Dear Residents and Neighbors:

In our last communication, we advised that the Township and CCSMQ had responded to the DEP regarding the Quarry’s application for a voluntary investigation of soils the Quarry claims are fill materials imported since 2006 (designated by the Quarry as Fill Areas A, B and C).   The DEP responded to the Quarry’s proposal on July 14, deeming the application insufficient and requiring additional parameters. CCSMQ and the Township believe that even if amended as the DEP requires, the Quarry proposal falls far short of what is necessary to ensure the site is clean.  Primarily, groundwater and surface water should be tested now, and the entire site must be tested prior to development. 

CCSMQ Representatives and Sally Rubin, Executive Director of the Great Swamp Watershed Association, met with the DEP on July 30 to discuss their shared concerns.  The DEP provided some confidence in the process, advising that the Township’s engineer ICON will oversee the investigation on site and retest each sample tested by the Quarry.  Interestingly, Christopher Daggett–Bernards Township resident, Independent Candidate for Governor and former DEP Commissioner–is a principal in the firm J.M. Sorge hired by the Quarry to initiate this DEP application and conduct the investigation.  (The DEP advised that it does not conduct the investigation other than to make occasional site visits and review the test results.) 

The DEP also advised that this stage is a fill characterization of specific soils–a preliminary and not final step to testing the site prior to residential development.  After completing this process, if no remediation is necessary or if any necessary remediation is completed for these three piles of dirt, the Quarry could seek a “no further action” letter for these specified areas but not as to the entire site.

CCSMQ advised the DEP that the Quarry has existing monitoring wells, not revealed by the Quarry, which would allow groundwater testing now.   We are hopeful that the DEP will grant this important request made by the Township, CCSMQ, and GSWA to test groundwater and surface water at this time.

For more important information, read on.

DEP Response to Quarry Proposal:

See the DEP’s response to the Quarry’s proposal MQI Tilcon DEP response July 14.

The DEP requires:

1)  75 soil borings instead of the proposed 25.
 
2)  225 samples v. the Quarry’s proposed 78.  
 
3)  Analysis of all samples for base neutrals, metals, pesticides and PCBs.
Although the DEP did not formally respond to CCSMQ’s letter, they advised that they added our request to test for chromium.  Significantly missing is volatile organics associated with gasoline (and as we know many fill sources were gas stations), emphasizing the need for groundwater testing.

CCSMQ ADVISES DEP OF MISREPRESENTATIONS/MISDEEDS BY QUARRY DEMONSTRATING NEED FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE TESTING

1) History of dumping:  Documents we shared with the DEP should dispel the Quarry’s longstanding contention that it only imported fill to satisfy the Planning Board’s 2006 requirement to pad the cliffs.  Quarry “dump price lists” date back to at least 2001 and a Sales Agreement between the owner of MQ and Tilcon for the profits derived from importing ”dirt, soils, fill, shale, rock and concrete rubble” (no mention of clean fill) date back to at least 2003.  Moreover, the Quarry admitted importing soils prior to 2006.  Theoretically, the Quarry attorneys may have objected to the PB requirement to pad the cliffs because it did not want its long running, profitable (an estimated 40.5 million since 2006) dumping business to be regulated by the Township and come to end (which is exactly what happened).  This is important because all soils, not just those imported since 2006, must be tested.

2) Quarry assertion that only clean fill has been imported:  Less than 1% of the fill has been tested; fewer than 100 truckloads out of @180,000; only self certifications of truck driver; fill from sites identified on the NJ and NY known contaminated sites lists; 17% failure rate of the small volume tested, etc., all demonstrate the need to test the entire site and the water as soon as possible.

3) Quarry’s assurance to residents that DEP tests water discharged into the Passaic River:  CCSMQ investigated and provided copies to the DEP of the NJDEPS permit which checks for only PHs and solids– further demonstrating the need to test the surface waters for contaminants. It is reasonable that the DEP assumed the permit may have been sufficient for a quarry operation, but certainly not for a landfill, which we believe the DEP, like residents, did not know about.

TOWNSHIP’S RESPONSE TO QUARRY PROPOSAL

For information on the Township’s response, see statements at Bernards Township Committee Press Release MQI Tilcon 09-05-13 and MQI Tilcon DEP response July 14 (following DEP letter).  We anticipate that the Township will continue to pursue more comprehensive testing through the DEP.  The Township must act quickly as testing may begin as early as mid-August.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION AND MEDIATION?

Litigation is on hold while mediation is deemed “active.”  CCSMQ’s concern that the Quarry would not engage in good faith mediation but would use it as a tool to buy time to control testing appears to be true with its’ unilateral DEP application, thereby undermining the Township’s earnest efforts to reach a fair and adequate resolution at this time. 

–CCSMQ