Back to Main Table of Contents
Back to Homepage
Back to PB Transcripts TOC

OCTOBER 28, 1999
PAGES 151 TO 193

Michael Friedman
Environmental Witness Direct Testimony
Cross-Examination by James Segreto

Below is the transcript from the Weehawken Planning Board Hearing on
October 28, 199

This hearing was conducted at the Weehawken High School. For the record, the FWW staged a big rally to protest the Roseland development application. Over 80 citizens attended the rally at Hamilton Park. After the rally, we marched to the high school and held a five minute demonstration to express our objections.

This html document follows the format of the official transcript. The transcript format has 25 lines per page. Each page is numbered. Because the transcript is so long, the file has been broken down into 4 different web pages.

Jump to 10/28/99 pages 1 to 50
Jump to 10/28/99 pages 51 to 100
Jump to 10/28/99 pages 101 to 150

Go to Page 175

1 this witness.
2 MR. SEGRETO: I have no objection
3 to that at all.
4 MR. GOULD: Okay. Judy, please
5 step up here and step up to the mike, give
6 your name and address.
7 MS. WADIA: I live at 10 Louisa
8 Place.
9 MR. DUNN: You realize this is
10 question time, not the statement time. Is
11 that right?
12 MS. WADIA: Yes, I do.
13 Are you going to use dredge material
14 as part of the capping of the site?
15 THE WITNESS: That is a question
16 for which my answer is possibly that the
17 utilization of dredge material has not been
18 as of this date approved by the state nor
19 has it been submitted to the state. That
20 is a possible use.
21 MR. DUNN: Is that a generic, it
22 hasn't been approved by the state or does
23 it -- has not been approved by the state in
24 this case?
25 THE WITNESS: In this case.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 Let me add to the answer, to the
2 content, to the extent that any dredged
3 material is utilized on the site it will
4 not be used as a cap. It will be used
5 under the cap.
6 MR. KIENZ: You answered the
7 question.
8 MS. WADIA: If dredge material is
9 used, let's say, to cover the site where
10 the chromium is or other highly
11 contaminated areas, how many -- how thick
12 must the dredge layer be to cover those
13 sites?
14 THE WITNESS: Let me say -- let me
15 answer that two ways.
16 I don't know the answer to your
17 question, No. 1, No. 2 -- three ways -- No.
18 2, the dredge materials will not be used as
19 a cap --
20 MS. WADIA: Okay.
21 THE WITNESS: -- on the site. They
22 will be used as fill material -- stabilized
23 fill material under the cap in the same way
24 that material being imported into the site
25 will be used, and, No. 3, there are
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 detailed studies undertaken not by my firm,
2 but as part of other endeavors currently
3 ongoing that are dealing with testing and
4 utilization of dredge materials for
5 disposal not only on this property, on
6 other properties.
7 MS. WADIA: Okay. You didn't
8 really answer my question, because I asked
9 how thick the layer of dredge material
10 would be in the case that dredge material
11 was used as one of the layers in the cap.
12 THE WITNESS: I think the correct
13 answer and the serious answer again is that
14 the dredge material would not be and cannot
15 be used as part of the cap. It would only
16 be used as part of the fill material.
17 The answer -- the type of
18 information required to answer the question
19 is geotechnical stability, is what is the
20 stability of that material, what is it
21 going to be mixed with, what do the
22 professional engineers need as to stability
23 under whatever components of the project
24 that might be there, there is not a
25 relationship, at least to my knowledge,
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 using dredge material in a chromium area as
2 compared to a nonchromium area on the
3 property.
4 MS. WADIA: I understand that
5 there are going to be about 150,000 cubic
6 yards of dredge material -- of dredge and
7 sediment that are going to be pulled out
8 where they are going to put the ferry
9 terminal.
10 What are the plans to dispose of
11 those 150 cubic yards of material?
12 THE WITNESS: That is not a
13 question for which I have the expertise or
14 the knowledge to answer.
15 MS. WADIA: What are the plans
16 that you have to cap the site -- well,
17 first let me ask, how many acres are there
18 over the Lincoln Tunnel tubes, this area
19 here?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know that
21 answer, but it's an easy answer to
22 quantify. I can do that exercise and have
23 the answer for you at the next meathing.
24 MS. WADIA: You said that all of
25 the site that would be -- virtually all of
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 the site would be capped either by
2 buildings and roads or by -- by just plain,
3 ordinary caps, and are you planning to cap
4 the area over the Lincoln Tunnel tubes?
5 THE WITNESS: The answer to the
6 second question is yes, and the answer to
7 the first question, the entire site with
8 the exception of the Palisades escarpment,
9 which will be maintained in its natural
10 vegetative form.
