REACT Report On Fenimore Landfill - Exhibits.

EXHIBIT 0.
1

EXHIBIT 1.1
5/19/2014 After Prison, Former Contractor Disputes Case - The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/nyregion/after-prison-former-contractor-disputes-case.html?pagewanted=print 1/4
Thi s copy i s for your personal , noncommerci al use onl y. You can order presentati on-ready copi es for
di stri buti on to your col l eagues, cl i ents or customers, pl ease cl i ck here or use the "Repri nts" tool that
appears next to any arti cl e. Vi si t www.nytrepri nts.com for sampl es and addi ti onal i nformati on. Order a
repri nt of thi s arti cl e now.
October 30, 2001
After Prison, Former Contractor Disputes Case
By ANDREW JACOBS
NEWARK, Oct. 29 Richard Bernardi has served his prison time, paying the price for a crime
he says he did not commit. But five years after he was convicted of conspiring to bribe a city
official here, Mr. Bernardi is waging a lonely campaign for vindication, saying he was poorly
represented by his lawyers, then harshly punished by a prejudicial judge.
Beyond a desire to clear his name, Mr. Bernardi, who lost his home and business during his three
years in prison, says he wants to shake up a judicial system he believes is run like an old boys' club.
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the story of his trial and sentencing is a cautionary tale of
what can go wrong for defendants, even when they can afford first-rate legal help.
During the trial, Mr. Bernardi's lawyer lost track of a key piece of evidence that the lawyer believes
would have led to an acquittal. Before sentencing, the lawyer offered to testify on Mr. Bernardi's
behalf, acknowledging his mistake, so his client could get a new trial. But the trial judge phoned
the lawyer -- improperly, the judge concedes -- and advised him not to, expressing concern for the
lawyer's reputation. The lawyer changed his story, and the judge gave Mr. Bernardi the maximum
sentence.
Mr. Bernardi says his new lawyer never told him about that phone conversation and then failed to
challenge the judge's impartiality during sentencing.
''This has already destroyed my life,'' said Mr. Bernardi, 47, who was released from a Newark
halfway house last month and now lives with his family in Mount Holly, N.J., where he remains
under house arrest. ''I just want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else.''
Mr. Bernardi was indicted on bribery charges in 1994 by a federal grand jury. As the owner of a
sanitation equipment company, prosecutors said, he had billed Newark's Sanitation Division for
$160,000 in leased machinery that was never delivered, and kicked back one-third to the
sanitation manager. Mr. Bernardi says his indictment was prompted by false testimony from a
rival trying to destroy his business.
During the trial, the prosecution's strongest piece of evidence was a company ledger that was
missing a crucial section. Those pages, prosecutors argued, would have documented a pattern of
bribery, and the jurors apparently agreed. On March 4, 1996, they acquitted Mr. Bernardi of 15
specific counts of bribery, but saw enough suggestion of shady dealings to convict him of
conspiracy to bribe.
There was one problem, however: the pages were never missing. Mr. Bernardi's lawyer, James C.
Patton, had somehow failed to notice that prosecutors had entered them as evidence, separate
from the ledgers.
''The whole thing was kind of dopey,'' Mr. Patton said in an interview this month, adding that the
pages contained no accounting irregularities. Had the jury known about them, he said, Mr.
Bernardi would have been acquitted.
When he discovered his oversight, Mr. Patton advised Mr. Bernardi to hire another lawyer to file a
motion claiming ineffective counsel, and agreed to testify to the error. If successful, Mr. Bernardi
would have received a new trial.
An accomplished criminal defense lawyer and former assistant United States attorney, Mr. Patton
submitted a statement to the court describing his mistake. But a day later, Harold A. Ackerman,
the federal district judge hearing the case, called Mr. Patton and warned him against admitting
any errors, saying that to do so would damage his career, according to court papers.
Legal experts say that such exchanges violate the judicial code of conduct, and under some
interpretations could warrant charges of witness tampering, a criminal offense that carries a 10-
year sentence.
Shortly after his conversation with the judge, Mr. Patton called Mr. Bernardi's new lawyer,
Samuel J. Buffone, and told him what had happened, according to court filings. Mr. Bernardi says
that neither lawyer told him about the exchange between the judge and Mr. Patton, and that he
learned of it last November while he was in prison reviewing court documents for an appeal.
In the end, Mr. Patton apparently heeded the judge's advice. During a subsequent hearing, he
recanted his written statement, depriving Mr. Bernardi of his best chance for a new trial. In his
interview, Mr. Patton would not say why he did.
Three days after his discussion with Mr. Patton, Judge Ackerman sentenced Mr. Bernardi to the
maximum 33 months in jail, giving him time for both the conspiracy conviction and the 15
bribery counts that the jury had rejected, a prerogative available to federal judges.
Mr. Bernardi says the judge's stiff sentence was partly a punishment for trying to tarnish his
lawyer's name. ''By siding with Jim Patton against me, he was clearly not impartial,'' Mr. Bernardi
said.
Judge Ackerman, who has been a judge for nearly five decades, said in an interview last month
that his conversation with Mr. Patton was a mistake, describing it as a ''boo-boo'' and ''something
I should not have done.'' But he said he did the right thing six weeks after the sentencing, when, at
Mr. Buffone's request, he removed himself from any future proceedings involving Mr. Bernardi.
Asked why he did not call for a new trial, Judge Ackerman said, ''Because no one asked me to.''
In an interview last month, Mr. Buffone, a Washington appeals lawyer, gave no explanation why
he did not ask for a new trial. ''It's a long time ago,'' he said. ''I really don't remember.'' But in a
later interview, after reviewing portions of the file, he said he saw no grounds for such a motion.
John Leubsdorf, a legal ethics professor at Rutgers University Law School, said informal contact
between a judge and a witness, especially when a judge tries to influence testimony, is strictly
forbidden. ''It would certainly call into question that judge's ability to be impartial,'' Mr. Leubsdorf
said, adding that it is unethical for a lawyer to withhold relevant information from a client.
Judge Ackerman's conduct was never investigated, according to the United States attorney's office
in Newark.
Mr. Bernardi recognizes that his own behavior has not been above reproach. Five months after
sentencing, he jumped bail and fled with his family to the Philippines, where his wife's parents live.
During the trial, Mrs. Bernardi had given birth to premature twins. ''My wife was very depressed,
and if I had left her alone with two critically ill babies, she would have fallen apart,'' he said.
He returned home two years later, when the health of his children had stabilized. The judge now
on the case, John W. Bissell, gave him three more months in jail.
Mr. Bernardi is still awaiting word on his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Although the court is required to answer such motions within 30 days, Mr.
Bernardi's papers were lost for five months by Judge Bissell's office. The documents were found
last month, a day after a reporter asked about them.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bernardi has been unable to find a new lawyer, saying he believes that no one is
willing to take a case that might impugn the reputations of two respected lawyers and a senior
federal judge.
Mr. Bernardi, who sold his house to pay $400,000 in legal fees, has been working as a clerk at a
waste management company in Philadelphia. Unless his conviction is set aside, he will spend the
next nine months under house arrest and another three years on probation. He can leave home
only for work or church.
''At this point, it would be nice if I could just clear my name,'' he said. ''I'd also love to go trick-or-
treating with my kids.''
Photo: Richard Bernardi, freed from a Newark halfway house last month after serving time for
conspiracy to bribe, remains under house arrest in Mount Holly, N.J. (Don Standing for The New
York Times)
Copyright 2014 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us
Back to Top

EXHIBIT 1.2

EXHIBIT 1.3
From: Randazzo, Cindy Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:07:42 GMT
To: Bernardi, Richard
Subject:Re: After Prison, Former Contractor Disputes Case - The New York Times
I don't pay attention to anything but the facts, thank you for the share. Soil Conservation, I wanted the program to
know what was being asked by SCS and if it was conflicting with our requirements or time frame. It was just an FYI.
Cindy W. Randazzo
Director
Office of Local Government Assistance
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
Office: 609-633-7700
email: cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us

>>> Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com> 11/21/2011 9:02 AM >>>
Cindy,
Just thought you would like to see if you were dealing with Al Capone. Or,whoever else I am portrayed as.
Also,
Who is SCS?
Regarding last part of email, irregardless if ACO is changed, no agency is giving me money or funding.
Thanks,
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC
PO Box 356
Clarksburg, NJ 08510
www.strategicgreenenergy.com

On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:37 AM, "Cindy Randazzo" <Cindy.Randazzo@dep.state.nj.us> wrote:
> Thanks Rich, I will. You certainly didn't owe me an explanation it came up randomly at the public meeting and we
didn't respond to it.
> > Please see the program response to your questions regarding SCS.
> > DEP Issue - mobilization $. Our agreement allowed Mr. Bernardi to keep the first $100,000 up front and 50% of the
next $1.1 Million in revenue for mobilization, site operation, sediment control, etc. After that all revenue was to go into
escrow.
> > SCS issues - Removal of trees not our issue. SCS was concerned with fire hazard from trees and was allowing
chipping for use as erosion control. I don't believe we have all correspondence btwn SCS and Mr. Bernardi. Our concern
is if trees remain, that they do not cause site settlement issues.
> > I am not clear what the ratio question is, unless it is the money management issue above.
> > We would need more information to determine if additional money is needed. ACO revision? Closure plan mod.
>
Cindy W. Randazzo
Director
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 402
Office: 609-633-7700

> >>>> Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com> 11/18/2011 2:54 PM >>>
> Cindy,
> > Keep this to yourself. Only because I am so tired of talking about it. It's kind of like having Cancer and beating it.
> > You just want to go on with life.
> > Thanks,
> > Hit the link below.
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/nyregion/after-prison-former-contractor-disputes-
case.html?pagewanted=print
> Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

EXHIBIT 1.4
81
1 the vision stateme
2 If I work with a company and we have a
3 vision statement, if you ask me about it, I will
4
5
6
7
8
9
tell you. I would think we deserve at least that.
Thank you.
MR. RICHARD REILLY: Thank you.
Does anybody else wish to speak again
or your first t ?
MS. BERNADETTE COYLE: Bernadette
10 Coyle, B E-R-N-A-D E T-T E c-o Y L-E.
11 I just h a quick question, because
12 when we had the first meeting that I was at, there
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
was a gentleman who actually, u know, spent money
and Googled information on his partner, I
believe he h d you the information from Lexis
Nexus and the guy was a criminal or an ex felon or
something like at.
And then somebody else just mentioned
that this company was bankrupt or was going ban upt
or somethi Ii that. I am just curious about
21 what is the procedure of understanding who we are
22 going to be partners with? I mean, it seems like
23 this whole plan is based on a lot of money. We have
24 people making money, but if, all of a sudden, he is
25 in the middle of the project and he goes bankrupt
VeritextlNJ Reporting Company
800-227-8440 973-410-4040
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
and then all of a sudden we end
Page 82
with what, he
just walks away and we end up with the dump ain?
MR. RICHARD REILLY: Thank you.
MS. MARTHA DEUT Martha Deutch,
M-A-R-T H-A D-E U-T C-H.
This whole thing is a damn dump, bottom
line. I mean, everything that is affecting all of
our lives on the mountain. I am just really
9 saddened - and I find the whole thing very
10 depressing.
11 I was wondering if there is anybody in
12 this audience that happens to be a lawyer that could
13 also sign up r that council and maybe help start
14 some legal action going and maybe someone pro bono,
15 maybe get some of those lawyers in town that want to
16 get involved in that councilor that committee
17 because obviously the best way to fight this is
18 legally, Number 1.
19 Number 2, way back, 30 years ago, when
20 I was going for my ba elor's degree, I took a class
21 on environmental impact statement. One of the
22 things we had to do, when we were given an
23 environmental impact statement as a class project,
24 was we had to interview everybody who lived in that
25 mountain in upstat
VeritextlNJ Reporting Company
800-227-8440 973-410-4040

EXHIBIT 2.1

EXHIBIT 2.1.1

EXHIBIT 2.2

EXHIBIT 2.3

5/17/14 8:36 PM Archive Manager Message Export
Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/69776ee0-a6ae-da45-0f31-02580e693ac9.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:54:08 GMT
To: Bernardi, Rich; Confer, Robert; Foster, Ruth;
Subject: Re: FW: Fenimore-Highland Exemption Request
Rich-Nancy,BobandIaresittingdownwithlanduseandwatershedtomorrowmorningandtryingtogetEileenSwantoattendtosortthisout.
Ourmeetingisat9amtomorrowsoweshouldhaveabetteranswertomorrow.Departmentistryingtofigureoutwhereitcan/ifwecanwaive
presentrulesthatwehavethatdon'tapplyaswelltosituationslikesolaronlandfillprojects.Thankssomuchforyourpatience.
IhaveEileenslastemailaboutassumingnotexemptfromHighlandsrulesothisiswhatsheissayingwehavetodo-worstcase::
1.youapplyingtoEileenforadesignationofthesiteasaHighlandsRedevelopmentAreabytheHighlandsCouncil
2.HighlandsPreservationAreaAuthorization(HPAA)withwaiverofsomeoftherequirementsforstudies,etc.fromtheNJDEPLanduse
program.
ButthisiswhereI'mconfused:whatisbestcasescenario-completeexemption?
HighlandsconsistencydeterminationbyWatershedprogram(TerryPilawski)-rightnowherinterpretationisthatlandfillclosurestonotcount
asasiteremediationandthereforearenotexemptfromHighlandsandHPAArequirement.IfWatershedspositionwasthatlandfillclosures
shouldcountasremediationthenyou'dbeexemptfrom1and2above.
IsthataccurateBob?ThisiswhatI'mwrestlingwithandthoughtwe'dresolvedinphonecallbutChristinewastalkingabouttheredevelopment
areadesignation-item1above)andIwastalkingaboutanentireexemption.
>>>RichBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>02/17/1011:34AM>>>
Bob-Iammoreconfusedthenbefore.WhatdidwedoThursday?
Rich
6099549001
-----OriginalMessage-----
From:EileenSwan<eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>
Sent:Tuesday,February16,20103:18PM
To:rwbernardi@aol.com
Cc:RuthFoster<Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us>;rconfer@dep.state.nj.us;DennisPetrocelli<DPetrocelli@matrixneworld.com>;TomDemichele
<tdemichele@matrixneworld.com>;JeiChon<jchon@matrixneworld.com>;jeffrey.olawski@dep.state.nj.us;TomMicai
<Tom.Micai@dep.state.nj.us>;TomBorden<tom.borden@highlands.state.nj.us>;DanVanAbs<dan.vanabs@highlands.state.nj.us>;Chris
Ross<chris.ross@highlands.state.nj.us>
Subject:RE:Fenimore-HighlandExemptionRequest
Mr.Bernardi,
ThisisinresponsetoyourcalltodayseekingclarificationabouttheprocessfortheredevelopmentoftheformerFennimoreLandfillsite.Youhad
aninformalmeetingwithDanVanAbsandChrisRossoftheHighlandsCouncilstaff.TheyexplainedtheprocesstoseekaHighlands
RedevelopmentAreaDesignation.IaddherethelanguagefromtheHighlandsActandtheNJDEPHighlandsruleswhichguidethistwostep
process.ThefirststepisthedesignationoftheHighlandsRedevelopmentAreabytheHighlandsCouncilandthesecondistheHPAAwith
waiverfromtheNJDEP.
TheHighlandsActinSection11requiresthattheHighlandsCouncil:
(h)identifyareasappropriateforredevelopmentandsetappropriatedensitystandardsforredevelopment.Anyareaidentifiedforpossible
redevelopmentpursuanttothissubparagraphshallbeeitherabrownfieldsitedesignatedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionorasite
atwhichatleast70%oftheareathereofiscoveredwithimpervioussurface.
NJDEP'sPreservationArearulesspecifythefollowing:
7:38-6.6WaiverforredevelopmentincertainpreviouslydevelopedareasintheHighlandspreservationarea:Department-designatedHighlands
Brownfields
(a)InaccordancewithN.J.S.A.13:20-33b(2),theDepartmentmay,onacasebycasebasis,waiveanyoftheprovisionsforaHPAAifsuch
waiverisnecessaryforredevelopmentofcertainpreviouslydevelopedareasinthepreservationareaidentifiedbytheCouncilpursuantto
N.J.S.A.13:20-9bandN.J.S.A.13:20-11a(6)(h).AwaiverunderthissectionshallapplyonlytoDepartment-designatedHighlandsbrownfieldsites
designatedpursuantto(b)below,andidentifiedasanareaappropriateforredevelopmentbytheCouncil.Forthepurposesofthissectiononly,
"site"meansaparceldesignatedbyablockandlot,orseveralcontiguousparcelsifownedorcontrolledbytheapplicantsolongasallparcels
meetthecriteriain(b)below.
(b)Forthepurposesofthissection,asitethatmeetsthecriteriainoneofthefollowingthreeTracksiseligiblefordesignationbytheDepartment
asaHighlandsbrownfield,providedthatthecontaminationonsiteisnottheresultofacurrentorpreviousagriculturaluse:
1.TrackOne:Asanitarylandfillfacility;
2.TrackTwo:Aformerorcurrentcommercialorindustrialsiteforwhich:
i.PriortotheissuanceofaNoFurtherAction(NFA)letter,aremedialactionreportwascompletedconfirmingthepresenceofcontamination
onsite,anddocumentingthecurrentorprevioususeasacommercialorindustrialsite;
ii.TheDepartmenthasissuedanNFAletterfortheentiresiteforwhichthebrownfielddesignationissoughtasofJuly1,1993,orlater,pursuant
toN.J.A.C.7:26C-2.6;and
iii.NodischargeofacontaminanthasoccurredonthesitesincethedateoftheNFAletter.Siteswhereadischargeofacontaminanthas
occurredonthesitesincetheDepartmentissuedtheNFAlettermustapplyfordesignationthroughTrackThree;or
3.TrackThree:AformerorcurrentcommercialorindustrialsitewithsuspectedorconfirmedcontaminationonsiteforwhichtheDepartmenthas
notissuedaNFAletter.
SeetheHighlandsCouncilprocessathttp://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/projectreview/pages6and7willgiveyoutheinformation
requiredbytheHighlands.Followingisourgeneraltimelineforapplicationsbutwecanexpediteit.
!ApplicantsubmitsrequisitePre-ApplicationMeetingmaterialstoHighlandsCouncilstaff
!Within1-2weeks,theCouncilwillcontactapplicanttoarrangePre-Appmeeting
!ApplicantmaysubmitthePetitionforHighlandsRedevelopmentAreaDesignationfollowingthePre-Applicationmeeting.
!HighlandsCouncilstaffreviewsthePetitionwithin1-2weeksafterreceipt,andpostsitsfindingonthewebsite.
!Minimum10businessdaysafterpostingforpubliccomments.
!Within1weekaftercloseofpubliccommentperiod,theCouncilpreparesapubliccommentsummarydocumentandfinalizesConsistency
DeterminationandRecommendationReport.
!Applicantpublishesanoticeinthenewspaperofrecordforaminimumof10businessdaysbeforeCouncilMeetingwhereapplicationwillbe
considered.
!HighlandsCouncilMeetingandResolution-materialssenttoNJDEPthedayaftertheCouncilMeeting(forHPAAwithwaiverprocess).
OncetheHighlandshasapprovedthedesignationtheNJDEPconsiderstheHPAAwithwaiver.Wewouldbegladtoassistyouwiththisproject
andmakeeveryefforttoexpeditereview.Ihopethishelpstoclarifytheprocess.
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
NewJerseyHighlandsCouncil
100NorthRoad(Route513)
Chester,NJ07930-2322
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us
www.highlands.state.nj.us
Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthise-mail
Thisemail,togetherwithanyattachments,isintendedforthenamedrecipient(s)only;andmaycontainprivilegedandconfidentialinformation.If
receivedinerror,youareaskedtoinformthesenderasquicklyaspossibleanddeletethisemailandanycopiesofthisfromyourcomputer
systemnetwork.Unlessstatedotherwise,thisemailrepresentsonlytheviewsofthesenderandnottheviewsoftheNewJerseyHighlands
Council.

EXHIBIT 2.4

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/d5c1a4a4-d5ac-e83c-0f34-aa592b287821.html
From: Robert Confer Sent: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:05 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Ross, Chris;
Subject: Re: Highlands Preservation Area Rules - NJDEP Brownfield Designation
Chris,thetextbelowwassenttoRich2/11/10,isthisallthatisneeded,ifnotpleasejustletmeknowthespecificsofwhattheCouncilneedsfor
thewaiver.Icanfaxyouthisletteraswellofcourse.
Bob
FEBRUARY11,2010
RichardBernardi
StrategicPartners,LLC.
P.O.Box356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
RE:FenimoreLandfillSolarRenewableEnergyProject
RoxburyTownship,MorrisCounty,NewJersey
PI#132518
DearMr.Bernardi:
TheBureauofLandfillandHazardousWastePermitting(Bureau)conductedasitevisitonWednesdayFebruary3,2010tothenonoperating
FenimoreSanitaryLandfillafterameetingonThursdayJanuary28,2010withtheDepartment'sPermitCoordinationProgramandotheroffices.
Thepurposeofthemeetingandsitevisitwastodeterminethenextstepsinthedevelopmentofasolarrenewableenergyprojectonthelandfill
site.TheDepartmenthasdeterminedthatthenonoperatingsolidwastelandfillsitewillrequirelandfillclosureinaccordancewiththe
Department'sregulations.
TheDepartmentbelievesthatthelandfillsitequalifiesperN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6foraWaiverforRedevelopmentinCertainPreviouslyDeveloped
AreasintheHighlandsPreservationArea:Department-designatedHighlandsBrownfields.Specifically,thelandfillsiteappearstoqualifyfora
waiverpertherequirementsatN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6(b)1asasitethatmeetsthecriteriaofTrackOne:AsanitarylandfillfacilityandN.J.A.C.7:38-
6.6(c)1forthelimitofthewasteandalsoperN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6(c)2asanarealegallydisturbedasofAugust10,2004.
TheDepartmentunderstandsallofthetreesonthelandfillsurfacewillneedtoberemovedtoprotectthehealth,safetyandwelfareofthepublic
forthecleanupofthesiteduringtheclosureprocess.Theclosureplanwillalsorequireaminimum50-footbufferoftheexistingnatural,
indigenousvegetationwheretreesandothernaturalvegetationwillnotberemoved.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionconcerningthismatter,pleasecontactSaaraAliofmystaffbytelephoneat(609)633-9593,orbyemailat
saara.ali@dep.state.nj.us.
Sincerely,
OriginalSignedbyRobertM.Confer
RobertM.Confer,Chief
BureauofLandfill&HazardousWastePermitting
LC08-5552
c:RaiBelonzi,BSWCE
MarySiller,BSWCE
MichaelGerchman,BLHWP
DanVanAbs,NewJerseyHighlandsCouncil
EileenSwan,NewJerseyHighlandsCouncil
RuthFoster,OPCER
LawrenceD.Malizza
120EagleRockAvenueSuite207
EastHanoverNJ07936
SolidandHazardousWasteManagementProgram
EnvironmentalRegulationProgram
NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
P.O.Box414401EastStateStreet
Trenton,NJ08625-0414
Phone:609-984-6985Telecopier:609-633-9839
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/permitting.htm
>>>"ChrisRoss"<chris.ross@highlands.state.nj.us>5/11/20101:59PM>>>
I'veextractedthepagesoftheHighlandsPreservationRules(andhighlightedtext)thatconcernNJDEPdesignationofaHighlandsBrownfield
siteforredevelopmentwaiver(N.J.A.C.7:38-6.6).Pleasefindattached.
Chris
From:EileenSwan
Sent:Monday,May10,201012:31PM
To:ScottBrubaker
Cc:RobertConfer;ChrisRoss
Subject:RE:TuesdaysitevisittoFenimore
ThanksScott,
HighlandsProjectLeadisChrisRoss.ShewillmeetyouatDunkinDonutstomorrowandIhaveletherknowthedresscode!Hercellnumberis
6462454276.
Thanksfortheopportunityforfurthercoordination.
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
Council.
From:ScottBrubaker[mailto:Scott.Brubaker@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent:Thursday,May06,201012:14PM
To:EileenSwan
Subject:Re:TuesdaysitevisittoFenimore
Eileen,greatidea,wemeetatDunkinDonutsonRt206atmoodeyormooleyroadat10am.Mycellis609-475-2734.IfyouleavemeyoursI'll
haveit.Scott
NOTE:Thise-mailisprotectedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.Sections2510-2521.ThisE-Mailanditscontentsmay
bePrivileged&ConfidentialduetotheAttorney-ClientPrivilege,AttorneyWorkProduct,DeliberativeProcessorundertheNewJerseyOpen
PublicRecordsAct.
Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipientofthise-mail,pleasenotifythesender,deleteitanddonotread,actupon,print,disclose,copy,retainor
redistributeit.
ScottBrubaker
Director
OfficeofPermitCoordination&EnvironmentalReview
401EastStateStreet
P.O.Box402
Phone:(609)633-7660
Fax:(609)633-2102
Email:Scott.Brubaker@dep.state.nj.us

>>>"EileenSwan"<eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>5/6/201011:25AM>>>
Scott,IthinkitwouldbebeneficialtoincludeaHighlandsCouncil
representativeatthesitevisitonTuesdaysothatIcanmakesurethat
wehandleourendefficientlyandincoordinationwiththeDepartment.
Ifyouareinagreementcouldyoupleaseletmeknowthedetailsofthe
visitandIwillsendourprojectlead.
Thanks
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
<mailto:eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>
www.highlands.state.nj.us<http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/>
Thisemail,togetherwithanyattachments,isintendedforthenamed
recipient(s)only;andmaycontainprivilegedandconfidential
information.Ifreceivedinerror,youareaskedtoinformthesenderas
quicklyaspossibleanddeletethisemailandanycopiesofthisfrom
yourcomputersystemnetwork.Unlessstatedotherwise,thisemail
representsonlytheviewsofthesenderandnottheviewsoftheNew
JerseyHighlandsCouncil.

EXHIBIT 2.5

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/743a4865-22bf-d389-b328-86be5fa3b1de.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:16:34 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Bello, Dan; Brubaker, Scott; chris.ross@highlands.state.nj.us;
CC: Confer, Robert
Subject: Re: Highlands
Fenimore Timetable Final352010.doc (53Kb)
Chris-doesn'tRichhavetogothroughtheattachedstepstogettheofficialBrownfielddesignation-ultimatelyfromLanduse-seestep#10?
>>>"rwbernardi@aol.com"<rwbernardi@aol.com>5/19/20102:53PM>>>
HiCris,
IsthereadocumentyoucanemailmethatstatesthattheFenimoreLandfillisnowaDesignatedHighlandsBrownfield?
Thanks
RichBernardi
6099549001
StrategicEnvironmentalPartners
PoBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510

EXHIBIT 2.6

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/0c7b24e2-921c-5f4c-efb2-486177324130.html
From: Robert Confer Sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:57:16 GMT
To: Bernardi, R
Subject: RE: Site Visit FENIMORE HIGHLANDS
Rich,withyourexperienceintheHighlands,canyousuggestanyspecificmodificationstotheHighlandsrulesforbrownfieldsitesthatwouldhave
facilitatedyourprocessupthereatFenimore,withoutimpedingtheprotectiveintentoftheoverallHighlandsprogram?
Bob
>>>RWBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>2/17/20119:02:30AM>>>
Weareclearing.Atleastanotherweek.
I'llkeepyouposted.
Thanks
RichBernardi
6099549001
From:RobertConfer<Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>
Sent:Thursday,February17,20118:56AM
Subject:RE:SiteVisitFENIMORE
okthks
whenwillworkstartsowecancomeupandseetheworkandthemagsurvey
b
>>>RWBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>2/17/20118:49:18AM>>>
IhaveproblemswithLandUse,asusual,peoplearemakingdecisionswithoutseeingsite.
Iworkeditoutearlierthis
Morning.
Thanksforasking,
RichBernardi
6099549001
From:RobertConfer<Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>
Sent:Thursday,February17,20118:40AM
To:RWBernardi@aol.com
Subject:Re:SiteVisitFENIMORE
Rich,what'sthisabout?
b
>>><RWBernardi@aol.com>2/16/20112:49PM>>>
Mark-ItwouldhelpmegetthesiteclearedbyendofMarchifyou
couldcomeouteitherFridayorMondayandwalkthesite.
Ifyouwerefamiliarwiththesiteitwouldmakeitmucheasier
toexplaintheonsiteproblemswearedealingwith.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
StrategicEnviromentalPartners,LLC
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510

EXHIBIT 2.7

5/17/2014 Archive Manager Message Export
file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/818d69e1-80cf-5a47-dc04-524eca97238a.html 1/3
From: Sent: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:02:16 GMT
To: Randazzo, Cindy
CC: insights@bruinoogelaw.com; Foster, Ruth;
Subj ect: DEP Fenimore Landfill
Feni moreMarch5thLetter.pdf (208Kb) NJDEPCOnfer021110.pdf (1046Kb)
Cindy,

On February 11th, 2010 I received a letter from Bob Confer informing me that the Fenimore Landfill
is indeed a landfill and is in need of remediation; see attached. That letter, at the advise of Chris Danis, Highlands
Planner, to Bob Confer, was good enough to take the Landfill out of the Highlands regarding the cleanup and put us
under Solid Waste, NJDEP. If this entire process was not aborted, the trees would have come down a year ago
and the cleanup would be halfway finished. I would have also installed 5 MWs of Solar as was Nancy Wittenberg's
plan.

The email directly below is from me explaining that if we don't cut down the trees on the site we will loose a year.

The next attachment is dated March 5th, 2010 and is from the NJDEP informing me Bob Confer's letter dated
February 11th is no good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

thanks for your patience Rich. Good meeting - ran through all the programs. Need to sit down with nancy at 12:30 and
then Bob and I will call you.
>>> Rich Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com> 02/18/10 10:22 AM >>>
Hi Bob,
I'll call at 10:30.
If we can't get waiver/exemption by 1st I can't apply for Roxbury tree permit which means I can't cut down trees in
March. Then I have to wail until October, which means no 30% solar grant.
No project.
I got an answer from Dan at Highlands end of November.
And then it continually CHANGED.
Rich
609 954 9001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

EMAIL FROM HIGHLANDS INFORMINIG US WE HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE HIGHLANDS FOR CLEANUP
PURPOSES SINCE FEBURARY 11TH WHEN BOB CONFER WROTE THE LETTER.((Letter was GOOD!!!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
MAY 19TH, 2010 HIGHLANDS EMAIL

Mr. Bernardi,
Chris sent me your email, below.
I hope the following may be of assistance.
It is the NJDEP that designate Brownfields but I believe the issue was dealt with in a letter sent to you by NJDEP
Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting on February 11th. The letter is signed by Robert Confer and
states "The Department believes that the landfill site qualifies per NJAC 7a:38-6.6 for a Waiver for Redevelopment in
Certain Previously Developed Areas in the Highlands Preservation Area Department designated Highlands
Brownfields".
The following are from the Highlands Act and explain the waiver provision for DEP and the Redevelopment Area
designation for Highlands:
Section 35 (2) a provision that may allow for a waiver of any provision of a
Highlands permitting review on a case-by-case basis for redevelopment
in certain previously developed areas in the preservation area identified
by the council pursuant to subsection b. of section 9 or subparagraph (h)
of paragraph (6) of subsection a. of section 11 of this act;
This is from section 11 which allows the Highlands Council to designate Redevelopment Areas:
(h) identify areas appropriate for redevelopment and set appropriate
density standards for redevelopment. Any area identified for possible
redevelopment pursuant to this subparagraph shall be either a brownfield
site designated by the Department of Environmental Protection or a site
at which at least 70% of the area thereof is covered with impervious
surface.
Eileen
Eileen Swan
Executive Director
New Jersey Highlands Council
100 North Road (Route 513)
Chester, NJ 07930-2322
(908) 879-6737 ext. 101
(908) 879-4205 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only; and may contain privileged and
confidential information. If received in error, you are asked to inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete this
email and any copies of this from your computer system network. Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only
the views of the sender and not the views of the New Jersey Highlands Council.
-----Original Message-----
From: rwbernardi@aol.com [mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:53 PM
To: Chris Ross
Cc: rconfer@dep.state.nj.us
Subject: Highlands
Hi Cris,
Is there a document you can email me that states that the Fenimore Landfill is now a Designated Highlands
Brownfield?
Thanks
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
Strategic Environmental Partners
Po Box 356

KIND OF LIKE WHO'S ON FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rich

EXHIBIT 2.7.1

EXHIBIT 2.7.2

~hlt of ~.efn Jj.ers.ell
DEPARTME T OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Governor SOLID ANDHAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BUREAU OF LANDFILL & HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITTING
P.O. Box414 401E. STATE STREET
TRENTON, J 08625-0414
TELEPHONE 609-984-6985 TELECOPIER 609-633-939
.http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw
BOBMARTlN
Acting Commissioner
KIM GUADAGNO
u. Governor
FEBRUARY 1r, 2010
Richard Bernardi
Strategic Partners, LLC.
P.O. Box 356
RE: Fenimore Landfill Solar Renewable Energy Project
Roxbury Township, Morris County, New J ersey
PI# 132518
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
The Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting (Bureau) conducted a site visit on
Wednesday February 3, 2010 to the nonoperating Fenimore Sanitary Landfill after ameeting on
Thursday J anuary 28, 2010 with the Department's Permit Coordination Program and other
offices. The purpose of the meeting and site visit was to determine the next steps in the
-,
development of a solar renewable energy project on the landfill site. The Department has
determined that the nonoperating solid waste landfill site will require landfill closure in
accordance withthe Department's regulations.
The Department believes that the landfill site qualifies per NJ .A.C. 7:38-6.6 for a Waiver for
Redevelopment in Certain Previously Developed Areas in the Highlands Preservation Area:
Department-designated Highlands Brownfields. Specifically, the landfill site appears to qualify
for a waiver per the requirements at NJ .A.C. 7:38-6.6(b)1 as a site that meets the criteria of
Track One: A sanitary landfill facility and NJ .A.C. 7:38-6.6(c)1 for the limit of the waste and
also per NJ .A.C. 7:38-6.6(c)2 as an area legally disturbed as of August 10,2004.
The Department understands all of the trees on the landfill surface will need to be removed to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the public for the cleanup of the site during the closure
process. The closure plan will also require a minimum 50-foot buffer of the existing natural,
indigenous vegetation where trees-and other natural vegetation will not beremoved.
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer IPrinted on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
If you have any question concerning this matter, please contact Saara Ali of my staff by
telephone at (609) 633-9593, or by email at saara.ali@dep.state.nj.us.
tL~Y'Ih,
Robert M. Confer, ChjH
Bureau of Landfill &Hazardous Waste Permitting
LC08-5552
c: Rai Belonzi, BSWCE
Mary Siller, BSWCE
Michael Gerchman, BLHWP
Dan Van Abs, New J ersey Highlands Council
Eileen Swan, New J ersey Highlands Council
Terry Pilawski, Land Use Management
Ruth Foster, OPCER
Lawrence D. Malizza
120 Eagle Rock Avenue Suite 207
East Hanover NJ 07936

EXHIBIT 2.8

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/eb3ca079-686a-5605-0e1f-3f07c8985516.html
From: Rick Reilly Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:22:23 GMT
To: Richard Bernardi; Robert Confer;
CC: ; Saara Ali; Michael Gerchman; MaryAnne Goldman; Opal Wells; Scott Brubaker; Susan Michniewski; Vincent
Mazzei; Michele Siekerka; Ruth Foster; Judy Larkin; Eileen Swan; Tom Borden; ; ;
Subject: Re: Fenimore MTG. 8/18/11 8:30 am
Toall,IhaveformallyapprovedtheHighlandsBrownfieldsDesignationbasedontherevisedplanIreceivedatthismorning'smeeting.Suehas
faxedacopytoMatrixNewWorld,attemptedtofaxtoCounciltoo,butitwouldnotgothrough.Shewilltryagaintomorrowmorning.Rick.
>>>RickReilly8/17/20114:52PM>>>
Rich,wewouldliketowrapupourpartinthebrownfieldsdesignationprocessandrequestthefollowingrevisionstotheplanentiltledTRACK1
BROWNFIELDSDESIGNATIONPLAN",bd-1,dated7/27/11:
1.Thelimitoftheproposedbrownfielddesignationmustbethesamelineasthelimitoflandfillline.Isuggesteliminatingthepurplelineand
changingthekeytoindicatethattheredlinerepresentsthebrownfieldsdesignationlimittoo.
2.Removeallreferencesfromthisplanassociatedwithhighlandsopenwaterboundaries,buffers,streamrelocationetc.Theintentistoclean
uptheplansothatitsonlyfocusisthebrownfieldlimitandlimitoflandfill.
Oncewereviewaplanwiththerevisionsasoutlinedabove,wewillbeabletomakeadecisiononthedesignationwithinacoupleofdays,orso.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsonthis,wecandiscussthemattomorrow'smeeting.Thanks,Rick.
RichardC.Reilly,Manager
BureauofInlandRegulation
DivisionofLandUseRegulation
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
(p)(609)633-6563(f)(609)292-8115
>>>RobertConfer8/16/201110:27AM>>>
okseeyouallThursday,good
>>>RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>8/16/201110:24AM>>>
Robert,
EverythingisdoneandreadyforThursday.Wecan'tstop.
Weneedtokeepmoving,Solariscrashing,WeneedClosurePlantosignSolardealandfundproject.
SRECmarkethascrashed.
RichBernardi
6099549001
StrategicEnvironmentalPartners,LLC
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
OnAug16,2011,at10:02AM,"RobertConfer"<Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>ALL:MaryAnneisoutonvacthisweekandunfortunatelySaarahassuddenlycalledoutsickfortheweeksowewillnotmakeprogressthis
weekontheclosureplanreview.
>
>Irecallfromlastweek'smtg.therewereafewsubmissionsexpectedthisweek,Q&AandstabilityanalysisandtheprojecttimelineIrequested.
IfthesearereadythenameetingmaybeproductiveotherwisewemaywanttopostponethismeetingandlookforwardtonextThursdaysmtg.I
willbeoutthenbutmystaffwillbeheretomanagethecase.
>
>Letmeknowifyouwanttodrivedownforthemeeting8/18.
>
>Bob
>
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/eb3ca079-686a-5605-0e1f-3f07c8985516.html
>MailCode401-02C
>RobertM.Confer,Chief
>BureauofLandfill&HazardousWastePermitting
>SolidandHazardousWasteManagementProgram
>Climate&EnvironmentalManagement
>NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
>P.O.Box420401EastStateStreet
>Trenton,NJ08625-0420
>Phone:609-984-6985Telecopier:609-633-9839
>http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/permitting.htm
>
>>>>OpalWells8/15/20111:45PM>>>
>AttendeesListUpdated:namebolded
>RobertConfer
>MichaelGerchman
>MaryAnneGoldman
>SaaraAli
>SusanMichniewski
>DanBello
>RickReilly
>VincentMazzei
>RichardBernardi
>BasharAssadi
>TomDeMichele
>JeiChon
>BrianHobbs
>
>Location:
>401E.StateSt.,Trenton,NJ08625
>Dir.Conf.Rm.-acrossfromthePublicHearingRm.

EXHIBIT 3.1

BACKGROUND I NVESTI GATI ON REPORT
State of N ew J ersey
Department of Envi ronmental Protecti on
Di vi si on of Publ i cl y Funded Si te Remedi ati on
Bureau of Si te Management
Feni more Sani tary Landfi l l
Roxbury Townshi p Mo is Count y N ew J ersey
Faci l i ty No. 1436A
H2 M ASSOCI ATES I NC.
555 Pr eakness A venue
Tot owa Ne w J er sey 07512
J UNE 2001
t i ~ R U P
Engi neers Sci enti sts Pl anners
2 GROUP
1.0 Introducti on
BACKGROUND VESTI GATI ONREPORT
Stateof New J ersey
Department of Envi ronmental Protecti on
Di vi si on of Publ i cl y Funded SiteRemedi ati on
Bureau of Si teManagement
Feni more Sani tary Landfi l l
Roxbury Townshi p Morri s County New J ersey
Faci l i ty No. 1436A
J une21
The New J ersey Departrnent of Envi ronmental Protecti on ( NJ DEP) authori zed H2M Associ ates
Inc. ( H2M) toperf orma Background Investi gati onReport of theFrank Feni more Sol i d Wast e Di sposal
Faci l i ty l ocated in Roxbury Townshi p Morri s County New J ersey. The obj ecti ve of is Background
Investi gati onReport is toprovi de a comprehensi ve s nmar yof thesite' s hi story and characteri sti cs based
on exi sti ngi nforrnati on. Thi s report is al so i ntended to provi de an understandi ng of hi stori c operati ons
exi sti ng site condi ti ons and potenti al hazards associ ated wi th the landfill. Envi ronmental factors to be
revi ewed i ncl ude ground water qual i ty l eachate generati on and methane gas producti on. The scope of
the engi neeri ng servi ces is to i ncl ude file revi ews site i nspecti ons and i ntervi ews wi th muni ci pal and
landfill operati ons personnel. Thi s i nforrnati onmay be used by NJ DEP topri ori ti zeandJ or toeval uate the
next stepincl osi ng of the landfill.
1. 1 Fi l es Revi ewed
The file revi ewperf ormed as p t of this background revi ewprocess i ncl uded revi ewof files
f romthe fol l owi ng so 'ces:
Fi l eLocati on: New J ersey Department of Envi ronmental Protecti on
Di vi si on of Sol i d & Hazardous Wast e
Bureau ofLandfi l l and Recycl i ng Management
401 E. State Street
Trenton New J ersey 08625
Contact: Nel son Hausman Secti on Chi ef
(609) 984- 6650
112 GROUP
New J ersey Department of Envi ronmental Protecti on
Cen al Servi ces & Property Management
Central Fi l eRoom
401 E. State Street
Contact: Evel yn Mol der
(609) 292 400
New J ersey Departmeri t of Envi ronmental Protecti on
Enf orcement Di vi si on
300 Hori zon Center
Contact: Theresa Thomas Records Custodi an
(609) 584-4180
Townshi p of Roxbury Muni ci pal Bui l di ng
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood New J ersey 07852
Contact: Frank A. Gri si Heal th Offi cer
(973) 448- 2028
2. 0 Descri Dti on and Phvsi cal Setti ngLocati on
2.1 Sit Informati on
Current Property Owner: Jeryl Investments
Current Operator:
Former Property Owner:
Former Operator:
Si teLocation:
Muni ci pal Contact Persons:
Address:
Phone Number:
75 Sparta Avenue - Uni t B
Newt on New J ersey 07860
(973) 383 0874
Inacti ve
Dur o Constructi on Corporati on
2444 N orth 10 Street
Brookl yn New Yor k 11211
Frank Feni more Inc.
28 Center Street Netcong New J ersey 07857
Feni more Landf ul
Mountai n Road
Roxbury Townshi p.f orris County New J ersey
Bl ock 34 Lot 29 (103. 57 Acres)
Sandy Ur go Mayor
Frank A. Gri si Heal th Offi cer
Townshi p of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood New J ersey 07852
(973) 4482028
2
t i ~ R U P
2.2 Si te1cati on
The Feni more Landfi l l is a pri vatel y owned sol i d waste facility l ocated on the northemside of
Mountai n Road in the Townshi p of Roxbury Morri s County New Jersey. The subj ect prope is
si tuated on e southeastemsi de of Bal l Mountai n approxi matel y 0.5 mi l es south of the Townshi p of
Ledgewood d 2.2 mi l e southeast of Netcong Borough in the hi ghl ands area of northwestemNew
Jersey. The landfill is accessed vi aMountai n Road off of StateHi ghway 80 and 46. An access pathis
provi ded at Mountai n Road west of Vanover Dri ve. Fi gure 1 presents a sitel ocati onmap.
2.3 Si teDescri Dti on
A site to of the landfill was conducted on February 1 200 1 wi th NJ DEP Si te Manager Vl ado
Mi chna P.E. and George W. Desrnarai s P.E. H2M Pr ect Manager. Photographs taken duri ng is site
visit arei ncl uded inAppendi x A.
The Feni more Landf ul occupi es Bl k 34 Lot 29 whi ch totals areaof 103. 57 acres of whi ch
appro matel y hal f of the sitehas been l andfi l l ed. The actual fill eais reported tobe appro rnatel y42
acres .:t and is overgrown wi th grass ees and weeds al though there e reportedl y numerous areas wi th
uncovered garbage and l arge obj ects like appl i ances c s and tires are strewn randoml y and vi si bl e on
the ground surface. An unpaved i ntemal access road wi th an entrance off of Mountai n Road provi des
access i ntothe landfill. At this ti me of the site i nspecti on conducted on February 1 2001. The ground
was covered wi th approxi matel y one foot snowcover.
An unnamed stre n fl ows inan easterl y di recti onacross the southemporti onof the landfill and
another unnamed s eamfl ows in a southeastemdi recti on through the northeastemporti on of the
property. These t wo stre ns converge and f orma tri butary of Ledgewood Brook whi ch drai ns toDrakes
Brook. At one tirne the tri butary to Ledgewood Brook drai ned intoLedgewood Pond whi ch is l ocated
appro matel y 1/ 4 rniletothe east of the landfill site. Ledgewood Pond is managed by the Townshi p of
Roxbury and had been used as a pri mary contact recreati on area. In the late 1970' s the Townshi p of
Roxbury rerouted the i butary around the pond so that it di scharges di rectl y toLedgewood Brook vi a a
concrete by-pass line. Fr omLedgwood Brook surface water ul ti matel y di scharges toDrakes Br ook and
theSouth Branch of the Rari tan Ri ver.
There are ei ght (8) moni tori ng wel l s on site as wel l as an unl i ned l eachate col l ecti on l agoon at
the eastemedge of the l andful. A tel ephone ri ght-of-way borders the landfill al ong its northem
peri meter d a utility ri ght-of-way traverses thenorthemporti on of the property tothe northwest of e
l dful area. (Si tefeat eshown on Fi gure 2 Si tePl an.)
3
ti 2 GROUP
Based on thesitevisit of February 1 21 thegrade of thel andfIl l sl opes steepl y tothenorth and
to eeast wi th a total change inel evati on of appro matel y 200 feet for the 11area. The s mal ong
the south porti on of the site i ncl uded waste debri s and was l' to 2 feet in depth and 5 feet in wi dth in
s. The l eachate col l ecti onpond or bermed area at the east end of the sitecoul d not be l ocateddue to
the heavy snowcover.
2.4 Local Land U se
The i mmedi ate .area around the l andful is predomi nantl y rural and surrounded by woods.
Wooded areas border the l andful i mmedi atel y adj acent tothenorth east and west. However residential
devel opment has occurred inthesurroundi ng areas and homes arel ocatedtothesouth and east of thesite
al ong Mountai n Road. Many homes adj acent to the site have pri vate wel l s and depend on groundwa
for dri nki ng water.
2.5 TODolITaDhv and Si teDrai na
The topography of the 103-acre site is hilly wi th moderate sl opes inthe western area of the site
and steepsl opes in ecen 1and easternporti on of the site and some smal l secti ons wi th st P sl opes.
Sitetopography di ps sharpl y tothe east droppi ng f roma maxi mumel evati onof approxi matel y 1100 feet
above mean sea l evel (msl ) down to l owel evati on of 810 feet above msl on its eastern si de of the site.
Wi thi n the 42acre l andfIl l surface el evati ons va o m1040 feet above msl down to 840 feet above
msl.
Surface water runo and shal l owgroundwater f l owin the area fol l ows surface topography and
fl ows inan easterl y di recti on. Drai nage of thesiteis general l y totheeast toward Ledgewood Brook and
eventual l y tothe south branch of the Rari tan Ri ver.
2.6 Wetl ands
No mapped wetl ands are l ocated wi thi n the landfill's waste deposi t area. Furthermore no
wetl ands were observed on the landfill duri ng the site wal kthrough due to heavy snowcover. Wetl ands
exi st 0 sitefronti ngDrakes Brook and theSouth Branch of theRari tan Ri ver.
2.7 Surface Wat r Bodi es
The Feni more Landfi 11 is l ocated on an el evated val l ey northwest of a maj or basi n where the
Towns of Ledgewood Kenvi l and Succasunna 'e l ocated. Thi s basi n branches 0 into two
geohydrol ogi ca11y connected l i near val l eys. One trends to Drakes Brook in a westerl y di recti ontoward
Fl anders the other ina southwesterl y di recti on(Bl ack Ri ver) towards Ironi a and Chester.
4

There are t wo unnamed feeder streams fl ank the site on its northemand southemsecti on.
The feeder streams arise f romthe northemsl opes of Mooney Mountai n l ocated to the west of the site.
The t wo feeder streams f l oweastward and j oi n together j ust east of the Feni more Landfu1 to f orma
tri butary of Ledgewood Brook. At one ti me the i butaryof Ledgewood Brook empti ed o Ledgewood
Pond a l ocal recreati onal area. The pond drai ned i nto Ledgewood Brook whi ch in turn drai ns i nto
Drakes Brook. The pond had been used in past for swi mmi ng. Swi mmi ng is no l onger al l owed inthe
pond however fi shi ng is still perr d. Because the pond is a recreati on usedby 1al resi dents
and i ncreasi ng concern of pol l uti onf romthe landfill theTownshi p of Roxbury inthelate 1970' s rerouted
the i butary around thepond so that it now di scharges vi aa by-pass linedi rectl y i ntoLedgewood Brook.
Ledgewood Brook drai ns i nto Drake' s Brook whi ch then fl ows approxi matel y 8 mi l es before its
confl uence wi th the South Branch of the Rari tan Ri ver. Ledgewood Brook and Drakes Brook eboth
cl assi fi ed by the New J ersey Surface Wat er Cri teri a as FW- 2 Surface Waters; Ledgewood Brook is
cl assi fi ed as FW- 2 TPl (Freshwater trout producti on) and Drakes Brook desi gnated FW2- TM
(Freshwater out mai ntenance).
2.8 Geol o!!:v and Hvdrol o!!:v
2.8.1 Ree : i onal Geol o!!:Vand Hvdr oe : eol o!!:V
The Feni more Landfi l l is si tuated in the Appal achi an Hi ghl and Physi ographi c Provi nce of New
J ersey and is typi cal l y characteri zed as band of ri dges and val l eys whi ch extend ina northeast-southwest
di recti onacross northwest Passai c Morri s and Hunterdon and southeastern Sussex and Warren counti es.
A l arge porti on of the ri dges is compri sed of Precarnbri an metarnorphi c rocks whi l e much of the l ow
l yi ngval l eys consi st of shal e and l i mestone. The l ong l ow and n owval l eys of theHi gh1ands make it
al most a seri es of paral l el ri dges.
The Precarnbri an rocks of the provi nce are general l y unproducti ve aqui fers except where the
forrnati on is actured or weathered. The more producti ve aqui fers of the regi on are f ound in gl aci al
deposi ts and a po i onof the Pal eozoi c sedi mentary rocks.
2.8.2 Local Geolo!!:vand Hvdr oe : eol oe : v
In a l ocal sense the site is underl ai n by crystal l i ne rocks of P mbri an age speci fi cal l y the
Byr amgnei ss forrnati on. The Byrarn gnei ss occ s as a tabul ar mass that i kes northeast and di ps
steepl y toward the southeast. Fr omprevi ous site hydrogeol ogi c site i nvesti gati ons conducted at e
Feni more Landfu1 competent bedrock at the siteis f ound tobe si tuatedapproxi matel y four (4) toten(10)
feet bel owsurface grade. However bedrock may be encountered at depths of one (1) foot or less ne
many of the ri dges. Unconsol i dated materi al s mantl e the bedrock l ocal l y and typi cal l y consi st of
wea edbedrock ments and gl aci al sedi ment. The Parker and Edneyvi l l e soils on-si teareexarnpl es
5
ti 2 GROUP
of soils that 'ef ormed pri mari l y f rommateri al weathered f romthe l ocal bedrock. The gl aci al sedi ment
on-si teis general l y characteri zed as cl ay silt sand and gravel.
The Pre- Cambri an and Quat emary formati ons e the maj or aqui fers underl yi ng the Feni more
Landfi l l . Essenti al l y all groundwater in the Pre- Cambri an formati on is stored and transmi tted in d
al ong actures and j oi nts inthe bedrock. The yi el dof bedrock wel l s inthis formati on is a functi on of the
sizeand numbers of fractures encountered by thewel l and may v y greatl y wi th l ocati onand wel l depth.
Genera11y water deri ved f romPre- Cambri an rock is of sui tabl e qual i ty for most uses except that i ron
natural l y occ s inobj ecti onabl e concentrati ons in some eas. Groundwater occurs inthese deposi ts in
both unconfi ned and confi ned aq ferswhi ch may be recharged f romei ther thesurface vi apreci pi tati on
or o mthefracturesystemof the underl yi ng bedrock. Unconsol i dated sedi ments of gl aci al ori gi noverl i e
the bedrock in the area. The Quat emary rocks i ncl ude these unconsol i dated surficial deposi ts mantl i ng
the bedrock of the regi on. These deposi ts are general l y l ocal in extent and consi st of cl ay silt sand
gravel and boul ders deposi ted as termi nal morai ne ground morai ne and stratified drift. Groundwater
occurs unconfi ned in the stratified i deposi ts where they are not overl ai n by gl aci al till. The
unconf i ned aqui fer is recharged di rectl y f rompreci pi tati on on the outcrop area of the stratified drift.
Groundwater curs under confi ned condi ti ons in the stratified-drift deposi ts overl ai n by silt and cl ay
beds of gl aci al till. The conf med drift deposi ts are recharged in part o mthe underl yi ng and adj acent
bedrock whi ch i n-tumderi ves the water enteri ng its fractures f rompreci pi tati on in the upl and outcrop
areas. The Quat emary deposi ts ethe most producti ve aqui fers inMorri s County based on permeabi l i ty
and present and potenti al yi el d. General l y shal l owgroundwater beneath the site fl ows in an easterl Y
di recti on.
Groundwater inthe area is used extensi vel y for dri nki ng water. Whi l e publ i c water is avai l abl e to
homes in the area there are still 'eas where publ i c water is not avai l abl e and the homes depend on
pri vate wel l s. A September 21 1998 memor andumprep edby the Townshi p of Roxbury (fromFrank
A. Gri si Heal th Offi cer to Gary Webb Townshi p Manager) i ndi cated 35 known potabl e wel l s and 54
probabl e wel l s l ocated al ong Mount ai n Road Lookout Mountai n Emmans Road and Mai n Street inthe
vi ci ni ty of thelandfill site. Thi s i ncl udes t wo publ i c suppl y wel l s owned by theTownshi p of Roxbury.
3.0 Si teHi storv
3.1 Ownershi DHi storv
Frank Feni more Inc. owned the property until 1981 when the property was sol d to the Dur o
Constructi on Co orati on of Brookl yn New Y ork. However property taxes had not been pai d on the
property si nce 1992 and the Townshi p of Roxbury has not been abl e to l ocate the Dur o Constructi on
Corporati on. The last known contact for Dur o Constructi on Corporati on was Mr. Charl es Guel i e
6
1--12 GROUP
CEO. As a resul t the Townshi p of Roxbury assumed the tax sale certificate for the 103-acre property.
The Townshi p of Roxbury recentl y sol dtheproperty toJeryl Investments of Newt on New J ersey. The
siteremai ns undevel oped.
3.2 Ooerati onal l storv
The Feoi more Landfi l l was owned and operated by Frank Feni more Inc. as a pri vate sol i dwaste
landfill o mapproxi matel y the mi d-1950' s through 1979 when it was ordered cl osed by the NJ DEP in
October 1979. Whi l e iooperati on this facility accepted muni ci pal sol i dwaste f romthemuni ci pal i ti es of
Roxbury Netcong Mi nehi l l and J e 'ersonDenvi l l e and Madi son. At theti me of El di bEngi neeri ng and
Research Inc.'s (of Newar k New J ersey) submi ssi on of the engi neeri ng desi gn to NJ DEP on J une 30
1971 it was noted that the landfill recei ved an esti mated 450 tons per week of muni ci pal sol i dwaste. The
Revi sed Engi neeri ng Pl an prepared by J ohn G. Reutter Assiates of Camden New J ersey (October
1977) i denti fi es the landfill as accepti ng approxi matel y 6000 cubi c yards (or up to 1500 tons per week)
of muni ci pal sol i dwaste. Townshi p of Roxbury Heal th Dep t ment' srecords f rom1978 i ndi cate that the
landfill waste piles reached appro matel y52 feet inthi ckness.
Whi l e records i ndi cate that e landfill were to recei ve onl y muni ci pal sol i d waste i ndustri al
waste may have al so been deposi ted at the landfill. A NJ DEP i nspecti on perf ormed 0 0 Febru y 11
1975 (whi ch was summari zed in an NJ DEP memor andumf romRi chard Dal ton to Wi l l i amHui dated
February 20 1975) noted that in addi ti on to muni ci pal sol i d waste chemi cal waste was al so accepted at
the landfill. Thi s was evi denced by the presence of t wo piles of chemi cal drurns total i ngapproxi matel y
60 drurns. The wri ter al so i ndi cated that drurns were observed sti cki og out of the fill at numerous
l ocati ons parti cul arl y in enewer di sposal areas. It was noted that most of thedrurns were full and
there was an area of several hundred squ e feet wi thi n the fill where oil and chemi cal drurns were
dumped. The wri ter i ndi cated a strong cherni cal odor was present and that the soil in the area was
stai nedbl ack. A list of the marki ngs on the drurns observed by the NJ DEP i nspector was i denti fi ed as
fol l ows:
Tower 395 chemi cal Safety Sol veot
. Puri tanChemi cal
Nonf l ui d Oi l Corp.
Powder - Reground I.L. Red
Paterson Dye Co. - Cl ear and Bl ue
Hexaoe
Adhesi ve
Wast e oil and oil soaked rags
Swab - 70%i sopropanol al cohol
Bal sonSh l pOO
Revl on Shampoo
Col or Ri nse
Thi s same i nspecti on report noted that many areas of the l andful was burni ng uoder the cover
materi al evi denced by smoke comi ng out of theful at several l ocati ons. Inaddi ti on thei nspecti on report
7
1-12 GROUP
noted that a drai nage channel was bei ng dug ough the fill to di vert drai nage o mthe landfill i nto a
tri butary of Drakes Br ook. Thi s wor k was bei ng perf ormed wi thout a s eamencroachment permi t.
The landfill is unl i ned and there is a l eachate col l ecti on l agoon at etoe of the landfill. The
l agoon is 1ated on the eastemsi de of the l andful mound and desi gned to col l ect surface water.
Leachate fl ows i nto the l agoon o mseeps and al so o mthe t wo buri ed l eachate col l ecti on lines al ong
the southemand nort hemperi meters of the landfill whi ch were i nstal l ed in 1977. Fr omthe col l ecti on
l agoon l eachate was pumped to etop of the landfill and sprayed over the landfill's surface usi ng hi gh
capaci ty spray i rri gati onspri nkl ers. The l eachate reci rcul ati onsystemis currentl y not inoperati on. As a
result the l eachate f romthe l agoon reportedl y overfl ows its embankment and drai ns into the adj acent
woods and al so to e i butary toLedgewood Brook appro matel y one qu r of a mi l e ups eamf rom
theconfl uence of Ledgewood Brook and Ledgewood Pond.
Duri ng several NJ DEP site i nspecti ons and sampl i ng i nvesti gati ons numerous eas of l eachate
were observed di schargi ng i ntothe nearby feeder eams. Speci fi cal l y an i ntemal NJ DEP memor andum
(f romDave Kapl an to Edward Londres dated May 17 1983) refers to an i nspecti on perf ormed by the
Department on Apri l 29 1983 whi ch i denti fi ed the presence of l eachate seeps at numerous l ocati ons
throughout the landfill. The l eachate descri bed as bl ack odi ferous oily liquids was observed to be
l eachi ng out of the north east and south sl opes. The NJ DEP i nspector al soi ndi catedthat e streambed
al ong thesouthemfeeder streamwas stai nedred f romi ronpol l uti onand covered wi th Sphaeroti l us mol d
growth.
The landfill initially recei ved an approved regi strati on o mNJ DEP on October 23 1970 to
operate a sol i d waste di sposal facility (Faci l i ty I D. No. 1436A). However there are no Department-
approved engi neeri ng desi gn pl ans for this landfill. Engi neeri ng desi gn pl ans for the landfill were
previ ousl y submi tted toNJ DEP by El di b Engi neeri ng and Research Inc. on J une 8 1971 wi th revi si ons
submi tted on August 6 1973 September 14 1973 and September 25 1973. The engi neeri ng desi gn was
revi ewed by the Department and f ound tobe i nadequate. The Feni more Landf ul was ordered cl osed by a
Departmental Order on Apri l 25 1977 and was requi red to submi t an engi neeri ng desi gn for
i mprovements and a l andful cl osure pl an to i ncl ude measures for col l ecti ng and treati ng l eachate and
preventi ng the l eachate o mreachi ng nearby surface waters. Engi neerl ng desi gn pl ans were submi tted
by J ohn G. Reutter Associ ates in 1977 for proposed i rnprovements however thedesi gn was not approved
by NJ DEP because of i nadequate l eachate col l ecti on. On the basi s that Frank Feni rnore Inc. fai l ed to
obtai n engi n gdesi gn approval for thelandfill theNJ DEP ordered thelandfill cl osed on October 22
1979.
8
ti 2 GROUP
Vi ol ati ons conti nued after operati ons ceased because of fai l ure to i mpl ement landfill cl osure
pr ed 'es and conti nued rel ease of l eachate i ntosurroundi ng surface water bodi es. After the saleof the
property to Dur o Constructi on Corporati on in 1981 no further mi ti gati ve measures were perf ormed on
the prope y. At present thesiteis i nacti ve and abandoned. Addi ti onal detai1s rel ati ngtothese vi ol ati ons
and enf orcement acti ons undertaken by NJ DEP agai nst Frank Feni more Inc. and Dur o Constructi on
Corporati on aredi scussed inSecti on 5.0of this.report.
4. 0 Previ ous Investi gati ons
4.1 Groundwater
Three (3) moni tor wel l s we initially i nstal l edinSeptember of 1977 toascertai nwhether or not
groundwater has been i mpacted by contami nants o mthe l andful . J ohn G. Reutter Associ ates (J GR) for
Frank Feni more Inc. perf ormed this i nvesti gati on in response to a 1977 court order. The three
moni tori ng wel l s ( MW- l 2 and 3) were i nstal l ed in September 1977 and 'e l ocated on the
downgradi ent si deof thefill area tothe south and east. M W -1 and 3 arecompl eted inbedrock wi th total
wel l depths of 73 feet and 148 feet bel owgrade respecti vel y. Moni tori ng wel l MW- 2 is compl eted in
the overburden at a dep of 48 feet bel owgrade. In J anuary 1978 an addi ti onal wel l ( MW-4) was
i nstal l edinresponse toa December 10 1977Consent Order. Thi s wel l is 133 feet deep is compl eted in
bedrock and is i ntended tobe the upgradi ent moni tori ng wel l. Depth togroundwater beneath the site as
measured o mthese wel l s range f rom10 feet to 17 feet bel owgrade. Groundwater general l y fl ows f rom
M W-4l ocated on the top of the mountai n towards MW- 3 at thebase of the mountai n.
The initial three wel l s were sampl ed on September 23 1977 by J GR. Parameters that exceeded
Federal or Statedri nki ng water standards i ncl ude total col i formbacteri a i ron phenol i cs and rnanganese
whi ch are i ndi cators of l eachate. Vol ati l e organi c compounds ( VOCs) were not tested for duri ng this
sampl i ng event. Thi s data was presented inthe October 1977 Revi sed Engi neeri ng Pl an prepared by J GR.
The three wel l s were sampl ed agai n in December 1977 by J GR wi th split sampl es provi ded to
NJ DEP. Another round of groundwater sampl es was col l ectedf romthe fo site wel l s inJ anuary 1978
after i nstal l ati on of M W-4. Data for the December 7 1977 sampl i ng event was not f ound in the files
revi ewed however the resul ts of the J anuary 1978 event was avai l abl e in a report prepared by J GR
enti tl ed Report on Gr ound Wat er Qual i at Frank Feni more Inc. Sol i d Waste Di sposal Area Roxbury
Townshi p N. J . " ( March 1978). The resul ts i ndi cate that i nki ng water stan rds were exceeded for
seven parameters namel y total col i formbacteri a turbi di ty col or odor i ron rnanganese and phenol i cs.
Because groundwater is extensi vel y used as dri nki ng water intheresi denti al communi t y surroundi ng the
site NJ DEP concl uded at of the compounds detected col i formbacteri a whi ch exceeded State dri nki ng
9
ti 2 GROUP
water standards at MW- 2 and 3 was of most concem. Agai n VOCs were not tested for duri ng this
sampl i ng event.
The NJ DEP perf ormed another sampl i ng event on August 25 1981. Thi s data was summari zed
inan i ntemal memor andumf romGregory Cunni nghamtoDenni s Kr umholtz dated December 23 1981.
Onl y i ron manganese and total di ssol ved sol i ds ( TDS) were detected above a groundwater qual i ty
standard. Manganese was above standards inthe thr downgradi ent wel l s ( MW- 1 2 and 3) and TDS
was above standards inonl y MW- 1 whi l e i ronwas above standards in all four wel l s. The groundwater
data al so shows that TDS speci fi c conductance and chl ori de were si gni fi cantl y hi gher e thr
downgradi ent wel l s ( MW- 1 2 and 3) compared to the updradi ent wel l ( MW-4) and that chemi cal
oxygen demand ( COD) was hi gher in downgradi ent wel l MW- 3 than in M W-4. Furthermore other
l eachate i ndi cators i ncl udi ng cadmi urn chr omi um copper i ron mercury manganese l ead ni ckel
cyani de and arseni c were detected in the groundwater sampl es but at concentrati ons bel ow the
groundwater qual i ty criteria. VOCs were not detected inany of thefour wel l s tested. Based on this data
NJ DEP concl uded at theti me that thelandfill does not pose any si gni fi cant threat togroundwater except
for bacteri a pol l uti on. However because i mpacts were observed to surface water due to hi gh fecal
col i forml evel s NJ DEP r ecommended that addi ti onal acti ons be taken tocontrol l eachate mi grati on f rom
the landfill and prevent l eachate f romi mpacti ng nearby surface water bodi es. Further di scussi on .on
surface water testi ng perf ormed conc rent wi th this groundwater-moni tori ng event is presented in
Secti on 4.2of this repo
In February 1984 the NJ DEP i ssued an Ini tial Interi mNew J ersey Pol l utant Di scharge
El i rni nati on Syst emfor Di scharge to Groundwater ( NJ PDES- DGW Permi t No. NJ OO53031) to Dur o
Constructi on whi ch requi red that a total of ei ght (8) wel l s be moni tored at thesite(four exi sti ngand fo
newwel l s - M W -5 6 7 and 8). The groundwater data woul d be used by NJ DEP toeval uate groundwater
qual i ty before determi ni ng requi rements for a l ong termmoni tori ng programfor thelandfill as part of its
cl osure requi rements. The fo exi sti ngand four new wel l s were sampl ed inDecember 1984 dagai n in
Jul y 1985. Accordi ng to an NJ DEP i ntemal memor andum(fromDave Kapl an to Bri an Smi th J ul y 26
1985) the groundwater data for these t wo sampl i ng events di dnot showany si gni fi cant exceedences of
groundwater qual i ty criteria except for el evated TDS l evel s inM W -8. VOCs al though requi red by the
i nteri mNJ PDES permi t was not anal yzed for duri ng ei ther of thesampl i ng rounds.
On August 22 1986 the NJ DEP i ssued a final NJ PDES- DGWPermi t (No. NJ 53031) toDur o
Constructi on whi ch went i nto e ect October of year. The permi t requi red Dur o Constructi on to
col l ect groundwater qual i ty sampl es o mthe ei ght on-si te wel l s on a qu rly and annual basis. The
NJ PDES permi t al so req redquarterl y and annual s npl i ngof surface water at t wo l ocati ons. However
10
l ~ R O U P
December of 1987 Dur o Constructi on was ci ted for non-compl i ance because they had not yet
i mpl emented the sampl i ng requi red by the NJ PDES permi t.
A Compl i ance Eval uati on Inspecti on conducted by the NJ DEP Di vi si on of Water Resources of
the Feni more L dftll on December 28 1988 resul ted in a rati ng of unacceptabl e" for several
defi ci enci es because: themoni tori ng wel l s di d not have appropri ate wel l i denti fi cati onnumbers and other
requi red marki ngs; no moni tori ng resul ts were submi tted for surface water sampl i ng poi nts #1 and #2 for
sampl i ng peri od J anuary 1 1998 to Mar ch 31 1988; and for exceedences of groundwater qual i ty
standards and permi t l i mi tati ons for i ron ( MW -1 and 8) and for col or ammoni a odor and sodi um
( MW 8).
Dur o Constructi on was noti fi edby NJ DEP in co espondence dated February 5 1990 that it no
l onger was requi red toperf ormgroundwater moni tori ng. The letter statedthat as of Apri l 19 1990 the
NJ PDES perr t for Dur o Constructi on was no l onger val i d because of the New J ersey Supreme Court
deci si on Vi -Concrete ComDanv v. Sta of New J ersev. DeDartment of Envi ronmental Protecti on.
Because theFeni more Landfi l l cl osed pri or toJ anuary 1 1982 the Statecoul d not enforce the facility's
NJ PDES permi t. No addi ti onal groundwater moni tori ng is known to have been conducted at the
Feni more Landfi l l sitesi nce the terrni nati onof the NJ PDES permi t in 1989.
4. 2 Surface Wat er
Over the course of at least 20 years of i nvesti gati ons mul ti pl e sampl i ng events have been
perf ormed to ascertai n the potenti al of l andfi l l l eachate to i mpact the nearby F W -2 cl assi fi ed s arns.
The frrst document ed sampl i ng event was perf ormed on May 2 1972. One l eachate sampl e was col l ected
f roma si de sl ope and t wo surface water sampl es (one upstreamand one downst reamof the landftll f rom
the southern feeder stream) were taken on this date by NJ DEP personnel . The report descri bed te
l eachate f l owi ng f romthe l andfi l l as havi ng an orange col or and a sl i ght chemi cal odor and was very
turbi d". El evated l evel s of chl ori des BOD COD and TDS zi nc i ron rnanganese hardn Sto'
col i form fecal col i formand fecal s pt ci and si gni fi cantl y l ower l evel s of di ssol ved oxygen were
detected in the l eachate sampl e. In addi ti on si gni fi cantl y hi gher concentrati ons of fi al co1i f orm
hardness BOD COD rnanganese chl ori des i ron rnanganese hardness total col i form fecal col i form
and fecal streptococci were detected in the downst reamsurface water sampl e when compared to levels
detected in eupstreamwater sampl e. However it was deemed at on1y col i formbacteri awas inl arge
enough qu tities that mi ght i mpact the downst reamrecreati onal pond. Thi s data is summari zed in a
report prepared by NJ DEP Bureau of Sol i d Wast e Management Anal ysis 01Water Sampl es Taken at
Feni more Inc. Sani tary Landfill Ledgewood Roxbury Townshi p Morri s County New Jerse: September
91974.
11

112 GROUP
The NJ DEP agai n col l ectedsurface water sampl es on J ul y 21 1981. Thi s data was not f ound
e fues revi ewed however it was reported in an i ntemal NJ DEP memor andumf romGregory
Cunni nghamtoDenni s Kr umholtz dated December 23 1981 that no VOCs were detected inthe surface
water sampl e col l ectedf romLedgewood Pond however hi gh col i forml evel s were f ound tobe present in
a streamsampl e. Thi s data agai n suggests l eachate i mpact f romthe landflll.
4.3 Met hane
No i nformati on was f ound inthefiles revi ewed rel ati ngtopresence or absence of methane at the
landfill.
4. 4 EPA Investi!!:ations
In 1985 a Prel i mi nary Assessment (PA) was perf ormed of the site by Mal col mPi rni e Whi te
Pl ai ns New Y ork for the Uni ted States Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency ( USEPA) todetermi ne whether
the site poses a si gni fi cant human heal th or envi ronmental threat to w rant consi derati on for pl acement
onto USEPANati onal Pri ori ti es Li st (NPL). The Feni more Landfi l l site was referenced as site ID.
Number NJ DOOO585646. The P A r ecommended at a site i nvesti gati on be perf med i ncl udi ng a
comp hensi ve sampl i ng programto assess the severi ty of the i mpact of l eachate o mthe landfill to
surface water and groundwater qual i ty.
In 1987 the USEPA Regi on II Fi el d Investi gati onTeam(FI T) (performed by NUS Corporati on
under con act wi th the USEPA) conducted a Si te Investi gati on ( Sn of the subj ect site whi ch i ncl uded
col l ecti onof four groundwater three surface water three sedi ment and t wo soil sampl es. Sampl i ng was
perf ormed on August 4 and 5 1987. The fieldi nvesti gati on was surnmari zed ina report enti tl edFi nal
Draft Site l nspecti on Report Feni more Sani tary Landfill Ledgewood New J ersey Prepared Under
Techni cal Di recti ve Document No. 02- 8707- 10 Contract No. 68-01-7346f or theEnvi ronmental Servi ces
Di vi si on U.S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency; J ul y 13 1988" prepared by NUS Corporati on
Superf und Di vi si on. Observati ons and fi ndi ngs noted by NUS inthe SI report areas fol l ows:
NUS F sampl ed 4 on-si te moni tori ng wel l s whi ch reveal ed no contami nati on however
l owl evel s of ch1orobenzene and acetone were detected al eachate sampl e f romthelandfill.
FI T sarnpl i ngresul ts di dnot i ndi cate a rel ease togroundwater.
Leachate was observed by NUS FI T enteri ng s eams on site feed Ledgewood Brook.
The streamf l ows i nto Ledgewood Pond whi ch is used for swi mmi ng by l ocal resi dents.
Ledgewood Br ook is al so used for fi shi ngand recreati on. Ch1orobenzene and acetone. were
det tedat l owl evel s inthe l eachate however not insurface water or sedi ment sampl es.
No air rel eases were detected duri ng the sitei nspecti on.
13
ti 2 GROUP
The siteis fenced at egate onl y; there is no fence surroundi ng esite. Inaddi ti on thesoil
cover is i nadequate wi th many eas of exposed refuse.
Dead and stressedvegetati on was observed by NUS FI T personnel inthe areas of l eachate at
the northeast si de of the site. Inaddi ti on it was noted that dead es s TOuod el eachate
col l ecti on l agoon at the e t emedge of the l andful. The l eachate col l ecti on systemat e
landfill was i noperabl e.
The popul ati on surroundi ng thelandfill is l argel y dependent on groundwater for dri nki ng.
The sitewas characteri zed as a moderate hazard.
In 1993 Mal comPi mi e under con act wi th the USEP A revi ewed thei nformati on ga eredf rom
the 1985 P A report and the 1988 SI report for the purpose of ranki ng the site usi ng the USEPA Hazard
Ranki ng Score ( HRS) and to determi ne whether further CERCLA acti on is warranted for the site. The
HRS score assi gned tothe Feni more Landfi l l sitewas bel owthe28. 5 threshol d. Based on the scori ng it
was determi ned that the Feni more Landfi l l sitedoes not qual i ty for further remedi al siteassessment under
CERCLA. As a resul t no further acti onwi th respect tothe landfill was taken by theUSEP A.
5.0 Enf orcement Acti vi ti es
The enfo ement activities on this site have been extensi ve due to operati onal defi ci enci es and
fai l ure to i mpl ement cl osure and post -clos e qui rementsresul ti ng in numerous vi ol ati ons spanni ng a
20ye peri od. Ina court order dated Apri l 25 1977 it was i ndi cated at si nceAugust 31 1973 forty-
one (41) i nspecti ons have been perf ormed by NJ DEP personnel whi ch resul ted in 186 regul ato
vi ol ati ons. A chronol ogi cal descri pti onof some of some of theenf orcement acti ons and vi ol ati ons ci ted
agai nst thelandfill owner(s) is provi ded bel ow.
The earliest reference of an i nspecti on by the NJ DEP of the site was on November 15 1973
whi ch reveal ed maj or i nadequaci es in terms of mai ntai ni ng soil coverage on the landfill's
worki ng face and l eachate fl owi ng f romthe landfill and i nto the i butary brook nearby.
After fol l ow-up site i nvesti gati ons by NJ DEP personnel on J anu y 3 and 14 1974 NJ DEP
i ssued a Department Order and a Noti ce of Prosecuti on on February 14 1974 agai nst Frank
Feni more Inc. for not perf ormi ng proper cover of thesol i dwaste; for havi ng too l arge of an
acti ve worki ng face; for havi ng i nadequate i ntermedi ate cover; for al l owi ng waste materi al s
to come i nto contact wi th surface water; and for permi tti ng bul i tems to pro dethrough
final surface or sl i desl ope of the l andful.
On Apri l 2 1975 Frank Feni more Inc. was i ssued a Departmental Order to i mmedi atel y
cease the di sposal of waste other an those speci fi ed on its October 23 1970 regi s .tion
approval . The company was ci tedwi th a $1000 per day fine. Thi s vi ol ati onresul tedf roma
14
ttl GROUP
NJ DEP i nspecti on perf ormed on February 11 1975 inwhi ch chemi cal drums were observed
bei ng deposi ted at e landfill (ref. NJ DEP i ntemal memor andum o mRi chard Dal ton to
Wi l l i amHui dated February 20 1975).
As a result of an i nspecti on perf ormed on Mar ch 3 1976 by NJ DEP personnel Frank
Feni more Inc. was ci tedfor vi ol ati ons because al terati ons had been perfonedconsi sti ngof
wi deni ng deepeni ng rel ati ngan' d pi pi ng of a streamchannel wi thout havi ng obtai ned the
requi red streamencroachment perrt .
On Apri l 25 1977 NJ DEP i ssued a Department Order noti ringFrank Feni more Inc. that
the engi neeri ng desi gn for the landfill submi tted on J une 8 1971 wi th revi si ons submi tted
on August 6 1973 September 14 1973 and September 25 1973 was not approved. Further
because of numerous operati onal vi ol ati ons over the past ye sand because l eachate f rom
the landfill has i mpacted groundwater and parti cul arl y surface water qual i ty NJ DEP revoked
the regi strati on for the Feni more Landfi l l . Frank Feni more Inc. was ordered to cease
operati ons and to submi t an engi neeri ng desi gn for landfill upgrades and a pl an for landftll
cl osure and post-cl os emai ntenance.
On J une 27 1977 NJ DEP i nsti tuted an acti on in Superi or Court of New J ersey Chancery
Di vi si on Morri s County (Docket #C 3836-76) to enforce the terrns and provi si ons of the
Apri l 25 1977 Departmental Order. On J une 30 1977 the Superi or Court rul edthat Frank
Feni more Inc. coul d not conti nue todi spose of sol i dwaste materi al s at thelandfill.
On J ul y 14 1977 Frank Feni more Inc. agreed toundertake i nteri mremedi al acti ons correct
all vi ol ati ons and i mpl ement and rnai ntai n permanent remedi al acti ons if the landfill was
al l owed to rernai n in operati on duri ng the peri od of ti me that NJ DEP was to recei ve and
revi ewtheengi neeri ng desi gn for landfill cl osure. Based on this understandi ng the Superi or
Court al l owed Frank Feni more. Inc. toconti nue tooperate thelandfill inthei nteri m.
. In 1978 the Townshi p of Roxbury Pol i ce Dep tment prepared a report ci ti ng that several
muni ci pal and i ndus al trucks that were observed enteri ngthelandfill. The report noted that
one uck was c ga number of 55-gal l on drums. Subsequent i nspecti ons of the landfill
al so noted thepresence of empty 55gal l ondrums on several occasi ons.
Engi neeri ng desi gn pl ans prepared by J. G. Reutter were submi tted by Frank Feni more Inc.
toNJ DEP on October 21 1977 wi th revi si ons on Apri l 18 1978 May 11 1978 and J une 21
1978. The pl s were revi ewed by NJ DEP and were f ound to be i nadequate for several
reasons i ncl udi ng: fai l ure to provi de a schedul e for i mpl ementi ng the engi neeri ng desi gn
and envi ronmental i mprovements; fai l ure to provi de fmanci al ass ance for l ong term
rnai ntenance of the l eachate col l ecti on and spray i rri gati on system(e.g. perforrnance bond);
15
t i ~ R U P
and i nadequate storage capaci ty of the l eachate col l ecti onsystem. As a result on J U y24
1979 theNJ DEP rendered a Department Order whi ch decl i ned theapproval of theproposed
engi neeri ng control s and ordered eFeni more Landfill be permanentl y cl osed As part
of is Order Frank Feni more Inc. was ordered topern nentl y cease di sposal of solidwaste
wi thi n 30 days dtobegi n i mpl ementati on of cl osure activities.
On October 22 1979 the Superi or Co t of New J ersey Chancery Di vi si on under Docket
No. C- 3836- 76 i ssued an Order agai nst Frank Feni more Inc. to i mmedi atel y desi st f rom
further waste di sposal d to cl ose the landfill in an envi ronmental l y sound manner. The
Order requi red that the f mal cover be pl aced over theenti re landfill by September 30 1979
and grade and seed the landftll by November 30 1979. Frank Feni more Inc. was al so
requi red torepai r mai ntai n upgrade and operate the l eachate col l ecti on systemand torepai r
thel agoon ber minorder toprevent l eachate f romi mpacti ng the surroundi ng watercourses.
. InJ ul y 1981 the NJ DEP i ssued a Noti ce of Prosecuti on for operati ng a solid waste facility
wi thout a permi t.
On Mar ch 12 1982 the NJ DEP i ssued a letter to Dur o Constructi on Co . expl ai ni ng the
el ements that must be i mpl emented to compl y wi th the co t di recti ve and ordered t hemto
cease dumpi ng of co.nstructi onmateri al s.
On August 26 1982 the NJ DEP recei ved cl osure pl ans o mMr. George Adl er P.E. of de
Benedi cty Adl er and Assi ates for Duro Constructi on. Later on J une 28 1983 Mr. Guel i
of Duro Constructi on was noti fi ed by the NJ DEP that the Cl osure Pl an was defi ci ent and
therefore rej ected.
On November 9 1983 the NJ DEP responded to Dur o Constructi on' s pl ea that si nce the
property had been p chased fraudul entl y f romFrank Feni more Inc. that the State p sue
Mr. Frank Feni more for darnages requi red for landfill cl osure. Duro Constructi on had al l eged
that Frank Feni more Inc. mi srepresented the condi ti ons of the site duri ng the sale of the
property. InAugust of 1983 that moti on made by Dur o Constructi on for theStatetop sue
Frank Feni more Inc. for landfill cl osure was deni ed.
On December 8 1983 a Court Order requi red that Dur o Constructi on Corporati on install fo
(4) new groundwater moni tori ng wel l s p suant to an Interi mNJ PDES permi t. The permi t
requi red sampl i ng for a 6- month peri od.
On J anuary 30 1986 the NJ DEP i ssuedan Admi ni s ati veOrder toFrank Feni more Inc. for
several vi ol ati ons of non-compl i ance ci ted duri ng a September 11 1985 NJ DEP i nspecti on
rel ati ve to trucki ng operati ons bei ng perf ormed by the company. Frank Feni more Inc.
16
l ~ R O U P
al l egedl y provi ded fal si fi ed i nformati on to eNJ DEP i nspector reg di ng waste ori gi n and
fai l edtocompl y wi th Interdi s ct d Intradi s ct Wast e Fl owRul es. A Penal ty Settl ement
Oer was made toFrank Feni more Inc. tosettlethe f mes associ ated wi thesevi ol ati ons.
On August 25 1987 the NJ DEP i ssued a Determi nati on of Vi ol ati on agai nst Dur o
Constructi on for fai l ure to compl y wi th agreed upon groundwater moni tori ng program
pursuant tothe facility' s NJ PDES permi t whi ch had become effecti ve inOctober 1986.
In 1987 the USEPA- Regi on II FI T prepared a Si te Inspecti on Report for the Feni more
Landfi l l. The site was subsequentl y scored usi ng the HRS and was determi ned to not be
el i gi bl efor listingon the NPL.
In December of 1987 Dur o Constructi on was ci ted for non-compl i ance for not havi ng
i mpl emented the sampl i ng requi red by their NJ PDES permi t (No. NJ OO53031).
On J une 14 1988 the NJ DEP i ssued an Admi ni strati ve Order agai nst Frank Feni more Inc.
for not carryi ng and properl y di spl ayi ng its regi strati oncerti fi catefor haul i ng sol i dwaste.
A Compl i ance Eval uati on Inspecti on conducted by the NJ DEP Di vi si on of Wat er Resources
of the Feni more Landfi l l on December 28 1988 resul ted a rati ng of unacceptabl e".
NJ DEP f ol l owed up wi th a Di scharge Survei l l ance Report whi ch ci tedDur o Constructi on for
non- compl i ance of its NJ PDES sampl i ng requi rements i mproper safeguards of the
moni tori ng wel l s and conti nui ng l eachate encroachment i nto the s eam. In February of
1989 another letter was i ssued by NJ DEP requi ri ng Dur o to correct the defi ci ent
groundwater-moni tori ng progr 1and remedy the l eachate probl erns.
6. 0 Cl osure Status Summar v
The landfill cei ved an approved gis on o mNJ DEP on October 23 1970 to operat a
sol i dwaste di sposal facility. However engi neeri ng desi gn pl ans have not been approved for this landfill.
The earl i est submi ssi on of an engi neeri ng desi gn pl an for the landfill was made by El di b Engi neeri ng and
Research Inc. on J une 8 19 1wi th revi si ons submi tted on August 6 1973 September 14 1973 and
September 25 1973. The engi neeri ng desi gn was revi ewed by NJ DEP and f ound to be defi ci ent. On
Apri l 25 1977 NJ DEP i ssued a Departmental Order noti ringFrank Feni more Inc. that the engi n ri ng
desi gn for the landfill was not approved and that the landfill was bei ng ordered cl osed. The landfill's
gis on w revoked and Frank Feni more Inc. was ordered to submi t an engi neeri ng desi gn and
cl osure pl an for the landfill.
The engi neeri ng desi gn for l andfi l l i mprovements and the cl osure pl an was prepared by J ohn G.
Reutter & Associ ates and submi tted to NJ DEP inresponse to the Departmenta1Order. After revi ewby
17
112 GROUP
NJ DEP this desi gn was al so not approved because of i nadequate l eachate col l ecti onand ent among
other techni cal defi ci enci es. On October 22 1979 NJ DEP cl osed the landfill by court order because
Frank Feni more Inc. fai1ed to obtai n engi neeri ng desi gn approval for the l andfIl l and fai l ed to meet
NJ DEP engi neeri ng control requi rements for l eachate col l ecti onand contai nment on theprope .
On August 24 1982 a proposal for a !eachate col l ecti on systemwas submi tted toNJ DEP by de
Benedi cty Adl er and Associ ates on behal f of Dur o Constructi on Corporati on. The report and desi gn
prepared by de Benedi cty Adl er and Associ ates enti tl ed Feni more Landfill Site Roxbury Townshi p
New J ersey Leachate Col l ecti on System" focused on preventi ng l eachate o mcomi ng i ntocontact wi th
surface water and groundwater. To accompl i sh this it was proposed that theexi sti ngl eachate col l ecti on
systembe upgraded as fol l ows:
Leachate generated o mpercol ati on through the fill woul d be col l ected usi ng t wo l eachate
col l ector lines. The lines woul d di scharge i nto the exi sti ng treatment l agoon at the eastern
edge of the landfill. The col l ectors woul d be l ocated tothenorth and tothe south of thefill
area. Li ne 1 is 1980 feet l ong (al ong the northemperi meter) and Li ne 2 is 2240 feet l ong
(al ong the sout hemperi meter). TQe col l ector pi pes woul d be constructed of 4 i nchdi ameter
perforated PVC pi pe surrounded by a bed of % i nchgravel pl aced at an appro matesl ope of
7 % for gravi ty di scharge tothel agoon.
To capture surface runoff a new runo col l ecti on systemwoul d be i nstal l ed consi sti ng of
t wo di tches al ong the north and south peri meters of the l andfi l l. The di tches woul d be a
mi ni mumdepth of 2 feet and a 6-i nch l ayer of ri praptolinethechannel s.
Li mi ted regradi ng of the landfill woul d be perf ormed to mi ni mi ze surface erosi on and
cappi ng woul d be provi ded in all bare areas. Cover woul d consi st of a foot of cl ean top
soil".
The four exi sti ngmoni tori ng wel l s woul d be sampl ed for 3 years for theNJ PDES annual and
quarterl y p ameters.
On J une 28 1983 Mr. Guel i of Dur o Constructi on was noti fi ed by the NJ DEP that the Cl osure
Pl an was i nadequate and therefore rej ected. NJ DEP inan i ntemal memo dated May 17 1983 f romDave
Kapl an toEdward Londres i ndi cated at thecol l ecti onlines and runo col l ecti onsystemareacceptabl e.
However the cap shoul d consi st of a foot of i mpermeabl e materi al rather permeabl e cl ean top soil".
I mpermeabl e materi al s were requi red to mi ni mi ze rai nwater infIl trati on and reduce l eachate generati on.
Furthermore it was i ndi cated that the fo exi sti ng site moni tori ng wel l s are screened bel owthe
groundwater tabl e and therefore may not be adequatel y screeni ng for groundwater contami nati on.
Addi ti onal recommendati ons made by NJ DEP at theti me i ncl ude:
18
ti 2 GROUP
. Instal1i ng four new groundwater tabl ewel1s evi c tyof theexi sti ngsitewel l s tocreatea
set of four wel1 clusters. (These wel l s were later instal1ed in 1984 P suant to efacility's
i nteri mNJ PDES permi t.)
Encl osi ng the sout hemfeeder streamin a pi pe the enti re l ength of the l andfi l1 to prevent
l eachate and contami nated runo f romfurther degradi ng water qual i ty and i nstal l i nga cuto
wal1 on the upgradi ent si de of the landfill to prevent upgradi ent groundwater f romfl owi ng
through thel andfi l1.
. Li ni ng the l eachate col1ecti onpond tosubstanti al l y reduce l eakage and
Constructi ngan on-si tetreatment pl ant for l eachate con 01because f mal di sposal of l eachate
by sprayi ng back onto thelandfill was deemed unacceptabl e.
The proj ect files i ndi cate at a meeti ng was schedul ed tobe hel d on J une 27 1986 wi th NJ DEP
and Wehr an Engi neers Mi ddl etown New Y ork todi scuss theproposed scope of a proposed Cl osure Pl an
and a Landfi l l Di srupti on Permi t for devel opment of the site to support i ndus al use. A Cl osure Pl an
was not f ound inthepubl i c records therefore it is uncl ear whether a Cl osure Pl an was ever prep edand
submi tted subsequent tothis meeti ng.
On October 9 1998 a site i nspecti on was perf ormed of the Feni more Landfi l l siteby NJ DEP in
response to a request by the Townshi p of Roxb y. NJ DEP sent a letter to Mr. Robert Guel i of Duro
Constructi on Corp. on Mar ch 31 1999 whi ch i denti fi ed the condi ti on and all noted defi ci enci es
associ ated wi th the landfill and rei terated landfill cl osure requi rements. Speci fi cal l y NJ DEP i ndi cated
that:
The landfill requi res addi ti onal cover because waste materi al coul d be seen protrudi ng f rom
the soil cover. Regul ati ons requi re a mi ni mumof 2 feet of cl ean soil cover and suffi ci ent
vegetatl ve cover toprevent erOSl On.
Fenci ng must be mai ntai ned inorder toprevent siteaccess tothepubl i c.
The l agoon is overfl owi ng its banks and spi l l i ng i nto the unnamed tri butary that feeds
Ledgewood Br ook. The l eachate and l agoon must be further sampl ed todetermi ne adequate
mi ti gati on and mi ti gati ve meas es. A pl an of acti on must i ncl ude engi neeri ng control s to
mi ni mi ze l eachate generati on and at a mi ni mum address theoverfl owprobl em.
The l arger b k i tems such as c sparts tires dappl i ces on the landfill surface need to
be removed for proper recycl i ng or di sposal.
The c rent groundwater moni tori ng wel l s need to be properl y reeval uated for vi ab t yand
accessi bi l i ty for peri odi c moni tori ng.
19
ti 2 GROUP
les.
A landfill gas survey shoul d be perf ormed to conf rrmthat no me e gas ri sk exi sts to the
surroundi ng nei ghborhood and to determi ne what type of gas venti ng systemwoul d be
adequate for l ong termcompl i ance.
Dur o Constructi on must submi t a cl osure and post-clos 'epl an.
A sitei nvesti gati onmust be perf ormed toi ncl ude a l andful gas survey and groundwater and
surface water sampl i ng todetermi.ne theextent of contami nati on.
No response f romDur o Constructi on toNJ DEP' s Mar ch 31 1999 letter was f ound intheproj ect
6.1 Cl osure Cost Esti rnate
sased on the i nforrnati onrevi ewed as part of this report H2M has devel oped some p l i mi nary
constructi on cost esti rnates for cl osure of the Feni more Sani tary Landfi l l . The cost esti rnates are to be
consi dered appro rnatefor budgeti ng pu es and assumes constructi on bi ddi ng as of J une 2002. The
cost esti rnate was deri ved based on revi ewof over twenty recent landfill cappi ng proj ects inthetri-state
heavy constructi on cost data provi ded by RS Means Company Inc. 2000 and phone conversati ons
wi th contractors rnaterial suppl i ers and muni ci pal officials.
The three rnaj or factors whi ch i mpact the ultirnate cost of cappi ng are the type of cap approved
(permeabl e vs. i mpermeabl e) thetotal acreage of cap requi red and theproposed devel opment end use of
the landfill. For the p poses of this cost esti mate it is assumed that the landfill porti on of theproperty
will be cl osed capped and not re-devel oped. It is al so assumed that theacreage tobe capped is a total of
42 acres as detai l ed in this report. Tabl e 1 attached provi des a cost esti rnate for both a permeabl e and
i mpermeabl e cap based on theabove criteria.
sased on our revi ewof the data as presented inTabl e 1 thetotal proj ect cost coul d range between
$2. 70 d $10. 57 mi l l i on dol l ars dependent on the approval of the cap permeabi l i ty by the regul atory
agenci es. The wi de r ge of cappi ng costs is due to the probabl e need of i nstal l ati on of a l eachate
contai nment systemand upgraded methane gas control systemassoci atedwi th an i mpermeabl e cap.
7.0 Sumr nar v
The Feni more Landfi l l is a pri vatel y owned sol i d waste facility l ocated on the northemside of
Mountai n Road in the Townshi p of Roxbury Morri s County New J ersey. The landfill property is
si ated on Bl ock 34 Lot 29 whi ch totals an area of 103. 57 acres. The actual fill area encompasses
20
l ~ R O U P
In general noted exceedences in groundwater i ncl ude col i formbacteri a turbi di ty odor col or i ron
manganese phenol i cs and total di ssol ved sol i ds whi ch are i ndi cators of l eachate. However the NJ DEP
concl uded based on data f romthe 1981 sampl i ng event that the l andful di d not pose any substanti al heal th
or envi ronmental threat to groundwater except for col i formbacteri a whi ch w f ound at l evel s above
background concen ati ons. Routi ne quarterl y and annual moni tori ng was initiatedin 1984 p S nt toan
i nteri mNJ PDES permi t (Permi t No. NJ OQ53031) and conti nued through 1989. No addi ti onal
groundwater moni tori ng is known to have been conducted at the Feni more Landfi l l site si nce the
termi nati on of thefacility' s NJ PDES pemt inApri l 1989.
The landfill has a l ong hi story of vi ol ati ons wi th the i ssuance of Depar ental Orders
Admi ni strati ve Orders and Noti ce of Prosecuti on on numerous occasi ons agai nst both Frank Feni more
Inc. and al so Dur o Cons ucti onCorp. The vi ol ati ons were general l y for fai l ure by the landfill operator
and/ or property owner(s) to compl y wi th engi neeri ng desi gn approval fai l ure to coect operati ng
defi ci enci es fai l ure to con 01 l eachate generati on and mi grati on f romthe landfill and l ack of dai l y and
i ntermedi ate soil cover on top of the l andful and al ong its sl opes. Vi ol ati ons conti nued after operati ons
ceased in 1979. Landfi l l cl osure has still not been i mpl emented and l eachate conti nues to be generated
and is mi grati ng i ntosurroundi ng surface water bodi es.
After the sale of the property to Dur o Constructi on Corporati on in 1981 no further mi ti gati ve
meas es have been perf ormed on eproperty. The sitewas eval uated by USEP A Regi on II FI T in 1985
through 1993 for potenti al i ncl usi on onto theNPL (Superfund List). However the site scored bel owthe
28.5 threshol d and it was determi ned that theFeni more Landfi l l sitedoes not qual i ty for further remedi al
siteassessment under CERCLA. No further acti onwi th respect tothelandfill was taken by theUSEPA.
At present the site is i nacti ve and abandoned. No further documented sampl i ng events have
taken pl ace and a final cl osure pl an has not been accepted due to what is consi dered by NJ DEP tobe an
i nadequate proposal tocon ol l eachategenerati on col l ecti onand mi grati on. Furthermore theenti resite
requi res addi ti onal final cover and regradi ng. The Townshi p of Roxbury who had acqui red etax sale
certificateafter Dur o Constructi on stopped payi ng property taxes 1992recentl y sol dtheproperty. The
new property owner is J eryl Investments of Newt on New J ersey. To date there has been no cooperati on
f romFrank Feni more or Dur o Constructi on Corporati on rel ati vetoi mpl ementi ng landfill cl osure.
8.0 Recommendat i ons
There is documented i mpact to surface water qual i ty downstreamof theFeni more Landfill. The
source of thesurface water i mpact is l eachate f romthelandfill. Leachate conti nues tobe generated o m
22
t i ~ R U P
the landftll and is di schargi ng i nto the surroundi ng woods and i nto the feeder s ms at di scharge to
Ledgewood Brook.
In general groundwater-moni tori ng data o m1977 through 1989 ds not showsi gni fi cant
i mpact. However thelast avai l abl e round of groundwater qual i ty data is over 10 ye sold. Furthermore
al though it was req redonl y a l i mi ted number of the sampl i ng events had i ncl uded testi ng for VOCs.
Therefore the groundwater data at is avai l abl e for this site may not be fully representati ve of
groundwater qual i ty. Gi ven at groundwater inthe eaof theFeni more Landfi l l is extensi vel y used for
dri nki ng water and e site moni tori ng wel l s were last sampl ed over 10 years ago a round of
groundwater sampl es is r ecommended to conf mn that that landfill has not si gni fi cantl y i mpacted 1al
groundwater qual i ty.
Consi stent wi th the recommendati ons previ ousl y made by NJ DEP (summari zed in
co espondence dated Mar ch 31 1999 f romNJ DEP to Mr. Robert Guel i of Dur o Constructi on Co
addi ti onal i nvesti gati onof surface water and groundwater is r ecommended for theFeni more Landfi l l site.
The i nvesti gati on shoul d i ncl ude a full round of groundwater sampl es to be col l ected f romthe ei ght
exi sti ng site wel l s and sampl i ng of surface water and sedi ment f romthe surface water bodi es.
Li mi ted soil testi ng is al so r ecommended in the area surroundi ng the l eachate l agoon to assess any
i mpacts tothesurroundi ng soil f roml eachate overfl ow.
Inaddi ti on whi l e the presence of methane gas woul d be anti ci pated the extent to whi ch it may
be present and potenti al i mpacts resul ti ngf romcl osure activities has not been previ ousl y assessed. No
testi ng has been conducted to date for methane gas. It is recommended that a soil gas i nvesti gati on be
perf ormed to ascertai n the extent to whi ch landftll gases may be present and what type of gas venti ng
woul d be requi red for landfill cl osure.
H:ZDEPZdep 6_Feni moreLFBI RFeni more_BI R.doc
23
112 GROUP
TABL El
STATE OF N E W J ERSEY
DEPART1ENTOF ENVI RONMENT A L PRO ' ECTI ON
DI VI SI ON OF PUBLI CL Y F UNDED SI TE R E1EDI ATI ON
BUREAU OF SI TE MANAGEMENT
FENI MORE SANI TARY LANDFI LL
TOWNSHI P OF ROXBURY
MORRI S COUNT Y N E W J ERSEY
FACI LI TY I D. NO. 1436A
LANDFI LL CAP CONSTRUCTI ON COST ESTI MATE (1)
CAP COMPONENTS J une 2002 $
Gas Emi ssi on Con 01Measures $84000. $1260.
Leachate Control Measures 10000.
Soi l Erosi on/ Sedi ment Control 42000. 84.
Cappi ng/ Permeabl e Soi l Cover (3) 2100000.
Cappi ngl I mpermeabl e Cover 6720o.
Cappi ngl I mpermeabl e Cover (5)
Mi sceUaneous (S ityTesti ng Etc.) 21000. 42000.
Subtotal Constructi on Cost $2247000. $7972000.
Engi neeri ngl Admi ni strati on ( 10%) 225000. 797000.
Conti ngenci es ( 10%) 225000. 797000.
TotaI Proj ect Cost
$2697000. $9566000.
Notes
1. Based on 42 Acre Total Area of Landfi l1Cap Wi NoRedevel opment Anticipated.
$126o.
1000)0.
84000.
7560000.
42000.
$8812000.
881 o.
881000.
$105740.
2. Assume Passi ve Venti ng of Any Methane Gas wi thout treatment of 0 gas. Acti ve gas venti ngsystemfor
i mpermeabl e cap cover woul d cost approxi matel y $4000.
3. Assumes instal1ati onof sl urrycut-off wa11 at landfi l1peri meter al ong easternproperty line.
4. Assumes 1 Foot of Pervi ous Soi l aWaste Cover.
5. Assumes 1 Foot of l mpervi ous Cl ay Shi pped o man Off-Si te Locati onas a Landfi l1Cap.
6. Assumes i mpervi ous cover toi ncl ude geo syntheti c cap.
NA = Assumed Not To Be Appl i cabl e For Thi s Site
These cost esti mates represent our opi ni on as desi gnprofessi onal s of probabl e order of magni de constructi on
cost and areprovi ded for general gui dance for budgeti ng p poses. Actual costs area functi onof final desi gn
and contractor bi ds and market condi ti ons at theti me of bid.

EXHIBIT 3.2

Division of Remediation Management & Response
PO Box 413
Trenton, New J ersey 08625-0413
October 6, 2005
TO: Bruce Witkowski, Supervisor
Recycling Facilities & Landfill Closure

FROM: Robert Collier, Section Chief
Bureau of Remedial Design & Construction
SUBJ ECT: Fenimore Landfill (Roxbury Township, Morris County)
Case Transfer for Landfill Closure
Fenimore Landfill is one of a number of landfill cases our Remedial Response Element received
from the Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste to determine if Immediate Environmental
Concern issues exist. The formal Immediate Environmental Concern Assessment (IECA) has
been completed for the subject site and concluded that no Immediate Environmental Concern
threats exist at this landfill site that pose an acute, direct threat to human health. Accordingly,
this case is being returned to your office for oversight of the future landfill closure.
Attached for your information is the Draft Immediate Environmental Concern Assessment
Report (April 2005) prepared by our contractor, Louis Berger Group Sadat Associates, along
with our review comment letter dated 7-8-05 requesting editorial revisions to the draft report.
The Final Report will be forwarded upon receipt (expected by the end of the month).
Also attached is a letter request to the Department dated 8-3-05 from the Roxbury Township
Health Department requesting a meeting to discuss the present status and future remediation of
Fenimore Landfill. In follow up conversations with the Township, they would like DEP to
attend a meeting with their Township Environmental Commission. Site Manager J oseph Maher
of my staff can coordinate the logistics of the meeting and attend to discuss the IECA findings
while a representative from your office can discuss the Townships other issues related to the
landfill along with prospects for future closure.
Please contact J oseph Maher at 609-633-0765 to discuss the forthcoming meeting and to obtain
answers to any questions related to the IEC Assessment.
Attachments:
- Draft Immediate Environmental Concern Assessment Report (April 2005)
- NJ DEP DRMR Draft IECA Report Comment Letter (J uly 8, 2005)
- Roxbury Township Meeting Request Letter (August 3, 2005)

EXHIBIT 3.3

EXHIBIT 3.4

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/df93b2e9-1b47-4c85-8fe9-b02053391a22.html
From: Gary Sondermeyer Sent: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:39:32 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fenimore/Highlands
HeyRich-hopethemeetingwentwell.Justtwosmallthingsyoumightbeinterestedinhere.
1.SenatorSmithishavingahearingonaproposedbillthataddressestheimperviouscoveraspectofthesolarpermittingsagathiscoming
MondayinTrenton.Hereistheinfo:
THESENATEENVIRONMENTCOMMITTEEWILLMEETAT10:00A.M.INCOMMITTEEROOM10,3RDFLOOROFTHESTATEHOUSE
ANNEXTOCONSIDERTHEFOLLOWINGBILLS:
S921(Smith,B./Beck)-Exemptssolarpanelsfromimpervioussurfaceorimperviouscoverdesignation.
2.Irecommendyoufind(online)the"EnvironmentalProtectionTransitionTeamReport"toGovernorChristie.Therearesectionsofthis-and
ExecutiveOrder#2(RedTapeTaskForce)whichclearlysuggestadifferentwayofpermittinginthefuturetoprovideincentivesfor"green
projects."Youprobablywanttofollowthisprocesscloselytoseehowitunfolds.
Hopealliswell,
Gary
GarySondermeyer
ChiefofStaff/DirectorofOperations
609-633-1123
gary.sondermeyer@dep.state.nj.us
NOTE:ThisemailisprotectedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.Sections2510-2521.Thisemailanditscontentsmaybe
Privileged&ConfidentialduetotheAttorney-ClientPrivilege,AttorneyWorkProduct,DeliberativeProcessorundertheNewJerseyOpenPublic
RecordsAct.
Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipientofthisemail,pleasenotifythesender,deleteitanddonotread,actupon,print,disclose,copy,retainor
redistributeit.
HiGary,
FYI-Ihavecopiedyouonthisemailtokeepyouinformedofmyprogress
regardingcappingoffthe100acreFenimorelandfillandputtinga10mega
watt
solararrayonit.
Ihaveameetingat1:30inNancyWittenberg's3rdfloorconferenceroom
regardingpermittingtheremediationfortheFenimoreLandfill.
AsyoucanseefromtheattachedIamtryingnottoget'slowed'downby
thebureaucracy:ie;wildlife,powerstrugglesbetweentheHighlandsand
DEP,
etc.IhaveaverbalapprovalfromtheHighlandsthatisbeingcontestedby
someoneattheDEP.
Iampullingoutthestopsonthisone,myfinancingisinplaceandIneed
to
getmoving.
Anyinputwouldbeappreciated.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
____________________________________
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/df93b2e9-1b47-4c85-8fe9-b02053391a22.html
From:RWBernardi@aol.com
To:Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us
CC:DPetrocelli@matrixneworld.com,jchon@matrixneworld.com,
nancy.wittenberg@dep.state.nj.us,RWBernardi@aol.com
Sent:1/26/20104:41:00P.M.EasternStandardTime
Subj:Fenimore/Highlands
HiRuth,
Firstoffthanksforyoucooperation.
IhaveattachedtheHighlandsexemptioncriteriaandthe
memofromwildlife.
RegardingtheBats,etc.asIexplainedbeforeIconsiderthisa
nonissue.Thepropertyisalandfillthathasneverbeencapped.
IamsuretheseissueswillberesolvedonThursday.
Thanks
RichBernardi

EXHIBIT 3.5

From: Ruth Foster Sent: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:54:08 GMT
To: Bernardi, Rich; Confer, Robert; Foster, Ruth;
Subject: Re: FW: Fenimore-Highland Exemption Request
Rich-Nancy,BobandIaresittingdownwithlanduseandwatershedtomorrowmorningandtryingtogetEileenSwantoattendtosortthisout.
Ourmeetingisat9amtomorrowsoweshouldhaveabetteranswertomorrow.Departmentistryingtofigureoutwhereitcan/ifwecanwaive
presentrulesthatwehavethatdon'tapplyaswelltosituationslikesolaronlandfillprojects.Thankssomuchforyourpatience.
IhaveEileenslastemailaboutassumingnotexemptfromHighlandsrulesothisiswhatsheissayingwehavetodo-worstcase::
1.youapplyingtoEileenforadesignationofthesiteasaHighlandsRedevelopmentAreabytheHighlandsCouncil
2.HighlandsPreservationAreaAuthorization(HPAA)withwaiverofsomeoftherequirementsforstudies,etc.fromtheNJDEPLanduse
program.
ButthisiswhereI'mconfused:whatisbestcasescenario-completeexemption?
HighlandsconsistencydeterminationbyWatershedprogram(TerryPilawski)-rightnowherinterpretationisthatlandfillclosurestonotcount
asasiteremediationandthereforearenotexemptfromHighlandsandHPAArequirement.IfWatershedspositionwasthatlandfillclosures
shouldcountasremediationthenyou'dbeexemptfrom1and2above.
IsthataccurateBob?ThisiswhatI'mwrestlingwithandthoughtwe'dresolvedinphonecallbutChristinewastalkingabouttheredevelopment
areadesignation-item1above)andIwastalkingaboutanentireexemption.
Bob-Iammoreconfusedthenbefore.WhatdidwedoThursday?
Rich
6099549001
From:EileenSwan<eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>
Sent:Tuesday,February16,20103:18PM
Cc:RuthFoster<Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us>;rconfer@dep.state.nj.us;DennisPetrocelli<DPetrocelli@matrixneworld.com>;TomDemichele
<tdemichele@matrixneworld.com>;JeiChon<jchon@matrixneworld.com>;jeffrey.olawski@dep.state.nj.us;TomMicai
<Tom.Micai@dep.state.nj.us>;TomBorden<tom.borden@highlands.state.nj.us>;DanVanAbs<dan.vanabs@highlands.state.nj.us>;Chris
Ross<chris.ross@highlands.state.nj.us>
Subject:RE:Fenimore-HighlandExemptionRequest
Mr.Bernardi,
ThisisinresponsetoyourcalltodayseekingclarificationabouttheprocessfortheredevelopmentoftheformerFennimoreLandfillsite.Youhad
aninformalmeetingwithDanVanAbsandChrisRossoftheHighlandsCouncilstaff.TheyexplainedtheprocesstoseekaHighlands
RedevelopmentAreaDesignation.IaddherethelanguagefromtheHighlandsActandtheNJDEPHighlandsruleswhichguidethistwostep
process.ThefirststepisthedesignationoftheHighlandsRedevelopmentAreabytheHighlandsCouncilandthesecondistheHPAAwith
waiverfromtheNJDEP.
TheHighlandsActinSection11requiresthattheHighlandsCouncil:
(h)identifyareasappropriateforredevelopmentandsetappropriatedensitystandardsforredevelopment.Anyareaidentifiedforpossible
redevelopmentpursuanttothissubparagraphshallbeeitherabrownfieldsitedesignatedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionorasite
atwhichatleast70%oftheareathereofiscoveredwithimpervioussurface.
NJDEP'sPreservationArearulesspecifythefollowing:
7:38-6.6WaiverforredevelopmentincertainpreviouslydevelopedareasintheHighlandspreservationarea:Department-designatedHighlands
Brownfields
(a)InaccordancewithN.J.S.A.13:20-33b(2),theDepartmentmay,onacasebycasebasis,waiveanyoftheprovisionsforaHPAAifsuch
waiverisnecessaryforredevelopmentofcertainpreviouslydevelopedareasinthepreservationareaidentifiedbytheCouncilpursuantto
N.J.S.A.13:20-9bandN.J.S.A.13:20-11a(6)(h).AwaiverunderthissectionshallapplyonlytoDepartment-designatedHighlandsbrownfieldsites
designatedpursuantto(b)below,andidentifiedasanareaappropriateforredevelopmentbytheCouncil.Forthepurposesofthissectiononly,
"site"meansaparceldesignatedbyablockandlot,orseveralcontiguousparcelsifownedorcontrolledbytheapplicantsolongasallparcels
meetthecriteriain(b)below.
(b)Forthepurposesofthissection,asitethatmeetsthecriteriainoneofthefollowingthreeTracksiseligiblefordesignationbytheDepartment
asaHighlandsbrownfield,providedthatthecontaminationonsiteisnottheresultofacurrentorpreviousagriculturaluse:
1.TrackOne:Asanitarylandfillfacility;
2.TrackTwo:Aformerorcurrentcommercialorindustrialsiteforwhich:
i.PriortotheissuanceofaNoFurtherAction(NFA)letter,aremedialactionreportwascompletedconfirmingthepresenceofcontamination
onsite,anddocumentingthecurrentorprevioususeasacommercialorindustrialsite;
ii.TheDepartmenthasissuedanNFAletterfortheentiresiteforwhichthebrownfielddesignationissoughtasofJuly1,1993,orlater,pursuant
toN.J.A.C.7:26C-2.6;and
iii.NodischargeofacontaminanthasoccurredonthesitesincethedateoftheNFAletter.Siteswhereadischargeofacontaminanthas
occurredonthesitesincetheDepartmentissuedtheNFAlettermustapplyfordesignationthroughTrackThree;or
3.TrackThree:AformerorcurrentcommercialorindustrialsitewithsuspectedorconfirmedcontaminationonsiteforwhichtheDepartmenthas
notissuedaNFAletter.
SeetheHighlandsCouncilprocessathttp://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/projectreview/pages6and7willgiveyoutheinformation
requiredbytheHighlands.Followingisourgeneraltimelineforapplicationsbutwecanexpediteit.
!ApplicantsubmitsrequisitePre-ApplicationMeetingmaterialstoHighlandsCouncilstaff
!Within1-2weeks,theCouncilwillcontactapplicanttoarrangePre-Appmeeting
!ApplicantmaysubmitthePetitionforHighlandsRedevelopmentAreaDesignationfollowingthePre-Applicationmeeting.
!HighlandsCouncilstaffreviewsthePetitionwithin1-2weeksafterreceipt,andpostsitsfindingonthewebsite.
!Minimum10businessdaysafterpostingforpubliccomments.
!Within1weekaftercloseofpubliccommentperiod,theCouncilpreparesapubliccommentsummarydocumentandfinalizesConsistency
DeterminationandRecommendationReport.
!Applicantpublishesanoticeinthenewspaperofrecordforaminimumof10businessdaysbeforeCouncilMeetingwhereapplicationwillbe
considered.
!HighlandsCouncilMeetingandResolution-materialssenttoNJDEPthedayaftertheCouncilMeeting(forHPAAwithwaiverprocess).
OncetheHighlandshasapprovedthedesignationtheNJDEPconsiderstheHPAAwithwaiver.Wewouldbegladtoassistyouwiththisproject
andmakeeveryefforttoexpeditereview.Ihopethishelpstoclarifytheprocess.
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
Council.

EXHIBIT 3.6

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/8a15ed8b-accc-791e-262f-17d0bf1072bc.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:16 GMT
To: Bernardi, Rich; Confer, Robert; Bartle, Timothy; Wittenberg, Nancy; Foster, Ruth;
Subject: Re: Fenimore
Rich-Goodtalkingtoyoutoday.Siteinvestigationsoundslikeitisgoingalongwell.BobConferisstillworkingwithNancyandTimonsolidwaste
orSRPlead.Didn'tseeanythingfromDAGyet.
Asforrecentlegislation:KatiWeslingsentthisalong-921/A2289thebillsonsolarimperviouspassedinbothhouses.TheGovtosigntheminto
lawsoon.TheamendmentsthatNancyaskedforregardinglandfillsdidnotmakeitintothislegislationbutJohnHazenanticipatesthattheywillbe
introducedasanotherbill.Willkeepyouposted.
HiNancy,
AnythingnewongettingFenimoreoutofsiteremediationandbackintoSolidWaste?
Rinh
6099549001

EXHIBIT 3.7

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/83d70e09-e0bb-2bc5-5634-0ca66047cac2.html
From: Gary Sondermeyer Sent: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:14:49 GMT
Subject: RE: Fwd: Fenimore
HeyRich-I'llgiveyouacalltodiscussthistomorrow.ItsEarthDayandallofusaredoingeventsallaroundtheState.Ihavespokentofolks
whoareinvolvedandgotaquickbriefingfromtheLandUseworld.I'llcatchyoutomorrow.
GS
GarySondermeyer
609-633-1123
RecordsAct.
redistributeit.
>>>"rwbernardi@aol.com"<rwbernardi@aol.com>4/20/20108:52AM>>>
HiGary,
AsstatedinNancy'slatestemail.TheFenimoreLandfill
ProjectisanexampleofallthatcangowrongintheDEPonaSolarLandfillandwhatneedstobefixed.
Gary,howdoImakesomesenseofthis.I'mfourmonthsbehind.
ShouldImeetwithnewCommissioner?
Letmeknow.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
PoBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
From:GarySondermeyer<Gary.Sondermeyer@dep.state.nj.us>
Sent:Monday,April19,201012:33PM
To:RWBernardi@aol.com
Subject:Re:Fwd:Fenimore
HeyRich-letmejumpinherewiththeLandUsegang.Itisanewdayhere-BobMartinisanextremelystrongmanager-thelikesofwhichwe
haveneverhad.Heisenormouslysupportiveofrenewableenergyprojects-andjobcreation.A$100millionprojectonanoldlandfillhasto
happen.LetmeseewhatIcandoonthelogjam.
Thanks,Gary
GarySondermeyer
609-633-1123
RecordsAct.
redistributeit.
Gary,
Iheardyouwereleavingtheotherday.Goodluck.
I'veforwardedyoumylastemailontheFenimoreSolarProject.
IambetweentheDEPandtheHighlandsIhaven'tmovedanything
alongsinceNovember.It'smindboggling.Everyoneseemstobe
fortheprojectbutjustcan'tfigureouthowtogetitdone.
Itisa100milliondollarprojectthatrequiresnopublicfundingthat
will
cleanupalandfillandprovideinexcessof100jobs,thatisalsoGreen,
anditcan'tgetstarted.Iusuallydon'tgiveupbutIamataloss.
FromwhatIamexperiencingtheDEPlacksaBoss.IneedsomeoneintheDEP
totakecharge.Ican'tcomprehendhowoneguyinLandusecantelleveryone
whattodoandstopaproject.
Yourhelpandsuggestionwouldbegreatlyappreciated.
Thanks,
AndgoodluckagainaftertheDEP.
RichBernardi
6099549001
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
____________________________________
From:RWBernardi@aol.com
To:Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us
CC:nancy.wittenberg@dep.state.nj.us
Sent:4/19/201011:53:30A.M.EasternDaylightTime
Subj:Fenimore
Ruth,
EngineersjustspokewithBob.Thedecidingfactoronthisproject
rightnowiscanwemovethestreamandafterwemoveitwillthebuffers
extendintothecontamination.Iftheansweris,streamstayswith300
footbuffers,theprojectisnoteconomicallyfeasible.Westartedinearly
NovemberwithHighlandsandjustfoundoutThursdayApril15ththatwe
wereunderSolidWaste.That'sfourmonthsandthat'stheonlydefinitive
thingwe'velearnedfromtheDEP.Itcan'tworkthisway.
Iamrunningoutofideas.
TellBelloifhecan'tgotothesite,thenshutusdowninwritingsoI
candeal
withit.
Ruth/NancythisisnotdirectedatyoubutIcan'tbelieveDanBellois
the
[Theentireoriginalmessageisnotincluded]

EXHIBIT 3.8

From: Robert Confer Sent: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:05 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Ross, Chris;
Subject: Re: Highlands Preservation Area Rules - NJDEP Brownfield Designation
Chris,thetextbelowwassenttoRich2/11/10,isthisallthatisneeded,ifnotpleasejustletmeknowthespecificsofwhattheCouncilneedsfor
thewaiver.Icanfaxyouthisletteraswellofcourse.
Bob
FEBRUARY11,2010
RichardBernardi
StrategicPartners,LLC.
P.O.Box356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
RE:FenimoreLandfillSolarRenewableEnergyProject
RoxburyTownship,MorrisCounty,NewJersey
PI#132518
DearMr.Bernardi:
TheBureauofLandfillandHazardousWastePermitting(Bureau)conductedasitevisitonWednesdayFebruary3,2010tothenonoperating
FenimoreSanitaryLandfillafterameetingonThursdayJanuary28,2010withtheDepartment'sPermitCoordinationProgramandotheroffices.
Thepurposeofthemeetingandsitevisitwastodeterminethenextstepsinthedevelopmentofasolarrenewableenergyprojectonthelandfill
site.TheDepartmenthasdeterminedthatthenonoperatingsolidwastelandfillsitewillrequirelandfillclosureinaccordancewiththe
Department'sregulations.
TheDepartmentbelievesthatthelandfillsitequalifiesperN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6foraWaiverforRedevelopmentinCertainPreviouslyDeveloped
AreasintheHighlandsPreservationArea:Department-designatedHighlandsBrownfields.Specifically,thelandfillsiteappearstoqualifyfora
waiverpertherequirementsatN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6(b)1asasitethatmeetsthecriteriaofTrackOne:AsanitarylandfillfacilityandN.J.A.C.7:38-
6.6(c)1forthelimitofthewasteandalsoperN.J.A.C.7:38-6.6(c)2asanarealegallydisturbedasofAugust10,2004.
TheDepartmentunderstandsallofthetreesonthelandfillsurfacewillneedtoberemovedtoprotectthehealth,safetyandwelfareofthepublic
forthecleanupofthesiteduringtheclosureprocess.Theclosureplanwillalsorequireaminimum50-footbufferoftheexistingnatural,
indigenousvegetationwheretreesandothernaturalvegetationwillnotberemoved.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionconcerningthismatter,pleasecontactSaaraAliofmystaffbytelephoneat(609)633-9593,orbyemailat
saara.ali@dep.state.nj.us.
Sincerely,
OriginalSignedbyRobertM.Confer
LC08-5552
c:RaiBelonzi,BSWCE
MarySiller,BSWCE
MichaelGerchman,BLHWP
DanVanAbs,NewJerseyHighlandsCouncil
EileenSwan,NewJerseyHighlandsCouncil
RuthFoster,OPCER
LawrenceD.Malizza
120EagleRockAvenueSuite207
EastHanoverNJ07936
>>>"ChrisRoss"<chris.ross@highlands.state.nj.us>5/11/20101:59PM>>>
I'veextractedthepagesoftheHighlandsPreservationRules(andhighlightedtext)thatconcernNJDEPdesignationofaHighlandsBrownfield
siteforredevelopmentwaiver(N.J.A.C.7:38-6.6).Pleasefindattached.
Chris
From:EileenSwan
Sent:Monday,May10,201012:31PM
To:ScottBrubaker
Cc:RobertConfer;ChrisRoss
Subject:RE:TuesdaysitevisittoFenimore
ThanksScott,
HighlandsProjectLeadisChrisRoss.ShewillmeetyouatDunkinDonutstomorrowandIhaveletherknowthedresscode!Hercellnumberis
6462454276.
Thanksfortheopportunityforfurthercoordination.
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
Council.
From:ScottBrubaker[mailto:Scott.Brubaker@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent:Thursday,May06,201012:14PM
To:EileenSwan
Subject:Re:TuesdaysitevisittoFenimore
Eileen,greatidea,wemeetatDunkinDonutsonRt206atmoodeyormooleyroadat10am.Mycellis609-475-2734.IfyouleavemeyoursI'll
haveit.Scott
PublicRecordsAct.
Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipientofthise-mail,pleasenotifythesender,deleteitanddonotread,actupon,print,disclose,copy,retainor
redistributeit.
ScottBrubaker
Director
OfficeofPermitCoordination&EnvironmentalReview
401EastStateStreet
P.O.Box402
Phone:(609)633-7660
Fax:(609)633-2102
Email:Scott.Brubaker@dep.state.nj.us

>>>"EileenSwan"<eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>5/6/201011:25AM>>>
Scott,IthinkitwouldbebeneficialtoincludeaHighlandsCouncil
representativeatthesitevisitonTuesdaysothatIcanmakesurethat
wehandleourendefficientlyandincoordinationwiththeDepartment.
Ifyouareinagreementcouldyoupleaseletmeknowthedetailsofthe
visitandIwillsendourprojectlead.
Thanks
Eileen
EileenSwan
ExecutiveDirector
(908)879-6737ext.101
(908)879-4205Fax
<mailto:eileen.swan@highlands.state.nj.us>
www.highlands.state.nj.us<http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/>
Thisemail,togetherwithanyattachments,isintendedforthenamed
recipient(s)only;andmaycontainprivilegedandconfidential
information.Ifreceivedinerror,youareaskedtoinformthesenderas
quicklyaspossibleanddeletethisemailandanycopiesofthisfrom
yourcomputersystemnetwork.Unlessstatedotherwise,thisemail
representsonlytheviewsofthesenderandnottheviewsoftheNew
JerseyHighlandsCouncil.

EXHIBIT 3.9

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/6d45d5c0-76d2-6050-c795-0b2aead53f07.html
From: Robert Confer Sent: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:37:31 GMT
CC: Ali, Saara; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne;
Rich,therearerulesforclosureoflandfillsthatstoppedoperatingafter1/1/82@N.J.A.C.7:26-2A.9.Therearenotspecificrulesforpre-82
landfillclosuressowenormallytrytoapplythepost-82requirementsandeventechregrequirementsasabasisforproperclosure.Weare
workingondraftregulationstostandardizelandfillclosureproceduresbutthatisdowntheroadpastyourtimeline.
bob
>>>"rwbernardi@aol.com"<rwbernardi@aol.com>6/1/20103:40PM>>>
Robert-Howdoesthe1982dateeffectthisremediation?
RichBernardi
6099549001
PoBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510

EXHIBIT 3.10

MORRIS COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION ADDRESS:
Morris County Courthouse 560 West Hanover Avenue
P.O. Box 900 Morris Township, N.J.
Morristown, NJ 07963-0900 Tel: 973-285-2953
Fax: 973-285-8345
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PLAN
INSPECTION LETTER
March 29, 2011
7 Michael Court
Milestone, NJ 08510
Attn: Mr. Richard Bernardi
CORRECTED COPY
Re: Former Fenimore Landfill
Roxbury Township
Block: 74041 Lot(s): 1
MCSCD: 2011-8195
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
The subject project has been found to be in non-compliance with the Certified Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan. An inspection was performed on March 28, 2011, and it was
determined that the following conservation measures must be implemented:
1. Repair any damaged/undermined silt fence below the upper settlement/effluent
pond and above the ravine area. Silt fence must be fully erect, entrenched 6 to
12 into the ground. Any accumulated sediment must be removed and bypass
under the fence must be repaired.
2. Properly install super silt fence on the limit of disturbance [LOD] on the south west
portion of the tract. The area is immediately west of the tracking pad and east of
block 8403 and lots 11 through 16.
3. Properly install tree protection fencing along the upper portion of the limit of
disturbance [LOD]. The LOD is bounded by block 8403 and lot 16 and 25. The
detail is located on sheet C-403 of the certified plan and specified as note number
15 on sheet C-402.
4. The soil disturbance in the upper portion of phase 2 (see attached mark up)
appears to be more substantial than in other cleared areas of the tract. Please
apply the temporary stabilization specifications described on sheet C-402 note
number 19.
5. Install diversion berms along major paths of access to break up flows and prevent
from getting too high of a velocity. Diversion berms are to extend across the entire
road surface, directing runoff into diffuse areas wherever possible.
Member New J ersey Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Conservation Districts
INSPECTION LETTER
6. Plan note 5 on sheet C-401A indicates that trees are to be chipped and mulch
spread to a maximum depth of 4 inches. Several areas are stacked high with
felled trees in excess of 4.5 feet in height. This height is an industry standard for
reducing forest fire fuel hazards. No activity has been observed since,
Wednesday, March 23, 2011. The schedule provided on the plan calls for
completion of this work approximately five weeks from start of construction. By our
count the project is in its seventh week. Please inform in writing the status of the
operation in particular the level of activity and anticipated completion.
Items 1 through 5 are mandatory and must be completed no later than Monday, April 11, 2011.
Please communicate with this office no later than April 4, 2011 for the purpose of setting a date
for a joint inspection with your representatives.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
J oseph P. Dunn
District Manager
cc:
J ei Chon, Matrix New World Engineering, Inc.
Cerra Inc. Contractors
Roxbury
Rod Schmitt, Building Inspector
Michael Kobylarz, P.E., Municipal Engineer
Russell Stern, P.P., Municipal Planner
Chris Raths, Manager
Planning Board
NJ DEP:
Richard C. Reily, Manager, Bureau of Inland Regulation
Kim Fialcowitz, Bureau of Coastal & Land Use Compliance & Enforcement
Robert Confer, Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting
/Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE EMAIL 2008-2012/From/attachments/INSPECTION LETTER 03-29-11.doc
Member New J ersey Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Conservation Districts
INSPECTION LETTER

EXHIBIT 3.11

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/0da22808-0902-bc36-fda2-cb184710b644.html 1/1
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:47:56 GMT
To: Mazzei, Vincent
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore Mitigation
Sorryaboutcalls.
Hopeyourok.
Thanksforyourhelp.
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
OnMay4,2011,at3:44PM,"VincentMazzei"<Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>HiRich-Igotyourmessage/ calls-sorryIcan'ttalktoday-I'mnotinTrenton,andI'mactuallyoutverysicktoday.Wenttodoctor,etc.
>
>IdidemailMarkearliertodaytohelphimunderstandtheissues.HesaidheisgoingtotalkwithRickReillytodiscoverwhatoptionsare
available,andI'llmakesurethatI'mpartofthatdiscussion.So,let'sseewhathappensonthatfront.
>
>Bytheway,ifIdon'tcallyoubackrightaway,it'snotbecauseIdon'twantto,it'sonlybecauseIcan'tforsomereason.FrequentlyI'min
meetingswithpeopleliketheCommissioner'sstaff,andIcan'teasilystepouttotakeacall.
>
>Idoknowthisisaveryimportantissueforyou,andit'sanimportnatprojectforeveryone.That'swhyIaskedtostayonboardtohelp.Butifyou
callmeseveraltimesadaybecauseI'mnotanswering,itsortofjustaddstomystress.It'sstressfulenoughjustworkingatDEP:)
>
>Thanksforunderstanding-wecantalktomorrow.
>
>>>>RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>05/ 03/ 115:46PM>>>
>Mark,
>
>Wearefinalizingtheclosureplanbyendofmonth.
>NotunliketheneedtotakepropertyintheHighlandsfortheremediationwewillneedtousewetlandsareaforthecatchbasin.Iflogicholds.
SincewearenotmitigatingHighlandsareabecauseititneededfortheremediationwhydoweneedtomitigatethewetlandsareaforacatch
basin?
>Let'srememberthisisacleanupofalandfill.Privatelyfunded.Let'stryandkeepthecostdown.
>Havingtoclearthesitewithchainsawsalreadywasdoubletheoriginalcost.
>
>Weneedanansweronthisbyendofweek.ThebelatedwavingoftheLOI
>Lostus$40,000.
>
>Pleaseconsiderwavingthewetlandsmitigation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>RichBernardi
>6099549001
>
>StrategicEnvironmentalPartners,LLC
>POBox356
>Clarksburg,NJ08510
>
>www.strategicgreenenergy.com
>

EXHIBIT 3.12

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/58d76bd7-6a03-5348-4142-6ab444bf11e3.html 1/2
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:07:20 GMT
To: Robert Confer
CC: Saara Ali; Michael Gerchman; MaryAnne Goldman; Cindy Randazzo; MaryJo Aiello; Ruth Foster;
Subj ect: Re: 100 foot holes FENIMORE
Thanks,
Aftercutting60acresoftreeswithchainsawsit'sbecomingdifficulttodothingsthathavenoimpact.
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
OnMay17,2011,at2:40PM,"RobertConfer"<Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>Rich,we'llevaluatethisandletyouknow.
>
>Bob
>
>Notice:TheinformationcontainedinthisentireElectronicMailMessagethread(EMM)andallattachmentsfromtheStateofNewJersey,
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividualorentitytowhichitisaddressedandtheEMMmaycontain
informationthatmaybePrivileged&ConfidentialduetotheAttorneyClientPrivilege,AttorneyWorkProduct,DeliberativeProcessorunderthe
NewJerseyOpenPublicRecordsAct.Thise-mailisprotectedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.Sections2510-2521.
>Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyoumustnotreview,transmit,converttohardcopy,copy,use,ordisseminate
thisEMMoranyattachmentstoitandthatsuchuse,dissemination,distributionorcopyingofthisEMMisstrictlyprohibitedandmaybeunlawful.
PleasenotethatifthisEMMmessagecontainsaforwardedmessageorisareplytoapriormessage,someorallofthecontentsofthisEMMor
anyattachments,maynothavebeenproducedbytheStateofNewJersey,DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.Ifyouhavereceivedthis
EMMinerrorpleaseimmediatelynotifyusbyreturne-mailorbytelephoneat609-984-6985anddeletethismessage.
>
>
>
>MailCode401-02C
>http:/ / www.state.nj.us/ dep/ dshw/ permitting.htm
>
>>>>RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>5/ 16/ 20118:19PM>>>
>Robert,
>
>Wehad4drillerslookatsite.Theyallsaiddrilling5holesbetterthan100feetisexpensive.Threedrillersusedrotarysaiddrillwouldjamin
garbage,theotherusedsonicwhichalsohadproblems.
>
>IknowyourTechRegsrequiretheholesbutwhat'sthepoint.Weknowfromtopo'sthelandfillis100feetdeep.
>
>Thisisgoingtotaketomuchtomeandexpensetoprovewhatwealreadyknow.
>
>I'dlikethedrillingwaved.
>
>Thanks
>
>RichBernardi
>6099549001
>
file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/58d76bd7-6a03-5348-4142-6ab444bf11e3.html 2/2
>StrategicEnvironmentalPartners,LLC
>POBox356
>Clarksburg,NJ08510
>
>www.strategicgreenenergy.com
>

EXHIBIT 3.13

EXHIBIT 3.14

file:///C:/Users/Nichole/Dropbox/Fenimore%20(1)/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/From/messages/896be9dd-c8b4-afa0-23d2-64f6d96672f8.html 1/3
From: Rilee Jim Sent: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:02:46 GMT
To: Cindy Randazzo
Subj ect: FW: Fenimore
Feni more Interi m Stabi l i zati on.pdf (31Kb) C-401A.PDF (1972Kb) Deni al Ltr.pdf (39Kb)
Cindy,

This is getting embarrassing. There is in fact activity, review and discussions taking place in regards to the Fenimore
site and with no communications with the Township. We had hoped to be cooperative, as you had suggested, to work
with the DEP and the applicant on this site plan, recognizing the needs of the residents, Roxbury and the developer.

