerly known as EEC Environmental Inc ("EEC"))

LBG Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

RAW Remedial Action Workplan

RIW Remedial Investigation Workplan

SRRA Site Remediation Reform Act, N.J.SA 58:10C-1, et seq.

UST Underground Storage Tank

a

ems CHRISTIE Governor

KIM GDADAGNO U GoverJ1.0r

�faf:e of �.efu W:erset! . DEl'ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Site Remediation Progr� Bureau of Enforcement and Investigations

40f E. State St., 5th Floor West PO Box 028

,

Trento.n, New Jersey 08625-0028 . . ,

BOB MARTIN Commissioner

29 September 2010 '

CERTIFIED MAIL .. , No.: 7001 0220 002 1052 7773

The Honorable Matthew P. McHale Mayor of Dumont Borough , 50 Washington Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628 .

Re: Dumont Boro DPW Garage 1 Aladdin Avenue and Twinboro Lane Block 1 105 Lot(s) 14, 17,, 1 8 and 22 Dumont Borough, Bergen County PI#: 024363

.

, Dear Mayor McHale,

The New Jersey Department of Environrmintal Protyction (Department) is charged with responding to the release or threatened releaSe of hazardous substances and with enforcing the requirements of

; the Spm Compensation �d Control Act (N.J.SA 58:10-23 et seq.), the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act (N.J.SA 58:lOA·21 et seq.), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (NJ.s.A. 13 :1K-6 et seq.) and the Site Remediation Reform Act (N,J.SA 58:lOC-l et seq.). The Department has documented tlie release of ilazafdous substances at the Dumont Boro DPW Garage, , and nearby properties, 1 Aladdin Avenue and Twinboro Lane, Block 1 105 Lot(s) 14, 17, 1 8 and 22, Dumont Borough, Bergen County.

'

It has been reported that all or portions of the subjecf properties were part of a military facility prior 'to 1 923. Most, if not all of the site was iubsequently owned by the Borough of Dumont and has been used for municipal service.operations.

NewJ=ey is tm Equal Opportunity Employer, l'rinted on ReqycIed Paper and !lecyclabk ,

Dumont Boro DPW Garage .

PI: 024363 D�mont Borough Bergen County

2

Available information suggests that the property corresponding to Block 1 105 Lot 14 imd the northern portion of Block 1105 Lot 16 were formerly occupied by the Dumont Borough DPW facility until the early 1970s. Aerial photographs indicate that the former DPW .garage was located on the northern portion of what is now Block 1 105 Lot 16; the area corresponding to lot 14 appears to have been used for ancillary operations including parking and refueling. This portion of the site is located off of Aladdin Ave. and is referred to as Aladdin Park or the Aladdin parcel. (NOTE: It appears that pre"ious investigations of the former DPW facility did not evaluate potential impacts to the area corresponding to the northern portion of Lot 16 which is now occupied by the Bergen County Housing Authority complex;) The original DPW facility on Block 1105 lot 14 and the facilities on the northern portion of 16 were demolished in the early 19708. This parcel remained as vacant land; portions of this property may be part of a public park.

Portions of the properties corresponding to Block 1 105, Lots 17 and/or 1 8 were formerly part of a sewage treatment plant that served Dumont and Bergenfield until the early 1960s; historical aerial photography indicates that the sewage treatment facility may have also included portions of Block 1 1 05 Lot 15, the southern portion of lot 16 and several contiguous properties located in the Borough of Bergenfield. It was reported that the sewage treatment facility was demolished the 1960s or 1970s and several feet of fill was deposited in the area. The current Dumont DPW facility was constructed on Block 1 1 05 Lot 17 during the early 1970s; this property is referred to as DPW parcel. .

Previous investigations have identified nUIiJerous areas of environmental concern related to historical and current site operations on these properties.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the NJDEP received several reports conceming suspected discharges of hazardous substances at the Borough owned properties located off of Aladdin Ave. and Twinboro Lane.

In September 1986, the NJDEP was notified of a discharge of gasoline resulting from an overfill of an underground tank (presumably on Block 1105 Lot 17 or 18) during a fuel delivery by the United Oil Company. This notification was assigned NJDEP case number 86·09·22-01M. It was reported that eontlUninated soil was excavated from this area; however no additional information was provided to the Department regarding the remediation of this discharge.

In October 1986, the Borough of Dumont (Dumont) notified the Department that two underground storage tanks at the DPW yard (Block 1 105 Lot 17 and/or 1 8) were suspected to be leaking; this notification was assigned NJDEP case/incident #86· 1 0·09·05M. One of the tanks was 3,000-gallon capacity and Contained dies�l fuel; the other tank was 4,000 gallon capacity and contained gasoline.

Tank tightness tests were preformed on both tanks during April 1987. It was reported that the 3,OOO-gallon capacity diesel fuel tank passed the tank test; however the gasoline tank failed the tightness test. The gasoline tank was subsequently removed on or about 27 April 1987. NJDEP personnel we�e on·site to observe the tank removal activities and conducted an inspection of the site at that time. Observations made during the inspection revealed the presence of gasoline·like odors and/or a sheen in storm drains located near the underground tanks. ·In addition, it was reported that

Dumont Boro DPW Garage PI: 024363 I;lwnont Borough Bergen County

3

a hole was discovered in the bottom of the gasoline tank and the underlying soil was noticeably contaminated. Soil was removed from the excavation until a clay layer was encountered and backfilled with clean soil. However, it appears no additional investigation/remediation was conducted in this area and a discharge investigation and corrective action report was not submitted for this event.

On or about September 30, 1990, a garbage truck containing hazardous substances caught fire and entered the DPW yard where the fire was extinguished with water and other fire suppressants. The NJDEP was notified of this incident and assigued it as NJDEP case/incident # 89-9-30-0853. It was reported that the truck was carrying trash from the Dumont High School and included out-of date­chemicals that had been inadvertently placed in the regular garbage. The fire erupted when the trash was compacted in the truck. The truck was diverted to the DPW yard and the garage was dumped on the unpaved ground where the fire was extinguished. All garbage and fire fighting waste water were collected in 55 gallon drums and were disposed of off-site. No sampling was conducted in the area at that time.

-

In May 1 990, the Bergen County Office of Emergericy Management notified the Department of a discharge of gasoline from an undergroimd storage tank at the site; this notification was assigued NJDEP case/incident #90-05-17-1528. Later that same day (May 17, 1990), the Borough of Dumont Police notified the Department that the underground storage tank had been removed; this notification was assigued NJDEP case/incident #90-05-17-1620. Free phase petroleum was observed in soils and water that accumulated in the tank excavation. It was also reported that gasoline contaminated water was observed leaching through a retaining wall separating the DPW facility from an adjacent property; the gasoline contaminated water then migrated across the ground surface and into a nearby stream. Information provided to the Department indicated that this-tank was a 1 OOO-galion capacity gasoline tank (possibly on Block 11 05 Lot 14) that had been taken out -of service in or about the early 1980s. Approximately 750 gallons of gasoline was left in the tank when it was taken out of service. At the time of its -removal in May 1990, there was 900 gallons of gasoline and water in the tank; however it was estimated only 90 gallons was gasoline. Based on this infonilation, it was estimated that over 600 gallons of gasoline had leaked from tbis tank from the time it was taken out of service (early 1980s) until it was removed in May 1990.

The Borough of Dumont subsequently retained EEC Environmental Inc. (BEC) to conduct an investigation of the former tank area. EEC installed five monitoring wells and performed a limited subsurface investigation to evaluate discharges from the fOlTI1er 1,000 gallon gasoline tank.

The initial investigation conducted in January 1991 revealed the presence of elevated levels of gasoline related compounds in several wells; the highest concentrations (benzene at 92,900 J.lgll; toluene at 35,900 J.lgll; ethylbenzene at 25,950 J.lgll; and xylenes at 240,500 J.lgll) were detected in MW-5 10cated northeast of the current DPW-facility. However no contaminants were detected in a monitoring- well located directly adjacent to and hydraulically down-gradient of the former 1,000 gallon gasoline tank. Based on these results EEe concluded that the contamination found in other monitoring wells may have been a result of discharges from the 4,000 gallon tank removed during 1986. This tank was the subject of incident # 86-10-09-05M as discussed above. EEC subsequently initiated an investigation of the site andidentified " . . . five separate areas of concern at the DDPW·

Dumont Bora DPW Garage PI: 024363 Dumont Borough Bergen County

4

property." These areas of concern included a fonner underground gasoline tank and rdeases of waste oil and residuals from home heating bil tanks in an area northeast of the DPW facility; a second underground gasoline tank and a stonn sewer line located north of the DPW facility; another area located east of the DPW facility where were reported historic releases of waste oil and residuals from heating oil tanks; an active waste oil tank and possible surface discharges of gasoline south of the DPW facility; and the area of a fonner waste water treatment plant on an adjacent propertY.

EEC excavated numerous test pits in ·the five areas of concern and installed four additional monitoring wells to further evaluate the suspected source areas at the site. Visible evidence of contamination andlor the presence of gasoline/petroleum odOl;s were observed in test pits at each of the areas of concern. It was also reported that several test pits revealed the presence of fill material; some of the fill encountered on-site and on an adjacent property was described as ·" .. [b]lack fine­grained material that appears to have been generated by the filtration processes of the former sewage treatment plant . . . ". Construction/demolition debris, auto parts and other miscellaneous materials were encountered in one or more test pits.

Ground water samples were collected from the nine on-site monitoring wells · in May 1991. Volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile compounds andlor petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in seven of the monitoring wells; several wells exhibited concentrations of benzene (up to 15,000 Ilgll), ethylbenzene (up to 4,800 llgfl), toluene (up to 36,000 Ilgfl), xylenes (up to 20,000 flgll), naphthalene (up to 705 flgll) and petroleum hydrocarbons (up to 24 mgll) that exceeded ground water quality standards. .

. .

At lea.st one. source suggests that two additional underground tanks were removed from the site in September 1991. It appears that soil contamination was discovered during the removal activities . . The Borough of Dumont Department of Public Works enviromnental consultant, BEC Enviromnental Inc., notified the Department of these observations;. this notification was assigned NJDEP case/incident #91-9-12-1533-49.

Additional soil and ground water investigations were conducted at the site during September 1 991 and November 1991.

Soil samp les were collected from test pits and soil borings installed at the five areas of concern previously identified by EEe. It was reported that soil staining and/or petroleum/gasoline-like odors were observed in numerous test pits and borings; sheens and other evidence of petroleum contamination was observed on groundwater in seversl test pits. Soil samples throughout the site revealed concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which exceeded NJDEP soil clean-up standards.

Six additional monitoring wells were installed during September and October 1991 . Samples were collected from fourteen of the site monitoring wells in October and November 1991 ; no sample was coJle�ted from MW -5 due to the presence of free phase petroleum product. Several samples revealed elevated levels of benzene (to 3,200 j.lgll), toluene (to 6,900 flgll), ethylbenzene (to 2,000 flgfl), xylenes (to 10,200 Ilgll), 1,2-dichloroethane (54 flgll) and/or MTBE (to 570 j.lgfl).

Dumont Bora DPW Garage PI: 024363 DUmont Borough Bergen County

5

In or about November 1991, a free product recovery program was initiated to remove petroleum product from MW-5.

. .

By letter dated 30 October 1992 the Department notified the Borough of Dumont that additional . investigation was required to further evaluate contamination related to former and current

underground storage tanks as well numerous other areas of environmental concern not related to the underground tanks. Specifically, the Borough of Dumont was required to conduct further sampling to delineate the extent of contamination related to the underground tank areas; determine the source(s) and delineate the extent of base-neutral contamination found in soil throughout the site; determine potential envirorunental impacts related to the extinguishment of the fire in the garbage truck (incident 89-9-30-0853): identify sources of gasoline related contamination which did uot appear to be related to the known underground tankS at the site; and identify and evaluate other on­site areas of concern iilcluding floor drains and dry wells. lri addition, the Department required the Borough of Dumont to prepare a separate underground tank registration for the 1 ,000 gallon gasoline tank that was formerly located on Block 1 105 Lot 14 since the area was located across the street from the existing DPW facility and the tank was not properly closed therefore it was still considered· active at the time of its removal in May 1990. (NOTE: The tank on Bloc:k 1 105 Lot 14 was eventually assigned registration # 0243632 and the underground tanks at the current DPW facility (Block 1 1 05 Lots 17-18) were registered under #0026606.)

Samples were collected from most of the existing site monitoring wells in December 1992. Samples �ere not collected from MW-S or MW-9 due to the presence of free phase petroleum product. Elevated concentrations . of benzene (up to 1300 flgll): toluene (up to 1500 flgll); ethylbenzene (up to 1200 figll) andlor xylenes (up to 4900 figll) were detected in several of the ground water samples. One sample also exhibited an elevated concentration oflead.

A soil gas survey was conducted at the site during February 1993 and revealed elevated concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene andlor xylenes at·various locations throughout the site. Toluene and xylenes were detected most frequently and at the highest concentrations . . It was also reported that the greatest concentrations of contamination were found in samples obtsined beneath the existing maintenance building (Block 1 1 OS Lot 1 7) and extended in a northeasterly direction towards a nearby strean1.

Three additional monitoring wells were installed at the site in August 1993. In addition, four piezometers and a recovery well were installed in an attempt to delineate the extent of the free phase petroleum contan1ination near the existing DPW facility (Block 1 1 05 Lot 17). Based on this investigation, Harding Lawson Associates concluded that free phase petroleum was confined to the area of MW-5 and MW-9.

Three additional underground tanks on Block I I 05 Lots 17 and 18 were removed during January 1994 by Boswell McClave Engineeritig on behalf ofthe'Borougb of Dumont. Post excavation soil samples were collected from the former tank areas; several of the post excavation samples exhibited elevated levels of base. neutral extractable compounds andlor petroleum hydrocarbons. It was reported that contaminated soil was removed from the tanks areas and disposed of off-site.

Dumont Boro DPW Garage PI: 024363 Dumont Borough

. Bergen County

6

By !etters dated 19 August 1994 and 23 August 1994, the Department's Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks notified the Borough of Dumont that since contamination.was documented at distinct locations with different addresses, the Department would address the locations as separate sites. Specifically, the Department infonned Dumont that incident #86· 1 0·09-05M would be assigned to the Department of Public Works site (Block 1 105 Lots 17 and 18) as it is specific to the first reported discharge that occurred at the site from an underground storage tsnk system. The contamination related to incident #90·05·17·1528 would be assigned to the "Aladdin Park site" (Block 1.105 Lot 14) as it is specific to the discharge that occurred from a 1,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank located on that parcel. The Department further required the Borough D\IIIlont to conduct an investigation of the site in order to identify any area of concern that ' may be contributing to the presence of base neutral extractable compounds throughout both sites, or alternatively to obtain data to support that this contamination was attributable to an off-site source. The Department also offered the Borough of Dumont the opportunity to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement that would enable the Department to assign one case manager to provide oversight of the investigation and remediation of both sites (DPW facility and Aladdin Park) and the·base neutral extractable contamination.

Samples were collected from most of the site monitoring wells in October 1 994; samples were again not collected from well MW-5 and MW-9 due to the presence of free' phase petroleum product. Several wells (MW-l, MW-4, MW-ll) also were not sampled since previous sampling events historically revealed non-detect levels of contamination. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and/or . xylenes Were again detected above ground water quality standards in one or more of the sampled

. wells. Surface water samples were collected from the nearby stream and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Tetrachloroethylene was detected in one ·of the surface water samples at 3 fLg/l. Available data indicates that ground water from the site flows towards this stream.

In January 1995, Harding Lawson Associates (Harding) submitted Supplemental Remedial 1nvestigation Results and Proposed Remedial Action reports for both the DPW facility and Aladdin

. Park property. Harding Lawson proposed capping areas of contaminated soil and executing a deed notice for these areas. For ground water, Harding Lawson proposed to recover free phase petroleum from the vicinity of MW-5 and MW-9, and address dissolved phase contamination through natural attenuation.

By letter dated 20 June 1995 the Department notified the Borough of Dumont that the Supplemental Remedial Investigation Results and Proposed Remedial Action was conditionally approved as a remedial investigation workplan; however the Borough was advised that the report could not be approved as a remedial action workplan. The 20. June 1995 letter also identified certsin deficiencies concerning the investigation and remediation of the regulated underground tsnks at the site and outlined specific requirements necessary to correct the cited deficiencies including further delineation of both soil and ground water contamination. 1n addition, the Department reported that the proposal for natural remediation could not be approved until the full extent of the ground water plume(s) was (were) delineated and all free product has been removed. The Borough was further advised that the issues pertaining to the regnlated underground tanks would be handled under the NJDEP Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks whereas non-regnlated tank issues would be addressed by another NJDEP office, unless the Borough executed a Memorandum of Agreement

Dumont Bora DPW Garage PI: 024363 Dumont Borough Bergen County

7

and requested that both underground storage tank isSues and non-underground tank issues be handled under one NJDEP program.

The Borough of Dumont entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department in January 1997 to conduct a preliminary assessment/site investigation, remedial investigation and remedial action for Block 1 105 Lots 17 and 22. (NOTE: It appears the site may also include Block 1 105 Lots 14, 15, 16 and 18; however these areas were not identified in the MOA package.)

The Borough of Dumont retained Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. to conduct the' investigation of the property pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement. '

In October 1998, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. submitted a Remedial Investigation Workplan and Historic Fill DeterminatIon relative to the DPW and Aladdin Avenue parcels. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. identified three areas of concern which included soils throughoUt the site contaminated with base neutral extractable compounds; contamination related to discharges from an underground tank formerly located on the Aladdin parcel; and contamination related to discharges from several underground tanks formerly located on the DPW parcel. Leggette, Brashears & Graham suggested that the site wide base neutral contamination was due to historical fill and the extent of this contamination had been delineated. As such, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. proposed implementing a declaration of environmental restriction and ' requested a conditional no further action for this area. Leggette, Brashears & Graham proposed to conduct additioruil ground "flIter sampling in the Aladdin parcel and recommended natural remediation with a CEA for this area. With regard to the contamination on the DPW property, Leggette, Brashears & Graham proposed to conduct further sampling and monitor ground water for the presence of free product; remediation would be proposed if free product was observed, and natural remediation would be the selected remedy if no free product was encountered and a decreasing trend was observed in the levels of dissolved phsse contamination.

By letter dated 6 August 1999 the Department's Bureau ofField Operations - Northern Field Office notified the Borough of Dumont that the Remedial Investigation Workplan and Historic Fill Determination did not address deficiencies identified in several previous NJDEP letters dated 12 June 1995 and 20 June 1995. The Borough was advised that the workplan should be revised to address the cited deficiencies. The Borough of Dumont failed to respond to the 6 August 1999 deficiency letter and the Department terminated the Memorandum of Agreement under letter dated 23 August 2000.

The NJDEP conducted inspections of Dumont Department of Public Works (DPW) facility on 20 July 2010 and 1 6 September 2010. It was determined that potential areas of concern remain to be addressed at the site. A review of available NJDEP case files indicate that the investigation and remediation of the site has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Department. In addition, many of the previous investigation reports provide conflicting, or contradictory information. As such, the Borough of Dumont must conduct an investigation of the site and evaluate all identified 'areas of environmental concern in accordance with the Site Remediation Refonn Act and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation.

Dumont Bora DPW Garage PI: 024363

'Dumont Borough Bergen County

Liability

8

The Bureau of Enforcement and InvesiigationslResponsible Party Investigations Unit (RPID) has initiated an investigation to identifY the responsible parties tbat are liable for remediation of the above referenced contamination. The Borough of Dumont, owner of the property at the time hazardous substances were discharged waS also the owner and operator of regulated underground storage tanks from which hazardous substances were discharged. Therefore, the Borough of Dumont is a responsible party pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act (NJ.S.A. 58: 10-23 et seq.) and the Underground Storage of Hazardous SubStances Act Furthermore, the Borough of Dumont has an affirmative obligation to investigate and remediate contamination related to site operations pursuant to the Site Remediation Reform Act.

Site Remediation Reform Act (N.J.s.A. 58:10C-l et seq) On 7 May 2009, the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) was enacted. The SRRA compels responsible parties to address discharges of hazardous substances by establishing an affillnative obligation to conduct remediation. The SRRA establishes criteria for the licensing of site remediation professionals who will assure that contaminated sites are remediated in accordance with the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, N.J.A.C. 7 :26E and related Department guidance. The SRRA authorizes the Department to establish mandatory timeframes for the completion of each phase of remediation. These timefrarnes, as well as other requirements of the act, have b�n codified in regulations that became effective on 4 November 2009. The regulations can be found at http://www.ni.gov/dep/srp/regs/.

Pursuant to section 30 of SRRA (NJ.S.A. 58:10B-1.3.30.a.), the owner or operator of an industrial �stablishment that is subject to the Industrial Site Recovery Act; the discharger of a hazardous substance, or those in any way responsible for a hazardous substance' pursuant to provisions of the Spill Compensation and Control Act; and the owner or operator of an underground storage tank that is subject to the provisions of the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act, that has discharged a hazardous substance, shall remediate the discharge(s) of hazardous substances. Remediation must be completed within timeframes established by the Department, and responsible parties who initiate remediation after 4 November 2009 must use the services of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional. Specific requirements can be found at NJ.A.C. 7:26C-2.4.

Failure to comply with the obligations of SRRA may result in the Department taking direct oversight of the remediation of the contaminated site. Once a site or a portion of a site is under direct Department oversight, the responsible party forfeits all rights iu the decision making process regarding the remedial investigation and remedial action to be' performed at the site, including remedy selection. .

As the flIst step in the remedial process, you must complete the Confirmed Discharge Notification Form, (available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/srra/fonnsJ); the completed Confirmed Discharge Notification Form must be submitted to the Department within five (5) days of your receipt of this letter. The next step in the process is to hire a Licensed Site Remediation Professional. A list of Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) is available

Dumont Bora DPW Garage PI: 024363

, Dumont Borough Bergen County

9

at http://www.state.ni.usldep/srp/slTa/lsrP/temporary lsrp list.htm. A LSRP Notification of Retention or Dismissal Form (available at http://Www.nj.gov/dep/srp/slTa/formsl) must be completed and submitted to the Department within 45 days of your receipt of this letter, Please send all submittals to:

NJDEP, Bureau of Case Assignment & Initial Notice 401 East State Street, PO Box 434 Trenton, NJ 08625-0434 Attention: Bureau Chief

Should you fail to submit the required documentation or decide not to comply with all remedial reqUirements, the case will be evaluated · for enforcement action pursuant to the above referenced statutory authorities. Failure to complete the required remediation may result in the Department conducting the remediation using public funds, If public funds are expended to conduct remediation, the Borough of Dumont may be held liable for up to three times the costs incurred by the Department.

Please contact me at 609.292.2466 if you have questions regarding this correspondence,

c: Clerk, Borough of Dumont John p, Perkins, Borough of Dumont Admiuistrator Kirstin Pointin-Hahn, Chief, BCAlN

(

" I

'."

.'

.i;:

iUEi'dBERS AYE CARRICK ( CASPARE FREEMAN I i\fANNA j Sl'YLIA.NOU J ZAMECHANSKY .J MAYOR McHAL£ TOTALS S-

Offered by: Seconded by: I

2010 BOROUGH OF DUMONT

RESOLUTION

NAY AllSTAIN ABSENT

.�

.1

Resohltion No. 285 �----------------Date: November 9, 2010 Page: l of 2 --------�------�-----Subject: Investigation and Subpoena

power related to DPW Environmental Remediation

Purpose: Authoi'ization

Account No . .

Contract No. , Dollar Amount: ------�---------------Pl'epared By: Gregg Paster, Esq.

Certiiied as a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the. Borough of Dumont on above �ate at a R�guJar Meeting by: �� � '. Susan Connelly, RMC, Borough Clerk

B.orough of Dumont, Bergen County, New Jersey . . . .

AUTf!ORIZATION OF INVESTIGATION AND SUBPOENA POWER RELATED TO DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

.

RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF DUMONT COUNTY OF BERGEN,. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

WHEREAS, the govemiJ;lg body has authorized investigation into the circumstances and actions surrounding certain environmental spill cases as set forth in a letter dated September 29, 2010 from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; and

. . . .. EXHIBIT ·

f 8<

: "

WHEREAS, the investigation requires additional infonnation, including document requests and subpoenas; and

WHEREAS, the Borough Council of.the'BorOtlgh of Dumont now seeks to exercise its powers pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution, applicable statute and case law interpretations to issue subpoenas to compel testinlOny and production of documents as required to complete the investigation,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Borough of Dumont, County 'of Bergen, State of New Jersey that the Borough Attomey be and is hereby authorized to issue subpoenas ad testificandum andlor subpoenas duces tecum in the name of the Borough of Dumont, and to request such testinlOny and production of documents and things as may be necessary to complete the authorized investigation.

1 hereby certify'the foregoing to be a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Borough of Dumont Council at a meeting held on November q, 2010.

ATTEST:

us an ,Connelly, RNIC, Boro h Clerk

Dated: November 9, 2010

BOROUGH OF DUMONT

Nud BY: /MATTHEW� ,

DATE UN-DATED

UN-DATED

UN-DATED

UN-DATED

UN-DATED

UN-DATED

UN-DATED (someti me during l.UU n) UN-DATED

DATE UNCLE AR

UN-DATED

. :iED

:iED :�ED 0�RIO

VARIO

AUTHOR Tank u�.

FROM: Lee Hendricks TO: ? (first few pages are missing) CC: Steven Tigginger; Jos.

DEP

Ie A

SUMMARY • • 0 o •

o 0

o 0

o

o

o

0 0

0 0

o

0

0

0

0

0

Work Order Acknowledgment Signed by John Cook Re: 3000 gal tank and 2000 gal tank Draft ofMOA Application NJDEP 90-05-17- 1 528 90-05-17-1620, 90: M "�:�, 'H-02-12-15332 Draft 1 ofMOA Application NJDEP 86-10-09-05M (aka 86-09-22-1 0M)

Draft 2 of MOA Application NJDEP 86-10-09-05M (aka 86-09-22-10M)

Unexecuted NJDEP Site Remediation Program - Application for Financial Assistance under the Underground Storage Tank Finance Act or the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund

NJDEP General Permit: Storage and Transfer of Service Station Fuels at Gasoline Facilities UST Facility Certification Questionnaire

Pages 3-1 1 of a letter from Lee Hendricks Concludes that Dumont must submit a RAW

UST Facility Questionnaire Not filled out, but handwritten on last page says "sent to Marvin for signatures 12f29/??" ?? = either 94 or 96. Initialed DR? Bust Discharge Investigation and Corrective A�t;"" u . 0if· ' Chee� 1-i�t Standards Evaluation

UST Registration Questionnaire

Case Transfer RepOlt

Original Work Sheets

Site Maps

LOCATION Certificate of Insurance at 214

10-06-1 0_DEP_docs_vol 2 at 3 7-42 1 0-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 2 at 43-51 1 0-06-1 0_��:

6Idocs_vol

2 at 1 0-06-1 0_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 40-46 *Possibly an attachment to the U/;)I1.U/'j�_ ,,,,,,,,T c�" , of Insurance at 5 8-64

Certificate of Insurance at 94-98

, of Insurance at 102-1 1 0

Certificate of Insurance at 13 2-1 3 5

� .... II C�-... ... - .• . <

US 05/08/86 NJDEP • UST Registration Questionnaire OPRA DEP files3

• Signed by John Cook at 86-89 09122/86 NJDEP • Incident Notification Report OPRA DEP files3

• Report of "spill caused by overfill. Spill at 83 onto driveway." On Dumont Ave.

