Memorial Report Public

7/23/2019 Memorial Report Public

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/memorial-report-public 1/74

"#$%&'()*%#(+ &,-%&) %# )., /%#0*)*%#

(#0 01'-*#2 %# 3,'%&*(+ 4*,+0

"#$%&#$' ()

*+'#, -&..&/$0$/$1($# 234 2536



Executive Summary

Over the past several months, activity at Mount Vernon’s Memorial Field has accelerated. During this

time period, a large mound (the “Mound”), which varies between 20 and 30 feet high, was built on theEast side of Memorial Field. The creation of the Mound has resulted in a marked deterioration in

Quality of Life for the residential neighbors of Memorial Field due to late night hours of operation (1A.M. – 7:00A.M.) and the resultant noise pollution.

Quality of Life also worsened as air quality was negatively impacted when residents observed the smell

of gasoline and diesel coming from the unidentified material that comprises the Bottom Layer of theMound. As a result, the residents requested testing a sample from the Mound, which indicated the

presence of fuel contaminates. The NYSDEC also identified coal/ash/slag as present at Memorial Fieldand raises concerns that current activities may include active dumping of contaminated material on the

site.

The presence of contaminants heightens concerns of the Mound’s negative impact on the HutchinsonRiver Watershed due to its proximity to the Hutchinson River. The height of the Mound changes the

traditional flows of water and poses increased risks for the structural integrity of not only residential properties but also the Mound itself. Recent weather events substantiate apprehensions that the Mound

itself is structurally unsound. The increased risk of flooding at surrounding properties and the newthreat of contaminated run-off to the Hutchinson River Watershed are also natural concerns.

Property damage, specifically to the retaining wall that supports residential properties on Memorial

Field’s East Side, may also have resulted from operations to construct the Mound. Deterioration wasfound but is now concealed by the Mound. The retaining walls’ structural integrity is now in question,

as are the viability of trees whose tree bases are now covered up to 10-20 feet of unidentified material.

Memorial Field is currently not secured. Unmarked vehicles are actively present. Visual inspectionsreveal a wide variety of “dumped” material. This report recommends the halt of operations to allow for

environmental impact studies and for remediation plans to be developed and implemented. Because ofthe involvement and presence of City of Mount Vernon (CMV) officials and CMV manned equipment, a

cease and desist order is also recommended. An open, transparent and independent investigation from asuperseding government agency is strongly recommended in order to determine the scale of the presence

of contaminated material at Memorial Field and the scope of activities that have led to its current state.



Introduction

Over the past several months, through community discussions of activity at Memorial Field and

complaints from residents, I, as a community leader, concerned citizen and a recently elected cityofficial, began to compile the summary report here within. Upon knowledge of the NYSDEC

1 report in

which contaminants were identified and the City of Mount Vernon was issued a fine and violation for

operating an illegal waste management facility at Memorial Field, this report was concluded and isrespectfully submitted for review and consideration. Because of the involvement of Mount Vernon CityGovernment Officials, I ask that the subject matter of this report be handled with sensitivity, regardless

of the potential negative or positive implications.

André Wallace

***

Report Findings

***

Assertion of Facts

This report aims to present a summary of observations and evidence collected over the past few months.

Opinions stated in the report are sourced from subject matter experts and are based on evidence

presented in this report.

This report is intended to support the ultimate need for a formal investigation that will reveal the

ultimate facts regarding activities at Memorial Field.

It is not known as to whether or not operations at Memorial Field were or are currently inspected and/orsupervised by licensed experts (i.e. engineers) employed by or on behalf of the City of Mount Vernon or

the County of Westchester.

Identification of Persons (Juridical and Physical) and Equipment present at Memorial Field

Anthony Bove, Commissioner of Water Supply of the City of Mount Vernon. Please see Exhibit 7 –

Signed Witness Statements.