11 MS. WADIA: Okay. In speaking to
12 people -- remediation people at the DEP, I
13 learned that you have to have at least
14 three feet of, let's say, dredge material
15 and three feet of soil in the capping
16 layer, and that each three feet -- let me
17 see -- each cubic yard of material weighs
18 approximately a ton.
19 Now, if you had all of these, let's
20 say, 500 tons of material, if the site over
21 the tunnel tubes is one acre and you needed
22 to have three feet of material, it would
23 mean you would have to have 500 tons of
24 material over the Lincoln Tunnel tubes.
25 This is impossible because they
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 would crush the Lincoln Tunnel tubes.
2 MR. DUNN: We are now at the
3 question stage. Right? Is your question
4 to him to be it's impossible or what's your
5 question, Judy?
6 MS. WADIA: My question to him
7 is, since it is impossible, is the
8 contaminated soil above and around the
9 Lincoln Tunnel tubes going to be removed
10 from the site?
11 THE WITNESS: The answer to your
12 last question is easy for me to answer.
13 The answer is no, it's not planned
14 to be removed from the site.
15 The first part of your question, as
16 I understood it, again referred to the
17 utilization of dredge materials.
18 There has been a lot of information
19 disseminated throughout the State of New
20 Jersey. Several days after my last
21 testimony there was a lead article in the
22 New York Times on Brown Hills
23 redevelopment, which talks about a site in
24 Elizabeth, many sites undergoing
25 remediation, and many sites are different.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 My reference to part of the
2 question, the dredge material will not be
3 used as part of the cap on the site to the
4 extent there is any utilization of dredge
5 materials, No. 1, it has to be approved by
6 the State of New Jersey, No. 2, the
7 utilization in large part is a function of
8 the geotechnical ability of that material
9 to withstand its utilization, either as
10 fill material or as subsurface material,
11 and I am not the witness to respond to
12 that.
13 It's a technical, professional
14 engineering response, and there are other
15 firms, there is Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor
16 throughout portions of this hearing who
17 will provide opinions on some of the
18 questions that you have asked.
19 I don't mean to avoid your question.
20 MS. WADIA: I just have one other
21 question, and you showed some pictures of
22 remediation efforts in the Port Imperial
23 North site.
24 Was dredge material used in the Port
25 Imperial North site?
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 THE WITNESS: The answer is no.
2 MS. WADIA: Okay. I have a board
3 here that I ran home to get during the
4 break that shows the Port Imperial North
5 site being spread with dredge material.
6 MR. KIENZ: Mr. Chairman, that
7 certainly -- you set up some very precise
8 rules. I don't mean to be difficult, but I
9 think if we are going to follow rules we
10 should follow them.
11 The public can offer anything they
12 want at the appropriate time. I just don't
13 believe this is the appropriate time.
14 MR. DUNN: The witness could
15 have the exhibit marked as an exhibit and
16 ask the witness if he is familiar with it,
17 and if the witness is familiar with it,
18 fine. If he isn't, fine, but I think we
19 ought to mark it as an exhibit and have the
20 witness be asked if he recognizes any of
21 it.
22 MR. KIENZ: I stated my
23 objection.
24 O-2.
25 MR. DUNN: Okay. We will call
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 it O-2.
2 (Photographs are marked as Exhibit
3 O-2.)
4 MR. KIENZ: I think it should be
5 noted for the record, that, apparently, O-2
6 is an exhibit consisting of five,
7 three-and-a-half by five --
8 MR. DUNN: Photographs.
9 MR. KIENZ: -- colored
10 photographs.
11 MR. DUNN: The witness is not
12 going to be allowed -- Ms. Wadia is not
13 going to be allowed to testify at this
14 point as to what they represent.
15 She is going to ask the witness if
16 he has any knowledge of that.
17 THE WITNESS: The answer is yes.
18 There were a unique set of
19 circumstances that led to the very -- there
20 is a unique set of circumstances that
21 resulted from a breach in the shoreline
22 that was managed under the auspices of the
23 United States Coast Guard, United States
24 Department of the Army Corps of Engineers
25 of the State of New Jersey, that caused us
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 to dredge out that breach of the shoreline
2 and stabilize that material on-site; i.e.,
3 insure that any solids were separated from
4 the materials, test that material.
5 Our firm was charged with testing
6 that material to insure that the cross
7 section of contaminants, if there were any,
8 and, in fact, they were -- were of the same
9 type and consistency with that of the
10 historic fill material on the site.