• Rep_orted by United Oil Compan� 09122/86 NJDEP • Incident Notification Report OPRA DEP files3

• Report of "gasoline spill from overfill" on at 84 Alladin Ave (@ DPW)

• Reported by Tony Pierro 1 0/09/86 • NJDEP Incident Notification Report; OPRA DEP files3

incident reported by Joseph Ferriero at 9-10; 1 1 • Status at scene of incident: 2 underground

are infiltrating • Incident referred to Mr. Cook

1 0/09/86 FROM: Jean Adragna (NJDEP) • List of contractors enclosed OPRA DEP files3 TO: John Cook • Tanks should be tested ASAP - if leaking, at 1 3

oil must be pumped, tank must be removed, and contaminated soil removed

1 0/09/86 • NJDEP Incident Notification Report; OPRA DEP files3 incident reported by Joseph Ferriero at 1 4

• Status at scene of incident: 2 USTs infiltrating gl'Oundwater

05/12/87 DEP MEMO • 10/09/86 Jos. Ferriel'O phoned to inform that OPRA DEP files6 FROM: Jean Adragna 2 USTs were infiltrating groundwater at 56-58 TO: Spill File through Robert • 2-pg memo outlining the investigation and Zollner recommendations

• Recommend monitoring wells to determine how gasoline is entering storm sewer s),stem

08/27/87 • DEP Standard Reporting Form for the removal ofUST (04/27/87 - 3000 gal. unleaded gasoline tank

1 1/6/87 • Phone log OPRA DEP files6 • Soil removal frozen blc of lab deficiencies at 1 5 • Borings needed along storm line to prove

gasoline is not traveling underneath it or infiltrating the line itself

• Wells should be placed • Gasoline sheen does enter the brook

1 1/ 13/87 FROM: John Cook • Enclosing copy oflab repOit regarding soil . OPRA DEP files3 TO: Dave Beeman (Hazmat) removed wI gas tank from DPW yard @ at 46

Aladdin Ave in Dumont Report at 47-82 • Seeking permission to remove the dirt

03/04/88 FROM: Arnold Schiffinan • UST Registration is about to expire Certificate of (Administrator, Water Quality • Enclosing invoice Insurance at 174 Management Element NJDEP) TO: UST Facility_ Certificate of

Owner/Operator msurance at 175 03/28/88 • Site Maps 03/28/88 • Alillual Certification Questionnaire 06/08/88 NJDEP • Standard Reporting Fonn for removal of Certificate of

UST (04/27/87 -unleaded gasoline tank) msurance at 190-• Note: attached doc indicates date of 192

04/27/88 02110/89 • NJ UST Program Registration mvoice Certificate of

• DPW Garage msurance at 169 • $ 100 4ue

04/26/89 FROM: Joseph L. Vona • Encl. data sheet requiring identification of Certificate of (Municipal Excess Liability JlF) the number and type of tanks (and any msurance at 186-TO: Mayor and Council problems) 1 89

• Attached data sheet is completed 09/30/89 • NJDEP mvestigation - sulfur odors OPRA DEP files3

emanating from real' of refuse compactor at 5-7 truck after dumpster picked up from Dumont High

• Responsible party: Dumont High 09/30/89 • NJDEP Duty Officer Notification Report OPRA DEP files3

• mcident: fire in back of refuse truck caused at 1-2 odor of sulfur

• Responsible Party: Unknown 09/30/89 • NJDEP Communications Center OPRA DEP files3

Notification Report at 3-4 • Status at mcident Scene: fire at DPW yard

in back of a garbage truck. A couple of workers are being treated by paramedics. Local Hazmat is on scene

09/30/89 • NJDEP Field Notice of Violations OPRA DEP files3 • Responsible party: Dumont High at 8 • Illegal disposal of hazardous waste by

school employee resulting in chemical fire 1990- EEC • Soil and Well Logs, Drawings, and charts 10-06-1991 1 0_DEP_docs_vol

3 at 1-96 01116/90 • Certificate of msurance Certificate of

msurance at 213

Certificate of msurance at 216

02/10/90 NJ UST • Program Registration mvoice Certificate of • DPW Garage msurance at 209 • $ 1 00 due for registration 02/01/90-01131191

02/21190 • Annual Certification Questionnaire Certificate of msurance at 203-204

02/28/90 FROM: John cook • 04/27/87, Borough removed gas tank and OPRA DEP files3 TO: HazMat dirt; dirt stored @J DPW at 44-45

CC: Administrator Dominic • Never notified of how or if the dirt could be dumped and have been storing it all these years

• 02/06/90, discovered that the dirt had been taken from the DPW - don't know who took it or for what purpose

• Filed Dolice reDort regarding missing dirt 03/08/90 John Molinaro • NJDEP Communications Ctr Notification OPRA DEP files3

Report at 9 1 • Reporting oil sheen/spill in creek behind

128 Dickson St. 03/14/90 • Annual Certification Questiolmaire 03/1 5/90 FROM: John Cook • Responding to request for info on USTs in Celtificate of

TO: Jos. Ferriero Dumont Insurance at 206-207

03/22/90 FROM: Peter Larsen • 09/23/88 US EPA issued final regulations Certificate of TO: Mayors and Council for mgmt. of petroleum and chemical USTs Insurance at 193-Members; Municipal Excess • Please complete attached survey form and 202 Liability JIF return to PERMA

• Enclosed forms are completed 05/17/90 American Environment • Spill Clean-up and Emergency Response Certificate of

Technologies Price List Insurance at 226 05/17/90 American Environmental • Two (2) Daily Work Sheets Certificate of - Technologies Corp. Insurance at 234-0511 8190 235 05/21190 American Enviromnent • Daily Work Sheet Certificate of

Technologies Corp. Insurance at 23 1 05/22/90 FROM: Janice Dudek • Recently issued Provisional EPA ID Certificate of

TO: Denise Schneider (Dumont number on emergency basis; will expire 30 Insurance at 222-Sec'y) davs from date of issuance 223

05/23/90 FROM: John Cook • List of phone calls made immediately after Certificate of TO: Mayor Moriarty; gas leak detected on 05/17/90 Insurance at 229 Commissioner Farrel

05/24/90 FROM: John Cook • Rec'd price from American Environment Certificate of TO: Commissioner Farrell Technology to Petro-Tite test the gas tanks Insurance at 230

• Cost is $825/tank 05/28/90 • DEP Report of phonecall OPRA DEP files7

at 5 5 05/30/90 FROM: American Environmental • Proposal for tank testing Certificate of

Technologies Corp. Insurance at 2 1 1 -TO: John Coak (John Cook?) 212

06/0 1/90 FROM: David Rubin through • Enforcement referral form OPRA DEP files7 Joseph Miller (BUST) • High priority at 49 TO: Stefan Sedlak (Metro Bureau • Violation: 05/17/90 gasoline leak from of Regional Enforcement) retaining wall btwn DPW & warehouse; gas CC: Theodore Hayes; David spilled into a stream Rubin

06/01/90 DEP; Division of Water • Complaint Incident Investigation Form OPRA DEP files7 Resources; Bureau of at SO-53

Underground Storage Tanks 06101/90 • DEP report of phone call OPRA DEP files7

at 54 06106190 American Environment • Invoice No. 6.1639 totaling $ 1 1,963.04 for CeItificate of

Technologies Corp. spill cleanup work done on 05/17/90, Insurance at 217-05/1 8/90, 05/21190 218

06106190 FROM: John Cook • Requesting Permanent EPA ID number Certificate of TO: Janice Dudek (US EPA) • Incident that occurred on May 17, 1990 has Insurance at 219

not been resolved and could exceed the 30-day allowance wi Provisional EPA ID number

06106190 US EPA • Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Certificate of • Filled out by John Cook Insurance at 220-• Gasoline noticed coming out of ground in 221

parking lot. Traced to leaking tank. 06/07/90 FROM: American Environment • Invoice no. 6.1645 for $1650 due for Celtificate of

Technologies Corp. services testing a 3000 gal gasoline tank and Insurance at 210 TO: Dumont a 2000 gal diesel tank

06/18/90 FROM: Jeffrey Carney • Reporting 05/17/90 fuel leak and requesting OPRA DEP files7 (Ferriero's office) DEP compliance inshuctions at 4 5 TO: DEP Commissioner

06/19190 DEP • Case assignment (gas leak from abandoned OPRA DEP files7 UST) at 48

07/03/90 FROM: Anthony McMahon • Division of Water Resources (DWR) will OPRA DEP files7 TO: Jos. Ferriero conduct investigation at 44 CC: DWR Director's Office; Stefan Sedlack; K. Goldstein

07/03/90 DEP • Notice of Violation - discharge of Certificate of peh'Oleum product from abandoned UST Insurance at 215

• John Cook signed for receipt of violation 08113190 FROM: James Hamilton (DEP) • 06/18/90: Jos. Fen'iero reported fuel leak & Certificate of

TO: Mayor and Council requested info as to how to comply wi DEP Insurance at 232-CC: Assistant Commissioner • 07/03/90: Anthony McMahon advised 233 Keith; Deputy Director Mumman; Ferriero that Division of Water Resources Anthony McMahon; Jos. Ferriero; would conduct investigation and infolm Peter Lynch; Ken Goldstein; Borough of any corrective requirements Stefan Sedlak • 07/03/90: rep from DWR conducted

inspection and issued Notice of Violation for discharging petroleum from abandoned UST

• Borough must submit copies of implementation timetable wlin 30 days; modify timetable to conform wi DEP' s comments wlin 20 days of receipt of such comments; implement scope of work; submit report wlin 30 days of receipt of this letter containing info outlined herein

08/16190 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Enc!. instructions from DEP re: leaking fuel Celtificate of TO: John Cook tanks at Dumont DPW Insurance at 228

CC: Mayor and Council • Review letter and comply w/ all requirements

09/12/90 FROM: Jos. FelTiero • Leak detected on 05/17/90 OPRA DEP files7 TO: Stefan Sedlak • Exhibit A is a memo from Jo1m Cook at 72-79

outlining exactly what he did upon discovering the leak

• On 05/18/90 the tank was removed by American Environmental Technologies Corp.

• Source dete1Tllined to be abandoned 1000-gal UST

09/14/90 FROM: Stefan Sedlak (DEP) • DEP Division of Water Resources OPRA DEP files7 TO: Mayor and Council "recognizes your cooperative effort in at 94 CC: Anthony McMahon; Jos. notifying NJDEP of the leak from the tank, FelTiero; Peter Lynch; Ken and for removing the tank according to the Goldstein; Stefan Sedlak State's requirements. The division grants

the request for a thirty (30) day extension to the Borough of Dumont to provide a stenwise implementation time table."

10/15/90 FROM: Jane Levandoski (BEC) • EEC retained by Borough OPRA DEP files6 TO: Walter Bell (DEP) • Attaching schedule of activities for at 5-6 CC: Jos. FelTiero; Theodore compliance effort Sobieski • UST was removed @ time release was

discovered • Schedule = 10/29/90 contaminated soil

removal & post-soil sampling; 1 1/05/90 monitoring well installation; 1 1/19/90 first round of well sampling; 12/17/90 receipt of soil and groundwater analytical results; 01/06/90 [sic] completion of site characterization activities and submittal of report to DEP

10/26/90 • DEP Report of phonecall OPRA DEP files6 • Appears to be signed by Walter Bell; person at 2 1

contacted = Jane Levandoski • Wells will not be installed on 10/29/90;

expected to be installed sometime next week

1 1/13/90 • Report of phonecall; appears to be signed OPRA DEP files6 by Walter Bell; person contacted = Jo1m at 19 Virgie

• Drilling tomOITOW 1 1/14/90 instead of today due to malfunction of drill rig

1 1114/90 • Report of phonecall; appears to be signed OPRA DEP files6 by Walter Bell; person contacted - John at 20 Virgie

• Having problems w/ well drilling; will be starting late

1 1114/90 • UST Facility Inspection Report OPRA DEP files6

at 22-24 02/19191 FROM: John Cook • Encl. UST Questionnaire that must be filled Celtificate of

TO: Mayor & council; Kathy out and retnrned in order to certify the tanks Insurance at 144-Sayers (Clerk/Admin) in the borough 145 1 149?

• Filled out the form to the best of his knowledge; please look over and complete

• Also encl. requisition for $$ required to register the tanks

02/26/91 • DEP Report of phonecall OPRA DEP files6 • Appears to be signed by S. Sedlack; person at 4

contacted = "Jane Levandoski" • EEC retained by Borough to conduct

investigation; 5 monitoring wells installed; well downgradient of tank most recently removed was found to be clean; EEC will focus on tank that was removed 3-4 years ago

04/09191 FROM: John Virgie; Jane • DICAR will be delayed blc investigation to OPRA DEP files3 Levandoski date reveals that the UST that was the at 3 8-43 TO: Stefan Sedlack subject ofthe completed investigation is not CC: John Dotterweich (DEP): the source of the observed conditions that Jos. FelTiero; Theodore Sobieski initiated the investigation (Le., the product

seeping from a bank btwn the DPW garage propelty and the adjacent property following heavy rainfa1\). The UST that was the subject of this investigation was removed immediately after the seepage was observed and was thought to be the source of the observed product

• 5 monitoring wells have been installed + 1 round of groundwater samples from the we1\s

• Test results and "information gathered tlu'ough interviews with persons familiar with historic operations at the DDPW property suggest that a second gasoline UST that was formerly located between MW-4 and MW-5 as shown on the figure in Attachment A may instead bethe source of these concentrations. This UST was reportedly removed five or six years ago, apparently prior to promulgation of federal and state UST regulations."

• Several add'i monitoring wells wi\1 be installed

• enclosing add'i activities and repolt submittal

06/18/91 • Tier II Data Package OPRA DEP files 5 • Analytical Data Report Package for at 128

EEClEnvironmental & Energy

• Collected 05/09/91 and 05/10/91 • Cover page only

06124/91 FROM: Jane Levandoski • EEC Results of Add'l Soils and Sent to TO: Jos. Feniero Groundwater Investigation Matu1ewicz

06/26/91 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • April 1991, Borough submitted proposed OPRA DEP files7 TO: Stefan Sedlak schedule for activity which would provide at 105 CC: Theodore Sobieski; John for submittal of report to DEP for June 24, Dotterweich; Mayor & Council 1991

• Borough has found add'l sources of contamination

• In the process of scheduling a meeting w/ Mayor and Council to discuss add'l testing and potential remediation

• Request 90-day extension to submit final report

07/03/91 FROM: Jos. Feniero • Follow-up to 06/26/91 letter OPRA DEP files7 TO: Stefan Sedlak • Please advise as to position of extension at 106

reauest 07117/91 FROM: Stefan Sedlak • Re: 06/26/91 letter OPRA DEP files7

TO: Jos. Ferriero • Granting request for 90 day extension to at 1 07-108 CC: Anthony McMahon; evaluate add' 1 testing and potential Borough; Peter Lynch; Ken remediation Goldstein; Stefan Sedlak

09/12/91 Jane Levandoski • NJDEP Communications Ctr Notification OPRA DEP files3 Report at 3 7

• Reporting "soil contaminated with gasoline" at Dumont DPW OPRA DEP files3

• "Officials Notified: Dumont Boro Pt!. at 90

Bland" 09/24/9 1 FROM: Jane Levandoski • 90-day extension ofNJDEP time to OPRA DEP files3

TO: Jos. Ferriero complete supplemental activities is needed at 33-35 CC: Theodore Sobieski; Michael • Reasons for extension outlined below Appleyard • "As you know authorization to proceed with

the supplemental activities was not granted until August 27, 1991 by the Dumont Mayor and Borough Council, 64 days into the 90-day period granted by the NJDEPE. EEC understands that the delay in granting authorization was caused by the Borough' s summer schedule during which meetings at which funds can be allocated occur infrequently. "

• Add'l technical reasons also described • Add'l costs will be incuned for

mobilization and operation ofthe add'l drilling equip.

• Anticipated schedule of activities enclosed 09126/9 1 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Enclosing report rec'd from EEC OPRA DEP files7

TO: Stefan Sedlack (NJDEP) • Add'l sources of contamination have been at 1 10-1 1 1

found . . . requiring the installation of a steel casing to prevent add'l contamination

• Enclosing anticipated schedule of activities • Requesting extension until 12/20/9 1 in

order to furnish DEP wi report 10/03/91 FROM: Gloria Grant (DEP) • Site investigation has been transferred to OPRA DEP files7

TO: Jos. Ferriero Division of Responsible Party Site at 1 09 CC: Theodore Sobrieski (BEC) Remediation, Discharge Response Element

• In order to update DEP files and facilitate transfer of case to different case mgr, requesting brief status update of activities implemented since June 1991 andlor planned through December 1991

1 0129/9 1 • NJDEP Enforcement referral form OPRA DEP files3 • 2 USTs removed; soil contamination at 3 6

discovered • case referred to Gloria Grant

1 1118191 Carmine M. Fioriglio • Test Report No. A26006 OPRA DEP filesS (AnalytiKEM) at 1 12-126

1 1/19/91 FROM: Gloria Gant (NJDEP) • Borough must immediately initiate free 10-06-TO: Jos. Ferriero product recovery 1 0_DPE_docs_vol CC: Jane Levandoski (EEC) 6 at 46-50

1 1/21/91 Carmine M. Fioriglio • Test Report No. A2601 1 OPRA DEP filesS (AnalytiKEM) at 94-110

1 1/22/91 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Enclosing communication from DEP; OPRA DEP files7 TO: Jane Levandoski requesting to take steps to comply wi NJAC at 1 12 CC: DEP; Mayor and Council 7:14B-8.2

1 1/25/91 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Borough will immediately entertain free OPRA DEP files7 TO: Gloria Grant product recovery at 1 13 CC: Jane Levandoski; Dumont • Jane Levandoski has been directed to Mayor and Council initiate same

12/02/9 1 FROM: Jane Levandoski (BEC) • Re: Procedures for Free-phase Hydrocarbon OPRA DEP files7 TO: Gloria Grant (DEP) Recovery at 1 14-1 1 5 CC: Dumont Mayor and Council; • FPHC recovery will be completed through Jos. Ferriero; Theodore Sobieski hand bailing

• Hand bailing will be conducted by DPW employees following training by EEC in proper procedures and safety considerations

• Recovered FPHC will be collected in drums for proper offsite disposal

• The frequency at which hand bailing will be performed will be detennined during the first several weeks of the recovery effort and will be based on the rate of FPHC recharge in the welles). The anticipated rate is once per day or couple of days.

12111191 FROM: Jos Ferriero • Request 30-day extension for DrCAR OPRA DEP files3 TO: Gloria Grant at 30-31 CC: Jane Levandoski

12/11191 FROM: Jane Levandoski • Explaining reason for extension ofDlCAR OPRA DEP files3 TO: Jos. Ferriero due date at 29, 32

12/18/91 FROM: Grant • Granting 12/1 1/91 request for extension of OPRA DEP files7 TO: F erriero time to submit DlCAR until 0 1/20/92 [sic; at 1 1 6 CC: Levandoski letter says 01/20/9 1]

1992- Dumont DPW • Product Recovery/Well Inspection Logs Construction 1993 Permit at 65-81 01/17/92 EEC 0 Figure 6: Site Map with Soil Sample OPRA DEP files3

Laboratory Results: Aladdin Park Dumont at 92-95 DPW

01/21/92 FROM: Jane Levandoski (EEC 0 Re: Dumont DlCAR Summary (Discharge 10-06-Environmental) Investigation & Corrective Action Report) 1 0_DEP_docs_vol TO: Gloria Grant (NJDEP) 0 NJDEP 90-05-17-1528M I at 1-78 CC: Marvin Katz (Dumont); Jos. 0 Enclosing 3 copies ofDlCAR Ferriero; Richard Grzywinski (EEC); Emilv Cord (EEC)

0 1128/92 FROM: Levandoski • Enclosing DlCAR OPRA DEP files7 TO: Grant at 1 17-120 CC: Ferriero; Katz; Cord-Duthinh

04/03/92 FROM: John Cook 0 Attaching State regulations for USTs Certificate of TO: Mayor Wiuant; Council; 0 Advising that tanks currently do not comply Insurance at 13-14 Marvin Katz wi any of the regulations (including

0 Tanks are 1 0 years old and should be regulations)

replaced 0 Fines for noncompliance will be steep and

this should be acted on ASAP 04/14/92 0 BUST DlCAR Deficiency checklist OPRA DEP files6

(marked internal use only) at 2 5-27 10/02/92 0 BUST DlCAR Deficiency checklist 10/19/92 FROM: Ferriero 0 Ferriero's office is counsel in connection wi OPRA DEP files7

TO: Ruhl Dumont DPW office at 1 2 1 CC: Levandoski; Mayor and 0 Please advise as to status ofDEP review; Council "municipality is eager to resolve this

matter" 1 0/29/92 0 Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3

Document Transmittal Form at 105-106 0 Re: transmittal of Deficiency document

1 0/30/92 FROM: Kevin Kratina (NJDEP 0 Borough must address remaining UST 1 0-06-Chief of BUST) concerns, outlined herein 1 0_DPE_docs_vol TO: Jos. Ferreiro; Marvin Katz; • Borough required to submit RAW wlin 90 6 at 51-60 John Cook CC: Steven Tiffmger (Bergen

days of receipt ofthis letter

County Dept of Health Svcs); John Ruhl (BUST); Jane Levandoski (BEC)

1 0/30/92 FROM: Kevin Kratina (NJDEP) 0 Lengthy letter indicating matters of Celtificate of TO: Jos. Ferreiro; Marvin Katz; noncompliance and DPW site, liability Insurance at 20-30 John Cook issues, and required remediation to reach CC: Steven Tiffinger (Bergen compliance Enclosure: UST

County Dept of Health Svcs); Registration John Ruhl (BUST); Jane Levandoski (BEC)

Package (at 3 1)

1 1/12/92 NJDEPlDumont • Filled out UST Registration Questionnaire Certificate of Insurance at 15-18

0111 1193 FROM: Mike Tompkins (NJDEP) • Enclosing completed Registration Form Construction TO: UST Owner • Form is deficient because (1) fee has not Permit at 60-64

been submitted ($100) and (2) Standard ReDorting Form not filed

02/03/93 FROM: John Cook • Completed NJDEP Standard Reporting Construction Form for Removal ofUST Permit at 57-58

02/04/93 FROM: Jane Levandoski • Info requested to modify due date for OPRA DEP files3 TO: John Ruhl remedial plan at 24-26 CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. Ferriero; • Conditions at the site are fairly complex; Richard Grzywinksi Remedial investigation being conducted in a

phased manner • Sources of contamination in some areas are

currently not known 02/08/93 • BUST Fee Paysheet ($100 rec'd) OPRA DEP files3

at 85 02/10/93 FROM: NJDEP • NJ UST Program Registration Invoice Construction

TO: Dumont ($100 due) Permit at 59 02/17/93 • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP

Document Transmittal Fotm files3 at 103-104 • Re: Transmittal of RAW Extension

02/19193 FROM: Mark Fisher (NJDEP) • Re: 02/04/93 letter OPRA DEP TO: Ferriero; Katz; Cook • Granting request for extension of time to files3 at 27-28 CC: Ruhl, Tiffinger, Levandoski submit sample results and RAW

05/26/93 FROM: Jane Levandoski; Edward • RE: Notification of Need to Revise OPRA DEP files3 Nemecek Schedule at 22-23 TO: Jolm Ruhl • Confuming phonecall earlier that morning CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. Ferriero wherein they discussed the need to revise

the schedule 07/12/93 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Submitting proposal for UST removal and Construction

TO: Marvin Katz replacement (remove 275-gal waste oil, Permit at 27-33 CC: Mayor and Council; John 2000-gal diesel, 3000-gal unleaded gas; Cook install 500-gal waste oil and dual

compartment 5000-gal diesel and unleaded) • Total project cost = $55,260

08/1993 FROM: Boswell McClave (John • UST Closure Plan Construction Foster) Permit at 35-45 TO: Borough

08111/93 • UST Closure Plan Approval Application OPRA DEP files3 at 15-18

0811 1/93 FROM: John Foster (Boswell • Enclosing docs in connection w/ UST Construction McClave) Closure Plan (Application; Closure Plan; Permit at 1 1 TO: Anthony Cinque (NJDEP) Location Plan; Fee) CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin Construction Katz; John Cook (DPW Permit at 34

Superintendent); Ronald Ferrari (Construction Code Official)

08/17/93 • BUST fee pmt ($510) OPRA DEP files 5 at 1 6 1

08/26/93 NJDEP Stream Encroachment • Application No. 0210-93-00021 Construction Application • Dumont application for approval of a Permit at 6

project along a stream Construction Permit at7

08/27/93 NJDEP • UST System Closure Approval -to remove Construction one 500-gal waste oil UST and appurtenant Permit at 4 piping

• On-site mgr John Foster Construction Permit at 16

08/27/93 NJDEP • UST System Closure Approval - to remove Construction one 2000-gal diesel/fuel oil UST and Permit at 5 appurtenant piping

• On-site mgr John Foster Construction Permit at i 7

08/27/93 NJDEP • UST System Closure Approval - to remove Construction one 3000-gal gasoline UST and associated Permit at 12 piping

• On-site mgr John Foster Construction Permit at 46

08/3 1/93 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Enclosing revised copy of proposal from Construction TO: Mayor and Council Metro-Tank for removal of 3 tanks and Penn it at 25-26 CC: Marvin Katz; John Dudas; installation of 2 new tanks at DPW Yard John Cook

• Must place order by 09/15193 in order to take advantage of contract prices ($59,592.80)

-

09/08/93 FROM: NJDEP • Letter granting Closure Approval Construction TO: Applicant Permit at 47

[Blank Standard Reporting Form at 48]

[Blank Site Assessment Summary at 49-53]

Certificate of Insurance .at 161

09114/93 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Enclosing Closure Approvals dated Construction TO: Marvin Katz 08/27/93 Permit at 18-21 CC: Mayor and Council; John • Enclosing Standard Reporting Form and (including Cook Site Assessment Summary enclosures)

09/24/93 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Recommendation for bid ofUST project Construction

TO: Mayor and Council Pennit at 56 CC: Beth Schafer (Borough); Marvin Katz; John Dudas; John Cook

1 1/02/93 FROM: (Boswell) • Boswell reviewed 4 bids (rec'd 10/28/93) Construction TO: Mayor and Council for UST removal and installation Pennit at 54-55 CC: Marvin Katz; John Cook • Boswell recommends lowest bidder Castle

Excavating for removal - bid = $7795.00 • Boswell recommends lowest bidder Metro-

Tank for installation - bid =$64,922.50 12/27/93 FROM: Matthew Murphy • ConfIrming pre-construction meeting Construction

(Boswell) discussions held on 12/08/93 @ Borough Pennit at 22-24 TO: Frank Comiskey (Castle Hall Excavating) • Scope of works involves removal of 3 USTs CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin (250-gal waste oil, 2000-gal diesel, 3000-Katz; John Cook; John Foster gal unleaded gasoline)

• Castle Excavating was low bidder @ $7,795.00

• Discussion of who will do what -• Frank Comiskey will run the job • John Cook will work to empty the tanks • Boswell will get demolition pennits and

arrange for soil testing to be done by Laboratory Resources

• Castle will markout existing lines and follow specs for tank removal

• Excavation will be backfilled wI clean material

• Pmt will be made by Borough @ end of January .