The following marked manned equipment were observed on-site: Avanti Building Construction Corp.(Avanti), A Palmieri Landscaping Co. Inc., Persico Contracting & Trucking, Mount Vernon RecyclingCorp., Mount Vernon Department of Public Works (MVDPW), Hertz, Spiniello, and Mainlining

America, LLC. Red, blue, green, white and orange manned equipment were seen. Not all manned

" New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Region 3 Office/Solid Waste

Program, found contaminates at Memorial Field according to two reports, the first dated April 14, 2015

prepared by Lin Lin and the second dated November 23, 2015 prepared by Wesley Salis. (See Exhibit 1)



equipment is marked. (See Exhibit 9 of Resident Statements, Exhibit 2 & 3, and Appendix 2 withTrucks Seen on-site).

Description of Operations at Memorial Field:

Manned Equipment Operations: In addition to regular business hours, manned equipment operationswere observed between 1:00 AM and before 7:00 A.M., including Saturdays and Sundays. Activity was

also observed during the day on at least two Sundays. Unmarked manned equipment conducting activityhas also been observed. Observations were either visual and/or audible. (See Exhibits 3)

1. Visual – During Nighttime Hours (1-7 A.M., all days of the week)a. MVDPW and Avanti manned equipment were identified

b. Blue and Yellow colored manned equipment also observed2. Visual – During Day Hours on Sunday

a. MVDPW trucks (one white and one orange truck) moved earth on the Mound2

3. Visual – Unmarked Vehicles

a. Unmarked green truck working on the mound4. Audible – During Nighttime Hours (1-7 A.M., all days of the week):

a. Noise of trucks entering and exiting Memorial Field

b.

Noise of lifts going upc. Noise of material dumping from aforementioned trucks

Entrance and Exit of Manned Equipment in and out of Memorial Field: Manned Equipmententer/exit Memorial Field through Sandford Boulevard (see Exhibit 2,3). However, the use of adjacent

lots owned by Westchester County as part of entrance and exit operations was observed.

Demolition: Demolition of old structures on the Southeast Side of Memorial Field was observed.1. Old hand ball courts were demolished and the cement rock walls were pulled down and gutted

2. Retaining wall of residential properties showed large cracks and structural deterioration3. Unidentified material filled the space between the mound and the retaining wall.

4.

Unidentified material was pushed against property line fences, causing them to “bust.”

Description of the Mound: A mound composed of unidentified material has been built:1. The Mound traverses a large portion of the East Side of Memorial Field

2. The Mound varies in height from approximately 20 to 30 feet in height3. The Mound appears to be comprised of:

a. Top Layer, which is approximately 2 feet in height and comprised of Item 4 Gravel b. Bottom Layer, which varies in height (18-28 feet) and comprised of unidentified material

c. Sections with no Top Layer and still exposed Bottom Layer4. The Mound height exceeds neighboring residential properties, and:

a. Pushes up against retaining walls and exceeds the height of residential propertyi. In one case, the mound exceeds the structural height of a residential garage.

b.

Mound pushes against private residential property fences and trees on private propertyi. In some cases, the mound reaches approximately 10– 20 ft. above tree bases

5.

The Mound exhibits improper sloping on Northeast Section of Memorial Field (Exhibits 10)

# $%& '()*+ ,-. /&0&*123 4)521 (* 1%& 6-.1 75+& (8 '&9(/5-2 :5&2+; $%& '()*+ 5. /&8&//&+ 1(

)45<)51().23 5* 1%5. /&=(/1 1( /&8&/ 1( 1%& 2-/>& 9-.. (8 )*5+&*1585&+ 9-1&/5-2 (* 1%& 6-.1 75+& (8

'&9(/5-2 :5&2+ -*+ 5. *(1 9&-*1 1( 4& 0(*8).&+ ,51% (1%&/ -/&-. (8 '&9(/5-2 :5&2+;



Actions Taken by Community:

Residents have taken several actions, including sharing their observations in this report. Actions includecontacting Mount Vernon City Hall (MVCH) to inform the City of activity at Memorial Field, to

complain about the noise, hours of operation and concerns regarding operations at Memorial Field andto request the stoppage of activities at Memorial Field. (Please see Exhibit 9)

1. Calls to MVCH include:a. Several complaints about “dumping” against their properties and requests for MVCH to

send officials to investigate operations at Memorial Field b. Notification and complaints regarding the smell of gasoline and diesel from unidentified

material placed along the back fences of residential propertiesc. Complaints of hours of operation and requests to investigate late night operations

d. Complaints of “landfill” pushing into residential backyardse. Complaints of encroachment of residential homes bordering Southeast Memorial Field

2. In person conversations with MVCH officials (specifically, Commissioner Anthony Bove):

a.