I am disappointed that after such a productive meeting between DEP and the Township, months ago, that we have
gotten nowhere in the process. Unfortunately, if this continues, we will have to be more aggressive in our handling of
this matter.

Please tell me that we can get passed this. I will need to discuss this matter with the Township Council this Tuesday.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim Rilee
Mayor
Roxbury Township

From: Raths Chris
Sent : Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:58 AM
To: Rilee Jim
Subject : FW: Fenimore
Jim,
FYI can you discuss with Cindy Randazzo? I will check on how many truck it would take to stabilize 25 acres with
concrete.
Thanks
Chris

From: Stern Russell
Sent : Friday, July 08, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Raths Chris; Kobylarz Mike
Subject : FW: Fenimore

Chris/Mike,

Bernardi has been busy. Instead of chipping the fallen trees and spreading mulch across 25 acres of the landfill, he
now wants to stabilize the surface with 25 acres of crushed recycled concrete.

Has DEP informed you of this proposal? If not I'll or maybe Chris will follow-up with Scott Brubaker on Monday.
Russell Stern, AICP, PP, LLA
Township Planner/Director of Planning
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, N.J. 07852-9726
(973) 448-2008
sternr@roxburynj.us

From: dunnjose@gmail.com [mailto:dunnjose@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Dunn
Sent : Friday, July 08, 2011 1:37 PM
To: Stern Russell
Subject : Re: Fenimore
Russell,

Our office is attempting to close out the "tree clearing phase" of the project wherein a SESC plan was certified for
this aspect of the site. We recently issued a denal (attached) on some revisions submitted to that design and will
enforce the current/only certified plan for the site.

2nd'ly we have assisted the applicant in discussions regarding the coordination with NJDEP in an April 21, 2011
meeting in Trenton. Recently we met with the designer and provided some comments on a draft design of the final
closure plan but do not have a formal submission nor any documents of the final design.

Finally, on 7.7.11 in the PM our office was sent the copy of a plan that is for interim stockpiling/placement of
RCM (recycled concrete material) on the site. We estimate the foot print to be approximately 25+/- acres
according to the plan & cover received (attached).
We infromed the applicant & designer via email that an application & approval would be required by our office.
There seems to be some urgency by the applicant. I hope our one day turn around on his request helped the
process move along.

That's it for now.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Stern Russell <sternr@roxburynj.us> wrote:
Joe,

I hope you're enjoying the summer. I was wondering if you could provide me with an update concerning the Fenimore
project.

Thanks

Russell Stern, AICP, PP, LLA
Township Planner/Director of Planning
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, N.J. 07852-9726
(973) 448-2008
sternr@roxburynj.us


--
Joseph P. Dunn, MPA
District Manager
NJ Approved Forester
NJ Certified Tree Expert No.:0398
USDA-NRCS Technical Service Provider No.: 07-5719
Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality No.:0322
Certified Professional in Erosion & Sediment Control No.:1529

Morris County Soil
Conservation District
PO Box 0900
Morristown, NJ 07963-0900
ph:973-285-8339
fax: 973-285-8345
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

NOTE: This e-mail is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521.
This E-Mail and its contents may be Privileged & Confidential due to the Attorney-Client Privilege, Attorney
Work Product, Deliberative Process or under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.

EXHIBIT 3.15

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/7d964616-9842-7369-939c-0246c5f65bff.html 1/4
From: Cindy Randazzo Sent: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:04:16 GMT
To: Rilee Jim
Subj ect:
Re: FW: Response to 25+/- acres of RCM on Fenimore Landfill & outstanding Tree Clearing conservation
mea
Thanks,thatisthesamecommunicationIreceivedacopyoffromBobConferFriday.Magdalenarequestedthatwemeetonthistodayandthat
isgreatnews.
Iwillcontinuetoworkonthisandkeepyouposted.
CindyW.Randazzo
Director
OfficeofLocalGovernmentAssistance
401E.StateStreet
P.O.Box402
Office:609-633-7700
email:cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us
>>>RileeJim<rileej@roxburynj.us>7/ 11/ 20116:20:59PM>>>

Cindy,
HereisarecentcommunicationwithBonardifromMCSoilCons.
Funstuff.
Thanks,
Jim
JimRilee
Mayor
RoxburyTownship
________________________________
From:RathsChris
Sent:Monday,July11,201110:40AM
To:RileeJim
Subject:FW:Responseto25+/ -acresofRCMonFenimoreLandfill&outstandingTreeClearingconservationmeasures
FYI
________________________________
From:SternRussell
Sent:Monday,July11,201110:25AM
To:RathsChris;KobylarzMike
Subject:FW:Responseto25+/ -acresofRCMonFenimoreLandfill&outstandingTreeClearingconservationmeasures
Chris/ Mike
FYI.IthinkacalltoScottBrubakerwouldbeappropriate.Bernardiisreallypushingtheissueofrecycledconcreteacrossthe25acresandatthis
timeitlookslikeJoeDunneistheonlyoneviewingthisproposalinacomprehensivefashion.
RussellStern,AICP,PP,LLA
TownshipPlanner/ DirectorofPlanning
TownshipofRoxbury
1715Route46
Ledgewood,N.J.07852-9726
(973)448-2008
sternr@roxburynj.us
________________________________
From:dunnjose@gmail.com[mailto:dunnjose@gmail.com]OnBehalfOfJosephDunn
Sent:Friday,July08,20114:12PM
To:SternRussell
Subject:Fwd:Responseto25+/ -acresofRCMonFenimoreLandfill&outstandingTreeClearingconservationmeasures
FYIJD
----------Forwardedmessage----------
From:JosephDunn<jdunn@mcscd.org<mailto:jdunn@mcscd.org>>
Date:Fri,Jul8,2011at4:06PM
Subject:Re:Responseto25+/ -acresofRCMonFenimoreLandfill&outstandingTreeClearingconservationmeasures
To:RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com<mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com>>
Cc:RuthFoster<Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us>>,
"robert.confer@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:robert.confer@dep.state.nj.us>"<robert.confer@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:robert.confer@dep.state.nj.us>>,
MichaelGerchman<Michael.Gerchman@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:Michael.Gerchman@dep.state.nj.us>>,
"scott.brubaker@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:scott.brubaker@dep.state.nj.us>"
<scott.brubaker@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:scott.brubaker@dep.state.nj.us>>,"VincentMazzei
(Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us>)"
<Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us>>,"Assadi,Bashar"
<BAssadi@birdsall.com<mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com>>,MaryJoAiello<MaryJo.Aiello@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:MaryJo.Aiello@dep.state.nj.us>>,
JeiChon<jchon@matrixneworld.com<mailto:jchon@matrixneworld.com>>,"Showler,John"
<john.showler@ag.state.nj.us<mailto:john.showler@ag.state.nj.us>>
Rich,Inresponse,
PromisesMade
Somewherealongthelineyoumadeadecisiontosubmitasetofplansthatindicatedallthetreescutwouldbechippedandspreadoutto
"stabilize"thesite.Thesameplanscalledforatreeprotectionfencingalongtheup-slopeportionofthesite.Theyweresubmittedreviewedand
approved,allbasedoryourdesigner'ssealandyoursignature.ThisisallIhavetodateregardingyourintentionsonthissite.Itcametomyshop
withanurgentrequestthatwent"wedon'tneedsoilconservationplandowe?...Wedo!....Thenweneeditnowhurryupandputustothefront
oftheque.".Andwedid,wealsospent40+hoursonsitebothbeforeandafterworkbegan.
Accommodations
Toshowourflexibilityweworkedwithyourdesignerregardinghisinabilitytodefineexactlywhatwastobe"disturbedsoil"duringtreefelling
operations.IworkedwithyoudirectlyinfieldmodifyingthescheduletoaccommodatetheEPA"IndianaBat"deadlinebyallowingtreefellingon
50%ofthesitewithonly50%ofthesupersiltfenceinstalledwhentheplancalledfor100%.Itraveled140milesroundtriptoTrentonto
coordinateyourfuturesiteplansfortheprojectwithNJDEP.Indiscussionthedraftcapplanwithyourdesigner,wegaveadvicethatwillif
acceptedproveasubstantialsavingsinthecostandschedulingofconstruction.
Experiencevs.Experience
Thissiteisroughlymy8500+/ -projecthereatsoilconservationandmy6thlandfillclosuretodateandIsaythiswithgreatrespectyouarethe
bestI'veseenataddressingregulations.Youwalkamongtheraindropswithoutgettingwet.Yourplanrequiresamileplusofsupersilt
fence...yousaytheNJDEPDLURpermitrequirementsaretoolimitingfortheappropriateexcavator;Yourplanrequirestreeprotection.....you
saytoomanyrocksareintheway;Theplanrequiresstabilizingexposedsoilwithwoodchips....yousayNJDEPDLURpermitrequirementsare
toolimitingforthechipper;Theplanrequiresdiversionbermsonthehaulroad....yousayI'llbringonRCMtostabilizethesite.....itseemtheRCM
solutionisfor25acres.
Thebestwayyoudemonstratethisregulatoryagilityisbyposingquestionsthatmakecompliancewithyourplanseemalmostabsurdandby
extensionthoserequestingthecompliance.
Youask;
ImustchipalltreesonthesiteandspreadthechipsonthelandfillbeforeyouallowanyRCMonsite?
YesorNo?
I"msorryforthelackofyesornobutIhavetoask;DoyouintendtodrivetandemsofRCMoverthedownedtreesandburythemunderthe
RCMintheircurrentstate?Theyareinthewayoftheconceptual25+/ -acrefootprintofRCMyourdesignersubmittedonlyyesterday.Iwould
beequallyjustifiedinaskingwhatRCM?TheonlyplanshereareforTreeClearing,SiltFencingandChipping.
Thereasonableresponseandquestionwouldbeforyoutocomplywithyourcertifiedplan&chipthetreesandplacethemwhereitwilldosome
goodforsoilconservation...likeonthehaulroadthatyourtandemshaveandwilltravel....ortheseveralacresofexposedsoilindicatedinmy
attachedMarch29,2011inspectionletter.
Toemphasizemypointre:walkingamongtheraindropswehaveBasharAssadi'srecentlyfowardedopinion
Thechippingoftreesandplacementofthechipsbelowthecapwill
dramaticallyincreasethepotentialforlandfillgasgenerationinthe
future.TheproposeduseofRCMwouldprovidemuchbetterstabilization
ofthesitewithouttheaddedriskofgasgeneration.
Thisopinionisbothaccurateandconcise.Organicmaterialbelowastructuralgradecanbedeleteriousandpossiblyanaerobicifinsufficient
quantities.ButdoesBasharAssadiknowaboutthetensofacresofwoodchipsthathavebeenspreadtodate?Whenchippingtreescameup
againstthehardEPA"IndianaBat"deadline,itwasonlythenthattheywerecutfelledandforgotteninplace.Priortothatchipswereusedas
backfillonamile+ofsiltfenceandthefirst1000+feetofhaulroadtoreducetracking,mud,etc.
Intheircurrentstatethefelledtreesaretoohighanddryinginthesummersunonaslope.Thearealsoamongstatinderofoldfieldgrassesand
vegetationandimmediatelybelowaresidentialdevelopment.IrequestedonMarch29thatthechipsbeusedtostabilizeexposedsoilsoronthe
haulroadtocoverthoseexposedandrunnyconditions.ThereisasolutionhereandIwouldbegladtoworkwithallinfindingit.Thecurrent
exposedsiteconditionsandpotentialfirehazardonlyrepresentaviolationofthecertifiedplanfortreeclearingapprovedbymyofficeinJanuary,
2011.
YouAsk;
EvenifIhaveanapprovedClosurePlanfromNJDEPIstillcannotbringanycappingmaterialonsiteunlessIfirstspreadwoodchipsonsite?
YesorNo?
Youhaveonlysubmittedaplanforafloating5acredisturbanceona50+acrelandfill.Nowhereinthisapplicationweretheimpactsof
"temporarily"placing25acresofRCMconsidered.TheNJSoilErosionandSedimentControlActrequiresthataplanbecertifiedbeforethis
activitybegins,andbyextensionCERCLA,NJFHACA,andNJPDESrequirethisaswell.TheNJDEPBureauofConstructionwasrequiredto
obtainthissameapprovalfortheCombeFillSouthLandfillClosureinChester,NJ.
Richard,Irespectyourvisionformakinganenvironmentalhazardintoanenvironmentalbenefitbyconvertingalandfilltoasolarfarmandby
usingrecycledmaterialstoboot.Onceyouputthisvisionintoanapplication,thereisnooneonthisextensiveCclistthatwillgetyouapermit
fasternorspendmoretimeonthissite.Butitisstillavision,allIhaveherearetheplanssubmittedandbyextensionthepromisemade.Please
honorthem.
OnFri,Jul8,2011at1:35PM,RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com<mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com>>wrote:
Joe,
IneedacoupleofquestionsansweredsoIseeifitmakesanysensetocontinueonwithourplan.
Questions:
1-ImustchipalltreesonthesiteandspreadthechipsonthelandfillbeforeyouallowanyRCMonsite?
YesorNo?
2-EvenifIhaveanapprovedClosurePlanfromNJDEPIstillcannotbringanycappingmaterialonsiteunlessIfirstspreadwoodchipsonsite?
YesorNo?
SorrytobotheryoubutIneedthesequestionsclarifiedassoonaspossible.
TheanswershaveadirecteffectontheviabilityofSolarLandfillProject.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001<tel:609%20954%209001>
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
www.strategicgreenenergy.com<http:/ / www.strategicgreenenergy.com/ >
OnJul7,2011,at1:41PM,JosephDunn<jdunn@mcscd.org<mailto:jdunn@mcscd.org>>wrote:
>Attachedpleasefindaletterofdenialforthetreeclearingphaseoftheproject.
>Tobeclearthisdenialonlyaddressestheinstallationoftreeprotectionmeasuresalongtheupperportionofthetractandthechippingofcut
treesonthesite.ThisdoesnoteffectourdiscussionRCMimportationontothesite.
>AlsoattachedisourinspectingletterofMarch,2011wherethesematterswereinitiallybroughtup.
>Anyquestionspleasecallmyofficeorcell.
>
>
>--
>JosephP.Dunn,MPA
>DistrictManager
>NJApprovedForester
>NJCertifiedTreeExpertNo.:0398
>USDA-NRCSTechnicalServiceProviderNo.:07-5719
>CertifiedProfessionalinStormWaterQualityNo.:0322
>CertifiedProfessionalinErosion&SedimentControlNo.:1529
>
>MorrisCountySoil
>ConservationDistrict
>POBox0900
>Morristown,NJ07963-0900
>ph:973-285-8339<tel:973-285-8339>cell:973-868-5796<tel:973-868-5796>
>fax:973-285-8345<tel:973-285-8345>
>Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthisemail.
>
>NOTE:Thise-mailisprotectedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.Sections2510-2521.ThisE-Mailanditscontentsmay
PublicRecordsAct.
>
><DenialLtr.pdf>
><INSPECTIONLETTER03-29-11.doc>
--
JosephP.Dunn,MPA
DistrictManager
NJApprovedForester
NJCertifiedTreeExpertNo.:0398
USDA-NRCSTechnicalServiceProviderNo.:07-5719
CertifiedProfessionalinStormWaterQualityNo.:0322
CertifiedProfessionalinErosion&SedimentControlNo.:1529
MorrisCountySoil
ConservationDistrict
POBox0900
Morristown,NJ07963-0900
ph:973-285-8339<tel:973-285-8339>
fax:973-285-8345<tel:973-285-8345>
Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthisemail.
PublicRecordsAct.
--
JosephP.Dunn,MPA
DistrictManager
NJApprovedForester
NJCertifiedTreeExpertNo.:0398
USDA-NRCSTechnicalServiceProviderNo.:07-5719
CertifiedProfessionalinStormWaterQualityNo.:0322
CertifiedProfessionalinErosion&SedimentControlNo.:1529
MorrisCountySoil
ConservationDistrict
POBox0900
Morristown,NJ07963-0900
ph:973-285-8339
fax:973-285-8345
Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthisemail.
PublicRecordsAct.

EXHIBIT 3.16

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/a46ec88b-5b1e-81b4-2384-3ee1e81eec3c.html 1/2
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:12:35 GMT
To: Cindy Randazzo; Ruth Foster;
Subj ect: Fwd: Fenimore/Landfills
i mage005.j pg (12Kb) i mage003.j pg (11Kb) i mage006.j pg (0Kb) i mage004.j pg (11Kb)
i mage001.j pg (16Kb) i mage002.j pg (8Kb)
Ruth,
FYI
This is what I am dealing with in Solar market primarily because I can't give anyone one a concrete answer on timing.
Bob's answer at yesterday's meeting was I haven't read the executive summary let alone the closure plan.
After all the pressure to get the plan in no one has read it.
Except you!!
Thanks
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mike Vespa <mike.vespa@sunpowercorp.com>
Date: July 13, 2011 5:37:19 PM EDT
To: Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com>
Cc: Terence Sobolewski <Terence.Sobolewski@sunpowercorp.com>
Subj ect: Feni more/ Landfi l l s
Rich,

Thank you again for your patience. We have been carefully evaluating the Fenimore opportunity with the
objective of ensuring we could deliver against your expectations. In particular, we have been very
thoughtful about the execution, taking into consideration site conditions, timing and financing
requirements.

Fenimore presents a three primary challenges which may individually be solved but which together make
this a difficult project to deliver economically: 1)slope{3:1 grade}, 2)site work to be completed,
3)timing. Given these variables coupled with declining SREC costs, it would be challenging for SunPower
(and likely other developers) to make the Fenimore project work, thus, the project would not be one we
wish to pursue.

While Fenimore poses challenges, we remain confident in our ability to deliver unparalleled output and
quality for solar projects sited on landfills and brownfields that fit certain basic screening criteria.
Mounting momentum and interest in such projects in New Jersey, specifically, has compelled SunPower
to aggressively pursue these opportunities under the guidance and support of trusted partners like
yourself. And though Fenimore will not be a project that fits our mold of executable projects, we do wish
to continue our conversation with you about other landfill opportunities that might be more economically
feasible. Per our conversation, the opportunity in Eastampton Township is one we would like to discuss
file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/a46ec88b-5b1e-81b4-2384-3ee1e81eec3c.html 2/2
further given it is relatively flat, may provide better soil conditions (bearing capacity), and would have
on-site load or ability to secure a retail PPA.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to speaking again soon with regard to
other opportunities.

Regards,

Mi ke Vespa
Project Development Manager

SunPower Corporati on, Systems
700 South Clinton Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08611 USA
Main 609.964.8900 ext. 25831
Fax 609.964.8924
Cell 215-527-2459
mike.vespa@sunpowercorp.com
SunPower

EXHIBIT 3.17

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/5d84aaa2-454a-430b-67e7-1b310bc692d5.html 1/4
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:56:11 GMT
To: Joseph Dunn
CC: John Showler; Bashar Assadi; Tom Bruinooge; Scott Brubaker; Cindy Randazzo; Ruth Foster; Judy Larkin;
kim guadagno; Jei Chon; Tom Demichele; Ian Shearn;
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore Landfill, Roxbury Township, Failure to Submit Soil Conservation Application
Joe,
My engineer will call you today.
We just met with DEP yesterday to make sure they agree with what will be put into the MCSD permit.
We are all trying to work together on this project. I have many regulatory hurdles and the DEP and my team
completely understand you can make or break this landfill cleanup solar project.
Thanks for your input,
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
On Jul 22, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Joseph Dunn <jdunn@mcscd.org> wrote:
Rich,
Based on our last discussion I would have expected to have your application in our shop by this time.
You had promised it by now. I have your request for inter-meeting approval on the Board's agenda but
I suspect it will fall flat without an application, plan and fees in our shop.

I would also suggest that NJDEP may want to stay their approval due to the changes in design we may
request and part of our normal review process. Your designer has a tough job to do, coordinating
permits and it is made harder by finalizing one without even submit the other for review.

While I can expedite administrative matters there is no relief for technical ones. So the sooner you put
me in the game the sooner can I inform you professional of any issues.

So please make application now any delays in your project will be attributable to this lapse.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com> wrote:
We need Closure Plan!!!!!!!!!!
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
From: "Susan Michniewski" <Susan.Michniewski@dep.state.nj.us>
Date: July 19, 2011 2:30:23 PM EDT
To: <rwbernardi@aol.com>
Cc: "MaryJo Aiello" <MaryJo.Aiello@dep.state.nj.us>, "Vincent Mazzei"
<Vincent.Mazzei@dep.state.nj.us>, <dlabrake@matrixneworld.com>,
<jchon@matrixneworld.com>, <jdunn@mcscd.org>
Subj ect: Re: Feni more Landfi l l , Roxbury Townshi p
Rich - This new proposal will need a modification to the Freshwater Wetlands (FWW)
General Permit No. 5 and Flood Hazard Area (FHA) Individual Permit issued on 1/21/11,
and modified on 2/16/11, File No. 1436-10-0003.1. Please send a request for the
modification, with a description of proposed activities within FWW/FHA regulated areas,
and six copies of a site plan showing the proposed activities. We will also need the
Disruption Approval modification noted below. I can be reached at (609) 777-1726 with
any questions. SM
MaryJo Aiello 7/15/2011 3:28 PM >>>
"The NJDEP Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Program has no objection to SEP's
acceptance of approximately 700 cy of clean concrete from Cambridge Block at the
Fenimore Landfill site for the purpose of improving the existing haul road provided the
haul road is not extended, it results in the removal of the cut trees from the site and is in
conformance with the Morris County SCD approval. SEP must also comply with any
regulations and obtain any approvals or authorizations required by the NJDEP's Division
of Land Use Regulation. I understand that Vince Mazzei will return from vacation on
Monday.
The Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Program intends to modify the existing
Disruption Approval last modified on January 20, 2011 to formalize authorization of this
activity."
Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com>
7/15/2011 9:07 AM >>>
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
From: Joseph Dunn <jdunn@mcscd.org>
Date: July 15, 2011 5:19:23 AM EDT
To: Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Landfill
Just to confirm our discussion last night, The site can extend the tracking
opad using RCM provided it results in removal of the cut trees from the
site and does not extend beyong the haul road.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Joseph Dunn <jdunn@mcscd.org> wrote:
H 9083628368
On 7/14/11, Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com> wrote:
Joe,
When can I call you. I have some new developments I need
to discuss with
you.
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
--
Sent from my mobile device
Joseph P. Dunn, MPA
USDA-NRCS Technical Service Provider No.:07-5719
49 Millbrook-Stillwater Road
Hardwick, NJ 07825
ph & fax: 908-362-8368
m 973-868-5796
--
Joseph P. Dunn, MPA
District Manager
Morris County Soil
PO Box 0900
ph:973-285-8339
fax: 973-285-8345
NOTE: This e-mail is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. This E-Mail and its contents may be
Privileged & Confidential due to the Attorney-Client Privilege, Attorney
Work Product, Deliberative Process or under the New Jersey Open Public
Records Act.
--
Joseph P. Dunn, MPA
District Manager

Morris County Soil
PO Box 0900
ph:973-285-8339
fax: 973-285-8345

NOTE: This e-mail is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-
2521. This E-Mail and its contents may be Privileged & Confidential due to the Attorney-Client Privilege,
Attorney Work Product, Deliberative Process or under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.

EXHIBIT 3.18

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/7674e844-666b-66b4-587b-633f0608f056.html 1/1
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:29:16 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
CC: Bruinooge, Tom; Gerchman, Michael; Aiello, MaryJo;
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore ACO
Bob,
IamnotFamiliarwithanycourtcases.
WearehavingthismeetingbecauseMaryJosuggestedwecangetanACOlikeMalangaLandfillhasbeengettingtohelpfinancetheirproject.
ItseemstheDEPneedsmoretimetoreviewourClosurePlanandweneedtostartjobnoworwewilllooseourSolarGrant.TheACOwould
solveourproblem.
Thanks
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
OnAug1,2011,at4:06PM,"RobertConfer"<Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>Rich,wouldyoupleasebringacopyofthe1986courtdecisiononFenimoreoracitationtoitifyouhaveit?
>
>Bob
>
>
>Notice:TheinformationcontainedinthisentireElectronicMailMessagethread(EMM)andallattachmentsfromtheStateofNewJersey,
>Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyoumustnotreview,transmit,converttohardcopy,copy,use,ordisseminate
>
>
>
>MailCode401-02C

EXHIBIT 3.19

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/498058e6-444e-532f-0724-16fc0e6b2b97.html 1/2
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:11:55 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore Landfill
Bob,
Atmeetingyesterdayyoucommentedonfinancialplan.Youaskedhowarewemakinganymoney.
Thefillmarketisgettingworseandworsebecauseontheeconomy.TheSolarmarketwillbegoneattheendoftheyear.
Wemaydesignsomuchintothisprojectthatitcan'tbedone.
Justanobservation.
Iamjusttryingtokeeptheremediation
alive.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
>Tom,myinitialreactiontothegascollectionsystemisthatitneedstobeextendedintomoreareaswherewastewasdelineated,roughlyadoublingof
themanifoldsystemoutlinedthere.Staffwillreviewfurther.
>Bob
>
>Notice:TheinformationcontainedinthisentireElectronicMailMessagethread(EMM)andallattachmentsfromtheStateofNewJersey,Departmentof
EnvironmentalProtectionisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividualorentitytowhichitisaddressedandtheEMMmaycontaininformationthatmay
bePrivileged&ConfidentialduetotheAttorneyClientPrivilege,AttorneyWorkProduct,DeliberativeProcessorundertheNewJerseyOpenPublic
RecordsAct.Thise-mailisprotectedbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.Sections2510-2521.
>Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyoumustnotreview,transmit,converttohardcopy,copy,use,ordisseminatethis
EMMoranyattachmentstoitandthatsuchuse,dissemination,distributionorcopyingofthisEMMisstrictlyprohibitedandmaybeunlawful.Pleasenote
thatifthisEMMmessagecontainsaforwardedmessageorisareplytoapriormessage,someorallofthecontentsofthisEMMoranyattachments,may
nothavebeenproducedbytheStateofNewJersey,DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.IfyouhavereceivedthisEMMinerrorpleaseimmediately
notifyusbyreturne-mailorbytelephoneat609-984-6985anddeletethismessage.
>
>
>MailCode401-02C
>
>>>>TomDemichele<tdemichele@matrixneworld.com>8/ 4/ 20115:42PM>>>
>Bob,
>Attachedistheleachatecollectionsystemplanswithdesigncalculationincluded.Matrixwillstilloweyouasignedandsealedsetalongwith
descriptionoftheO&Moftheleachatecollectionsystem.Alsoattachedistherevisedlandfillgasmanagementsystemplans.MatrixstillowesNJDEPthe
signedandsealedversionoftheseplansandthedesigncalculations.
>
>Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorcommentspleasedonothesitatetocalloremailme.
>
>Thanks
>
>ThomasDeMichele,LSRP
>ProjectManager
file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/498058e6-444e-532f-0724-16fc0e6b2b97.html 2/2
>
>MatrixNewWorldEngineering,Inc.
>120EagleRockAvenue,Suite207
>EastHanover,NJ07936
>973.240.1800Ext.118Fax973.240.1818
>
>
>[Description:cid:image002.jpg@01CB34C1.C2A496D0]
>
>www.matrixneworld.com<file:/ / / \ \ MATRIXFILE1\ Application%20Data\ Microsoft\ Application%20Data\ Microsoft\ Signatures\ www.matrixneworld.com>
>CertifiedWBE,DBE,SBEBusiness
>
>Thismessage(includinganyattachments)isconfidentialandmaybeprivileged.Ifyouhavereceiveditbymistakepleasenotifythesenderbyreturne-
mailanddeletethismessagefromyoursystem.Anyunauthorizeduseordisseminationofthismessageinwholeorinpartisstrictlyprohibited.Although
Matrixhastakenreasonableprecautionstoensurenovirusesarepresentinthisemail,thecompanycannotacceptresponsibilityforanylossordamage
arisingfromtheuseofthisemailorattachments.Matrixdoesnotguaranteethattheintegrityofthiscommunicationhasbeenmaintainedorthatthis
communicationisfreeofviruses,interceptionsorinterference.
>
>
>
>

EXHIBIT 3.20

file:///C:/Users/Nichole/Dropbox/Fenimore%20(1)/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/From/messages/fc821905-e648-a2fe-3282-5de9bbb85fe5.html 1/1
From: Rilee Jim Sent: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:03:40 GMT
To: Cindy Randazzo
Subj ect: FW: Fenimore: Notice of Deficiency
Feni more Si te Noti ce of Defi ci ency.PDF (545Kb)
Cindy,

I noticed you were not copied on the original. So here you go.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim Rilee
Mayor
Roxbury Township

From: Rhead Amy
Sent : Friday, August 05, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Mayor and Council; Stern Russell; Raths Chris
Subject : Fenimore: Notice of Deficiency
Please see attached letter. Original in Jim Rilees packet.

Amy E. Rhead
.
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
Phone: 973-448-2001
Fax: 973-448-2111
Email: rheada@roxburynj.us

EXHIBIT 3.21

EXHIBIT 3.22

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/9eec70b8-5790-bd19-faa0-d46d570ffe78.html 1/2
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:25:58 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
CC: ; Ali, Saara; Bello, Dan; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Wells, Opal; Reilly, Rick; Brubaker,
Scott; Michniewski, Susan; Mazzei, Vincent; Siekerka, Michele; Larkin, Judy; ; ;
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore MTG. 8/18/11 8:30 am
Robert,
EverythingisdoneandreadyforThursday.Wecan'tstop.
Weneedtokeepmoving,Solariscrashing,WeneedClosurePlantosignSolardealandfundproject.
SRECmarkethascrashed.
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
>ALL:MaryAnneisoutonvacthisweekandunfortunatelySaarahassuddenlycalledoutsickfortheweeksowewillnotmakeprogressthis
weekontheclosureplanreview.
>
>Irecallfromlastweek'smtg.therewereafewsubmissionsexpectedthisweek,Q&AandstabilityanalysisandtheprojecttimelineIrequested.
IfthesearereadythenameetingmaybeproductiveotherwisewemaywanttopostponethismeetingandlookforwardtonextThursdaysmtg.
Iwillbeoutthenbutmystaffwillbeheretomanagethecase.
>
>Letmeknowifyouwanttodrivedownforthemeeting8/ 18.
>
>Bob
>
>MailCode401-02C
>
>>>>OpalWells8/ 15/ 20111:45PM>>>
>AttendeesListUpdated:namebolded
>RobertConfer
>MichaelGerchman
>MaryAnneGoldman
>SaaraAli
>SusanMichniewski
>DanBello
>RickReilly
>VincentMazzei
>RichardBernardi
>BasharAssadi
>TomDeMichele
>JeiChon
>BrianHobbs
>
file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/9eec70b8-5790-bd19-faa0-d46d570ffe78.html 2/2
>Location:
>401E.StateSt.,Trenton,NJ08625
>Dir.Conf.Rm.-acrossfromthePublicHearingRm.

EXHIBIT 3.23

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council
Chester, New Jersey 07930-2322
(908) 879-6737
(908) 879-4205 (fax)
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Governor

KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Governor
JIM RILEE
Chairman

EILEEN SWAN
Executive Director

October 17, 2011

Richard Bernardi
Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 356

Re: Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation
Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill
Block 7404 Lot 1
Township of Roxbury, Morris County

Dear Mr. Bernardi:

On behalf of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council (Highlands Council), I am
pleased to provide you with a copy of the Highlands Councils resolution of October 13, 2011,
approving the Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation for the Former Fenimore Sanitary
Landfill, with supporting materials. This approval is a necessary prerequisite for a Highlands
Preservation Area Approval (HPAA) with Redevelopment Waiver from the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Please note that this resolution is subject to a Governors
review period.

The Highlands Council staff has also prepared a matrix of checklist items regarding HPAA with
Redevelopment Waiver submittal requirements, which provides advisory information to both the
applicant and the NJDEP. The matrix notes those items we feel have already been addressed by the
Highlands Council review, and those remaining items that need to be provided to the NJDEP by
Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C. Please find enclosed the matrix for the Former Fenimore
Sanitary Landfill redevelopment project.

While we will be forwarding the attached matrix directly to NJDEP, we recommend that you also
submit a copy as part of your HPAA application package. Please be advised that the matrix is
provided for advisory purposes only; it is recognized that NJDEP may require additional
information from you as part of their review of the HPAA application. It is our expectation that
October 17, 2011
Page 2

this matrix will assist the NJDEP staff in their review of your HPAA application package, and will
facilitate an efficient review by identifying required application items that have already been fulfilled
by the analysis prepared by the Highlands Council. As mentioned at the Highlands Council meeting,
please feel free to contact me if Highlands Council representation is desired for any meeting with
NJDEP regarding this issue. Please be advised that in accordance with the Highlands Act, the
Highlands Councils resolution of this matter shall have no force and effect until the end of the
Governors ten business day review period after receipt of the Councils meeting minutes.

If you have my questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly or you may also contact my
Executive Assistant, Annette Tagliareni, at (908) 879-6737 ext. 111, or you may reach her via e-mail
at annette.tagliareni@highlands.state.nj.us.

Yours sincerely,

Eileen Swan
Executive Director

Enclosures -
Highlands Council Resolution
Consistency Determination
Staff Recommendation Report
Public Comment Summary and Responses
Highlands Preservation Area Approval Application Checklist Items

c: Jim Rilee, Mayor of Roxbury Township (no enclosures)
Russell Stern, Director of Planning, Roxbury Township
Thomas DeMichele, Project Manager (Matrix New World Engineering, Inc.)

RESOLUTION 2011-35
NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING COUNCIL
DESIGNATION OF HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR THE FORMER FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL, BLOCK 7404, LOT 1,
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (Highlands Act) has created a
public body corporate and politic with corporate succession known as the Highlands Water
Protection and Planning Council (Highlands Council); and

WHEREAS, Section 9 and 11 of the Highlands Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-9.b. and N.J.S.A. 13:20-
11.a.(6)(h), specifies that in preparing the Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP), the Highlands
Council may, in conjunction with municipalities in the Preservation Area, identify areas in which
redevelopment shall be encouraged and shall identify areas appropriate for redevelopment in order
to promote the economic well-being of the municipality, provided that the redevelopment conforms
with the goals of the Preservation Area and the Highlands Act, with the rules and regulations
adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and any area so identified for
possible redevelopment shall be either a brownfield site designated by the NJDEP or a site at which
at least 70% of the area thereof is covered with impervious surface; and

WHEREAS, Section 35 of the Highlands Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-33.b.(2), authorized NJDEP to grant
a waiver of any provision of a Highlands permitting review on a case-by-case basis for
redevelopment in certain previously developed areas in the Preservation Areas identified by the
Highlands Council pursuant to Section 9.b. or Section 11.a.(6)(h); and

WHEREAS, the NJDEP had adopted rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 et seq. (Highlands Rules)
governing the NJDEPs review of projects in the Highlands Region; and

WHEREAS, the Highlands Rules, at N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.4, specifies that as provided for in Highlands
Act, the NJDEP may waive any provision of the rules for redevelopment in certain previously
developed areas in the Preservation Area identified by the Highlands Council pursuant to the
Highlands Act; and

WHEREAS, the Highlands Council prepared and adopted Procedures for Highlands
Redevelopment Areas Designation (Procedures) by Resolution 2008-43 dated October 30, 2008; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant, Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C., submitted a Petition for
Highlands Redevelopment Area Determination for Roxbury, Morris County, Block 7404 Lot 1; and

WHEREAS, the Highlands Council released the Highlands Council Staff Draft Recommendation
Report dated September 23, 2011 for public comment; and

WHEREAS, the Highlands Council held a public comment period concerning the proposed
Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation commencing September 23, 2011 and ending October
7, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Highlands Council duly considered the Draft Recommendation Report and all
public comments on the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation; and
Pursuant to N.J.S.A.13:20-5j this Resolution shall have no force or effect
until the completion of the Governors review of the Highlands Council minutes
Pursuant to N.J.S.A.13:20-5j this Resolution shall have no force or effect
until the completion of the Governors review of the Highlands Council minutes

State of New Jersey
(908) 879-6737
(908) 879-4205 (fax)

HIGHLANDS RMP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION REVIEW

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill Highlands Redevelopment Area Date: October 14, 2011
Name of Applicant: Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C.
Areawide WQMP: N/A WMP: N/A
Municipality: Roxbury Township County: Morris County
Exempt project? No Project specific amendment? No WMP review? No
NJDEP Activity #: NJDEP Facility ID # 132518 HPAA#: To follow designation
Lot and Block, if applicable: Block 7404 Lot 1
Sewer Service Area/WWTP Facility: N/A
Sewer Service Area/WWTP Facility: New Existing If existing provide the following:
Proposed Change in Service Area or Wastewater Flow?: No
NJPDES #: Permit Discharge (MGD):
Type of Discharge: GW SW Total Proposed Service Area (acres): No change
Total Existing Service Area (acres): No change
Description of Project: Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C. has petitioned for Highlands Council designation
of a Highlands Redevelopment Area for a brownfield site, to allow the construction of a solar energy array. The
proposed project is the redevelopment of the Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill, located in Roxbury Township. The
property that contains the landfill (Block 7404 Lot 1) encompasses approximately 102 acres, of which approximately
60 acres had been utilized for landfilling activities from the early 1950s to the late 1970s. The property is bounded by
the Morris Canal Park to the north and northeast, housing developments to the northwest and west, Mountain Road
to the south, and Ledgewood Park to the east. The NJDEP has determined that the property contains a sanitary
landfill facility as defined in the Solid Waste Management Act and therefore qualifies for a Highlands Brownfield
Designation under Track One at N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.6(b)1. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.6(c), a Track One
Highlands Brownfield consists of the limit of waste and those areas that were legally disturbed as of August 10, 2004.
The NJDEP approved the Highlands Brownfield Designation on August 18, 2011, as depicted on the plan titled
Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill, Block 7404 Lot 1, Roxbury Township, Morris County, New Jersey Sheet No.
BD-1, dated July 27, 2011, last revised August 17, 2011, and prepared by Matrix New World Engineering. The
issuance of the Highlands Brownfield Designation by the NJDEP allowed the applicant to petition the Highlands
Council for a Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation for the designated brownfield site.

The proposed solar energy project will be preceded by closure of the landfill, which did not occur in 1979 when
operations ceased. The closure of the landfill qualifies for Exemption #15 under the Highlands Act and is not
addressed by this Consistency Determination. Following the proper closure of the landfill in various phases, the
applicant proposes to redevelop the landfill (i.e., the area designated as the Highlands Brownfield, which in this case is
coterminous with the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area) by placing photovoltaic panels on top of the
constructed landfill cap using non-penetrating structures to maintain cap integrity. According to the applicant, the
photovoltaic system would be capable of generating 10 megawatts of electrical power and would encompass up to
approximately 50 acres (almost the entire area of the Highlands Brownfield). This Highlands Council Consistency
Determination review is only for the proposed redevelopment on top of the constructed landfill cap. Thus, the
initial condition for this review is the closed and capped landfill (i.e., the area designated as the Highlands
Brownfield). Note that the NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval (both issued
on October 6, 2011) address the various phases of the landfill closure. The Highlands Councils approval of a
Highlands Redevelopment Area provides the ability for NJDEP to issue a Highlands Preservation Area Approval

Project Name: Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill Date: October 14, 2011
Name of Applicant: Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C. Page: 2
(HPAA), which will have to address how construction will be phased, where small areas are capped and solar panels
installed as they concurrently move to the capping of other portions of the landfill.

The verification that the landfill has been properly closed and capped would occur through NJDEP Landfill Closure
approval and the HPAA process. Redevelopment activities in any area so designated by the Highlands Council as a
Highlands Redevelopment Area and subject to any approvals required by the municipality pursuant to MLUL may
only commence upon issuance of an HPAA. Highlands resources that are to be removed by the final closure process
are not considered in this Consistency Determination. However, Highlands Resources to be created through NJDEP
requirements as part of the final closure process (which for this project includes a portion of a stream corridor
relocation that traverses the brownfield) are considered.
PRESERVATION AND PLANNING AREAS AND LAND USE CAPABILITY ZONES
Project Area located in which Highlands Act Area? (Check all that apply.):
Preservation Area If yes, percentage? 100 % Planning Area If yes, percentage? %
Project Area within which Land Use Capability Zone or Sub-Zone? (check all that apply):
Protection Zone Conservation Zone Existing Community Zone
Conservation Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone Existing Community Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone
Lake Community Sub-Zone Wildlife Management Sub-Zone
The review below is organized by Regional Master Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives for each resource and smart
growth category; C stands for Consistent, I for Inconsistent, and N/A means the goal, policy, or objective is not
applicable. Project specific reviews are based on the application of these Policies and Objectives to the project site,
and do not require the adoption of municipal ordinances. Documents reviewed for this analysis include all appropriate
documents submitted to the NJDEP, Highlands Council GIS data and technical reports, and documents related to the
State Planning Commission Plan Endorsement process where applicable.

PART 1 NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBPART A FOREST RESOURCES
Project Area within Forest Resource Area? Yes
If yes to above, is there Encroachment into a Forest within Forest Resource Area? No
Forest Integrity Value (check one): High Medium Low
Comments: The capped landfill will not feature forested areas. Construction of the photovoltaic panels on top of
the constructed landfill cap will not affect forested areas. As the remainder of the property outside of the proposed
Highlands Redevelopment Area (other than disturbance required by the remedial actions) shall be protected through a
conservation restriction, forest resources located outside of the Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected.
Any impacts to forested areas for access to transmission lines and stream relocation outside of the delineated
Brownfield will require mitigation to be approved by Highlands Council through the HPAA process.
SUBPART B HIGHLANDS OPEN WATERS AND RIPARIAN AREAS
Project Area includes Highlands Open Waters Buffer? Yes
Highlands Open Waters Affected: Streams Lakes & Ponds Wetlands
Highlands Open Waters in Preservation Area: Yes
Watershed Value (Check one): High Medium Low
Area includes Riparian Area? No If No, disregard remainder of Riparian Area checklist.
Specific Riparian Area Features (Check all that apply.): Flood Prone Areas Lakes& Ponds
Riparian Soils Wetlands Wildlife Corridor Streams
Riparian Integrity Value (Check one per HUC14): High Medium Low HUC14:
High Medium Low HUC14:
High Medium Low HUC14:
Regional Master Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives: C I N/A
Policy 1D4: Highlands Open Waters shall include a protection buffer of 300 feet from the edge of the discernable bank of the
Highlands Open Waters feature, or from the centerline where no discernable bank exists. With respect to wetlands and other

Highlands Open Waters features (e.g., seeps, springs, etc.), the feature shall include a protection buffer of 300 feet from the
delineated Letter of Interpretation (LOI) line issued by the NJDEP for wetlands, or from a field-delineated boundary for other
features. In areas where existing development or land uses within the protection buffers have reduced or impaired the functional
values of the buffers, the Council will seek opportunities to restore the buffer and its functions. Any proposed disturbance shall,
through local development review and Highlands Project Review, comply with Highlands Open Waters buffer standards. The
protection buffer width for Category 2 streams in the Planning Area may be modified through a Stream Corridor Protec-
tion/Restoration Plan, as specified in Objective 1D4i. In approved Redevelopment Areas, the Council may, at its discretion, modify
the required buffer, upon a showing of no alternatives, no impact to the functional value of the buffer, and provision of alternative
approaches to enhancing or protecting Highlands Open Waters and resources of the buffer area.
Objective 1D4a: Require that all applications for approval through local development review and Highlands Project Review include
the identification and mapping of Highlands Open Waters.

Objective 1D4b: Preservation Area buffers for Highlands Open Waters shall comply with the Highlands Preservation Area rules at
N.J.A.C. 7:38, which provide that all major Highlands developments are prohibited within Highlands Open Waters and its adjacent
300 foot buffer in the Preservation Area except for linear development, which may be permitted provided that there is no feasible
alternative for the linear development outside Highlands Open Waters or its buffer. Structures or other land improvements existing
within Highlands Open Waters buffer in the Preservation Area on August 10, 2004 may remain, provided that the area of
disturbance is not increased other than through a HPAA. For purposes of this Objective when considering land for conversion to
non-agricultural land uses, historic or current agricultural land uses shall not be considered land improvements, development,
land disturbances, or land uses.

Objective 1D4c: Require that proposed development within all Highlands Open Waters buffers (Preservation and Planning Areas)
conforms through local development review and Highlands Project Review with the buffer requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8
(Stormwater Management Rules), N.J.A.C 7:13 (Flood Hazard Area Rules), and N.J.A.C. 7:7 (Freshwater Wetland Rules), and with
any applicable requirements of a Regional Stormwater Plan adopted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater Management Rules).

Objective 1D4d: Structures or other land improvements existing within a Highlands Open Waters buffer of the Planning Area on
August 10, 2004 may remain, provided that the area of disturbance shall not be increased unless approved through local
development review or Highlands Project Review in compliance with RMP policies and objectives. For purposes of this Objective
when considering land for conversion to non-agricultural land uses, historic or current agricultural land uses shall not be considered
land improvements, development, land disturbances, or land uses.

Objective 1D4e: In the Protection and Conservation Zones of the Planning Area, proposed disturbances of Highlands Open
Waters buffers shall only occur in previously disturbed areas, unless a waiver is granted by the Highlands Council under Policy 7G2.
For purposes of this Objective when considering land for conversion to non-agricultural land uses, historic or current agricultural
land uses shall not be considered land improvements, development, land disturbances, or land uses. Such proposed
disturbances must demonstrate full utilization of the following performance standards in the listed order, to demonstrate the
necessity of an encroachment into Highlands Open Waters buffers: 1) avoid the disturbance of Highlands Open Waters buffers; 2)
minimize impacts to Highlands Open Waters buffers; and 3) mitigate all adverse impacts to Highlands Open Waters buffers so that
there is no net loss of the functional value of the buffer, in compliance with Objective 1D4h. Minimization and mitigation
opportunities shall be considered only upon a clear and convincing demonstration by the applicant that the protection buffer
cannot be avoided and in no case shall the remaining buffer be reduced to less than 150 feet from the edge of Highlands Open
Waters, unless a waiver is granted by the Highlands Council under Policy 7G2 and the proposed disturbance complies with
Objective 1D4c.

Objective 1D4f: In the Existing Community Zone of the Planning Area, proposed disturbances of Highlands Open Waters buffers
shall only occur in previously disturbed areas, unless a waiver is granted by the Highlands Council under Policy 7G2 and the
proposed disturbance complies with Objective 1D4c. For purposes of this Objective when considering land for conversion to non-
agricultural land uses, historic or current agricultural land uses shall not be considered land improvements, development, land
disturbances, or land uses. Such disturbances shall employ performance standards such that all proposed disturbances of
Highlands Open Waters buffers shall employ Low Impact Development Best Management Practices to mitigate all adverse
modification to Highlands Open Waters buffers so that there is no net loss of the functional value of the buffer, in compliance with
Objective 1D4h.

Objective 1D4i: Develop through Plan Conformance and implement stream corridor or subwatershed-based Stream Corridor
Protection/Restoration Plans which shall include Steps 1, 2, and 3, and may include Steps 4 and 5:
1. Identify areas where existing development, land disturbances, or land uses are within Highlands Open Waters buffers have
removed or substantially impaired natural vegetation communities, and have significantly reduced or impaired the functional values
of Highlands Open Waters buffers. For purposes of this Objective when considering land for conversion to non-agricultural land
uses, historic or current agricultural land uses shall not be considered land improvements, development, land disturbances, or
land uses;
2. Identify and require opportunities for restoration of areas identified in Step 1 as part of mitigation requirements under a
Highlands Act waiver or Objectives 1D4e and 1D4f, and public or nongovernmental restoration/stabilization projects;
3. Identify the extent of stream corridor features that are critical to supporting the functions of a healthy Highlands Open Waters
buffer and that extend beyond the buffers required by Objectives 1D4b and 1D4c. The 300 foot buffer in these areas may be
expanded to be most protective of these features which may include, but are not limited to, Critical Habitat, pollutant source areas
identified through scientific techniques, and steep slopes;
4. Where Highlands Open Waters buffers include areas identified in Step 1, regarding Category 2 surface waters in the Planning
Area only, the Stream Corridor Protection/Restoration Plan may identify where, based on scientific analysis of site-specific
conditions (e.g., topography, vegetation cover type, habitat, soil type, upstream land uses and pollution inputs, width of floodplain,
rate and volume of run-off), a buffer of less than the full 300 feet (but including the undisturbed buffer area at a minimum) is
sufficient to maintain or improve the protection of Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas. The plan must identify alternative
buffers that provide functional buffer values at least equivalent to existing conditions and are no less than 150 feet or no less than
the extent allowed in State or municipal regulation (including Objectives 1D4b and 1D4c), whichever is greater. Further, the plan
shall include a functional value assessment to ensure that there is no net loss in the overall functional value of the subwatersheds

stream buffers. Buffers established through this process shall be determined based on site conditions rather than fixed distances,
reflecting findings of the scientific analysis, and shall be used in the site design and development review process regarding
determinations of restoration, continued use, or increased use of the disturbed buffer area. Buffer averaging for the purpose of
accommodating development proposals is deemed not to meet the requirements of this provision; and
5. Where a proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area would not meet, in full, Objectives 1D4b through 1D4h but affects an
undisturbed buffer area determined to not be necessary for the protection of the functional values for Highlands Open Waters
buffer (as determined through scientific analysis of site-specific conditions), modification of the undisturbed buffer may be allowed
to no less than the extent allowed in State or municipal regulation. However the Council shall first determine that there is no
alternative to the proposed reduction of the buffer, and require a showing of no impact to the functional values of the buffer and
provision of alternative approaches to enhancing or protecting the Highlands Open Waters and resources of the buffer area.
Restoration or enhancement of buffer functional values shall be provided on-site or within the same stream reach to achieve a net
improvement of existing buffer functional values.
Objective 1D4j: The Highlands Council may require on a case-by-case basis, through Highlands Project Review, an expansion of
the 300 foot buffer to protect the habitat of a water or wetlands-dependant rare, threatened or endangered species, to the minimum
expansion necessary to achieve protection of that species.

Policy 1D5: Protect the integrity of the Riparian Areas through the application of RMP standards during local development review
and Highlands Project Review.

Objective 1D5a: Require that all applications for approval through local development review and Highlands Project Review include
the identification and mapping of Highlands Riparian Areas, including those identified by the Highlands Council and by site-specific
analysis.

Objective 1D5b: Limit disturbance of existing natural vegetation or increases in impervious area within High and Moderate
Integrity Riparian Areas in any Land Use Capability Zone to the minimum alteration feasible in areas beyond Highlands Open
Waters buffer requirements; protect the water quality of adjacent Highlands Open Waters; and maintain or restore habitat value of
the Riparian Area.

Objective 1D5c: Prohibit modifications to Riparian Areas in the Protection Zone except where a waiver is approved by the
NJDEP or the Highlands Council under Policy 7G1 or 7G2.

Objective 1D5d: Restrict modifications to Riparian Areas in the Existing Community Zone, other than those addressed by
Objective 1D5b, that would alter or be detrimental to the water quality and habitat value of a Riparian Area.

Objective 1D5e: Implement Low Impact Development Best Management Practices for any development activity proposed within
a Riparian Area, which minimize both alterations of natural vegetation and increases in impervious area, in compliance with Policies
6N3 and 6N4 and provide for mitigation through restoration of impaired Riparian Areas in the same HUC14 subwatershed.

Objective 1D5f: Require that development within Riparian Areas conforms through local development review and Highlands
Project Review to any applicable requirements of a Regional Stormwater Plan adopted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater
Management Rules).

Objective 1D5g: Require identification and implementation of opportunities where the restoration and enhancement of previously
impaired Riparian Areas are feasible and appropriate as mitigation to any allowable modification to Riparian Area requirements.

Comments: There are two unnamed tributaries that traverse the property. The two tributaries converge outside and
east of the landfill forming a tributary of Ledgewood Brook. Ledgewood Brook is classified by the State of New
Jersey as a FW2 Trout Production (TP) stream (Category 1). The installation of the photovoltaic panels on top of
the constructed landfill cap would result in the encroachment of the 300-foot Highlands Open Waters buffers for off-
site streams. However, it is recognized that the buffers in the project area are entirely disturbed (capped landfill) and
that the photovoltaic project will have no effect on the buffer area subsequent to landfill final closure. However, to
the extent feasible, as a condition of this approval, establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the
stream reach and the project area should be required. Management of stormwater shall be addressed through the
HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process.

A component of the remediation activities is the re-routing of the stream that exists within the southeastern portion
of the parcel. The stream will be relocated to the south, but still on the parcel. To prevent bank erosion from
stormwater runoff of high quantity and volume, rip-rap will be utilized to stabilize the stream bank. To minimize
potential impacts from the solar array on stream water quality and habitat, a condition of this approval is the
establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer along the edge of the rip-rap, outside of the designated
Highlands Brownfield. Site-appropriate native species from a local nursery should be utilized. By providing vegetation
along the rip-rap stream bank, the functional value of the stream buffer will be enhanced. Establishment and
maintenance of the vegetated buffer will require Highlands Council approval and shall be addressed through the
HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process. The above conditions shall be addressed through a minimum 50-
foot vegetated buffer consisting of layered woody and herbaceous species, except the buffer may be smaller where it
would impede the proper closure of the landfill under NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure
Plan Approval.

SUBPART C STEEP SLOPES
Project Area includes: Steep Slopes >20% in Any Areas (severely constrained)? Yes
Steep Slopes >15% in Forested Areas (severely constrained)? No
Steep Slopes >10% in Riparian Area in Undeveloped Lands (moderately constrained)? No
Comments: As part of remediation activities the landfill will be graded and capped. Construction of the
photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill cap is not expected to affect steep slopes. However, the
northeastern border of the constructed landfill cap will be sloping and is adjacent to a steep ridge. As a condition of
this approval, the applicant must demonstrate that the solar panels can be effectively constructed to be stable and
maintained in this portion of the landfill cap, consistent with NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and the Landfill
Closure Plan or, that the placement of solar panels in this portion of the landfill will be avoided. This condition shall
require Highlands Council approval and be addressed through the HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process.
SUBPART D CRITICAL HABITAT
Project Area includes:
Critical Wildlife Habitat? No

Significant Natural Area(s)? No

Vernal Pool(s) +1,000 ft? No
Comments: The capped landfill will not feature Critical Wildlife Habitat. Construction of the photovoltaic panels on
top of the constructed landfill cap will not affect Critical Wildlife Habitat. The Highlands Council GIS data indicate
that some areas on the parcel outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield site are mapped as Critical Wildlife
Habitat. No change is proposed to these areas. As the remainder of the property outside of the proposed Highlands
Redevelopment Area shall be protected through a conservation restriction, Critical Wildlife Habitat located outside of
the Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected. Any disturbances for access to transmission lines will require
mitigation to be approved by Highlands Council through HPAA process.
SUBPART E LAND PRESERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP
Project Area within Conservation Priority Area? Yes If yes, percentage? 20 %
Project Area within Special Environmental Zone? No If yes, identify properties (B/L):
Project Area includes preserved land? No If yes, identify properties (B/L):
Comments: Portions of the designated Highlands Brownfield Area are mapped as Conservation Priority Area
Moderate. The property does not lie within a Special Environmental Zone and it does not include preserved land. No
construction activity will occur outside the Highlands Brownfield Area. The remainder of the property outside of the
proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected through a conservation restriction. A management plan
shall be developed and implemented by the applicant to protect Highlands resources within the conservation
restriction lands. It shall address especially the control of invasive species, the introduction or growth of which may be
encouraged through any necessary disturbance, such as disturbances for access to transmission lines.
SUBPART F CARBONATE ROCK (KARST) TOPOGRAPHY
Project Area within or contributing to Carbonate Rock Area? No
Comments: Based on review of the Highlands Council GIS data, the property is not located in a Carbonate Rock
Area.
SUBPART G LAKE MANAGEMENT
Project Area within Lake Management Area? No If No, disregard remainder of Lake Management checklist.
If yes, which Tier: Shoreland Protection Tier No Water Quality Management Tier No
Scenic Resources Tier No Lake Watershed Tier No
Project Area within Lake Community Sub-Zone? No
If yes, which Tier: Shoreland Protection Tier No Water Quality Management Tier No
Scenic Resources Tier No Lake Watershed Tier No
Comments: The parcel does not lie within a Lake Management Area or a Lake Community Sub-Zone.
PART 2 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER UTILITIES
SUBPART A WATER RESOURCES AVAILABILITY
Comments: The proposed project is the placement of photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill cap.
There would be no new water/wastewater requirements.
SUBPART B PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES QUANTITY
Project Area includes Prime Ground Water Recharge Area? No
Comments: The capped landfill will not feature Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas. Construction of the
photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill cap will not affect any Prime Ground Water Recharge Area.
The Highlands Council GIS data indicates that there is a small area of Prime Ground Water Recharge Area at the
southeastern tip of the property but no change is proposed to this area. The remainder of the property outside of the
proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected through a conservation restriction.
SUBPART C WATER QUALITY
Project Area within Wellhead Protection Area? No
Comments: The capped landfill is not within any Wellhead Protection Areas. Construction of the photovoltaic
panels on top of the constructed landfill cap will not affect any Wellhead Protection Areas.
SUBPART D SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WATER RESOURCES
WATER UTILITY
WASTEWATER UTILITY
SEPTIC SYSTEM YIELD
There would be no septic system requirement.
PART 3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Area within Agricultural Resource Area? No
If yes, percentage? %
Area within Agricultural Priority Area? No
If yes, percentage? %
Project Area includes preserved farmland? No If yes, identify properties (B/L):
Affects Farm Unit >250 acres? No Includes Important Farmland Soils? No
Agricultural Uses? No
Comments: There are no Agricultural Resource Areas within the project area, and the Agricultural Resources
policies and objectives are not applicable to the proposed project.
PART 4 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES
Presence of Resources: No Highlands Historic District Polygons Absence
Highlands Historic Properties Polygons Absence Highlands Historic Property Points Absence
Archaeological Grids Absence Highlands Scenic Resource Inventory Absence
Comments: There are no Historic, Cultural, Archaeological, and Scenic Resources within the property, and those
relevant policies and objectives are not applicable to the proposed project. However, scenic viewsheds from adjacent
public roads and private development may be negatively affected, and therefore a dense vegetated buffer shall be
preserved or created by the applicant to protect against such scenic impairment. It is recognized that trees cannot be
planted within the landfill cap (roots would compromise the integrity of the cap), and that in the area along Mountain
Road, in the vicinity of Lookout Drive, that the designated Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road (with
solar panels proposed right to the edge of the brownfield). As a condition of this approval, the solar array shall be
screened from the viewshed of adjacent public roads and private development through a minimum 75 feet of either
dense vegetated cover or the construction of an earthen berm, which shall be seeded and planted with native
herbaceous species. This area is included within the Highlands Redevelopment Area specifically to allow for potential
construction of a berm; otherwise the visual buffer area would be excluded. Note that the Landfill Closure Plan
Approval allows for the use of soil/vegetative cover, which should be used to mitigate damage to viewsheds. The
applicant shall provide a screening plan for review and approval by the Highlands Council prior to any solar project
work in the vicinity of Mountain Road and the intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive. The Screening
Plan shall provide screening of the solar panels from all public roads and private residences in the area to the fullest
extent possible.
PART 5 TRANSPORTATION
Project supports local transportation/transit infrastructure? No
Comments: The project does not include or require any road improvements.
PART 6 FUTURE LAND USE
SUBPART A LAND USE CAPABILITY ZONES
Project Area within which Land Use Capability Zone or Sub-Zone? (check all that apply):
Protection Zone Conservation Zone Existing Community Zone
Conservation Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone Existing Community Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone
Lake Community Sub-Zone Wildlife Management Sub-Zone
Comments: The designated Highlands Brownfield site is located in the Protection Zone (the southeastern end of the
parcel outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield site is in the Existing Community Environmentally
Constrained Sub-Zone.) The placement of photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill cap would not
adversely affect natural resources. Management of stormwater shall be addressed through the HPAA with
redevelopment waiver permit process, to be consistent with Policy 2G5 and 6N2.
SUBPART C REGIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
Regional Master Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives: (it is important to note the policy regarding
discretionary growth - Policy 6H7 Provisions and standards relating to regional growth activities which increase the
intensity of development shall be discretionary for conforming municipalities and counties):
C I N/A
Policy 6H1: To protect, restore, or enhance sensitive environmental resources of the Highlands Region, including but not limited
to Forests, Critical Habitat, Highlands Open Waters and their buffers, Riparian Areas, Steep Slopes, Prime Ground Water Recharge
Areas, Wellhead Protection Areas, and Agricultural Resource Areas.

Objective 6H1b: Prevent the extension or creation of water and wastewater utility services in the Protection Zone, Conservation
Zone and Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zones of the Planning Area, unless they meet the requirements of Policy 2J4 with
Objectives 2J4a through 2J4d, and Policy 2K3 with Objectives 2K3a through 2K3e, and will maximize the protection of agricultural
and environmentally sensitive resources.

Objective 6H1d: Cluster and conservation design development plans and regulations shall consider existing community character,
incorporate smart growth design principles, and require Low Impact Development including but not limited to: locating
development adjacent to existing infrastructure such as water, wastewater, transportation, and public facilities to limit the degree of
new impervious surface, and permitting smaller residential lots in order to incorporate community open space and existing natural
resources into the design.

Policy 6H3: To require conforming municipalities to include site development programs, such as clustering and lot averaging, to
protect natural and agriculture resources.

Policy 6H6: To integrate public parks and green spaces into development and redevelopment projects and ensure restoration of
impaired natural resources to the extent required by law, at a minimum, and where feasible to a greater extent to maximize long
term value of the project.

Policy 6H7: Provisions and standards relating to regional growth activities which increase the intensity of development shall be
discretionary for conforming municipalities and counties.

Policy 6H8: Regional growth, where accepted through local planning and regulations, should identify opportunities to maximize
land use intensity while protecting natural features and community character.

Objective 6H8a: Development and redevelopment initiatives shall encourage the use of Highlands Development Credits as a
means to enhance the existing or adjacent community while protecting local and regional natural resources.

Objective 6H8b: Preparation and implementation of standards ensuring that development protects environmentally sensitive
resources in all Land Use Capability Zones and Sub-Zones.

Policy 6H9: To incorporate smart growth principles and green building design and technology in development and redevelopment
initiatives.

Comments: Management of stormwater from the project area shall be addressed through the HPAA with
redevelopment waiver permitting process. Any disturbance and construction activities should be managed to minimize
impacts to the surrounding environment. By reusing and redeveloping a previously disturbed area (i.e., the landfill),
economic investment and community development within the framework of smart growth is assured. Screening of
the views into the site is necessary to maintain the character of the surrounding residential community, which will
benefit from landfill closure. The proposed project is the placement of photovoltaic panels, which has been defined
in the Municipal Land Use Law as an inherently beneficial use.
SUBPART D REDEVELOPMENT
Locally Designated Redevelopment Area? No If yes, name of site(s):
Highlands Designated Redevelopment Area? No If yes, name of site(s):
Highlands Contaminated Site Inventory Tier 1 or Tier 2 Site(s)? No If yes, name of site(s):
Policy 6J1: To encourage Preservation Area redevelopment of sites with 70% or greater impervious surfaces or a brownfield in
areas designated by the Highlands Council as Highlands Redevelopment Areas in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:38-6.6 and 6.7.

Policy 6J2: To encourage redevelopment in the Existing Community Zone in the Planning Area of brownfields, grayfields, and
other previously developed areas that have adequate water, wastewater, transportation capacity, and are appropriate for increased
land use intensity or conversion to greenfields, as approved through Plan Conformance or the Highlands Redevelopment Area
Designation process.

Policy 6J3: To encourage redevelopment in the Conservation and Protection Zones in the Planning Area of brownfields and
grayfields that have adequate water, wastewater, transportation capacity, and are appropriate for increased land use intensity or
conversion to greenfields, as approved through Plan Conformance or the Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation process.

Policy 6L1: To require that conforming municipalities identify any development, redevelopment, and brownfield opportunities in
the local land use plan element of their master plans, as appropriate.

Policy 6L2: To require that conforming municipalities amend development regulations and zoning to enable project
implementation of local redevelopment initiatives that are identified under Policy 6L1 and locally endorsed through Plan
Conformance.

Objective 6L2a: Municipal review of local redevelopment projects consistent with RMP smart growth and Low Impact
Development policies and objectives.

Objective 6M1b: Evaluate mechanisms for remedial activities that apply resource protection, enhancement, and restoration
approaches that allow for a minimal redevelopment footprint, encourage brownfields to greenfields approaches, and include
green energy and building concepts.

Comments: This proposal directly addresses the purpose of Policy 6J1 as it is the redevelopment of a brownfield site.
It also directly addresses Objective 6M1b in that the landfill is being remediated and includes a green energy initiative.
Management of stormwater from the project area shall be addressed through the HPAA with redevelopment waiver
permitting process. Any disturbance and construction activities should be managed to minimize impacts to the
surrounding environment.
SUBPART F SMART GROWTH
Is the municipality involved in the State Planning Commission Plan Endorsement (PE) process? No
If yes, status of PE process:
Does the project area include a State Planning Commission designated or expired center? No
Comments: Management of stormwater shall be addressed through the HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit
process. Any construction activities should be managed to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment. As a
condition of this approval, during the HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process, the applicant must
demonstrate that the solar panels can be constructed effectively while maintaining the integrity of the proposed
stormwater management features (e.g., the proposed forebay swales) and be consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan.
SUBPART G HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Does the project area include an affordable housing site? No 3
rd
Round Status: NA
Comments: N/A The proposed project is the placement of photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill
cap.
PART 7 LANDOWNER EQUITY
Is the project exempt from the Highlands Act? No
Does the project support the use of Highlands Development Credits? No
Policy 7G1: For the Preservation Area, coordinate with NJDEP during Highlands permit review for any major Highlands
development including the review of waivers on a case-by-case basis: 1) if determined to be necessary in order to protect public
health and safety; 2) for redevelopment in certain previously developed areas as identified by the Highlands Council, or 3) in order
to avoid the taking of property without just compensation.

Policy 7G2: For both the Preservation Area and the Planning Area, a waiver may be issued by the Highlands Council on a case-by-
case basis from the requirements of the RMP or any amendments to a master plan, development regulations, or other regulations
adopted by a local government unit specifically to conform them with the RMP: 1) if determined to be necessary in order to protect
public health and safety; 2) for redevelopment in certain previously developed areas as identified by the Highlands Council, or 3) in
order to avoid the taking of property without just compensation. Any waiver issued shall be conditioned upon a determination that
the proposed development meets the requirements prescribed for a finding as listed in Section 36.a of the Highlands Act to the
maximum extent possible.

Policy 7G3: For both the Preservation Area and the Planning Area during local development review, any variance or exception
issued shall be conditioned upon a written determination, specifically included in an approving resolution, that the proposed
development meets the requirements prescribed for a finding as listed in Section 36.a of the Highlands Act to the maximum extent
possible.

Comments: The applicant is applying to the Highlands Council for a Highlands Redevelopment Area designation in
a previously developed area (landfill), and will then seek an HPAA with redevelopment waiver from NJDEP,
consistent with Policies 7G1 and 7G2. Impacts on adjacent properties should be minimized through the use of a
dense vegetated buffer.
PART 8 SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Policy 8A1: To maintain and expand the existing job and economic base by promoting appropriate, sustainable, and
environmentally compatible economic development throughout the Highlands Region.

Policy 8A2: To preserve the high quality of life in the Highlands Region through economic planning of the RMP.

Policy 8A3: To identify and pursue state and federal programs that offer financial and/or technical assistance for sustainable
economic development in the Highlands Region.

Policy 8A5: To advocate for appropriate public investment in the Highlands Region through the strategic location of public
facilities and institutions that will spur sustainable and appropriate economic activity.

Objective 8A6a: Coordinate with municipalities and counties as local and regional strategies are developed to improve the tax base
and to create jobs and economic opportunities consistent with the policies and objectives of the RMP.

Policy 8C1: To promote recreation and tourism based economic initiatives, which derive economic benefit from sustainable use of
the natural resources of the Highlands Region.

Comments: The proposed project is the placement of photovoltaic panels, which has been defined in the Municipal
Land Use Law as an inherently beneficial use.
PART 9 AIR QUALITY
Policy 9A1: To encourage capital facility development and redevelopment that leads to attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Policy 9A2: To support continued, consistent and thorough air quality monitoring and assessment programs as a means of
evaluating and managing major air toxic point sources that affect the Region.

Policy 9A3: To encourage land use development and redevelopment practices that promote center-based growth and mixed-use
development and offer alternative modes of transportation as a means to reduce automobile dependency, vehicle miles traveled,
vehicle trip length, and duration, for the reduction of local and regional air pollutants and of carbon dioxide emissions linked to
global warming.

Policy 9A4: To encourage and support state and federal air quality monitoring for the Highlands Region and regulatory action to
reduce levels of air pollutants including but not limited to: ozone, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds,
methane, and fine particulate matter pollutants in the Highlands Region.

Policy 9A5: To encourage energy efficient design and green building practices in support of regional resource protection and smart
growth planning policies.

Policy 9A6: To support State and federal initiatives that will reduce air pollution emanating from power plants, incinerators and
landfills within and affecting the Highlands Region and particularly in Warren County due to out-of-State power plant air pollution.

Comments: The Highlands Council is supportive of green energy initiatives such as the proposed photovoltaic
system in appropriate locations. The Regional Master Plans Air Quality Program encourages the use of renewable
energies.
CONCLUSION
This application is for a Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation wherein the Highlands Council designates an
area for redevelopment activities with conditions and waivers as appropriate from the RMP; the second part of the
process is that the applicant requests waivers from NJDEP regarding unavoidable impacts to resources affected by the
proposal in order to retain economic viability.
The proposed project is consistent with the Highlands Act and Highlands Council procedures regarding designation
of a Highlands Redevelopment Area in an area, or part thereof, that the NJDEP has determined qualifies for a
Highlands Brownfield Designation. It is nominally inconsistent with Policy 1D4 and Objective 1D4b as it entails
encroachment into a Highlands Open Water buffer. However, it is recognized that the affected buffer areas are
entirely disturbed (capped landfill). As encroachment into the buffer is required for the project, a waiver of this
requirement by NJDEP would be required and would be appropriate, for the reason stated above.
It is the Highlands Council staffs recommendation that the Highlands Council approve the proposed Highlands
Redevelopment Area designation for the full area of the NJDEP Brownfield Designation, with the conditions that
through the HPAA process except to the extent that these conditions are demonstrated to impede the proper closure
of the landfill under NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval:
1. The application for a HPAA must address how solar panel and related construction will be phased, consistent
with the Landfill Closure Plan, where certain areas are capped and solar panels installed as the applicant
concurrently moves to the capping of other portions of the landfill;
2. The encroachment into a Highlands Open Waters buffer shall be entirely within a previously disturbed area,
which would not result in a net impact to the functional value of the buffer (in conformance with Policy 1D4)
and therefore qualifies for a waiver. However, to the extent feasible, as a condition of this approval,
establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the stream reach and the project area will be
required;
3. To minimize potential impacts from the solar array on stream water quality and habitat, a condition of this
approval is the establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer along the edge of the relocated stream
including any rip-rap, outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield. This condition shall be addressed
through a minimum 50-foot vegetated buffer consisting of layered woody and herbaceous species, except the
buffer may be smaller where it would conflict with NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill
Closure Plan Approval;
4. It must be demonstrated that solar panels can be effectively constructed and maintained (consistent with the
Landfill Closure Plan) along the northeastern border of the constructed landfill cap; this area will be sloping
and is adjacent to a steep ridge;
5. The remainder of the property outside of the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected
through a conservation restriction, specifically authorizing ecological restoration and maintenance, with
recognition of any existing utility structures such as storm sewers and drainage basins may periodically need
maintenance or replacement. If any disturbance of the area outside of the Brownfield is required for access
to the transmission grid, mitigation will be required by the Highlands Council before any such disturbance
occurs;
6. The solar array shall be screened from the viewshed along Mountain Road and along all existing private
development through a minimum of 75 feet of dense vegetated cover. Berms may be used to supplement the
vegetated buffer, but structures such as fences shall not substitute for the vegetated buffer. It is recognized
that trees and other woody species cannot be planted within the landfill cap (roots would compromise the
integrity of the cap), and that in the area along Mountain Road, in the vicinity of Lookout Drive, the
designated Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road. As a condition of this approval, the applicant
shall establish an earthen berm to screen the viewshed along Mountain Road (in a manner consistent with the
Landfill Closure Plan) which shall be seeded and planted with native herbaceous species. The applicant shall
provide a screening plan for review and approval by the Highlands Council prior to any solar work in the
vicinity of Mountain Road and the intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive;
7. The stormwater regulations must be followed in the project design through the HPAA with redevelopment
waiver, as part of the NJDEP permitting process. The Highlands Council expects that under the NJDEP
waiver, the applicant shall supply a stormwater management plan and a construction implementation plan
that minimizes disturbance during and after construction. As a condition of this approval, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the solar panels can be constructed effectively while maintaining the integrity of the
proposed stormwater management features (e.g., the proposed forebay swales) and be consistent with the
Landfill Closure Plan; and
8. The applicant must demonstrate that the solar panels can be installed without compromising the integrity of
the landfill cap and will meet the conditions of the Landfill Closure Plan.

State of New Jersey
(908) 879-6737
(908) 879-4205 (fax)
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Governor

KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Governor
JIM RILEE
Chairman

EILEEN SWAN
Executive Director

Highlands Council Staff Recommendation Report
Proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation
Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill - Roxbury Block 7404, Lot 1

Date: October 14, 2011

Re: Application Type: Proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation
Name: Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C.
Municipality: Roxbury
County: Morris
Highlands Act Area: Preservation Area
LUCM Location: Protection Zone
Property: Block 7404 Lot 1
Proposed Use: Placement of photovoltaic panels on top of constructed landfill cap
______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C. has petitioned for Highlands Council designation of a Highlands
Redevelopment Area for a brownfield site, to allow the construction of a solar energy array. The proposed
project is the redevelopment of the Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill, located in Roxbury Township. The
property that contains the landfill (Block 7404 Lot 1) encompasses approximately 102 acres, of which
approximately 60 acres had been utilized for landfilling activities from the early 1950s to the late 1970s. The
property is bounded by the Morris Canal Park to the north and northeast, housing developments to the
northwest and west, Mountain Road to the south, and Ledgewood Park to the east. The NJDEP has
determined that the property contains a sanitary landfill facility as defined in the Solid Waste Management
Act and therefore qualifies for a Highlands Brownfield Designation under Track One at N.J.A.C. 7:38-
6.6(b)1. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.6(c), a Track One Highlands Brownfield consists of the limit of
waste and those areas that were legally disturbed as of August 10, 2004. The NJDEP approved the Highlands
Brownfield Designation on August 18, 2011, as depicted on the plan titled Former Fenimore Sanitary
Landfill, Block 7404 Lot 1, Roxbury Township, Morris County, New Jersey Sheet No. BD-1, dated July 27,
2011, last revised August 17, 2011, and prepared by Matrix New World Engineering. The issuance of the
Highlands Brownfield Designation by the NJDEP allowed the applicant to petition the Highlands Council
for a Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation for the designated brownfield site.

The proposed solar energy project will be preceded by closure of the landfill, which did not occur in 1979
when operations ceased. The closure of the landfill qualifies for Exemption #15 under the Highlands Act and
is not addressed by this Consistency Determination. Following the proper closure of the landfill in various
phases, the applicant proposes to redevelop the landfill (i.e., the area designated as the Highlands Brownfield,
October 14, 2011
Page 2

which in this case is coterminous with the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area) by placing photovoltaic
panels on top of the constructed landfill cap using non-penetrating structures to maintain cap integrity.
According to the applicant, the photovoltaic system would be capable of generating 10 megawatts of electrical
power and would encompass approximately 50 acres (almost the entire area of the Highlands Brownfield).
This review is only for the proposed redevelopment on top of the constructed landfill cap. Thus, the initial
condition for this review is the closed and capped landfill (i.e., the area designated as the Highlands
Brownfield). Note that the NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval
(both issued on October 6, 2011) address the various phases of the landfill closure. The Highlands Councils
approval of a Highlands Redevelopment Area provides the ability for NJDEP to issue a Highlands
Preservation Area Approval (HPAA) which will have to address how construction will be phased where
specific areas are capped and solar panels installed as they concurrently move to the capping of other portions
of the landfill. Please note that the Highlands Act provides that the Highlands Council may designate all or a
portion of a NJDEP-designated Brownfield as a Highlands Redevelopment Area. The specific delineation is
case-specific, reflecting the need to protect on-site Highlands resources, neighboring properties and
Highlands resources, and the objectives of the Regional Master Plan, relative to the land area and
development concepts of the proposed redevelopment action.

The verification that the landfill has been properly closed and capped would occur through NJDEP Landfill
Closure approval and the HPAA process. Redevelopment activities may only commence upon issuance of an
HPAA. Highlands resources that are to be removed by the final closure process are not considered in this
review. However, Highlands Resources to be created through NJDEP requirements as part of the final
closure process (which for this project includes a portion of a stream corridor relocation that traverses the
Highlands Brownfield) are considered.

2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

The Fenimore Landfill Site operated as a landfill from the early 1950s to the late 1970s. The NJDEP ordered
the landfill closed in April 1977 after the owner failed to meet the engineering control requirements for
leachate collection and containment. Since the operation of the landfill ceased prior to the enactment of
current solid waste regulations and NJDEP found the original closure plan unacceptable, the landfill was
never properly closed. The site was listed on the NJDEPs statewide landfill clean-up initiative list in 2000.
Ownership of the landfill has changed several times since 1981 and the property is currently owned by
Strategic Environmental Partners, L.L.C.

The applicant met with Highlands Council staff on November 2, 2009 to discuss the procedures for the
ultimate redevelopment of the landfill site for a solar array (i.e., a sequence of actions requiring NJDEP
brownfield designation, Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation by the Highlands Council, and NJDEP
Highlands Preservation Area Approval [HPAA] with Redevelopment Waiver). The applicant then pursued
designation of the Highlands Brownfield with NJDEP. In a letter dated August 18, 2011, the NJDEP
determined that the Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill property contains a sanitary landfill facility as defined
in the Solid Waste Management Act and therefore qualifies for a Highlands Brownfield Designation under
Track One at N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.6(b)1. As previously noted, the NJDEP approved the Highlands Brownfield
Designation as depicted on the plan titled Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill, Block 7404 Lot 1, Roxbury
Township, Morris County, New Jersey Sheet No. BD-1, dated July 27, 2011, last revised August 17, 2011.
Via letter dated August 31, 2011, the applicant submitted a formal Petition for Highlands Redevelopment
Area Designation for the NJDEP-approved Highlands brownfield site. The Highlands Council staff
determined that the application materials submitted were sufficient for the staff to commence a technical
review. This technical review has been completed and is contained in the Consistency Determination,
included by reference in this review and recommendations report. The NJDEP approved a landfill closure
plan and Administrative Consent Order on October 6, 2011. The Consistency Determination and this
Report are posted on the Highlands Council web site along with relevant site maps. However, there are also
paper files submitted to the Highlands Council that are part of the public record. As is the case for all
October 14, 2011
Page 3

Highlands Council staff project reviews, members of the public are invited to make an appointment with
Council staff to review project files and all application materials.

3.0 SMART GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CONSIDERATIONS

Redevelopment opportunities will be a major vehicle for economic development within the Highlands
Region, particularly within the Preservation Area. Redevelopment policies and objectives within the
Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP) envision the conversion of underutilized, previously disturbed lands
into new economic contributors to the Regions fiscal health. As stated in the RMP, Redevelopment will
help to meet the Regions growth needs by optimizing the efficient use of previously settled areas with
existing communities and available infrastructure, thus conserving natural resources. These formerly
developed sites provide the base where economic activity may continue to flourish and regional growth needs
may be accommodated.

Given that redevelopment is one of the major opportunities for sustainable economic development and smart
growth in the Highlands Region, the proposed redevelopment project was reviewed for policies and
objectives relevant to smart growth and sustainable economic development. The RMP calls for economic
development that is sustainable over time, and not dependent on development of undeveloped lands.
The Highlands Act calls for the RMP to promote compatibleuses and opportunities within the framework
of protecting the Highlands environment.

The subject proposal entails the installation of a solar array on a capped landfill. It represents the conversion
of previously disturbed lands (formerly uncapped, unclosed landfill) into a green energy initiative. The RMP
specifically encourages green energy redevelopment of brownfield sites as follows: Objective 6M1b.
Evaluate mechanisms for remedial activities that apply resource protection, enhancement, and restoration
approaches that allow for a minimal redevelopment footprint, encourage brownfields to greenfields
approaches, and include green energy and building concepts. In addition, the RMP recognizes the
importance of the State Energy Master Plan in which solar energy generated via solar panels is strongly
encouraged as one of the most sustainable means of generating energy. The Highlands Council through its
RMP Air Quality Program encourages the use of renewable energies. However, the siting of such facilities
must ensure that Highlands resources, including scenic viewsheds, are not impaired. The latter is addressed
by the Highlands Council through mitigation requirements so as to protect economic values of surrounding
residential development.

4.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Council staff reviewed the application materials. Findings include:

Brownfield Requirement: The NJDEP approved the Highlands Brownfield Designation as
depicted on the plan titled Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill, Block 7404 Lot 1, Roxbury
Township, Morris County, New Jersey Sheet No. BD-1, dated July 27, 2011, last revised August 17,
2011. The applicant provided to the Highlands Council a copy of this plan and a copy of the August
18, 2011 NJDEP determination letter, thus satisfying this requirement.

Resource Assessment: The installation of the photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed
landfill cap would result in the encroachment of the 300-foot Highlands Open Waters buffers for
off-site streams. However, it is recognized that the buffers in the project area are entirely disturbed
(capped landfill) and that the photovoltaic project will have a de minimis impact on quality or integrity
of the buffer area subsequent to landfill final closure. However, to the extent feasible, as a condition
of this approval, establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the stream reach and
October 14, 2011
Page 4

the project area should be required. The Highlands Council GIS data indicate that some areas on the
parcel outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield site are mapped as Critical Wildlife Habitat.
No change is proposed to these areas other than access to the transmission grid which will require
mitigation.

Scenic viewsheds from adjacent public roads and private development may be damaged, and
therefore a dense vegetated buffer should be preserved or created to protect against such scenic
impairment. It is recognized that trees and other woody species cannot be planted within the landfill
cap (roots would compromise the integrity of the cap), and that in the area along Mountain Road, in
the vicinity of Lookout Drive, the designated Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road
(with solar panels proposed right to the edge of the brownfield). As a condition of this approval, the
solar array shall be screened from the viewshed of adjacent public roads and private development
through a minimum 75 feet of either dense vegetated cover or the construction of an earthen berm
which shall be seeded and planted with native herbaceous species. Note that the Landfill Closure
Plan Approval allows for the use of soil/vegetative cover which should be used to mitigate damage
to viewsheds. The applicant shall provide a screening plan for review and approval by the Highlands
Council prior to any solar project work in the vicinity of Mountain Road and the intersection of
Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive. The Screening Plan shall provide screening of the solar panels
from all public roads and private residences in the area to the fullest extent possible.

Smart Growth and Sustainable Economic Development: The proposal is consistent with the
RMP regarding redevelopment of contaminated sites, smart growth and sustainable economic
development as the installation of a solar array on a capped landfill represents the conversion of
previously disturbed lands (formerly uncapped, unclosed landfill) into a green energy initiative. Solar
energy generated via solar panels is one of the most sustainable means of generating energy. The
Highlands Council through its RMP Air Quality Program encourages the use of renewable energies.

The Highlands Act allows a waiver of any provision of a Highlands permitting review on a case-by-case
basis for a redevelopment proposal, conditioned upon the finding by NJDEP that it meets the
requirements of the narrative criteria described in Section 36 of the Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-34). To assist
NJDEP, the Council staff concludes that the proposed project meets the waiver criteria, which are
addressed as follows:

Requirement Staff Analysis
1) would have a de minimis impact on water resources
and would not cause or contribute to a significant
degradation of surface or ground waters;
There would be no new water/wastewater
requirements. No expansion of a public water
supply system is proposed, and no expansion of
the existing sewer service area is proposed. As
the capped landfill would already constitute
impervious surface, the proposed project would
not be adding new impervious surface and thus,
no additional stormwater would be generated.
2) would cause minimal feasible interference with the
natural functioning of animal, plant and other
natural resources;
The capped landfill will feature no vegetation
other than required screening or natural
resources. Installation of the proposed solar
array would result in minimal interference with
the natural functioning of animal, plant and
other natural resources.
3) will result in minimum feasible alteration or
impairment of the aquatic ecosystem;
The proposed project entails encroachment
into a Highlands Open Waters buffer that will
be in a completely disturbed condition (capped
October 14, 2011
Page 5

Requirement Staff Analysis
landfill). Stormwater regulations must be
followed in the project design upon permitting
(see response to #7).
4) will not jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered animal or plant species;
See response to #2
5) is located or constructed as to neither endanger
human life or property nor otherwise impair public
health, safety and welfare;
The proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area
is compatible with existing municipal zoning. A
screening buffer is necessary to protect the
local neighborhoods.
6) would result in minimal practicable degradation of
unique or irreplaceable land types, historical or
archaeological areas, and existing public scenic
attributes; and
No resources of this type are known to be
affected by the project.
7) meets all other applicable NJDEP standards, rules,
and regulations and State laws.
Compliance with all remaining NJDEP
standards will be addressed through the HPAA
with redevelopment waiver permit process.

It is the Highlands Council staffs recommendation that the Highlands Council approve the proposed
Highlands Redevelopment Area designation for the full area of the NJDEP Brownfield Designation, with the
conditions that through the HPAA process except to the extent that these conditions are demonstrated to
impede the proper closure of the landfill under NJ DEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill
Closure Plan Approval:
1. The application for a HPAA must address how solar panel and related construction will be phased,
consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan, where certain areas are capped and solar panels installed as
the applicant concurrently moves to the capping of other portions of the landfill;
2. The encroachment into a Highlands Open Waters buffer shall be entirely within a previously
disturbed area, which would not result in a net impact to the functional value of the buffer (in
conformance with Policy 1D4) and therefore qualifies for a waiver. However, to the extent feasible,
as a condition of this approval, establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the
stream reach and the project area will be required;
3. To minimize potential impacts from the solar array on stream water quality and habitat, a condition
of this approval is the establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer along the edge of the rip-
rap, outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield. This condition shall be addressed through a
minimum 50-foot vegetated buffer consisting of layered woody and herbaceous species, except the
buffer may be smaller where it would conflict with NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and
Landfill Closure Plan Approval;
4. It must be demonstrated that solar panels can be effectively constructed and maintained (consistent
with the Landfill Closure Plan) along the northeastern border of the constructed landfill cap; this area
will be sloping and is adjacent to a steep ridge;
5. The remainder of the property outside of the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be
protected through a conservation restriction, specifically authorizing ecological restoration and
maintenance, with recognition of any existing utility structures such as storm sewers and drainage
basins may periodically need maintenance or replacement. If any disturbance of the area outside of
the Brownfield is required for access to the transmission grid, mitigation will be required by the
Highlands Council before any such disturbance occurs;
6. The solar array shall be screened from the viewshed along Mountain Road and along all existing
private development through a minimum of 75 feet of dense vegetated cover. Berms may be used to
supplement the vegetated buffer, but structures such as fences shall not substitute for the vegetated
buffer. It is recognized that trees and other woody species cannot be planted within the landfill cap
(roots would compromise the integrity of the cap), and that in the area along Mountain Road, in the
October 14, 2011
Page 6

vicinity of Lookout Drive, the designated Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road. As a
condition of this approval, the applicant shall establish an earthen berm to screen the viewshed along
Mountain Road (in a manner consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan) which shall be seeded and
planted with native herbaceous species. The applicant shall provide a screening plan for review and
approval by the Highlands Council prior to any solar work in the vicinity of Mountain Road and the
intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive;
7. The stormwater regulations must be followed in the project design through the HPAA with
redevelopment waiver, as part of the NJDEP permitting process. The Highlands Council expects
that under the NJDEP waiver, the applicant shall supply a stormwater management plan and a
construction implementation plan that minimizes disturbance during and after construction. As a
condition of this approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that the solar panels can be constructed
effectively while maintaining the integrity of the proposed stormwater management features (e.g., the
proposed forebay swales) and be consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan; and
8. During the HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process, the applicant must demonstrate that
the solar panels can be installed without compromising the integrity of the landfill cap and to meet
the conditions of the Landfill Closure Plan.

Attachments
Consistency Determination
1
Public Comments Received on the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council Draft
Consistency Determination and Staff Recommendation Report for the Former Fenimore
Sanitary Landfill - Roxbury Block 7404, Lot 1, Proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area
Designation (Comment Period of September 23 October 7, 2011):

Written comments regarding the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation for the
Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill were accepted by the Highlands Council through the close of the
Public Comment period on October 7, 2011. Comments were provided by the following
individuals/entities:

1. Russell Stern, Director of Planning, Township of Roxbury
Roxbury Township provided numerous comments regarding a variety of topics. For the purpose of
this Comments/Response document, the Highlands Council staff grouped the comments and
responses by general subject area to include: 1) Project Jurisdiction; 2) Sufficiency of Application; 3)
Visual and Other Project Impacts 4) Economics; 5) Scheduling and Phasing; and 6) Miscellaneous.
The comments are summarized within and responses provided.

PROJECT JURISDICTION

a. Comment: Roxbury Township noted that the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) had previously responded to questions from the Township regarding
municipal jurisdiction of the former landfill and noted that NJDEP indicated that under the
Solid Waste Management Act, the Legislature determined it was necessary for landfill closure
activities to be conducted in a consistent fashion Statewide, and thus, that NJDEP's
implementation of its authority over landfill closure should preempt local authority. The
Township asked if the Highlands Council is of the opinion that the proposed solar facility is not
considered a closure or post-closure activity and that by the New Jersey Municipal Land
Use Law the municipality has jurisdiction through its local ordinances and land development
regulations and if the Highlands Council will condition Highlands Redevelopment Area
Designation approval with the requirement to obtain municipal approvals.

Response: There are two aspects of jurisdiction that must be clarified in this matter. The first is
the jurisdiction of the Highlands Council to review this matter. The Highlands Act includes an
exemption for the remediation of any contaminated site (Exemption #15). Accordingly, the
Highlands Council is not reviewing the aspects of the landfill closure or any post closure
activities directly related to the remediation, as identified in the closure plan. The Highlands
Council is authorized to designate an area for possible redevelopment for a brownfield site
designated by NJDEP. Accordingly, the Highlands Council is reviewing any development of the
brownfield site above and beyond the remedial activities on the landfill, specifically the
designation of a Highlands Redevelopment Area (if the Highlands Council believes the area to
be appropriate for such designation) the maximum extent of which shall be the delineated
Brownfield. Similarly, the Solid Waste Management Act provides authority to NJDEP to
oversee the remedial activities on landfills and such authority preempts local zoning that hinders
such remediation. However, the Highlands Council is of the opinion that construction of solar
facilities on the NJDEP-approved brownfield portion of the landfill (i.e., the Highlands
Redevelopment Area Designation) is not considered a closure or post-closure activity and
thus, is not exempt from the Highlands Council authority to consider designation of a Highlands
Redevelopment Area and any conditions the Council may impose. Such activities are considered
2
major Highlands developments pursuant to the Highlands Act and require a Highlands
Preservation Area Approval (HPAA) with redevelopment waiver, which in turn requires
Highlands Council designation of a Highlands Redevelopment Area. Under the New Jersey
Municipal Land Use Law, Roxbury Township has jurisdiction through its local ordinances and
land development regulations with respect to the construction and maintenance of
redevelopment activities, in this case, the proposed solar facility.

b. Comment: The Township assumes that NJDEP will be the authority that oversees the landfill
capping and makes the determination of project completion and asks what entity will determine
project completion of the solar facility and will they continue their authority after project
completion or will responsibility fall on the back of the Township.

Response: On October 6, 2011, NJDEP issued an Administrative Consent Order which
includes a Landfill Closure Plan Approval. Through these documents, NJDEP will oversee the
landfill capping and make the determination of project completion. The Highlands Council
determines any or all of the brownfield delineated area is appropriate to be approved and
designated as a Highlands Redevelopment Area to allow for the proposed solar array
construction, and lists conditions of that approval. If that approval occurs, the project comes
before the NJDEP for a HPAA with Redevelopment waiver. The NJDEP, in consultation with
the Highlands Council, reviews the HPAA application. If NJDEP approves the HPAA with any
further conditions, the NJDEP, in consultation with the Highlands Council will ensure
conditions of both NJDEP and the Council are met during and post construction. As discussed
above, the Highlands Council is of the opinion that the Municipal Land Use Law provides the
municipality with jurisdiction through its local ordinances and land development regulations
with respect to the construction and maintenance of the proposed solar facility.

c. Comment: The Township asks what actions are required by NJDEP, Highlands Council, Morris
County Soil Conservation District, Roxbury Township, Strategic Environmental Partners, and
any other entities before further landfill closures activities are permitted on the property.

Response: NJDEP is the authority that oversees the landfill capping and makes the
determination of satisfactory project completion. The Administrative Consent Order and
Landfill Closure Plan Approval set forth the numerous actions that are required for landfill
closure. No further State approvals are necessary to begin landfill closure activities. However,
one condition of the Landfill Closure Plan is approval of a soil erosion and sediment control
plan by the Morris County Soil Conservation District. Other conditions must also be met by
Strategic Environmental Partners to allow for closure activities. The Highlands Council
jurisdiction relates to redevelopment subsequent to closure, to determine if the solar array
construction on the NJDEP-approved brownfield is appropriate to be approved and designated
as a Highlands Redevelopment Area and the landfill closure activities are exempt from the
Highlands Act.

d. Comment: The Township asked if the Highlands Council will require performance and
maintenance bonds for the solar facility.

Response: The Highlands Council is not requiring any performance and maintenance bonds for
the solar facility.

3
e. Comment: The Township asked if the Highlands Council has jurisdiction over grading, leachate
basins, and stream relocation which are located outside of the limit of landfill activity.

Response: As discussed above, all remedial activities regarding the landfill closure, including
grading, leachate basins, and stream relocation are exempt under Exemption #15 in the
Highlands Act. The Highlands Council jurisdiction is over the construction of the solar array on
the Highlands Redevelopment Area on all or some of the NJDEP-approved brownfield of the
capped landfill. In addition, the Highlands Council has jurisdiction relating to the remainder of
the parcel should any conditions of the proposed solar array, such as viewshed buffers are
required by the Highlands Council.

SUFFICIENCY OF APPLICATION

f. Comment: The Township stated that upon inspection of the application documents at the
Highlands Council office, it is noted that out of 23 documents listed on NJDEPs undated draft
Closure and Post Closure Landfill Plan Approval, that a significant number were not provided
for the Highlands Councils or Townships review. The Township asked if the Council needs
these documents to make an informed decision on the request for a Highlands Redevelopment
Area Designation.

Response: The documents identified that were not provided to the Highlands Council are in
regard to the remediation and closure activities which are not under the purview of the
Highlands Council. There were several documents that were not originally submitted to the
Highlands Council, which the staff subsequently requested and received. There was sufficient
information available to make an informed recommendation to the Highlands Council for
decision.

g. Comment: The Township stated that the NJDEP undated draft Closure and Post-Closure
Landfill Plan Approval indicates that a number of outstanding documents are needed which they
will defer to a later date after Plan Approval. Should the Highlands Council review these
documents prior to acting on the request for Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation.

Response: Given that remediation and closure activities are not under the purview of the
Highlands Council, staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient information available to make
an informed recommendation to the Highlands Council for decision.

h. Comment: The Township noted that on August 31, 2011, Strategic Environmental Partners
LLC submitted correspondence and documents to the Highlands Council as a formal request for
a Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation. Included as part of the submission is undated
drawing RD-1 by Matrix New World (Highlands application document) which shows the
proposed Redevelopment Plan. It was noted that the quantity and location of solar panels on
this plan to the Highlands Council is much greater than that depicted on the NJDEP
Disruption/Closure Plan application (updated sheet 3 prepared by Matrix New World).

Response: The plan provided to the Highlands Council (which shows greater extent of solar
panels than what is depicted on the plan submitted to NJDEP) is the focus of review by the
Highlands Council.
4

i. Comment: The Township noted that in comparing RD-1 and sheet 3 (as referenced above),
sheet 3 provides greater setbacks of the solar panels from adjoining properties and Mountain
Road. It was noted that this affords the opportunity for greater buffering to the neighborhood
and reduces the amount of capped steep slope surfaces. It was also noted that comparatively,
sheet 3 helps to lessen impacts to the viewshed. The Township asked if the Highlands Council
has the ability to take these factors into their consideration of the Highlands Redevelopment
Area Designation.

Response: Recognizing the potential for aesthetic impacts from the proposed solar array on
nearby residents, the Draft Consistency Determination and Staff Recommendation Report
included as a condition that the solar array shall be screened from the viewshed of adjacent
public roads and private development through an area of dense vegetated cover, with a
minimum of 75 feet on any sight line from a residence or public road. It is recognized that trees
cannot be planted within the landfill cap (roots would compromise the integrity of the cap), and
that in the area along Mountain Road, in the vicinity of Lookout Drive, that the designated
Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road (with solar panels proposed right to the
edge of the brownfield). The Final Consistency Determination and Final Staff Recommendation
Report include the statement that as a condition of this approval, the applicant shall establish an
earthen berm sufficient to create a visual barrier along Mountain Road, which shall be seeded
and planted with native herbaceous species. The Final Consistency Determination and Staff
Recommendation Reports, include the statement that the applicant shall provide a site plan for
review and approval by the Highlands Council prior to any solar work in the vicinity of
Mountain Road and the intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive, which shall provide
effective screening of the solar panels from all public roads and private residences in the area.

j. Comment: The Township noted that the documents submitted to NJDEP for the Landfill
Closure and Post-Closure Plan Approval, as well as documents provided to the Highlands
Council for Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation does not provide any information or
details of the design and construction of solar panels. Nothing has been provided to address the
overall height of the solar panels or how they will be installed without penetrating the landfill
cap. The Township asks if the Highlands Council will require this information to make an
informed decision before voting on the application.

Response: Detailed site plans are submitted as part of the HPAA application to NJDEP. The
Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation procedures require a conceptual plan view and a
description of the proposed redevelopment project to be located within the proposed Highlands
Redevelopment Area. Staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient information available to
make an informed recommendation to the Highlands Council for decision. Please see the
response to Comment 1.i, regarding the condition that the solar array shall be screened from the
viewshed of adjacent public roads and private development. Further, a condition was added to
the Final Consistency Determination and Final Staff Recommendation Report that states that
the applicant must demonstrate that the solar panels can be installed without compromising the
integrity of the landfill cap and will meet the conditions of the Landfill Closure Plan.

k. Comment: The Township stated that the application documents do not provide details or
information on the drawings that depict the location of power lines serving the solar facility,
inverters and other equipment needed for the site. The Township asked from what adjoining
5
properties the power lines will be routed. The Township is of the opinion that to make an
informed decision, the Highlands Council should require this information before taking action
on the application.

Redevelopment Area. Staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient information available to
make an informed recommendation to the Highlands Council for decision regarding approval of
the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation. The Highlands Council recognizes
that power line access will be critical for success of the solar project but that impacts must be
addressed; the Final Staff Recommendation Report recommends a condition requiring
mitigation regarding any impacts on Highlands Resources.

l. Comment: The Township stated that it is their understanding that the Highlands Council is not
in receipt of methane gas venting system drawings, including information of the backup
generator. This aspect of the landfill closure will impact the layout of the solar facility. The
venting system and backup generator should be located and screened from adjoining properties
and streets. The backup generator should also be located a substantial distance from adjoining
homes to minimize noise impacts. The Township asked if the generator is tested/cycled
monthly or less, and how long will it run. The Township asked if the Highlands Council will
require this information prior to action before voting on the application.

Response: The methane gas venting system is a component of the remediation and closure
activities which are not under the purview of the Highlands Council.

VISUAL AND OTHER PROJECT IMPACTS

m. Comment: The Township stated that the visual environment of the residential property owners
in the immediate area and the motoring public on Mountain Road will be substantially impacted
by the solar energy structures and a recycled concrete surface layer covering the landfill. Along
with heavy landscape buffering and greater setbacks for the solar panels, will the Highlands
Council work with NJDEP to require a vegetated soil cap of the landfill where it is most visible
to Mountain Road and adjoining residential properties. Noted that the September 23 Highlands
Council Staff Draft Recommendation Report, Requirement 5, notes that a screening buffer is
necessary to protect the local neighborhoods. As a critical element, states that the buffer design
should he provided before action is taken by the Highlands Council.

Response: A vegetated soil cap of the landfill involving any vegetation with deep or extensive
roots, such as trees or shrubs, is not possible. In order to maintain cap integrity, roots from
vegetation cannot penetrate the cap. NJDEP does permit the use of grasses or non-vegetated
caps. With respect to the condition of the Staff Draft Recommendation Report and Consistency
Determination requiring a screening buffer, the Final Recommendation Report and Consistency
Determination states that the applicant shall provide a screening plan for review and approval by
the Highlands Council prior to any solar work in the vicinity of Mountain Road and the
intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive The response to Comment 1.i addresses the
proposed condition for visual screening.

6
n. Comment: The Township asked that to help promote the objectives and policies of the
Highlands Regional Master Plan and provide wildlife habitat, will the reconstructed and
relocated stream be constructed with vegetated side slopes. The Township further asked that
where feasible, will buffers or modified buffers be provided along impacted streams and
wetlands.

Response: During the staffs initial analysis and preparation of the Draft Consistency
Determination and Draft Staff Recommendation report, it was understood that the
reconstructed and relocated stream is part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt
activities) which is not under Highlands Council jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Highlands Council
staff did inquire at that time if a vegetative buffer could be utilized instead of the proposed rip-
rap material. The engineer for the project indicated that due to the high runoff volume and
velocity, the use of rip-rap is necessary to prevent erosion of the stream channel; this was
confirmed through review of the plan by the Highlands staff engineer. However, after reviewing
public comments during the comment period and through further consideration by staff, it was
determined that the proposed solar array could potentially affect the water quality and habitat of
the relocated stream. The proposed solar array is under the jurisdiction of the Highlands
Council; thus, it was determined that the Highlands Council has the jurisdiction to comment on
the solar panels potential impact on the relocated stream and potential enhancement measures.
The Final Consistency Determination and Staff Recommendation Report were revised to state
that to limit potential impacts from the solar array on the relocated streams water quality and
habitat, a condition of this approval is the establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer
along the edge of the rip-rap, outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield. Site-appropriate
native species from a local nursery should be utilized. By providing vegetation along the rip-rap
stream bank, the functional value of the stream buffer will be enhanced. Establishment and
maintenance of the vegetated buffer shall be addressed through the HPAA with redevelopment
waiver permit process.

o. Comment: The Township noted that Condition 1 of the Staff Draft Report should state that the
vegetated buffer between the stream reach and the project is required instead of should be
required.

Response: Each condition of approval, including this one, is part of the NJDEPs HPAA
approval process (in consultation with the Highlands Council). Highlands Council staff is
recommending to NJDEP that this condition should be required.

p. Comment: The Township asked if the landfill closure will require dynamic compaction.
Followed with the question that if so, is it needed across the entire landfill area or to a limited
area setback from adjoining residential properties and Mountain Avenue. The Township asked
will the Township and area residents be notified in advance of compaction activity.

Response: This activity (dynamic compaction), if required, is part of the remediation and
closure activities (exempt activities) which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

q. Comment: The Township noted that the venting system and backup generator should be
located and screened from adjoining properties and streets. The backup generator should also be
located a substantial distance from adjoining homes to minimize noise impacts. Asked if the
generator will be tested/cycled monthly or less, and how long will it run. The Township asked
7
will the Highlands Council require this information prior to action before voting on the
application.

Response: This activity (venting system and backup generator) is part of the remediation and
closure activities (exempt activities) which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

r. Comment: The Township asked how the Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation will
address the impacts to municipal roads by over 150,000 total truck trips (in/out) needed to
transport the 1.2 million cubic yards of fill and recycled material for the landfill cap.

Response: The truck trips needed to transport the 1.2 million cubic yards of fill and recycled
material for the landfill cap are part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt activities)
which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

s. Comment: The Township asked at what point will the Highlands Council review detailed
stormwater management plans to insure the protection of downstream properties.

Response: Condition 7 of the Final Staff Recommendation Report and Consistency
Determination states that the stormwater regulations must be followed in the project design
through the HPAA with redevelopment waiver, as part of the NJDEP permitting process. The
Highlands Council expects that under the NJDEP waiver, the applicant shall supply a
stormwater management plan and a construction implementation plan that minimizes
disturbance during and after construction.

t. Comment: The Township asked that although a relatively temporary activity, will the 150,000+
total truck trips (in/out) concentrated on Mountain Road and impacting area residents constitute
an inconsistency with Highlands Regional Master Plan air quality policies.

Response: The truck trips needed to transport the 1.2 million cubic yards of fill and recycled
material for the landfill cap are part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt activities)
which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

u. Comment: The Township asked that with over 150,000+ total truck trips needed for landfill
cap, have provisions been established to regulate the route, frequency, idling, or hours of truck
traffic. The Township asks will hours of operation be prohibited on weekends and State and
Federal holidays.

Response: The truck trips needed for the landfill cap are part of the remediation and closure
activities (exempt activities) which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction. NJDEPs
Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval address these issues.

ECONOMICS

v. Comment: The Township asked has the Highlands Council reviewed the applicants Financial
Plan which was submitted to NJDEP as a part the Landfill Closure Plan. The Township asked
that in order to be classified as a sustainable economic development, should not the Highlands
8
Council review the Financial Plan. States that the Township has not received a copy of this
document.

Response: The Financial Plan is part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt activities)
which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction. NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order
and Landfill Closure Plan Approval address these issues. However, staff is of the opinion that
there is sufficient information available to make an informed recommendation to the Highlands
Council for decision regarding approval of the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area
Designation. By reusing and redeveloping a previously disturbed area (i.e., the landfill),
economic investment and community development within the framework of smart growth is
assured.

w. Comment: The Township asked will the Highlands Regional Master Plan consistency
determination review take into account the loss of property value and economic impacts to area
residential properties that will be subject to an undetermined number of years where over
150,000 total truck trips (in/out) will be bringing in 1.2 million cubic yards of recycled concrete
material to create a landfill cap covered with solar panels, setback 20 feet from Mountain Road,
without the benefit of a landscape buffer. Asked does this impact to existing residential
properties meet the policy for sustainable economic activity.

Response: As already discussed, the truck trips needed to transport the 1.2 million cubic yards
of fill and recycled material for the landfill cap are part of the remediation and closure activities
(exempt activities) which are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction. With regard to the
proposed solar facility which is under Highlands Council review authority, Condition #6 in both
the Final Consistency Determination and Staff Recommendation Report addresses the issue of
screening, as discussed in detail above, in the response to Comment 1.i. It should also be noted
that as previously addressed, by reusing and redeveloping a previously disturbed area (i.e., the
landfill), economic investment and community development within the framework of smart
growth is assured. The proposed project is the placement of photovoltaic panels, which has been
defined in the Municipal Land Use Law as an inherently beneficial use.

SCHEDULING AND PHASING

x. Comment: The Township noted that the documents submitted to the Highlands Council do not
address the phasing of landfill capping and solar development. Asked will the entire landfill be
capped and then the solar facility constructed, or will it be phased where small areas are capped
and solar panels installed as they concurrently move to the capping of other portions of the
landfill. The Township asked will the development proceed east to west or west to east. Asked
has the Highlands Council reviewed the Proposed Closure Schedule and Fill Phasing Plan that
was part of the Landfill Closure Plan.

Response: NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval address
the various phases of the landfill closure. The Highlands Councils approval of a Highlands
Redevelopment Area provides the ability for NJDEP to issue a HPAA which should address
how construction will be phased where small areas are capped and solar panels installed as the
applicant concurrently moves to the capping of other portions of the landfill.

9
y. Comment: The Township asked what measures will be taken by the Highlands Council to
maintain an organized and orderly development of the site considering that the capping and
solar installation can take many years due to the magnitude of material and as the availability of
fill material including recycled concrete is dependent upon the economy. The Township noted
that Condition 38 of the draft Landfill Plan Approval authorizes the acceptance of
approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of recyclable materials for use in the grading and shaping
layer of the site prior to construction of landfill cap. The Township noted that the import of this
tremendous amount of material will take years. The Township asked how the State will regulate
this on-going activity to minimize the physical and visual impacts on the community.

Response: NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval
includes specific deadlines for the orderly closure of the landfill. The remediation and closure
activities (exempt activities) are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

z. Comment: The Township noted that Condition 47 of the draft Landfill Closure Plan Approval
allows the stockpiling of beneficial use and recyclable material subject to NJDEP approval.
The Township asked if the Highlands Council will establish a maximum time period maintaining
stockpiles, as well as a maximum stockpile height, quantity and minimum setback from adjoining
properties and streets to reduce impacts upon the community and to ensure a timely
development of the solar facility, or is it the intent to allow a phased and simultaneous capping
and solar development. The Township asked what is NJDEP's definition of "beneficial use.''

includes procedures for the types and storage of materials on the landfill. The remediation and
closure activities (exempt activities) are not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

aa. Comment: The Township asked that due to the magnitude of accepting 1.2 million cubic yards
of recycled material for the landfill cap, does the closure require Morris County approval prior to
Council approval of the Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation.

includes a requirement for Morris County Soil Conservation District (SCD) approval regarding
the soil erosion and sediment control plan. However, approval by Morris County SCD is not
required prior to Council approval of the Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation.

MISCELLANEOUS

bb. Comment: The Township noted that NJDEP will obtain a tipping fee from the revenue
generated by the acceptance of 1.2 million cubic yards of beneficial use and recyclable material.
The Township asked if the NJDEP will allocate any of this money to the maintenance and repair
of municipal roads accessing the landfill.

Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and notes that it is directed at
NJDEP.

cc. Comment: The Township asked if the 1.2 million cubic yards of fill and recycled masonry will
come from individual job sites and then be inspected at the property. The Township asked if an
10
office trailer will be needed to monitor and administer the acceptance of imported fill material
coming from tens of thousands of trucks. The Township asked if lighting and bathrooms will
be needed, if trucks will be queued in long lines waiting to be processed before unloading, if this
material will be accepted while the installation of solar panels is ongoing. The Township asked if
the Highlands Council will request a narrative explaining this process, as well as a site plan of
this area which depicts truck stacking and if portable toilets will be adequate to service the
drivers of this heavy truck use or will a septic system in conformance with the Highlands RMP
be required.

Response: As already discussed, the truck trips needed to transport the material for the landfill
cap are part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt activities) which are not under
Highlands Council jurisdiction. Some of these issues are raised in NJDEPs Administrative
Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval.

dd. Comment: The Township asked if the Highlands Council has reviewed a long term maintenance
plan of the site as a solar facility and noted that maintenance of a site as capped landfill will
differ from a site developed as a solar facility, as maintenance will be impeded by the non-
penetrating solar foundations.

Response: The long term maintenance of the landfill is required by NJDEPs Administrative
Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval and a plan for the solar facility may be
considered addressed as part of the HPAA review.

2. Jeff Tittel, Director. New Jersey Sierra Club

a. Comment: The Sierra Club supports the application to remediate and properly close the former
Fenimore Municipal Landfill and support plans proposed by Strategic Green Energy to
transform that site into a solar farm. This is better than turning a lemon into lemonade. Landfills
like Fenimore are polluting the environment. By putting solar farms on them, we'll take an
environmental blight and turn it into a positive for the people of New Jersey.

Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges the Sierra Clubs support for the remediation
of the former landfill and the redevelopment of the site with solar arrays.

b. Comment: The Solar farms on landfills will have many environmental benefits. First, the cap
placed over the landfills would help stop leaking and public health hazards. Second, by
generating solar energy, New Jersey will be producing clean electricity and promoting green jobs.
This is why the Sierra Club endorsed a bill that allows and encourages solar farms to be put on
closed landfills. The bill has criteria to require environmental standards and protection in the
development of these solar farms on landfills. To do nothing would continually allow these sites
to leach toxins into our groundwater and environment. The bill is awaiting the Governors
signature.

Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges the Sierra Clubs support for the
environmental and economic benefits that are anticipated through the redevelopment of the site.

c. Comment: There are several reasons the Club supports this bill and the Roxbury project:
11
* Landfills need to be capped to prevent leachate and toxins from getting into our groundwater
and streams. Capping will prevent methane from getting into our air. Methane at landfills is one
of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses.
* A cap is a good place for a solar farm since it is impervious and not a good medium to grow
trees. Furthermore, vegetation on uncapped landfills draw toxics from the landfill and respire
those toxins though the roots and out the leaves.
* The Fenimore Landfill will never return to a natural state because it has been so negatively
impacted by man and dumping.
* The implementation of solar on landfills around New Jersey could be a significant source of
clean energy during times of peak load.
In Roxbury, Strategic Clean Energy is under the strict supervision of NJDEP to properly close
this site. In addition to remediation, the site must be properly buffered and screened so as not
to be an eyesore to local residents.

Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges the Sierra Clubs support for the remediation
of the former landfill and the redevelopment of the site with solar arrays.

d. Comment: While it is in the Highlands Preservation Area, which restricts development, its
transformation into a solar farm is allowed under the Highlands Act and is appropriate for this
site. Further, the site will be deed redistricted from any other future use. When the solar farm is
no longer in use this site will be restored to a natural state and the panels removed. In short,
the103-acre site will remain undeveloped open space in perpetuity.

Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges the Sierra Clubs support for the Highlands
Redevelopment Area designation which the Highlands Act specifically provides for development
of brownfield sites in the Preservation Area. This site will be deed restricted by NJDEP through
the landfill closure as well as through the issuance of a HPAA. However, please note that the
site will be significantly disturbed by the landfill closure and accordingly will not be undeveloped
open space.

3. Erica Van Auken, Campaign and Grassroots Coordinator,
New Jersey Highlands Coalition

a. Comment: The New Jersey Highlands Coalition supports the concept of redevelopment and
solar projects in the Highlands; however, we will only support such initiatives when they are
designed within the goals and purposes of the Regional Master Plan. The former Fenimore
Sanitary Landfill has the potential to become a model brownfield redevelopment site, but first it
needs to become a brownfield. Any concerns we have regarding the building of a solar field are
eclipsed by our primary concern: the proper closing of this hazardous landfill. We are
concerned that the opportunity to redevelop a site for solar in the Highlands will shortcut the
remediation process and as a result the task will not be properly completed. We need assurance
that the landfill will be fully remediated and capped before any steps are taken to redevelop the
site. We recognize that this activity will fall to the NJDEP, but it is our hope that the Council
will be involved in the cleanup process and make every effort to ensure its successful
remediation. This site should not even be considered for a Redevelopment Area Designation
until it has been properly remediated. We do not support this sites designation as a
12
redevelopment site until plans are proposed and made available for public review regarding the
remediation and capping of the existing landfill.

Response: The site is a Landfill and appropriately designated a Track One Brownfield by
NJDEP on August 18, 2011. The Highlands Act specifically includes a waiver provision for
brownfield redevelopment in the Preservation Area in order to encourage the redevelopment of
contaminated sites. The construction of the solar facilities will likely occur in phases as the
various phases of the capping of the landfill are completed. NJDEPs Administrative Consent
Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval includes procedures for the successful remediation of
the landfill. The remediation and closure activities (exempt activities) are not under Highlands
Council jurisdiction.

b. Comment: The New Jersey Highlands Coalition is concerned in regards to the potential
redevelopment once this parcel has reached that phase. In its current state, this landfill could
not be considered environmentally valuable; however it is within the Protection Zone in the
Preservation Area and has significant environmental resources (steep slopes, wetlands, high
forest integrity and watershed values, critical wildlife habitat, etc.). It also abuts Morris Canal
Park and is in proximity to many historically significant places. It is for these reasons, among
many others, that this site should not necessarily be considered for redevelopment, but instead,
should be considered for preservation.

Response: NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval include
procedures for the remediation of the landfill through which the landfill area will be capped and
treated through a leachate collection system. This process will protect the environment from the
pollutants associated with the existing unremediated former landfill. Steep slopes on site were
mainly the result of the landfill and will now be subject to grading and capping, the wetlands
have been polluted and will now be capped with the stream relocated in certain areas, and the
forests have been cut in order to remediate the site and cannot be replanted as the roots would
penetrate the cap. Thus, the capping of the landfill will preclude the restoration of the site to a
site with onsite Highlands Resources. The sole jurisdiction of the Highlands Council is with
regard to the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area designation, which may be for part or all
of the brownfield area, but may not extend beyond that area. Therefore, certain portions of the
larger property are conditioned for conservation easements and viewshed buffers and berms to
ensure protection of Highlands resources and neighboring properties, including but not limited
to the Morris Canal Park.

4. David Peifer, Highlands Project Director
The Association of N.J. Environmental Commissions (ANJEC)

a. Comment: The Association strongly supports the redevelopment of Brownfields in the
Highlands Preservation Area. In this case we support the redevelopment area designation but
wish to convey to the Council our reservations about the potential environmental impacts of the
current proposal. We suggest that the Council convey its concerns about impacts to Highlands
Resources to the applicant and to the NJDEP and consider revising portions of the RMP in the
required upcoming review.

13
Response: The Highlands Council acknowledges ANJECs support for the Highlands
Redevelopment Ares designation for this site.

b. Comment: It is not correct to refer to this facility as a landfill. The facility is in no way a
landfill as currently defined. Rather it is a long abandoned dump that was created without regard
for environmental protection. There is no liner of any type. There is no leachate collection
system, apart from an abandoned lagoon from which contaminated leachate was pumped and
sprayed on the surface. There is no gas collection system. There are, to our knowledge, no
monitoring wells.

The nature and extent of contamination remains undefined. Leachate continues to escape from
the facility flowing downstream toward Ledgewood Park and ultimately to Drakes Brook. The
orange staining from iron fixing bacteria is clearly visible on the Highlands aerial photographs as
is the turbid condition of the former leachate pond. To our knowledge, the leachate has not
been characterized (as surface water) nor has the extent or character of groundwater
contamination been evaluated. To our knowledge there has been no evaluation of methane
generation or other outgassing.

The site is located in a sensitive hydrologic position. Uncharacterized solid waste was deposited
in what appears to have been a forested wetland area probably underlain by Califon soils. These
soils readily develop wetland conditions due to a discontinuous restrictive horizon known as a
fragipan. Often beneath this layer are extremely permeably sandy loam soils that allow
downward movement of water and pollutants. Such layers cannot be relied upon to contain
leachate. The site contains two first order tributaries classified as Category One, Trout
Production (Ledgewood Brook) waters. The more southerly tributary has been moved, and now
flows outside of its original channel. This water body is heavily disturbed. The more northerly
tributary flows near the toe of the filled area but remains largely in its original condition although
it too is impacted by leachate and an upstream detention basin facility in an adjoining residential
subdivision.

The nature of the filling methods used and the waste composition remain unknown. It is
unclear how waste was actually deposited, compacted or covered during the filling operations.
The nature of the materials deposited remains unknown. Due to the age of the facility, it is
possible that materials now prohibited from landfills, including toxic, chemical, and or drummed
wastes could have been deposited.

The physical configuration of the facility raises concerns about grading and other earth
disturbance required for proper closure. Extremely steep slopes are located directly adjacent to
surface waters. These slopes will require substantial grading to install a membrane cap and even
more to use a constructed earthen cap. How this is to be accomplished without severe impacts
to Ledgewood Brook and downstream municipal parkland remains unclear. The abandoned
water filled leachate lagoon is not a properly constructed water impoundment, has no formal
spillway and is located on or beyond the property boundary with municipal parkland.

Road access is limited. Mountain road is a narrow, two lane facility traversing substantial grades
in a residential district. Repeated heavy truck and equipment movements necessary to close and
cap the facility is a safety concern and may impact the structural integrity of the roadway.

14
An effectively capped landfill is essentially 100% impervious. Controlling stormwater to match

the previous heavily disturbed condition will not be adequate to protect the downstream stream
channels. To do so will require designing a control facility to approximate post construction
run-off equal to that which would result from forest in good condition. Additionally this
extensive control facility will need to be installed within the existing filled area with proper side
slopes established. This will necessitate further disturbing unknown fill material.

Response: The entire purpose of NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure
Plan Approval is to require that the former landfill be closed with the necessary elements to
properly close, treat and monitor the landfill. These requirements are part of the remediation
and closure activities (exempt activities) which is not under Highlands Council jurisdiction.

c. Comment: It appears that the applicant proposes to access the power lines approximately 1,350
feet northeast of the property boundary. Creation of an overhead transmission line will entail
clearing of additional forest outside the proposed redevelopment area. It would appear from the
PJM connection response that reaching the proposed location will entail clearing and crossing of
municipal land listed on the Recreational Open Space Inventory.

Redevelopment Area. Accordingly, such issues will be reviewed during the HPAA process. The
Staff Recommendation Report includes a condition for mitigation of any impacts to Highlands
resources associated with the transmission line, whether overhead or in-ground.

d. Comment: We understand that the consistency review was performed assuming a satisfactorily
remediated condition. However, we strongly suggest that the Council communicate its concerns
directly to the applicant and, most importantly to NJDEP, to assure that the clean-up design
respects, protects and restores Highlands Resources to the maximum degree practicable.

Response: NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval will
ensure that the former landfill be closed with the necessary conditions. These requirements are
part of the remediation and closure activities (exempt activities) which is not under Highlands
Council jurisdiction.

e. Comment: We believe that the RMPs policies, goals and objectives should be reviewed to more
adequately address redevelopment area designations for brownfield in the Preservation Area.
Such sites should be reviewed in advance of specific applications. Allowing redevelopment
decisions to be driven by private applicants is contrary to the concept of comprehensive regional
planning and is likely to result in uncoordinated, unwise and possibly incomplete projects
scattered throughout the Highlands Region. Due to the regions long history of industrial
development and the generously vague definition of Brownfield, (A brownfield is defined
under NJ state law (N.J.S.A. 58:10B-23.d) as any former or current commercial or industrial site
that is currently vacant or underutilized and on which there has been, or there is suspected to
have been, a discharge of a contaminant.). Such sites may be found in the Protection Zone or
the Conservation Zone. This particular site is located in the Protection Zone. It is also equally
clear that redevelopment can include a brownfield to greenfield approach that results in
natural resource restoration and the provision of open space. We suggest that the Council could
15
develop a system to review existing known brownfields within the Protection Zone, the
Conservation Zone, the Lake Management Zone and the environmentally constrained sub-zones
for redevelopment as greenfields. Issues such as surrounding watershed quality, forest integrity,
degree of contamination, location in relation to existing preserved lands, local recreational need
and desires and historic value could be considered among others. Recognizing that the Council
is currently fully occupied with the conformance process we suggest that such changes be
considered for the required RMP review in 2012.

Response: The Highlands Council appreciates ANJECs suggestions regarding the Highlands
Regional Master Plan and further assures ANJEC that the considerations urged are addressed in
the RMP (though the Council may wish to consider this issue further for the Reexamination of
2014). Each Highlands Redevelopment Area is examined on its own merits and in relationship
to the Region and thus the Highlands Council may or choose not to designate based on
consistency with the goals and purposes of the Highlands Act. The existing conditions of the
potential site and its surrounds and the sustainability and appropriateness of the site for
redevelopment determine the outcome.

1 October 14, 2011

Highlands Preservation Area Approval Application Checklist Items for
HPAA with Redevelopment Waiver
Former Fenimore Sanitary Landfill - Block 7404, Lot 1, Township of Roxbury
See Highlands Council Review at: http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/projectreview/

**For advisory purposes only please be advised that this checklist provides information to both the applicant and NJDEP from the analysis
prepared by the Highlands Council. NJDEP may require additional information be required as part of the review of the HPAA application. **

October 2011
HPAA Checklist Item
(All of the information required in N.J.A.C. 7:38-9.5)
Items deemed unnecessary highlighted
Submittal Status/ Highlands Council Analysis

Comments and Action Items
Items in green, Strategic Environmental Partners L.L.C. (SEP)
needs to supply
1. A completed copy of the HPAA checklist Applicant will submit Applicant to provide.
2. A LURP-2 application form, completed in accordance with
the directions on the form;
ALREADY COMPLETED FOR HIGHLANDS RESOURCE AREA
DETERMINATION (HRAD) APPLICATION (APPENDIX A) MET
HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Applicant already completed LURP-2 application as part of
HRAD application - also required for Highlands Council
Redevelopment Area Designation Petition. Applicant to
include copy in NJDEP submittal package.
3. The appropriate fee, indicated in the Highlands Preservation
Area Approval fee table, which can be found at
www.state.nj.us/dep/highlands
Applicant will submit Applicant to provide. The base fee for the review of a HPAA
with a completed HRAD shall be $2,500 plus $50.00 per acre,
or any fraction thereof of Highlands resource areas to be
affected (Highlands Council contends that its Consistency
Determination and Recommendation Report serve as
functional equivalent for HRAD.) For all projects requiring
review of stormwater calculations: $2,000
4. Proof that the public notice requirements below have been
met. (Note: To prove that an item has been sent to a person,
submit either the white postal receipt you receive when you
send the item by certified mail, or the green certified mail
return receipt card.) Entire application must be sent to
municipal clerk and Highlands Council. Notice letters to
Applicant will submit Applicant to provide notice.
2 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
environmental commission, municipal planning board and
construction official, county planning board, county
environmental commission, all landowners within 200 feet of
boundary of site
5. The approximate boundaries the project or activities clearly
delineated on a USGS quadrangle Map
ALREADY COMPLETED FOR HRAD APPLICATION (APPENDIX
D) MET HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
Applicant to include copies in NJDEP submittal package.
6. Two copies of a recent county road map or local street map,
with the site clearly marked
ALREADY COMPLETED FOR HRAD APPLICATION (APPENDIX E)
MET HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
7. Two sets of original color photographs, mounted on 8 by
11 inch paper, sufficient to show the conditions on the site,
and immediately surrounding areas, as well as the area of
disturbance for the proposed activities. A minimum of ten
photographs is required
G) MET HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. Note: The project site can be
readily viewed and analyzed using the Highlands Council
interactive mapping with 3-D Birds Eye View at
http://maps.njhighlands.us/hgis/
8. A copy of a Municipal tax map(s) delineation the project or
activity site by lot(s) and block(s)
ALREADY COMPLETED FOR HRAD APPLICATION (APPENDIX F)
MET HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
9. A copy of the Highlands Applicability Determination issued
by the Department, or, in the case where an applicant does
not have an applicability determination because he or she
stipulated under N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.4(a) that the proposed activity
is subject to the Highlands Act, the information required at
N.J.A.C. 7:38-9.2(b)3 and 4, and 9.2(c)
N/A Applicant did not and is not applying for a Highlands
Applicability Determination.

10. If the proposed project or activity requires new or
modified water supply allocation permits please visit the
Highlands website for the checklists to apply for these permits
N/A. No additional water supply demands.
3 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
11. Information and/or certifications regarding the presence
or absence of rare, threatened or endangered species habitat,
ecological communities, historic or archaeological resources,
or other features on the site relevant to determining
compliance with the requirements of this chapter. This
information shall include but not be limited to a letter from
the Natural Heritage Program indicating the presence or
absence of any rare, threatened or endangered species or
ecological communities listed in the Natural Heritage
Database on or near the site
H) MET HIGHLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION
Applicant to include copy in NJDEP submittal package.
12. When an applicant intends to rebut the presumption of
rare, threatened or endangered species habitat on the
applicants site as set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:38-5.1(a), all habitat
evaluation information pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:38-5.1(b)
N/A
13. Any other information not listed herein, that the applicant
or the Department deems necessary to demonstrate
compliance with this rule or the Federal rules governing the
Department's assumption of the Federal 404 program. In
addition, the Department may require any information
necessary to clarify whether an application meets State and/or
Federal standards
Applicant already provided data sheets documenting the
location of the wetlands/waters boundaries in the HRAD
application (Appendix J)
Applicant to include copy in NJDEP submittal package.
14. The following information on the location of special
Highlands resources on the site:
A. A Highlands Area Resource Determination (HRAD) if one
has been issued for the site; or

B. If no Highlands LOI has been issued, and the site is larger
than one acre, the application must include all of the
information required for an application for a line verification
HRAD. A formal delineation report is not required. However,
the application must include the data sheets and supporting
Applicant already submitted HRAD application (dated July
2011). Further, Highlands CD and Recommendation Report are
the functional equivalent of HRAD meeting requirements at
N.J.A.C. 7:38-9.2(b)3 and 4, and 9.2(c)
Applicant to include a copy of the HRAD application.
4 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
information used to record the information on soils and
vegetation which formed the basis for the boundary
determination;

C. If the applicant has a currently valid approved Freshwater
Wetlands letter of interpretation (LOI), issued by the
Department for the site under N.J.A.C. 7:7A-3, this may be
submitted instead of an HRAD so long as the applicant also
provides information regarding any additional HRAs not
previously identified in the LOI;

D. If no Freshwater wetlands LOI or HRAD has been issued
and the site does not contain Highlands open waters, no
delineation or other information is required;
E. If no Freshwater or HRAD has been issued, and the site is
one acre or smaller, no delineation or other information is
required, except if indicated otherwise in this checklist
15. Six copies of a detailed project description including:
A. The purpose and intended use of the proposed project;
B. A description of the regulated activities necessary to
complete and operate or occupy the proposed project;
C. A description of any structures to be erected, and how they
will be used;
D. A schedule for the progress and completion of the
proposed project;
E. The total area of Highlands open waters and Highlands open
water buffers proposed to be disturbed (if any);
F. The total area of upland forest area on the site and the total
area of upland forest area that will be disturbed
G. The amount of pre-development impervious coverage on
the site and the total aggregate impervious coverage on the
The Highlands Council CD and Recommendation Report fulfill
this requirement. See Highlands Council project review at:
http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/projectreview/
The Highlands Council has provided copies to NJDEP.

A. See Recommendation Report Section 1. Project
Description
B. See Recommendation Report Section 4. Findings and
Recommendations Resource Assessment
C. See Recommendation Report Section 1. Project
Description
D. Schedule phasing of landfill capping and solar array
construction to be provided during HPAA process, as per
Condition #1 of Highlands Redevelopment Area
.
5 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
site following completion of the proposed project;
H. A description of slopes between 10% and 20% and 20% or
greater that are present on the site
I. An evaluation of whether and how rare, threatened or
endangered animals or plant species or ecological
communities will be affected by the proposed activities;
J. An architectural or Phase I archaeological survey for the
applicants proposing work that will impact historic structures
or archaeological resources
K. A Phase II archaeological survey for applicants that discover
archaeological features resources as a result of the Phase I
archaeological survey
L. The names, addresses and professional qualifications of
those used to prepare the detailed project description
M. If any or all of the proposed project or activity is in a flood
hazard area
N. Source of floodplain data
Designation Approval.
E. See Recommendation Report Section 4. Findings and
Recommendations Resource Assessment and
Consistency Determination Comments for Part 1
Subpart B Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas
F. See Consistency Determination Comments for Part 1
Subpart A Forest Resources
G. Site is an NJDEP approved brownfield. Impervious surface
coverage not applicable.
H. See Consistency Determination Comments for Part 1
Subpart C Steep Slopes
I. See Consistency Determination Comments for Part 1
Subpart D Critical Habitat
J. See Consistency Determination Comments for Part 4
Historic, Cultural, Archaeological, and Scenic Resources
K. See Consistency Determination Comments for Part 4
Historic, Cultural, Archaeological, and Scenic Resources
L. Applicant to provide
M. Applicant has already submitted to NJDEP an Engineering
Report for Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit report
applicant to supply additional copy as part of HPAA
application
N. See report described in item M above.
16. Six folded copies of a site plan or subdivision map, signed
and sealed by a NJ licensed professional surveyor and, where
appropriate, a NJ licensed professional engineer, showing the
entire site and indicating the following:
A. All existing structures on the site and on all immediately
adjacent lots;
B. All proposed structures, disturbances, and activities;
C. Distances and dimensions of areas, structures and lots,
Applicant will submit Applicant to provide
6 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
including the boundaries of freshwater wetlands, state open
waters, flood hazard areas, uplands, roads, and utility lines;
D. A complete delineation of the boundaries of all Highlands
open waters, transition areas, forest and slopes 10% to 20%
and slopes greater than 20%, HRAD issued by the Department
that shows the Highlands open water boundary, forest
boundary slopes 10% to 20% and slopes greater than 20% may
be submitted to satisfy this requirement. Include a copy of a
map or plan, which depicts the approved lines;
E. A calculation of total existing and proposed percent
impervious surface for the entire site
F. The area which will be used for the proposed activity or
discharge;
G. The location of the site in relation to development in the
region;
H. The scale of the plan and a north arrow;
I. Soil erosion/sediment control details;
J. The name of all persons who prepared the plan and the date
of preparation;
K. The name of the applicant, and municipal lot(s) and block
number(s) of the project site;
L. For projects in a flood hazard area plans must also:
1. Reference 1929 NGVD;
2. Provide all cross sections, profiles and all relevant details
referenced in the engineering report.
17. A mitigation proposal for all disturbances to Highlands
open waters shall be submitted.
Mitigation measures shall be provided pursuant to Conditions
of approval (Conditions # 2 and 3) in Highlands Council
Consistency Determination and Staff Recommendation
Report.