01113/94 FROM: Frank Cumiskey (Castle • Encountered a condition outside the scope Certificate of Excavating) of the contract - found a concrete slab that Insurance at 155 TO: Matt Murphy needs to be broken up and disposed; will CC: Marvin Katz cost extra

01114/94 FROM: John Foster (Boswell • Enclosing docs in connection wI UST Construction McClave Engineering) Closure Plan (Standard Reporting Fonn and Pennit at 8-1 0 TO: Anthony Cinque (NJDEP) Implementation Schedule) CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin • Gasoline tank (E-l ) was removed 01110/94 Certificate of Katz; John Cook; Ronald Ferrari and diesel (E-3) and waste oil tanks (E04) Insurance at 129-

were removed 0111 1194 1 3 1 • Will submit Site Assessment Summary wlin

90 days 02/01/94 • UST Registration Certificate for DPW Certificate of - Garage Insurance at 15 1 01/3 1/95 • UST 0026606 (unleaded gasoline; medium

diesel fuel; waste oil) 02/15/94 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Re: 01/13/94 letter and 02/08/94 invoice Certificate of

TO: Frank Cumiskey concerning site conditions of UST removal Insurance at 123-CC: Marvin Katz; John Cook; • Rejecting the claims 124

I John Dudas

02115/94 FROM: Matthew Murphy • Confmning pre-construction meeting Certificate of (Boswell) discussions held on 02/10/94 @ Borough fusurance at 164-TO: Jim Newton (Metro-Tank) Hall 166 CC: Mayor and Council; John Cook; Jack Eckel; Marvin Katz; Kevin Dunne; John Foster

03/17/94 FROM: John Foster (Boswell) • Confirming 03/17/94 telephone Celtificate of TO: Frank Comisky conversation regarding items remaining to fusurance at 1 53 CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin be completed on UST removal project Katz; John Cook

03/24/94 FROM: John Foster • Metro-Tank informed Boswell that it it Certificate of TO: Mayor and Council could install the UST wlo having to shore fusurance at 127-cc: Marvin Katz; John Dudas; for employee safeting 128 Robert Rieselman (Metro-Tank)

03/24/94 • UST Registration Questionnaire Annual Certification

03/28/94 FROM: John Foster (Boswell • Enclosing Annual Celtification UST McClave) Registration Questionnaire TO: NJDEP

03/28/94 FROM: John Foster • Encl. voucher for $9,589 for Laboratory Certificate of TO: Marvin Katz Resources, fuc. for analyzing soil samples fusurance at 158 CC: Mayor and Council; John from the 3 USTs recently removed Cook • Tests were required by NJDEP as part of the

site assessment summary for tank closures 03/29/94 FROM: John Foster • Re: 03/28/94 fax concerning add'l costs for Certificate of

TO: James Newton (Metro-Tank) UST installation fusurance at 125-CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin • Disagree wi proposed charges 126 Katz; John Dudas; John Cook

03/30/94 FROM: James Newton • Advising of current status of project at Certificate of TO: John Foster (Boswell) Dumont DPW fusurance at 1 67-CC: Mayor and Council; Marvin • "Work has been suspended pending 168 Katz; John Dudas; John Cook decision regarding possible modification of

the system . . . " • "This is the second time that work has been

held up on this project awaiting decisions." • Details additional work that Metrotank has

done • Looks like at least 1 page is missing

05/05/94 FROM: Chief ofDEP • Acknowledging receipt of application for Certificate of TO: John Foster pClmit to construct, install, or alter control fusurance at 157 CC: BNSR File apparatus or equipment and certificate to

operate control apparatus or equipment 05/12/94 • NJDEP Remediation Programs Summary

Report 05/13/94 FROM: John Foster • Submission of: OPRA DEP files 5

TO: John Ruhl • Site Assessment Summary at 139-160 CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. FelTiero • Site Dia,gram

• Decommissioning Plan • Soil Sample Results and Summary

05123/94 FROM: Chief ofNJDEP • Pennit to Construct, Install or Alter Control Certificate of TO: John Foster Apparatus or Equipment Insurance at 140-CC: BNSR File; Regional Office 141

Certificate of Insurance at 1 63

05/23/94 NJDEP • 5-year certificate to Operate Control Certificate of Apparatus or Equipment Insurance at 162

• Expires 05/23/99 • Location: DPW Garage

OS/24/94 FROM: Chief ofNJDEP • Pennit to Construct, Install or Alter Control Certificate of TO: John Foster Apparatus or Equip Insurance at 137-CC: BNSR File; Regional Office 139

06124/94 FROM: John Foster • Encl. completed voucher for the work done Certificate of TO: Frank Cumiskey removing 3 USTs; pmt indicates completion Insurance at 1 56 CC: Marvin Katz; John Cook and acceptance of all work on contract

• Review, sign, and return voucher to Boswell for processing

06/27/94 FROM : John Foster • Encl. Voucher No. 3 in the amount of Certificate of TO: Marvin Katz $22,132 for payment to Metro-Tank, Inc. Insurance at 1 59 Cc: Mayor and Council; John for completed work done on installation of Cook; Building Dept.; John 6,000 gal UST Dudas • Total adjusted contract price for the project

is $88,579.50 • Boswell reconunends paying the remaining

$22K 08/02/94 FROM: Dudas • Confuming discussion of part of the site as OPRA DEP files7

TO: Ruhl roller hockey rink at 122 • Enclosing site map

08/1 1/94 John Ruhl • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3 Document Transmittal Fonn at 102

• Re: transmittal orCase Transfer • Approved for release (signed MAK)

08/18/94 • NJDEP Summaty Report 08/18/94 • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3

Document Transmittal Fonn at 101 • Re: transmittal of Case Transfer document;

MOA Package • Approved for release (signed MAK)

08/19/94 FROM: Maty Anne Kuserk • DPW site and Aladdin Park have previously OPRA DEP files 5 TO: Marvin Katz; John Cook; been addressed as one site at 132-133 John Dudas • Because the contamination is located at 2 CC: Mark Pedersen, Steven distinct sites wi separate addresses, it is Tiffmger; Jane Levandoski necessaty to divide the area into 2 separate

cases • Borough is required to investigate the DPW

site

I

I • Enclosing MOA • If Borough wants to address the USTs and

the contamination from the unknown source at the DPW under one case mgr, then Borough must indicate so using the MOA

08/23/94 FROM: Mary Anne Kuserk • Contamination at 2 distinct sites wI separate OPRA DEP files7 TO: Man-in Katz; John Dudas addresses � must divide the area into 2 at 123-124 CC: Pederson, Tiffinger, cases Levandoski • Enclosing MOA package ·

• Borough is required to investigate the site in order to ID areas of concern that may be contributing to the contamination

08/25/94 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • 08/19/94 letter was forwarded to Fen'iero OPRA DEP files 5 TO: Mary Anne Kuserk • Please call to discuss combining the 2 cases at 137-138 CC: Marvin Katz to 1 case number

09/16194 FROM: Boswell Engineering • Enc!. "As-Built" Location Plan Sheet 1 of 1 Certificate of TO: Ronald Ferrara (Building • Enc!. Mechanical details "As-Built" sheet 1 Insurance at 152 Inspection; Borough of Dumont) of2 and 2 of2 (w/o encl.) CC: John Cook (wi encl.)

09/30/94 John Ruhl • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3 Document Transmittal Fonn at 100

• Re: Transmittal of" 1 O-day late (modified)" • Approved for release 09/30/94

10/04/94 FROM: Lee Hendricks (John • Re: Overdue Report OPRA DEP files 5 Ruhl for) • On 10/30/92, DEP sent letter to Borough at 135-136 TO: Marvin Katz; John Cook; requiring submission ofRA W by 07/06/93 John Dudas • On 05126/93 HLA sent a letter to DEP CC: Mark Pedersen, Steven describing the need for extra time; revised Tiffinger; Jane Levandoski schedule was to be completed but DEP has

yet to receive anything from Borough • Borough is in violation for failure to submit

a schedule of activities • W/in 10 days, Borough must submit

required report or indicate to BUST that it will enter into MOA

• Violations ofNJSA 58:10A-21 et seq. and NJAC 7:14B et seq. subject violators to fines of up to $50Klday

10105/94 John Ruhl • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3 Document Transmittal Fonn at 99

• Re: Transmittal of letter • Approved for release on 10/05/94 (signed

MAK) 10/05/94 FROM: John Foster • Enc!. review & approval voucher ($1559) Certificate of

TO: Marvin Katz for pmt to Castle Environmental Insurance at 154 CC: Mayor and Council; John Contractors Cook

10/07/94 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Forwarded Ruhl' s 10/04/94 letter to EEC OPRA DEP files 5 TO: John Ruhl for their comments at 134

10/07/94 FROM: Mary Anne Kuserk • Re: Ferriero's 08/25/94 letter requesting Certificate of (NJDEP) that DPW site and Aladdin Park site be Insurance at 1 1 1-TO: Jos. Ferriero designated by one case number 1 12 CC: Marvin Katz; John Cook; • Dept has separated the area into 2 sites for John Dudas; Mark Pedersea; reasons outlined in letter Steven T iffmger; Jane Levandoski

10/21/94 FROM: Gregory Albright • Enclosing schedule which HLA is sending OPRA DEP files 5 TO: John Ruhl to DEP on behalf of Borough at 130-131 CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. Ferriero • "The attached schedule lists the tasks that

the borough of Dumont has authorized HLA to perform, the task's status, and scheduled completion date."

• Requesting extension of report due date to 12/16/94

10/25/94 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Please approve Gregory Albright's OPRA DEP files7 TO: John Ruhl (DEP) proposed schedule in an expeditious manner at 125

10/25/94 John Ruhl • Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST OPRA DEP files3 Document Transmittal Form at 98

• Re: transmittal of Extension 10/27/94 FROM: Lee Hendricks (NJDEP) • Re: extension for submittal ofreports Certificate of

TO: John Dudas; Jos. Ferriero; • Approval of request for extension for Insurance at 1 13-Marvin Katz; John Cook submission ofRA Ws 1 1 4 CC: Steven Tiffinger; Gregory • Reports were due 07/06/93; now due Albright 12/16/94

1 lI26/94 • NJ UST Registration Invoice Certificate of Insurance at 13 6

12/02/94 FROM: Remo Gigante (Nytest • Submission of test sample OPRA DEP files5 Environmental) at 6-31 TO: Greg Albright

12/29/94 • UST FacilitY Questionnaire 12/29/94 FROM: John Foster • Enc!. Voucher No. 3 in the amount of Certificate of

TO: Marvin Katz $20,182 for payment to Metro-Tank Inc. for Insurance at 160 CC: Mayor and Council; John installation of 6000 gal UST Cook; Building Dept.; John • Pmt does not include $1950 for initial cost Dudas of installing single hose diesel pump

• Total adjusted contract price is $86,629.50 • Boswell recommends paying remaining

$20,1 82 01104/95 FROM: Gregory Albright • HLA will be submitting remedial OPRA DEP files 5

TO: John Ruhl investigation addenda and proposed at 129 CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. Ferriero remedial actions on behalf of Dumont in

response to DEP's 10/04/94 letter; expected to be submitted 01118/95

01117/95 HLA • Supplemental Remedial Investigation 1 0-06-Results and Proposed Remedial Action: 1 0_DPE_docs_vol Aladdin Park Property; Twinboro Lane And 6 at 1-82 Aladdin Avenue

01/17/95 HLA • Supplemental Remedial Investigation

Results and Proposed Remedial Action: Aladdin Park Property; Twinboro Lane And Aladdin Avenue

• Appendices D, E, F • Appendix H • D = Monitoring Wen and Piezometer

Completion Logs and Elevation Survey Data

• E = Groundwater Sanlpling FOlms • H = Aquifier Test Analysis Curves

01/1 8/95 FROM: Gregory Albright (HLA) • Supplemental Remedial Investigation OPRA DEP files4 TO: John Ruhl (DEPfBUST) Reports for DPW site and Aladdin Park site at 1-121 CC: Marvin Katz; Jos. Ferriero • Volume I of IV (including appendices)

01/17/95 HLA • Supplemental Remedial Investigation OPRA DEP files4 Results and Proposed Remedial Action: at 122 Dumont DPW Yard; One Aladdin Ave

• Volume ll ofN • Cover page only

01117/95 HLA • Supplemental Remedial Investigation OPRA DEP files4 Results and Proposed Remedial Action: at 123-124 Dumont Department of Public Works Yard; One Aladdin Avenue OPRA DEP files5

• Volume ill ofN at 3 3-92 • Cover page and Appendix F cover page

only 01117/95 HLA • Supplemental Remedial Investigation OPRA DEP files4

Results and Proposed Remedial Action: at 125-137 Dumont Department of Public Works Yard; One Aladdin Avenue OPRA DEP

• Volume N ofN files5 at 4-5 • Appendix G cover page only • Appendix H

02/17/95 • Site Evaluation Criteria OPRA DEP files3 • Site = Dumont DPW at 107 • Re: evaluation at Hirshfield Brook • "Both soil and GW require RI" (Both soil

and groundwater require remedial investigation?)

05/12/95 Johu Ruhl • Memo to file from Johu Ruhl OPRA DEP files5 • Reviewed Supplemental Remedial at 32

Investigation Results and Proposed Remedial Action, Volumes II and ill of IV

• The analyses indicate that contamination is present exceeding GWQS

05/12/95 Johu Ruhl • Memo to file from Johu Ruhl OPRA DEP files5 • Reviewed AnalytiKEM Test Report No. at 93

A2601 1 data package for groundwater samples obtained 1 1/01/91 from Monitoring wens

•

05/12/95 John Ruhl • •

•

05/12/95 John Ruhl • •

•

05116/95 • •

06/09195 John Ruhl •

•

06/12/95 FROM: Lee Hendricks (NJDEP • Bureau of Underground Storage • Tanks (BUST)) TO: John Dudas (Dumont Atty); • Marvin Katz (Dumont Admin.); John Cook (Dumont DPW) CC: Steven Tiffinger (Bergen County Dept of Health); Jos. • Ferriero; Gregory Albright (HLA)

06/12/95 FROM: Lee Hendricks (NJDEP • BUST) TO: Marvin Katz; John Cook; John Dudas

06/20/95 John Ruhl •

• 06/20/95 FROM: Lee Hendricks (NJDEP •

Bureau of Underground Storage • Tanks (BUST)) • TO: John Dudas (Dumont Atty); Marvin Katz (Dumont Admin.); John Cook (Dumont DPW) CC: Steven Tiffinger (Bergen County Dept of Health); Jos. Ferriero; Gregory Albright (HLA)

08/09195 FROM: Gregory Albright (HLA); •

Analyses indicate that contamination is present exceeding GWQS Memo to file from John Ruhl Reviewed AnalytiKEM Test Report No. A26006 data package for groundwater samples obtained 10/31/91 from Monitoring wells Analyses indicate that contamination is present exceeding GWQS Memo to file from John Ruhl Reviewed Analytical Data Report Package for ground water samples obtained 05/09-10/91 from monitoring wells Analyses indicate that contamination is present exceeding GWQS Memos to file from John Ruhl Reviewed of docs Phase II Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST Document Transmittal Form Re: transmittal of SIfRl Fee Request for UST 0026606 Re: RAW dated 01/17/95 NJDEP 90-05-17-1528 (aka 90-05-17 -1620, 91-12-1533, 90-03-08-1 8 1 1) Borough has to enter into MOA in order to have only 1 Department Case Mgr. oversee the site (BUST only has authority to handle UST issues, not non-UST issues) Remedial Investigation Workplan (RIW) conditionally approved; deficiencies described herein

Must send $1000 review fee for DICAR

Industrial Site Evaluation Element BUST Document Transmittal Form Re: transmittal ofRlW Approval Re: 01/1:7195 RAW and 05/13/94 SIR NJDEP 86-10-09-05M (aka 86-09-22-0 1M) RlW is conditionally approved; remaining deficiencies described herein

Re: Proposal to conduct supplemental

OPRA DEP files5 at 1 1 1

OPRA DEP files 5 at 127

OPRA DEP files6 at 7-8 OPRA DEP files3 at 96

10-06-10 DEP docs vol - - -

2 at 27-34

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 21-28

Certificate of Insurance at 1 15-122 Certificate of Insurance at 32-33

OPRA DEP files3 at 97

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 29-39

Celtificate of Insurance at 142-143 (pages I and 2 only)

10-06-

Bharat Patel (HLA) remedial investigations IO_DEP_docs_vol TO: John Dudas (Dumont Atty); • Proposal wlin regulation requirements made 2 at 3 -26 Marvin Katz (Dumont Admin.); by NJDEP Jolm Cook (Dumont • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M; 90-05-17-1528 Celtificate of Superintendent ofDPW) • Proposal includes prep of2 applications for Insurance at 34-55 CC: Jos. Ferriero NJDEP - (1) Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA); (2) designation of Classification Exception Area (CEA) (required component of Remedial Action Work Plans (RAW)

• HLA Services Agreement @ 17-20 • Model MOA @J 23-26

10/03/95 FROM: Gregory Albright (HLA); • Re: Overdue invoices, product recovery, 10-06-Bharat Patel (HLA) proposal to conduct supplemental remedial 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: John Dudas (Dumont Atty); investigations 2 at 1-2 Marvin Katz (Dumont Admin.) • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M; 90-05-17-1528 CC: Jos. Ferriero; David Stanton • 2 outstanding invoices @ $19,781.57 and (HLA) $7,824.15

• Inquiring about status ofHLA's 08/1995 _ proposal

10/10/95 FROM: NJDEP • NmST Registration Invoice ($100) Certificate of To: Borouj\h Insurance at 68

10/31/95 • UST Facility Questionnaire OPRA DEP files6 at 73-76

01/01/96 • UST Registration Certificate Certificate of • 01101196 to 12/31198 Insurance at 56-57

01/01/96 FROM: Borough of Dumont • Resolution 96-002 10-06-• Jos. Pojanowski appointed 1996 Borough 10_DEP_docs_vol

Atty 2 at 35-36 • Henry Amoroso appointed 1996 Borough

Litigation Atty • Mark Ruderruan appointed 1996 Borough

Labor K Counsel 01122196 FROM: Jos. Ferriero • Inforrued that Amoroso will be taking over 10-06-

TO: Henry Amoroso Dumont leaking fuel tank matter 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Dumont Mayor and Council • Files are voluminous; please schedule appt 5 at 177

to review materials to save Municipality photocopying costs

01/29196 FROM: Henry Amoroso (?) • Arrange for appt wI Jos. Ferriero regarding 10-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (7) the attached (01/22/96 1etter from Ferriero) 10_DEP_docs vol -

5 at 176-177 0113 1/96 FROM: Jos. Pojanwoski • Confmning meeting scheduled for 02112/96 10-06-

TO: Mayor Winant @9:30am 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Elizabeth Schafer (Clerk, 5 at 175 Borough of Dumont); Jolm Foster;(Boswell McClave Engineering); Gregory Albright (HLA); Henry Amoroso

02/13/96 FROM: Greg Albright • Looked @ photos showing sewage 1 0-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo treatment plant 1 0 DEP docs vol

• Need to search for earlier photos and blow 5 at 166 up to see anything useful

02/15/96 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski • Enclosing copy of Resolution authorizing 10-06-TO: Henry Amoroso HLA to prepare necessary docs for NJDEP 10_DEP_docs_vol

to consolidate review work w/ one case mgr 5 at 1 65 03/14/96 FROM: David Terry (LBG) • Understands that the Borough is frustrated 10-06-

TO: Donald Winant b/c a significant amount of effOlt has been 10_DEP_docs_vol expended in investigating the 5 167-174 contamination, yet NJDEP and Borough's environmental consultant continue to suggest that more sampling be completed

• Took a look at the site, conclusions stated herein

• Scope of Work outlined 04/01/96 FROM: Gregory Albright (HLA); • Enclosing HLA draft MOAs, in need of 10-06-

Bharat Patel (HLA) input for completion 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: Wm. DeLorenzo • Make changes, sign, and submit to NJDEP 5 at 164 CC: Donald Winant; Jos. • Provide a copy of signed MOAs to HLA Pojanowski after they have been submitted NJDEP

04/12/96 FROM: Henry Amoroso • Confmnation of meeting w/ Winant, 10-06-TO: David Terry Licameli, DeLorenzo, and Amoroso on 10.-DEP _docs_vol CC: Mayor Winant; Councilman 05/01/96 @ 1 1am 5 at 162 Licameli

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 163

05/03/96 FROM: David Terry (LBG) • Follow-up of 05/01/96 meeting, where we 10-06-TO: Donald Winant; Henry agreed that Dumont should proceed w/ 10_DEP_docs_vol Amoroso consolidating oversight of environmental 5 at 160-161

issues into single MOA • Amoroso and DeLorenzo will prepare MOA

and send to LBG for review, after which MOA will be submitted to NJDEP by NA on behalf of Dumont

• Once MOA is in place, LBG will prepare summary document for submission to new NJDEP case mgr

• LBG will provide Dumont w/ map by 05/15/96

• LBG has borrowed docs from Dumont's files; LBG will copy and retum originals to Dumont

• Work can be completed by LBG w/in scope of 03/12/96 proposal

05/06/96 FROM: Environmental Claims • Attaching revised procedures for requesting 10-06-Administration (NJDEP) fmancial assistance from Hazardous 1 0_DEP_docs_vol TO: Bill DeLorenzo Discharge Site Remediation Fund 5 at 124-135

(including the attachment)

05/08/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing MOA application and Model 10-06-TO: David Teny (LBG) MOA, as prepared by HLA 10_DEP_docs_vol

5 at 123 05/09196 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski • Rec'd HLA invoice 10-06-

TO: Gregory Albright (HLA) • Detennined that HLA may not have acted in IO_DEP_docs_vol CC: Borough Clerk; Henry the best interest of the Borough and did not 5 at 1 58-159 Amoroso; Mayor and Council perfonn in an acceptably professional

manner • Council considering whether it will file an

action for reimbursement for fees previously paid and for other damages. Borough will not be paying bill for $1,103.07

• Borough feels betrayed as it recently learned that sources of funding may have been available and that HLA should have made a diligent inquiry wi respect to US Anny's liability for USTs

• Will advise once Borough receives more fonnal report

• Please do not perfonn any more work for Dumont

05/1 1/96 FROM: Herny Amoroso (7) • Please forward copy of Borough Tank 10-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo 7) Litigation billing, to date 10_DEP_docs_vol

5 at 156 05/1 1/96 FROM: Herny Amoroso • Seeking to discuss guidelines for settlement 10-06-

TO: Jos. Pojanowski relative to Dumont UST issues 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Donald Winant; John P. 5 at 157 Foster

05115/96 FROM: Steven Wielkotz (CPA • Asking for fmancial info for the Borough's 10-06-Ferraioli Cerullo & Cuva) audit report 10j)EP _docs_vol TO: Henrv Amoroso 5 at 154-155

05120/96 FROM: Lee Hendricks • Report of phone call to Mayor Winant OPRA DEP files6 • Both sites (Aladdin Park and Dumont at 55

DPW) have regulated UST and non-regulated contamination

• If Borough wants to have both cases handled by one case mgI', a fonnal request must be made and an MOA must be executed

• If Borough wants to have cases separated into regulated UST and non-regulated components, a schedule for each case must be submitted (both cases are overdue for submittal ofRA W). Also, non-regulated portions of each case would require execution ofMOA for that part

• Mayor indicated that Borough will pursue the ootion of one case mw

05/28/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing 05/08/96 letter to David Terry; 10-06-

TO: Mayor Winant CC: Councilman Michael Licameli

•

•

06/10/96 FROM: David Terry • TO: Donald Winant; Wm. DeLorenzo

•

• 06/18/96 FROM: Gregory Albright (fILA); •

Edward Nemecek (fILA) • TO: Jos. Pojanowski (Dumont Atty); Donald Winant (Dumont • Mayor) CC: Wm. Thayer (HLA); Bharat Patel (HLA); Kel1l1eth Strong • (Palmer, Jones, Hawkins & Strong)

06/21/96 FROM: Henry Amoroso • TO: Mayor Winant

•

06/25/96 FROM: Mayor Donald Winant • TO: Henry Amoroso CC: Wm. DeLorenzo; Jack Eckel; Council Members

•

06/25/96 FROM: Jack Eckel (Dumont • Chief of Staff) TO: Henry Amoros

06/26/96 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski • TO: Henry Amoroso

06/27/96 FROM: Hemy Amoroso (7) • TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (?)

•

Enclosing memo dated OS/28/96; Enclosing revised procedures from NJDEP regarding financial assistance pursuant to Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fuud Asking the Borough to contact DeLorenzo to properly complete the Fund application EDA has suggested that the Borough may be entitled to relief from the Fund LBG has reviewed MOA; as prepared, MOA is deficient blc it continues the separation of the properties in 2 separate sites MOA should be modified to avoid separating DPW site and Aladdin Ave site Specific cbanges outlined herein Demand past due $37,812.74 HLA objects to Borough's claim that it did not act in the best interest of the Borough HLA did not betray Borough by failing to infonn it of possible cleannp funding sources 4 outstanding invoices attached

Unsure of whether a new consultant is being retained by the Borough Eager to get the application submitted for purposes of mitigating damages and negotiating agreement wi DPW Re: Amoroso's 06/21/96 correspondence, "all is indeed well with your films' representation to our current litigation involving the Department of Public Works." LBG has been retained to represent Borough in all matters relating to DPW cleanup Enclosing pennits and approvals for tank installation and removals

Enclosing "self-explanatory" letter from HLA

Enclosing Dumont billing for DPW and Leuzzi "Apparently this is the time through the end of May '96. I think we should hold this bill up for June, not sent [sic] it out, and take a look at the final bill on Leuzzi which will reflect substantially more time than that which is currently being shown, as well as

10 DEP docs vol - - -

5 at 1 08-109

10-06-10 DEP docs vol - - -

5 at l78-180

10-06-10_ Correspondenc e at 1-9

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 145-153

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 144

10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 143

1 0-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 142 10-06-10.J)EP_docs_vol 5 at 141 10-06-10_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 138-140 (including bill, wi balance of $439.93)

the DPW oil tank litigation. I believe we may have to shift that file into a more aggressive position."

