07020 Forums  

Go Back   07020 Forums > Of Interest > Environmental issues > Quanta

Quanta Quanta superfund site discussion. http://quanta.07020.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-2007, 02:42 PM
QCAGE's Avatar
QCAGE QCAGE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edgewater. New Jersey
Posts: 78
QCAGE is on a distinguished road
Quanta Update December, 2007

As always, the attached pages have not been approved by USEPA.

We finally held a meeting on December 6th at the Community Center. Thank you to those of you that attended, and also to those that sent their regrets. I will be sending out the presentation from that meeting to all of you.

For those of you that were at our initial meeting in 2005 will remember I asked the question, "When could we expect the first shovel to hit the ground to start the process of remediation?" I remember being astounded, to learn that it would not be before 2008. I translated that information to mean the first quarter of 2008. Unfortunately, I was overly optimistic. The latest realistic date is 2010. What remains unchanged, is once the process is started, the remediation can take ten years, or more. If you want further information, please contact me.

I wish you all a healthy and joyous holiday season.

Jill Kleinman
QCAGE Chairperson.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Update 122107.pdf (231.0 KB, 162 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-21-2007, 03:28 PM
Mike's Avatar
Mike Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ, USA
Posts: 6,268
Mike is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Thank you, Jill. I still haven't written my notes up from that meeting. The remediation is going to be exceptionally involved, probably using multiple technologies to treat the same contaminants on different areas of the property; i.e., next to 115 vs. the northeast area. Also, they need to remove the source of the groundwater contamination first, and then treat the water.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-28-2007, 01:48 PM
QCAGE's Avatar
QCAGE QCAGE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edgewater. New Jersey
Posts: 78
QCAGE is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Hello everyone.

For those of you that were at the QCAGE meeting on December 6th the attachment will look familiar. I call this the year in review - 2007. The slides are a consolidation of information covering the time period 1/22/07 through 12/6/07. Normally I add the statement that the report has been neither reviewed or approved by USEPA. Fact is - USEPA was at the meeting for the presentation. Although additional commentary was made, which is always helpful for a better understanding, none of the information was stated to be inaccurate.

Regarding this mailing, if you would like to be added, removed, change of address, please contact me a jill.kleinman@gmail.com

Wishing all of the you the best. Until next year........

Jill Kleinman
QCAGE Chairperson
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CAG Meeting 120607.pdf (237.4 KB, 153 views)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-28-2007, 06:07 PM
CW CW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 308
CW is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

This report did not stop the restaurant from opening at 163 River Road, will it stop the tennis club from proceeding?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2007, 07:25 PM
QCAGE's Avatar
QCAGE QCAGE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edgewater. New Jersey
Posts: 78
QCAGE is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

The restaurant area (interior and exterior) were tested multiple times before the reopening. It was also retested after the reopening. The business was allowed to open, as the testing did not reveal a reason a need to keep it closed. The renovations to the property did not entail any movement of soil or pavement. The current CO was granted with the stipulation that no soil/pavement movement would be allowed. Should the future entail soil/and or pavement movement, I have been led to believe that the CO will be revoked. BTW - although I have not eaten there myself, I have heard only positive reviews from several different sources.

As of today, the tennis court is strictly a rezoning issue. The area had been classified as office/light industrial, and is now reclassified as recreational. To my knowledge, no plans have been submitted to either USEPA, or NJDEP in regard to use of the land today. A multitude of issues would have to be resolved before the tennis courts could be built prior to remediation. Could that happen? I would hope not - but one never knows.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:47 AM
Richard Ho (US EPA)'s Avatar
Richard Ho (US EPA) Richard Ho (US EPA) is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14
Richard Ho (US EPA) is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by QCAGE View Post
The restaurant area (interior and exterior) were tested multiple times before the reopening. It was also retested after the reopening. The business was allowed to open, as the testing did not reveal a reason a need to keep it closed. The renovations to the property did not entail any movement of soil or pavement. The current CO was granted with the stipulation that no soil/pavement movement would be allowed. Should the future entail soil/and or pavement movement, I have been led to believe that the CO will be revoked. BTW - although I have not eaten there myself, I have heard only positive reviews from several different sources.