7 October 14, 2011

HPAA Checklist Item

needs to supply
18. If the site is located in an area designated a Wild and
Scenic River, or under study for such designation, this approval
will not be granted until a letter is received from the National
Park Service
N/A
19. Stormwater management calculations in accordance with
the Stormwater Management rules must be provided for all
major developments
Applicant will submit.
**Note there should be a coordinated review of the
stormwater plan between the Highlands Council and the
NJDEP to ensure that the conditions of the Highlands
Councils recommendation are met. Related to stormwater is
the condition that the applicant shall supply a stormwater
management plan that incorporates low impact
development techniques and a construction implementation
plan that minimizes disturbance during and after
construction.
Applicant will provide
20. A copy of all past Department approvals for activities on
the site;
Applicant will provide HAD, HRAD, and any other Department
approvals
Applicant will provide a copy of all NJDEP approvals.
21. The names and addresses of all consultants, engineers,
and other persons providing technical assistance in preparing
the application;
Applicant to provide. Applicant to include copies in NJDEP submittal package.
Remainder of the checklist is to be used for any project that
proposes activities regulated pursuant to the Flood Hazard
Area Control Act rules at N.J.A.C. 7:13., and thus, NA
N/A

8 October 14, 2011

7:38-9.6 ADDITIONAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A HIGHLANDS PRESERVATION AREA APPROVAL WITH WAIVER

An administratively complete application for an HPAA with waiver shall contain:

1. All of the information required in N.J.A.C. 7:38-9.5:
Response: See checklist items above

2. An analysis describing all alternatives to the proposed project which would reduce each impact of the project as listed in N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.2(a) and the reasons the applicant did not adopt
that alternative
Response: Applicant to provide.

3. A description of the source of water or waste water disposal that would be used by development if the waiver is granted
Response: There would be no new water/wastewater requirements. Proposal is for a solar array on a capped landfill.

4. A request for a specific waiver in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.4(a)
Response: Consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.4(a), is seeking a waiver from the Department under N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.4(a)2 regarding Highlands Open Water buffers. Redevelopment in a
previously developed area in the Preservation Area identified by the Highlands Council pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:20-9b or N.J.S.A 13:20-11

5. A detailed explanation why the proposed activity meets the criteria for a waiver in N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.4(a);
Response: The Highlands Council has issued a Highlands Redevelopment Area Designation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:20-9b and N.J.S.A 13:20-11

6. A detailed description of the specific HPAA requirement for which a waiver is sought, and a comparison of the HPAA standard with the level of compliance the proposed development
provides (for example, N.J.A.C. 7:38-3.5 limits a development to a maximum of three percent impervious coverage whereas the proposed project requires a total of four percent);
Response: One HPAA standard:
1. N.J.A.C. 7:38-3.6 states that there shall be a 300-foot buffer adjacent to Highlands open waters in which no disturbance is permitted, except as provided in this chapter. The
installation of the photovoltaic panels on top of the constructed landfill cap would result in the encroachment of the 300-foot Highlands Open Waters buffers. However, it is
recognized that the buffers in the project area are entirely disturbed (capped landfill) and that the photovoltaic project will have a de minimis impact on quality or integrity of the
buffer area subsequent to landfill final closure. However, to the extent feasible, as a condition of this approval, establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer between the
stream reach and the project area should be required to mitigate impacts from the solar panels themselves.

9 October 14, 2011

7. An explanation how the proposed activity satisfies each of the remaining HPAA standards at N.J.A.C. 7:38-3
Response: The Highlands Council approval of this Highlands Redevelopment Area demonstrates that the proposed activity satisfies each of the remaining HPAA standards at N.J.A.C.
7:38-3. The Highlands Council approval process includes: 1) A pre-application and application to the Highlands Council; 2) A Consistency Determination, a Staff Recommendation Report,
and Mapping of Highlands resources; 3) A Public Notice, public comment period, and a Comments Summary and Response document; 4) A Public meeting held by the Highlands Council
with additional opportunity for public comment and a vote by Council on a Resolution. Given this extensive process, the NJDEP should be able to rely upon the analysis and conclusions
of the Highlands Council in considering an HPAA application for a redevelopment area waiver in accordance with NJDEPs Preservation Area rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1

8. A detailed explanation why the proposed activity satisfies the standards at N.J.A.C. 7:38-6.2(a);
Response: That explanation can be found in the Highlands Council Recommendation Report (table that begins on page 4).

9. Documents showing the conclusion of an applicants legal challenges, if any, to the Departments decision on the application for an HPAA under the rules as strictly applied,
Response: N/A

**Note there shall be a coordinated review of the HPAA with redevelopment waiver application between the Highlands Council and the NJDEP to ensure that the conditions of the
Highlands Councils recommendation are met as follows:

1. The application for a HPAA must address how solar panel and related construction will be phased, consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan, where certain areas are capped and
solar panels installed as the applicant concurrently moves to the capping of other portions of the landfill;
2. The encroachment into a Highlands Open Waters buffer shall be entirely within a previously disturbed area, which would not result in a net impact to the functional value of the
buffer (in conformance with Policy 1D4) and therefore qualifies for a waiver. However, to the extent feasible, as a condition of this approval, establishment and maintenance of a
vegetated buffer between the stream reach and the project area will be required;
3. To minimize potential impacts from the solar array on stream water quality and habitat, a condition of this approval is the establishment and maintenance of a vegetated buffer
along the edge of the rip-rap, outside of the designated Highlands Brownfield. This condition shall be addressed through a minimum 50-foot vegetated buffer consisting of
layered woody and herbaceous species, except the buffer may be smaller where it would conflict with NJDEPs Administrative Consent Order and Landfill Closure Plan Approval.
4. It must be demonstrated that solar panels can be effectively constructed and maintained (consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan) along the northeastern border of the
constructed landfill cap; this area will be sloping and is adjacent to a steep ridge.
5. The remainder of the property outside of the proposed Highlands Redevelopment Area shall be protected through a conservation restriction, specifically authorizing ecological
restoration and maintenance, with recognition of any existing utility structures such as storm sewers and drainage basins that may periodically need maintenance or
replacement. If any disturbance of the area outside of the Brownfield is required for access to the transmission grid, mitigation will be required by the Highlands Council before
any such disturbance occurs;
10 October 14, 2011

6. The solar array shall be screened from the viewshed along Mountain Road of adjacent public roads and along all existing private development through a minimum of 75 feet of
dense vegetated cover. Berms may be used to supplement the vegetated buffer, but structures such as fences shall not substitute for the vegetated buffer. It is recognized that
trees and other woody species cannot be planted within the landfill cap (roots would compromise the integrity of the cap), and that in the area along Mountain Road, in the
vicinity of Lookout Drive, the designated Highlands Brownfield directly abuts Mountain Road. As a condition of this approval, the applicant shall establish an earthen berm to
screen the viewshed along Mountain Road (in a manner consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan) which shall be seeded and planted with native herbaceous species. The
applicant shall provide a site plan with a viewshed screening plan for review and approval by the Highlands Council prior to any solar work in the vicinity of Mountain Road and
the intersection of Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive, prior to the submission of an application for an HPAA;
7. The stormwater regulations must be followed in the project design through the HPAA with redevelopment waiver, as part of the NJDEP permitting process. The Highlands
Council expects that under the NJDEP waiver, the applicant shall supply a stormwater management plan and a construction implementation plan that minimizes disturbance
during and after construction. As a condition of this approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that the solar panels can be constructed effectively while maintaining the integrity
of the proposed stormwater management features (e.g., the proposed forebay swales) and be consistent with the Landfill Closure Plan; and
8. During the HPAA with redevelopment waiver permit process, the applicant must demonstrate that the solar panels can be installed without compromising the integrity of the
landfill cap and to meet the conditions of the Landfill Closure Plan.

EXHIBIT 3.24

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/67e4cecf-6d2b-9e8e-d5d8-7dc27f84e983.html 1/3
From: Richard Bernardi Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:22:08 GMT
To: Cindy Randazzo; Ruth Foster;
CC: Judy Larkin
Subj ect: Fwd: Fenimore-MCSCD
i mage001.j pg (2Kb)
Cindy/Ruth,
We are resubmitting plans with Joe Dunn, Morris County Soils Friday. As you can see from the email below, with Joe, it's his way or the Highway. He
continually refers to us as idiots because we submit plans and then have to change them. He doesn't care if we are doing this because the DEP has
been changing their plans.
As you can read from Joe's email below," we are lucky he doesn't sue us."
"Landfill remediation will start when Mr. Dunn day's it can, and not before. "
Oh, as part of his new plan, he reserves the right to change it and charge us whenever he deems necessary.
Suggestion: If the State would like the Private Sector to ever try this again, put the whole Landfill Remediation under Solid Waste at the DEP. Then
you will deal with one agency. The way it works now it never ends.
Keeping you posted.
From my Engineer:
I am meeting with Joe Dunn this Friday at 1pm to go over the revised plan for phase 1 fill
operation submission. Per Joes request, please provide a check amount of $3025. Payable
to: Morris County SCD.
I will set a fill phase 1 plan to you and Bashar before Fridays meeting.

Thanks

Jei Chon
Project Engineer

From: Richard Bernardi [mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com]
Sent : Monday, October 17, 2011 3:37 PM
To: Jei Chon
Cc: Assadi,Bashar (BAssadi@birdsall.com)
Subject : Re: Fenimore-MCSCD

We will pay him.
Rich Bernardi

wrote:

From: dunnjose@gmail.com [mailto:dunnjose@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Dunn
Sent : Monday, October 17, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Jei Chon
Subject : Re: Fenimore-MCSCD

We don't issue permits for half a design.

The plan is enforced, so if the plan is not clear as to its final state how can an enforcement
action take place.
For example Rich submitted a plan for tree clearing which he is in violation because he did
not chip the trees and is significantly out of sequence as per your/his plan.

If the SCD so desired we could sue & penalize and the capping plan would not enter into
the action because it is a plan not an action but just so much paper in a folder.

To be clear, we haven't taken that action because of site circumstances only. If
circumstances change (soil erosion/fire hazard) and we would proceed.

Your capping plan can be substituted with a phase 1A 1b plan but the financial result is the
same. Return of some fees for a smaller project with another $11.9K bill waiting for a new
total site application.
I suspect a lot of this multiple applications is because the haphazard way the planning of
this job has been going forward. Erroneous tree application to the town which had no
jurisdiction, tree clearing/bat matter to accommodate site exploration, and now a phase
application on the heels of a total site plan submittal. But as the first application
demonstrates the SCD has several more hours into a project then the fee schedule
predicted. I suspect the same will be true for this final site plan given the unknown nature
of material (RCM etc.)

Hope that gives some perspective.
Joe,

After our meeting on last Friday October 14, 2011, I talked with Rich and question has
come up. Why the phase 1 application is not part of the last application submitted on July
26, 2011? When the phase 1 area is a piece of the entire 64 acres of disturbance that we
applied on July 26, 2011 application. This would seem as paying application fee for same
area twice.

Please advise,

Jei Chon
Project Engineer

--
Joseph P. Dunn, MPA
District Manager

Morris County Soil
PO Box 0900
ph:973-285-8339
fax: 973-285-8345

EXHIBIT 3.25

EXHIBIT 3.26

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/84baaee4-36a2-692a-94ff-7d6b61947267.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:33:07 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; bassadi@birdsall.com; Scott Brubaker; Cindy Randazzo; bhobbs@matrixnewworld.com;
jchon@matrixnewworld.com;
Subject: Senator Bucco letter to Commissioner - Fenimore - comments due 12/13 or asap
20111205103616143.pdf (316Kb)
Mr.BernardiandMr.AlAssadi-theDepartmentisrespondingtosomegeneralquestionsreceivedbytheDepartmentonDecember5,2011from
theTwpofRoxburyfortheproposedFenimorelandfillclosureproject.
AtimelyreponsetoSenatorBuccofromtheDepartmentwillbebasedoninformationgatheredfromtheDepartmentprogramsandtheapplicant.
ThisletterhasbeendistributedtoapplicableDepartmentprogramsforresponsetoourofficebyDecember13,2011.
ThankyouforyourassistanceandanyinformationyoucanprovidetotheDepartment,includingestimateoftrucksperdayanddurationof
cappingoveraphasedcompletionofremediation,toensureacompleteresponsetotheSenator'soffice.
RuthFoster
OfficeofpermitCoordinationandEnvironmentalReview
609-292-3600

EXHIBIT 3.27

EXHIBIT 3.28

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/0a61edc0-03fb-f513-7715-8f52d81b9b9d.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:46:56 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Foster, Ruth;
Subject: RE: Senator Bucco letter to Commissioner - Fenimore - comments due 12/13 or asap
Response to Questions from the Township of Roxbury 121311.doc (35Kb)
Ruth,
PleaseseeattachedmydraftresponsetothequestionsraisedbyRoxbury.Pleasecontactmewithanyquestions.
BasharAssadi,P.E.
SeniorVicePresident-SolidWasteServices
BirdsallServicesGroup,Inc.
65JacksonDrive
Cranford,NewJersey
07016
P:908-497-8900x6286|F:908-497-2086
BAssadi@birdsall.com
www.birdsall.com
Thismessagecontainsconfidentialinformationandisintendedonlyfortheindividualnamed.Ifyouarenotthenamedaddresseeyoushouldnot
disseminate,distributeorcopythise-mail.Pleasenotifythesenderimmediatelybye-mailifyouhavereceivedthise-mailbymistakeanddelete
thise-mailfromyoursystem.E-mailtransmissioncannotbeguaranteedtobesecureorerror-freeasinformationcouldbeintercepted,corrupted,
lost,destroyed,arrivelateorincomplete,orcontainviruses.Thesenderthereforedoesnotacceptliabilityforanyerrorsoromissionsinthe
contentsofthismessage,whichariseasaresultofe-mailtransmission.Ifverificationisrequiredpleaserequestahard-copyversion.
From:RuthFoster[mailto:Ruth.Foster@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent:Monday,December05,20112:33PM
To:rwbernardi@aol.com;Assadi,Bashar;CindyRandazzo;ScottBrubaker;bhobbs@matrixnewworld.com;jchon@matrixnewworld.com
Subject:SenatorBuccolettertoCommissioner-Fenimore-commentsdue12/13orasap
Mr.BernardiandMr.AlAssadi-theDepartmentisrespondingtosomegeneralquestionsreceivedbytheDepartmentonDecember5,2011from
theTwpofRoxburyfortheproposedFenimorelandfillclosureproject.
AtimelyreponsetoSenatorBuccofromtheDepartmentwillbebasedoninformationgatheredfromtheDepartmentprogramsandtheapplicant.
ThisletterhasbeendistributedtoapplicableDepartmentprogramsforresponsetoourofficebyDecember13,2011.
ThankyouforyourassistanceandanyinformationyoucanprovidetotheDepartment,includingestimateoftrucksperdayanddurationof
cappingoveraphasedcompletionofremediation,toensureacompleteresponsetotheSenator'soffice.
RuthFoster
OfficeofpermitCoordinationandEnvironmentalReview609-292-3600

EXHIBIT 3.29

1. DEP Contact is ___ at
2. The closure approval is not reopening of the landfill. The approved material are
recyclable materials that are approved for reuse to prepare the site for
closure/redevelopment and implement the closure. Materials from areas of concern are
fill materials that is subjected to extensive testing to determine suitability for reuse. C&D
Screenings are the fines generated from screening Construction and Demolition of
structures. Two feet of dredge material will be accepted and placed as part of the cap
below the final two feet of the landfill cap. This is a common practice in capping old
landfills since the mid nineties.
3. Please see the response to #2.
4. The depth of material ranges between ten and forty feet. The demand for the additional
fill is dictated by the difficult topography of the site. The regulations require creating 3:1
stable slopes, which required large amount of fill.
5. This is a local municipal law legal matter, and the DEP is not in a position to issue such
opinion. However, the NJ DEP approvals require that the site obtain all required local
approvals as applicable.
6. See response to #5.
7. This is not under the NJ DEP jurisdiction, however the site owner is required to provide
an as-built-certification that the site was closed and developed in accordance with the
plans approved by the NJ DEP.
8. The applicant is in the process of filing the required land use permits and a NJ PDES
DSW permit for the discharge of the treated leachate. The site received an approval
from the Morris County Soil Conservation District for implementing Phase 1 of the
closure plan. Please contact the Highlands Council and consult them on their approval
status.
9. The NJ DEP is ______
10. The HPAA application is under review and _____
11. This is a new process that has not been long practiced. So there is no precedent on this
matter. However, the NJ DEP intends to provide the public the chance to comment on
the HPAA application through ____
12. The closure approval is silent on the fate of the solar system upon expiration of the
system.
13. A buffer has been maintained between the roads and the landfill. The trees within this
buffer have not been cut to maintain a visual barrier.
14. 50.
15. Buffer is required through the NJ DEP and the Highlands Commission land use
permitting process. This has been discussed with SEP during the several meetings that
have been held on the project.
16. Due to the fact that this is a landfill site that requires capping, and that the cap integrity
has to be maintained, the NJ DEP does not promote planting trees on top of the cap. It is
suggested that shrubs be used in the buffer. A raised berm with shrubs may be
constructed to create a landscaped visual barrier.
17. See response to #16
18. The trees along Mountain Road will be maintained and will not be cut. Only in areas that
the trees are not existent or removed, a landscaped berm will be constructed.
19. Through discussions with the NJ DEP land use program, the MCSCD and the applicant,
it was concluded that from a stability and site drainage point of view, the best final cover
is a pervious cover. This type of cover is also more supportive of the intended end use of
the site. The site will be screened through existing and to be installed natural vegetation.
20. This site is an improperly closed landfill which is in need of proper closure. The impact of
unclosed landfill on the environment and on property value far exceeds the temporary
impact of the truck traffic during the proper closure of the landfill. Please note that the
number of trucks and resultant volume of 3 million cubic yards stated in the comment far
exceeds the permitted volume of 1.2 Million Cubic Yards.
21. Three to four years
22. The ACO
23. Copies of applications to the NJ DEP have been provided to the Township. Should the
Township of Roxbury require information on the Solar System, please contact SEP.
24. Details of the solar system are included in the application documents, which were
provided to the Township by the applicant. No penetrations will be made into the landfill
cap to accommodate the solar system. The topography of the site has no bearing on the
height of the solar panels.
25. Please refer to the phasing listed in the ACO and Closure Approval.
26. Wildlife habitat and wetlands and stream buffers are taken into consideration during the
Land Use Permitting process. The application has to comply with these rules as they
apply.
27. The Fenimore landfill has been a neglected property and in need of proper closure for
over twenty years. SEP has volunteered to implement a proper closure/redevelopment
of the site without involvement of public funds. This is a trend that the NJ DEP and the
Governors office are encouraging. SEP entered into an ACO with the State of New
J ersey to implement the proper closure/redevelopment of the site.
28. Dynamic compaction is only needed at parts of the northern slope if access into the
Township property is not granted to maintain 3:1 slope along the northern edge of the
landfill.
29. There are two options that SEP is considering for connecting to the power lines. Upon
determination of the best route, SEP will provide the route and the impacted
property(ies).
30. A gas venting system was submitted and approved. The gas management system does
not include a backup generator, because it does not need one. If the Township is
confusing the flare system with a generator, the flare is located away from the residential
areas and will be screened by the landscaping and existing trees. Furthermore, the
proposed flare is a closed flare system with no visible flame.
31. There is no generator proposed. The flare will be installed after the closure is
implemented. The maintenance of the gas management system is part of the Post
Closure Operation and Maintenance Plan that will be implemented by SEP and quarterly
reporting on the implementation will be submitted to the NJ DEP.
32. There will not be 150,000 trucks on the road. Maintenance of the roads is the
responsibility of the Township of Roxbury. Should the Township require any
maintenance of the roads due to truck traffic, the Township should contact SEP.
33. See response to #32
34. The DEP does not retain money from the revenue. The money is placed in an escrow
account by the applicant to ensure the proper closure of the landfill. Funds from this
escrow account are only expended for the implementation of the closure and post
closure of the landfill.
35. There will be no 150,000 trucks on the road. The Number of trucks should not exceed
67,000 trucks. The NJ DEP restricted the hours of operation to weekdays between 7:00
am and 6:00 pm. The site operation should not create queuing of trucks on the Township
roads.
36. The closure permit that has been issued provided four-year duration. The approved
closure also provided for the phasing of the project, which would allow the completion of
each phase and allow for completing the capping of each phase. This should minimize
the visual and physical impact on the community.
37. Yes.
38. No performance and maintenance bonds have been required. SEP is not a responsible
party for the cleanup of the site, and he is not receiving any funds from the State of New
J ersey or any other public agency. The ACO requires the establishment of an escrow
account to guarantee the implementation of the closure and post closure.
39. No, the sources will be examined at the source prior to being approved to come to the
site. Then the material will be inspected when it comes to the site as well. A gate keeper
will be checking the loads coming into the site, and a field inspector will be checking the
loads after they are emptied at the site to verify consistency with what is approved to
come from that source. The trailer will be powered by an onsite generator, and the site
will be serviced by a portable toilette. Please see response to 35 regarding truck traffic.
Fill material may be accepted during installation of solar panels. That is one of the
reasons the project is proposed in phases. Phasing is described in the application
provided to NJ DEP. It is not the intent of SEP to provide bathroom facilities at the site.
SEP will provide one portable toilette for use by the truckers. Prior experience should
that one portable toilette was sufficient.
40. The review of the storm water management plan is under way. There has been several
discussions of the system and it will be finalized through the Land Use permitting
process.

EXHIBIT 3.30

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/c43bab40-7da6-8174-4545-20a3957c51cb.html 1/1
From: Adam Blecker Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:52:24 GMT
To: Bob Martin; Cindy Randazzo; rileej@roxburynj.us; eletters@starledger.com;
Subj ect: NJDEP and Strategic Environmental Solutions, LLC - DO NOT DESTROY MY COMMUNITY!!!
Feni more Landfi l l 12-05-2011 - Qusti ons from Senator Bucco.PDF (297Kb) Concerned Resi dent -
Feni more Landfi l l .PDF (145Kb)
Please see the attached letter that I sent to Governor Christie and the Star Ledger regarding the
inappropriate handling of the Fenimore Landfill. I have also included Senator Bucco's letter to the NJDEP for
your reference.
The NJDEP and Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC have begun a 2-4 year long project that puts
the residents of Roxbury Township, particularly the 1000+ households that occupy Mooney Mountain
and the neighboring communities at direct and acute risk.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to hear my concerns.
Sincerely,
Adam Blecker
Phone: 973-868-5245
Email: adamblecker@hotmail.com

EXHIBIT 3.31

EXHIBIT 3.32

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/d78033cc-dd28-7ab2-e342-a853d4499853.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:06:07 GMT
Subject: Fwd: Re: call
>>>VincentAntoniello<vaalaw@gmail.com>12/22/20115:04PM>>>
Cindy,
Wewerenotdisconnected.Isaid"goodbye"andhungupoutof
frustration.Thisisnowthesecondtimethatwehavehadacommication
lapsewhere,frommyperspective,youtellmesomethingandthencompletely
denysayingitlater.(Inaddition,whileIamnotonetobelievein
conspiracytheroriesandIcertainlydonotthinkthatisthecasehere,I
mustsaythatyouseemtotakeeverysingleopportunitytocometothe
defenseofthedeveloper,minimizing,tosaytheleast,myconcernsasa
homeowner.)Toavoidanyfutureconfusiononwhosaidwhat,Ipreferto
communicatebyemail.
Herearemyremainingquestions:
(1)Pleasegoontothedevelper'swebsite(theoneyouinvitedmetolook
at),andreadtheblurbontheleftsideaboutFenimore(pleasebesureto
click"ReadMore").Afterreadingitinfull,pleasetellmewhatDEP's
positioniswithrespecttohowthedevelopercharacterizesthesite?Are
thereanyfalsestatements,andifso,whichstatementsarefalse?(The
waythedevelopercharacterizesthesiteisinstarkcontrasttotheway
DEPcharacterizeditatthepublichearing.Isuspectthatthisisthe
developermakinghimselflooklikeaheroandsacrificingthetruthtodo
so--butIlooktoyoutoeducatemeastowhetherthesestatementsare
true.)
(2)AstothedrumsthathavebeenfoundatFenimore,whileIunderstand
thatwedonotknowwith100%certaintywhatwascontainedinthosedrums,
whattypesofmaterialshasDEPseencontainedinsimilardrumsatother
sites?I'mhavingahardtimebelievingthatDEPcannottakeaneducated
guessastowhatwascontainedinthedrums,basedonthesizeandtypeof
drumsthatwerefound,aswellasanyresidue.
(3)Inresponsetoeachandeveryquestionaboutsafetly/healthatthe
publicmeeting,DEPrepeatedlystatedthatthesitepassedtheIECtestand
posesnoserious,imminentthreattohumanhealthortheenvironment(or
somethingtothateffect).Puttingimmediacyaside,howhasthesitebeen
characterizedforpurposesofapotentiallongtermthreat?Thefactthat
nobodyisgoingtocollapseanddietomorrowhardlyendstheinquiryfroma
homeowner'sperspective.Thatwasnotatalladdressedatthepublic
hearing.
(4)Isawonlinethat,sincethepublichearing,lettershavegoneoutto
residents.Ihavenotreceivedanyoftheletters.AmIcorrectin
assumingthatthat'saTownshipissue,notaDEPissue?
Thanks,
Vincent
OnWed,Dec21,2011at4:41PM,CindyRandazzo<
Cindy.Randazzo@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>Mr.Antoniello,
>
>WeweredisconnectedandItriedtocallbackbutwasunabletoreachyou.
>Pleasedonothesitatetocontactmyofficewithanyquestionsyoumay
>have.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>CindyW.Randazzo
>Director
>OfficeofLocalGovernmentAssistance
>401E.StateStreet
>P.O.Box402
>Office:609-633-7700
>email:cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us
>
>
>>>>VincentAntoniello<vaalaw@gmail.com>12/21/201112:31:31PM>>>
>WhenyoureadtheFenimoreblurb,pleasebesuretoclick"ReadMore".
>
>
>
>OnWed,Dec21,2011at12:29PM,VincentAntoniello<vaalaw@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Itriedyoulastnightandearliertoday.Ilookforwardtoyourreturn
>>call.Inmeantime,Iwentontothedeveloper'swebsite,asyou
>instructed.
>>
>>I'dliketoknowwhatDEP'spositioniswithrespecttothedeveloper's
>>characterizationofFenimoreontheleft-handsideofthewebsite:
>>
>>http://strategicgreenenergy.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OnTue,Dec20,2011at4:40PM,CindyRandazzo<
>>Cindy.Randazzo@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>>
>>>callmeonmycell609.575.3806
>>>
>>>CindyW.Randazzo
>>>Director
>>>OfficeofLocalGovernmentAssistance
>>>NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
>>>401E.StateStreet
>>>P.O.Box402
>>>Trenton,NJ08625-0402
>>>Office:609-633-7700
>>>email:cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>VincentAntoniello<vaalaw@gmail.com>12/20/20113:17:55PM>>>
>>>ThanksfortheinfoabouttheWallStreetJournalarticle.Ireadit,
>>>and
>>>itcertainlyprovidesaninterestingperspective.Thatsaid,itappears
>>>thatthesubsequentappealswereunsuccessful,soI'mnotsureIwould
>>>entirelydismisstheconcernsraisedbythegentlemanatthepublic
>>>meeting:
>>>
>>>http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053504np.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>OnMon,Dec19,2011at5:08PM,VincentAntoniello<vaalaw@gmail.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>IstayedalittlelaterthanIplannedwaitingforyourcall,butI
>>>>suspectyouaretieduponsomethingelse.Isthereatimetomorrow
>>>when
>>>>wecantalk?Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

EXHIBIT 3.33

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/967474dd-23b4-f1bf-bf35-8fd92f8a88fd.html
From: Funk, Dawn Sent: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:50:44 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
CC: Bernardi, Richard
Subject: Fenimore Site - Compliance with Item No. 18 & Paragraph 41 of the Closure/Post Closure Approval
2012-01-06-Compliance with ClosureCondition 41 and ACO condition 18c.pdf (56Kb)
Mr. Confer,

Appended please find correspondence regarding the above reference project.

If you have any questions, please contact our office.

Regards,

EXHIBIT 3.34

EXHIBIT 3.35

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/a9767165-a0aa-6620-ded0-92283d614529.html
From: Thomas H. Bruinooge Sent: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:47:25 GMT
To: Confer,Robert
CC: Bernardi, Richard; Brubaker,Scott; Randazzo,Cindy; Skacel,Wolfgang; Aiello,MaryJo; Foster,Ruth; Kozinski,Jane;
Larkin, Judy; Guadagno, Kim;
Subject: Fenimore Landfill Closure - EA ID# NEA110001-132518, Mountain Road, Block 7404, Lot 1, Roxbury Township
Confer 1-30-12.pdf (1753Kb)
Attached please find our letter of even date.
Very truly yours,
Thomas H. Bruinooge, Esq.
Bruinooge & Associates
201 Route 17, Suite 1006
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Tel: 201-939-3303
Fax: 201-939-4057
E-mail: insights@bruinoogelaw.com
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may
be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may
not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you.

EXHIBIT 3.36

EXHIBIT 3.37

file:///C:/Users/Mirna%20Hernandez/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/From/messages/6b6d7689-8908-5715-27f5-1ddbc752d7f5.html 1/1
From: Sent: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:43:08 GMT
To: gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us
CC: insights@bruinoogelaw.com; Scott Brubaker; Cindy Randazzo; Ruth Foster; ishearn@prodigy.net;
Subj ect: Fwd: Fenimore Site - Compliance with Item No. 18 & Paragraph 41 of the Closur...
01-06-Compl i ancewi thCl osureCondi ti on41andACOcondi ti on18c.pdf (56Kb)
Gary,

I have forwarded you the original email.

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
Strategic Environmental Partners,LLC
PO Box 356
www.strategicenvironmentalpartners.com

From: dfunk@birdsall.com
To: robert.confer@dep.state.nj.us
CC: rwbernardi@aol.com
Sent: 1/6/2012 9:50:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fenimore Site - Compliance with Item No. 18 & Paragraph 41 of the Closure/Post Closure Approval

Mr. Confer,

Appended please find correspondence regarding the above reference project.


Regards,

EXHIBIT 3.38

EXHIBIT 3.39

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/38e508d8-4ad0-e70e-15f1-9074364dfaa4.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:53:11 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
CC: Bernardi, Richard; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Brubaker, Scott; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo;
Foster, Ruth; Kozinski, Jane; Michelle.siekerka@dep.state.nj.us;
Subject: Fenimore Landfill Compliance with ACO condition No. 18 and Closure Approval Condition No. 41
image041587.PNG (21Kb) image94f602.PNG (22Kb) 2012-02-08-Compliance with ClosureCondition 41
and ACO condition 18c-R1.doc.pdf (147Kb) imagecced3f.PNG (26Kb)
Dear Mr. Confer:

Attached please find a letter regarding compliance with the Fenimore Landfill ACO Condition No. 18 and The
closure Approval Condition No. 41. Please contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Bashar Assadi, P.E.
Senior Vice President - Solid Waste Services
Birdsall Services Group, Inc.
65 J ackson Drive
Cranford, New J ersey 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message,
which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

EXHIBIT 3.40

EXHIBIT 3.41

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/edcc4227-5215-59ae-1537-2bcc627fab11.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:34:16 GMT
To: Jumani, Saara; Gentile, Sarah; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Herald, Mary; Confer, Robert; Brubaker,
Scott; Randazzo, Cindy; Castner, John; Skacel, Wolfgang; Aiello, MaryJo; Kozinski, Jane;
Subject: Fenimore Thursday Meeting - 2pm
Invoice2-13-12.pdf (101Kb) Invoice2-13-12(1).pdf (101Kb) Fenimore agenda feb 2012.docx (14Kb)
Contract-2011-12-08.pdf (400Kb)
ReceivedthisfromMrBernardiregardingThursdaysdiscussionaboutescrowandhowtoassistinfindingacceptablefillforthesitetofinish
berms.Workingonagenda-attachedisalsoJane'sdraftagenda.Anythingtoaddorchangeonagenda?
>>><RWBernardi@aol.com>2/14/20127:53AM>>>
HiRuth,
Ihadsomelengthyconversationswithmyprofessionalslastnight-BirdsallandMatrix.Idon'twanttobringdredgeontothesiteunlessI
absolutelyhavetobecauseofthelowcostbenefitandbecauseoftwpconcerns.Iprefertobringotherfillatthistime(rcm,screenings,soil,etc
allowablebymyaco)onfirstbutamhavinghardtimefindingsources.Iamcompetingwithcompaniesthatcanbringmaterialinforlongerhours.
Buthavetostartincreasingamountofmaterialontositetogeneratefundsandstartpayingbills.Iamalsolosingcontractsbecauseofthe
restrictivedeliveryhours.Iamwillingtodiscussadjustingadjustdaytimehourstoavoidschoolbusesifwecanexpandhourstonighttimeor
Saturdaydeliveries.Thebermwouldhavebeendonebynowifwecoudl'vebroughtmaterialinatnightoronSaturdays.
TheyadvisedmethatalongtermfightwiththeNJDEPandTownwould
beamistakewouldleadtobankruptcy.IwanttoworkwiththetownandwiththeDEPbuttheTwphastorecognizethattheyhavaalongignored
landfillthathastobeclosed.Itwastherebeforethehouses,itisTwpdump.ItisonDeplistoftoptenlandfillstobeclosed.
ThereforeIwasadvisedtobecompletelytransparentformymeetingswiththeNJDEPon2/16and2/27.
BelowisadraftofwhatIwouldliketiobeaddressedThursday.
TheNJDEPneedstoformulateaPlanwithmeforthisProjecttowork.
1-Paydowndebtbygeneratingincomethrufilltosite:adjustinghoursandadjustingescrow.
2-AccessLineofCreditforJobthroughrevisedescrowagreement.
3-KeeppeacewithRoxburywhiletryingtoassistwithalternateroadalthoughfinancingisuncertain.
4-AssistwithfindingaSolarDeveloperintoday'smarket.
5.Definemonitoringrequirmentsformaterialsbroughtonsiteandreportingdatestoavoidanyviolations
6.modifymaterialsacceptanceprotocoltoallowmillingsforlandfillareabeyondgravelaccessroadtoensuresitestabilityandforanyfinancially
feasiblealternateroad.
7.ensurethatalldeppersonnelseesiteatleastonce.Willschedulesitevisitsanytime.
IknowtheNJDEPwantsustotofundPostClosuremonitoring,butifcontractorsandprofessionalsaren'tpaideasilynow,theProjectwillfalter
financially.
Eitherwefigurethisout,orallLandfillRemediationsinfuturewillonlybedonewithPublicfundsratherthanthroughprivatecontractors.
Herearesomeimportantfactsforourmeeting.Iwillbringbackup
documentswithme.
AssitePE,Basharwillalsoaddressyoursiteviolations.
(Bashar'scontractisattached.)
OutstandingInvoices:Preliminarylist
Mortgage:
$1,000,000,00

Matrix:
$1,324,231.89
Birdsall:
Legal:
$33,000.00
SiteContractor:
$40,000.00
MaterialsandTesting:
$13,000.00
NJDEPfees:
$25,000.00
PJM:
$25,000.00
Fuel,misc:
Open
Birdsallgets:AgreementIsignedforBirdsalltorunjob:
$???
$1.80ayardforrunningjobasitrelatestotheFillandDEPcompliance.
(1.2millionyds.times$1.80equals$2,160,000)
20%commissiononallFillBirdsalldirectstosite.$????
Brokers:
Brokersgetanywherefrom$2to$3peryard.
BrokersneedtogetpaidrightawayortheywilldirecttheFilltoaSite
thatpaysthem.
Problem:
-Nocash
-NoLineofCredit(Can'tpledgereceivables)
DEPneedstosetupawaytopaybills.Wemightaswellfacethisnow.
WhenRoxburyfindsoutthereisnohopeofAlternateRoadtheywillstart
toretaliate.Thatmeansmorecosts.
DEPandMCSCDwillhavetheEnforcementpeoplelivingonjobatrequestofRoxbury.
Yesterdaywasthestart,withDEP.
IhiredBashar,atDEP'ssuggestion,
andtheDEPhasfoundhimfailing.
IftheDEPisgoingtosingleusoutfor
enforcementourcostwillgouptryingtocomply.
TheDEPneedstostepinwithdaytodayonsitedirection.
TheFenimoresiteiscompetingwithothersitesthateitherhavelimited
costorarePubliclyFunded.
Lookingforwardtoourmeeting.

IamatalossastohowtodealwiththeconstraintsontheProjectandIamcompletelyopentoDEP'sdirectionandwanttoconplyandmakethis
projectasuccessl.
But,inthewordsofourGovernor."Whereisthemoneytopayforthis?"
IamholdingoffonanythingIwasplanninguntilafterThursday'smeeting.
Iamhopingaplancanbeformulatedsowecancompletethis
project.
Sendthisemailtotheappropriatepeople
attendingThursday'smeeting.
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
_www.strategicgreenenergy.com_
(http://www.strategicenvironmentalpartners.com/)

EXHIBIT 3.42

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/8762c743-ef3d-d0d3-5c17-38a6e8fca232.html
From: Ruth Foster Sent: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:27:03 GMT
To: Richard Bernardi; Jane Kozinski;
CC: Michael Gerchman; MaryAnne Goldman; Robert Confer; Scott Brubaker; Cindy Randazzo; MaryJo Aiello; Gary
Wolf;
Subject: Saturday Block
ThanksJane-ifyoucouldgetachancetotalktoMr.Bernardiassoonaspossible,thatwouldbegreat-getthroughtothefacts.Hejustcalled
PCERofficeandsaidhelosttheblockjobentirely.Theywon'tdeliveranydaytohim.Sohecan'tfinishthebermandcan'tmoveforward.Heis
havingtroubleliningupvendors.
>>>JaneKozinski3/1/20121:21PM>>>
Mr.Bernardi-Pleasecallmeatyourearliestconvenience.
JaneKozinski,Esq.
AssistantCommissioner,EnvironmentalManagement
401E.StateSt.,3dFloor
Trenton,NJ08625
6092922795office
6097771330fax
>>>RichardBernardi<rwbernardi@aol.com>3/1/20121:18PM>>>
Jane,
YoushouldhavetoldmetheotherdayinyouremailthattheCambridgeBlockIneedisaNJDEPprotectedsourceforMalankaLandfill.
IfIwastoldyouareprotectingthissourceIwouldhavestayedawayfromthem.
WhenyouhadMikeGerchmancalltheownerofCambridgeyoueffectivelymadethemafraidtocometotheFenimoreLandfill.
AnyothersourcesthatyouareprotectingforMalankapleaselistandIwillmostcertainlystayawayfromthem.
Justlistaccountsas"DEPisprotectingforMalankaLandfill."
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510

EXHIBIT 3.43

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/faed091d-bae7-4f34-299d-b499d12d3212.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:03:55 GMT
To: Confer,Robert
CC: RichardBernardi; Gerchman,Michael; Goldman,MaryAnne; Aiello,MaryJo; Foster,Ruth; Kozinski,Jane;
Subject: Revised Finanial Plan - Fenimore Vs. Escrow Account
image028a48.PNG (21Kb) image5a9c7a.PNG (22Kb) image6ddddb.PNG (26Kb)
Dear Mr. Confer:

Please note that, as per Mr. Bernardi, SEP would not be able to obtain a loan to cover the required cost of closure and
material management over the next four years if the condition for 100% Escrow is not removed.

Sincerely,

Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 3.44

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/e88b9224-f639-9b20-ed32-3066a7e9171f.html
From: Goldman,MaryAnne Sent: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:36:46 GMT
CC: bassadi@birdsall.com; Jumani, Saara; Fontana, Anthony; Gerchman, Michael; Herald, Mary; Confer, Robert;
Brubaker, Scott; Randazzo, Cindy; Castner, John; Skacel, Wolfgang; Aiello, MaryJo; Foster, Ruth; Kozinski,
Jane; Barry, John; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us;
Subject: Fenimore issues letter
FenimoreIssues031312final.DOC (66Kb)
Good morning, Rich -
Attached is an electronic copy of a letter from the Department which addresses your concerns. A signed hard copy should
arrive in a couple of days. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Mary Anne

Mary Anne Goldman,
Supervising Environmental Engineer
Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting
NJDEP - Solid & Hazardous Waste Program
401 East State Street, 2nd Floor, P.O. Box 414
Phone 609-984-6985 (office) Fax 609-633-9839
www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw

Notice: This Electronic Mail Message (EMM) may constitute an advisory opinion providing guidance concerning the
applicability of current New Jersey solid or hazardous waste, recycling or other regulations to the specific situation described
in your message or inquiry. The EMM expresses no opinion regarding any other situation and shall not be used for that
purpose. Any guidance provided herein is based on the knowledge of the sender at this time, is subject to change and must
be used in conjunction with the applicable New Jersey regulations. All persons are responsible for compliance with all
applicable regulations including but not limited to those at N.J.A.C. 7:26-1 et seq., 7:26A et seq. and 7:26G et seq. Any
opinion or guidance contained herein is offered without prejudice and shall not affect any ongoing or future enforcement
actions that the Department or any other agency may take against any person for past or future activities. This opinion shall
not relieve any person from obtaining any and all permits and authorizations required from any Federal, State, county or
local agency and complying with all regulations and other requirements.

Notice: The information contained in this EMM is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and the EMM may contain information that may be legally privileged and confidential from the State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not
review, transmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use, or disseminate this EMM or any attachments to it and that such use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this EMM is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that if this EMM
message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this EMM or any
attachments, may not have been produced by the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. If you have
received this EMM in error please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at 609-984-6985 and delete this
message.

EXHIBIT 3.45

SENT VIA E-MAIL AND U.S.P.S. MAIL DELIVERY
March 13, 2012
Mr. Richard Bernardi
P.O. Box 356
Clarksburg, New J ersey 08510
Re: Closure and Post-Closure Care & Financial Plan Approval
Administrative Consent Order
Fenimore SLF
Roxbury Township., Morris County
Facility ID No.: 132518
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
It was a pleasure meeting with you on February 16, 2012. The meeting was to discuss
various solid waste issues that have arisen in connection with the above-referenced
Closure Plan Approval and Administrative Consent Order (ACO/Closure Plan). The
Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting (Bureau) is in receipt of Birdsall
Services Groups recent letter submitted on behalf of Strategic Environmental Partners,
LLC (SEP), dated February 21, 2012. The letter comprised a formal request for a
modification of the ACO/Closure Plan for several of the items discussed at our meeting.
Listed below are specific items on which the Bureau promised to follow-up:
1. Methane Gas Monitoring
As discussed, methane gas monitoring shall be done quarterly. Inasmuch as SEP is
in the process of installing permanent gas sampling points, the Bureau has waived
the requirement for the December 2011 monitoring event. Additionally, SEP shall
comply with the following monitoring and reporting requirements:
1

MAIL CODE 401-02C
CHRIS CHRISTIE ROBERT M. CONFER, CHIEF BOB MARTIN
Governor BUREAU OF LANDFILL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITTING Commissioner
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
KIM GUADAGNO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Lt. Governor NEW J ERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
P.O. BOX 420 401 EAST STATE STREET
TRENTON, NJ 08625-0420
Telephone: (609) 984-6985 Telecopier: (609) 633-9839
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw /permitting.htm
a. Methane gas sampling shall be performed quarterly based on the calendar year.
Therefore, gas sampling shall be performed during the months of March, J une,
September and December.
b. A report of the sampling results shall be submitted within 45 days of the
monitoring event. Therefore, reports shall be submitted during the months of
February, May, August and November.
2. Monthly Construction Reports
The Bureau has completed its review of the Monthly Construction Reports for
December 2011 and J anuary 2012 as required by the ACO/Closure Plan Approval.
Monthly Report requirements are listed under Condition 43. Both reports were
administratively incomplete. The reports did not contain the specific items listed
below:
a. The summary lacked the following required information: price received per
cubic yard of recyclable materials received; total revenue per contract and; a
copy of the certification approved by the Review Engineer for each source;
backup documentation for all revenue and expenses shall be provided;
b. Detailed report of the amount of expenditures, payee, date of payment and
purpose for all payments made under the Mobilization and PDM provisions of
the Closure Plan; and
c. A copy of the certification approved by the Review Engineer for each source of
material.
Please supply the Bureau with this information within 14 days of this letter.
3. Annual Reports
The Bureau would like to clarify that its requirement for the submittal of the annual
report is based on the calendar year. The December 2011 monthly report may be
expanded to include the previous eleven (11) months and resubmitted as the 2011
annual report. The Department requires a breakdown of activities that occurred in
each month (i.e. tree clearing, construction of the access road, installation of soil
erosion controls, etc.) as well as a summary of all materials received, revenues,
expenses and other items as required by the ACO/Closure Plan Approval. Annual
Report requirements are listed under Condition 43.
4. Recycled Asphalt Pavement Millings (RAP)
SEP may use RAP in the construction of temporary haul roads on the surface of the
landfill, as approved for closure in the ACO/Closure Plan, to facilitate the movement
of trucks delivering materials to the Site, subject to the following requirements and
conditions:
2
a. Prior to constructing temporary haul roads on the Site, SEP shall submit a plan
to the Department that depicts the planned locations of the temporary haul
roads necessary for closure construction at the Site. The Bureau has received
the Site map showing the approximate locations of the haul roads in Phase 1A.
The Site map road proposal is currently under review. Department approval in
writing is required prior to receipt of RAP for the roads;
b. Temporary haul roads at the Site shall be constructed in accordance with the
approved SESC permit for the Site;
c. Temporary haul roads at the Site shall be constructed in accordance with an
appropriate engineered design that shall not utilize more than 12 inches of RAP
for the road, and the road shall be no wider than necessary to accommodate
routine truck traffic;
d. Vehicles on temporary haul roads utilizing RAP shall travel no more than 5
miles per hour at all times; if any road dust is observed at all then SEP shall
maintain the roads in a wetted condition during use;
e. Each temporary haul road, or portion thereof, that is no longer needed for
closure activities at the Site shall be covered with MAP-approved materials
(engineered approved fill) and then the final capping material specified for the
entire Site; and,
f. Storage or stockpiling of RAP is not permitted on the Site unless approved in
advance by the Department in writing.
6. Arsenic Levels in Water Treatment Plant Residuals
At both the meeting on February 16, 2012 and in a letter dated February 21, 2012,
SEP asked if it could accept water treatment plant residuals (WTPR) for use as fill
on the landfill. The average Arsenic (As) in the specific batch of WTPR is 30.8
ppm. The average As in the landfill, from preclosure sampling, is 22.5 ppm if all
samples are included, and only 4.0 ppm if one 300 ppm sample is excluded. The As
in the WTPR significantly exceeds the existing levels in the landfill. SEPs request
is denied. SEP shall not accept that WTPR for any purpose at the Fenimore Landfill.
7. Hours of Operation
As set forth in the Departments letter dated March 3, 2012, SEPs request to change
the hours of operation is denied.
3
8. Alternate Final Cover Material
SEP has requested modification of the approved Closure Plan to include the
placement of eighteen (18) inches of recycled crushed concrete covered with six (6)
inches of clean stone in place of the approved two (2) feet of clean soil in the area on
which the solar panels will be located. This is acceptable to the Bureau. All recycled
concrete aggregate shall be obtained from Department-approved Class B Recycling
facilities. Any material obtained from an alternate source shall be approved by the
Department in advance in writing. A revised Site plan showing the limits of the
alternate final cover shall be submitted to the Department within 90 days from the
date of this letter.
Should you have further questions, please contact Mary Anne Goldman at
(609) 984-6985 or via e-mail at MaryAnne.Goldman@dep.state.nj.us.
Very truly yours,
Robert M. Confer, Chief
Bureau of Landfill & Hazardous Waste Permitting
C: Bashar Assadi. P.E., BSG
J ane Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Management
DAG Gary Wolf, Esq., DOL
Mary J o Aiello, SHWMP
Cindy Randazzo, OMA
Wolf Skacel, C&E
J ohn Castner, C&E
J ohn Barry, BSWCE
Scott Brubaker, OPCER
Ruth Foster, OPCER
Anthony Fontana, BTSRF
Mary Herald, BTSRF
Michael Gerchman, BLHWP
Mary Anne Goldman, BLHWP
Saara J umani, BLHWP
4

EXHIBIT 3.46

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/aadbae5b-088c-e19b-333c-0088e5d2e32e.html
From: MaryAnne Goldman Sent: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:01:17 GMT
CC: bassadi@birdsall.com; Randazzo, Cindy; Kozinski, Jane; Barry, John; Herald, Mary; Aiello, MaryJo; Gerchman,
Michael; Robert Confer; Ruth Foster; Rick Reilly; Scott Brubaker; Saara Jumani; William Mates; Wolfgang
Skacel; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us;
Subject: Fenimore Revised Financial Plan Letter
Financial Issues.pdf (226Kb)
Hi Rich,

Attached is a letter with our comments & questions on the revised Financial Plan submitted by Bashar on March 5, 2012. You
will receive the original in the mail within a few days.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Mary Anne

Mary Anne Goldman,
Supervising Environmental Engineer
Bureau of Landfill and Hazardous Waste Permitting
NJDEP - Solid & Hazardous Waste Program
401 East State Street, 2nd Floor, P.O. Box 414
Phone 609-984-6985 (office) Fax 609-633-9839
www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw

Notice: This Electronic Mail Message (EMM) may constitute an advisory opinion providing guidance concerning the
applicability of current New Jersey solid or hazardous waste, recycling or other regulations to the specific situation described
in your message or inquiry. The EMM expresses no opinion regarding any other situation and shall not be used for that
purpose. Any guidance provided herein is based on the knowledge of the sender at this time, is subject to change and must
be used in conjunction with the applicable New Jersey regulations. All persons are responsible for compliance with all
applicable regulations including but not limited to those at N.J.A.C. 7:26-1 et seq., 7:26A et seq. and 7:26G et seq. Any
opinion or guidance contained herein is offered without prejudice and shall not affect any ongoing or future enforcement
actions that the Department or any other agency may take against any person for past or future activities. This opinion shall
not relieve any person from obtaining any and all permits and authorizations required from any Federal, State, county or
local agency and complying with all regulations and other requirements.

Notice: The information contained in this EMM is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and the EMM may contain information that may be legally privileged and confidential from the State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not
review, transmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use, or disseminate this EMM or any attachments to it and that such use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this EMM is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that if this EMM
message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this EMM or any
attachments, may not have been produced by the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. If you have
received this EMM in error please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at 609-984-6985 and delete this
message.

EXHIBIT 3.47

EXHIBIT 3.48

EXHIBIT 3.49

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/9c86392a-d855-dca9-8e4b-1f705a7552ab.html
From: Kozinski,Jane Sent: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:19:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Fenimore Landfill Green Energy Park
Thx. Are you and Bashar available on May 2?

From: RWBernardi@aol.com [mailto:RWBernardi@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:05 AM
To: Kozinski,Jane
Cc: MikeOleary@aol.com <MikeOleary@aol.com>; Randazzo,Cindy; Yeany,Judeth; Foster,Ruth; Brubaker,Scott;
gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us <gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; mfredericks@kesselerlaw.com
<mfredericks@kesselerlaw.com>; ishearn@prodigy.net <ishearn@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Fenimore Landfill Green Energy Park

J ane,
The Fenimore Landfill Project is a very viable project. We have no
violations and have been operating successfully since we opened. As
with all Private Projects, since we don't have the luxury of being
funded by the government, cash flow is a factor, but we are paying our
bills and are operating daily. I am confident that our Project will
Prove that Landfill clean-ups can be done without the Public sector
funding them, obviously with great savings to the taxpayers of New
J ersey.
As you know, the solar power industry has collapsed. Nonetheless I am
committed to using the facility ultimately as a model for alternative
energy in this State. In fact, I have a meeting scheduled with the
Governors office to discuss some of those options. Be assured that
your financial concerns will be addressed to your satisfaction.
I look forward to speaking with you this afternoon.
Thanks,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 4/24/2012 3:14:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, J ane.Kozinski@dep.state.nj.us writes:
Sorry. Been in meetings. I would like to discuss financial issues, including viability of your project assuming no
solar development, but assuming the alternate access road is built; and
Creative financing options for the access road (If the town were to fund the road, what could SEP offer in return).
Participants would be you and me. No consultants, lawyers.
Also, are you and Bashar available to come to Trenton on the afternoon of May 2? To address various closure
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/9c86392a-d855-dca9-8e4b-1f705a7552ab.html
issues.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bernardi [mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Kozinski,J ane
Subject: Re: SEP
Yes,
What is the topic so I can prepare?
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "Kozinski,J ane" <J ane.Kozinski@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
>Mr. Bernardi - Are you available to speak by phone tomorrow afternoon around 3:30 pm? Thanks. J ane Kozinski
>

EXHIBIT 3.50

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/1a283e32-e0aa-46d3-6230-f26903cf2216.html
This message was sent with High Importance.
From: Kozinski,Jane Sent: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:15:17 GMT
CC: Skacel,Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Lennon,Marilyn; Aiello,MaryJo;
Subject: Strategic Environmental Partners LLC
doc00829320120511144753.pdf (533Kb) SKMBT_36312051113570.pdf (1369Kb) Complete fennimore
doc..pdf (207Kb)
Mr. Bernardi Attached please find the following documents:

1. Copy of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protections Notice of Intent to Revoke Closure and
Post-Closure Plan Approval for the Fenimore Sanitary Landfill
2. Copy of transmittal letter regarding Notice of Intent to Revoke the Closure and Post-Closure Plan Approval.
3. Copy of the Departments Notice of Termination of the Administrative Consent Order regarding the Fenimore
Landfill.
4. Copy of transmittal letter regarding the Notice of Termination of the ACO.

Jane Kozinski, Esq.
Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Management
401 E. State St., Mail Code 401-03B, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420
609-292-2795 office

EXHIBIT 3.51

EXHIBIT 3.52

EXHIBIT 3.53

EXHIBIT 3.54

EXHIBIT 3.55

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/7c85d971-d31a-b4de-8193-731446ae82da.html
From: Kaufhold, Christofer Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:28:00 GMT
To: Assadi, Bashar
CC: RWBernardi@aol.com
Subject: RE: Site Visit at Fenimore
image003.png (1Kb) image005.png (1Kb) image001.png (21Kb)
Mr. Assadi,

I am sorry that the weather prevented us from meeting today. I might still take a drive by the site just to see it. The
inspection will show that the leachate treatment has yet to be constructed, and everything will either be marked as In
Compliance or Non-Applicable.

I was talking to Gina Conti about your site, just to get an idea of what is going on. She mentioned that there is a
historic leachate pond/basin, what information do you have about this feature? I know it is old and was there before
you or Mr. Bernardi got involved, but I can always hope you might have some information. I am looking to see if it is
lined or anything on the construction. Also if the level stays the same or does it fluctuate? Has there been any
overflow from the pond/basin or additional flow to the pond/basin?

I know you cant move forward to stage two of your ACO until you get the Land Use permit, and I know that part of
stage two is the construction of the leachate treatment. I am going to look into this from my end (Water Quality) and
any information about the pond/basin would help me greatly.

Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything.

Christofer J. Kaufhold
Environmental Specialist 3
Northern Bureau of Water Compliance & Enforcement
7 Ridgedale Avenue
Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927
973-656-4099 tel
973-656-4400 fax
609-802-1852 cell

From: Assadi, Bashar [mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:38 AM
To: Kaufhold, Christofer
Cc: rwbernardi@aol.com
Subject: Site Visit at Fenimore

Dear Mr. Kaufhold:

I am contacting regarding your site visit to the Fenimore site. I tried reaching at the office, but was unable, and I left
you a message. Of course, you are welcome to visit the site at any time you see fit. I just wanted to let you know that
the discharge permit is for discharging treated leach ate to be collected at the site. Please note that the leachate
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/7c85d971-d31a-b4de-8193-731446ae82da.html
collection system has not been installed yet and no leachate is being collected at the site to date. Therefore, no treated
leachate is being discharged as per the subject permit. This is being reported on monthly and quarterly basis to the
DEP. Should you choose to visit the site, I will be glad to join you. My understanding is that you may visit the site
tomorrow, please let me know the approximate time of your visit.

Sincerely,
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 3.56

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/bd1bb452-f9fc-5a70-408f-c7912dc90521.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:53:36 GMT
To: Aiello, MaryJo; Confer, Robert; Conti, Gina; Dotterweich, John; Farrell, Thomas; Goldman, MaryAnne; Jensen,
Knute; Jumani, Saara; Leon, Joel; Meyer, Jeffrey; O'Sullivan, Bill; Pflugh, Kerry; Ray Lamboy; Reilly, Rick; Robert
Kinney; Siller, Mary; Steitz, Francis; Assadi, Bashar; Confer, Robert;
CC: Rich Bernardi; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com;
Subject: FW: Fenimore - call to Bashar Assadi 2/19/13

MaryAnne, thanks for that summary of our call today, and Bashar for your not inconsiderable time.

I would just add that Bashar said that the site has received about 325k yards of material based on truck capacities.

Bashar please fill in anything important we missed.

Bob K. I do not see an immediate need to meet today, lets let Bashar respond to the issues we discussed then,
perhaps a meeting would be productive.
Bob

From: Goldman, MaryAnne
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Gerchman, Michael
Subject: Fenimore - call to B.A.

Summary of 2/19/13 call to Bashar Assadi:

Discussed regrading of Phase 1 to facilitate putting soil cover on all slopes to prevent odors. Bashar does not
want to do any cutting into slopes it will expose fresh CDS odors. Instead, will extend slopes (possibly into 100
buffer area). Bashar will follow up with Joe Dunn at Morris Co. Soil Conservation District (MCSCD) to see if that
is okay with him. Possibly after installation of storm water basin on site. Where possible, slopes will be covered as
is without any regrading.

The flat area of Phase 1 is higher than approved final grades in spots. Bashar does not want to regrade (see
above reasoning) but will cover. Bashar will submit a regrading plan at a later date to include the higher grades.
Bashar will also send updated topo site plans and information concerning the next steps to complete Phase I.

Phase 1 is winding down. Materials mainly being placed in western/northern areas of Phase 1. At this point,
SEP is taking mainly soils & only a limited amount of CDS. This will also cut down on odors at the site.

Bashar to submit an updated site plan. Will show spot elevations, current filling areas, contours & proposed
slopes.

SEP applied KMnO4 Friday evening (not sure which Friday exactly) & was told by townspeople that odors
were significantly less than previous. KMnO4 applied using the same methodology as that used to apply Planet
Breeze during previous Department demonstration. Bashar stated that KMnO4 routinely used for odor control during
disruptions of solid waste. He will send us a link to KMnO4 application on landfills as documentation. Also, Bashar
will follow up on email thread re: KMnO4 application & briefly describe anecdotal use at Fenimore.

Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/bd1bb452-f9fc-5a70-408f-c7912dc90521.html
Discussed air permits & possible need for Title V permit for site. Bashar said he would consider that matter
immediately.

Thank you,
Mary Anne

EXHIBIT 3.57

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/02d7428f-b25e-0be8-3362-8a676bd8ef0b.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:08:36 GMT
To: Rich Bernardi
CC: Robert Kinney; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert; Aiello, MaryJo;
Subject: FW: Former Fenimore Landfill - Phase 1 Plans
image001.gif (0Kb) DOC138.PDF (156Kb)
Rich, per our conversation here is the Roxbury letter of 3/19/13 you requested.

Bob

Robert M. Confer, Bureau Chief
Mail Code 401-02C : Room 2W-903
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 420 401 East State Street
Phone: 609-984-6985 Telecopier: 609-633-9839

From: Kobylarz Mike [mailto:kobylarzm@roxburynj.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Raths Chris
Subject: Former Fenimore Landfill - Phase 1 Plans

Mr. Confer,
Attached please find review comments from Roxbury Township regarding the recent Phase 1 plan submission.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Michael A. Kobylarz, P.E., C.M.E., C.P.W.M.
Township Engineer/Director of Utilities
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, N.J . 07852-9726
(973) 448-2018
kobylarzm@roxburynj.us
2011 Americas Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People

EXHIBIT 3.58

EXHIBIT 3.59

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/a57da1dc-16fc-d491-2594-113370cae803.html
From: Rich Bernardi Sent: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:40:00 GMT
To: Gentile, Sarah
CC: Matthew Fredericks; Bashar Assadi; RW Bernardi; Joseph Dunn;
Subject: Fenimore Landfill
August10,2012letterPearlmanrequeueforsolarincentives.pdf (115Kb) ATT00001.txt (0Kb)
Hi Sahar,
I am just about done with an 18 acre area on my site for Solar.
Just about the only thing we need is Green Acres ok to run a short line thru their property. See Attachment
Considering this is a minor detail that is a make or break for SEP's Remediation
Project. I would think this OK can be expedited.
Let me know what needs to be done with Green Acres.
We need to move quickly on this.
Thanks,

EXHIBIT 3.60

EXHIBIT 3.61

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/8c748440-e65a-829a-c62f-51075337a0ec.html
From: RWBernardi@aol.com Sent: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:09:27 GMT
To: Tormey, Catherine
CC: mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com; robert.kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us; jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org;
RWBernardi@aol.com;
Subject: Re: Correspondence concerning Fennimore Landfill
Kropp Answer.pdf (518Kb) LettertoDEPKropp-Aiello5-10-13.pdf (604Kb)
UPSReceiptforDEPLetters.pdf (307Kb)
Ms. Tormey,

The letter was addressed and sent to both Director Aiello and Deputy Comm. Kropp.

Since Deputy Comm. Kropp has been recused from any dealings with the Fenimore Landfill, is
Director Aiello going to answer my request, or has she been recused also?

Thank You,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 5/14/2013 4:12:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Catherine.Tormey@dep.state.nj.us writes:

Mr. Bernardi: please see the attached letter. Thank you.
Catherine A. Tormey, Esq.

Catherine A. Tormey
Deputy Advisor to the Commissioner
State of New J ersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, New J ersey 08625-0402
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/8c748440-e65a-829a-c62f-51075337a0ec.html
Phone: (609) 633-0346
Fax: (609) 633-1373
Email: catherine.tormey@dep.state.nj.us

NOTE: This E-mail is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521.
This E-Mail and its contents may be Privileged & Confidential due to the Attorney -Client Privilege, Attorney Work
Product, Deliberative Process or under the New J ersey Open Public Records Act.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon,
print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it.

=

EXHIBIT 3.62

EXHIBIT 3.63

EXHIBIT 4.1

EXHIBIT 4.2

EXHIBIT 4.3

EXHIBIT 4.4

EXHIBIT 4.5

EXHIBIT 4.6

APL
CERTIFICATIONS
CT #PH-0233
NJ DEP #07010/NY DOH #11634
AQUA PRO-TECH LABORATORIES
ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY
Client Strategic Environmental Partne
Contact Michael O Leary
7 Michael Court
Millstone, NJ 08510
Project
Report Date 06/07/2012 15:21
Sample Number/
Parameter Method Analysis Time Analyst Result Units
APL Order ID Number 12060154
Date Sampled 05/14/2012
Date Received 06/06/2012 11:03
Matrix Soil
Site Allocco-Fenimore
Customer Service Rep. n
12060154-001 A-1
Percent Solids Gravimetric 06/07/2012 13:04 MARKA 99.2 %
Sulfur, Total Subcontract ACHEUNG SA
Wood Content Gravimetric 06/07/2012 15:00 AUGUST 7.2 %
1275 BLOOMFIELD AVENUE, BLDG. 6, FAIRFIELD, NJ 07004 TEL 973 227 0422 FAX 973 227 2813
SA: See attached report
Brian Wood
Laboratory Director
QA
HCV Report Of Analysis
Aqua Pro-Tech Laboratories Client: 2060605 HCV Project #:
12060154 Project:
DRAFT
Lab#:
Sample ID: Collection Date:
AC66312-001
12060154-001 5/14/2012
Matrix: Soil
Receipt Date: 6/6/2012
% Solids SM2540G
Analyte Units RL Result DF
DRAFT
93 1 percent % Solids
Sulfur Content ASTM D1552
Analyte Units RL Result DF
DRAFT
.23 .25 1 % Sulfur Content
Page 1 of 1 2060605 Project #: NOTE: Soil Results are reported to Dry Weight

EXHIBIT 4.7

EXHIBIT 4.8

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/b4b8b584-cfa3-2d73-f9e7-30fa29ed58ca.html
From: Confer, Robert
To: Assadi, Bashar; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com; Rich Bernardi;
CC: Goldman, MaryAnne; Ray Lamboy (Ray.Lamboy@dol.lps.state.nj.us); Kinney, Robert; Confer, Robert; Jensen, Knute; Aiello, MaryJo; Jumani, Saara; Wolf Gary; Jon Martin; Gerchman, Michael;
Subject: Fenimore Phase I Odor Control
image001.gif (0Kb) Dredge for capping Phase I at Fenimore PDM (0Kb)
Bashar,
In light of the on-going odor problems at the Fenimore Landfill and the need for SEP to take aggressive steps to address them, the Department urges SEP to take immediate action to reduce the emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the site, as follows:
1. Regrade the Phase 1 Area In order to facilitate placement of cover material, a reconfiguration of the current Phase I area is recommended. This will require that SEP cut back the slopes and the area at the top of the mound and increase the height of the mound to accommodate 3:1 slopes. This would allow the placement of cover material on the slopes which would significantly reduce the LFG odors. As noted below, placement of PDM on site should be deferred in the short-term.
2. Placement of PDM - Until the existing area is regraded, DEP does not recommend importation of PDM. However, once the area has been regraded, installation of the active gas collection venting system can begin. As you are aware, placement of PDM (impermeable cap) without a gas system would force the LFG to migrate laterally and potentially exacerbate an already bad situation. Further, the use of an alternate cover material, such as Posi-shell spray, would have a similar effect on the LFG if it forms an impermeable barrier (albeit temporary). We therefore recommend that SEP begin installation of the gas system immediately. Please also note the Departments comments in the attached recent email concerning the gas venting system design and permitting requirements.
3. Use of H2S Neutralizers DEP is in receipt of your additional response regarding Potassium Permanganate; however, no timeline has been established for DEP approval of any odor neutralizer to be used at the site. We therefore urge that regrading begin immediately and that cover be placed on regraded areas. This action may alleviate the need for any topical agent.
Regrading at this time will provide a relatively easy (or at least less complicated) way to address the odors at the landfill. A cut and fill plan for the site could be developed and implemented quickly. Placement of PDM may proceed at a slower pace on those areas of Phase 1 that are properly graded, and on which the active landfill gas collection and treatment system has been installed and is operational. The reconfigured slopes created by the Phase 1 - 3:1 regrading, and the adjacent slopes of Phases 2, 3 and 4, can be filled in as closure of the site progresses and Department approval for each Phase is issued.
To avoid H2S problems in the remaining areas of the Landfill, SEP should pursue importation of alternative materials approved in the Materials Acceptance Protocol (MAP), and eliminate the use of CDS as fill material.
The Bureau will continue to work with SEP on its responses to H2S emissions on site, and will also work with SEP to expedite any requests for changes to the MAP.
Thank you,
Bob (home)
[cid:image001.gif@01CE047A.58061D40]

EXHIBIT 4.9

CHRIS CHRISTIE
Go'ernor
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF LA IV
25 MARKET STREET
PO Box 093
TRENTON. NJ 08625.0093
JEFFREY S. CHIESA
AUorney General
KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Got'ernor
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
Director
February 14,2012
VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL
Richard Bernardi
P.O. Box 356
Re: Fenimore Landfill Closure
EA ID No.: NEAl 10001-132518
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
It has recently been brought to the Department's attention that there may be some
confusion regarding the requirements and procedures necessary for authorizing entities to
provide material to, and for accepting material at, the Fenimore Landfill closure project pursuant
to the Department approved Landfill Closure Plan ("closure plan") and the associated Materials
Acceptance Plan ("MAP"). Accordingly, in order to ensure that only MAP approved material is
properly delivered to, and received at, the Fenimore site, the Department requires the following:
i) Authorized materials are limited to: recyclable masonr, brick, block and glass;
construction site fill; materials obtained from Areas of Concern as defined in the NJDEP
Technical Requirements at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3.9(a) - (f); historic fill; chipped tires (with
case-specific Department approval in writing); C&D screenings; water treatment plant
residuals; and processed dredge material (only if approved in advance by the
Departent's Offce of Dredging and Sediment Technology);
2) Those entities intending to provide fill material must first submit a written application
including, but not limited to, quantities of material, any necessary sampling and
analytical information as described in the approved MAP;
HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX . TELEPHONE: (609) 633~8713 . FA-X: (609) 3;11-5031
New Jersey Is All Equal Opporlunit,y Employer. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
February 14,2012
Page 2
3) The application must be reviewed by the Third Party Review Engineer ("TPRE"). The
TPRE must either issue a written Certificate of Acceptability or a Letter of Denial for the
materiaL. Acceptable materials must be assigned a Certification Number;
4) If a material is acceptable, SEP must issue Bills of Lading that reference the applicable
Certification Number. Incoming loads of material must be accompanied by two (2)
copies of the Bill of Lading to be accepted at the site;
5) A representative of the TPRE must be present at the site and verify that delivered
materials conform to the descriptions in the approved application packages;
6) Daily field logs shall be prepared to document fill activities; and
7) Records of the applications, certification numbers, delivery information, Bils of Lading
and fill placement locations shall be compiled and reported to the Department in
accordance with the closure plan requirements. In addition, Paragraph 15 of the
Administrative Consent Order requires all documents to be maintained onsite for
inspection.
It is recommended that you provide a complete copy of your closure approval and
MAP to any prospective suppliers of fill materiaL. The above is provided to clarify and enhance
SEP's compliance with the closure plan and MAP. To the extent there may be any conflict
between the above and the closure plan and MAP, either perceived or actual, the requirements of
the closure plan and MAP shall control and be complied with. The above is not intended as a
substitute to the closure plan and MAP requirements, nor should it be interpreted as such.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your anticipated cooperation.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (609) 633-8713.
Sincerely yours,
JEFFREY S. CHIESA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
BY:~~
GaryW. Wolf II
Deputy Attorney General
GWW/nld
c. Thomas H. Bruinooge, Esq. (via electronic and regular mail)
Bashar Assadi, P.E. (via electronic and regular mail)
Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner, DEP (hand delivery)
WolfSkacel, Assistant Commissioner, DEP (hand delivery)
MaryJo Aiello, Administrator, DEP (hand delivery)
Suzanne Dietrick (hand delivery)

EXHIBIT 4.10

"

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
Mail Code 401-07
CHRIS CHRISTIE P,O. BOX 402 130BMARTlN
Commissioner Governor
KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Governor
TEL (609) 292-2885
FAX (609) 292-7695
Honorable Anthony R. Bucco
Senator, 25
th
District
Morris County
75 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 302
Denville, New Jersey 07834
Dear Senator Bucco:
January 13,2012
Commissioner Martin has asked me to respond to your December 5, 2011 request for
information regarding the former Fenimore Landfill (Landfill) in Roxbury Township and its
closure and development into a solar facility. Also, please be advised that the Department
continues to work with and actively support the developer and municipality's effOJis to utilize an
alternative access route which as of this moment continues to look promising.
The following responses address the questions raised in your letter:
1. As the landfill is fully under NJDEP jurisdiction, what individual at NJDEP should be
contacted by the public to respond to concerns during construction activity? What is their phone
number and title?
DEP Contacts are as follows:
a) Permit Issues:
Office of Permit Coordination and Environmental Review:
Ruth Foster - 609-292-3600
Bureau of Landfill & Recycling Management:
Robert Confer, Chief 609-984-6985
b) DEP Director of Local Govermnent Assistance: Cindy Randazzo 609-633-7700
2. The proposed capping plan actually sounds like an approval to create a new landfill on
top of the existing landfill. Approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of new material will be
brought to the site and consist of'
New Jersey is an Equal Opporruni(y Employer,. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
a. Recyclable masonry. brick, block and glass:
b. Construction site fill;
c. Materials obtained/i'om Areas 0/ Concern as ~ f i n e in the NJDEP Technical
Requirements:
d. Chipped tires;
e. C & D screenings: and
f Water treatment plant residuals
What are "Materials obtainedfrom Areas a/Concern" and C & D screenings? Does this list
include dredge materials?
The closure approval is not a reopening of the landfill. The proper closure of this landt1ll is of
significant environmental benefit to the area and surrounding waters. Currently, untreated
leachate f10ws into a tributary of Ledgewood Brook which eventually empties into the Raritan
River. The materials approved to be received at the site are recyclable materials that are
approved for rellse to "close" the landfill and to prepare and grade the site lor redevelopment.
Construction and Demolition Screenings (CDS) refers to residual materials, generally less
than two inches in diameter, which result from the processing of construction and demolition
debris. CDS contains varying concentrations of wood, masonry, dilt and other components
extracted from the source. Materials from Areas of Concern (AOCs) are fill materials that are
subjected to extensive testing to determine suitability for reuse. Once the landfill has been
broUght to the proper grades, it shall be capped with a minimum of two feet of low
permeability material (i.e. processed dredge material) and covered with a minimum of two feet
of clean fill. This has been a common practice in capping old landfills since the mid nineties.
The two main subdivisions of soils obtained from Areas ofConcern
i
(AOC) are: (I) materials
from potentially contaminated areas located away from process locations, as defined by
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-39(f); and (2) materials from potentially contaminated areas near process
locations, as defined by N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3.9(a)-(e). Fill materials generated from areas
described under no. 1 above can generally be accepted for beneficial use at the Site, whereas
fill materials obtained from areas described under no. 2 above (from specific AOCs or near
process locations, defined in N.J.A.C. 7:26E 3.9(a)-(e)) will require more careful
consideration, including additional analytical testing at an increased frequency. All materials
obtained from AOCs will be subjected to rigorous environmental and physical testing
requirements. These requirements are contained in a Department-approved document
entitled, "Materials Acceptance Protocol" (MAP).
3. Is the 1.2 million cubic yard\' o/recycled material really needed/iJr the capping or is
this property primarily designed as a receiving site for difficult to dispose 0/ landfill
material?
I "Area of Concern" means any existing or fonner distinct location where any hazardous substance, hazardous
waste, or pollutant is known or suspected to have been discharged, generated, manufactured, refined,
transported, stored, handles, treated, or disposed, or where any hazardous substance, hazardous waste, or
pollutant has or may have migrated. WAC 7:26EI.8, Definitions
2
About 1,167,000 cubic yards of materials will be used at the Fenimore Landfill for all closure
activities, including regrading & stabilization, access road construction, capping and vegetative
cover. The applicant is estimating up to 50 trucks will deliver fill per day for a total of
approximately 67,000 truck loads. Approximately 82,000 cubic yards (30,000 CY of stone and
52,000 CY of soil) will be used solely for the landfill cover which is approximately 7% of the
imported materials.
The Department has approved the use of approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of recyclable
materials for four (4) main reasons:
1. The materials are needed for grading and shaping the former landfill in order to
stabilize the steep slopes and make the landtill safe (by reducing the slopes) and to
provide a useable foundation for the future installation of a solar energy system.
2. Strategic Environmental Partners (SEP) purchased the property and, in order to
make the site suitable for a solar energy system, the Department has required the
proper closure of the Landfill.
3. The estimated cost of closure and post-closure care is $6,388,320. SEP is required
to deposit the proceeds from the acceptance of recyclable materials into a
Department-controlled escrow account to pay for it except for allowable up front
construction costs. This is mandated by the terms of the Administrative Consent
Order (A CO) executed between SEP and the Department of Environment
Protection and the Closure/Post-Closure Plan Approval issued by the Department
on October 6, 2011.
4. The materials to be used OIl site are not hazardous and will not further contaminate
the Landfill. The materials will ultimately be capped with at least two (2) feet of
clean materials. This will provide a major barrier to the release of untreated
leachate into an otherwise high quality water system.
4. Wilh the 1.2 million cubic yards of recycled material spread across the existing
landfill as a shaping layer, what are some of the depths of the recycled material cover?
With the currently-approved grading plan, the layer of recyclable material placed on the
landfill will range from less than two (2) feet to about 29 feet. The demand for the additional
fill is dictated by the difficult topography of the site. Tbe regulations require creating 3: 1
stable slopes, which require large amounts of fill.
5. In the opinion of NJDEP, does the Township of Roxbury retain site plan jurisdiction
over the proposed solar facility in accordance with New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law and
local ordinances?
The NJDEP approvals require that the site obtain all required local approvals as applicable.
The Department is responsible for oversight oftbe landfill closure. Future development of the
solar energy system will be subject to local/municipal as well as Department approvals. In
general, where the actions being taken are not considered closure or post-closure activities, as
long as the local regulation or' oversight is not related to and does not conflict with or impede
3
closure or post-closure activities, then the local actions arc not pre-empted by the
Department's approvals.
6. Will NJDEP be supportive in having the applicant seek municipal approvals for the
solar(acili(y?
The Department will provide all possible support to RoxbUlY Township when the applicant
seeks municipal approvals for the solar energy system. The DEP has encouraged the applicant
to seek any municipal approvals that may be required for the solar facility.
7. We assume that NJDEP will be the authority that oversees the landfill capping and
makes the determination of project completion. What entity will determine project completion
of the solar facility and will they continue their authority after project completion or will
responsibility fall on the back of the Township? .
The Department is responsible for oversight of the landfill closure and post-closure
maintenance and monitoring. Future development of the solar energy system will be subject
to local, municipal and Department approvals. The site owner is required to provide an as-
built certification that the site was closed and developed in accordance with the plans
approved by the NJDEP. In addition, the Division of Land Use Regulation (DLUR) will
consider this question in the review of the Highlands Preservation Area Approval with Waiver
(HPAA) application which is currently under review.
8. What remaining actions/approvals are required by N.lDEP, Highlands Council,
Morris County Soil Conservation District, Roxbury Township StrategiC Environmental
Partners, and any other entities jill' the lan4fill closure and solar facility?
The applicant is in the process of filing the required land use permits for closure and
redevelopment of the site in areas of land use jurisdiction including freshwater wetlands and
flood hazard areas. A New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
(NJPDES) Discharge to Surface Water (DSW) permit for the discharge of the treated
leachate
2
is currently under review. The site received an approval from the Morris County
Soil Conservation District (MCSCD) for implementing Phase 1 of the closure plan for
storm water management. The applicant has an approved Highlands Redevelopment Area
issued by the Highlands Council. The Department is in the process of reviewing an HPAA.
The Department will also be reviewing an air permit for landfill gas venting and a solid waste
Closure/Post-Closure Plan modifications. We are also in the process of evaluating whether the
use of the newly proposed access road for the project requires any approvals from the Green
Acres Program.
2 Treated leachate refers to the leachate collected from the Landfill after it has been subject to treatment with
various physical and chemical methods. The proposed treatment system at Fenimore has been designed to
ensure the reduction of each of the contaminants found. within the leachate to its background concentration or
less.
4
9. We understand that the applicant has recently submitted a Highlands Preservation
Area Application (HPAA) to N.lDEP and that on November 2, 2011 notice was published in
the DEP Bulletin. What does this process involve? What is the deadline for public
comments?
The applicant has an approved Highlands Redevelopment Area issued by the Highlands
Council on 811 1111. The Department approved a Highlands Resource Area Determination on
12/7/11 which establishes the various Highlands resources on the project site. It is also the
Department's responsibility to review the HPAA which has been formally submitted to the
Department. The review process for an HPAA is set forth in the Highlands Water Protection
Act Preservation Area Rules N.1.A.C. 7:38. The Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38-11.4 set forth that the
public shall have 45 days to comment on an HPAA application after the Department provides
notice in the DEP Bulletin, which occurred on 11/2111. DEP will consider all written pUblic
comments submitted within the deadline of 12/16/1 1. Comments may be submitted in writing
within 15 days after any hearing. The Deprutment may, in iis discretion consider comments
submitted after this date if a decision has not yet been made on the application.
10. Does the Highlands Preservation Area Application involve a waiver (,t a reqUirement
of the HPAA? What is the waiver?
The HPAA application includes a waiver that allows for the construction of solar panels on a
landfill in a DEP designated Highlands Brown1ields defined in "Track One: A sanitary
landfill facility" as per N.1.A.C. 7:38-6.6.
II. Does the NJDEP hold a public meeting for the Highlands Preservation Area
Application? (tthe application involves a waiver afa requirement, can the public request a
public hearing? What are the requirements and deadline for requesting a public hearing?
The NJDEP intends to provide the public with infonnation and the opportunity to comment
on the HPAA application through a public hearing and subsequent comment period. Roxbury
Township has made a timely request for a hearing and DEP has decided to grant the request
for a hearing. The NJDEP expects to conduct the public hearing on the pending HPAA as
well as required land use permits in March or April 0[2012. The place, date and time of the
hearing will be published in the DEP bulletin. The applicant will also be required to provide
public notice in accordance with the requirements of the Highlrulds Water Protection ruld
Planning Act Rules and the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules.
12. What measures has NJDEP established 10 guarantee removal o/solar panels once the
panels have exceeded their Will performance and maintenance bonds be
required?
NJDEP does not establish measures to guarantee the removal of solar panels once they have
exceeded their usefulness. This would be up to local ordinances. Performance and
maintenance bonds are not required by the Deprutment.
5
13. Lookout Drive and Vanover Drive approach the Mountain Road intersection from
higher elevations so motorists, pedestrians and residents of Lookout Mountain will have
substantial views into the capped lan4fill as they exit the residential development. What
measures will DEP take to minimize visual impacts?
Although the solid waste closure rules do not require a specific buffer beyond the need to
properly close the landfill, a buffer will be maintained between the roads and the landf1ll
according to the DLUR program approvals. The trees within this buffer have not been cut in
order to maintain a visual barrier. Furthermore, as previously indicated, DLUR is still
reviewing the HPAA submitted for the solar facility and therefore no decision has been made
on this application. DLUR will consider these various questions on views and landscaping
and coordinate the same with the Highlands Council during the review of the HPAA.
14. What are the minimum buffilrS NJDEP will require between the solar facility and
Mountain Road adjoining residential properties? Greater setbacks and buffering will help
promote the goals. objectives and policies of the Highlands Regional Master Plan as well as
help minimize impairment of the scenic viewshed.
DLUR does not require a minimum buffer. However, DLUR will give further consideration
to this question and coordinate the same with the Highlands Council during the review of the
HPAA.
15. The vis;ual environment of the residential property owners in the immediate area and the
motoring public on Mountain Road will be substantially impacted by the solar energy facility
structures and a recycled concrete surface layer covering 56 acres of the subject properly.
Will NJDEP work 10 obtain heavy landscape buffering and greater from the solar
panels?
DLUR will give further consideration to this question and coordinate the same with the
Highlands Council during the review of the HPAA.
16. What type of landscape buller is envisioned by NJDEP (evergreen trees, trees. shrubs.
grass. elc.)'! Is NJDEP in receipt of any land.vcape buffer details from the applicant?
Due to the fact that this is a landfill site that requires capping, and that the cap integrity has to
be maintained, the NJDEP does not promote planting trees on top of the cap. It is suggested
that shrubs be used in the buffer. A raised benTI with shrubs may be constructed to create a
landscaped visual barrier. A landscape plan will be submitted with LURP permit applications
will be required to be consistent with Highlands Council approvals.
17. Will NJDEP require substantial berms for bujftring along Mountain Road? What
would the height and width of such a berm be?
DLUR will give further consideration to this question and coordinate the same with the
Highlands Council during the review of the HPAA.
6
18. As a substantial berm would essentially be a large and lall mound of topsoil. would
MIDEP allow it 10 be planted with native grasses, shrubs, ornamental trees, evergreens
and/or shade trees without/ear qf plant roots penetrating the soil cap?
The trees along Mountain Road will be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Any
landscaped berm that may be required will be constructed only in areas where the trees have
had to have been removed or do not exist. DLUR will give further consideration to this
question and coordinate the same with the Highlands Council duling the review of the HPAA.
J 9. Will NJDEP require a vegetated (native grasses) soil cap on the landfill where it is
most visible to Mountain Road and adjoining residential properties? Visually, a grass cap is
preferable to a 56 acre recycle concrete cap. The Fenimore tract also has an extended
viewshed that includes Route 46 westbound trq[fic and properties in Mine Hill. Any eif"rt to
provide a vegetative cover w ill be beneficial.
Through discussions with the NJDEP Land Use Program, the MCSCD and the applicant. it
was concluded that from a stability and site drainage perspective, the best final cover is a
pervious cover. This type of cover is also more supportive of the intended end use of the site.
The type of matelial and surface cover is to be determined. Surface cover could potentially be
grass or gravel. In some instances, NJDEP has allowed plantings on some areas of a landfill.
Some screening is provided hy existing vegetation and additional screening may be provided
by planting natural vegetation and possibly landscaped berms. DLUR will give further
consideration to this question and concern and coordinate the same with the Highlands
Council during the review of the HPAA.
20. Did NJDEP take into account the loss a/property value and economic impacts 10
area?
Residential properties that will be subject to an undetermined number qf years where over
150,000 total truck trips (in/out) will be bringing in 1.2 million cubic yards of recycled
material to create a 50 acre cap covered with solar panels, minimal setback from Mountain
Road, and without the benefit 0/ a defined and detailed landscape buffer?
The Department has not considered the loss of property or economic impacts to the area. The
Department's priority is properly closing the landfill. This site is a former landfill which has
not been 'closed' to protect the surrounding environment from impacts from pollutants or
substances formally deposited at the site. The Department believes that an unclosed landfill
also has a negative impact on property values as well as the surrounding environment.
21. What is the timeline to complete the lan4fill closure and solarfacitity?
All closure activities must be completed by October 31, 2015. The goal is to complete the cap
and solar facility in three to four years from the approval date. IfDLUR issues a HPAA for
the solar facility, the HPAA shall be valid for tlve years from the date DEP issues the HPAA.
One five-year extension may be available if the applicant provides the information required at
NJ.A.C.7:38-9.7(g). If DLUR issues Freshwater and Flood Hazard permits for the solar
facility and/or landfill closure within regulated areas, these permits are also valid for five
7
years. A jive year extension may be granted for a Freshwater Wetlands permit, however no
extensions can be granted for a Flood Hazard Area Permit. If the applicant does not complete
construction within the above reference timeframes, they will be required to obtain new
permits.
22. What mechanism does NJDEP have in place to hold the developer to the N.lDEP
timeline?
The Administrative Consent Order, signed on October 6, 2011, stipulates penalties of up to
$2,500 per day for faih'u'e to comply with the due dates specified.
23. Can NJDEP provide the public with the most current drawing depicting the proposed
solarfacility and the phasing in which it will be constructed?
Copies of permit applications to the NJDEP have been provided to the Township. The
Department has not received a current drawing of the proposed solar facility. Should the
Township of Roxbury require information on the solar installation, they should contact the
applicant. A copy of the HPAA application with Waiver is available for public inspection by
appointment at DLUR, 501 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey during normal business
hours at (609) 292-0600. The Freshwater Wetlands and Flood Hazard Area Applications
have not yet been submitted and therefore are not available for inspection.
24. Can N.lDEP provide design details of the solar panels and how they will be installed
without penetrating the landfill? Considering the topography of the site, what will be the
height of the tallest solar panelfrom grade? What will the solar panels look like?
The design of the solar energy system has not yet been submitted to the Department. DLOR
has requested that the applicant submit details of the solar panels and their footings. The
Department will issue the HPAA before any. solar panels can be constructed at the site. No
penetrations will be made into the landfill cap to accommodate the solar system. The
topography of the site has no bearing on the height of the solar panels.
25. Can NJDEP address the proposed phaSing of the landfill capping and solar
development? Will the entire landfill be capped and then the solar facility constructed, or
will it be phased where small areas are capped and solar panels installed as they
concurrently move to the capping of other portions of the landfill? Will the development
proceed east 10 west or west to east?
At this time, the applicant has proposed a phased closure and redevelopment. Please refer to
the phasing listed in the enclosed ACO and Closure Approval. The proposed closure of the
Landfill will be done in four (4) phases. DLUR is currently considering the possible phasing
of the installation of the solar panels. At this time, NJDEP has not received a schedule for
construction of the solar energy facility. However, it is our understanding that the solar
facility will also be done in stages along with the capping.
8
26. To provide wildlife habitat, will the 1600 + feet long reconstructed and relocated
stream be constructed with a natural channel and vegetated side slopes? How will it be
constructed? Where feasible, will bt{(fers or modified buffors be provided along the stream
and wetlands?
Wildlife habitat and wetlands and stream buffers are taken into consideration during the Land
Use Permitting process. The applicant has not yet submitted the necessary permit applications
to DLUR for landfill closure activities or solar panel construction in wetlands, State open
waters, flood hazard areas and riparian zones. Therefore, DLUR is not in a position to answer
this question at this time although, based on draft information, at least 1000 linear feet of
stream modification is proposed by the applicant. The Department will consider this concern
when reviewing the expected Land Use permit applications. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency will also review the wetlands application.
27. What measures has NJDEP required /0 maintain an organized and orderly
development of the site considering thaI the capping and solar installation can take many
years due fa the magnitude of imported material and as the availability of it is dependent
upon the economy?
The applicant is required by the terms of the ACO to complete all closure activities by
October 31, 2015. Failure to meet this schedule will subject the pennittee to appropriate
actions including enforcement action.
28. Will the lanc{fill closure require dynamic compaction? ff'so, is it needed across the
entire 56 acres of lanc{fill activity or to limited area setback from adjoining residential
properties and Mountain Avenue? Will the Township and area residents be notified in
advance of compaction activity?
The nOlthern slope of the site may require dynamic compaction for soil stabilization.
Dynanlic compaction is only needed at parts of the northern slope if access into the Township
property is not granted to maintain 3: I slope along the northern edge of the landfill. The
Department will require the applicant to provide notification to the surrounding residential
properties in advance of the use of dynamic compaction.
29. Documents do nOI proVide details or information on the drawings thai depict the
location of' power lines serving the solar facility, inverters and other necessary equipment
neededfor the site. From what ac{joining properties will the power lines be routed?
The Department has not received details on the power lines for the proposed solar facility.
DLUR will be requesting more information from the applicant on this issue
30. The ultimate location of the methane gas venting system and backup generator will
impact the layout of'/he solar facility. Has the methane gas venting system been approved by
NJDiJ>? Where will the backup generator be located? Can the venting ,Iystem and backup
generator be located and screened.fi"om ac{joining properties and streets? Can the backup
9
generator be located and screenedFom adjoining properties and streets? Can the backup
generator be located a substantial distance from adjoining homes to minimize noise impacts?
The Department has approved the installation of an active methane gas venting system at the
site to ensure the safe management of methane gas. This will consist of lateral perforated
pipes (to collect the gas) beneath the landfill cap which will connect to solid pipes (to
transport the gas) to gas vents (to vent the gas). The gas follows the path of least resistance
and should naturally flow toward the vents. A solar or battery powered blower will be
attached to the gas system. The blower will induce a vacuum on the system to ensure the gas
is collected, vented, and monitored according to an air pre-construction penni! according to
N.J.A.C. 7:27-8. The solar or battery powered generator and backup generator (and flare if
required) will be permitted and monitored under an air pennit according to NJ.A.C. 7:27-8.
For all power sources, NJDEP will work with the owner to detennine where they will have
the least visual and noise impacts.
31. Is the generator testedkycled monthly or less? When is it tested and how long will it
?
run.
A backup generator is required for the site. It will be tested every year or 8760 hours of
operation. The maintenance of the gas management system is part of the Post Closure
Operation and Maintenance Plan that will be implemented by SEP and quarterly reporting on
the implementation will be submitted to the NJDEP.
32. How does NJDEP address the impacts to municipal roads by over 150,000 total truck
trips (in/out) needed to transport the 1. 2 million cubic yards q( recycled material/iir the
landfill cap?
The Department has no authority to address the impact to local roads. The concerns about
increased truck traffic and its impacts on municipal roads is an important issue but is one
which would have to be resolved between the developer of the site and local authorities. The
Township and SEP are considering, and the Department strongly supports, an alternate access
route to the site to avoid traversing through residential neighborhoods.
33. How will NJDEP assist the Township in maintaining and repairing the municipal
roads that will be burdened by over 150, 000 total truck trips neededfor the land/ill closure?
See response to #32. The DEP will assist the Township and the Applicant to the fullest extent
possible to facilitate a solution acceptable to both parties.
34. According to the drafi Landfill Closure Plan Approval, the landfill owner will
generate revenue/rom the acceptance of "beneficial use and recyclable material at the site ".
NJDEP will obtain a fee from the revenue generated by the acceptance q/l.2 million cubic
y r d ~ of this material. WillNJDEP allocate any ({(this maney to the maintenance and repair
a/municipal roads accessing the lan4fill?
10
NJDEP will not receive a fee from the revenue generated from the acceptance of the fill
material needed to close, cap, and grade the landfill. The DEP does not retain money from the
revenue. The money is placed by the applicant into an escrow account held by the Department
to ensure the proper closure of the landlill. Funds from this escrow account are only expended
for the implementation of the closure and post closure of the landfill. The Department cannot
provide funds lor the maintenance of local roads.
35. With over 150,000 toial truck trips (in/oul) needed for the landfill closure, have
provisions have been established to regulate the frequency, idling, or hours of truck traffic?
Will hours of operation be prohibited on weekends and Slate and Federal Holidays?
The ACO/Closure Plan requires that all material received be inspected to ensure that it
complies with DEP approvals. Off-loading will occur on landfill property only. Trucks must
queue on landfill property, and may not line up outside the Mountain Road landfill access
area. All trucks and other vehicles or powered equipment must abide by the Department's
idling time limitations while queuing to dump or load materials, or to perform any other
activities. Landfill closure and related construction activities are restricted to daylight
weekday hours, no earlier than 7:00 AM and no later than 6:00 PM from Monday through
Friday. The facility must be closed on weekends and Federal holidays. The number of trucks
is expected to not exceed 67,000 trucks. Idling of any vehicle for more than 3 minutes is
prohibited under NJ.A.C. 7:27-14 and 15 with few exceptions. Local police, NJDEP and
County Health Officers are authorized to write citations or violations for idling which violates
the rules. The property owner may want to install "No Idling" signs" to remind drivers to tum
their engines off. For more information, please visit: ..
sign.htm.
36. The import of 1.2 million cubic yard of recycled materials for the shaping layer will
take years. Are there specific deadlines associated with the import and spreading C!f this
material or can if be in piles strewn across the site before capping occurs? With a bad
economy can they accept material./or the next 10 or more years until they reach 1.2 million
cubic yards? How will the State regulate this on-going activity 10 minimize the physical and
visual impacts upon the community?
Both the ACO and the Closure Plan Approval require all closure activities to be completed by
October 31,2015. Materials may be stockpiled only for limited times (72 hours) and only in
limited and approved areas. The approved Closure Plan also provides for the phasing of the
project, which would allow the completion of each phase and allow for completing (he
capping of each phase. This should minimize the visual and physical impact on (he
community. See response to question #37 below.
37. Did NJDEP establish restrictions for the maximum time period stockpile can be
maintained, as well as, a maximum stockpile height, quantity and minimum setback .trom
adjoining properties and streets, in order to reduce impacts upon the community and to
ensure a timely closure and development of'the solar facility?
II
The maximum stockpiling limit for any material brought on site will be determined according
to the source of the material, the Acceptable Vse Determination (AVO), the Closure/Post
Closure approval, and according to any additional approvals deemed necessary by the
Department. There is no stockpile time limit for clean fill, Recyclable materials may be
stockpiled, where appropriate, at the site under the following conditions: Any materials that
do not meet the Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards shall not be stockpiled
for more than 72 hours and must be spread and graded not more than 72 hours after receipt
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department. Measures must be taken to control
soil and wind erosion, Ideally, processed dredged material (PDM) should not be stockpiled
for an extended period of time and should be directly placed in one foot lifts, rolled and
compacted to meet aU geotechnical specifications. However, due to phasing of the closure and
availability of PDM, PDM may need to be stockpiled. In that case, the applicant must receive
prior approval from the Department and the PDM must be stockpiled in accordance with the
requirements of the ACO, the Closure Plan Approval and the Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control (SESC) Plan. The applicant is required to notify the Department a minimum of three
(3) working days prior to acceptance of these materials and shall provide the Department with
written notification of the intent to stockpile materials, the type and volume of the material,
the staging area location in accordance with the SESC and Closure Plans, and the temporary
engineering controls to be employed at the staging site to contain the material and maintain
compliance with SESC Plan requirements.
38. What measures does NJDEl' have in place to guarantee completion of the landfill
capping? Have performance and maintenance bonds' been required?
The ACO requires the establishment of an escrow account to guarantee the implementation of
the closure and post closure, SEP is required to put all monies received from the acceptance of
recyclable materials into the escrow account under department control save for up front
construction costs, Department approval is necessary to withdraw any funds from it and it
can only be used to pay for closure and post-closure costs, Therefore, no performance and
maintenance bonds have been required, SEP is not receiving any funds from the State of New
Jersey or any other public agency to the Department's knowledge.
39. Will the 1,2 million cubic yards offill and recycled masonry come from individual job
sites and then be inspected at the property? Will am office trailer be needed to monitor and
administer the acceptance o/importedjill material coming.from tens o/thousands o/trucks?
Are lighting and bathrooms needed? Will trucks be queued in long lines waiting to be
processed b4iJre unloading? Will this material be accepted while the installation 0/ solar
panels is ongoing? Does NJDEP have a narrative explaining this as well as a site
plan of this area which depicts truck Slacking? Will portable toilets be adequate to service
the drivers of this heavy truck use?
The recyclable materials will come from both small and large construction sites. Pursuant to
the Closure/Post Closnre Plan, all materials coming onto the site will have been tested in
accordance with the MAP and approved at the source by a review engineer and at the landfill
by SEP's resident tield inspector, All truckloads of materials will be subject to a visual
inspection of their load and bill oflading to verify consistency with what is approved to come
\2
from that source. If a truckload of material does not meet the specifications outlined in the
AUD and Closure/Post Closure Plan or match that described in the bill of lading, the truck
will not be allowed to off-load at the site. An office trailer will be necessary at the landfill as
well as lighting and a portable toilet. SEP will provide one portable toilet for use by the
truckers. Prior experience by the applicant indicates that one portable toilet is sufficient. Any
trucks queued while waiting for processing must be inside of the landfill property. No trucks
may queue along Mountain Road. As the project is proposed in phases, fill material may be
accepted during installation of solar panels on other phases of the project.
40. At what point will NJDEP review detailed stormwater management plans to insure the
protection of downstream properties?
MCSCD has approved the stormwater management practices for Phase 1. The stormwater
management strategy will be reviewed by the Department pursuant to the Land Use
applications for subsequent phases. DLUR expects to review detailed stormwater
management plans and calculations as part of the Freshwater Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Area applications which have not yet been submitted to the Department.
Thank yon for your comments and concerns. We appreciate your interest in this matter. If you
have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (609) 292-3600.
Sincerely yours,
< t J ~ f -
Scott Brubaker, Director
Office of Permit Coordination and
Environmental Review
Enclosures: October 6, 201 I Closure/Post Closure Plan Approval and ACO
cc. Jane Kozinski, AC Environmental Management
Marilyn Lennon, AC Land Use Management
Dave Glass, Legislative Liaison
Mary Jo Aiello, Director, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Mark Pedersen, Director, Division of Land Use Regulation
Cindy Randazzo, Director, NJDEP Office of Local Government Assistance
Francis Steitz, DEP Air
Robe11 Confer, NJDEP Solid and Hazardous Waste
Rick Reilly, NJDEP Land Use Regulation
Suzanne Dietrick, NJDEP Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology
Ruth Foster, NJDEP Office of Permit Coordination and Environmental Review
Christopher Raths, Roxbury Twp. Manager
Richard Bernardi, SEP
Bashar AI Assadi, Birdsall Engineering
13

EXHIBIT 4.11

Taken from "A Review of Construction and Demolition Debris
Regulations in the United States"

CORRIE CLARK
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA
JENNA JAMBECK
Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
New Hampshire, USA
TIMOTHY TOWNSEND
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY
Most New Jersey landfills have double composite liner systems, but a Class III
landfill has fewer requirements. Class III landfills accept inert, bulky, and vegetative
wastes. New Jersey has a high rate of recycling C&D debris, but those
wastes that are not recycled are generally disposed in a Class III landfill. For a
landfill located in stable, low-permeability soil with a hydraulic conductivity
of less than 1 106 cm/sec, the liner system must include at least 91 cm
(3 ft) of clay or soil admixture with a hydraulic conductivity equal to or less
than 1 107 cm/sec and a leachate collection system consisting of 30 cm
(1 ft) of sand drainage layer with a hydraulic conductivity equal to or greater
than 1 102 cm/sec.

If the location does not meet the low permeability soil requirement, a
composite liner system must be constructed at a minimum consisting of a
geomembrane liner over a 60 cm (2 ft) layer of compacted clay or admixture
liner with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 107 cm/sec. A landfill
located in a geologic area with bedrock at or near the surface and serving
as a direct source for a public community water system must have a double
composite liner system. The primary and secondary geomembrane liners in
the double composite liner system must be above a clay or admixture liner.
A leak detection/secondary collection system must be located between the
primary composite liner and the secondary composite liner. Groundwater
monitoring and financial assurance are required.
Location requirements include protecting environmentally sensitive areas
like flood fringe areas; wetland buffer areas; lands dedicated to agriculture
or in farmland preservation programs; watershed areas for high-quality
streams; lands near any lake, pond, river, or stream; and the designated
pinelands protection area. Landfills must be designed to protect areas above
cavernous limestone, dolomite, or marble or over subsurface mining activities;
within 4.83 km (3 miles) from nearest runway; encroaching upon objects
included in the Register of Historic Places; within buffer zone area of specimen
trees as determined by the Division of Parks and Forestry, and with
slopes exceeding 15%.
Each operator should receive initial training within 6 months of beginning
work and annual training. The training program is described in detail in
the regulations and should be directed by a person thoroughly familiar with
the facility technology and permit conditions.
Final cover for the Class III sanitary landfill must consist of 60 cm (2 ft)
of natural material with a permeability less than or equal to the bottom liner
system or natural subsoils present, or 1 105 cm/sec, whichever is less.
The cover depth must be at least 18 inches and overlain by at least 15.3 cm
(6 in) of soil as a layer to minimize erosion. If a synthetic membrane is
used in the bottom liner system, then the final cover must also include a
synthetic membrane. Upon approval from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), an alternative cover scheme may be
used. Financial assurance is required.41
At Class B recycling facilities (may be C&D debris), a 7.6 m (25 ft) buffer
zone is required around the facility property. The recycling facility is also
required to provide (to the NJ DEP) end market information for types and
volumes of material recycled.

EXHIBIT 5.1
file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/3d231767-4c33-86b9-2356-994e597e942c.html 1/1
From: Raths Chris Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:57:25 GMT
To: Padilla, Magdalena; Lim, Luis;
CC: Gaines, Monica; robert.kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Anthony M. Bucco (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com); Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich;
Subj ect: RE: Confirming Visit Tomorrow
Magdalena,
Thanks My cell is 973-219-0617 and address for townhall is 1715 Rt. 46 Ledgewood 07852
Chris
From: Padilla, Magdalena [mailto:Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:20 PM
To: Lim, Luis; Raths Chris
Cc: Gaines, Monica; 'Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us'
Subject: Confirming Visit Tomorrow
This confirms that Luis and two other DEP staffers will be conducting a visual recon of Fenimore and the surrounding areas for the purposes of assessing possible air monitoring locations.
Chris, please email Luis your POB.
Luis, Chris' office number is 973 448 2002.
Thanks!

EXHIBIT 5.2
file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/83afc24a-20fd-b634-6183-95fa52310943.html 1/1
From: Raths Chris Sent: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:55:09 GMT
To: Lim, Luis
CC: Pietarinen, Charles; Padilla, Magdalena; Anthony M. Bucco (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com); Overman,
Amy (AOverman@njleg.org); Hackett, Bob; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred;
Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich;
Subj ect: RE: Still working on Fenimore Landfill project
Mr. Lim,
Although disappointed that test were not conducted last Wed. due to the urgent and potential health issue to
Township residents, I am certain that this work will be soon completed by your agency. Please keep me posted
on this matter and as always the township will assist in any way. Happy New year as well.
Sincerely,
Chris Raths

From: Lim, Luis [mailto:Luis.Lim@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent : Friday, December 28, 2012 11:38 AM
To: Raths Chris
Cc: Pietarinen, Charles
Subject : Still working on Fenimore Landfill project

I hope you are enjoying the holidays. As you may know, we were probably a bit optimistic in trying to
implement the air monitoring project around the Fenimore landfill by Wednesday, December 26. There are
additional forms to fill out, more people to be notified and approvals to be obtained. We will continue to
provide you with any updates on this project. If you have any questions, please call me. Thanks again for your
help, and have a Happy New Year.

Luis Lim, Field Operations Section Chief
Bureau of Air Monitoring
NJDEP
609-462-7266 cell

EXHIBIT 5.3

EXHIBIT 5.4
EPA Fenimore emails by thread, in chron. Order within threads.
----------------------------------------------------- THREAD #1 -----------------------------------------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-------------------------------------------------- Thread #2 ------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

---

-------------------------------------------- THREAD #3 ----------------------------------------------------------------

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

----

----------------------------------------------THREAD #4 ------------------------------------------------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

----------------------------------------------- Thread #5 --------------------------------------------------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

----------------------------------------------------- Thread #6 ------------------------------------------------------------

.

EXHIBIT 5.5
file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/91299a3f-3c7d-9b9c-2290-ec411cef14e8.html 1/2
From: Raths Chris Sent: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:33:41 GMT
To: Mark Caputo; Christine Poliviou;
CC: Overman, Amy (AOverman@njleg.org); Anthony M. Bucco (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com); Padilla,
Magdalena; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin;
Zoschak Rich;
Subj ect: RE: Fenimore
Mrs. Poliviou,
In addition to the summons issued for the odor from the sight by the Townships Health Department.
The Township and the DEP have legal action against the operator for numerous violations related to
the owners non-compliance with DEP regulations. As of today, the judge has taken no action on our
complaint to have the facility cease operations.
Sincerely,
Chris Raths
From: Mark Caputo [mailto:MCaputo@randolphnj.org]
Sent : Monday, December 24, 2012 11:20 AM
To: 'Christine Poliviou'
Cc: Raths Chris
Subject : RE: Fenimore
Ms. Poliviou:
I too have observed odors emanating from the site late in the evenings and on Saturdays and
Sundays. I would like to share the following points with you:
Landfill odors have been observed leaving the site by numerous residents and officials from state and
local government.
Roxbury Township Officials empathize with residents impacted by odors emanating from the site and
are working toward odor abatement.
Roxbury Township has limited authority over site operations. Site activity is regulated and monitored
by the NJ DEP.
NJ DEP water sampling of over 20 private wells in the immediate vicinity have NOT revealed
exceedances of state and Federal safe drinking water standards.
Roxbury has requested the NJ DEP conduct additional free well testing for private wells in a defined
area.
The local health department has taken enforcement action under the public health nuisance code in an
effort to prevent odors from emanating from the site including the issuance of notice of violations and
summons.
Roxbury Township has requested air sampling be conducted by the DEP while at the same time is
exploring other options.
Residents are encouraged to contact the NJ DEP environmental hotline, 877WARNDEP.
Feel free to contact the Health Department 973-448-2028 for updates.
file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/91299a3f-3c7d-9b9c-2290-ec411cef14e8.html 2/2

Mark Caputo, Health Officer

From: Christine Poliviou [mailto:Christine.Poliviou@dcf.state.nj.us]
Sent : Friday, December 21, 2012 1:50 PM
To: Mark Caputo
Subject : Fenimore Landfill odor is making us ill!!!!!!!!! PLEASE READ THIS.........

I am reaching out to you as a very concerned, and frightened resident of Roxbury. Intermittently over the last 2
months (without question, PRIOR to the hurricane), our communitiy has been affected by an awful, often overwhelming
odor described to resemble the smell of rotten eggs, sulfa, and cesspool. It has been acknowledged by the judge that
this odor is indeed coming from the Fenimore Landfill. Our community has been tirelessly calling our complaints into
the DEP hotline. Sometimes the odor is just outside. The last 2-3 weeks it has been permeating into our homes. By
the time the DEP agent gets to our home (2 hours average response time!!) smell is gone so this ODOR INTRUSION
is being UNDERDOCUMENTED, what scares me most is the direct correlation of the presence of the odor coinciding
with our headaches (pretty severe headches), nausea, and become trembly. In the absence of the odor, these
symptoms clearly improve. (linger but improve). The odor was in my home for hours last night. Luckily the inspector
WAS able to document itas being inside the home this time, but them catching it is rare. Last night 4 out of my
family of 5 went to bed with nasty headaches. Last night I had to go to sleep with my blankets over my head, only to
wake up to the odor in my home once again feeling like I drank a liter of Vodka the night before.....I do not know whos
responsibility it is to conduct reliable testing of the air quality, but to our knowledge this has NOT been done.
The issue of the landfill is being addressed within the judicial system by the Town and the DEP,
but only as Odor Nuisance, and they have failed in the courts to accomplish anything This is much greater than just
nuisance. I am really afraid of what we are being exposed to. Please, please, please respond-

Christine Poliviou RN.,HCCM.
973-945-9475
48 Lazarus Dr. Ledgewood NJ, 07852
This E-mail, including any attachments, may be intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the sender
and recipient(s) named above. This message may include advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material and,
as such, would be privileged and confidential and not a public document. If you have received this e-mail in error,
you must not review, transmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it
and you must delete this message. You are requested to notify the sender by return e-mail.

EXHIBIT 6.1

Page 1 of 6 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/4784417f-56d0-c8fb-650c-229df3deadeb.html
From: vicgaunt@comcast.net Sent: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:16:30 GMT
To: Brian J. Duffield
CC: RWBernardi@aol.com; mlgravinese@harrisontwp.us; Bill; Heim, Don; Manzo, Lou; sensweeney; Bartle, Timothy;
chrisequines@aol.com; Martin, Bob; Wienckoski, Ronald; lbarnes@co.gloucester.nj.us;
rick@beneficialsolution.com;
Subject: Re: Ambient air quality control-Henry Harris Landfill
I was at the Pennell property running an errand and Mr. Pennell started to gasp and cough
profusely due to a foul odor permeating from the landfill, possibly the same odor several
residence of Harrison Township have brought to my attention in previous weeks. This
compilation of complaints is the basis for the concern about the gypsum and h2S. The NJ DEP hot
line was called, which is referenced in all correspondence as proper procedure. I was immediately
put in contact with Vincent J. Garbarino, from the NJDEP Bureau of Enforcement
Operations. Mr. Garbarino took the complaint and was able to detect and confirm the odor. He
assured me that a complete and thorough investigation would take place. I am informing you
Brian and all the appropriate "we's" that I intend to follow NJ DEP protocol and will instruct all
future complaints from Harrison Township residents to follow the same NJ DEP protocol.
Vickie Gaunt
From: "Brian J. Duffield" <Brian.Duffield@Comcast.net>
To: vicgaunt@comcast.net
Cc: "Don Heim" <dheim@harrisontwp.us>, "Ronald Wienckoski"
<Ronald.Wienckoski@dep.state.nj.us>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:19:51 PM
Subject: Fw: Ambient air quality control-Henry Harris Landfill
Vicki:
Mr. Wienckoski asked me to forward this email to you.
Brian

From: Wienckoski, Ronald
To: 'Don Heim--Vertex'
Cc: Bartle, Timothy ; brian.duffield@comcast.net ; lbarnes@co.gloucester.nj.us
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 16, 2013 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Ambient air quality control-Henry Harris Landfill
Mr. Heim,

Based on our interpretation, as well as Solid and Hazardous Wastes interpretation of the legislation, it appears that
Mrs. Gaunt has been misinformed by Mr. Wolfe. This legislation is very vague as to how it is to be implemented,
and there is no requirement to conduct ambient air monitoring in the legislation. The Departments Solid and
Hazardous Waste Program is determining how we will implement all aspects of the legislation, with Landfill
Remediation and Redevelopments input. Part 4 of the Legislation sets a standard for H2S emanating from a legacy
landfill (ceased operating pre-1982) or a closed sanitary landfill at 30 ppb for a 30-minute average. It does not
mandate when monitoring should occur except upon verification by the Department of complaints about H2S odors
and the after the determination is made by the Department that the landfill is the source. At that point the Department
can order the owner of the legacy landfill to develop an H2S monitoring plan approved by the Department, to
purchase and install monitoring devices in accordance with the plan, to operate and maintain these devices, and to
provide reports to the Department. The Department may adopt a standard for H2S that supersedes the 30 ppb. As I
told you in my July 1
st
email, if there are odor complaints citizens should contact the Health Department or DEP
Hotline.

Part 9 of the legislation is an imminent threat provision. If the Commissioner determines that activities at a legacy
landfill or closed sanitary landfill present an imminent threat to the environment or public health and safety, NJSA
13:1E-9.5 shall govern. This provision of the Solid Waste Management Act is below.

13:1E-9.5. Issuance of emergency order
a. If the commissioner determines that any activity occurring at a solid waste facility, recycling center, or any
other site at which solid waste is placed, processed, stored, or disposed of presents an imminent threat to the
environment or public health and safety, the commissioner may issue an emergency order to the owner or operator of
the solid waste facility, recycling center or other site, which order shall include:
(1) The specific activity or activities occurring at the solid waste facility, recycling center, or other site which
present an imminent threat to the environment or public health and safety;
(2) A description of the specific threats to the environment or public health and safety which the activity or
activities present;
(3) The specific measures which the owner or operator of the solid waste facility, recycling center or other site is
directed to undertake immediately to abate or eliminate the imminent threat to the environment or public health and
safety; and
(4) The actions which the department will take upon the signing of the emergency order, or at any time thereafter,
which may include, but need not be limited to, the immediate revocation or suspension of a registration statement in
the case of a solid waste facility, or a license in the case of a recycling center, or the limitation of physical access to,
or egress from, the solid waste facility, recycling center, or other site by vehicles or persons.
b. An emergency order issued pursuant to this section shall take effect upon the signing of the emergency order by
the commissioner, and the person to whom the emergency order is directed shall comply with the emergency order
immediately upon receipt thereof.
c. Any action brought by a person seeking a temporary or permanent stay of an emergency order issued pursuant
to this section shall be brought in the Superior Court. Any person bringing such an action shall have the burden of
demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the activity or activities specified in the emergency order as
presenting an imminent threat to the environment or public health and safety do not present an imminent threat to the
environment or public health and safety.
In the case of the Fenimore Landfill that Mrs. Gaunt continues to mention, they received a Closure Plan Approval in
October of 2011 and complaints about H2S odors started last year. In some areas of the landfill there is more than 30
feet of construction and demolition (C&D) debris with significant quantities of ground gypsum board. These
complaints were made to the Hotline and were documented by the Health Department. There was an instantaneous
reading of 100,000 ppb on the site and levels above the 30 ppb, 30-minute average in the backyards of neighboring
properties. The Superior Court on December 12, 2012 ordered the owners to cover the site with fill and to import and
store enough extra soil to cover exposed areas at the end of every day. The owners did not comply with this order.
Also, the Department issued 10 administrative Orders to the owners for violations of the Air Pollution Control Act for
failure to control the odors. The owners were also not putting money into an escrow account as required in the
approved Closure Plan. Once the legislation was signed the Commissioner used provision 9 to sign the Order. It was
not something that just happened like many people think. The Department is taking over the site to put in H2S
mitigation measures, including cover and/or posi-shell, and gas vents.

In contrast, SLRD has a limit on how much C&D debris he can accept and it is indicated in his monthly reports. The
gypsum material SLRD is accepting is not gypsum board, it is simply gypsum. He also has conditions to follow in
accepting the gypsum that, to the best of my knowledge SLRD has been complying with. Since June of 2010 SLRD
has been submitting checks every month that amount to $1.00 per ton. There is approximately $400,000 in that
account. The actual amount can be verified by the Departments Office Finance and Budget.

There are numerous Provisions of the legislation and the Department is determining how to implement them. SLRD
will have to comply with some or all of them at some point. It has only been 2 weeks since the legislation was
signed. Also, there are other landfills that are potentially affected by this legislation. We cannot arbitrarily single one
out. Fenimore was given ample opportunity to comply and they refused. When I have indicated problems with
Henry Harris, SLRD has fixed them to my satisfaction. I have been to the landfill numerous times and I have not
once noticed odors that would warrant a complaint. I cannot reiterate it enough; if there are odor complaints they
have to be reported to the DEP Hotline or the Health Department. Without documented complaints, no action can be
taken.

Ronald J. Wienckoski, Jr.
Site Remediation Technical Specialist
Landfill Remediation and Redevelopment
Office of Brownfield Reuse
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
Mail Code 401-05K, P.O. Box 420
Phone 609-984-4617
Fax 609-777-1914
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp

From: Don Heim--Vertex [mailto:dheim@vertexeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:02 AM
To: Wienckoski, Ronald
Subject: FW: Ambient air quality control

Ron

Can you please take a look at info below and let me know if this actually is applicable to SLRD landfill In Harrison?

Thank you for your time.

Don Heim
Committeeman, Harrison Twp.

From: hoopcoach24@comcast.net [mailto:hoopcoach24@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 10:36 PM
To: Don Heim--Vertex
Subject: Fwd: Ambient air quality control

From: vicgaunt@comcast.net
To: "Brian Duffield" <Brian.Duffield@Comcast.net>
Cc: "timothy bartle" <timothy.bartle@dep.state.nj.us>, mlgraninese@harrisontwp.us, "Ronald
Wienckoski" <Ronald.Wienckoski@dep.state.nj.us>, lbarnes@co.gloucester.nj.us,
rick@beneficialsoilsolution.com, "Don Heim" <hoopcoach24@comcast.net>, rwbernardi@aol.com,
chrisequines@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 9, 2013 4:47:18 PM
Subject: Ambient air quality control
Dear Mr. Duffield,
I am sending you this email per Mr. Wolfe's advice regarding the residual of
gypsum H2S. The landfill (Stags Leap) is apparently not in compliance with the new
legislation that was signed into law last week. According to Mr.Wolfe an ambient air
quality control test is required and apparently none is currently on record of being
performed at Harrison Township's Henry Harris landfill. Mr. Wolfe informed me NJDEP
procedure requires the landfill should be shut down immediately until proper air control
testing is evaluated, also procedurely the material acceptance approval letter dated
April 25th to Stags Leap Ranch Development is apparently not a legal document,,, . I
find it quite alarming and potentially suspicious that our township committee is not and
has not been concerned about the materials being accepted as other townships have
been in the past, I would like to reference the Township of Roxbury, and the Fenimore
Landfill. They DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP THIS TRAVESTY from continuing. l
have formed several alliances with concerned residents, we are all asking the same
questions and have the same immediate concern..!!! I am sure you are concerned
about any legal ramifications, judgments, or complaints that could be filed against
Harrison Township as the result of any environmental non-compliance with state
environmental laws. I will be waiting for your immediate response regarding this issue
and the appropriate resolution.

Mr. Wolfe informed me that if you email him at
bill_wolfe@comcast.net he would send you a copy
of the legislation, therefore rendering some form of
action to be taken, to keep Harrison Township
environmentally safe. He can also be reached at
609-397-4861.

Thank you for your consideration in this
matter.
Respectfully

Victoria Gaunt

Vickie Gaunt

EXHIBIT 6.2

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/2e85806f-2192-19b2-b62a-62387b4c8672.html 1/1
From: Raths Chris Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:12:24 GMT
To: Dana & Elysa Eilertson
CC: Montgomery Abigail; Overman, Amy (AOverman@njleg.org); Anthony M. Bucco
(ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com); Padilla, Magdalena; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy;
Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich;
Subj ect: RE: Fenimore complaint
Ms. Eilertson,
I understand that there were a number of complaints again last night. The health department will reach out to
you regarding this matter. We have notice of violations issued to the landfill owner at this time. Once your
complaint with the DEP is verified it will be provide to Judge Wilson.
Thanks
Chris Raths

From: Dana & Elysa Eilertson [mailto:danae1@optonline.net]
Sent : Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Raths Chris
Subject : Fenimore complaint

Mr. Raths,

Yesterday the rotten egg smell from Fenimore Landfill was evident as soon as I opened my garage door or back
slider onto our patio.
It was also very potent on Lazarus Rd and our street, Frost Ct. I contacted the DEP and my case number is
121217154524. I called in at
3:46 and a DEP rep was at my house by 5:30. Although she definitely could smell the odors, I couldnt sign a
complaint as it wasnt present
in my house. She also stated that as soon as she turned off 206 she smelled the odor.

I also called the Roxbury Health Department and left a message as well as the EPA Environmental Justice
Hotline. (Neither has called back as yet).

The smell was very pervasive in parts of our neighborhood on Saturday as well.

Elysa Eilertson
7 Frost Ct
Ledgewood

EXHIBIT 6.3

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/RILEE%20EMAIL%202008-2012/To/messages/51376c7b-e240-d9f9-acdd-e2f0daecccb1.html 1/1
From: Raths Chris Sent: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:18:19 GMT
To: Madsolano@gmail.com
CC: ptierney@roxbury.org; AOverman@njleg.org; ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich; Padilla, Magdalena;
Subj ect: Re: Fenimore stinks!
Ms. Solano,
I have copied the DEP Commissioner's Chief of Staff DEP personnel should be available on weekends to handle these complaints. We continue to pursue closing the facility and hope for a better outcome this Wed. In court. Thanks
Chris Raths
From: Madeline [mailto:madsolano@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 02:06 PM
To: Raths Chris
Cc: ptierney@roxbury.org <ptierney@roxbury.org>; Overman, Amy (AOverman@njleg.org) <AOverman@njleg.org>; Anthony M. Bucco (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com) <ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com>; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich
Subject: Re: Fenimore stinks!
Stench is sooooo bad in Poets Peak!
I have called DEP last night & just now - no inspector has come...and they don't know if they will! Unbelievable! This is unreal...
~Madeline
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Raths Chris <rathsc@roxburynj.us> wrote:
> Ms. Solano,
> On Friday the Township mailed over 1,000 letters to residents in the area of the former landfill. This letter again includes the DEP number for residents to call if they smell odors. Since mid-November the DEP has received approximately 1,000 calls on the hot-line. There is another court hearing scheduled for January 10th at 9:30 in Morristown on this matter.
> Thanks
> Chris Raths
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Madeline [mailto:madsolano@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 12:05 AM
> To: ptierney@roxbury.org
> Cc: Raths Chris
> Subject: Fenimore stinks!
>
> Dear Dr. Tierney,
>
> As a concerned parent & resident of Roxbury I am reaching out to you for your assistance.
>
> I am sure you are aware of the smell and odor plaguing our town. Many children are standing at bus routes inhaling 'it'. What is 'it'? We don't know if 'it' is the reason for increased number of children being affected and going home sick.
>
> What do I know? I know there's a town communication that can alert the community about matters of concern (e.g. Hurricane Sandy) and this is a very important health concern.
>
> How can we access Honeywell alerts to advise parents if their children become sick when the 'smell is around town' to please call the DEP? Or ...
>
> Thank you,
> Madeline Solano
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

EXHIBIT 6.4

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/DEP%20Investigation/06%20DEP%20ODOR%20COMPLAINTS%20INCONSISTENCIES/rilee%203-15-13.htm
From: Raths Chris Sent: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:56:46 GMT
To: Diane Sudo; Martin, Bob; Randazzo, Cindy; Confer, Robert; Reilly, Rick;
CC: SenBucco@njleg.org; asmbucco@njleg.org; AOverman@njleg.org; AsmCarroll@njleg.org;
ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com; Mark Caputo (MCaputo@randolphnj.org); Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark;
DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich;
Subject: RE: Fenimore Landfill Concerns
Mrs. Sudo,
Thank you for the information. I have included the Townships Health Department on this response. Should you have
any more odors please contact the Health Department at 973-448-2028.
Thanks
Chris Raths

Christopher Raths, Township Manager
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
973-448-2002
rathsc@roxburynj.us


From: Diane Sudo [mailto:the_pseudos@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Bob.Martin@dep.state.nj.us; cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us; Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us;
Rick.Reilly@dep.state.nj.us
Cc: senbucco@njleg.org; asmbucco@njleg.org; aoverman@njleg.org; asmcarroll@njleg.org; Raths Chris;
ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com
Subject: Fenimore Landfill Concerns

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a concerned citizen of Ledgewood, NJ who is affected on a daily basis by the Fenimore
Landfill. Cutting straight to the chase, why would DEP Air Enforcement agents come to a complaint,
assuming that they would like to verify and actually do something about the odor, without a monitor.
Without a monitor he is free to claim that they cannot smell a thing. Standing in front of my front
door and my garage door the odors are practically lethal. The smell then seeps into my home
through badly installed windows, cracks in seals of garage doors, finally then sucked throughout my
entire home through the hot air heating system which is right on the other side of my garage wall.
Personally, 2x's an agent has shown up at my door without any equipment. J ust 2x's to my door,
numerous times to all my neighbors. Excuses are broken, at the office being calibrated, batteries
are dead because the weeknd staff forgot to charge them.

I believe that your office is attempting to sabatoge these numbers and the process which statisically
substantiates our claims. As a taxpayer who supports your salary and your personnel, I demand
that you do something about this. Why have you not demanded SEP to install a filtering or gas
burning/scrubbing whatever station to alleviate this smell. Deoderant is ridiculous and everyone
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/DEP%20Investigation/06%20DEP%20ODOR%20COMPLAINTS%20INCONSISTENCIES/rilee%203-15-13.htm
knows it. It's masking the problem temporarily and it's not even working, it's just more pollutants in
our air.

Can you please explain to me why you and your office refuse to take ownership of this nightmare
that you allowed. When will the Department of Environmental Protection Agency actually protect
the environment like your title reads?

Regards and Completely Fed Up,
Diane Sudo

EXHIBIT 6.5

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/DEP%20Investigation/06DOR%20COMPLAINTS%20INCONSISTENCIES/rilee-randazoo%2012-30-12.htm
From: Padilla, Magdalena Sent: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 17:50:09 GMT
To: rathsc@roxburynj.us; robert.kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us;
CC: AOverman@njleg.org; ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com; behrensg@roxburynj.us; crowleym@roxburynj.us;
defillippok@roxburynj.us; hallf@roxburynj.us; rileej@roxburynj.us; schmidtm@roxburynj.us;
zoschakr@roxburynj.us;
Subject: Re: hotline calls
I had two teams review this call plus reaffirm the protocols: every call is investigated.
As to the DEP hotline, the staffers there do not recall this dialogue and confirm they would not address the issue in
the way relayed by the resident.
As to the investigative unit, in the interest of engaging the resident in a sympathetic dialogue noting the numerous
other calls already received and investigated, the conversation mayve been misunderstood as disinterest or
insensitivity. We apologize for any miscommunication. Multiple investigators are familiar with Fenimore by now and
have responded to odor calls.
Our Hotline and Investigative Units know the protocols are to be followed irrespective of the frequency of calls and
they follow them. Rest assured every call is treated as if it were the first; candid conversations about the volume of
calls don't deviate us from conducting inspections.
As you know we've received many calls about odors. And every time we receive a call, it will be investigated.
Apologies for any misunderstanding. Have a safe and happy holiday.

From: Raths Chris [mailto:rathsc@roxburynj.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Padilla, Magdalena; 'Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us' <Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us>
Cc: 'AOverman@njleg.org' <AOverman@njleg.org>; 'abucco@murphymckeonlaw.com'
<abucco@murphymckeonlaw.com>; Behrens, Gary <behrensg@roxburynj.us>; Crowley, Mark
<crowleym@roxburynj.us>; DeFillippo, Kathy <defillippok@roxburynj.us>; Hall, Fred <hallf@roxburynj.us>; Rilee Jim
<rileej@roxburynj.us>; Schmidt Martin <schmidtm@roxburynj.us>; Zoschak Rich <zoschakr@roxburynj.us>
Subject: RE: hotline calls

Magdalena,
What were you able to find about this matter? Thanks in advance and have a Happy New Year.
Chris

From: Padilla, Magdalena [mailto:Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:20 AM
To: Raths Chris; 'Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us'
Cc: 'AOverman@njleg.org'; 'abucco@murphymckeonlaw.com'; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred;
Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich
Subject: Re: hotline calls

I am looking into this and will get back to you.