0911 8/96 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski (Dumont • Rec'd demand from HLA for pmt of bill 10-06-Atty) • Borough has notified HLA that it is not 1 0_ Correspondenc TO: Wm DeLorenzo (Nowell, paying e at 1 0 Amoroso & Mattia) • Request specific reasons why Borough will

not pay so that the info can be used to ward 10-06-off litigation 1 0,))EP _docs_vol

5 at 107 09/1 8/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Enclosing draft MOA application (as 10-06-

TO: David Terry (LBG) revised according to Terry's 06/10196 letter) 1 0,))EP _docs_vol 5 at 137

10/10196 FROM: Kenneth Strong (HLA • Re: Past due HLA invoices 10-06-Gen. Counsel) • HLA has not heard from Borough since 1 0_ Correspondenc TO: Jos. Pojanowski (Dumont May 9 despite several attempts otherwise e at 12-13 Atty); Donald Winant (Dumont • HLA may be forced to file suit & expects to Mayor) hear from Borough by Oct. 25 10-06-CC: Greg Albright (HLA); Wm. 1 0_DEP _docs_vol Thayer (HLA); Bharat Patel 5 at 105-106 (HLA)

1011 1/96 FROM: David Teny (LBG) • Reviewed the MOA prepared by NA 10-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Suggesting 2 small changes 10_DEP_docs_vol

• Once the changes are made, the application 5 at 136 can be certified and sent to NJDEP

10/1 6196 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski • Enclosing 10/10196 letter from Kenneth 10-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo Sh'ong (HLA Gen. Counsel) 10,))EP _docs_vol CC: Mayor Winant • Borough has not paid HLA based on 5 at 104

DeLorenzo' s & Winant's representation concerning inadequacies ofHLA perfonnance

• Need specific info and causes of action for defense to Borough's pmt of the bill

10/16196 FROM: Jos. Pojanowski (Dumont • Enclosing 1011 0196 correspondence from 10-06-Atty) Kenneth Strong (HLA Gen. Counsel) 10_ Corresp ondenc TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (Nowell • Request specific info & cause of action for e at 1 1 Amoroso) defense to Borough's pmt of the bill based CC: Donald Winant (Dumont on HLA' s failures Mayor)

1 1/12/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • . Enclosing 4 MOA drafts (revised based on 1 0-06-TO: Mayor Winant David Terry's comments and NJDEP's 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Michael Licameli comments) 5 at 95-101

• Review MOA; if approved then execute wi (including MOA signature as signed by

• Executed MOA will be processed wi Mayor Winant on NJDEP 1 1114/96)

10-06-10 DEP docs vol 5 � 1 1 0 (including

unsigned MOA) 1 1112/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Enclosing copy ofNA's 05/28/96 letter 10-06-

TO: Mayor Winant concerning Borough's eligibility for State 10))EP_docs_vol funding 5 at 103

• Suggest Borough to complete fmancial assistance package so it can be processed wi MOA application

1 1122/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing 3 copies of MOA 10-06-TO: Ralph Downs (NJDEP) 10_DEP_docs_vol

5 at 102 12/12/96 FROM: Nate Byrd (NJDEP Case • Enclosing 2 MOAs; please have appropriate 10-06-

Assignment Section) Borough rep sign and return 10J)EP_docs_vol TO: Wm. DeLorenzo • NJDEP 96-11-28-0210-24 5 at 86 CC: D. Conway (CAS)

12/24/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing MOA for signature 10-06-TO: Donald Winant (Dumont 10J)EP_docs_vol Mayor) 5 at 87 CC: David Terry (LBG); Councilman Michael Licameli

12/24/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing 12/24196 letter to Mayor Winant 10-06-TO: David Teny (LBG) • Enclosing copy ofMOA 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Jos. Pojanowski • Requesting advice as to HLA's bill to the 5 at 88

Borough; recall telephone conversation concerning whether billing was appropriate @ request of Borough counsel Jos. Poianowski

12/24/96 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing MOA for signature 10-06-TO: Mayor Winant • Have someone contact DeLorenzo to begin 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: David Terry (LBG); financial assistance process wi the State 5 at 89-94 Councilman Michael Licameli (including MOA

as not yet executed)

01/03/97 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Enclosing MOA as executed by Borough 1 0-06-TO: Ralph Downs (NJDEP) 1 0_DEP_docs_vol

5 at 80-85 (including MOA as not yet executed by NJDEP)

01/08/97 • MOA as executed by Borough and NJDEP 1 0-06-1 0_DEP_docs_vol 5 at 75-79

01/21197 FROM: Mark Pedersen (NJDEP • Enclosing executed copy ofMOA 1 0-06-Case Assignment) • NJDEP 96-11-28-0210-24 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: Wm. DeLorenzo • wlin 30 days from MOA execution, must 5 at 74 CC: Bergen County Dept of submit to Dept a schedule of Health implementation ofthose activities and/or

phases enumerated in MOA 01130/97 FROM: Harry Wertz (Case Mgr) • MOA dated 12/24/96 has been assigned to 10-06-

TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) this office; I am case mgr 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Health Dept. • Contact w lin 1 5 days to advise of status 5 at 72-73

02112/97 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing MOA signed by NJDEP 10-06-TO: David Terry (LBG) • Enclosing Case Assignment Designation 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Jos. Pojanowski; Mayor Letter 5 at 7 1 (Plus Donald Winant; Councilman • Please review and contact so we can discuss enclosures) Michael Licameli

1 1117/97 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Requesting meeting 10-06-TO: Harry Wertz (Case Mgr) 10_DEP_docs_vol

5 at 68-70 12112/97 FROM: David Terry (LBG) • Summary of agreements reached wi case 10-06-

TO: Donald Winant (Dumont mgr Harry Wertz at 12/1 1/97 meeting 10_DEP_docs_vol Mayor) • NJDEP 90-05-17-1528 5 at 64-67 CC: Bill DeLorenzo • In response to meeting, LBG has also

prepared a Scope of Work for addressing the issues outlined by Wertz

01113/98 FROM: Harry Wertz (NJDEP • During 12/1 1/97 meeting DeLorenzo 10-06-Case Mgr.) indicated that he would be able to submit 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: Wm. DeLorenzo copies of all remedial investigation 5 at 63 CC: LBG materials

• NJDEP 86-10-09-05M, 96-1 1 -28-0210-24 • Please forward copies of remedial

information and reports 06117/98 FROM: Borough (? Presumably • Missing all but first page; appears to be 10-06-

Jack Eckel) request for audit info 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: NA 5 at 61

06/24/98 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Enclosing application for GrantILoan 10-06-TO: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin.) Program from NJDEP's Hazardous 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: David Teny (LBG) Discharge Site Remediation Fund 5 at 59

• Please review; NA available to review and complete the application

06/24/98 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Enclosing letter to the Borough 10-06-TO: David Terry (LBG) • Enclosing 01113/98 letter from Hany Wertz 10_DEP_docs_vol

concerning the info which was to be 5 at 60 forwarded to NJDEP

• Please review & advise whether the info has been forwarded to NJDEP

06/25/98 FROM: Hemy Amoroso • Interoffice Memo attaching letter from Jack 10-06-TO: Bill DeLorenzo Eckel; should be filled out by Bill 10_DEP _docs_vol

5 at 62 07/08/98 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Response to Borough's 06/17/98 letter 10-06-

TO: Ferraioli, Wielkotz, Cerullo regarding pending litigation, unasselted 10_DEP_docs_vol and Cuva claims, etc 5 at 56-58 CC: Jack Eckel (Dumont Clerk); • As of 12/31197, NA retained to represent Hemy Amoroso Borough regarding possible histodcal ·

contamination at Aladdin Park, Aladdin Ave, and Twinboro Lane. Borough is in the process of completing environmental audit and no determination has been made whether remedial activities will be required

• As of 12/3 1/97, no known unasserted

possible claims 10/06/98 FROM: NJDEP • NJ UST Registration Invoice Certificate of

TO: Borough Insurance at 70 10/13/98 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Please advise as to status of environmental 10-06-

TO: David Terry report 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Henry Amoroso • Understand that Terry would be submitting 5 at 5 5

the report to NA for its review and so NJDEP process could continue

10/13/98 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing NA's 06/24/98 letter to Eckel and 10-06-TO: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin.) its 10/13/98 letter to David Terry 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Henry Amoroso • Please advise as to status of application 5 at 54

10/20/98 • UST FacilitY Certification Questionnaire 1 1110/98 FROM: David Terry (LBG) • Re: RAW Submission 10-06-

TO: Donald Winant (Dumont • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M, 86-09-22-10M, 90- 10_DEP_docs_vol Mayor) 05-17-1528 4 at 1-61 CC: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Attaching 2 copies of RAW; one enclosed

copy must be sent to NJDEP w/ completed certification (orovided)

01/01/99 • UST Registration Certificate Certificate of • 01/01/99-12/31/01 Insurance at 69

Certificate of Insurance at 7 1

01/13/99 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Rec'd RAW from LBG 10-06-TO: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin.) • Please advise as to whether a copy of the 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Henry Amoroso RAW was submitted to NJDEP together w/ 5 at 52

cert • Please advise as to status of application for

GrantILoan from NJDEP referenced in NA's 06/24/98 letter

03/16/99 FROM: Jack Eckel • Requesting info for usual audit 10-06-(Admin.lClerk) 10 _DEP _docs_vol TO: Henrv Amoroso 5 at 50-51

04/19/99 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Response to Borough's 03/16/99 letter 10-06-TO: FelTaioli, Wielkotz, Cerullo requesting info regarding pending litigation IO_DEP_docs_vol and Cuva and claims 5 at 47-49 CC: Jack Eckel (Borough • As of 12/31/98, fum retained to represent Clerk/Admin); Henry Amoroso Borough in connection w/ possible

historical contamination at Aladdin Park, Aladdin Ave, and Twinhoro Lane

• Borough is completing an environmental audit pursuant to NJDEP & MOA; no determination as to whether remedial activities will be required

• As of 12/31/98, no known unasserted possible claims against Borough

04/19/99 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Re: Hackensack Rotary Club 1 0-06-TO: John Fowler • Letter to confirm that John Fowler is 1 0_DEP_docs_vol CC: Gary Hipp; B. Franklin scheduled to speak (ill Hackensack Rotary 5 at 53

Reinauer, m Club on 04/29/99 (a) 12: 15pm 08/06/99 FROM: Harry Wertz (NJDEP) • Re: RAW submitted by LBG in accordance 10-06-

TO: Wm. DeLorenzo w/ 01/23/97 MOA (RAW dated 1 1110/98) 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: David Telry (LBG) • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M, 96-1 1-28-0210-24 5 at 19-20

• 1 1110/98 RAW does not address BUST's concerns regarding DDPW as outlined in its 06/20/95 letter (which was based in part on the 01/17/95 RAW)

• 1 1/10/98 RAW does not address BUST's concerns regarding Aladdin A venue as outlined in its 06/12/95 letter (which was based in part on the 01117/95 RAW)

• Update regarding status of add'i investigations should be developed

10/27/99 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Late 08/1999 we reviewed together the 10-06-TO: David Terry (LBG) 08/06/97 NJDEP correspondence and the 10_DEP_docs_vol CC: Henry Amoroso need for LBG to complete additional work 5 at 18

upon authorization from the Borough • Requesting info regarding the status and any

assistance needed from NA 1 1111/99 FROM: David Terry (NJDEP • Re: Rec & Proposal Dumont DPW UST 10-06-

Subsmface Evaluator, Leggette, Investigation 10_ Correspondenc Brashears & Graham (LBG)) • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M / 96-1 1-28-0210-24 e at 14-18 TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (Nowell • Last year LBG sent NJD EP a proposal Amoroso) indicating (on behalf of Borough) that 10-06-

"natural attenuation" could address fuel 10_DEP_docs_vol

related soil & ground-water contamination. 5 at 8-12

NJDEP responded that more info was needed in order to approve

• LBG proposes a new Scope of Work to address NJDEP concerns; cost = $17,500

• Can begin work immediately 12/20/99 FROM: Frank Rossi (Boswell) • Boswell is applying to NJDEP on behalf of Construction

TO: Thomas Hill (Dumont Bergen County Utilities Authority for Permit at 13-15 Construction Code Official) permit to protect two sanitary sewers

03/28/00 FROM: Jack Eckel (Dumont • Requesting info regarding 10-06-Admin. Clerk) Pending!TJn'eatened Litigation and 10YEP_docs_vol TO: Henry Amoroso (NA) Unasserted Claims and Assessments for the 5 at 16-17

usual audit of the Borough's [mances 04/13/00 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo • Re: Dumont Audit Report (response to 10-06-

TO: Ferraioli, Wielkotz, Cerullo Borough's 03/28/00 letter) 10_DEP_docs_vol & Cuva • As of 12/3 1/99, NA retained to represent 5 at 13-15 CC: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin. Borough in connection w/ possible Chief of Staff); Henry Amoroso historical contamination at Aladdin Park,

Aladdin Ave and Twinboro Lane. Borough in the process of completing environmental audit pursuant to NJDEP & MOA. No detelmination as to whether remedial

activities will be required. • As of 12/3 1/99, no known unasserted

possible claims against Borough 08/23/00 FROM: Yacoub Yacoub (Region • Re: 12/24/96 MOA 10-06-

Chief, NJDEP) • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M, 96-1 1-28-0210-24 10_DEP_docs_vol TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Dept has not received any response to 5 at 7

08/06/99 deficiency letter Celtificate of • MOA hereby tenninated

• Remedial work perfonned w/o oversight is Insurance at 72

Hat peril" • Should �orough decide to re-enter the

voluntary cleanup program, it will have to resubmit its application w/ defmitive schedule & pay outstanding oversight costs

12/07/00 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Informed by NJDEP that MOA tenninated 10-06-TO: David Terry (LBG) & property placed on Dept's 10YEP_docs_vol CC: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin. Comprehensive Site List for failure to 5 at 6 Chief of Staff) respond to the Dept's deficiency letter

12/18/00 FROM: David Terry (LBG) • Re: Response to DeLorenzo's 12/07/00 10-06-TO: Wm. DeLorenzo (Nowell letter 10_ Correspondenc Amoroso) • NJDEP 86-10-09-05M / 96- 1 1-28-0210-24 e at 19-20 CC: Jack Eckell (Dumont Admin. • Summarizes recent correspondence & Chief of Staff) acknowledges that Borough never decided 10-06-

whether to proceed w/ LBG's Scope of 10_DEP_docs_vol

Work 5 at 4-5 • Based on info DeLorenzo provided, David

Terry understands that NJDEP has elected to tenninate its recent MOA b/c no work has been perfonned since it was executed.

• Prepared to still do the work outlined in the 1 1/1 1/99 Proposal @ same cost (NJDEP would likely reopen MOA if Dumont intends to begin investigation (a) site)

04/09/01 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing 12/18/00 letter from LBG 10-06-TO: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin. • NJDEP has withdrawn MOA 10_ Correspondenc Chief of Staff)

. • Municipality is free to w/draw from MOA e at 22-23

program, but DeLorenzo requesting confilmation that the Borough wishes not to proceed w/ MOA program

• Note that LBG is prepared to perfonn the studies upon receipt of Borough's decision

01109/02 FROM: Wm. DeLorenzo (NA) • Enclosing DeLorenzo's 04/09/01 letter and 1 0-06-TO: Jack Eckel (Dumont Admin. requesting word whether Municipality 10YEP_docs_vol Chief of Staff) intends to pursue the matter 5 at 1-5 (including CC: Henry Amoroso enc losures)

10-06-1 0_ Correspondenc e at 21

03/26102 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire OPRA DEP files6 at 1

07/22/02 FROM: Sarah Mihalik • Notice of Deficiency OPRA DEP files6 TO: UST Registrant • Tank info incomplete at 59

• Piping Operation and Type of Monitoring Detection have not been provided

• Handwritten note market "completed 8/29/02")

08/01/02 • UST Registration Certificate Certificate of Insurance at 73

04/02/04 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire 08/02/04 FROM: Estavon Posey (NJDEP) • NJDEP records indicate municipality may Certificate of

TO: Mayor Winant have non-compliant regulated UST systems Insurance at 74-76 • DEP is launching enhanced inspection

program that will target all out of compliance UST systems

• Strongly worded letter regarding the necessity of compliance

10/19/04 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire Certificate of Insurance at 86-89

12/09/04 FROM: Borough Administrator • Re: 12/01/04 letter Certificate of TO: Matthew Mee • Borough has taken certain corrective action Insurance at 67

(items # 1 and #2) Certificate of Insurance at 78

02/23/05 NJDEP • UST Field Notice of Violations Celtificate of Insurance at 79

Certificate of Insurance at 8 1

03/01/05 • UST Registration Certificate Certificate of • 03/01/05-12/31/07 Insurance at 9 1 ; 92

03/02/05 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire OPRA DEP files6 at 65-68

04/29/05 FROM: Lance Sisco (Fairfield • On Apr. 12 & Apr. 29, 2005, we cleaned OPRA DEP files6 maintenance) both gas and diesel spill containment at 90 TO: Auradis Brooks manholes; also found and replaced faulty CC: Dumont DPW gas Incon level probe wi new

• Existing gas and diesel UST systems are suction systems; no mechanical leak detectors

• Still have to investigate tank annulus sensor 12/21/05 FROM: Auradis Brooks (NJDEP) • Field Notice of Violation was issued on Certificate of

TO: John Cook 02/23/05 Insurance at 82 CC: Bergen County Health Dept; • Dumont DPW's 02/23/05 response Bureau of Southern Case Mgmt indicated that the deficiencies have been (Enclosure -

addressed Compliance Evaluation Report at 82-85)

01101107 • DPW Certificate of Insurance (2007) Construction - Permit at 82-83 01/01/08 02/20/07 FROM: Cynthia Lisa (Danskin) • Explaining why 2 copies of2007 Certificate Certificate of

TO: Borough of insurance were sent Insurance at 93

Certificate of Insurance at 101

1 1121107 NJDEP • NJDEP InvoicelPayment Certificate of • Some sort of statement of registration fees Insurance at 99-

associated wI USTs 100

01/01108 • DPW Certificate of Insurance (2008) Construction - Permit at 84-85 01/01/09

Construction Permit at 92-93

01/08/08 FROM: Cindy Lisa (Danskin • Enclosing 2008 fund-year certificates of Real Estate Insurance Agency) insurance evidencing coverage for UST TO: Dumont Borough Administrator CC: Michael Avalone (Commerce Insurance Svcs); Joseph Hrubash; Stephen Sacco (PERMA); Rich Erickson (PMK); Christopher Gulies (PMK)

·

08/20/08 NJDEP • UST Field Notice of Violations Construction Permit at 90

08/22/08 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire Construction (filled out in William Ebenhack's name but Permit at 86-89 not signed by him under Section E)

08/22/08 • UST Facility Celtification Questionnaire OPRA DEP files6 (signed) at 69-72

09/08/08 • UST Facility Certification Questionnaire OPRA DEP files6 at 2

09/09/08 NJDEP • UST Systems Registration Certificate Certificate of • 09/09/08 - 12/3 1/10 Insurance at 12

10/31/08 FROM: Lance Sisco (Fairfield • Attaching Applied Earth Solutions OPRA DEP files6 Maintenance) letterlreport of vapor [mdings which none at 83 TO: Auradis Brooks (DEP) were detected CC: Dumont DPW (Bill • [Re: 08/20/08 Notice of Violation] Ebenhack) • Investigation showed no evidence of

contamination 01/01/09 • DPW Certificate .of Insurance (2009) Construction - Permit at 95 01101/10

Celtificate of Insurance at 2-3 (Diesel)

01120/09 TO: John Perkins • Enclosing certificates of coverage for Construction FROM: James Webster (Brown & gasoline tank and diesel tank Permit at 94

Brown Insurance) 01/01110 • DPW Certificate of Insurance (2010) Certificate of - Insurance at 4-5 01101/1 1 (Gas)

Certificate of Insurance at 6-7 (Diesel)

Certificate of Insurance at 9-10

01/08110 FROM: Cindy Lisa (Danskin • Enclosing 2010 fund-year certificates of Certificate of Insurance) insurance evidencing coverage for UST Insurance at 8 TO: Borough

October 1 5 , 1 990

Mr . Wal ter e. Bel l New Jersey Department o f Envi ronmental Protecti on D i vi s i on of Water Resources Metro Bureau of Regi onal Enforcement 1 Babcoc k Pl ace West Orange , NJ 07052

Subject: Schedul e of Act i v i t i es Associ ated w i th . D i s charge from Underground Storage Tank

Dumont , Department of Publ i c Works Al l ad i n Avenue , Dumont New Jersey Property

Dear Mr . Bel l : .

Reply To �ln Office: 131 North Third Street (Cor. Third & Cherry Streets) PhiladelphIa, PA 19106 Phone (215) 627·4505 FAX (215) 627-4250

o New Jersey Office: 120 Wood Avenue South Suite 300, Metro Park Iselln, NJ 08830 (201) 548·1 161

o N.E. Pennsylvania Office: 39 Publlc Square Suite 202 Wilkes Barre, PA 18701 (717) 829·5310

EEe , Inc . ( EEe) has recently been retai ned by the Borough of Dumont t.o provide consul ti ng servi ces for the subject NJDEP compl i ance effort . In accordance w i th the September 14, 1990 l etter to the Borough from Stefan D . Sedl ak of ' your offi c e , attached i s a schedul e of act i v i t i es for the subject compl i ance effort . As ' you know, the underground storage tank (UST) was removed at the time the rel ease was d i scovere d ; therefore , UST removal i s not i nc l uded i n the attached schedul e . Exact dates for o n - s i te fiel d act i v i ti es (e . g . , mon i tori ng wel l i nstal l at i on) wi l l be dependent on contractor avai l ab i l i ty and w i l l be provi ded as ava i l abl e , i f requested .

Pl ease contact me i f you requi re any addi t i onal i nformation .

l)::l� �.

Jane H. Levandoski Project Manager

cc : Joseph A. Ferri ero, Esq . Theodore H . Sobi e s ki , EEe

26501 \L -SCHED

< EXHIBIT ·

j . ,' 't» ..

ccC

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Associ ated wi th Di scharge from Underground Storage Tanks

Dumont- Department of Publ i c Works

Al l ad i n Avenue, Dumont , New Jersey Faci l i ty

Act i v i ty

contaminated soil removal and post­

removal s o i l sampl i ng

Moni toring wel l i nstal l ati on

F i rst round of .monjtori ng wel l s ampl i ng

Receipt of soi l and groundwater analyti cal results

Compl etion of s i te characterizat i on acti v i t i es

( e . g . , NJDEP wel l search) and submittal of report

to NJDEP

To Be Compl eted By

October 29 , 1990

November 5 , 1990

November 19 , 1990

December 17 , 1990

J anuary 6, 1 990

* Add i t i onal acti v i t i e s ( e . g . , second round of groundwater sampl i ng ,

free product recovery, etc . ) may be needed depend i ng on the resul ts of

the above activi t i es . I f thi s i s the case , the schedul e of acti v i t i es

wi l l be amended as appropri ate and resubmi tted .

, Form DWR· 052 ", 3/81"-

NEW .SEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL i �OTECTION " DNISION OF WATER RE�OURCES REPORT O�ONE CAL1;;oR VISIT

Bureau or Office _-,-�-,-",,:c:.::.:,---=" .t:.:.:..rr::.::...:'-Uec.::-:::.'4<':...::..:...-..I,-'_-:-"

__

In ---lliL/--- Out ____ _

Date '2./2-(./41 Time 1 0 :/,.111 I J

Person Contacted -n�;l--""="---"�""-=,,,,,,,,�=='L' _" ___ _

File J)� ft};Pp../ Routing - '::}A.

�" C Affiliation __ --"-£=-<t�ff.=-.L, --=:.....� ___________________ _

,.,d�£tA. � "U< .� �4£.4,:'y- f � cCaJ /� ,/Z�5 zi-2"P 6Atd ;/'1..hp_J ........... --4 &..-../ ,<t"

, Action Recommended __________________________ _

Signature

E E C E N V I R O N M E N T A L C . April 9 , 1991

, " , Mr. Stefan b. , Sedlack New Jersey Department of E vironmenta1 Division' of Water Resource Metro Bureau of Regional E forcement 2 Babcock Place . West Orange , NJ 07052

. . ; � : ;lij '. . .' " Subject: New Jersey OejJar ment 'of EiwironmenH1 .:l>rotectibn (NJOEP) Bureau of Underg ound Storage Tanks, (Ii�Sr) : ',:;0,:,: , : ;, September 1990 S ope of Work (SOW) Comp1 i ance 'Activiti es

. Duniont Oepartmen of Pub1 ic Works (DDPW)1 Projlei:ty · ' · , . i Aladdin Avenue . ,j,. '. '. • ,''':'' • ,< � ." f. ! .' Dumont, New Jers y {;' :> j ; Dear Mr. Sedlack: In accordance with your re regarding the status of th property, ".

ott . ; " , 1 . . . . j 1', ':'l :" '�;. ; . . . , �{ .: �. '; :��kj .. · : , �� ··i·-�' . : ' . :'�!�-: ; � U:

est, this letter cohi'i.rnis outi,te1eplione conversation);': NJDEP-BUST SOW compl i anc .. ,activitltis at the subject· · : · . ; �.: . • : L' 1·'; . :: . ' ;

. :'. ';'i ; , ' - �":; " ; _ ' :: .

_ As we di Scussed, submitta of the Discharge' lriii�itigation ,.Corrective .Action; Report (OICAR) will , be elayed because . the . ·restilt!", 'of the • .investigative · activities completed to da e i ndicate that the UST."thatiwas the subjMt: of the:: ': :' compl eted investigation i the not the source, o�, the',riliserved.; condjtioiis ·that. , ;,�. initi ated the investigati • As you will .recii11, nthe."nviistigatidn began when:;k)f;,. product that . . appeared t.o b gaso1 ine Was .observed seepiog;from a bank' betweeh t��<::c: DDPW g arage property and t e adjacent property foT1owi n�Lan extended 'period .. of"·': .. ·

heavy raintall . The UST t at Was the subject Of tliiS ,l,ilye'stjgatioir'was reindved ':: : imrnedi ate1y after the see age wa� observed and wa\ t�,ii���t, to be

.. ;�e so�rce ?:� ,:Jj ; he observed product. .

l ' ; . • ;.:.� :If �}.r ri�L . I � :: ; ;' : : �: : : ' • :':�': ;-:' The investigative activiti s that have been conip1ete<!Jl dat� i� accordan,;:e with :';"j" ; : : . ' the NJDEP-BUST SOW for this UST include insta11ation;'Of,ifjiye IJibnHbring wellE" , i: -rhe we1.1 locations are sh wn on the map , in ,Atta�hln�ht�A;\and c�e.t� . se,l ected _t�/l! c,: lnvestigate the magnitude. nd extent of gr.oundw�ter>.c,<inta�J.DatHih as�ocJated>with;;;-:: thi s UST • . One �.ound of gro ndwater samples. fr.o� t�.�\''1� 11s.<�hd assoc1ated qua:lity c.n assurance/qua 1 .1 tY control (QA/QC) samples. ·were� .. co).l �ct�d and\)a�alyzed .. �or .. ,: · , priority P.o 1 1 utant vol atil organic c.ompoUnds with .�fi- EP�?HIH/NBS '·1 ihi-ary. -search . f : . for up to 15 lion-priority i> 1 1utant compounds (VDCH5j by ,EPA Method 624 nibdjfied '.· . to i nc1ude cal i bration fo xy1 enes, methyl terti.ary btityl' ether, ' and tertiary . ' . . : : butyl alcohol . _ . :."" .{. '1\ f�_�;;t--�. :� . :, ' :, ... � -:' , '.;: ' .. :�,;.;;; ' -' ;>� ' : " No free product was found. in any of the well s .> Tota1 'pfi.orjty pollutan(. VOCs and .,

. xy1 enes were detected aboY the unpromu1gated NJDEP.actl.on,l eve1 of 1P. mic�o9railis '. per 1 iter (ug/kg or ppb) i .on�y two o� the. wellqM,�,�;and MW-5) : � The comp.oUnds ; detected in MW-3 and MW-5 .onslsted pnmarl1Y,of b��zene, 't.o1uehe,' �thy1benzene, · . '' In} l;'''i�': . .

" ;i . , ' i , "i: .- .J .. "

EXHIBIT

I f

Hr. Stephan Sedlak April 9, 1991 . Page Two

. .. .. ' t : . . ; ' . ! ' : , .

. :�,� .. : .. ,,' .. ::" : . . :;; . 1> I',: . .. , ' !; . �L : .;�:.;-:/. " : : ��_i .. :,; . ;-; .·!�J��:· ;hf : ' t · :.

and xylenes (BTEX) , which .a e typical gasoi im; criilstJtueni!t:\j: No priq:ity VQts;:Wf�:" , . , Or xylenes were detected 1 the samples from the:,other �el)s , . lnclUdlng',HW,4.;'(t:' : : ' " . which ! s l O,cated within, te f�et ,in a down.gradiep.t,;:dire�ti<i� , (thel:gTbund.wat�r,:i'il\;;";;' : . " flow dJrecbon at the prope ty l S gehera1 1y southw",��;,to �9t�heast lias,ed on"w�tef,j,q:L ·f . , l evel measurements correcte for topographic dH�et���.es, us,:ng w�l) .s

.,�r .

. veY dat.a, h�Ll!! ', .':,, :' ,,' . from the USr�hat was the '. ubject : of the i nvest

,' 19'tt

,'�h. ':'l" �, " j ,

., { �,/ ! . ; ;'r:;�flq;; ' ;: - ;:' " '" ' ' . ". :': :'IJ ��'� " ' i}ir¥l� } Ttf):_ :i ; - '· ;" 'k >":·:: ·ic�:-.: .r·

The l ack of eveh trace V�C in MW-4 , , i ndicat�� ,lhk,thi,S:iQST . ls: �ij�;,th� sourc(;�li,1( ': . . ,. of · the BTEX concentratlo s found ' ] 0 MW-3"' and 'IMII"5. ,ll",The . resillts ':of :the lu."l · : 'j'''

groundwater invest igat i on a d add i ti ona 1 i nformaH'!>ii :gatMfed through} i r)terviews:" :'l ' ; with persons , famil i ar with I storic operations at the. DOP.W" jJr.operty sUgg?st that. ,, ; <:" ' , a second gasol ine UST that was formerly located between .f!Wc4 and NW'5 as ' shown ,;:. :,: on the'figure ,in Attachment A may instead be the Source Qfjthese .concentratitihs':·'j : · " This UST was reportedly r moved five or six 'Years., agot .a�pareiitlY prior , to": " , promulgation of federal a d state. UST regullitions': ;' No i other', information" i s ' , ' ; ; , presently avalabl e for thi UST. . . . " t::;.:'; ,,(}, . . , ; ·1 , '. : : , .: ; \ , i.' . . " - , . . � �:::.�() � kt���-; . " : " 1::+' . : ' , :.i . • :� .. k1i : :'� ; The addi tional inv"stigati n to be completed Pl'io,,':icb :silb11llttal of 'a DI�,AR: iS ,l " ,) : designed to confirm or d l prove , ' i f possibl e ,: whHlier �the, second UST' g ' the" , " ,: : source of the detected co t�mination ahd·. to fur�he� .de.i:ih�ate the, ext�nt o,J;'\\' iJ. ' : . contamination. , To a"loom l lSh thi s , several, aadltlonal. , monitoring Wel l s ,', · :\': " . i nc1ud!ng one. within 10 . fe t downgradlent Of the ,�orm�i'°,Jocat.ibn .bL\h�)ec.ond 'Hit UST, wlll be lnstalled and ampl ed , and a sOl l s .lnye�t{ gatj9n In;th�:vlclOlty o(:tliT".: . the se�ond UST wil l be c�mp eted . The r�sults of tpe;·lny�s.ttgatloh. ,�o,ii1pl eted t1d'.:M, date (lOC 1 udi ng wel l bon ng l ogs , ana lyb cal results :sununafy '.sheets i, groUhdwater,'iH'I<"

, contour maps, etc . ) will b submitted a10n� with '.theirestilts of. the: addl�johar::r::IF:' l ' : investigative activities u on their completion. �;':, jd� ; :;d�f . . J � ' ''� :f:: : . ": " ��.,�r:.��{�'- : •

. ; ' : ' . . '. : ; ' � l _�._:. 'i �:t»���� '·" -,: · T:f.'· , : " . . �, .. :�:���1. at " A schedule for imp1 ementat on of the additional ac�ivities�and report SUbmittai ',::!4 : " i s Incl uded 'as Attachment ' · . . ';,::',.,� ' vI;:" f ]· : , , " , ', .'�t';'1: · Please contact tis i f yo information.