Notification and complaint that the Mound busted through property line fences b. Request of work stoppage at Memorial Field and to stop making the Mound any higherc. Notification of the negative impact of the Mound height on residential property

waterways and foreseeable increase in flood risk for residential propertiesd. Notification and complaint of smells from unidentified material behind homes and along

property line fences3. Environmental Testing of unidentified material in mound found additional contamination beyond

the findings of the NYSDEC (Please see Exhibit 4).

Identification of Materials at Memorial Field:

Top Layer: Approximately 2 feet of Item 4 Gravel

A sample of the Top Layer of the Mound was collected for testing. Test results of this one and onlysample indicate that the Mound’s Top Layer is consistent with regulation grade Item 4 construction

gravel. Contamination results for this Top Layer sample were not meaningful. (See Exhibit 1.1)

Bottom Layer of the Mound: Fuel Contaminates were found

Prior to the publication of NYSDEC findings, and in response to complaints regarding the smell of

gasoline and diesel, Olmstead Environmental Services, Inc. conducted an environmental survey onOctober 19, 2015 of the Mound at Memorial Field (Please see Exhibit 4 Environmental Survey).

Testing of samples from the Mound indicate the presence of fuel contaminates.

Exposed Bottom Layers with a Top Layer: Construction & Demolition (C&D) debris present

A visual inspection of exposed Bottom Layers with a Top Layer reveals the presence of concrete with

reinforcing rods, footings, electrical wires, brick, pipes, metal, glass, tiles, wood, CMU, and rock. Thismaterial is consistent with material from the demolition and removal of a commercial or residential

building or facility. The source of the C&D material is unknown. The C&D material at Memorial Fieldis not consistent with the demolition of existent structures at the field. See EXHIBIT 5 (Pictures)



Bottom Layers without a Top Layer: a variety of construction and household refuse (Exhibit 2,5) A visual Inspection reveals additional materials not reported in NYSDEC report including but not

limited to lead piping, ceramic tiles, plastic cans and bottles, rubber tires, wood and household garbage.

NYSDEC Findings: Coal, Ash and Slag New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Region 3 Office/Solid Waste

Program, identified contaminates present at Memorial Field. Samples were taken on two separateoccasions first on or about January 12, 2015, a report was prepared by Lin Lin dated April 14, 2015; and

the second report on or about November 3, 2015, prepared by Wesley Salis dated November 23, 2015.See EXHIBIT 1. (NYSDEC Report)

NYSDEC findings included steel or fiberglass reinforcing rods that are embedded in the concrete,

asphalt pavement, brick, glass, soil and rock. The NYSDEC report also states that coal/ash/slag wasfound in Memorial Field

Staging Operations at Memorial Field:

In a separate section of Memorial Field, an area is dedicated to the staging operations in support of theCity of Mount Vernon - Water Department’s water pipe replacement program. Staging operations are

performed by Spiniello and are consistent with the release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs), released from the use of coal tar products, water-proofing, coating pipes, steelmaking and

asphalt pavement. A visual inspection of the staging operation and staging area did not result in theidentification of PAH environmental remediation efforts for a staging operation. (See Exhibit 6)

Other Findings:

A visual inspection of Memorial Field shows a large amount of asphalt present (See Exhibit 6 - Pictures).

Possible sources of the asphalt present at Memorial Field are: (1) road re-pavement by the City of

Mount Vernon, and (2) supplies and refuse from Spiniello staging operations.

***

Discussion of Report Findings

***

Impact of Operations on Neighboring Properties and Landscape

Structural Deterioration of Retaining Wall was observed during the creation of the Mound. The

retaining wall exhibited serious signs of structural weaknesses and raised concerns of potential collapse.Residents were not provided an opportunity to evaluate the status of the retaining wall prior to the

creation of the Mound. It is not known if a licensed engineer evaluated the retaining wall for any



remedial action prior to the creation of the Mound. In addition, it was not established if activities atMemorial Field were a cause for the structural deterioration of the retaining wall.