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 08:29 AM
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/DEP%20Investigation/06DOR%20COMPLAINTS%20INCONSISTENCIES/rilee-randazoo%2012-30-12.htm
To: Padilla, Magdalena; Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us <Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us>
Cc: Overman, Amy (AOverman@njleg.org) <AOverman@njleg.org>; Anthony M. Bucco (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com)
<ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com>; Behrens, Gary <behrensg@roxburynj.us>; Crowley, Mark
<crowleym@roxburynj.us>; DeFillippo, Kathy <defillippok@roxburynj.us>; Hall, Fred <hallf@roxburynj.us>; Rilee Jim
<rileej@roxburynj.us>; Schmidt Martin <schmidtm@roxburynj.us>; Zoschak Rich <zoschakr@roxburynj.us>
Subject: hotline calls

Ms. Padilla and Mr. Confer,
I received complaints that over the weekend employees on the hot line were informing residents that the DEP was
aware of the situation in Roxbury and residents did not have to call. This is counter to what we have been told in the
past. Please confirm if the protocol has changed.
Thanks
Chris Raths

EXHIBIT 6.6

5/21/2014 Monitors show massive amounts of noxious gas in Roxbury, DEP says it' s another false alarm
http://blog.nj.com/morris_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/02/monitors_again_show_massive_levels_of_noxious_gas_in_roxbury_dep_says_its_another_false_alar 1/3
CONNECT WI TH
US
Follow us on
Twitter
Like us on
Facebook
Monitors show massive amounts of noxious gas in Roxbury, DEP
says it's another false alarm
Loading Photo Gallery
Louis C. Hochman/ NJ.com By Louis C. Hochman/ NJ.com
Email the author
on February 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, updated February 11, 2014 at 10:45 AM
ROXBURY If the hydrogen sulfide monitor at Fenimore Entrance Road's readings from last week are to
be believed, massive amounts of the noxious gas were in the air more than ever detected before.
But according to the DEP, those readings aren't to be believed.
The ROX 8 monitor one of several in put place to detect gases after the Fenimore landfill in 2012 began
emitting rotten-egg like smells that several residents have said made them or their children sick
momentarily registered about 21,000 parts per billion of hydrogen sulfide Wednesday, according to an
activist group created to address issues surrounding the landfill.
Had those results been validated, they would have indicated gas levels nearly 20 times higher than any
previously detected at least for a moment. Particularly sensitive people can detect as little as 1 ppb,
health officials have told NJ.com. Most people start detecting a rotten egg-like smell around 6 or 8 ppb.
Residents have complained of respiratory issues, debilitating headaches and even nosebleeds at far lower
levels.
But Department of Environmental Protection Spokesman Larry Ragonese told NJ.com in an email Monday the
spike was "an obvious equipment malfunction."
In late January, a monitor at the same location also showed repeated spikes the highest being about
2,500 parts per billion.
Ragonese said The ROX 8 monitor was replaced after those erroneous readings, and "what we believe was
a temporary glitch in the replacement monitor seems to have ended."
By and large, odors from the troubled Fenimore landfill site have dropped
off substantially in recent months, while the DEP has operated a gas
collection system at the site. Readings at the ROX 8 monitor Monday
afternoon were about 2 to 3 ppb.
"Also, (its) important to note that these are sensitive instruments that can
NJ.com/ morris
pick up emissions from other sources, not just the landfill," Ragonese said.
The odors first became an issue in November of 2012, after developer SEP
trucked in construction debris as part of a state-approved plan to properly cap the long-abandoned
Fenimore landfill and install a solar facility. SEP and the DEP are waging a legal battle on multiple fronts,
each blaming the other for the smells. The DEP says SEP didn't follow all aspects of the plan it approved,
and SEP says the DEP interfered with steps necessary to keep the smells under control.
The DEP took over the site last summer, acting immediately on the authority granted to it when Gov. Chris
Christie signed a bill addressing older landfills.
Ragonese told NJ.com there were "no odors reported in connection with that spike (Wednesday). Also, the
landfill was totally capped in a snow and ice cover that in addition to the Posi-Shell coating on the landfill,
would have thwarted any escaping gases."
However, the DEP's own "Data Miner" database shows four people did contact the agency Wednesday to
complain about odors, some specifically attributing them to the landfill. Another two people contacted the
DEP with odor complaints Thursday. An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated eight complaints were
made; four complaints were registered under two different DEP programs, and each appears twice in the DEP
Data Miner.
Also last week, another monitor reflected momentary spikes showing levels of hundreds of parts per billion
however Township Manager Christopher Raths said those readings weren't sustained for long enough to
trigger the township's automated alert system for residents.
Last year, the township established the system, which calls for alerts to be broadcast and a "respite
center" to be opened up if sustained levels reach above 100 pbb. At levels above 510 ppb, the notifications
warn residents to expect mild, transient health effects from the gas. At 27,000 ppb, residents are urged to
evacuate to the respite center or shelter in place, and are warned of the possibility of irreversible or other
serious health effects. At 50,000 ppb, the warnings say all residents must evacuate or risk life-threatening
health effects, and the messages are also spread on an amplified, mobile audio system.
The township also didn't issue any alerts during the momentary readout of 21,000 ppb.
Raths had said after late January's seeming spikes, the township administration didn't want to alarm
residents unnecessarily if a reading didn't seem reliable.
"I think the position that we took is the correct position," he said.
But several Roxbury residents, reacting to a township Facebook post about the ROX 8 readings, took
issue with that stance.
"Town council, do you not think this important enough to notify the entire town?" Kathleen Drotar Toland
wrote. "Do NOT tell me you just did via Facebook!!!!! How can this not go out in a town wide phone call?
Are we not important enough?"
Aaron Markworth said via Facebook he was picking up on odors.
"Horrible on our side of Conkling today. Smelled it in the house and then started to feel faint while outside
snowblowing," he wrote "I think it's the strongest I've smelled it yet. Super pungent. Like hydrogen sulfide
but with a chemically lemony burning scent. Called in at 12:50 but had noticed it in waves for the previous
hour."
In an email sent to several township officials and CCed to NJ.com, resident Kenneth J. Collins said the
problems with the monitors show they're not reliable enough to protect Roxbury residents.
"The failure of all of you to make sure these readings are constantly monitored and high readings are
immediately addressed to put the public at ease is just absolutely irresponsible, leaving those who may be
exposed to toxins wondering if your allegations of false readings are true or you are simply just covering
your asses," he wrote.
2014 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

EXHIBIT 7.1

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/08aa6f73-35dd-fdef-1df9-f23d586e6768.html
CC: Ali, Saara; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert; Brubaker, Scott; Micai, Tom; Foster, Ruth;
tdemichele@matrixegs.com; DPetrocelli@matrixneworld.com; jchon@matrixneworld.com;
Subject: Re: June 4th meeting FENIMORE Solar
Fwd: Atmospheric Pressure Variation and Landfill Gas Detection (0Kb)
Rich,herearemyprogram'scommentsonyoursummaryofourmeeting,todiscussSEP'ssiteinvestigationmeasures,whichingeneralcovers
whatwediscussed.Ihaveaddedourcommentsinbrackets[]followingyourtextasemboldeningdoesn'ttransferbeyondoursystem.Ofcourse
asworkprogresseschangescanbemadewithDepartmentapproval,oratourrequest.Asyouknow,otherrequirementsforpermitsorapprovals
maybenecessaryforconductinginvestigatoryandclosure/developmentactivitiesasoutlinedtoSEPMarch5andagainMay19,2010.
Landfillgasneedstobedelineated,thishasbeenmentionedverballyoverthepastmonthsandneedstobeincorporatedintothefinalsite
investigatoryplanindetail.IbelieveIhadsentDennislandfillgassamplinginformationwhenthiscameup,andhaveitattachedithere.
Landfillleachateneedstobedelineatedandsampledforthestandardgroundwaterparameters.SEPneedstodevelopaplanforthatandsubmit
itforapprovalaspartofthefinalsiteinvestigatoryplan.
ThedetailsofhowSEP/Matrixareconductingtheinvestigationbasedonthisandanyfutureguidanceneedtobeincludedinanupdated
disruptionfilingthatclearlyoutlinesindetailalltheworkthatwillbedone.Wewillreviewitpromptlyandgiveyoufeedback.Thereisnoadditional
Departmentfeeforthat!
Ingeneral,whenSEP/Matrixhasquestionshowtoconductpartoftheinvestigation,notewhatisrequiredinthelandfillclosurerulesatN.J.A.C.
7:26-2A.9,andtheSRPTechRulesatN.J.A.C.7:26Ethatwerelyonforguidance,orofcourse,justgiveusacallforassistanceanytime.
Bob
HiBob,
IbelievethisisprettymuchwhatwecoveredonFridayMorning.
Foryourreview.
Bob,
AsperourJune4,2010Iamforwardingthisemailtoreviewitems
discussedinthemeeting:
1.AllnecessaryNJDEPpermitswillbesubmittedthroughBureauof
SolidWaste;[onlySWpermitsandrelateddocumentsshouldbesubmittedtoSWtoexpediteindependentprocessingbytheDepts.various
offices.]
2.Geophysicalsurveyoflandfillwillbecompleted;[explainhowindetaillintheupdateddisruptionfiling.]
3.Horizontalandverticaldelineationboringswillspaced
approximatelyevery200feetaroundtheperimeterofthelandfillandapproximately15boringwillbeplacedwiththelandfill;[atamaximumof
200feet,theymaybecloser.Shouldwastebeencountered,anadditionalsoilboringshallbeconducted25feetawayperpendicularfromthefirst
boring(expandingthelandfillperimeter).Boringsshallbecontinuedatthese25footintervalsuntilnowasteisencountered.Thislastboring
withoutvisiblewastepresentshallbeusedtodelineatethehorizontalextentofthelandfill.SoilsamplesshallbeanalyzedforfullTAL/TCL
parameterstodeterminethecleandelineationpoint.]
4.DelineationboringswillbephotographedandloggedbyMatrixandwillbelocatedbysurveyequipmentforincorporationintofuture
delineationmaps;[ok,followspecificsasnotedintheTechRules]
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/08aa6f73-35dd-fdef-1df9-f23d586e6768.html
5.Theboringswillbescreenedforthepresenceofvolatileorganicsandradiation;[perimeterboringsthatarefreeofvisiblesolidwasteshall
besampledforTAL/TCL+30todetermineifthepointisclean,whichwilldelineatetheextenetofthelandfill.]]
6.Theemplacedmaterialalongthenorthernpropertyboundarywillbeconfiguredappropriatelytoaccommodatethefinalcapandtoadhereto
thepropertyboundary;[specifydetailsinclosureplan;post-excavationsamplingandTAL/TCL+30analysisisneededtodetermineifthewaste
wascompletelyremoved.]
7.AMajorDisruptionpermitwillnotberequiredfortheworkalongthenorthernpropertyboundary;[includedetailsofthisworkintheclosure
planaswediscussed.]
8.SEP/MatrixwillnotifytheBureauatleast72hourspriortoany
fieldworkthatmayoccur:and[ok]
9.FillplanwillbesubmittedtoSolidWasteforyourapproval.[thisshouldbeadetailedplansubmittedaspartoftheclosureplan.]
10.Adraftclosureplanwillbesubmittedtoyourattentionfor
review.[thisshouldbeadetailedplanincludingallaspectsoftheclosureexplainedindetailwithsupportingdocumentation.]
Thanks,
RichBernardi
6099549001
POBox356
Clarksburg,NJ08510
Notice:TheinformationcontainedinthisentireElectronicMailMessagethread(EMM)andallattachmentsfromtheStateofNewJersey,
Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyoumustnotreview,transmit,converttohardcopy,copy,use,ordisseminate

EXHIBIT 7.2

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/d7959ae2-7bf2-5ba7-450a-fd9eee16fc94.html
To: Confer, Robert
Subject: Fwd: Atmospheric Pressure Variation and Landfill Gas Detection
Landfill Gas Monitoring Requirements for Atmospheric Pressure Optimization (0Kb) GasPressure08-
09.xls (63Kb)
IwanttobringtoyourattentiontheresultsofBrianPetitt'sandmyrecentinvestigationoftheeffectofatmosphericpressureonthedetectionof
landfillgas.Thedatafromthisinvestigationindicatetheimportanteffectofaseeminglyrelativelysmallincreaseinatmosphericpressure.
Increasesinpressureseverelylimitthedetectibilityoflandfillgasatlandfillventpipesandasmigratingsoilgasnearthegroundsurface.This
couldleadtotheinaccurateconclusionthatsoilgasemissionsarenotaconcernatasite,wheninrealitythecompressedcontaminatedgas
deeperinthegroundislikelytobereleasedwhentheatmosphericpressureisfallingorcouldmigratelaterallyintosubsurfacereceptorssuchas
basementsandutilitycorridors.Itispossiblethatrelativelysmallincreasesinbarometricpressuremayalsomateriallyaffecttheabilitytodetect
soilgascontaminantsunderyourrespectiveprogramsaswell.
Thecriticalfactoraffectingtherateofsurfacesoilgasemissiontotheatmosphereappearstobetherateofchangeofbarometricpressureandnot
theabsoluteatmosphericpressurelevel,asnotedbyYoung,etal..(AlanYoung,"TheEffectsofFluctuationsinAtmosphericPressureonLandfill
GasMigrationandComposition,"1990&1991http://www.springerlink.com/content/p22l2202164k1708/,Ihavethispaperifyouwouldlikea
copy).Thereisfurtherevidenceofthisphenomenonintheliterature,includingreferencebytheAgencyforToxicSubstancesandDisease
Registry(ATSDR),thefederalpublichealthagencyoftheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,inits,"LandfillGasPrimer-An
OverviewforEnvironmentalHealthProfessionals,"inChapter2and5,http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/ch5.html,whichstatesthatwith
risingbarometricpressureatmosphericairwillactuallyenterventingpipesandpassintothelandfill,whichisapparentlywhatweobservedduring
ourinvestigation.TheATSDRfurtherstatesthat,"PassivegascollectionsystemsmaybeusedtocomplywiththeNSPS/EGonlyatlandfills
wherecellsarelinedinaccordancewithSubtitleDofRCRAtopreventgasmigration."ManyofourlandfillsarenotlinedinaccordwithSubtitleD
requirements,thereforewewilllooktorequiringactiveventingsystemsforlandfillclosureswhenneededinthefuture.
Background
IhadnoticedwhatIbelievedwerepeculiarhighlyvariabledatainnumerousquarterlymethanelandfillgasmonitoringreportsandrecent
Departmentgassamplingataclosedlandfillsite.Thelandfillmonitoringdatawererangingfromnondetecttoveryhighreadingsabovethelower
explosivelimit(LEL)ofmethane~6%,asdetectedatthesamesitesamplingpointfromonequartertothenextquarter.Similarhighlyvariable
gasmonitoringdatawasalsoreportedatanumberofotherlandfillsitesaswell.Iwasconcernedthattheinconsistentgasdatamightnotbe
providinganaccuratepictureoftherealriskfrommigratinglandfillgas.Gasisgeneratedrelativelyconstantlyinalandfillsoonewouldexpectthe
landfillgastobedetectedratherconstantly,whichwasnotthecase.Isuspectedatmosphericpressurechangesmaybecausingtheextreme
varianceingasdetectionratherthaninadequatesamplingmethodology.Thereiscertainlyanecdotalevidencethatvaryingweatherconditions
canaffectlandfillgaslevels,whichisgenerallyreportedasdetectionofmoreorlessodorwithchangingweatherandatmosphericpressure.This
issometimesreferredtoas"landfillburp."Iwasnotawareofadirectquantificationoftheeffectofatmosphericpressurechangesonlandfillgas
emissionsanddecidedtoconducttheinvestigationreportedhere.
Investigation
IenlistedBrianPetitt'sassistanceandweusedtheMarpallandfillsiteinEatontown(PI132467)asthetestsitetoevaluatethepossible
relationshipbetweenbarometricpressureanddetectionoflandfillgasemissions.Thissiteisa~50yearoldlandfillthatwascappedwitha30mil
PVCimperviousgeomembraneabouteighteenyearsagoandthenashoppingmallwasconstructedonalargepartofthesite.Thesitehas
passivelandfillgasmanagementmeaningthatitwasclosedwithanetworkofgascollectiontrenchesandpipe,cappedwiththegeomembrane,
thenventedwith2verticalgasventpipes(aplasticJ-pipe)about6feethigh.Anareaadjacenttotheclosedlandfillwasdevelopedabout8years
agowithtownhomes.Someofthehomeswerebuilttowithinabout60feetoftheterminationofthelandfillcappinggeomembrane.Subsurface
monitoringwellswereplacedbetweenthehomesandthelandfill.Thewellsweremonitoredquarterlybythetownhomesiteowner'sconsultant
overseveralyears.ThesequarterlymonitoringreportsshowedintermittenthighlevelsofmethaneabovetheLELintermixedwithnondetect
readingsfromonequartertothenextquarteratthesamesamplingpoints.
BrianandItestedthesubsurfacewellsatthetownhomeareaandthelandfillventpipesformethaneonseveraloccasionsatperiodswhen
barometricpressurewasrisingorfalling.BiffLowry'sgroupalsoconductedonegasmonitoringevent,asdidLanganEngineeringatthemall
sectionofthelandfill.Theattacheddatatable,inthehighlightedyellowcolumns,showsthebarometricpressurebeforetestingandwhethergas
wasdetected.Notetherelativelysmallamountofpressurechangeoverabout12hoursthatseemstocorrelatewellwithwhethermethanegas
wasdetectedatallaswellasthegeneralmagnitudeofthelevelofdetectionbothattheventpipesandasmigratingsoilgasinthesubsurface
wells.
Conclusion
Basedontheselandfillgasmeasurements,thedataindicateanearperfectinversecorrelationwithchangesinatmosphericpressureassmallas
~0.13inHg(~3.4mbar)andgasdetectionbothatthelandfill'spassivegasventsaswellasgasmonitoringwellsafewfeetdeepinthesoilatthe
perimeterofthelandfill.Whentheatmosphericpressurewasrising,methanewasnotdetectedatallatmostorallofthesamplingpoints.
Conversely,whenthepressurewasfalling,gaswasdetectedwellabovetheLEL.Ibelievewehaveconfirmedthatarelativelysmallfluctuationin
atmosphericpressuretypicallycanresultinevenan"allornothing"inversedetectionscenariooflandfillgasat,andslightlybelow,theground
surface.Whenthepressureisrising,evenslightlysuchas~0.13inHgoverapproximatelya12hourperiodasindicatedinthedatatable,the
ventpipesdirectlyventingthesubsurfacegasfrombeneaththemembranecapshowedzeromethaneexitingthepipe.Likewise,monitoring1-
1.5'beneaththegroundsurfaceinsubterraneanwellsinthegroundneartheouteredgeofthecapshowednondetectorveryattenuatedlevelsof
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/d7959ae2-7bf2-5ba7-450a-fd9eee16fc94.html
methaneassoilgas.Iwouldnotethatononeoccasion,February27whenthepressurehadrecentlyfallenrathersignificantly~0.3inHg,ahigh
levelofgaswasdetectedwellabovetheLELandtherewassomuchsoilgaspresentonecouldevenslightlysmellthegasemanatingfromthe
groundnearthewells.Yetonotherdayswhenthepressurewasrising,therewasnosoilgasdetectedatallonseveraloccasionsnoranylandfill
gasodor.Whenthepressureisrisingthecontaminantgasispresentbutissuppressedanddisplacedlowerinthesoilcolumnbytheatmospheric
load.
Itappearsthatifsoilgasemissionmonitoringisnotdoneduringoptimalatmosphericconditionsforgasdetectiontheresultiseithernondetect,or
attenuatedgaslevelsduetochangingbarometricpressure.Thesemonitoringresultscouldbemisleadingandcouldproducenondetect,
essentiallyfalsenegative,readings.Whenthepressureisrisingandthesuppressedcontaminantgasisnotdetectedatthesurfacethegaswould
stillbepresentatdepthandcouldpossiblymigratelaterallyintobasementsorotherreceptorsbeneaththegroundsurface.
Application
TheSolidWaste&HazardousWasteProgram'sregulatorylandfillgasmonitoringrequirementisintendedtodetectwheregasmaymigratefroma
landfilltowardreceptorssuchasinhabitedstructuresinordertoprotecthumanhealth.Withthisdirectevidenceoftheeffectofbarometric
pressurefluctuationonlandfillgasemissionstogetherwiththeliteraturereferencesincludingtheATSDR,myofficeisnowrequiringthatfuture
landfillgasmonitoringoccurwhentheatmosphericpressureisfalling.Wewillalsorequirethereportingofbarometricpressureduringtheperiod
priortoandduringthegasmonitoring.Thisprocessshouldhelptoensurethatthemonitoringisdoneunderthemostoptimalatmospheric
conditionspossibleforsoilgasdetection.Thiswillalsoprovidethelandfillpermittingprogrammoredataregardingthisphenomenonforfuture
evaluation.Acopyofthelanguageweareusingforthesegasmonitoringrequirementsisattached.
BrianandIwereabletopredictoptimalgasmonitoringperiodsrathereasilyaboutadaybeforeinclementweatherwhenthebarometricpressure
istypicallyfalling.Also,duetoadailypressuretideintheatmosphere,theafternoonisapparentlytheoptimaldailytimeformonitoringratherthan
morningwhenthepressuretendstobeslightlyhigher.(Ankeny&Stormberg,"LandfillGasEffectsonVegetationandonWaterBalance,"
http://www.remtech2008.com/remtech/2003/pdf/AnkenyStormberg.pdf,seeespecially,"Effectsofbarometricpumpingonlandfillsystems"on
page3.)
ThisRutgersclimatologicalsitehttp://climate.rutgers.edu/njwxnet/dataviewer-netnopt.phphashourlybarometricpressureandotherclimatedata
formanylocationsinNewJersey.Thesesitesprovidepressuregradientmaps:http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/index_20090419.html
andhttp://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_con_pres.html.
Thisinformationmayberelevantandimportantforyourprogramsifyouareconductingmonitoringofcontaminantgasdiffusingfromtheground
surfaceorinsubsurfacemonitoringdevices,perhapsforsuchsituationsasvaporintrusion,NSPSandgaseousradionuclidemonitoring.
IwanttothankBrianforhistimeandeffortsonthisproject.Wewelcomeyourinputanycommentsandwouldbehappytoprovidemore
informationorassistanceifyouwanttoinvestigatetheeffectofvaryingbarometricpressureonsoilgasmonitoringbyyourprogram.
Bob

EXHIBIT 7.3

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/82ab3f2e-cc4b-e064-d2b8-7f4272fb0b55.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:50:52 GMT
To: Funk, Dawn; Goldman, MaryAnne; Assadi, Bashar;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy;
Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John;
Confer, Robert;
Subject: RE: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE
MaryAnne, please work with Bashar immediately to determine where well 10 is that had the elevated methane
reading and show me that on the site plan, have them retest the well immediately and report the results to us
immediately. Bashar please do the retest ASAP and report to me.
Bob


From: Funk, Dawn [mailto:dfunk@birdsall.com]
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Kozinski, J ane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello,
MaryJ o; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Richard Bernardi
Subject: J une 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project

Mr. Confer,

Appended please find the J une 2012 Monthly Site Activities for Fenimore Landfill Closure Project.


Regards,
Dawn Funk
Administrative Assistant
65 J ackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/82ab3f2e-cc4b-e064-d2b8-7f4272fb0b55.html
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945
dfunk@birdsall.com
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 7.4

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/15b5a4f3-8333-b191-4738-96ff16d38bec.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:23:12 GMT
To: Confer, Robert; Funk, Dawn; Goldman, MaryAnne;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy;
Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John;
image001.png (21Kb) image002.png (1Kb) SCANS00968.pdf (502Kb) image003.png (1Kb)
Maryanne and Bob,

Please find attached a map showing the location of the gas testing wells. Please note that well 10 is located more 700
feet away from the nearest home, and there is an elevation drop of ___ feet from where the nearest house to the
location of monitoring well 10. We have encountered a high reading in the March round at well 10, but the retest
showed less than 25% of LEL. We will conduct a retest at well # 10 tomorrow and report the results. Please note that
this is a localized hi reading that could be attributed to a pocket of gas at that particular location, which does not seem
to spread into any other location or sustain high level of methane gas. The retesting will be conducted tomorrow and
will be reported to your office. Thanks

Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com
From: Confer, Robert [mailto:Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us]
To: Funk, Dawn; Goldman, MaryAnne; Assadi, Bashar
MaryJ o; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, J ohn; Barry, J ohn; Confer, Robert
Subject: RE: J une 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE

Bob

Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/15b5a4f3-8333-b191-4738-96ff16d38bec.html

To: Confer, Robert

Mr. Confer,



Regards,
Dawn Funk
65 J ackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945
dfunk@birdsall.com
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 7.5

EXHIBIT 7.6

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/823cfb82-0045-5d27-861e-5afd7d1bb1d1.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:58:16 GMT
To: Assadi, Bashar; Funk, Dawn;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello,
MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John;
Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert;
Bashar, thanks, please install another 2 wells closer to the actual base of that weathered rock mound beneath the
housing project from where wells 9 and 10 are currently located to observe gas right at the base of the mound as wells
11-13 are observing. Pl ease label the new wells 9A and 10A respectively . Then take readings from those wells too
ASAP and report to me. In the future please test all of the wells at each scheduled testing event.

From this reading the landfill is obviously generating some high levels of methane gas at least at that one point. In
view of your schedule for Phase I, where this well appears to be located, when will Phase I be capped and closed with
the methane gas collection system installed?

Certainly in view of this reading I will require the system be activated immediately. I will review the design for the
gas collection in that area with MaryAnne, and we will get back to you if we believe gas collection design
modifications are required for Phase I.

Bob

Sent: Tuesday, J uly 17, 2012 12:23 PM
To: Confer, Robert; Funk, Dawn; Goldman, MaryAnne
MaryJ o; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, J ohn; Barry, J ohn

Maryanne and Bob,


Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com

Bob


To: Confer, Robert

Mr. Confer,



Regards,
Dawn Funk
65 J ackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945
dfunk@birdsall.com
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 7.7

Page 1 of 3 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/a67bc561-c772-03f9-4e53-e4861c012c98.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:23:05 GMT
To: Confer, Robert; Funk, Dawn;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello,
MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John;
Goldman, MaryAnne; Matthew Fredericks;
We will install the additional wells as requested. I might need a bit more time to install the additional wells. So the
testing might take place later in the week. With regard to the testing on June 26, all wells were tested on June 26
th
between 9:23 am and 1:34 pm. The testing did not follow the sequence from well 1 through 30. It started at 30, then
29, then 1 through 23, then 26, 27, 28, 25, and 24. This may have caused you to think that the testing was done on
different days.

I agree that there is a location around Well #10 that has exhibited high levels of methane readings which is of a
concern. I discussed the results with Mr. Bernardi and he instructed that we investigate this location and the area
around it, as well as check the gas levels at the site boundary across from Wells # 9 and 10 near the houses at the top
of the hill to check if there is an impact on the residential areas or not.

To: Assadi, Bashar; Funk, Dawn
Cc: Kozinski, J ane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJ o;
Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, J ohn; Barry, J ohn; Goldman, MaryAnne;
Confer, Robert

Bashar, thanks, please install another 2 wells closer to the actual base of that weathered rock mound beneath the
housing project from where wells 9 and 10 are currently located to observe gas right at the base of the mound as wells
11-13 are observing. Pl ease label the new wells 9A and 10A respectively . Then take readings from those wells too
ASAP and report to me. In the future please test all of the wells at each scheduled testing event.

From this reading the landfill is obviously generating some high levels of methane gas at least at that one point. In
view of your schedule for Phase I, where this well appears to be located, when will Phase I be capped and closed with
the methane gas collection system installed?

Certainly in view of this reading I will require the system be activated immediately. I will review the design for the
gas collection in that area with MaryAnne, and we will get back to you if we believe gas collection design
modifications are required for Phase I.

Bob

Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com
MaryJ o; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, J ohn; Barry, J ohn

Maryanne and Bob,


Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com

Bob


To: Confer, Robert

Mr. Confer,



Regards,
Dawn Funk
65 J ackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945
dfunk@birdsall.com
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 7.8

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/edfdaf17-9fd6-7a17-6f2c-8f0cac38dcd4.html
To: Assadi, Bashar; Funk, Dawn;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Randazzo, Cindy; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Matthew Fredericks
Subject: RE: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE INVESTIGATION
Bashar, thank you for your timely response to my request on this important matter. On some further reflection, I would like to suggest the following points to further clarify the additional gas investigatory measures SEP will conduct as soon as possible, as follows:
1. Conduct an additional 60-point methane gas survey between gas monitoring wells 8 and 13 on the site to evaluate whether there is any additional gas in that area. Use the testing parameters pursuant to Condition 24 of the Closure Plan for the site. Please conduct 30 of those gas test points right along the property boundary at the foot of Poets Peak. Please conduct the remaining 30 of the gas test points about 50 feet from the property boundary on the Fenimore Landfill site.
2. Also, please check for gas levels in the ground, near the houses at the top of the hill of Poets Peak, to check if there is an impact on the residential areas, or not, as you said you would do in your 7/17/12 3:23 PM email to me, below. The Department suggests that standard slam-bar probe gas tests be conducted right along roads and sidewalks that may provide barriers for the gas; and on the residential properties if access is granted, to determine if methane gas is present in the residential neighborhood. This work should be completed before Tuesday July 24, 2012 if possible, weather permitting, etc..
3. Please provide a plan for conducting this work on Friday July 20, 2012 if that is possible. The plan should indicate the sampling locations marked as closely as possible on a site plan.
4. Please note the following details of the testing from the survey and the Poets Peak neighborhood testing: depth of the test point; where the methane gas was detected, if any, in the test well; the level of methane in the well as both LEL and percent by volume; how long the detection remained during the test and the barometric pressure profile during the day and time of testing. The Department will review the results and may request SEP conduct further testing during periods of falling barometric pressure, or other conditions to further validate and quantify the presence or lack of methane gas from the tests.
5. Please submit the results of all of the gas surveys in the areas within 24 hours of completion of the surveys via email and U.S. mail directly to me.
6. Additionally, at least until more investigatory work is conducted, the Department recommends that SEP stop all on-site construction activity within about a 200-foot radius of Well 10 where the gas was detected, if that is feasible. Is this doable in view of your construction schedule?
As I know you and SEP are aware, and in response to your July 18, 2012 request, it is important to move as quickly as possible with this gas investigatory effort at the Fenimore site, therefore, the Department will hereby authorize Saturday work for this investigatory effort in view of the language in the Closure Plan requirement No. 33 providing for such action in view of the necessity of handling matters related to situations that may cause harm to human health or the environment. Please note that this authorization for gas investigatory work on Saturday July 21, 2012 is limited strictly solely to that activity.
Please let me know your thoughts on this and if you have any comments or changes.
Thank you in advance for your work on this.
Bob
From: Assadi, Bashar [mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com]<mailto:[mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com]>
To: Confer, Robert; Funk, Dawn
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Matthew Fredericks
We will install the additional wells as requested. I might need a bit more time to install the additional wells. So the testing might take place later in the week. With regard to the testing on June 26, all wells were tested on June 26th between 9:23 am and 1:34 pm. The testing did not follow the sequence from well 1 through 30. It started at 30, then 29, then 1 through 23, then 26, 27, 28, 25, and 24. This may have caused you to think that the testing was done on different days.
I agree that there is a location around Well #10 that has exhibited high levels of methane readings which is of a concern. I discussed the results with Mr. Bernardi and he instructed that we investigate this location and the area around it, as well as check the gas levels at the site boundary across from Wells # 9 and 10 near the houses at the top of the hill to check if there is an impact on the residential areas or not.
From: Confer, Robert [mailto:Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us]<mailto:[mailto:Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us]>
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert
Bashar, thanks, please install another 2 wells closer to the actual base of that weathered rock mound beneath the housing project from where wells 9 and 10 are currently located to observe gas right at the base of the mound as wells 11-13 are observing. Pl ease label the new wells 9A and 10A respectively . Then take readings from those wells too ASAP and report to me. In the future please test all of the wells at each scheduled testing event.
From this reading the landfill is obviously generating some high levels of methane gas at least at that one point. In view of your schedule for Phase I, where this well appears to be located, when will Phase I be capped and closed with the methane gas collection system installed?
Certainly in view of this reading I will require the system be activated immediately. I will review the design for the gas collection in that area with MaryAnne, and we will get back to you if we believe gas collection design modifications are required for Phase I.
Bob
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
Cranford, New Jersey 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
BAssadi@birdsall.com<mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com>
www.birdsall.com<http://www.birdsall.com>
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John
Maryanne and Bob,
Please find attached a map showing the location of the gas testing wells. Please note that well 10 is located more 700 feet away from the nearest home, and there is an elevation drop of ___ feet from where the nearest house to the location of monitoring well 10. We have encountered a high reading in the March round at well 10, but the retest showed less than 25% of LEL. We will conduct a retest at well # 10 tomorrow and report the results. Please note that this is a localized hi reading that could be attributed to a pocket of gas at that particular location, which does not seem to spread into any other location or sustain high level of methane gas. The retesting will be conducted tomorrow and will be reported to your office. Thanks
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
BAssadi@birdsall.com<mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:51 AM
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Confer, Robert
MaryAnne, please work with Bashar immediately to determine where well 10 is that had the elevated methane reading and show me that on the site plan, have them retest the well immediately and report the results to us immediately. Bashar please do the retest ASAP and report to me.
Bob
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/edfdaf17-9fd6-7a17-6f2c-8f0cac38dcd4.html
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Richard Bernardi
Subject: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project
Mr. Confer,
Appended please find the June 2012 Monthly Site Activities for Fenimore Landfill Closure Project.
Regards,
Dawn Funk
65 Jackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945
dfunk@birdsall.com<mailto:dfunk@birdsall.com>
[cid:image001.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0] <http://www.birdsall.com/>
[cid:image002.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Birdsall-Services-Group/155979654413907> [cid:image003.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0] <http://www.twitter.com/Birdsall_Inc>
________________________________
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

EXHIBIT 7.9

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/c289163f-d603-2bea-f865-55cbd0bdb9bf.html
This message was sent with High Importance.
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Assadi, Bashar;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Padilla, Magdalena; Confer, Robert; Skacel, Wolfgang; Castner, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert; Wolf Gary; Kinney, Robert;
Subject: FENIMORE : METHANE INVESTIGATION and MITIGATION
SKMBT_50012072301510.pdf (71Kb)
Rich and Bashar, I also need to communicate to you the following requests for additional steps necessary due to the methane findings. The levels of gas now being found at the property boundary at the northwest side of Fenimore are certainly significant and corrective/mitigative measures are needed immediately.
1. SEP should continue to delineate the methane distribution at the site. Please conduct testing right at the property boundary too as I had requested. In view of the levels there please do tests at 25' intervals at the entire length of the northwest boundary.
2. SEP should conduct the off-site area residential area testing immediately, with slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, etc. The entire housing project should be covered; I do not have a site plan of that development but tests should be done at 50' intervals, and then where gas is found at 25' distances in a radius from the hit.
3. SEP should install permanent in-ground gas monitoring wells, both at the northwest boundary; and in the residential neighborhood. A design for this partitioned well is attached.
4. Additional investigative measures should be conducted to determine where the gas may be migrating offsite. You may use fracture trace analysis, or other means to thoroughly evaluate where the gas could migrate. USGS may be able to assist you with that.
5. SEP needs to design and install an active gas collection system along the entire northwest portion of the landfill in, and adjacent to, the Phase I area of the Fenimore closure project immediately. This would involve a series of gas collection wells and an active blower system to pull the gas out of the landfill and the adjacent rock outcropping.
If you have any questions we can certainly discuss the details of these requests, but we look forward to SEP's quick action to keep the methane gas from migrating off the Fenimore site.
Bob
Bureau of Landfill & Hazardous Waste Permitting Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program Environmental Management New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

EXHIBIT 7.10

EXHIBIT 7.11

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/9a72e4b5-331d-f6b8-4210-c6b5314fc6fc.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:51:00 GMT
To: Rich Bernardi
CC: Assadi, Bashar; Kozinski, Jane; Padilla, Magdalena; Skacel, Wolfgang; Castner, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Wolf Gary; Kinney, Robert;
Subject: RE: FENIMORE : METHANE INVESTIGATION and MITIGATION
Rich, yes I would be glad to speak with you, I believe a meeting is getting set for wed., we should probably just talk then.
Bob
From: Rich Bernardi [mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:23 PM
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Assadi, Bashar; Kozinski, Jane; Padilla, Magdalena; Skacel, Wolfgang; Castner, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Wolf Gary; Kinney, Robert
Subject: Re: FENIMORE : METHANE INVESTIGATION and MITIGATION
Robert,
Thanks for coming up today.
Let's talk by Phone or email to discuss implementing a plan for testing Poets Peak area.
Thanks,
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:10 AM, "Confer, Robert" <Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us> wrote:
> cannot

EXHIBIT 7.12

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/b1ad24ca-e08c-82ad-52fa-7836f4167c85.html
From: Robert Kinney Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:42:12 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; bassadi@birdsall.com; Conti, Gina; Siller, Mary; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert;
Gary Wolf; Vincent Rizzo; Thomas.voorhees@dol.state.nj.us; Matthew Fredericks;
ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Padilla, Magdalena; Aaron Love; Jacqueline Quick; Jennifer Fradel; Jon Martin; Wayne Martorelli;
Subject: Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, August 1, 2012 re: Fenimore Landfill
Fenimore agenda 8.1.12.doc (27Kb)
All:

Attached for your review is a meeting agenda and related discussion materials for the meeting between representatives of
Strategic Environmental Partners (SEP), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Township of Roxbury. A
representative from the Department of Labor will also attend the meeting. This meeting is intended to help develop
appropriate responses to the recent discovery of asbestos containing materials and methane gas at the site, as well
as a discussion of other matters related to the site.

The meeting will begin at approximately 11 a.m. at Roxbury Township's Offices, 1715 Rte. 46, Ledgewood, NJ. We will meet
in the Council Chambers. Prior to the larger meeting, representatives from the Attorney General's office, SEP, DEP and
Roxbury Township will meet on site for a brief tour of the site and discussion of operations there.

We recognize that this meeting may not result in agreement on all of DEP's recommended responses to the asbestos and
methane discoveries, but we hope that it will be a useful and productive dialogue. We anticipate the need for additional
meetings and discussions.

Robert Kinney

Robert J. Kinney
Environmental Enforcement Section
P.O. Box 093
609-292-1557
609-341-5031 (fax) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this communication from the Office of the New
Jersey Attorney General is privileged and confidential and is intended for the sole use of the persons or entities who are the
addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, the dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the
information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately contact the
Office of the Attorney General at (609) 292-4925 to arrange for the return of this information.

EXHIBIT 7.13

8/1/12 Fenimore Landfill Closure Meeting,
Roxbury Township, Morris County NJ
AGENDA
1. Asbestos Issues and Response:
A. Discussion of Dept. of Labor findings
B. Discussion of DEP recommended steps in response to findings (see
attached outline)
C. Discussion of SEP proposed responses
2. Methane Issue and Response:
A. Discussion of findings
attached outline).
3. Alternative Access Road Discussion
4. Site Dust Control:
5. Road Dirt:
DEP PROPOSED METHANE RESPONSE ACTIONS
1. SEP should continue to delineate the methane distribution at the site. Testing at
the property boundary is recommended, at 25' intervals at the entire length of the
northwest boundary.
2. SEP should conduct the off-site area residential area testing immediately, with
slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, etc. The entire housing project should
be covered. It is recommended that slam bar tests be done at 50' intervals. If gas is
detected, additional tests should be done within a 25' radius from the hit.
3. In cooperation with DEP, the Department of Health, and Roxbury Township,
Residential Area Confined Space Testing (crawlspace/ basement) should be conducted.
4. SEP should install permanent in-ground gas monitoring wells at the Fenimore
property boundary with Poet's Peak and also at top of Poet's Peak. A
permanent monitorin well may be also be installed in the residential neighborhood.
DEP also recommends CH4 meters/alarms in residence crawlspaces/basements.
5. Additional investigative measures should be conducted to determine where the
gas may be migrating offsite, such as fracture trace analysis or other means to
thoroughly evaluate where the gas could migrate. The US Geological Survey may be
able to assist in this effort.
6. SEP should design and install an active gas collection system along the entire
northwest portion of the landfill in - and adjacent to - the Phase I area of the Fenimore
closure project. This would involve a series of gas collection wells and an active blower
system to pull the gas out of the landfill and the adjacent rock outcropping. Standby
generator power is recommended for the northwest property boundary. It is also
suggested that SEP investigate and design a soil purging system into Poet's Peak to
extract any CH4 that permeates it after the collection system is installed.
DEP PROPOSED ASBESTOS RESPONSE ACTIONS
1. SEP should inspect trucks arriving with materials generated by Materials
Recovery Facilities (MRFs) for asbestos containing materials (ACM). Trucks containing
ACM, and any other trucks from the same MRF, should be prohibited from dumping.
SEP should notify DEP if ACM is found in dump loads, so that DEP can communicate
with the MRF as to its procedures for ACM controls.
2. SEP should work with all MRFs from which it receives material (or from which it
intends to receive material), as to testing and controls for ACMs at the source, so that
improper materials are not delivered to SEP.
3. SEP should immediately investigate all areas of the site to determine if ACM
material exists in those areas of the site. If found, SEP should take the following steps:
a. Notify DEP and the Department of Labor as to location, extent and types
of ACM;
b. Immediately cover with at least 6 of clean fill all areas in which ACM is
found, so as to reduce exposure pathways to asbestos.
4. SEP should install air monitoring stations upwind and downwind of site
operations. These stations should be of a type that will capture particulate matter and
airborne asbestos fibers. Samples should be taken weekly and analyzed for asbestos
fibers.
5. SEP should implement aggressive dust control measures at the site to reduce
exposure pathways and off-site migration of ACM.

EXHIBIT 7.14

Page 1 of 5 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/fff42a92-36d7-9f8c-d87b-db713be11de8.html
From: Assadi, Bashar
To: Elias, Art
CC: Confer, Robert; RWBernardi@aol.com; Padilla, Magdalena; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Castner, John; Raths Chris; Lance, Robyn; Spring Lisa;
Subject: FW: METHANE PLAN AND MEETING RE: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE INVESTIGATION
Fenimore 7-24-12 readings.pdf (31Kb) Methane Gas Slam Bar Test Locations.pdf (1402Kb) BSG DETAIL BY PCC AR REPORT.pdf (66Kb)
Art,
Attached are the test results and a map showing the test conducted on 7/23 and 7/24. Additional test were conducted on Friday at the toe of the rock outcrop. I will have the results with me at the meeting.
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
Cranford, New Jersey
07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:29 PM
To: 'Confer, Robert'
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us'; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Castner, John
Subject: RE: METHANE PLAN AND MEETING RE: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE INVESTIGATION
Bob,
Please find attached the plan showing the test locations performed on 7/23, and 7/24. I am also attaching the results from 7/23 and 7/24. If you believe we need to do additional testing at the toe of the rock outcrop, please let me know. Judging from the three readings between MW# 10 and the toe of the rock outcrop, it seems that the high gas readings are limited to the area between MW# 9A and 50' north of MW# 9B. Please contact me with any questions.
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:19 PM
To: Assadi, Bashar
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us'; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Castner, John; Confer, Robert
Subject: METHANE PLAN AND MEETING RE: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE INVESTIGATION
Bashar, how is this coming, "Bashar, I think what would be most helpful for us would be if you would respond to each point in my email that directed the additional gas investigation, indicating status of the work, results, and a schedule for work not conducted.", we were asking for the plan to be in this morning?
Also, we would like to meet with SEP Wednesday 7/25/12 to go over the next steps for further investigation and mitigation of the methane recently detected at the northwest portion of Fenimore? Would SEP be able to come to the Department to meet on the methane issue Wednesday, if not then what would the next best date be for SEP?
Bob
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:06 PM
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us'; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane
Subject: Re: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project METHANE INVESTIGATION
Will do. Have a nice weekend as well.
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
Senior Vice President - Solid Waste Services Birdsall Services Group, Inc.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086 BAssadi@birdsall.com www.birdsall.com
To: Assadi, Bashar
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com' <rwbernardi@aol.com>; Padilla, Magdalena <Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us>; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us' <Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Skacel, Wolfgang <Wolfgang.Skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Kozinski, Jane <Jane.Kozinski@dep.state.nj.us>
That could be for Monday morning
Have a nice weekend
Bob
To: Confer, Robert
I will. I am enroute now. I will prepare a response when I am not driving.
--------------------------
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
To: Assadi, Bashar
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com' <rwbernardi@aol.com>; Padilla, Magdalena <Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us>; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us' <Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Skacel, Wolfgang <Wolfgang.Skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Kozinski, Jane <Jane.Kozinski@dep.state.nj.us>; Confer, Robert <Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us>
Bashar, I think what would be most helpful for us would be if you would respond to each point in my email that directed the additional gas investigation, indicating status of the work, results, and a schedule for work not conducted.
Then keep updating us in that fashion as you proceed with the work.
Thanks,
Bob
To: 'Assadi, Bashar'
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us'; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Confer, Robert
Thank you.
Do you have a schedule to conduct the monitoring in the residential neighborhood; the Department would like this done ASAP next week.
Thanks
Bob
To: Confer, Robert
Percent Methane. We will do as directed.
--------------------------
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
To: Assadi, Bashar
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com' <rwbernardi@aol.com>; Padilla, Magdalena <Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us>; Wolf Gary <Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Skacel, Wolfgang <Wolfgang.Skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Kozinski, Jane <Jane.Kozinski@dep.state.nj.us>
Are those %LEL or percent methane/vol.?
In view of these readings I need to do the 50 samples at about 25' intervals as I originally requested. Please confirm.
Thanks
Bob
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang
Bob,
We replaced MW10, we gave it designation 10R, and we sampled the replacement well along with 9A and 9B. The results are as follows 27.5% 7% and 7.2% respectively. 9A and 9B are on opposite sides of 10R. On Monday we will start the slam bar testing between 8 and 13 as we agreed.
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
To: Assadi, Bashar
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang; Confer, Robert
Thank you.
Bob
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: 'rwbernardi@aol.com'
Correct. There will be no activities at the site over the weekend.
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
To: Assadi, Bashar
Bashar, so then there will be no gas investigation or other related work such as clearing as I believe you said on the phone at all tomorrow and the site will be locked/closed as usual on Saturday correct?
Bob
To: Confer, Robert; Skacel, Wolfgang
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; 'Gary.Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us'; Randazzo, Cindy; Gerchman, Michael; 'rwbernardi@aol.com'; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; 'mfredericks@kesslerlaw.com'; Padilla, Magdalena; Choromanski, Ed
Bob,
I do not believe we would do any LFG investigations on Saturday. The area were the wells are is overgrown and we need to clear the area before we are able to do the slam bar testing. We are doing some investigations today and it is being witnessed by the Department personnel. We should resume on Monday afternoon, after the area is cleared.
As we agreed over the phone earlier, we would do points in between the permanent wells at 50' intervals, and if we encounter LFG readings, we will increase the frequency to every 25' in the area where the positive readings are recorded.
With regard to the investigation at the boundary line, we found that the rock outcrop extend up to the surface. So we would not be able to take readings at the boundary on our side of the property line. I propose that we install the two additional wells at the foot of the rock outcrop. We will also make an attempt to investigate the LFG on the other side of the property line, if the property owners provide us access. Rich has been in contact with the property owners and he would attempt to get us access.
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
To: Assadi, Bashar; Skacel, Wolfgang
Bashar hi, is SEP planning any gas investigatory or well installation activities tomorrow on Saturday?
Thanks
Bob
To: Confer, Robert; Skacel, Wolfgang
Dear Bob and Wolfgang,
We are installing the two additional wells between LF Gas MW # 9 1nd 10 this morning. We plan to do the sampling this afternoon at these two additional wells and at well # 10. We are also attempting to install two wells opposite to Well # 10 along the property line with the Poet's Peak housing development to the west of the site.
With regard to conducting additional gas testing between wells # 8 and #13, based on the fact that we do not have any positive hits of LFG between MW # 8 and MW # 13 except at MW # 10, I propose that we start with a less frequent sampling points at a 50' intervals as we have done along the boundary with the residence nearest to the landfill on Mountain Road. Should any of the points indicate the presence of LFG, we would conduct more frequent testing at the suggested frequency of one test every 20' in the area that would show the presence of LFG.
Three Department personnel have arrived at the site and we have visited the location of MW # 10 and the newly installed wells. We just found out that well #10 was buried during the fill placement activities. We are in the process of locating the exact spot so we could replace the well. Our technician as just arrived and we are starting to do the testing shortly.
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
07016
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 8:27 AM
To: Skacel, Wolfgang; Assadi, Bashar; Funk, Dawn
I will contact Bashar later if we do not hear from him to determine work, if any, tomorrow.
Bob
From: Skacel, Wolfgang
To: Confer, Robert; 'BAssadi@birdsall.com'; 'dfunk@birdsall.com'
To: Confer, Robert; 'BAssadi@birdsall.com'; 'dfunk@birdsall.com'
We will have an inspector present during testing. Please confirm that testing will occur on Saturday, July 21, 2012.
To: 'Assadi, Bashar' <BAssadi@birdsall.com>; Funk, Dawn <dfunk@birdsall.com>
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us <gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi <rwbernardi@aol.com>; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Matthew Fredericks <mfredericks@kesslerlaw.com>; Confer, Robert; Padilla, Magdalena
Bashar, thank you for your timely response to my request on this important matter. On some further reflection, I would like to suggest the following points to further clarify the additional gas investigatory measures SEP will conduct as soon as possible, as follows:
1. Conduct an additional 60-point methane gas survey between gas monitoring wells 8 and 13 on the site to evaluate whether there is any additional gas in that area. Use the testing parameters pursuant to Condition 24 of the Closure Plan for the site. Please conduct 30 of those gas test points right along the property boundary at the foot of Poets Peak. Please conduct the remaining 30 of the gas test points about 50 feet from the property boundary on the Fenimore Landfill site.
2. Also, please check for gas levels in the ground, near the houses at the top of the hill of Poets Peak, to check if there is an impact on the residential areas, or not, as you said you would do in your 7/17/12 3:23 PM email to me, below. The Department suggests that standard slam-bar probe gas tests be conducted right along roads and sidewalks that may provide barriers for the gas; and on the residential properties if access is granted, to determine if methane gas is present in the residential neighborhood. This work should be completed before Tuesday July 24, 2012 if possible, weather permitting, etc..
3. Please provide a plan for conducting this work on Friday July 20, 2012 if that is possible. The plan should indicate the sampling locations marked as closely as possible on a site plan.
4. Please note the following details of the testing from the survey and the Poets Peak neighborhood testing: depth of the test point; where the methane gas was detected, if any, in the test well; the level of methane in the well as both LEL and percent by volume; how long the detection remained during the test and the barometric pressure profile during the day and time of testing. The Department will review the results and may request SEP conduct further testing during periods of falling barometric pressure, or other conditions to further validate and quantify the presence or lack of methane gas from the tests.
5. Please submit the results of all of the gas surveys in the areas within 24 hours of completion of the surveys via email and U.S. mail directly to me.
6. Additionally, at least until more investigatory work is conducted, the Department recommends that SEP stop all on-site construction activity within about a 200-foot radius of Well 10 where the gas was detected, if that is feasible. Is this doable in view of your construction schedule?
As I know you and SEP are aware, and in response to your July 18, 2012 request, it is important to move as quickly as possible with this gas investigatory effort at the Fenimore site, therefore, the Department will hereby authorize Saturday work for this investigatory effort in view of the language in the Closure Plan requirement No. 33 providing for such action in view of the necessity of handling matters related to situations that may cause harm to human health or the environment. Please note that this authorization for gas investigatory work on Saturday July 21, 2012 is limited strictly solely to that activity.
Please let me know your thoughts on this and if you have any comments or changes.
Thank you in advance for your work on this.
Bob
From: Assadi, Bashar [mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com]<mailto:[mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com]>
To: Confer, Robert; Funk, Dawn
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Matthew Fredericks
We will install the additional wells as requested. I might need a bit more time to install the additional wells. So the testing might take place later in the week. With regard to the testing on June 26, all wells were tested on June 26th between 9:23 am and 1:34 pm. The testing did not follow the sequence from well 1 through 30. It started at 30, then 29, then 1 through 23, then 26, 27, 28, 25, and 24. This may have caused you to think that the testing was done on different days.
I agree that there is a location around Well #10 that has exhibited high levels of methane readings which is of a concern. I discussed the results with Mr. Bernardi and he instructed that we investigate this location and the area around it, as well as check the gas levels at the site boundary across from Wells # 9 and 10 near the houses at the top of the hill to check if there is an impact on the residential areas or not.
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; Dietrick, Suzanne; Skacel, Wolfgang; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert
Bashar, thanks, please install another 2 wells closer to the actual base of that weathered rock mound beneath the housing project from where wells 9 and 10 are currently located to observe gas right at the base of the mound as wells 11-13 are observing. Pl ease label the new wells 9A and 10A respectively . Then take readings from those wells too ASAP and report to me. In the future please test all of the wells at each scheduled testing event.
From this reading the landfill is obviously generating some high levels of methane gas at least at that one point. In view of your schedule for Phase I, where this well appears to be located, when will Phase I be capped and closed with the methane gas collection system installed?
Certainly in view of this reading I will require the system be activated immediately. I will review the design for the gas collection in that area with MaryAnne, and we will get back to you if we believe gas collection design modifications are required for Phase I.
Bob
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086 BAssadi@birdsall.com<mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com>
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John
Maryanne and Bob,
Please find attached a map showing the location of the gas testing wells. Please note that well 10 is located more 700 feet away from the nearest home, and there is an elevation drop of ___ feet from where the nearest house to the location of monitoring well 10. We have encountered a high reading in the March round at well 10, but the retest showed less than 25% of LEL. We will conduct a retest at well # 10 tomorrow and report the results. Please note that this is a localized hi reading that could be attributed to a pocket of gas at that particular location, which does not seem to spread into any other location or sustain high level of methane gas. The retesting will be conducted tomorrow and will be reported to your office. Thanks
Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 Jackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086 BAssadi@birdsall.com<mailto:BAssadi@birdsall.com>
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Richard Bernardi; Castner, John; Barry, John; Confer, Robert
MaryAnne, please work with Bashar immediately to determine where well 10 is that had the elevated methane reading and show me that on the site plan, have them retest the well immediately and report the results to us immediately. Bashar please do the retest ASAP and report to me.
Bob
To: Confer, Robert
Cc: Kozinski, Jane; wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us<mailto:wolf.skacel@dep.state.nj.us>; Dietrick, Suzanne; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us<mailto:gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us>; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo; Brubaker, Scott; Foster, Ruth; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Richard Bernardi
Subject: June 2012 Monthly Site Activities, Fenimore Landfill Closure Project
Mr. Confer,
Appended please find the June 2012 Monthly Site Activities for Fenimore Landfill Closure Project.
Regards,
Dawn Funk
65 Jackson Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
P: 908-497-8900 x6186 | F: 908-497-8945 dfunk@birdsall.com<mailto:dfunk@birdsall.com>
[cid:image001.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0] <http://www.birdsall.com/>
[cid:image002.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Birdsall-Services-Group/155979654413907> [cid:image003.png@01CD65BA.BF26DCD0] <http://www.twitter.com/Birdsall_Inc>
________________________________
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

EXHIBIT 7.15

Fenimore Landfill Emission Readings 7/24/12
Landfill gas readings - Dave Bachman from Birdsall
OVA- Bob Heil/Leslie Bates, NJDEP
FLIR Doug Bannon, NJDEP

Well CH4
(%vol)
CO2 O2 Barometric
(in)
CH4 (%vol)-
Background
CO2-
Background
O2-
Background
Barometric
(in)-
Background
Time
(hrs)
OVA
reading
(ppm)
FLIR
detected
#9B 29.9 15.4 5.4 28.62 2.8 0 20.4 28.62 0927 Flame Out No
Landfill gas
monitor zeroed at
this time.

~25 ft from 9B on
edge of vegetation
13 14.2 13 28.59 0.3 0 19.8 28.59 0940 1200 No
~50 ft from 9B on
edge of vegetation
5.3 5.5 13.8 28.59 0.5 0 19.8 28.59 0947 61 No
~25 ft from 9B on
trail
0 0.9 18 28.59 0.5 0 19.7 28.59 0956 16 No
~75 ft from 9B on
trail
0 0 19.3 28.56 0 0 19.3 28.56 1000 13 No
#11 2 0 19.3 28.56 3.9 0 19.4 28.56 1008 0 No
~75 ft from well
#11
2.9 2.3 17.7 28.56 2.8 0 19.6 28.56 1028 0 No
#12 2.7 0 19.6 28.56 2.8 0 19.8 28.56 1031 0 No
~ way to #13 2.8 3 12.8 28.57 2.7 0 19.7 28.57 1042 16.9 No
#13 2.5 0 20 28.57 2.7 0 20 28.57 1048 0 No
~50 ft NW and W
of #10
2.8 0.1 20 28.55 2.8 0 20.3 28.55 1145 0 No
~50 ft NW and E
of #10
2.5 0 19.9 28.56 2.8 0 19.8 28.56 1155 2 No
~25 ft NW of #10 2.8 1.1 18.2 28.55 2.7 0 19.8 28.55 1203 0 No
Along access rd
across from trailer
in wetland area
3.4 3.7 15.7 28.57 2.6 0 20.1 28.57 1216

EXHIBIT 7.16

EXHIBIT 7.17

Well CH4
(%vol)
CO2 O2 Barometric
(in)
CH4(%vol)
Background
CO2
Background
O2
Background
Barometric
(in)
Background
Time
#8 0 1.1 19.2 28.88 0 0 20.0 28.88 1330
50ftfrom#8 3.8 0.5 18.9 28.88 2.8 0 19.9 28.88
25ftfrom#8 0 0.5 18.6 28.85 0 0 19.5 28.85
75ftfrom#8 0 0.4 19.3 28.85 0 0 19.5 28.85
100ftfrom#8 2.6 2.8 16.8 28.85 2.5 0 19.7 28.85 1408
125ftfrom#8 2.8 0.2 19.5 28.82 2.8 0 19.8 28.82 1422
150ftfrom#8 2.8 0.9 18.9 28.82 2.7 0 19.9 28.82
175ftfrom#8 2.5 1.2 18.6 28.82 2.7 0 20.2 28.82
200ftfrom#8 2.8 0 20.3 28.83 3 0 20.3 28.83
#9 3.0 0 20.3 28.83 2.7 0 20.4 28.83
#9A 46.8 27 0.7 28.84 2.7 0 20.3 28.83 1455
200ftfrom#8 6.6 3.8 16.6 28.83 3 0 20.3 28.83 1558
#9 2.6 4.4 15.7 28.83 2.7 0 20.4 28.83 1610
25ftfrom#9 4.9 4.8 18.4 28.8 2.7 0 20.7 28.88
50ftfrom#9 57 42.5 2.1 28.8 2.7 0 20.6 28.88
75ftfrom#9 6.3 8.3 14.1 28.8 2.9 0 20.5 28.88
100ftfrom#9 40.1 28.1 8.4 28.8 2.9 0 20.5 28.88 1640
125ftfrom#9 32.9 11.3 14.8 28.81 2.8 0 20.5 28.88
#9A 48.2 26.4 1.4 28.81 2.7 0 20.8 28.81
#10 66.2 30.4 4 28.85 2.8 0 20.7 28.81 1704
#9B 31.6 17 2.3 28.8 3 0 20.6 28.8 1707

EXHIBIT 7.18

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/e82c954c-b095-1a09-6283-4a1392305cd3.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:01:22 GMT
CC: Kinney, Robert; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Castner, John; bassadi@birdsall.com;
Thomas.voorhees@dol.state.nj.us; rathsc@roxburynj.us; Confer, Robert; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman,
MaryAnne; Anthony M. Bucco; Kinney, Robert; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang; Siller, Mary; Conti, Gina;
gary.centifonti@doh.state.nj.us;
Subject: Fenimore - Operational and Environmental Action Plan Request
Message from "615-RICOH5002" (0Kb) Message from "615-RICOH5002" (0Kb) Message from "615-
RICOH5002" (0Kb)
Mr. Bernardi, please find attached a letter and attachments regarding the DEPs direction for SEP to develop an
Operational and Environmental Action Plan to address certain issues at the Fenimore Landfill Closure project. These
issues were discussed with SEP at the meeting August 1, 2012 in Roxbury Township.

If you have any questions please contact Michael Gerchman of my office at the number below for assistance.

Bob


EXHIBIT 7.19

EXHIBIT 7.20

EXHIBIT 7.21

EXHIBIT 7.22

DAVID KESSLER & ASSOCIATES, Lt.C.
DAVID KESSLER
MATTHEW M. FREDERICKS
MICHELLE CONROY*
ADAM S. KESSLER*
BRUCE
OF COUNSEL
ALSO AO .. ITTItO IN NT
" ",iso ", O"'TTEO IN
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Deanne M. Wilson, J.S.C.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1373 BROAD STREET
CLIFTON. NEW .JERSEY 07013
TELEPHONI;: 19731 773-J200
TELECOPI ER (973J 773-6533
fillilinitia!l8stname{9kessllt"lIw.com
August 10,2012
NEW YORK OFFICE
369 LItXINOTON AYENUE
15TH FLOOR
NEW YORI(, NEW YORI( 10017
1212131!!1 _009!5
Tn .. 3l!!l-ooe<!i
REPLT TO NEW JERSET OFFICE
Chancery Division, General Equity Part (presiding)
Courthouse
Washington & Court Streets
Dear Judge Wilson:
Re: Strategic Envirorunental Partners, LLC
v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection
This office represents Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC ("SEP") in the
above-referenced matter.
Kindly accept this letter update pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Your Honor' s July 3 1. 2012
Consent Order, wherein Your Honor instructed the parties to update the Court on the status of
the meetings and infonnal discovery ordered in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Court' s Consent Order.
On August 1,2012, the parties conducted a site visit at the landfill property. Present at
the site visit were representatives from NJDEP, Roxbury Township, SEP and their respective
counsel.
On August 1, 2012, following the site visit, the parties to this action including counsel for
the New Jersey State Police and a representative from the New Jersey Department of Labor's
Office of Asbestos Control and Licensing, met at the Roxbury Township Municipal Building and
discussed various issues related to SEP's property,
Annexed hereto as Exhibit A are copies of the minutes from this August 1, 2012 meeting.
(I set of minutes was prepared by me and another set of minutes was prepared by Roxbury
Township; both sets of minutes have been reviewed by all parties and no objections have been
raised to either set of minutes).
The primary issues discussed at the August 1
51
meeting were asbestos and methane at the
.site. To summarize, the Department of Labor explained how the small asbestos tile was found at
the property and the parties agreed that tile source of the asbestos containing material CACM")
was a DEP-licensed Materials Recovery Facility ("MRF") in South Plainfield, New Jersey. The
DEP acknowledged that despite there being procedures designed to prevent ACM from being
disseminated by MRFs, some ACM goes wldetected and is inadvertently allowed to leave the
MRF. In other words, the DEP is aware and appears to have been aware prior to intercepting the
ACM en route to SEP's site that MRFs have been the source of ACM traveling to landfills.
Regarding the issue of methane, SEP' s project engineer, Bashar Assadi, P.E., explained
at the August 1 sl meeting that SEP has quickly installed additional methane gas monitoring wells
at the site near the border between the landfill and the residential properties. All parties agreed
that SEP has acted quickly and appropriately in response to the discovery of methane and that
SEP has been working cooperatively with the DEP to address the hazards presented by the
elevated levels of methane gas discovered near the Poet's Peak residential development.
At the August 1,2012 meeting, the Township of Roxbury and SEP agreed that the DEP
should provide SEP with guidance on the steps necessary to further address the methane and
asbestos issues.
On August 3, 2012, the DEP sent a letter to SEP urging SEP to take certain enumerated
steps regarding the methane and asbestos. See copy of the August 3
rd
letter attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
The August 3, 2012 letter includes but is not limited to the following recommended
actions:
1. Design and installation of an active methane gas collection system;
2. Investigate and design a soil purging system;
3. Conduct methane testing in the Poet's Peak development including in the
back yards of private residential property;
4. Submit a proposal to conduct testing in the basements and crawlspaces of
the neighboring residences;
5. lnstall peonanent methane gas monitoring wells in the Poet's Peak
residential neighborhood.
6. Install methane gas meters/alarms in the Poet' s Peak. homes;
7. Submit an air monitoring plan for detection of asbestos, including
instal lation of permanent upwind and downwind air monitoring stations;
8. Begin working with DEP-approved MRFS to ensure that improper
materials are not delivered to the site.
The August 3, 2012 letter from the DEP includes tight deadlines (e.g. 14 days, 30 days)
for each enumerated proposed action.
On August 8, 2012, SEP's project engineer, Mr. Assadi, submitted to SEP a written
proposal for the professional services required in order to comply with the recommendations in
the DEP's August 3, 20121euer. See proposal annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
The August 8, 2012 proposal from Mr. Assadi estimates the cost ofperfonning the DEP
recommended actions will be $168,000.00, not including out of pocket expenses.
Accordingly, the OEP is asking SEP to take additional measures and incur substantia]
additional costs which are not required by SEP's Closure Plan. However, at the same time, the
DEP continues to demonstrate its intent to tenninate SEP's closure project and has refused to
discuss the additional issues necessary to resolve this matter altogether, as follows:
On July 27, 2012, prior to the August l SI site visit and meeting, -I wrote to Mr. Kinney and
requested a meeting with tJle DEP to discuss issues related to SEP's Closure Plan and
Administrative Consent Order ("ACO"). I invited the DEP to meet with us following the August
1 SI meeting with the Township. See Exhibit D hereto. I did not receive a response to my request
for a meeting with the DEP to discuss Closure Plan and ACO matters.
At the conclusion of the August 1,2012 meeting which included the Township, the State
Police and the Department of Labor, but which did nol include any DEP decision m k e r s ~ Mr.
Kinney stated that the DEP was willing to meet and discuss issues with SEP.
On August 8, 2012, I wrote to Mr. Kinney and asked for the DEP's position regarding
our request for a meeting. I renewed our request for a meeting and suggested that we meet in the
Courthouse or somewhere else in Morris County. See Exhibit D hereto. I have not received a
response to my August 8, 2012 email.
Accordingly, we have attempted to "meet, confer and share information in a good faith
effort w resolve the issues presented in this litigation, including capping the fonner landfill" as
required by Paragraph 6 of the Court's July 31, 2012 Consent Order. We do not believe the DEP
has done the same.
In the meantime, the stopping and inspecting of trucks en route to SEP's property
conducted by the New Jersey State Police and Department of Transportation has resumed. There
was no stopping of trucks from Thursday, July 26, 2012 (the day after we filed with the Court an
Amended Verified Complaint and application for Order to Show Cause) to this week (after the
parties met on August 1 SI as requested by the Court). It appears the truck inspections were halted
long enough for the DEP, the State Police and the Township of Roxbury to have a meeting to
discuss the methane and asbestos issues. However, now that those issues have been discussed,
the DEP will not respond to our requests for a meeting to discuss other issues of importance to
SEP, and the truck inspections have resumed.
The DEP is instructing SEP to quickly and aggressively take costly measures to address
the methane and asbestos issues. The OEP is aski ng SEP to expend hundreds of thousands of
dollars beyond what is required In SEP's Closure Plan, while simultaneously refusing to discuss
a global resolution of this matter. In other words, the OEP is instructing SEP to spend enormous
sums of money while at the same time actively trying to eliminate SEP's ability to generate
income. SEP can' t undertake these costly remediation measures if it doesn' t have an income
stream to fund them.
We again respectfully renew our request for the Court to order the parties to participate in
a settlement conference and to sanction the DEP for its failure to comply with Your Honor' s July
31 , 2012 Consent Order requiring the OEP to meet with SEP and to confer and share infonnation
related to the capping of the landfilL
Meanwhi le, SEP continues to make progress on its solar project See attached letter
dated August 10,2012 from Stephen Pearlman, Esq., additional counsel for SEP regarding the
solar project, to the State of New Jersey's Clean Energy Program Director. (Exhibit F).
Thank you for Your Honor'S courtesy. Please do not hesitate to call if Your Honor has
any questions.
MF!
Enclosures
Ce: Robert Kinney, Esq. , Division of Law (w/enclosures)(by email and UPS)

Minutes of Meeting - August 1,2012
Meeting began at II :05 in the Council Room of the Roxbury Township Municipal
Building.
Attendance
Anthony M. Bucco, Esq., for Roxbury Township
Art Elias. Keller & Kirkpatrick, for Roxbury Township
Lisa Spring, for Roxbury Township
Tom Vorhees, for NJ Dept. of Lahor, Asbestos Control
Vincent Rizzo, D.A.G. for NJ State Police
Gary W. Wolf, Jr., D.A.G. for NJ DEP
Robert Kinney, D.A.G. for NJ DEP
Mary Anne Goldman, NJ DEP
Gina Conti, NJ DEP
Mary Siller, NJ DEP
Robert Confer, NJ DEP
Richard Bernardi, Strategic Environmental LLC
Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq. for Strategic Environmental
Bashar Assadi, P .E., for Strategic Environmental
John Wyciskala, Esq., for Strategic Environmental
Attending by telephone: Christopher Raths, Roxbury Township
Prior Site Visit
The August 1,2012 meeting followed a site visit to the former Fenimore Landfill
located in Roxbury which began at approximately lOAM. Present at the site visit were:
Mr. Bucco, Mr. Elias, Ms. Spring, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Kinney, Gina Conti, Mary Siller, Mr.
Bernardi, Mr. Fredericks, Mr. Assadi and Mr. Wyciskala. The parties walked portions of
the property including Phase I of the Closure Plan.
Agenda
Mr. Kinney had on Jilly 31, 2012 circulated a proposed Agenda, a copy of which is
attached hereto. The meeting generally followed the Agenda prepared by Mr. Kinney.
A. Dept. of Labor findings
Mr. Vorhees described the Department of Labor 's licensing of contractors who remove
asbestos and asbestos containing material (ACM), which is typically found in structures.
Mr. Vorhees said when ACM is found in a landfill, the DOL's concern woilld be where
the ACM came from. Mr. Vorhees said the DOL is assisting the DEP with this issue.
Mr. Bucco asked whether Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC ("SEP") is required to
obtain a pennit from the DOL. Mr. Vorhees said that because the landfill property is not
a structure, no pennit from the DOL is required.
Mr. Kinney asked Mr. Vorhees what SEP can look for to jdentify ACM. Mr. Vorhees
said certain building materials such as siding, floor tile and vinyl asbestos tile (V A T)
often contain asbestos. Mr. Vorhees added that thermal insulation often contains asbestos
but that no thermal insulation has been observed at the landftll property.
Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Vorhees about the testing process and how the ACM was
discovered at SEP's property. r ~ Vorhees explained that the DOL did not go to SEP's
property and perform a survey; the DOL targeted specific suspect materials. Mr. Vorhees
said the DOL found 4 samples of siding and 1 sample of V AT which contained asbestos.
Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Vorhees if the ACM fouod at the property is friable. Mr, Vorhees
said there is a high potential for friability due to the activity at the landfill. Mr. Vorhees
said it is not practical to remediate the ACM found on the site, but that capping the ACM
with soil would be the best approach, provided the ACM is not continually disturbed .
. Mr. Bucca asked if air quality testing is necessary to test for airborne asbestos. Mr.
Vorhees suggested the possibility of exposure monitoring for people working on the site
as well as a downwind sampling station.
Mr. Raths asked if there would be any additional asbestos testing at the site. Mr. Vorhees
said he would recommend random sample testing and possibly core sampling. He
recommends downwind sampling at a minimum.
Chris Raths asked if Mr. Vorhees had prepared a report on the DOL' s findings. Mr.
Vorhees stated that the DOL had not been authorized to prepare a report
1.B. Discussion of DEP recommended steps in response to findings.
Mr. Kinney referenced an outline he bad prepared entitled DEP Proposed Asbestos
Response Actions (a copy is attached hereto), which was attached to the Agenda. The
outline identified five (5) actions which the DEP recommends SEP take in response to the
discovery of ACM at the site.
Mr. Kinney explained that the DEP believes the ACM found at SEP' s propertY was from
a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in South Plainfield, and was delivered to the site by
a company called ACE Trucking. Me. Kinney stated that SEP is no longer accepting
material from ACE Trucking, that SEP should perfonn visual inspections of materials
received from MRFs aod should notify the DEP if aoy additional ACM is found.
Mr. Kinney stated that MRFs should be testing materials filey receive for the presence of
ACM, that there should be AQAC in place to prevent ACM from leaving MRFs. Gary
Wolf explained that each MRF has an Operations Plan designed to take out ACM upon
2
receipt and that MRFs have people on site who are trained to visually identify ACM
before any material is processed or crushed. Mr. Wolf stated that despite the procedures
in place to discover ACM, sometimes ACM slips through and leaves the MRF. Mr. Wolf
noted that SEP has proposed testing for ACM at the MRFs from which SEP receives fill
material.
Mr. Raths asked how many MRFs are in New Jersey. Mr. Confer estimated that there are
approximately 70 MRFs in New Jersey.
Mr. Kinney stated that the Materials Acceptance Protocol (MAP) which is part ofSEP' s
Closure Plan authorizes SEP to accept material from MRFs.
Mr. Bucca stated that he believes that on a regular basis trucks have been stopped and
inspected and have been calTying more weight than what is reflected on the trucks biU of
lading. Mr. 'Fredericks said he had reviewed all of the State Police inspection reports
provided by Mary Beth Wood and had not seen any violations reflecting a bill of lading
which did not match the truck's weight.
Mr. Bucco suggested that having a scale on SEP's property might help the situation. Mr.
Bernardi stated that he had expressed his willingness to put a scale at the KingtoWll
Diesel huckstop. Mr. Raths stated that an application for a permit to put a scale at the
KingtownDiesel truckstop should be submitted and that he would review the application..
I.C. SEP's Proposed Responses
Mr. Kinney suggested SEP take additional samples in Phase I to test for ACM. Mr. Wolf
suggested SEP take steps to limit the migration of ACM onto and off of the site,
including controlling the dust from the site.
Mr. Kinney stated that the UEP would like air monitoring performed at the site including
upwind and downwind monitoring stations. Mr. Wolf suggested the use of "CEM", a
stream of data to monitor particulates and fibers. Mr. Vorhees suggested possibly using a
fibrous aerosol monitor.
Mr. Bucco asked whether the DEP would come up with a plan and map out the
requirements for SEP to follow regarding asbestos. Mr. Wolf replied that it is not typical
for the State to do engineering. that typically the party in question (SEP) would come up
with a plan for the DEP to review. Mr. Bucco stated that someone should give SEP
specific instructions telling SEP what to do to manage and limit ACM at the site.
Robert Kinney raised the issue of dust at the site which could potentially carry friable
asbestos. Ms. Siller recommended that asphalt millings be used to pave the entranceway
to the site, which would reduce the dust.
3
Mr. Bucco said that that the roads around the site were a mess at the time of the site visit
prior to the meeting. Mr. Bernardi stated that SEP has a street sweeping machine on site
and that the streets were swept this morning and are swept every afternoon.
Mr. Bemardj also stated that SEP has a water truck on site to help with the dust and that
SEP had submitted to the Township an application for a permit to get a pennanent water
line to the property. Mr. Bemardi said the dust could be reduced by paving the
entranceway with asphalt millings as suggested by Ms. Siller. Mr. Bernardi said the
paving would have to be done on a Saturday to avoid interfering with the trucks entering
and exiting the site via the entranceway. Mr. Raths stated that operating the site on a
Saturday would create an issue with local residents. Ms. Siller explained that the paving
could be completed in one moming. Mr. Bernardi stated that the only activity which
would take place on a Saturday would be paving the road using a loader and a spreader.
and that no trucks would be permitted to bring material to the site on a Saturday.
Mr. Bucco stated to Mr. Raths that the-y should talk about SEP's request to pave the
entranceway on a Saturday morning.
Mr. Bernardi said the paving of the entranceway could be done from about 7AM to 12PM
on a Saturday morning and would only have to be repaved about every 2-3 months. Mr.
Bucco said the Township would consider that. Mr. Raths said he is concerned that
Saturday work would become an all the time thing.
Ms. Spring asked who will make sure SEP takes the steps required to control the ACM.
Mr. Kinney responded, saying that SEP would respond to the DEP's recommendations
and that the DEP would review SEP' s response. Mr. Kinney noted that Ms. Conti visit<;
the site at least once per week. Mr. Kinney said that the plan to address the ACM would
not require an amendment to SEP' s ACO or to the Closure Plan. Mr. Kinney said that
there are workers on site who could potentially be exposed to ACM and that this creates a
safety issue as well as a public health issue. He said the parties can find a cooperative
and mutually acceptable way to resolve and monitor these issues.
Mr. Wolf stated that Paragraph 14 of SEP's Closure Plan provides that if ACM is found,
a response would be implemented under the guidance of the DEP, which is typical of
how these things are generally bandIed.
Mr. Bernardi asked who is in charge of the asbestos abatement program which is
intended to remove all ACM from a site before any building is demolished. Mr. Vorhees
responded that the DOL handles this in conjunction with the Dept. of Health. Mr.
Bernardi said that MRFs are not permitted to accept ACM and Mr. Confer confinned
this. Mr. Vorhees stated that contractors who demolish buildings are notorious for
knocking down buildings before the DOL and Dept. of Health can inspect them and that
this is sometimes done intentionally. Mr. Vorhees referred to an article by the DOL
intended to educate local code officials about the importance of requiring and obtaining
docwnentation confinning there is no ACM in building prior to demolition.
4
Mr. Kinney noted that MRFs send materials to many places other than SEP' s property, so
there is likely ACM going to other sites as well and that this is a larger issue at other
facilities in the State, and that the DEP is acutely aware ofMr. Vorhees' concerns.
Mr: Bernardi stated that he is as concerned as everyone else regarding the issue of
asbestos and that SEP will go to the MRFs and conduct grab samples as part of its efforts
to avoid receiving any additional ACM from the MRFs.
Mr. Confer asked Mr. Bernardi if it might help mitigate the dust issue if the fill material
were wetted down or made damp at the MRFs. Mr. Bernardi and Mr. Assadi answered
yes. that wetting the material at the MRF prior to delivery to SEP would help with the
dust.
Mr. Kinney reiterated that SEP and the DEP will come up with a joint plan to address the
asbestos issue. Mr. Raths said he would like to review the plan.
Mr. Confer asked how long it takes to get soil onto the site to cover fill material brought
to the site. Mr. Assadi stated that SEP has incoming soil on site and that soil has already
been spread over fiU materiaJ at the site.
2-. Methane Issue and Response
Mr. Kinney stated that the DEP and SEP have been working very closely in response to
the discovery of elevated levels of methane gas at SEP' s property. He said that the
parties are working in the right direction on this issue.
Mr. Bucca asked how serious is the methane issue. Mr. Raths made reference to the
2005 report on the fonner landfiU prepared by the Louis Berger Group which identified
methane at the property. Mr. Raths stated his belief that fmding methane at a landfill was
like finding salt in the ocean.
Mr. Confer said that he has seen the 2005 Berger report. He said that SEP is doing a
worthy job of monitoring the Qlethane levels at the property. He said that as anold
landfill, methane gas is naturally present on the property and that it is good that SEP has
found it. Mr. Confer explained that the methane gas can be remediated with a blower
system, but the issue is whether the methane gas has migrated off site. As long as the gas
stays on the landfill, it is ok, but the concern over the gas increases if it migrates offsite,
he said.
Mr. Raths asked why no methane testing was done in 2005. He also asked why methane
remediation hadn't been done to date if SEP' s Closure Plan requires installation of a
methane remediation system. Mr. Confer answered that methane had not been
considered a major problem, but that methane should be contained and extracted and that
the DEP is working with SEP on doing that.
5
Me. Raths again asked whether SEP's Closure Plan requires methane gas remediation.
Mr. Confer responded that the Closure Plan requires a methane gas mitigative system
including extraction wells and piping down to the barrier or bedrock layer as part of a
methane gas capture system. Mr. Confer explained that SEP's Closure Plan is a phased
closure approach, that the full methane gas mitigation system isn' t required to be installed
until the end of the closure project, and that SEP is installing the methane gas system as
SEP proceeds with each phase. Mr. Confer explained that it is difficult to install wells
and pipes in the phase areas that are active because trucks are delivering fill material to
the active phases.
Mr. Kinney referenced an agenda addendum docwnent entitled DEP Proposed Methane
Response Actions (copy attached hereto), which lists 6 recommended actions for SEP to
take in response to the discovery of elevated levels of methane gas, as foll ows:
1. SEP should continue to delineate the methane distribution at the site.
Testing at the property boundary is recommended, at 25' intervals at the entire
length oftbe northwest boundary.
2. SEP should conduct the off-site area residential area testing immediately,
with slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, etc. The entire housing project
should be covered. It is recommended that slam bar tests be done at SO' intervals.
If gas is detected, addjtional tests should be done within a 25' radius from the hit.
Residential Area Confined Space Testing (crawlspace! basement) should be
conducted.
4. SEP should install permanent in-ground gas monitoring wells at the
Fenimore property boundary with Poet's Peak and also at top of Poet's Peak. A
permanent monitoring well may be also be installed in the residential neighborhood.
DEP also recommends CH4 meters/alarms in residence crawlspaceslbasements.
5. Additional investigative measures should be conducted to determine where
the gas may be migrating offsitc, such as fracture trace analysis or other means to
thoroughly evaluate where the gas could migrate. The US Geological Survey may
be able to assist in this effort.
6. SEP should design and instal] an active gas collection system along the entire
northwest portion of the landfill in - and adjacent to - the Phase I area of the
Fenimore closure project. This would involve a series of gas collection wells and an
active blower system to pull the gas out of the landfill and the adjacent rock
outcropping. Standby generator power is recommended for the northwest property
boundary. It is also suggested that SEP investigate and design a soil purging system
into Poet's Peak to extract any CH4 that permeates it after the collection system is
installed.
6
Mr. Kinn.ey explained that the DEP's concern is the migration of methane off-site. as
methane gas, which is lighter than air, will find the..path of least resistance. He said the
DEP wants to deal with the methane gas as quickly as possible.
Mr. Assadi then displayed a map of SEP' s lot and the surrounding area and pointed out
on the map where SEP had installed methane gas monitoring wells. He said SEP had
installed 7 wells near the boundary of SEP' s property and a neighboring residential
property.
Mr. Assadi stated that in March 2012 the reading from well #10 showed 5% methane gas
by volume, but that in June 2012 well #10 showed a reading of 44.5% methane gas by
volume. Mr. Assadi stated that he irrunediately reported the elevated methane level to the
DEP and that he and Robert Confer have been communicating and addressing the issue.
Mr. Assadi reported that in the area between wells #9 and #1 I, the methane levels went
down and there is no concem. However, there is an area of about 300 feet which still
shows high readings of methane gas and this area, which is located at the toe of a rock
outcropping at the base of the Poet' s Peak residential development, is an area of concern.
Mr. Assadi suggested it may be necessary or advisable to install gas monitoring wells
and/or alanns in the basements and/or backyards of the homes in Poet's Peak as
suggested in the DEP recommendations (#4) above.
Mr. Kinney stated that the parties have discussed that opportunities to go into residences
will require everyone' s cooperation because no one wants to make the people of Poet's
Peak nervous or alarmed.
Mr. Raths stated that the Township has wells, a pwnp bouse, 2 large retention basins and
other facilities within the Poet's Peak development which could possibly be used as
testing areas in lieu of installing wells on private property. Mr. Assadi agreed that testing
in public areas might be a good place to start. Mr. IGnney said this was a good
suggestion that the parties should discuss. Mr. Raths asked Ms. Spring if someone could
identifY all of the Township's property in the Poet's Peak area so that testing can be done
in public areas as soon as possible.
Mr. Kinney asked whether the Township would agree to permit monitoring wells on
Township owned property. Mr. Raths said he thinks so, that this would most likely be
preferable in order to avoid panicking residents.
Mr. Bucco asked what does the presence of the methane gas mean. He stated that there is
a Township meeting on Tuesday, he anticipates questions from residents about this issue
and he should be prepared to answer those questions.
Mr. Confer explained as follows: there is I acre of the landfIll where there are high
readings of methane gas. The hi gh readings exceed 40% of methane gas by volume. The
lower explosive limit for methane gas is 7%, so at levels below 7%, methane gas is not a
risk to explode. However, it is a fact that methane gas can explode at levels between 7%
and about 80%. Mr. Confer said that any spark can explode methane gas; he cited the
7
example of an Ocean County landfill where a building was destroyed by an explosion.
Mr. Confer said methane gas is controllable with a negative pressure system which would
be at the end of the landfill capping, although the DEP is asking SEP to install the
negative pressure system now in response to the elevated levels of methane fOW1d at the
sitc. Mr. Confer noted that the crushing and rolling of fill matcrial at thc site is not a
threat to explode the methane gas and the discovery of methane gas docs not require
shutting down the closure process.
Mr. Wolf said the DEP will work with the Township about how to respond to questions
if any, at the Township meeting on Tuesday, but that the DEP cannot agree to attend the
meeting. Mr. Bucco requested that the DEP provide to the Township a written statement
that can be posted on the Township's website and read aloud at the meeting.
Mr. Elias suggested the possibility of testing only the approximately 12 houses in Poet's
Peak which are situated along the border with the landfill.
Mr. Kinney noted that it was 1:15PM and that 011 behalf of the DEP, he felt the parties
were moving ill the right direction with respect to the issues discussed. Mr. Kinney
referenced the Township's desire to have a working document to give to the public
regarding details on how methane issue wiU be addressed and he then asked Mr. Bernardi
how much time would be needed to provide such details. Mr. Bernardi said that SEP
must first go out and test and see where and what levels of methane are fOW1d. Mr.
Bernardi stated that the working document outlining the proper approach to the methane
issue would have to come from the DEP. Mr. Bucco stated that he agreed with Mr.
Bernardi, that the DEP had to tell SEP what jt should do on this issue.
Alternate Access Road
Mr. Bucco stated that SEP and the Township have exchanged an Access Agreement
which was complete but needed to be executed by both parties. He stated that Mr. Elias
was making arrangements with SEP's engineers to get access to the site to perform the
alignment for the proposed road. He stated that after that, the DEP agent responsible for
determining the presence of the Indiana Bat would visit the site and that from there, the
land use peonit would be approved. Mr. Bucco stated that Shippo had signed off on the
plan for the road.
Mr. Bucca advised that the DEP needs confinnation that SEP will continue the haul road
on SEP's property down to the point where the new road will meet SEP's property.
Mr. Bucco also stated that the Township of Roxbwy has spent a lot of money in
connection with this matter that the Township is not prepared to pay for the construction
of the alternate access road and that although there have been discussions with the DEP
regarding the funding of the road, nothing has been confllTIled and a funding source must
still be identified.
8
Mr. Bucca confinned that upon completion of the access road, SEP will have an access
agreement from the Township giving SEP permission to use the access road, which will
cross Tovmship property. for the trucks to deliver the fill material to the site.
Mr. Kinney expressed concern that the DEP was identified as a party to the access
agreement between SEP and the Tovmship. His primary concern is the indemnification
provision in the access agreement, as he stated the DEP cannot agree to indemnify SEP.
Mr. Kituley suggested that some friendly amendments could be made to the access
agreement.
At I :30 Mr. Kinney stated that everything on the agenda had been covered.
Mr. Raths and Mr. Bucco again raised the issue of the mud on the roads and Ms. Siller
noted again that allowing SEP to pave the entranceway to the site would help with this.
Mr. Bucco reiterated the need to address the weight of the trucks arriving at the site. Mr.
Bernardi responded that he would love to put a scale at the Kingtown Diesel truckstop.
Mr. Raths said the Township will await an application for the scale.
Ms. Siller said it is important to get a handle on the issue of the truck weights.
Mr. Raths thanked everyone for traveling to Roxbury to attend the meeting.
Mr. Bucca asked Ms. Spring to produce minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Kinney stated that the OEP is willing to get together at another time to discuss other
issues with SEP.
9
Infonnalion
973-448-2000
Court
973-448-2034
Engineer
973-448-2018
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffIcial
973-448-2012

973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and
Council
973-448-2001

973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Works
973-448-2069
Tax Collector
and Util'lies
973-446-2022
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
WaterPlanl
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www_roxburynj.us
Date of Fenimore LandfiJ) Closure Meeting: August 1, 2012
All who attended:
Chris Raths - by teleconference
Lisa Spring - CFOI Acting Township Manager
Anthony Bucca - Township Attorney
Art Elias- Keller and Kirkpatrick
Matthew Fredericks - Strategic Environmental
Bashar Assado - Birdsall Engineering
Rich Bernardi - Owner of Strategic Environmental
10M Wyciskala - Strategic Environmental
Gina Conti - NIDEP inspector
Mary Siller - NJDEP supervisor
Mary Ann Goldman - NJDEP
Robert Kinney - Office of the Attorney General
Gary Wolfe, DAG - NJDEP Counsel
Vincent Rizzo, DAG - Attorney General for State Police
Robert Confer - DEP Solid Waste
Tom Voorhees - NJ Dept of Labor Asbestos Control
Mr. Kinney ofDEP opened the meeting, prefacing it with the agenda that he put together the
night before. He then handed the meeting over to Tom Voorhees from the DOL. He
commented that landfills are not usually under his jurisdiction but that he and his team were
assisting the DEP, Mr. Kinney, in taking samples_ There is no permit needed from DOL.
ASBESTOS
Mr. Kinney asked Tom what kind of samples he would be looking for at the landfill. Tom
explained that he would be looking for building materials, like transite (suspect asbestos),
siding materials, fire protection insulation, V AT - vinyl tile usually 9x9. The DOL targeted
certain materials that were suspect. They took seven samples - 3 were positive for asbestos.
There were 4 siding samples, transite material and 1 V AT sample. Mr. Bueeo asked if it was
friable? Tom answered positively to that <l.uestioq, due to thc fact that it is being pulverized by
equip'ment on the site.
Chris asked what would Tom do to remediate? Tom's response was that it is not practica1 to
remediate, but rather DEP would suggest capping the material. Tony asked if air quality
testing should be done due to the exposure. Tom suggested 8 hour time-waited periods of
tcsting for personnel on the landfill and a stationary sample downwind. Chris asked about
2011 "America's Promise Alliance 1 00 Best Communities for Young People"
Infonnatioo
973-448-2000
Court
973-448-2034
Eiill
973-448-2006
Fire Official
973-448-2012
Heallt!
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and

973--448-2001
Elili<!!
973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Works
973-448-2069
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Assessor
973-448-2021
Tax- Collector
and Uflrties
973-448-2022
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Water Plant
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www_roxburynj.us
sampling or testing? Tom suggested more random samples or core sampling, downwind
samples and personnel samples. Chris asked if Tom would be drafting a report on the
findings. Tom said he had not been directed to do so yet and Mr. Kinney added that the
attached outline for the meeting is consistent with Tom's recommendations.
Gary Wolfe spoke about the content of the materials being trucked into the site and said that
they should be inspected for hazardous materials. Bashar and SEP already submitted a plan
for this action. The point was that there are over 70 Materials Recovery Facilities in the State
ofN] and only a few are actual ly sending material to this site.
Mr. Bucco addressed the attorney for SEP commenting on the fact that there were several
reports submitted, from the State Police inspections that were over the weight actually listed
on the biJI of lading for the contents. There was an instance wbere the bill of lading said
70,000 GVW and the truck weighed in at the State Police checkpoint at 84,000 GVW. The
attorney for SEP, Matthew Fredericks, said that he did not see a report reflecting those facts.
Mr. Russo spoke confLIllling this fact and said that all of the documentation from the
checkpoint had been sent to SEP. Matthew had brought to the attention of all that the
checkpoint was obviously inspection for every truck that passed through on that road and not
all were bound for the landfill. Mr. Kinney added that it also affects SEP's bottom line ifthe
landfill is getting more material than what is actua.lly being paid for on the bill of lading.
Gary Wolfe said the easiest solution would be to put a scale on the site. Mr. Bucco suggested
possibly designing an agreement wjth the Mount Olive transfer station in order to use their
weigh station. Mr. Bernardi mentioned that he again would open up conununications with
Kingtown Diesel. Mr_ Bernardi indicated that he had discussed putting in a scale at the
Kingtown Diesel site with Peter Hunckley_ Chris said that he would be glad to assist in the
proper permitting to expedite a weigh station once an application was received.
Back to the samples of asbestos that were found, Mr. Kinney said that the asbestos could be
capped with 6" of clean fill (meaning a sandy soi l or greeny material, not necessarily
vegetative support soil) as an interim step. Gary added that it is in everyone's interest to limit
the exposure; 6" would alleviate any other complications. Mr. Bernardi mentioned bringing
in millings to cap the asbestos - wouldn't that be even better and Mr. Confer reminded him
that that would not be permissible; they are only to be used for roadways.
Mr_ Kinney said that in addition to the personnel monitors, a prudent measure would be to see
some air monitoring on the site. Gary suggested a weekly testing or even daily, using a
portable monitor which would be able to be moved to different locations on the site according
to the wind direction, monitoring particulates and asbestos fibers. Tom Voorhees said that he
2011 " America's Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
Building &
Construction
973-448-2009
Court
973-448-2034
Engineer
973-448-2018
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffICial
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
MayOfand
Council
973-448-2001
Police
913-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Collector
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Cler1l.
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
WaterPJani
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj_us
believed that Mr. Kinney was referencing an aerosol monitor which deflllitely has its limits;
it's good for dust but not much more. Niox (nasal) samples should be done as well.
Tony Bucco stressed that a specific plan needs to he put together so that the developer knows
exactly what needs to he done.
The issue of the mud presently on Mountain Road was discussed and Mr. Bernardi said that
he would like to bring millings in during the week and stockpile them by the trailer on si te
and then on Saturday moming, use a loader to spread the stockpiles to create a better surface
for the mud to dissipate from the truck wheels before entering the roadway. Chris reiterated
that the only downtime the residents have from the noise and mess is on the weekend. Chri s
is very reluctant to recommend this as an option before getting the Council's reaction and
feeling to Mr. Bernardi performing additional work on Saturday. Chris questioned why the
trucks could not stop rolling during the week so that this work couJd be accomplished on a
weekday, rather than the weekend. Bernardi explained to Mary Siller that it would only take
one Saturday approximately 7 am to 12 pm. Mr. Bucco expressed his concern for the
residents. Mary Siller tried to reinforce that it would be resolving an issue that the residents
currently have, the mud on the roadway.
According to Bob Kinney, in the Landfill Closure Plan . SEP will be required to respond to the
action plan. Ms. Conte will be there inspecting once a week and will be communicating with
personnel on the site, as they will be affected the most.
Lisa Spring asked the DEP who will ultimately be monitoring SEP as it completes the
recommended actions to address the issues discussed? Mr. Kinney said that of course, the
DEP will continue oversight of the project.
Mr. Bernardi said that he has spoken to several Materials Recovery Facilities and in reference
to the asbestos, who actually monitors the asbestos abatement - the Health Department or the
Department of Labor? Tom Voorhees said that both would be involved. Tom said that they
are always on the lookout for demolition done in a hurry - sometimes these are the cases in
which illegal asbestos is being covered up. Mary Siller explained that if smal l ammmts are
found during a homeowner restoration project, they can be legally disposed of in the regular
garbage pickup. Mr. Bernardi's concern is that of the origin of the asbestos - how is it
landing up in his who is carting it away illegally?
Mr. Confer said he had two thoughts on the asbestos and the dust issue - would it he helpful if
the content of the loads being dumped were watered down before dumping. This way the
load would Dot be dry. Mr. Bernardi said that he has a water truck on the site and he is on
Court
973-4482034
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffICial
973-448-2012
lm.!!h
973-4482028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and
!&w19!
973-448-2001
!'olil1o
973-448-2100
Planning
and ZOning
973-448-2008
PublicWoms
973-448-2069
Tax Assessor
973-4482021
Tax Collector
and Unties
973-448-2022
Township Clem
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584 5360
Water Plant
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj.us
board with all of it! Bob Kirmey advised l'v1r. Bernardi to work with the DEP staff lo design
some kind of plan. ' Chris continned that DEP will put a plan together for review.
METHANE
Mr. Bucco wanted to know "what do the elevated levels of methane mean?" Chris mentioned
that in prior years testing was done around the perimeters of the landfill and reported in the
"Berger Report". Why is this an issue now? And it wasn't then?
Bob Confer said that the site is being covered by material - he believes that SEP is honestly
monitoring the methane - it is fairly easily remediated and it is presently onsite. The
important issue to resolve is whether it is offsite and how do we go about looking for it?
Chris asked initially, when the Berger Report was done, why wasn't the offsite testing done
then? He also questioned why there is no methane abatement plan in the closure plan?
Bob Confer said that the methane should be contained and remediated. In SEP's closure
application, there is a mitigative plan in place for the methane gas. In phase lA there is 15
acres and they need to be installing the mitigative system with each phase. The findings were
in a small area about 1 acre in size.
There were tests done for methane for the seven wells near the home on Mountain Road and
none showed high methane levels. Bashar said that these wells are approximately about 100-
200 feet apart. 5% is the lower end of the range for the methane testing and anything above
5% is considered explosive. In March, well #10 was tested with a small percentage of
methane present and then in June, well #10 was tested and came in at 44%. Bashar reported
this to the DEP, and Bob Confer suggested that between wells 8 and 13, on the side ofthe
site, across from Poet's Peak, that samples be drawn at the rock outcrop. Two permanently
installed wells were placed on both side of well #10 - 50' from either side and they both carne
up high. Between 9A and 9, there was another high reading and beyond the permanent well
9B, the numbers went down. Chris confmned with Bashar that the area being discussed is
approximately 300'. Bashar suggested possibly going into basements and backyard soil of
adjacent property owners to test the levels. Bob Kinney confirmed that we' ve discussed the
opportunities to go into the residences. Chris suggested that we should test on municipally
owned properties, such as pump stations and wells or the detention basin adjacent to the
landfill prior to the testing of the residential area. Chris asked Lisa to gather this infonnation
together and get it to Art El ias by tile end of the day, so that he could forward it to the DEP.
Bashar explained that methane can go anywhere - it's odorless and will travel the path of
least resistance. Bob Kinney asked if the Township would be amenable to permanent well
2011 "America's Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
Information
9734482000
Building/-.
Construction
973448-2009
Co"rt
973-4482034
Engineer
973-4482018

973-448-2006
fire Officjal
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Mayor and
Council
973-448-2001
POlice
973448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Assessor
973-448'2021
TaxCollecto[
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Sewer Plan!
973-584-5360
WaterPfanl
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj .us
monitoring in the detention basin? Bob Confer said that wc would still need to do a confined
spacc tcsting in the residential area - eSQCcially the 6 lots near to the landfill. The important
thing is that we would need to provide the residents with information relative to methane, its
toxicity and its effects.
Mr. Bucco asked "what do we tell the residents? What are the dangers of methane?"
Mr. Confer said that high levels are anywhere from 20-40% by volume of air - lower
explosive limit is 7%. Chris asked lithe DEP would sct up thcir own meeting with the
residents to answer questions and explain the facts. Mr. Buceo asked the DEP to 'provide
something in writing about the facts of methane so it can be posted on the Township website.
No clear answer was given by the DEP,just that they were in agreement that information
needs to be presented so that the residents are knowledgeable. Mr. Kinney said that a clear
descriptive swnmary would need to be given to avoid turmoil. Mr. Kinncy asked how much
time they have to get this request together. Me Raths asked if it would be VQssible to provide
the infonnation can be made available before Tuesday' s Council meeting. Cluis expects the
public will be at the meeting with more questions, due to the most recent publication in the
local newspaper about the methanc. Mr. Bernardi said to let him know the status, so that he
can proceed with the testing in the residential area
ALTERNATE ACCESS ROAD
Mr. Bucco addressed the alternate access road. He indicated that the Township and SEP have
exchanged an agreement which should be executed by SEP and then fotwarded to the
Township.
Art Elias confmned that in approximately 8-10 days field surveying would be done by Keller
Kirkpatrick to come up with an aligrunent of the road from the Township to the landfIll area.
There would also be the environmental concern of the bats in that area. Chris said the Shippo
has already signed offon it. Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Fredericks, SEP's attorney, to confinn that
his client is willing to extend its interior haul road to meet the road proposed across the
Township's property. Mr. Bucco added that the Township had expended well in excess of
$100,000 on this project and the Township cannot afford to pay for the construction of the
access road. Mr. Bucco said that it was mentioned that the DEP would possibly be funding
the project, but that has not been continued.
Chris expressed concern that after the access road is built that an agreement would need to be
in place so that SEP could use the access road. The parties agreed that this wouJd need to be
accomplished.
2011 IlAmerica' s Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
Information
973-448-2000
l&!!!l
973-448-2034

973-448-2006
Fjre OffIcial
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and

973-448-2001
Police
973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Wor1ts
973-448-2069
5
Technology
973-448-2099
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
Water Plant
973-396-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj.us
Bob Kinney spoke about the latest access road agreement in which the DEP was named as
one of the authorized parties. Mr. Kinney felt strongly that the agreement should just be
between the Township and SEP. Mr. Kinney said that he had some issues with the agreement
along with the indenUlifications which were li sted in it. Mr. Bucco and Mr. Kinney need to
go over these revisions.
Mr. Bucco asked Chris if he was ok with the way the road (Mountain Road) was being
maintained. Chris said that when the roadway becomes covered, he places a call to Morris
Soil, Joe Dunn to have the area cleaned. Chris said that there needs to be a more pro-active
approach.
Mr. Bucco requested that SEP address the weight issue of the trucks coming to the site.
Bernardi said that he would love to have a scale at Kingtown Diesel. Chris said that we will
be waiting for the permit application. Mary Siller expressed grave concern about the
falsification of weight by some of the truck drivers and said that the DEP has to be notified
inunediately, they have a transportation oversight team.
Mr. Kinney asked if all were willing to get together again to hear concerns and that any
methane/asbestos responses are appreciated. Mr. Bucco asked if the State representatives
would stay beyond the end of the meeting so that he could speak to them.
2011 " America' s Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Goverllor
KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Governor
Richard Bernardi
%tttte of em Jjerse!!
MAlLCODE401-02C
ROBERT M. CONFER, CHIEF
BUREAU OF LANDFILL AND HAZAROOUS WASTE PERMITTING
SOLID AND HAzARDOus WASTE MANAOEMENT PROORAM
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
P.O. Box420 401 EAsT STATE STREET
TRENTON, NJ 086250420
Telephooo: (609) 9846985 Telecopier: (609) 6339839
Strategic Envirorunental Palmers, LLC
P.O. Box 356
Re: Operational and Environmental Issues
FENIMORE SLF
Roxbury Twp., Monis County
Facility II) No.: 132518
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
BOB MARTIN
Commissioner
08/03/2012
TWs is in furtherance of our recent discussions and electronic cOlTespondence concerning several
operational and envirorunental issues at the Fenimore Landfill closure project (project) that could
potentially adversely impact the area around the project. The Department appreciates SEP's
cooperation and its general agreement to address the issues to date, and urges SEP to continue
with steps it is already taken to address these issues. The Department also believes that a
specific plan of action from SEP for ea"ch of these imp011ant issues should now be implemented.
o n s i s t ~ n t with our recent conversations and communications the Department proposes the
following plan of action below, which should be implemented according to the timetables noted
herein. Please note that the Department is seeking additional guidance on these measures from
the Depa11ment of Health (DOH) and Department of Labor (DOL), which may necessitate
changes and/or additional steps. DEP believes, however, that certain aspects of this plan require
SEP's prompt attention, such as the design and installation of an active landfill (methane) gas
control system in the area where high levels of methane were recently detected, among others.
The Department welcomes SEP' s feedback on the proposal outlined below, but urges SEP to
take the steps outlined below without delay.
I. METHANE GAS
1. Within 30 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall design and instaJl an active
landfill gas collection system along the entire northwest poction of the landfill in, and
adjacent to, the Phase I area of the Fenimore Landfill closure project. The collection
system should include a series of subsurface gas collection wells to either bedrock or
groundwater with a suitably-sjzed active blower system to extract gas from the
landfill and the adjacent rock outcropping to eliminate gas migration from the site.
The collection system should include standby generator power immediately on the
n011hwest property boundary.
Additionally, SEP should investigate and design a soil purging system into Poet's
Peak to extract any landfill gas that pelmeates it after the collection system is
installed. SEP shall report to DEP on its investigation and design of this system
within 20 days of installation of the landfill gas collection system. SEP shall also
apply for any Depattment Air Quality Pl'ogram permit which may be required for the
Jandfill gas collection system.
2. Within 14 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall conduct off-site landfill methane
gas testing in the residential Poet's Peak: neighborhood area. The initial testing shall
be conducted at the 39 Target Parcels identified by Roxbury Township (see attached),
which includes parcels adjacent to the landfill othel' than those on Lazarus Ddve, in
coordination with DEP and Roxbury Township officials. The testing shalt include
slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, and in the backyards or front yards if
closer to the landfill. Additional tests shall be conducted on SEP property behind the
homes on Lazarus Drive at the rock outcrop. If methane gas is detected at a
monitoring location, additional monitoring should be conducted at 5 ~ f o o t intervals
both away from and along the landfill perimeter. Monitoring shall continue at these
25-foot intervals until methane detect values are 0% by volume for methane.
Landfill gas methane monitoring should occur in the afternoon of days when
atmospheric barometric pressure is falling. SEP shall docwnent the barometric
pressure for the pedod twelve hours prior to testing in two-hour jntervals and also
report ODe reading 24 hours before the monitoring event. Hourly barometric pressure
data is available from the Rutgers Weather and Climate Network at
http://cHmate.mtgers.edu/njwxnetldataviewer-netnopt.php on a regional basis.
3. In consultation with the Depal1ment, the Township of Rox.bw-y and otbef
appropriate agencies such as the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH), SEP
shall submit a proposal to conduct Residential Area Confined Space Testing
(crawlspace! basement) and subslab methane and VOC analysis.
Initially. a landfill gas analyzer (LOA) should be used to assess indoor levels of
methane. Subsequently. sub-slab soil gas samples can be collected and analyzed for
landfiII gas parameters and VOCs at select buildings based on the LGA results.
4. Within 30 days of the date oftrus lettel', SEP shall conduct investigative measures
to determine where the detected landfill gas may be migrating offsite through the
local geological formations such as bedrock and weathered rock. SEP may use
fracture trace analysis, and other means as necessary to thoroughly evaluate where the
2
landfill gases could migrate. SEP should contact the United States Geological
Survey fot' any assistance with this analysis.
5. Within 45 days of the date of this letter. and in with its investigation as
provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3, above, SEP shall install permanent
methane gas monitoring wells, both at the nOl1hwest boundary of the landfLll, in the
Poet' s Peak neighborhood, and at the top of Poet1s Peak using a partitioned gas
detection well device. A design for this partitioned well is attached. SEP shall also
install methane meters/alarms in residence crawlspaces/baseme.nts.
6. SEP shall continue to delineate the methane distribution at the landfill site, in
consultation with the Department, on an basis.
7. SEP shall conduct monthly monitoring at all pel1nanently installed off-site gas
monitoring wells and repmi aU results within 24 hours to tbis office. Any positive
test results for metbane and other contaminants shall be immediately reported by
facsimile to 609-633-9839 and by email to Robelt.Confer@dep.state.nj.us and
MalyAnne.Goldman@dep.state.nj.us. Any methane gas detected shall be vented
immedjately and other measures may be required in coordination with the NJDOH
and the Department, such as but not limited to, immediate evacuation of the structure.
n. ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM)
1. SEP shall immediately begin inspection of aU trucks aniving at the site in accordance
with the Approved Closure/Post Closure Plan (plan). Trucks with materials generated by
Materials Recovery FacilitiesITransfer Stations (MRFffS) shall be subject to additional
scrutiny for asbestos and asbestos containing materials CACM).
a. Trucks containing asbestos or ACM, as well as any other trucks from the same
MRFfrS. shall be prohibited fium dumping;
b. SEP shall nolilY DEP at 800 W ARN DEP irrunediately if asbestos or ACM is found
in dump loads. The following information sbaU be provided to the DEP at that
time: truckCs) transpOlter company; transpOlter company address; license plate
Dumber(s); type(s) of material; so\U'Ce of material;
c. SEP shaH also notify DEP's Compliance and Enforcement Program so that DEP can
communicate with the MRF as to its procedures for asbestos and ACM
controls. DEP wiU track the rejected LD. 27A waste to ensme that it is disposed of
properly,
2. Within 7 days of the date of trus letter, SEP shall develop and implement a strategic plan
to evaluate incomicg loads at Fenimore in a prescribed manner. TIle plan should include:
s. Establishing a standard quantity (e.g., one cubic yard) to spJead on the ground in a
pre-specified area of the site at the dump site (ideaUy in a low traffic area);
b. Bstablishing a regular time period for evaluation of the material to determine if any
asbestos, friable or not, exists (use appropriate PPE per OSHA);
c. Establishing a protocol for isolation andlO!' pl'Oper handling of ACM that may be
found during the inspection .
.3. SEP shall immediately survey all areas of the site wheJ'e fill material has been deposited
to determine if asbestos or ACM exists in any of these areas oftbe site. If ACM is found,
SEP shall take the following steps:
a. Immediately covel' the area with at least 6" of clean filVsoils so as to reduce exposure
pathways to asbestos (regulated soil material authorized for disposal on site may be
used - materials from MRFITS shall not be used for this purpose);
h. Notify DEP and the Department of Labor (DOL) as to location, extent and types of
asbestos and/or ACM;
c. Detennine from whom the material was received, and report this infonnation to DEP.
4. Within 14 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall design and submit an air monitoring
plan for the site. The plan shall include the installation of pcnnanent air monitoring
stations upwind and downwind of site operations as well as portable instrumentation that
can be used around the site. The stations should be of. type that will capture particulate
matter and airborne asbestos fibers. Samples should be taken weekly and analyzed for
asbestos fibers. SEP shall also require thc usc of Personal Monitoring Devices for all
SEP and construction personnel at the site. TIle use of appropriate Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) per OSIIA regulations shall be included in the plan. ]n addition, any
recommendations contained in the f0l1hcoming DOL Ie'port shall be included in the plan.
5. SEP shall immediately implement aggressive dust control measures at the site to reduce
exposure pathways and off-site migration of asbestos and ACM.
6. SEP shall work with all MRFrrS from which it receives material. (or from which it
intends to receive as to testing and for asbestos and ACMs at the
source, to ensure that improper materials are not delivered to SEP.
ITL Site Dust Control Measures - for asbestos, ACM and fine, airborne pal1iclllates, see
item.II. 5 above.
IV. Road Dirt - shall be managed in accordance with fhe. requirements of the Morris County
Soil Conservation Certification.
A New Jersey licensed Professional Engineer (p.E.) shall sign and seal all designs, data repOlis
and any other submissions to the Department.
The Department is aware of the importance of these measures in order to ensure protection of
human health and the environment, and appreciates the efforts that SEP has previously
conducted in conjunction whh guidance from the Department. We look forward to om
continued cooperative efforts on this project
4
If you have any questions, please contact Mary Anne Goldman at 609-984-6985 01' by emai l at
Mal'yArme.Goldman@dep.state.nj.us .
obert M. Confer, Chie
Bureau of Landfill d Hazardous Waste
Permitting
Enclosures
C: Magdalena Padilla, Chief of Staff
Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissionel', Environmental Management
DAG Robert Kinney, Esq., DOL
Mary Jo Aiello, SHWMP
WolfSkacel, C&E
John Castner, C&E
John Barry, BSWCE
Michael Gerclunan, BLHWP
Bashar Assadi. P .E., BSG
Thomas Voorhees, DOLabor
Joseph EldLidge, NJDOH
Gary Centifonti, NJDOH
John Boyer, DEPlSRP
5
BIRDSALL SERVICES GROUP
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
August 8, 201 2
Via e-mail (rwbernard{iiJaol.comJ and US Mail
P.O. Box 356
Attn: Mr. Rich Bernardi
Re: Professional Sen-ices Proposal
Landfill Gas Dcsign and Investigatioos/DlJst Monitoring
Fenimore Sanitary Landfill
TowDship ofRoIbury, Morris County, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Bernardi :
Proposal No. 122108
Birdsall Services Group (BSG) is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal. This proposal encompasses
landfill gas design, investigations and will provide dust monitoring as requested for the above-referenced
project.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Please feel free to contact me directly with any
questions or comments regarding the scope, sequence or fees as indicated at 90&-497-8900, ext. 61 14, or
via email tobassadi@birdsall .com.
Very truly yours,
BIRDSALL SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Bashar Assadi, P .E.
Senior Vice President - Solid Waste Services Birdsall Services
Enclosures: Proposal No.122 J 08, SSG General Conditions
WWW. BIROSAl t.-CO M
65 ",. cksoll Onvt'. O anford. NJ 07016 I aS8.BS. aSG. (2 74-4 ) 1 908 497 91 34
Proposal No. 122108
Stralegic En\' ironmental Partners
August 8, 2012
Page I ofS
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
LANDFILL GAS DESIGN AND !NVESTIGATIONSIDUST MONITORING
FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
INTRODUCTION
The following proposal is intended to provide professional services to address the-requirements included
in the NJ DEP letter CO SEP dated August 3, 2012. Please note that this proposal does not include
provisions for the installation of any' mitigation systems such as gas collection and management systems.
ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
The scope of services and associated fees are described in detail below:
Item 1: Desien of Active System at Northwestern Edge of Landfill
Prepare engineering design and construction documents for an active gas venting system a100g the
northwestern boundary of the site. The intent of the system is to mitigate the high concentration of
methane gas detected during field investigations in the months of June and July 0[2012. The system will
be equipped with a blower and a n ~ system that can accommodate different flow rate of LFG.
Item 2: 19vestigation orand Preparatioo ofDesigD for a Purging System
Investigate the need for a soil purging system at Poet's Peak. Should the investigation indieate that a
purging system is required, BSG will conduct a pilot ~ s t fOl" a purging system and will desigll a purging
system for methane gas.
Item 3: Landfill Gas Survey at Poet's Peak
SSG will conduct off-site landfill gas survey in the Poet's Peak residential area. The survey will target
the thirty-nine (39) parcels identified in (he Jetter from NJDEP. SSG wit! use slambar testing where site
conditions allow, considering the rocky nature of the subsurface in the area. The survey will be
conducted in accordance with the requirements listed in the NJOEP letter dated August 3, 2012, under
Item No.2. This proposal assumes that gas testing will be conducted at three (3) locations within each
parcel.
[tern 4: Confined Space LFG Survey
SSG will coordil'late with SEP. the Township of Roxbury, NJDOT conducting confined space LFG gas
testing within the Poet's Peak residential area as agreed upon by the parties. Should any reading be
detected within the confined space. SSG will conduct a sub-slab investigation 111 the subject property
using coring equipment to access the sub-slab areas.
Proposal No. 122108
Strategk Erlvironmerltal PartJltrs
Allgus18. 2012
PaSe20fS
HemS: Fracture Trace Analysis
SSG will drill two (2) boreholes using mud drilling rigs to create two (2) boreholes for geophysical
survey to determine [fthere fractures that would allow gas migration into Poet's Peak residential area.
Item 6: InstaliatioD of Additional Permanent Partitioned Gas Detection Wells
Should the results of the investigations included in Items 3, 4 and S indicate that there is a potential for
gas migration towards Poet's Peak residential area, SSG will install pennanent partitioned gas detection
wells. BSG will install six. (6) 30' deep permanent gas detection wells along the northwestern boundary
of the site along the boundary with Poet's Peak. These wells will be portioned at three (3) intervals to
isolate the detectable layer. Since the formation is rocky, an air drilling rig will be used for installing the
wells. These wells will be used to conduct gas survey on a monthly basis.
Item 7: Conduct Monthly Gas Survey for One (1) Year
SSG will conduct gas testing at the wells installed as per Item No. 6 and onsite wells along the
northwestern boundary of the landfill on a monthly basis for one (I) year. The results of the testing will
be reported to the NJDEP on a monthly basis.
Item 8: Air MODitoring Over Three Moaths (Phase - H99)
BSG proposes the following environmental support services to aid in providing perimeter dust air
monitoring and personnel asbestos air monitoring as well as coordinate our specific role as it relates to the
following:
1. During one (I) site visit. BSG will provide full-time (8-hour) on-Site training for the site engineer
relative to the air monitoring instrumentation that we will provide. Specifically. we will train the
site engineer to set-up and maintain three (3) TSI Dustrack teaL-time particulate air monitors with
enclosures that will each data log the reading measurements 'at a IS-minute intervals
for total dust. In addition, set-up and maintain two (2) calibrated battel)' operated personnel air
monitoring sampling pumps for asbestos.
2. As part of the air monitoring program BSG will conduct the following on a weekly basis:
Download the data stored within the TSI Dustrack real-time particulate air monitor
instrumentation.
BSG will collect the daily asbestos air samples at the end of the week that will be submitted to an
accredited laboratory for analysis in accordance with NIOSH 7400. The air samples will be
submitted to the laboratory to be analyzed utilizing a one (I) day turnaround time upon their
receipt of the samples.
Mainlaining cal ibration of the air monitoring/air screening equipment to be provided by BSG.
BIRDSALL SERVICES GR.OUP
3. Our weekly reporting services will include:
PropoS!li No. 122108
Slnl.legic Environmenlal Partnus
August 8. 2012
Page] Qf5
Providing a hard copy of the downloaded data stored within the TSI Dustrack real-time
particulate air monitor instrumentation, as well as an asbestos report that will include the test
results, the protocols employed as well as a discussion of the findings and appropriate
recommendations.
Item 9: Air Permit Application for Active Operation orLFG System
BSG will prepare and file on behalf of SEP an application for an Air Permit for the installation and
operation of the Active LFG Management Sysrem.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLIENT
I. The Client shall be fully responsible for facilitating the consultant. its agents, subconb'aCtors, and
representatives access to the subject locations within the facility such that the monitoring event may be
conducted.
2. The Client shall provide all infonnarion in its possession, custody. or control which may relate to the
services to be perfonned by SSG.
3. The Client shall provide a location on-site for SSG to adequately store, charge, and maintain the
field sampling equipment throughout the course of the air monitoring services.
4. Based upon the daily air monitoring data, SSG understands that it will be the responsibility of the
Client' s designated on-site representative (0 enforce and verify implementation of the Air
Monitoring Plan by selected contractor employees., hired contractors and subcontractors with
authorization to stop work due to unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and any non-compliance and/or
implementation of the Community Air Monitoring Plan andlor applicable safety and health
requirements.
LIMITATIONS
1. SSG will rely on the accuracy of any infonnalion submitted to us by the client in the performance
of our services, and will not be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies contained in infonnation
provided to us.
2. BSG shall be responsible only for its activities and that of its employees on any site. Neither the
professional activities nor the presence of BSG or its employees or subcontractors on a site shall
imply that BSG controls the operations of others.
3. The scope of this work does not include sampling/analysis for specific potential contaminants
beyond what has bun identified above. Should such additional specific sampling be indicated by
the initial investigation appropriate to the evaluation then SSG would propose a follow-up proposal
at the appropriate time.
4. No confined space entry will be made by BSG personnel during the air monitoring services due to
hazards associated with such operations.
FEE SUMMARY
Proposal No. 122108
SlfBtegic Envirollmelltal Partners
August 3, 2012
Page 4 or5
All professional services described In the itemized Scope of Services will be compensated at the
respeclive Fixed Fee shown below.
Item 1;
Item 2:
ltem 3:
Item 4:
Item 5:
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Item 9:
Design of Active System at Northwestern Edge ofLandfUJ
Investigation of and Preparation of Design for a Purging
System
lAIndfill Gas Survey at Poet's Peak
ConfiDed Space LFG Survey
Fracture Trace Analysis
Installatioo of Additional Permanent Partitioned Gas
Detection WeUs
Conduct Montbly Gas Survey for One (1) Year
Air Monitoring Over Three Months
Air Permit ApplicatioD for Active Operation of LFG System
TOTAL FIXED FEE:
$ 30,000.00
SJO)OOO.OO
S 6,000.00
S 4,000.00
$18,500.00
S 30,000.00
S 18,000.00
$17,000.00
$ 5,000.00
5168,500.00
NOTE: Out-of-pocket gpenses (such tu certified mailings or appliCDl.ion fees}
are excluded from all ofthe above Dl"Of)(}sa/ costs.
CLOSING
Any item listed above which is not ordered will not be billed. Separate authorization from the client will
be requested prior to commencing services outside the scope of this proposal.
All expenses including, but not limited to, application fees, laboratory testing costs, mylar
copies, certified mailings. photographs, blueprints, and special deliveries are considered additional to the
proposal items unless specifically noted within the scope of this proposal.
The lenns and conditions of this proposal are subject to the attached Birdsall Services Group (BSG)
General Conditions.
This proposal is submitted solely and exclusively for the use of Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC
for consideration of the professional services of BSG. Disclosure of this proposal 's content to any third
party without prior written authorization from SSG is expressly prohibited.
Proposal No. 122[08
Sml!eglc Environmenta[ Partners
August 8. 2012
Page S ofS
In addition to the specific items as listed herein. the client may be required to demonstrate compliance
with certain penni! and approval conditions as may be imposed by one or more of the regulatory agencies.
These conditions may require revisions to the plans andlor preparation of additional supporting
documentation. This proposal does not include these additional items unless specifically outlined within
the scope of this proposal.
PA YMENT SCHEDULE
Payment shall be in accordance with the Charges. Billing, and Payment schedule outlined in the General
Conditions attached to this proposal unless prior written arrangements have been made with BSG.
Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing in the space provided below and returning one
copy to this office. Acceptance of this proposal signifies the client's understanding that BSG will not be
retained or asked to perform any services unless funding is secured and is available to pay all invoices
within 30 days. Receipt of the signed proposal shall be considered authorization to proceed with all items
described within this agreement Any items not intended to be authorized shall be clearly and specifically
noted as such within the client's signed and returned proposal.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding
the scope. sequence or fees as indicated_
ACCEPTED BY,
TITLE,
COMPANY,
DATE,
Signature Print Name
Strategic Environmental Partnen, LLC
The above signed represents that they have read and understand the attached General Conditions and have
the authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of the client named above. The above signed also
acknowledges that this contract includes a Limitation of Liability Clause as part of the General
Conditions.
Matthew Fredericks
From: Matthew Fredericks
Sent: Friday. July 27. 2012 11 :51 AM
To: 'Robert Kinney' (Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us); Gary Wolf
( Gary. Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj . us); Jacq ueline Quick (Jacqueline. Quick@dol.lps.state.nj.us):
Subject:
Aaron Love (Aaron.Love@doUps.state.nj.us)
SEP - DEP - Closure Ptan meeting
Bob-
In addition to the issues regarding the access road, which will involve the Township, we would
also like to meet and discuss issues unrelated to the Township such as the ACO and Closure
Plan, as previously instructed by Judge Wilson. Perhaps in the afternoon next Wednesday,
following the meeting with the Township, while everyone is in the area, we can meet at
another location to discuss the ACO and closure plan issues without the Township. Maybe we
could reserve a conference room in a hotel or we can make our office available. There is a
Quality Inn less than a mile from the Roxbury Town Hall and they have a large conference
room available on Wednesday afternoon. SEP will cover the cost of reserving the conference
room if that works for everybody.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks-
Matt
Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq.
David Kessler & Associates, LL.C.
1373 Broad Street
Clifton. New Jersey 07013
Tel. (973) 773-1200 ext. 219
Direct Fax (973) 685-43791 Main Fax (973) 773-6533
mfredericks@kesslerlaw.com I www.kesslerlaw.com
This e-marl, Including any attachments, Is for the sole use of the intended recipient(5) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this emaills not the intended recipient, or the employer agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended redplent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this emall
is strict ly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please nodfy the sender immediately bye-mall or telephone, and delete the original
message immediately.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by t he IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained In this communication (including any attachments), unl ess otherwise speCifically stated, was not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or {2} promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transactions or matters addressed herein.
1
Matthew Fredericks
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bob-
Matthew Fredericks
Wednesday, August 08, 20123:03 PM
'Robert Kinney' (Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj .us)
Gary Wolf (Gary.Wolf@doUps.state.nj.us);Aaron Love (Aaron.Love@doLlps.state.nj.us) i
Jacqueline Quick (Jacqueline.Quick@dol.lps,state.nj.us)
SEP v. DE? - Settlement Meeting
Paragraph 6 of Judge Wilson's Consent Order dated July 31, 2012 orders the parties to "meet, confer and share
information in a good faith effort to resolve the issues presented in this litigation, including capping the former landfill."
On Friday, July 27, 2012, prior to the August 1st meeting with the Township of Roxbury, I sent you an emai l requesting
that we schedule a meeting to "discuss the ACO and closure plan issues". I suggested a convenient time and place for
the parties to meet. However, I didn't hear back from your office on that request. At the conclusion of the meeting on
August 1st, you stated that the DEP is amenable to meeting with SEP at another time to discuss other issues, but we
haven't heard anything else from your office about this.
As per the Court's July 31, 2012 Consent Order, we are required to provide an update to the Court within 7 days
regarding the status of the meetings and sharing of information required by Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order.
What is the DEP's position with regard to our request for a meeting?
There are many issues still to be discussed. On Friday the DEP sent SEP a letter instructing SEP to take additional steps
and to expend additional funds regarding the methane issue. The DEP has also instructed SEP to take additional
measures and spend additional funds in response to the asbestos issue. At the same time, however, the DOT continues
to hamper SEP's business by pulling over trucks en route to SEP's property. In addition, the DEP maintains its position
that it is revoking SEP's Closure Plan, which would terminate SEP's income. We would like to discuss all of these issues in
hopes of reaching a resolution acceptable to both parties.
I am preparing our submission to Judge Wilson, so please let me know at your earliest convenience whether the DEP will
agree to a settlement conference as we have requested in the past. As previously explained, due to the number and
gravity of active issues involving the landfill, it is not feasible for Mr. Bernardi to spend a day in Trenton, so a meeting
place in Morris County, preferably the courthouse, is best.
Thanks-
Matt
David Kessler & Associates, L.L.C.
1373 Broad Street
Clifton, New Jersey 07013
Tel. (973) 773-1200 ext. 219
This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader' of this e-mail is not the Intended recipient, or the employer agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately bye-mail or telephone, and delete the original
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance wit h requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we i nform you that any u.s. federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise speclficalty stated, was not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
2
INGLESINO. PEARLMAN, WYCISKALA & TAYLOR, LLC
ATTORNEYSATLAW
VIA EMAIL & FEDEX
Michael Winka
Director, Clean Energy Program
44 So. Clinton Ave.
m.winka@bpu.state.nj.us
600 PARSIPP.o.NY ROAD
PARSIPPANY, NE,W JERSey 07054
(Tj(97J) 9477 I [ I
(FAx) (973) 881-2700
www.iandplaw.com
STEI'HEN B. PEMu.MAN
Direct (973) 9477133
spearlman@iandplaw,com
August 10, 2012
Re: Placing Fenimore Landfi ll in the queue for Solar Project Incentives
Dear Mr _ Winka,
This fmn represents Mr. Richard Bernardi in connection with his company, S1l"ategic
Environmental Partners, LLC ("Strategic Environmental Partners"), which is currently engaged
in implementing a 10.0 MW maximum facility output solar project at Fenimore Landfill, located
at Mountain Road in Roxbury, NJ (the "Solar Project"). We Wlderstand that, pursuant to Section
3 of the new solar legislation recently signed by the Governor on July 23, 2012 (p.L. 2012, c.24,
amending P.L. 1999, c.23, codified at N.J.S.A. 48:3-49 et seq. , as amended, the "'Act'), further
incentives wiU be available for certain solar energy generation facilities. Specificall y among
these incentives, the Board of Public Utilities (the "Board") is required to establish (i) a program
to provide SREes to owners of solar projects located on properly closed sarutary landfill
facilities and Oi) a fmancial incentive to supplement such SRECs to cover the additional cost of
construction of solar projects on certain sites, including properly closed sanitary landfill
facilities. N.J.SA. 48:3-87t.
Mr. Bernardi's Solar Project has been progressing and has passed several key milestones.
The Solar Project's location has received HighJands Redevelopment Area Designation approval
pursuant to that certain Resolution 2011-35 entitled "NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS WATER
PROTECTION AND PLANNING COUNCIL DESIGNA nON OF HIGHLANDS
REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR THE FORMER FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL,
BLOCK 7404, LOT I, ROXBURY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS COUNTY" adopted on October 13,
2011. In addition, Mr. Bernardi has executed, and fully funded, that certain "Construction
Agreement" executed July 2, 2012, by and between Strategic Environmental Partners and Jersey
Central Power & Light Company ("JCP&L"). The. Solar Project has also 'already received
approval from both P1M Interconnection, LLC ("PJM") and JCP&L, as is evidenced by that
l000428363J
Michael Winka
August 10,2012
Page 2 of2
certain "Wholesale Market Participation Agreement" dated January 11 ,2011 (the "WMPA"), by
and among PJM, Strategic Environmental Partners and JCP&L. The Solar Project is currentl y in
the PJM queue and has been assigned PJM Queue No. V3-00S. This WMPA, whi ch is
extremely difficult to obtain, is the best evidence that the Solar Proj ect will be moving forward
as soon as possible.
Given the numerous approvals and agreements already obtained for the Solar Project,
which evidence the suppoti of key stakeholders, we respectfully request that you place the Solar
Project in any and all Board queues for (i) the forthcoming incentives pursuant to Section 3 of
the Act, (ii) any applicable New Jersey Economic Development Authori ty grants, and (ii) any
other available benefits or incentives for which the Solar Project may qualify. Further, in the
event there is a competiti ve contracting or application process for any such incentives, we
respectfully request to be placed on the list to receive notice thereof.
Please feel free to contact me uyou have any questions.
Very truly yours,
STEP B. PEARLMAN
cc: Richard Bernardi
(00042836-3J INGLESfNO, PEARLMAN, WVCfSKALA & TAYLOR, LLC

EXHIBIT 7.23

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/99f7ec77-84ff-5784-b8a4-385adca4c8d3.html
From: RWBernardi@aol.com Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:10:38 GMT
To: Conti, Gina; Siller, Mary;
CC: RWBernardi@aol.com; bassadi@birdsall.com; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com;
Subject: Landfill Letter
JudgeMethane Letter.pdf (2210Kb)
Hi Gina,

Please direct any and all questions regarding the Fenimore Solar Project to
me and not any of our Engineers.

I am the only person that makes decisions regarding what is done at the Landfill.

Please see the attached letter to the Court regarding your questions to Bashar Assadi.
For now on I will have you copied on SEP's Court Correspondance.

Sorry.

Any other questions contact me anytime.

Thanks.

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

EXHIBIT 7.24

EXHIBIT 7.25

Page 1 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/ac7766b6-77a7-eac2-119c-7ab6fe447ea9.html
From: RWBernardi@aol.com Sent: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:35:16 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Confer, Robert;
CC: robert.kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Goldman, MaryAnne; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com; bassadi@birdsall.com;
Subject: Re: FENIMORE Asbestos Air Monitoring Status
Robert,

Hope you came thru the storm unscathed.

Regarding my request.

I need the addresses of the Poets Peak homes you mentioned.

I also need some dates that you are available to meet with the Poets Peak
residents to address their concerns.

Obviously I need the NJ DEP's complete backing regarding your ordered off site testing.

Thanks,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 10/25/2012 8:21:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, RWBernardi@aol.com writes:
Robert,

Please send me, asap the addresses of the 39 homes
that require methane testing as listed in #8 page 3
of your Order,.under the Methane Gas part.

Very important you send me the addresses.

Thanks,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 10/25/2012 9:16:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us writes:
Page 2 of 2 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/ac7766b6-77a7-eac2-119c-7ab6fe447ea9.html
Rich, just following up this from other requests for the asbestos air monitoring data at the site.

Id like to see the results that are available and a site plan layout showing/and explaining where the
meters are located, design, lab doing the testing, etc.. Also, personal monitors were supposed to be
established for the workers there, is that in place?
Thanks
Bob

New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection

=

EXHIBIT 7.26

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/6bc679b5-ac18-0155-22f8-5cec67a99962.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:33:00 GMT
To: Rich Bernardi; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com; Assadi, Bashar; Goldman, MaryAnne; Jumani, Saara; Siller,
Mary; Conti, Gina; Confer, Robert; Aiello, MaryJo; Robert Kinney; Ray Lamboy; Confer, Robert; Meyer, Jennifer;
Choromanski, Ed; Aiello, MaryJo; Bates, Leslie; Choromanski,Ed; Confer, Robert; Conti,Gina; Dietrick,Suzanne;
Dotterweich,John; Farrell,Thomas; Goldman, MaryAnne; Jensen,Knute; Jumani,Saara; Leon,Joel; Martin, Jon;
Meyer, Jeffrey; O'Sullivan,Bill; Pflugh, Kerry; Ray Lamboy; Reilly,Rick; Robert Kinney; Shah,Subhash; Siller,Mary;
Skacel,Wolfgang; Steitz, Francis; Wolf Gary;
Subject: FW: Fenimore conference call 3/26/13 11:00 AM SITE VISIT 3/27 11:00 AM
image001.gif (0Kb)
A site visit to Fenimore landfill for 3/27/13 is scheduled. Greg Giles, SRP, will go with MAG & SJ & they will meet
Mary Siller & Gina Conti at the Landfill at 11:00 am.

Bob C., M. A. Goldman, Saara Jumani & Bashar Assadi Contact Call:

Bob C. called Bashar Assadi to set up site visit on 3/27/13. Bashar is on vacation this week but he will arrange for
Eric Christianson from Birdsall to meet us at the Landfill on 3/27/13 at about 10:30 am (BASHAR NOTE NOW
CHANGED TO 11:00 AM). Bashar tried to answer our questions about the grading plans but with the bad cell
phone connection & Bashar not having the plans in front of him at home, it was difficult to hear some points.
However, Bashar did explain that the grading plan received 3/25/13 was actually the existing grades as of 2/14/13.
The numbers on the plan represent the deviation from the approved grading plan: positive numbers for above the
approved grades & negative for below. The pdf drawings are very small & difficult to see so Bashar will send in full
size plans. Bashar will also finish up the comparison grading plan his 3/22 email discussed, which will confirm no
more than the approved amount of fill will be received, and Bob explained this is most necessary for DEP to review
and approve the final modified grading plan.

Also discussed was the LFG system. The approved collection system was signed & sealed by Matrix on 8/6/11 well
before the H
2
S appeared. We need the collection system to be reviewed and signed and sealed by a NJ licensed P.E.
to assure adequacy of original system for collection and treatment of lfg & H
2
S. Revision of collection system may
be needed possibly additional laterals for the H2S and methane near Poets Peak. Treatment system not yet
designed pending lfg qual/quant analysis.

Bob


EXHIBIT 8.1

EXHIBIT 8.2

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/5fc4d183-b2f1-5128-63c6-5b3ee0e6d959.html
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Christiansen, Erich;
CC: ishearn@prodigy.net; oleary9277@gmail.com; ekimoleary@yahoo.com; mfredericks@kesslerlaw.com; Bates, Leslie; Conti, Gina;
Subject: Re: Asbestos Violation
Rich,
Our Asbestos group could assist.
Erich,
Please consult with Kevin Burn on how to best approach this.
Thanks
--------------------------
From: Rich Bernardi [mailto:rwbernardi@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 07:49 AM
To: Christiansen, Erich; Assadi, Bashar
Cc: Ian Shearn <ishearn@prodigy.net>; Dennis Oleary <oleary9277@gmail.com>; Oleary Mike <ekimoleary@yahoo.com>; Matt Fredericks <mfredericks@kesslerlaw.com>; Leslie Bates <leslie.bates@dep.state.nj.us>; Gina Conti <Gina.Conti@dep.state.nj.us>
Subject: Asbestos Violation
All,
A tile containing asbestos was found on our site, and in Ace Environmental's trucks, by the NJDEP on July 3rd, 2012.
Within one hour of being served the violation we barred Ace Environmental Recycling from the site.
Danny White, from Ace, was delivering recyclable material from his NJDEP licensed facility.
His facility is required to test by the NJDEP.
If anyone has any ideas on how to
work with the NJDEP and possibly help with their on site testing procedures at Ace we will never have this problem again.
In the mean time Ace is not allow at Fenimore.
Thanks,
Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

EXHIBIT 8.3

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/b1ad24ca-e08c-82ad-52fa-7836f4167c85.html
From: Robert Kinney Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:42:12 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; bassadi@birdsall.com; Conti, Gina; Siller, Mary; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert;
Gary Wolf; Vincent Rizzo; Thomas.voorhees@dol.state.nj.us; Matthew Fredericks;
ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com;
CC: Kozinski, Jane; Padilla, Magdalena; Aaron Love; Jacqueline Quick; Jennifer Fradel; Jon Martin; Wayne Martorelli;
Subject: Meeting Agenda for Wednesday, August 1, 2012 re: Fenimore Landfill
Fenimore agenda 8.1.12.doc (27Kb)
All:

Attached for your review is a meeting agenda and related discussion materials for the meeting between representatives of
Strategic Environmental Partners (SEP), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Township of Roxbury. A
representative from the Department of Labor will also attend the meeting. This meeting is intended to help develop
appropriate responses to the recent discovery of asbestos containing materials and methane gas at the site, as well
as a discussion of other matters related to the site.

The meeting will begin at approximately 11 a.m. at Roxbury Township's Offices, 1715 Rte. 46, Ledgewood, NJ. We will meet
in the Council Chambers. Prior to the larger meeting, representatives from the Attorney General's office, SEP, DEP and
Roxbury Township will meet on site for a brief tour of the site and discussion of operations there.

We recognize that this meeting may not result in agreement on all of DEP's recommended responses to the asbestos and
methane discoveries, but we hope that it will be a useful and productive dialogue. We anticipate the need for additional
meetings and discussions.

Robert Kinney

Robert J. Kinney
Environmental Enforcement Section
P.O. Box 093
609-292-1557
609-341-5031 (fax) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this communication from the Office of the New
Jersey Attorney General is privileged and confidential and is intended for the sole use of the persons or entities who are the
addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, the dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the
information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately contact the
Office of the Attorney General at (609) 292-4925 to arrange for the return of this information.