.:i �'1 ' : ! t.�.�,' . , 1 .. : - . . . '·�fW . : -L have any questions- � or, ·reqUire any :additiomn,:"':�;-!. ; · , .,:,

� : .

. �-cer'1l,y " /, '. '. {,/M,.y, VT . . John S . Virg i e f; : .. ;��,t� Project Geologist " , ��BL · �� .

. Kne H. Levandoski Project Manager cc: John oott�rweich, NJO

Joseph 'A. 'Ferri ero, Theodore .H. Sobieski ,

P , Metro q . P .G . , EEe

of �.;·t�?·;·. t : , . � : '. .. :;

. � f) . . ;-;: ; ,� : .. �;: .

; ' . . Bureau of RegiohaiI ErifOi'cement; ; : · , I' , : ... . },,' . : :l :itf;l : tL

�. " .. if;:: " ;' '. ' .� :

, '; . I. ! I :.:'.:�; �(q t��}:

·� L

· ... >&ic· �lCC ' .. :;. :.!"

t"

'.

'. :.

. .. . -. . �' .

. � ,

" .; i ·

ATTACHMENT A Site Map

: � r·

.' , 11 , . , ; :: '

' e

. '

, ; ;'

,,' . . ; ��:

j : .

+ '

, ' , ..

. : ,: i . , J

:� J , I : \ '.1 ,.

. ;'

.

"V;:, . , : ' , \ i.' 1 ::" ,! "

, " . ..;t,

. ': ,':

. ,

.. J

'.! ,

..

Ci( \.

I I W

"'11"-1 /---\SOIL PILE " i li) �"'''H

., . • L.J . • . '

. , .... '--..,." . I

TWIN80RO LANE z " � 0 « • MONIT·ORlNO wtl.l.' .J __ CttAIN L.II<K 1(Nee' ""

� BAI<j( r "" " FORMER G4S0t.lllt UST '-_..J ! R(MOVCO 1�90'

� r�;M�!}ltgA:i!�::�tI�6)

! I , 0 '0 '0 .

SCAI.£ If( FCz;T ,

u:e PRO.l(CT 110. 29,o1

I I ARMOUR P L ACE

M""_� ! I �

I) ..

t SHED 1 KNIGHTS OFFICE OF aUJLO!NG COLUMBUS 0 0

�

Ilf , ... ),jw-�

fjij : :r:;,

1/ DUMONT PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILrTY

, .... )(W'�) ! \

TWIN80RO LANE

T\ ,. ., , . , ··� \1 _ . . . ..

EI!:i!.!B!; j DUMONT DEPARTMENT OFPU8LIC WORKS FACILITY

BOROUGH OF DUMONT BERGEN COUNlY, NEW J.ERSEY

,

. ,

.

'. .. .

I I I

,

3/::11/'21

.' . .

" .

; .

, ' ,

.r· I ;;.

. : ' . : . ) . .

ATTACHMENT B

schedule of Activi ties

.L . l t� I 1'1: 1

;: .'i : . . ;, " .;. ,

.-i .� .. , ;: ,

· .F . . . ! 1 - ',' �: . ' .,. . ; .

' "01 ' :,.;. ::i : l . �c,� , . �"' -� . . .:i- :' "� i-:;' .1 •

...... ;-" ;',�; . ..:;. , " 0' . ." " :';: · ... ; ·.-;'".!.: ·: ' l: · · ' ,' 1-'.:

• < ".

......

" , �. ·r

. .� .

. '.r .;_, 1 • •

'. 1 ,

.:. . . .

, '

' -:; . � i

"

f.:

.'.

" , t'.

� ;1

,. � !

Assoc1 afed. .,

fionitoring ilell ' install ation . . :.; Fir�t round of monitoring we . .

. ' '

. J : : d . Receipt of soil and groundwa �:±i . . ,I '

.: ' ; ' :1

Submitta1 of· Report to NJOEP

. ..

' . :' 1 . ' . . : . .

� , Additional acti vities product }ecovery, e.tc . activities. If thi s amended as appropriat . " !,

' : ::; " ., '

-.. .. , .

' . . ;

26501: SDLCK.l:rR . April 9, 1991

i. ,

! ':,

"

"

" j.-. ,

.�." .;� .':;: " �:.g

:,'

" 'j, (�

.'\.. ' ;

" .

�::: �I 2f. ��.

,;. I'

, I ',

: '.

State of New Jersey Depruiment of Envlronmental Protection and Energy

Division of Responsible Party Site Remediation

Scott A. Weiner Commissioner

Joseph A . Ferreiro , Esq . 58-60 Main street P . O . Box 157

.

Hackensack, New Jersey 0 7 6 0 2

Re : Borough of Dumont DPW

Metro Regional Office 2 Babcock Place

West Orange. NJ 07052 Tel. H �c H\69-3960 fax. # 201 -669-3987

November 1 9 , 1991

Underground storage Tank (UST) Investigation • Case No . 9 0-05-17 - 1 5 2 8M * F i l e NO. 0 2 - 1 0 - 12 Dumont, Bergen county

Dear Mr . Ferreiro :

Karl J. Delaney Direcror

On November 7 , 19 9 1 , an inspection of the ' above-referenced facility was conducted by a representative of the Metro Regional Off ice . Ms . Jane Levandoski of EEC Environmental , Inc . was also present . At the time o f the inspection, it was determined that fourteen ( 1 4 ) of the f ifteen ( 1 5 ) monitor wells were sampled during the last week of October 1 9 9 1 . MW-5 could not be sampled due to the presence of approximately - f our ( 4 ) inches of non-aqueous phase liquid ( free product) . It was further determined that MW-9 which is located

hydraulically down9radient of MW-5 was developing a petroleum sheen at the time of sampl�ng . These observations appear to indicate that a " s lug" of free petroleum product is moving from MW-5 in the direction of MW-9 .

Pursuant to N . J . A . C . 7 : 14B-8 . 2 et �, the owner of the UST shall r emove free product in order to minim i z e the spread o f contamination . Therefore , the Borough o f Dumont is required t o immediately initiate free product recovery in accordance with Section IV . D . of the Scope of Work ( copy enclosed) . Records of product recovery shall be submitted on a quarterly basis to the Metro Regional Office . These recovery activities shall be undertaken concurrently with those activities which .are necessary to . complete the final DrCAR r eport due December 2 0 , 19 9 1 .

F ILE COpy Clt :;Of !cO/lfer-I/!(

New Jersey I, an E"wl! Oppornmlty Employer Rocyde<! P",.,

J�seph A . Ferreiro, Esq.

Page 2

November 1 9 , 1 9 9 1

The Borough o f Dumont shall notify this - office in writing within seven ( 7 ) calendar days o f the date of - this letter detailing the actions taken to mitigate the spread of free product contamination on-site .

I f you have any further questions , please contact me at (201) 669-3 9 6 0 .

Specialist

* Please note that this is the oorreoted case number . Please refer to this number in all future correspondence .

Enclosure

c : Jane Levandoski , EEC Environmental , Inc. File

·'-�C ' . ,

CC ' AepIy To " �ain ,

' • 131 NG· • ...h Third Street (Cor. Third & Cherry Streets) Philadelphia, PA 19106·1903 Phone (215) 6274505 FAX (215) 627-4250

o New Jersey Office: 1326 StuyVesant Avenue Union, NJ 07083 (908) 688-1199 FAX (908) 688-()761

, E E C E N V I R O N M E N T A L I N C .

IF& ! <C IE li V E ID>: November 27, 1991 DEC 0 2 1991 Ms. Gloria Grant

o N.E. Pennsylvania Office: 39 Public Square, Suite 202 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 (717) 829,5310 FAX (717) 829-5398

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy Division of Responsible Party Site Remediation Metro Regional Office 2 Babcock Place West Orange. NJ 07052

Subject:

Dear Gloria:

frocedures for Free·Phase Hydrocarbon (FPHC) Recovery Borough of Dumont. Department of Public Works 1 Aladdin Avenue Dumont, New Jersey Case No. 90-05-17 -1 528M

o Southwest Region 1 100 Alvarado Drive, N.E. Albuquerque, NM 871 10 (505) 255-7096

0;)..-10- I?-

This letter confirms our conversation on November 25, 1 991 during which we discussed your , November 19 , 1991 letter regarding initiation of FPHC recovery at the subject property. As I

indicated during that conversation, recovery of the FPHC at the subject property was initiated on November 26. 1 991 .

FPHC recovery will be completed through hand bailing at this time. As we discussed, further remedial efforts involving depression of the water table and recovery of groundwater and treatment of dissolved-phase contamination are premature and not practical at this stage of the

, investigation. However. such efforts will be incorporated Into the overall remedial program for the property which will be evaluated conceptually as part of the Discharge Investigation Corrective Action Report (DICAR) to be submitted December 20, 1 99 1 . I understand through our conversation that this Is acceptable to you.

Hand bailing will be conducted by Department of Public Works employees following training by EEC In proper procedures and safety considerations. The recovered FPHC will be collected in drums for proper offsite disposal. The frequency at which hand bailing will be performed will be determined during the first several weeks of the recovery effort and will be based on the rate of FPHC recharge in the well(s). The anticipated rate is once per day or couple of days.

To date. recoverable FPHC has only been identified in MW-5; however, a sheen has been observed on water from MW-9, which is located downgradient of MW-5. MW-9 and other wells at the property will be checked for the presence of product on a semi-monthly basis and included In the recovery program, if applicable.

EXHIBIT " ' I " ' 1-1

Ms. Gloria Grant Nobember 27, 1 991 Page Two

Records of FPHC recovery, which will include the date, time, volume of FPHC recovered from

each well (if more than one well is Included in the program), and initials of the person performing

the recovery, will be maintained. Measurements of static water level and apparent FPHC

thickness will be made on a monthly basis and groundwater contour and FPHC thickness

Isopleth (if . appropriate) maps will be constructed based on these measurements. This

information and copy of the FPHC recovery logs will be submitted to NJDEPE on a quarterly

basis.

If you have any questions or require additional Information, please contact me.

Jane H. Levandoski Project Manager

cc: Borough of Dumont Mayor and Council

Joseph A. Ferriero, Esq. Theodore H. Sobieski, P.G., EEC

26501: L.GRANT November 27, 1991

SCOtt A. Weinel Commissioner

State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protectlon and Energy

Division of Responsible Party Site Remediation eN Ol8

Trento(l, NJ 0862 S-OOl8

Karl J. Delaney Dlreccor

CERTI FIED RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED

OOT "S ()mt .... . . '.

Joseph A . Ferreiro, Esq. 58-60 Main street P , O . Box 157 Hackensack , NJ 07602

Marvin Katz Dumont Borough Administrator 50 Washington Avenue Dumont , NJ 0 7 6 2 8

John cook, superintendent

fl E C{)Pl �){)( to 116.i11?-// fJ-f30

Dumont Department o f Public Works 5 0 Washington Avenue Dumont , NJ 0 7 6 2 8

Re: Dumont Department o f Publ ic Works 1 Aladdin Avenue Dumont Boro, Bergen County UST # 0 02 6 6 0 6

Aladdin Park Twinboro Lane and Aladdin Avenue Dumont Boro , Bergen County UST # None

Case # 90-05-17-15 2 8 8 9 -09-3 0-0853 , 91-09-12-1533 )

(aka # ' s 8 6-09-22-10M, 8 6-l0-09-05M , 90-03-0 8 - 1 8 11 , 90-05-17-16 2 0 , and

Dear S irs :

On May 1 7 I 199 0 , the New Jersey Department o f Environmental Protection and Energy (the Department) received notification of a d i s ch a rge o f h a z ardous substanc e s , regul ated under the underground storage o f Hazardous Substances Act ( N . J . S . A . 58 : 1 0A-2 1 m;. seg) , Which occurred from the above referenced facil i ty. On August 1 3 , 1 9 9 0 , the Department sent a letter stating the requirements for the proper investigation and the initiation o f

J New}emy /, ilIl EqwJ 0pp0ttvrJ/(y Employ", RecydOfd P'f'OF

EXHIBIT ·

1----,-. . ·�I::_···

.. . _

ocrreotive aotien at the Bereugh c f Dument ' 5 facility . '!'he Department received reperts fer the Bercugh ef Dument dated June 1 9 9 0 and January 1992 indioating that the fell ewing steps were taken in cemp l iance with eur requirements .

A 1 , 0 0 0. gallen gaseline undergreund stcrage tank system (US'!') was remeved in May 1 9 9 0 frem the Aladdin Park site . Feur monitcring w e l l s ( MW - 1 , MW- 4 , MW- 8 , and MW- 1 0 ) have- subseque n t l y b e e n installed . Grcund water flew directien is nertheast . Cempounds present abeve acceptable levels (predeminately velatile ergan ics) have been feund · in MW-8 and MW- 1 0 frem the octeber/Nevembe r 1 9 9 1 sampling event . Fifteen test pits ( '!'P-1 threugh TP-9 , TP-1 1 , TP-1 2 , and TP- 2 0 threugh TP-2 3 ) were excavated . Five seil b c r ings ( A , A-2 , A - 3 , S B- 1 , and SB-2 ) were installed . The highest l evels cf centam i n a n t s ( predeminat e l y b a s e neutral oempeund s ) a bcve acoeptabl e l imits were detected in scil bering A-2 .

At the D umcnt Department e f Pub l i c Wcrks ( DPW) prepe r t y ( 1 . Aladdin Avenue) , a 4 , 0 0 0 gallcn gasc l i n e UST was remeved i n 1 9 8 6

cr 198 7 . A 2 5 0 gallen waste cil UST was abandcned-in-place pricr to 198 6 . Active at the site are : one 2 , 0 0 0 gaJ:len· diesel UST , . , . . , one 3 , 0 0 0 gal lcn gasolin� US:' ' and cne 2 50 gallen waste e i l UST . - .•.. '\) . Eleven ground wat'er menlterlng wel l s (MW-2 , MW- 3 , MW-5 t h rcugh .... MW- 7 , MW-9 , and MW- l l thrcugh MW- 1 5 ) exist en and e f f s it e ':,, , . related to. the di scharges at this faci l ity . Greund water flew . , . , . di rect i e n i s n e rtheast . The h i g h e s t l ev e l s ef BTE X , 1 , 2 -dichlereethan e , naphthalene , bis ( 2 -ethylhexy l ) phthalat e , TBA , tetal arsen i o , and silver have been detected in MW-8 , MW- 1 0 , MW-13 , MW-14 . TWenty-three tests pits were excavated (TP- 1 0 , T P - 1 3 threugh TP- 1 9 , a n d TP-24 thrcugh TP-3 8 ) . Eleven scil borings ( B , B-2 , B-3 , C , C-2 , C-3 , C-4 , 0 , 0-2 , E , · and E-2 ) have been i n s ta l l e d . Pr edeminate l y , b a s e n eu t r a l oempeunds have b e e n deteoted in addit ien to. lead . The surface scils oontain s a nd , s ilty sand , and olayey silt which i s theught to. be fill . A s e f December 5 , 1 9 9 1 , free preduct was detected i n MW-5 i and a sheen cbserved in MW- 9 . Free product has been remeved by hand b a i l ing cnly. An aquifer pumping test was perfermed .

The NJDEPE well searches indicate the presence of ene irrigat icn well and three dcmestic wells within 0 . 5 miles . Hirshfeld Breck censtitutes the eastern berder cf Dument DPW prcperty . Al l the demestic wel l s are leoated en the cppcsite side of the brcck . The entire area i s servioed by public water .

Several concerns exist at these two. s ites , apparently unrel ated to. the UST prcblems . The Bercugh c f Dumcnt shall address these areas ef concern also. . They are as f e l l ows :

1 . ) Every scil boring except A/2 . 5-3 . 0 exhibits base neutral compounds above acceptable limits . The Bereugh ef Dumcnt shall ful l y delineate bcth horizentally and vertically, the extent c f s e i l centaminat i e n . All s c i 1 s amp l es s h a l l b e analy z e d f o r · v c l a t i l e c r g a n i c s u s i ng EPA M ethod 8 2 4 0 Pricrity Pc l l ut a n t volatile erganic scans with a l ibrary search ; TPHC using EPA Method 4 1 8 . 1 mcdified for seil s ; b a s e/neutral organios using

2

: \ _, :/��_ r�. .. � ..... \. .. ... . >: '

. �J

EPA Method 8 2 7 0 Priority pollutant Base Neutral Scan with a l ibrary search ; PCBs using SW-846 Method 8 0 8 0 by GC using 3 5 4 0 or 3550 extraction methods ; and priority Pollutant Metals .

All boring logs , including field screening results , shall also be provided. The field screening results shall be reported along with background readings and instrument cal ibration procedures .

Field screening methods. shall not be used to verify contaminant identity or clean zones . However , where 1 0 or more samples are required for initial characterization sampling at an area o f concern ( tank or tank area) , field screening methods may be used to document that up to 50% of the sampl ing points within the area o f concern are not contaminated . The field screening results shal l be reported along with background readings and instrument calibration procedures . The Borough o f Dumont shall determine the source of this contamination .

2 . ) Case # 8 9-09-3 0-0853 refers to a burning garbage truck that sought refuge at the DPW property . Chemicals present i n the garbage truck included sul furic aci d , nitric acid', phosphoric acid , b e n z e ne , sodium hydroxid e , cupri c n i trate, sul fur ,

.potass ium hydroxi�e, mercuric oxide , and para-dichlorobenzene _' whi c h are a l l hazardous substances i n concentrated form and

dangerous when handled improper l y . The fire department presumably extinguished the fire ( at l east i n part) using wate r . Was the fire truck positioned o n a sol id impermeable surface such as asphalt or concrete? Where did the water used to extinguish the f ire run-off to ( so il ? , storm sewers? etc . ? ) ? Has the run­o f f ever been addressed as part of a cleanup? The Borough of Dumont shal l furn i s h the Department with answers to these questions .

3 . ) Several monitoring wells (MW-3 , MW-5 , MW-9 , MW-12 , MW-13 , MW-14 , and MW-1 5 ) exhibit gasoline related components , however , ·there is no apparent UST source because these wells are e ither

" side or up gradient to known USTs . The Borough of Dumont sqall determ i n e the source of the gas o l i n e r e l ated ground water contamination i n said well s .

4 . ) A s can b e seen , numerous environmental problems (unrelated to USTs ) exist at the DPW and Aladdin Park s ites . The Borough o f

,Dumont shall examine historical records t o determine i f : a . ) / other unknown USTs might still exist at the two sites ; b . ) other floor drains other than the ones noted and connected to the active 2 5 0 gallon waste oil UST ever existed at the sites ; and c . ) any dry wel l s exist or ever existed at the two sites .

The 1 , 0 0 0 gal lon gasoline UST in Aladdin Park, although no l o nger used at the time of removal , appeared to never have been properly abandoned-in-place. Therefore, the Department considers this to have been an active tank at the time o f removal in May 1990 . Any a c t i ve t a n k removed on or after Decemb e r 2 1 , 1 9 8 7 must b e registered with the Department . Because public streets separate this property from the Dumont Department o f Public Works property

3

.1

provided . The field screening results shall be reported along with background readings and instrument cal ibration procedures .

Field screening methods shal l not be used to verify contaminant identity or clean zones . However, where 10 or more samples are required for initial characterization sampling at an area of concern ( tank or tank area) , field screening methods may be used to document that up to 50% o f the sampling points within the area of concern are not contaminated . The field screening results shal l be reported along with background readings and instrument cal ibration procedures .

Pursuant to N . J . A . C . 7 : 2 6 - 8 . 5 , the Borough of Dumont shall determine if any wastes generated ( i . e . , excavated soils, spill material , etc . , ) are hazardous wastes . The Borough of Dumont shal l provide any sample results and the rationale used for the categorization of all wastes generated by this investigation and/or cleanup to assure proper handling and disposal . Please be advised that improper waste treatment , storage or disposal of hazardous wastes is a violation of state and federal Hazardous waste Regulations . AS a reminder, all non-hazardous waste must be removed from the site to an approved facil ity within six months after generation . The Borough of Dumont shal l remove all hazardOUS waste to an approved facility within 9 0 days after generation . Interim . storage of hazardous waste shall be in accordance with N . J . A . C . 7 : 2 6-9 . The storage of hazardous waste in p i l es is strictly prohibited .

The Borough of Oumont shal l submit to the Department any waste man i fests related to any of the above case numbers .

2 . Ground Water

The Borough of Dumont shal l sample all ground water monitoring wel l s without free product . The samples shall be analyzed for v olatile organics , MTBE and TBA using EPA Method 6 2 4 calibrated for xylenes , plus the identification and quantification o f 10 associated peaks (VO+I O ) , and for l ead using EPA Method 2 00 . 7 ( r CAP) or EPA 2 39 . 2 (Graphite Furnace) cal ibrated to achieve a

method detection limit of 1 0 ppb . The SW-84 6 equivalent for this proc edure i s reAP 3 0 1 0/ 6 0 1 0 , s amp l e prep 3 0 5 0/ 6 0 1 0 Furnace 3 02 0/ 7 4 2 1 sample prep 3 050/2.4 2 1 .

Naphtha lene has been detected i n the past, therefore the samples shall a l so be analyzed for base/neutral organics using EPA Method 625 plus the identification and quantification o f 1 5 associated peaks ( BN+15 ) i volatile organics using EPA Method 6 2 4 cal ibrated for xylenes , plus the identification and quantification o f 1 0 associated peaks (VO+I0) .

The Borough of Oumont shal l continue to delineate ground water contam inat i o n , b oth downgradi ent and s id e gradient , a ft e r a � current round of ground water samples is analyzed . This sha l l be done by the installation of additional ground water monitoring wells as needed . Any new wel l s s ha l l be analyzed for volatile

5

"

organics ( VO+ 1 0 ) , base/neutra l organic s , and lead per the protocol described above .

For each sampling event , th'e Borough of Dumont shall construct scaled i s op l eth maps o f free product thicknesses where free product exists , and scaled isopleth maps for dissolved product concentrations .

The Borough o f Dumont sha l l construct scaled ground water flow direction contour maps for each sampl ing event .

3 . Receptor Evaluation

The Borough o f Dumont shall plot the results of the well search on a scaled map ( sc a l e shal l be greater than or equa l to 1 : 24 , 0 0 0 ) in rel ation to the faci l ity, and The Borough o f Dumont shall accurately depict a l l wel l s on this map . The Borough of Dumont sha l l submit a l isting of all wells identified cross referenced to the scaled map, and the Borough of Dumont shall submit the list, the map , and any specific information available on the wel l s to the NJDEPE . The Borough of Dumont sha l l submit the following information with the results of the wel l search : the type o f wel l'; the status of the wel l (active , inactive, properly abandoned pursuant to N . J . A. C . 7 : 9-9 et . seq . ) , total depth , casing length , open bore hole or screened interval , copies of well records and or wel l logs on file with the NJDEPE ' s Bureau of Water Allocation , and any additional records aVailable in county or municipal records . The Borough o f Dumont shall submit a l isting o f a l l S ourCes referenced in performing the well search . I f a re ferenced agency is unable t o provide the in format ion r equested , the Borough o f Dumont s ha l l provide written documentation that the source was contacted and that the request for information was either denied or that the information was unavailabl e .

4 . Ecological Evaluation

Not required at this time .

B . Quality Assurance

The Borough o f Dumont shall submit a l l Tier II QA/QC data .

It is important to note that effective April 2 5 , 199 2 , all persons performing tank services must be certified per N . J . S . A . 5 8 : 10A-24 . 1- 8 . All work related to any tank service must now be conducted by , or under the direct supervision of an individual certified i n the activity being conducted . All documents (permit applicatio n s , report s , proposa l s ) submitted to BUST must be prepared and signed by a certified individual .

The Borough of Dumont shall notify the assigned BUST Case Manager

6

. '

at least 14 calendar days prior to impl ementation of all field activities . I f the Borough of Dumont fai l s to initiate sampling within 3 0 calendar days of the receipt of this letter , any requests for an extension of the required time frames may b e d�i�.

.

Administrative Requirements

Based �pon the above requirements and the data generated to date , the Borough o f Dumont is required to submit a Remedial Action Workpl an . Thi s document shall be submitted to this Bureau at the above address , within ninety ( 9 0 ) days upon receipt o f this l etter . The Remedial Act i on Workp l a n shal l : a ) deta i l a l l activities conducted to achieve compliance with the requirements listed in this letter; and b) present a comprehensive remedial proposal for a l l soil and ground water contamina·tion presen t as the result of your discharge ( s ) based upon all data collected to dat e . P l e a s e note that only one copy Cl f the Qua l ity Assurance/Qual i ty Control De l i verab l e s i s needed . G u i dance regarding the minimum requirements and presentation format for this document are provided below.

The proposed "Tecnnical Requirements for s ite Remediation" rules ( N . J . A . C . 7 : 2 6E ) appeared in the May 4 , 1 9 9 2 New Jersey Register .

These prop o s e d rules provide gui d a n c e concern i n g the environmental investigation and remediation at contaminated s ites o r s i tes at w h i ch contamination is suspected . P r i o r t o promulgati o n , t h e s e proposed rul e s w i l l be used .as the Department ' s primary guidance document , replacing the Division of Respon s i b l e Party S it e Remediation ' s Remedial Invest ig a t ion Guide, the ECRA Cl eanup Plan Guide, the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks ' ( BUST) scope of Work document ( and appendices ) and �he BUST Technical Guidance Document .

It should be noted that technical requirements are included in subchapters 7 , 8 and 9 of the Underground storage of Hazardous Substances Act ( N . J . A . C . 7 : 14B-1-13 and 1 5 ) . I f the p erson responsible for conducting an environmental investigation/ remediation chooses to apply the proposed rules to their s ite, all appl icable guidance appearing in the proposed rules should be followed to accompl ish the investigation . This will allow for consistent evaluation of any .discharges and potential impacts .

I n addition, the proposed "Cleanup Standards for contaminated S ites " rules ( N . J . A . C . 7 : 2 60) appeared i n the February 3 , 1 9 9 2 N e w J ersey R eg i st e r . These s h a l l b e u s e d as guidance t o determine : what concentration of contaminants need to be present at a site to consider the s ite contaminated; which areas of environmental c o n c ern need add i t ional i n v e s t igation ; a n'd the concentration o f a contaminant allowed to remain for a site t o be considered "clean " .

When the person responsible for conducting a cleanup agrees to remedia te a c o ntaminated s ite c ons i st e n t with the prop o s e d cleanup standards , n o further discussion on the identification o f

7

cl eanup standards will be necessary . It shall be remembered, however, that upon adoption, or at any time thereafter, i f the c l eanup standard for a given contaminant i s revised , then remediation to ach ieve that adopted cleanup standard may be required .

I f the person responsible for conducting a cleanup does not agree to remediate a contaminated s ite consistent with the proposed cleanup standards , then the NJDEPE cannot require compl iance with the proposed standards at this time . In these circumstances , the responsible party shall submit a proposal t o the NJPEPE that details the site specific circumstances and technical rational for proposed cleanup goals on a case-by-case basis .