11 We proved that, in fact, that was
12 the case, again, the explicit, that the
13 materials that were breached from this
14 shoreline into the Hudson River were the
15 same materials and had the same
16 constituents as the remaining materials, as
17 the historic material on the site, and,
18 therefore, we were allowed -- after
19 submission of all this documentation to the
20 case manager, we were allowed to utilize --
21 reutilize this information on the site.
22 This is an abnormal set of
23 circumstances that was dealt with during
24 the construction as a matter of
25 construction -- on-site construction
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 management, and it's not the classic
2 utilization, as I understood your question,
3 will dredge material be used upon the site.
4 This is not the utilization of dredged
5 materials.
6 This was the utilization of breach
7 material that was proven to be one and the
8 same of historical materials on the site.
9 MS. WADIA: Thank you very much.
10 MR. GOULD: Thank you, Judy.
11 Any other questions from any members
12 of the public?
13 Back here.
14 MR. BARONE: Chuck Barone.
15 My question to you, sir, in your
16 expert opinion, the encapsulation of the
17 property here in Weehawken, would it be
18 similar to that of the encapsulation of the
19 Elizabeth property of the largest mall in
20 the State of New Jersey that just was
21 completed?
22 THE WITNESS: The answer to that is
23 no, and the reason that it's not the same,
24 first of all, I am not intimately familiar
25 with the Elizabeth property other than the
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 newspaper articles which I read about. To
2 the best of my knowledge, dredge materials
3 were stabilized and utilized on that site.
4 I also do not know what the existing
5 conditions prior to stabilization and
6 remediation were, but, as I testified and
7 as I answered the question to the prior --
8 Ms. Wadia, dredge soil would not be used to
9 cap this site.
10 In my understanding, dredge material
11 was used in Elizabeth.
12 MR. BARONE: Do you have any
13 knowledge of the encapsulation of the sites
14 down in Hoboken, of the park, or the
15 Edgewater mall area?
16 THE WITNESS: No, I am not familiar
17 with that, sir.
18 MR. BARONE: All of those
19 properties have been capped?
20 THE WITNESS: To the best of my
21 knowledge, all the properties that one
22 would be familiar with by driving along
23 River Road from, essentially, Fort Lee down
24 to Jersey City that have undergone any type
25 of new construction that would be visible
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 to the eye as one were driving by, would
2 have undergone some type of capping.
3 MR. BARONE: All of which I am
4 sure everybody probably here utilized.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. GOULD: Okay. Any other
7 questions from the public?
8 MR. SHERMAN: Bruce Sherman.
9 Could you elaborate a little more
10 about the capping procedure and,
11 specifically, with what you said earlier
12 regarding the planting of trees?
13 I know there are hundreds of trees
14 that are contemplated to be planted on the
15 site, and I think you said there was
16 something -- that in most cases there would
17 be something in the area of 18 inches of
18 clean fill, is that correct, or 18 inches
19 to three feet, and I would like to know,
20 would you be using certain species of trees
21 that don't have roots that go below that?
22 Would they be going below that, and I would
23 just like to hear more about how that is
24 possible to do without having the migration
25 of the contaminated soils?
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 THE WITNESS: Like most questions,
2 that's a good question, and it's not -- the
3 answer is not a simple one, although given
4 the hour I will try to come up with a
5 practical answer.
6 Much of this site is at grade right
7 now, which will have to be raised prior to
8 the construction. You will hear more about
9 that from the professional engineer when he
10 talks about topography and final grades.
11 There are many portions of the site,
12 which will be elevated two, three, four,
13 five to six feet prior to construction of
14 the site. Only a portion of that element
15 will be "remediation capped" that I am
16 discussing.
17 My remark -- remarks in response to
18 your question will only deal with
19 landscaped areas, in the case of an area
20 that's currently at an elevation five or
21 six, that ultimately will be elevated to
22 Elevation 11, two feet of that differential
23 will be the capping. The capping could be
24 done at grade, and then, in fact, we could
25 have select fill material, clean fill
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 material coming back up to the surface
2 prior to the six or eight inches of topsoil
3 that will be used by the landscaper.
4 In that case the capped
5 contamination would be in my example some
6 four or five feet below the now final
7 grade, and I believe the potential problem
8 that you are alluding to, which is a real
9 potential problem of roots from trees,
10 would be obviated by the additional fill
11 material which would be used on-site.
12 That's part of the answer.
13 Another part you also alluded to in
14 my earlier testimony spoke to it that
15 certain species -- and I am not a landscape
16 specialist -- certain species have
17 differential or different species have
18 different rooting characteristics, and one
19 in matters such as this prefers to utilize
20 species that have shallow roots as opposed
21 to clearly those species that have deep
22 roots.
23 And, finally, there are special
24 construction procedures that one uses in
25 landscaping specifications that are
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 implemented on the property, such as ground
2 fill remediation.