EXHIBIT 8.4

8/1/12 Fenimore Landfill Closure Meeting,
Roxbury Township, Morris County NJ
AGENDA
A. Discussion of Dept. of Labor findings
attached outline)
2. Methane Issue and Response:
A. Discussion of findings
attached outline).
3. Alternative Access Road Discussion
4. Site Dust Control:
5. Road Dirt:
DEP PROPOSED METHANE RESPONSE ACTIONS
1. SEP should continue to delineate the methane distribution at the site. Testing at
the property boundary is recommended, at 25' intervals at the entire length of the
northwest boundary.
2. SEP should conduct the off-site area residential area testing immediately, with
slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, etc. The entire housing project should
be covered. It is recommended that slam bar tests be done at 50' intervals. If gas is
detected, additional tests should be done within a 25' radius from the hit.
Residential Area Confined Space Testing (crawlspace/ basement) should be conducted.
4. SEP should install permanent in-ground gas monitoring wells at the Fenimore
property boundary with Poet's Peak and also at top of Poet's Peak. A
permanent monitorin well may be also be installed in the residential neighborhood.
DEP also recommends CH4 meters/alarms in residence crawlspaces/basements.
5. Additional investigative measures should be conducted to determine where the
gas may be migrating offsite, such as fracture trace analysis or other means to
thoroughly evaluate where the gas could migrate. The US Geological Survey may be
able to assist in this effort.
6. SEP should design and install an active gas collection system along the entire
northwest portion of the landfill in - and adjacent to - the Phase I area of the Fenimore
closure project. This would involve a series of gas collection wells and an active blower
system to pull the gas out of the landfill and the adjacent rock outcropping. Standby
generator power is recommended for the northwest property boundary. It is also
suggested that SEP investigate and design a soil purging system into Poet's Peak to
extract any CH4 that permeates it after the collection system is installed.
DEP PROPOSED ASBESTOS RESPONSE ACTIONS
1. SEP should inspect trucks arriving with materials generated by Materials
Recovery Facilities (MRFs) for asbestos containing materials (ACM). Trucks containing
ACM, and any other trucks from the same MRF, should be prohibited from dumping.
SEP should notify DEP if ACM is found in dump loads, so that DEP can communicate
with the MRF as to its procedures for ACM controls.
2. SEP should work with all MRFs from which it receives material (or from which it
intends to receive material), as to testing and controls for ACMs at the source, so that
improper materials are not delivered to SEP.
3. SEP should immediately investigate all areas of the site to determine if ACM
material exists in those areas of the site. If found, SEP should take the following steps:
a. Notify DEP and the Department of Labor as to location, extent and types
of ACM;
b. Immediately cover with at least 6 of clean fill all areas in which ACM is
found, so as to reduce exposure pathways to asbestos.
4. SEP should install air monitoring stations upwind and downwind of site
operations. These stations should be of a type that will capture particulate matter and
airborne asbestos fibers. Samples should be taken weekly and analyzed for asbestos
fibers.
5. SEP should implement aggressive dust control measures at the site to reduce
exposure pathways and off-site migration of ACM.

EXHIBIT 8.5

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/e82c954c-b095-1a09-6283-4a1392305cd3.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:01:22 GMT
CC: Kinney, Robert; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang; Kozinski, Jane; Castner, John; bassadi@birdsall.com;
Thomas.voorhees@dol.state.nj.us; rathsc@roxburynj.us; Confer, Robert; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman,
MaryAnne; Anthony M. Bucco; Kinney, Robert; Wolf Gary; Skacel, Wolfgang; Siller, Mary; Conti, Gina;
gary.centifonti@doh.state.nj.us;
Subject: Fenimore - Operational and Environmental Action Plan Request
Message from "615-RICOH5002" (0Kb) Message from "615-RICOH5002" (0Kb) Message from "615-
RICOH5002" (0Kb)
Mr. Bernardi, please find attached a letter and attachments regarding the DEPs direction for SEP to develop an
Operational and Environmental Action Plan to address certain issues at the Fenimore Landfill Closure project. These
issues were discussed with SEP at the meeting August 1, 2012 in Roxbury Township.

If you have any questions please contact Michael Gerchman of my office at the number below for assistance.

Bob


EXHIBIT 8.6

EXHIBIT 8.7

EXHIBIT 8.8

DAVID KESSLER & ASSOCIATES, Lt.C.
DAVID KESSLER
MATTHEW M. FREDERICKS
MICHELLE CONROY*
ADAM S. KESSLER*
BRUCE
OF COUNSEL
ALSO AO .. ITTItO IN NT
" ",iso ", O"'TTEO IN
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Deanne M. Wilson, J.S.C.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1373 BROAD STREET
CLIFTON. NEW .JERSEY 07013
TELEPHONI;: 19731 773-J200
TELECOPI ER (973J 773-6533
fillilinitia!l8stname{9kessllt"lIw.com
August 10,2012
NEW YORK OFFICE
369 LItXINOTON AYENUE
15TH FLOOR
NEW YORI(, NEW YORI( 10017
1212131!!1 _009!5
Tn .. 3l!!l-ooe<!i
REPLT TO NEW JERSET OFFICE
Chancery Division, General Equity Part (presiding)
Courthouse
Washington & Court Streets
Dear Judge Wilson:
Re: Strategic Envirorunental Partners, LLC
v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection
This office represents Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC ("SEP") in the
above-referenced matter.
Kindly accept this letter update pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Your Honor' s July 3 1. 2012
Consent Order, wherein Your Honor instructed the parties to update the Court on the status of
the meetings and infonnal discovery ordered in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Court' s Consent Order.
On August 1,2012, the parties conducted a site visit at the landfill property. Present at
the site visit were representatives from NJDEP, Roxbury Township, SEP and their respective
counsel.
On August 1, 2012, following the site visit, the parties to this action including counsel for
the New Jersey State Police and a representative from the New Jersey Department of Labor's
Office of Asbestos Control and Licensing, met at the Roxbury Township Municipal Building and
discussed various issues related to SEP's property,
Annexed hereto as Exhibit A are copies of the minutes from this August 1, 2012 meeting.
(I set of minutes was prepared by me and another set of minutes was prepared by Roxbury
Township; both sets of minutes have been reviewed by all parties and no objections have been
raised to either set of minutes).
The primary issues discussed at the August 1
51
meeting were asbestos and methane at the
.site. To summarize, the Department of Labor explained how the small asbestos tile was found at
the property and the parties agreed that tile source of the asbestos containing material CACM")
was a DEP-licensed Materials Recovery Facility ("MRF") in South Plainfield, New Jersey. The
DEP acknowledged that despite there being procedures designed to prevent ACM from being
disseminated by MRFs, some ACM goes wldetected and is inadvertently allowed to leave the
MRF. In other words, the DEP is aware and appears to have been aware prior to intercepting the
ACM en route to SEP's site that MRFs have been the source of ACM traveling to landfills.
Regarding the issue of methane, SEP' s project engineer, Bashar Assadi, P.E., explained
at the August 1 sl meeting that SEP has quickly installed additional methane gas monitoring wells
at the site near the border between the landfill and the residential properties. All parties agreed
that SEP has acted quickly and appropriately in response to the discovery of methane and that
SEP has been working cooperatively with the DEP to address the hazards presented by the
elevated levels of methane gas discovered near the Poet's Peak residential development.
At the August 1,2012 meeting, the Township of Roxbury and SEP agreed that the DEP
should provide SEP with guidance on the steps necessary to further address the methane and
asbestos issues.
On August 3, 2012, the DEP sent a letter to SEP urging SEP to take certain enumerated
steps regarding the methane and asbestos. See copy of the August 3
rd
letter attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
The August 3, 2012 letter includes but is not limited to the following recommended
actions:
1. Design and installation of an active methane gas collection system;
2. Investigate and design a soil purging system;
3. Conduct methane testing in the Poet's Peak development including in the
back yards of private residential property;
4. Submit a proposal to conduct testing in the basements and crawlspaces of
the neighboring residences;
5. lnstall peonanent methane gas monitoring wells in the Poet's Peak
residential neighborhood.
6. Install methane gas meters/alarms in the Poet' s Peak. homes;
7. Submit an air monitoring plan for detection of asbestos, including
instal lation of permanent upwind and downwind air monitoring stations;
8. Begin working with DEP-approved MRFS to ensure that improper
materials are not delivered to the site.
The August 3, 2012 letter from the DEP includes tight deadlines (e.g. 14 days, 30 days)
for each enumerated proposed action.
On August 8, 2012, SEP's project engineer, Mr. Assadi, submitted to SEP a written
proposal for the professional services required in order to comply with the recommendations in
the DEP's August 3, 20121euer. See proposal annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
The August 8, 2012 proposal from Mr. Assadi estimates the cost ofperfonning the DEP
recommended actions will be $168,000.00, not including out of pocket expenses.
Accordingly, the OEP is asking SEP to take additional measures and incur substantia]
additional costs which are not required by SEP's Closure Plan. However, at the same time, the
DEP continues to demonstrate its intent to tenninate SEP's closure project and has refused to
discuss the additional issues necessary to resolve this matter altogether, as follows:
On July 27, 2012, prior to the August l SI site visit and meeting, -I wrote to Mr. Kinney and
requested a meeting with tJle DEP to discuss issues related to SEP's Closure Plan and
Administrative Consent Order ("ACO"). I invited the DEP to meet with us following the August
1 SI meeting with the Township. See Exhibit D hereto. I did not receive a response to my request
for a meeting with the DEP to discuss Closure Plan and ACO matters.
At the conclusion of the August 1,2012 meeting which included the Township, the State
Police and the Department of Labor, but which did nol include any DEP decision m k e r s ~ Mr.
Kinney stated that the DEP was willing to meet and discuss issues with SEP.
On August 8, 2012, I wrote to Mr. Kinney and asked for the DEP's position regarding
our request for a meeting. I renewed our request for a meeting and suggested that we meet in the
Courthouse or somewhere else in Morris County. See Exhibit D hereto. I have not received a
response to my August 8, 2012 email.
Accordingly, we have attempted to "meet, confer and share information in a good faith
effort w resolve the issues presented in this litigation, including capping the fonner landfill" as
required by Paragraph 6 of the Court's July 31, 2012 Consent Order. We do not believe the DEP
has done the same.
In the meantime, the stopping and inspecting of trucks en route to SEP's property
conducted by the New Jersey State Police and Department of Transportation has resumed. There
was no stopping of trucks from Thursday, July 26, 2012 (the day after we filed with the Court an
Amended Verified Complaint and application for Order to Show Cause) to this week (after the
parties met on August 1 SI as requested by the Court). It appears the truck inspections were halted
long enough for the DEP, the State Police and the Township of Roxbury to have a meeting to
discuss the methane and asbestos issues. However, now that those issues have been discussed,
the DEP will not respond to our requests for a meeting to discuss other issues of importance to
SEP, and the truck inspections have resumed.
The DEP is instructing SEP to quickly and aggressively take costly measures to address
the methane and asbestos issues. The OEP is aski ng SEP to expend hundreds of thousands of
dollars beyond what is required In SEP's Closure Plan, while simultaneously refusing to discuss
a global resolution of this matter. In other words, the OEP is instructing SEP to spend enormous
sums of money while at the same time actively trying to eliminate SEP's ability to generate
income. SEP can' t undertake these costly remediation measures if it doesn' t have an income
stream to fund them.
We again respectfully renew our request for the Court to order the parties to participate in
a settlement conference and to sanction the DEP for its failure to comply with Your Honor' s July
31 , 2012 Consent Order requiring the OEP to meet with SEP and to confer and share infonnation
related to the capping of the landfilL
Meanwhi le, SEP continues to make progress on its solar project See attached letter
dated August 10,2012 from Stephen Pearlman, Esq., additional counsel for SEP regarding the
solar project, to the State of New Jersey's Clean Energy Program Director. (Exhibit F).
Thank you for Your Honor'S courtesy. Please do not hesitate to call if Your Honor has
any questions.
MF!
Enclosures
Ce: Robert Kinney, Esq. , Division of Law (w/enclosures)(by email and UPS)

Minutes of Meeting - August 1,2012
Meeting began at II :05 in the Council Room of the Roxbury Township Municipal
Building.
Attendance
Anthony M. Bucco, Esq., for Roxbury Township
Art Elias. Keller & Kirkpatrick, for Roxbury Township
Lisa Spring, for Roxbury Township
Tom Vorhees, for NJ Dept. of Lahor, Asbestos Control
Vincent Rizzo, D.A.G. for NJ State Police
Gary W. Wolf, Jr., D.A.G. for NJ DEP
Robert Kinney, D.A.G. for NJ DEP
Mary Anne Goldman, NJ DEP
Gina Conti, NJ DEP
Mary Siller, NJ DEP
Robert Confer, NJ DEP
Richard Bernardi, Strategic Environmental LLC
Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq. for Strategic Environmental
Bashar Assadi, P .E., for Strategic Environmental
John Wyciskala, Esq., for Strategic Environmental
Attending by telephone: Christopher Raths, Roxbury Township
Prior Site Visit
The August 1,2012 meeting followed a site visit to the former Fenimore Landfill
located in Roxbury which began at approximately lOAM. Present at the site visit were:
Mr. Bucco, Mr. Elias, Ms. Spring, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Kinney, Gina Conti, Mary Siller, Mr.
Bernardi, Mr. Fredericks, Mr. Assadi and Mr. Wyciskala. The parties walked portions of
the property including Phase I of the Closure Plan.
Agenda
Mr. Kinney had on Jilly 31, 2012 circulated a proposed Agenda, a copy of which is
attached hereto. The meeting generally followed the Agenda prepared by Mr. Kinney.
A. Dept. of Labor findings
Mr. Vorhees described the Department of Labor 's licensing of contractors who remove
asbestos and asbestos containing material (ACM), which is typically found in structures.
Mr. Vorhees said when ACM is found in a landfill, the DOL's concern woilld be where
the ACM came from. Mr. Vorhees said the DOL is assisting the DEP with this issue.
Mr. Bucco asked whether Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC ("SEP") is required to
obtain a pennit from the DOL. Mr. Vorhees said that because the landfill property is not
a structure, no pennit from the DOL is required.
Mr. Kinney asked Mr. Vorhees what SEP can look for to jdentify ACM. Mr. Vorhees
said certain building materials such as siding, floor tile and vinyl asbestos tile (V A T)
often contain asbestos. Mr. Vorhees added that thermal insulation often contains asbestos
but that no thermal insulation has been observed at the landftll property.
Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Vorhees about the testing process and how the ACM was
discovered at SEP's property. r ~ Vorhees explained that the DOL did not go to SEP's
property and perform a survey; the DOL targeted specific suspect materials. Mr. Vorhees
said the DOL found 4 samples of siding and 1 sample of V AT which contained asbestos.
Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Vorhees if the ACM fouod at the property is friable. Mr, Vorhees
said there is a high potential for friability due to the activity at the landfill. Mr. Vorhees
said it is not practical to remediate the ACM found on the site, but that capping the ACM
with soil would be the best approach, provided the ACM is not continually disturbed .
. Mr. Bucca asked if air quality testing is necessary to test for airborne asbestos. Mr.
Vorhees suggested the possibility of exposure monitoring for people working on the site
as well as a downwind sampling station.
Mr. Raths asked if there would be any additional asbestos testing at the site. Mr. Vorhees
said he would recommend random sample testing and possibly core sampling. He
recommends downwind sampling at a minimum.
Chris Raths asked if Mr. Vorhees had prepared a report on the DOL' s findings. Mr.
Vorhees stated that the DOL had not been authorized to prepare a report
1.B. Discussion of DEP recommended steps in response to findings.
Mr. Kinney referenced an outline he bad prepared entitled DEP Proposed Asbestos
Response Actions (a copy is attached hereto), which was attached to the Agenda. The
outline identified five (5) actions which the DEP recommends SEP take in response to the
discovery of ACM at the site.
Mr. Kinney explained that the DEP believes the ACM found at SEP' s propertY was from
a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in South Plainfield, and was delivered to the site by
a company called ACE Trucking. Me. Kinney stated that SEP is no longer accepting
material from ACE Trucking, that SEP should perfonn visual inspections of materials
received from MRFs aod should notify the DEP if aoy additional ACM is found.
Mr. Kinney stated that MRFs should be testing materials filey receive for the presence of
ACM, that there should be AQAC in place to prevent ACM from leaving MRFs. Gary
Wolf explained that each MRF has an Operations Plan designed to take out ACM upon
2
receipt and that MRFs have people on site who are trained to visually identify ACM
before any material is processed or crushed. Mr. Wolf stated that despite the procedures
in place to discover ACM, sometimes ACM slips through and leaves the MRF. Mr. Wolf
noted that SEP has proposed testing for ACM at the MRFs from which SEP receives fill
material.
Mr. Raths asked how many MRFs are in New Jersey. Mr. Confer estimated that there are
approximately 70 MRFs in New Jersey.
Mr. Kinney stated that the Materials Acceptance Protocol (MAP) which is part ofSEP' s
Closure Plan authorizes SEP to accept material from MRFs.
Mr. Bucca stated that he believes that on a regular basis trucks have been stopped and
inspected and have been calTying more weight than what is reflected on the trucks biU of
lading. Mr. 'Fredericks said he had reviewed all of the State Police inspection reports
provided by Mary Beth Wood and had not seen any violations reflecting a bill of lading
which did not match the truck's weight.
Mr. Bucco suggested that having a scale on SEP's property might help the situation. Mr.
Bernardi stated that he had expressed his willingness to put a scale at the KingtoWll
Diesel huckstop. Mr. Raths stated that an application for a permit to put a scale at the
KingtownDiesel truckstop should be submitted and that he would review the application..
I.C. SEP's Proposed Responses
Mr. Kinney suggested SEP take additional samples in Phase I to test for ACM. Mr. Wolf
suggested SEP take steps to limit the migration of ACM onto and off of the site,
including controlling the dust from the site.
Mr. Kinney stated that the UEP would like air monitoring performed at the site including
upwind and downwind monitoring stations. Mr. Wolf suggested the use of "CEM", a
stream of data to monitor particulates and fibers. Mr. Vorhees suggested possibly using a
fibrous aerosol monitor.
Mr. Bucco asked whether the DEP would come up with a plan and map out the
requirements for SEP to follow regarding asbestos. Mr. Wolf replied that it is not typical
for the State to do engineering. that typically the party in question (SEP) would come up
with a plan for the DEP to review. Mr. Bucco stated that someone should give SEP
specific instructions telling SEP what to do to manage and limit ACM at the site.
Robert Kinney raised the issue of dust at the site which could potentially carry friable
asbestos. Ms. Siller recommended that asphalt millings be used to pave the entranceway
to the site, which would reduce the dust.
3
Mr. Bucco said that that the roads around the site were a mess at the time of the site visit
prior to the meeting. Mr. Bernardi stated that SEP has a street sweeping machine on site
and that the streets were swept this morning and are swept every afternoon.
Mr. Bemardj also stated that SEP has a water truck on site to help with the dust and that
SEP had submitted to the Township an application for a permit to get a pennanent water
line to the property. Mr. Bemardi said the dust could be reduced by paving the
entranceway with asphalt millings as suggested by Ms. Siller. Mr. Bernardi said the
paving would have to be done on a Saturday to avoid interfering with the trucks entering
and exiting the site via the entranceway. Mr. Raths stated that operating the site on a
Saturday would create an issue with local residents. Ms. Siller explained that the paving
could be completed in one moming. Mr. Bernardi stated that the only activity which
would take place on a Saturday would be paving the road using a loader and a spreader.
and that no trucks would be permitted to bring material to the site on a Saturday.
Mr. Bucco stated to Mr. Raths that the-y should talk about SEP's request to pave the
entranceway on a Saturday morning.
Mr. Bernardi said the paving of the entranceway could be done from about 7AM to 12PM
on a Saturday morning and would only have to be repaved about every 2-3 months. Mr.
Bucco said the Township would consider that. Mr. Raths said he is concerned that
Saturday work would become an all the time thing.
Ms. Spring asked who will make sure SEP takes the steps required to control the ACM.
Mr. Kinney responded, saying that SEP would respond to the DEP's recommendations
and that the DEP would review SEP' s response. Mr. Kinney noted that Ms. Conti visit<;
the site at least once per week. Mr. Kinney said that the plan to address the ACM would
not require an amendment to SEP' s ACO or to the Closure Plan. Mr. Kinney said that
there are workers on site who could potentially be exposed to ACM and that this creates a
safety issue as well as a public health issue. He said the parties can find a cooperative
and mutually acceptable way to resolve and monitor these issues.
Mr. Wolf stated that Paragraph 14 of SEP's Closure Plan provides that if ACM is found,
a response would be implemented under the guidance of the DEP, which is typical of
how these things are generally bandIed.
Mr. Bernardi asked who is in charge of the asbestos abatement program which is
intended to remove all ACM from a site before any building is demolished. Mr. Vorhees
responded that the DOL handles this in conjunction with the Dept. of Health. Mr.
Bernardi said that MRFs are not permitted to accept ACM and Mr. Confer confinned
this. Mr. Vorhees stated that contractors who demolish buildings are notorious for
knocking down buildings before the DOL and Dept. of Health can inspect them and that
this is sometimes done intentionally. Mr. Vorhees referred to an article by the DOL
intended to educate local code officials about the importance of requiring and obtaining
docwnentation confinning there is no ACM in building prior to demolition.
4
Mr. Kinney noted that MRFs send materials to many places other than SEP' s property, so
there is likely ACM going to other sites as well and that this is a larger issue at other
facilities in the State, and that the DEP is acutely aware ofMr. Vorhees' concerns.
Mr: Bernardi stated that he is as concerned as everyone else regarding the issue of
asbestos and that SEP will go to the MRFs and conduct grab samples as part of its efforts
to avoid receiving any additional ACM from the MRFs.
Mr. Confer asked Mr. Bernardi if it might help mitigate the dust issue if the fill material
were wetted down or made damp at the MRFs. Mr. Bernardi and Mr. Assadi answered
yes. that wetting the material at the MRF prior to delivery to SEP would help with the
dust.
Mr. Kinney reiterated that SEP and the DEP will come up with a joint plan to address the
asbestos issue. Mr. Raths said he would like to review the plan.
Mr. Confer asked how long it takes to get soil onto the site to cover fill material brought
to the site. Mr. Assadi stated that SEP has incoming soil on site and that soil has already
been spread over fiU materiaJ at the site.
2-. Methane Issue and Response
Mr. Kinney stated that the DEP and SEP have been working very closely in response to
the discovery of elevated levels of methane gas at SEP' s property. He said that the
parties are working in the right direction on this issue.
Mr. Bucca asked how serious is the methane issue. Mr. Raths made reference to the
2005 report on the fonner landfiU prepared by the Louis Berger Group which identified
methane at the property. Mr. Raths stated his belief that fmding methane at a landfill was
like finding salt in the ocean.
Mr. Confer said that he has seen the 2005 Berger report. He said that SEP is doing a
worthy job of monitoring the Qlethane levels at the property. He said that as anold
landfill, methane gas is naturally present on the property and that it is good that SEP has
found it. Mr. Confer explained that the methane gas can be remediated with a blower
system, but the issue is whether the methane gas has migrated off site. As long as the gas
stays on the landfill, it is ok, but the concern over the gas increases if it migrates offsite,
he said.
Mr. Raths asked why no methane testing was done in 2005. He also asked why methane
remediation hadn't been done to date if SEP' s Closure Plan requires installation of a
methane remediation system. Mr. Confer answered that methane had not been
considered a major problem, but that methane should be contained and extracted and that
the DEP is working with SEP on doing that.
5
Me. Raths again asked whether SEP's Closure Plan requires methane gas remediation.
Mr. Confer responded that the Closure Plan requires a methane gas mitigative system
including extraction wells and piping down to the barrier or bedrock layer as part of a
methane gas capture system. Mr. Confer explained that SEP's Closure Plan is a phased
closure approach, that the full methane gas mitigation system isn' t required to be installed
until the end of the closure project, and that SEP is installing the methane gas system as
SEP proceeds with each phase. Mr. Confer explained that it is difficult to install wells
and pipes in the phase areas that are active because trucks are delivering fill material to
the active phases.
Mr. Kinney referenced an agenda addendum docwnent entitled DEP Proposed Methane
Response Actions (copy attached hereto), which lists 6 recommended actions for SEP to
take in response to the discovery of elevated levels of methane gas, as foll ows:
1. SEP should continue to delineate the methane distribution at the site.
Testing at the property boundary is recommended, at 25' intervals at the entire
length oftbe northwest boundary.
2. SEP should conduct the off-site area residential area testing immediately,
with slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, etc. The entire housing project
should be covered. It is recommended that slam bar tests be done at SO' intervals.
If gas is detected, addjtional tests should be done within a 25' radius from the hit.
Residential Area Confined Space Testing (crawlspace! basement) should be
conducted.
4. SEP should install permanent in-ground gas monitoring wells at the
Fenimore property boundary with Poet's Peak and also at top of Poet's Peak. A
permanent monitoring well may be also be installed in the residential neighborhood.
DEP also recommends CH4 meters/alarms in residence crawlspaceslbasements.
5. Additional investigative measures should be conducted to determine where
the gas may be migrating offsitc, such as fracture trace analysis or other means to
thoroughly evaluate where the gas could migrate. The US Geological Survey may
be able to assist in this effort.
6. SEP should design and instal] an active gas collection system along the entire
northwest portion of the landfill in - and adjacent to - the Phase I area of the
Fenimore closure project. This would involve a series of gas collection wells and an
active blower system to pull the gas out of the landfill and the adjacent rock
outcropping. Standby generator power is recommended for the northwest property
boundary. It is also suggested that SEP investigate and design a soil purging system
into Poet's Peak to extract any CH4 that permeates it after the collection system is
installed.
6
Mr. Kinn.ey explained that the DEP's concern is the migration of methane off-site. as
methane gas, which is lighter than air, will find the..path of least resistance. He said the
DEP wants to deal with the methane gas as quickly as possible.
Mr. Assadi then displayed a map of SEP' s lot and the surrounding area and pointed out
on the map where SEP had installed methane gas monitoring wells. He said SEP had
installed 7 wells near the boundary of SEP' s property and a neighboring residential
property.
Mr. Assadi stated that in March 2012 the reading from well #10 showed 5% methane gas
by volume, but that in June 2012 well #10 showed a reading of 44.5% methane gas by
volume. Mr. Assadi stated that he irrunediately reported the elevated methane level to the
DEP and that he and Robert Confer have been communicating and addressing the issue.
Mr. Assadi reported that in the area between wells #9 and #1 I, the methane levels went
down and there is no concem. However, there is an area of about 300 feet which still
shows high readings of methane gas and this area, which is located at the toe of a rock
outcropping at the base of the Poet' s Peak residential development, is an area of concern.
Mr. Assadi suggested it may be necessary or advisable to install gas monitoring wells
and/or alanns in the basements and/or backyards of the homes in Poet's Peak as
suggested in the DEP recommendations (#4) above.
Mr. Kinney stated that the parties have discussed that opportunities to go into residences
will require everyone' s cooperation because no one wants to make the people of Poet's
Peak nervous or alarmed.
Mr. Raths stated that the Township has wells, a pwnp bouse, 2 large retention basins and
other facilities within the Poet's Peak development which could possibly be used as
testing areas in lieu of installing wells on private property. Mr. Assadi agreed that testing
in public areas might be a good place to start. Mr. IGnney said this was a good
suggestion that the parties should discuss. Mr. Raths asked Ms. Spring if someone could
identifY all of the Township's property in the Poet's Peak area so that testing can be done
in public areas as soon as possible.
Mr. Kinney asked whether the Township would agree to permit monitoring wells on
Township owned property. Mr. Raths said he thinks so, that this would most likely be
preferable in order to avoid panicking residents.
Mr. Bucco asked what does the presence of the methane gas mean. He stated that there is
a Township meeting on Tuesday, he anticipates questions from residents about this issue
and he should be prepared to answer those questions.
Mr. Confer explained as follows: there is I acre of the landfIll where there are high
readings of methane gas. The hi gh readings exceed 40% of methane gas by volume. The
lower explosive limit for methane gas is 7%, so at levels below 7%, methane gas is not a
risk to explode. However, it is a fact that methane gas can explode at levels between 7%
and about 80%. Mr. Confer said that any spark can explode methane gas; he cited the
7
example of an Ocean County landfill where a building was destroyed by an explosion.
Mr. Confer said methane gas is controllable with a negative pressure system which would
be at the end of the landfill capping, although the DEP is asking SEP to install the
negative pressure system now in response to the elevated levels of methane fOW1d at the
sitc. Mr. Confer noted that the crushing and rolling of fill matcrial at thc site is not a
threat to explode the methane gas and the discovery of methane gas docs not require
shutting down the closure process.
Mr. Wolf said the DEP will work with the Township about how to respond to questions
if any, at the Township meeting on Tuesday, but that the DEP cannot agree to attend the
meeting. Mr. Bucco requested that the DEP provide to the Township a written statement
that can be posted on the Township's website and read aloud at the meeting.
Mr. Elias suggested the possibility of testing only the approximately 12 houses in Poet's
Peak which are situated along the border with the landfill.
Mr. Kinney noted that it was 1:15PM and that 011 behalf of the DEP, he felt the parties
were moving ill the right direction with respect to the issues discussed. Mr. Kinney
referenced the Township's desire to have a working document to give to the public
regarding details on how methane issue wiU be addressed and he then asked Mr. Bernardi
how much time would be needed to provide such details. Mr. Bernardi said that SEP
must first go out and test and see where and what levels of methane are fOW1d. Mr.
Bernardi stated that the working document outlining the proper approach to the methane
issue would have to come from the DEP. Mr. Bucco stated that he agreed with Mr.
Bernardi, that the DEP had to tell SEP what jt should do on this issue.
Alternate Access Road
Mr. Bucco stated that SEP and the Township have exchanged an Access Agreement
which was complete but needed to be executed by both parties. He stated that Mr. Elias
was making arrangements with SEP's engineers to get access to the site to perform the
alignment for the proposed road. He stated that after that, the DEP agent responsible for
determining the presence of the Indiana Bat would visit the site and that from there, the
land use peonit would be approved. Mr. Bucco stated that Shippo had signed off on the
plan for the road.
Mr. Bucca advised that the DEP needs confinnation that SEP will continue the haul road
on SEP's property down to the point where the new road will meet SEP's property.
Mr. Bucco also stated that the Township of Roxbwy has spent a lot of money in
connection with this matter that the Township is not prepared to pay for the construction
of the alternate access road and that although there have been discussions with the DEP
regarding the funding of the road, nothing has been confllTIled and a funding source must
still be identified.
8
Mr. Bucca confinned that upon completion of the access road, SEP will have an access
agreement from the Township giving SEP permission to use the access road, which will
cross Tovmship property. for the trucks to deliver the fill material to the site.
Mr. Kinney expressed concern that the DEP was identified as a party to the access
agreement between SEP and the Tovmship. His primary concern is the indemnification
provision in the access agreement, as he stated the DEP cannot agree to indemnify SEP.
Mr. Kituley suggested that some friendly amendments could be made to the access
agreement.
At I :30 Mr. Kinney stated that everything on the agenda had been covered.
Mr. Raths and Mr. Bucco again raised the issue of the mud on the roads and Ms. Siller
noted again that allowing SEP to pave the entranceway to the site would help with this.
Mr. Bucco reiterated the need to address the weight of the trucks arriving at the site. Mr.
Bernardi responded that he would love to put a scale at the Kingtown Diesel truckstop.
Mr. Raths said the Township will await an application for the scale.
Ms. Siller said it is important to get a handle on the issue of the truck weights.
Mr. Raths thanked everyone for traveling to Roxbury to attend the meeting.
Mr. Bucca asked Ms. Spring to produce minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Kinney stated that the OEP is willing to get together at another time to discuss other
issues with SEP.
9
Infonnalion
973-448-2000
Court
973-448-2034
Engineer
973-448-2018
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffIcial
973-448-2012

973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and
Council
973-448-2001

973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Works
973-448-2069
Tax Collector
and Util'lies
973-446-2022
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
WaterPlanl
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www_roxburynj.us
Date of Fenimore LandfiJ) Closure Meeting: August 1, 2012
All who attended:
Chris Raths - by teleconference
Lisa Spring - CFOI Acting Township Manager
Anthony Bucca - Township Attorney
Art Elias- Keller and Kirkpatrick
Matthew Fredericks - Strategic Environmental
Bashar Assado - Birdsall Engineering
Rich Bernardi - Owner of Strategic Environmental
10M Wyciskala - Strategic Environmental
Gina Conti - NIDEP inspector
Mary Siller - NJDEP supervisor
Mary Ann Goldman - NJDEP
Robert Kinney - Office of the Attorney General
Gary Wolfe, DAG - NJDEP Counsel
Vincent Rizzo, DAG - Attorney General for State Police
Robert Confer - DEP Solid Waste
Tom Voorhees - NJ Dept of Labor Asbestos Control
Mr. Kinney ofDEP opened the meeting, prefacing it with the agenda that he put together the
night before. He then handed the meeting over to Tom Voorhees from the DOL. He
commented that landfills are not usually under his jurisdiction but that he and his team were
assisting the DEP, Mr. Kinney, in taking samples_ There is no permit needed from DOL.
ASBESTOS
Mr. Kinney asked Tom what kind of samples he would be looking for at the landfill. Tom
explained that he would be looking for building materials, like transite (suspect asbestos),
siding materials, fire protection insulation, V AT - vinyl tile usually 9x9. The DOL targeted
certain materials that were suspect. They took seven samples - 3 were positive for asbestos.
There were 4 siding samples, transite material and 1 V AT sample. Mr. Bueeo asked if it was
friable? Tom answered positively to that <l.uestioq, due to thc fact that it is being pulverized by
equip'ment on the site.
Chris asked what would Tom do to remediate? Tom's response was that it is not practica1 to
remediate, but rather DEP would suggest capping the material. Tony asked if air quality
testing should be done due to the exposure. Tom suggested 8 hour time-waited periods of
tcsting for personnel on the landfill and a stationary sample downwind. Chris asked about
2011 "America's Promise Alliance 1 00 Best Communities for Young People"
Infonnatioo
973-448-2000
Court
973-448-2034
Eiill
973-448-2006
Fire Official
973-448-2012
Heallt!
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and

973--448-2001
Elili<!!
973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Works
973-448-2069
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Assessor
973-448-2021
Tax- Collector
and Uflrties
973-448-2022
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Water Plant
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www_roxburynj.us
sampling or testing? Tom suggested more random samples or core sampling, downwind
samples and personnel samples. Chris asked if Tom would be drafting a report on the
findings. Tom said he had not been directed to do so yet and Mr. Kinney added that the
attached outline for the meeting is consistent with Tom's recommendations.
Gary Wolfe spoke about the content of the materials being trucked into the site and said that
they should be inspected for hazardous materials. Bashar and SEP already submitted a plan
for this action. The point was that there are over 70 Materials Recovery Facilities in the State
ofN] and only a few are actual ly sending material to this site.
Mr. Bucco addressed the attorney for SEP commenting on the fact that there were several
reports submitted, from the State Police inspections that were over the weight actually listed
on the biJI of lading for the contents. There was an instance wbere the bill of lading said
70,000 GVW and the truck weighed in at the State Police checkpoint at 84,000 GVW. The
attorney for SEP, Matthew Fredericks, said that he did not see a report reflecting those facts.
Mr. Russo spoke confLIllling this fact and said that all of the documentation from the
checkpoint had been sent to SEP. Matthew had brought to the attention of all that the
checkpoint was obviously inspection for every truck that passed through on that road and not
all were bound for the landfill. Mr. Kinney added that it also affects SEP's bottom line ifthe
landfill is getting more material than what is actua.lly being paid for on the bill of lading.
Gary Wolfe said the easiest solution would be to put a scale on the site. Mr. Bucco suggested
possibly designing an agreement wjth the Mount Olive transfer station in order to use their
weigh station. Mr. Bernardi mentioned that he again would open up conununications with
Kingtown Diesel. Mr_ Bernardi indicated that he had discussed putting in a scale at the
Kingtown Diesel site with Peter Hunckley_ Chris said that he would be glad to assist in the
proper permitting to expedite a weigh station once an application was received.
Back to the samples of asbestos that were found, Mr. Kinney said that the asbestos could be
capped with 6" of clean fill (meaning a sandy soi l or greeny material, not necessarily
vegetative support soil) as an interim step. Gary added that it is in everyone's interest to limit
the exposure; 6" would alleviate any other complications. Mr. Bernardi mentioned bringing
in millings to cap the asbestos - wouldn't that be even better and Mr. Confer reminded him
that that would not be permissible; they are only to be used for roadways.
Mr_ Kinney said that in addition to the personnel monitors, a prudent measure would be to see
some air monitoring on the site. Gary suggested a weekly testing or even daily, using a
portable monitor which would be able to be moved to different locations on the site according
to the wind direction, monitoring particulates and asbestos fibers. Tom Voorhees said that he
Building &
Construction
973-448-2009
Court
973-448-2034
Engineer
973-448-2018
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffICial
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
MayOfand
Council
973-448-2001
Police
913-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Collector
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Cler1l.
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
WaterPJani
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj_us
believed that Mr. Kinney was referencing an aerosol monitor which deflllitely has its limits;
it's good for dust but not much more. Niox (nasal) samples should be done as well.
Tony Bucco stressed that a specific plan needs to he put together so that the developer knows
exactly what needs to he done.
The issue of the mud presently on Mountain Road was discussed and Mr. Bernardi said that
he would like to bring millings in during the week and stockpile them by the trailer on si te
and then on Saturday moming, use a loader to spread the stockpiles to create a better surface
for the mud to dissipate from the truck wheels before entering the roadway. Chris reiterated
that the only downtime the residents have from the noise and mess is on the weekend. Chri s
is very reluctant to recommend this as an option before getting the Council's reaction and
feeling to Mr. Bernardi performing additional work on Saturday. Chris questioned why the
trucks could not stop rolling during the week so that this work couJd be accomplished on a
weekday, rather than the weekend. Bernardi explained to Mary Siller that it would only take
one Saturday approximately 7 am to 12 pm. Mr. Bucco expressed his concern for the
residents. Mary Siller tried to reinforce that it would be resolving an issue that the residents
currently have, the mud on the roadway.
According to Bob Kinney, in the Landfill Closure Plan . SEP will be required to respond to the
action plan. Ms. Conte will be there inspecting once a week and will be communicating with
personnel on the site, as they will be affected the most.
Lisa Spring asked the DEP who will ultimately be monitoring SEP as it completes the
recommended actions to address the issues discussed? Mr. Kinney said that of course, the
DEP will continue oversight of the project.
Mr. Bernardi said that he has spoken to several Materials Recovery Facilities and in reference
to the asbestos, who actually monitors the asbestos abatement - the Health Department or the
Department of Labor? Tom Voorhees said that both would be involved. Tom said that they
are always on the lookout for demolition done in a hurry - sometimes these are the cases in
which illegal asbestos is being covered up. Mary Siller explained that if smal l ammmts are
found during a homeowner restoration project, they can be legally disposed of in the regular
garbage pickup. Mr. Bernardi's concern is that of the origin of the asbestos - how is it
landing up in his who is carting it away illegally?
Mr. Confer said he had two thoughts on the asbestos and the dust issue - would it he helpful if
the content of the loads being dumped were watered down before dumping. This way the
load would Dot be dry. Mr. Bernardi said that he has a water truck on the site and he is on
Court
973-4482034
Finance
973-448-2006
Fire OffICial
973-448-2012
lm.!!h
973-4482028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and
!&w19!
973-448-2001
!'olil1o
973-448-2100
Planning
and ZOning
973-448-2008
PublicWoms
973-448-2069
Tax Assessor
973-4482021
Tax Collector
and Unties
973-448-2022
Township Clem
973-448-2001
Sewer Plant
973-584 5360
Water Plant
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj.us
board with all of it! Bob Kirmey advised l'v1r. Bernardi to work with the DEP staff lo design
some kind of plan. ' Chris continned that DEP will put a plan together for review.
METHANE
Mr. Bucco wanted to know "what do the elevated levels of methane mean?" Chris mentioned
that in prior years testing was done around the perimeters of the landfill and reported in the
"Berger Report". Why is this an issue now? And it wasn't then?
Bob Confer said that the site is being covered by material - he believes that SEP is honestly
monitoring the methane - it is fairly easily remediated and it is presently onsite. The
important issue to resolve is whether it is offsite and how do we go about looking for it?
Chris asked initially, when the Berger Report was done, why wasn't the offsite testing done
then? He also questioned why there is no methane abatement plan in the closure plan?
Bob Confer said that the methane should be contained and remediated. In SEP's closure
application, there is a mitigative plan in place for the methane gas. In phase lA there is 15
acres and they need to be installing the mitigative system with each phase. The findings were
in a small area about 1 acre in size.
There were tests done for methane for the seven wells near the home on Mountain Road and
none showed high methane levels. Bashar said that these wells are approximately about 100-
200 feet apart. 5% is the lower end of the range for the methane testing and anything above
5% is considered explosive. In March, well #10 was tested with a small percentage of
methane present and then in June, well #10 was tested and came in at 44%. Bashar reported
this to the DEP, and Bob Confer suggested that between wells 8 and 13, on the side ofthe
site, across from Poet's Peak, that samples be drawn at the rock outcrop. Two permanently
installed wells were placed on both side of well #10 - 50' from either side and they both carne
up high. Between 9A and 9, there was another high reading and beyond the permanent well
9B, the numbers went down. Chris confmned with Bashar that the area being discussed is
approximately 300'. Bashar suggested possibly going into basements and backyard soil of
adjacent property owners to test the levels. Bob Kinney confirmed that we' ve discussed the
opportunities to go into the residences. Chris suggested that we should test on municipally
owned properties, such as pump stations and wells or the detention basin adjacent to the
landfill prior to the testing of the residential area. Chris asked Lisa to gather this infonnation
together and get it to Art El ias by tile end of the day, so that he could forward it to the DEP.
Bashar explained that methane can go anywhere - it's odorless and will travel the path of
least resistance. Bob Kinney asked if the Township would be amenable to permanent well
2011 "America's Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
Information
9734482000
Building/-.
Construction
973448-2009
Co"rt
973-4482034
Engineer
973-4482018

973-448-2006
fire Officjal
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Mayor and
Council
973-448-2001
POlice
973448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Recreation
973-448-2015
Tax Assessor
973-448'2021
TaxCollecto[
Technology
973-448-2099
Township Clerk
973-448-2001
Sewer Plan!
973-584-5360
WaterPfanl
973-398-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj .us
monitoring in the detention basin? Bob Confer said that wc would still need to do a confined
spacc tcsting in the residential area - eSQCcially the 6 lots near to the landfill. The important
thing is that we would need to provide the residents with information relative to methane, its
toxicity and its effects.
Mr. Bucco asked "what do we tell the residents? What are the dangers of methane?"
Mr. Confer said that high levels are anywhere from 20-40% by volume of air - lower
explosive limit is 7%. Chris asked lithe DEP would sct up thcir own meeting with the
residents to answer questions and explain the facts. Mr. Buceo asked the DEP to 'provide
something in writing about the facts of methane so it can be posted on the Township website.
No clear answer was given by the DEP,just that they were in agreement that information
needs to be presented so that the residents are knowledgeable. Mr. Kinney said that a clear
descriptive swnmary would need to be given to avoid turmoil. Mr. Kinncy asked how much
time they have to get this request together. Me Raths asked if it would be VQssible to provide
the infonnation can be made available before Tuesday' s Council meeting. Cluis expects the
public will be at the meeting with more questions, due to the most recent publication in the
local newspaper about the methanc. Mr. Bernardi said to let him know the status, so that he
can proceed with the testing in the residential area
ALTERNATE ACCESS ROAD
Mr. Bucco addressed the alternate access road. He indicated that the Township and SEP have
exchanged an agreement which should be executed by SEP and then fotwarded to the
Township.
Art Elias confmned that in approximately 8-10 days field surveying would be done by Keller
Kirkpatrick to come up with an aligrunent of the road from the Township to the landfIll area.
There would also be the environmental concern of the bats in that area. Chris said the Shippo
has already signed offon it. Mr. Bucco asked Mr. Fredericks, SEP's attorney, to confinn that
his client is willing to extend its interior haul road to meet the road proposed across the
Township's property. Mr. Bucco added that the Township had expended well in excess of
$100,000 on this project and the Township cannot afford to pay for the construction of the
access road. Mr. Bucco said that it was mentioned that the DEP would possibly be funding
the project, but that has not been continued.
Chris expressed concern that after the access road is built that an agreement would need to be
in place so that SEP could use the access road. The parties agreed that this wouJd need to be
accomplished.
2011 IlAmerica' s Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
Information
973-448-2000
l&!!!l
973-448-2034

973-448-2006
Fjre OffIcial
973-448-2012
Health
973-448-2028
Manager
973-448-2002
Mayor and

973-448-2001
Police
973-448-2100
Planning
and Zoning
973-448-2008
Public Wor1ts
973-448-2069
5
Technology
973-448-2099
Sewer Plant
973-584-5360
Water Plant
973-396-2818
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
www.roxburynj.us
Bob Kinney spoke about the latest access road agreement in which the DEP was named as
one of the authorized parties. Mr. Kinney felt strongly that the agreement should just be
between the Township and SEP. Mr. Kinney said that he had some issues with the agreement
along with the indenUlifications which were li sted in it. Mr. Bucco and Mr. Kinney need to
go over these revisions.
Mr. Bucco asked Chris if he was ok with the way the road (Mountain Road) was being
maintained. Chris said that when the roadway becomes covered, he places a call to Morris
Soil, Joe Dunn to have the area cleaned. Chris said that there needs to be a more pro-active
approach.
Mr. Bucco requested that SEP address the weight issue of the trucks coming to the site.
Bernardi said that he would love to have a scale at Kingtown Diesel. Chris said that we will
be waiting for the permit application. Mary Siller expressed grave concern about the
falsification of weight by some of the truck drivers and said that the DEP has to be notified
inunediately, they have a transportation oversight team.
Mr. Kinney asked if all were willing to get together again to hear concerns and that any
methane/asbestos responses are appreciated. Mr. Bucco asked if the State representatives
would stay beyond the end of the meeting so that he could speak to them.
2011 " America' s Promise Alliance 100 Best Communities for Young People"
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Goverllor
KIM GUADAGNO
Lt. Governor
Richard Bernardi
%tttte of em Jjerse!!
MAlLCODE401-02C
ROBERT M. CONFER, CHIEF
BUREAU OF LANDFILL AND HAZAROOUS WASTE PERMITTING
SOLID AND HAzARDOus WASTE MANAOEMENT PROORAM
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
P.O. Box420 401 EAsT STATE STREET
TRENTON, NJ 086250420
Telephooo: (609) 9846985 Telecopier: (609) 6339839
Strategic Envirorunental Palmers, LLC
P.O. Box 356
Re: Operational and Environmental Issues
FENIMORE SLF
Roxbury Twp., Monis County
Facility II) No.: 132518
Dear Mr. Bernardi:
BOB MARTIN
Commissioner
08/03/2012
TWs is in furtherance of our recent discussions and electronic cOlTespondence concerning several
operational and envirorunental issues at the Fenimore Landfill closure project (project) that could
potentially adversely impact the area around the project. The Department appreciates SEP's
cooperation and its general agreement to address the issues to date, and urges SEP to continue
with steps it is already taken to address these issues. The Department also believes that a
specific plan of action from SEP for ea"ch of these imp011ant issues should now be implemented.
o n s i s t ~ n t with our recent conversations and communications the Department proposes the
following plan of action below, which should be implemented according to the timetables noted
herein. Please note that the Department is seeking additional guidance on these measures from
the Depa11ment of Health (DOH) and Department of Labor (DOL), which may necessitate
changes and/or additional steps. DEP believes, however, that certain aspects of this plan require
SEP's prompt attention, such as the design and installation of an active landfill (methane) gas
control system in the area where high levels of methane were recently detected, among others.
The Department welcomes SEP' s feedback on the proposal outlined below, but urges SEP to
take the steps outlined below without delay.
I. METHANE GAS
1. Within 30 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall design and instaJl an active
landfill gas collection system along the entire northwest poction of the landfill in, and
adjacent to, the Phase I area of the Fenimore Landfill closure project. The collection
system should include a series of subsurface gas collection wells to either bedrock or
groundwater with a suitably-sjzed active blower system to extract gas from the
landfill and the adjacent rock outcropping to eliminate gas migration from the site.
The collection system should include standby generator power immediately on the
n011hwest property boundary.
Additionally, SEP should investigate and design a soil purging system into Poet's
Peak to extract any landfill gas that pelmeates it after the collection system is
installed. SEP shall report to DEP on its investigation and design of this system
within 20 days of installation of the landfill gas collection system. SEP shall also
apply for any Depattment Air Quality Pl'ogram permit which may be required for the
Jandfill gas collection system.
2. Within 14 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall conduct off-site landfill methane
gas testing in the residential Poet's Peak: neighborhood area. The initial testing shall
be conducted at the 39 Target Parcels identified by Roxbury Township (see attached),
which includes parcels adjacent to the landfill othel' than those on Lazarus Ddve, in
coordination with DEP and Roxbury Township officials. The testing shalt include
slam-bar tests at the edges of roads, sidewalks, and in the backyards or front yards if
closer to the landfill. Additional tests shall be conducted on SEP property behind the
homes on Lazarus Drive at the rock outcrop. If methane gas is detected at a
monitoring location, additional monitoring should be conducted at 5 ~ f o o t intervals
both away from and along the landfill perimeter. Monitoring shall continue at these
25-foot intervals until methane detect values are 0% by volume for methane.
Landfill gas methane monitoring should occur in the afternoon of days when
atmospheric barometric pressure is falling. SEP shall docwnent the barometric
pressure for the pedod twelve hours prior to testing in two-hour jntervals and also
report ODe reading 24 hours before the monitoring event. Hourly barometric pressure
data is available from the Rutgers Weather and Climate Network at
http://cHmate.mtgers.edu/njwxnetldataviewer-netnopt.php on a regional basis.
3. In consultation with the Depal1ment, the Township of Rox.bw-y and otbef
appropriate agencies such as the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH), SEP
shall submit a proposal to conduct Residential Area Confined Space Testing
(crawlspace! basement) and subslab methane and VOC analysis.
Initially. a landfill gas analyzer (LOA) should be used to assess indoor levels of
methane. Subsequently. sub-slab soil gas samples can be collected and analyzed for
landfiII gas parameters and VOCs at select buildings based on the LGA results.
4. Within 30 days of the date oftrus lettel', SEP shall conduct investigative measures
to determine where the detected landfill gas may be migrating offsite through the
local geological formations such as bedrock and weathered rock. SEP may use
fracture trace analysis, and other means as necessary to thoroughly evaluate where the
2
landfill gases could migrate. SEP should contact the United States Geological
Survey fot' any assistance with this analysis.
5. Within 45 days of the date of this letter. and in with its investigation as
provided in Paragraphs 2 and 3, above, SEP shall install permanent
methane gas monitoring wells, both at the nOl1hwest boundary of the landfLll, in the
Poet' s Peak neighborhood, and at the top of Poet1s Peak using a partitioned gas
detection well device. A design for this partitioned well is attached. SEP shall also
install methane meters/alarms in residence crawlspaces/baseme.nts.
6. SEP shall continue to delineate the methane distribution at the landfill site, in
consultation with the Department, on an basis.
7. SEP shall conduct monthly monitoring at all pel1nanently installed off-site gas
monitoring wells and repmi aU results within 24 hours to tbis office. Any positive
test results for metbane and other contaminants shall be immediately reported by
facsimile to 609-633-9839 and by email to Robelt.Confer@dep.state.nj.us and
MalyAnne.Goldman@dep.state.nj.us. Any methane gas detected shall be vented
immedjately and other measures may be required in coordination with the NJDOH
and the Department, such as but not limited to, immediate evacuation of the structure.
n. ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM)
1. SEP shall immediately begin inspection of aU trucks aniving at the site in accordance
with the Approved Closure/Post Closure Plan (plan). Trucks with materials generated by
Materials Recovery FacilitiesITransfer Stations (MRFffS) shall be subject to additional
scrutiny for asbestos and asbestos containing materials CACM).
a. Trucks containing asbestos or ACM, as well as any other trucks from the same
MRFfrS. shall be prohibited fium dumping;
b. SEP shall nolilY DEP at 800 W ARN DEP irrunediately if asbestos or ACM is found
in dump loads. The following information sbaU be provided to the DEP at that
time: truckCs) transpOlter company; transpOlter company address; license plate
Dumber(s); type(s) of material; so\U'Ce of material;
c. SEP shaH also notify DEP's Compliance and Enforcement Program so that DEP can
communicate with the MRF as to its procedures for asbestos and ACM
controls. DEP wiU track the rejected LD. 27A waste to ensme that it is disposed of
properly,
2. Within 7 days of the date of trus letter, SEP shall develop and implement a strategic plan
to evaluate incomicg loads at Fenimore in a prescribed manner. TIle plan should include:
s. Establishing a standard quantity (e.g., one cubic yard) to spJead on the ground in a
pre-specified area of the site at the dump site (ideaUy in a low traffic area);
b. Bstablishing a regular time period for evaluation of the material to determine if any
asbestos, friable or not, exists (use appropriate PPE per OSHA);
c. Establishing a protocol for isolation andlO!' pl'Oper handling of ACM that may be
found during the inspection .
.3. SEP shall immediately survey all areas of the site wheJ'e fill material has been deposited
to determine if asbestos or ACM exists in any of these areas oftbe site. If ACM is found,
SEP shall take the following steps:
a. Immediately covel' the area with at least 6" of clean filVsoils so as to reduce exposure
pathways to asbestos (regulated soil material authorized for disposal on site may be
used - materials from MRFITS shall not be used for this purpose);
h. Notify DEP and the Department of Labor (DOL) as to location, extent and types of
asbestos and/or ACM;
c. Detennine from whom the material was received, and report this infonnation to DEP.
4. Within 14 days of the date of this letter, SEP shall design and submit an air monitoring
plan for the site. The plan shall include the installation of pcnnanent air monitoring
stations upwind and downwind of site operations as well as portable instrumentation that
can be used around the site. The stations should be of. type that will capture particulate
matter and airborne asbestos fibers. Samples should be taken weekly and analyzed for
asbestos fibers. SEP shall also require thc usc of Personal Monitoring Devices for all
SEP and construction personnel at the site. TIle use of appropriate Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) per OSIIA regulations shall be included in the plan. ]n addition, any
recommendations contained in the f0l1hcoming DOL Ie'port shall be included in the plan.
5. SEP shall immediately implement aggressive dust control measures at the site to reduce
exposure pathways and off-site migration of asbestos and ACM.
6. SEP shall work with all MRFrrS from which it receives material. (or from which it
intends to receive as to testing and for asbestos and ACMs at the
source, to ensure that improper materials are not delivered to SEP.
ITL Site Dust Control Measures - for asbestos, ACM and fine, airborne pal1iclllates, see
item.II. 5 above.
IV. Road Dirt - shall be managed in accordance with fhe. requirements of the Morris County
Soil Conservation Certification.
A New Jersey licensed Professional Engineer (p.E.) shall sign and seal all designs, data repOlis
and any other submissions to the Department.
The Department is aware of the importance of these measures in order to ensure protection of
human health and the environment, and appreciates the efforts that SEP has previously
conducted in conjunction whh guidance from the Department. We look forward to om
continued cooperative efforts on this project
4
If you have any questions, please contact Mary Anne Goldman at 609-984-6985 01' by emai l at
Mal'yArme.Goldman@dep.state.nj.us .
obert M. Confer, Chie
Bureau of Landfill d Hazardous Waste
Permitting
Enclosures
C: Magdalena Padilla, Chief of Staff
Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissionel', Environmental Management
DAG Robert Kinney, Esq., DOL
Mary Jo Aiello, SHWMP
WolfSkacel, C&E
John Castner, C&E
John Barry, BSWCE
Michael Gerclunan, BLHWP
Bashar Assadi. P .E., BSG
Thomas Voorhees, DOLabor
Joseph EldLidge, NJDOH
Gary Centifonti, NJDOH
John Boyer, DEPlSRP
5
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
August 8, 201 2
Via e-mail (rwbernard{iiJaol.comJ and US Mail
P.O. Box 356
Attn: Mr. Rich Bernardi
Re: Professional Sen-ices Proposal
Landfill Gas Dcsign and Investigatioos/DlJst Monitoring
Fenimore Sanitary Landfill
TowDship ofRoIbury, Morris County, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Bernardi :
Proposal No. 122108
Birdsall Services Group (BSG) is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal. This proposal encompasses
landfill gas design, investigations and will provide dust monitoring as requested for the above-referenced
project.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Please feel free to contact me directly with any
questions or comments regarding the scope, sequence or fees as indicated at 90&-497-8900, ext. 61 14, or
via email tobassadi@birdsall .com.
Very truly yours,
BIRDSALL SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Bashar Assadi, P .E.
Senior Vice President - Solid Waste Services Birdsall Services
Enclosures: Proposal No.122 J 08, SSG General Conditions
WWW. BIROSAl t.-CO M
65 ",. cksoll Onvt'. O anford. NJ 07016 I aS8.BS. aSG. (2 74-4 ) 1 908 497 91 34
Proposal No. 122108
Stralegic En\' ironmental Partners
August 8, 2012
Page I ofS
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
LANDFILL GAS DESIGN AND !NVESTIGATIONSIDUST MONITORING
FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
INTRODUCTION
The following proposal is intended to provide professional services to address the-requirements included
in the NJ DEP letter CO SEP dated August 3, 2012. Please note that this proposal does not include
provisions for the installation of any' mitigation systems such as gas collection and management systems.
ITEM DESCRIPTIONS
The scope of services and associated fees are described in detail below:
Item 1: Desien of Active System at Northwestern Edge of Landfill
Prepare engineering design and construction documents for an active gas venting system a100g the
northwestern boundary of the site. The intent of the system is to mitigate the high concentration of
methane gas detected during field investigations in the months of June and July 0[2012. The system will
be equipped with a blower and a n ~ system that can accommodate different flow rate of LFG.
Item 2: 19vestigation orand Preparatioo ofDesigD for a Purging System
Investigate the need for a soil purging system at Poet's Peak. Should the investigation indieate that a
purging system is required, BSG will conduct a pilot ~ s t fOl" a purging system and will desigll a purging
system for methane gas.
Item 3: Landfill Gas Survey at Poet's Peak
SSG will conduct off-site landfill gas survey in the Poet's Peak residential area. The survey will target
the thirty-nine (39) parcels identified in (he Jetter from NJDEP. SSG wit! use slambar testing where site
conditions allow, considering the rocky nature of the subsurface in the area. The survey will be
conducted in accordance with the requirements listed in the NJOEP letter dated August 3, 2012, under
Item No.2. This proposal assumes that gas testing will be conducted at three (3) locations within each
parcel.
[tern 4: Confined Space LFG Survey
SSG will coordil'late with SEP. the Township of Roxbury, NJDOT conducting confined space LFG gas
testing within the Poet's Peak residential area as agreed upon by the parties. Should any reading be
detected within the confined space. SSG will conduct a sub-slab investigation 111 the subject property
using coring equipment to access the sub-slab areas.
Proposal No. 122108
Strategk Erlvironmerltal PartJltrs
Allgus18. 2012
PaSe20fS
HemS: Fracture Trace Analysis
SSG will drill two (2) boreholes using mud drilling rigs to create two (2) boreholes for geophysical
survey to determine [fthere fractures that would allow gas migration into Poet's Peak residential area.
Item 6: InstaliatioD of Additional Permanent Partitioned Gas Detection Wells
Should the results of the investigations included in Items 3, 4 and S indicate that there is a potential for
gas migration towards Poet's Peak residential area, SSG will install pennanent partitioned gas detection
wells. BSG will install six. (6) 30' deep permanent gas detection wells along the northwestern boundary
of the site along the boundary with Poet's Peak. These wells will be portioned at three (3) intervals to
isolate the detectable layer. Since the formation is rocky, an air drilling rig will be used for installing the
wells. These wells will be used to conduct gas survey on a monthly basis.
Item 7: Conduct Monthly Gas Survey for One (1) Year
SSG will conduct gas testing at the wells installed as per Item No. 6 and onsite wells along the
northwestern boundary of the landfill on a monthly basis for one (I) year. The results of the testing will
be reported to the NJDEP on a monthly basis.
Item 8: Air MODitoring Over Three Moaths (Phase - H99)
BSG proposes the following environmental support services to aid in providing perimeter dust air
monitoring and personnel asbestos air monitoring as well as coordinate our specific role as it relates to the
following:
1. During one (I) site visit. BSG will provide full-time (8-hour) on-Site training for the site engineer
relative to the air monitoring instrumentation that we will provide. Specifically. we will train the
site engineer to set-up and maintain three (3) TSI Dustrack teaL-time particulate air monitors with
enclosures that will each data log the reading measurements 'at a IS-minute intervals
for total dust. In addition, set-up and maintain two (2) calibrated battel)' operated personnel air
monitoring sampling pumps for asbestos.
2. As part of the air monitoring program BSG will conduct the following on a weekly basis:
Download the data stored within the TSI Dustrack real-time particulate air monitor
instrumentation.
BSG will collect the daily asbestos air samples at the end of the week that will be submitted to an
accredited laboratory for analysis in accordance with NIOSH 7400. The air samples will be
submitted to the laboratory to be analyzed utilizing a one (I) day turnaround time upon their
receipt of the samples.
Mainlaining cal ibration of the air monitoring/air screening equipment to be provided by BSG.
BIRDSALL SERVICES GR.OUP
3. Our weekly reporting services will include:
PropoS!li No. 122108
Slnl.legic Environmenlal Partnus
August 8. 2012
Page] Qf5
Providing a hard copy of the downloaded data stored within the TSI Dustrack real-time
particulate air monitor instrumentation, as well as an asbestos report that will include the test
results, the protocols employed as well as a discussion of the findings and appropriate
recommendations.
Item 9: Air Permit Application for Active Operation orLFG System
BSG will prepare and file on behalf of SEP an application for an Air Permit for the installation and
operation of the Active LFG Management Sysrem.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLIENT
I. The Client shall be fully responsible for facilitating the consultant. its agents, subconb'aCtors, and
representatives access to the subject locations within the facility such that the monitoring event may be
conducted.
2. The Client shall provide all infonnarion in its possession, custody. or control which may relate to the
services to be perfonned by SSG.
3. The Client shall provide a location on-site for SSG to adequately store, charge, and maintain the
field sampling equipment throughout the course of the air monitoring services.
4. Based upon the daily air monitoring data, SSG understands that it will be the responsibility of the
Client' s designated on-site representative (0 enforce and verify implementation of the Air
Monitoring Plan by selected contractor employees., hired contractors and subcontractors with
authorization to stop work due to unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and any non-compliance and/or
implementation of the Community Air Monitoring Plan andlor applicable safety and health
requirements.
LIMITATIONS
1. SSG will rely on the accuracy of any infonnalion submitted to us by the client in the performance
of our services, and will not be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies contained in infonnation
provided to us.
2. BSG shall be responsible only for its activities and that of its employees on any site. Neither the
professional activities nor the presence of BSG or its employees or subcontractors on a site shall
imply that BSG controls the operations of others.
3. The scope of this work does not include sampling/analysis for specific potential contaminants
beyond what has bun identified above. Should such additional specific sampling be indicated by
the initial investigation appropriate to the evaluation then SSG would propose a follow-up proposal
at the appropriate time.
4. No confined space entry will be made by BSG personnel during the air monitoring services due to
hazards associated with such operations.
FEE SUMMARY
Proposal No. 122108
SlfBtegic Envirollmelltal Partners
August 3, 2012
Page 4 or5
All professional services described In the itemized Scope of Services will be compensated at the
respeclive Fixed Fee shown below.
Item 1;
Item 2:
ltem 3:
Item 4:
Item 5:
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Item 9:
Design of Active System at Northwestern Edge ofLandfUJ
Investigation of and Preparation of Design for a Purging
System
lAIndfill Gas Survey at Poet's Peak
ConfiDed Space LFG Survey
Fracture Trace Analysis
Installatioo of Additional Permanent Partitioned Gas
Detection WeUs
Conduct Montbly Gas Survey for One (1) Year
Air Monitoring Over Three Months
Air Permit ApplicatioD for Active Operation of LFG System
TOTAL FIXED FEE:
$ 30,000.00
SJO)OOO.OO
S 6,000.00
S 4,000.00
$18,500.00
S 30,000.00
S 18,000.00
$17,000.00
$ 5,000.00
5168,500.00
NOTE: Out-of-pocket gpenses (such tu certified mailings or appliCDl.ion fees}
are excluded from all ofthe above Dl"Of)(}sa/ costs.
CLOSING
Any item listed above which is not ordered will not be billed. Separate authorization from the client will
be requested prior to commencing services outside the scope of this proposal.
All expenses including, but not limited to, application fees, laboratory testing costs, mylar
copies, certified mailings. photographs, blueprints, and special deliveries are considered additional to the
proposal items unless specifically noted within the scope of this proposal.
The lenns and conditions of this proposal are subject to the attached Birdsall Services Group (BSG)
General Conditions.
This proposal is submitted solely and exclusively for the use of Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC
for consideration of the professional services of BSG. Disclosure of this proposal 's content to any third
party without prior written authorization from SSG is expressly prohibited.
Proposal No. 122[08
Sml!eglc Environmenta[ Partners
August 8. 2012
Page S ofS
In addition to the specific items as listed herein. the client may be required to demonstrate compliance
with certain penni! and approval conditions as may be imposed by one or more of the regulatory agencies.
These conditions may require revisions to the plans andlor preparation of additional supporting
documentation. This proposal does not include these additional items unless specifically outlined within
the scope of this proposal.
PA YMENT SCHEDULE
Payment shall be in accordance with the Charges. Billing, and Payment schedule outlined in the General
Conditions attached to this proposal unless prior written arrangements have been made with BSG.
Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing in the space provided below and returning one
copy to this office. Acceptance of this proposal signifies the client's understanding that BSG will not be
retained or asked to perform any services unless funding is secured and is available to pay all invoices
within 30 days. Receipt of the signed proposal shall be considered authorization to proceed with all items
described within this agreement Any items not intended to be authorized shall be clearly and specifically
noted as such within the client's signed and returned proposal.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding
the scope. sequence or fees as indicated_
ACCEPTED BY,
TITLE,
COMPANY,
DATE,
Signature Print Name
Strategic Environmental Partnen, LLC
The above signed represents that they have read and understand the attached General Conditions and have
the authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of the client named above. The above signed also
acknowledges that this contract includes a Limitation of Liability Clause as part of the General
Conditions.
Matthew Fredericks
From: Matthew Fredericks
Sent: Friday. July 27. 2012 11 :51 AM
To: 'Robert Kinney' (Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us); Gary Wolf
( Gary. Wolf@dol.lps.state.nj . us); Jacq ueline Quick (Jacqueline. Quick@dol.lps.state.nj.us):
Subject:
Aaron Love (Aaron.Love@doUps.state.nj.us)
SEP - DEP - Closure Ptan meeting
Bob-
In addition to the issues regarding the access road, which will involve the Township, we would
also like to meet and discuss issues unrelated to the Township such as the ACO and Closure
Plan, as previously instructed by Judge Wilson. Perhaps in the afternoon next Wednesday,
following the meeting with the Township, while everyone is in the area, we can meet at
another location to discuss the ACO and closure plan issues without the Township. Maybe we
could reserve a conference room in a hotel or we can make our office available. There is a
Quality Inn less than a mile from the Roxbury Town Hall and they have a large conference
room available on Wednesday afternoon. SEP will cover the cost of reserving the conference
room if that works for everybody.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks-
Matt
David Kessler & Associates, LL.C.
1373 Broad Street
Clifton. New Jersey 07013
Tel. (973) 773-1200 ext. 219
This e-marl, Including any attachments, Is for the sole use of the intended recipient(5) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this emaills not the intended recipient, or the employer agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended redplent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this emall
is strict ly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please nodfy the sender immediately bye-mall or telephone, and delete the original
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by t he IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained In this communication (including any attachments), unl ess otherwise speCifically stated, was not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or {2} promoting, marketing or recommending to
1
Matthew Fredericks
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bob-
Matthew Fredericks
Wednesday, August 08, 20123:03 PM
'Robert Kinney' (Robert.Kinney@dol.lps.state.nj .us)
Gary Wolf (Gary.Wolf@doUps.state.nj.us);Aaron Love (Aaron.Love@doLlps.state.nj.us) i
Jacqueline Quick (Jacqueline.Quick@dol.lps,state.nj.us)
SEP v. DE? - Settlement Meeting
Paragraph 6 of Judge Wilson's Consent Order dated July 31, 2012 orders the parties to "meet, confer and share
information in a good faith effort to resolve the issues presented in this litigation, including capping the former landfill."
On Friday, July 27, 2012, prior to the August 1st meeting with the Township of Roxbury, I sent you an emai l requesting
that we schedule a meeting to "discuss the ACO and closure plan issues". I suggested a convenient time and place for
the parties to meet. However, I didn't hear back from your office on that request. At the conclusion of the meeting on
August 1st, you stated that the DEP is amenable to meeting with SEP at another time to discuss other issues, but we
haven't heard anything else from your office about this.
As per the Court's July 31, 2012 Consent Order, we are required to provide an update to the Court within 7 days
regarding the status of the meetings and sharing of information required by Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order.
What is the DEP's position with regard to our request for a meeting?
There are many issues still to be discussed. On Friday the DEP sent SEP a letter instructing SEP to take additional steps
and to expend additional funds regarding the methane issue. The DEP has also instructed SEP to take additional
measures and spend additional funds in response to the asbestos issue. At the same time, however, the DOT continues
to hamper SEP's business by pulling over trucks en route to SEP's property. In addition, the DEP maintains its position
that it is revoking SEP's Closure Plan, which would terminate SEP's income. We would like to discuss all of these issues in
hopes of reaching a resolution acceptable to both parties.
I am preparing our submission to Judge Wilson, so please let me know at your earliest convenience whether the DEP will
agree to a settlement conference as we have requested in the past. As previously explained, due to the number and
gravity of active issues involving the landfill, it is not feasible for Mr. Bernardi to spend a day in Trenton, so a meeting
place in Morris County, preferably the courthouse, is best.
Thanks-
Matt
David Kessler & Associates, L.L.C.
1373 Broad Street
Clifton, New Jersey 07013
Tel. (973) 773-1200 ext. 219
This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader' of this e-mail is not the Intended recipient, or the employer agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately bye-mail or telephone, and delete the original
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance wit h requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we i nform you that any u.s. federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise speclficalty stated, was not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
2
INGLESINO. PEARLMAN, WYCISKALA & TAYLOR, LLC
ATTORNEYSATLAW
VIA EMAIL & FEDEX
Michael Winka
Director, Clean Energy Program
44 So. Clinton Ave.
m.winka@bpu.state.nj.us
600 PARSIPP.o.NY ROAD
PARSIPPANY, NE,W JERSey 07054
(Tj(97J) 9477 I [ I
(FAx) (973) 881-2700
www.iandplaw.com
STEI'HEN B. PEMu.MAN
Direct (973) 9477133
spearlman@iandplaw,com
August 10, 2012
Re: Placing Fenimore Landfi ll in the queue for Solar Project Incentives
Dear Mr _ Winka,
This fmn represents Mr. Richard Bernardi in connection with his company, S1l"ategic
Environmental Partners, LLC ("Strategic Environmental Partners"), which is currently engaged
in implementing a 10.0 MW maximum facility output solar project at Fenimore Landfill, located
at Mountain Road in Roxbury, NJ (the "Solar Project"). We Wlderstand that, pursuant to Section
3 of the new solar legislation recently signed by the Governor on July 23, 2012 (p.L. 2012, c.24,
amending P.L. 1999, c.23, codified at N.J.S.A. 48:3-49 et seq. , as amended, the "'Act'), further
incentives wiU be available for certain solar energy generation facilities. Specificall y among
these incentives, the Board of Public Utilities (the "Board") is required to establish (i) a program
to provide SREes to owners of solar projects located on properly closed sarutary landfill
facilities and Oi) a fmancial incentive to supplement such SRECs to cover the additional cost of
construction of solar projects on certain sites, including properly closed sanitary landfill
facilities. N.J.SA. 48:3-87t.
Mr. Bernardi's Solar Project has been progressing and has passed several key milestones.
The Solar Project's location has received HighJands Redevelopment Area Designation approval
pursuant to that certain Resolution 2011-35 entitled "NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS WATER
PROTECTION AND PLANNING COUNCIL DESIGNA nON OF HIGHLANDS
REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR THE FORMER FENIMORE SANITARY LANDFILL,
BLOCK 7404, LOT I, ROXBURY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS COUNTY" adopted on October 13,
2011. In addition, Mr. Bernardi has executed, and fully funded, that certain "Construction
Agreement" executed July 2, 2012, by and between Strategic Environmental Partners and Jersey
Central Power & Light Company ("JCP&L"). The. Solar Project has also 'already received
approval from both P1M Interconnection, LLC ("PJM") and JCP&L, as is evidenced by that
l000428363J
Michael Winka
August 10,2012
Page 2 of2
certain "Wholesale Market Participation Agreement" dated January 11 ,2011 (the "WMPA"), by
and among PJM, Strategic Environmental Partners and JCP&L. The Solar Project is currentl y in
the PJM queue and has been assigned PJM Queue No. V3-00S. This WMPA, whi ch is
extremely difficult to obtain, is the best evidence that the Solar Proj ect will be moving forward
as soon as possible.
Given the numerous approvals and agreements already obtained for the Solar Project,
which evidence the suppoti of key stakeholders, we respectfully request that you place the Solar
Project in any and all Board queues for (i) the forthcoming incentives pursuant to Section 3 of
the Act, (ii) any applicable New Jersey Economic Development Authori ty grants, and (ii) any
other available benefits or incentives for which the Solar Project may qualify. Further, in the
event there is a competiti ve contracting or application process for any such incentives, we
respectfully request to be placed on the list to receive notice thereof.
Please feel free to contact me uyou have any questions.
Very truly yours,
STEP B. PEARLMAN
cc: Richard Bernardi
(00042836-3J INGLESfNO, PEARLMAN, WVCfSKALA & TAYLOR, LLC

EXHIBIT 8.9

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/99f7ec77-84ff-5784-b8a4-385adca4c8d3.html
From: RWBernardi@aol.com Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:10:38 GMT
To: Conti, Gina; Siller, Mary;
CC: RWBernardi@aol.com; bassadi@birdsall.com; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com;
Subject: Landfill Letter
JudgeMethane Letter.pdf (2210Kb)
Hi Gina,

Please direct any and all questions regarding the Fenimore Solar Project to
me and not any of our Engineers.

I am the only person that makes decisions regarding what is done at the Landfill.

Please see the attached letter to the Court regarding your questions to Bashar Assadi.
For now on I will have you copied on SEP's Court Correspondance.

Sorry.

Any other questions contact me anytime.

Thanks.

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

EXHIBIT 8.10

EXHIBIT 8.11

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/1bdf81d6-b3e2-e949-157a-7982c973f2bb.html
From: Confer, Robert Sent: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:16:40 GMT
To: Rich Bernardi
CC: Kinney, Robert; Goldman, MaryAnne; Confer, Robert;
Subject: FENIMORE Asbestos Air Monitoring Status

Id like to see the results that are available and a site plan layout showing/and explaining where the meters are
located, design, lab doing the testing, etc.. Also, personal monitors were supposed to be established for the workers
there, is that in place?
Thanks
Bob


EXHIBIT 8.12

From: RWBernardi@aol.com Sent: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:35:24 GMT
To: RWBernardi@aol.com; Confer, Robert;
CC: robert.kinney@dol.lps.state.nj.us; Goldman, MaryAnne; mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com;
bassadi@birdsall.com;
Subj ect: Re: FENIMORE Asbestos Air Monitoring Status
Robert,

Hope you came thru the storm unscathed.

Regarding my request.

I need the addresses of the Poets Peak homes you mentioned.

I also need some dates that you are available to meet with the Poets Peak
residents to address their concerns.

Obviously I need the NJDEP's complete backing regarding your ordered off site testing.

Thanks,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 10/25/2012 8:21:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, RWBernardi@aol.com writes:
Robert,

Please send me, asap the addresses of the 39 homes
that require methane testing as listed in #8 page 3
of your Order,.under the Methane Gas part.

Very important you send me the addresses.

Thanks,

Rich Bernardi
609 954 9001
PO Box 356

In a message dated 10/25/2012 9:16:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Robert.Confer@dep.state.nj.us writes:

Id like to see the results that are available and a site plan layout showing/and explaining where the
meters are located, design, lab doing the testing, etc.. Also, personal monitors were supposed to
be established for the workers there, is that in place?
Thanks
Bob


=

EXHIBIT 9.1

March 17, 2011
Notes from meeting
RE: Fenimore Site
Meeting with Representatives from NJ DEP Land Use Regulation and Landfill
& Hazardous Waste Permitting
On March 17, 2011 a meeting was held with representatives of Roxbury Township and NJ DEP
to discuss the process and jurisdictional questions regarding oversight of the current tree
clearing activity related to the site investigation, and the future landfill closure approval and
construction, and solar farm development on the site. Following is a summary of the
discussion regarding these issues.
Site Remediation Phase Tree Clearing
! NJ DEP Land Use Regulation issued a Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit and a
Freshwater Wetlands GP No. 5 and the Bureau of Landfill & Hazardous Waste
Permitting issued a Sanitary Landfill Minor Description Approval which authorized
Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC to clear trees and woody vegetation from the
landfill area. The entire landfill area was approved for clearing at this time due to
clearing prohibitions which would have been imposed on this operation on April 1,
2011 due to the Indiana bat restrictions.
! The Townships Noise Ordinance regulates hours of operation and allowable noise
levels from the site. This needs to be confirmed by NJ DEP and DAG.
! NJ DEP Land Use (Mr. Mazzei) has requested water sampling at upstream and
downstream locations.
Landfill Closure Plan
! A landfill closure plan has not been submitted to NJ DEP as of this date.
! Closure standards are not as restrictive for a pre-1982 landfill.
! NJ DEP is willing to host a public information meeting in Roxbury to discuss the closure
plan after it has been submitted. They would have a representative available to discuss
solar issues if requested.
! NJ DEP has sole jurisdiction for the work associated with the closure plan within the
landfill area. Areas outside the landfill are under Roxbury jurisdiction. The Highlands
Act does not apply to the landfill closure project.
! In general, NJ DEP was to confirm the jurisdictional issues raised with the Attorney
Generals office. These items included: noise ordinance, hours of operation, soil moving
permits.
! NJ DEP was informed of the Townships concerns regarding: number of truck trips,
truck routes, impacts to residential neighborhoods, damage to roads.
! Robert Confer, NJ DEP, would be reviewing the Landfill Closure Plan application and
issuing the permit.
! NJ DEP does not require restoration bonds, however, they do review a firms financial
status to confirm they have sufficient funds to complete the project. A maintenance plan
will be required by NJ DEP..
! The amount of material necessary to cover the landfill will be determined based on a
proposed grading plan. It was acknowledged by NJ DEP that the number of truck trips
could be significant and the Townships estimate of 50,000 total truck trips is
reasonable.
! The landfill closure work could take 2-3 years to complete.
! The type of material and surface cover is to be determined. Surface cover could
potentially be grass or gravel. In some instances, NJ DEP has allowed plantings on some
areas of a landfill which will be considered for this application and discussed with the
Township per Mr. Mazzei.
! The developer would have a soils engineer on-site to perform sampling in accordance
with NJ DEP standards to confirm the material meets the specifications.
! Use of an existing cart path through the Township property should be investigated as a
truck route for the project fill material. Improvements to the path would be needed as
well as possible permits from DEP.
! Stormwater detention facilities, located outside the landfill area, will be required to
control stormwater runoff generated from the capped landfill area. Mr. Mazze stated
that Township approval would be required for stormwater control measures located
outside the landfill area. This will be confirmed with the DAGs office.
! NJ DEP will work with the Township regarding buffering requirements for the site.
! Morris County Soil Conservation District will continue to enforce soil erosion and
sediment control standards for the site until it is permanently stabilized.
! NJ DEP will consider input from the Township regarding the landfill closure permit
approval.
! NJ DEP will confirm with the District Attorneys office if they have any ability to
control truck traffic and require the developer to repair roads damaged by this project.
! The Townships Soil Moving Ordinance would apply to those areas of the site which
are outside of the landfill. This will also be confirmed by the DAGs office.
! MCSCD will be involved in the landfill closure plan and continued enforcement
concerning soil erosion.
! Although not required, NJ DEP will consider all requests by the Township (Mr. Confer).
NJ DEP and the Township will work together during the review of the landfill closure
plan (Mr. Mazzei).
! According to documents produced by Matrix Neworld there is an encroachment of the
landfill on adjacent Township owned property. This will require further
investigation/discussion. NJ DEP will review how to address if there is an
encroachment.
Solar Farm Proposal
! The date of the most recent plan which NJ DEP has depicting the solar panels is J une
2010.
! The Townships Site Plan Ordinances would apply to the development of this site as a
solar farm. This will also be confirmed by the DAGs office.
! A concern was raised by Roxbury regarding if NJ DEP required the landfill to be closed
in a manner applicable only to certain types of development, would this in effect impose
a hardship of the developer which can be used to argue against complying with the
Townships land use ordinance. Hardship arguments may be made against modifying
the depth of the landfill cap, grading, surface treatment and buffers since the closure
plan was approved by NJ DEP and constructed accordingly.
! NJ DEP will confirm the property owner.
! Highlands rules will apply to a proposed solar farm project.
Other
! NJ DEP will communicate and copy the Township on application submissions. They
will also request the information in an electronic format so it can easily be transmitted
to the Township.
! NJ DEP will provide the Township with municipal contact information for a landfill
closure project Mr. Bernardi conducted in Hunterdon County .
MAK/cms
Attachment
CC: Attendees
FenimoreSite
2.1.2

EXHIBIT 9.2

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/8f04f10a-a7d7-dcbd-db28-f048685e429f.html
From: Lucille Santitoro Sent: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:32:14 GMT
Subject: Fenimore Letter
Bucco 1.12.12 letter fenimore.pdf (705Kb) Lucille Santitoro2.vcf (0Kb)
Copyoflettersent.

EXHIBIT 9.3

EXHIBIT 9.4

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/0e42aa0f-83e0-e3a9-a070-0823cb3c1af7.html
From: Assadi, Bashar Sent: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:47:52 GMT
To: Confer, Robert
CC: Bernardi, Richard; Gerchman, Michael; Goldman, MaryAnne; Brubaker, Scott; Randazzo, Cindy; Aiello, MaryJo;
Foster, Ruth; Kozinski, Jane; gary.wolf@dol.lps.state.nj.us;
Subject: Request for Modification of Closure Approval for Fenimore
United Water Arsenic Results 02142012.pdf (71Kb) image93af0c.PNG (26Kb) image7f14b8.PNG (21Kb)
image4f87c1.PNG (22Kb) Haul Roads Map.pdf (1993Kb) SW-Confer-2012-02-21-L-Request for Closure
Mod.pdf (123Kb) Summary of Arsenic Analytical Data 053111.pdf (53Kb)
Mr. Confer,

Please find attached a request for Closure Approval Modification on behalf SEP. Please contact me with any
questions.

Sincerely,

Bashar Assadi, P.E.
65 J ackson Drive
P: 908-497-8900 x6286 | F: 908-497-2086
www.birdsall.com


EXHIBIT 9.5

EXHIBIT 9.6

EXHIBIT 9.7

ArsenicResultsattheFormerFenimoreLandfill
Roxbury,MorrisCounty,NewJersey
1
TP-0(2) TP-1(2) TP-4.1(2) TP-4.2(2) TP-13(2) TP-1 TP-3 TP-5 TP-7 TP-9 TP-10 TP-11 SO-1 SO-2 SO-3 SO-4
4/14/2011 4/14/2011 4/14/2011 4/14/2011 4/14/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 12/29/2004 12/29/2004 12/29/2004 12/29/2004
L1105153-
05
L1105153-
04
L110515
01
3- L110515
02
3- L1105
03
53- L1104163
01
- L1104163-
02
L1104163-
03
L1104163
04
- L1104261
01
- L1104261
0
-
2
L1104261-
03 597103 597102 597101 597100
Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
10 - 10.5 8 - 8.5 1 - 1.5 2 - 2.5 1.5 - 2 5.5 - 6 5.5 - 6 15.5 - 16 12 - 12.5 18.5 - 19 5.5 - 6 15 - 15.5 0' - 0.5' 0' - 0.5' 0' - 0.5' 0' - 0.5'
Arsenic, Total 4.8 2.6 3 3.1 3.9 5.7 2.5 4 2.2 300 3.5 14 2.3 3.3 3.4 1.6

EXHIBIT 9.8

EXHIBIT 10.1

LOCATION LeachatePond LeachateBreakthrough
SAMPLEDBY DEP DEP
SAMPLEID 184431 184434
SAMPLINGDATE 1/10/2013 1/14/2013
Metals
Aluminum 8440 4010 200
Antimony 0.9 57.8 5.6 6
Arsenic 1.72 637 0.017 0.02
Lead 32 214 5 5
Manganese 1050 3840 50
Notes:
Allconcentrationsexpressedasug/L
SummaryofLaboratoryAnalysisGroundWaterandLeachate
FormerFenimoreLandfill
Roxbury,NJ
NJDEPGround
WaterQuality
Standard
NJDEPSurface
WaterScreening
Criteria
LOCATION LeachatePond LeachateBreakthrough
SAMPLEDBY DEP DEP
SAMPLEID 184431 184434
SAMPLINGDATE 1/10/2013 1/14/2013
Metals
Aluminum 8440 4010 200
Antimony 0.9 57.8 5.6 6
Arsenic 1.72 637 0.017 0.02
Lead 32 214 5 5
Manganese 1050 3840 50
Notes:
Allconcentrationsexpressedasug/L
SummaryofLaboratoryAnalysisGroundWaterandLeachate
FormerFenimoreLandfill
Roxbury,NJ
NJDEPGround
WaterQuality
Standard
NJDEPSurface
WaterScreening
Criteria

EXHIBIT 10.2

EXHIBIT 11.1

R.E.A.C.T.
Roxbury Environmental Action CoaliTion
P.O. Box 244
Ledgewood, N.J . 07852
Website: www.reactnj.org
Email: info@reactnj.org

RE:AirTestResults
R.E.A.C.T.hasfacilitatedanambientairtesttobetterunderstandpotentialexposurefromvarious
pollutantsemanatingfromtheFormerFenimoreLandfill.Twoaircollectioncanistersandavapor
monitoringbadgewereplacednexttothetownshipmonitor(ROX4)locatedonMountainRoadat
approximately10:40pmonOctober1,2013.Thecollectiondurationwas8hours.
Uponsamplingcompletion,thecanisterswereimmediatelyreturnedtotwoNJDEPapprovedlabs
foranalysis.
Thefollowingtestswereperformed:
IntegratedAnalyticalLaboratories(IAL)
NJDEPLowLevelUSEPAMethodTO15forVolatileOrganicCompounds(VOC's)Includes
62commonaircontaminantsplusadditionalviaalibrarysearchscan
EPAMethodTO11AforFormaldehydeFormaldehydeisanintermediateproductinthe
decompositionprocessofC&Dmaterial.Exposureeffectsincludenosebleeds,anditisa
knowncarcinogen
EPAMethod18forMethane,acommonlandfillgas
EMSLAnalytical
SulfurDioxide(SO2)byMethodASTMD5504inordertoobtainbackgroundlevelsprior
toscrubber/flareoperation
FullSulfurGasPanelanalysisincludingthefollowingtoxins:HydrogenSulfide,Carbonyl
Sulfide,MethylMercaptan,EthylMercaptan,DimethylSulfide
Laboratoryreportsareincludedattheendofthisdocumentandaresummarizedonthenexttwo
pages.TheinterpretationsthatfollowwereprovidedbytheLaboratoryDirector(s),anddonot
expressorimplyanyopinionsofR.E.A.C.T.

IntegratedAnalyticalLaboratoriesMethodTO15forVOC's
AllVOCsthatweredetectedarebelowtheNJDEPscreeninglevelsforindoorair.Thereareno
NJDEPstandardsforambientairandthesewerethestandardsthattheNJDEPusedwhenthey
performedthesamplinginAugust.Thefollowingcomponentsweredetected:acetone,
dichlorodifluoromethane,ethanol,methylenechloride.
IntegratedAnalyticalLaboratoriesMethodTO11AforFormaldehyde
Formaldehydewasdetectedatanaverageconcentrationof7.7ug/m3.Thelongtermhealth
benchmarkforformaldehydeinNJis0.077ug/m3,whichmeanstheREACTresultsare100xover
theNJDEPhealthbenchmark.Thechartbelowshowsformaldehydeconcentrationsthatare
routinelymonitoredinothertowns.Notethattheconcentrationsexpressedonthechartare
annualaveragesandthetestperformedinRoxburywasan8houraverage.
IntegratedAnalyticalLaboratoriesMethod18forMethane
Methanewasdetectedatanaverageconcentrationof3.24ppm.Naturalatmosphericmakeupof
methaneis0.0001745%or1.745ppm.Theexplosive,i.e.dangerous,levelsformethaneare~5
15%,whichis50,000ppmto150,000ppm.Landfillstypicallyproducemethaneasorganicmatter
decompos
oxygen.It
viasoilgas
EMSLAna
Sulfurdiox
asND=Non
HOWEVER
concentrat
placednex
Uponfollo
recordedo
analytical
Uponfurth
difficultto
dependso
inspected
EMSLprom
intocanist
thenperio
resultsthe
determine
R.E.A.C.T.
Pleasenot
(SO2)and
ses.Thispro
twasrecom
ssamples.
lyticalSulf
xide(SO2),h
nDetect.
R,duringthe
tionof52.6
xttothismo
owupconve
onthecanist
methodATS
herconversa
ocollectinsu
ontheintegr
priortothe
misedtoper
ters,tedlarb
odicallyfor3
eyplanonsa
edfromthef
willredothi
tethattheN
othersulfur
ocessisacce
mendthatt
furDioxidea
hydrogensul
8hourtest,
ppb,witha
onitorwasto
ersationswit
terindicatin
SMD5504w
ationswitht
umacaniste
rityofanine
testdueto
rformastab
bagsandglas
daystotrac
amplinginth
firsttestand
stest.
NJDepartme
rcompounds
leratedwhe
heNJDEPst
andSulfurG
lfide(H2S),a
,theROX4m
maximumo
ocomparere
thEMSL,itw
gthesampl
wasperforme
theEMSLan
rs.Theinte
ertcoatingo
thenatureo
ilitystudyin
ssbottlesan
ckthelosso
hefieldwith
dcomparing
ntofHealth
susingsimil

enacapispr
artcontinua
GasPanelpe
aswellasth
monitormea
of300ppb.O
esultsforH2
wasconfirme
ewasnotco
edwithinthe
dotherlabs
grityofthes
ntheinside
ofthecanist
ntroducingsu
ndrunthem
fcompound
ameterand
gresults.On
hrecentlysa
arcanisters
resentbecau
allymonitori
erASTMD55
eothersulfu
asuredanav
Oneofther
2S.
edthatprop
ompromised
eallowedtim
s,itwasconc
sampleistim
ofthecanis
tersconstruc
ulfurstanda
ascloseto
dsovertime
dthencolle
ncethisinves
mpledarea
thatwerea
usedeprives
ingmethane
504
urcompoun
veragehydro
reasonswhy
pervacuuml
d.EMSLindi
meframefo
cludedthat
mesensitive
ster;acoatin
ction.
rdsandahig
immediately
.Afterevalu
ctingintoth
stigationisc
schoolsfor
alsosenttoE
stheground
econcentrat
dswererep
ogensulfide
ythecaniste
evelswere
icatedthatt
orsulfurgase
sulfurgases
e,andalso
ngthatcan't
ghlevelsam
yaspossible
uatingthese
hebestvesse
completed,
sulfurdioxid
EMSLtoana
dof
tions
ported
rwas
the
es.
sare
tbe
mple
eand
e
el
de
lyze.
Project: Air Sampling
Field Id Number: Backyard 01
Laboratory ID Number: E13-09671-01
TARGET/NON TARGET ANALYTES -
AIR RESULTS
Sampling Date: 10/1/13
Analysis Date: 10/8/13
CAS Molecular Lab Q Corrected Retention QAS Foot-
Chemical Number Weight Result Results Time Decision notes
NT Only
Method TO-15 ppbv ug/m3
Acetone 67-64-1 58.08 1.1 3
Allyl Chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.20 U 0.6
Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 0.20 U 0.6
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 163.8 0.20 U 1
Bromoform 75-25-2 252.8 0.20 U 2
Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.94 0.20 U 0.8
1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.09 0.20 U 0.4
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 112.6 0.20 U 0.9
Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.52 0.20 U 0.5
Chloroform 67-66-3 119.4 0.20 U 1
Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.49 0.20 U 0.4
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.14 0.20 U 0.6
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 153.8 0.20 U 1
2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126.6 0.20 U 1
Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.16 0.20 U 0.7
Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208.3 0.20 U 2
1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 187.9 0.20 U 2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147.0 0.20 U 1
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.9 0.43 2
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98.96 0.20 U 0.8
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 98.96 0.20 U 0.8
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.94 0.20 U 0.8
1,2-Dichloroethene (cis) 156-59-2 96.94 0.20 U 0.8
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) 156-60-5 96.94 0.20 U 0.8
1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113.0 0.20 U 0.9
1,3-Dichloropropene (cis) 10061-01-5 111.0 0.20 U 0.9
1,3-Dichloropropene (trans) 10061-02-6 111.0 0.20 U 0.9
1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 170.9 0.20 U 1
1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.12 0.20 U 0.7
Ethanol 64-17-5 46.07 0.57 1
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106.2 0.20 U 0.9
4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120.2 0.20 U 1
n-Heptane 142-82-5 100.2 0.20 U 0.8
1,3-Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 260.8 0.20 U 2
n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.17 0.20 U 0.7
Isopropanol 67-63-0 60.10 0.20 U 0.5
Methylene chloride 75-09-2 84.94 0.28 1
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 72.11 0.20 U 0.6
Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1 100.2 0.20 U 0.8
Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.1 0.20 U 0.8
Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 88.15 0.20 U 0.7
Styrene 100-42-5 104.1 0.20 U 0.9
Tert-butyl alcohol 75-65-0 74.12 0.20 U 0.6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 167.9 0.20 U 1
Laboratory Name: Integrated Analytical Labs
Laboratory City: Randolph, NJ
Page 1
Revision J une 2009
Field Id Number: Backyard 01
Laboratory ID Number: E13-09671-01
TARGET/NON TARGET ANALYTES -
AIR RESULTS
Sampling Date: 10/1/13
Analysis Date: 10/8/13
CAS Molecular Lab Q Corrected Retention QAS Foot-
Chemical Number Weight Result Results Time Decision notes
NT Only
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 165.8 0.20 U 1
Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.11 0.20 U 0.6
Toluene 108-88-3 92.14 0.20 U 0.8
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181.5 0.20 U 2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133.4 0.20 U 1
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133.4 0.20 U 1
Trichloroethene 79-01-6 131.4 0.20 U 1
Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.4 0.20 U 1
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.4 0.20 U 2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120.2 0.20 U 1
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120.2 0.20 U 1
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.2 0.20 U 0.9
Vinyl bromide 593-60-2 106.9 0.20 U 0.9
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.20 U 0.5
Xylenes (m&p) 179601-23-1 106.2 0.40 U 2
Xylenes (o) 95-47-6 106.2 0.20 U 0.9
Volatile Tentatively Identified Compounds (upto 30 compounds)
Laboratory Name: Integrated Analytical Labs
Laboratory City: Randolph, NJ
Page 2
Revision J une 2009
R.E.A.C.T.
Project Name: Air Sampling
IAL SDG No: E13-09671
Sample Name:
Lab ID:
Date Sampled:
Res Non-Res Res Non-Res Res Non-Res Conc RL
Compound CAS ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 Q ug/m3 ug/m3
Acetone 67-64-1 1600000 6800000 32000 140000 64000 280000 3 0.5
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 5200 22000 100 440 200 880 2 1
Ethanol 64-17-5 NS NS NS NS NS NS 1 0.4
Methylene chloride 75-09-2 4800 61000 96 1200 1300 5200 1 0.7
BOLD Conc Indicates a concentration that exceeds the NJ DEP Vapor Instrusion Screening Levels
BOLD Conc Indicates a concentration that exceeds the NJ DEP Rapid Action Levels
ND =Analyzed for but Not Detected at the RL
NS =No Standard Avaliable
D =Extra dilution required for this compound
E =Concentration exceeds upper level of calibration range for insturument
RAL =Rapid Action Limit, used for indoor air (IA) only
*Exceedances are based on the residential (lower) standards
RAL
Indoor Air
NJDEP SCREENING LEVELS
Soil Gas
(SGSL)
Indoor Air
(IASL)
Backyard 01
E13-09671-01
10/01/2013
Standards are based upon published regulatory information.
Users are encouraged to consult appropriate regulatory sources for current values and updates.
IAL assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of these values. EDD created on 10/24/2013
REACT Report Date:
Date Received:
J ob Number:
Date Analyzed:
Data File, Badge Front: AD101.0005
Project: Air Sampling Data File, Badge Back: AD101.0007
Location: NJ
Analysis: Formaldhyde by EPA Method TO-11A Instrument ID: HPLC-AD
HPLC Column: C18 Zorbax
Sample ID: Backyard 2 Matrix-Units: Air (ug/ml)
IAL ID: E13-09671-02
Analyte Q
g/sample mg/m3 ppmV
Formaldehyde 0.106 0.00777 0.00633
Reporting Limit 0.10
Integrated Analytical Laboratories
Formaldehyde by EPA Method TO-11A
Summary of Results
10/15/2013
10/2/2013
10/3/2013
E13-09671
C =Lab contaminant
REACT Report Date: 10/15/2013
J ob Number: E13-09671
Date Received: 10/2/2013
Date Analyzed: 10/15/2013
Site: NJ
Reporting
Methane Limit
Sample ID IAL ID ppm(v) ppm(v)
Backyard 1 E13-09671-01 3.24 1.00
Analyst: J . Walukiewicz
Michael H. Leftin, Ph.D.
Laboratory Director E13-09671
Integrated Analytical Laboratories
Summary of Results
Analysis: US EPA Method 18 for Methane

EXHIBIT 11.2

Report: Odor Control Issues at Fenimore Landfill
January 7, 2013
S"IAll; 01' Nrnv J Rs ev
DEPARTMENT OF ENVI RONMENTAL PROTECTION
air pollution control (APC) system. In order to design such a system, a comprehensive landfill
gas sampling and analytical program would first have to be implemented. A landfill gas
collection system would capture any H
2
S, as well as any other sulfur containing compounds such
as mercaptans, and direct them to the APC system. The APC system must either capture the
H
2
S or combust the H2S to convert it to sulfur dioxide. If sulfur dioxide emissions would be
excessive (i.e., exceed the sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
protection of public health or violate of any other air pollution control requirement), then
removal of most of the sulfur is required prior to combustion of the landfill gas. Any temporary
stick flares would need to be replaced with enclosed flares for the long term APC system.
Ambient Monitoring
Because landfill emissions are not exclusively from a fixed point, it is necessary to conduct
comprehensive ambient monitoring to determine pollutant concentrations along the fence line
and possibly in various parts of the community. This data collection would provide verification
of the extent to which cumulative H
2
S emissions from the landfill are causing any off-site health
impacts. Initial H
2
S monitoring by the Department beginning on January 3, 2012 in areas
around Roxbury Township showed readings that ranged from 2 parts per billion (ppb) to 25 ppb.
Up to 7000 ppb were detected at the landfill. See Section 6, below.
1. Formation Of Hydrogen Sulfide H ~ S ) From The Placement Of Wallboard In Landfills
Gypsum wallboard is calcium hydrous sulfate. The sulfur content of wallboard is approximately
17-19 percent by weight. When the wallboard becomes wet, the sulfate dissolves and can be
converted to H
2
S through anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion results from microorganisms
breaking down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The anaerobic microorganisms
use sulfur from the wallboard and organic matter to produce H2S. Ground gypsum, which can be
found in construction and demolition screeningslfines, creates more surface area from which
sulfate can dissolve, which results in a greater generation rate ofH2S than pieces of wallboard.
When the conditions necessary for anaerobic digestion occur, dissolved sulfates are converted to
H
2
S through the following reaction by sulfate reducing microorganisms:
Where: S04 -2 - sulfate
2CH
2
0 - formaldehyde, which is an intermediate end product generated during
the anaerobic digestion process as the organic material is converted to the final
end product, methane
HC03 - bicarbonate
H
2
S - hydrogen sulfide
Page 4

EXHIBIT 12.1

Customer Loyalty through Client Satisfaction

Technical Report: Closure Options

Fenimore Landfill Site
Hydrogen Sulfide Odors
Block 7404, Lot 1
Mountain Road
Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New J ersey

April 8, 2014

Prepared For:
Mr. Anthony M. Bucco, Esq.
Murphy McKeon P.C. Counsellors-At-Law
Riverdale South
51 Route 23 South, P.O. Box 70
Riverdale, New J ersey 07457

Prepared By:
Maser Consulting P.A.
Perryville III Corporate Park
53 Frontage Road, Suite 120
P.O. Box 4017
Clinton, NJ 08809
908.238.0900

Robert L. Zelley, P.G., LSRP
Senior Principal
Director of Environmental Services

MC Project No. 13000078A
_____________________________________________________________________
TECHNICAL REPORT: CLOSURE OPTIONS APRIL 8, 2014
FENIMORE LANDFILL, TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY, MORRIS COUNTY, NJ PAGE 13
gas. Using a density of 2 wells per acre, approximately 30 gas extraction wells total
screened through the depth of the SEP-deposited material (up to 30 feet) should be
installed in Spring 2014 and completed by J une 2014. With 30 gas extraction wells
screened to these lower depths, the landfill gas flow rate is expected to be between 1,000
and 1,500 cfm. Additionally, up to 3 gas extraction wells should be placed off the east
toe of the landfill to collect laterally migrating gases, for a grand total of 33 gas
extraction wells; based on our multiple site visits, we have observed this to be the most
odorous area of the landfill. To adequately control the emissions of gases from the
landfill, NJ DEP began installation of additional gas extraction wells in April 2014;
photodocumentation is provided in Appendix B and well installation data is provided in
Appendix F. An additional complete application of Posi-Shellshould be applied to the
entire landfill immediately upon installation of the new gas extraction wells.

Should these additional extraction wells not adequately mitigate the H
2
S odors, then we
recommend that the installation of extraction wells continue until the H
2
S odors are no
longer a public health concern, and consideration of retaining a microbiologist as an
advisor. NJ DEP must be committed to continue to monitor and adjust, modify, upgrade
and expand the number of gas extraction wells, cap and maintain as necessary to ensure
the protection of human health, the environment, public safety, and quality of life of the
residents of the Township of Roxbury.

6.1.5 Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Another byproduct of the treatment system will be the sulfur-impacted wastewater that
will be required to be trucked off-site for disposal. We expect that an NJ DEP-licensed
operator will be required at the plant (one was required at the PCFA). Other O&M line
items include the purchase of water, the purchase of power, operator labor and
engineering oversight. The wastewater will likely be trucked to the Parsippany-Troy
Hills wastewater treatment plant. Based on my discussions with NJ DEP, if the system
operates at full design capacity of 3,000 cfm, up to 60,000 gallons of wastewater would
be generated daily; as of this report, a significantly smaller quantity of wastewater is
being produced. A disposal fee of $0.02 per gallon will be incurred ($1,200 per day)
along with trucking costs. We estimate that four (4) trucks will run daily to the
Parsippany-Troy Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based on an estimate of $800 per
truck per day, the trucking fee would be approximately $3,200 plus the disposal fee of
$1,200 per day for a total of $4,400 per day. This equates to approximately $1,600,000
per year. The power consumption costs, based on a combined load of 200 HP, are
$100,000 per year. The water consumption fee, based on the Township of Roxbury fee
structure and NJ DEPs projected usage of 40 gallons per minute (approximately 5.4
million gallons per quarter), is approximately $315,000 annually. The cost for caustic
chemical is reported to be $1.14 per gallon for 25 percent caustic and approximately
5,500 gallons a day will be required for a daily cost of approximately $6,270. The
combined total cost of the caustic is estimated at approximately $2,290,000 annually.
However, actual operational data is under evaluation by NJ DEP and actual O&M costs
have not been provided to date. NJ DEP has not provided a timetable for the duration of
operation of the treatment system.
_____________________________________________________________________
TECHNICAL REPORT: CLOSURE OPTIONS APRIL 8, 2014
FENIMORE LANDFILL, TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY, MORRIS COUNTY, NJ PAGE 14

Summary of First Year O&M Costs:
1. Wastewater disposal $1,600,000
2. Caustic (25 percent) $2,290,000
3. Power $ 100,000
4. Water $ 315,000
5. Licensed Operator $ 200,000
Total First Year $4,505,000

The operating and maintenance costs will decrease as a function of the decrease in H
2
S
concentration of the landfill gas. The rate of H
2
S decrease will be a function of the mass
of sulfite-containing C&D material that was deposited in the landfill.

During J anuary 2014, after only five months of operation and at significantly less than
design capacity, several treatment system reliability issues were identified. The blower
components corroded requiring a periodic system outage to complete repairs. During the
outage, H
2
S readings rose as would be expected since no gas control was in effect. And
as another example, on February 13, 2014 during a brief one-hour outage, a landfill
perimeter monitor installed by the Township of Roxbury recorded a spike in H
2
S
concentration from 2 ppb to 72 ppm before returning to 2 ppb (see Figure 11). NJ DEP
has since introduced a 130F water/air quench to the ductwork between the oxidizers and
scrubber to improve system reliability. Furthermore, on April 1, 2014 a pH instrument
failed, causing the caustic injection to be incorrect which resulted in recorded spikes of
SO
2
concentrations at perimeter air monitoring stations; the treatment system was taken
off-line, corrected and returned to operation.

The impact of system reliability issues needs to be considered when evaluating the
long-term performance in reducing H
2
S levels on a continuous basis for a significant time
period. It is our understanding that daily operational data records are maintained
electronically by NJ DEP. These records typically include gas extraction wells in
operation, gas flow rate, and H
2
S removal rate. We recommend that NJ DEP provide
their daily electronic reports to the Township of Roxbury on a daily basis so that
reliability issues can be tracked and resolved.

Our opinions contained herein are based on the existing treatment system being capable
and reliable to treat the significant volume and mass of H
2
S that will be produced by the
additional gas extraction wells. The existing system currently treats approximately 140
cfm of landfill gas with 27 pounds per hour of H
2
S removed. Installation of the
additional gas extraction wells is expected to result in a flow rate of over 1,000 cfm of
influent landfill gas that will be required to be treated adequately, reliably and
satisfactorily by the existing treatment system. Modifications and upgrades to the
treatment system due to the increase in influent landfill gas flow and H
2
S mass removal
may be necessary to ensure reliable and effective treatment. We also recommend
re-exploring with NJ DEP the use of the Township of Roxburys alternate access road for
use with this option. This will reduce the impact on the residential neighborhoods and
the townships roads from truck traffic associated with the closing of the landfill.

EXHIBIT 12.2

Linda Kean

to senbucco
sengreenste
senallen, se

Senator Bu

I have not
the Senate

I s it accep

If it is not,
you are on
you are sin
out Bob Ma

Members o
landfill that
truthful and
people you

Mr Martin;s
ultimate pla
Make him t

Thank You
From: Linda
CC: senswe
asmcarroll@
senthompso
senvitale@n
sencodey@n
senwhelan@

Subject: RE
Date: Mon,

Senator Bu

I am shock
information
and you sh
ne
o, sensweene
ein, senthomp
ncodey, seng
ucco,
heard back
e Floor in re
ptable for
why are yo
these days
ncerely in su
artin and as
of the Senat
t affect my
d correct in
u serve to e
s comments
an" is to m
tell NJ Lawm
, Linda Kea
a
eney@njleg
@njleg.org; s
on@njleg.org
njleg.org; sen
njleg.org; se
@njleg.org; s
E: A Park in R
5 May 2014
ucco,
ked that you
n on the Se
hould know
ey, senweinb
pson, aoverm
gordon, senr
k from you
esponse to o
anyone to
ou not callin
s and your
upport of th
sk him to re
te might be
children. I
nformation t
ensure that
s are on tap
ake it into
makers the
ane
g.org; senwei
senbateman@
g; aoverman
nmadden@n
engordon@nj
sennorcross@
Roxbury
4 19:01:19 -0
u allowed C
enate floor.
quite well
7:54 A
berg, senkean
man, asmrum
rice, sensing
regarding B
one of your
o stand on
ng this incid
silence on t
he getting t
etract his st
e in the pos
believe I h
to make tho
correct info
pe. and vid
park for re
truth.
inberg@njle
@njleg.org;
@njleg.org;
njleg.org; sen
njleg.org; sen
@njleg.org;
0400
Commission
Your son is
that the Fe
AM May 20,
n, asmprieto
mana, mdow
ger, senwhela
Bob Martin'
r questions.
n the NJ S
dent out? M
this matter
to the botto
tatements a
sition one d
ave a legal
ose decisio
ormation is
deo. He spe
esidents to e
eg.org; senke
senbsmith@
asmrumana
naddiego@n
nrice@njleg.
senholzapfel
ner Martin t
s the Roxbu
enimore Lan
2014
o, asmcarroll
wling, senvita
an, sennorcr
's misleadin
. I would lik
State Sena
Many people
r makes the
om of the F
and tell the
day to make
l right to ha
ons. You hav
being put
ecifically sa
enjoy. You
ean@njleg.o
@njleg.org; se
a@njleg.org;
njleg.org; sen
.org; sensing
l@njleg.org
to speak suc
ury Townsh
ndfill under
l, senbatema
ale, senmadd
ross, senholz
ng and untr
ke to know
ate Floor a
e are quest
em question
Fenimore cr
e truth.
e decisions
aving them
ve a respon
in front of o
ays that "the
know that
org; asmpriet
engreenstein
; mdowling@
nallen@njle
ger@njleg.or
g; sensacco@
ch misleadi
hip Attorne
the curren
an, senbsmith
den, senaddi
zapfel, sensa
rue commen
....
nd lie?
tioning whic
n it even m
risis you wil
regarding t
be provide
nsibility to t
our lawmak
e plan, the
is impossib
to@njleg.org
n@njleg.org
@njtimes.com
eg.org;
rg;
@njleg.org
ing and ina
ey and both
t DEP plan
h,
ego,
acco
nts on
ch side
ore. If
ll call
this
ed with
the
kers.
ble.
g;
;
m;
ccurate
h he
will NEVER be a PARK TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS. It will plague the residents for the next
10 - 30 years and the chance of it being a PARK in any of our lifetimes is slim to none. Quite
frankly, it has a better chance of polluting the water supply of the homes below and causing
long term health affect for children that are living with it everyday than it has of being a park
for residents to enjoy.

Shame on you for not insisting right there and then that the Commissioner tell the truth at
the Senate Hearing. I respectfully ask that you formally request Commissioner Martin to
retract his statements and make a truthful assessment of the situation to the same group of
senators. One that is also open for public view so that we can make sure he communicate a
realistic picture to the senators on hand and not some fairy tale meant to mislead our state
legislators.

It is an insult to the people you serve to allow this to happen. When will the NJ DEP be held
accountable for their actions? Certainly never if the people that are suppose to be acting on
our behalf allow the Commissioner of the NJ DEP to pass on misleading and inaccurate
information on the senate floor without question.

So that you do not have to scroll down here are the reasons again that Commissioner Martins
statements are inaccurate and misleading.

1. The DEP does not own the site

2. The DEP has no plan to remediate the remainder of the landfill

3. The DEP is in the process of putting down a geomembrane liner that will make
it impossible to redevelop the land

4. The DEP refuse to do testing to identify the contamination in the soil.

Respectfully,

Linda Keane

EXHIBIT 13.1

To: Area Media Outlets

From: Christopher Raths, Township Manager

Subject: Fenimore

Date: March 14, 2014

For Immediate Release

Roxbury Mayor and Council call NJ DEP landfill remediation plan inadequate;
Urges state to provide more data to ensure the health and safety of residents

Roxbury, NJ The Roxbury Township Council today said the remediation plan for the
Fenimore landfill presented to residents on March 11 by the New J ersey Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) is wholly inadequate and called on the state to provide additional data to support its
conclusions.

Mayor J im Rilee said: We were extremely disappointed with the presentation made by DEP
officials at our Council meeting on Tuesday. The health and safety of Roxbury residents must be the
most important consideration in determining how to repair the significant damage done to our
community because of the reopening of the landfill. Clearly, the DEP was not adequately prepared to
respond to questions from residents.

Rilee said he contacted NJ DEP Commissioner Bob Martins office on Friday, March 14, and
said the DEP should stop any action it plans to take if it would rule out implementing other remediation
options in the future, including trucking out the material that was dumped in the landfill. He also noted
that DEP officials failed to adequately address residents concerns about air and water quality.

The Council has sent the DEPs remediation report to its own independent experts for their
review and recommendations. Following that review, the town is expected to receive the remediation
report it commissioned. A public presentation on that report is expected to follow.

We are outraged that the DEP failed to provide adequate supporting data showing their
remediation plan is the most effective way to protect the health and safety of Roxbury residents. The
Council demands that the state provide factual evidence that they are working on a solution that will
ensure clean air and clean water for Roxburys residents. Anything less is completely unacceptable,
Rilee said.

This is too important a decision for the DEP to act without demonstrating to our satisfaction that
they have thoroughly and completely considered all of the options, Rilee added. The Council and I
will continue to demand that the DEP show us compelling data that supports its conclusions and that its
plan is based only on what is best for Township residents.

For more information regarding this press release please contact Chris Raths at
rathsc@roxburynj.us or 973-448-2002.
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
Interoffice Memo

EXHIBIT 13.2

- New Jersey Senate Republicans - http://www.senatenj.com -
Bucco: Residents Deserve More from NJ DEP
Posted by Jeremy Rosen on March 14, 2014 in Senator Anthony Bucco
Senator Anthony Bucco (R-Morris) said the children and families impacted by the Fenimore Landfill in
Roxbury Township deserve more from their state Department of Environmental Protection than
Tuesday nights public hearing.
I am disappointed that DEP representatives only came to tell hundreds of resident victims how they
would cap the landfill, rather than conduct a true hearing to fully listen and take into
consideration information from those suffering in the community that have performed extensive
research on this issue, Bucco said. When government forgets even for a moment that it is
beholden to the people, everyone loses.
Senator Bucco noted how impacted children and families have endured a nightmare ordeal because
of the landfill and expressed great concern that this hearing made decisions final before even
listening to the publics comments.
Public input is sacred and the foundation of what our great nation was built on, Bucco said. I urge
the DEP to fully consider the concerns and opinions that were expressed in the public portion of the
meeting by the residents of this community.
Article printed from New Jersey Senate Republicans: http://www.senatenj.com
URL to article: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/bucco/bucco-residents-deserve-
more-from-nj-dep/16730
Copyright 2013 New Jersey Senate Republicans. All rights reserved.
New J ersey Senate Republicans Bucco: Residents Deserve More from ... http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/bucco/bucco-residents-deserve-more...
1 of 1 5/16/2014 3:52 PM

EXHIBIT 13.3

EXHIBIT 13.4

Fenimore plan met with screams and song
The state Department of Environmental Protection got a harsh response
in Roxbury March 11, when it said its plan to cap the troubled Fenimore
landfill site was a done deal, despite the objections of dozens of
residents who spoke and the shouts of hundreds more who attended.
Smelly Roxbury landfill: Senator, township, owner, residents all
fuming over done-deal plan
Louis C. Hochman/NJ.com By Louis C. Hochman/NJ.com
Email the author
on March 19, 2014 at 1:22 PM, updated March 19, 2014 at 5:36 PM
"When government forgets even for a moment that it is beholden to the people, everyone loses." - State Sen.
Anthony Bucco
ROXBURY The state has finally unveiled its plan for addressing the noxious Fenimore landfill which in 2012
began emitting foul-smelling hydrogen sulfide that many residents say has made them or their children sick.
But the the solution and its presentation last
week as a done deal, past the point where
public input could have an effect isn't making
many people happy.
Not state Sen. Anthony R. Bucco, who authored a bill to enable a state takeover of the site last year. Not the
Roxbury Township Council. Not the activist group created to respond to Fenimore issues. Not one of the state's most
vocal environmental organizations. And not the site's owner, who has been in multi-pronged litigation with the state
for months.
Bucco said in a statement last week he was "disappointed" the state Department of Environmental Protection, at its
only public meeting on Fenimore, didn't hold a "true hearing to fully listen and take into consideration information
from those suffering in the community that have performed extensive research on this issue."
"When government forgets even for a moment that it is beholden to the people, everyone loses," said the senator,
whose son, Assemblyman Anthony M. Bucco, represents the township as its attorney.
The senator's statement is just one sign of a fractured political landscape over the Fenimore issue. It comes from
the same official who lobbied hard for a bill to give the DEP control over the landfill though that particular
legislation never came up for a vote, and Bucco eventually signed onto a broader bill to accomplish the same.
The public hearing itself was a turnaround for the DEP which had said repeatedly it would present its plan for
Fenimore directly to township officials. It had previously rejected calls from the township council, from the Roxbury
Environmental Action Coalition and even the school district's superintendent for a public hearing.
But one came just weeks after a Roxbury resident confronted Gov. Chris Christie about Fenimore at a town
hall meeting, and the governor told her: "To say the DEP has been unwilling to meet with people, that's absolutely
not true."
Smelly Roxbury landfill: Senator, township, owner, residents all fuming ... http://blog.nj.com/morris_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/03/fenimore_re...
1 of 4 5/20/2014 2:39 PM
Roxbury resident gets emotional at Gov. Christie Town Hall
meeting
Roxbury resident Mirna Hernandez got emotional when speaking to Gov.
Chris Christie about the foul smell coming from the Fenimore Landfill site
near her home. The Governor said he has been working on the problem
and understands how it's affecting the lives of people that bought homes
not knowing what it was near. Christie insisted that efforts to fix the
problem and cap the landfill was in the works. (Video by Andre
Malok/The Star-Ledger)
The DEP plan
At the meeting, the DEP presented a plan to first dig more wells at Fenimore, to help feed noxious gasses into the
oxidizer and scrubber system the agency has credited with radically reducing smells over the last several months.
That would be a step toward installing a
geomembrane liner, and then soil and vegetation
cover. Eventually, the agency said, it would
replace the oxidizer and scrubber setup with a
long-term gas treatment system though officials
said exactly what kind hasn't yet been determined.
Cost estimates didn't account for that system or
for long-term maintenance.
It rejected an idea advocated by REACT and some officials to truck out the construction debris blamed for
generating massive amounts of hydrogen sulfide and its rotten egg-like smells, brought into the site by developer
Strategic Environmental Partners under a DEP-approved plan to cap the long-abandoned landfill and install a solar
facility.
The DEP and Christie have both said several times removing the material would disturb the site further, releasing
huge amounts of the gas into the air causing problems even worse than the overwhelming smells that, at times in
2012 and 2013, spread for miles throughout Roxbury. Many residents say the hydrogen sulfide has caused
respiratory problems, headaches, and even nosebleeds. REACT also points to reports raising concerns about
long-term exposure.
The plan also only addresses the area where Strategic Environmental Partners brought in debris about a 19-acre
portion of an uncapped landfill roughly three times that size. DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese said the courts won't
allow work on the remainder.
No public input
Bucco wasn't the only one critical of the DEP's presentation. Township officials said in a statement Friday the DEP
shouldn't move ahead until it has proven, to their satisfaction, the capping option is the best one.
"The council and I will continue to demand that the DEP show us compelling data that supports its conclusions and
that its plan is based only on what is best for township residents," Mayor Jim Rilee said in the statement.
But Ragonese, when asked why the agency didn't hold a public hearing before finalizing its plan, didn't answer
directly.
"We have made it clear for months that trucking out the material was not a legitimate option. The governor has
stated it. DEP has stated it. The mayor and council knew that prior to the public session last week," he said.
2 of 4 5/20/2014 2:39 PM
Fenimore protesters head to Trenton
Roxbury residents head to the statehouse in Trenton to protest the
state's handling of the closure of Fenimore landfill, which has been
emitting harmful and foul-smelling gasses since it was reopened two
years ago in order to be capped and turned into a solar farm. | Video by
S.P. Sullivan/NJ.com
Ragonese didn't address whether public comment
could have helped shape the plan in other ways.
Several residents at last week's meeting had
specific questions or concerns about the placement
of the geomembrane liner, steps taken to prevent groundwater contamination, long-term maintenance of the liner
and cap and costs not reflected in the DEP presentation.
Ragonese also said, when asked whether the DEP might consider delaying or altering its plan at the township's
urging: "We plan to move ahead as quickly as possible to implement the permanent remedy to the (hydrogen
sulfide) issue."
The New Jersey Sierra Club a supporter of REACT's in its drive to have construction debris removed from
Fenimore called the DEP presentation of a decided-upon plan "one of the most shameful abuses of governmental
power by a agency."
It criticized Bucco for not being at the meeting, but said it hopes Bucco's dissatisfaction "means he will intercede on
behalf of the people of Roxbury and stop the DEP capping plan from moving forward and will make sure the people
in Roxbury have their say and get a plan that adequately protects their health and public safety and ensures that the
clean plan is a real cleanup plan."
Fenimore owner: The plan won't work
Strategic Environmental Partners owner Richard Bernardi doesn't have many supporters in Roxbury. He's drawn as
much ire from REACT, the Sierra Club and the Roxbury Township Council as the DEP. Christie has said publicly the
state believes Bernardi "acted illegally" until the DEP took over the Fenimore site last summer.
But Bernardi maintains all the work he did at Fenimore was in compliance with the DEP-approved plan for the site
though he concedes he didn't put money into an escrow account the agency required, which Bernardi calls an
unreasonable mandate. He also says the odor-causing material brought into Fenimore came from DEP-approved
recycling centers.
The site owner says citing testimony from his own engineer and Roxbury's Fenimore's smells are the result of
Sandy-drenched material being sent from the recycling centers. In the DEP presentation, Geosyntec Consultants
representative Thomas Ramsey said the hydrogen sulfide releases began after gas built up in pockets inside the
landfill for several months, starting before Sandy.
But Bernardo also maintains that just before the DEP took over his site, work he was doing to cap the landfill with
soil was having an effect pointing to some gas monitors that showed no hydrogen sulfide just before the
takeover.
Bernardi said this week the state should have never stopped his capping work, and said the new plan won't be
enough to solve problems at the landfill.
3 of 4 5/20/2014 2:39 PM
"They're not doing what makes sense," his attorney, Matthew Fredericks, said. "They're not doing what the town
wants. They're obviously not doing what Strategic wants. I don't know why they're doing what they're doing."
Bernardi and Fredericks said by only addressing a third of the landfill, the DEP will be leaving Roxbury with
long-term problems that would have been addressed if Strategic Environmental Partners had finished its work. They
both brushed aside the DEP's contention it only has the authority to operate in the area where Strategic
Environmental Partners brought in construction debris.
"I think they do whatever they want. That's pretty obvious," Bernardi said.
Bernardi and Fredericks have both said they believe that if the DEP instituted a capping plan similar to the one
Strategic Environmental Partners had underway, it would be conceding the Strategic Environmental Partners plan
was valid and undercut the state's position in ongoing litigation.
They also maintain the DEP should have long since covered side slopes where hydrogen sulfide has been escaping
the landfill in large amounts. The state's plan for Fenimore calls for covering that area with the geomembrane liner,
then grading it in conjunction with a stormwater management plan.
Bernardi and Fredericks also say Strategic Environmental Partners has been unfairly targeted for scrutiny for political
reasons, while other landfill operations have seen rules and requirements waved.
"I think they're willing to throw Roxbury under the bus to prove they can beat me," Bernardi said.
Fredericks said he believes the DEP acted in haste to present a plan after Christie was confronted at the recent town
hall meeting.
Ragonese said the DEP wouldn't publicly engage Strategic Environmental Partners' criticisms, as the entities are
involved in ongoing litigation.
"It sounds disingenuous when Rich and I talk about what's best for the residents. No one things we have any
concern for the residents," Fredericks said. "But just because this was a private remediation ... doesn't mean our
interests conflict with the town's interests, doesn't mean we don't want what's best for the town."
More Morris County news: NJ.com/morris | Twitter | Facebook
4 of 4 5/20/2014 2:39 PM

EXHIBIT 13.5

(http://ads.nj.com/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads/www.nj.com/morris/2014/03/state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbury_landfill.html/617321547/Tower
/NJ ONLINE/default/empty.gif/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
Sign in | J oin
Print (http://blog.nj.com/morris_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/03
/state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbury_landfill.html)
(http://ads.nj.com/RealMedia /ads/click_lx.ads/www.nj.com /morris/2014/03 /state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbury_landfill.html /896235166/StoryAd /NJONLINE/default/empty.gif /474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
(http://connect.nj.com/user/lhochman/index.html) By Louis C. Hochman/NJ.com
(http://connect.nj.com/user/lhochman/posts.html)
Email the author
on March 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM, updated March 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM
ROXBURY (http://nj.com/roxbury) Township officials are stressing there's still
About 40 protestors hoped to meet with New J ersey Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno in September about their
concerns over the foul-smelling Fenimore landfill, but Guadagno's appearance in Roxbury was called off the
night before.
Louis C. Hochman/NJ.com (http://connect.nj.com/user/lhochman/photos.html)
Sponsored by: (http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.nj.com/morris/2014/03
/state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbury_
/L17/1821363076/SecSponsor/NJ ONLINE
/RemaxNJ 14_NJ _Morris_SecSpon_02/thsp86654.html
/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
From local news to politics to entertainment and
sports, the twice daily Right Now eNewsletter has all
of the New J ersey news you need!