Given the changes in water flows due to the height of the Mound (before water flowed freely away fromthe retaining wall and residential properties) deterioration of the retaining wall may accelerate. This

increases short-term risks associated with activity in Memorial Field, the potential for earth shifting and precautions are recommended should layers of the Mound be removed and the potential of a retaining

wall collapse is now heightened.

! Recommendation: Expert review and evaluation of the Mound and the retaining wall

(including available evidence) to advise on next steps to secure the structural integrity of

residential properties, public infrastructure and activities at Memorial Field.

Property Encroachment and Potential Damages was asserted, but it is not clear to what extent theMound trespasses property lines and have resulted in actual damages. Nevertheless, the trees along the

property line between Memorial Field and residential properties are under duress. These trees are, ineffect, being used to shore up the weight of the Mound. In some cases, the Mound covers up to

approximately 10 and 20 feet above the base of the trees. Under these conditions, the trees are at risk of

asphyxiation and eventual expiration. The loss of these trees would ultimately change the character ofthe neighborhood and weaken the structural integrity of the Mound.

! Recommendation: Conduct a survey with residents to determine property lines and evaluate any property encroachment by the Mound. Develop a remediation plan to move the Mound at least 3

feet away from the trees in order to create a “buffer.” Build a separate retaining wall for theMound in order guarantee the Mound’s structural integrity and protect residential properties.

Structural Integrity of the Mound is weak and in a state of accelerated deterioration. Witness

statements indicate that construction of the Mound’s base layer did not follow conventional constructionmethods and is composed of loosely placed C&D debris, as seen in (Exhibit 2). Improper sloping and

recent rains (Exhibit 8) indicate that the Mound is not safe, is vulnerable to acute episodes of accelerateddeterioration and is subject to washouts.

! Recommendation: The Mound is not safe for public use or for construction of the tennis courts

on top of the Mound. A retaining wall to shore up the Mound may slow the rate of deterioration;however, the Mound’s lack of structural integrity is driven by the composition of its base layer,

which will result in continued degradation. Formal condemnation and demolition is required.

Negative impact on Hutchinson River Watershed is likely due to the proximity to the HutchinsonRiver. Historically, Memorial Field is a low-lying land area and has been surrounded by higher land

areas. Memorial Field, has absorbed the run-off from rain or snowfall from higher residential areas, and,as such, plays an important role in the health of the Hutchinson River Watershed. Since the Mound now

exceeds the height of neighboring residential properties by as much as 10-20 feet, the changes intopography have altered the flow of water. Memorial Field no longer absorbs run-off from its East Side

residential neighbors. The improper sloping along the northeast section of the field raises concern of a potential ground shifting due to an over saturation of rain or snowfall. If so, this can potentially lead to

the collapsing of additional trees and the flooding of residential property alongside Memorial Field.



Appendix 1 – List of Unmanned Vehicles Seen on Site at Memorial Field

Avanti Building Construction Corp Persico Contracting & Trucking

243 W. Lincoln Ave 550 Franklin AveMt. Vernon, NY 10550 Mt. Vernon, NY 10550

(914) 699-4507 (914) 662-2700

Mount Vernon Recycling Corp Mt. Vernon Dept. of Public Works 113 Edison Ave

Mount Vernon, NY, 10550 Mount Vernon, NY

A Palmieri Landscaping Co. Inc. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation

820 South Fulton Ave 27500 Riverview Center Blvd, Ste 100Mount Vernon, NY 10550 Bonita Springs, FL 34134

(914) 699-2257 (888)-685-4915

The following companies may contribute findings that show contaminates found on the main field:

Spiniello

354 Eisenhower Parkway

Livingston, NY 07039(973) 808-8383

Mainlining America, LLC

555 Pound Rd,

Elma, New York, 14059Rental Company

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 – NYSDEC ReportExhibit 1.1 – Pictures of Item 4 (Top Layer)

Exhibit 2 – PicturesExhibit 3 – Pictures of dumping and workers

Exhibit 4 – Olmsted Environmental ServicesExhibit 5 – Pictures of Exposed Base Layer with a Top Layer

Exhibit 6 – Pictures of Staging Area

Exhibit 7 – Letter from Anthony Bove re: Staging Area, attesting to no dumping at Memorial Field

Exhibit 8 – Pictures of earth sliding of the MoundExhibit 9 – Witness Signed Statements

Exhibit 8 – Pictures regarding Subsequent EventsExhibit 10 – Improper sloping

Exhibit 11 – Map of Memorial FieldExhibit 12 – Map of Memorial Field



! Recommendation: Conduct an Environmental Study to evaluate the changes in the flows ofwater. Build a drainage system in the Mound to capture run-off from residential properties inorder to maintain the sanctity of the Hutchinson River Watershed and the structural integrity of

both the Mound and residential properties.