3 MR. SHERMAN: Do you not vision the
4 possibility of root systems breaking the
5 cap?
6 THE WITNESS: The answer to the
7 question is no, because care will be taken
8 in the selection of species, the location
9 of species and coordinated with the
10 location of the cap and specifically the
11 variable depth of the cap.
12 MR. SHERMAN: In the cases where a
13 permeable liner is used, my understanding
14 from what you have said is that water will
15 migrate down and up so that -- am I correct
16 in characterizing what you said about that?
17 THE WITNESS: Correct.
18 MR. SHERMAN: So presumably
19 contaminants could, therefore, rise with
20 the water to the surface. Is that correct?
21 THE WITNESS: I believe Mr. Segreto
22 talked to a similar subject in one of his
23 questions to me, and my response to him and
24 my response to you is that those areas
25 where we have a standard cap where we have
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 a permeable membrane, the contaminants
2 within the historic fill of heavy metals,
3 et cetera, are found in the soil and are
4 not mobile items. They are not mobile and
5 soluble in water.
6 The groundwater will allow, to the
7 extent that we have a variable groundwater
8 which migrates upwards, which we do, or the
9 extent of rainfall over the landscaped
10 areas, which have a horizontal flow, but
11 also, more importantly, in terms of your
12 question, a vertical flow into the
13 groundwater will not carry the contaminants
14 into the groundwater or into the soil
15 level. These are bound into the soil.
16 They do not travel. They don't travel with
17 water.
18 MR. SHERMAN: You earlier mentioned
19 the difference between residential and
20 nonresidential standards, and I wasn't
21 quite certain of what you finally were
22 saying.
23 My understanding is that the
24 residential standards are much more
25 stringent than the nonresidential, and
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 where it applies to parkland, my
2 understanding is that nonresidential,
3 meaning the less stringent guidelines,
4 could possibly be used.
5 I think I heard you say that in the
6 entire site the residential standard would
7 be used, but I would like to make sure that
8 is what you said.
9 Is that what you said?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's a very
11 good clarification.
12 There are two standards. There are
13 the residential and there are
14 nonresidential. In some cases there could
15 be substantial differences, not in all
16 cases, on this particular site we are being
17 held to the most stringent set of
18 circumstances -- standard, whether it be
19 park, retail, commercial or residential,
20 and we are being held to the most stringent
21 residential standards.
22 MR. SHERMAN: And -- I am sorry --
23 but you may have said this already -- when
24 do you envision getting into the air
25 quality portion of the testimony?
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding
2 that will be covered during the testimony
3 or collateral with the testimony from the
4 traffic expert.
5 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you very much.
6 MR. CABRERA: Mr. Friedman, you
7 testified earlier that in reference to the
8 landscaping certain trees will go beyond
9 the capping, correct, and you will take it
10 on an individual case as to recapping that
11 again?
12 THE WITNESS: I indicated that
13 certain species have root structures which
14 are more invasive, go deeper than other
15 species, that we would work with the
16 landscaper consultant to try to select or
17 specify trees with shallow root structures
18 in areas where we are capping -- where we
19 are capping or throughout the entire site,
20 for that matter, where we would utilize --
21 we would recommend the utilization of
22 species with shallower root structures as
23 compared to species even if they were the
24 right colors, or what have you, that had
25 deeper root structures.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 MR. CABRERA: One -- the question
2 Mr. Sherman asked and you said that, no,
3 the trees will not go -- the roots would
4 not go underneath the capping, wasn't that
5 the question you were just asked?
6 THE WITNESS: I answered several
7 different questions.
8 I indicated there may be and, in
9 fact, I think there will be many areas of
10 the site in which additional fill material
11 -- substantial fill material,
12 noncontaminated fill material will be
13 placed over the cap to bring the site up to
14 the grade which is required for
15 construction, and in some cases, in my
16 opinion, based on what I have seen,
17 substantial areas, although we will wait to
18 see what the --
19 MR. GOULD: Hold on.
20 Okay. Continue.
21 THE WITNESS: -- that those areas
22 where we have substantial volumes and
23 volumes of fill over the cap of clean fill,
24 then we can utilize landscaping trees that
25 may go deeper, because the site is capped
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 in some cases five or six feet below the
2 final surface elevation.
3 MR. CABRERA: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: I hope that clarifies
5 the answer to the question.
6 MR. CABRERA: I will come back
7 again if I am not.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. GOULD: Back there on the
10 right.
11 MR. HERMAN: Stephen Herman, 62
12 Sterling.
13 A question to follow up to what
14 Bruce just asked, you stated that a
15 telephone pole or electrical or something
16 can be put on the sealant, the permeable or
17 nonpermeable. It can go through this and
18 be resealed.