As of today, the tennis court is strictly a rezoning issue. The area had been classified as office/light industrial, and is now reclassified as recreational. To my knowledge, no plans have been submitted to either USEPA, or NJDEP in regard to use of the land today. A multitude of issues would have to be resolved before the tennis courts could be built prior to remediation. Could that happen? I would hope not - but one never knows.
A clarification on testing at 163 River Road (former Jono's Restaurant)--soil and water on the parcel was tested. There was no testing inside and underneath the building. Indoor air sampling and monitoring will be conducted for vapor intrusion in the coming months inside the restaurant (and also at the 115 River Road office building). Vapor intrusion sampling and monitoring at these properties will be performed annually.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-02-2008, 09:02 AM
CW CW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 308
CW is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Richard, what were the test results for the land on 163 River Road. I know they could not build the Hotel there because of the results, but how about the Restaurant?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:14 AM
QCAGE's Avatar
QCAGE QCAGE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edgewater. New Jersey
Posts: 78
QCAGE is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Ho (US EPA) View Post
A clarification on testing at 163 River Road (former Jono's Restaurant)--soil and water on the parcel was tested. There was no testing inside and underneath the building. Indoor air sampling and monitoring will be conducted for vapor intrusion in the coming months inside the restaurant (and also at the 115 River Road office building). Vapor intrusion sampling and monitoring at these properties will be performed annually.
Hi Rich,

It is my personal belief that it is better to have no information, than to have erroneous information. Thank you for the correction.

I remember several lengthly discussions regarding the air inside and outside of the restaurant area. One part of the discussion was that it is normal for air readings change between occupied and unoccupied buildings. This is a natural occurrence between any active and inactive environment. Why was the town given the go ahead to issue a CO based only on the testing of the soil and water, and prior to any air sampling? The other question of course is, why are we waiting to perform these tests. Why not do them now?

Many thanks.
Jill
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:51 PM
Richard Ho (US EPA)'s Avatar
Richard Ho (US EPA) Richard Ho (US EPA) is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14
Richard Ho (US EPA) is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by QCAGE View Post
Hi Rich,

It is my personal belief that it is better to have no information, than to have erroneous information. Thank you for the correction.

I remember several lengthly discussions regarding the air inside and outside of the restaurant area. One part of the discussion was that it is normal for air readings change between occupied and unoccupied buildings. This is a natural occurrence between any active and inactive environment. Why was the town given the go ahead to issue a CO based only on the testing of the soil and water, and prior to any air sampling? The other question of course is, why are we waiting to perform these tests. Why not do them now?

Many thanks.
Jill
You are correct about the difference between an occupied building vs. unoccupied. EPA determined that vapor intrusion sampling at former Jono's restaurant should be performed under occupied conditions in order for it to be representative of normal operation. Soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the restaurant did not indicate a concern with respect to vapor intrusion. Taking all of the information into consideration, EPA sent a letter to the town stating that a CO could be issued and that EPA would perform the sampling after the restaurant was operational. Performing the vapor intrusion sampling during the winter months gives the worst-case scenario. CH2M Hill is preparing to perform these tests within the next couple of months.