Quality of Life has worsened for residents due to weekend and nighttime hours of operation and thesmells of the unknown composition of materials present at Memorial Field. Air Quality is unknown, but

it is reasonable to expect a deterioration of air quality given the nature of work.

! Recommendation: Suspend nighttime and weekend hours of operation. Secure Memorial Field

at nighttime with Police presence in order to prevent any unauthorized nighttime activities and

dumping. Conduct an Environmental Study of Air Quality and implement operational changesto protect the quality of life and well-being of the residents neighboring Memorial Field.

Contamination is present, but broader impact is still undeterminable. Levels of contamination in

the Mound cannot be fully determined without the removal of the Item 4 gravel placed as a Top Layer.Visual inspection and available testing of the Base Layer are indicative of contamination. The

placement of a two foot top layer of Item 4 gravel is suggestive of intent to “cover” up the unidentified

material that comprises the Bottom Layer of the Mound. Chain of Custody from the City of MountVernon is unavailable. In addition, the findings of this report are also supportive of the potential of“dumping” at Memorial Field. NYSDEC findings and fines issued are also indicative a potential unsafe

Bottom Layer. Refutations of City Hall Officials, as seen in EXHIBIT 7 (Letter to the Mayor) are notsupported by Visual inspections of Memorial Field or the evidence presented herein.

! Recommendation: Obtain court orders for the City of Mount Vernon to immediately cease and

desist activity at Memorial Field. In addition, the presence of household garbage and easy accessto the field requires that the City be ordered to secure the field in order to prevent any additional

“dumping”. This may require police presence to secure the field. Professional Environmentaland Engineering studies are needed to assess the status of Memorial Field and to enable new City

officials to put forth an informed and comprehensive plan of remediation at Memorial Field.

Subsequent Events

Sometime between December 16th

and 17th

, 2015 dumping has continued by an unknown source. SeeEXHIBIT 12 (Photo of a new dump/photo taking 12/17/2015).

On December 19th

, Deterioration of the Mound’s structural integrity was observed following a rain event.

See Exhibit 8.



EXHIBIT 1



New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Region 3 Office/Solid Waste Program

Waste Composition Analysis Report

C&D debris collected at

Old Memorial Field

Mt Vernon, Westchester County

On January 12, 2015

Report prepared by Lin Lin

April 14, 2015



1.0 Background

Three samples of construction and demolition (C&D) debris were collected Old Memorial Field

located in Mount Vernon of Westchester County on January 12, 2015 by Department staff. The

concern was that the fill material being brought onsite may not meet the definition of

uncontaminated under the Part 360-7.1(b)(1)(i) for recognizable uncontaminated concrete andconcrete products (including steel or fiberglass reinforcing rods that are embedded in the

concrete), asphalt pavement, brick, glass, soil and rock. Commissioner of Water Supply of the

City of Mount Vernon Mr. Anthony Gove was onsite on the day of sampling.

Two out of the three samples (sample #2 and #3) were being analyzed for physical composition,

and were tested chemically. The physical composition analysis of the samples were being donein the Region 3 Environmental Quality Lab by Lin Lin, and checked by Steve Parisio using the

standard operating procedure for waste composition analysis as outlined below. Chemical

analysis was performed by Test America located in Amherst, NY.