19 How is this done so that it doesn't
20 come back, continuously come up through
21 that?
22 THE WITNESS: It's been our
23 experience, my experience, the experience
24 of remediating sites, that one doesn't see
25 -- the same way I answered the question
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 earlier -- one doesn't see mobility
2 contaminants of the historic fill come up
3 through the soil top or climb up through
4 utility poles placed in there.
5 No. 2, there are -- I don't have the
6 specification with me, and I will bring it
7 for any follow-up testimony that I give,
8 giving special consideration to the utility
9 placement. There are special
10 specifications --
11 MR. DUNN: They are having
12 trouble hearing.
13 THE WITNESS: There are detailed
14 specifications that are prepared for the
15 construction of these types of sites that
16 deal with trenching for utilities,
17 placement of poles, placing of sewer lines,
18 electric lines, water lines.
19 These are real problems, and the
20 problems have been and will be overcome on
21 the site.
22 MR. DUNN: Are those
23 specifications prescribed by the DEP or are
24 they engineering practice specifications?
25 THE WITNESS: They are
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 specifications that are required by the DEP
2 for sites like this and for situations like
3 this. They are also required by the
4 contractors working on contaminated sites,
5 and they differ from formal construction
6 specifications.
7 In the same way there are provisions
8 in the specifications for the unearthing of
9 underground tanks that may be a part of
10 what on these types of sites are formal
11 construction activities, if one were
12 dealing in Sussex County, New Jersey, upon
13 a virgin site, one would not have any
14 specification.
15 MR. HERMAN: Okay. You are not an
16 expert in building, so I am going to pose
17 this question hypothetically.
18 Many developments around the watered
19 areas when they put up a building,
20 particularly 12 stories, ten stories, they
21 have to sink columns down into the ground a
22 specified amount depending on height.
23 When this is done, one of the first
24 things that's done in many cases, is soil
25 compression, putting 25 feet of soil on top
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 and reducing it, which forces the water
2 out, which makes the columns stand up and
3 be supported, and so on.
4 When this happens the water is
5 contained in the soil to the depth it's
6 taken down to, it comes up, this is going
7 to produce water that comes up from
8 whatever that depth is to the surface,
9 therefore, bringing any contaminants --
10 possibly bringing contaminants up to the
11 top.
12 Would that be reasonable or is there
13 a different explanation on that?
14 THE WITNESS: What you described in
15 theory happens. Whether it will happen on
16 this site or not, I don't know, but it has
17 happened on the adjacent Port Imperial
18 North property or specifically within
19 portions of that property.
20 Different types of compaction are
21 used, in some cases -- describing the
22 utilization of wick drains, forcing the
23 water up and compressing the soils, much of
24 that water evaporates when it comes to the
25 surface. The water that's coming up is
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 sometimes groundwater, and sometimes
2 interstitial water that contains -- not
3 necessarily contaminated, but usually with
4 the same characteristics of the
5 groundwater.
6 In the case under the Port Imperial
7 South property, as is the case under the
8 Port Imperial North property, that water is
9 one and the same of Hudson River water.
10 Where that water has not evaporated,
11 in the case of Port Imperial North, that
12 water was allowed by permit and by
13 agreement with the DEP to flow back into
14 the Hudson River.
15 MR. HERMAN: Did you perform any
16 tests on this water or the soil surrounding
17 it that came up through possibly
18 contaminated soil?
19 THE WITNESS: All soils have been
20 tested. Whether in my answer talking about
21 the prior project in Port Imperial North or
22 certainly all the soils are tested in Port
23 Imperial South, what type of compaction
24 will be used on Port Imperial South and
25 where that type of compaction will be used,
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 I don't know at this juncture.
2 MR. HERMAN: In your review of the
3 property that you conducted, was there any
4 remediation methods currently employed that
5 you discovered from this construction? Is
6 there something -- is there a remediation
7 in place today in different portions of
8 this area?
9 THE WITNESS: There is no
10 remediation that is in place on the Port
11 Imperial South property proper that has
12 gone through the protocols that I have
13 testified to.
14 There are portions of the Port
15 Imperial South property which are covered
16 by asphalt, which can be viewed as a de
17 facto cap, but certainly not a cap that
18 meets any protocols and provisions required
19 by the State of New Jersey.
20 The best example would be the
21 parking area for the ferry -- for the ferry
22 -- the existing ferry, the large expansive
23 asphalt area. That area is all underlaid
24 by historic fill which -- which contains an
25 area of contamination above residential
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 standard.
2 That area will all be a recipient of
3 a formal cap in accordance with my
4 discussions this evening, but right now
5 it's as a recipient of my use of the words
6 "de facto cap," an asphalt layer of some
7 thickness, which I don't know.