I hope I have answered your questions completely.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:25 PM
CW CW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 308
CW is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Thank you Richard.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:22 AM
AdirondackChair's Avatar
AdirondackChair AdirondackChair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 1/2 Edgewater. 1/2 Upstate NY. way upstate
Posts: 301
AdirondackChair is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Do I undestand this correctly? Since the vapor intrusion sample would be different in an occupied vs. unoccupied place, the CO was issued first so that a more reliable sample could be taken after the restaurant was open for business? What if this sample comes back tainted? Especially if you wait a few months to take the sample when winter is behind us, wouldn't that mean people will be eating food stored and prepered in an unhealthy invironment for all that time? If the sample is no good, will Jono's have to close down again? And, if the sample is bad, what health risks were the employees and customers exposed to for those months? What if the sample is borderline, meaning in the winter months it would have been higher, and will also be higher next winter? Am I missing something?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Ho (US EPA) View Post
You are correct about the difference between an occupied building vs. unoccupied. EPA determined that vapor intrusion sampling at former Jono's restaurant should be performed under occupied conditions in order for it to be representative of normal operation. Soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the restaurant did not indicate a concern with respect to vapor intrusion. Taking all of the information into consideration, EPA sent a letter to the town stating that a CO could be issued and that EPA would perform the sampling after the restaurant was operational. Performing the vapor intrusion sampling during the winter months gives the worst-case scenario. CH2M Hill is preparing to perform these tests within the next couple of months.

I hope I have answered your questions completely.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-04-2008, 12:20 PM
Richard Ho (US EPA)'s Avatar
Richard Ho (US EPA) Richard Ho (US EPA) is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14
Richard Ho (US EPA) is on a distinguished road
Re: Quanta Update December, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdirondackChair View Post
Do I undestand this correctly? Since the vapor intrusion sample would be different in an occupied vs. unoccupied place, the CO was issued first so that a more reliable sample could be taken after the restaurant was open for business? What if this sample comes back tainted? Especially if you wait a few months to take the sample when winter is behind us, wouldn't that mean people will be eating food stored and prepered in an unhealthy invironment for all that time? If the sample is no good, will Jono's have to close down again? And, if the sample is bad, what health risks were the employees and customers exposed to for those months? What if the sample is borderline, meaning in the winter months it would have been higher, and will also be higher next winter? Am I missing something?
I will try to give a simple answer to a complex issue of vapor intrusion. EPA's vapor intrusion sampling only involves the air--not the food. The local health department is responsible for sanitary inspections of the restaurant and ensuring that food is properly prepared and stored in accordance with the health codes. As part of the vapor intrusion study, EPA and NJDEP surveyed the restaurant while it was being renovated and found that there was no basement (often an area of concern) and that part of the restaurant was built over a crawl space (which mitigates potential vapor intrusion). Soil and groundwater sampling on the restaurant property did not indicate the presence of a plume of volatile contamination. Under normal operation, the restaurant operates exhaust fans over its cooking area, which also helps mitigate vapor intrusion concerns. (However the sampling did find elevated levels of arsenic and coal tar in some locations at a distance from the restaurant). Based on all these pieces of information, EPA and NJDEP do not believe that vapor intrusion is an immediate threat.

Indoor air samples will be taken at various locations within the restaurant. The data will be reviewed and evaluated by EPA and NJDEP to determine whether or not vapor intrusion is a concern. A detection of a chemical or chemicals does not mean an unacceptable exposure or that the chemical is related to Quanta. For example, often times cleaning fluids are detected in the samples. EPA and NJDEP will require indoor air sampling and monitoring at a minimum on an annual basis. There are various methods to mitigate vapor intrusion problems that can be easily implemented, which includes sealing cracks in the floors and adding ventilation systems. Given the high ceilings, lack of a basement, use of exhaust fans, there do not appear to be a propensity for vapors to collect within the restaurant.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quanta Update 5/22/07 QCAGE Quanta 3 04-05-2008 04:53 PM
December 17, 2007 council meeting Mike Local Politics 3 12-31-2007 02:27 PM
Planning Board December 18, 2007 Mike Public Notices 0 12-09-2007 11:56 PM
Quanta meeting December 6, 2007 Mike Quanta 2 12-06-2007 12:04 PM
Board of Adjustments December 19, 2007 Mike Public Notices 0 11-22-2007 11:05 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 07020.com - All rights reserved