2.0 Method of Analysis (Physical Composition)

In the lab, the samples were spread out on different tray and oven dried prior to analysis. Eachoven-dried sample was separated into three size fractions by shaking in a nest of sieves

consisting of a 6 mm sieve, a 2 mm sieve and a pan. The material passing through the 2 mm

sieve was weighed and placed in a bag for storage. The materials retained in the 6 mm sieve andthe 2 mm sieve were washed under a vigorous stream of water to remove any remaining

aggregates or coatings of fine particles not removed during the initial dry sieving. The material

washed through the sieves was collected in a clean 5 gallon wash bucket to be de-watered, oven-dried, weighed and added to the < 2 mm fraction previously separated during the initial dry

sieving. The washed > 6 mm and 2-6 mm fractions were oven-dried and weighted.

The oven dried 2-6 mm fraction of the sample was later used for a quantitative determination of

the types and relative proportions of waste materials present in the C&D debris. Figures at the

end of this report are photos of unprocessed samples, the 2-6 mm fraction of the samples afterseparation into different waste types by manual sorting, and close up look of the coal/slag/ash

from the 2-6 mm fraction. The weight of different waste types was measured to calculate the

weight composition.

3.0 Findings

Physical Composition Results

Table 1 and 2 give the summary of lab data for sample #2 and sample #3 respectively. The tableincludes the particle size distribution by percentage of total weight and the waste composition

result of 2-6 mm fraction by percentage of 2-6 mm fraction sample weight.



Table 1: Sample #2 Summary of Lab Data

Particle Size Distribution (all weights in grams)

Size Fraction: Weight % Total

Weight

Total Oven Dry Sample 896.0 100.0

> 6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial drysieving) 435.9

2-6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry

sieving)

130.2

< 2 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry

sieving) 327.9

> 6 mm Fraction (final weight after wet sieving) 360.9 40.3

2-6 mm Fraction (final weight after wet sieving) 87.9 9.8

< 2 mm material recovered from wash bucket 88.8

< 2 mm Fraction Corrected 416.7 46.5

Total recovered 865.5 96.6Sieve Loss Corrected 30.5 3.4

Waste Composition Analysis of 2-6 mm Fraction:

Component: Weight % Total

Weight

Total 87.9 100.0

Natural Rock 57.7 65.6

Concrete + Glass 7.0 8.0

Asphalt 18.3 20.8

Coal/Slag/Ash 2.1 2.4Wood 1.7 1.9

Misc. Wastes incl. Plastics, unknown 0.0 0.0

Total Recovered 86.8 98.7

Sieve Loss 1.1 1.3





Size Fraction: Weight % Total

Weight


> 6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial drysieving)

561.8

2-6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial drysieving)

152.5

< 2 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry

sieving) 273.4





Total recovered 942.8 95.4

Sieve Loss Corrected 45.3 4.6


Component: Weight % TotalWeight

Total 86.1 100.0


Asphalt + Concrete + Brick 9.3 10.8

Coal/Slag/Ash4.6

5.3

Wood 0.4 0.5

Misc. Wastes incl. Plastics 0.0 0.0


Sieve Loss 1.4 1.6



Waste Composition Analysis shows the 2-6 mm fraction of the sample #2 and sample #3 contain

approximately 2.4% and 5.3% of Coal/Ash/Slag respectively. These samples did not meet thedefinition of C&D debris under 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2(38); the samples were contaminated with

coal, ash, and slag. They also did not meet the definition of “Uncontaminated” under 6 NYCRR

Part 360-7.1(c)(4) for the same reason. Presence of coal, ash, and slag is often associated with

contaminants of concern such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which can poseenvironmental and health hazard.

Chemical Analysis Results

The two samples were sent to Test America Laboratory in Amherst, NY on February 25, 2015.The results were summarized in Table #3.

Table 3: Summary of Chemical Analysis Results

Unrestricted

SCO

Sample

#2

Sample

#3

ppm ppm ppm

Benzo[a]anthracene 1 3 1.8

Benzo[a]pyrene 1 2.8 1.7

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1 3.6 2.5

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 100 1.3 0.82

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.8 1.9 1.3

Chrysene 1 3.2 1.9

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.33 ND ND

Fluoranthene 100 6.3 3.4

Indeno[1,2,3‐

cd]pyrene 0.5 1.3 0.73

Pyrene 100 5.4 3.1

Lead 63 161 68.8

Benzo[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Chrysene,

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, and Lead were exceeding Part 375-6.8 Soil Cleanup Objective forUnrestricted Use.