Remedial Action workplan submission

A . The Remedial Action workplan Format

To insure a complete and timely review o f the submittal , the Remedial Action Workplan shall be a self-supporting document . As a guide to this process , the fol lowing element's shall be incl uded in the formation o f the plan :

1 . Table of contents

2 . Introduction. Include rel ease, current s ite use, geology , and hydrogeology .

site acreage, site use during the local land use, local topography,

3 . slUrunary o f UST-Related Environmental Concerns . This shall i n c l ud e the resu l t s o f a l l previous s o i l and ground water sampl ing in tabular form, including scaled s ite maps . A detailed presentation of the items required ( above) in this letter s ha l l b e included.

4 . summary of Proposed Remedial Actions . This shall include a deta i l ed descript i o n o f the remedi a l tech n o l ogy ( s ) t o be uti l iz ed , the media to be a ffected by each technology, scaled s ite maps detail ing the areas where remedial action will be conducted , supporting technical information appropriate to the technology and volumes of each media to be remediated ( including vertical and h o r i z ontal extent ) . The f o l l ow in g techn i c a l information sha l l be included, where appl icable to the remedial technology chosen : a) the hydraulic conductivity of the affected aqui f e r ( s ) , i n c l u d i n g ca lculations ; b ) c al cu l at i on s and maps showing the predicted capture zones ; c ) c a l cu l ations o f the optimum pump rate and number o f ground water and/or air withdraw point s , or trench configuration required to control the plume ; d ) calculation o f the ground water velocity prior t o pumping ; e ) grain s ize analyses ; and f ) soil total organic carbon content and � pH . Also included shall be a map ( s ) and description of the ground water monitoring wel l s to be used to ' monitor the effectiveness o f the remed ia t i o n , b oth at the source and at downgradi en t comp l i ance point s .

8

5 . Identification of the treatment and disposal methods to be employed for any ground water or soil to be removed .

6 . Cleanup l evel to be. aChieved . media and parameters .

Be specific with regard to

7 . summary o f any permits necessary to implement the cleanup . Please note that the NJDEl?E will not approve a Remedial Action Workpl an which proposes to di scharge to a pub l i cly- owned treatment works ( POTW) without the prior written consent o f the POTW .

8 . The Workplan shall detail the specific activities that will be used to complete the proposed cleanup objectives .

9 . A post-remedial sampling and monitoring plan for each media to be remediated.

1 0 . A specific time table for implementation of the Remedial Action Workplan which includes milestones in the proj ect .

1 1 . Quarterly pro�ress reports , for the duration of the cleanup .

12 . Estimate o f costs for the c leanup , which sha l l include:

below)

a . capital costs b . operation and maintenance costs c . monitoring system costs d . laboratory costs e . engineering, l egal and administrative costs f . contingency costs g . summary of a l l remedial costs incurred to date ( see

An adm i n i st r a t ive checkl ist i s provided ( Attachment # 1 ) and should be used as addi t i on a l guidance when formu l ating the Remedial Action Workplan .

I f the items l isted in sUbchapter 4 of the proposed "Technical Requirements for site Remediation " ( sections 4 . 8 . and 4 . 9 ) have not been submitted in prior reports , they should be included in the Remedial Action Workplan .

A summary o f the total cost o f c leanup ( actual or anticipated) shall be submitted with any RAW or request for No Further Action . This shall be broken down as follows : tank removal and disposal costs ; capital costs including monitoring systems and equipment ; mobi l i z ation cost s ; operation and maintenance including labor, ut i l i t i e s a n d repa i rs ; consu l t i ng and l abor costs including engi n e e r i ng , e nv ironment a l , l eg a l and adm i n i strative costs ; a n a l y t i c a l / l a boratory costs ; s amp l e c o l l ection c os ts ; and disposal costs including transportation , waste transfer fees and facil ity t ipping fees .

B . Data Presentation

9

Summar i z ed analytical resu l t s are requ i r ed i n tabul a r form . Borough o f Dumont shall also submit with the analytical data , all documents associated with the sampling and testing , including , but not l imited to, lab sheets , chain of custodies , results of blank ana l y se s , lab chron i c l e s , summar ies of a n a l y t i ca l instrument tuning and ana lytical methods used . The NJDEPE recommends tha,t the Borough o f Dumont refer to the attached "Guidelines for Data Presentation" for additional guidance- in the preparation of its submittal (Attachment # 2 ) . The Borough o f Dumont shall coll ect all samples in accordance with the sampling protocol outl ined in the May, 1992 edition of the "NJDEPE Field Sampling Procedures Manual " .

C . Permit Appl ications

All appropriate permit applications shall be submitted e ither prior to or i n concert with the , �emedial Action Workplan submission . Copies o f all permit application cover letters shall be provided with the Remedial Action workplan . In addition , the Department h a s recently estab l i shed the Office o f P ermit Information Assistance (OPIA) . OPIA I S responsibil ities include providing permit information to the publ ic and assisting permit applicants through the permit coordination process when a proj ect requires permits from various programs . OPIA can be reached at ( 6 09 ) 9 8 4 -0 8 57 .

As a reminder, a NJPDES Discharge to Ground Water ( NJPDES -DGW) permit wil l be required for all active ground water rem'ediation ( and some o n - s i t e s o i l treatment techno logies ) and na tural

proposal s . , P l ease note that i f ground water reme d i ation activities result in a diSCharge to surface wate r , The Borough o f Dumont shal l also obtain a NJPDES Discharge to Surface Water Permit (NJPDES-DSW) , category B ( Industrial/Commercial Surface Water Discharge) or Category B4 ( General Permit Fuel Cleanup) . Any d ischarge to a publ icly owned treatment works (POTW) in excess of 2 5 , 0 00 gallons per day requires a NJPPES S igni ficant Indirect User permit (NJPDES-SIU) , category L ( Indirect Discharge to POTW ) . I f ground water, will be treated prior to discharge , a treatment works approval (TWA) shal l also be obtained. Air discharges from vapor extraction systems also require permits . Finall y , surface or ground water withdrawal i n excess of 1 0 0 , 000 gallons per day ( or 1 0 , 000 gallons or more in critical aquifers) requires approval by the Department . For further information contact the Bureau of Information Services (NJPDES-DSW or SIU) at ( 60 9 ) 984-4 4 2 8 , the Bureau of Industrial Discharge Permits (TWA) at ( 6 0 9 ) 2 9 2 -4 8 6 0 , the Bureau of New Source Review (Air Permits ) at ( 609 ) 2 9 2 -6 7 1 6 , or the Bureau o f Water Allocation (ground water withdrawal ) at ( 60 9 ) 292-29 57 .

As per N . J . A. C . 7 : 1 4 B-12 . 1 , the owner and operator of regulated underground storage tanks are j oint and several l y l iabl e for compliance with these regulations . Failure to comply with the requ i r ements d e ta i l ed above may r e s u l t i n the a s sessment o f

10

penalties as provided for by the Water Pollution control Act, N . J . S . A . 5 8 : 1 0 A- 1 et seq. and the Underground storage o f Hazardous Substances Act , N . J . S . A 58 : 10A- 2 1 et seq. Violators are l iable for penalties of up to $50 , 00 0 per day for each day o f continuing violation .

I f you have any questions, please contact John Rubl of the Bureau _ of . underground storage Tanks , Tank Management section - Phase I I ,_

at ( 60 9 ) 984-3 1 5 6 .

sincerely,

'n;�J���� Kevin F . Kratina , Acting chief Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks

C I s teven T i f f i n g e r , Bergen county Department o f H e al t h Serv i c es , 3 2 7 East Ridgewood Avenue , Paramus , NJ 07652 - 4 8 9 5

John Rubl , Bureau of Underground storage Tanks Jane Levandoski , EEC Environmental Inc . , 1 3 1 North Third

street , Philadelphia , PA 19106

Enclosures : UST Registration Package Attachments 1 & 2 Soil Re-Use Guidelines Laboratory Deliverables

1 1

�htfe af �efu Ww.e� Christine Todd Whitman Governor

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks CN'()28

CERTIFIED MAIL . RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

John Dudas, Jr. Dumont Borough Attorney 1 4 W. Madison Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

Marvin Katz Dumont Borough Administrator 60 Washlng10n Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

John Cook. Superintendent Dumont Department of Publlo Works 50 Washlng10n Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

RE: Aladdin Park Twlnboro Lane and Aladdin Avenue Dumont Borough. Bergen County

401 East State Street Trenton. NJ 08626

. . �.

. . ' ,',

" ,

" , . ' . .

Case # 9O'()S·17·1528 (aka #8 9O.()6·17·1620, 91.{J9·12·1533, & 9O'()3'()8·1811 ) UST # 0243632

.

Remedial Action Workplan Dated: January 1 7, 1995

Dear Sirs:

Robert C. Shinn, Jr. Commissioner

The Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks (BUST) has completed tts review of the above referenced document. BUST has reviewed the aspects of the above referenced document that relate to the former regulated underground storage t(lnk system (USn. Please be advised that the document. as � relates to the former UST cannot be approved as a Remedial Action Workplan (RAW). The aspects of the Investigation not related to the rellulated UST will not be reviewed by BUST because BUST has only statutory authority to manage UST Issues. The remainder of the RAW will be forwarded to another group wtthln the Department which has the statutory author�y to handle the non·

- UST Issues. As explained In a previous letters, H the Borough of Dumont wishes to have only one Department case manager overseeing the site. then the Borough of Dumont must enter Into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) [document previously sent] requesting that both the UST Issues and non·UST Issues be handled simultaneously through an MOA.

. EXHIBIT ··

New Jersey is an Equal Opporhmity EmplDyer J . J .

In an effort to continue the UST Investigation at this stte,.the document Is hereby condttlonally approved as a Remedial Investigation Workplan (RIVv). The remaining deficiencies are descrlbed below.

I. � . Area of Concern #1 (ACC #1): Fonner 1,000 gallon gasoline UST located approximately 50 feet north of Twlnboro Lane and 50 feet west of Aladdin Avenue. .

Soli Sampling Requirements . .

Although 15 test ptts and 5 soli borings were Installed on·stte In numerous locations across the sae, none of the test pHs nor any of the borings were Installed In the former excavation area, Because post-excavatlon soli sampling relevant to the UST excavation was not conducted when the gasoline tank was removed, or any time thereafter, soli sampling of the former excavation Is required to ensure that soU contamination does not exist. The sampling locations and frequenoy shall be In acoordance wnh N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.3 and 6.4. If the excavation was enlarged horizontally beyond the.1mmedlate tank removal area, addttlonal soli samples shall be taken pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.4(a)21·1v.

The borlng depths shall correlate wnh the former depth of the excavation' and shall be located wnhln the native soli. Sample depths shall be determined pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.4. Field screening of the soli borings shall be conducted because the tank contained volatile organic compounds. Samples shall also be collected In the area of all former piping and dispensers In accordanoe with

, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3. Locations should be biased towards potential discharge areas Oolnts, connections, etc.). AU ssmples shall �e analyzed for volatile organlcs ' uslng EPA.MeU'lqd .(l240 calibrated for xyienes, wUh a library search (VOS+10), and for lead using SW-846 MethOdS.G050 and'3051 using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method: (tCAP) or Graphite Furnace. All b9rlng logs, Including fleld.Sl!reenlog results, shall also be provld$d; �he field screening results shall be reported along wUh background readings and Instrument ciallbrallon procedures.

. .. . . " , . Dumont Borough shall submH a � site diagram' Indicating the exact locallon and orientation of the former 1 ,000 gallon 'gasoline UST and associated product-bearing p!plng; dispensers/pump Islands, monitoring wells, subsurface condutts and utllHles, eXisting structures, etc. Once the required

, soU borings are obtained and analyzed, D!lmont Borough shall receri:!, thek (098t10,; on' the above scaled, site diagram relative to the appurtenances mentioned, and Inclune the outline of the former excavation. Dumont Borough shall also Include the depth of tha sample Interval used for analysis, and list all compounds detected wtth the respective cc:m�entratlons onto the sUe diagram.

Backflll Documentation . Dumont Borough shall submit documentation certifying that the material used as backfill Is free of contaminants and meets all requirements pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.4(b). Please note that the Department may require sampling of any backfill suspected to be contaminated.

The Department's most recent general guidance on contaminant cleanup crHerla Can be found In the April 1994, edition of the Site Remediation Newsletter, It must be remembered, however, that the actual cleanup goal at a particular sne Is determined by the Department on a case-by-case basis and may be different than that In the above referenced newsletter. This variation .may be due to many factors, Including site specifiC human health and enVironmental exposure pathways, the presence of site contaminants not addressed In the newsletter, and site speclflo physical characteristics. In case speclflc sHuatlons, when cleanup criteria Is modlfled from one previously established for that specifiC site, the Departme(lt will make every effort to expeditiously notify the responsible party. Please consult the case manager listed below to discuss any modifications which may Impact your remedial actions..

.

If the person conducting a cleanup does not wish to remedlate a contaminated stte consistent with the newsletter, they shall submit a proposal to the case manager listed below that details the site specific circumstances and technical rationale for cleanup goals on a case-by-case basis.

2

Please note that the Ground Water Quality Standards (N,J,A,C, 7:9-6) have been adopted and appeared In the February 1 , 1993, New Jersey Register, This rule adoption may Impaot requirements for ground water remediation and soli cleanup (I,e, where the soli may contribute contaminants to the ground water above the applicable standards) for a particular she and should be referenced and discussed wkh the case manager listed below,

II, Ground Water

A, Ground Water Monltorlhg . . Four (4) monkorlng wells (MW-l , MW-4, MW-s, MW-10) have been Installed on-site, and al]other three (3) ground water monitoring wells (MW-2, MW-16. and MW-17) are Installed off she, The subsurface appears to consist of fill overlying glacially deposhed sediments, Bedrock has not been encountered In the well borings, Slug tests on several of the wells on the nearby Dumont Department aI Public Works she Indicates that ground water Is flowing at a rate of .17 feet per yaar, Ground water flow has been determined to be northeast, Depth to ground water during the most recent sampling event ranged from 3,5 to 9,7 feat below grade, Free phase product has never been detected In any of the monitoring wells, To data five (5) ground water sampling events have been conducted, the most recent III October 1994, For the Oetobar 1 994 sampling event, only moriltorlng wells MW-2, MW-s, MW-l0, MW-16, and MW-17 were sampled, The samples were analyzed for VO + 1 0, total xylenes, MTBE, and TBA.

The results of the October 1994 sampling event exoeedlng the Ground "Water. Quality Standards are as follows (ppb): MW-s wkh 30 ppb benzene and 1 ,400 ppb to)al xylenes; MW-10 wkh 1,400 ppb benzene, 830 ppb elhylbenzene, and 600 ppb total,xylenes, Please.rlote, the Department compares the library search tentatively Identified cbmpoun�s (TICs)jo the-sta.ricta'rds for Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) found at N.J,AC, 7:9-6, As SUch, Indlvlduat TIC"s'sre·be compared to the Interim generic crHerion of too ppb for Individual non·carclnoget'1!G.90mpounds, All TICs detected In a ground water semple are compared to the 500 ppb total SOCs Interim generic criterion, Therefore, MW-s exhlbked three Individual TICs exceeding .tha f 06' ppb crHerlon and a total al 1 ,t94 total TICs exceeded the 500 ppb total TICs crHerlon, AlSo, MW-10 exhibited ten Individual TICs exceeding the tOO ppb erHerlon and total TICs at. 2,eoo ,ppb exceeded Ule 500 ppb crHerlon, · , .' . ':' ,

Because a sHe diagram has not been submitted that locaies the monkorlng wells relatIVe to the former tank excavation, It Is difficult to determine the location of the wells relative to the source area of the gasoline contamination, Dumont Borough shall submk a � ske diagram Indicating the exact location and outline of the former UST and associated piping, . dispensers/pump Islands, as related to monkorlng wells, sul:lsurfaee conduits and utllHles, eXisting structures, eta.

e, Contaminant Plume Delineation By overlapping sHe diagrams submitted In previous reports, H appears that MW-1 Is located hydraulically up gradient of the former excavation, In order to adequately define the gasoline plume, Dumont Borough shall Install addklonal ground water monHorlng wells to fully delineate the horizontal and � extent of ground water contamination, Contamination shall be delineated to the Ground Water Qualky Standards, N,J,A,C, 7:9-6. unless otherwise approved by the Department, At a minimum, a ground water monHorlng well shall be Installed: ,

v' hydraulically downgradlent and within ten (10) feet of the former UST excavation In order to determine source area coricentratlons;

.

v' midway between MW-l0 and MW-16 to more accuratelydeflne the lateral extent althe plume . o n the northem side:

3

..; on the comer of Aladdin Avenue and Armour Place (DPW property) to better define the downgradlen! extent of the plume, .

If � Is necessary to Install wells off-s�e. Dumont Borough shall provide documentation of wrltleQ requests seeking access to Install said monUorlng wells on off-site properties within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this correspondence, Please be advised that N,J,S,A, 68:10B. a statute concemlng site remediation. provides a cause of action for persons to obtain access to properties not owned by that person for the purpose of conducting remedial activities at that site. Please see the enclose4,lGulde for Submission of Remedial Action Workplans' on this provision of N.J.SA 68:10B for further Information,

Dumont Borough shall subm� boring logs and the monitoring well construction details . (Monltorlng Well Certification Forms A and B. enclosed) for all newly Installed monitoring walls,

Dumont Borough shall also complete and submU Monitoring Well Certification Forms A and B for existing Wells MW-l. MW·2. MW-4. MW.f3. MW·l0. and form A for MW·16 and MW·17, Caples of the forms are found In the 'Guide for Submission of Remedial Action Workplans'

C. Ground Water Mon"orlng and Reporting Requirements

- .

On a seml-annUai basis and unlll a ground water RAW Is approved. Dumont Borough shall sample every nion�orlng well Which does not contain free product and anal�e the samples for benzene, toluene, ethylbllnzene, total xylenes, MTBE, and TBA provided an EPA approved method which employs gas chromatography Is used: and for lead (Pb) using EPA Method 200,7 OCAP) 'or EPA 239,2 (Graphite Furnace), . The SW-846 equivalent for thl�. procedure ,ls ICAP 3010/6010. sample prep 30S0/6010 Furnaoe 3020/7421 sample prep.�05(j/242,I , . .

. � . . .... ' ," '" For each sampling event. Dumont Borough shall submit a table. to IncJ�', for eaoh monitoring well: 1.) top 01 casing elevation: 2.) top of screen elevation: 3,) grol\Oq w�t�r elevation (oorrected for free phase product n presen)}; 4.) free phase product elevation (ff pt�s.�n.I):ilnd 5.) free phase product thickness (ff present).

. . ' .. : .: ' " . , '.

For each sampling event. Dumont Borough sti�1I construct 1\ scaled I��plelh map of free product thickness Where free product exlals. and scaled . Isopleth m�s 'for dl,ssolved . producl ooncentratlons. Dumont Borough shall subm" Ihe updated 'maps '\'1"1\ each subsequent SUbmittal. . . .

Dumont Borough shall construct and submit scaled. ground water table co·ntour maps for each ground water sampling event A ground waler contour map reporting form. see the Department's March 1995 'Guide lor the Submission of Remedial Action Workplans'. shall accompany each ground water contour map submittal.

D. ClalllflcaUon exception Areal tOEAs) ClasalflcaUon exception Areas (CEAs) pursuant to the Ground Water Quality Standards (N,JAC, 7:9-6. Jl..wIJ apply to all s"e remediation cases Involving ground waler contamination above applicable standards, A designated CEA shall also act as ,a Well Reslrlotlon Area pursuant 10 N.J.A.C. 7:S:S.6(d). ' .

As a result of the ground water contamination at this site. a CEA shall be established at the time of remedial action workplan (RAW) or no further action (N'FA) approval. as applicable. The proposed RAW or NFA shall Include. and will not be approved without. the following:

1) latltude and long"ude with an accuracy to 1/10 of a second and lot and blocks 01 Impacted properties;

, . . l!1QIS;, S�e boundaries can define the CEA H no offs"e contamination Is expected to occur for the duration of the CEA: .

4

"

•

2) list of affected aquHers: 3) list of contaminants of concem: 4) estimated longevity of the CEA, based upon the most mobile and persistent compounds, to

meet the GWas. (As appropriate, existing monitoring data shall be used to verify models.) For cases Involving active remediation, the longevity of the CEA may be Indeterminate but not permanent: . .

� See the attached CEA Guidance Document for further discussion 5) the mapped boundaries of the CEA on a USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map: 6) FOR GROUND WATSR USE AREAS": The CEA shall be presented In Geographic Information

System (GIS) Format (see the attached CEA Guidance Document for more Information on the GIS you can' obtain the NJDEP 'GIS · Mapping the Present to ProteCt New Jersey's Future · Mapping and Digital Data Standards' available from the NJDt;P, Bureau of Revenue, CN417, Trenton NJ 08625): . .

7) FOR GROUND WATER USE AREAS: Impac\ed property owners and local officials (mayor, . planning board and health department) must be notified by certified mall. The ':lotlce shall Inform them of the CEA and ground water use restriction (discuss with case manager before defining) prior to submittal of the proposed RAW or NFiI. and solicit comments to be submitted to the Department's case manager. The RAW or NFA wll! not be approvel! without proof and caples 01 notlflcallon. The Department suggests that contact be made with your case manager to dlsouss the boundaries of the CI:A prior to publlo notification.

� If a RAW will be 'proposed for ground water remediation that does not currently Include the full extent of the plume, the CEA can be proposed for tliat portion b�lng rell)edlated. The CEA boundaries and longevity can be adjusted over time. . . , . . ... ". :,:" . ' . ,

.... . , . *Ground Water Use Areas shall be defined as those locations wlth'ourrent'ot Mure ground' water use (potable, Industtlal, agricultural, etc.). Current ground water· u�e. shall be based on the Department's Bureau of Water Allocation flies, consulting' the New Jersey:Water' $uppfy Master Plan (copies avaUabie In the OffIce of Environmental Planning), contacting' the. lticaI or regional water purveyor, and, as necesSary, conducting a door·to-door canvass. Future ground·water use (over a 25-yesr planning horizon) can be determined from local or regional water purveyors,·locaI qr county planning 'boards and boards of h.ealtt). and the New Jersey water Supply MEister Plari. · .

111. Receptor Evaluation A. UlIIHles

. ': .: " .,' .

. ' . . . .

The nsarest utility receptors are a sanitary sewer line at a depth of 7.5 It located approximately 60 feet east (downgradlent) and a natural gas line at a depth of 2.6 to 3.0 feet located approximately 65 feet east (downgradlenl). The sanitary sewer line may have an Influence on 'plume migration dlreotlon (adding a northerly component).

Dumont Borough shall' identify thl1 possible Interconnection of ground water to the subsurface'

sanitary sewer and natural gas lines located along Aladdin Avenue and determine the depth of Inven, the . diameter and construction specHlcations of the subsurface structures. Dumont Borough shall determine Whether the either utility may be acting as a conduit for ground water migration, either along the bedding plane or within the structure Itself, or wheth�r the subsurface structuree may be aotlng as a barrier for ground water migration because the depth to ground water at the slte Is shallow. Sampling of the sanitary sewer water may be required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E4.5, If applicable. If an Interconnection Is identified, utilities shall also be checked for signs of contaml�lon. This may be completed through vlsiJal Inspeotlon and use of fleld screening Instrumenta.

5

B. Surface Water Body . . The nearesl surfaoe water body Is Hlrshfeld Brook, located approximately 500 It east (downgradlent). Ground water sampling results Indicate the plume does not threaten the brook.

C. Well Searches A total of three dom�stlo wells and one Irrigation well are located less then 2,500 feet from the stte. The closest well Is 1 ,500 fI downgradlent. However, tt Is on the oppostte side of Hlrshfeld Brook and Is not likely to be affected because of tts distance from the plume, Hlrshfeld Brook would most likely act a:f a reoeptor Interseotlng the plume, the distance between the gasoline dlscherge and the well, and that tt Is caloulated that It would take almost a century before the plume could migrate the necessary dlstanoe.

.

D. Basements Because MW-16 and MW·2 have exhibited volatile organlo compounds, Dumont Borough shell determine whether basements are present along the portion of the northern side of Armour Place, between Aladdin Avenue and Hlrshfeld Brook. Should levels of contaminants In MW-2. MW·16, MW·17, or the required monttorlng well on the comer of Aladdin Avenue and Armour Place exceed the GWQS, then Dumont Borough may be required to dillermine the presence/absence of gasoline vapors In accordance wUh N.J.A.O. 7:26E-4.4(h)4.

, / .

IV. Qualltv Assurance . . '

, , • ' ! . : " : . ' " A. All data submitted shall oonform to the "Technical Requirements lor �me Remediation.' N.J.A.O.

7:26E, except where specHlcally Indicated. . '. .

•

....

:

:

.

'

:,

' . . "

.' ,

B. In accordance with the ;"echnlcal Requirements jar Site Remedlatiori;" S��IIY N.J.A.C. 7:26E· 3.10(b) 3, a technical overview Is required for any report submission: ! As. part of thet overview, a discussion regarding the reliability of the laboratory analytical Mta; shall tie Included. Please see Appendix 2 of the March 1995 Guide for th� Submission of Rernedlljl Action Workplans. . .

"': , .

.

: '.

C. Dumont Borough shall Indicate on Mure cheln-of-custodyforms, tne'riuithod of.refrlgeratlon used to maintain the samples at the IlIrget temperature of 4°0. . . .. . . :

v. . .Q!!w: A. Certification Requirements '

It Is Important to note thet effective AprU 26, 1992, all persons performing tank servloes must be . certified per N.J.S.A. 6S:10A·24.1-8. All work. related to any tank service must 'now be

conducted by, or under the on .. alte Immediate supervision of 1m Individual cllrtlf1ed In the activity being conducted. M documents (parmtt applications, reports, proposals) submitted to BUST must be prepared and signed by a certif1ed Individual.

B. Field ActIvity N'otlflcatlon Dumont Borough shall notify the assigned BUST case manager at least 14 calendar days prior to Implementation of field activales. If Dumont Borough falls to Initiate sampling wahln 30 calendar days of the receipt of this letter, any requests for an .extenslon of the required time frames may be denied. . .:

C. Cost Recovery . On IiprII 5, 1993, the UST Fee Rule (Amendments' and New Rules at N.J.A.O. 7:148) was

. proposed. This rule appeared In the February 22, 1994, New Jersey Register. Effective February

6

22, 1994, the Department will be billing you for the Department's oversight of all work conducted at your site. Documents submitted In accordance with the "1'echnlcal Requirements for Stte Remediation' (N.J.A.C. 7:26E) will help reduce the time necessary for the oversight of the above referenced site. At this time, the Department Intends to process bills on a seml·annual basis. Please consult the April 5, 1 993, and February 22, 1994, State Registers for details. Copies can be obtained by contacting the Office of Administrative Law at (609) 688-$00.

D. Elfec1lve Analysis and Certification Dumont Borough shali 8.-�bmlt an Effectiveness Analysis and Certification. This submission shall Include an analysis artil certification that the proposed remedial action meets the orlterla contained In Section- 36 (g) of P.L 1993, c.139, Including an analysis of long and short tenn effectiveness, Implementabillty, timeliness, cost differential of permanent �nd nonpermanent remedies (� appllcable), and community concerns. Please nole thaI the Effectiveness Analysis and CertNicatlon supersedes the Remedial Alternative Analysis In N.J;A.O. 7:26E·5.

Dumont Borough shall resubmit a more detailed RAW propoSal for both soli and ground water once the above requ�rements are accomplished.