8 MR. HERMAN: In your opinion,
9 would a de facto cap pass regulation for
10 something that you would submit to the
11 State of New Jersey as an environmental cap
12 in the form you see it today at that site?
14 MR. HERMAN: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. GOULD: Thank you.
16 Okay. Any other questions?
17 MR. CABRERA: Mr. Chairman --
18 MR. GOULD: I will come back to
19 you.
20 MR. DePALMA: Dan DePalma.
21 Your firm was involved in obtaining
22 the samples of the soil?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, we were.
24 MR. DePALMA: Would you please
25 briefly describe the method and how those
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 samples are taken from the soil.
2 THE WITNESS: I will generally
3 describe them. I was not personally
4 involved in the taking of the samples, nor
5 do I have the qualifications of those
6 samples.
7 Depending on what one is sampling,
8 for one has to go to a site with
9 appropriate instruments, be that hand
10 augers precleaned, or drilling rigs that
11 have split spoons, duplicative sampling
12 apparatus equipment has to be prewashed in
13 accordance with chemical protocols and
14 established -- that's established by the
15 state.
16 Holding times have to be
17 established. The holding time you can't --
18 for certain parameters if one takes a
19 sample today one can't keep that in an
20 unrefrigerated fashion until next week and
21 then bring it into a laboratory. One has
22 to have a laboratory tech up at the site.
23 One has to deliver samples to the site
24 within a specified period of time, and then
25 there are protocols that are required for
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 the utilization of chemicals, collection of
2 samples, the type of glassware that's used
3 and the -- there has to be almost a legal
4 locking in of samples from cradle to grave,
5 from collection of the sample, tagging it
6 into a laboratory and then tagging it back.
7 The location of the sample has to be
8 surveyed or using GPS global satellite
9 positioning equipment, so that the results
10 can be replicated on the map, and one can
11 find the precise location of the sample.
12 All of this methodology, and far
13 more detail and specificity than I am able
14 to respond to your question this evening,
15 is contained in the Remedial Investigation
16 Workplan which was -- must be submitted to
17 the state prior to the implementation of
18 the sampling, and the protocol is either
19 agreed upon or if incorrectly proposed by a
20 consultant, they are modified by a review
21 of the state and then implemented.
22 MR. DePALMA: How many samples were
23 taken from this 90-acre site?
24 THE WITNESS: I am going to answer
25 the question two ways.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 EcolSciences, my firm, collected on
2 the order of 550 samples. There are
3 hundreds of samples that were taken by
4 prior consultants over prior eras dating
5 back from the 1980s into the early 1990s as
6 a result of other prior projects.
7 That information, as I testified, I
8 believe, two weeks ago, is contained in the
9 preliminary assessment and was the basis or
10 part of the basis for the sampling
11 protocols and programs.
12 MR. DePALMA: Is it conceivable or
13 possible that with the size -- given the
14 size of the parcel and the number of
15 samples that were taken, that there may be,
16 I will say, inaccurate readings on the
17 total amounts of contaminated soils?
18 THE WITNESS: It's conceivable.
19 It's not probable.
20 The reason that we took 550 samples
21 to approximate it was not that we,
22 EcolSciences, one consultant felt that was
23 the appropriate number.
24 It was that, as I have utilized the
25 term before, there are technical
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 requirements in New Jersey that specify the
2 protocol numbers of samples that one has to
3 take in various situations such as we
4 encountered on the site, and so one derives
5 through scientific professional experience
6 utilization of technical requirements,
7 consultation with regulatory personnel,
8 specifically the case manager, that the
9 number of samples is not an exact science,
10 and one can argue that one should have only
11 taken 400 samples, or one could argue that
12 one should have taken 575 samples, but the
13 bottom-line answer to your question, it is
14 highly unlikely that there is a constituent
15 that exists on this site that has not been
16 identified by EcolSciences or the prior
17 rounds of sampling that have been conducted
18 over the past decade by several other
19 consultants.
20 MR. HERMAN: So let me just
21 understand, so, in other words, what you
22 are saying is that if a sample is taken
23 here, that five feet away it's highly
24 unlikely there would be an unacceptable
25 level of contaminated soil?
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 THE WITNESS: No, that's not what I
2 am saying.
3 I said earlier, and I will try to
4 say this in an understandable fashion, the
5 entire --
6 MR. DUNN: And a brief one, Mr.
7 Friedman, it almost being the witching
8 hour.
9 THE WITNESS: The entire site has
10 levels of contamination in excess of
11 residential standards to the extent that we
12 take a sample here and we find a petroleum
13 hydrocarbon at one level, in no way it's
14 indicative of a sample that I might take
15 here.