Figure 1: Photo of unprocessed sample #2.



Figure 2: This is the 2-6 mm fraction of sample #2, separated by waste type including natural

rock, (upper left), concrete + glass (upper middle), asphalt (upper right), coal/slag/ash (lowerleft), wood fragment (lower middle), and misc plastic/unknown (lower right).



Figure #3: Close up look of coal/ash/slag from the 2-6 mm fraction of Sample #2.



Figure #4: Photo of unprocessed sample #3.



Figure 5: This is the 2-6 mm fraction of sample #3, separated by waste type including naturalrock (upper left), concrete + brick + glass (upper middle), asphalt (upper right), coal/slag/ash

(lower left), wood fragment (lower middle), and misc plastic (lower right).



Figure #6: Close up look of coal/ash/slag from the 2-6 mm fraction of Sample #3.



New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Region 3 Office/Solid Waste Program

Waste Composition Analysis Report

C&D debris collected at

Old Memorial Field

Mount Vernon, Westchester County, New York

On November 3, 2015

Report prepared by Wesley Salis

November 23, 2015



1.0 Background

Three samples of construction and demolition (C&D) debris were collected at Old Memorial

Field located in Mount Vernon of Westchester County on November 3, 2015 by Department

staff. The samples were physically analyzed in the Region 3 Environmental Quality Lab for

waste composition by Wesley Salis and checked by Steve Parisio using the standard operating procedure for waste composition analysis as outlined below. No chemical testing was performed

on these samples.

2.0 Method of Analysis (Physical Analysis)

In the lab, the samples were spread out on different tray and oven dried prior to analysis. Eachoven-dried sample was separated into three size fractions by shaking in a nest of sieves

consisting of a 6 mm sieve, a 2 mm sieve and a pan. The material passing through the 2 mm

sieve was weighed and placed in a bag for storage. The materials retained in the 6 mm sieve and

the 2 mm sieve were washed under a vigorous stream of water to remove any remaining

aggregates or coatings of fine particles not removed during the initial dry sieving. The materialwashed through the sieves was collected in a clean 5 gallon wash bucket to be de-watered, oven-

dried, weighed and added to the < 2 mm fraction previously separated during the initial drysieving. The washed > 6 mm and 2-6 mm fractions were oven-dried and weighted.

The oven dried 2-6 mm fraction of the sample was later used for a quantitative determination ofthe types and relative proportions of waste materials present in the C&D debris. Figures at the

end of this report are photos of unprocessed samples, the 2-6 mm fraction of the samples after

separation into different waste types by manual sorting, and close up look of the coal/slag/ashfrom the 2-6 mm fraction. The weight of different waste types was measured to calculate the

weight composition.

3.0

Findings

Tables 1, 2, and 3 give the summary of physical analysis for sample #1, sample #2, and sample#3 respectively. The table includes the particle size distribution by percentage of total weight

and the waste composition result of 2-6 mm fraction by percentage of 2-6 mm fraction sample

weight.





Size Fraction: Weight % Total Weight


> 6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 114.6

2-6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 105.7

< 2 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 209.7








Component: Weight % Total Weight

Total 54.6 100.0


Brick 1.5 2.7

Concrete 7.8 14.3

Coal/Slag/Ash 6.9 12.6Wood 0.0 0.0

Misc. Wastes incl. Plastics, tile, unknown 1.5 2.7


Sieve Loss 0.3 0.5







> 6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 114.22-6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 41.4




< 2 mm material recovered from wash bucket






Total 38.9 100.0


Brick 1.4 3.6

Concrete 4.1 10.5

Coal/Slag/Ash 2.8 7.2

Wood 0.1 0.3

Misc. Wastes incl. Plastics, metal, unknown 0.1 0.3


Sieve Loss 0.4 1.0







> 6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 141.32-6 mm Fraction (preliminary weight after initial dry sieving) 90.8