VI. Administrative Requirements Based upon the above requirements and the data generated to date, Dumoht Borough Is required to SUbmit a revised RAW In accordance with N.J.A.O. 7:26E-a.2 and P.l., 1 993,.g.I?9 (S·1070). This ­dooument shall be submitted to this Bureau at the above address, -w'lthln -ninety (90) days upon receipt of ihls letter. The Revised RAW shall detail all actlvttles condu6ted-fo:l\Q�le�tj compliance wHh the -requirements listed In this letter. A.ddltlonally, the Revised �W sha!l.pr�selii a comprehensive remedial proposal for all soli and ground water contamination preslmt. --�_4Idance regarding the minimum requirements and presentation format for this document are p'rQvl4ed In the tJiaroh_ 1995 'Guide for the Submission of Remedial Action Workplans.' ' : -

. , . ' . . -It should ba noled that H Dumont Borough completes the above requirements; a!1d the data Indicate that the remedial Investigation has not been completed (I.e., oontamlnlltlon _ not oompletely delineated), Dumont Borough shall subm� a RIW In aocordance with N.JAc. -7:2SE-4.8 within the specified time frame. The RIW shall Include a schedule of Implementation of \he remaining remedial, Investigation required and the submittal date of the Revised RAW. Dumont Borough also has the option of completing the remalnln�!"Temedlal Investlgallon. In acoordance with N.J.A.O. 7:26f':-4, followed by the submission of the RIR/RAW. If the latter option Is selected, Dumont Borough shall notify the case manager listed below, In writIng, wHhln two weeks prior to the specified time frame referenced above. This notification shall Include a generic discussion of activities conducted to date , and activities to be conduc1ed, as well as a detailed schedule of Imp/ementatlon whloh Includes the submission of the RIR/RAW. -

Please note, pursUant to N.J.S.A. 5B:l0A·21 .lll�. and N.JAO. 7:14B-§!�., the owner and operator of the regulated - underground storage tanks are strlotly liable for oompllance with these reqUirements. In addition, all state regulated USTs, except for heating 011 USTs for on·sHe consumpllon, are regulated under 40 CFR Part 280. Non-oompllance-wlth these federal and state regulations exposes the tank owner and J)perator to the penalty and liability specified In 40 CFR Part 280, N.J.S.A. 68:10A·21 .lll�. and N.J.A.C. 7:148 .lll�.

7

\ ' ,'

,1" ". "

If you should have any questions regarding this rnstter. please contact John Rulli. SenIOr Geologist and case manager. 01 ths Bureau 01 Underground Storage Tanks at (609) 984-3166. ' ,

Sincerety� M ,J �

;� '().� � Lee Hendricks, Unn Supervisor � " Bureau 01 Underground Storage Tanks

enclosures:

0: .

. . . .

Guide for Submission 01 Remedial Actlon Workplans Management 01 Excavated SoRa CEA Guidance Oboument

'Steven Tffflnger. Bergan County Cepartment 01 Heaith S8IVICea. 327 � Ridgewood Avenue; Paramus, NJ 07652-4895 ." . , :, . . . . : : Joseph Ferreiro, 58-$) Maln Street, P.O. Box 157, Hackensack. NJ Or6tJ2 ';:; .. . , : "

Gregory Albright, Harding I..awl!on Associates, One Mead�anda � ·Sulte·�09Ci. ,East Rutherford, NJ 07073 (w/enclolurel) . • . ,' . . . • '. " , \.;'! .,. : .

• . . , . 'fi : . . 1::" ,-', •

�. :. ::);iT:,( , ' .' �:: :.: ; .. � : '::: . ' " , . " . . : .' ;. ... ·: .. ;::.I� ::,:: . ' . .' . ,' .

•

\ ," " " " ; . .

\, . \ , "

8

) .. • •

j5itnt.e of �.efu W.erfiett

Z 1 5 4 3 2 0 3 0 5 Receipt for . '

� Certified Mall� - x:. No Insurance COl veT g,�t:�:���� - Do not use for nter �� 1 (See Reverse Sen! to

Christine Todd Whitman GoVeTlIOr

Department of Environmental Protect jfi� Stlllet and No.

Bureau of Underground Storage Tan CN'()28

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

. Marvin Katz Dumon; Borough Administrator 60 Washington Avenue

- Dumont, NJ 07628

John Cook, Superintendent Dumont Department of Public Works 60 Washington Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

John Dudas, Jr. Dumont Borough Attorney 14 W. Madison Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 00025

Re: Dumont Department of Public Works 1 Aladdin Avenue Dumont Borough, Bergen County

. Case # 86-10'()9'()5M (a.k.a. # 86'()9-22'()l M) UST # 0026606 TMS #s 093-3817, 093·381 8, and 093-3822 S�e Investigation Report Dated: May 13, 1994 Remedial Aotion Workplan Dated: January 17, 1995

Dear Sirs:

P O., Stat$ and lIP Code

Postage $ Ctlltified Fee

Spe<:ial OelNW/ Fee

R!)5tll¢l&d o.IliVel'l Fee

C> Raluin Recaipt Showing

� to Whom & DAl6 DeI1'/flte6 "'

RelulI"I ReceIpt ShOWing to WhOfI't • . � D�te. 81'4 Mdle5�'S AddresS

;;; 10rAl f'os\�ge $ <5 & Feu g Postmark Of Dato (') JU"2 0 1995 E � <J) 0.

.� ... ,.,.,�,. c'·:-·" � · . , "

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has completed Its review of the above referenced document. Please be advised that the document cannot be �pproved as a Remedlal.Action Workplan (RAW). However, In an effort to continue the Investigation at this she, the document Is hereby conditionally approved as a Remedial Investigation Workplan (RIW).

The aspects of the Investigation unreletted to the regulated UST discharges cannot be' revleweg by. the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks (BUST) because BUST only has statutory authorhy to manage regulated underground storage tank system (\JST) Issues. The remainder of the RAW will be fO/warded to another group whhln the Department which has the statutory authorhy to handle the non-UST Issues . . As explained In previous letters, H the Borough of Dumont wishes to have onl{one Department case manager

New JetSey Js an Equal QpjXJttunity Employer Recycled Paper

· EXHIBIT ·· ·

r .....•.. \4 ..

overseeing the stte, then the Borough of Dumont must enter Into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) [document previously sent] requesting that both the UST Issues and non-UST Issues be handled simultaneously through. an MOA.

In an effort to continue the UST Investigation ai this stte, the document Is hereby condttlonally approved as a Remedial Investigation Workplan' (RIW). The remaining deflqlencles are descrlbed below.

I. � Area of Concern # 1 (AOC) #1: Former 3,DOO gallon UST [Tank El] located at'the south side of the . 'shed', tnat last contained unleaded gasoline.

The UST was removed In January 1994 under the authorlty 01 Closure Approvljl TMS # C93-3617. Nine soli samples (E-l-l through E+9) were obtained at the base (5 foot depth) of the former

. excavation, arranged In a 3x3 grid. 'A11 samples were analyzed for volatile organiCS Including ten library search compounds ryo + 10) and lead (Pb). All results meet the most stringent Soli Cleanup Crtterls.

Please note, the laboratory data submitted did nct Include analysis for total xyfenes, which Is spectllcally required as stated In Table 2-3 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E·2.1 (d). Because the post-excavation soli samples did not Include analysis for total xyfenes, Dumont Borough shall again sample the excavation for total ·xyfenes to complete the Stte Investigation (SI) requirements arid ensure that 5011 contamination does not exist. The sampling 1000t1ons and frequency shall be In accordance wtth N.J.A.C .. 7:26E-Il.3 and 6.4: If the excavation was enlarged horizontally beyond the Immediate tank removal area, addttlonal soli samples shall be taken pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-Il.4(a)21-1v.

The boring depths shall correlate wtth the former deptti of the excavallon and shall be located wtthln the native soli. Sample depths shall be determined pursuant to N.J.A.C. '7:26E-Il.4. Field screening of the soli boring shall be conducted tl the tank contained volatile organlo compounds. Samples shall also be collected In the aree 01 all former piping 'and dispensers In acoordance wtt� N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3. Locations should be biased towards potenUal discharge areas Oolnls, cO!lneotlons, etc.). All samples shall be analyzed for total xyfenes using an EPA Approved Method callbraled for total XVlenes.

.

. Area of Concern # 2 (ADO) #2:' Former 4,000 gallon gasoline' [Tank E2], former 2,000 gallon diesel [Tank E31, and former 250 gallon waste 011 [abandoned-In-place prior to passage 01 UST Lawl USTs located at tha northWest comer of the

.DPW Malntenanoe Building.

No soli sampling has been performed for the 4,000 gallon gasoline UST that meets the requirements of the Department's October 30, 1992, letter, and N.J.A.C. 7:26E: Becalise .. post..axcavallon soli sampling was not conducted when the gasoline tank was removed, soli sampling .Is required to ensure that soli contamlnaUon does not exist. 'The sampling locallons and frequency shall be In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-Il.3 and 6.4. If the excavallon was enlarged horizontally beyond the Immediate tank removal area, addttlonal soli samples shall be taken pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.4(a)21-1v.

The boring depths shall correlate wtth the former depth of the excavation and' shall be located within

the native soli. Sample depths shall be determined pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-Il.4. Field screening of the soli boring shall be conducted H the tank contained volatile organic compounds. Samples shall also be collected In the area of all former piping and dispensers In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E..:l. Locations should be billsed towards patenUal discharge areas :00Int8, connections, etc.). All samples shall be analyzed forvclatlle organics using EPA Method 8240 calibrated forxylenes, wtlh a library search ryO+l0) and for lead using SW-846 Methods 3050 and 3051 using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometrlo Method (lCAP) or Graphite Furnace.

2

The 2,000 gallon diesel UST was removed In January 1994 under the authority of Closure Approval TMS # C93-3Bl B. Nine soli samples (E-3·1 through E-3·9) were obtained In a 3X3 grid pattem from the base of the excavation at the time of tank removal. All nine samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) and base neutral compounds plus 16 library search compounds (BN + 1 5). Samples E-3-4 w�h 32,000 ppm ofTPHC, E-3·1 wtth 26,000 ppm 6fTPHC, and E-3·2 wtth

. 20,000 ppm of TPHC exceed the maximum allowable level of 10,000 'ppm for total .organlc contaminants (fOC). Although numerous BN compounds were d�tected, none exceeded the most stringent Soli Cleanup Crtterla. .

Please note, the Department does not understand Dumont Borough's rationale for analyzing the samples lor BN +15. Both ihe Closure Approval and Table 2-3 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E·2.1 (d) require samples to be analyzed lorVO+l0 Including callbralion for total xyIenes. Because the proper Site· Investigation sampling was not completed when . the diesel tanl< was removed, soli sampling Is required to ensure that soli contamination does not exist, In accordance whh N,J.A.C, 7:26E.fl,3 and 6.4, and Table 2·3 at N,J.A.C, 7:26E·2, 1 (d), Dumont Borough shall resample looetions E-3-4 and E-3·1 and analyze the samples for volatile organics using EPA Method 624O'callbrated for xyIenes, with a library search (V0+l0),

Dumont Borough shall delineate the horizontal and yertlcal extent of contamination previously deteoted In E-3-4, E-3·1, and E-3-2, Sampling shall begin at the looetion where contamination was previously detected and continue out In all directions, Includlng)lertlcally, until the complete horizontal and vertical" extent 01 contamination Is defined, Additional Information on requirements lor contaminant delineation may be lound In N,J,A.C, 7:26E-4,1 (b) and 6,4(a)5. Field soreenlng may be utilized to bias sample locations to areas of greatest suspected contamination, but pursuant to N,J,A,C, 7:26E·2,1 (b), may not be utilized 'to verify olean zones . . The Department's most recent general guidance on soli contaminant cleanup crHena (April 1994 SHe Remedlatlcn NewS) may also be utilized to evaluate when delineation Is complete, If contamination Is to be remedlated during this phase 01 'the Investigation, Dumont Borough shall conduct the appropriate post-remedial ssmpllng to confirm the effectiveness 01 the remedial effort. .

II the excavation was enlarged horizontally beyond the Immediate tank removal area, addHlonal soli samples shall be taken pursuant to N,J,A,C. 7:26E.fl.4(a)21·iv,

Sample depths shall be determined pursuant to N.J,A,C. 7:26E.fl,4, Field screening of the soli boring shall be conducted because the tank contained volatile organic compounds, Samples shall also be collected in the area of all former piping and dispensers In accordance with N,J.A,Q, 7:26E..a: Locations should be biased towards potential discharge areas Oolnls, connections, eto,), . All delineation samples shall be analyzed for total petroleum hydrooerbons (TPHC) using EPA Method 418,1 modtlied for soli with soli extracllon methods 3540 or 3650. In addttlon, 25% of the delineation samples which exceed .1,000 parts per million (ppm) TPHC shall also be analyzed lor volatile organics using EPA Method 8240 calibrated lor xylenes, whh a library search (VO+ 10): samples for the additional analysis shall be those whh the highest TPHC concentration, If TPHC results are 1,000 ppm or less, the additional analysis Is not required,

The lormer 250 gallon waste 011 UST was closed (reportedly abandoned·ln-p1ace) prior to 1988, and therefpre, not subject to the UST Law. Dumont Borough shall provide proof that the 250 gallon waste 011 UST Is properly abandoned-In·place (submh Information that the tank has been rendered non· oparatlonal) and submit the date that this occurred, Because the UST was never reported to have dlsoharged, the Department is not requiring an Invesllgation at this time, but reserves the right under separate laws to require a Stte Investigation, U evidence surfaces that Indicates a discharge occurred Irom the waste 011 UST.

•

Area of Concern # 3 (ACO #3): Former 276 gallon waste 011 UST (Tank E4) at the south side of the DPW maintenance building whloh was removed In January 1994 under the Authority of Closure Approval TMS # 093-3822.

3

Four soli samples (E-4-1 through EM) were obtslned at a four foot depth along the centerline of Ihe UST excavation. All samples were analyzed for TPHC, VO+ 10, and Priority Pollutsnt Metsls. Sample E-4-3 exhibHed the highest TPHC result with 23,000 ppm. No VO+ 10 nor Metsls results exceeded the most stringent Soli Cleanup CrHerla.

. . The Department does not understsnd Dumont Borough's rationale for analyzlng.!!ll the.samples for VO+I0 and Metsls, and failing to analyze sample E-4-3 (highest TPHO result) for BN+15 and PCBs as required In Table 2-3 at �.J.A.O. 7:26E-2.1 (d). Dumont Borough shall resample location E-4-3 for base neutral organlos using EPA Method 8270 wHh a library searoh (BN +15) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using SW-846 Method 8080 by GO using 3540 or 3550 extraction methods.

Dumont Borough shall delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of TPHC oontsmlnatlon previously detected In sample E-4-3. Sampling shall begin at 'the location where contsmlnatlon was previously detepted and continue out In all directions, Including vertically, until the complete horizontal and vertical extent of ,!ontsmlnailon Is defined. AddHlonal lnformation' on requirements for contaminant delineation may be found In N.J.A.C, 7:26E-4.1 (b) and 6.4(a)5. Field screening may be utilized to bias sample locations to areas of greatest suspeoted contsmlnatlon, but pursuantto N.J,A,O. 7:26E-2,1 (b), may not be utilized to verify clean zones, The Department's most recent general guidance on soil contsmlnant cleanup criteria (April 1994 SHe Remediation News) may also be utilized to evaluate when delineation Is complete, 11 contsmlnatlon Is to be remedlated during this phase .of the investigation, Dumont Borough shall conduct the appropriate post-remedial sampling to confirm the effectiveness of the remedial effort,

Dumont Borough shall analyze delineation soli samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) using EPA Method 418, 1 mod�led for 8Qlls wtlh extraction methods 3540 or 3550. In addHlon, l!5% 6f the samples where TPHC was detected shall be analyzed for volatile organics using EPA Method 8240 calibrated for X)'\enes, wtlh a library search (VO+10), base neutral organics using EPA Method 8270 wHh a library search (BN + 15), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using SW-846 Method 8080 by GC using 3540 or 3550 extraction methods, and PrlorHy Pollutant Metals: samples for the addtllonal analysis shall be those with the highest TPHC concentration, If TPHO Is not detected and there Is no evidence of a discharge Irom the waste 011 UST system, the addHlonai analyses are not required.

.

. . All boring logs, IncliJdlng field screening reSUlts, shall also be provided. The fleld screening results shall be· reported along with background readings and Instrument calibration procedures. .

Site and AOC Diagrams Dumont Borough shall submit�, ADC dlligrams Indicating the exact location, orlentstlon, and depth of all historic and current USTs, product-bearing piping, dispensers/pump Islands In relation to the all soli borings (previous and future) and former excavation dimensions, The scaled, site diagram shall Include the location of all AOCs and existing/future monitoring wells, subsurface conduHs and utilities, existing structures, etc, Dumont Borough shall also submH a list of the contents and size of all ·former and current USTs and Indicate suoh on the maps, . ,

Baoklill Pooumentallon Dumont Borough shall submH documentstlon certifying that the material used as backfill In all three Areas of Conoern Is free of contaminants and meets all reqUirements pursuant to N.J,A.C. 7:26E-6.4(b). Please note that the Department may require sampling of any Qa,ckflll suspected to be contsmlnated.

Fale of Excavated Soll& .

Approximately 400 oublc yards of hydrocarbon affected soli were excavated during ihe removal of th.e above·referenced usn. Dumont Borough shall iniorm the Department 01 the late of the soli, and If removed from the sHe, submH copies of the necessary·documentatlon (manifests, Invoices, etc.).

.

4

.,-

. BOROUGH OF PUMONT's PROPOSAL: Dumont Borough discusses the reasons for recommending 'capping' the entire site whh pavement, Including: same use and ownership of she. for foreseeable future; a Declaration of Environmental Restriction would not present a hardship to the Borough; most of the yard was resurfaced wtth asphalllc concrete two years ago; the remainder of the she can be paved to minimize direct contact; capping would minimize disruption of DPW actiVttles, and capping would be most economical.

PEPARTMENT's RESPONSE: Although Dumont Borough has analyzed remediation stmtegles for the she, Dumont Borough shall submit an EffectiVeness Analysis and C!lrtillcatloti for the proposed remedial approach (see Section IV. D. Effectiveness Analysis ·and Certification). Please note, because ground water contamination has been caused by dlscharge·s from the USTs, Dumont Borough·shall delineate the soli contamination and propose a remedial action for salls with levelS of contamination exceeding the Impact to Ground Water Soli Cleanup Criteria. Before a Declarallon of Environmental Restriction oan be Instituted for the site, Dumont Borough Is required to delineate the horllontal and vertical extent of all contamination and address all haZardous waste (e.g., the salls exhibiting TPHC at concentrallons greater than 30,000 ppm).

II. Ground Water

The she consists of fill material overlying glaCial sediments. Eleven monitoring wells (MW-3, MW·5 through MW·9, MW;l 1 through MW-13, MW-15, and MW-18) relate to ground water contamlnallon. There Is also one recover well (RW-l) and four piezometers (PZ-l through PZ-4). In October 1994, depth to ground water ranged from 3.5 to 9.7 feet below grade. The ground water table contour map Indicated that ground water flows In a 'northeasterly direction toward Hlrshfeld Brook, which fcrms the eastern border of the site. Hlstorlcally, free product has been present In MW·5 and MW·9. In October 1994, MW·5 exhibited 0.98 feet and MW-9 exhibited 0.29 feet of free prodUct, respectively. Dissolved levels of ground water contaminants exceeding the Ground Water Qualhy Standards for the October 1994 sampling event areas follows: benzene at 1 ,;l00 ppb In RW·l , 760 ppb In MW-14, 610 ppb In MW-3, and 520 ppb In MW-12, and 20 ppb In MW-15; total xylenes at 1 ,900 ppb In MW·14, 1.800 ppb In RW-l , 620 ppb In MW-3, and 95 ppb In MW-13. Please note, the Department oompares the library search tentatively IdentHled compounds (TICs) to the standards for Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) found at N.J.A.C. 7:9-6 (Ground Water Quality Standards). As such, Individual TICs will be compared to the Interim generiC criterion of 100 ppb for Individual non·carclnogenlc compounds. All TICs detected In a ground water sample will be compared to the 500 ppb tctal SOCs InterIm · generic crllerlon. rherefore, exceedences of the GWaS for TICs were as follows: 6 compounds exceeded the 100 ppb crllerlon and total TICs at 1 ,656 ppb exceeded tha total SOC crherlon of 500 ppb In MW-3; 1 TIC exceeded the 100 ppb criterion and total TICs at 646 ppb. exceeded the 600 ppb crherlon In MW-12; 10 compounds exceeded the 100 ppb IndiVidual TIC criterion and total TICs at 3,036 ppb exceeded the 500 ppb crUerlon In MW-14;.and 7 compounds exceeded the IndiVIdual 1 00 ppb crllerion and total TICs at 2,325 ppb exceeded the 600 ppb orlterlon In RW-1. The piezometers were not sampled.

. Ground Water Site Investigation Requirements The Dissolved BTEX Isoconcentralion Map (Figure 5) of the RAW proposal .Indicates that no monhorlng wells·currently exist within 10 feet of any of the fonner UST excavations. Therefore, Il ls difficult to assess the ground water ,qualhy of the source areas. Because soli contamination exceeding the 10,000 ppm Total Organic Contaminant Criterion exIsts .at AOC #2 and AOC #8, Dumont Borough shall Install ground water monitoring wells within the exoavatlons or 10 feet hydraulically downgradlent of the former tank locations whhln 30 days . .The Department reseNes lis right at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.4(d) to require Installation of a'source area ground water monitoring well at AOC #.1 until the 81 requirements have been completed.

. .

Ground Water Delineation Requirements

5

The Dissolved BTEX Isoconcentration Map also Indicates that the area of ·the stte exhibiting the greatest ground water contamination exists from Jhe southeast comer of the DPW maintenance building ·northeast to the Knights of ColumbUS bundlng, which Is significantly hydraulically downgrfl.tllent of the former UST excavations, Dumont Borough shall Install addttlonal ground water

. ' . monttorlng W�ls to fully dellne;\te the horizontal and vertical extent of ground water contamination at lIils area. Contamination shall be delineated to the Ground Water Qualtty Standards, N.JAC. 7:9-6, unless otherWise approved by the Department. At a minimum, ground water monitoring wells shall be Installed hydraulically downgradlent of MW·.5 between the office building and Knights of Columbus building In order to delineate the free product plume. Dumont Borough shall also delineate free product by Installing two additional monttorlng wells east and northeast of MW·9. As 700 ppb of BTEX Is present In MW·12, and Is likelY to Increase wtth time due to the migration of the contaminant plume, Dumont Borough shall Install an addttlonal monttorlng well hydraulically downgradlent (northeast) of MW·12 to delineate the downgradlent edge of the dls'solved phase pI�me. If tt Is necessary to Install wells off·stte, Dumont Borough shall provide documentation of written requesls seeking access to Install said monttorlng wells on off·stte properties within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this correspondence. Please be advised that N.J.S.A. 68:1 DB, a statute concerning site remediation, provides a cause of aqtlon for parsons to obtain access to properties not owned by that person for the purpose of conducting remedial actiVities at that site. Information on this' prOVision of N,J,S.A. 58:10B Is found In the 'Guide for the Submission of Remedial Aotion Workplans', sent previously wfih the Department's June 12, 1995, leiter regarding the Aladdin Park site,

Dumont Borough shall submit boring logs and the monttorlng well construotlon details (Well Certtllcatlon Forms A and B found In the 'Guide for the Submission of Remedial Acllon Workplans') for.§!l exlsllng and required monitoring wells,

. Interim Ground Water Sampling Requirements .

Until a ground water RAW Is approved, Dumont Borough shall annually sample� monitoring well, recovery well, and piezometer whloh does not contain free product and analyze the eamples for volatile organics, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (fBA) !Ising EPA Melhod 624 calibrated for xyienes, with a library search (VO+ 10); and for lead using EPA Method 200.7 (I CAP) 9r EPA 239.2 (Graphtte Furnace). The SW-846 equiValent for this procedure Is ICAP 3010/6010, sample prep 3050/6010 Furnace 3020/7421 sample prep 3050/2421. The first annual sampling event shall occur within the next 60 days.

.

Dumont Borough shall sample the required ground water source area well at AOC #2 for base/neutral organics Using EPA Method 625. with a library search (BN+ 1 5) ; and volallle organics using EPA Method 624 calibrated for.xy\enes, with a library search (V0 +l0). Sampling of the required source area well at AOe #2 shall occur within 60 days.

.

Dumont Borough shall sample the required ground waler source area 'Well at AOe #3 for Prlortty Pollutant plus 40 (PP+4O), or EPA Target Compound Ust plus 30 and EPA Targs\ Analyte Ust. Sampling of the required source area well at AOe #3 shail ocour within 60 days,

Data Presentallon

. .

. ,

For·each sampling eVent, Dumont Borough shall submtt a table to Include for each monitoring well:' 1 .) top of casing elevation; 2.) lOp of screen elevation: 3.) ground water elevation (corrected for free phase product. If present); 4.) free phase product elevation (If present); and 5,) free phase produot thlokness (tf present).

For each sampling event, Dumont Borough shall construct a � Isopleth map of free product thickness where free product exists, and scaled Isopleth maps for dissolved produot concentrations, Dumont· Borough shall submit the updated maps with each subsequent submittal.

Dumont Borough shall construct and submtt � ground water table contour maps for each ground water sampling event. A ground water contour map reporting form (see the Department's

6

March 1995 'Guide for lhe Submission of Remedial Action WorkpIans'} shall accompany each ground water contour map submittal.

BOROUGH OF' DUMONT's PROPOSAL: Dumont Borough proposes to utilize MW-3, MW-14, and RW-I as source area wells; MW-12 as a compliance point; MW-12 and a new well to be Installed northeast of MW-12 will act as sentinel wells; and MW-l 1 and MW.f; will be up gradient monitoring points. All Wells would be sampled on a quarterly basis. Dissolved oxygen, organic matter content, nutrient levels, and hydrocarbon­utlllzlng.mlcrobial counts would be assessed during the Initial sampling round to evaluate susceptibility of BTEX for natural biodegradation, The data would be used to develop a tate-and-transport model for BTEX over a 5-year period to assess appropriateness of sentinel well locations: Free product recovery will be Initiated through passive skimming and natural attenuation of residual free phase hydrocarbon and dissolved phase hydrocarbon because of the apparent small volume of free phase hydrocarbon, low hydraulic conductivity, degradability of gasoline, and lack of downgradlent drinking water supply receptors. Dumont Borough proposes delineating frea product by collection of soli samples.

DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE: Remediation of Free Product: The Department has several concerns regarding the free product contaminant plume. Of greatest concern Is the possibility that free product contamination will again enter Hlrshfeld Brook on the eastern boundary of the site. The Department seeks to avoid a recurrence of discharges Into the stream like those that Initiated the case. The calCUlated ground water velocity of 17 feetfyear In conlunctlon with the proxlmal locatlon'of free product Indicates the stream Is threatened. The Department agrees that Dumont Borough should Immediately In"late free product recovery a� required at N.J,A.C. 7:26E-l .11. Dumont Borougti shall Initiate free 'product recovery while continuing to delineate the free product plume.

RemedIation of Dissolved Phase Plume: The Department Is also very concerned with the possibility that dissolved phase gasoline also threatens Hlrshfeld Brook. The data presented Indicated that MW· 1 2 Is already Impacted, and " Is the nearest well to the stream (approximately 80 feet west). The Department will not approve a ground water RAW Which allows dissolved phase levels of gasOline to Violate the Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:98). Once the add"lonai delineation ground water wells have been Installed and the samples tested as required above, then Dumont Borough shall reevaluate "s ground water RAW proposal and resubmit a revised ground water RAW .. Be advised that the Department cannot approve a Natural Remediation Compliance Program for the subject facility unless the downgradlent extent of the dissolved phase contaminant plume Is fully delineated and free product petroleum Is removed. Please refer to the Department's March 1995 'Guide for the Submission of Remedial Action Workplans' for a complete discussion of the requirements.

.

Ground Water Treatment Feasibility Study Regarding MW-5 and MW·9, Dumont Borough shall consider conducting a Well-performance test prior to a pump test to determine the maximum yield and maximum draw down of the well. the most appropriate equipment to be used for the pump test, the best method to measure the yield, volume of water and amount of draw down occurring at given pumping rates.

Dumont Borough shall develop the following Information through Implementation of the pump test: specHlc yield, range of transmissivity values, approximate aquHerthlckness, storatlvlty. hydmullc head, hydraulic g radient, ground water velocity, the exlant of the cone of depression and the extent of the

. zone .oLcapture.

In order to facilitate the timely Implementation of a ground water treatment feasibility study, w"hin 14 calendar days of receipt of this letter, Dumont Borough shall obtain applications for the .perm"s necessary to conduct the study. .

