FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
Do you think there is any way that they could finish off the unaffected areas first, and then open the those areas while the affected areas that need remediation is fenced off?
FG

driverjase wrote: I wasn't able to make it to the meeting tonight. Any word yet on how it went?

The other, more pressing, issue is the soil contamination. Results indicate several areas of concern which contain elevated levels of lead, arsenic and hydrocarbons (which are most likely due to the combustion of organic fuels). There are several options for addressing the contaminants which range from capping to full remediation (removal). Each method has its own cost and impact ranging from $75k for capping to $500 - $750k for full removal. Capping will have with no impact to trees or the park renovation time line, while full remediation will cause the loss of approximately 24 trees, and a delay on the completion of park renovation. The city has asked for community input regarding the clean-up decision. The Division of Architecture along with Councilman Fulop has arranged for an environmental consultant to be present at September?s HPNA meeting to present the findings and discuss the possible solutions. Please join us this Wednesday, September 2nd at 7:45PM at Cordero Elementary School (located at 158 Erie Street, on the corner of 10th Street) for this very important meeting/update.

From: "Glenn Wrigley"
Date: June 29, 2009 11:06:36 AM EDT
To: "Brian O'Reilly"
Cc: "Olu Howard" ,"Steve Fulop" , "Brian Weller"
Subject:
Brian,

I want to keep you informed of a situation that has occurred in Hamilton Park late last week. Green CONSTRUCTION, as part of their contractual obligations, did have areas where soil is being excavated tested for contaminants (per NJDEP requirements before soil can be transported off of any site to an accepting landfill). The reason for excavation at all is to install these new underground drainage structures required by the NJMUA. All test results came back with very low or non-existent contamination levels except for one, which is an area about 20 feet West of the gazebo. This one sample came back with a level for lead which is above DEP acceptable residential standards.

We met with the testing company and we are attempting to delineate just how much of an area may be contaminated with this high level of lead. One suspect reason may be the bedding or base material under old concrete walkways, which are described as cinders. It was common back around the turn of the century and up to the 1930's for cinders from power generating plants to be used as a base course for concrete. It is possible that these chips are the source of the lead levels. Much of the old walkways were removed in the 1970's renovation of the park, but some of the chips probably remained in this spot and were covered over with soil. This new renovation proposes to put this old walkway path back, albeit wider (11 to 12 feet) than the old pathways (about 4 feet).

Since tests were performed, and this level has been detected, the NJDEP must be notified. Such notification naturally makes this a public record. In order to assure the public that the extent of this contamination is found and remediated, NJDEP protocol is for additional testing at a rate of 4 samples per acre (or about 24 samples for this 6.0 acre park). These additional tests will take about 2 to 3 weeks to obtain and analyze. Meanwhile, other construction will continue without delay.

Once notification is given to the NJDEP, this project will be assigned a case number. A hotline number to the DEP is also established so that residents have current information on the investigation. There will be some signs posted around the park (A DEP requirement), letting the public know that an investigation is taking place. The hotline number will be clearly listed on these posters. Full transparent disclosure is the objective here. All test results will be sent to the DEP for review, and a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) will be sent to the DEP for their review and approval. Hopefully, this problem will be limited to the one uncovered location.

I will be happy to meet with you, the Mayor's office, Councilman Fulop, and some HPNA representatives if anyone wishes.

Glenn

Annod wrote:
Are you guys registered with Jersey Fresh? Some of the dates are old.

http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/agricu ... type=urban&county1=hudson

Amy wrote: The Hamilton Park Farmer's Market banner is up. Does it start on 6/4? 6/10? How about the other markets?

or to slow down the rate that runoff from rain storms gets released into the the city sewer system. I would lean towards the later as the city needs to find ways from keeping the sewers from becoming overwhelmed so quickly. The less water rushing into the system every time it rains, the less basement flooding (at least in theory).

newtothearea wrote:
Walking around the park this morning, I heard one of the construction dudes say, "they are really crazy about the trees around here. we're not gonna take it down unless we have to."

I am the former HPNA board member who you are all talking about. I want to say a couple things:

The HPNA has bylaws for a reason. The bylaws say that no Board member can send mail or anything else political with the HPNA letterhead or signature without giving it to the Board Secretary so it can be read and approved at the next meeting of the Board.



I did not have the words HPNA anywhere in any form on the email.

There are no rules saying that HPNA board members are not allowed to have political opinions. If there was, everybody would be guilty.

Other Board members have sent political emails around and nobody said anything. The difference is they support Councilman Fulop and I don?t.

Any other excuse for their attacks on me is not honest unless they don?t understand the bylaws of their own organization. If I had violated the bylaws they would have been right to question what I did. But there is nobody saying I did that because I didn?t.