16 It's highly unlikely that if I
17 didn't find something or if my predecessors
18 didn't find something, that if you take --
19 took a sample in an unsampled location you
20 would find a constituent that nobody else
21 has found.
22 It's also highly unlikely that you
23 would find something after 1,000 samples
24 have been taken on this site that it's
25 outside of the range of the results that
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 have been recorded over the last decade.
2 I said it's conceivable that that
3 would happen, but it's not probable, nor is
4 it likely to happen.
5 MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
6 MR. GOULD: We have a question
7 from one of the board members.
8 MS. KRAVITZ: Yes, Carol Kravitz.
9 Mr. Friedman, this is -- this would
10 be a hypothetical situation, 25, 50, 75
11 years from now --
12 MR. TURNER: Can't hear you.
13 MR. KIENZ: Carol, there is a
14 mike right there.
15 MS. KRAVITZ: Mr. Friedman, 25, 50,
16 75 years from now when most of us may not
17 be in this area to be involved as we are
18 now, what happens when a tree dies or a
19 water main breaks and contractors are
20 called in to do the repairs, they dig a
21 hole and where there is maybe just 18
22 inches of cap, they don't -- are there any
23 provisions where they will know that this
24 entire area is capped; therefore, nobody
25 can dig anything anyplace, a home owner or
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 someone who has a town house wants to go
2 out and put -- you know -- a wonderful
3 shrub in their backyard 25 years from now,
4 50 years from now, and they dig down, who
5 is going to be there to monitor this?
6 THE WITNESS: Let me try to give
7 you a practical answer.
8 In five years your theoretical
9 question --
10 MR. DUNN: How many minutes?
11 THE WITNESS: One minute.
12 One minute practical answer, not a
13 five-minute answer, if that would have
14 happen in five years from now, immediately
15 upon completion of this remediation process
16 of capping the site, there is a mandatory
17 annual inspection of landscaped areas of
18 all the capped areas with a report that has
19 to be filed with the state, the first part
20 of the answer.
21 The second part of the answer, the
22 filter fabric, whether it's permeable or
23 impermeable, that I have talked about
24 throughout the evening, is a colored
25 fabric.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 It's an orange fabric. It's a
2 yellow fabric. It's a blue fabric. It's a
3 noticeable fabric, so that contractors who
4 work in this area are knowledgeable of
5 that. The utility contractors all know
6 this, and they use certain -- JCP&L uses a
7 certain type of fabric in those areas when
8 they do utility work as an indicator that
9 if one sees this fabric, that the material
10 below has some type of contamination.
11 There are specifications that have
12 -- that exist or will exist for the
13 construction of this project and for future
14 repairs, and, most importantly, there are
15 specifications for capping, but the
16 predominant answer is the requirement for
17 annual inspections one year from now or in
18 your example in 75 years from now.
19 MR. DUNN: And deed restrictions
20 as well. Right?
21 THE WITNESS: Correct.
22 MS. KRAVITZ: In the photographs
23 that we were shown of the capping material,
24 it looked like just basic whitish-gray to
25 me. It didn't look like there were any
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 bright colors that would be noticeable.
2 THE WITNESS: A fabric is
3 noticeable. It may have been white, but
4 it's not -- one doesn't use a black
5 material.
6 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay.
7 THE WITNESS: Which would be --
8 these liners, the permeable liners look
9 like a close-knit fabric.
10 I could have brought one. I will
11 bring some material along.
12 MS. KRAVITZ: Thank you.
13 MR. GOULD: Okay. Any other
14 questions from the public?
15 MR. KALIN: Peter Kalin.
16 You mentioned, I think, Mr. Friedman
17 -- I forget the exact words -- that
18 currently along the shoreline there was
19 very little life or habitat or almost none,
20 and I guess my question is twofold.
21 First, in the plan what effect on
22 the potential of habitat of life along the
23 shoreline is envisioned?
24 THE WITNESS: In fact, if I
25 characterize that that way, the shoreline
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 represents a healthy invertebrate colony.
2 We had one of our experts, Dr. David
3 Bell, whose credentials are included in the
4 document, did conduct a survey of the
5 biological attributes of the shoreline,
6 and, in fact, found a healthy invertebrate
7 colony indicative of where when one looks
8 at the historic river population,
9 invertebrates, fisheries, essentially, a
10 good water quality compared with that of
11 the Hudson River two decades ago, one or
12 two decades ago.