7

Establishment 01 Ground Water Classification Exception Area / Waler Restriction Area

Classification exception Areas (CEAs) pursuant to the Ground Water Quality Standards (N,JAC, 7:9-6, �� apply to all site remediation cases Involving ground water contamination above applicable . standards, A designated CEA shall also act as a Well Restriction Area p�rsuant to N,JAC, 7:9-6,6(d),

As a result of the ground water contamination at this ske, a CEA shall be established at the time of

RAW or No Further Action (NFA) approval, as applicable, The proposed RAW or NFA s,hall inciude, lind will not be appryved wltho;."!, the following: · · .

1 ) latitude and longitude with an accuraoy to .l/l0 of a second, and lot and blocks of ImPacted properties; . . !:lQI£;. She boundarles can define the CEA If no olf site oontamlnatton Is expected to occur for the duratton of the CEA;

2) list of affected aquifers; 3) list of oontamlnants of concern; , 4) est/mated longevity of the CEA, based upon the most mobile and persistent compounds to meet

ths GWQS, (As appropriate, existing monitoring data shall be used to verify models,) For cases Involving active remediation, the longevity of the CEA may be Indetermlnate.but not parmiment; Note: For further discussion, consult the CEA Guidance Document sent In conjunction whh the

. Department's June 12, 1995, letter regarding the Aladdin Park case, 5) the mapped boundaries of the CEA on a USGS 7,5 minute quadrangle map; 6) FOR GROUND WATER USE AREAS": The CEA shall be presented In Geographic Information

System (GIS) Format (contained In· the CEA Guidance Document), For more Information on the GIS, you can obtain the NJDEp· 'GIS - Mapping the Present to Protect New Jersey's .Future ­Mapping and Dlghsl Dala Standards' available from: NJDEP, Bureau. of Revenue, CN 417, Trenton NJ 08625); . .

7) FOR GROUND WATER USE AREAS: Impacted property owners and local officials (mayor, planning board and health department) must be notltled by certified mall, The notice shall Inform them of the CEA and ground water use restrtction (dIscuss wnh case manager before deRnlng) prIor to submittal of the proposed RAW or NFA and sollcn comments to be submitted to the Department's case manager, The RAW or �FA wlll not be approverl without proof and copies of notlUcatlon, The Department sugge·sls that contact be .made with your case manager to discuss the boundaries of the CEA prior to public notification,

NOTE: II a RAW will be proposed· for ground water remedIation thai does not currently Include the full extent of the plume, the .CEA can be proposed for that portion being remedlated: rhe CEA boundaries and longevity can be adjusted over time,

"Ground Water Use ·Areas shall be defined as those locations with current or future ground water use (potable, Industrial, agricultural, etc,), Current ground water use shall be based on the Department's Bureau of Water Allocation flies, consulting the New Jersey Water Supply Master Plan (copies are available from the Office of Environmental Planning), contacting the local or regional water purveyor, and, as necesssry, conducting a door-to-door canvass, Future ground water use (over a 2S-year planning horizon) can be determined· from local or regional water purveyors, local or county planning boards and boards. of health, and the New Jersey water Supply Master ·Plan, .

III, Receptor Evaluation

A, Well Searches

Dumont Borough has conduc.ted the required Department well searohes to identify all Irrigation, monitoring, and domestic wells located within a one-half mile radIus of the site and all Industrial, publlo supply wells, and wells wtthwater alloCation parmns located within a one mile radius cif

8

•

the she; and plotted the locations on a · scaled site map. Three wells were ldentHled, two approximately 1 ,600 feet northeast of the she and the third approximately 2,500 feet northwest of the site. AJl three wells are located on the opposite side 01 Hlrshfeld Brook and are not likely to be threatened by the DPW discharges.

However, as ground water contamination has been ldentHied and ground water Is used for potable purposes In the vicinity of this site, It will be necessary to canvass the neighborhood to locate all nearby permltted'and unpermitted wells. Canvassing shall be conducted within 1 ,000 feet of the known downgradient edge of contamination, and wtlhln the estimated plume of contamination. Dumont Borough shall plot the locations of all wells Identlfled In the well search and canvassing on a reduction of a topographic or geoquadrangle map.

.

Dumont Borough shall also sample the nearest down gradient potable well(s) which are wnhln 1 ,000 feet of the known down gradient edge of the potential path(s) of the contamination and analyze the samples using EPA Method 524.2 (Include targeted analyses for MTBE and TBA). The results shall be sUbmntad wnhln the lime frame specHled within this letter and shall be accompanied by the Quality Assurance/Quality Control deliverables prepared per the 'Full Laboratory Data Dellverables' format. If contamination Is found. the Department and the local health official must be notHied Immediately.

B . Utility and Subsurface Structure Evaluation . Dumont Borough has ldentHled the location and depth of on- and off site utilities and conduits. Dumont Borough shall evaluate the possible Interconnection of ground water to the subsurface utilities ldentUied. Dumont Borough shall also determine the diameter and construction specHicatlons of the SUbsurface utllttles In order to determine whether any utility may be aCiing as a conduit for ground water migration, either along the bedding plane or within the structure \tself Dumont Borough shall also determine whether the subsurface utility may be acting as a barrier for ground water migration since the depth to ground water at the site Is shallow.

Based upon the levels of ground water contamlT¥ltlon present and. the proximity of a subSUrface water line, storm sewer, natural gas line, and telephone and electric utilities hydraulically downgradlent of AOC #2, Dumont Borough shall evaluate.the aforementioned utllnIes on a semi­annual basis beginning July 1995. Dumont Borough shall canvass the Immediate area to locate all basements and determine the presence/absence of gasoline vapors In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.4(11)4. Dumont Borough shall plot the Include the exact locations of all subsurface utilities and besements on the 8C<lled ground water maps. ,If gasoline vapors are detected In any subsurface utilities or besements, Dumont Borough shall conduct air monitoring to determine the levels and hazards present In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.4(1). If It Is confirmed that the source of the vapors Is emanating from the Dumont.Borough. site, Dumont Borough shall take Immediate action to aOOte and reme(jlate the source.

Because the storm sewer has In the past been afflicted by the on·slte discharges and due to the free product currently located In near proximity to the storm sewer, Dumont Borough shall Inspect the storm sewer on a seml-annual basis beginning July 1 995 for oxygen levels, lower explosive levels (LEL), and the presence of organic vapors. This may be completed through visual Inspection and use of field screening Instruments.

C. Surface Water Evaluation Dumont Borough shall evaluate Whether the storm sewer that traverses the site from west to east, and Hlrshfeld Brook which Is located on the eastern property boundary of the site and 80 feet from the free product contaminant plume, will be .affected by the discharge. Sampling 6f the storm sewer watershall be conducteq on at least a seml-annual basis beginning July 1995 at the outflow Into Hlrshfeld Brook. Hlrshf.eld Brook shall also be tested on a seml-annual basis In either the west bank sediment or directly from the stream water as required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26·

9

3.S and 4.5. The location where sampling shell occur Is the portion of the stream closest to the downgradlent edge of the contaminant plume.

IV. Quall!y Assurance

A., All data submitted shell confonn to the "TechniCal Requirements for Site Remediation,' N.J.A.C. 7:26E. except where specifically indicated.

B. In accordance with the "Technical Requirements for Site Remediation.' speclflcally N.J.AC: 7:26E. 3.10(b)3. a technical overvlew Is required for any report submission. As pert of thet overview. a discussion regarding the reliability of the laboratory analytical data. shell be Included. Please see Appendix 2 of the March 1995 'Guide for the Submission of Remedial Action Workplans'.

C. Dumont Borough shell legibly complete all cheln-of-custody fonns. and list all methods of preservation Including refrigeration (eg. 'Icei directly on the cheln·of-custody form. Dumont Borough shall maintain all samples at the target temperature of 4°C from the time the sample Is obtained until the samples are released to the New Jersey Certified Laboratory.

Dumont Borough shall submk the complete Laboratory Dellverables package (Quality Assurance/Quality Control Information) wkh respect to the 8011 samples obtained for the site Investigation related to the removals of the 3,000 gallon gasoline UST at AOe #1. the 2.000 gallon diesel UST at AOe #2. and the 275 gallon waste 011 UST at AOe #3.

V. .Q!hQr

A. Certification Requirements It Is Important to note that effective April 25. 1992. all persons performing tank services must be certified per N.J.SA 6S:10A·24.1-8. All work related to any tank service must now be conducted by. or under the on·slte Immediate supervision of an Individual cer1lf1ed In the acllvlty being Qonducted • .All documents (permit applications. reports. proposals submitted to BUST must be prepared and signed by a certtlled Individual.

e. Field Activity Notlficallon Dumont Borough shall notHy the assigned BUST case manager at least 14 calendar days prior to Implementation of field actlvkles. 11 Dumont Borough falls to Initiate sampling within 30 calendar days of the receipt of this letter. any requests for an extension of the required time frames may be denied.

C. Effectiveness AnalySiS and Certlficallon Dumont Borough shell submit an Effectiveness Analysis and CertHlcation. This submission shall Include an analysis and certHication that the proposed remedial actions for JlQ!h soli and ground water meet the criteria contained In Section 35 (g) of P.L 1993. 0.139. Including an analysis of long and short tenm effectiveness. Implementabliity. timeliness. cost differential of permanent and nonpermanent remedies (H applicable). and community concernS. Please note thet the Effeotlvenes,s Analysis and CertHlcatlon supersedes the Remedial Alternative Analysis In N.JAC. 7:26E·5.

P. 'Cost Recovery On April 5. 1993. the UST Fee Rule (Amendments and New Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:14B) was proposed. This rule appeared In the February 22. 1994. New Jersey Register. Effective February 22. 1 994. the Department will be billing you for the Department's oversight of all work conducted at your site. Documents submitted In accordance wlfh the 'Technical ReqUirements for Site

10

'.

.-'

Remediation' (N.J.A.C. 7:26E) will help reduce the time necessary lor tlie oversight of the above referenced sfie. At this time, the Department Intends to prociess bills on a ssml-ann� basis. Please consult the April 5, 1993, and February 22, 1994, State Registers lor details. cOpies can be obtained by contacting the Office 01 Administrative Law at (609) 588-6500.

VI. ' Administrative Reaulrements

Based upon the above requirements and the data generated to date, Dumont Borough Is required to submit a Revised RAW In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-6.2 and P.L 1 993, c.139 (S-1070). This document shall be submitted to this Bureau at the above address, within ninety (90 days upon receipt 01 this letter. The Revised RAW shall detail all aotlvltles conduoted to achieve compliance with the reqUirements listed In this letter. Additionally, the Revised RAW shafl present e comprehensive remedial proposal for all soli and ground water contamination present. Guidance regarding the minimum requirements and presentation Icrmat lor this document are provided In the March 1995 'GUide lor the Submission 01 Remedial Aotlon Workplans.'

It should be noted that It Dumont Borough completes the 'above requirements, and the data Indicate that the remedial Investigation has not been completed O.e., contamination not completely delineated, Dumont Borough shall submit a RIW In accordance Vilth N.J.A.C. 7:26E4.B within the specified time Irame. The RIW shall Include a sohedule 01 Implementation 01 the remaining remedlal lnvestlgatlon required and the submittal date 01 the Revised RAW. Dumont Borough also has the option 01 oompletlng the remaining remedial Investigation In acoordanoe with N.J.A.C. 7:26E4, loIlowed by the

, submission 01 the RIR/Revlsed RAW. li the latter option Is seleoted, Dumont Borough shall notlfytha case manager listed below, In writing, within two weeks prior to the speoffied time frame relerenoed above. This notification shall Include a generic discussion of activities conducted to date and activities to be conducted, as well as a detailed schedule 01 Implementalion whloh Includes the submission 01 the RIR/Revlsed RAW. '

Please note, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6B:l0A-21 �.MQ. and N.J.A.C. 7:14B �.MQ., the owner and operator 01

I

the regulated underground storage tanks are strlclly liable lor compllanoe \i;ilh these requtiements. In ,\ addition, all state regulated USTs, except lor heating 011 USTs lor on-site consumption. are regulated under 40 CFR Part 280. Non-oompllance with these lederal and state regulations exposes the tank owner and operator to the penalty and liability specified In 40 CF.R Part 280, N.J.S.A. 58:10A·2 1 � .MQ. and N.J.A.C. 7:14B � .wI.

I f you should have any questions regarding thIs matter, please contact John' Ruhl, 'Senior Geologist and case manager, of the Bureau 01 Underground Storage Tanks at (609)292-6761.

��p� Lee Hendricks, Unit Supervisor Bureau 01 Underground Storage Tanks

0: , Steven Tlfllnger, Bergen County Department 01 Health Servlcss, 327 East Ridgewood Avenue, Paramus, NJ 076524895, ' . , I,' Joseph A. Ferreiro, Esq., 68-60 Main Sireet, P.O: Box 157, Hackensack, NJ 07602 ,

Gregory Albright, Harding Lawson Associates, Metropolitan Exeoutlve Towers, One Meadowlands ) PIa.z8, Suite 1090, East Rutherlord, NJ 07073

1 1

•• "

Harding Lawson Associates

June 18, 1996

35345.A

Joseph A. Pojanowski, III, Esq. Dumont Borough Altorney Pojanowski, Iskra & Trawinski ·1439 Broad Street Clifton, New Jersey 07013

Honorable Donald Winant Mayor of Dumont Borough 50 Washington Avenue Dumont, New Jersey 07628

Response to Borough Attorney's Letter Dated May 9, 1996 and Payment Demand Department of Public Worl" Site Cleanup Borough of Dumont, New Jersey

Gentlemen:

Certified Mall Return Receipt Requested

Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) has prepared this letter to respond to the statements made in the Dumont Borough Attorney's (Joseph Pojanowski) lelter to HLA dated May 9, 1996, and to demand payment for all outstanding monies owed to HLA for �pproved and completed work on the Department of Public Works (DPW) cleanup project. Past-due hillings amount to $37,812.74 (including $6,536.67 in interest charges).

HLA Response

The first point raised in Mr. Pojanowski's lelter is that HLA may not have acted in the'best interest of the Borough of Dumont (the Borough) and did not perform in an acceptably professional manner concerning the referenced DPW project. These allegations are false. HLA believes it is significant tI,at the Borough made no criticisms ofHLA's work until HLA pressed for payment of past due fees. HLA has the following response:

• HLA provided appropriate scopes of work, which were reviewed by Mr. Joseph Ferriero, Esq. (Attorney for the Borough of Dumont on this project for work up until January 1996), by Mr. Marvin Katz (Borough Administrator through the duration of the project until Fall, 1995), and Mr. John Foster of BoslVell McClave Engineering (acting as the Borough Engineer). All scopes of work and budgets were approved in writing in advance of the work being conducted by the Borough of Dumont's duly authorized representatives.

• Most work performed was conducted under. the supervision of and at the written request of Mr. Ferriero. Work after January 1996 was requested by Mr. Pojanowski and the Borough Council in meetings in the Borough ornces on November 21, 1995 and February 12, 1996. This work was

Engtnee/log and

EnVironmental Services

WaShIngton Pall<, 14 Washington Road, Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 609/936·0700 Fax 609 ASHfni<1i(1'y!'{I1t1Mill.� AI,"'.ii1I�.' • IJj}ir .. ! :a .

I EXHIBIT

t... -------,-----

June 18, 1996 35345.A Joseph A. Pojanowski, Esq. Dumont Borough Altorney Page 2.

. Harding Lawson Assoolates

conducted by HLA in good faith and to acceptable standards of practice. All work was submitted to NJDEP and was accepted by them.

• All work was performed in accordance wHh New Jersey regulations and with prevailing standards of profeSSional environmental practice in New Jersey at the time the work was conducted.

The second point raised in Mr. Po janowski's letter is that lILA "betrayed" the Borough through a lack of professionalism in handling the case. Specifically, the letter charges that HLA did not inform the Borough of possiblc cleanup funding sources from New Jersey and the Federal Government (the U.S. Army). While such advice regarding statutory alternatives is typically proved by legal counsel, HLA has the following response:

• At the time of lILA's initial involvement in the project (September, 1990), the primary cleanup funding mechanism for innocent (emphasis addcd) landowners was the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund for which eligibility is determined pursuant to N.J.S.A 58:10-23.11 et. llih Because the initial investigation at the DPW site was focused on leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) installed and owned by the Borough, this fund probably did not apply. Another funding program based on the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (P.L., 1993, c. 139, sections 26 through 34) was available through Capital Alternatives Corporation in 1994. HLA's understanding was that this potential source of funds was being pursued by, and was the responsibility of, Mr. Ferriero (letler to lILA dated August 8, 1994). It is not known to us if this funding Source was pursued more fully and, if not, why not. HLA was not a participant in this legal aspect of U,e project.

• HLA was never contracted to conduct an ASTM-style Phase I property assessment, nor (to our knowledge) was this ever discussed. lILA's historical informaUon regarding the DPW site's former history was provided by the Borough through past and present council members and DPW employees. The first mention in the presence ofHLA of a possible historical U.S. Army presence at the DPW site was made by a Borough Council member during the November 21, 1995 meeting. Although lILA was verbally asked to begin looking Into this matler during the November 21, 1995 and February 12, 1996 meetings, HLA made It clear that the past-due charges (approaching 360 days overdue) would have to be paid before HLA would undertake significant further activities on the project (At the November 21, 1995 meeting with the Borough Council, U,e mayor assured lILA that a resolution would be passed at the Januuary 1996 council meeting that would fund payment of the past-due charges). lILA was never authorized in writing to pursue this avenue of investigation. Neither was HLA a party to further discussions regarding this matter.

• As you should recall, the' Borough-was made aware that through various reports by HLA and a letter from Mr. Ferriera, that based on site data acquired through January 15, 1995 (lILA, 1995a; lILA, 1995b; Ferriero, 1991) the weight of the evidence strongly suggests contamination of soil and groundwater has resulted from leakage from the Borough's own USTs. This fact was acknowledged by Borough Council members and their legal counsel in both the November 21, 1995 and February 12, 1996 meetings. The presence of the former Twinboro Sewage Treatment Plant at the site probably has resulted in· additional contamination in soils and groundwater related- to baselneutral extractable organic compounds (lILA, 1990, 1991, and 1992). The Borougll will need evidence to overcome the weight of these facts in order to allocate responsibility to other parties.

g:\work\35345\dumntes

June 18, 1 996 35345.A Joseph A. Pojanowski, Esq. Dumont Borough Auorney

Page 3.

Harding Lawson Associates

• HLA provides environmental and engineering services to clients. HLA does not provide legal opinions or advice on any matters.

Overdue Invoices

There are presently four outstanding illvoices:

• No. 133256, dated January 5, 1995 for $19,781.57 (plus $4,69 1.78 in interest charges) • No. 134402, dated January 29, 1995 for $7,824.15 (plus $1,763.13 in inlerest charges) • No. 149878, dated February 28, 1996 for $2,567.28 (plus $73.49 in interest charges) • No. 151828, dated April 24, 1996 for $1,103.07 (plus $3.26 i n interest charges)

Copies of the invoices are attached. HLA expects payment of these invoices within 30 days. Please call Mr. Kenneth Strong, Esq., at (415) 892-1696 to discuss payment of your delinquent account.

Very truly yours,

Edward A. Nemecek, RG., CPG Principal Hydrogeologist

GRNEANIKFS\m1

Enclosures: Invoice numbers 133256, 134402, 149878, and 151828

cc: William Thayer, HLA Bharat Patel, HLA Kenneth F. Strong, Palmer, Jones, Hawkins & Strong

g:\ .... -ork\3S3 � 5\durnntos

�hth .oJ �.e£tr W.er$.ett Christine Todd Whitman Governor

Department of Environmental Protection

IN THE MATTER OF

THE 1 ALADDIN AVENUE SITE

AND

THE BOROUGH OF DUMONT

. . .

. MEMORANDUM

OF

AGREEMENT

Robert C. Shinnl Jr. Commjssioner

This Memorano.um of l>greement: is entered into pursuant to the authority vested in the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter "the Department " or "NJDEp II ) by N . J . S . A . 13 : 10-1 et � and N . J . S . A . 5 8 : 10B et · � and the Water Pollution Control Act , N . J . S . A . 5 8 : 10A-1 et � , the Solid Waste Management Act , N . J . S . A . 13 : 1E-l et � and the Spill Compensation and Control Act , N . J . S . A . 5 8 : 10-23 . 11 et � and duly q�legated to the Section Chief , Division of Responsible · Party s ite Remediation, Case Assignment section pursuant to N . J . S . A . 1 3 : 1B-4 .

FINDINGS

1 . The property that is the subject of this Memorandum of Agreement is owned by the Borough of Dumont , and is located at 1 Aladdin Avenue , and is designated as Block 1105, Lots 17 and 2 2 on the tax maps of the Borough of DUmont , Bergen county , New Jersey ( hereinafter the "Site" ) .

2 . The Borough of Dumont , with principal offices at 5 0 Washington Avenue ," the Borough of Dumont , New Jersey , i s the party exeouting this Memorandum of Agreement.

.

3 . The intent of this Memorandum of Agreement is to allow the Borough of Dumont to oonduot any of the remedial aotivities outlined herein with oversight frolll the Depart:ment . 'l'he Borough of Dumont has indicated to the Department , that it wishes to conduct the following activities at the site with the Department ' s oversight :

a . Prel iminary Assessment b . site Investigation c . Remedial Investigation d . Remedial Action

4 . . By entering into this Memorandum of Agreement , the Borough of Dumont does not admit to any fact, fault or l iability under any statute or regulation for conditions which existed befor e , during, or after the Borough of Dumont ' s execution of this Memorandum of Agreement nor shall it be construed as a waiver of any right or defense the Borough of Dumont may have with regard to the s ite .

New femey is rul l!qual Opporhmlly Employer . t?\ . .• . .

I .

5 . documents documents

AGREEMENT

Remediation

The Borough of Dumont agrees to submit the following · and the Department agrees to review and comment on

submitted.

a . Preliminary Assessment Report b . site Investigation Report c . Remedial Investigation Workplan d . Remedial Investigation Report e . Remedial Action Workplan f . Remedial Action Report

6 . Within thirty ( 3 0 ) calendar days after the Department ' s receipt of any submission pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement , the Department will inform the Borough of Dumont in writing of any administrative defic iencies in the submission ! pursuant to N . J . A . C . 7 : 26B! that will prevent the Department frqm conducting its revie�l . When the Department determines that the submission is administratively complete ! the Department will notify the Borough of Dumont in writing o f the t ime frame required for the Department to complete the review . This review will include a determination by the Department whether or not all remedial activities have been carried out consistent with applicable rules ! standards ! and guidelines .

7 . Within seven ( 7 ) calendar days after the effective date of this Memorandum of Agreement ! the Borough of Dumont will submit to the Department : a ) the name ! address and telephone number of the individual who will be the contact for the Borough of Dumont regarding technical matters concerning this Memorandum of Agreement and b) the name and address of the designated agent for the Borough of Dumont for the purpose of service for all matters concerning this Memorandum of Agreement .

B . The Borough of Dumont may terminate this Memorandum of Agreement if the Borough of Dumont determines that it is no longer feasible or desirable to continue with this Memorandum of Agreement ! when the Borough of Dumont :

a . submits full payment to the Department for any Department overs ight costs the Department incurred pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement \qhich the Borough of Dumont has not paid ;

b . Notifies the Department in writing of its intentions to terminate this Memorandum of Agreement;

c . Submits all data generated pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement ; and

d . Ensures that no environmental hazards exist at the Site as a result of the Borough of Dumont ' s actions pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement .

e . The Department will cease review o f any submittals under this memorandum of agreement on the date it receives the notice .of intent to terminate described in Paragraph 8 (b) above; and no oversight costs will accrue after the Department has determined that the signatory is in full compliance with Paragraph 8 . The Department will then prepare a summary of its costs and provide it to the Borough o f Dumont . The date of termination of this agreement is the date of the Department ' s receipt of both the fuJ,.l unconditioned payn\ent of a l l of the Department ' s over�ight cost� · and · al l data required by Paragraph 8 . C . above .

II . project coordination

9 . Unless otherwise directed by the Department, the Borough of Dumont shall submit two ( 2 ) copies of all documents required by this Memorandum of Agreement to the person identified below , who shall be the Department ' s contact for the Borough of Dumont for all matters concerning this Memorandum of Agreement .

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Responsible party site Remediation Bureau of Field Operations - Northern 2 Babcock Place west orange , New Jersey 07052

Attention: Yacoub Yacoub , section Chief

III . Financial obligations

10 . upon receipt of a summary of the Department ' s costs incurred in connection with its oversight functions of this Memorandum of Agreement , the BorQugh of Dumont shall submit to the Department a cashier ' s or certified check payable to the "Treasurer , state of New Jersey" with NJDEP Form 0 62A for the full amount of the Department ' s oversight costs . The Borough of Dumont cannot be released from its obl igations under this Memorandum of Agreement , until all oversight costs , for ,mrk performed by the Department , are paid .

1 1 . Beginning three hundred sixty-five ( 3 6 5 ) calendar days after the effectiVe date of this Memorandum of Agreement , and annually thereafter on that same calendar day , the Borough of Dumont shall submit to the Department a detailed summary of all monies spent to date pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement , the estimated cost o f all future expenditures associated with this Memorandum of Agreement ( including any operation and maintenanoe costs) , and the reason for any changes from the previous cost review the Borough of Dumont submitted .

IV. Reservation of Rights

1 2 . The Department reserves the r ight to unilaterally terminate this Memorandum of Agreement in the event that the Borough of Dumont violates any terms or fails to meet the obligations of this Memorandum of Agreement or in the event that the Site becomes a high priority for the Department .

13 . Nothing herein, including any document the Department issues as agreed to above , sha l l be interpreted to cons�itute a release or waiver of liability for any of the conditions which existed before , during or after the Department ' s execution of this Memorandum of Agreement .

V . General Conditions

1 4 . The Borough of Dumont shall , in addition to any other obligation required by law , notify the Department contact immediately upon knowledge of any condition posing an immediate threat to human health and/or the environment .

1 5 . The Borough of Dumont shall perform a l l work conducted pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement in aocordance with N . J . A . C . 7 : 2 6E and prevai ling professional standards then prevailing .

1 6 . The Borough of Dumont shall conform a l l actions required by this Memorandum of Agreement with all applicable federal , state and local laws and regulations .

17 . Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement shall be deemed to impose on the Borough of Dumont any additional liabilities or Obligations , other than those specifically stated herein. Nothing shall relieve the Borough of Dumont from complying with all other applioable laws and regulations .

18 . The Borough of Dumont shall preserve all potential evidentiary documentation found at the. Site , which may provide a nexus between the contaminated s ite and any responsible party or lead to the discovery of other areas of oonoern including without limitation , documents , label s , drums , bottles, boxes or other containers , and/or other physical materials that could lead to the establishment of the identity of any person which generated , treated , transported , stored or disposed of oontaminants at the S ite , until written approval is received from the Department to do otherwise .

, 19 . Upon receipt of a written request from the Department , the Borough of Dumont shall submit to the Departnlent a l l data and information con

'cerning contamination at the Site , including technical reoords and contraotual documents , and raw sampling and monitoring data , ,qhether or not such data and information �Ias developed pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement .

I f the Borough of Dumont believes any such data or information is protected by a privilege it will retain the data and information and notify the Department of the nature of the document and the privilege claimed. The Borough of Dumont may request that the Department keep confidential information contained in a submission to the Department pursuant to N . J . A . C . 7 : 14A-l1 .

2 0 . The Department will issue a no further aotion statement when the Department has determined that the s ignatory has conducted the agreed upon remedial activities pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement and the remedial activities are in acoordance with all Department requirements .

2 1 . This Memorandum of Agreement shall be governed. and interpreted under the · laws· of th::: state of Nc,q Jersey .

2 2 . This Memorandum of Agreement shall be binding , j ointly and severally , on each party, its successors and assignees subject to the right of termination above . No ohange in the ownership or corporate or business status of any party, or of the faoility or site shall alter any signatories I s responsibilities under this Memorandum of Agreement .

2 3 . This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective upon execution hereof by all parties .

NEW JERSEY

Date : --L.7�¥"-'--f _

The Borough of Dumont

BY : !}-m£//;:! :ij'1�rn7f Signature .

720A)fzlcJ !JIi16l9))T Print Full Name S 1gned Above

ID8wr Titl.e . /