OPTIONAL
(http://www.adobe.com/go/getflash/)
News Home News by County All Newspapers Business Crime Education Health Lottery National Obituaries Politics
Set Weather
N.J. NEWS LOCAL NEWS N.J. POLITICS SPORTS H.S. SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT
IN YOUR COMMUNITY: J OBS AUTOS REAL ESTATE RENTALS CLASSIFIEDS OBITUARIES FIND&SAVE LOCAL BUSINESSES PLACE AN AD
State: We're not delaying plan to cover smelly Roxbury landfill | NJ .com http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/state_were_not_delaying_p...
1 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
The state Department of Environmental Protection got a harsh
response in Roxbury March 11, when it said its plan to cap the
troubled Fenimore landfill site was a done deal, despite the objections
of dozens of residents who spoke and the shouts of hundreds more
who attended.
time before the state begin work on a controversial plan to cap the troubled
Fenimore landfil site (http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03
/dep_met_with_harsh_response_at_fenimore_meeting.html) rather than
truck out the material that started causing at-times overwhelming smells 16 months
ago.
>But a spokesman for the state
Department of Environmental
Protection said the agency is
moving ahead as planned.
"Commissioner (Bob) Martin
respects Mayor (James) Rilee
and the Roxbury Council, and
always is willing to engage in
dialogue with them," DEP
spokesman Larry Ragonese said
in an email to NJ.com Monday.
"The plan to cap the landfill, to
permanently resolve the H2S
(noxious gas) issue, is moving
ahead, as outlined in the presentation made to the council two weeks ago."
The DEP has had control of the the Fenimore landfill since last summer, when it took
over the site from owner Strategic Environmental Partners in response to heavy odors
some residents say made them or their children ill. Hydrogen sulfide releases which
caused smells that often spread for miles were blamed on deteriorating construction
debris SEP brought in under a state-approved plan to cap the long-abandoned landfill
and install a solar facility.
SEP maintains all the material it brought in was in compliance with its DEP plan, and
that it was close to eliminating odors through a soil cap. It also alleges the takeover was
politically motivated, and that SEP was subject to rules other landfill operations
weren't. The DEP says the company mismanaged the project and failed to be money
into a required escrow account. The two entities are continuing to battle over the
takeover in court.
Earlier this month, the DEP faced an angry crowd of hundreds of Roxbury residents,
many of them intent on seeing the construction debris removed from Fenimore
permanently an idea the agency says would be expensive and disturb the site further,
releasing massive amounts of hydrogen sulfide into the air.
The DEP instead outlined a plan to, in the short term, dig more wells to help feed a gas
collection system that it credits for reducing smells dramatically over the last sevreal
months. Next, it would begin work toward capping the site with a geomembrane cover,
then soil and vegetation.
The DEP's presentation of a done-deal plan the agency hadn't described its plan
publicly until after it decided to move ahead was met with a harsh response
(http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03
/fenimore_reactions_dep_plan.html) from a Roxbury residents' group formed to
address Fenimore issues and from state Sen. Anthony Bucco (who had sponsored a bill
to enable the state takeover of Fenimore, though another similar piece of legislation
ultimately passed). The township council urged the DEP to hold off on its plan until
local officials could get a better look at it, and their own professionals could present a
report.
t.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.nj.com%2Fyd6piMi&media=http%3A%2F
om%2Fmorris_impact%2Fphoto%2F13438502-small.jpg&
wn%20wants%20state%20to%20hold%20off%20while%20local%20officials%20review%20options%20themselves
0state%20plans%20to%20move%20ahead)
(http://www.adobe.com/go/getflash/)
Check here if you do not want to receive additional
email offers and information.
See our privacy policy (/privacypolicy/)
See more comments (http://www.nj.com
/interact/)
Live video: Chris Christie to discuss NJ
budget plan at 2 p.m.
(http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf
/2014/05
/live_coverage_chris_christie_to_discuss_nj
(47 comments)
Chris Christie to reduce pension
payments to fill $800M NJ budget gap
/2014/05
/christie_unveils_plan_to_cover_800m_budg
(16 comments)
Christie to unveil plan to tackle $800M
budget gap (http://www.nj.com/politics
/index.ssf/2014/05
/christie_to_unveil_plan_to_tackle_800m_bu
(130 comments)
Live coverage: Ex-Chris Christie
campaign staffer testifies before bridge
scandal panel at 10 a.m.
/2014/05/live_coverage_ex-
chris_christie_campaign_staffer_testifies_be
(253 comments)
Barnegat man, son charged in
connection with shooting of their pit
bull (http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf
/2014/05
/3_from_nj_accused_in_shooting_of_their_p
(77 comments)
Preakness 2014: The race
Two Planes Nearly Collide At
N k Ai t
As CBS 2's Tracee Carrasco reported, the NTSB has called the
incident a 'near midair collision.'
UP NEXT
New J ersey Town
Offers Solution In
Wake Of Veterans
1:59
(http://api.addthis.com
/oexchange
/0.8/forward
/facebook
/offer?url=http
%3A%2F
%2Fsocial newsinc com%2Fmedia%2Fjson%2F69017%
(http://api.addthis.com
/oexchange
/0.8/forward
/twitter
/offer?url=http
%3A%2F
%2Fsocial newsinc com%2Fmedia%2Fjson%2F690
2 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
The commissioner told me the well-drilling project was
separate from the capping
project, which has not yet gone to bid, Rilee said in a
statement from the township council Friday. The
commissioner noted that the wells should be dug
regardless of the ultimate remediation."
The township has urged the DEP not to take any action
that would preclude other options for remediating the site
including trucking out the foul-smelling debris.
"I told (Martin) residents were very frustrated because
the DEP representatives failed to satisfactorily answer
many of their questions about air and water quality,
Rilee said.
But, according to Ragonese, the meeting between Rilee and Martin hasn't changed the
agency's timetable.
The Fenimore site would be enclosed by the end of this year, and covered with grass by
June of next year, DEP officials said at their presentation earlier this month.
Tweet 0
(http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.nj.com%2Fyd6piMi&media=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nj.com%2Fmorris_impact%2Fphoto%2F13438502-s
Reddit Email
Real Estate
Hackensack, NJ Upper Saddle River, NJ
Sign in

16 comments
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbur
/L17/170859691
/Badge1/NJ ONLINE
/MemSloan19_NJ _News_Badge
/MSKCC120x60.jpg
/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/state_were_not_delaying_p
/L17/1933527536
/Badge2/NJ ONLINE
/Wesco12_NJ LT_Section_B
/thsp45853.html
/474c733970464b4f4b36514
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/L17/1296782449
/Badge3/NJ ONLINE
/NJ MBank02_NJ LT_Section_Badge
/njmbank_120x60_badge.jpg
/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/L17/986841810
/Badge4/NJ ONLINE
/RockOrthod02_NJ _Morris_
/RockawayOrtho2_120x60.j
/474c733970464b4f4b36514
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
(http://ads.nj.com
/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads
always goes on, but will
Chrome? (Izenberg)
(http://www.nj.com/sports
/ledger/izenbergcol/index.ssf
/2014/05
/preakness_2014_the_race_always.html#incart_m
Preakness 2014: Will
California Chrome win?
Experts make their picks
(http://www.nj.com/horse-
racing/index.ssf/2014/05
/preakness_2014_will_california_chrome_win_ag
NJ woman banned from
writing about family on
Facebook
(http://www.nj.com
/news/index.ssf/2014/05
/nj_womans_ban_from_writing_about_family_on_
Hopatcong mom's call to
police leads to arrest of her
daughter, four others
(http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf
/2014/05
/hopatcong_moms_call_to_police_leads_to_arres
Preakness picks 2014:
Experts choose their winners
(http://www.nj.com/horse-
racing/index.ssf/2014/05
/preakness_2014_experts_make_their_picks.html
(http://connect.nj.com/user/Newark151/index.html) () () (http://connect.nj.com/user/BKS6/index.html) () () (http://connect.nj.com/user/BKS6/index.html) () () ()
3 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
Newest | Oldest
Mar 27, 2014
Mar 27, 2014
Mar 26, 2014
Disgruntled Hermit (http://connect.nj.com/user/Newark151/index.html)
NJRes26
BePa
I always love when a story about the Fenimore Landfill pops up. I get to watch Brad Beemer &
Molly Minivan turn into waste management experts. There is what you want, and what is reality.
You will not get that landfill 'trucked out'. You must all be smoking too much Starbucks if you think
that will happen. Your inept, backwards, inbred DEP Trentonites are going to re-cap it, install
updated leachate collection systems (if you're lucky) and leave. That's what we (who actually
know what we're talking about) told you last summer, and you didn't listen. Everyone swore they
knew best.
PS: A home depot pinch mask? Won't protect you from toxic airborne particles. Read up on PPE
next time there's a photo opp
Like Reply
Mar 27, 2014 NJRes26
()
No matter how likely or unlikely it is that the material gets trucked out, does that mean
residents shouldn't fight for what's right? I can think of many examples of those who
stood for the right thing against critics, naysayers, cynics, abusers, so-called experts,
and even killers, and they had the courage, strength and integrity to continue their
fight. And let's not forget the successes so far. The problem would be much bigger if it
weren't for these folks. The war isn't over, but some battles have been won. Overall,
you may be right, Roxbury may not win this fight, but those who are struggling to right
this massive wrong will go forward knowing they did everything they could to restore a
normal life for themselves, their families, and the entire community.
Like Reply
The well-drilling is not separate from the capping plan. As Larry Ragonese said above, "The plan
to cap the landfill, to permanently resolve the H2S (noxious gas) issue, is moving ahead, as
outlined in the presentation made to the council two weeks ago." Not only is this a failed DEP
project, but the project was a SPECTACULAR FAILURE. The DEP should be falling all over
themselves to correct such a massive failure that is ruining the health - physical and financial - of
so many, and destroying the town, and they should spare no expense in doing so. Removing the
H2S odors addresses only one aspect of this massive failure and, surprisingly enough, it covers
the most recognizable symptom of the problem. Hmmm...covers a symptom...doesn't SOLVE the
problem. If you cover the worst symptom, you hope it removes the actual problem from people's
minds (that there's an active landfill in town leaking toxic poisons into the air and the water).
Those same residents also tell themselves that other people will forget too and buy Roxbury
properties for sale. Unfortunately, the original landfill will remain largely uncapped, The "new" pile
will be inadequately capped also - continuing existing problems and creating new, serious ones -
and the mess will need to be legally disclosed to anyone purchasing property in Roxbury. If
you're fighting to have this massive mistake corrected with health and property values fully
restored, you're fighting to truck it out. Anything else is allowing the DEP to cover their failure at
the cost of resident health, finances, property values, and the viability of the town. If everyone
joins the 'truck it out' fight, there IS a chance the effort will prevail and Roxbury can be wholly
restored. If it fails you've lost nothing - you get the DEP plan. We all need to do everything in our
power to get the DEP to fully restore Roxbury.This is a DEP operational failure that never should
have happened. Roxbury has everything to gain by trucking it out, and a whole lot to lose if
people sit back and allow the DEP to simply cover their abusive tracks.
Like Reply
BKS6, you are angry and I am too but I am informed and have been from the beginning even the
first year before the toxic gases were an issue and only a handful of people were showing up to
object over Fenimore. I have been there from the day the first dump truck motored past my
house and I got in my car to follow it to the landfill and asked the person at the landfill gate
entrance what was going on and was told it was a preliminary truck run. That first year there
were barely a handful of people showing up at the council meetings to object over what was
happening. Not until the odors became an issue did people start to speak up. J ust because there
are people with a different opinion about the resolution of this project doesn't mean they have
their heads in the sand and most assuredly are not on the sideline.
Like Reply
Mar 26, 2014 NJRes26
()
BePa, hard to believe you're so informed when you agree with posters like J imB who
tends to show how informed he is every time he posts about this issue, but I know
you've been involved,and I know this landfill is very bad timing for you. I respect your
position and I feel very badly for you. At the same time, I would hope residents look

Post comment as...
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/L17/936827013
/Badge5/NJ ONLINE
/NewMeadowRacetrack04_NJ _News_Badge
/enw164u.html
/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
/www.nj.com/morris
/2014/03
/L17/208489485
/Badge6/NJ ONLINE
/HearAmer03_NJ LT_Section
/PAhear_120x60.jpg
/474c733970464b4f4b36514
(http://ads.nj.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads
/www.nj.com/morris/2014/03
/state_were_not_delaying_plan_to_cover_smelly_roxbury_
/L17/1293367870/RectangleBelow/NJ ONLINE
/CarePoint06_NJ _RoS_Multi_1/thar203.html
/474c733970464b4f4b365141436d7a73)
4 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
Mar 26, 2014
Mar 26, 2014
Mar 26, 2014
Mar 26, 2014
BKS6 (http://connect.nj.com/user/BKS6/index.html)
BePa
JimB
BKS6 (http://connect.nj.com/user/BKS6/index.html)
past their own personal situations and consider that those calling to 'truck it out' ARE
fighting for your property value and to save your retirement - more than the DEP's
capping plan will ever accomplish.
Like Reply
The only Roxbury residents that do not agree with truck it out are the ones that are not informed
or stay on the sidelines with their head in the sand while the health of the community and their
property values go in the tank. If capping and venting it was ended the problem then maybe, but
it will not. Capping does NOTHING to control H2S from gypsum - covering it is part of the
chemical process to produce H2S. The fumes must find their way out and therefore the
incinerator (so called scrubber) with the giant smokestack must remain for the next 20-30 years
spitting out smoke that contains more chemicals. That is a great site for potential homebuyers.
We are dependent on a mechanical device for clean air. Mechanical devices lose power and
break down, especially the ones built by our inept DEP. The DEP advises they will never be able
to completely eliminate H2S gases in our community. Will future Governors continue to pay to
operate this for 20-30 yrs or hand it over to another felon? H2S has the potential to create
underground fires that could burn for months (research the Saufley Landfill in FL). What if this
felon brought in more toxic garbage that we are all breathing in? The DEP has refuse to do core
sampling so we do not know.
Either the homes, schools, ball fields, etc need to go, or the gypsum needs to go. They both
cannot co-exist.
1 Like
(http://connect.nj.com/user/EatingSnacks/index.html)
Reply
Mar 26, 2014
Mar 26, 2014
EatingSnacks (http://connect.nj.com/user/EatingSnacks/index.html)
NJRes26
Has the DEP explained why they won't do core samples? I don't understand why they
wouldn't want to do that before they cap it.
Like Reply
()
The persn from the DEP at the meeting on March 11 said that their only focus is to
"abate the H2S odors" under the emergency order. In other words, 'cover the odor
and cover the problem.' They don't seem to care if there's H2S as long as people
don't smell it. It seems that the most important thing is that the Christie administration
doesn't get bad press. They're certainly not making any effort to discover what else
was dumped although we know there's asbestos and medical waste, and we also
know there's elevated levels of formaldehyde in the air (a known carcinogen) in
addition to the H2S and SO2.
Like Reply
Agree with J imB, cap it and be done. Not all Involved Roxbury residents agree with the "truck it
out" mantra.
Like Reply
Good for the DEP. Cap it. Vent it. End of problem. End of hysteria. End of the assault on Roxbury
home values. Fenimores has been there long before most Roxbury residents moved to the town
and it wasn't a problem because the thing was capped. So cap it again and be done with it.
Like Reply
Maybe a reporter could ask Mr. Ragonese, that if he lived in Roxbury close to the landfill with his
children, would the DEP plan be ok with him?
It was ok with the DEP to approve a plan, with a convicted felon, to dump gypsum in a residential
neighborhood for 3-4 years and as anyone that can use Google can learn, subject an extensive
area to H2S fumes. Now suddenly, they cannot truck it out because the residents would be
exposed to fumes? If the residents did no band together to get Trenton to pass legislation, the
felon would have continued to dump gypsum up to today and beyond for years, making the pile
higher and the H2S gases even greater. That was ok, but trucking it out so that there is less and
less everyday is suddenly a terrible thing.
The DEP needs to be investigated. Either the DEP is incompetent and people need to be fired,
or worse is found and people go to jail. How did a well know felon convicted of bribing public
officials get approved and contracted with? Why did the DEP allow in the "closure" contract for
the dumping of even one ounce of gypsum in the middle of a residential neighborhood? Why did
the DEP do an about face from their prior reports that indicated that the site was not causing
5 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
Mar 25, 2014
Mar 25, 2014
Mar 25, 2014
mr earl
Bob Mederos
Bob Mederos
environmental issues and did not need any action?
This plan is the cheapest for this administration. The site and scrubber will need to maintained
for the next 20-30 years. This pushes the cost to the next Governors.
Christie the bully telling us how he will fix the problem, he and his DEP created. Sound familiar?
Like Reply
Mar 26, 2014 DINO! (http://connect.nj.com/user/zt94/index.html)
(http://connect.nj.com/user/zt94/index.html)
Maybe the reporter should ask the Roxbury residents did they know of this landfill or
did they ask about or investigate the area, before they bought or rented their
property?
Like Reply
Look on a map. The toxic waste landfill that DEP created in Roxbury by way of Richard Bernardi
,ex-con, and his SEP company, is sitting on top of a mountain which has a high ledge. This high
ledge is now filled to overflowing and is rolling off the ledge into a pond which is fed partially by
surface water and underground streams. Those streams run right through the toxic waste. The
plan was supposed to be to redirect those streams out of the toxic waste. The ex-con just
dumped the waste right on top of the streams instead. The DEP at a meeting with the residents
recently admitted they did not know of, or take into consideration, the streams and had no plans
to touch the streams. That means that part of this half baked, stop the stench but leave the
poison plan of theirs, will pollute the pond even further. The pond is part of the old Morris Canal
Park and it runs into the old canal which still weaves it's way through Morris County to your
house and finally into the Raritan River.
The Toxbury landfill is not just a Toxbury problem if the DEP's plan is allowed to go forward as
presented. This is a Morris County problem and a State of NJ problem. Sure, all of NJ rivers are
polluted anyway so what difference does more make, right? BUT, this landfill is also in the
Highlands Preservation Area where the clean water comes from that is now being polluted and
will continue to be polluted from this landfill. The DEP's plan is to ignore the streams and do a
quick tarp it over and run like hell away from it scheme. The DEP's mission is to temporarily stop
the stench before the warm weather hits so that the residents will shut up and stop complaining
about the stench. We will be complaining again about the stench but what is more important to
understand is that it is the poison in the landfill, all approved by DEP, that is making the stench.
We are being poisoned every day of our lives because the DEP screwed up and is now covering
up it's colossal screw up with a magic plastic tarp.
So, this is your problem too, residents of Morris County and beyond. If you don't join us in
Toxbury with this out of control DEP fiasco and cover up, it will one day very soon be your
problem too. And it will be your problem until that toxic wasteland is dug up and trucked out of
here. The DEP is covering up yet another NJ pollution problem that it's own politicians created.
1 Like
Reply
The DEP has no clue on how to cap a landfill , you'd do not put a plastic bag over 400,000 yd. of
C&D material and cover it with dirt. What happens to the surface water streams running
underneath the landfill? Yes it gets
contaminated and all the resident wells will get contaminated as well.
I implore you to bring in the EPA who are far more qualified and experienced and are the
creators of specifications and requirements needed for a safe landfill in the United States.
The Roxbury landfill has gone way past the ability to be cap correctly and safely.
The DEP has missed every windows of opportunity for a safe capping. And has broken every
rule every regulation every specification needed and set by the United States EPA requirements
for landfill closure. Therefore the only sound engineering solution to this problem to save the
water , to save our environment , to not have us dependent for 30 years on equipment failure ,is
to "truck out all the material".
1 Like
()
Reply
To continue on the DEP's direction of CAPPING this landfill, cost over $20 million to complete.
And it would have to be monitored, inspected, maintain, for the next 30 years. It would only costs
$12 million to 13 maximum to truck it out. DEP what is the problem ? WHAT PART OF THIS
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND. ???????
I for one as a taxpayer do not want to pay for your expensive salaries for the next 30 years. Or
the extra expense on material or your your idiotic ludicrous attempts to correct this situation. We
are not an experimental project here we are residents that you are destroying. The DEP do you
have any clue on what you are doing???
TRUCK IT OUT IS THE SAFEST AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
6 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
About NJ .com
(http://marketingresource.nj.com
/our-company?utm_source=nj.com&
utm_medium=link&
utm_campaign=about-
footer)
Advertise with us
(http://www.nj.com
/advertise/)
Contact Us
(http://www.nj.com
/contactus/)
J obs at NJ .com
(http://jobs.nj.com
/careers/company/detail
/id/134004)
Newsletters
(http://update.nj.com
/adv_nj/newsletters
/nj/subscribe.htm)
RSS feeds
(http://www.nj.com/rss/)
Interact
(http://www.nj.com
/interact/)
Weather
(http://www.nj.com
/weather/)
Blogs (http://www.nj.com
/blogs/)
Search
(http://search.nj.com/)
Place an ad
(http://www.nj.com
/placead/)
Sell your car
(http://www.nj.com
/placead/)
N.J . News
(http://www.nj.com/news/)
Local News
(http://www.nj.com/local/)
N.J . Politics
(http://www.nj.com
/politics/)
Sports (http://www.nj.com
/sports/)
High School Sports
(http://highschoolsports.nj.com/)
Entertainment
(http://www.nj.com
/entertainment/)
Food & Recipes
(http://www.nj.com/food/)
Living (http://www.nj.com
/living/)
Business
(http://www.nj.com
/business/)
Opinion
(http://www.nj.com
/opinion/)
Inside J ersey
(http://www.nj.com/inside-
jersey)
Shore (http://www.nj.com
/shore/)
Obituaries
(http://www.nj.com
/obituaries/)
J obs (http://www.nj.com
/jobs/)
Autos
(http://autos.nj.com/)
Real Estate
(http://realestate.nj.com/)
Rentals
(http://realestate.nj.com
/for-rent/)
Classifieds
(http://classifieds.nj.com/)
Shopping Good Deals
(http://findnsave.nj.com/)
Local Businesses
(http://businessfinder.nj.com/)
Special Sections
(http://sections.nj.com
/SS/Tiles2.aspx)
The Star-Ledger (http://www.nj.com/starledger/) |
Subscribe (http://ads.advance.net/RealMedia
/ads/click_lx.ads/www.nj.com/////ProxyLink
/NJ ONLINE/CLICK_NJ 10/SubLedgeClick.html/)
The Times of Trenton (http://www.nj.com/times/) |
Subscribe (http://www.njtimes.com/subscribe)
The J ersey J ournal (http://www.nj.com/jjournal/) |
Subscribe (http://www.jjournal.com/subscriptions
/subscribe-today/)
South J ersey Times (http://www.nj.com
/southjerseytimes/) | Subscribe (http://www.nj.com
/sjtsubscribe)
Hunterdon County Democrat (http://www.nj.com
/hunterdon-county-democrat/) | Subscribe
(http://www.nj.com/democratsubscribe/)
Cranford Chronicle (http://www.nj.com/cranford/) |
Subscribe (http://www.nj.com/ccsubscribe/)
Star Gazette (http://www.nj.com/warren/) |
Subscribe (http://www.nj.com/sgsubscribe/)
The Messenger-Gazette (http://www.nj.com
/messenger-gazette/)
The Warren Reporter (http://www.nj.com
/warrenreporter/)
Independent Press (http://www.nj.com
/independentpress/)
Suburban News (http://www.nj.com
/suburbannews/)
1 Like
()
Reply
Mar 27, 2014
Disgruntled Hermit (http://connect.nj.com/user/Newark151/index.html)
(http://connect.nj.com/user/Newark151/index.html)
Trucking out the entire debris field will cost between 30-40 million. PLUS
the entire remaining soil that remains... Did you forget about that, Bob? Uhuh, you did!
THAT'S got to be??? Anyone? Bueller??
You guessed it. CAPPED. Add another 10 million.
To answer your questions, Bob. No. The DEP does not have a single clue as to what
they're doing. They've admittedly been understaffed since their inception.
Unfortunately, most of you residents don't either. Let the capping begin and stop your
nonsense. You will all be just fine, I've been doing this for 30 years and seen WAY
worse than this.
Like Reply
7 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM
(http://www.advancedigital.com/)
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (http://www.nj.com/useragreement/) and Privacy Policy
(http://www.nj.com/privacypolicy/)
2014 New J ersey On-Line LLC. All rights reserved (About Us (http://www.nj.com/aboutus/)).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of New
J ersey On-Line LLC.
Community Rules (http://www.nj.com/forums/index.ssf?rules.html) apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. Contact
interactivity management. (http://www.nj.com/contactus/interactivity.ssf)
Ad Choices (http://www.advance.net/advancedigitalUserAgreementPP/#opt_out)
Premium Blogs
(http://www.nj.com/blogs
/premium/)
Site map
(http://www.nj.com
/siteindex/)
Claim your free
business listing
(http://businessfinder.nj.com
/about/advertise.html)
Sell/rent your home
(http://www.nj.com
/placead/)
Post a job
(http://www.nj.com
/jobs/products/index.ssf)
Post a free classified ad
(http://www.nj.com
/classifieds/free/)
Apartments & rentals
(http://realestate.nj.com
/for-rent)
Submit your photos
(http://photos.nj.com
/photogallery
/upload.html)
Submit your videos
(http://videos.nj.com
/upload.html)
Forums
(http://www.nj.com
/forums/)
Register for free with
NJ .com
(https://signup.nj.com
/register/)
Submit an event
(http://www.nj.com
/myevent/)
Twitter (https://twitter.com/njdotcom) |
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/NJ .com)
Google+(https://plus.google.com/u/0/b
/103270407631392618549
/103270407631392618549/posts)
| foursquare (https://foursquare.com/njdotcom)
Learn more about our newspapers
(http://www.nj.com/newspapers/)
Mobile site (http://mobile.nj.com/) | iPhone, Android
apps (http://www.nj.com/mobile-device/) | Tablet
apps (http://www.nj.com/mobile-device/)
8 of 8 5/20/2014 2:40 PM

EXHIBIT 13.6

From: angela johnson
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:35 PM
To: DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions
Cc: mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us; rathsc@roxburynj.us; senbucco@njleg.org;
sensweeney@njleg.org; senkean@njleg.org; asmpreito@njleg.org; senweinberg@njleg.org;
sengarde@njleg.org; senmckeon@njleg.org; senbenson@njleg.org; senrumana@njleg.org;
senwiskiewski@njleg.org; senwolfe@njleg.org
Subject: Follow Up Questions to DEP - Fenimore Landfill
Dear DEP,
I attended your presentation last week on your long term plan for the Fenimore Landfill and
sent the below email nearly a week ago to the hotline where you told us to email
questions/concerns regarding the landfill and I haven't heard back yet. I am following back
up to see if you plan to answer these questions and if so when I can expect a response.
I live in Poets Peak, the neighborhood that backs up to the landfill so I have serious concerns
about this long term plan and what it means for my property value, air quality, and quality of
life for the next undertermined number of years. I think I deserve a timely answer to my
questions/concerns and look forward to your response.
Thank you,
Angela J ohnson
-------- Begin forwarded message --------
Subject: Follow Up Questions to DEP
Date: 03/12/14 09:31:40 AM
From: "angela johnson"
To: roxburytwpfenimorequestions@dep.state.nj.us
Dear DEP,
My name is Angela J ohnson and I live in Ledgewood and attended last nights meeting on the
DEPs proposed long term solution to the Fenimore landfill and have the following follow up
questions/comments:
Side by Side Comparison: We have been asking for a side by side comparison, and
promised one, for months. I do not think what was presented was a true side by side
comparison. It wasnt apples to apples because the DEPs solution of capping the material
brought in by SEP only accounted for the upfront cost to cap it, not the long term
maintenance cost. When asked about this, the DEP responded that there are too many
unknowns to come up with an estimate. I work in financial analysis and have worked on
numerous investment projects, most of which have many unknowns, but just because there
are unknowns doesnt mean you dont at least TRY to estimate a cost. Even if you have to
make a lot of assumptions and put a range around it you still do an estimate otherwise it is
not an apples to apples comparison and therefore shouldnt be the basis for a decision on
what path to pursue. I would like to see a true apples to apples cost comparison
performed. Also, in the Geosyntec presentation they note a cost of $16.5M to dispose of the
materials in the landfill, but in your lawsuit against SEP you stated they collected up to $3.4M
in tipping fees accepting the material. Why are you estimating it will cost the DEP so much
more to dispose of the material if SEP only collected $3.4M for accepting it?
Uncertainty: In the responses last night I heard a lot of responses that started with
phrases like we think or we arent sure or currently we think or feel. This didnt give me
a level of comfort that you really know what is going to happen long term with this site. What
if your plan doesnt work just like the posi shell and flares didnt work - what is Plan B?? You
couldnt give a firm timeline for how long the smoke stack will be there and when pressed
threw out 7 years.... To be honest that scares me. That means for the next 7+ years we will
need air monitoring, we will live in fear of the scrubber breaking down and when it breaks
down fear of huge H2S emissions (because your experts said there are high volumes theyve
never seen before in that landfill), also, although the administration is currently committed to
funding this thing long term, what about the next administration and the next if this is going to
go on for years and years who can guarantee funding to pay for the long term
maintenance of this project? Also, I asked who was going to pay for all this monitoring and I
dont believe I got an answer to this. Is the DEP going to pay for this because I dont feel it
should fall on the town and taxpayers shoulders as it currently is.
What about SEP: Finally, there is a big uncertainty to me in terms of what happens if the
courts give the site back to SEP. What then? Even if they dont, will the DEP have access to
the site for the next 7+years to maintain the equipment? Do you expect SEP to do it? What if
they dont? If you removed the material we wouldnt have to worry about SEP or some other
party maintaining the equipment for the next undetermined number of years because there
would be no material there emitting toxic fumes.
Lack of Testing/Case Studies Supporting Conclusions: I was surprised that given the
amount of time it took to develop this side by side comparison and long term solution that
more testing of the site (including core sampling which it was stated was not done at the site)
was not performed. Given the track record of this project I need more than someones
opinion that trucking it out isnt viable. I need hard proof. I asked if there were examples of
situations where material like this was attempted to be trucked out and it wasnt successful
and I didnt get any examples. However, we do have examples of sites where material was
successfully trucked out. I understand there are large volumes of the gas in the landfill which
is why it is being stated its too dangerous to truck out, but to me that is all the more reason to
get it out of our neighborhood. I am worried it is a disaster waiting to happen in terms of
catching fire, large concentrations getting out of the landfill and someone inhaling it, an
asthmatic having a fatal attack, etc
Material Decomposition: I am not a technical person so I am a little confused about what
happens to the C&D material once it is under the cap. It sounded like you wanted the cap
to dry out the material to stop the bacteria from consuming it and hence stop H2S
production. However, you said that it would be wet enough to not have to worry about it
catching fire Again, Im not technical but did I understand that correctly b/c that sounds like
a fine balancing act making sure its dried out enough to not encourage the bacteria to
proliferate but wet enough so there isnt a fire risk Also, if the material is dried out under
this cap will it just stay there forever and not decompose or will it decompose some other
way? I just worry that if it stays there forever there is always a risk of the liner getting
damaged or moisture getting in and the H2S being generated so does that mean wed always
need a smoke stack. Also, it didnt seem like the DEP or consultants were aware of two
streams residents mentioned that are under pile of material. Were these streams factored
into the analysis especially in terms of their potential to add moisture to the materials even
under the cap?
Stack Testing Results: I asked about what was tested coming from the smoke stack and
was told there was nothing significant other than H2S and SO2 but I think we should be able
to see the actual reports. I am very worried about what may be in the air that I can' smell and
think other gases should be monitored for as well on a continual basis. If the test results are
posted on the DEP website could you point me to where? Also, I believe our township had to
OPRA these results why do we have to OPRA these results?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Angela J ohnson

EXHIBIT 13.7

j
From: linda
To: senbucco
kerry.pflugh@
roxburytwpfe
joe.eldridge@
irene.lenhart@
Subject: Feni
Date: Wed, 2
Mr. Putnam,

Governor Ch
met with the

Please adv

He also said
that is availa

Please adv

He said ther

Please adv
released in
contains a

Please adv
ever been
report rele

Please con
children ar
with medic

Please exp
spikes in H
DEP has re

Thank You,

Linda Keane
o@njleg.org;
@dep.state.nj
enimorequest
@doh.state.nj.
@townsquare
imore Landfil
26 Feb 2014 1
,
hristie just a
e public man
vise when t
d the scrubbe
able on the
vise where
re is no heal
vise where
nto the air
nd confirm
vise if work
called to th
eased to th
nfirm that i
re in no dan
cal data fro
plain why t
H2S that th
eported.
e
sensweeney@
.us; magdalen
tions@dep.sta
.us; rathsc@r
emedia.com; n
ll as per Gove
12:05:48 -050
nnounced o
ny times reg
those meet
er will only b
DEP website
that is pos
th hazard fr
we can fin
over our ho
m that what
kers have e
he site. Ple
e public.
ndividuals
nger from
om a medic
he Monitor
eir monito
@njleg.org; se
na.padilla@d
ate.nj.us; asm
roxburynj.us;
news12nj@n
ernor Christie
00
n News 12 L
garding the F
tings took p
be in place f
e.
sted on the
rom Fenimor
nd the air q
omes from
t is being re
ever been v
ease advise
with exist
any of the
cal profess
r company
rs have pic
enweinberg@
dep.state.nj.us
mprieto@njleg
mayorcounci
ews12.com
e Statements
Live at the L
Fenimore La
place.
for about 2 y
e DEP webs
re.
uality testi
m the smoke
eleased int
vacated fro
e if this occ
ing health
emissions
ional.
will not ve
cked up are
@njleg.org; sen
s;
g.org; ed.putn
il@roxburynj
Long Hill Tow
ndfill.
years and th
site.
ing reports
e stack so w
to the air is
om the site
curred if it w
conditions
from the s
erify the DE
e a malfunc
nkean@njleg
nam@dep.stat
j.us;
wn Meeting t
hat informati
s for the fu
we can see
s not a hea
and if an a
was includ
s such as A
site. Please
EP stateme
ction of eq
g.org;
te.nj.us;
that the DEP
on pertainin
me that is
e what is
alth hazard
ambulance
ded in DEP
Asthma or y
e support th
ents that th
uipment as
P has
ng to
being
.
has
Daily
young
hat
he high
s the

EXHIBIT 13.8

From: B
to Amy,
Bill, iren
VAOUL

Kerry,
I have no
attached
you state
that date
week, ho
On Marc
failed bro
year. Th
officials,
Since, th
NJ DEP t
concerns

http://ww

http://ww

Despite t
followup

For the s
outstandi

Please ad
Thank yo

Bill Morr

On Mon,
Kerry,
While yo
many que
several m
our Town
Bill Morocc
jeff.tittel, D
ne.lenhart, se
LI.ELENA, tx
ot received a
to this email
ed that your d
back to Oct
owever, many
ch 11th, the N
ownfield to s
he NJ DEP wa
and environ
en Senator B
o incorporat
and deficien
ww.roxburyn
ww.senatenj.
these outstan
p public meet
ake of effici
ing question
dvise at your
ou,
rocco
, Feb 3, 2014
our response
estions I hav
months. You
n Council an
co
DEP, Kerry, R
ensweeney, s
xf5, aby6, hh
a response fro
l dating back
department w
ober, 2013 (
y of my que
NJ DEP visit
solar project
as unable to
nmental orga
Bucco and ou
te communit
ncies with th
nj.us/Archive
com/index.p
nding concer
tings or com
iency, I woul
s.
r earliest con
4 at 12:19 PM
is appreciat
ve been and
u state that y
nd Mayor, m
Raths, Ed, M
senkean, asm
hs2, lob3, m
om my Febr
k to October
was working
(also attache
stions still re
ed Roxbury
t that has bee
address seri
anizations.
ur Local Off
ty involveme
he proposed
eCenter/View
php/bucco/bu
rns, the NJ D
mmunity resp
ld like to vis
nvenience wh
M, <Bill>w
ted, the infor
our township
you are in reg
many of their
Mayor, Antho
mprieto, Patr
mcondon
ruary 3rd em
r 2013. In y
g on a fact sh
d below). T
emain unans
to present th
en plaguing
ious concern
ficials have i
ent in their r
plan.
wFile/Item/2
ucco-residen
EP has begu
ponse.
sit your offic
hen this can
wrote:
rmation prov
p has been a
gular contact
questions ar
Mar 31
ony, D.O., en
rick, ESCOB
mail below or
your J anuary
heet that wou
This fact shee
swered.
heir remedia
residents an
ns and questi
issued these
remediation,
2200
nts-deserve-m
un work and
ce as soon as
be arranged
vided doesn't
asking your d
t with Roxbu
re also unan
1, 2014
nck.judith, L
BAR.LEAH,
r most of my
y 28th respon
uld address m
et was finall
ation plan to
nd the townsh
ions from re
press releas
as well as a
more-from-n
d has no plan
s possible to
d.
t begin to pu
department f
ury Officials
nswered. So
Lynn, Louis,
,
y questions
nse (also bel
my question
ly issued last
cleanup the
hip for over
sidents, loca
ses, urging th
address serio
nj-dep/16730
ns for any
discuss my
ut a dent into
for the past
s, but accord
what exactl
,
low)
ns
t

a
al
he
us
0
o the
ding
y
transpires during these conversations that is productive? Also, most of the information in your
last response was already sent to me under separate cover.
Regarding the monitors, ROX10 spiked to 550 ppb and then to over 100 ppb over the
weekend. Does the DEP believe that these spikes were also due to faulty equipment? Please
advise. When you say localized combustion, what exactly does that mean? I don't believe there
are any H2S generating sources near Roxbury, other than the former landfill. Please advise if I
am incorrect.
Thank you for answering my question as to if this project is governed under N.J .A.C.
7:26E. Since this remediation doesn't fall under N.J .A.C. 7:26E, what protocols or statutes is the
DEP following for this project so that the town and residents are informed and maintain a
voice? While the NJ DEP is not obligated to follow N.J .A.C. 7:26E, residents would greatly
appreciate if your department followed some of the protocols under that statute.

1. Residents have been requesting a public meeting for over one year. Our Mayor
indicated that the reason the NJ DEP won't come to Roxbury is because they feel that a public
meeting wont speed up the remediation process. While this may be true, it will help address the
many unanswered questions relating to this site and the NJ DEP remediation. It will also help
ease the fear, anxiety and stress the residents have been enduring as a result of lack of
transparency and response from the NJ DEP.

The USEPA invites community involvement for their site remediations, so why doesn't the
NJ DEP? Residents still seek answers to questions such as why the NJ DEP allowed C&D
material (wallboard) to be dumped per the ACO on a site with no environmental controls or
plans for such, when it is well known that these materials cause difficult to control H2S
emissions, and why the NJ DEP allowed a convicted felon (Richard Bernardi) to operate this
landfill project who couldn't qualify for the required LSRP license as required under the Site
Remediation Reform Act. Additional questions of equal importance exist, such as how will any
owner of the property afford to keep the equipment maintained and operating for the next 10-30
years, and will the NJ DEP allow more material to be dumped on this site in order to "fund" it's
operation, and has the NJ DEP accounted for the loss of property value of hundreds of homes in a
once rural area that now have a smoke stack/plume in their backyard when doing the side by side
financial comparison of remediation options, and why the NJ DEP refuses to perform and refuses
to allow the township to perform core sampling of the unknown material that was dumped, and
why the NJ DEP would prefer to chose a remediation plan that includes years of potential
ongoing problems with this site, years of continued monitoring and unknown financial strain,
and years of continued potential health threats to the community which have a direct impact of
quality of life, rather than remove the material for a foolproof and permanent fix, such as was
completed in a cost effective and successful manner for the Saufley Field Remediation in
Florida? This list goes on and on.
2. Why does the DEP force the public and even the town to perform an OPRA request to
obtain test reports and find out what testing has been done on the site? I have been asking for the
results of the smoke stack test for weeks with no response. The township has also (to date) been
unsuccessful in obtaining these test reports. Also, why haven't nearby residents on well water
been notified of the elevated levels (in excess of NJ DEP ground and surface water standards) of
lead, aluminum, and arsenic found in the leachate pond per DEP testing so they know to get their
wells tested? This pond is hundreds of feet from residential homes and wells. Also, during
heavy rains this pond overflows into Ledgewood Pond, and according to Bill Kibler from Raritan
Headwaters, eventually combines with the watershed that services millions of NJ
residents. What subsequent testing has been performed since this contamination has been
found?
You can see how many of these issues regarding communications, testing, and community
involvement could be resolved if the NJ DEP was following protocols established by N.J .A.C.
7:26E. Will your department consider this?

This response is already too long so I will end here for now. I hope your response addresses
these issues and questions and we can start to make some forward progress
immediately. Despite what you may think, I really don't want to be emailing you about this for
the next 10 years and beyond as I am sure you don't want to continue to hear from me either. By
the way, if anyone would like their name taken off the CC list, please let me know.
Bill Morrocco

On Tue, J an 28, 2014 at 4:10 PM, DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions
<RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:
DearMr.Morrow,Ihavenotbeengivenadatewhenthefactsheetwillbecompleted.However,itwill
besharedwithRoxburyTownshipofficialsassoonasitiscompleted.Inyourpreviousemail,youasked
abouttheshutdownoftheFenimorelandfillinearlyJanuary.OnTuesday,January7,thetreatment
systemautomaticallyshutdownduetoamechanicalissuethatmayhavebeenweatherrelated.The
systemsblowerwasreplacedwithaspareblowerthatwasonsite.Otherrepairsfromthefreezing
temperaturesalsoweremadewithequipmentthatalsowasonsite.Therepairstooklongerthan
anticipatedbecauseofthesevereweatherconditions.Thesystemwasrestartedonthefollowing
Saturdaynightandisnowfullyoperational.TheDEPdidnotexpectodorduringtheperiodthesystem
wasofflinebecauseoftheextremecoldtemperaturesandhighbarometricpressure.Theseweather
conditionslastedthroughFridayafterwhichtimetherewasadropinbarometricpressure,andodors
werereported.

Youaskedaboutcomplaintsduringtheshutdown.Thefollowingisabreakdownofcomplaintsreceived
duringthattime:1714through1814,nocomplaints;1814through1914,nocomplaints;1914
through11014,23complaints.

Asyoucorrectlystated,thecustomscrubberistheinterimsolution.Thedepartmentisdevelopingthe
plansforlongtermsolution.TheseplanswillbesharedwithRoxburyTownshipofficialsoncetheyare
completed.
Youalsoaskedabouttheschoolairmonitoringprogram.TheDOHisresponsibleforindoorair
monitoring.TheschoolprogramconductedbyDOHceasedwhentheoxidizercameonlineandwasfully
operational.Monitorslocatedonthelandfillandaroundtheperimeterofthelandfillandnearthe
schoolprovidethenecessarynotificationforschoolstoimplementtheiremergencyresponseshould
thatbecomenecessary.
OnTuesday,December31andaweeklateronTuesday,January7ththerewasaspikeabove100ppbon
ROX11.Thespikeoccurredroughlyatthesametimeeachofthetwodays.Areviewofwinddirection
onthetwodaysthatthespikeoccurredshowedthatthewindwasnotblowingdownwindfromthesite
inthedirectionofthemonitor.Therefore,thespikewasnotcausedbyfugitivegasfromthe
landfill.Emilicottwascontactedtodetermineifthemonitorwasmalfunctioning.Itwasnot.Our
conclusionatthattimewasthatitwasalocalizedcombustionsourceinthevicinityofROX11,butthe
instrumentwasreplacedanyway.Sinceitwasreplacedthespikeshavenotoccurred.
Inyesterdaysdailyupdate,weprovidedinformationonspikesthattookplaceonROX8.OnFridaynight,
January24th,theH2SmonitorRox8begansendingoutabnormalhighspikesandreadingsofH2S
concentrations.DEPimmediatelyinvestigated.Anassessmentoftheprevailingandlocalwindsputthe
monitorintheupwindpositionofthelandfillandthereforecouldnotberelatedtothelandfill.Emilicott
wascontactedandreplacedtheinstrumentationatRox8onSundaymorning,January26.Sincethe
equipmentreplacement,themonitorhasbeenprovidingnormalreadings.Asaresultofthis
investigation,wenowbelievethecauseoftheROX11spikestoberelatedtotheinstrument.
Youmentionedayellowalertthatwasissuedtoday.DEPhasbeenworkingwithEmilcotttotryand
determinewhythemonitorscontinuouslyreadhighsingledigitsandsometimesintothelowteens
regardlessofwinddirection.Forexampleatabout3:00todayROX9,10,and12wereallreading10
ppbor11ppb.Ifyoulookatthe24hourchartandthepatternofthereadingsovertimeyoullsee
squareorstraightlinepatterns.Fugitiveemissionsfromthesitethatmixwiththewindwillnotbe
detectedatconstantconcentrationsovertime.
InreferencetoDEPsauthoritytotakeactiononFenimorelandfill,FenimorelandfillisnotaSpillFund
siteandthereforeisnotgovernedunderN.J.A.C.7:26E.AuthorityforactionattheFenimoreLandfillis
governedundertheLegacyLandfillActsignbyGovernorChrisChristieonJune26th2013.
Communicationtothecommunityisprovideddailyinthewrittenupdatessenttothe
township.Additionally,factsheetsareprovidedasneeded.DEPalsoisinregularcontactwithRoxbury
Townshipofficials.
TheDEPremainscommittedtoresolvingtheproblemsatFenimorelandfill.Bestregards,kkp
From: Bill Morrocco
Sent: Tuesday, J anuary 28, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Pflugh, Kerry; DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions
Cc: Raths Chris; Padilla, Magdalena; Putnam, Ed; Mayor and Council; Anthony Bucco; Bucco, Sen. D.O.;
enck.judith@epa.gov; Wilder, Lynn (ATSDR/DCHI/OD); Louis Hochman; Bill Anderson;
irene.lenhart@townsquaremedia.com; sensweeney@njleg.org; senkean@njleg.org; asmprieto@njleg.org;
Patrick Tierney; ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov; VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov; txf5@cdc.gov; aby6@cdc.gov;
hhs2@cdc.gov; lob3@cdc.gov; mcondon@newjerseyhills.com
Subject: Re: outstanding questions from a resident

Kerry,
It's been yet another week and still no fact sheet or response to my questions dating back from
October 2013.

The DEP is constantly advertising the following in updates and press releases:

DEP has established a call center to assist with resident questions. Call DEP at (609) 341-2875
during regular business hours (9:00a.m.5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). On weekends and
evenings and holidays, callers can leave a message and their calls will be returned. Questions
may also be emailed to RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us.
Despite this, my inquiries over the months which are listed in this email string have amounted to
an extraordinary amount of unanswered questions and serious unanswered issues. Why does
your department pick and choose which questions they wish to answer? Why does your
department only provide news in the updates and press releases that is positive, and avoid
disclosing any "bad" news that surfaces?

An example of this is the yellow alerts for the schools system. When a school alert is triggered
due to high levels of H2S and the wind is blowing the other way, the DEP is quick to release an
update stating that they don't believe the H2S detected originated from the landfill. However,
when the wind is blowing in the direction of the schools, there is no mention of the yellow alerts
in the daily updates. There were two yellow alerts last week and one this morning and the wind
WAS blowing in the direction of the schools for those alerts. We all know where the H2S is
coming from. Will these occurrences be referenced in future updates to inform the public or
continue to be buried? I have screen shots of the wind direction that I would be happy to submit
for review.

In addition, the few residents that you personally respond to continue to get blanket form letters
and planned responses, with no new information. This has been going on for too long.

The Christie administration handled the George Washington Bridge scandal as " the determined
refusal of agency officials to answer questions about decisions and ordered public affairs
officials not to respond. They described the plan to "hunker down and grit our way through."
Is this what is happening here? Who in your department provides you with information and
updates for this project? Who decides what you can and can't tell the public? One resident said
publicly that they were going to OPRA all your emails to find out, perhaps that is not a bad idea.
Despite your departments rosy updates, residents continue to suffer from a poor quality of life
due to continued hydrogen sulfide odors. There are over 70 pages of odor complaints from
December and J anuary. I remind you that this has been going on for over 14 months now with
no end in sight. When will this end.....?

Prior to this DEP failed project, there were ZERO odor complaints in Roxbury. Why should
residents have to live with ANY odors or toxic gas exposure in a town where they never existed?
Why should residents have to suffer due to NJ DEP operational mistakes of allowing wallboard to
be dumped in the middle of a residential community with no mitigation systems in place? The
DEP is spending an exorbitant amount of money on this temporary solution and it's not
working. Even if it did work, the presence of this industrial equipment and smoke stack in the
middle of an otherwise rural community has destroyed our property values. Who is going to pay
for that? My own home has lost 100K in value over the past two years while the rest of the state
has actually seen strong gains. Why do you think that is? Did the DEP factor in the economical
loss of diminished property values for an entire township while thinking out their solution? Of
course not.
Why won't the NJ DEP entertain removing the H2S generating C&D debris that they wrongfully
allowed to be dumped in 2011 and 2012? This would be a foolproof, permanent, and immediate
solution to restore Roxbury to the rural, peaceful, and safe state is was before this mess. Why do
the residents deserve anything less? Why should they settle for anything less? Why should
residents have to live with an industrial eye-sore in their backyards and always be at the mercy of
the successful operation of the mitigation equipment to protect their health and quality of life?
Why should residents have to live with monitors in their town and schools and the fear and
anxiety of a possible emergency action when this can all be avoided permanently by removing
the material? How will any future owner of the site afford to keep your mitigation system
operating for the next 30 years if the landfill is closed and generating no revenue? The NJ DEP
solution, even if it was effective, is impractical for the long term, but your department refuses to
answer questions and and address the obvious flaws and concerns.
There are many examples of similar sites where H2S generating C&D material was
removed. Most recently there were two in NJ (one in Wayne and one in J ersey City), and a site
in Florida called Saufley field, of similar size and quantity to the site in Roxbury. The material
(over 320,000 cubic yards) was successfully and safely removed in about a year's time for under
7 million dollars. I personally have spoken to the project manager. How much will the DEP
spend operating this mitigation system for the next 30 years along with air monitoring and
maintaining the cap and disposing of the 1.6 million gallons of waste water from the scrubber
each year? You can't even put a price on the diminished quality fo life, health threats, tainted
township reputation, and property loss that Roxbury has suffered and will continue to suffer
under the DEP proposed solution. So again, what is hiding in that pile of material that the DEP
doesn't want to uncover? Why hasn't the DEP performed core sampling if they intend to keep
the material there and attempt to cap it? DEP testing of the leachate in J uly 2013 already shows
elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and aluminum. Why was this information not shared with the
public? How long will it be until this contaminates area wells? Several residents are already
experiencing H2S odors in their well water for the first time ever.

If the DEP started excavating the material back in J uly when they took over the site, the material
would be more than half gone by now. By next summer, I guess we will see where things are
are. I speculate that things will be no different as they are today except more state money will
have been wasted. In fact, it will most likely be worse as we all know how the summer
temperatures and increased rain fall escalate the H2S generation. It doesn't have to be that way.

There are residents and children that are still experiencing health issues from the H2S gas. Of
course you wouldn't know that because J oe Eldridge and Mary O'Dowd from the NJ DOH refuse
to return residents phone calls. Do you think it is ok that the NJ DOH blatantly ignore hundreds
of documented emails and phone calls from residents? Do you know how much fear and anxiety
it causes residents when a state agency that is supposed to protect the public ignores their plea's
for help for over a year? Why do you think the DOH continues to "downplay" this situation and
ignore it? Are they being "told" what to do by higher authorities?

The NJ DOH has not performed a health survey which is something that is routinely done in
cases like this. The NJ DOH has not requested help from the ATSDR. The NJ DEP and NJ DOH
refuse to come to Roxbury and hold a public meeting for the residents or even answer a
resolution requesting such by the township and mayor. Again, why do you think this is?
So I again await your response to my many questions. Please advise when these will be
answered.
Bill Morrocco
On Wed, J an 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Bill Morrocco wrote:
Kerry,
It's been about another 2 weeks and I still have not seen an updated fact sheet or received
answers to the questions below, some dating back to last October. What exactly is the holdup? I
get the sense that this project has been put on the backburner by your Department, forgive my
assumption, but that is the perception based on latest correspondence, lack of timelines, and
unwillingness to share information.
H2S levels have been creeping up the past few days. Could it be that more collection wells are
needed? If the oxidizer is operating effectively it leads one to believe that the collection system
is not collecting all the gas that the site is releasing. I've expressed concern with this months ago
because the spacing of the existing nine wells appeared to be inadequate for effective collection
over the entire 18 acre site. Is anyone in your Department looking into this?

Most of the monitors are reading around levels set by experts for a "yellow alert" around the
public school system. Kids have to live in their homes outside of the classroom and continue to
be exposed to these levels 24/7.

We have been enduring chronic H2S exposure constantly for the past 14 months. The MRL's
that the DOH have reported for safe intermediate exposure are no longer valid becasue they only
pertain to exposures lasting up to 365 days. The only subchronic (1 year +) exposure study was
performed by the USEPA. The EPA chronic residential ambient air screening value is 1.4 ppb to
be protective of chronic health effects in sensitive individuals. Residents continue to be exposed
to levels of H2S that are in great excess of that limit.

So again, when is the DEP going to supply an analysis of the long term solution which would
include a side by side comparison of all remediation options including removal of the
material? This was initially reported to be completed by October 2012.

What further interim mitigation measures is the DEP looking into in order to immediately further
reduce toxic H2S emissions and odors throughout the township that have been in excess of
chronic screening values? Via the DEP OPRA site there are over 70 pages of odor complaints
filed in December and J anuary.
Thank you,
Bill Morrocco
On Fri, J an 10, 2014 at 10:25 AM, morrow373 <morrow373@gmail.com>wrote:
Kerry,

In addition to the ~25 questions (attached below) from as far back as October that still remain
unanswered, I have the following to add:

1/10/2014
1. What specifically caused the Scrubber/Oxidizer to break down? Is anything being
implemented to avoid/minimize risk of this happening again? Is the DEP working 24/7 to get the
system back online? If not, why not? While the system is down, the DEP daily updates continue
to state that no odors are expected, except last night the odors were widespread in many parts of
the town. This morning, the odors affected some children on their bus stops. Please check the
hotline complaints from last night and into this morning as there were many. There also
continues to be odor complaints almost daily since the scrubber has been put into operation. I
attached 73 pages of DEP hotline odor complaints that were OPRA'ed spanning over the past 2
months. What additional remediation is the DEP planning to implement in order to completely
and permanently eliminate harmful emissions that continue to plague residents with chronic
exposure above EPA health limits, and affect quality of life and property values? Prior to this
failed project there were no odor complaints going back years.
2. For the past 3 days (while the system has been down), a monitor near the schools exceeded
levels for H2S set by the Department of Health, Emilcott, and the Rutgers Toxicologists causing
a yellow alert status per the current school protocol. Why has the DOH/DEP stopped weekly
testing in the schools at a time when H2S levels were just starting to be detected/worsen, and
exceed target levels of concern that were set by State Officials and health experts?

http://roxbury.org/H2SGuidance
3. Can you supply the technical results of the stack test? DEP states that 99% of H2S that is
being sent to the oxidizer is being destroyed and 99% of SO2 is being removed in the
scrubber. What other toxins were included in that test? Also, has the DEP performed testing to
determine how much of the gas generated within the landfill is actually being captured in the
collection system? The fact that odors are still widespread in town lead one to believe that the
collection system is not collecting all the gases for destruction. Is the DEP currently planning to
improve the collection system?
4. Meeting minutes of a telephone conference between Commissioners Martin, O'Dowd, and
township manager Chris Raths from October 2013 state that the DEP agreed to supply an
analysis of the long term solution which would include a side by side comparison of all
remediation options including removal of the material. What is the status of this
comparison? When will it be issued?

http://roxburynj.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1392
5. A recent article in the Mount Olive Chronicle discusses a plan to install solar panels on
Combe Landfill North in Mount Olive. The article states that the project has been delayed
because the state has yet to complete voluminous regulations that will govern solar power
projects. If these regulations are still not complete, how did the SEP project get approved 3
years ago?

6. Is this site remediation following N.J .A.C. 7:26E, Technical Requirements for Site
Remediation? If not, why not?

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_26e.pdf

This statue mandates requirements for public meetings and response to the community, as well
as required testing and documentation. Residents have continued to ask for a public meeting to
get their questions answered. Will the DEP or their LRP agree to this request and attend a public
meeting?

Thank you,

Bill Morrocco

Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:50 AM
To: Pflugh, Kerry
Cc: Padilla, Magdalena; Putnam, Ed; Mayor and Council; Anthony Bucco; morrow373
Subject: outstanding questions from a resident

Ms. Pflugh,
I have copied the following outstanding questions from Mr. Morocco. Please address at you
earliest opportunity.
Thanks
Chris Raths

Questions from 11/26/13
1. Will the custom scrubber be automated to operate 24/7? I believe one of the fact
sheets/updates stated that it would. When is this scheduled to start? Will backup generators be
installed as stated on the fact sheet? If so, when?
2. The custom scrubber has been in operation, however, the H2S levels are still consistent (2-7
ppb) over 24 hour periods or longer, all over town. What additional steps is the DEP taking to
completely eliminate the SO2 and H2S emissions? I remind you that we are now in sub-chronic
exposure, over 1 yr, and the EPA health limit for this is 1 ppb (which has been exceeded on a 1
year average).

3. At what reading will the S02 Monitors send out an alarm or cause the respite center to
open? Levels have been recorded up to 30 ppb. The ATSDR acute Minimum Risk Level for
SO2 is 10 ppb (0-14 days).
4. What is the maximum quantity of water required to operate the scrubber? Is the town
donating or subsidizing the water supply, or is it being purchased at full market rates?
-------------------------------------------------
Questions still unanswered from 10/31 - 11/13
1. You stated at the council meeting last night that the DEP believes the formaldehyde levels
that were measured from REACT's air testing are in line with background levels. Do they have
any background test data that was done in Roxbury? Did they give you any supporting
information?

--------------------------------------------------
These questions have been unanswered by the DEP since October 8th. Any response would be
appreciated.

1. I understand that the volume of H2S gas produced by decaying matter increases with
time. What will happen during power outages when the flare/scrubber system goes down and
gas generation is in its prime? Will residents have to depend on live monitors and the threat of
an evacuation for the next 10-20 years as the exposure potential gets worse?

2. Who will be responsible for maintaining and funding operation of the mitigation equipment
for the long term? How will they be able to afford it if the landfill is closed and bringing in no
revenue?

3. Because of #2, will the DEP guarantee funding for the operation and maintenance of this
equipment, as well as air/water monitoring, for as long as necessary? Or will that fall on the town
(residents taxes) if the landfill owner walks away?

4. The new lawsuit brought on by the state against SEP demands that SEP appoint a receiver to
complete the capping project. Is this suggesting the remaining acres of trees will be cleared and
more trucks of material will be brought in to cap the remainder of the site? Is this how the DEP
plans on enabling the landfill owner to afford the operation and maintenance of the mitigation
equipment?

5. Who will pay for my diminished property value now that industrial equipment and smoke
plumes will exist hundreds of feet from my home? This was never part of the original capping
plan. How is this better than the dormant, wooded site that existed prior to this project? How
does the claims process work for the Landfill Closure Contingency Fund and Spill Act? Please
let me know more about the process for collection. I will be happy to disseminate this
information to hundreds of my neighbors who also should be filing claims through this fund to
collect damages for lost property values due to this landfill project.

6. Can the DEP guarantee that the mitigation equipment will eliminate all the H2S emissions /
odors completely, or will they just be "significantly" reduced? FYI, according to the USEPA
Chronic Health Value for H2S, even exposure >1 ppb ongoing for more than one year is
unhealthy. We are approaching one year of exposure with an average of more than 1 ppb.

7. Where is the scrubber waste water going to be dumped? How much is expected to be
generated monthly? The town estimated that over 10 tanker trucks of day of waste will need to
be removed from the site. Can you confirm?

8. Why is an SO2 scrubber being used instead of an H2S scrubber? Most C&D landfills pre-
treat the incoming gas to remove H2S, prior to combustion, because it is very corrosive to
metal. By using a downstream SO2 scrubber, won't the result be increased maintenance and
more frequent replacement of the upstream equipment?

9. The flare system and scrubber can only destroy the gas that the collection system is able to
collect. Currently, the 9 collection wells are predominantly located on one section of the site that
accounts for less than 10-20% of the total area. In time, the remainder of the material will start
the decomposition process and more collection wells will be required. How high do levels need
to get before more wells are installed? In the years to come, who will do this work? How long
will it take? Who will pay for it? Why isn't the DEP installing the proper piping matrix now that
covers the entire area of the site so this headache doesn't occur later on when a third party is
again in control?

10. The DEP keeps saying that removing the material is not practical but we have yet to see a
side by side cost and logistics comparison. When will this be available for review?

11. Why does the DEP keep saying that breaking the cap will result in extremely dangerous
emissions? Who is the engineer that came to this conclusion? Prior to J une, 2013, no cap
existed and levels were actually lower than they are now. The cap robs the pile of oxygen,
further fueling the anaerobic process. Since the cap is not air tight, every bit of gas that is
generated is currently escaping into the atmosphere. Breaking the cap will not magically result
in more gas generation. The same gas that is being generated will escape, cap or no cap. As
mentioned earlier, the quantity of gas generated is a function of time, as the material
decomposes.

12. Residents are still waiting for the DEP to hold a public meeting. When will this occur?

13. I understand that Louis Berger, the company contracted to engineer the "long term solution,"
was ordered to pay over $60 million in criminal and civil penalties in 2010 for business
misconduct on federal overseas contracts. Why is the NJ DEP working (again) with a criminal?

14. Louis Berger also was involved in the 2005 Immediate Environmental Assessment Report
for Fenimore Landfill. They concluded, "Based on the results of the analyses of the potable well,
soil, surface water, sediment, leachate, and soil gas samples collected, no conditions were found
to exist at the site that pose an acute immediate direct threat to human health. Accordingly, this
Site does not pose an Immediate Environmental Concern." The only recommendation from the
report was periodic sampling of the potable wells near the site. Why did the NJ DEP ignore this
report and the conclusions of Louis Berger, and ultimately declare this site a Brownfield in 2011
so that this solar project could obtain a Highlands Council waiver and be approved? Why is the
NJ DEP again working with Louis Berger if they don't believe their investigations, reports, and
findings?

15. Governor Christie was quoted in the Star Ledger and on NJ 101.5 saying "SEP broke the law
in terms of the things they brought in there." What materials is the Governor referring to? The
DEP fact sheet from September 24th, 2013, states that only C&D debris and solid waste was
found during excavation of the gas collections wells. The fact sheet goes on to say that
additional bore sampling may occur when maintenance of the landfill cap is required. Why isn't
more core sampling being conducted if there is reason to believe that unauthorized materials
were brought in?

16. What is the purpose of canister testing in the schools? If the wind direction isn't right and
the odor isn't present, of course the test is not going to pick up anything. This gives parents and
students a false sense of security. When will 24/7 monitors be installed in the schools to
investigate the maximum exposure potential at times when the wind is blowing the toxic gas in
that direction?
And I am adding this one 11/27/2013.
17. DEP groundwater testing on the site performed in J anuary 2013 and J une 2013 showed levels
of Arsenic, Lead, and Aluminum in significant excess of NJ Ground and Surface water standards
for some of the samples. These samples were taken from the Leachate Pond and streams that
feed Ledgewood Pond. Why haven't these results been shared with the residents, especially
those with wells in the immediate area?. What provisions does the NJ DEP have in place or have
planned to control/treat water runoff from the site to prevent contamination from escaping and
potentially polluting streams, ponds, and wells?

EXHIBIT 13.9

EXHIBIT 14.1

ExcavationoftheFenimoreLandfillcouldcausewidespreadexposuretoextremelyhigh
andunsafeconcentrationsofH2Sgasthatcouldaffectmorethan30municipalitiesinthree
counties,disruptinglivesandbusinesses,andpotentiallycausingapublichealthcrisisfor
thedurationoftheexcavation.BasedonestimatesoftheH2Semissionsthatwouldresult
duringexcavation,DEPsairmeteorologistsmodeledthepotentialdistributionand
exposureofH2S.Basedonprevailingwinds,thismodelillustratesaworstcasescenarioat
onehourofexposureifthelandfillwereexcavated.DEPwillNOTallowthepublictobe
exposedtothesedangerousconcentrations.ExcavationoftheFenimoreLandfillisnota
viableoption.
1

EXHIBIT 14.2

ON THE INCOMPETENCE AND FLAGRANT DISHONESTY
OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

An Example from the
Fenimore Landfill Remediation Project

Dan Masi
Roxbury Township
May 2014

On The Incompetence and Flagrant Dishonesty of the
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
2 | P a g e

Contents

1. Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Caveats ............................................................................................................................................ 4
4. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Timeline ........................................................................................................................................... 5
6. Calculation Package: Examples of Specific Errors ........................................................................... 6
A. Trapped H2S is Grossly Overstated ............................................................................................. 6
B. Liberated H2S is Grossly Overstated ........................................................................................... 7
C. Sulfur Calculations have Numerous Problems ............................................................................ 8
D. Amount of Sulfur Input to the Model is Wrong .......................................................................... 9
E. The Total Integrated Emission Figure is High .............................................................................. 9
7. Dishonesty: Mistakes with Intent ................................................................................................. 10
8. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 10
9. APPENDIX A: Air Model Map......................................................................................................... 12
10. APPENDIX B: Air Model Inputs .................................................................................................. 14
11. APPENDIX C: Calculation Package ............................................................................................. 16
12. APPENDIX D: Error Response to DEP ........................................................................................ 26
13. APPENDIX E: Anderson / Jambeck Paper .................................................................................. 30
14. APPENDIX F: Email Communications ........................................................................................ 94

3 | P a g e

1. Definitions

incompetent (adj): Not possessing the necessary ability, still, etc. to do or carry out a task.
Marked by lack of ability, skill.
flagrant (adj): Conspicuously offensive; especially, so obviously inconsistent with what is right or
proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality.
dishonest (adj): Disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief; proceeding from or
exhibiting a lack of honesty; fraudulent.

2. Introduction

When shenanigans like this happen in the private sector, people go to jail.
This is a quote from a colleague during a discussion of some of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (herein referred to as DEP, so as not to waste ink) activities around the
Fenimore Landfill remediation.
We chuckled. And yet, sadly, it is an absolutely spot-on assessment. It is with that thought that I
felt it important to document at least one example of how badly the DEP is failing the public, both
unintentionally through their inability to perform the most basic analyses correctly, and intentionally
through their purposeful deceit of community residents, local governments, and even the senate.
The example I will point to is The Map. In short, DEP decided to garner support from over 30
communities in 3 counties surrounding Roxbury by creating a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) dispersion map
showing the potential widespread harm that could be caused by excavating the Fenimore landfill.
DEP went on a campaign to present this map to several of these communities; they were shown the
map, but no data, list of assumptions, or model information was presented to back up the maps
assertions. It is worth noting that throughout this campaign, the Roxbury Township officials were
not communicated with and had no knowledge that this map existed nor that DEP was presenting it
to surrounding communities. As you will see, it turns out that the science behind the map is badly
botched. So very badly, that the number of affected communities outside of Roxbury would go from
over 30 to not a single one. Documentation on these errors was submitted to DEP and went
unanswered for weeks despite several requests for response. Two weeks after DEP had been
contacted about the errors, DEPs Commissioner testified to the State Budget and Appropriations
Committee that excavating Fenimore could potentially harm 30 communities. Finally, three weeks
laters and after repeated requests, DEP responded; and said that they would take no action. As of
this writing, the fallacious map is still on their website.
Note that it is not my intention to create a case in favor of excavating the material; I am not arguing
for, or against, a truck-it-out solution here. I personally believe such an action would be highly
undesirable in terms of public safety and health for nearby residents, but that is beyond the point of
4 | P a g e

this paper. Rather, I believe that the best possible solution will come from a thorough discussion
and review, by all affected parties, of all available and correct data. None of that has happened to
date.
Note also that this paper attempts to document but a single example. There is no shortage of
further examples related to the events of the past several years surrounding Fenimore, but this is a
case that I am intimately familiar with; one that I believe demonstrates sufficient deceitfulness and
ineptitude to warrant further investigation of the Department, its motives for Fenimore and its
ability and motivation to properly remediate the landfill without any oversight.

3. Caveats
This paper presents opinions and technical analyses that are personally my own. I am a resident of
Roxbury Township, living within a 1 mile radius of the Fenimore Landfill property. By profession, I
am an engineer and scientist; however, I do not work in the environmental field and do not claim to
be a subject matter expert on the topics presented herein. To that end, I have provided my analyses
as completely as possible, with referenced papers attached, so that others can review and check my
findings. This is how proper engineering and science is performed (note to DEP). That said, much of
the math and assumptions here are not complicated, as my 8 and 11 year old children will readily
affirm.
4. Summary
The NJ State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has knowingly and purposely
propagated grossly false information regarding potential H2S emissions from Fenimore in order to
garner support for their own agenda. Furthermore, they have demonstrated an inability to correctly
perform some of the most basic science and engineering concerning the landfill modelling. An
organization that cannot do the math, and that hides their errors when confronted with them,
cannot be trusted to design and engineer a complete remediation solution without significant
outside help and oversight.
While there are many examples of the DEPs questionable practices throughout the Fenimore
remediation process, this paper focuses on DEPs scientific incompetence and dishonesty
demonstrated by a single document and subsequent related events: the Fenimore Air Model Map
(the Map).
The Map was created by DEP in March of 2014. It is shown here as Appendix A, and was
downloaded directly from the DEP website. This Map shows a very high level of potential H2S
emission reaching communities well over 10 miles away. It supposedly describes the potential for
widespread exposure to extremely high and unsafe concentrations of H2S gas to over 30
municipalities, should the 375,000 cubic yards of fill deposited at Fenimore since around December
2011 be excavated. The map document does not include any assumptions or data on which it is
based.
5 | P a g e

As it turns out, the map isnt only slightly erroneous; it is completely baseless, relying on bad
calculations and assumptions. DEP has been given detailed information about the problems, and
after 3 weeks of silence, has finally responded by saying, in essence, we dont care and we are not
changing it or notifying anyone, because it supports our position.
5. Timeline
The Map was distributed to officials of many of these neighboring communities in late March or
early April. DEP apparently met in person with at least some of the communities to discuss the
implications of the map.
The fact that the map was developed, and being distributed to and discussed with neighboring
communities, was not communicated to Roxbury Township officials. According to Township
officials, it was only discovered through back channels in early April after DEP had already
contacted surrounding towns. If DEP believes the map contains important information to the public,
one wonders why Roxbury was singled out to be kept in the dark, particularly since per the DEPs
own map, Roxbury is by far at highest risk.
As a resident of Roxbury with some background in engineering and science, I was immediately
concerned when I saw the implications of this map, and the lack of any supporting data. I wrote DEP
on 4/11 and requested to see the data and assumptions used in generation of the map, so that I
could understand how such a worst-case scenario could be possible.
On April 15
th
, Kerry Pflugh of the DEP responded with two documents that were used in the maps
creation:
- Standard EPA Air Model Inputs for Fenimore Landfill (Appendix B)
- Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Generation Estimate, Fenimore Calculation Package (Appendix C)
On 4/16/14, I reviewed the latter document and found gross errors to be present. That same day I
documented my concerns and sent them to DEP (Appendix D), requesting to be informed of the
resolution. My expectation was that the data would be corrected, the map correctly redrawn, and
officials and others who had previously been contacted regarding the map would be updated with
correct information.
The errors found are not trivial, and the later parts of this paper will go into detail on some of them
to demonstrate the magnitude of the errors. The amount of H2S is overstated by a factor of 1000,
possibly much more, and correcting the errors would result in a map that in fact would show no
exposure to any surrounding communities.
Repeated requests for a response, from myself and from the Roxbury Township manager, were
made subsequently (for a full list of relevant emails, see Appendix F):
I repeated my request on 4/17;
Roxbury Township manager also sent a request on 4/17
I repeated my request on 4/23.
Roxbury again asked for a thorough response on 4/24.
Roxbury repeated their request on 5/6.
6 | P a g e

All of these emails went unanswered.
On 5/6, I sent yet another request. DEP finally sent a response on 5/7, indicating that because DEP
will not be pursuing excavation as a remedy, there will be no need to further develop or modify the
air model. In other words, DEP sees no need to take any action, including contacting those to
whom they have presented their original data to update them on these new findings.
It is also worth noting that on 4/29/14, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin testified to the NJ State
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, making the following statement regarding excavating
the Fenimore material: The ability to remove that material would be a danger to that community
[Roxbury], and, based upon air modelling, could be a danger to up to 30 other communities in the
area if we started removing the material. Commissioner Martin makes this statement almost two
full weeks after his organization has had information indicating that their basis is flawed and that
such a statement is absolutely incorrect.
6. Calculation Package: Examples of Specific Errors
This section will delve into some technical detail to show some of the errors found in the calculation
package. This is not an exhaustive list, and doesnt even address potential issues with the air model.
Nor does it address the fact that the calculation package is horribly incomplete. For instance, it
doesnt include basic information about the size of the landfill, volume of Construction and
Demolition fines; it talks about amounts per month of acceptance but doesnt specify how many
months of operation are assumed; many steps are missing to show how the calculation goes from A
to B; the list goes on and on. Rather, the aim here is to point out some of the really bad fumbling,
both to show how the map is based on an H2S estimate that is several orders of magnitude too high
(e.g. a factor of 1000x or more), and to demonstrate the point that if DEP can make these kinds of
huge errors and not catch them, then DEP cannot be trusted to engineer a remediation solution
without significant oversight.

A. Trapped H2S is Grossly Overstated
The calculation package (Appendix C) makes a gross assumption that, prior to excavation, the
amount of H2S gas present in the landfill volume is simply equal to the amount of interstitial space in
the landfill. Section 2.1 states The volume of H2S gas contained within the pore space is assumed
to be the same as the pore space volume of the waste. An equation is then presented that shows
that the quantity of H2S is simply the volume of the landfill, multiplied by the average porosity. The
average porosity is stated in section 3.2 as being between 25 and 30% but surprisingly does not
give the specific number used for calculation. In essence, though, this is claiming that the amount of
H2S gas present is simply 0.275x the volume of the entire landfill. It also means that the landfill gas
itself is 100% H2S.
This is a ludicrous model, for several reasons:
1) There are several references that study soil gas and H2S content at representative landfills.
Regarding the percent of H2S in landfill gas (relative to other gases present), Maine EPA says
the following
7 | P a g e

(www.maine.gov/dep/waste/publications/documents/hydrogensulfidefactsheet.pdf):
Hydrogen sulfide may account for up to 1 percent by volume of landfill gas emissions,
although typically the percentage is much less. Much less than 1%. Not 100% as DEP
models.
Perhaps the most comprehensive reference here is EPAs document, Best Management
Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur Compound Emissions
at Landfills That Dispose of Gypsum Drywall [US EPA Office of Research and Development,
EPA/600/R-14/039,
epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/bmp%20guide%202014.pdf].
Section 2.6.2 of the EPA document samples active C&D landfills accepting gypsum. For the
single landfill with the highest observed H2S emissions, using soil vapor probes, they find
H2S concentrations of 1000 L/L on average. This is a concentration of 0.1% of the soil gas.
A thousand times lower than the 100%-of-pore-gas estimate that DEP is using.
Furthermore, even the 1000 L/L estimate is a high number; the average mean
concentration for all surveyed C&D landfills in this study is more like 10-50 L/L, which is as
much as 100,000 times lower than DEPs 100% assumption. It would be impossible to see
100% H2S gas filling the entire porosity volume; this is many, many orders of magnitude too
high of an estimate.
2) Even neglecting all of the above, this is a silly assumption if only because there just isnt
enough gypsum to generate that amount of gas. A simple sanity-check on their assumption
might go something like this: 375,000 cu yds of fill, x 0.275 porisity, = 103,000 cu yds of H2S,
or 2,784,000 cubic feet of H2S. As we will see later, based on the correct amount of sulfur in
the landfill (DEP is way off on this, too, as we will see), there is not enough H2S generation
potential in the entire landfill to generate that much gas.

B. Liberated H2S is Grossly Overstated
Another problem here is that there is an implicit assumption in the model, that ALL H2S which is
trapped/adsorbed in the landfill soil is instantly and complete liberated during the excavation
process. This is actually hinted at by the wording in the previously-referenced section 2.1: The
following equation estimates the volume of escape of H2S gas: (emphasis mine), and then goes on
to show that the H2S volume escaped is simply the volume of landfill times the porosity factor.
Put another way; once the soil is dumped into the truck, that soil will have no H2S in it. None.
Because just picking it up and putting it into the truck allows complete liberation of ALL gas in that
volume.
While I dont cite a reference to argue against this, I think its safe to say that this assumption is not
even close to correct.

8 | P a g e

C. Sulfur Calculations have Numerous Problems
The calculation package paper attempts to calculate the amount of sulfur in the landfill, for purposes
of estimating the amount of H2S generation, but is filled with horrendous errors.
1) Section 3.2 states, Fenimore Landfill is assumed to have received on average 14,500 tons of
C&D fine materials per month, during the period of fill acceptance. Where does this
number come from? Note that nowhere in the paper does it state what the period of
acceptance is, what the overall amounts are, etc. As I will point out later, a simple napkin
calculation goes like this:
a. 375,000 cu. yds. deposited at Fenimore, x 54% C&D, = 202,000 cu.yd. of C&D.
b. At 0.24 tons/cu.yd. C&D, 202000 x 0.24 = 48,600 tons total C&D.
How could there be 14,500 tons per month if the total C&D tonnage is 48,600?
(Fenimore accepted material under SEPs operation for approximated 18 months)

2) 2.85 percent mass of sulfur for the C&D fine tonnage was selected, based on the average
reported values by Anderson et al. (2010). Therefore, the mass of sulfur received at Fenimore
Landfill is assumed to be 600 tons per month.

By my way of doing math, 14500 x 2.85% yields 413 tons per month, not 600. These figures
and calculations are all supposedly checked and signed off. I may not be an environmental
expert, but I received a perfect 100% score on my AP Calculus BC placement test in high
school. You need two numbers multiplied? Im your guy.

3) That said, 2.85% is not even the correct number to use, and it is not at all clear how it was
derived. I suspect some bad math was applied to the statement that the overall average
sulfate concentration is 4.3% (from Table 1); 2.85% looks suspiciously like 2/3 of 4.3%, and
the atomic weight of sulfur is twice that of oxygen, and sulfate is sulfur and oxygen atoms
(but, if thats what they did, its wrong because there are 4 oxygen atoms for every sulfur
atom). But Im speculating. Regardless, one possible way of getting a useful number would
be to apply the correct atomic weight ratio to the 4.3% sulfate; since sulfate ions are SO4,
sulfur as atomic weight 32, and oxygen 16, the mass of elemental sulfur would be one-third
that of the SO4 mass. Youd get 1.4% concentration (one third of 4.3%). A better way would
be to look at table 2 instead, and simply calculate the average ratio of sulfur to C&D tonnage
directly from the numbers given in the Anderson paper. The answer is 1.2% (the sum of the
sulfur tonnage column of table 2, divided by the sum of the total C&D tonnage column). In
either case, the 2.85% percent mass of sulfur used by DEP is more than twice what it should
be, so the amount of sulfur going into the model is overstated accordingly (forgetting for the
moment that the raw material is already grossly overstated, see point #1 above).
For reference, the quoted paper from Anderson, Jambeck et al (2010) is included here as
Appendix E.
9 | P a g e

D. Amount of Sulfur Input to the Model is Wrong
As pointed out in the last section, DEP uses a (badly derived) figure of 600 tons of elemental sulfur
per month deposited at Fenimore. While the paper doesnt explicitly state the number of months of
debris acceptance, my understanding is that it is approximately 18 months. If that is in fact what is
used by the model, 18x600 = 10,800 tons of sulfur.
Yet, some very trivial math demonstrates that the estimate of 600 tons sulfur per month is way, way
off:
a. 375,000 cu.yd. of material x 54% C&D = 202,000 cu.yd. C&D fines deposited.
b. 202,000 cu.yd. C&D fines x 0.24 tons/cu.yd. = 48,600 tons of C&D fines.
c. 48,600 tons of C&D fines x 0.012 (1.2%) tons sulfur per ton C&D fines = 583 tons.
Thus, 583 tons of elemental sulfur were deposited in Fenimore. Total. Not per month. To be clear:
The total amount of sulfur is actually less than the amount DEP calculated as deposited each month.
For reference:
The values of 375,000 cubic yards of material deposited at Fenimore, and 54% of deposited material
is C&D fines [used in step (a) above] are documented and accepted records, previously presented by
DEP and others.
The density value of 0.24 tons/cu.yd. C&D fines density (used in step b) comes from available
studies on C&D volume to weight conversion, specifically Converting C&D Debris from Volume To
Weight: A Fact Sheet For C&D Debris Facility Operators,
www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/candd/cdconversionformula.pd
f . Other studies agree with this number.
The 0.012 factor (used in step c) is taken from the Anderson 2010 paper as described in Sulfur
Calculations point #3 above; it is the ratio of the average tons of sulfur in the studied landfills divided
by the average tons of C&D in those landfills.

E. The Total Integrated Emission Figure is High
The DEP paper claims that once all is said and done, the total amount of H2S emitted would be 3.5
million cubic feet (Section 4).
If we take 583 tons of sulfur (see above) and use the referenced paper (Anderson 2010) to figure out
what the ultimate H2S generation capability is, using the average generation potential S
0
of 4310
ft
3
/ton sulfur (as DEP uses elsewhere in their calculation package), we get 583 x 4310 = 2.5 million
cubic feet. In other words, if the landfill were to be allowed to sit undisturbed to completion of all
generation activity, AND if ALL of the resulting gas were emitted completely leaving nothing in the
soil (both assumptions impossibly far from real-life), from this calculation we would still be only
around 70% of what DEP is claiming would be the actual total emission. This, right away, should
have been a red flag to anyone checking the numbers.
10 | P a g e

7. Dishonesty: Mistakes with Intent
Its bad enough that these kinds of errors are made, signed off on, and presented to the public at
large as truths by the states own expert department. Doing so with purpose and intent, though, is
unconscionable. Yet, there is every indication that the DEP has done exactly that. These examples
have been mentioned before, but to list them together as a set:
The DEP claims that the information contained in the map was important for the public to be
aware of, and quickly; and certainly, if it was even close to being accurate, it would be very
important. And yet, for the single community at the center of all of this (Roxbury
Township), the community most affected by the map results, they purposely did not
communicate the maps information or even the fact that the map existed.
The map was presented without any supporting data, model assumptions, or empirical
evidence.
After receiving a document demonstrating the errors and areas of concern found in their
data, DEP gave no response in spite of repeated requests for 3 weeks.
Two weeks after receiving documentation showing their errors, DEP still testified to the NJ
Senate that 30 communities would be potentially affected by Fenimore excavation as per
this very air model.
After further requests, three weeks after the initial error documentation, DEP responded
with a brief email stating that it was in receipt of the documentation but had no plans to
address the issues presented.
The townships that had initially been presented the map information have presumably not
been contacted with a corrective update.
As of this writing, the map is still available on DEPs website in spite of this evidence that
there are clearly problems with it.

8. Conclusion
The data and assumptions that directly generate the map are flawed, and result in a dispersion
model map that overstates the potential H2S emission by many orders of magnitude. A more
accurate map would almost certainly show no emission in communities neighboring Roxbury, based
on the analysis presented herein.
DEP has been apprised of these flaws. They chose to not respond, and after a long period,
responded that they dont care. They have no intention of revisiting the local officials and residents
who have been given false information and updating them, nor reviewing their own designs for their
planned remediation.
One wonders if any of these calculations are used in the actual plan design for Fenimore capping.
Has the scrubber/oxidizer and well system been sized appropriately based on these calculations? If
11 | P a g e

so, will they now be redesigned? And if their design is NOT based on these calculations, then why
not?
There are plenty of other questions that could be asked, such as; why was Roxbury Township
prohibited by the DEP from coming in to conduct core soil sampling, in spite of the fact that the
Emergency Order seems to expressly grant the township that right? But those sorts of questions are
tangential to this single example. My point in mentioning it is to remind the reader that this
document very narrowly focuses on a single problem, and that there are countless others that are
not discussed here.
That the DEP can operate on a remediation project like Fenimore without soliciting input and review
from stakeholders, such as local town government and residents, is unfathomable. That they can
make errors of this basic sort, and of this magnitude, and yet completely ignore them, is frightening.
This is the organization that is responsible for the Fenimore remediation, and from the outset they
have operated in a veiled manner and have not reviewed and discussed plans with affected parties.
This is in clear opposition of their own Core Principle of Transformation, found in the DEP Vision
Statement: Stakeholder involvement and transparent decision-making must be part of standard
operating procedures to ensure that DEPs actions are well-informed and balanced.
If they cant get the simple things right, how can they be trusted to get the rest of the project right?
I submit that both the DEPs motives and their practice need to be investigated immediately, and
that oversight from another agency is immediately warranted to ensure that the Fenimore
remediation doesnt go any farther off the rails than it already is.

12 | P a g e

9. APPENDIX A: Air Model Map

APPENDIX A
NJDEP AIR MODEL MAP
FENIMORE LANDFILL EXCAVATION FUGITIVE GAS EMISSION
From nj.gov/dep/fenimore/docs/air-excavation-h2s-one-hour-max-with-notes.pdf

ExcavationoftheFenimoreLandfillcouldcausewidespreadexposuretoextremelyhigh
andunsafeconcentrationsofH2Sgasthatcouldaffectmorethan30municipalitiesinthree
counties,disruptinglivesandbusinesses,andpotentiallycausingapublichealthcrisisfor
thedurationoftheexcavation.BasedonestimatesoftheH2Semissionsthatwouldresult
duringexcavation,DEPsairmeteorologistsmodeledthepotentialdistributionand
exposureofH2S.Basedonprevailingwinds,thismodelillustratesaworstcasescenarioat
onehourofexposureifthelandfillwereexcavated.DEPwillNOTallowthepublictobe
exposedtothesedangerousconcentrations.ExcavationoftheFenimoreLandfillisnota
viableoption.
1
14 | P a g e

10. APPENDIX B: Air Model Inputs

APPENDIX B
STANDARD EPA
AIR MODEL INPUTS FOR FENIMORE
Received via email 4/15/2014

Standard EPA Air Model Inputs for Fenimore Landfill

The isopleth map (contour map depicting air concentration at distance from the landfill) shows the
maximum predicted 1-hour average hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations when including the following
inputs:
- The 2012 hourly meteorological observations recorded at Essex County Airport in Caldwell, New
Jersey, and upper air data (i.e. twice-daily weather balloon soundings) from Brookhaven, New York.
- An hourly emission rate of 87.9 pounds per hour H2S for 8 hours of excavation per day and an
hourly emission rate of 7.7 pounds per hour H2S for all 24-hours per day from exposed portion of the
landfill.
- A 20 mile by 20 mile Cartesian Grid of 4,562 receptors (points where pollutant concentrations
are calculated by the model.) where 1-hour average H2S concentrations are calculated for each of the
8784 hours during 2012. Receptors (locations where the model calculates what the ambient
concentration of a pollutant will be when assuming a particular emission rate) are spaced at every 500
meters (~500 yards).
- The maximum hourly concentration at each receptor among all the 8,784 hours in the modelled
year is calculated using the USEPAs AERMOD air quality model and depicted as isopleths that show the
spatial area(s) with same ambient concentrations of H2S from potential excavation activity at the
landfill.
- Isopleths are shown for three key concentrations. Two concentrations (100 ppb and 510 ppb)
are taken from the Roxbury Township health guidance report. The 30 ppb is taken from the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and is the number used in the Legacy Landfill Law.
-30 ppb, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Acute 1-Hour
Exposure Level
-100 ppb, Emergency Response Planning Guideline Notification for a 60 minute time-
weighted average (TWA)
- 510 ppb, Advisory of Acute Exposure Guideline Level, 60-minute TWA

16 | P a g e

11. APPENDIX C: Calculation Package

APPENDIX C
HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS GENERATIION ESTIMATE,
FENIMORE LANDFILL CALCULATION PACKAGE
Received via email 4/15/2014

Written by: Lin Chai Date: 3.27.2014
Approved by: Tom Ramsey Date: 3.28.2014
Client: NJDOL Project: Fenimore Landfill Project No.: ME1035 Task No.: 1

ME1035/Calculation Package H2S Generation_rev 2
HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS GENERATION ESTIMATE
FENIMORE LANDFILL
ROXBURY, NEW JERSEY

1. INTRODUCTION

Geosyntec prepared this calculation package to quantify the volume of hydrogen sulfide (H
2
S)
gas generation and emissions associated with the emergency actions taken to abate H
2
S gas
emissions from Fenimore Landfill, Roxbury County, New Jersey. Analysis were performed for
two of the options for abating observed conditions, (1) excavating and removing some or all of
the existing fill material, and transporting it for disposal at an off-site landfill; and (2) leaving the
fill material in-place and constructing an impermeable cap with H
2
S gas control system.

2. MODEL

This section describes the selected models to estimate the H
2
S emission that will occur during each
the of the two emergency action options.
2.1 H
2
S Emission during Off-Site Removal of Fill Material

During the excavation, there will be two sources of emissions: (1) the escape of H
2
S that has already
been generated and is currently contained within the pore space of the fill material, Q
2
; and (2) the
escape of new H
2
S that is generated while construction is underway but before the material is
removed from the site, Q
1
. The total H
2
S emission is calculated by the following equation:

2 1
Q Q Q + =
where:
Q = Total H
2
S emission volume, cubic feet (cf);
Q
1
= H
2
S generation volume from the fill material (cf);
Q
2
= H
2
S volume escaped from the waste pore space (cf); and
= Landfill gas collection efficiency (%);

H
2
S Generated by Construction and Demolition Waste, Q
1

The generation of H
2
S is estimated based on the approach developed by Anderson et al. (2010).
In this approach, the quantity and rate of H
2
S generation at a landfill is a function of the landfill
size, waste amount, sulfur content, and waste age. The equation used to calculate the average
LFG generation quantity, Q, in a given year is as follows:


=
n
i
kc
i
i
e M kS Q
1
0 1

where:
Q
1
= H
2
S generation volume from the landfill (cf);
k = H
2
S generation rate constant (yr
-1
);
S
0
= H
2
S generation potential (ft
3
/ton waste);
M
i
= Mass of sulfur from C&D fines deposited in the i
th
section (ton);
t
i
= age of the i
th
section (yrs); and
i = section number.
H
2
S Emitted from the Pore Space of Waste, Q
2

The H
2
S gas that has already been generated and is currently contained within the pore space of the
waste is estimated with the simplified method below. The volume of H
2
S gas contained within the
pore space is assumed to be the same as the pore space volume of the waste. The following
equation estimates the volume of escape of H
2
S gas:

V Q =
2

where:
Q
2
= H
2
S volume escaped from the waste pore space (cf);
= Porosity of waste (%); and
V = Volume space of the landfill (cf).

2.2 H
2
S Emission during Closure Capping

Should fill material be left in-place with a final cap installed, the existing gas collection and
treatment system will be able to operate continuously and H
2
S emissions will be limited to the
release of the fraction of H
2
S gas that is not captured by the gas collection and treatment system
either during construction or the long-term care period. The total H
2
S emission is calculated by the
following equation:
1
Q Q =
where:
Q = Total H
2
S emission volume (cf);
Q
1
= H
2
S generation volume from the fill material (cf);
= Landfill gas collection efficiency (%);


3. INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

For this analysis, contribution of landfill gas being generated by the historic wastes disposed
beneath the fill material is ignored.
3.1 Waste Degradation Rate and Methane Generation Potential

The hydrogen sulfide generation rate constant (k) influences the estimate of the rate of landfill
gas generation. Landfills with high k values tend to have high gas generation rates initially and
exponentially lower generation rates as the waste gets older. Conversely, landfills with low k
values have lower rates of initial gas production but less significant reductions in the gas
production rate over time.
The potential for H
2
S generation in a landfill depends on a number of factors, including sulfate
quantities, moisture content, pH, and the quantity of degradable organic matter available (Yang,
2000). Waste streams with construction and demolition (C&D) fines with high sulfur content are
expected to have high S
0
values.

To date, there are limited publications that focus on the measurement or estimation of k and S
0

values for hydrogen sulfide. Anderson et al. (2010) analyzed H
2
S generations from six landfills
in northeastern U.S., and derived k and S
0
values by statistically fitting the above model against
the field measurement data. Anderson et al. reported average k value as 0.64 yr
-1
and average S
0

value as 4310 ft
3
/ton as a result of their analysis. Tolaymat et al. (2013) performed a similar
exercise based on laboratory bench-scale test, but reported a lower k value (0.14 yr
-1
) and a
similar S
0
value (3980 ft
3
/ton) compared to Anderson et al. The authors concluded that the value
difference is most likely due to the lower carbon concentrations in laboratory tests than in
landfills rich organic carbon environments.
In the absence of site-specific data, k and S
0
are

conservatively assumed to be 0.64 yr
-1
and
4310 ft
3
/ton, respectively, the average values reported by Anderson et al. (2010).
3.2 Waste Acceptance Rates and Porosity

C&D waste acceptance information was obtained from the site waste stream provided by New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Fenimore Landfill is assumed to have
received on average 14,500 tons of C&D fine materials per month, during the period of fill
acceptance. No data on the amount of mass of sulfur contained in the C&D fines, M, was
available for the site, therefore 2.85 percent mass of sulfure for the C&D fine tonnage was
selected, based on the average reported values by Anderson et al. (2010). Therefore, the mass of
sulfur received at Fenimore Landfill is assumed to be 600 tons per month.

The porosity of the waste, , is assumed to be between 25 and 30%, considering 54 percent of
the fill material is shredded demolition debris.


3.3 Construction Time Length

For the closure capping option, the total construction period is estimated to be 12 months, with
installation of the impermeable cap completed by December 2014.

For the off-site removal option, the total construction is assumed to last 16 months from June
2014 to November 2015, as estimated in the Geosyntec (2014) report. Due to the complexity
and uncertainty of removal activities scheduling, the construction period is simplified to two
phases, with each phase lasting 8 months.

3.4 Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency

The gas control system efficiency prior to construction is assumed to be 50%, which is at the
lower limits of published estimates for gas collection efficiency at sites with similar soil covers
(Barlaz et al. 2009).
Off-Site Removal Option
As discussed in 3.3, it is assumed the emission calculations considered two phases of
construction. During the first phase, half the amount of the fill material waste will be excavated,
resulting less H
2
S generation emission Q
1
. However, because part of the landfill gas collection
system will shut down during the excavation, the gas collection efficiency will be reduced.
Therefore, the gas control system efficiency is assumed to be 50% at the beginning of the
construction and will decrease to 25% at the end of first phase. As a result, an average efficiency
of 37.5% is used for the first phase. Similarly the efficiency for the second half of the
construction phase is assumed to be 25% and will decrease to 0%. An average efficiency of
12.5% is used for the second phase.

Closure Capping Option
Following completion of the landfill cap, LFG control system efficiency is expected to further
improve. The geomembrane cap is an effective barrier to air infiltration and therefore allows
higher vacuum pressures to be applied and resulting in larger radius of influence for each LFG
well. Gas control system efficiency following closure cap construction is assumed to be 90%,
which is at the lower limits of published estimates for gas system collection efficiency at sites
with geomembrane covers (Barlaz et al. 2009).


4. RESULTS

Figure 1 illustrates the H
2
S fugitive emission rate for both options, in terms of cubic feet per
minute, starting from year 2011 to year 2019. To compare total H
2
S emissions, the starting date
for either excavation or capping options is assumed to be June 2014. Prior to June 2014,
emissions are the same for either option (see Figure 1) and therefore ignored.

The total H
2
S emission for the closure capping option is approximately 1.3 million cubic feet.
The result of the H
2
S emissions for each phase of off-site fill material removal is summarized
below. The total H
2
S emission for off-site removal option is approximately 3.5 million cubic
feet.

Table 1. H
2
S gas emission for off-site fill material removal option
H2S gas emissions
1
st
half of construction 2
nd
half of construction
Average
work day
Average
non-work
day
Average
work day
Average
non-work
day
Excavation emissions, cf/day 8,000 0 8,000 0
Landfill emissions, cf/hr 2,100 2,100 800 800
Daily average emissions, cf/hr 10,100 2,100 8,800 800
Total emissions for period 1.9 million cf 1.6 million cf
Total emissions for excavation 3.5 million cf

REFERENCES

Anderson R., J. Jambeck, and G. McCarron, (2010). Modeling of Hydrogen Sulfide Generation
from Landfills Beneficially Utilizing Processed Construction and Demolition Materials,
Final Report for Environmental Research and Education Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Barlaz M.A., J.P. Chanton, R.B. Green. (2009) Controls on Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency:
Instantaneous and Lifetime Performance. J. of Air and Waste Manage. Assoc., 59, 1,399-
1,404.
Geosyntec. (2014). Review of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Abatement Options. Report for
Environmental Enforcement Section, New Jersey Division of Law, by Geosyntec
Consultants, Columbia, Maryland.
Tolaymat, T., El Badawy, A., and Carson, D. (2013). Estimate of the Decay Rate Constant of
Hydrogen Sulfide from Drywall in a Simulated Bench-Scale Study. J. Environ. Eng.,
139(4), 538544.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) LandGEM Landfill Gas Emissions Model,
Version 3.02, May 2005.
Yang, K., Q. Xu, T. Townsend, P. Chadik, G. Bitton, and M. Booth (2006) Hydrogen Sulfide
Generation in Simulated Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills: Impact of Waste
Composition, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. (56):11301138


Figure 1

H
2
S Fugitive Emission Rate
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
9
/
1
1
1
2
/
1
1
4
/
1
2
7
/
1
2
1
0
/
1
2
1
/
1
3
5
/
1
3
8
/
1
3
1
1
/
1
3
3
/
1
4
6
/
1
4
9
/
1
4
1
2
/
1
4
4
/
1
5
7
/
1
5
1
0
/
1
5
1
/
1
6
5
/
1
6
8
/
1
6
1
1
/
1
6
3
/
1
7
6
/
1
7
9
/
1
7
1
2
/
1
7
4
/
1
8
7
/
1
8
1
0
/
1
8
2
/
1
9
s
c
f
m
Month/Year
Figure 1
H
2
S Fugitive Emission Rate (scfm), Fenimore Landfill
Final Cover Option
Excavation Option
Total H
2
S Emission
After Jun 2014
Final Cover: Jun 2014 --- Dec 2014
Excavation: Jun 2014 --- Nov 2015
1,355,522 ft
3
Cvr. Opt. =
3,533,877 ft
3
Exc. Opt. =

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

COMPUTATION COVER SHEET

Client: NJDOL Project: Fenimore Landfill Project/Proposal #: ME1035 Task: 01

TITLE OF COMPUTATIONS: HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS GENERATION ESTIMATES

COMPUTATATIONS BY:
Signature
28 Mar 2014

DATE

Printed Name
Lin Chai

and Title
Staff Engineer

ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES

CHECKED BY:
Signature
28 Mar 2014
(Peer Reviewer)

DATE

Printed Name
Jennifer Padgett

and Title
Engineer

COMPUTATATIONS CHECKED BY:
Signature
28 Mar 2014

DATE

Printed Name
Jennifer Padgett

and Title
Engineer

COMPUTATIONS

BACKCHECKED BY:
Signature
28 Mar 2014
(Originator)

DATE

Printed Name
Lin Chai

and Title
Staff Engineer

APPROVED BY:
Signature
28 Mar 2014
(PM or Designate)

DATE

Printed Name
Thomas Ramsey

and Title
Associate

APPROVAL NOTES:

REVISIONS: (Number and initial all revisions)

NO. SHEET DATE BY CHECKED BY APPROVAL

26 | P a g e

12. APPENDIX D: Error Response to DEP

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONS ON FENIMORE H2S
CALCULATION PACKAGE
Sent to DEP via email 4/16/2014

To: Kerry Pflugh, NJDEP
From: Dan Masi

Kerry, a brief review of the paper you provided me on 4/15/2014, Calculation Package H2S
Generation.pdf found a number of deficiencies. This list is in no way complete, and in fact I dont
see enough information in the bulk of this paper to support the answers presented at the end in
table 1 and figure 1, and there is no information to show how even these numbers support the gas
amounts used as input to the Fenimore Standard EPA Air Model Input.pdf paper which was also
included in your email.
Im still reviewing, but have compiled enough issues with the first paper that I wanted to write and
ask how/if these issues can be addressed.
Regards,

Dan Masi
Roxbury Township

Questions on Calculation Package H2S Generation.pdf, Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Generation Estimate
/ Fenimore Landfill / Roxbury NJ [Geosyntec Consultants, 3/27/2014]
The following questions are in order by document section and do not represent any sort of priority;
indeed, there are some minor quibbles and more major issues scattered throughout.

2.1 The equation term Q
1
, where is defined as the gas collection efficiency, should surely
read (1-)Q
1
. This term, as I understand it, is meant to represent the uncollected/untreated volume
of generated gas available for emission in the atmosphere. There is not enough information in this
paper to determine if this is simply a misprint, or if the collection efficiency was used incorrectly.

2.1 The exponential decay equation quoted from Anderson et. al. (2010) is slightly different
from that published. In the published version, the model equation lists the age t
i
as having units of
months, not years. While this is likely a typo in the Anderson/Jambeck report, it is worth noting that
the Feminore paper is using decay constant values taken directly from this paper; has it been verified
that t is actually expressed in years, not months? Or are the decay contant k values in the paper
actually expressed in months and not years?

2.1 The volume of H2S gas contained within the pore space is assumed to be the same as the
pore space volume of the waste. What is the basis for this gross assumption? Not only does this
statement assume that the entire volume of fill has reached adsorption saturation, but that all
interstitial spaces are completely filled with H2S. This is unrealistically high. I refer you to Best
Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur Compound
Emissions at Landfills That Dispose of Gypsum Drywall [USEPA Office of Research and Development,
EPA/600/R-14/039,
http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/bmp%20guide%202014.pdf]; section 2.6.2
specifically samples active C&D landfills and finds, using soil vapor probes for instance, H2S
concentrations that seem to average (for the landfill with the highest observed concentrations) on
the order of 1000 L/L (i.e. 0.1%, hundreds of times less than the value you get by simply using the
porosity volume).

3.1 The title Waste Degradation Rate and Methane Generation Potential should refer to H2S,
not methane.

3.1 In the absence of site-specific data, k and S0 are conservatively assumed to be 0.64 yr-1 and
4310 ft3/ton, respectively, the average values reported by Anderson et al. (2010). The word
conservatively should be removed, as there is nothing inherently conservative in using these
average numbers. Also, the author does not justify the use of average values here; it should be
noted that in the Anderson paper, there are two classes of landfills measured. One are landfills
which use C&D fines as Alternate Daily Cover (ADC), and the other are landfills that use C&D as
separated monofill. Neither represents Fenimore perfectly. Taking the average of all of these
numbers, though, biases the result more toward the ADC types since 4 out of the 6 values come
from there, and it is likely that Fenimore mechanisms are closer to the monofill case than the C&D-
as-daily-cover case.

3.2 Fenimore Landfill is assumed to have received on average 14,500 tons of C&D fine materials
per month, during the period of fill acceptance. No data on the amount of mass of sulfur contained in
the C&D fines, M, was available for the site, therefore 2.85 percent mass of sulfure for the C&D fine
tonnage was selected, based on the average reported values by Anderson et al. (2010). Therefore,
the mass of sulfur received at Fenimore Landfill is assumed to be 600 tons per month
There are two problems apparent here:
1) Assuming the method is correct, the math itself is wrong. 14,500 tons x 2.85% gives 413
tons per month, not 600.
2) Beyond the math problem, the method itself is not correct due to a misinterpretation of
the numbers in the Anderson paper by the person performing this calculation. Note that
table ES-1 in the Anderson paper, from which the average value of 2.85% is taken,
defines sulfate content, not sulphur, as being 2.85% by weight on average. Now look at
table ES-2 in that paper, and note Anderson et al are now talking about sulfur. Note
here that the values used of sulfur, by weight, are approximately 1.4% of the C&D fines
tonnage. Not 2.85%. Had the math been correct in the Fenimore paper, you still would
have overstated the elemental sulfur content by a factor of 2. It should be closer to 200
tons per month based on your assumptions. The S
0
constants used in the model are
based on elemental sulfur weight.

4. Results: it is not at all clear how these results are obtained from the assumptions presented in the
rest of this paper.
30 | P a g e

13. APPENDIX E: Anderson / Jambeck Paper

APPENDIX E
ANDERSON/JAMBECK (2010) PAPER
USED AS REFERENCE IN DEP CALCULATION PACKAGE

ModelingofHydrogenSulfideGenerationfromLandfillsBeneficially
UtilizingProcessedConstructionandDemolitionMaterials
RussellAnderson
SeniorProjectProfessional
SCSEngineers,PC
Providence,RhodeIsland
randerson@scsengineers.com
JennaR.Jambeck,Ph.D.
FacultyofEngineering
UniversityofGeorgia
jjambeck@engr.uga.edu
GregoryP.McCarron,PE
VicePresident
SCSEngineers,PC
ValleyCottage,NewYork
gmccarron@scsengineers.com
KEYWORDS:Odor,landfillgas,C&Dfines
FINALREPORT
Preparedforthe
EnvironmentalResearchandEducationFoundation
Alexandria,VA
February,2010
2
Executive summary
Recyclingofconstructionanddemolition(C&D)debrishasincreasedinrecenttimes,with
positiveenvironmentalandeconomicbenefitsbeingrealizedfromutilizingC&Dwaste
materialsasresources.Resultingpoliciesatthefederalandstatelevelsandeconomic
structureshavesupportedthisincreaseinrecycling.Forexample,tippingfeesandregulatory
structure(wastebansinMassachusetts)haveexpandedtheC&Dprocessingindustryinthe
northeast.OneoftheproductsproducedfromC&DrecyclingisC&Dfines,whichofteninclude
somequantityofsulfatefromgypsumdrywall.Useoffinescontainingsulfateinananaerobic
environmentcanresultintheformationofhydrogensulfide(H
2
S).BecauseofH
2
Sconcerns,
thereisagrowingproblemintheNortheastrelativetorecyclingordisposalofC&Dfines.The
longtermfocusofMassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(MassDEP)and
otherstatesolidwasteregulatorsintheNortheastistoimprovemanagementofC&Dfinesand
todevelopimprovedendmarketsthatarelessdependentonlandfills.Intheshortterm,
however,regulatorsmustcontinuetoworkwithC&Dprocessorsandlandfilloperatorsto
improvethemanagementofC&Dfinesandresidualsatactiveandinactivelandfills.
Increasinglyoverthepastdecade,C&Ddebrisprocessingresidualsandfineshavebeenusedas
landfilldailycovermaterialandtocloseandcapoldlandfills.C&Ddebrisprocessingresiduals
andfines(C&Dfines)arefavoredbynumerouslandfilloperatorsasanalternatedailycover
material(ADC)astheyaresuperiorinmanywaystotraditionalsoilcovermaterials.However,
onepotentialissuewithuseofC&Dfineshasbeentheincreaseinlandfillgas(LFG)odorsdue
toproductionofH
2
Sandotherreducedsulfurcompounds.Increasesingenerationofreduced
sulfurcompoundsintheLFGstemsfromthesmallpiecesofgypsumwallboardcontainedinthe
fines.TheseLFGissueswereunexpectedandmanylandfilloperationshadtoincrease
resourcesinLFGmanagementandodorabatementasaresult.Regulatorshavebecome
involvedinseveralstates,implementingpoliciesforuseofC&Dfines,managementofLFGand
controlofodors.Asaresult,somelandfillshavestoppedutilizingC&Dfinesaltogether.
Thisresearchprojecthadthefollowingobjectives:
CompileandevaluateexistingLFG,hydrogensulfideandC&Dfinesdataatnine
northeasternlandfills.
Wherenecessary,conductsupplementaltestingofH
2
Sgasconcentrationsand
determinesulfatecontentofC&Dfines,ifstillbeingacceptedbythesite.
Fromtheempiricaldata,developafirstordermodeltopredictH
2
SgenerationinMSW
landfillsinthenortheastresultingfromdisposaloruseofC&Dfinesinthelandfill.
Forthisstudy,totalsulfatecontentdatawasobtainedfromMassDEPforsevendifferentC&D
processingfacilitiesinNewEnglandthatprovideC&DfinesforbeneficialuseinMassachusetts.
Thisdataconsistedof81samplescollectedandanalyzedinvariousmonthsof2007(about
equalamountofdatafromeachfacility).Inadditiontothisdatacompilation,sampleswere
collectedfromfinesacceptedattwoofthelandfillstudysitesforatotalofeightadditional
samples.Fortwofacilities,sulfatecontentdatawasprovidedforsamplesanalyzedfrom2004
through2008.Thisdatasetwasnotincludedintheaggregateddataasitwouldbiastheoverall
meantothesetwofacilitiessulfateconcentrations.However,thetrendofthedatawas
3
examinedtodetermineifconcentrationshadchangedhistorically.TableES1containstheC&D
processingfacilities,thesourceandnumberofsulfateresultsobtained,aswellastherangeand
meansulfateconcentration.
TableES1.SulfateContentofC&DFinesintheNortheast
Facility
n
SulfateConcentration(%)
Range Mean
NE_1
a
6 3.13.6% 3.3%
NE_2
a,b
14 0.173.8% 1.6%
NE_3
a
12 1.29.3% 4.4%
NE_4
a
12 2.85.4% 3.6%
NE_5
a
12 512% 8.7%
NE_6
a
10 4.412% 6.8%
NE_7
a
20 0.228.9% 3.2%
NE_8
b
3 2.43.6% 3.1%
Overall 89 0.1712% 4.3%
a
SulfatedatafromMADEPBUDPermits;
b
SulfatedatafromUNHanalysis
Thetotalamountoffinesusedineachlandfill,aswellasthecorrespondingamountofsulfur
depositedasaconsequence,issummarizedinTableES2.
TableES2.QuantityofC&DDebrisFinesusedateachLandfillandresultingSulfurDeposited
Landfill C&DDebrisFines(Tons) Sulfur(Tons)
A 87,000 1100
B 1,054,000 11,415
C 446,000 6400
D 37,000 530
E 100,000 1600
F 19,000 270
G 137,600 1638
H 33,800 484
I 214,000 3100
A firstorder decay model was developed for six (6) of the nine (9) landfills based upon
compiled data (Landfills A, C, D, G, H, and I). The other three study sites, for which modeling
results did not correlate as well to the actual data, also provided valuable information and
insight into H
2
S generation trends and the complexity of modeling this component of LFG.
Information on these three landfills (B, E and F) is contained in Appendix A. Each landfill site
was modeled separately to develop site specific model inputs and a site specific model. A
spreadsheetwasdevelopedwhichutilizedafirstordermodelequationsimilartotheLandGem
usedforestimatingmethanegeneration.
Themodelequationisasfollows:
n
Q
H
2
S
=kS
0
M
i
(e
kt
i
)
i=1
where,
Q
H
2
S
=H
2
Sgenerationratefromthelandfill,cf
k=H
2
Sgenerationrateconstant,1/yr
S
0
=H
2
Sgenerationpotential,CuFt/tonsulfur
M
i
=massofsulfurfromC&DFinesdepositedinthei
th
section,tons
t
i
=ageofthei
th
section,months
i=sectionnumber
Themodelingforeachsitewasdevelopedinthreesteps:
1. DerivesitespecificH
2
Sgenerationrateconstantk(ordecayrate)fromH
2
Srecovery
trenddata
2. Usingthesitespecifickandsulfurinputsintothemodelequation,deriveaspecific
S
0
valueusingabestfitapproach
3. CheckthebestfitS
0
valuebybalancingthemodeloutputs(cubicfeetpermonthof
H
2
S)totheactualH
2
Srecoverydataforthesamemonthsandyears.
TableES3providesasummaryofthevaluesdeterminedforeachparameterofthemodelfor
eachlandfillmodeled.
TableES3.SummaryofModelResults(kandS
0
Values)
Landfill k S
0
(ft
3
/Ton) ModelResultsCorrelatedtoActual
Data(RSQ)
LandfillA 0.54 3186 0.92
LandfillC 0.56 7634 0.93
LandfillD 0.50 1885 0.64
LandfillG 0.83 4548 0.95
LandfillH 0.52 2176 0.89
LandfillI 0.88 6430 0.96
There was a correlation between the site specific decay rate (k) derived from the exponential
trendandtheactualH
2
SrecoverytrenddatawithRsquaredvaluesbetween0.86and0.99for
LandfillsA,B,C,G,HandI.ThemodelresultsalsocorrelatedwellwiththeactualH
2
Srecovery
trenddatawithRsquaredvaluesbetween0.89and0.97.Fourofthesixstudysites(LandfillA,
C,GandI)withcorrelationbetweenthemodelandactualdatawereMSWlandfillswhichused
C&DfinesasADC.Modelingofthesefoursitesresultedinarangeofdecayrates1/time(k)of
between 0.54 and 0.88, with an average k for these four sites of 0.702 and a range of H
2
S
5
generatingpotentialinft
3
ofH
2
Spertonsulfurassulfate(S
0
)ofbetween3186Ft
3
/tonand7184
Ft
3
/ton with an average S
0
value of 5360 Ft
3
/ton. The other two sites (Landfill B and H) with
correlation between the model and actual data were landfills in which C&D fines were
segregated from MSW as monofill. Modeling of these two sites resulted in a range of decay
rates1/time(k)ofbetween0.166and0.515,withanaveragekforthesetwositesof0.34anda
range of H
2
S generating potential in ft
3
of H
2
S per ton sulfur as sulfate (S
0
) of between 2704
Ft
3
/ton and 4548 Ft
3
0
value of 3626 Ft
3
/ton. The average k value for all
sixlandfillswas0.64.TheaverageS
0
valueforallsixlandfillswas4310Ft
3
/ton.
Based on the results of the data analysis and the model, H

2
S generation in an MSW landfill
resultingfromC&Dfinesisexpectedtopeakanddeclinemuchmorerapidlythanformethane.
Additionally, the model results indicate that C&D fines used as ADC in MSW landfill
environments are expected to decay more rapidly (higher k value) and produce more H
2
S per
ton of sulfate deposited in the Landfill (higher S
0
value) then C&D fines that are monofilled.
Further,basedonthemodelresultsofLandfillBwhichinadditiontomonofillingtheC&Dfines
also mixed C&D fines with soils to reduce H
2
S generating potential, there is some preliminary
evidence that by mixing or layering C&D fines with the right kind of soil in a monofill
environment, the H
2
S generating potential of the fines can be reduced. Additional study is
neededinthisarea.
InordertomoreaccuratelymodelH
2
SfromC&Dfines,theinputsintothemodelareimportant,
including the total mass of sulfur input into the landill from C&D fines tonnage and sulfate
compositionofthefines.BothoftheseparametersareneededtoevaluatetheH
2
Sgeneration
potential of the site through this modeling approach. Landfill F illustrates a case where not all
sulfatesourcesareknown,resultinginapoorfitandunusablemodel.Representativesamples
andthecorrecttestmethod(i.e.,theMussonetal.,2008method)areimportant.Inadditionto
this data, numerous and reliable H
2
S characterization data from the landfill will provide
calibration data for the model, allowing sitespecific k values to be derived, which makes the
modelmoreaccurate.Intheabsenceofsitespecificdata,thisresearchshowsakvalueof0.34
for monofilled C&D fines and a k value of 0.70 for C&D fines in an MSW landfill setting are
appropriateintheNortheastUS.
This modeling approach could be used as a tool used to determine the amount of C&D fines
thatcanbeaccepted/utilizedasADCorfillbasedupontheacceptablegenerationofH
2
S(e.g.,
Landfill E illustrates this principle). While H
2
S contributes to odor, it should be noted that this
model is not an odor model. Odor can be an issue because of landfill gas management issues
evenwithverylowconcentrationsofH
2
S.Converselyseveralhundredoreventhousandppmof
H
2
S might not be an odor problem with an active LFG collection system. However, sometimes
gastoenergy or SO
x
emissions limit the amount of H
2
S that is allowable. In addition to
acceptable fines quantities and H
2
S generation, this modeling approach could be valuable for
landfills to estimate the cost of C&D fines in terms of LFG management and treatment.
Estimation of H
2
S concentrations in LFG could also be accomplished through this model by
combining the H
2
S model results with the results of an LFG generation model, adjusted to the
sitespecificmethaneconcentrationprojected.
6
TableofContents
Executivesummary.........................................................................................................................2
TableofContents............................................................................................................................6
ListofTables...................................................................................................................................6
ListofFigures..................................................................................................................................7
Introduction....................................................................................................................................8
ResultsandDiscussion..................................................................................................................10
SulfateContentofFines........................................................................................................10
ModelDevelopment.............................................................................................................12
SulfurInput/Output..............................................................................................................13
HydrogenSulfideDataTrends..............................................................................................14
SummaryofModelResults...........................................................................................................20
Conclusions...................................................................................................................................20
MaterialsandMethods.................................................................................................................21
SelectionofStudysites.............................................................................................................21
CompilationandAnalysisofData.............................................................................................22
WasteCompositionandTonnageData................................................................................22
C&DFinesTonnage...............................................................................................................23
LFGRecoveryData................................................................................................................23
HistoricHydrogenSulfideData.............................................................................................23
SupplementalHydrogenSulfideTesting...............................................................................23
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................25
References....................................................................................................................................26
Appendices....................................................................................................................................27
APPENDIXAModeledLandfillDetails....................................................................................27
LandfillA....................................................................................................................................27
LandfillC....................................................................................................................................32
LandfillD...................................................................................................................................35
LandfillG...................................................................................................................................38
LandfillH...................................................................................................................................42
LandfillI.....................................................................................................................................45
LandfillB....................................................................................................................................48
LandfillE....................................................................................................................................56
LandfillF....................................................................................................................................59
APPENDIXBOtherProjectDeliverables................................................................................63
List of Tables
Table1.SulfateContentofC&DFinesintheNortheast..............................................................10
Table2.QuantityofC&DDebrisFinesusedateachLandfillandresultingSulfurDeposited.....12
Table3.SummaryofModelResults(kandS
0
Values).................................................................20
7
List of Figures
Figure1.SulfateContentatC&DProcessingFacilityNE_3..........................................................11
Figure2.LandfillSulfurInput/Output...........................................................................................13
Figure3.LandfillHydrogenSulfideDataTrends..........................................................................15
Figure4.DevelopmentofDecayrateConstant(k)......................................................................17
Figure5.ModelProjectionversusActualH
2
SRecovery..............................................................18
8
Introduction
Increasinglyoverthepastdecade,constructionanddemolition(C&D)debrisprocessing
residualsandfineshavebeenusedaslandfilldailycovermaterialandtocloseandcapold
landfills.C&Ddebrisprocessingresidualsandfines(C&Dfines)arefavoredbynumerous
landfilloperatorsasanalternatedailycovermaterial(ADC)astheyaresuperiorinmanyways
totraditionalsoilcovermaterials.However,onepotentialissuewithuseofC&Dfineshasbeen
theincreaseinlandfillgas(LFG)odorsduetoproductionofhydrogensulfide(H
2
S)andother
reducedsulfurcompounds.IncreasesingenerationofreducedsulfurcompoundsintheLFG
stemsfromthesmallpiecesofgypsumwallboardcontainedinthefines.TheseLFGissueswere
unexpectedandmanylandfilloperationshadtoincreaseresourcesinLFGmanagementand
odorabatementasaresult.Regulatorshavebecomeinvolvedinseveralstates,implementing
policiesforuseofC&Dfines,managementofLFGandcontrolofodors.Asaresult,many
landfillshavestoppedutilizingC&Dfinesaltogether.Becauseoftippingfeesandregulatory
structure(e.g.,stateandfederalendorsementC&Ddebrisrecyclingandwastebansin
Massachusetts)theC&Dprocessingindustryhasexpandedinthenortheast.However,because
ofH
2
Sconcerns,thereisagrowingproblemintheNortheastrelativetorecyclingordisposalof
C&Dfines.ThelongtermfocusofMassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
(MassDEP)andotherStatesolidwasteregulatorsintheNortheastistoimprovemanagement
ofC&Dfinesandtodevelopimprovedendmarketsthatarelessdependentonlandfills.Inthe
shortterm,however,regulatorsmustcontinuetoworkwithC&Dprocessorsandlandfill
operatorstoimprovethemanagementofC&Dfinesandresidualsatactiveandinactive
landfills.
SignificantamountsofH
2
Scanbegeneratedinalandfillenvironmentwhenwastewithhigh
sulfurcontentsuchasgypsumwallboardandothercalciumsulfatecontainingproductsare
accepted.Inalandfillenvironment,sulfurreducingbacteriausesulfateastheirterminal
electronacceptorduringdecompositionandreleasehydrogensulfidegas.Thishasbeenshown
tooccuratlocationsthroughouttheU.S(Leeetal.,2006;Eunetal.,2007).Thepotentialfor
H
2
Sgenerationinalandfilldependsonanumberoffactors,includingsulfatequantities,
moisturecontent,pH,andthequantityofdegradableorganicmatteravailable(Yang,2000).
Constructionanddemolition(C&D)materialsareheterogeneousandspecificallydependonthe
typeofbuildingandactivity(constructionordemolition),butonaveragecontain14percent(by
weight)ofgypsumdrywall(JangandTownsend,2003).C&Dmaterialistargetedforrecycling
andoftenprocessedatmaterialsrecoveryfacilitieswithhand(e.g.,pickingline)and/or
mechanical(e.g.,screening)methods.Additionally,abanonlandfilldisposalofsomeC&D
materialsinMassachusettsessentiallymandatesrecyclingorprocessingofC&Dmaterials,so
growthintherecyclingindustry,aswellastheneedformarketsformaterialsproduced,is
greatinMassachusettsandsurroundingstates.Atrecyclingfacilities,materialsareseparated
outforrecyclingandreuse(e.g.,metals,wood),whileproducingafinesand/orresidual
fraction.Thisfractioncanrangefrom6inchminustoinchsizes,dependingontheoperation
oftheprocessingfacility.ThereducedsizeofC&Dfineshassmallpiecesofgypsum,providing
greatersurfaceareaandpotentiallyallowingformorerapidproductionofH
2
Sthannonsize
reducedC&Ddebris.BecauseotherfractionsoftheC&Dmaterialshavebeenremoved,butthe
9
gypsumremains,theC&Dfinescanalsohaveahighersulfatecontentincomparisontobulk
C&Dwaste(Note:statessuchasMassachusettsandNewHampshirerequireupfrontremoval
ofgypsumdrywallfromtheprocesswhenfeasible).
H
2
Sandotherreducedsulfurcompoundsareodiferous.Generationofreducedsulfur
compoundsinalandfillisoneofthemostcommoncausesoflandfillrelatedodors.H
2
Shasa
lowodordetectionthreshold;thelowestreportedodorsderivedfromH
2
Shavebeendetected
atconcentrationsaslowas0.5ppbby2percentofthepopulationinstudygroups,withthe
lowestdetectionat0.43ppb(CollinsandLewis,2000).Inthenortheast,landfillsthathave
experiencedseriousodorissuesrelatedtoH
2
ShaveimprovedLFGcollectionthroughsystem
expansionsandincreasedoperationsandmaintenanceofexistingLFGsystems.H
2
Stesting
programswereimplementedatmanyofthelandfillsitesinanattempttoqualifyH
2
S
concentrations.Testingprogramsvariedfromsitetositebutinmanycasesinvolveduseof
fieldindicatortubesincombinationwithperiodicanalysisofgassamplesattesting
laboratories.Insomecases,testingwasconductedtoquantifypotentialstackemissions(e.g.,
SO
2
)ortosizeH
2
Streatmentsystems.Inothercases,LFGtestingforH
2
Sisarequirementof
thefacilitypermit.Asaresult,foranumberoflandfillsitesinthenortheastwhichaccepted
C&Dfines,thereisalargeamountofLFGrecoveryandH
2
Stestingdataavailable.Insome
cases,thedataspansseveralyearsandshowscleartrendsinH
2
Sconcentrations,whichcanbe
correlatedtohistoricacceptanceandcessationofC&Dfines.Forseverallandfills,SCS
Engineers,anenvironmentalconsultingandcontractingfirm,initiallydevelopedabasicworking
modeltopredicthydrogensulfidegeneration,basedontheamountofsulfatedepositedinthe
landfillintheformofC&Dfines.AlthoughtheinitialH
2
Sgenerationmodelutilizesazeroorder
decayequation,becauseH
2
Sgenerationoriginatesfromabiologicalprocess,itwasexpected
thatgenerationisbestmodeledwithafirstorderdecayequation,similartotheEPAlandfillgas
generationmodel(LandGemmodel).
DevelopmentofamodeltopredictH
2
SgenerationresultingfromacceptanceofC&Dfinesina
typicalMSWlandfillprovidesvaluableinformationforC&Dprocessors,landfilloperatorsand
regulators.Sincethemodelisbasedupontotalsulfurinput,C&Dprocessorscanrefinetheir
operationstoreducegypsumcontentinfinesorreducetheproductionoffines.Landfill
operatorscanbetterevaluateallowablequantitiesofC&DfinesthatmaynotimpactLFG
significantlyorweighthepotentialimpactsofincreasedLFGmanagementagainsttheeconomic
benefitsofacceptingthefines.
Thisresearchprojecthadthefollowingobjectives:
1. CompileandevaluateexistingLFG,hydrogensulfideandC&Dfinesdataatnine
northeasternlandfills.
2. Wherenecessary,conductsupplementaltestingofH
2
Sgasconcentrationsand
determinesulfatecontentofC&Dfines,ifstillbeingacceptedbythesite.
3. Fromtheempiricaldata,developafirstordermodeltopredictH
2
SgenerationinMSW
landfillsinthenortheastresultingfromdisposaloruseofC&Dfinesinthelandfill.
10
Results and Discussion

Sulfate Content of Fines
C&Dfinesarerequiredtobeanalyzedinsomestates(e.g.,Massachusetts)foranumberof
parametersonaregularbasisinaccordancewithbeneficialusedetermination(BUD)permits
issuedbytheregulatoryagencies.InaccordancewithBUDpermits,EPAMethod300
(quantificationofsulfatebyionchromatography)isused.Forthisanalysis,sulfatemustbein
solution(thesulfatemustbeextractedfromthesolidintoaliquid).Contractlabsreport
extractingsulfatefromthesolidtotheliquidbyadding100mlofdeionizedwaterto10gof
sample(C&Dfinesorresiduals)andmixingforonehour.Theliquidextractisthenanalyzedby
ionchromatographytodeterminethesulfateconcentration(EPAMethod300).This
concentration(inmg/L)isrelatedtothesolidandliquidfractionusedintheprocedure(10
g/100ml)todeterminetheamountoftotalsulfateinmg/kginthesolidsample.
Forthisstudy,totalsulfatecontentdatawasobtainedfromMassDEPforsevendifferentC&D
processingfacilitiesinNewEnglandthatprovideC&DfinesforbeneficialuseinMassachusetts.
Thisdataconsistedof81samplescollectedandanalyzedinvariousmonthsof2007(about
equalamountofdatafromeachfacility).Inadditiontothisdatacompilation,sampleswere
collectedfromfinesacceptedattwoofthelandfillstudysitesforatotalofeightadditional
samples.Fortwofacilities,sulfatecontentdatawasprovidedforsamplesanalyzedfrom2004
through2008.Thisdatasetwasnotincludedintheaggregateddataasitwouldbiastheoverall
meantothesetwofacilitiessulfateconcentrations.However,thetrendofthedatawas
examinedtodetermineifconcentrationshadchangedhistorically.Table1containstheC&D
processingfacilities,thesourceandnumberofsulfateresultsobtained,aswellastherangeand
meansulfateconcentration.Figure1illustrateshowsulfatecontentvariesovertimeatoneof
thesefacilities.Whilesulfatecontentcanbevariable,itdoesnothaveaclearincreasingor
decreasingtrend.
Table1.SulfateContentofC&DFinesintheNortheast
Facility
n
SulfateConcentration(%)
Range Mean
NE_1
a
6 3.13.6% 3.3%
NE_2
a,b
14 0.173.8% 1.6%
NE_3
a
12 1.29.3% 4.4%
NE_4
a
12 2.85.4% 3.6%
NE_5
a
12 512% 8.7%
NE_6
a
10 4.412% 6.8%
NE_7
a
20 0.228.9% 3.2%
NE_8
b
3 2.43.6% 3.1%
Overall
89 0.1712% 4.3%
a
SulfatedatafromMADEPBUDPermits;
b
SulfatedatafromUNHanalysis
11
1
1
-
A
p
r
-
0
6
1
9
-
J
u
l
-
0
6
3
1
-
A
u
g
-
0
6
9
-
O
c
t
-
0
6
2
2
-
N
o
v
-
0
6
1
2
-
J
a
n
-
0
7
2
7
-
M
a
r
-
0
7
1
7
-
M
a
y
-
0
7
2
7
-
J
u
n
-
0
7
1
6
-
A
u
g
-
0
7
1
-
O
c
t
-
0
7
1
2
-
N
o
v
-
0
7
2
2
-
J
a
n
-
0
8
1
7
-
A
p
r
-
0
8
1
2
-
J
u
n
-
0
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
S
u
l
f
a
t
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Figure1.SulfateContentatC&DProcessingFacilityNE_3
ForlandfillsacceptingC&Dfinesfromotherfacilitieswhereonly2007datawasavailable,2007
datawasused.Sulfatecontentcanvarywithtime(e.g.,Figure1),andcouldchangesignificantly
withmaterialsaccepted,processingtechniques(whichoftenevolveovertime)andactive
removalofwallboard.Someofthesechangescouldincreaseordecreasesulfatecontentofthe
C&Dfines.However,itisnotpossibletoextrapolatethesulfateconcentrationhistoricallybased
upontrendsorvariability.2007datawasusedtorepresentallyearsofdatawhenthisisthe
onlydatathatwasavailable.Theaggregateddatawasexaminedtodetermineifitwasnormal
orlognormal.Thedataappearedtobenormallydistributedandsothearithmeticmeanwas
utilized.
SulfatecontentdatawasusedtocalculatetotalsulfurdepositedeachyearfromC&Dfines.
BecausecompleteC&Dfinessourceinformationandsulfatecontentdatawasnotavailablefor
allC&Dfinesreceived,thefollowingmethodologywasemployedtoestimatesulfatecontentof
theC&Dfinesreceivedateachstudysite:
ForC&Dprocessingfacilitiesprovidingdatafrom20042007(twofacilities),thisdatawas
enteredcorrespondingtotonnageoffinesacceptedfromthesefacilitiesateachstudysite
landfill.
ForC&DprocessingfacilitiesthatprovidedBUDdatafor2007,themeanofthisdatawas
usedforthecorrespondingtonnageacceptedatastudysitelandfill(e.g.,NE_4=3.6%).
Forthoseprocessingfacilitieswherenosourceinformationorsulfatecontentdatawas
available,themeanoftheaggregateddata(89samples)wasused(4.3%).
Thetotalamountoffinesusedineachlandfill,aswellasthecorrespondingamountofsulfur
depositedasaconsequence,issummarizedinTable2.
12
Table2.QuantityofC&DDebrisFinesusedateachLandfillandresultingSulfurDeposited
Landfill C&DDebrisFines(Tons) Sulfur(Tons)
A 87,000 1100
B 1,054,000 11,415
C 446,000 6400
D 37,000 530
E 100,000 1600
F 19,000 270
G 137,600 1638
H 33,800 484
I 214,000 3100
Model Development
Thissectionpresentsthoselandfillswheremodeldevelopmentwasfeasible(LandfillA,C,D,G,
H and I). Appendix A contains the details of each of these landfill sites (e.g., design and
operationofthelandfillgassystem).Theotherthreestudysites,forwhichmodelingresultsdid
notcorrelateaswelltotheactualdata,alsoprovidedvaluableinformationandinsightintoH
2
S
generation trends and the complexity of modeling this component of LFG. Details on these
three landfills are included in Appendix A. A firstorder decay model was developed for each
landfill based upon compiled data. Each landfill site was modeled separately to develop site
specific model inputs and a site specific model. A spreadsheet was developed which utilized a
firstordermodelequationsimilartotheLandGemusedforestimatingmethanegeneration.
Themodelequationisasfollows:
n
Q
H
2
S
=kS
0
M
i
(e
kt
i
)
i=1
where,
Q
H
2
S
=H
2
Sgenerationratefromthelandfill,cf
k=H
2
Sgenerationrateconstant,1/yr
S
0
=H
2
Sgenerationpotential,CuFt/tonsulfur
M
i
=massofsulfurfromC&DFinesdepositedinthei
th
section,tons
t
i
=ageofthei
th
section,months
i=sectionnumber
Themodelingforeachsitewasdevelopedinthreesteps:
1. DerivesitespecificH
2
Sgenerationrateconstantk(ordecayrate)fromH
2
Srecovery
trenddata
2. Usingthesitespecifickandsulfurinputsintothemodelequation,deriveaspecific
S
0
valueusingabestfitapproach
3. CheckthebestfitS
0
valuebybalancingthemodeloutputs(cubicfeetpermonthof
H
2
S)totheactualH
2
Srecoverydataforthesamemonthsandyears.
13
Sulfur Input/Output
A sulfur mass input and output was developed for each landfill based upon sulfur input from
sulfate as C&D fines and out as H
2
S in the LFG (in pounds per month) (Figure 2). The sulfur
inputwasthetotalpounds(ortons)ofsulfurcalculatedforeachmonth,basedonthetonsof
C&D fines received and the sulfate concentration of the C&D fines. For some sites annual or
monthlyaveragesulfateconcentrationdatawasavailableforC&Dfinesproducedbyprocessing
S
e
p
t
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
2
M
a
r
-
0
3
D
e
c
-
0
3
S
e
p
t
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
M
a
r
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
S
e
p
t
-
0
7
J
u
n
-
0
8
M
a
r
-
0
9
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
O
c
t
-
9
8
A
u
g
-
9
9
J
u
n
-
0
0
A
p
r
-
0
1
F
e
b
-
0
2
D
e
c
-
0
2
O
c
t
-
0
3
A
u
g
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
A
p
r
-
0
6
F
e
b
-
0
7
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
O
c
t
-
0
0
A
u
g
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
2
A
p
r
-
0
3
F
e
b
-
0
4
D
e
c
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
7
A
p
r
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
O
c
t
-
0
0
A
u
g
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
2
A
p
r
-
0
3
F
e
b
-
0
4
D
e
c
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
7
A
p
r
-
0
9
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
A
u
g
-
0
2
A
p
r
-
0
3
D
e
c
-
0
3
A
u
g
-
0
4
A
p
r
-
0
5
D
e
c
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
6
A
p
r
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
A
u
g
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
O
c
t
-
9
7
A
u
g
-
9
8
J
u
n
-
9
9
A
p
r
-
0
0
F
e
b
-
0
1
D
e
c
-
0
1
O
c
t
-
0
2
A
u
g
-
0
3
J
u
n
-
0
4
A
p
r
-
0
5
F
e
b
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
O
c
t
-
0
7
A
u
g
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Sulfur Input from C & D Fines
Total H
2
S Recovery (Output)
Landfill A Landfill C
Landfill D Landfill G
Landfill H Landfill I
Figure2.LandfillSulfurInput/Output
14
facilities.Forothersitesonlyregionaldatawasavailable.Likewise,forsomelandfillsitesthe
quantityofC&Dfinesreceivedwasavailableonamonthlybasis.Forothersitestheannualtotal
C&Dfinesreceivedwasdistributedevenlythroughouttheyear.Allthelandfillsitesinthestudy
provided tonnage for all of C&D fines materials accepted. Therefore, for all the study sites a
sulfurinputfromC&DfineswasavailableallmonthsthatC&Dfineswerereceived.Thesulfur
output was the total mass H
2
S recovered from the LFG collection and control system. The
sulfur output as H
2
S, in contrast to sulfate input as fines, was not available for many of the
months since C&D fines were initially accepted. As previously mentioned, there was no H
2
S
recovery total available for any of the study sites from before C&D fines were accepted. For
most cases, there was also little or no H
2
S recovery data available at all until after C&D fines
werenolongerbeingaccepted.Therefore,atruemassbalanceofsulfateinandH
2
Soutcould
not be completed. The months with reliable H
2
S recovery totals (in total cubic feet H
2
S
recovered)wereusedasareferencetoprovidecalibrationpointsforthemodel.

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends
HydrogensulfidedatatrendsarepresentedinFigure3(LandfillGisthenfurthersplitinto
sectionsbaseduponfinesdeposition,furtherexplainedinAppendixA).TheH
2
Stestdata
availablefromeachmonthwasnormalizedto50percentmethane.Forpurposesofthemodel
input,bothfieldtestresultsandlabresultswereusedforeachLandfillwhereavailablesince
thisproducedthemostrobustdata.Allofthefieldtestresultsforagivenmonth,at50percent
methaneequivalent,wereaveragedtoobtainasinglemonthlyaveragefieldtestH
2
S
concentration.ThesamewasthendoneforallofthelaboratoryH
2
Stestdataforeachmonth.
Thefieldtestdataaverageandthelabtestdataaveragewerethencombinedforasingle
monthlyaverageconcentrationwithfieldtestdataaverageandlabtestdataaverageweighted
equally,regardlessofthenumberofsampleeventsavailableineachdataset.Inalmostallthe
caseswhentherewasbothlabdataandfielddataavailableforasinglemonth,therewas
usuallymorefielddataavailable,thereforebiasingmonthlyconcentrationdatainfavorofthe
labtestdata.Thisisappropriatesincethelaboratorytestmethodisgenerallyconsideredto
providehigherqualitydata.ThemonthlyvaluesforH
2
Sconcentrationwerethenusedwiththe
monthlyLFGrecoverytotalsforeachmonth(alsonormalizedto50percentmethane)inorder
tocalculatethetotalflowofH
2
S,inbothpoundsandcubicfeet.
H
2
S Generation Rate (k)
In order to derive the site specific H
2
S generation rate (k), the historic H
2
S recovery trend (in
cubicfeetpermonth)wasplottedfromtheactualdata(Figure4).Aspecificperiodofhistoric
H
2
S recovery data was selected to coincide with a period starting at least 6 months after
acceptanceC&DfineshadceasedandanyfurtheracceptanceofC&Dfinesresumed(LandfillB
was an exception to this). The actual data trend line used to derive k was therefore
representative of the decay trend of declining H
2
S generation observed at the sites. To
compensate for variability in the H
2
S recovery trend, such as may be encountered in LFG
operations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonthetc.,athreemonthmovingaverageof
theH
2
Srecoverydatawasusedforthemodel.Anautomatedexponential
15
D
e
c
-
0
4
M
a
y
-
0
5
O
c
t
-
0
5
M
a
r
-
0
6
A
u
g
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
J
u
n
-
0
7
N
o
v
-
0
7
A
p
r
-
0
8
S
e
p
t
-
0
8
F
e
b
-
0
9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t

5
0
%

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
p
p
m
v
)
M
a
y
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
4
M
a
r
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
6
N
o
v
-
0
6
A
p
r
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
J
u
n
-
0
3
D
e
c
-
0
3
J
u
n
-
0
4
D
e
c
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
D
e
c
-
0
5
J
u
n
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
J
u
n
e
-
0
8
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t

5
0
%

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
p
p
m
v
)
M
a
r
-
0
4
S
e
p
-
0
4
M
a
r
-
0
5
S
e
p
-
0
5
M
a
r
-
0
6
S
e
p
-
0
6
M
a
r
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
8
S
e
p
-
0
8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Section 1 & 2
Section 2 & 3
Section 3
Combined Flow
Weighted Ave.
J
u
n
-
0
4
D
e
c
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
D
e
c
-
0
5
J
u
n
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
J
u
n
-
0
8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Field Data
Lab & Field Monthly Ave.
Lab Data
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t

5
0
%

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
p
p
m
v
)
M
a
y
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
4
M
a
r
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
6
N
o
v
-
0
6
A
p
r
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
F
e
b
-
0
8
J
u
l
-
0
8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Landfill H
Landfill I
Figure3.LandfillHydrogenSulfideDataTrends
16
trendline(usingMicrosoftExcel)wasthenfittedtotheH
2
Srecoverydata.Theexponentof
thenaturallogintheexponentialtrendlineequationgeneratedbyExcel,wasselectedasthe
sitespecifickvalue.TheRSquaredvaluecorrelatingtheexponentialtrendlinetotheactual
datawasevaluatedtodeterminethefitofthedatatothederivedsitespecifickvalue.
GenerallyanRSquaredvalueof0.90orgreaterwasinterpretedasrepresentingareasonably
goodderivationofkfromthedata.
H
2
S Generation Potential (S
0
)
ModelprojectionsversusactualH
2
SrecoverydataispresentedinFigure5.Afterakvaluewas
determined from the trendline, M
i
was taken from the sulfur input and these site specific
variableswereinputtothemodel.S
0
wasestimatedbyplottingtheresultsofthemodeltothe
monthsofH
2
Srecoverydataavailable(usingthethreemonthaveragevalue).Inthiscaseallof
the H
2
S recovery data available (of acceptable quality) was utilized for the model, including
recovery data representing periods during C&D fines acceptance. S
0
was refined through
iterations of the model until the model had the best fit with the empirical data. This fit was
evaluatedthroughalinearregressionofthemodelresultsversusactualH
2
Srecoverydatausing
anXYplotandsettingslopetoapproximately1.TheRSquaredvaluecorrelatingthemodelto
the actual data wasevaluated to determine the fit of the data to themodel results (Figure 6).
Generally an RSquared value of 0.90 or greater was interpreted as representing a reasonably
goodfitofthemodeltothedata.