13 What's envisioned is a walkway, a
14 riverfront walkway, a bulkheading of the
15 entire shoreline. There are areas that are
16 not bulkheaded, but most of the shoreline,
17 to the best of my recollection, is
18 bulkheaded, and just the maintenance of the
19 existing interface between the Hudson River
20 and the property that exists today, to the
21 best of my knowledge, there is not
22 substantial construction activity beyond
23 the water -- of the walkway, which is part
24 of the waterfront development, which is one
25 of the state regulations.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 MR. KALIN: I may have been a
2 little confused then.
3 Briefly, the habitat as it is now,
4 if I understand you now correctly, is a
5 healthy one given a shoreline habitat as it
6 could be envisioned for the Hudson River in
7 this area?
8 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
9 Our assessment of the existing
10 conditions of the shoreline of the Hudson
11 River is that of a reasonably healthy
12 shoreline.
13 I would envision that the current
14 condition will continue into the future and
15 the Hudson River improves, so will the
16 community along this portion of Weehawken.
17 MR. KALIN: Just to recap, not to
18 be threatened by the plan as it unfolds as
19 we can see it today?
20 THE WITNESS: No. I think the
21 biggest benefit in relationship, I will
22 call it, the intertidal, at that point the
23 interface between the Hudson River and the
24 land would be the improved water quality
25 that will result from this project.
Friedman - Cross - Segreto
1 Right now, as I indicated earlier,
2 the water kind of sheet flows across the
3 property, and where we have native
4 materials and not asphalt materials, we
5 have soil continuing being eroded during
6 rainfall events.
7 Upon completion of this project, we
8 are going to have a stormwater system
9 that's going to be in place. It's going to
10 take the water and put it back into the
11 Hudson River in accordance with the
12 applicable standards of the state.
13 A subsequent witness, Lanza,
14 obviously, who is not testifying this
15 evening, will talk more to that.
16 I believe the water quality will be
17 improved and there will not be any decline
18 in the biological environment along the
19 Hudson River.
20 MR. KALIN: Thank you.
21 MR. GOULD: At this time now,
22 given the hour, Mr. Segreto, we will ask
23 you if you will continue your
24 cross-examination to the next meeting.
25 MR. SEGRETO: Sure.
1 MR. GOULD: Okay.
2 MR. KIENZ: How much time does he
3 have?
4 MR. GOULD: I believe the next
5 meeting is --
6 MR. TURNER: Next Thursday.
7 MR. GOULD: -- next Thursday,
8 November 4th, at seven PM.
9 MR. DUNN: While I don't mean to
10 precipitate any further comment from Mr.
11 Segreto, I think he can make whatever
12 comments he wants the next time while we
13 are all a little fresher.
14 My records show that there is --
15 that there are -- that Mr. Friedman
16 consumed 30 minutes at the last meeting and
17 65 minutes at this meeting and the
18 cross-examination was 85 minutes today, so
19 that there are 115 minutes of
20 cross-examination left.
21 THE PUBLIC: Where is the next
22 meeting?
23 MR. GOULD: The next meeting will
24 be at city hall.
25 MR. DUNN: At seven o'clock at
1 the municipal building.
2 MR. DUNN: Thursday. It's seven
3 o'clock at the municipal building without
4 further notice. All notices are carried.
5 MR. GOULD: Hold on.
6 MR. KIENZ: I think, before
7 everybody goes, we made one promise as the
8 applicant that we always alert to who the
9 next witness was going to be, so the next
10 witness --
11 MR. TURNER: Just remind everyone
12 it's at city hall.
13 MR. GOULD: City hall.
14 MR. KIENZ: The next witness at
15 city hall --
16 MR. DUNN: On the fourth of
17 November.
18 MR. KIENZ: -- will be Mr. Lanza,
19 the engineer for the project, talking about
20 some engineering facets.
21 MR. GOULD: Thank you.
22 MR. DUNN: Thank you.
23 MR. GOULD: I will take a motion
24 to adjourn.
25 MR. BARSA: Motion to adjourn.
1 MR. CABRERA: I will second it.
2 MR. GOULD: Adjourned.
3 * * *
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 I, PHILIP A. FISHMAN, a Notary Public and
4 Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of New
5 Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
6 true and accurate transcript of the hearing as
7 taken stenographically by and before me at the
8 time, place and on the date hereinbefore set
9 forth.
10 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a
11 relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of
12 any of the parties to this action and that I am
13 neither a relative nor employee of such attorney
14 or counsel, and that I am not financially
15 interested in the action.
18 Dated _______________ ________________________
A Notary Public of the
20 State of New Jersey
Jump to 10/28/99 pages 1 to 50
Jump to 10/28/99 pages 51 to 100
Jump to 10/28/99 pages 101 to 150

Go to Page 175
Go to Top of Page

Back to Main Table of Contents
Back to Homepage
Back to PB Transcripts TOC