17
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
y =90195e
-0.5405x
R
2
=0.9538
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
7 8 9 10
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
y =4.89 X 10
7
e
-0.5583x
R
2
=0.9888
Time (Years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
y =93417e
-0.501x
R
2
=0.6397
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
y =403318e
-0.8276x
R
2
=0.9469
Time (Years)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
y =29339e
-0.5147x
R
2
=0.8633
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
y =2.75 X 10
8
e
-0.881x
R
2
=0.9687
Time (Years)
Landfill A
Landfill C
Landfill D
Landfill G

Figure4.DevelopmentofDecayrateConstant(k)
18

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Time (Years)

H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
0
250000
500000
750000
1000000
1250000
Time (Years)
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
Time (Years)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
Time (Years)
Landfill D
Landfill G
Figure5.ModelProjectionversusActualH
2
SRecovery
19
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
y =1.0x +1047.1
R
2
=0.9238
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
0 250000 500000 750000 1000000
0
250000
500000
750000
1000000
R
2
=0.9285
Model Projection
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
R
2
=0.6012
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
200000
R
2
=0.9537
Model Projection
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
R
2
=0.8924
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
R
2
=0.959
Model Projection

Figure6.ModeltoActualH
2
SRecoveryDataCorrelation

Check of H
2
S Generation Potential (S
0
)
As a check, the monthly H
2
S recovery totals use to calibrate the model to an S
0
value (see
above)wassubtractedfromthemodelresultingH
2
Sflowtotalsforeachrespectivemonth.The
total difference between the actual recovery data and the H
2
S flow total from the respective
months generated by the model was then evaluated. S
0
was refined through iterations of the
model until the difference in flow between the actual data and the respective months
generatedbythemodelwasapproximatelyequaltozero.Thepercentdifferencebetweenthe
20
two S
0
values, one generated by the XY plot and the other by the model versus actual data
difference, was then evaluated. A large difference between the two S
0
values being another
indicationofaccuracyofthemodelcomparedwithactualdata.
Summary of Model Results
Table3providesasummaryofthevaluesdeterminedforeachparameterofthemodelforeach
landfillmodeled.
Table3.SummaryofModelResults(kandS
0
Values)
Landfill k S
0
(ft
3
/Ton) ModelResultsCorrelatedtoActual
Data(RSQ)
LandfillA 0.54 3186 0.92
LandfillC 0.56 7634 0.93
LandfillD 0.50 1885 0.64
LandfillG 0.83 4548 0.95
LandfillH 0.52 2176 0.89
LandfillI 0.88 6430 0.96
There was a correlation between the site specific decay rate (k) derived from the exponential
trendandtheactualH
2
SrecoverytrenddatawithRsquaredvaluesbetween0.86and0.99for
LandfillsA,B,C,G,HandI.ThemodelresultsalsocorrelatedwellwiththeactualH
2
Srecovery
trenddatawithRsquaredvaluesbetween0.89and0.97.Fourofthesixstudysites(LandfillA,
C,GandI)withcorrelationbetweenthemodelandactualdatawereMSWlandfillswhichused
C&DfinesasADC.Modelingofthesefoursitesresultedinarangeofdecayrates1/time(k)of
between 0.54 and 0.88, with an average k for these four sites of 0.702 and a range of H
2
S
generatingpotentialinft
3
ofH
2
Spertonsulfurassulfate(S
0
)ofbetween3186Ft
3
/tonand7184
Ft
3
/tonwithanaverageS
0
valueof5360Ft
3
/ton.
Theothertwosites(LandfillBandH)withcorrelationbetweenthemodelandactualdatawere
landfills in which C&D fines were segregated from MSW as monofill. Modeling of these two
sitesresultedinarangeofdecayrates1/time(k)ofbetween0.166and0.515,withanaverage
kforthesetwositesof0.34andarangeofH
2
Sgeneratingpotentialinft
3
ofH
2
Spertonsulfur
as sulfate (S
0
) of between 2704 Ft
3
/ton and 4548 Ft
3
0
value of 3626
Ft
3
/ton.Theaveragekvalueforallsixlandfillswas0.64.TheaverageS
0
valueforallsixlandfills
was4310Ft
3
/ton.
Conclusions
Basedontheresultsofthedataanalysisandthepreliminarymodel,H
2
SgenerationinanMSW
landfill resulting from C&D fines is expected to peak and decline much more rapidly than for
methane.Additionally,themodelresultsindicatethatC&DfinesusedasADCinMSWlandfill
environments are expected to decay more rapidly (higher k value) and produce more H
2
S per
ton of sulfate deposited in the Landfill (higher S
0
value) then C&D fines that are monofilled.
21
Further,basedonthemodelresultsofLandfillBwhichinadditiontomonofillingtheC&Dfines
also mixed C&D fines with soils to reduce H
2
S generating potential, there is some preliminary
evidence that by mixing or layering C&D fines with the right kind of soil in a monofill
environment, the H
2
S generating potential of the fines can be reduced. Additional study is
neededinthisarea.
InordertomoreaccuratelymodelH
2
SfromC&Dfines,theinputsintothemodelareimportant,
including the total mass of sulfur input into the landfill from C&D fines tonnage and sulfate
compositionofthefines.BothoftheseparametersareneededtoevaluatetheH
2
Sgeneration
potential of the site through this modeling approach. Landfill F illustrates a case where not all
sulfatesourcesareknown,resultinginapoorfitandunusablemodel.Representativesamples
andthecorrecttestmethod(i.e.,theMussonetal.,2008method)areimportant.Inadditionto
this data, numerous and reliable H
2
S characterization data from the landfill will provide
calibration data for the model, allowing sitespecific k values to be derived, which makes the
modelmoreaccurate.Intheabsenceofsitespecificdata,thisresearchshowsakvalueof0.34
for monofilled C&D fines and a k value of 0.70 for C&D fines in an MSW landfill setting are
appropriateintheNortheastUS.
This modeling approach could be used as a tool used to determine the amount of C&D fines
thatcanbeaccepted/utilizedasADCorfillbasedupontheacceptablegenerationofH
2
S(e.g.,
Landfill E illustrates this principle). While H
2
S contributes to odor, it should be noted that this
model is not an odor model. Odor can be an issue because of landfill gas management issues
evenwithverylowconcentrationsofH
2
S.Converselyseveralhundredoreventhousandppmof
H
2
S might not be an odor problem with an active LFG collection system. However, sometimes
gastoenergy or SO
x
emissions limit the amount of H
2
S that is allowable. In addition to
acceptable fines quantities and H
2
S generation, this modeling approach could be valuable for
landfills to estimate the cost of C&D fines in terms of LFG management and treatment.
Estimation of H
2
S concentrations in LFG could also be accomplished through this model by
combining the H
2
S model results with the results of an LFG generation model, adjusted to the
sitespecificmethaneconcentrationprojected.
Materials and Methods
Selection of Study sites
Approximately20potentialMSWlandfillstudysites,alllocatedintheNortheastUS,werepre
selectedforthestudybasedonrelevantcriteria.Landfillstudycandidatesweregiventhe
optiontoremainanonymous.Thecommonfactorsamongallofthepotentialstudysiteswas
thattheyhadallacceptedsomeprocessedC&Dmaterialwithinthepasttenyears,theyhad
activeLFGcollectionsystemsinplace,elevatedH
2
SconcentrationswereexhibitedinLFG
recovered,andthesiteshadconductedsometestingofH
2
Sconcentrations.Thirteenlandfills
initiallyagreedtoparticipateinthestudy.Basedonpreliminarydatascreening(e.g.,site
characteristicsandtheavailability,quantityandqualityofdata),nineofthethirteensiteswere
selectedforuseinthestudy.Oftheninestudysitesselected,sevenareMSWlandfillswhich
previouslyusedC&Dfinesasanalternativedailycover,oneislandfillsitewhichusedC&Dfines
22
asshapingandgradingmaterialduringclosure,andoneisanMSWlandfillwhichdisposedof
C&Dfinesaswaste,partiallysegregatedfromMSWdisposalareas.
Compilation and Analysis of Data
A common element shared by all the study sites was the challenge of odor control related to
H
2
S at some point in the landfills past. The time at which odor problems typically started to
occur correlates within one to two years of the initial acceptance of C&D fines. A common
responseamongthelandfillswhichwereexperiencingproblemswastoincreaseLFGcollection
and control measures, which included expansions to LFG collection system soon after waste
deposit, increased operations, maintenance and monitoring of LFG collection, and monitoring
H
2
SconcentrationsintheLFG.Asaresult,LFGrecoverydataisavailableincludingLFGflow,gas
composition and H
2
S concentrations. Similarly, with regular LFG system expansions and
increased LFG management, LFG collection system coverage was quite high, assumed to be
greater than 90 percent in those areas of the landfills which used C&D fines and were odor
problems.
Historical waste tonnage was well documented at the study sites (including C&D fines).
However, older baseline LFG recovery data from before C&D fines acceptance, before odor
issuesbegantodriveLFGmanagement,islacking.Therefore,thereislittleornobaselineH
2
S
data available from the study site landfills before the acceptance of C&D fines and odor
problemsoccurred.
Sitespecificdatawascompiledfromthestudysitesbymonthandyear(asavailable)and
includesthefollowing:
LFGrecoverydata.
H
2
Sconcentrationdata.
Wastecompositionandtonnagedata.
C&Dfinestonnagedata,andsourceswhereavailable).
Sulfatecontentoffines(whereavailable).
Data was compiled for each study site into spreadsheets. For each site, sulfur input into the
landfill in the form of sulfate from C&D fines and sulfur output from the landfill as H
2
S was
calculated on a monthly basis. In addition, the study involved compilation of sulfate content
dataobtainedfromC&Dprocessingfacilities(regionally)touseinmodelingsiteswhichdidnot
havesitespecificsulfatetestdata(trueformostofthestudysites).Additionaldiscussionofthe
dataisprovidedinsubsequentsections.
Waste Composition and Tonnage Data
Wastecharacterizationandtonnageswereprovidedforeachsiteoneitheranannualora
monthlybasis.Wastewasseparatedbymajortype(whereverdatawasavailable),including
MSW,unprocessedC&Dwaste,sludge,andprocessedC&Dwaste(i.e.,C&Dfines,C&D
residuals).Wastetypepredominatelyfitintothreecategoriesformostofthestudysites:MSW,
unprocessedC&DbulkwasteandC&Dfines/residualswaste(sometimesasADC).Wastedata
providedasannualtonnagewasequallydistributedforthe12monthsofthatyear.Total
23
tonnageofMSW,C&Dwaste,andotherwastewerecompiledforuseasreference,toprovidea
generalcomparisonofH
2
Strendsandwasteprofilebetweenthedifferentstudysites.C&D
finestonnagedatawasfurtherevaluated,asdescribedinthefollowingsection.
C&D Fines Tonnage
C&Dfinestonnagedatawasavailableforeachsiteoneitheranannual,quarterlyoramonthly
basis.ThesourcesofC&Dfinesreceived(i.e.,theprocessingfacility)wasavailableformostof
thestudysites.Severalsiteshaddetailedrecordsavailableincludingthetonnagesreceived
eachmonthfromeachC&Dprocessingfacility.C&Dfinestonnagedataprovidedasannual
tonnagewasequallydistributedforthe12monthsofthatyearorfortheportionoftheyear
thatC&Dfineswasknowntohavebeenaccepted.TheC&Dfinestonnagedata(alongwiththe
sulfatecontentdiscussedbelow)wasusedtoestimatetheinputofsulfurintothelandfill.
LFG Recovery Data
LFG recovery data was available from flow meter readings and recorder devices for each LFG
control point at the site (e.g., flares, energy facility). Methane concentration data was also
available from facility LFG monitoring records. Total monthly LFG recovery from all control
pointswascombinedtogettotalcubicfeetpermonthofLFG,whichwasthennormalizedto50
percent methane using the monthly average of methane concentration data. LFG recovery
data was compared with historic landfill operations and the coverage of the LFG collection
systempresentforeachyearandmonth. Periodsinwhichsystemcoveragewasknowntobe
incomplete and LFG recovery data which appeared irregular or spurious were noted. Months
whentherewasincompletesystemcoverageorwithunreliableLFGdatawerenotusedinthe
model.
Historic Hydrogen Sulfide Data
H
2
S concentration data consisted of two types of data collected: laboratory analysis and field
data collected with indicator tubes (e.g., Gastec
tubes, Draeger
tubes). In most cases, H

2
S
data was collected by the site on a regular frequency such as weekly, monthly, quarterly, or
annually. The amount of available historic H
2
S data varied from site to site, sometimes
consisting of field indicator tube data and sometimes analytical data. For several of the study
sites,therewasbothanalyticaldataandfielddatatakentogethersidebysideonaconsistent
basis,whichallowedforacomparisonoffieldandanalyticaldatawhichisdiscussedlaterinthis
report.
Supplemental Hydrogen Sulfide Testing

As a part of the study, supplemental H
2
S testing was conducted at several of the study sites.
For several study sites, there was a significant amount of historic H
2
S testing data available
duringthetimeperiodwhenodorissueswereoccurringbutnorecentdata.Itwastypicalfor
landfills to scale back or abandon H
2
S testing programs when improved LFG management
and/or reduced acceptance of C&D fines reduced or eliminated odor problems. As a result,
thisstudyincludesadditionalH
2
Stestingatsixofthesites.Atotaloftwelvesupplementaltest
events were performed at six of the study sites between February and September of 2008.
Samplingeventsconsistedofthefollowing:
24
FieldtestingofH
2
SconcentrationsusingaGastec
H
2
Sindicatortube(3to4tubesused
foreachevent).
FieldtestingofLFGcompositionusingaGEM500/200LFGfieldanalyzer.
CollectionofLFGsamplesinto1litertedlarbagswhichwerethenshippedtothetesting
lab.
Laboratorysampleswereanalyzedforhydrogensulfide,totalreducedsulfurcompoundsand
permanentgases(methane,carbondioxide,oxygenandnitrogen).Hydrogensulfidewas
analyzedviaMethod14or307.91(gaschromatography)andreducedsulfurcompounds(8
compounds)wereanalyzedviaMethod15or307.91(gaschromatography/Mass
spectrometry).PermanentgaseswereanalyzedbyMethod3CorASTM1945(thermal
conductivity/gaschromatography).Forthetestsitesthathadmultiplegascontrolpoints,
testingwasconductedatallcontrolpointsduringeachsampleevent.
Themethodsfollowedinthissupplementaltestingprogramwereessentiallythesamemethods
employedinthevarioussiteshistorically.Therefore,alargeportionofthehistorictestdatafor
severalofthestudysitesisconsideredofcomparablequality.
25
Acknowledgements
ThisresearchwasfundedbytheEnvironmentalResearchandEducationFoundation(EREF).The
authorswouldliketothankthelandfillsforparticipatinginthisstudy.Theauthorsalsowishto
acknowledgetheworkofDarcyLichlyteroftheUniversityofGeorgiawhoprovidedresearch,
dataandgraphingassistance.
26
References
Collins, J., Lewis, D., Hydrogen Sulfide: Evaluation of Current California Air Quality Standards
with Respect to Protection of Children, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment,September1,2000.
Eun, S., Reinhart, D., Cooper, D., Townsend, T., Faour, A., (2007). Hydrogen sulfide flux
measurements from construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfills, Waste Management,
27,220227.
Jang, Y., Townsend, T. (2003). "Effect of Waste Depth on Leachate Quality from Laboratory
Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills." Environmental Engineering Science, 20(3), 183
196.
Lee, S., Xu, Q., Booth, M., Townsend, T., Chadik, P., Bitton, G. (2006). "Reduced Sulfur
Compounds in Gas from Construction and D olition Debris Landfills." Waste Management, 26,
526533.
Melendez Loaiza, K. (2008). An Investigation of Recycled/Industrial Materials to Attenuate
HydrogenSulfideResultingfromtheuseofConstructionandDemolitionDebrisFines.Masters
Thesis,UniversityofNewHampshire,Durham,NH.
Musson,S.E.,Xu,Q.,Townsend,T.G.,(2008).MeasuringthegypsumcontentofC&D
debrisfines,WasteManagement,28,20912096.
Yang, K., 2000. Hydrogen sulfide generation in simulated construction and demolition (C&D)
debrislandfilllaboratorycolumns,MastersThesis,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL.
27
Appendices
APPENDIX A Modeled Landfill Details
Landfill A
LandfillAisaMassachusettslandfillsitethatconductedH
2
Stestingconsistentlyoverafour
yearperiod.TheLFGcollectionsystematthesitewaswellmanagedandLFGrecoverydata
wasgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfinesdata,includingprocessingsourcedata,wasalso
available.Thequalityandquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemadeitthebestcandidate
forinitialanalysisofH
2
SdatatrendsanddevelopmentofaninitialH
2
Smodel.
Site Background
LandfillAisaclosedandcappedMSWlandfillwithapproximately2.5milliontonsofwastein
place.Thereweretwoprincipalphasesoflandfilloperationanddevelopment,theoriginal
landfillareaandanexpansionarea.Theoriginallandfillareawasa29acreunlinedfacility,
operatedsincethe1940s.Theoriginallandfillwasclosedin1999andcappedwith
geomembrane(i.e.,highdensitypolyethylene)capin2001.Thesecondphaseofthelandfill
developmentwasa10acreexpansion,constructedwithageomembranebaselinersystemand
aleachatecollectionsystem.Theexpansionareawasconstructedoveraportionoftheoriginal
landfillwithageomembraneliner.Thelandfillexpansionwasoperatedfrom2000to2005,and
wasthenclosedandcappedwithageomembranecapsystemin2006.
Wastecompositiondepositedintheoriginallandfillconsistedofwastecategorizedinrecords
asMSWandC&Dwaste(unprocessed).TheC&Dwastecomponentwasknowntobeprimarily
comprisedofwoodwastefromalargefurnitureindustrywhichwashistoricallypresentinthe
region.Therefore,theC&Dportionofthewasteintheoriginallandfillareasisnotbelievedto
havecontainedanelevatedportionofgypsumwallboardorotherhighsulfatebearingwaste
(similartotypicalMSWwastestreamsforthatera).C&Dfineswerenotusedintheoriginal
landfill.WastedepositedintheexpansionareaconsistedpredominatelyofMSWwith
approximately5percentunprocessedC&Dwaste.Between2000andclosureattheendof
2005,theexpansionareaacceptedapproximately400,000tonsofMSWwaste,20,000tonsof
unprocessedC&Dwasteand87,000tonsofC&Dfinesfromvariousregionalprocessors.The
LandfillexpansionareaacceptedC&Dfineswasteasalternativedailycoverbetween2001and
2004,withpeakC&Dfinesacceptancebetween2002and2004.UseofC&Dfinesasalternative
dailycoverwasdiscontinuedinNovember2004.
LFG Management and Historic H
2
S Data
Prior to 2003, LFG management in the original landfill area was accomplished via passive vent
flares, connected to gas wells and leachate system vents. In 2003, a comprehensive LFG
collection system was installed in the original landfill area. The permanent LFG flare system
was installed and an active LFG collection and control system was started in October of 2003.
TheLFGcollectionsystemwasexpandedintotheactivelandfillexpansionareainphasesduring
2004and2005,withadditionofcollectionsystempiping,leachatecleanoutsandverticalwells
aswastefillingprogressed.InDecember2004,anadditionaltemporaryLFGflarewasinstalled
28
tosupplementtheexistingpermanentLFGflareatthefacility.Installationofallcollectionwells
andmostofthepermanentLFGcollectionsystempipingwascompletedintheexpansionarea
in the fall of 2005. Use of the temporary flare system was discontinued in April 2007, due to
decliningLFGrecoveryrates.
The gas collection and flare system has been operated on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week
basissincecommissioninginOctober,2003.Operation,monitoringandmaintenance(OM&M)
oftheLFGcollectionandcontrolsystemhasbeenperformedonaregularbasis.LFGrecovery
flowratesatbothflaresweremeasuredbypermanentflowmeteringdevices.LFGcomposition
attheflareswasmeasuredwithaportableLFGanalyzeronaonceperweekbasis(minimum).
FlaredeviceruntimesandtotalLFGflowratesweredocumented.
ThefirsthydrogensulfideconcentrationdatasampledattheLFGcollectionsystemwasinlate
2004,consistingofoneanalyticaltestsampleandseveralfieldtestevents.AnH
2
Stestingand
monitoring program was implemented at the site in 2005 to evaluate the source of odors and
H
2
Sconcentrationtrends.Between2005and2007,LFGsampleswerecollectedregularlyfrom
the two flare devices for laboratory analysis, initially on a monthly basis and later reduced to
quarterly.FieldtestingofH
2
Swasalsoconductedatthetwoflaresonaweeklybasisstartingin
2005andincludingthroughmostof2008.Fieldtestdatawasalsoobtainedatthetimeofeach
lab sample collection event for a side by side comparison. Two supplemental samples were
collectedforlaboratoryanalysisin2008aspartofthisstudy.AsummaryofthenumberofH
2
S
samplingdatapointsavailableforLandfillAarepresentedinTableA1.
TableA1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillA
Flare1 Flare2 CombinedTotal
Year LabAnalysis FieldTests LabAnalysis FieldTests LabAnalysis FieldTests
2004 1 3 0 0 1 3
2005 9 71 9 88 18 159
2006 7 96 5 94 12 190
2007 4 103 1 24 5 127
2008 2 75 0 0 2 75

Review and Analysis of Hydrogen Sulfide Data from Landfill A
TheH
2
SdataavailableforLandfillAwasreviewedinordertoidentifytheH
2
Sgenerationtrend
overtimeandacomparisonoffielddataresultswithanalyticaldataresults.TheH
2
S
concentrationdatawasreviewedasthreedifferentsets,dividedasfollows:
1. MonthlyAveragesofFieldTestingResults
a. Flare1
b. Flare2
c. Flare1&2combined
2. MonthlyAverageofLaboratoryTestingResults
a. Flare1
b. Flare2
c. Flare1&2combined
3. FieldtestresultstakenconcurrentlywithLaboratoryTestsamples
29
a. Flare1
b. Flare2
c. Flare1&2combined
Fieldtesteventsweretypicallyconductedonthreetofivedifferentdayseachmonthwithtwo
orthreereplicatesconductedforeachevent.Laboratoryanalysissamplecollectionwas
conductedoncepermonthorquarter,andwascompletedincombinationwithfieldtesting.
Thefielddataresultsandthelabdataresultswerecomparedasaqualitycontrolstepandin
ordertoevaluatedifferencesinresultsbetweenthetwoH
2
Stestingmethods(i.e.,laboratory
analysisversusfieldtestdata).Foreachmonth,analyticaltestingresultswerecomparedboth
tothefieldtestresultsdatafromthesamesampleeventdayandtotheaverageofallofthe
fieldtestdataforcollectedforthemonth.AllH
2
Stestdata,bothanalyticalandfielddata,was
normalizedto50percentmethaneequivalent,basedonthesamedaymethaneconcentration
data.ThecombinedflareH
2
Sconcentrationswerecalculatedasaflowweightedaverageof
H
2
Sconcentrationdatafrombothflares,alsonormalizedto50percentmethane.
Analyticaldataandfielddatawerecomparedasapercentoftheratioofanalyticaltestresults
dividedbyfieldtestresults,foreachmonth.Thestandarddeviationandaveragedeviation
frommeanwasthencalculatedforallofthemonthlyanalyticaldataresults/fielddataresults
monthlyratios.AsummaryofdataanalysisisprovidedinTableA2.
TableA2.DataAnalysisResultsofFieldandLaboratoryH
2
SConcentrationsforLandfillA
H
2
Stestdata
Years20042008
Flare1 Flare2
Combined
FlareData
(4)
LabTest
Resultswith
Sameday
FieldTest
results
LabTest
Resultswith
Monthly
Average
FieldTest
results
LabTest
Resultswith
Sameday
FieldTest
results
LabTest
Resultswith
Monthly
Average
FieldTest
results
LabTest
Resultswith
Monthly
Average
FieldTest
results
Numberofsampledays 20 184 14 105 184
Numberoffieldsamples 40 348 28 206 554
Numberoflabsamples 20 22 14 15 37
RatioLabresults/Field
results
(1)
104.5% 107.1% 96.3% 98.3% 101.1%
AverageDeviation%
(2)
13.9% 19.0% 11.6% 13.9% 12.5%
StandardDeviation%
(3)
19.9% 25.8% 17.3% 17.6% 15.2%
(1)RatiooflabdatatofielddataistheH
2
SconcentrationoflabresultdividedbytheH
2
Sconcentrationoffieldresult,presentedas
aaveragepercentforallmonthsofdata
(2)Averagedeviationofratiobetweenlabresultsandfieldresults=1/nabs(xx
mean
),calculatedforallmonthsofdata
(3)Standarddeviationofrationbetweenlabresultsandfieldresults=(((xx
mean
)
2
)/(n1)
1/2
,calculatedforallmonthsofdata
(4)Combinedmonthlyaverageofallfieldtestresultsandlabresults,flowweightedforeachcollectionpointat50percentmethane
In summary, the lowest standard deviation observed between the laboratory data and field
data sets was exhibited by the data set for combined flare,flow weighted H
2
S concentrations.
AcorrelationwasthenmadeofthecombinedflareanalyticalH
2
Sconcentrationresultsandthe
monthly average of combined flare field test H
2
S concentration results. The sum of squares
valuefortheresultantregressionlinewascalculatedatR
2
=.87(FigureA1).
30
InadditiontotheH
2
Stestingconductedattheflares,testingofH
2
Sconcentrationsatindividual
gaswellsusingfieldindicatortubeswasalsoconductedduringAprilof2005.Approximately25
gascollectorsintheoriginallandfillareaand10gascollectorsintheexpansionareawere
individuallyfieldtestedforH
2
Sconcentration.Averageresultsfromthe25gascollectorsinthe
originallandfillarea,wherenoC&Dfineswerereceived,wasapproximately90ppmv,with
resultsatindividualwellsrangingfrom0tothehighestvalueobservedat450ppmv.Thegas
collectorstestedintheexpansionarea,wereobservedtohaveconcentrationsbetweenthe300
ppmvtoover10,000ppmv.Duringthesamemonth,averageH
2
Sconcentrationsmeasuredat
theflares(combinedweightedaveragenormalizedto50percentmethane)wasapproximately
2,800ppmv.Atthetimeofthetesting,approximatelyhalfofthetotalgasrecoveryfromthe
landfillisestimatedfromeachtheoriginallandfillandexpansionarea.
Althoughthefieldtestdatacollectedatindividualwellsisnotquantitativeintermsofproviding
dataforalandfillsulfurbalance,itdoesprovideimportantqualitativeinformation,indicating
thatthesourceofelevatedH
2
SwasfromtheexpansionareaswhereC&Dfineswereusedas
alternativedailycoverandthatbaselineH
2
SconcentrationintheLFGgeneratedinwastethat
didnotreceiveC&Dfinesarefairlylow(i.e.,about100ppmv).FigureA1presentsthe
correlationbetweenthefieldandthelaboratoryresultsofH
2
Sdataanalysis;theslopeofthe
linearfittedlineis0.82withR
2
of0.87indicatingstrongcorrelationbetweenthetwotypesof
test.Thereisnocleartrendinthedifferencebetweenfielddataresultsandtestdataresults,
suchasonetestmethodconsistentlyprovidingalowervalue.Becauseofthestrong
correlation,nocorrectionfactorneededtocoordinatethedatacollectedwitheithermethod.
Forpurposesofthemodelinput,theaverageofallthemonthlyfieldresultswasaveragedwith
thelabresults(whereavailable)providingamorerobustcombineddataset.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
R
2
=0.8738
Field H
2
S Data (ppmv)
L
a
b

H
2
S

D
a
t
a

(
p
p
m
v
)

FigureA1.CorrelationbetweenLabandFieldTestH
2
SResultsforLandfillA
31
Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill A

BasedonC&Dfinesandsulfatedata,1,100tonsofsulfur,fromthe87,000tonsofC&Dfines,
wasdepositedasADCoverafouryearperiod(2000through2004).Anestimated142,000
poundsofH
2
Swascollectedduring50monthsofavailabledatabetweenOctober2004and
April2009.
Landfill A Model
Anexponentialtrendline(usingMSexcel)wasfittothevolumeofH
2
Sproducedovertimeto
estimateadecayrate(kvalue).AthreemonthrollingaverageoftheH
2
Smonthlyflowrate,
fromthe50monthsofavailabledatabetweenOctober2004andApril2009,wasusedto
accountforanymonthtomonthvariabilityinLFGrecoverysuchasmaybeencounteredinLFG
operations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.
FortheLandfillAmodel,kvalueof0.54wasused,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
Sdata,M
i
wasfromsulfurinputandS
0
wasestimatedbyplottingtheresultsofthemodelto
actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
was refined through iterations of the model until the model had
the best fit with the empirical data. An S
0
value of 3186 Ft
3
/ton (90 M
3
/Megagram) was
estimated using this method. This fit was evaluated through a linear regression of the
predictedH
2
Sgeneration(cubicfeetH
2
Spermonth)fromthemodelversusactualH
2
Srecovery
data(cubicfeetH
2
Spermonth,3monthaverage)resultinginanRsquaredof.924.
The S
0
value was then checked by solving for S
0
(using the same k value) by setting the total
volume of H
2
S estimated by the model equal to the total volume of H
2
S represented by the
actualH
2
Sflowdataforalloftheavailabledatausedforthemodel.ThederivedS
0
valueusing
the volume approach was 3295 Ft
3
/ton, approximately 3.5 percent higher than the best fit S
0
value.
Discussion Landfill A
The spike and then rapid declining trends in H
2
S concentrations and recovery at Landfill A are
indicative of a rapid conversion of sulfate containing waste to H
2
S. The extensive H
2
S testing
program conducted over a number of years and the stable operation of the LFG collection
systemprovidedawelldefineddatatrendtoillustratedeclinesinH
2
Sgeneration.During2001
through 2004, C&D fines material was used as ADC in the expansion area with the C&D fines
tonnageequalingbetween15and26percentofthetotalwasteaccepted,whichwasprimarily
MSW.Thelandfillislocatedinanareawithrelativelyhighannualprecipitation(45to50inches
year). The moisture and C&D fines mixed with MSW waste in the landfill expansion area is
believed to have created advantageous conditions for both methane producing and sulfur
reducingbacteria.
InadditiontotheH
2
Stestingconductedattheflares,testingofH
2
Sconcentrationsatindividual
gaswellswasconductedusingfieldindicatortubesduringAprilof2005.Approximately25gas
collectors in the original landfill area and 10 gas collectors in the expansion area were
individuallyfieldtestedforH
2
Sconcentration.Averageresultsfromthe25gascollectorsinthe
32
original landfill area, where no C&D fines were received, was approximately 90 ppmv, with
results at individual wells ranging from 0 to the highest value observed at 450 ppmv. The gas
collectorstestedintheexpansionarea,wereobservedtohaveconcentrationsbetweenthe300
ppmvtoover10,000ppmv.Duringthesamemonth,averageH
2
Sconcentrationsmeasuredat
theflares(combinedweightedaveragenormalizedto50percentmethane)wasapproximately
2,800 ppmv. At the time of the testing in 2005, approximately half of the total gas recovery
fromthelandfillisestimatedfromeachtheoriginallandfillandexpansionarea.
Althoughthefieldtestdatacollectedatindividualwellsisnotquantitativeintermsofproviding
data for a landfill sulfur balance, it does provide important qualitative information, indicating
that the source of elevated H
2
S was from the expansion areas where C&D fines were used as
alternativedailycoverandthatbaselineH
2
SconcentrationintheLFGgeneratedinwastethat
didnotreceiveC&Dfinesarefairlylow(e.g.,about100ppmv).
Landfill C
LandfillCisanactive,MSWlandfilllocatedinNewJersey.AnalyticaltestingofH
2
S
concentrationsintherecoveredLFGhasbeenconductedconsistentlyatthelandfillonaonce
permonthbasissince2004.DuringtheperiodoftheH
2
Stestingprogram,theLFGcollection
systeminareasreceivingC&Dfineshasbeenforthemostpartcomprehensive,wellmanaged
andLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.AnnualtotalsofC&Dfinestonnage
receivedwasmadeavailableforthisstudy,howeverC&Dfineprocessingsourceinformation
wasnotavailable.Thequalityandquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemadeitagood
candidateforinitialanalysisofH
2
SdatatrendsanddevelopmentofasitespecificH
2
Smodel.
Site Background
Thelandfillhasbeendevelopedasfivelinedcellswithatotalfootprintof38acres.Thefive
cellsformonecontiguousmound.TheLandfillispermittedforthedisposalofMSWoriginating
fromresidential,commercialandindustrialsourcesaswellasashandconstructionand
demolitiondebris.Through1997,theLandfillacceptedprimarilyash,withthebalancebeing
mostlybulkywasteandsomebypassMSWwaste.In1997,thelandfillbegantoacceptlarger
quantitiesofMSWandbulkywaste,comprisedofapproximately40percentMSWand60
percentbulky(unprocessed)C&Dwaste.
ThelandfillalsobegantoacceptC&Dprocessingfinesin1998.C&Dfinesweredeposited
primarilyasalternativedailycoverbutsomeC&Dfinesmaterialmayhavealsobeenaccepted
forlandfilldisposal.Approximately447,000tonsofC&Dfinesmaterialwereacceptedbetween
1998and2004,equivalenttobetween9and27percentoftotalwasteacceptanceeachyearby
weight;anaverageof16percentofthewasteacceptanceduringthesevenyearperiod.
AcceptanceofC&DfineswasdiscontinuedinMay2004.Thelandfillcontinuestoreceive
primarilyMSWthroughthepresenttime.Totalwastetonnage(alltypes)receivedbythe
landfillthrough2008isapproximately2.8milliontons.
33
2
S Data
LFG odors issues initially began to be a problem at the landfill in November, 2002. LFG
collection system equipment, including wells, leachate cleanout connections, gas conveyance
piping and flare equipment, was installed at the Landfill incrementally between March 2003
and January 2005 in order to improve LFG system coverage. Since February 2005, after the
commissioning of the permanent blower/flare system, the LFG collection systemcoverage has
generallybeencomprehensivethroughoutthesiteandhasbeenexpandedonaregularbasisto
maintaincomprehensiveLFGcollectionsystemcoverage.Asof2008,theLFGcollectionsystem
wascomprisedof54verticalwells,1horizontalcollector,23leachatecleanoutconnectionsand
a 12inch perimeter header, system extending around the north, east and south sides of the
Landfill.
Temporary blower/flare stations were initially installed at the Landfill, which included utility
flares. A 350scfm flare was originally installedin March 2003. This flare was replaced with a
750scfm flare (nominal rating) in March 2004. This flare was then replaced in February 2005
withthepermanent2,200scfmblower/flarestationreferencedabove.Anelectricalgeneration
andgastreatmentsystemwasthenaddedinOctober2006.TheLFGcontrolequipmentatthe
landfill utilize a common collection header and blower system. Therefore, H
2
S testing data is
representativeofH
2
SconcentrationsinLFGrecoveredfromthelandfilloverall.
basis since 2003. OM&M of the LFG collection and control system has been performed on a
regular basis. LFG recovery flow rates at the flares and electrical generation plant were
measured by permanent flow metering devices. LFG composition was measured with a
portableLFGanalyzer(approximatelyonaonceperweekbasis)priorto2006,buthasutilizeda
continuousmethaneanalyzersincecommissioningoftheelectricalgenerationplantinOctober,
2006.
TheLandfillhasconductedregular,oncepermonth,analyticaltestingofH
2
Sconcentrationsin
therecoveredLFGsinceMarchof2004.Thefollowingsamplingdatawasmadeavailablebythe
landfillforuseinthisstudy,summarizedinTableC1below:
TableC1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillC
Year NumberofMonthlyLab
AnalyticalResultsAvailable
2004 12
2005 12
2006 6
2007 10
Field testing of H
2
S concentrations was not conducted at the site. Supplemental testing was
not performed as part of this study due to the quantity lab analytical data that was already
available.

34
Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill C
weredeposited,chieflyasADC,overasevenyearperiod(1998through2004).Anestimated
1.55millionpoundsofH
2
Swascollectedduring35monthsofavailabledatabetweenMarch
2004andJuly2007.
Landfill C Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
estimateadecayrate(kvalue).Thetrendlinewasfittedfortheperiodstartingwiththepeak
H
2
Srecovery,whichwasapproximatelyMayof2005throughJulyof2007,themostrecentdata
available.ThepeakofH
2
SrecoveryinMay2005isapproximately12monthsafterthelastC&D
finesmaterialwasacceptedatthelandfill.AthreemonthrollingaverageoftheH
2
Smonthly
flowratewasusedformodelinginordertoaccountforanymonthtomonthvariabilityin
recoverysuchasmaybeencounteredinLFGoperations,differenceinthenumberofdaysper
month,etc.
FortheLandfillCmodel,kvaluewassetto0.558,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
S data. The actual H
2
S data correlated to the exponential trendline with an Rsquared of
0.99. M
i
was from sulfur input and S
0
was estimated by plotting the results of the model to
actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
the best fit with the empirical data. To calibrate the model to S
0
, the data period used was
February 2005 through July of 2007, which corresponds to the time period starting with
comprehensive system coverage (i.e., when the permanent blower/flare system was
commissioned) through the most recent data available. A three month rolling average of the
H
2
S monthly flow rate was used for modeling in order to account for any month to month
variabilityinrecoverysuchasmaybeencounteredinLFGoperations,differenceinthenumber
ofdayspermonthetc.AS
0
valueof7634Ft
3
/ton(182M
3
/Megagram)wasestimatedusingthis
method. This fit was evaluated through a linear regression of the predicted versus actual H
2
S
recoverydatawithanRsquaredof.93.
The S
0
0
volume of H
2
2
actual H
2
S flow data for all of the available data used for the model (24 months of data). The
derived S
0
value using the volume approach was 7734 Ft
3
/ton, approximately 1.3 percent
higherthanthebestfitS
0
value.

Discussion Landfill C
This landfill has the largest data set of lab analytical test data, providing lab verified H
2
S
concentration data for 40 months over a 5year period. Landfill C exhibits a spike and then
rapidly declining trends in both H
2
S concentrations and total recovery as mass. This is also
observed at other Landfills which accepted large amounts of sulfate containing C&D fines for
useasADC.Thislandfillcasepresentsagoodcorrelationbetweentheactualdatatrendsand
the model projections as exhibited by the Rsquared value of 0.99 correlating the actual
recoverydatatotheexponentialdecaytrend(k)andaRsquaredvalueof0.93correlatingthe
35
actual recovery data to the model. The model variables (i.e., model equation k and S
0
inputs)
for landfill C are also similar to other landfills in this study which used C&D fines materials as
ADC.ThisstudysiteisalsoabletoindicatethroughthedatatrendsapeakinH
2
Srecoveryand
concentrationslagging6to12monthsafteracceptanceofC&Dfineswashalted.
Landfill D
LandfillDisaMassachusettslandfillsitethatconductedH
2
Stestingduringa3yearperiod
followinguseofC&Dfinematerials.DuringtheperiodwhichmostoftheH
2
Stestingwas
conducted,theLFGcollectionsystemhadcompletesystemcoveragethroughoutthoseareas
whichhaddisposedC&Dfinesmaterial.TheLFGcollectionsystematthesitewastherefore
comprehensive,wellmanagedandLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfines
data,includingannualtonnageandprocessingfacilitysourcedata,wasalsoavailable.The
qualityandquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemadeitagoodcandidateforinitialanalysis
ofH
2
2
Smodel.
Site Background
LandfillDisanopenlandfillfacilitywhichprimarilyacceptsMSW.Thelandfillhasbeen
developedinthreeseparate,noncontiguous,landfillareas;twoofwhicharenowclosedto
wastedisposal.Thethird,activelandfillareahasaseparateLFGcollectionandcontrolsystem
fromtheothertwolandfillareasandistheonlylandfillareawhichhasacceptedC&Dfines,and
thereforeisthesubjectareaforthisstudy.Theactivelandfillhasbeenoperatedsince
approximately1996,islinedandcurrentlyhasapproximately1.1milliontonsofwasteinplace.
Aleachaterecirculationsystemwasinstalledin2001andoperatedforapproximatelyoneanda
halfyears.Leachaterecirculationwasdiscontinuedin2002duetoproblemsrelatedtoLFG
managementandwetconditionswithinthelandfill.Completedareasofthelandfill,alreadyat
finalgrades,havebeencappedincrementallywithageosyntheticcapsystem.Approximately
onethirdofthelandfillhasbeencapped.
During the previous 10 years of operating life, the landfill accepted on average approximately
70 percent MSW and 30 percent unprocessed C&D waste (excluding C&D fines). The facility
accepted C&D fines as alternative daily cover (ADC) between 2000 and 2002. Approximately
37,000 tons of C&D fines material was accepted during the threeyear period. Acceptance of
C&D fines material was discontinued at the end of 2002 due to concerns over contribution of
C&D fines to hydrogen sulfide generation and odor problems. Acceptance of C&D processing
residuals for use as ADC was resumed in October 2007. The landfill has since accepted
approximately26,000tonsofC&DfinesmaterialsbetweenOctober2007andNovember2008.
2
S Data
Odorissues,relatedtoelevatedH
2
Sconcentrationsinthelandfillgas,firstbecameaconcernin
2002. Incomplete LFG collection system coverage was compounded by leachate recirculation
activitieswhichincreasedLFGgenerationandreducedLFGsystemperformance.Expansionof
the gas collection system, discontinuing leachate recirculation and partial capping of landfill
side slopes improved gas collection at the landfill, eventually providing comprehensive
collectionsystemcoverageandcontrolofodorsbymid2004.ThereweresomecontinuingLFG
36
odor issues related to LFG system coverage and system performance issues during the second
half of 2005 and at the end of 2006. These performance issues were in part caused by wet
conditionswithinthewastemass,wateredincollectorsetc.Issueswerealsoresolvedthrough
expansions of the LFG collection system and incremental capping of the landfill. The LFG
collectionsystemhasbeenexpandedincrementallyasfillingprogresses.
The current LFG collection system includes header piping, vertical wells, leachate cleanout
connections, horizontal collectors and condensate management components. A utility flare is
usedtocombusttheLFGcollectedfromthislandfillarea.TheLFGcollectionandflaresystem
has been operated on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis. OM&M of the LFG collection
andcontrolsystemhasbeenperformedonaregularbasissince2004.LFGrecoveryflowrate
attheflareismeasuredbypermanentflowmeteringdevice.LFGcompositionattheflarehas
been measured with a portable LFG analyzer on a once per week basis (minimum). A small
amountofLFG(estimatedat50cubicfeetperminuteflowrate)isalsodivertedfromtheflare
system blower, through a 2inch pipe, as supplemental fuel for a small electrical generation
plant.FlaredeviceruntimesandtotalLFGflowratesweredocumented.
The first hydrogen sulfide concentration data sampled at the LFG collection system was in
March 2003, consisting two field test events. An H
2
S testing and monitoring program was
implementedatthesitein2004toevaluatethesourceofodorsandH
2
Sconcentrationtrends.
During 2004, field testing was completed at the flare approximately twice per month. The
testing program was changed to include only quarterly analytical testing between 2005 and
2006. No test data was available for 2007, however four field testing events and 3 analytical
test events were conducted in 2008, including two supplemental samples collected for
laboratoryanalysisaspartofthisstudy.AsummaryofthenumberofH
2
Ssamplingdatapoints
availableforLandfillDarepresentedinTableD1.
TableD1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillD
Flare1
Year LabAnalysis FieldTests
2003 0 2
2004 0 23
2005 2 12
2006 2 1
2007 0 0
2008 3 5

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill D
BasedonC&Dfinesandsulfatedata,530tonsofsulfur,fromthe37,000tonsofC&Dfines,was
depositedasADCoverathreeyearperiod(2000through2002)andanother300tonsofsulfur,
fromthe26,000tonsofC&Dfines,wasdepositedasADCbetweenOctober2007and
November2008.Anestimated17,500poundsofH
2
Swascollectedduringthe17monthswith
availableH
2
SrecoverydatabetweenMarch2003andSeptember2008.
37

Landfill D Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
2
Smonthlyflowrate,was
usedtoaccountforanymonthtomonthvariabilityinLFGrecoverysuchasmaybe
encounteredinLFGoperations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.The11
monthsofH
2
SrecoverydatabetweenOctober2003andOctober2006wasusedtoderivethek
valuesincethisrepresentsthetimewithcomprehensiveLFGsystemcoverage,butbefore
acceptanceofC&Dfineswasresumed.
FortheLandfillDmodel,kvaluewassetto0.501,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
Sdata,M
i
0
actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
the best fit with the empirical data. A S
0
value of 1885 Ft
3
/ton (53 M
3
/Megagram) was
predictedH
2
2
2
Srecovery
data(cubicfeetH
2
The S
0
0
volume of H
2
2
actualH
2
0
valueusing
3
/ton, approximately 22 percent higher than the best fit S
0
value.
Discussion Landfill D
2
S concentrations and recovery at Landfill D are
indicativeofarapidconversionofsulfatecontainingwastetoH
2
S.However,theresultsofthe
H
2
S trend data, including concentration trends and volumetric H
2
S recovery data, does not
follow the expected trends as closely as for some of the other study sites. The resulting
exponentialtrendline,usedtoderivek,andtherelationshipbetweenthemodeledresultsand
the actual trend data are therefore less than optimal, with Rsquared values of .64 and .60
respectively.TheS
0
value(i.e.hydrogensulfidegeneratingpotential)wasalsolowerthanother,
similarMSWlandfillsinthestudy,whichhadalsousedC&DfinesasADC.
After declining rapidly between 2004 to 2006, the H

2
S concentrations at the landfill were
observed to rebound over the following two years (three sample events), increasing from a
lowofapproximately170ppmv(at50percentmethaneequivalent)inDecember2005toover
440ppmvinFebruary2008.ThereboundinH
2
Srecoveryobservedinthetrenddatacannotbe
attributedtotheresumeduseofC&DfinesasADCinOctober2007,astheC&Dfinesmaterial
was less than 6 months in age and would not yet contribute to H
2
S generation, assuming a 6
monthdelaybetweenplacementoffinesandinitialgenerationofH
2
S).
Thereasonfortheinconsistenciesisattributedtoseveralpotentialcausesincluding:

38
WetconditionswithintheLandfill,
Inconsistentcollectionsystemcoverage/performanceduringtheperiod,
Insufficientnumberofdatapointsforseveralyears,
DifferencesbetweentheactualandassumedsulfateconcentrationintheC&Dfines
material.

Thelandfillislocatedinanareawithrelativelyhighannualprecipitation(45to50inchesyear),
theimpactofwhichisfurtherincreasedbyleachaterecirculationduring2001and2002.There
weresignificantoperationalproblemsrelatedtowetconditionsandelevatedleachatelevels.
Landfill G
LandfillGisaMassachusettslandfillsitethatconductedextensiveH
2
Stestingoverthepastfive
yearperiod.LFGcollectionsystemsatthesitewasforthemostpartcomprehensive,well
managedandLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.Howeverinitially,during2004,
significantimprovementsandexpansionsoftheLFGsystemwerecompleted.Therefore,LFG
collectionsystemcoverageduring2004wasincomplete,makingLFGandH
2
Srecoverydata
frommostof2004andearlierunusable.Thisisdocumentedbyodorproblemsandoperational
issuesthatthesiteexperiencedpriorto2005.C&Dfinesdata,includingannualtonnageand
processingfacilitysourcedata,wasalsoavailable.Thequalityandquantityofdataavailable
fromthissitemadeitagoodcandidateforanalysisofH
2
Sdatatrendsanddevelopmentofa
sitespecificH
2
Smodel.
Site Background
LandfillGisanoperatingMSWlandfillwithapproximately4.0milliontonsofwasteinplaceand
atotaldesigncapacityofapproximately9.0milliontons.TheLandfillhasbeendevelopedin3
mainSections(Sections1,2and3).Section1,approximately25unlinedacres,beganreceiving
wastein1972andiscurrentlyclosedtofilling.Afinalcoversystemhasbeeninstalledoverthe
entire Section 1 area. Section 2, initially constructed in 1994, consists of four lined phases
totalingapproximately24acresinsizeplus3acresofoverfilloverSection1.Section2ceased
waste acceptance in August of 2004 with capping completed during 2005. Section 3 is the
currentlyactiveLandfillarea,consistingof2linedphases(1and2)withtwoadditionalphases
(3&4)plannedforthefuture.Thelandfillcurrentlyacceptsbetween300,000and400,000tons
ofwasteperayear.
Wastecompositiondepositedinthelandfillduringthepast10yearsofoperationhasconsisted
mostlyofMSW(90percent)withthebalanceconsistingmostlyofC&Dwaste(unprocessed).
C&Dfineswereusedasalternativedailycover(ADC)inSection2betweenJanuaryof2000and
Augustof2004atwhichtimetheirusewasdiscontinued.C&Dfineswerenotusedinthe
Section1landfill.UseoffinesasADCinSection3resumedinMarch2007andcontinues
throughpresentday..Between2000andJulyof2004,approximately110,000tonsofC&D
fineswereplacedintheSection2landfill.AsmallamountofC&Dfineswerealsoplacedin
Section3initiallyduringJulyandAugustof2004andapproximately27,000tonsofC&Dfines
weredepositedinSection3betweenMarchof2007andJuneof2008.
39
2
S Data
The Landfillcurrently has a comprehensive LFG collection system in place, whichwas installed
in phases during the past 12 years of landfill operation and expansion. The gas collection
system is installed throughout all areas of the Landfill area, including closed Sections 1 and 2
andtheactiveareasofSection3.Priorto2004,LFGwascollectedfromSection1andportions
of Section 2 and then conveyed offsite for use as fuel in a biomass power generation facility.
This original gas collection system is referred to as the Section 1/2 collection system. Odor
issues, resulting from incomplete collection system coverage in Section 2, required that
additionalgascollectionandcontrolsbeinstalledinSection2.Aseparategascollectionsystem
wasinstalledinSection2toconveyLFGtoanewflare,commissionedinearly2004.Expansions
to the Section 2 LFG system and improvements in LFG management during 2004 resulted in
comprehensiveLFGcollectionthroughoutallareasoftheLandfillbytheendof2004.TheLFG
collection system was expanded incrementally in Section 2 as waste filling progressed until
closure in mid2004. The gas system was expanded into Section 3 during 2005 and 2006,
initially tying into Section 3 leachate cleanouts. The Section 3 LFG collection system has been
expanded incrementally since that time, continuing to provide comprehensive LFG collection
coverageattheactivesectionsofthelandfill.CurrentlyLFGcollectedinSection3andmuchof
the LFG collected from Section 2 (Section 2/3 collection system) is conveyed to an onsite
electricalgenerationplantandbackupflare.LFGinSection1andtheolderportionsofSection
2arestillcollectedseparatelyanddeliveredforoffsiteuse.
Thegascollectionandcontrolsystemhasbeenoperatedona24hourperday,7dayperweek.
OM&M of the LFG collection and control system has been performed on a regular basis. LFG
recovery flow rates from both collection systems are measured by permanent flow metering
devices. LFG composition from both collection systems are currently measured with a
continuous gas analyzer. A portable LFG analyzer was used to measure LFG composition on a
once per week basis (minimum) at the Section 2/3 flare prior to the commissioning of the
electrical generation plant. LFG control device run times and total LFG flow rates were well
documented.
The first hydrogen sulfide concentration data sampled at the landfill was in early 2004,
consisting of one analytical test sample and several field test events at both the Section 1/2
collection system header and the Section 2/3 collection system header (then collecting LFG
from only the newer portions of Section 2). An H
2
S testing and monitoring program was
implemented at the site to evaluate the source of odors and H
2
S concentration trends. H
2
S
concentrationsfromtheSection2systemwereinitiallyobservedtobeelevated,between2000
and 3000 parts per million volume (ppmv), however H
2
S concentrations at the Section 1/2
system were much lower, generally between 200 and 500 ppmv. Testing at the Section 1/2
systeminitiallyconsistedoffieldtestsconductedtwicemonthly,howevertestingatthissystem
was discontinued after June of 2005. At the Section 2/3 system, LFG samples were collected
monthlyduring2005and2006,includingfieldtestsandlaboratoryanalysis,onamonthlybasis
(laterreducedtoquarterly).FieldtestingofH
2
Swasalsoconductedonaweeklybasisstarting
in2005whichhascontinuedthroughthepresentday.Fieldtestingisconductedattheinletof
theelectricalgenerationplantonaweeklybasis(minimum).Fieldtestdatawasalsoobtained
atthetimeofeachlabsamplecollectioneventforasidebysidecomparison.
40
Six supplemental samples were collected for laboratory analysis in May and September 2008;
two samples each from the Section 1/2 LFG system, the Section 2/3 LFG system and from the
Section 3 LFG system (prior to mixing with Section 2 LFG). A summary of the number of H
2
S
samplingdatapointsavailableforLandfillGarepresentedinTableG1.
TableG1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillG
Section1/2System Section2/3System CombinedTotal
Year Lab
Analysis
FieldTests LabAnalysis FieldTests LabAnalysis FieldTests
2004 1 8 2 17 3 25
2005 0 4 11 32 11 36
2006 0 0 9 14 9 14
2007 0 0 0 >150 0 >150
2008(Sept.) 2 4 2 54 2 58
One testing event, including a lab analysis and field test data, was conducted in January 2006
whenallLFGcollectedfromSections1,2and3wasdirectedtoasinglepoint(aflare).Thistest
event data point (780 ppmv) correlates with the estimated H
2
S concentration calculated by
averaging LFG flow weighted test results from Section 2/3 and Section 1/2. Analytical testing
conducted at the Section 3 system in May and September of 2008 resulted in H
2
S
concentrationsof120ppmvand179ppmvrespectivelywhichwerelowerthantheresultsof
analytical testing conducted at the 2/3 system on the same dates (207 ppmv and 277 ppmv
respectively).

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill G
The monthly average H
2
S concentration for each of the two collection systems combined
(Section 1/2 and Section 2/3) were used with the monthly LFG flow rate for each collection
system (normalized to 50 percent methane) in order to calculate a flow weighted H
2
S
concentrationfortheentirelandfillcollectionsystem.InordertosupplementthemissingH
2
S
concentration data for the Section 1/2 collection system between June 2005 and the
supplemental testing conducted in 2008, an assumed H
2
S value of 308 ppmv was used. The
valueof308ppmvisbasedontheaverageof349ppmvfromJune2005testingand267ppmv
fromtheMay2008testevent.ItwasnecessarytousethisestimatedH
2
Svaluetosupplement
themissingdatafortheSection1/2collectionsysteminordertocalculateatotalmonthlyflow
of H
2
S, (presented either in pounds or cubic feet) for the entire Landfill during those years.
Because the LFG flow rates and H
2
S concentration at the Section 1/2 system are significantly
lower,comparedwiththeSection2/3system,potentialerrorinthemodelresultingfromusing
thisassumedH
2
Sconcentrationvalue(asopposedtousingonlymonthswithactualdirecttest
data)isconsideredappropriateandwithinanacceptablemarginoferror.

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill G
wasdepositedasADCoverafouryearperiod(2000through2004)and278tonssulfurwere
placedinSection3fromthe27,600tonsofC&DfinesasADCbetweenJanuary2007andJuly
41
2008.Anestimated203,000poundsofH
2
Swascollectedduring50monthsofavailabledata
betweenOctober2004andApril2009.
Landfill G Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
2
Smonthlyflowrate,
fromthe28monthsofavailabledatabetweenOctober2004andOctober2007,wasusedto
operations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.H
2
SflowtrenddataafterOctober
2007wasnotusedtotrendtheH
2
Sdecaycurvebecausefor6monthspriortoOctober,C&D
finesmaterialshadbeenplacedinSection3.ThisnewmaterialcouldcontributetothetotalH
2
S
flowratefromthesiteand,inturn,affecttheslopeofthedecaycurve(andderivedkvalue).
TheobjectiveistoobtainakvaluewhichrepresentsthedecayrateofH
2
Sduringtheperiodof
timeafterplacementofsulfatebearingmaterialshadceased.
FortheLandfillGmodel,kvaluewassetto0.828,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
Sdata,M
i
0
actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
0
value of 4548 Ft
3
/ton (129 M
3
/Megagram) was
predictedH
2
2
2
Srecovery
data(cubicfeetH
2
Spermonth,3monthaverage)resultinginanRsquaredof0.954.
The S
0
0
volume of H
2
2
actual H
2
S flow data for all of the available data. The derived S
0
value using the volume
approachwas3764Ft
3
/ton,approximately21percentlowerthanthebestfitS
0
value.
Discussion Landfill G
2
S concentrations and recovery at Landfill G are
indicativeofarapidconversionofsulfatecontainingC&DfineswastetoH
2
S.Duringtheyears
2001 through 2004, when the largest quantities of C&D fines material were used as ADC in
Section 2, the C&D fines tonnage equaled between 10 and 15 percent of the total waste
accepted, which was chiefly MSW. The landfill is located in an area with fairly high annual
precipitation(45to50inchesyear),theimpactofwhichisfurtherincreasedbytheuseofC&D
finesasADCwhichmayincreaseinfiltrationrateatthelandfillsurface.
Therefore,themoistureandratioofC&DfinesmixedwithMSWwasteintheSection2landfill
is believed to have created advantageous conditions for both methane producing and sulfur
reducingbacteria.ThisresultsinslightlyhigherkandS
0
valuesforH
2
Sthanmayotherwisebe
observedundersomewhatdifferentconditions.AlthoughLandfillSection3hasalsoaccepteda
significantquantityofC&Dfinesmaterialsinceearly2007,thishasnotyetresultedinthesame
spike in H
2
S generation as was observed from fines deposited in Section 2. This can be
observedinthemodelbasedonadecayrateandS
0
valuescalibratedtoH
2
SfromtheSection2
area.Thismaybearesultofseveralvariablesincludingdifferencesinthesulfatecontentofthe
42
C&Dfinesmaterialnowbeingaccepted,differencesinlandfilloperationalpracticeandalower
ratio of C&D fines to total waste disposal as the C&D fines used as ADC in Section 3 was
between4and7percentin2007and2008.
Landfill H
LandfillHisaConnecticutlandfillsitethatconductedH
2
Stestingconsistentlyoverathreeyear
period.DuringtheperiodwhichmostoftheH
2
Stestingwasconducted,theLFGcollection
systemhadcompletesystemcoveragethroughoutthoseareaswhichhadacceptedC&Dfines
material.TheLFGcollectionsystematthesitewasthereforecomprehensive,wellmanaged
andLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfinesdata,includingquarterly
tonnageandprocessingfacilitysourcedata,wasalsoavailable.Thequalityandquantityof
dataavailablefromthissitemadeitagoodcandidateforinitialanalysisofH
2
Sdatatrendsand
developmentofasitespecificH
2
Smodel.
Site Background
LandfillHisanactivelandfillwhichacceptsbothMSWandBulkyC&Dwaste.Thelandfillis
unlinedwithapproximately2.0milliontonsofwasteinplaceandhasapproximately2yearsof
operatingliferemaining,afterwhichitwillbeclosedandcapped.Thesiteispermittedto
disposeMSW,includingbulkywasteandC&Ddebris(C&Dwaste),ona65acreportionofthe
site.Wastehashistoricallycovereda50acrefootprintatthesite.TheLandfillareaisdivided
into4cells(A,B,CandD).CellsAandB,comprisingthenorthernportionoftheLandfill
footprint,containtheoldestwasteandhavenotreceivedanynewwasteforover9years.Cells
CandDarecurrentlyopentoactivefilling.TheLandfilltopographyisfairlyflatwithmoderate
slopesandshallowwastedepthwithmaximumwastedepthbetween50and60feet.
C&D waste disposal, including C&D fines disposal when that material was being accepted, is
segregatedfromMSWwastedisposal,disposedina5acreareaofthesoutheasternportionof
thesitepermittedforbulkywasteandC&Ddebris.AlthoughC&Dfinesmaterialsweremono
filled in the C&D waste disposal area, separately from MSW disposal, the MSW disposal areas
and C&D waste disposal areas were not separated bya liner system, or other physical barrier.
Therefore,thereiscontactandmixingofC&DandMSW,particularlyalongtheperimeterofthe
C&D disposal area. C&D fines waste material was not used as alternative daily cover in MSW
disposalareas.
Priorto1994,theLandfillreceivedonlyMSWatanaveragerateofapproximately60,000tons
peryear.In1994,thelandfillbegantotrackacceptanceofconstructionanddemolitionwaste
or bulky waste separately from MSW waste. Waste accepted per year between 1994 and
2001averagedapproximately45,000tons,withanaverageof4,000tonsperyearofthattotal
consistingofbulkywaste.Between2002and2007,theLandfillacceptedanaverageof70,000
tons waste per year, including approximately 60 percent MSW and 40 percent C&D waste
(includingC&Dfines).
InJuly2002,theLandfillstartedacceptingprocessedconstructionanddemolitionresidualfines
(C&D fines) from a single C&D processing facility. The C&D fines contained elevated sulfate
content from gypsum drywall material components. From August 2002 through November
43
2004, the Landfill accepted approximately 34,000 tons of C&D fines materials. Acceptance of
C&D fines material was discontinued in November 2004, when the Landfill placed a ban on
construction and demolition gypsum, including C&D fines materials. In 2006, the ban on C&D
gypsumwaslifted,butthelandfillhasnotacceptedadditionalC&Dfinesduetoconcernsover
contributionofC&Dfinestohydrogensulfidegenerationandodorproblems.
2
S Data
Odor issues, related to elevated hydrogen sulfide in the landfill gas, first became a concern in
the mid2003, approximately 9 to 12 months after initial acceptance of C&D fines. The initial
phaseoftheLFGcollectionsystemwasinstalledintheC&Dwastedisposalarea,completedin
December 2003. The collection system was subsequently expanded into Cells C and D during
April of 2004 and again between November 2004 and January 2005, as part of a continuing
effort to control LFG odors at the site. The first and second installations of the LFG collection
system (December 2003 and April 2004) represented approximately half of the currently
existing gas collection system in terms of landfill coverage area. The third and most recent
system expansion (November 2004) added gas collectors throughout the remainder of the
bulky waste and MSW areas along the southern edge of Cell D. The most recent expansion
provides 100 percent system coverage inall bulky waste areas, aswellas additional collectors
inCellCandDMSWareas.
The LFG collection system includes header piping, vertical wells, horizontal collectors and
condensatemanagementcomponents. Thereare43verticalextractionwellsand7horizontal
collectionwellsinstalledinportionsofCellsCandD.AutilityflareisusedtocombusttheLFG
collected.TheLFGcollectionandflaresystemwasinitiallyoperatedonatimerduring2004but
since mid2004 the system has been operated on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis.
recovery flow rate at the flare is measured by permanent flow metering device. LFG
compositionattheflareshasbeenmeasuredwithaportableLFGanalyzeronaonceperweek
basis(minimum).FlaredeviceruntimesandtotalLFGflowratesweredocumented.LFGodors
have beencontrolled at the site since theearly 2005. As a result, no additional expansions of
thecollectionsystemhavebeennecessarysincethattime.
ThefirsthydrogensulfideconcentrationdatasampledattheLFGcollectionsystemwasinlate
2004,consistingofoneanalyticaltestsampleandseveralfieldtestevents.AnH
2
Stestingand
monitoring program was implemented at the site in 2005 to evaluate the source of odors and
H
2
Sconcentrationtrends.Between2005and2007,fieldtestingH
2
Sattheflarewasconducted
on a regular basis, several times per a month. During 2006 and 2007 LFG samples were also
collected for laboratory analysis, initially on a monthly basis and later reduced to quarterly.
Regular testing of H
2
S was discontinued in 2008 after odors problems were under control and
H
2
Sconcentrationshadbeenobservedtobereduced.Fieldtestdatawasobtainedatthetime
of each lab sample collection event for a side by side comparison. Two supplemental samples
werecollectedforlaboratoryanalysisin2008aspartofthisstudy.Asummaryofthenumber
ofH
2
SsamplingdatapointsavailableforLandfillHarepresentedinTableH1.
44
TableH1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillH
Flare1
2004 0 4
2005 1* 29
2006 9 24
2007 2 17
2008 2 2
*Datawasexcludedbecauseitwaserroneous.
OnetestingeventconductedinMayof2005includedalabanalysisandfieldtestdata.The
laboratoryresultforH
2
Sandothergascomponentswasanoutlierfromthefieldresultsandthe
datasetoverall.Basedonlabresultsthisdatapointissuspectedofbeingerroneousand
thereforewasnotincludedinthemodelingdatabase.
Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill H

ThemonthlyvaluesforH
2
SconcentrationwereusedwiththemonthlyLFGflowrate
(normalizedto50percentmethane)tocalculatethetotalmonthlyflowofH
2
S.Forpurposesof
themodelinput,theaverageofallthemonthlyfieldresultswasaveragedwiththelabresults
(whereavailable)sincethisdatasetwasthemostrobust.ThelaboratoryresultobtainedinMay
2005wasanoutlier,suspectedofbeingerroneousandthereforewasnotusedforthemodel
database.
Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill H

BasedonC&Dfinesandsulfatedata,484tonsofsulfur,fromthe33,800tonsofC&Dfines,was
depositedasADCoverafouryearperiod(2000through2004).Anestimated34,400poundsof
H
2
Swascollectedduring33monthsofavailabledatabetweenOctober2004andOctober2008.

Landfill H Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
2
Smonthlyflowrate,
fromthe50monthsofavailabledatabetweenOctober2004andOctober2008,wasusedto
operations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.
FortheLandfillHmodel,kvaluewassetto0.515,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
Sdata,M
i
0
actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
0
value of 2176 Ft
3
/ton (62 M
3
/Megagram) was
predictedH
2
2
2
Srecovery
data(cubicfeetH
2
45
The S
0
0
volume of H
2
2
actualH
2
0
valueusing
3
/ton, approximately 7.5 percent lower than the best fit S
0
value.

Discussion Landfill H
AlthoughC&DfinesmaterialsinLandfillHweremonofilled,therewasdirectcontactbetween
MSW and some of the C&D fines material. In addition, the landfill was generally wet with
elevated leachate levels in some areas of the waste and high infiltration rate of surface water
caused by generally flat topography and landfill operations. Therefore, the moisture and
organicmaterialscontentintheC&Ddisposalareas,availableforbothmethaneproducingand
sulfurreducingbacteria,washigheratLandfillHthaninatypicalC&Dmonofilllandfill.
TheacceptanceofasignificantportionofunprocessedC&DbulkywasteattheLandfillisalso
suspected to contribute to the overall generation of H
2
S at the site, however C&D fines was
clearly the cause of odors and elevated H
2
S concentrations early on. Testing at individual gas
wellsin2005indicatesthatH
2
SconcentrationsatthewellsinstalledinC&Dbulkywasteareas
which did not accept C&D fines materials were higher (typically 1001000 ppmv) than H
2
S
concentrations at wells installed in MSW waste (< 100ppmv). However LFG flow rates from
wellsinstalledinC&Dbulkywasteareasweregenerallymuchlower.AtwellsinstalledinC&D
waste areas which accepted C&D fines materials however, H
2
S concentrations were
consistentlyelevated,insomecasesashighas20,000ppmvormore.LFGrecoveryfromsome
ofthewellinC&DfinesdisposalareasalsotypicallyexhibitedhigherLFGflowratesthanwells
inbulkyonlyC&Dwasteareas.
The spike in H
2
S recovery was observed during 2004 and 2005 which, subsequently declined
throughmid2007,whenitreachedthecurrent,generallystableH
2
Sconcentrationsatbetween
200 and 400 ppmv. Due to the presence and continued acceptance of C&D bulky waste the
current trend of a baseline H
2
S concentration between 200 and 400 ppm is not attributed to
C&Dfinesdisposalandisexpectedtoremainconstantatthelandfill.
Landfill I
LandfillIisanactive,MSWLandfilllocatedinNewYork.H
2
Stestingwasconductedonaonce
ortwiceperayearbasisforfouroutofthepastfiveyears.DuringtheperiodwhichH
2
Stesting
wasconductedtheLFGcollectionsysteminareasreceivingC&Dfineswasforthemostpart
comprehensive,wellmanagedandLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfines
tonnageandsourcedataisalsoavailable,withmostoftheC&Dfinesoriginatingfromasingle
processingfacilitylocatedinNY.Thequalityandquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemade
itagoodcandidateforinitialanalysisofH
2
2
S
model.BackgroundinformationonLandfillIandtheresultsofdataanalysisandsubsequent
modeldevelopment,areoutlinedhere.
46
Site Background
From1962through1994thelandfillfacilityoperatedtwo,discretelandfillareasatthesite.
ThetwooriginalunlinedlandfillareasdidnotutilizeorreceiveC&Dfinesfordisposalandare
nowclosedandcapped.Therefore,thesetwoolderlandfillareaswerenotincludedinthis
study.Athird,activelandfillarea(LandfillI)hasbeeninoperationsince1994andconsistsof
sixdoublelinedcellslocatedonapproximately45acres.Currently,31acreshavebeenclosed
andcappedwithaplasticcapsystem.Theremaininglandfillareasareinvariousstagesof
fillingwithadditionalcappingexpectedtobecompletedincrementallyasfillingprogresses.
LandfillIhasapproximately2.5milliontonsofwasteinplace,basedonendof2007wastedata.
Wastecompositionhistoricallydepositedinthelandfillconsistsofwastecategorizedinrecords
asMSW,sludgeandbulkyC&Dwaste(unprocessed).Approximately80percentofthewaste
receivedwasMSWwithbetween0and40percentofthewasteeachyear(20percentaverage)
consistingofbulkyC&Dwaste.TheC&Dwastecomponentisassumedtobeprimarily
constructiondebrisandcouldcontaingypsumwallboardorotherhighsulfatebearingwaste
(i.e.similartotypicalMSWwastestreamsfortheera).Onlyasmallamountofthetotalwaste
receivedwasclassifiedassludge.
C&Dfines,alongwithautofluffandashwereusedasalternativedailycover(ADC).TheC&D
fineswereusedasADCbetween1997and2004,withpeakC&Dfinesacceptancein2003.
Approximately214,000tonsofC&Dfineswereacceptedduringtheeightyearperiod.The
tonnageofC&DfinesutilizedasADCwasbetween7and18percentofthetotalannualwaste
deposited,withanaverageof1011percenteachyear.SomeC&Dfinesmayhavealsobeen
usedasfinalgradingandshapingmaterialsduringcapping/closureofareasduring2002,2003
and2004.UseofC&Dfinesasalternativedailycoverwasdiscontinuedin2004.
2
S Data
Priorto2002,LFGmanagementintheactivelandfillwasaccomplishedviahorizontalcollectors
and leachate system vents and one utility flare. In 2002, a portion of the landfill was capped
and vertical extraction wells were installed within that cap area. A second utility flare was
addedinMay2003.Additionalverticalextractionwellswereinstalledin2004intheuncapped
areas of the landfill. The LFG collection system was expanded in the active landfill area
incrementallyinphasesin2006and2008,withadditionofcollectionsystempiping,horizontal
collectors, leachate cleanouts and vertical wells as waste filling progressed. Additional
temporary LFG flares were installed to supplement the existing permanent LFG flare at the
facilityinOctober2003andApril2004.Useofthetemporaryflaresystemwasdiscontinuedin
mid2006,duetodecliningLFGrecoveryrates.
basis since 2002. Operation, monitoring and maintenance (OM&M) of the LFG collection and
control system has been performed on a regular basis. LFG recovery flow rates at the flares
were measured by permanent flow metering devices. LFG composition at the flares was
measuredwithaportableLFGanalyzeronaonceperweekbasis(minimum).Flaredevicerun
timesweredocumented.LFGrecoverydatafor2003,2004,2007and2008wereobtainedfrom
theaverageflowreadingtakenfrominstantaneousreadingsatalloperatingflare(uptothree
47
at a time) between once and 20 times per month. LFG flow totalizer data was available for
years2005and2006.
August2004,consistingofoneanalyticaltestsample.Oneanalyticaltestsamplewasobtained
in2005(March)andtwoin2006(March&August).Notestingwasperformedin2007.In2008
fourtesteventswereperformed.H
2
Stestingin2008includedoneanalyticaltestandfieldtest
in March and supplemental testing, performed as part of this study in July, August and
September,includingoneanalyticaltestsample(September)andtwofieldsampleevents(July
& August). A summary of the number of H
2
S sampling data points available for Landfill I is
presentedinTableI1.
TableI1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillI
FlareInlet
2004 1 0
2005 1 0
2006 2 0
2007 0 0
2008 2 3
Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill I

For purposes of the model, the average of all the H
2
S concentration monthly field test results
was averaged with the lab result for the same month so that field data results and lab data
resultsareweightedequally.ForLandfillI,bothfielddataandlabdatawereavailableforonly
onemonth(March2008).

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill I
wasdepositedasADCoveraneightyearperiod(1997through2004).Anestimated68,000
poundsofH
2
Swascollectedduring8monthsofavailabledatabetweenAugust2004and
September2008.
Landfill I Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
2
Smonthlyflowratewas
usedtoaccountforanymonthtomonthvariabilityinrecoverysuchasmaybeencounteredin
LFGoperations,differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.FortheLandfillImodel,k
valuewassetto0.881,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittotheH
2
Sdata.TheactualH
2
S
datacorrelatedtotheexponentialtrendlinewithanRsquaredof0.97.M
i
wasfromsulfur
inputandS
0
wasestimatedbyplottingtheresultsofthemodeltoactualH
2
Srecoverydata.S
0
wasrefinedthroughiterationsofthemodeluntilthemodelhadthebestfitwiththeempirical
data.AS
0
valueof6430Ft
3
/ton(182M
3
/Megagram)wasestimatedusingthismethod.Thisfit
wasevaluatedthroughalinearregressionofthepredictedversusactualH
2
Srecoverydatawith
anRsquaredof0.96.TheS
0
valuewasthencheckedbysolvingforS
0
(usingthesamekvalue)
48
bysettingthetotalvolumeofH
2
SestimatedbythemodelequaltothetotalvolumeofH
2
S
representedbytheactualH
2
Sflowdataforalloftheavailabledatausedforthemodel(8
monthsofdata).ThederivedS
0
valueusingthevolumeapproachwas6282Ft
3
/ton,
approximately3.3percentlowerthanthebestfitS
0
value.
Discussion Landfill I
LandfillIexhibitsthespikeandthenrapidlydecliningtrendsinH
2
Sconcentrationsandrecovery
observed at other Landfills which accepted large amounts of sulfate containing, C&D fines
wasteforuseasADC.Theactualdatatrendscorrelateverywellwiththemodelprojectionsas
exhibitedbyhighRsquaredvalues.Themodelvariables(i.e.,modelequationkandS
0
inputs)
forlandfillIarealsosimilartootherMSWlandfillsinthisstudywhichusedC&Dfinesmaterials
as ADC. The principal uncertainty present in this Landfills H
2
S modeling results is the limited
amountofH
2
Sconcentrationtestingdataavailable.However,thevalidityofthismodelresults
is reinforced by the similarities in model inputs derived, compared with the other, similar
landfillcasesexaminedinthisstudy.
Landfill B
LandfillBisaMassachusettslandfillsitethathasconductedconsistent(daily)H
2
Stestingofthe
LFGrecoveredsinceJanuary2006.ThisLandfillwasdifferentfromtheotherlandfillsitesinthe
studysinceitwasnotanMSWlandfillbutalandfillclosureprojectwhichusedC&Dfinesand
processingresidualsextensivelyasshapingandgradingmaterials.DuringtheperiodwhichH
2
S
testingwasconducted,theLFGcollectionsystemhadsystemcoveragethroughoutmostareas
whereC&Dfinesmaterialweredisposed.TheLFGcollectionsystematthesitewastherefore
generallywellmanagedandLFGrecoverydatawasgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfinesdata,
includingannualtonnageandprocessingfacilitysourcedata,wasalsoavailable.Thequality
andquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemadeitagoodcandidateforinitialanalysisofH
2
S
datatrendsanddevelopmentofasitespecificH
2
Smodel.BackgroundinformationonLandfill
Bandtheresultsofdataanalysisandsubsequentmodeldevelopment,areoutlinedhere.
Site Background
LandfillBwasalandfillclosureprojectwhichconsistedofusingC&Dfines,processingresiduals
andsoilsasshapingandgradingmaterialstoproperlycloseanoldmunicipallandfillsitewhich
hadnotbeenproperlyclosedandcapped.Theoriginallandfillsitewasamunicipallandfill
operatedduringthe1960sand70slocatedwithinawet(swampy)parcel,whichisnowinan
urbanizedarea.Theoriginallandfillareaisestimatedtohaveapproximately1milliontonsof
solidwasteinplace,coveringanareaofapproximately40acres.Theclosureprojectinvolved
shapingandgradingtheexistinglandfillsitewithC&Dresidualsandsoilmaterialsandthen
permanentlyclosingthelandfillwithaplasticcapandfinalcoversystem.Theprojecthadthree
stagesoffillingwhichinvolvedbringingdifferentsectionsoftheoriginallandfillsiteuptofinal
designgrades.
ThefirststageofthelandfillprojectbegantoreceiveC&DfinesandprocessingresidualsinApril
of2003.BetweenApril2003andJuly2004thesitereceivedapproximately230,000tonsof
C&Dfines,residualsetc.InadditiontoC&Dfines,thelandfillalsoacceptedapproximately
110,000tonsofsoilmaterial(includingcontaminatedsoils)betweenApril2003andJuly2004.
49
Soilswereusedprincipallyonsideslopeareasandasgradingmaterialpriortocapping.Odor
issueshadalreadybegantooccurattheendof2003,initiatingtheinstallationofseveralgas
wells,gaspipingandasmallportableblowerflaresysteminMarch2004.Cappingofthefirst
stagewascompletedinOctober2004.
FillinginthesecondstageofthelandfillprojectbeganinJulyof2004.Thesecondstage
acceptedapproximately400,000tonsofC&Dfinesmaterialsand300,000tonssoilsmaterials
betweenJuly2004andNovember2005.Thegassystemhadbeenexpandedduringthatperiod
withtheadditionofverticalandhorizontalcollectorsinstalledinStages1and2andthe
installationofapermanentutilityflaresysteminSeptember,2005.Thefacilitywasforcedto
temporarilyceaselandfillactivitiesinNovember2005,largelyduetoconcernsoverodors
causedbyH
2
Semissions.BetweenSeptember2005andMarch2006,thelandfillincreasedLFG
collectionsystemcoveragethroughoutthelandfillbyexpandingthecollectionsystem,
improvinglandfillcoverandcappingcompletedareas.
InFebruary2006,theLandfillresumedoperations,howeverC&Dfinesmaterialswere
thereaftermixedwithsoilsmaterialbylayeringthematerialsinliftsduringthefillprocess.The
methodconsistedofalayerofC&Dfineswaste(5to10feet)coveredwithapproximatelyone
halfthevolumebysoilsmaterial.Thisresultedinanapproximately2:1ratioofC&Dfinesto
soilsonavolumetricbasisorapproximately1:1ratiobyweight.
BetweenFebruary2006andDecember2007,Landfillstages2and3acceptedapproximately
420,000tonsofC&Dfinesmaterialsand700,000tonsofsoilmaterials.Inaddition,thelandfill
alsoacceptedapproximately38,000tonsofshortpaperfiberand39,000tonsofunprocessed
C&Dwastematerial.Overthefouryearperiodofoperation,thelandfillaccepted
approximately1,050,000tonsofC&Dfinesandresiduals.
Between2006andtheendof2007,theLFGsystemwasexpandedincrementallywithasystem
ofhorizontalcollectorsandverticalwells.Horizontalcollectorsinstalledatlowerelevationsin
2005and2006wereeventuallyabandonedinplaceduetotheverywetconditionspresentin
thelowerelevationofthelandfill.Cappingoflandfillareasatfinalgradesinstages2and3was
completedin2005,2006,2007and2008withthelargestarea(20acres)completedin2007.

2
S Data
Control of odors, related to hydrogen sulfide emissions, was a driving force behind the
expansions and operation of the LFG collection system. From October 2005 through present,
the collection system coverage area has been comprehensive and LFG odors and emissions
havegenerallybeencontrolled,asevidencedbyanextensiveambientairmonitoringprogram.
basis since October, 2005. OM&M of the LFG collection and control system has been
performedonadailybasis.LFGrecoveryflowratesattheflaresweremeasuredbypermanent
flow metering devices and LFG composition was measured with a portable LFG analyzer on a
onceperdaybasis,minimum.
However,despiteintensiveLFGmanagementatthelandfill,thehistorictrendsobservedinLFG
recovery since January2006, including methane concentrations and volumetric flow rates, are
50
not consistent. Typically, landfills with comprehensive, well managed LFG collection systems
exhibit a consistent LFG recovery trend over time with some fluctuations in methane
concentrations and volumetric flow rates from month to month but overall, remaining fairly
stable over the course of a year. The LFG recovery trend for Landfill B however shows
significant spikes and drops in recovery. It is noted that the decreases in recovery for some
periods of months does not correlate with odor issues or other indications of poor LFG
recovery.AsummaryofLFGflowtotalresultsforLandfillBispresentedbelowinFigureB1(I).
ThefluctuationsinLFGrecoverycanbeexplainedbyanumberoffactorsincluding:
Operationofthesystemwithhighvacuumtocontrolodors,whichintroducedairinthe
landfillpriortocappinginmid2007
Wetconditionsinthelandfill,whichmayhavesubmergedwasteatlowerelevationsand
affectedperformanceofhorizontalcollectors
Changes in operational strategy of the LFG collection system such as operating at high
vacuumforperiodsandthenreducingvacuumtodecreaseairinfiltration
Rapid pace of waste filling, LFG system expansions and capping which was ongoing
duringthelasttwoyearsofoperation
Potentialgapsoromissionsintherecoverydataprovided
InordertoanalyzeandmodelH
2
Srecoverytrends,LFGrecoveryneedstobefairlyconsistent.
ReviewofthelandfilloperationalhistoryandLFGrecoverydataindicatesthatthereweretwo
periods of time when LFG recovery was reliable and consistent: 1) between January 2006 and
June 2006 and, 2) from April 2008 through March 2009 (most recent data available). Prior to
January 2006 facility installed a new flare, expanded the LFG collection system and improved
LFG system operations. In addition, the landfill was closed for a 3month period with no new
waste accepted. The LFG system was operated consistently until July of 2006 when impacts
from ongoing fill operations and new expansions to the LFG system may have affected
consistencyofLFGrecovery.SinceAprilof2008,theLFGsystemhasbeenoperatedunderpost
closure conditions with some improvements to LFG operation implemented in March. In
addition,thelandfillwasnolongerreceivingC&DfinesorresidualswasteafterDecember2007
andexpansionstotheLFGcollectionsystemandthelandfillcoversystemhadbeencompleted.

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill B
The landfill conducted twice daily (week days) measurement of H
2
S concentrations using field
indicatortubessinceJanuary2006.MeasurementsofH
2
Swereobtainedconsistentlyfromthe
inlet of the blower/flare system. Therefore, H
2
S testing data is representative of H
2
S
concentrations in LFG recovered from the landfill overall. Over 500 field test events were
conductedperyearoverathreeyearperiodincludingin2006,2007,2008andthefirstquarter
of 2009. Due to the quantity of field test data available, supplemental testing was not
performed as part of this study. A summary of H
2
S testing results (normalized to 50 percent
methane) for Landfill B is presented in Figure B1 (II). The H
2
S concentration data was used
withtheLFGdataavailableforthesamemonths(normalizedto50percentmethane)inorder
tocalculatethetotalflowofH
2
S.ActualrecoveryofH
2
SispresentedinFigureB1(III)ascubic
feetpermonth.
51

M
a
r
-
0
6
J
u
n
e
-
0
6
S
e
p
t
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
M
a
r
-
0
7
J
u
n
e
-
0
7
S
e
p
t
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
8
J
u
n
e
-
0
8
S
e
p
t
-
0
8
D
e
c
-
0
8
M
a
r
-
0
9
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
V
o
l
.

F
l
o
w
(
F
t
3

X

1
0
0
0
)
M
a
r
-
0
6
J
u
n
e
-
0
6
S
e
p
t
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
M
a
r
-
0
7
J
u
n
e
-
0
7
S
e
p
t
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
8
J
u
n
e
-
0
8
S
e
p
t
-
0
8
D
e
c
-
0
8
M
a
r
-
0
9
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
.

(
p
p
m
v
)
M
a
r
-
0
6
J
u
n
e
-
0
6
S
e
p
t
-
0
6
D
e
c
-
0
6
M
a
r
-
0
7
J
u
n
e
-
0
7
S
e
p
t
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
8
J
u
n
e
-
0
8
S
e
p
t
-
0
8
D
e
c
-
0
8
M
a
r
-
0
9
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
V
o
l
.

H
2
S

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
e
d

(
F
t
3
)
I
II
III

FigureB1(IIII).LandfillBH
2
SModelProjectionsVersusActualRecovery
52

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill B
FigureB2(I)presentsthesulfurinputsandoutputsforLandfillB,basedoninputofsulfurinto
the landfill from sulfate as C&D fines/residuals and output of H
2
S from the landfill as LFG, in
poundspermonth.
BasedonC&Dfinesandsulfatedata,11,415tonsofsulfur,fromthe1,054,000tonsofC&D
fines,wasdepositedbetween2003and2007).Approximately60percentoftheC&D
fines/residualsreceived(634,636tons)weredepositedasmonofillpriorto2006and
approximately40percentoftheC&Dfines/residualsreceived(419,613tons)weredepositedas
soils/finesmixduring2006and2007.Anestimated470,000poundsofH
2
Swascollected
duringthe39monthsbetweenJanuary2006andMarch2009.
Landfill B Model
LandfillBwasmodeledusingtwodifferentapproaches.Thefirstapproach(Case1)wasthe
sameasfortheotherlandfillmodelspresentedinthisstudy.M
i
wasfromsulfurinputfromall
C&DfinesreceivedandS
0
wasestimatedbyplottingtheresultsofthemodeltoactualH
2
S
recoverydata.S
0
wasrefinedthroughiterationsofthemodeluntilthemodelhadthebestfit
withtheempiricaldata.TocalibratethemodeltoS
0
,thesamedataperiodwasutilized,
January2006throughJune2006andApril2008throughMarch2009(19monthsofdata)with
thederivedkvalueinputof0.166.Thisapproach(Case1B)resultedinspuriousresultswitha
poorapparentmatchbetweentheactualdataandthemodelresults.Similarspuriousresults
wereobtainedbycalibratingthemodeltoS
0
usingtheentiredataset(Case1A),January2006
throughMarch2009(39monthsofdata)withaderivedkvalueinputof0.101.
The second modeling approach (Case 2) utilized two different S
0
values: one S
0
for C&D fines
wastewhichwasdepositedbasicallyasmonofill,priortoNovember2005,andasecondS
0
for
C&D waste which was deposited mixed (layered) with soil materials at an approximately 1:1
ratio(byweight).TheS
0
forC&Dfineswastemixedwithsoilswassetequalto10percent(10%)
for the S
0
value for C&D fines waste which was monofilled. Reducing the H
2
S producing
potential (S
0
), through mixing with soil has been demonstrated in previous studies in the
laboratory. Melendez, 2008 showed an order of magnitude reduction in H
2
S concentration
when 2:1 and 3:1 soil:fines (by mass) mixtures were used. Similar to Case 1, Case 2 calibrated
the model to S
0
, refined through iterations of the model until the model had the best fit with
theempiricaldata.
Case 2 also was modeled to two data sets: Case 2B utilized the January 2006 through June
2006andApril2008throughMarch2009data(17monthsofdata)withakvalueinputof0.166
andCase2AutilizedtheentiredatasetJanuary2006throughMarch2009(39monthsofdata)
withakvalueinputof0.101.ThebestresultsusingthismethodoftwoS
0
valueswereobtained
from Case 2B. A S
0
value of 4189 Ft
3
/ton (182 M
3
/Megagram) was estimated for monofilled
C&D fines waste deposited prior to 2006 and 419 Ft
3
/ton was assumed for soils:fines mixed
waste deposits post2006. This fit was evaluated through a linear regression of the predicted
versusactualH
2
SrecoverydatawithanRsquaredof0.97.
53
TheS
0
valueforCase2BwasthencheckedbysolvingforS
0
(usingthesamekvalue)bysetting
the total volume of H
2
2
S represented
bytheactualH
2
Sflowdatausedforthemodel(17monthsofdata).ThederivedS
0
valueusing
3
/ton (270 Ft
3
/ton for soil:fines mix deposits after January
2006)whichissignificantlylower,(approximately35percent)thanthebestfitS
0
valueusingX
Y plot approach. Basedon apparent fit of the model to this data set and the differences in S
0
betweenthetwomethods,thevolumemethodwasdeterminedtobeacloserfitandistheS
0
value presented in Figure B2(III) below (i.e. 2704 & 270 Ft

3
/ton). Figure B2 (III) presents the
modelresultsforcase2BdescribedabovewithdefaultinputsplottedalongwiththeactualH
2
S
recovery. Figure B2(IV) presents a correlation between the model results and the actual
recovery data plotted on XY axis. Modeling results for cases 1A, 1B and 2A are provided in
FiguresB3(IIII)andB4(IIV).
J
u
l
y
-
0
3
F
e
b
-
0
4
S
e
p
t
-
0
4
A
p
r
-
0
5
N
o
v
-
0
5
J
u
n
e
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
A
u
g
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
8
O
c
t
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Sulfur Input from C&D Fines
Total H
2
S recovery (Sulfur Output)
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
y =536909e
-0.1662x
R
2
=0.9544
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
R
2
=0.9718
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
I II
III IV
FigureB2(IIV).LandfillBSulfurInputs/OutputsandModelDevelopment/Results
54
5 6 7 8 9
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
y =258317e
-0.1007x
R
2
=0.0767
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
0
100000
200000
300000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
90000 110000 130000 150000 170000
0
100000
200000
300000
R
2
=0.321
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
I
II
III
FigureB3(IIII).LandfillBCase1H
2
SModelProjections
55
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

0
100000
200000
300000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
75000 100000 125000 150000 175000
125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
250000
275000
R
2
=0.8388
Model Project ion
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
0
100000
200000
300000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
130000 150000 170000 190000 210000 230000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
R
2
=0.0716
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
I II
III
IV

FigureB4(IIV).LandfillBCase2H
2
SModelProjections

Discussion Landfill B

Landfill B presents some important observations made during this study. Importantly, it
provides an example of a different landfill type then the other landfills presented, where C&D
finesaremonofilledandnotdepositedwithMSWorusedasalternativedailycover.Although
not fully conclusive, based on the model results for landfill B, the decay rate (k) and H
2
S
producingpotential(S
0
)appeartobelowerthaninthelandfillcaseswhereC&Dfinesareused
in MSW landfills. Inconsistencies observed in the LFG recovery trends and significant
differencesinthederivedS
0
valuesformodelingCase2Brequirethatadditionalevaluationbe
completedbeforedefinitiveconclusionscanbemaderegardingthedualS
0
modelingapproach
usedforthemonofilledandmixedfillC&Dfineswasteinthelandfill.LandfillBmodelingalso
presents some evidence that the right kind of soils mixed with C&D fines/residuals in a non
MSW landfill may provide a significant reduction in the H
2
S producing potential; this is
supported by other studies completed (Melendez, 2008) and is recommended for additional
analysisandstudy.

56
Landfill E
LandfillEisanactive,MSWlandfilllocatedinMassachusetts.H
2
Stestinghasbeenconducted
onamonthlybasisforthepasttwoyearsandonalessfrequentbasisgoingbackfiveyears.
DuringtheperiodwhichH
2
Stestingwasconducted,theLFGcollectionsystemhasbeen
comprehensive,wellmanagedandLFGrecoverydataisgenerallyofhighquality.C&Dfines
tonnageandsourcedataisalsoavailable.Thislandfillalsopresentsasomewhatdifferentcase
thanmostoftheotherLandfillsbecausethelandfillhascontinuedtoacceptanduseC&Dfines
asalternativedailycoverforthepast10yearswithoutinterruption.
Thequalityandquantityofdataavailablefromthissitemadeitagoodcandidateforinitial
analysisofH
2
2
Smodel.Background
informationonLandfillEandtheresultsofdataanalysisandsubsequentmodeldevelopment,
areoutlinedhere.
Site Background
LandfillEcomprisesa152acreparceloflandwithapproximately70acresusedforsolidwaste
disposalsince1995,receivingapproximately120,000tonsofwasteperyearonaverage.The
landfill is a lined facility developed in several phases and incorporates a bottom liner with
leachate collection and a geomembrane cap in closed areas. The first phase, comprising a
footprintof20acrescommencedoperationsin1995andwaspartiallyfilledpriortooperations
moving to the second phase area in 2002. The second phase, which consists of approximately
10acres,wasopenedin2002.TheLandfillhasreceivedapproximately1.6milliontonsofsolid
wastesinceopeningin1995andhasapproximately15yearsofoperatingliferemaining.
The waste stream has been composed of municipal solid waste and construction and
demolition debris. The exact ratio of MSW to C&D bulky waste historically received by the
landfill was not made available for this study but the waste stream is believed to consist of
approximately 80 percent MSW on average. C&D fines have been accepted and used as
alternativedailycoversince opening in 1995 and, have been used consistently since that time
exceptforoneyear(1999)whenthesitedidnotreceiveC&Dfinesmaterials.
Approximately100,000tonsofC&Dfineshavebeenacceptedatthelandfillsince1995,with
twoprocessingsourcesidentified.ThetonnageofC&DfinesutilizedasADCwasbetween2
and15percentofthetotalannualwastedeposited,withanaverageof5percenteachyear.
ThepeakusageofC&DfinesasADCwasbetween2000and2002whenapproximately55,000
tonsoffineswerereceivedaveraging10to15percentofthetotalwastereceivedbythe
landfill.Since2004acceptanceofC&Dfineshasbeensignificantlyreduced,withthetonnage
ofC&DfinesutilizedasADCbetween2and3percentofthetotalannualwastedeposited.
2
S Data
TheLandfillwasoriginallydesignedandpermittedtoincorporateonlypassivegasventsforLFG
control.Odorissuesbegantodevelopatthesitebetween1998and2000,thereforeanactive
LFGcollectionsystemwasinstalledin2000toenhanceLFGcontrol.TheLFGcollectionsystem
consists of a network of vertical and horizontal wells, laterals and header pipes to extract the
57
LFG , and a utility blower/flare system to combust LFG. The facility currently utilizes an
electricalgenerationplantwhichwascommissionedin2006.
basis since 2000. OM&M of the LFG collection and control system has been performed on a
regular basis. LFG recovery flow rates at the flare and electrical generation plant were
measured by permanent flow metering devices. LFG composition at the flares was measured
withaportableLFGanalyzeronaonceperweekbasis(minimum)priorto2006.Theelectrical
generation plant has utilized a continuous methane analyzer since 2006. LFG recovery data
fromthelandfillwasavailablebackto2001includingLFGflowrateandmethanecontent.
March 2004, consisting of one analytical test sample. Additional field test sample data was
availableforseveralmonthsin2005and2006,andavailableconsistentlyonamonthlybasisfor
2007and2008.OnesupplementaltesteventwasperformedasapartofthisstudyinOctober
2008 A summary of the number of H
2
S sampling data points available for Landfill E are
presentedinTableE1.
TableE1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillE

2004 1 0
2005 0 2
2006 0 6
2007 0 10
2008 1 8
Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill E
H
2
S testing has historically been completed at either the inlet of the flare or at the main LFG
collectionsystemblowersattheinlettotheelectricalgenerationplant,andisrepresentativeof
average H
2
S concentrations in the total recovered LFG. A summary of H
2
S testing results
(normalized to 50 percent methane) for Landfill E is presented in Figure E1 (I). The H
2
S
concentration data available was used with the LFG data available for the same months
(normalizedto50percentmethane)inordertocalculatethetotalflowofH
2
S.Forpurposesof
the model, the average of all the H
2
S concentration monthly field test results was averaged
with the lab result for the same months so that field data results and lab data results are
weightedequally.ForLandfillE,bothfielddataandlabdatawereavailableforonlyonemonth
(October 2008). A three month rolling average of the H
2
S monthly flow rate was used to
account for any month to month variability in recovery such as may be encountered in LFG
operations, difference in the number of days per month, etc. Total H
2
S recovery in cubic feet
permonthispresentedinFigureE1(IV).
58
Thelineartrendlineindicatesafairlyflatlevel(nochange)inH
2
Srecoveryratefortheperiod.
LFGrecoveryfromthelandfillhasasimilarflattrendline,withfairlysteadyLFGrecoveryrates
observedforthepast3to4years.
Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill E

FigureE1(I)presentsthesulfurinputsandoutputsforLandfillE,basedonmassofsulfurinto
thelandfillfromsulfateasC&Dfinesandmass ofH
2
S out ofthelandfillasLFG,inpoundsper
month.BasedonC&Dfinesandsulfatedata,1,600tonsofsulfur,fromthe100,000tonsofC&D
fines, was deposited as ADC over a fourteenyear period (1995 through 2008). An estimated
15,600 pounds of H
2
S was collected during 27 months of available data between March 2004
andOctober2008.

Landfill E Model
Anexponentialtrendline(usingMSexcel)couldnotbefittothevolumeofH
2
Sproducedover
timebecausethedatasethadnocleardecaytrend(SeefigureE2)andthereforeasitespecific
decayrate(kvalue)couldnotbeobtained.ThisisexpectedsincethelandfillhasreceivedC&D
finesconsistentlyandusageoffinesduringthepast5yearshasbeenlimitedtoaverysmall
tonnage(2to3percent)comparedwithtotalwaste.
Therefore,forLandfillE,kvaluewassetto0.64,whichwastheaverageofthekvaluesobtained
for landfills A, C, D, H, G and I. M
i
was from sulfur input and S
0
was estimated by plotting the
resultsofthemodeltoactualH
2
Srecoverydata.S
0
wasrefinedthroughiterationsofthemodel
until the model had the best fit with the empirical data. A S
0
value of 1150 Ft
3
/ton (33
M
3
/Megagram) was estimated using this method. The data set did not correlate well with the
model and linear regression of the predicted versus actual H
2
S recovery data produced a very
low Rsquared (< .1). Figure E4 presents the model results using the above default inputs
plottedalongwiththeactualH
2
Srecovery.
Discussion Landfill E
It was not possible to derive a reasonable predictive model for Landfill E for several reasons.
ThefirstreasonisthattheprecisionoftestinglowlevelsofH
2
Susingfieldindicatortubesisnot
adequatetodrawmeaningfuldatafromconcentrationchangeslessthan100ppmvfromaLFG
collection system. This is due to limitations of the test equipment and the affect of normal
fluctuations in H
2
S concentration in the LFG which are expected to occur month to month or
even day to day in an LFG recovery system. At sites with high concentrations (>1,000), small
monthtomonthfluctuationsinH
2
Sconcentrationdonotsignificantlyimpacttheoveralltrends.
However, at landfill E the average H
2
S concentrations were observed between 100 and 200
ppmvwhichimpactedtheaffectofnormalfluctuationsandtestmethodaccuracy.Therefore,
based on the test data available, H
2
S recovery at landfill E is considered to be more or less
steady (see linear trend line Figure E1 (III)), currently neither increasing or decreasing at a
quantifiablerate.
59
ThesecondreasonisthatthelandfillcontinuestoreceiveC&Dfinesatafairlysteady,butlow
acceptance rate. Waste receipts at the landfill are also fairly consistent keeping the overall
ratioofC&Dfinestototalwasteverylow(2to3percentbyweight).Thisisbydesign,asthe
landfilloperatorsbecameawareoftheimpactofacceptingtoomuchC&Dfinesmaterialearly
on and have moderated intake of the materials very carefully during the past 5 to 6 years.
Therefore,althoughamodelforH
2
Scouldnotbederivedforthislandfillbasedonthedata,this
landfill case provides an example of how acceptance and use of C&D fines materials can be
effectivelymanagedinordertolimitH
2
Sgenerationtomanageablelevels.
F
e
b
-
9
6
A
p
r
-
9
7
J
u
n
-
9
8
A
u
g
-
9
9
O
c
t
-
0
0
D
e
c
-
0
1
F
e
b
-
0
3
A
p
r
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
6
O
c
t
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Total H
2
S Recovery (Output)
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
M
a
y
-
0
4
O
c
t
-
0
4
M
a
r
-
0
5
A
u
g
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
u
n
-
0
6
N
o
v
-
0
6
A
p
r
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
F
e
b
-
0
8
J
u
l
y
-
0
8
0
100
200
300
400
Field Data
Lab Data
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t

5
0
%

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
p
p
m
v
)
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Linear fit, R
2
=0.03
No significant deviation from zero
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
I II
III IV
FigureE1(IIV).LandfillEModelDevelopment

Landfill F
LandfillFisaNewJerseylandfillsitethathasconductedH
2
Stestingsporadicallyoverafiveyear
period.H
2
Stestinghasbeenconductedonamonthlybasisforthepasttwoyearsandonaless
frequentbasisgoingbackfiveyears.Duringthepasttwotothreeyearperiod,theLFG
collectionsystemhasbeencomprehensive,wellmanagedandLFGrecoverydataisgenerallyof
goodquality.C&Dfinestonnagewasavailable(termedBarriermaterialbylandfillstaff)
howeversourcedatawasnotavailable.Thequalityavailablefromthissitewasbelievedtobe
60
good,thereforeitwasselectedasacandidateforinitialanalysisofH
2
Sdatatrendsand
developmentofasitespecificH
2
Smodel.BackgroundinformationonLandfillFandtheresults
ofdataanalysisandsubsequentmodeldevelopment,areoutlinedhere.
Site Background
Thelandfillwasoriginallypermittedin1992toreceivebulky,nonprocessedC&Dwasteanddry
industrial wastes. The original Landfill permit was for a 77acre facility then consisting of 10
planned cells, utilizing a doublecomposite liner system. In 1998, the Landfill began to also
receive MSW waste. The average waste composition since 2001 has been approximately 70
percent MSW and 30 percent C&D/bulky waste. The landfill currently accepts approximately
275,000tonsperyearandhasapproximately3.6milliontonsofwasteinplace.
ThelandfillacceptedatypeofC&Dfines/processingresidualsreferredtoasbarriermaterial
for a twelve month period in 2003 and 2004. Barrier material was placed principally within
twocells(Cells6and7)andwasbelievedtocontainaparticularlyelevatedcontentofgypsum
materials(i.e.,sulfate).BasedonindividualwellreadingstakeninMarch2008,thehighestH
2
S
concentrations were generally observed in or near Cells 6 and 7. As such, the data suggests
thatthesourceofelevatedH
2
SconcentrationsinLFGisthebarriermaterialinCells6and7.A
totalof19,000tonsoftheBarriermaterialwasdepositedin2003and2004.Thiscomprises
approximately1to4percentofthetotalwastereceivedbythelandfillduringthosetwoyears.
Accordingtothelandfill,nootherC&Dfinesmaterialhasbeenacceptedsincethattime.

2
S Data
TheLFGcollectionsystemwasoriginallyinstalledin2004andincluded18LFGwells,connecting
piping, flare and blowers. This system became operational in midAugust 2004. In 2005, 11
additional wells were installed, 9 of which were new wells and 2 of which were "redrills" of
previously installed wells. The "redrills" were connected to the existing piping network.
Additional LFG collection system infrastructure was installed throughout Cells 3 through 8
during 2006 including 24 vertical wells and 3 horizontal collectors. There were significant gaps
in the LFG system coverage throughout the landfill prior to 2007. The gaps in coverage were
primarily in Cells 6, 7 and 8 where the bulk of C&D fines materials are believed to have been
placed.AdditionalLFGcollectionsystemexpansionshavebeencompletedin2007and2008as
wastefillingprogressed.
The collected LFG is routed to the permanent blower/flare and energy recovery facility at the
southwestcornerofthelandfillandatemporaryblower/flarestationlocatedatthesoutheast
corner of the landfill. The temporary flare has been operated intermittently since November
2007asrequiredforsupplementLFGcontrol.Thegascollectionandcontrolsystemhasbeen
operated on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis since commissioning in August 2004.
recoveryflowratesatboththeflaresandenergyrecoverystationaremeasuredbypermanent
flow metering devices. LFG composition at the flares was measured with a portable LFG
analyzer.FlaredeviceruntimesandtotalLFGflowratesweredocumented.
61
LFGrecoveryflowdatafromthelandfillwasavailablebackto2005andmethanecontentdata
was available back to January 2007. The first hydrogen sulfide concentration data sampled at
the LFG collection system was in December 2005, consisting of one analytical test sample.
Additionalfieldtesteventandanalyticaltesteventwasconductedin2006.Fiveanalyticaltest
sampleeventswereconductedin2007and12fieldtestsampleeventswereconductedin2008
and 2009. One supplemental test event was performed as a part of this study in September
2008. A summary of the number of H
2
S sampling data points available for Landfill F are
presentedinTableF1.
TableF1.H
2
SSampleDataforLandfillF
2005 1 0
2006 1 1
2007 5 0
2008 0 10
2009 1 2

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill F
AsummaryofH
2
Stestingresults(normalizedto50percentmethane)forLandfillFispresented
inFigureF1(I).Datacollectedpriorto2007wasdeterminedtonotberepresentativesinceLFG
collection system coverage was incomplete in the areas where C&D fines waste had been
deposited.TheH
2
Sconcentrationdataavailablefortheperiodswithcomprehensivecoverage
inplace,wasusedwiththeLFGdataavailableforthesamemonths(normalizedto50percent
methane) in order to calculate the total flow of H
2
S, presented either in pounds or cubic feet.
For purposes of the model, the field test results and the lab result were weighted equally to
providealargerdataset.
Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill F

FigureF1(II)presentsthesulfurinputsandoutputsforLandfillF,basedonmassofsulfurinto
thelandfillfromsulfateasC&Dfinesandmass ofH
2
S out ofthelandfillasLFG,inpoundsper
month.LFGrecoveryandH
2
Stestdataavailablefrompriorto2007wasnotutilized.Basedon
C&D fines and sulfate data, 270 tons of sulfur, from the 19,000 tons of C&D fines, was
depositedasADCoveratwelvemonthperiod(2003and2004).Anestimated136,000pounds
ofH
2
Swascollectedduring17monthsofavailabledatabetweenJuly2007andFebruary2009.

Landfill F Model
2
Sproducedovertimeto
estimateadecayrate(kvalue)(FigureF1(III))usingthedataavailablebetweenJuly2007and
February2009.AthreemonthrollingaverageoftheH
2
Smonthlyflowratewasusedtoaccount
foranymonthtomonthvariabilityinrecoverysuchasmaybeencounteredinLFGoperations,
differenceinthenumberofdayspermonth,etc.
62
FortheLandfillFmodel,kvaluewassetto0.236,whichwasfoundfromthetrendlinefittothe
H
2
S data. The correlation of the actual H
2
S data to the exponential trendline was found to be
marginal,withanRsquaredof0.47.M
i
0
wasestimatedbyplotting
the results of the model to actual H
2
S recovery data. S
0
was refined through iterations of the
modeluntilthemodelhadthebestfitwiththeempiricaldata.TocalibratethemodeltoS
0
,the
samedataperiodwasused(fromJuly2007throughFebruary2009).
A S
0
value of approximately 39,660 Ft
3
/ton (1224 M
3
/Megagram) was estimated using this
method. This fit was evaluated through a linear regression of the predicted versus actual H
2
S
recoverydatawithanRsquaredof0.52.TheS
0
valuewasalsocheckedbysolvingforS
0
(using
thesamekvalue)bysettingthetotalvolumeofH
2
Sestimatedbythemodelequaltothetotal
volumeofH
2
SrepresentedbytheactualH
2
Sflowdataforalloftheavailabledatausedforthe
model (17 months of data). The derived S
0
value using the volume approach was 39,685
Ft
3
/ton,approximately0.1percenthigherthanthebestfitS
0
value.FigureF1(IV)presentsthe
modelresultsusingtheabovedefaultinputsplottedalongwiththeactualH
2
Srecovery.Figure
F1 (V) presents a correlation between the model results and the actual recoverydata plotted
onXYaxis.
Discussion Landfill F

ThederivedS
0
valueforthelandfillmodelisanorderofmagnitudehigherthanthatderivedfor
theotherlandfillcasesinthisstudy.Itislikelythatalargeamountofsulfatecontainingwaste
wasdepositedinthelandfillandnotaccountedfor.Theresultsofthemodelingperformedfor
thislandfillstudysiteexemplifiestheimportanceofhavingaccuratefinestonsandsulfate
concentrationdatainordertomakemeaningfulestimatesofH
2
Sgeneration.

63
O
c
t
-
0
3
A
u
g
-
0
4
J
u
n
-
0
5
A
p
r
-
0
6
F
e
b
-
0
7
D
e
c
-
0
7
O
c
t
-
0
8
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Total H
2
S Recovery (Output)
M
a
s
s

(
l
b
s
)
M
a
r
-
0
6
A
u
g
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
J
u
n
-
0
7
N
o
v
-
0
7
A
p
r
-
0
8
S
e
p
-
0
8
F
e
b
-
0
9
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
Field Data
Lab Data
H
2
S

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t

5
0
%

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

(
p
p
m
v
)
6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
y =507906e
-0.236x
R
2
=0.4737
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Model Projection
Actual Recovery
Time (Years)
H
2
S

(
F
t
3
)
70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000
50000
75000
100000
125000
R
2
=0.5234
Model Projection
A
c
t
u
a
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
I II
III IV
V

FigureF5(IV).LandfillFModelDevelopment
APPENDIX B Other Project Deliverables

Anderson,R.,Jambeck,J.,McCarron,G.(2009),ModelingofHydrogenSulfideGenerationfrom
ProcessedConstructionandDemolitionMaterialsinLandfills,SWANALandfillGasSymposium,
Atlanta,GA.

| P a g e

14. APPENDIX F: Email Communications

APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:27 AM
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Cc: Putnam, Ed; 'rathsc@roxburynj.us'
Subject: Fenimore map assumptions
Kerry,
Thereisamapandtextpostedatyoursite,
http://nj.gov/dep/fenimore/docs/airexcavationh2sonehourmaxwithnotes.pdf
Iwouldliketorequestthatyousend,orpublish,theassumptionsandparametersthatwentintothisgas
modelling.Doingsowouldlendsomecredibilitytothisstudy;otherwiseitgivestheimpressionofbeingarbitraryand
purposebuilt.Ifyouwantpeopletounderstandthethreat,pleaseprovidethebasis.
Thanks,
DanMasi
RoxburyTownship,NJ
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:33 AM
To: 'cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us'
Cc: 'Putnam, Ed'; 'rathsc@roxburynj.us'; 'Pflugh, Kerry'; 'joseph.rogers@dep.state.nj.us';
'morrow373@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: Fenimore map assumptions
Ms.Randazzo
Isentmyrequest(seebelow)toKerryPflughyesterday,butperhapsyouareinabetterpositiontoprovidethesedetails
orgetmetothepersonwhocan.
Regardingtheairmodelmapreferencedbelow,couldyoupleaseprovidethetechnicalassumptionsthatwentintothe
developmentoftheH2Sdispersalmodel?Withoutanyadditionaldetail,themapcarriesnousefulinformationandas
suchhasthepotentialtobegrosslymisleading.
Thanks,
DanMasi
RoxburyTownship
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: Pflugh, Kerry <Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us>
To: Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Cc: 'Rilee Jim (rileej@roxburynj.us)'; 'rathsc@roxburynj.us'; Rogers, Joseph; 'morrow373
@gmail.com'; 'angelajohnson@optonline.net'; 'lmkeane@optonline.net'; 'Shannon
Caccavella'
Attachments: Fenimore Standard EPA Air Model Inputs.pdf; Calculation Package H2S Generation.pdf
DearMr.Masi,peryourrequestaretwodocuments.Thefirstisabriefexplanationoftheinputstotheair
dispersementmodel.Thesecondisthemoredetailedtechnicaldocument.Bestregards,KerryKirkPflugh,manager,
constituentservices
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Caccavella'
Thanks,Kerry;thisispreciselythesortofdetailthatshouldbeavailabletoanyonewantingtodigdeeperintotheair
modelmap.Muchappreciated.
Regards,
DanMasi
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:12 PM
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Caccavella'
Attachments: Questions_Fenimore_H2S_Calculation_Package.pdf
Kerry,
IhaveattachedalistofissuesthatIfoundinthecalculationpackagepaper.
Thanks,
DanMasi
Masi, Daniel (DESS)

To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Cc: 'Rilee Jim (rileej@roxburynj.us)'; 'rathsc@roxburynj.us'; 'Rogers, Joseph'; 'morrow373
Caccavella'
Also,nottoputtoofineapointonit,butburiedinthesedetailsisthisimportantfact:therearetwoimportanterrorsin
thispaperthat,takentogether,meanthattheamountoffugitiveH2Sisoverstatedbyatleastafactorof1000.That
wouldchangethismapratherdramatically
dan
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: morrow373 <morrow373@gmail.com>
Cc: Rilee Jim (rileej@roxburynj.us); rathsc@roxburynj.us; Mayor and Council; Anthony M.
Bucco; Bucco, Sen. D.O.; senbsmith@njleg.org; sensweeney@njleg.org;
senbenson@njleg.com; sengrace@njleg.com; senkean@njleg.org;
jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org; senmckeon@njleg.com; asmcarroll@njleg.org;
enck.judith@epa.gov; ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov; VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov; Wilder, Lynn
(ATSDR/DCHI/OD); senweinberg@njleg.org; senbateman@njleg.org;
sengreenstein@njleg.org; senthompson@njleg.org; senwisniewski@njleg.com;
senwolfe@njleg.com; asmprieto@njleg.org
Subject: Re: Fenimore map assumptions
Attachments: Questions_Fenimore_H2S_Calculation_Package-1.pdf; Fenimore Standard EPA Air
Model Inputs.pdf; Calculation Package H2S Generation.pdf
Mayor Rilee, Chris, and Council,
Mr. Masi is a resident scientist. In the thread below he requested from the DEP the technical assumptions that
went into the H2S dispersion model that was used to notify surrounding towns what the potential impacts would
be if the C&D material was trucked out of Roxbury. I included all the information as an attachment to this
email and the link below is the predicted dispersion map.

http://nj.gov/dep/fenimore/docs/air-excavation-h2s-one-hour-max-with-notes.pdf
The letter that was "secretly" sent to neighboring townships along with the dispersion map can be seen in the
link below. The Department's behavior regarding this was described as political lobbying and fear
mongering. It also appears that as a result of Mr. Masi's analysis, the potential impacts to Roxbury and the
surrounding community were grossly exaggerated.

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/04/roxbury-redoubt-christies-dep-has-become-a-haven-for-incompetent-
hacks/
Mr. Masi reviewed the calculations, technical inputs, and assumptions provided to him that were used in the
simulation model for the generation of the dispersion map His questions and comments are also attached.

Mr. Masi's analysis concluded, as a result of the errors in DEP calculations and modeling, that the predicted
fugitive H2S emissions may have been overstated by at least a factor of 1,000.
Will the township also have their experts review this data for concurrence of Mr. Masi's conclusions? To date,
all data regarding the potential emissions and hazards due to excavation has been speculative. It would be
useful to have an accurate model prediction so a proper determination can be made if excavation is or is not the
best option.
Regards,

Bill Morrocco

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: Raths Chris <rathsc@roxburynj.us>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:50 PM
To: morrow373
Cc: Masi, Daniel (DESS); Mayor and Council; Anthony Bucco
Bill,
CouncilhasreceivedthisinformationandweeagerlyawaitNJDEPsresponse.
ChrisRaths

Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
973-448-2002
rathsc@roxburynj.us
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Kerry,Ihaventheardbackonthis.AsIindicatedpreviously,thereareseriousandsignificanterrorsinthese
assumptions.PleaseletmeknowhowDEPisdealingwiththis.
Thanks,
DanMasi

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: morrow373 <morrow373@gmail.com>
senwolfe@njleg.com; asmprieto@njleg.org; David Peifer;
bkibler@raritanheadwaters.org
Mayor Rilee, Chris, and Council:
What is the status of the followup on my email below? I suggest and request that you have an independent
expert review Mr Masi's analysis, and, if the expert concurs with Mr. Masi's analysis, then contact all the towns
the DEP notified or contacted with the "dispersion map" so they have acccurate facts. Then, immediately issue
a press release to refute that excavating the debris would result in the dangers that the NJDEP is alleging and
implore them to revisit the "trucking it out" option, which is the best permanent solution for Roxbury which will
eliminate future risks to the residents and community as well as eliminate additional capital spending by the
state due to maintenance and repairs which would be required should the site be capped and a gas mitigation
system installed. Your expert estimated these operational costs at 4.5 million dollars per year for the foreseable
future. Has the NJDEP committed funds for the next 10-20 years? Over time, capping will cost more than
excavating, and the material stays and so do the future potential risks to public health and the environment.

The NJDEP is going through great measures to insure that the material that they allowed to be dumped in
Roxbury in 2012-2013 is not soil bore tested or excavated. One can only imagine what is buried in that pile that
the NJDEP doesn't want unearthed or discovered. I remind you that NJDEP testing (that was OPRA'ed but
never released) from 2013 discovered elevated levels of Arsenic, Lead, and Aluminum in the leachate
breakthrough and leachate pond onsite. This leachate flows downhill during heavy rains and ends up in
Ledgewood Pond. In addition, just yesterday I was informed that another resident's well was infiltrated with
H2S and sulfates making their water unusable due to taste or odor until the well can be again
chlorinated. Another resident informed me that a new well they are drilling was contaminated with coliform
bacteria. Residential wells in this area never had these problems until this material was dumped in 2012.

It would be irresponsible to cover (cap) that pile without knowing what is in there and an injustice to the
hundreds of residents living nearby the site that depend on well water. Decisions that are being made are setting
this site up to be a future superfund site and a strain on the EPA that doesn't need to be. This material needs to
be removed from the residential area it was dumped in and transported to a site that is equipped to handle
it. This toxic material has no business being in a NJ Highlands Protected Preservation Area and hundreds of
feet from Class 1 trout producing streams and Ledgewood Pond, that eventually flows into waterways that
supply drinking water for millions of NJ residents. Until this is done, residents will continue to suffer with
future risks of air pollution, well contamination, and the existence of an operating landfill that is being
constructed in their backyards, along with tall smokestacks that have and will continue to destroy property
values forever. The will of the people is to "truck it out" and our elected officials need to listen and act
accordingly.
2

Please advise what is being done regarding this matter.

Bill Morrocco

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
To: 'morrow373'
senwolfe@njleg.com; asmprieto@njleg.org; David Peifer;
bkibler@raritanheadwaters.org
All,
Asthepersonwhostartedthis,IdliketochimeinonBillsrequestwiththefollowingpoints.
1) KerryPflughprovidedmewiththebaseassumptiondocumentsfortheairdispersionmapwithinadayortwoof
myinitialrequest.Iscannedthem,noticedsomeratherlargeflaws,andimmediatelyresponded.Myresponse
wasnotintendedtobecomprehensiveandtherearestillsomeissuesthatIhavenotfurtherdelvedinto,but
thoughtitwasbesttobringsomeobviousproblemstolightasap.
2) Ihaveheardnothingbacktodate,havingsenttwoemailstoKerryaftermyoriginalresponse.
3) IintendtoprovideaneasilydigestibleaccountingoftheseerrorstothepressassoonasIcangettoit.
4) BasedonlyontheissuesthatIoriginallydescribedinmyresponse,thefugitiveH2Semissionrepresentedbythe
DEPassumptionsisoverstatedbyafactorof1000.Thisisahugeamount.Thereareplentyofotherproblemsin
theinformationtheyprovided,butwithgrosserrorslikethis,thereslittlepointinbotheringtocontinuethe
critique.
5) AsBillpointsout,thismaphasbeenshowntocountlesstowns,nodoubtacceptedasaccuratefactualmatter.It
needstoberevisited.
6) Idliketopointoutthatitisnotmyintent,infindingthesegrosserrors,topersuadeDEPtorevisitthetruckit
outoption.Iremainfirmlyconvincedthatexcavatingandremovingthematerialisanimpracticalandvery
undesirableoptionandIpersonallyopposeit.Thepurposeofmyinvolvementhereistotrytogainhonest
transparencyandpublicinputintotheremediationprocessandkeepithonest,tohelpensurethatwhatever
optionisultimatelyputintoplaceisindeedwellconsidered,widelyreviewed,andwithoutdoubtthebest
optionavailable,withallavailableinformationconsideredbyallstakeholders.Thisisfarfromwhereweare
now,andwithDEPprovidinginformationthatisattimesineptandattimesblatantlybiasedtowardsome
unseenagenda,wecannotaffordtogoforwardwith*any*plan.
Bestregards,
DanMasi

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
To: Masi, Daniel (DESS); morrow373; Kerry Pflugh (Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us); Putnam,
Ed (Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us); Padilla, Magdalena
Cc: Rilee Jim; Mayor and Council; Anthony M. Bucco; Bucco, Sen. D.O.;
senbsmith@njleg.org; sensweeney@njleg.org; senbenson@njleg.com;
sengrace@njleg.com; senkean@njleg.org; jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org;
senmckeon@njleg.com; asmcarroll@njleg.org; enck.judith@epa.gov;
ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov; VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov; Wilder, Lynn (ATSDR/DCHI/OD);
senweinberg@njleg.org; senbateman@njleg.org; sengreenstein@njleg.org;
senthompson@njleg.org; senwisniewski@njleg.com; senwolfe@njleg.com;
asmprieto@njleg.org; David Peifer; bkibler@raritanheadwaters.org
Mr.Masi,
Thanksforallyoureffortsinreviewingthemapandpointingoutissuewiththecalculations.Pleaseseemycommentsto
Mrs.Pflughbelow.
Ms.PflughandMr.Putnam,
ThismapwasaproductoftheNJDEPandathoroughresponsetoMr.MasisobservationfromtheDepartmentis
warrantedimmediately.
Respectfully,
ChrisRaths

Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
973-448-2002
rathsc@roxburynj.us
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:22 AM
To: David Peifer
Cc: Masi, Daniel (DESS); Mayor and Council
Mr.Pfeifer,
Thankyouforyourofferofassistance.InthatthemapistheproductoftheNJDEPtheyshouldberesponsiblefor
addressingissuesraisedbythepublic.Untiltheydoso,questionsaboutthemapsaccuracywillcontinuetoberaised
andtheirmotivationforitcreationandcirculationinquestion.
Respectfully,
ChrisRaths
Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
973-448-2002
rathsc@roxburynj.us

From: David Peifer [mailto:dpeifer@anjec.org]

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Raths Chris

Chris: If you think I can help or go through the environmental commission call me at 973-539-7547. I am very
curious about the methodology used to prepare the map.

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:00 PM
To: 'sengreenstein@njleg.org'; 'senthompson@njleg.org'; 'senvandrew@njleg.org';
'SenRuiz@njleg.org'; 'SenPou@njleg.org'; 'SenOroho@njleg.org';
'SenOToole@njleg.org'; 'SenCunningham@njleg.org'; 'SenBeck@njleg.org';
'senbarnes@njleg.org'; 'SenStack@njleg.org'; 'SenSarlo@njleg.org';
'senbucco@njleg.org'
Cc: 'senbsmith@njleg.org'; 'sensweeney@njleg.org'; 'senbenson@njleg.com';
'sengrace@njleg.com'; 'senkean@njleg.org'; 'jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org';
'senmckeon@njleg.com'; 'asmcarroll@njleg.org'; 'enck.judith@epa.gov';
'ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov'; 'VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov'; 'lxw2@cdc.gov';
'senweinberg@njleg.org'; 'senbateman@njleg.org'; 'senwisniewski@njleg.com';
'senwolfe@njleg.com'; 'asmprieto@njleg.org'; 'dpeifer@anjec.org';
'bkibler@raritanheadwaters.org'; 'elliott@njhighlandscoalition.org';
rathsc@roxburynj.us; 'mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us'
Subject: Concerns re: NJ State Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing of April 29, 2014
Attachments: Masi_to_NJSBAC.pdf
DearSenatorsoftheNJStateBudgetandAppropriationsCommittee:
Pleaserefertotheattachedcommunication.
Thankyouforyourtime,
DanMasi
To:NewJerseyStateSenateBudgetandAppropriationsCommittee,i.e.:
HonorablePaulA.Sarlo,Chair HonorableBrianP.Stack,ViceChair
HonorablePeterJ.Barnes HonorableJenniferBeck
HonorableAnthonyR.Bucco HonorableSandraB.Cunningham
HonorableLindaR.Greenstein HonorableKevinJ.OToole
HonorableStevenV.Oroho HonorableNelliePou
HonorableTeresaM.Ruiz HonorableSamuelD.Thompson
HonorableJeffVanDrew
From:DanMasi,resident,RoxburyTownshipNJ
Date:May2,2014
Subject:TestimonyofCommissionerBobMartin(NJDEP)atthe
SenateBudgetandAppropriationsCommitteeHearingofApril29,2014
DearSenators,
Ihavelistenedtothe2pm4/29/2014sessionoftheCommitteehearing(foundat
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=SBAB&SESSION=2014),andwantto
bringtoyourattentionmyconcernswithastatementmadebyCommissionerMartinconcerning
SenatorBuccosquestionsabouttheFenimoreLandfill.
Inthereferencedaudiorecording,neartime36m40s,CommissionerMartinmakesthestatement:
Theabilitytoremovethatmaterialwouldbeadangertothatcommunity[Roxbury],and,based
uponairmodelling,couldbeadangertoupto30othercommunitiesintheareaifwestarted
removingthematerial.
ThisstatementisclearlypredicatedonNJDEPsrecent(March2014)H2Sexcavationstudy,published
athttp://nj.gov/dep/fenimore/docs/airexcavationh2sonehourmaxwithnotes.pdf(submitted
hereinasAppendixA).ThismapdoesindeedshowrelativelyhighH2Sconcentrationsspanning
severalmiles,andwhilethemapitselfisdevoidofanyinformativeassumptions,itwasusedbyDEP
towarnseveral(many?all?)ofthepotentiallyaffectedtowngovernments.
Asanengineerandscientist,Iamtrainedandaccustomedtoquestioningthiskindofdisplaywhen
thereisnoaccompanyingbasis;particularlywhentheresultspresentedseemradicallydifferent
thanwhatIwouldexpectbasedonmyunderstandingoftheunderlyingprinciples.
Assuch,whenIfirstsawthismap,IcontactedDEPandpointedoutthatsuchapresentationneeds
toclearlystatetheunderlyingassumptions,andIaskedtobeprovidedwiththedatathatdrovethis
mapanditsconclusions.
OnApril15,KerryPflughoftheDEPrespondedtomewithtwodocumentsthatshesaiddescribethe
assumptionsandcalculations:
StandardEPAAirModelInputsforFenimoreLandfill(seeAppendixB)
HydrogenSulfideGasGenerationEstimate,FenimoreLandfillCalculationPackage(Appx.C)
Igaveaquickreviewtothelatterdocument(calculationpackageforgasgeneration)firstand
immediatelyfoundseveralflaws,somesmallbutothersverylarge.Believingthattimewasofthe
essence,IdidnotgointogreatdepthorfurtherreviewbutdocumentedtheflawsthatIhadfound
thusfarinabriefletterthatIsentMs.PflughonApril16,askinghowtheissueswouldbeaddressed
(myletterisAppendixD).
Asafollowuponthatsameday,IsentanemailpointingoutthatthefewerrorsthatIdescribed
alreadypointtoanoverstatementofgasemissionbyafactorofatleast1000x.
Todate,therehasbeennoresponse,inspiteofmultiplefollowupsonmypart,aswellasemails
fromtheRoxburyTownshipofficialsandothers(summaryofemailsprovidedasAppendixE).
Thereareotherproblemswiththeassumptionsthatarenotyetdocumentedthatwillmakethe
errorevenworse;forinstance,itappearsasthoughfortheexcavationoption,anassumptionisthat
fully100%ofallH2Sgasthatisadsorbedinthesoilwillbecompletelyliberatedduringexcavation;
thatis,therewillbe*no*H2Sintheloadsofexcavatedsoilsbeingtruckedout.Clearly,thisdoes
nothappen,andIcaneasilyimaginethisadding10foldtotheerrorsalreadydocumented.
However,evenwithouttakingthisintoconsiderationandonlyconsideringthefactorof1000x
mentionedabove,thecorrecteddatawouldrevisetheDEPmapinsuchawaythateventhe
farthestreachingyellowtentacleswouldretracttowellwithinRoxburyTownshipitself,leavingno
markonanyothersurroundingcommunity(notethattheouteryellowlinedemarcatesa30ppb
contour,whiletheinnermostredringdefinesa510ppblevel;510isonly17xasgreatas30,andyet
wearetalkingaboutreducingtheerroneousgasestimateby1000xormore).
CommissionerMartinsstaffhasbeenadvisedrepeatedlyoftheseerrorsandhavehadseveral
weekstorespond.Inalettertotheeditor(RoxburyRegister,April252014),DEPPressDirector
LarryRagonesesaysregardingthese30communitiesandthemap:Itwasimportanttoensurethat
accurateinformationwaspresentedtothesetowns,andthatofficialsclearlyunderstoodthe
potentialnegativeimpactstotheirresidentsifthelandfillweretobeexcavated.Ifitwasindeed
importanttoensurethetimelydistributionofaccurateinformation,surelyDEPwouldbejumpingon
thisnewinformation,analysingitandgoingtoeverysingletownshiptheypreviouslyvisitedinorder
toupdatethem.Thiscertainlydoesntseemtobehappening.
Ibringthistoyourattention,notbecauseIdisagreewithDEPsstancethatexcavatingandtrucking
thematerialisundesirableandunsafe.Infact,Ihavebelieved,andcontinuetobelieve,thistobe
true.However,NJDEPhasconsistentlyoperatedthisprojectinamannerwhichisopaque,not
discussingplansorsolicitinginputfromstakeholders,presentingincompleteorincorrect
information,andclearlyoperatingonanagendawhichishiddenandnotdrivenbysolidscience.
DEPneedstobetakentotaskforcreatingasolutionwhichiswellconsidered,withinputandreview
fromallstakeholders.CommissionerMartinscommentregardingthepotentialhazardto30
communitiesisinaccurateandirresponsiblegiventhathisorganizationisawarethatthereareat
leastseveralpotentialissueswiththeassumptionsthatunderliethisconclusion.
Respectfully,
DanMasi
RoxburyTownship
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: Schmidt Martin <schmidtm@roxburynj.us>
Subject: Re: Concerns re: NJ State Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing of April 29,
2014
Dan
WhenIfirstreadthisreportIaskedforcompletedisclosureonassumptionsthatweremade.IfIgetthemIwillkeep
youposted
MartinLSchmidt
Councilman
RoxburyTownship
2016024056
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
To: Masi, Daniel (DESS); morrow373; Kerry Pflugh (Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us); Putnam,
Ed (Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us); Padilla, Magdalena
Cc: Rilee Jim; Mayor and Council; Anthony M. Bucco; Bucco, Sen. D.O.;
senbsmith@njleg.org; sensweeney@njleg.org; senbenson@njleg.com;
sengrace@njleg.com; senkean@njleg.org; jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org;
senmckeon@njleg.com; asmcarroll@njleg.org; enck.judith@epa.gov;
ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov; VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov; Wilder, Lynn (ATSDR/DCHI/OD);
senweinberg@njleg.org; senbateman@njleg.org; sengreenstein@njleg.org;
senthompson@njleg.org; senwisniewski@njleg.com; senwolfe@njleg.com;
asmprieto@njleg.org; David Peifer; bkibler@raritanheadwaters.org
Mr.PutnamandMs.Pflugh,
TheDEPhasyettorespondtoMr.MasisconcernsregardingtheaccuracyoftheDEPsmapandassumptions.AsIstated
earlieraresponsefromtheDEPtoMr.Masiscommentsiswarranted.Mostcertainlypriortoanyadditionalcirculation
oftheinformation.Pleaseacknowledgereceiptofthisrequest.
ChrisRaths

Township of Roxbury
1715 Route 46
Ledgewood, NJ 07852
973-448-2002
rathsc@roxburynj.us
1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:54 PM
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Cc: 'cindy.randazzo@dep.state.nj.us'; 'Putnam, Ed'
Kerry,
IwouldappreciatearesponseonhowDEPisaddressingtheapparenterrorsandtheresultingmap.Iseethatthemapis
stilluponyourwebsite,andIheardCommissionerMartintestifytotheSenateBudgetandAppropriationsCommittee
lastweekthatanexcavationwouldpotentiallyendanger30communities,asperthismap,inspiteofthefactthathis
organizationhadbeenpresentedrealevidencethatthisconclusionwaserroneousweeksbefore.
IhavefoundfurthererrorsbeyondwhatIdocumentedtoyouthatareludicrousandresultinfarmoregasbeingemitted
thanwouldeveractuallybeproducedevenifeverysinglesulfuratomisconverted100%inthelandfilltoH2S.
Pleaserespond.
Thanks,
DanMasi

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
From: Pflugh, Kerry <Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 9:58 AM
Cc: Randazzo, Cindy; Putnam, Ed
DearMr.Masi,thankyouforsharingyourthoughts,concerns,andsuggestions.TheDepartmenthasalwaysmaintained
thatexcavatingthematerialwasnotsafe,andtheairmodelwassimplyawaytoillustratethatposition.Theairmodelis
atheoreticalworstcasepotentialimpactifthelandfillweretobeexcavated.PleasebeassuredthatDEPwouldnever
allowthatsituationtoactuallyoccur.However,becauseDEPwillnotbepursuingexcavationasaremedy,therewillbe
noneedtofurtherdevelopormodifytheairmodel.Bestregards,KerryKirkPflugh,manager,constituentservices

1
Masi, Daniel (DESS)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:57 AM
To: 'Pflugh, Kerry'
Cc: Randazzo, Cindy; Putnam, Ed; rathsc@roxburynj.us; 'morrow373'
Isee.So,youbelievethatexcavatingisnotsafe,andsoyousupportthatbeliefwithblatantlyincorrectdatathatyou
sharewithcountlesscommunitiesandleavepostedonyourwebsitelongafteryouknowthedatatobesofaroffasto
beembarrassing.Andwhenpresentedwithinformationthatshowshowbadlyoffthedatais,youmakenoattemptto
correctyourpositionandinformeveryonewithwhomyouvepreviouslysharedthisdatathatyoumadeamistakeand
thatthemapwhichyoupresentediscompletelywrong.
Letsbeclear.TheairmodelisNOTatheoreticalworstcase,period.Youmisunderstandthatterm.Atheoretical
worstcaseisascenarioinwhichallpossibleadjustableparametersthatareinputstoyourcorrectlyformedmodelare
adjustedinsuchawayastocreatetheleastdesirableoutput;theparametersareadjustedwithoutregardtolikelihood
butremainwithinthedomainofpossibilities.
Yourworstcaseairmodeldiffersfromtheaboveintwoways.(1)itis*not*acorrectlyformedmodel.Themodelis
wrong.Soadjusttheparametersasyouwill,butthemodelitselfisflawedandthustheoutputmeaningless.(2)youdo
notgettoadjustinputparametersinsomearbitrarywaytocreateaworstcasemodel.IfImmodellingarainstorm,I
cantassumethatagivenvolumeofspacewillcontain250%waterbyvolume.Itcant.Ishouldntevenassumethat
theairtemperaturewillbe500degreesF,becausewhilestrictlyspeakingitispossible,itsnotevenclosetorealistic,
andsoIboundmyinputovertherangeofnormallyobservedtemperatures,perhapswithinsomenumberofstandard
deviations.Andyetthereareexamplesevenmoreextremethantheseinyourowncalculationpackage.
Theconcernisnttheongoinguseofyourairmodel,althoughyouhaveuseditinanofficialcapacitytobiaspeoplewith
wronginformation,andinfairnessIwouldthinkyouwouldwantthosepeopletoknowthetruth.
Theconcernhereishowbadlythisisbotched,bytheverysameorganizationthatisengineeringtheremediationofthis
site.DEPneedstoimmediatelystartaddressingtheseconcernsinatransparentwayandsolicitinginputfromall
stakeholdersinvolved.Irefusetositbyandallowanorganizationthatcanacceptthiskindofgrosserror,tounilaterally
andopaquelydefineasolutionforourcommunity.Thefactthatyouarewillingtositonthisinformationandfeelno
compunctiontoalertthosecommunitiesthatyouhavemisleadspeaksveryloudlytothelevelofhonesty.
Lastly,letmebeveryclearonthispoint.I,too,believethatexcavatingisnotadesirableoption.Mymissionisnttoget
thematerialtruckedout.Mymissionistoseethatthesiteisremediedinthebestwaypossible,andthewaytomake
thathappenistoexaminealloftheavailabledatahonestlyandwithoutbias,withaccesstoallinformationbythe
widestpossibleaudienceofstakeholders.Thisissobasicthatitshouldntevenneedtobesaid,andyetitscompletely
oppositetohowtheDEPhasoperatedthusfar,thusgivingthepublicabsolutelynoconfidencewhatsoeverthatthe
processiscorrect.Iwouldaskyourorganizationtocarefullyconsiderhowtheyareoperatingandtoimmediatelyadopt
thesemostbasicprinciplesofgoodengineeringpractice.
DanMasi

EXHIBIT 14.3

TO: MayorCouncil@RoxburyNJ.us; RathsC@RoxburyNJ.us
FROM: Dan@DanMasi.com
DATE: 5/12/2014

Mayor Rilee and Township Councilpersons:

I am writing today to request that you prepare a Resolution, adopt it at tomorrow night's meeting, and
take immediate action.

Several weeks ago, I received background data from the NJDEP detailing the creation of the H2S air
dispersion map, which was used to demonstrate a potential hazard to over 30 municipalities
surrounding Roxbury Township.

As you were informed, I found significant errors at that time and immediately notified DEP. After weeks
of silence despite repeated requests for a response by both myself and the Roxbury Township manager,
I finally received a response this past Wednesday that indicated that DEP was in receipt of my errata but
had no intention of addressing it or revisiting the map or its underlying data and assumptions.

I then documented in detail what I believe to be some of the most egregious problems, both in terms of
accuracy of assumptions/data as well as the handling of the matter by DEP. This document, "On the
Incompetence And Flagrant Dishonesty of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection",
was copied to each of you this past week.

The purpose of this document is threefold.

First, I hope that it will provide valuable perspective to whose who have been presented the original
flawed information by DEP. As DEP has no intention of even notifying those who have been shown this
map, it is important that those parties understand that the map does not represent reality.

Second, I believe that my findings provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the DEP to warrant
closer inspection by those in position to investigate.

The third purpose may not be immediately obvious from the document, but is at least equally
important. While I have only documented errors and deception related to the air dispersal map, this
serves as a looking glass through which the entire remediation activity by DEP must be viewed, and in
doing so it becomes clear that their actions must be immediately halted and thoroughly examined.

For example, ask an important and fundamental question about the operation, such as "Is the
scrubber/oxidizer system properly designed?", and consider all possible answers in the context of my
document.

Given the findings, there are only a few possible answers:
1. The scrubber/oxidizer has been engineered to address the level of H2S generation predicted by
DEP's own calculation package, which was also used to create the map. If this is the case,
clearly the design needs to be immediately thrown out because it is based on data that is
incorrect, to be charitable. Remember, we're not talking errors of 1%, or 10%, or even 100%,
but much more.
2. The scrubber/oxidizer has been engineered to address a level of H2S generation predicted by a
different analysis by the DEP, and not the one used to create the map. This would raise very
serious questions, though. If there was a separate analysis performed, why was it necessary to
perform another sulfur content / H2S generation analysis specific to the dispersal map? And, if
indeed two analyses were performed, they must clearly have very different results (if they don't,
then see point #1 above; the scrubber is engineered incorrectly). Why was such a huge disparity
not picked up by DEP? Also, if the analysis we have access to is so badly off, surely one must
wonder about the accuracy of another similar analysis.
3. The scrubber/oxidizer has been designed without any basis or knowledge of sulfur content or
H2S generation potential. Clearly, this is the only other possibility. And there's not much that
needs to be said about it, other than if this is the case, I can't imagine anyone agreeing that the
project should continue without serious review. If this is in fact the case, parties responsible for
this decision need to be immediately removed from the project.
In short, the remediation design and engineering is either based on this faulty data; is based instead on
other data that is in drastic disagreement with DEP's calculation package; or is in fact simply a baseless
guess.
This is but a single example of how the documented errors in - and mishandling of - the H2S dispersal
map raises sufficient concern about the health of the entire project as to necessitate the immediate
cessation of activities, and a subsequent, thorough review of designs and practices. I'm sure there are
plenty of other areas where similar concerns could be raised.
Roxbury must not allow a project as important as Fenimore to proceed when there are so many
questions surrounding the solution.
Therefore, in the interest of the public welfare and safety, as well as the future prosperity of our
community as a whole, I am asking the following:
You, our township leadership, demand that NJDEP cease all work towards the construction of
their "final plan" immediately;
Any and all available avenues must be explored towards this goal;
The DEP's plan must be presented in its entirety, with all documentation, studies,
measurements, etc. to the township, the public at large, and any interested party so that it is
completely and transparently available for full review;
A qualified professional organization, not previously involved with Fenimore and not currently
under any contract with the State of NJ, must be enlisted to provide a complete review of ALL
Fenimore data and the fully documented NJDEP capping plan; this organization shall provide
input on plan merits and deficiencies as well as relative merits of alternative solutions;
The NJDEP must not be allowed to continue work on Fenimore until such input is received and
adequately incorporated into their plan;
The NJDEP should not be allowed to continue work on a revised plan without significant
oversight, preferable from the USEPA;
The Roxbury Township government should adopt the spirit of these points immediately into a
Resolution to be voted upon and adopted at the meeting of the Township Council on Tuesday,
May 13 2014;
This resolution should be immediately followed by visible, positive actions towards the goal of
prohibiting NJDEP from performing any future work on their capping plan until the entire plan
can be thoroughly reviewed, appropriately modified, and oversight put into place.
I remain willing and eager to help the township and community on this issue in any way that I can.
Respectfully,
Dan Masi
Resident, Roxbury Township

EXHIBIT 14.4

From: Linda
To: DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions; Padilla, Magdalena
Cc: Raths Chris; mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us; senbucco@njleg.org; sensweeney@njleg.org;
senweinberg@njleg.org; lhochman@nj.com; senkean@njleg.org; asmprieto@njleg.org;
wwesthoven@njpressmedia.com; asmcarroll@njleg.org; senbateman@njleg.org; senbsmith@njleg.org;
sengreenstein@njleg.org; senthompson@njleg.org; aoverman@njleg.org; asmrumana@njleg.org;
mdowling@njtimes.com; gearhart@nj1015.com; senwisniewski@njleg.com; senmckeon@njleg.com;
senwolfe@njleg.com; senbenson@njleg.com; bobingle@app.com
Subject: RE: DEP Town Meetings Regarding Roxbury
KKP,
Why were these meeting not open to the public if your agency is suppose to
operate with tranparency?
Also, please explain to me why it is ok to make the people of Roxbury live

under these dangerous conditions while trucking this mess in but it is now
suddenly against the DEP moral principles to do it to other towns to truck it
out? Why was it ok to bring this toxic mess into Roxbury, thru Roxbury
streets, passed Roxbury children? Why were you not working so hard to
protect us when you approved for this toxic mess to be dumped in our
backyard? Why are my children expendable? Is Roxbury too middle class?
Did we not contribute enough to the Governors Campaign? Why is it Ok to
poison us but protect other towns from the same fate you are subjecting us to
live with for the next 30 years? Please explain.
You also never touched on why you were able to travel to other municipalities
to talk to them about Roxbury when you were and are again unwilling to
actually come to Roxbury to talk to us? How do you justify giving hour
long presentation to other towns while refusing to talk to Roxbury
Residents?
Also is the fact that the towns you visited, towns that actually contributed to
the original dumping at Fenimore Landfill in the 1970's significant in your
decision to meet with them in private?
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Linda Keane

Date:Wed,9Apr201417:21:130400
From:RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us
Subject:RE:DEPTownMeetingsRegardingRoxbury
To:linda;Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us
CC:rathsc@roxburynj.us;mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us;senbucco@njleg.org;
sensweeney@njleg.org;senweinberg@njleg.org;lhochman@nj.com;senkean@njleg.org;
asmprieto@njleg.org;wwesthoven@njpressmedia.com;asmcarroll@njleg.org;
senbateman@njleg.org;senbsmith@njleg.org;sengreenstein@njleg.org;
senthompson@njleg.org;aoverman@njleg.org;asmrumana@njleg.org;
mdowling@njtimes.com;gearhart@nj1015.com;senwisniewski@njleg.com;
senmckeon@njleg.com;senwolfe@njleg.com;senbenson@njleg.com;bobingle@app.com
DearMs.Keane,thankyouforyouremailconcerningFenimorelandfill.Lastweek,thedepartment
conductedbusinessmeetings,notpublicmeetingsinninetownshipswiththeMayorsand/orTownship
Administratorsandsomeoftheirstaff.Atthesebusinessmeetings,thedepartmentprovidedthesame
informationthatwassharedwithRoxburyTownshipattheMarch11publicmeeting.Theinformation
sharedcanbefoundathttp://nj.gov/dep/fenimore/.
Kkp

From: Linda
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:13 AM
To: Putnam, Ed; Pflugh, Kerry; Padilla, Magdalena; DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions
Cc: Raths Chris; mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us; senbucco@njleg.org; sensweeney@njleg.org;
senweinberg@njleg.org; lhochman@nj.com; senkean@njleg.org; asmprieto@njleg.org;
wwesthoven@njpressmedia.com; asmcarroll@njleg.org; senbateman@njleg.org; senbsmith@njleg.org;
sengreenstein@njleg.org; senthompson@njleg.org; aoverman@njleg.org; asmrumana@njleg.org;
mdowling@njtimes.com; gearhart@nj1015.com; senwisniewski@njleg.com; senmckeon@njleg.com;
senwolfe@njleg.com; senbenson@njleg.com; bobingle@app.com
Subject: RE: DEP Town Meetings Regarding Roxbury
Importance: High
Mr Putnam,
Further to below I have been informed that the NJ DEP already went to
Wharton, Mine Hill and Mount Olive if not others to have
these discussions. Please advise where and when these meetings took place.
How long they took and where I can see public minutes of these meetings
and view any handouts that were given to these other towns.
Thank You,
Linda Keane

From:linda
To:ed.putnam@dep.state.nj.us;kerry.pflugh@dep.state.nj.us;
magdalena.padilla@dep.state.nj.us;roxburytwpfenimorequestions@dep.state.nj.us
CC:rathsc@roxburynj.us;mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us;senbucco@njleg.org;
sensweeney@njleg.org;senweinberg@njleg.org;lhochman@nj.com;senkean@njleg.org;
asmprieto@njleg.org;wwesthoven@njpressmedia.com;asmcarroll@njleg.org;
senbateman@njleg.org;senbsmith@njleg.org;sengreenstein@njleg.org;
senthompson@njleg.org;aoverman@njleg.org;asmrumana@njleg.org;
mdowling@njtimes.com;gearhart@nj1015.com;senwisniewski@njleg.com;
senmckeon@njleg.com;senwolfe@njleg.com;senbenson@njleg.com;bobingle@app.com
Subject:DEPTownMeetingsRegardingRoxbury
Date:Wed,9Apr201409:54:400400
Mr Putnam,
Last night the Roxbury Town Council announced that the NJ DEP will be
visiting neighboring towns to explain to them how trucking out the toxic
waste that your agency has allowed to be dumped in Roxbury will impact
them.
I would like to know the towns you will be meeting with as well as the time
and place of those meetings. I assume in the name of transparency
those meetings will be open to the public and media. I for one am
anxious to hear how trucking out this toxic waste, that you already allowed to
be hauled thru the residential neighborhoods on a school bus route in
Roxbury on the way in, would be dangerous to other towns on the truck
route, but keeping it in Roxbury, hundreds of feet from residential homes
where children live, play and wait for their school bus is perfectly fine.
I have cc'd the Senate Environmental Committee and Senator Sweeney on

this email. I am hopeful that some of them would like to send representatives
to these town meetings as well. I believe that Senator Sweeney wrote BILL
S2861 and the NJ Senate Environmental Committee passed BILL S2861 to
help the people of Roxbury and they should know how your agency has
abused your power to continue to do harm to the innocent residents of this
town instead.
I would also like to point out that it took the NJ DEP over 16 months and
thousands of letters to come to Roxbury to speak to the people and even then
you only spent 2 hours and left many questions unanswered yet you seem to
have a lot of time to visit other towns to talk about Roxbury. This is
shameful....but then again why should the NJ DEP care, they apparently
answer to no one and can freely reinterpret or even ignore laws of this state
because no one holds them accountable.

I look forward to getting that schedule.
Thank You,
Linda Keane

EXHIBIT 14.5

Home >Uncategorized >Roxbury Redoubt: Christies DEP Has Become A Haven For Incompetent Hacks
April 10th, 2014 Bill Wolfe Leave a comment Go to comments
DEP Now Trying to Scare Neighboring Towns of Roxburys Fenimore Landfill
DEP Engaged In Unprecedented Fear Mongering and Political Lobbying
I must say that I was amazed and disgusted by how DEP dictated the so called closure plan for Roxburys
Fenimore landfill.
After having created a huge odor problem at the Fenimore Landfill, DEP recently announced their landfill
closure plan as a fait accompli, with absolutely no opportunity for the community to comment on the plan.
That DEP unilateral edict was preceded by months of intransigent refusal by DEP to even publicly talk to the
people of Roxbury or their local government regarding the communitys many legitimate issues at the
Fenimore landfill.
Frankly, in my almost 30 year experience, I have never seen anything even close to this level of
incompetence and arrogant intransigence at DEP.
It was both a public relations and environmental nightmare and it was completely created by the DEP.
But, as a former DEP career professional with some respect for the institution, I now have to say that I am
embarrassed by even more shocking DEP behavior.
DEP has made a crude attempt to scare neighboring Towns into supporting their ill advised landfill closure
plan, in a transparent attempt to undermine Roxbury residents demand to truck it out.
Specifically, I refer to an email by a DEP representative by the name of Cindy Randazzo, Director of Local
Government Assistance, who wrote to neighboring Towns in a heavy handed attempt to scare them into
supporting the DEP closure plan.
Randazzo is an embarrassment and a fixture in DEP Commissioner Bob Martins incompetent management
1 of 6 5/20/2014 1:49 PM
She has absolutely no training or experience in environmental management, not even a college degree. She is
just barely qualified to work in the DEP cafeteria.
Randazzo doest know an air model from a model airplane.
Today, Randazzo wrote this outrageous political screed to Roxburys neighboring towns:
From: Randazzo, Cindy <Cindy.Randazzo@dep.state.nj.us>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:45 PM
Subject: NJ DEP Fenimore Landfill Status Update
To: Randazzo, Cindy <Cindy.Randazzo@dep.state.nj.us>
Cc: Rogers, J oseph <J oseph.Rogers@dep.state.nj.us>
Dear Municipal Official: We are contacting you to make you aware of NJ DEPs plan for the
long-term remedy of the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas issue at the nearby Fenimore Landfill in
Roxbury Township. NJ DEP has already begun to implement the long-term remedy of
impermeable capping with vegetative cover and a gas control and treatment system.
There has been much discussion about the viability of excavating the landfill and trucking the
material from the site versus capping the landfill.
Based on an extensive assessment of the site conducted by DEPs technical experts and
State-hired outside experts, we have concluded that excavating the landfill would result in the
uncontrolled release of very high concentrations of H2S. This would be extremely unsafe for
nearby Roxbury residents and businesses, but also would impact the surrounding region
including your townover the next two or more years.
Based on NJ DEPs air model (see attached), it is very possible that plumes of gas ranging in
concentration from 30 parts per billion (ppb) to more than 500 ppb could be generated during
excavation. This would cause widespread, unacceptable public health concerns and general
disruption to quality of life in your community. NJ DEP will not allow the public to be exposed to
these dangerous concentrations. Further, excavated material trucked off the landfill would be
expected to continue to emit concentrations of H2S during transport, further exposing the public
along those routes to H2S emissions. Therefore, NJ DEP will not excavate the Fenimore landfill.
We are providing a web link that contains reports, fact sheets and the presentations given to
Roxbury Township about NJ DEPs plans (http://nj.gov/dep/fenimore/). Included is the air model
that shows the potential dispersal of H2S gas if the landfill were excavated.
Should you have any questions or if you are interested in meeting with our technical team, please
let me know. I would be happy to arrange such a meeting.
Sincerely,
Cindy W. Randazzo
Director
New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 402
WolfeNotes.com Roxbury Redoubt: Christies DEP Has Become A Ha... http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/04/roxbury-redoubt-christies-dep-has-...
2 of 6 5/20/2014 1:49 PM
Office: 609-633-7700
Cell 609-575-3806
The DEP should have thought about all of these problems BEFORE allowing the reopening of the landfill
and new disposal of 400,000 cubic yards of construction and demolition waste, including wallboard which is
known to generate H2S odors.
It is completely inappropriate and intolerable for a government agency to be engaged in this kind of political
lobbying and fear mongering.
Randazzo should be fired and Commissioner Martin should be called before Legislative oversight
committees to explain just what the hell Randazzo was trying to do.
Martin and his fellow hack Ms. Randazzo are engaged in political games pitting Towns against their
neighbors that have no place in D
WolfeNotes.com Roxbury Redoubt: Christies DEP Has Become A Ha... http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/04/roxbury-redoubt-christies-dep-has-...
3 of 6 5/20/2014 1:49 PM

EXHIBIT 14.6

By JEFF TITTEL, N.J. Sierra Club | Posted: Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:14 pm
The state DEP is trying to silence critics
The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)sent a letter to municipal officials in the area
around Roxbury trying to scare them into supporting the DEP cleanup plan for the Fenimore Landfill.
The letter is trying to undercut the efforts of the plan of Roxbury from developing its own plans to clean
up the landfill. Earlier this week, the DEP blocked Roxbury form doing independent testing on the site.
This is also designed to sabotage the public outcry against the DEP cleanup plan, which is not a cleanup
plan but a capping that will not work.
The purpose of this letter is to bully the town and citizens of Roxbury into submission. The idea is to
scare the towns around Roxbury so they would then put pressure on the people and town to support the
DEP plan. The DEP wants to cap the site, which will not work. The letter is filled with misinformation
about the site and the way to clean up the site because DEP does not want to spend the money to clean it
up properly. This one of the most shameful abuses of governmental power by an agency. The people in
Roxbury have been ignored and the DEP plan does not adequately protect their health and public safety.
You can remove construction debris in a safe way by covering it with a large tent the size of a hanger
while excavating underneath. The scrubbers would have mitigate any odors or pollution releases. It has
been done safely in many areas around the country but costs more money than DEP wants to spend. They
sent out a map on air modeling and there is no real basis in fact or background document, it is really more
of a public relations stunt as part of their bullying plan.
This letter is part of the Christie administrations attempts to bully and intimidate people whenever
someone disagrees with them or what they want to do. The letter should say Time for garbage problems
in Roxbury.
The person who sent the letter, Cindy Randazzo, is the DEP equivalent of Bridget Kelly and Bill Stepien
in the governors office. Randazzo is a political appointee who ran twice for elected office and failed.
Now she is there to try and scare and intimidate the people in around Roxbury for the DEP.
The DEP is installing a cap which will be covered with vegetation and are installing a gas control and
treatment system. The NJ DEP allowed the site to be reopened and more construction debris to be
disposed there as part of a plan to convert the site for solar energy production. The NJ DEP is expected to
call for the site to be capped, however Sierra Club believes this plan will not work because landfills are
not stable and caps will always fail at some point. With a scrubber there will still be fugitive emissions.
We believe the DEP should require the removal of all construction debris especially the wall board and
other materials that are giving off the hydrogen sulfide smell. These materials should not be capped but
taken off site for proper disposal.
What DEP is coming up with here is not a cleanup plan, it is an excuse and rationalization. Capping the
The state DEP is trying to silence critics - New J ersey Hills Media Group... http://newjerseyhills.com/roxbury_register/opinion/columns/the-state-dep...
1 of 3 5/20/2014 2:21 PM
site is the easiest and cheapest way to deal with the site, not the type of closure that will actually work.
The only real cleanup plan is to remove the material and ship it to an appropriate landfill. This site will be
spewing noxious odors for the next 20 years unless the correct action is taken now. The cap will fail and
the nightmare will continue.
Removing the debris and sending it to another landfill may increase odor for a few weeks, however
capping the site will result in odor for years. Hydrogen sulfide does cause health problems. The levels at
the site are many times above the health standard and people in the area have had problems. According to
OSHA health impacts can include headaches, respiratory tract irritation, and dizziness.
We believe this site has become a health emergency and immediate action needs to be taken to remove
the debris form the site. The DEP has become the Department of Denying and Excusing Pollution.
There is a stream running through the site and seasonable high groundwater making capping an option
that is not going to work. Burning off the gases from the landfill adds more pollution into the area. Right
now the gas and odors are less due to the winter temperatures but when the weather heats up so will the
smell. There may not be any air permit limits on the incinerator. Under the DEP capping plan they have
to rip open the landfill to put in monitoring wells and vapor collection systems which will release a
tremendous amount of air pollution.
The owners of the landfill in Roxbury claims the current DEP approved plan would allow the company to
dump four times the amount of fill needed to cap the landfill. We do not support violations of
environmental law and that is part of the problem we are facing here with DEP with the landfill still not
being closed properly. We do not support trucking in more waste and pollution to a community. We
believe in closing a landfill by bringing in clean fill or clay, not garbage and debris. This site and other
landfills threatens the public health of the community around it with runoff from the site potentially
impacting drinking water wells. We need to not close down landfills, but prevent the reopening of
landfills as a way to close them. You do not clean up landfills by dumping more hazardous waste and
garbage in them. DEP needs to build bentonite slurry wall with a blue clay cap with proper leechate and
vapor collection systems. The problem is this cost money and the DEP is cutting corners with the people
of Roxbury paying the price with the stench and the health risks.
There is a Landfill Closure Fund that is funded by tipping fees that residents pay, but instead of going to
clean up and close these landfills has been used to balance the budget. There has been a raiding of these
funds of around $100 million being diverted over the last few years. In last years budget $10 million was
diverted and in this years budget $5 million is proposed to be diverted, which is have of the programs
budget. The Sierra Club has always opposed reopening landfills to close them because it is an oxymoron,
but has been happening because of the lack of proper funding. The stealing of this money is why the DEP
keeps allowing these landfills to reopening bringing in construction and other materials.
These cuts do not only harm the environment, but public health as well. Landfills like Fenimore are
polluting the environment leaking toxins into the community threatening public health. Communities are
not only burdened with the stench from the garbage, but hydrogen sulfide from the landfill along with
2 of 3 5/20/2014 2:21 PM
increase of truck traffic causing air pollution as well as noise pollution. If the administration would stop
stealing the money for the budget along with the idea of reopening landfills to close them. There would
not be materials like destruction debris with arsenic and chromium or dredge spoils with PCBs or
dioxins.
The people of Roxbury have seen their environment ruined and health threatened. This has become a
cross between Dantes Inferno and Ground Hog Day. This has to end. Instead of helping the people of
Roxbury and fixing the problem, the DEP is using strong arm tactics and trying to silence critics. They
are deliberately spreading fear and misinformation to build support for their failed clean up plan.
3 of 3 5/20/2014 2:21 PM

EXHIBIT 15.1

From: Pflugh, Kerry Sent: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:18:56 GMT
To: Raths Chris; Blood, Rick; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich; ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com;
Subj ect: RE: Bore testing
Dear Mr. Raths:
Thank you for forwarding Roxburys requests for additional work on Fenimore landfill. We have reviewed your requests. Our response is as follows:
1. Bore Testing: The DEP will not be conducting boring or bore testing of the Fenimore landfill. We are aware that the odors being generated are from the construction and demolition material brought to the landfill, so testing is not necessary.
2. Air: Once the odor control system is fully operational and if it includes a gas ventilation system, the DEP will include air sampling of the system.
3. Private well testing: Once a long term solution has been put in place water monitoring wells along the perimeter of the landfill will be installed to monitor groundwater. Until there is evidence that groundwater has become contaminated, no further private well testing will be conducted.
Should you have additional questions, dont hesitate contacting me. kkp
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:20 PM
To: Pflugh, Kerry; Blood, Rick; Behrens, Gary; Crowley, Mark; DeFillippo, Kathy; Hall, Fred; Rilee Jim; Schmidt Martin; Zoschak Rich; 'abucco@murphymckeonlaw.com'
Subject: Bore testing
Ms. Pflugh,
While there will be a email/memo forthcoming with a number of issue three that need immediate attention include: when will the DEP initiate borings, testing and environmental assessment of materials and condition of sight. Second when will a sampling (grab bag) of all air conditions along with testing be done. Lastly, as with the other items listed the township once again insist that a private well monitoring program be implemented. As quick response to these questions is requested and anticipated. Chris Raths

EXHIBIT 16.1

1

Fenimore Landfill Fact Sheet
Thermal Oxidizer Test

Current Status
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began emergency actions at the Fenimore
Landfill on June 26, 2013 to address the release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas. DEPs action
involved applying a temporary cap using a proprietary mineral-based material and installing
flares to burn off the H2S. While the temporary cap is providing protection against further
deterioration at the site that could result from weather impacts, the operation of the flares
proved problematic due to various landfill conditions encountered.

In response, DEP, with the assistance of the engineering firm Handex, has been working
around the clock at the landfill to construct a comprehensive piping system as a critical
component of the long-term, permanent capping of the site. The piping system also will be
used to test the safety and effectiveness of a potential remedial technique using a thermal
oxidizer to burn off H2S and improve current site conditions. A thermal oxidizer is a processing
unit for air pollution control that decomposes gases, such as H2S, at a high temperature.

Next Steps
Testing of the thermal oxidizer will occur over five days beginning Saturday, September 7,
2013. In close consultation with the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH), DEP will
carefully monitor emissions that result from operating the system. It should be noted that
during the testing period, H2S odors may still be present due to the limited scope of the test
operations.

Once testing has commenced, H2S is drawn into the oxidizer which burns the gas and releases
it into the atmosphere. When the oxidizer burns the H2S, the H2S converts to sulfur dioxide
(SO2).

In the event SO2 emissions reach a level that requires the thermal oxidizer to be shut down, a
treatment system called a scrubber will be installed at the site before the oxidizer is re-
started. Scrubbers are highly customized pieces of equipment, and are typically
manufactured to specifications for particular uses. DEP is in the process of obtaining a
scrubber built to the required specifications incorporating results of the testing.

Use of the thermal oxidizer without the scrubber means that SO2 will be released with the
exhaust air but will be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that any emissions
released are within federal air quality standards and do not pose a health risk.

Monitoring
Rigorous safety protocols, established by Handex and DEP, and monitored by DOH, will be
followed during the testing of the thermal oxidizer. These protocols provide for precautions
such as constant monitoring of emissions to closely control, limit or shut down SO2 releases.

2

o DEP will run the oxidizer during daylight hours only in intervals of four or eight hours
per test day. Highly trained personnel will be present onsite during all hours of testing
operations.
o SO2 emissions will be mitigated by the increased height of the stack from 20 to 45
feet. The taller the stack, the greater the dilution of SO2.
o The testing time period is planned for five days, but will be shortened if concerns arise.

During the testing period, DEP, in consultation with DOH, will monitor SO2 and H2S levels at
two locations downwind of the site to ensure that SO2 levels are within federal air quality
standards.
o Each day, wind direction will be determined and the mobile units placed in the optimal
downwind location before testing begins. Highly variable winds could cause the testing
to be suspended. When testing is suspended the oxidizer will be turned off.

There are two federal standards that will be monitored as part of the testing. DOH uses the
Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) developed by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry to assess the possibility of adverse health effects. An MRL is an estimate of the daily
human exposure to a hazardous substance, at or below which, that substance is unlikely to
pose a measurable risk of adverse, non-cancer health effects. The MRL for SO2 for short-term
exposures is 10 parts of sulfur dioxide per billion parts of air (ppb). In addition, for sulfur
dioxide, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that 99 percent of hourly
readings over a year should be less than 75 ppb. Both of these levels were established based
on federal agency experimental studies involving asthmatic individuals.

At the end of the testing, the data will be evaluated to determine whether it is feasible to
continue operating the oxidizer under controlled safety protocols or if it is necessary to wait
for the customized scrubber. Once the scrubber is constructed, the SO2 emissions resulting
from the oxidizer will be effectively treated on an ongoing basis to be well below federal air
quality standards, allowing the oxidizer to become fully operational to safely reduce H2S
emissions at an accelerated rate.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
SO2 is a colorless gas with a strong odor at very high levels, but is unlikely to be smelled in the
community at the controlled levels generated by the pilot test. It is produced from the
burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) and the smelting of mineral ores (aluminum, copper, zinc,
lead and iron) that contain sulfur. As noted above, it is also created when oxygen is added to
hydrogen sulfide gas.

SO2 levels tend to be higher in colder weather than in warmer weather due to increased
emissions from heating sources. Levels across New Jersey in warmer weather tend to be close
to zero. Levels commonly range from 2 ppb in rural areas up to 50 ppb in urbanized areas.

Exposures to sulfur dioxide may cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat. Also, sulfur
dioxide exposure may for some individuals cause difficulty breathing, especially in people with
breathing problems, such as asthmatics or people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary

3

Disease (COPD). Children with asthma may be especially sensitive even to low concentrations
of sulfur dioxide, but it is not known whether asthmatic children are more sensitive than
asthmatic adults.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), and the EPA do not classify SO2 as a cancer causing agent.

Any concerns should be discussed with your physician or your childs pediatrician. There are
clinics that specialize in environmental health problems that your primary care provider may
want to contact.
o For adults: The Environmental and Occupational Health Clinical Center in Piscataway,
NJ sees adults who have been exposed to contaminants occupationally or
environmentally. They can be reached at (848) 445-0123.
o For children: Pediatricians can contact the Mt. Sinai Medical Centers Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Unit at (866) 265-6201.

# # #

EXHIBIT 16.2

EXHIBIT 16.3

EXHIBIT 16.4

System meant to protect Roxbury from toxic gas releases different
toxic gas
Email the author
on April 08, 2014 at 11:15 AM, updated April 08, 2014 at 11:31 AM
ROXBURY Monday morning, the system meant to prevent Roxbury residents from potentially hazardous gases
released high amounts of potentially hazardous gases.
An equipment problem at around 5 a.m. caused a spike of sulfur dioxide at the troubled Fenimore landfill site, state
Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Larry Ragonese said.
SO2 levels averaged 136 parts per billion over a one-hour period, he said. According to a message from Bill
Morrocco of the Roxbury Environmental Action Coalition to the DEP, levels at one point hit 300 ppb.
Since 2010, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has set the one-hour standard at just 75 ppb. That
means 99 percent of one-hour averages over a year should fall below that level.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to SO2 can result in "burning of
the nose and throat, breathing difficulties, and severe airway obstructions." Long-term exposures can also cause
health problems, according to the ATSDR. However, it takes concentrations much higher than those seen Monday to
put people in immediate danger, according to the ATSDR.
In a fact sheet provided to Roxbury, the DEP has said levels of SO2 which can come from several sources
"commonly range from 2 ppb in rural areas up to 50 ppb in urbanized areas."
The equipment problem that caused the SO2 spike Monday was resolved in under an hour, Ragonese said. But it's
not the first such failure in recent days. Last week, another problem with an oxidizer and scrubber system at
Fenimore caused spikes with hourly averages of 19 and 24 ppb, according to the DEP.
Morrocco responded to a message from the DEP at the time, saying the standard wasn't strict enough to protect
asthmatic individuals or others with health complications, noting the DEP fact sheet references a "minimum risk
level" for short-term exposures of just 10 parts per billion. A minimum risk level is an estimate of the daily human
exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without significant risk of adverse non-cancer health effects
over a period of time.
At one point last week, the sulfur dioxide level briefly reached 200 ppb.
"Your current operational procedures can and have resulted in SO2 releases at levels that can affect asthmatics
living in the nearby community," Morrocco wrote to Kerry Kirk Pflugh, the DEP's manager of constituent services.
System meant to protect Roxbury from toxic gas releases different toxic gas http://blog.nj.com/morris_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/04/fenimore_s...
1 of 3 5/20/2014 11:42 AM
CONNECT WITH
US
Follow us on
Twitter
Like us on
Facebook
NJ.com/morris
The oxidizer and scrubber are meant to collect and burn off hydrogen sulfide
the gas that since late 2012 has often spread out for miles from the Fenimore
landfill, causing rotten egg-like odors throughout parts of Roxbury. Many
residents say the gas or its odors have made them or their children ill, citing
respiratory problems, headaches and even nosebleeds.
Morrocco questioned in emails sent to several officials, and copied to NJ.com, why
the township doesn't use an alert system to notify residents of high sulfur dioxide
levels, as it does high hydrogen sulfide levels. A call by NJ.com to Township
Manager Christopher Raths Monday had not yet been returned.
"How can it be that a state agency can release toxic chemicals into the air where our children live, play and wait for
their school bus and not be held accountable at the very lease to alert parents so that we can take action to keep
our children safe?" Roxbury resident Linda Keane wrote in a letter to several media organizations Monday. Keane
has frequently written to Roxbury and state officials about concerns regarding the Fenimore site.
H2S levels have declined sharply in recent months, with the oxidizer and scrubber in operation. But Monday
morning, a few hours after the sulfur dioxide spike was detected, H2S levels spiked to 90 ppb, Ragonese said. Some
particularly sensitive people can smell H2S at as little as 1 ppb.
Morrocco, in a message to the DEP Monday, quoted messages left by residents at REACT's Facebook group. "My
home reeks and my eyes & throat are burning," one message said, according to Morrocco. Another: "I opened the
back door and almost threw up. I don't remember it ever smelling as bad is as now."
Previous H2S spikes have reached levels well in excess of that 90 ppb, which isn't quite high enough to trigger the
township's alert system. At 100 ppb the township's senior center is opened as a respite center.
Monday's H2S spike was caused by drilling for new wells to feed into the oxidizer and scrubber system, Ragonese
said. Those wells are meant to help further mitigate gas releases as the state prepares to move ahead with a
controversial plan to cap the landfill with a geomembrane liner, and then soil and vegetation.
REACT and many officials have argued the state should instead truck out the construction debris the source of the
hydrogen sulfide brought into Fenimore as part of a DEP-approved plan for developer SEP to cap the landfill and
build a solar facility.
DEP officials and Gov. Chris Christie have said repeatedly that removing the debris would be cost-prohibitive and
introduce new problems saying by disturbing the site further, they'd be releasing massive amounts of hydrogen
sulfide into the air, causing worse problems than Roxbury has yet seen.
Meanwhile, Roxbury Township officials plan to release their own report on the landfill Wednesday. The DEP has said,
however, it has no plans to hold up the capping project.
2 of 3 5/20/2014 11:42 AM
The DEP took over the site from SEP last year, contending the developer mismanged the project. SEP says its
capping work was succeeding at mitigating smells and would have eliminated them eventually, and contends its
project was targeted for political purposes. The agency and developer are continuing to fight over those issues and
others in court.
Ragonese said drilling for the wells is complete and shouldn't cause any further H2S spikes.
"The township and residents continue to be plagued from harmful gas exposure and should not have to endure any
future toxic emissions from the NJDEP failed operation or inadequate equipment that was installed to attempt to
address the problem," Morrocco wrote in a message to officials and media. "When is the NJDEP going to realize that
no amount of man-made machinery will be able to, 100 percent of the time, protect the residents from the potential
health threats this site poses, or restore quality of life in Roxbury as it once was. We are starting to see this
already."
3 of 3 5/20/2014 11:42 AM

EXHIBIT 16.5

From: Bill
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:07 AM

To: Pflugh, Kerry
Cc: Rilee J im (rileej@roxburynj.us); rathsc@roxburynj.us; ptierney@roxbury.org; Mark Caputo
(MCaputo@randolphnj.org) (MCaputo@randolphnj.org); SenBucco@njleg.org; Wilder, Lynn (ATSDR/DCHI/OD)
(lxw2@cdc.gov); enck.judith@epa.gov; holzplus@aol.com; Anthony M. Bucco
(ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com) (ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com); ESCOBAR.LEAH@epa.gov;
VAOULI.ELENA@epa.gov; Mayor and Council; montgomerya@roxburynj.us; jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org
Subject: Re: SO2 at Fenimore
Mrs. Pflugh

I have not received a response to my email and questions from April 4th (below) pertaining to multiple SO2
releases into the community.
This morning, another SO2 release this caused elevated readings for more than an hour and a spike to 300 ppb at
ROX13. This is the second event in one week.
Is the scrubber down? What caused this release? Why were residents not notified since this is above federal
regulatory standards per the EPA and above acute public health standards per the ATSDR as stated in the DEP fact
sheet below (page 2)
http://www.roxburynj.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1293
There seems to be ongoing problems with the reliability of the scrubber and also lack of community health
standards and alerts for harmful SO2 exposure that the community has recently endured. As I stated before, the
DEP seems to be ill-prepared to alert the public or handle an emergency in case of a mass, uncontrolled release of
SO2. Our township has these environmental standards and an alert system setup for H2S, why not
SO2? According to the ATSDR, SO2 is toxic to human health at lower concentrations than H2S.
Also, with the mitigation equipment being down this morning, a release of H2S was recorded on Rox6 at 98
ppb. Here is what residents had to say per our facebook group.

"My home reeks and my eyes & throat are burning. Called it in., Operator 58. Roxbury is being poisoned and our
politicians are responsible."
"J ust called in the smell. I was up since 5:30 and started smelling it in the house. I opened the back door and
almost threw up. I don't remember it ever smelling as bad is as now!"
"Hunter's Ridge was absolutely aweful this morning and the poor kids had to stand through it on their bus stops."
"I've been sick all morning with a terrible headache since the smell started"
If your department intends to keep this equipment onsite to protect the public, and the well being of the public
depends on successful, and ongoing operation, what is going to be done to virtually eliminate downtime?
I also have many unanswered questions in my email below from last week that need to be addressed. I will recap
them here:

Why were residents not notified of this SO2 release as they are for H2S releases? At what sustained levels of SO2
will the residents be notified so, if desired they can take shelter at the town respite center.

Why isn't SO2 included on the town automated alert system (just as H2S) is to automatically alert residents of SO2
levels that are above public health standards according to ATSDR research?

What emergency action plan does the DEP have in place in case of a mass, uncontrolled release of SO2?

Why is the DEP using the less conservative federal regulatory EPA air standard for SO2 to determine when to
shutdown the scrubber when it is not protective of human health as determined by the ATSDR?
To the media contacts that I BCC'ed on this email, I authorize you to use any and all content on this and attached
emails for your story. Also, please contact me for further information or for a statement if the DEP contacts you to
provide an explanation.

I remind everyone here that Roxbury never had any harmful toxic gas exposure or threats from toxic gas exposure
before the NJ DEP approved hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of construction and demolition debris to be
dumped in the middle of a residential area on a site with no environmental controls in place or plans for such. The
township and residents continue to be plagued from harmful gas exposure and should not have to endure any future
toxic emissions from the NJ DEP failed operation or inadequate equipment that was installed to attempt to address
the problem. When is the NJ DEP going to realize that no amount of man made machinery will be able to, 100% of
the time, protect the residents from the potential health threats this site poses, or restore quality of life in Roxbury
as it once was. We are starting to see this already.
Bill Morrocco

EXHIBIT 16.6

From: Linda Keane <linda>
Date: J anuary 23, 2014 at 3:42:34 PM EST
To: DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions <RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us>
Cc: "mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us" <mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us>, "O'Dowd, Mary"
<Mary.O'Dowd@doh.state.nj.us>, "Martin, Bob" <Bob.Martin@dep.state.nj.us>, "AsmPrieto@njleg.org"
<AsmPrieto@njleg.org>, "enck.judith@epa.gov" <enck.judith@epa.gov>, "SenSweeney@njleg.org"
<SenSweeney@njleg.org>
Subject: Re: Fenimore Landfill In Roxbury
Thank you for getting back to me but once again you have failed to answer any of the questions I emailed you about.
Frankly the daily updates are a poor excuse for an update, they are frequently copied and paste versions of the previous
day and never include any real information. The only people satisfied with them seems to be the DEP. The call center
is an answering machine where I can leave a message and Kerry Pflugh a public relations person, will call me back to
tell me she has no answers but will pass my concerns to her superiors. All you do is send people in circles hoping to
frustrate them. I would like answers, real answer to my questions, not H2s fact sheets and updates that tell nothing.

Please advise when you will actually respond to an email and provide answers to the questions. This email in itself
represents yet another attempt by the NJ DEP to avoid answering questions and demonstrates the NJ DEP refusal to
answer questions and provide explanations regarding their actions.

Linda Keane

On J an 23, 2014, at 3:13 PM, DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions
<RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us>wrote:

Dear Ms. Keane: thank you for sharing your concerns and questions about Fenimore landfill with us. Since June 2013,
when Governor Chris Christie signed legislation giving DEP authority to take control of the Fenimore landfill, DEP
has been working diligently to address the odor problem. DEP installed a treatment system with a custom scrubber that
began 24/7 operations in early December. DEP monitors the emissions from the system around the clock to ensure it is
operating safely. This interim solution has significantly reduced odors from the landfill, and levels of H2S are also
down significantly.

Your email posed numerous questions about the landfill and its operations. DEP provides daily updates on activity at
the landfill and periodic fact sheets, as well as a call center and dedicated email for residents questions. We will be
issuing another fact sheet, and when finalized it will be provided to Roxbury Township officials for posting on the
Township website.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. DEP remains committed to addressing any odor problems. Best regards,
kkp

From: Linda Keane
Sent: Tuesday, J anuary 14, 2014 5:56 PM
To: mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us; DEP Roxbury Twp Fenimore Questions; O'Dowd, Mary; Martin, Bob;
AsmPrieto@njleg.org; enck.judith@epa.gov; SenSweeney@njleg.org
Subject: Fenimore Landfill In Roxbury

I am writing to you AGAIN to express my continued frustration with the handling of the Fenimore Landfill in
Roxbury. Unfortunately the recent revelations of The Fort Lee Incident were not a surprise to this NJ resident. For the
past year Roxbury Residents have been dealing with the "the determined refusal of state agency officials to answer
any questions about their decisions" and an agency seemingly instructed to "hunker down and grit our way thru
it". These quotes were taken from the Sunday Star Ledger in regards to the Fort Lee scandal but could very well
describe the behavior of the NJ DEP and NJ DOH in regards to Roxbury over the past year. There are hundreds of
letters for requests for information that have gone unanswered. Here is a short list I recently sent to Senator Bucco.

What is the progress on an investigation into WHY this occurred? Specifically an investigation done by an outside
source and not the people thaactualluy caused the problem to begin with and have reason to cover it up?

What is the progress on the SANDY FUNDS request?

What is the progress on the long term solution and the cost comparative we were promised?

Why has so much money been spent on the temporary solution if you are really working on a permanent one?

How much money has been wasted on the posi shell, the temp scrubber and the new scrubber that has broken down
after only a few weeks of operation, electric lines, water lines, road work and 10 tanker trucks a day...?

How much more money will they dump into this over the next 30 years compared to the cost of trucking it out? Will
we have to endure future dumping to pay for your mess?

Why is it that our town council issues all these requests and are completely ignored by the State?

Why can't a State Senator even get a straight answer from these state agencies?

How can a state agency get away with destroying a community and not have to answer to anyone for it?

Why was the site closed on Holidays if it is so important to our health? Is the cost of holiday pay more important to
this administration than public safety?

Why did the DOH stop canister testing when testing showed H2S in our schools and why was it not reinstated when
the outdoor monitors near J efferson School reached alert levels 3 times in one week? Children are not safe in their
schools, there is no safety net as the DEP muddles thru mechanical issues with the scrubber. Why is the state is cutting
corners on public safety?

Why is the George Washington Bridge issue that inconvenienced people for a matter of days national news and this
issue that has tormented a town for over a year continually being swept under the rug?

And most importantly. Do any of you feel that this is an acceptable quality of life for residents who purchased a home
in a rural area of this state? I live next to a smoke spewing, ugly eyesore of industrial equipment and have to rely on
its proper operation so that my children will not be poisoned when they breath. Is this an acceptable quality of life in
this state and should I be happy to pay some of the highest taxes in the country to live here? Would any of you be
happy to live here? Is it OK to any of you that hundreds of people are faced with the decision of staying somewhere
where they are not sure their children are safe or financial ruin?

Linda Keane

EXHIBIT 16.7

From: linda
To: senbucco@njleg.org
Subject: RE: Fenimore
Date: Wed, 8 J an 2014 10:13:31 -0500
Dear Senator,

I am following up with you regarding the Scrubber not operating on holidays and also the
decision to stop taking canister monitor readings in the schools.

Holidays - I do not understand why the scrubber is not operating on holidays. I can only
assume it has to do with paying to man the facility. If that is the case, it is not acceptable. The
gas emissions do not stop on holidays, the health risks do not go away and of all days that
residents should feel free to invite guests to the homes it should be on holidays! If the state
insists the scrubber is the answer it should be running 24 hours a day 7 days a week so there
are no risk of health implications and I am able to enjoy the use of my property without fear of
poisoning my house guests.

Schools - Since the DOH decision there have been 2 incidents which call for a protocol to be
followed outside of J efferson School. On neither occasion were parents notified of a potential
threat or informed of any action taken as per protocol. On one occasion school was not in
session so I can understand no action being taken but we still should have been informed that
an alert was issued. We were not. On the other occasion ( yesterday ) school was in
session....parents were not informed of the alert or told if any action was taken. I received a
text, a phone call and an email from emergency management telling me not to park on the
street before it snowed but no information from anyone informing me that health limits
determined by Rutgers Experts on outside monitors near my child's school were exceeded and
action taken. WHY?

Also the mighty scrubber has broken down and is currently not working, yet as far as I know
the testing in the schools has not been reinstated. There is no safety net for our children while
the scrubber is being repaired. It is apparent that this big eyesore of a fix is going to be a
mechanical problem for years and the residents at the mercy of the "DEP Experts" (????) who
are running it. Until that mess is running smoothly with no mechanical issues for a long period
of time all safety measures should be kept in place. They should not be cutting corners at the
expense of public safety. The inflicted this on us. Our safety and the safety of our children
should be top priority. It is terrible that we have to beg. I called J oe Eldridge at the DOH 3
times last week to discuss his decision to stop the indoor canister testing. Each time assured by
the person on the phone I would get a call back. No call back. Who is liable for the kids in the
schools? Is it the School District for failing to make sure the state takes agreed upon action
when alert limits are met or the State for not taking action they agreed to? Who is legally
liable for the safety of children in Roxbury Public Schools?

I want to ask you again if this is the way we are expected to live? Is this the quality of life that I
pay some of the highest taxes in the country for?

What is the progress on an investigation into WHY this occurred?

What is the progress on the long term solution and the cost comparative we were
promised?

Why has so much money been spent on the temporary solution if they are really
working on a permanent one?

How much money has been wasted on the posi shell, the temp scrubber and the
new scrubber that has broken down after only a few weeks operation, electric lines,
water lines, road work and 10 tanker trucks a day...?

How much more money will they dump into this over the next 30 years compared to
the cost of trucking it out?

Why is it that our town issues all these requests and are completely ignored?

How can a state agency get away with destroying a community and not have to
answer to anyone for it?

And why is the George Washington Bridge issue that inconvenienced people for a
matter of days national news and this issue that has tormented a town for over a
year continually being swept under the rug?

I think about moving out of Roxbury everyday. I worry about the affect it will have on my
children taking them away from family and friends. I worry about the financial issues leaving
now will cause, issues that will affect our quality of life, their college education and my
retirement. If I could leave I would and I am not alone.

Continually frustrated in Roxbury,

Linda Keane

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:00:11 -0500
From: SenBucco@njleg.org
To: lmkeane@optonline.net
Dear Linda,

I'm in receipt of your email regarding the scrubber not running on Christmas Day. I placed an
inquiry with NJ DEP regarding the scrubber's operations on Dec. 24-26 and asked for
clarification as to whether the scrubber was completely down those two days and a
thorough explanation as to why this occurred.

Sincerely,
Tony Bucco

Senator Anthony R. Bucco
Legislative District 25
Denville, NJ 07834
Phone: (973) 627-9700
Fax: (973) 627-0131
Email: senbucco@njleg.org

EXHIBIT 17.1

Page 1 of 1 file:///Users/amarkworth/Dropbox/Fenimore/OPRA/Bernadi-151819/To/messages/032d322d-119e-3f9a-04e6-157e1060a268.html
From: Matthew M. Fredericks Sent: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:13:59 GMT
To: jbolan@psands.com
CC: RWBernardi@aol.com; rwbernardi@gmail.com; Robert Kinney; Gary Wolf; Ray Lamboy; Jon Martin; Confer,
Robert; Padilla, Magdalena; Joseph Dunn; Skacel, Wolfgang; Goldman, MaryAnne; Siller, Mary; Reilly, Rick;
Assadi, Bashar; mdempsey@vollers.cc; mbrady@vollers.cc;
Subject: Prudential Tower - Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC
Prudential - Conditional Approval Letter.pdf (100Kb)
Mr. Bolan:

I am the attorney for Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC ("SEP"), owner of the former Fenimore Landfill in
Roxbury, New Jersey.

Pursuant to the attached letter from Birdsall Services Group dated March 12, 2013, SEP has been approved to accept
Construction Site Fill Material ("CSF") from the Prudential Tower project located in Newark, NJ (the "Prudential
Project").

It is my understanding that you are the LSRP for the Prudential Project and that you have redirected the CSF from the
Prudential Project away from SEP's facility to the Lincoln Park facility in Jersey City. I have been advised that the
reason you are stating for not allowing the CSF to go to SEP's site is that you do not want to send the CSF to a site
with a lot of publicity.

However, my understanding is that the Lincoln Park landfill in Jersey City where you are sending the CSF, and its fill
broker, Impact, have been raided by Federal agents more than once and that the negative publicity surrounding the
Lincoln Park landfill and Impact far exceeds any publicity regarding SEP's project.

Please advise at your earliest convenience who at Prudential is working with you on the Prudential Project and please
provide the appropriate contact information so I can discuss this matter with Prudential.

Thank you-

Matt Fredericks

111 Northfield Avenue
Suite 304
West Orange, New Jersey 07052
(973) 731-4545 Phone
(973) 731-4555 Fax
mfredericks@mfrederickslaw.com

EXHIBIT 17.2

From: Hall, Fred
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:22 AM
To: chris.christie@gov.state.nj.us
Cc: evan.ridley@gov.state.nj.us
Subject: HELP
Governor Christie,
Roxbury needs your help in any way you can regarding the Landfill. I cannot stress
this any more, we need to provide as much help as possible at the landfill site to
expedite a temporary / permanent solution to this issue. Last night I was alarmed yet
again, at 2:30 in the morning as the levels of H2S were escalating and we had to yet
again open our respite center to our residents. I stepped outside into my back yard and
almost fell over. Understand, I am nearly 1 1/2 miles away from the landfill, can you
imagine how you would feel and react being adjacent to this mess. Residents were
crying out for help last night and at Tuesday's council meeting, they are scared for
themselves and their children, they are trying to move out of Roxbury and some have
left to live with neighbors and friends. They are experiencing medical issues that are
real, their concerns are real. They do not know what the long term effects of exposure
to this gas is. We need to position as many resources as possible to address this
immediately. Governor, the council and staff are working on this issue 24/7, it is
monopolizing everything we do in Roxbury, this is not a sustainable situation.
Can the state help us with temporary housing for the residents most impacted until
NJDEP can resolve?
Telling the residents to be patient is no longer working, they are demoralized, frustrated
and scared. I have been on the landfill many times, the workers are trying their best to
resolve, but the solutions are not working. I offered help when I was on the site with
them, I want them to succeed. I believe the problem is far worse than when the
original solution was scoped.
This simply has to be a number one concern for you. The health and welfare of the
residents of Roxbury are at stake. Please, please, please call me to discuss.
Fred Hall
Mayor
Roxbury Township
(w) 973-448-2000
(h) 973-927-6185

EXHIBIT 17.3

EXHIBIT 18.1

By J EFF TITTEL, N.J . Sier r a Club | Posted: Thur sday, Apr il 17, 2014 2:14 pm
The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)sent a letter to municipal officials in the
area around Roxbury trying to scare them into supporting the DEP cleanup plan for the Fenimore
Landfill. The letter is trying to undercut the efforts of the plan of Roxbury from developing its own
plans to clean up the landfill. Earlier this week, the DEP blocked Roxbury form doing independent
testing on the site. This is also designed to sabotage the public outcry against the DEP cleanup plan,
which is not a cleanup plan but a capping that will not work.
The purpose of this letter is to bully the town and citizens of Roxbury into submission. The idea is to
scare the towns around Roxbury so they would then put pressure on the people and town to support the
DEP plan. The DEP wants to cap the site, which will not work. The letter is filled with misinformation
about the site and the way to clean up the site because DEP does not want to spend the money to clean
it up properly. This one of the most shameful abuses of governmental power by an agency. The people
in Roxbury have been ignored and the DEP plan does not adequately protect their health and public
safety.
You can remove construction debris in a safe way by covering it with a large tent the size of a hanger
while excavating underneath. The scrubbers would have mitigate any odors or pollution releases. It has
been done safely in many areas around the country but costs more money than DEP wants to spend.
They sent out a map on air modeling and there is no real basis in fact or background document, it is
really more of a public relations stunt as part of their bullying plan.
This letter is part of the Christie administrations attempts to bully and intimidate people whenever
someone disagrees with them or what they want to do. The letter should say Time for garbage
problems in Roxbury.
The person who sent the letter, Cindy Randazzo, is the DEP equivalent of Bridget Kelly and Bill
Stepien in the governors office. Randazzo is a political appointee who ran twice for elected office
and failed. Now she is there to try and scare and intimidate the people in around Roxbury for the DEP.
The DEP is installing a cap which will be covered with vegetation and are installing a gas control and
treatment system. The NJDEP allowed the site to be reopened and more construction debris to be
disposed there as part of a plan to convert the site for solar energy production. The NJDEP is
expected to call for the site to be capped, however Sierra Club believes this plan will not work
because landfills are not stable and caps will always fail at some point. With a scrubber there will still
be fugitive emissions. We believe the DEP should require the removal of all construction debris
especially the wall board and other materials that are giving off the hydrogen sulfide smell. These
materials should not be capped but taken off site for proper disposal.
What DEP is coming up with here is not a cleanup plan, it is an excuse and rationalization. Capping the
site is the easiest and cheapest way to deal with the site, not the type of closure that will actually
work. The only real cleanup plan is to remove the material and ship it to an appropriate landfill. This
site will be spewing noxious odors for the next 20 years unless the correct action is taken now. The
cap will fail and the nightmare will continue.
Removing the debris and sending it to another landfill may increase odor for a few weeks, however
capping the site will result in odor for years. Hydrogen sulfide does cause health problems. The levels
at the site are many times above the health standard and people in the area have had problems.
According to OSHA health impacts can include headaches, respiratory tract irritation, and dizziness.
We believe this site has become a health emergency and immediate action needs to be taken to
remove the debris form the site. The DEP has become the Department of Denying and Excusing
Pollution.
There is a stream running through the site and seasonable high groundwater making capping an option
that is not going to work. Burning off the gases from the landfill adds more pollution into the area.
Right now the gas and odors are less due to the winter temperatures but when the weather heats up so
will the smell. There may not be any air permit limits on the incinerator. Under the DEP capping plan
they have to rip open the landfill to put in monitoring wells and vapor collection systems which will
release a tremendous amount of air pollution.
The owners of the landfill in Roxbury claims the current DEP approved plan would allow the company
to dump four times the amount of fill needed to cap the landfill. We do not support violations of
environmental law and that is part of the problem we are facing here with DEP with the landfill still
not being closed properly. We do not support trucking in more waste and pollution to a community.
We believe in closing a landfill by bringing in clean fill or clay, not garbage and debris. This site and
other landfills threatens the public health of the community around it with runoff from the site
potentially impacting drinking water wells. We need to not close down landfills, but prevent the
reopening of landfills as a way to close them. You do not clean up landfills by dumping more
hazardous waste and garbage in them. DEP needs to build bentonite slurry wall with a blue clay cap
with proper leechate and vapor collection systems. The problem is this cost money and the DEP is
cutting corners with the people of Roxbury paying the price with the stench and the health risks.
There is a Landfill Closure Fund that is funded by tipping fees that residents pay, but instead of going
to clean up and close these landfills has been used to balance the budget. There has been a raiding of
these funds of around $100 million being diverted over the last few years. In last years budget $10
million was diverted and in this years budget $5 million is proposed to be diverted, which is have of
the programs budget. The Sierra Club has always opposed reopening landfills to close them because
it is an oxymoron, but has been happening because of the lack of proper funding. The stealing of this
money is why the DEP keeps allowing these landfills to reopening bringing in construction and other
materials.
These cuts do not only harm the environment, but public health as well. Landfills like Fenimore are
polluting the environment leaking toxins into the community threatening public health. Communities
are not only burdened with the stench from the garbage, but hydrogen sulfide from the landfill along
with increase of truck traffic causing air pollution as well as noise pollution. If the administration
would stop stealing the money for the budget along with the idea of reopening landfills to close them.
There would not be materials like destruction debris with arsenic and chromium or dredge spoils with
PCBs or dioxins.
The people of Roxbury have seen their environment ruined and health threatened. This has become a
cross between Dantes Inferno and Ground Hog Day. This has to end. Instead of helping the people of
Roxbury and fixing the problem, the DEP is using strong arm tactics and trying to silence critics. They
are deliberately spreading fear and misinformation to build support for their failed clean up plan.

EXHIBIT 18.2

LETTERS: Resident stands with Jeff Tittel on
Fenimore
Posted: Fr iday, May 2, 2014 3:00 am
EDITOR:
I am writing in response to the letter from Larry Ragonese of the state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP).
His attack on Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club calls to mind a quote by Gandhi. "First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you, then they fight you,then you win."
The concerns of Roxbury residents have long been ignored by the DEP and the N.J. Department of
Health. Residents who questioned Gov. Christie at town hall meetings have been belittled and now the
DEP is attacking Jeff Tittel.
Roxbury residents need to consider who to believe and who has our best interests at heart: the DEP.
who through their mismanagement or worse have caused this disaster or someone who has
demonstrated a commitment to protecting the environment?
For me the choice is clear. I stand with Jeff Tittel and thank him for his support.
KATHY HART
Roxbury Township

EXHIBIT 18.3

LETTERS: Tittel is spinning web of half truths
Posted: Fr iday, Apr il 25, 2014 6:51 am
EDITOR:
The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in fact, in recent weeks has reached out to
municipal officials in the towns surrounding Roxbury, not to scare them but to provide information to
them on the potential impact of excavating the Fenimore Landfill, a remedy favored by some officials
and residents in Roxbury.
Materials that were presented to officials in neighboring towns are mostly information that has been
previously shared with Roxbury, and has been posted on the towns web site. It was important to
ensure that accurate information was presented to these towns, and that officials clearly understood
the potential negative impacts to their residents if the landfill were to be excavated.
The state is not trying to silence critics, as Mr. Tittel wrongly states. Critics have been very vocal and
have not been shy about publicly sharing their feelings.
The DEP is moving ahead with a landfill capping plan that should be completed by the end of the year.
That capping should seal in materials that have created gas emissions and dry out these materials over
the next several years, to permanently eliminate this situation. An enhanced gas collection system is
being created and will remain in place during the capping project.
Lastly, Mr. Tittel should be ashamed of his personal attack on the DEP employee who helped reached
out to area officials. There is no place for such personal attacks in what should be a civil discourse.
LARRY RAGONESE
Press Director
State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

EXHIBIT 20.1

Key Metrics 2013 2014
Percent Change Thru 3-2013 Thru 3-2014 Percent Change
New Listings 45 40 - 11.1% 357 363 + 1.7%
Closed Sales 14 10 - 28.6% 178 213 + 19.7%
Days on Market Until Sale 83 135 + 62.7% 92 78 - 15.2%
Median Sales Price* $320,000 $294,000 - 8.1% $332,000 $325,000 - 2.1%
Percent of List Price Received* 96.0% 95.4% - 0.6% 95.9% 95.6% - 0.3%
Inventory of Homes for Sale 137 129 - 5.8% -- -- --
Months Supply of Inventory 9.2 7.6 - 17.4% -- -- --
New Listings 11 8 - 27.3% 59 61 + 3.4%
Closed Sales 3 5 + 66.7% 38 48 + 26.3%
Days on Market Until Sale 137 90 - 34.3% 93 81 - 12.9%
Median Sales Price* $206,000 $218,000 + 5.8% $202,000 $215,750 + 6.8%
Percent of List Price Received* 94.9% 96.6% + 1.8% 95.9% 95.9% 0.0%
Local Market Update for March 2014
Provided by the New Jersey Association of REALTORS
Roxbury Twp
Morris County
March Last 12 Months
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
New Listings 0 0 -- 2 1 - 50.0%
Closed Sales 0 0 -- 0 0 --
Days on Market Until Sale 0 0 -- 0 0 --
Median Sales Price* $0 $0 -- $0 $0 --
Percent of List Price Received* 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.0% 0.0% --
Inventory of Homes for Sale 1 1 0.0% -- -- --
Months Supply of Inventory 0 0 -- -- -- --
* Does not account for sale concessions and/or downpayment assistance. | Percent changes are calculated using rounded figures and can sometimes look extreme due to small sample size.
Last 12 Months
Current as of April 08, 2014. All data from the multiple listing services in the state of New Jersey. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing.
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
Historical Median Sales Price by Property Type By Month
Single Family Townhouse-Condo Adult Community
New Listings 739 858 + 16.1% 7,070 7,494 + 6.0%
Closed Sales 281 253 - 10.0% 3,728 4,508 + 20.9%
Percent of List Price Received* 95.4% 96.1% + 0.7% 95.5% 96.6% + 1.2%
Inventory of Homes for Sale 2,438 2,163 - 11.3% -- -- --
New Listings 158 169 + 7.0% 1,604 1,550 - 3.4%
Closed Sales 80 68 - 15.0% 980 1,146 + 16.9%
Percent of List Price Received* 97.9% 97.4% - 0.5% 96.6% 97.2% + 0.6%
Townhouse-Condo
Morris County

Single Family
New Listings 11 15 + 36.4% 170 152 - 10.6%
Closed Sales 5 3 - 40.0% 121 110 - 9.1%
Median Sales Price* $495,000 $268,000 - 45.9% $250,000 $260,000 + 4.0%
Inventory of Homes for Sale 46 49 + 6.5% -- -- --
Months Supply of Inventory 4.5 5.9 + 31.1% -- -- --
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
New Listings 38 35 - 7.9% 340 386 + 13.5%
Closed Sales 15 14 - 6.7% 171 220 + 28.7%
New Listings 0 1 -- 48 26 - 45.8%
Closed Sales 0 2 -- 23 33 + 43.5%
Days on Market Until Sale 0 91 -- 95 117 + 23.2%
Median Sales Price* $0 $141,500 -- $353,088 $344,948 - 2.3%
Percent of List Price Received* 0.0% 99.1% -- 99.2% 97.6% - 1.6%
Mount Olive Twp
Morris County
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
New Listings 0 0 -- 1 0 - 100.0%
Closed Sales 0 0 -- 1 0 - 100.0%
Days on Market Until Sale 0 0 -- 105 0 - 100.0%
Median Sales Price* $0 $0 -- $266,000 $0 - 100.0%
Inventory of Homes for Sale 0 0 -- -- -- --
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
New Listings 3 4 + 33.3% 59 58 - 1.7%
Closed Sales 2 2 0.0% 30 36 + 20.0%
New Listings 2 3 + 50.0% 7 15 + 114.3%
Closed Sales 0 0 -- 3 7 + 133.3%
Median Sales Price* $0 $0 -- $219,000 $200,000 - 8.7%
Wharton Boro
Morris County
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
New Listings 0 0 -- 0 0 --
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
New Listings 6 6 0.0% 52 61 + 17.3%
Closed Sales 2 1 - 50.0% 24 30 + 25.0%
New Listings 2 2 0.0% 28 16 - 42.9%
Closed Sales 5 1 - 80.0% 28 19 - 32.1%
Percent of List Price Received* 108.2% 95.6% - 11.6% 109.6% 107.0% - 2.4%
Mine Hill Twp
Morris County
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
Closed Sales 0 0 -- 1 0 - 100.0%
Median Sales Price* $0 $0 -- $200,000 $0 - 100.0%
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
New Listings 42 45 + 7.1% 325 371 + 14.2%
Closed Sales 14 8 - 42.9% 220 253 + 15.0%
New Listings 2 5 + 150.0% 27 38 + 40.7%
Closed Sales 2 3 + 50.0% 27 25 - 7.4%
Randolph Twp
Morris County
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014
New Listings 43 48 + 11.6% 439 440 + 0.2%
Closed Sales 20 13 - 35.0% 210 217 + 3.3%
New Listings 3 4 + 33.3% 36 49 + 36.1%
Closed Sales 1 2 + 100.0% 25 30 + 20.0%
Days on Market Until Sale 58 139 + 139.7% 79 122 + 54.4%
Percent of List Price Received* 95.0% 96.2% + 1.3% 95.1% 95.1% 0.0%
Jefferson Twp
Morris County
Single Family
Townhouse-Condo
New Listings 0 0 -- 4 6 + 50.0%
Median Sales Price* $0 $0 -- $0 $73,950 --
Last 12 Months
Adult Community
March
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014

EXHIBIT 20.2

From:
To: rileej@roxburynj.us; behrensg@roxburynj.us; crowleym@roxburynj.us;
hallf@roxburynj.us; zoschakr@roxburynj.us; defillippor@roxburynj.us;
schmidtm@roxburynj.us; rathsc@roxburynj.us
CC: sensweeney@njleg.org; senbuono@njleg.org; senweinberg@njleg.org
Subject: FW: Fenimore Landfill Roxbury
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:17:06 -0500
Mayor and Council,

I am forwarding to you a letter I sent to Senator Bucco regarding my ongoing concerns
regarding the Fenimore Landfill. I found out today that yet another of my son's close
friends is fleeing Roxbury to move to Mount Olive. They are afraid to live near the
landfill and they are afraid that their children are no longer safe in their schools. They
have no faith that this will every be resolved. They are not alone. Many other of our
friends have their homes for sale and even more are just waiting for the ones that are
listed to start to sell before they list theirs. My husband and I discuss leaving all the
time. The fact that so many of our children's friends are doing so will make it easier for
us to eventually leave Roxbury but we still worry about the affect of moving away from
family and friends and the financial implications it will have on us for the rest of our
lives. I grew up in this town and also have an 83 year old father to worry about if I
leave.

The Star Ledger had an article on the front page this morning which detailed the way
the Christie administration handled the George Washington Bridge scandal as " the
determined refusal of agency officials to answer and questions about the
decisions and ordered public affairs officials not to respond." They described
the plan to "hunker down and grit our way thru it" . I know this behavior all to
well because it is exactly what the NJ DEP and NJ DOH has been doing in Roxbury for
the past year. Do you not see this as a pattern?

I urge you take advantage of this opportune time when your voices might actually be
heard to continue this fight on our behalf regardless of party lines. Loyalty to your party
should not be put before human life and the families you have been sworn to
serve. Families in Roxbury are suffering, children are being torn from the only homes
and friends they ever knew because their parents fear for their safety. You have gained
no ground, gotten no answers and people have loss faith that this will ever be
resolved.

Sincerely,

From:
To: senbucco@njleg.org
Subject: RE: Fenimore
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:13:31 -0500
Dear Senator,

I am following up with you regarding the Scrubber not operating on holidays and also
the decision to stop taking canister monitor readings in the schools.

Holidays - I do not understand why the scrubber is not operating on holidays. I can only
assume it has to do with paying to man the facility. If that is the case, it is not
acceptable. The gas emissions do not stop on holidays, the health risks do not go away
and of all days that residents should feel free to invite guests to the homes it should be
on holidays! If the state insists the scrubber is the answer it should be running 24 hours
a day 7 days a week so there are no risk of health implications and I am able to enjoy
the use of my property without fear of poisoning my house guests.

Schools - Since the DOH decision there have been 2 incidents which call for a protocol
to be followed outside of Jefferson School. On neither occasion were parents notified of
a potential threat or informed of any action taken as per protocol. On one occasion
school was not in session so I can understand no action being taken but we still should
have been informed that an alert was issued. We were not. On the other occasion (
yesterday ) school was in session....parents were not informed of the alert or told if any
action was taken. I received a text, a phone call and an email from emergency
management telling me not to park on the street before it snowed but no information
from anyone informing me that health limits determined by Rutgers Experts on outside
monitors near my child's school were exceeded and action taken. WHY?

Also the mighty scrubber has broken down and is currently not working, yet as far as I
know the testing in the schools has not been reinstated. There is no safety net for our
children while the scrubber is being repaired. It is apparent that this big eyesore of a fix
is going to be a mechanical problem for years and the residents at the mercy of the
"DEP Experts" (????) who are running it. Until that mess is running smoothly with no
mechanical issues for a long period of time all safety measures should be kept in place.
They should not be cutting corners at the expense of public safety. The inflicted this on
us. Our safety and the safety of our children should be top priority. It is terrible that we
have to beg. I called Joe Eldridge at the DOH 3 times last week to discuss his decision
to stop the indoor canister testing. Each time assured by the person on the phone I
would get a call back. No call back. Who is liable for the kids in the schools? Is it the
School District for failing to make sure the state takes agreed upon action when alert
limits are met or the State for not taking action they agreed to? Who is legally liable
for the safety of children in Roxbury Public Schools?

I want to ask you again if this is the way we are expected to live? Is this the quality of
life that I pay some of the highest taxes in the country for?

What is the progress on an investigation into WHY this occurred?


What is the progress on the long term solution and the cost comparative we
were promised?

Why has so much money been spent on the temporary solution if they are
really working on a permanent one?

How much money has been wasted on the posi shell, the temp scrubber
and the new scrubber that has broken down after only a few weeks
operation, electric lines, water lines, road work and 10 tanker trucks a day...?

How much more money will they dump into this over the next 30
years compared to the cost of trucking it out?

Why is it that our town issues all these requests and are completely ignored?

How can a state agency get away with destroying a community and not have
to answer to anyone for it?

And why is the George Washington Bridge issue that inconvenienced people
for a matter of days national news and this issue that has tormented a town
for over a year continually being swept under the rug?

I think about moving out of Roxbury everyday. I worry about the affect it will have on
my children taking them away from family and friends. I worry about the financial
issues leaving now will cause, issues that will affect our quality of life, their college
education and my retirement. If I could leave I would and I am not alone.

Continually frustrated in Roxbury,

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:00:11 -0500
From: SenBucco@njleg.org
To:
Dear ,

I'm in receipt of your email regarding the scrubber not running on Christmas Day. I
placed an inquiry with NJDEP regarding the scrubber's operations on Dec. 24-26 and
asked for clarification as to whether the scrubber was completely down those two days
and a thorough explanation as to why this occurred.

Sincerely,
Tony Bucco

Senator Anthony R. Bucco
Legislative District 25
Denville, NJ 07834
Phone: (973) 627-9700
Fax: (973) 627-0131
Email: senbucco@njleg.org

EXHIBIT 20.3

From:
Date: May 3, 2014, 2:55:27 PM EDT
To: "anthony.fontana@dep.state.nj.us" <anthony.fontana@dep.state.nj.us>
Cc: "scot.frow@dep.state.nj.us" <scot.frow@dep.state.nj.us>
Subject: Re: Sanitary Landfill Contingency Fund follow-up
Gentlemen:

Please confirm receipt of the below email I sent you on 4/28/14.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:28 AM, wrote:
Dear Mr. Fontana,

Thank you for the time you took during our 1/28/14 phone call. I am contacting you to give you
a status update, and for additional information as it pertains to my Sanitary Landfill Contingency
Fund claim.

As you are already aware, last November I submitted a legitimate claim for the SLCF fund. I
never heard back from anyone, nor did I receive any notification by mail. I called your office on
1/10/14 for a follow-up, and received a callback voicemail message from you on 1/27/14. We
finally connected via telephone call on 1/28/14.

During the course of our discussion, you acknowledged my claim is valid and legitimate,
however, the fund is depleted of money because no one ever applies for it, therefore it has been
redistributed over the years elsewhere; and any money in the fund is now being used to
remediate the landfill...the very thing that has driven me from my home and plummeted it's value
in the first place. You also mentioned I am the first applicant for the SLCF in approximately 20
years. Lastly, you mentioned the fund may be able to help me, after the sale of my home.

To date, our house has not budged. Today is the 321st day my children and I are living out of a
suitcase, as our town continues to be plagued with toxic fumes from the landfill. Since our
conversation, there have been astronomical spikes in hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide gases.
There has been vast media coverage on the dire state of this situation. We have continued to
drop our price. We are in an emergency situation, as we have been trying to sell our home for
over a year. We need to escalate our situation on an emergency basis.

In order for me to escalate my plea elsewhere, I first have to furnish proof that I have already
applied for help on the state level. What is the NJ DEP's formal response to an SLCF claim
submission? How is one typically notified of the status of their application? While I am most
appreciative of your time on the phone, it was an informal response to an exceedingly formal
application process. I need something in writing to the effect of what you told me on the phone.

Next, when you mentioned I am the first applicant in approximately 20 years, could you provide
an exact date when this fund was last used for the purpose it was intended for?

Additionally, while I was happy to hear the fund may be able to help us after we actually sell, I
have concerns. How would the value of my home be appraised if you haven't been inside it? My
husband and I upgraded it significantly after we purchased it. We would be more than willing to
have your appraiser visit our home now, to assess it's market value. As I mentioned to you on the
phone (and noted in my application), I have spoken to several real-estate professionals, who have
unquestionably confirmed we have incurred a house devaluation as a direct result of this landfill.
Please elaborate how an assessment would theoretically be conducted post-sale.

Lastly, can you confirm who physically is in receipt of the large packet I submitted to your
department?

Attached is a sampling of recent media coverage of the landfill since we last spoke. I am at a loss
as to how we are expected to sell our home amidst this ever-evolving crisis.

Thank you for your continued assistance.

Sincerely,

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/04/feds_call_fenimore_landfill_a_public_health_hazar
d_will_come_to_roxbury_to_study_impact.html

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/04/fields_close_as_air_monitors_show_landfill_gas_n
ear_roxbury_schools.html

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/dep_met_with_harsh_response_at_fenimore_meeti
ng.html#comments

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/roxbury_holds_its_nose_over_a_lack_of_justice_
opinion.html

Daily Record:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20140314/NJ OPINION01/303140028/DEP-hearing-offered-
public-little-comfort

News12 segment: http://newjersey.news12.com/news/roxbury-residents-meet-with-dep-on-
fenimore-landfill-1.7360907#comments

Roxbury Register: http://newjerseyhills.com/roxbury_register/news/hostile-roxbury-crowd-
confronts-dep-reps-at-high-school/article_d3ed96f2-aac5-11e3-9c0a-
001a4bcf887a.html?TNNoMobile

To The Editor: http://newjerseyhills.com/roxbury_register/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/why-
aren-t-our-elected-officials-speaking-out-on-fenimore/article_8011f5e2-aac9-11e3-ace8-
001a4bcf887a.html

Radio 101.5 FM coverage-audio: http://nj1015.com/callers-give-update-on-roxbury-landfill-
audio/

http://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/roxbury-environmental-center-founder-njdep-did-not-
consider-wells-in-landfill-soil-removal/

EXHIBIT 21.1

Fenimore Landfill Petition Request
Rodenbeck, Sven (ATSDR/DCHI/OD) Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM
Mr.,
TheAgencyforToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistry(ATSDR)hasacceptedyourpeontoconductpublichealth
assessmentacviestoevaluatethehydrogensuldeandotheremissionsfromtheFenimoreLandll.Today,a
hardcopyoftheaachedacceptanceleerisbeingmailedtoyouviatheUSPostalService.
PleasenotethatATSDRhasalreadysentaleertotheNewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtecon
expressingourconcernthathydrogensuldeemissionsfromtheFenimoreLandllmayimpactthehealthofthe
nearbycommunity.Thatleerisalsoaachedtothisemailandahardcopywillbeenclosedwithyour
acceptanceleer.
Nowthatyourpeonhasbeenaccepted,futureATSDRacvieswillbecoordinatedbyDr.JillDyken,ATSDR
EnvironmentalHealthScienst.Dr.DykenwillbetheATSDRleadinvesgaonforanyfutureFenimoreLandll
acvies.In thenearfuture, shewillcontactyoutodiscusshowbesttoengagewiththecommunitynearthe
FenimoreLandll.
Ifyouhaveanyquesonsconcerninghowyourpeonwasreviewed,pleasecontactme.
Sven
SvenE.Rodenbeck,Sc.D.,P.E.,BCEE
RearAdmiral(rered),USPHS
AcngDCHIPeonCoordinator
Gmail - Fenimore Landfill Petition Request https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2

EXHIBIT 21.2

R.E.A.C.T.
Roxbury Environmental Action CoaliTion
P.O. Box 244
Ledgewood, N.J . 07852
Website: www.reactnj.org
Email: info@reactnj.org

September5,2013
ViaEmailandCertifiedMailReturnReceiptRequested
JoeEldridge
Consumer,Environmental&OccupationalHealthServices
POBox369
Trenton,NJ08625
RE: DepartmentofHealthMessageonHydrogenSulfideEmissionsfromtheFormerFenimore
Landfill,RoxburyTwp.,MorrisCounty,NJ
DearMr.Eldridge,
IamatechnicaladviserfortheRoxburyEnvironmentalActionCoalition.Ihavereviewedthe
DepartmentofHealthsresponse(Department)issuedonAugust27,2013regardingpotentialhealth
effectsfromexposuretoHydrogenSulfide(H2S)thatisemanatingfromtheFormerFenimore
LandfillandhasbeenpollutingtheairinRoxbury,NJandbeyondsinceNovember2012.Iunderstand
thatthisresponsewastheresultofconcernsfromhundredsofresidentsthathavewrittenandcalled
yourofficeinMay2013,aswellasearlierrequestsforassistancedatingbacktoNovember2012.
Basedonareviewofthereport,Iamconcernedthattheassurancesregardingpotentialhealtheffects
fromthelandfillareinconclusive.IdontbelievetheDepartmenthadsufficientdataoranalysesto
justifytheassertionsthatweremadeorevaluatethetrueharmpotentialofthegasemissions.
DataAnalysis
TheDepartmentappearstohavereviewedH2Sconcentrationdatafromthemonitorsthatarefunded
byRoxburyTownship,andinstalledandoperatedbyEmilcott.Ifthisisthecase,thenIhavethe
followingquestions:
1. SufficiencyofMonitoringLocations:Areyouawarethatthetownshipmonitorsonlyexistin
twolocationsimmediatelyaroundthelandfill?OneislocatedonMountainRoadtothe
southeastofthelandfillandoneislocatedonLazarusDrivetothenorthwest.Therearemany
residentsthatlivehundredsoffeetfromthesitewherenomonitorsexistandno
measurementshavebeentaken.Areyoualsoawarethattherehavebeenperiodsinthepast7
monthswhenthemonitorswouldgodownforhoursatatimewhenlevelspeaked,causing
reportedaveragestobelowerthanactual?HowhastheDepartmentaccountedforthislackof
dataintheiranalysis?

2. ExistenceofOtherToxins:Manyresidentshavestartedtoexperiencenosebleedswhichis
consistentwithexposuretoairborneparticulatessuchasasbestos,formaldehyde,orother
volatileorganiccompounds(VOCs),allofwhichmaybepresentonthelandfill.
FormaldehydeisanintermediateendproductintheanaerobicdigestionprocessinwhichH2S
isformedandasbestoswasdiscoveredbytheNJDEPperaninspectiononJuly3rd,2012.At
times,thetownshipmonitorshavemeasuredambientVOCconcentrationsinexcessof10ppm
(10,000ppb)inresidentialareas.EmilcottissuedareportonFebruary26,2013statingthat
duetomeasuredVOClevels,noonecanmakeanydefinitiveconclusionsonthesafetyof
exposuresunlessanaccuratelistofchemicalcontaminantsinthelandfillgasareidentified.Itis
possiblethatthesecontaminantsarebeingentrainedbytheH2Sgasthatisbeinggenerated
fromwithinthenewcappingmaterial.
HastheDepartmentpersonallyconductedextensiveairsamplingonthelandfilltoinvestigate
whatothercontaminantsarepresentbesidesH2S?HastheDepartmentpersonallymonitored
H2SandVOClevels360degreesaroundthesite?
3. DangerousLevelsofH2S:AreyouawarethatinJune2013theNJDEPmeasuredH2S
concentrationsonthelandfillinexcessof187,000ppbwhichcanbethreateningtohumanlife?
Areyouawarethatthesiteisnotfencedinandtherearenowarningsignspresentonthe
perimeterofthelandfill?Areyouawarethatfisherman,hunters,hikers,andcuriouschildren
ridingATVsareknowntowonderontoornearthesite?Imaginethetragedythatcouldtake
placeifoneoftheseindividualswanderednearthelandfillatatimewhentheH2Sspikedto
immediatelydangerouslevels.HastheDepartmentwarnedthepublicofsuchdangers?
4. CurrentHealthSymptomsExperiencedbyResidents:Areyouawarethatsomeresidentshave
experiencedmultiplerespiratoryinfectionsaswellasasthmaattacksfortheveryfirsttime
sincetheodorshavestarted?Areyouawarethatonechildexperiencedalungcapacity
deficiencyof10%afterexposuretothetoxicgasathisbusstop?Areyouawarethatsome
childrenarecurrentlybeingmonitoredandtreatedatMt.SinaiEnvironmentalHealthSpecialty
Unitduetosuddenunexplainedhealthimpactssuchas,butnotlimitedtochronicheadaches,
nosebleeds,autoimmunedeficiencies,andrespiratoryillnesssinceexposurehasstarted?Are
youawarethatsomeresidentshavealreadylefttheirhomespertheadviceoftheirdoctorsto
escapeexposurebecauseitaggravatestheirmedicalconditions?HastheDepartment
performedanepidemiologicalsurveyandreachedouttoresidentstodocumentandreview
theirhealthcomplaints?
ExposureGuidelines
TheDepartmentsHydrogenSulfideFactSheet#2statesthatinordertoassesstheriskofadverse
healtheffects,theycomparedH2SmonitoringdatawiththeacuteMinimumRiskLevel(MRL)of70
ppbthatwasdevelopedbytheAgencyofToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistry(ATSDR).Recentair
monitoringdatashowsthatH2SconcentrationsinRoxburyTownshiphaveexceededthislevelmany
timesandhavepeakedtoover1,100ppb.TheFactSheetfurtherstatesthatalthoughconcentrations
ofH2SmeasuredinRoxburyhaveexceededtheacuteMRL,theDepartmentconcludesthereisnorisk
forlongtermhealtheffectsbecausethelevelwhereactualhealtheffectswereobservedintheactual
studywas2,000ppb.Inessence,theDepartmenthasremovedtheuncertaintyfactorsfromtheMRL.
PleaseunderstandthatthestudyinwhichtheATSDRacuteMRLwasdevelopedwasbasedononly10

subjectsrangingfrom3061yearsofage.Inaddition,peerreviewsoftheATSDRacuteMRLhave
criticizedthestudybecauseitslimitedsamplesizeresultedinlowstatisticalpower,makingthe
findingsdifficulttointerpret.TheATSDRappliedappropriateuncertaintyfactorstotheMRLinorder
toaccountfordatabasedeficiencyandbeinclusiveoftheentirepopulation.Underwhatbasisdoes
theDepartmentfeelthesefactorscanbeignored??
AreyouawarethatthestudyusedtodeveloptheacuteMRLwasbasedonadultsubjects?TheATSDR
explicitlystatesthatchildrenarenotsmalladultsanddifferfromtheirexposuresandsusceptibility.
ThereisverylimiteddataavailableregardingH2Sexposuretochildren,however,multiplesourcesall
agreethatchildrenbreathemorerapidly,takinginmorepollutionperpoundofbodyweightthando
adults.Also,varioussourcesagreethatchildren/infantsaremoresusceptibletotoxicsubstances
becausetheirbodiesandorgansareimmature,andtheyareintheirprimelearning/developmental
years.Inaddition,theATSDRalsostatesthatchronicmaternalexposuretolowlevelsofH2Smay
increasetheriskofspontaneousabortion.TheDepartmentfailedtodisclosethepotentialimpacts,
knownandunknown,ofH2Sexposurewithrespecttochildrenonthefactsheet.
AdditionalpublicationsandstudiesexistthatfurtherexploreH2Sexposureatlowconcentrations.
Severalarelistedbelow:
Campagnaetal(2004)reportedthathospitalvisitsforrespiratorysymptomsincluding
asthmaamongchildren<18yearsoldwereincreasedfollowingdaysonwhichatleastone
ofthedailyrolling30minuteaverageH2Sconcentrationexceeded30ppbascomparedto
dayswherelevelsdidnotexceed30ppb.
TheNorthCarolinaScientificAdvisoryBoard(2001)reportedsymptomssuchasheadaches,
nausea,andeyeandthroatirritationwerefoundincommunitieswithambientlevelsaslow
as7to10ppb.
AstudyinapulpmilltowninFinlandassessedthechronicimpactoflowlevelsofH2S
pollution.Theaverageconcentrationwasreportedtobe1.42.2ppbwithamaximum24
hourconcentrationof17.3ppb.Coughs,respiratoryinfections,andheadacheswere
reportedtobehigherthaninneighboring,unpollutedcommunities.
KilburnandWarshaw(1995)concludedheadaches,nausea,vomiting,depression,and
breathingdifficultieswereassociatedwithaverageH2Sconcentrationlevelsof10ppbina
neighborhoodofexposedresidents.
TheUSEPAsetachronicresidentialscreeningvalueof1.4ppbtoeliminateriskof
deleterioushealtheffects.NotethattheFormerFenimoreLandfillhasbeenemanatingH2S
gasforover9monthswithanaverageconcentrationofover4.5ppb.
TheCaliforniaEPAsetanacutehealthvalueof30ppbaveragedoveronehourtoprotect
againstadversehealtheffects.Notethatthetownshipmonitorshaverecorded60minute
averagesinexcessof350ppb.
HastheDepartmentreviewedtheseorsimilarstudiesandutilizedthisinformationinmakingtheir
healthassessment?

Basedontheinformationprovidedinthisletter,IurgetheDepartmenttoperformamorethorough
investigationandanalysisoftheFormerFenimoreLandfillandinformthepublicofallthepotential
harmsassociatedwiththegasemissionsthathavebeenpollutingRoxburyTownshipsinceNovember,
2012.Thousandsofresidentsandover1,000schoolchildrenthatliveincloseproximitytothelandfill
aredependingonyourofficeforguidance.Theyhavearighttoknowthetruehealthimplicationsof
whattheyareexposedtoattheirhomesandaroundtheTownship.TheNJDepartmentofHealthhas
adutytoperformacompleteanalysisofthelandfillwithregardstothepotentialimpacttohuman
healthandprovideatransparentandaccurateassessmentbasedonalltheinformationattheir
disposal.
Inaddition,residentshavebeenaskingforsometimeforarelocationplan/hotelreimbursementor
supplyofairpurifiersfortheirhomeswhilethesiteremediationistakingplace.Schoolstartsnext
weekandchildrendeservetoliveandsleepinacomfortableenvironment,withouthavingtosuffer
fromburningeyes,throats,nausea,andincreasedasthmaattacks.WhatreliefcantheDepartment
immediatelyprovidetothemostaffectedresidentsuntilthenoxiousgasconcentrationsdecrease?
R.E.A.C.T.wouldliketoworktogetherwiththeNJDepartmentofHealthandscheduleafacetoface
meetinginordertodiscusstheseissuesandtransferourknowledgeofthelandfill,impactsto
residents,andH2Sexposure.Pleaseadvisemeofyouravailabilityatyourearliestconvenience.
Respectfully,

CC: MaryE.ODowd,Commissioner,NJDepartmentofHealth
FredHall,Mayor,RoxburyTownship
ChrisRaths,RoxburyTownshipManager
RoxburyTownshipCouncil
MarkCaputo,HealthOfficer,RoxburyTownship
Dr.PatrickTierney,SuperintendentofSchools,RoxburyTownship
GovernorChrisChristie
LieutenantGovernorKimGuadagno
SenatorAnthonyBucco
SenatorBobSmith
SenatorRobertMenendez
AnthonyBucco,esq
JeffTittel,SierraClub
LTElenaVaouli,EPA
LeahGraziano,EPA
Dr.MichelleWatters,EPA

References
USDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesATSDR,2006.ToxicologicalProfileofHydrogen
Sulfide.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2003.ToxicologicalReviewofHydrogenSulfide.
JamesCollins,Ph.D.,DavidLewis,Ph.D.,2000.HydrogenSulfide:EvaluationofCurrentCaliforniaAir
QualityStandardsWithRespecttoProtectionofChildren.
Environmental&OccupationalHealthProgramDivisionofHumanHealth,MaineCenterforDisease
Control&Prevention,MaineDepartmentofHealth&HumanServices,2006.AmbientAirGuidelines
forHydrogenSulfide.
CaliforniaEPA,1999.DeterminationofAcuteReferenceExposureLevelsforAirborneToxicants:
HydrogenSulfideAcuteToxicitySummary.
ScottSimonton,Ph.D.,2007.HumanHealthEffectsfromExposuretoLowLevelConcentrationsof
HydrogenSulfide.
Hayward2001,SummaryoftheToxicityAssessmentofHydrogenSulfideConductedbytheSecretary's
ScientificAdvisoryBoardonToxicAirPollutantsReport.
NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013.OdorControlIssuesatFenimoreLandfill.

EXHIBIT 21.3

EXHIBIT 21.4

EXHIBIT 21.5

From
9/3/13

to Bob.Martin, Daniel, Raths, Fred, Anthony, Ed.Putnam, Kerry, Magdalena, Louis

Mrs. Padilla,
I hope you had a nice Holiday Weekend. I didn't, and neither did the ~300 families in the
Poet's Peak Development. A calm wind came from the southeast causing the gas to
infiltrate the entire neighborhood and remain for almost the entire weekend. H2S levels
reached 320 ppb, well above safe acute limits set by the ATSDR and CaEPA. We again
left our home and stayed with family, but this is not feasible every time the
concentrations get high.

Your department promised an update regarding relocation options/hotel stays, and air
purifier supply for the home. Our township manager and mayor also asked for an update
back on August 23rd. This is the 7th time I have contacted you since then asking for a
response.

School starts next week and children deserve to sleep in an environment that is
comfortable and free of toxic gas. I don't have the financial means to fund hotels rooms
or fill my house with air purifiers nor should I or any affected resident have to bear that
burden. Let's not forget that this burden was brought upon us by your Department.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Air Purifiers and Relocation
To: Raths Chris <rathsc@roxburynj.us>
Cc: "Hall, Fred" <hallf@roxburynj.us>, "Anthony M. Bucco"
<ABucco@murphymckeonlaw.com>, "Putnam, Ed (Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us)"
<Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us>, "Pflugh, Kerry" <Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us>, "Padilla,
Magdalena" <Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us>

Mrs, Padilla,
Last night some residents were forced to spend the night at the Holiday Inn in Mt.
Arlington. Levels were high last night and exceeded acute health values set by the EPA
and ATSDR. I am appalled by your lack of response on this matter, especially after the
department stated it was seeking options. I have requested an update more than half a
dozen times and my original email from August 23 remains below, unanswered. Will
you please justify the paycheck that the residents of NJ are paying you and help them,
look into this matter expeditiously, and provide an update? I, and the residents of
Roxbury deserve more.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM,wrote:
Mrs. Padilla, It's been two days since Mr. Rath's again asked you to respond to my email
below on August 23. Can you kindly provide an update? Last night was again hell. The
gas engulfed my entire home and lack of ability to sleep caused me to almost fall asleep
driving to work this morning. Does this need to happen before you provide an update on
temporary relocation and air purifiers? You stated on August 13th, almost two weeks
ago, that the department was looking into this. There are many others in this same
situation and they too are waiting for a response. A timely response will avoid you
having to deal with a mass number of emails.
Thank you,

From: Hall, Fred <hallf@roxburynj.us>
Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: questions and updates
To: "Mary.O'Dowd@doh.state.nj.us" <Mary.O'Dowd@doh.state.nj.us>,
"Bob.Martin@dep.state.nj.us" <Bob.Martin@dep.state.nj.us>
Cc: Mayor and Council <mayorcouncil@roxburynj.us>, "Overman, Amy"
<AOverman@njleg.org>, "Bucco, Tony"
<abucco_at_murphymckeonlaw.com@roxburynj.us>,, Raths Chris
<rathsc@roxburynj.us>, "Pflugh, Kerry" <Kerry.Pflugh@dep.state.nj.us>, "Putnam, Ed
(Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us)" <Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us>, "Padilla, Magdalena"
<Magdalena.Padilla@dep.state.nj.us>

Commissioners Martin and O'Dowd,
Can you please look into this ASAP and provide feedback.
Thank you,
FredHall
Mayor
RoxburyTownship

From: Raths Chris
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:20 AM
To: Pflugh, Kerry; Putnam, Ed (Ed.Putnam@dep.state.nj.us); Padilla, Magdalena
Cc: Mayor and Council; Overman, Amy; Bucco, Tony;
Subject: questions and updates
Ms. Pflugh, Mr. Putnam and Ms. Padilla,
Mr. has e-mailed several questions regarding the Landfill: As of yet none of
these have been addressed. Please provide a direct response to Mr. Morrow and copy me.
Furthermore there was no update for yesterday. Why not? You could be informing the
residents of the progress being made on the installation of piping for collection. The
assemble of the burner and finally the results of the canister test from over a week ago.
Your attention and response is needed prior to tonights Council meeting.
Respectfully,
Chris Raths


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:06 AM, wrote:
Mrs. Padilla,

I am still waiting for a response. Can you please kindly provide one?

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM, > wrote:
Mrs. Padilla,

It's now Monday morning. The weekend was hell, levels were very high Saturday
night. Will you please provide me an update today per my email below?

Thank you,

On Aug 23, 2013, at 4:49 PM, > wrote:
Mr. Raths indicated that the DEP would be responding directly. It's almost close of
business for the weekend. Will kindly provide an update today?

Bill

On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Raths Chris <rathsc@roxburynj.us> wrote:
IhaveonceagaincopiedtheDEPonthisrequest.Theyshouldberespondingdirectlytoyour
inquires.
Thanks
Chris
From:
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Raths Chris; Hall, Fred; Anthony M. Bucco
Subject: Air Purifiers and Relocation
Chris,

I know relocation options and air purifiers were discussed at your August 13
meeting. The FAQ issued by the DEP on August 16 stated that the department was
looking into supply of air purifiers and relocation options. It's been more than a week
since your meeting.

Is there any update? Last night, levels on Mountain Road were elevated for the entire
night. We, along with other's have been experiencing nose bleeds for the first
time. According to my research, formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, causes nosebleeds,
and according to the DEP January 7th report, formaldehyde is an intermediate product
from the H2S generation process from sulfates. I find this concerning and
disturbing. The DOH doesn't seem to care to do any testing or residential symptom
surveys. The DEP air test results are taking so long to come back that no one trusts
them. REACT will be doing independent air grab testing shortly to find out the real truth,
but in the mean time, I am not taking any chances.

I understand that the air purifiers with the activated carbon filters have been doing an ok
job in removing contaminants in people's homes. Before I spend $500 that I don't have
on air purifiers, can you ask the DEP if there are any updates on this matter, and please
try to get a response TODAY? I don't understand why it's taking so long while our health
is at risk and we continue to suffer. It's a pity that dollars and cents are the barrier
between protecting the residents health.
Thank you,

FenimoreLandfill
Frequently Asked Questions
August 16, 2013

1. When will the smell go away?

DEP has hired Handex to install a gas collection and treatment system. Testing for
design of this system is under way. In the interim a temporary system will be
installed in the next two weeks and it may take more time for the system to be
fully operational. Once operational, H2S odors should be reduced.

2. Will the air monitors be testing for things other than H
2
S?

DEP conducted volatile organic vapors ambient air quality monitoring on the
landfill. The results of this test will determine whether volatile organic vapors are
coming from the landfill. Results of this test, due Tuesday will determine what if
any additional monitoring is needed. In addition, the DEP is evaluating where
additional monitors for H2S may be needed.

3. What funds or programs will be offered to residents needing to relocate?

The DEP is researching this request to determine what programs might be
available for Roxbury Township and its residents.

4. When will the DEP provide additional air and water testing and what will be
tested?

Air

The DEP is evaluating the current H2S monitoring system and anticipates
expanding it with up to two more monitoring locations. Hand-held and on-site
safety monitoring equipment used on site have consistently failed to register any
readings of concern for other air pollutants. However, the DEP has conducted
ambient air sampling at the site perimeter to analyze for a range of pollutants
other than H2S. The results will determine what additional sampling might be
needed.

Water

The DEP sampled surface waters, specifically Ledgewood pond, during both dry
and wet weather events in January and June of 2013. The results of this sampling
showed concentrations of iron and manganese in levels that exceed groundwater
quality standards. There are no surface water quality standards for iron or
manganese. Iron and manganese are both metals which often occur naturally in
groundwater and it is not unusual to find concentrations of these metals in excess
of groundwater quality standards. There are no human health concerns associated
with concentrations of these metals in off-site surface waters.

On-site sampling of leachate and the leachate pond found some pollutants at
concentrations minimally above some surface water quality standards; however,
downstream surface water sampling did not demonstrate any off-site impacts or
concentrations exceeding water quality standards for these pollutants.
Downstream surface water sampling did show elevated levels of iron and
manganese, which, as noted above, do not demonstrate health concerns.

5. What is the time frame for the current testing of the abatement system?

DEP is pursuing two actions simultaneously to abate the Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
gas: an interim solution to provide immediate relief from the H2S, and then a
long-term solution involving an active gas collection system with an impermeable
landfill cap over the Strategic Environmental Partners (SEP) material. The
interim solution involves an impermeable cover Posi-Shell, which is a cement
based spray on cap. DEP contractor Handex is providing on-site testing,
design, and construction services to build a gas collection and treatment system.
Vent testing for this system began on Monday.

Vent testing involves applying a vacuum to the existing gas vent to determine the
total air flow and radial influence that a particular vent can produce. That
information will be used to design the alternate collection and treatment system.
DEP expects vent testing to be completed by August 19.

6. Why wont the DEP remove the material causing the odors? Just truck it out?

Digging up the landfill and removing material is not a practical solution. Breaking
through the cap and removing material could expose the public to higher readings
of H2S for an extended period of time. Removal of the estimated 400,000 cubic
yards of construction debris in the landfill would involve thousands of trucks over
many months of work. Removal and disposal costs, at current rates, would be
exorbitant.

7. What type of environmental assessment will the NJDEP be conducting? Such as
taking borings, soil and effluent testing to determine what was accepted by SEP?

The DEP is currently evaluating the various testing that has taken place on the
landfill before SEP deposited construction and demolition screenings in the
landfill, after SEP deposited these materials in the landfill, and since the DEPs
taken over of the landfill in late June. A report of the testing and the results is
being prepared for the township. The department expects that report to be
completed in the next couple of weeks.

8. What is the status of the permanent closure? Has design started on the permanent
closure?

DEP is already working on the long-term solution. A contractor has been hired
and has begun the design work. There are too many variables to commit to a
completion date at this point, but we will implement the long-term solution as
soon as possible, taking into account the public procurement process, ongoing
litigation and construction season. The system that is being designed will include
a liner to keep rainwater out and gases in, an active gas abatement system, a soil
and grass layer to prevent erosion. We have instructed our engineering contractor
to work as fast as possible, but it takes months to design such a system.

9. Will the NJDEP reimburse residents for air purifiers for their homes?
(See answer to Number 3)

10. Can the number of air monitoring stations be increased?

The DEP was in Roxbury Township on August 15 conducting an assessment of
wind direction and odor complaint locations to determine the proper location and
how many additional stationary air monitors will be needed.

11. With a flare system in place will SO2 and/or other gasses be monitored?

The original plan to capture and burn H2S through the use of solar spark flares
has not performed as DEP had expected. The DEP has hired the contractor
Handex to build a gas collection and treatment system. Testing for this system is
underway. Any additional testing is depending on the treatment system that will
be selected.

12. Can I still call in odor complaints to the DEP? Who do I call if I have more
questions or concerns?

Yes. If you wish to file an odor complaint, please call 1-877-WARNDEP. This
number is operational 24/7. If you wish to ask questions and not file an odor
complaint, you can call DEP at (609) 341-2875. This number is operational
during regular business hours 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. If you wish to email your questions,
you can contact DEP at: RoxburyTwpFenimoreQuestions@dep.state.nj.us

13. If the DEP agrees to water supply testing for how long into the future will they
provide this testing?

Previous tests of potable water supplies and groundwater by the DEP did not
show evidence of contamination, nor have surface water quality tests shown that
the landfill is contributing to surface water quality problems. DEP therefore does
not believe that further testing is necessary or cost-effective; however, residents
are free to have their water tested as they deem appropriate.

14. What is the future vision of the site once the permanent capping is completed?

The DEP has committed it resources to fulfilling the Emergency Order to control
odor on Fenimore landfill.

15. What are the schools doing about this if the smell comes in the buildings during
school hours?

The DEP is aware that Roxbury Township schools currently have a plan in place
for addressing odor problems from the landfill. However the department has no
information on the details of this plan.

16. Will the DEP provide reimbursement for residents purchasing air
cleaners/purifiers for their homes?
(See answer to number 3)

EXHIBIT 22.1

Incidents Reported In MORRIS - ROXBURY TWP - County
Between 3/16/2014 and 5/16/2014
May 20, 2014 10:49
NOTE: Incident reports display information about incidents (complaints) that were received by the Department. The different reports
within this category allow the user to search for Incidents by Incident ID Number, Communication Center Number, County,
Municipality and Date Range. Reports and complaints are made to the DEP through a variety of sources, including regulated facilities
and members of the public. Please note that these reports are subject to verification and/or investigation by the DEP or other
appropriate agencies.The information contained in this report will be limited to the date of use by each enforcement program. The
programs began using the system for this information as follows: Air - 10/1998; Hazardous Waste - 1/2000; Water - 7/2000; Right To
Know - 11/2000; Solid Waste - 7/2001; TCPA - 12/2001; Land Use 12/2001; DPCC - 1/2002; Communication Center/Site Remediation
Program - 3/2002 and Pesticides - 4/2002. For complete information prior to these dates, please submit an official OPRA request form
to the Department. If printing this report, select landscape orientation. For a list of terms and definitions, click on the following
link:http://www.state.nj.us/dep/infoview/enforcement.html
Incident ID Number: 510119 Communications Center Number: 14-03-20-1133-07
Received Date: 3/20/2014
Incident Description:
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. THE ODOR SMELLS LIKE A GARBAGE DUMP.
CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON THE NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY. CALLER
ALSO WOKE UP WITH A HEAD ACHE FROM ODOR.
Incident Type Program: Communication Center
Incident Type: Odors
Follow-up Status:
Program Interest Name:
Program Interest ID:
Most Recent Compliance
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Linked Incidents Linked Incident Program Linked Incident Type Linked Incident Followup Status
510136 Air Odors Closed, No Inv.
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. THE ODOR SMELLS LIKE A GARBAGE DUMP.
CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON THE NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY. CALLER
ALSO WOKE UP WITH A HEAD ACHE FROM ODOR.
Incident Type Program: Air
Follow-up Status: Closed, No Inv.
Program Interest Name: FENIMORE SLF
NJ DEP-OPRA report base page http://datamine2.state.nj.us/DEP_OPRA/OpraMain/get_long_report?
1 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Program Interest ID: 26889
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
510119 Communication Center Odors
RESIDENT OF ROXBURY TWP DISCOVERED WHITE POWDER IN ENVELOPE DELIVERED IN
MAIL. ENVELOPE CURRENTY AT ROXBURY PD. SUBSTANCE IS UNDETERMINED AT THIS
TIME. RESIDENT DISCOVERED IN AM AND BROUGHT TO POLICE APPROX
2200. REPORTER STATES SITUATION IS NON-EMERGENT AT THIS TIME. REQUEST ER TO
CONTACT BACK.
Incident Type: Biological Agents
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

510376 Site Remediation WMD ER-Closed-Inv-no vio
STRONG ODOR. AVAILABLE FOR CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Follow-up Status:
2 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS THE ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AIR. SHE WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW
UP CALL DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
3 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS THE ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AIR. SHE WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW
UP CALL DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

RESIDENT OF ROXBURY TWP DISCOVERED WHITE POWDER IN ENVELOPE DELIVERED IN
MAIL. ENVELOPE CURRENTY AT ROXBURY PD. SUBSTANCE IS UNDETERMINED AT THIS
TIME. RESIDENT DISCOVERED IN AM AND BROUGHT TO POLICE APPROX
2200. REPORTER STATES SITUATION IS NON-EMERGENT AT THIS TIME. REQUEST ER TO
CONTACT BACK.
Incident Type Program: Site Remediation
Incident Type: WMD
Follow-up Status: ER-Closed-Inv-no vio
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
510175 Communication Center Biological Agents
REPORTING AN OIL FILTER LEAKED IN A CRAWLSPACE UNDER A HOME ONTO THE DIRT.
CLEAN-UP IN PROGRESS. NO WATERWAYS AFFECTED.
4 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Incident Type: Spill
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
510627 Site Remediation Spill Referred
REPORTING AN OIL FILTER LEAKED IN A CRAWLSPACE UNDER A HOME ONTO THE DIRT.
CLEAN-UP IN PROGRESS. NO WATERWAYS AFFECTED.
Follow-up Status: Referred
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
510544 Communication Center Spill
CALLER REPORTING HER DAUGHTER SMELLED A STRONG ODOR IN AREA OF HIGH
SCHOOL DURING CLASS TODAY. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK WITHIN NEXT 24 HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING HER DAUGHTER SMELLED A STRONG ODOR IN AREA OF HIGH
SCHOOL DURING CLASS TODAY. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK WITHIN NEXT 24 HOURS.
5 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT A BAD ODOR IN THE AREA. SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT A BAD ODOR IN THE AREA. SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. CALL BACK IS REQUESTED FROM
HOMEOWNER.
6 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. CALL BACK IS REQUESTED FROM
HOMEOWNER.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
DURING TESTING DISCOVERED SOIL CONTAMINATION. CLEAN UP PENDING.
Incident Type: Soil Contamination
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

511192 Site Remediation Soil Contamination Closed-LSRP ltr sent
DURING TESTING DISCOVERED SOIL CONTAMINATION. CLEAN UP PENDING.
7 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status: Closed-LSRP ltr sent
Program Interest Name: ROXBURY AUTO WRECKERS
Program Interest ID: G000024075
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
511131 Communication Center Soil Contamination
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON NEXT
WORKING BUSINESS DAY. SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON NEXT
WORKING BUSINESS DAY. SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER COMPLAINING OF A STRONG ODOR. CALLER REQUESTING A CALL BACK
DURING NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
8 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER COMPLAINING OF A STRONG ODOR. CALLER REQUESTING A CALL BACK
DURING NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN AREA
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW
UP CALL.
9 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN AREA
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW
UP CALL.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. CALLER DOES NOT
WISH TO RECEIVE A FOLLOW UP CALL.
10 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. CALLER DOES NOT
WISH TO RECEIVE A FOLLOW UP CALL.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
11 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED
ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER REQUESTING CALL BACK
12 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT A BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER REQUESTING CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT A BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
13 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR AND HE ALSO STATES HE HAS A NOSE BLEED
FROM ISSUE AND GRANDDAUGHTER HAS HEADACHE. HE IS NOT REQUESTING A
CALLBACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR AND HE ALSO STATES HE HAS A NOSE BLEED
FROM ISSUE AND GRANDDAUGHTER HAS HEADACHE. HE IS NOT REQUESTING A
CALLBACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER COMPLAINING OF PHYSICAL SYMPTONS DUE TO FENIMORE LANDFILL. CALLER
14 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING A ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. CALLER IS NOT REQURSTING
A CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. SHE DOES NOT WANT A FOLLOW UP CALL.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:


CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. REQUESTING CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
15 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
511739 Air Odors Referred
STRONG ODOR IN THE AREA.. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK DURING NORMAL
BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR NO CALL BACK REQUESTED
16 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT INTERESTED IN A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR , REQUEST CALLED BACK
17 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA.NO CALL BACK IS NEEDED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW UP CALL
DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOULD ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD ALSO LIKE IT NOTED THAT THE
SMELL IS INSIDE HER HOUSE WHICH IS CAUSING HER TO HAVE A HEADACHE AND SICK
TO HER STOMACH. IS NOT INTERESTED IN A CALL BACK.
18 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR, NO CALL BACK REQUESTED
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA IN THE AREA. CALLER
IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW UP CALL DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT A VERY BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT
BUSINESS DAY
19 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER COMPLAINING OF PHYSICAL SYMPTONS DUE TO FENIMORE LANDFILL. CALLER
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. NO CALL BACK IS NEEDED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR. IS REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
20 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. NO CALL BACK IS REQUIRED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING A ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. CALLER IS NOT REQURSTING
A CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA. NO CALL BACK IS NEEDED.
21 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. REQUESTING CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
22 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR IN THE AREA.. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK DURING NORMAL
BUSINESS HOURS.
23 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT INTERESTED IN A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR , REQUEST CALLED BACK
24 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA.NO CALL BACK IS NEEDED.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW UP CALL
DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA IN THE AREA. CALLER
IS REQUESTING A FOLLOW UP CALL DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
25 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT A VERY BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT
BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOULD ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD ALSO LIKE IT NOTED THAT THE
SMELL IS INSIDE HER HOUSE WHICH IS CAUSING HER TO HAVE A HEADACHE AND SICK
TO HER STOMACH. IS NOT INTERESTED IN A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. IS NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
26 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR, NO CALL BACK REQUESTED
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR. IS REQUESTING A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN THE AREA.
27 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN AREA , REQUEST CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ROTTEN EGG ODOR IN AREA , REQUEST CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
28 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ODOR. DOES NOT NEED CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS
HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ODOR. DOES NOT NEED CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS
HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING THAT BUSINESS IS PRACTICING SLOPPY HOUSEKEEPING. OIL AND
SHEENS ARE APPARENT ON THE UNPAVED GROUND OF THE SITE. ALSO SOME UNKNOWN
RED LIQUIDS.
Incident Type: Sloppy Housekeeping
Follow-up Status:
29 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
512127 Site Remediation Sloppy Housekeeping Referred
CALLER REPORTING THAT BUSINESS IS PRACTICING SLOPPY HOUSEKEEPING. OIL AND
SHEENS ARE APPARENT ON THE UNPAVED GROUND OF THE SITE. ALSO SOME UNKNOWN
RED LIQUIDS.
Incident Type: Sloppy Housekeeping
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
512050 Communication Center Sloppy Housekeeping
VERY BAD ODOR OUTSIDE. NOT REQUESTING CALLBACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK AT ALL
Follow-up Status:
30 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG CHEMICAL ODOR IN AREA. NO CALL BACK REQUESTED
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG CHEMICAL ODOR IN AREA. NO CALL BACK REQUESTED
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
VERY BAD ODOR OUTSIDE. NOT REQUESTING CALLBACK.
31 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK AT ALL
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

HOSE BROKE ON BUS CAUSING ANTIFREEZE TO SPILL ONTO THE ROADWAY. CLEAN
UP PENDING.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

513000 Site Remediation Spill Closed, No Inv.
HOSE BROKE ON BUS CAUSING ANTIFREEZE TO SPILL ONTO THE ROADWAY. CLEAN
UP PENDING.
32 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
512921 Communication Center Spill
CALLER REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING STRONG ODOR IN THE AREA. DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:


CALLER REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLER DOES NOT NEED TO BE
CONTACTED.
Follow-up Status:
33 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CONTACTED.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK AT ALL
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

34 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ODOR. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS
HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ODOR. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS
HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Follow-up Status:
35 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN AREA. DOES NOT REQUEST CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN AREA. DOES NOT REQUEST CALL BACK
36 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLBACK REQUESTED
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. CALLBACK REQUESTED
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS COMPLAINING ABOUT ODOR IN AREA FROM FENIMORE. SMELLS LIKE
ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON THE NEXT WORKING BUSINESS
DAY.
Follow-up Status:
37 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
1/550 GALLON TANK REMOVED. CLEAN UP PENDING
Incident Type: Underground Storage Tank
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

514280 Site Remediation Underground Storage Tank UHOT- Pending
CALLER IS COMPLAINING ABOUT ODOR IN AREA FROM FENIMORE. SMELLS LIKE
ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON THE NEXT WORKING BUSINESS
DAY.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING STRONG ODOR IN AREA. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
38 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING STRONG ODOR IN AREA. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER COMPLAINING OF SMELL FROM R/P. IS UPSET TONIGHT IS THE SCHOOL PROM
AND THE SMELL IS RUINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER COMPLAINING OF SMELL FROM R/P. IS UPSET TONIGHT IS THE SCHOOL PROM
AND THE SMELL IS RUINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK.
39 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. CALLER IS
REQUESTING A FOLLOW UP CALL DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING UST INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS SOIL AND GROUND WATER IMPACT.
CLEAN UP IS PENDING.
Follow-up Status:
40 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
514435 Site Remediation Soil Contamination UHOT- Pending
1/550 GALLON TANK REMOVED. CLEAN UP PENDING
Follow-up Status: UHOT- Pending
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

513936 Communication Center Underground Storage Tank
MVA INVOLVING 3 VEHICLES, CLEAN UP IN PROGRESS, TWO LANES CLOSED ON EAST
BOUND SIDE OF ROUTE 80
Incident Type: Motor Vehicle Accident - Spill
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

514358 Site Remediation Motor Vehicle Accident - Spill ER-Assigned
CALLER REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, REQUESTS CALL BACK DURING BUSINESS
HOURS
Follow-up Status:
41 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
MVA INVOLVING 3 VEHICLES, CLEAN UP IN PROGRESS, TWO LANES CLOSED ON EAST
BOUND SIDE OF ROUTE 80
Incident Type: Motor Vehicle Accident - Spill
Follow-up Status: ER-Assigned
Program Interest Name: WARRIOR TRUCKING DIESEL SPILL
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
514310 Communication Center Motor Vehicle Accident - Spill
CALLER REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, REQUESTS CALL BACK DURING BUSINESS
HOURS
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING UST INVESTIGATION CONFIRMS SOIL AND GROUND WATER IMPACT.
CLEAN UP IS PENDING.
42 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
514269 Communication Center Soil Contamination
STRONG ODOR CAUSING GRANDAUGHTER HEADACHE AND BLOODY NOSE. SMELLS LIKE
ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ODOR CAUSING GRANDAUGHTER HEADACHE AND BLOODY NOSE. SMELLS LIKE
ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ODORS IN AREA. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL FROM DEP REP.
Follow-up Status:
43 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. REQUESTING CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. REQUESTING CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ODORS IN AREA. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL FROM DEP REP.
44 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ODOR FROM R/P. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING ODOR FROM R/P. DOES NOT REQUIRE CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR. NO CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
45 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Follow-up Status:
46 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. CALLER WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK ON THE
NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY. ODOR SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
ODOR OF A ROTTEN SEPTIC SMELL. DOESNT WISH FOR A CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

47 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
48 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY. ODOR SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
ODOR OF A ROTTEN SEPTIC SMELL. DOESNT WISH FOR A CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

FACILITY IS EXCEEDING FLOW LIMIT DUE TO HEAVY RAIN. PERMIT LIMIT IS 2000000
GAL/DAY. READING IS 4000000 GAL/DAY. NJPDSES # NJ0022675.
Incident Type: NJPDES
Follow-up Status:
49 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
514968 Water Quality Other Closed, No Inv.
FACILITY IS EXCEEDING FLOW LIMIT DUE TO HEAVY RAIN. PERMIT LIMIT IS 2000000
GAL/DAY. READING IS 4000000 GAL/DAY. NJPDSES # NJ0022675.
Incident Type Program: Water Quality
Incident Type: Other
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
514878 Communication Center NJ PDES
Incident ID Number: 515033 Communications Center Number:
While kayaking on local pond on Monday, April 28, 2014, he observed a "slurry" being discharged from
an adjacent quarry via an 18" pipe
Incident Type Program: Water Quality
Incident Type: Other
Follow-up Status: Pending
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:


1/ 550 GALLON TANK REMOVED. CLEAN UP PENDING
Follow-up Status:
50 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. ODOR SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER
DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG ODOR COMING FROM FENIMORE. ODOR SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER
DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. NOT REQUESTING CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
51 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. NOT REQUESTING CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
52 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS A ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. HE WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW
UP CALL ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CONTACTED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Follow-up Status:
53 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG SWEET ODOR IN AREA. CALLER ALSO STATED THROAT, NOSE, AND EYES
BURNING. NO CALLED BACK REQUESTED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS A ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. HE WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW
UP CALL ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CONTACTED.
54 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG SWEET ODOR IN AREA. CALLER ALSO STATED THROAT, NOSE, AND EYES
BURNING. NO CALLED BACK REQUESTED.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING A SMELL THAT IS MAKING HER SICK. STATES IT SMELLS LIKE A
HEAVY SYRUP OR VANILLA THAT CAUSED HER A HEADACHE. CALLER WOULD LIKE A
CALL BACK WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
55 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING A SMELL THAT IS MAKING HER SICK. STATES IT SMELLS LIKE A
HEAVY SYRUP OR VANILLA THAT CAUSED HER A HEADACHE. CALLER WOULD LIKE A
CALL BACK WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT CALL BACK AT ALL
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT CALL BACK AT ALL
56 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING PERFUME-LIKE ODOR, CALLER HAS TINGLING SENSATION IN LIPS
AND TONGUE, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK AT ALL
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING STRONG SMELL FROM R/P. STATES IT IS GIVING HIS
GRANDDAUGHTER A BLOODY NOSE. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK IN NEXT 24 HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
57 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING PERFUME-LIKE ODOR, CALLER HAS TINGLING SENSATION IN LIPS
AND TONGUE, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK AT ALL
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING STRONG SMELL FROM R/P. STATES IT IS GIVING HIS
GRANDDAUGHTER A BLOODY NOSE. WOULD LIKE CALL BACK IN NEXT 24 HOURS.
58 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
1/550 GAL UST REMOVED. CLEAN UP PENDING.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

ODOR COMPLAINT FROM EARLIER TONIGHT, SWEET, LIKE BLACK LICORICE. ODOR IS
GONE NOW. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG SWEET ODOR IN THE AREA. CALLER DOESNT WANT A CALL BACK.
Follow-up Status:
59 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
ODOR COMPLAINT FROM EARLIER TONIGHT, SWEET, LIKE BLACK LICORICE. ODOR IS
GONE NOW. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
STRONG SWEET ODOR IN THE AREA. CALLER DOESNT WANT A CALL BACK.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

1/550 GAL UST REMOVED. CLEAN UP PENDING.
60 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
515999 Communication Center Underground Storage Tank
CALLER REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONTACTED.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING FOUL ODOR IN THE AREA. WOULD LIKE A CALL BACK DURING
REGULAR CALL BACK TIMES.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:


Follow-up Status:
61 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW UP
CALL DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT ROTTEN EGG ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT
BUSINESS DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR IN AREA. REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
Follow-up Status:
62 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR IN AREA. REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS AND DIESEL.
Follow-up Status:
63 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTS A FOUL ODOR IN THE AIR. DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONTACTED.
64 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER IS REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS. CALLER WOULD LIKE A FOLLOW UP
CALL DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

NEXT WORKING BUSINESS DAY SMELLS LIKE ROTTEN EGGS AND DIESEL.
65 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS
DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTED STRONG ODOR COMING FROM LANDFILL. DOES NOT WANT A CALL
BACK
66 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING ROTTEN EGG ODOR, DOES NOT WANT A CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTED STRONG ODOR COMING FROM LANDFILL. DOES NOT WANT A CALL
BACK
67 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. REQUESTING A CALL BACK ON NEXT BUSINESS DAY
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. CALLER IS NOT REQUESTING A
CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
REPORTING AN ODOR OF ROTTEN EGGS IN THE AREA. CALLER IS NOT REQUESTING A
CALL BACK DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
68 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ODORS IN AREA. CALLER REQUESTING RETURN CALL FROM DEP
ENFORCEMENT.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

STRONG ODORS IN AREA. CALLER REQUESTING RETURN CALL FROM DEP
ENFORCEMENT.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK
69 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLING TO REPORT BAD ODOR. NOT REQUESTING A CALL BACK
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING SMELL FROM R/P. DOES NOT WANT CALL BACK
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:
CALLER REPORTING SMELL FROM R/P. DOES NOT WANT CALL BACK
70 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS SMELLING HYDROGEN SULFITE SMELL. REQUESTING CALLBACK
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Follow-up Status:
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:

CALLER REPORTS SMELLING HYDROGEN SULFITE SMELL. REQUESTING CALLBACK
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Evaluation:
Most Recent
Enforcement Action:


department: njdep home | about dep | index by topic | programs/units | dep online
statewide:njhome | citizen | business | government | services A to Z | departments | search
Copyright State of New Jersey, 1996-2004
Department of Environmental Protection
P. O. Box 402
71 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM
Last Updated: June 15, 2012
72 of 72 5/20/2014 12:40 PM

EXHIBIT 22.2

Official warned Christie would 'take a bath' in election if Roxbury
landfill operation continued
Email the author
on May 16, 2014 at 5:29 PM, updated May 17, 2014 at 2:22 AM
In a federal court filing Friday, the owner of the troubled Fenimore landfill aims to bolster his claims the Roxbury site
was taken out of his control for political reasons citing a 2013 email from a local official saying Gov. Chris Christie
and others would "take a bath" in coming elections if they didn't shut down the site.
"We need to meet as soon as possible on this subject," Anthony M. Bucco, who both serves as Roxbury's attorney
and as a Republican assemblyman, says in a May 13, 2013, email addressed to Department of Environmental
Protection Agency Chief of Staff Magdalena Padilla. "The gov., the legislators and local officials are going to take a
bath in this next election if we don't get this place shut down soon. I really don't think you guys understand how bad
this is getting. We have done all we can. There must be some other options you can explore."
On June 26, the DEP shut down Fenimore owner SEP's state-approved project to cap the long-abandoned landfill and
install a solar facility, saying SEP had mismanaged the project and allowed large hydrogen sulfide releases that
caused rotten egg-like smells for miles in Roxbury beginning in late 2012. Those gas releases have been connected
to gypsum in the debris SEP hauled in from DEP-approved recycling centers.
SEP obtained the Bucco letter in response to a public records request, it says in Friday's filing to the federal court.
Through the filing, it hopes to support an argument it put forward in a complaint last year, that political motivations
drove several officials to scrutinize or punish SEP and the Fenimore project.
Bucco, reached by NJ.com late Friday, said he didn't remember sending the letter. But he said he was sure it didn't
come from his legislative office and would have come from his law office, through which he was representing
Roxbury's interests. As Roxbury's attorney, he'd been involved in several efforts to keep SEP from trucking in debris.
"This is typical (SEP attorney) Matt Fredericks, playing with facts," Bucco said.
He drew a a sharp distinction between political activities as an assemblyman and activities as Roxbury's legal
counsel, and said he had frequent communication with Padilla, urging intervention.
"For him to say that Assemblyman Bucco sent this is very misleading," Bucco said.
It is not clear in the Friday's filing from what email address Bucco sent the message to the DEP, but a message
quoted below it was sent to Bucco at his law firm's address.
SEP and the DEP have been locked in litigation on several fronts, as the developer has sought to void the state
Official warned Christie would 'take a bath' in election if Roxbury landfil... http://blog.nj.com/morris_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/05/official_urg...
1 of 4 5/20/2014 10:22 AM
Fenimore plan met with screams and song
The state Department of Environmental Protection got a harsh response
in Roxbury March 11, when it said its plan to cap the troubled Fenimore
landfill site was a done deal, despite the objections of dozens of
residents who spoke and the shouts of hundreds more who attended.
CONNECT WITH
US
Follow us on
takeover, done under the authority of a bill regulating so-called "legacy" landfills Christie signed the same day as the
takeover. The DEP plans to cap the area where SEP trucked in construction debris over the objections of a
residents' group eager to have the material trucked out and wants SEP to take on the costs for the remediation.
"What's amazing is that since the beginning this
cleanup has always been about politics," SEP
owner Richard Bernardi said in an email to NJ.com
Friday. "No one has ever been interested in getting
the site properly closed."
Friday's filing also cites a letter sent this week to Christie by two prominent Democratic legislators, each chairing
environmental committees in their respective chambers, saying the state Attorney General should investigate
the DEP's handling of Fenimore.
In the letter, Sen. Bob Smith and Assemblywoman Grace Spencer wrote: "There is firm reason to believe that the
cleanup of this facility has been grossly mismanaged, and as a result, the residents around the landfill have had to
suffer." Smith chairs the state Senate's Environmental and Energy Committee, and Spencer chairs the Assembly's
Environment and Solid Waste Committee.
The legislators fault the DEP for a lack of transparency through the process, and say the DEP's capping plan doesn't
take into account long-term maintenance of the site. They cite concerns an oxidizer and scrubber system the DEP
installed and credits for greatly reduced hydrogen sulfide levels over the last several months poses its own
environmental and health problems.
"This letter lends substantial credibility to plaintiff's (SEP's) allegation that the DEP charged in and stole SEP's
property (and in the process stopped SEP from properly addressing the odor complaints) under the guise of acting in
the public interest when in fact the contrary is true," the SEP letter filed Friday states. "The DEP knew or should
have known that its stated action plan was unsound, but the DEP attacked SEP anyway because the decision makers
feared a 'bath' in the next election if they didn't."
Mid-day Friday, DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese sent NJ.com an email in response to the legislators' letter that
alleged his agency had mismanaged the project:
"We are working diligently to expedite the capping of this site, to permanently solve this odor issue. We are
currently completing an extension of the gas collection system to draw even more H2S from the landfill," he wrote.
"This work will be completed this year. And the gas collection will continue while capping work in underway. Also, we
have had the odors at this site under control for many months, and have continued to monitor the site for
emissions. We are intent on completing this work in 2014 and will ensure full maintenance of the site as long as
required."
Ragonese's email did not directly address the legislators' chief complaints
2 of 4 5/20/2014 10:22 AM
Twitter
Like us on
Facebook
NJ.com/morris
regarding transparency through the process or long-term maintenance of the cap.
A later email regarding the SEP filing also didn't address its specific points, but
said only "Mr. Bernardi and SEP are responsible for the problems that occurred at
Fenimore. They are just trying to divert attention from their responsibility."
The governor's office referred any comment on the legislators' letter to the DEP,
and the Office of the Attorney General declined comment. The governor's office has not yet returned a message left
late Friday seeking comment on the SEP filing.
In a statement released Friday, Roxbury officials said while they "appreciate the work of the governor and the state
legislature to secure the property and to address this serious issue," they would welcome an investigation into the
DEP oversight."
"Roxbury residents have struggled for more than two years with the reopening of the landfill without the Townships
involvement. Our residents must be assured that every step has been taken to ensure that the air and water in
Roxbury are safe," Mayor Jim Rilee said in the statement.
Bob Schultz head of the Roxbury Environmental Action Coalition, a residents' group formed in response to
Fenimore concerns said he welcomed the legislators' call for an investigation. He said he only wished township
officials had taken similar steps, and that the legislators would seek an inquiry into the Department of Health's role
in the landfill oversight.
"Gov. Christie and the DEP allowed this, and they're doing it all wrong," he said. "They're not sharing the
information."
Both SEP and the township have recently sought soil samples from Fenimore, which each says could be useful in
formulating alternatives to the DEP's capping plan. The DEP has declined requests from both, and the township
recently lost a court case seeking the samples. SEP's own case seeking them is pending.
The legislators called that refusal to conduct and release soil test results "suspicious." Schultz said he wants
independent tests of the soil, air and water in the area done, as he doesn't trust the DEP.
SEP letter to federal court, 5/16/2014
3 of 4 5/20/2014 10:22 AM
SHOW ME MORE LIKE SEP LETTER TO FEDERAL COURT, 5/16/2014
SIMILAR TO SEP LETTER TO FEDERAL COURT, 5/16/2014
BACK TO DOC
More from Louis C. Hochman
Previous | Next
Smith Spencer Letter to Gov Christie
Louis C. Hochman
EPA Fenimore Emails
Louis C. Hochman
11-20-13 Letter on Dover Tickets Investigation
Louis C. Hochman
4 of 4 5/20/2014 10:22 AM

EXHIBIT 22.3

From: rll_president
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:43 PM
Subject: ***Important: Roxbury Baseball - Field Status
Important- I've just been informed that J efferson School fields are being CLOSED today,
due to air quality readings. So any practices scheduled tonight at J efferson fields need to
be CANCELLED.

EXHIBIT 22.4

From: InstantAlert_502467@ Honeywell .com
Date: April 25, 2014 at 3:56:40 PM EDT

Subject: H2S Concerns @ Jefferson School
Alert Name: H2S Concerns
Alert Type: School Closing
Complete
Message:
Hello,
This is Patrick Tierney, Roxbury Superintendent of Schools.
You may have recently heard of concerns of elevated hydrogen sulfide levels
near J efferson School. I want you to know that the district is actively
monitoring the these levels.
Protocols were established by local and state health officials and Rutgers
doctors to provide the district with guidance for the health and safety of the
students and staff in the district.
Please read these protocols and guidelines on the district's web page.
While I understand the frustrations regarding the landfill, please know that I
have the utmost concern for the health and safety of our children and staff
and continue to work with the agencies that are responsible for addressing
the issue.
Thank you and have a nice night.
School
Name:
J efferson Elementary School
Sent By: Patrick Tierney

EXHIBIT 22.5

EXHIBIT 22.6

EXHIBIT 22.7

REACT Report On Fenimore Landfill - Exhibits.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

REACT Report On Fenimore Landfill - Exhibits.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXHIBIT 0.

5/17/14 9:20 PM Archive Manager Message Export

5/17/14 9:20 PM Archive Manager Message Export

>>>RileeJim<rileej@roxburynj.us>7/ 11/ 20116:20:59PM>>>

www.strategicgreenenergy.com<http:/ / www.strategicgreenenergy.com/ >

An effectively capped landfill is essentially 100% impervious. Controlling stormwater to match

5/18/14 5:16 PM Archive Manager Message Export

5/18/14 5:16 PM Archive Manager Message Export

Based on the results of the data analysis and the model, H

tubes). In most cases, H

Supplemental Hydrogen Sulfide Testing

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill A

After declining rapidly between 2004 to 2006, the H

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill H

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill H

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill I

value presented in Figure B2(III) below (i.e. 2704 & 270 Ft

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Year LabAnalysis FieldTests

Hydrogen Sulfide Data Trends for Landfill E

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill E

Sulfur Inputs and Outputs for Landfill F

APPENDIX B Other Project Deliverables

On The Incompetence and Flagrant Dishonesty of the

Masi, Daniel (DESS)

Christopher Raths, Township Manager

Christopher Raths, Township Manager

From: David Peifer [mailto:dpeifer@anjec.org]

Christopher Raths, Township Manager

Also, please explain to me why it is ok to make the people of Roxbury live

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

I have cc'd the Senate Environmental Committee and Senator Sweeney on

Gmail - Fenimore Landfill Petition Request https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2

You might also like