Total 61.3 100.0


Brick 1.5 2.4

Concrete 7.7 12.6

Coal/Slag/Ash 7.5 12.2

Wood 0.0 0.0

Misc. Wastes incl. Plastics, metal, unknown 0.3 0.5


Sieve Loss 1.1 1.8

Waste Composition Analysis shows the 2-6 mm fraction of the sample #1, sample #2, and

sample #3 contain approximately 12.6%, 7.2%, and 12.2% of Coal/Ash/Slag respectively. Thesesamples did not meet the definition of C&D debris under 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2(38); the

samples were contaminated with coal, ash, and slag. They also did not meet the definition of

“Uncontaminated” under 6 NYCRR Part 360-7.1(c)(4) for the same reason. Presence of coal,

ash, and slag is often associated with contaminants of concern such as polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) which can pose environmental and health hazard. No asphalt was found inthe samples and there was 14.3%, 10.5%, and 12.6% concrete in the 2-6 mm fraction of sample#1, sample #2, and sample #3 respectively.



Figure 1: This is the 2-6 mm fraction of sample #1, separated by waste type including naturalrock (upper left), coal/slag/ash (upper right), brick (lower left), and concrete (lower right). Photo

taken 11/23/15 in NYS DEC Region 3 Environmental lab.



Figure 2: Close up look of coal/ash/slag from the 2-6 mm fraction of Sample #1. Photo taken11/23/15 in NYS DEC Region 3 Environmental lab.



Figure 3: This is the 2-6 mm fraction of sample #2, separated by waste type including concrete(upper left), coal/slag/ash (upper middle), brick (upper right), and natural rock (lower row).

Photo taken 11/23/15 in NYS DEC Region 3 Environmental lab.






Figure 5: This is the 2-6 mm fraction of sample #3, separated by waste type including brick(upper left), concrete (upper middle), coal/slag/ash (upper right), and natural rock (lower row).

Photo taken 11/23/15 in NYS DEC Region 3 Environmental lab.






EXHIBIT 1.1



ITEM 4 BEING SPREAD ITEM 4

ITEM 4



EXHIBIT 2



EXHIBIT 2

BEFORE PRESENT CONDITION

DUMPING LOADS



EXHIBIT 3



EXHIBIT 3

DPW WORKER SPREADING DEBRIS TRUCK LEAVING AFTER DUMPING

DEBRIS GOING INTO RESIDENT’S BACKYARD





EXHIBIT 4



OLMSTED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC

1992 Route 9 Garrison NY 10524 phone 845 424 4077 ! fax 845 424 3482 ! email [email protected]

Date: October 30, 2015

Report for: Mr. Andre Wallace28 East 1st Street

Mt Vernon NY 10553

Prepared by: Edward Olmsted, CIH, CSP

Subject: Environmental Inspection and Testing

Memorial Field

INTRODUCTION

Edward Olmsted, CIH, CSP conducted a environmental survey at 464 Highland Avenuein Mount Vernon NY. The survey was done for purposes of investigating complaints of

diesel fuel odor associated with fill material used in the Memorial field, adjacent to 464Highland Avenue. The survey was done on October 19, 2015 and included the

following:

1. Visual inspection of the piles of fill on the adjacent Memorial field property;2. Screening the air for sources of volatile organic compounds using a ppb Rae

photoionization detector and ppb Rae 3000 photoionization detector.

BACKGROUND

464 Highland avenue is a residential property that is adjacent to Memorial Field in Mt

Vernon. The property line between 464 Highland avenue is in the back yard of 464Highland Aveniue and extends from Sanford Blvd approximately 300 feet. Over the last

few months urban fill material has been dumped and spread throughout the Memorialfield property. The work is done using large payloaders, excavators and other heavy

construction equipment. During the work there have been complaints of fuel oil-like ordiesel fuel odors. The odors have persistent and occur at night when the heavy equipment

is not operating. The odors often impact the indoor air inside the house at 464 HighlandAvenue.

SURVEY METHODS

The fill material in Memorial Field was visually inspected and air screening tests were

done for volatile organic compounds using a photo-ionization detector ppb Rae. Thisdevice measures total ionizable volatile organic compounds in air with a sensitivity of 1 part per billion (ppb). The instrument does not identify the compounds detected but is

useful in identifying sources of VOCs that could produce odors. It is also useful forevaluating air quality by measuring the total level of VOCs in air. There are not widely

accepted guidelines for acceptable or threshold levels of total VOCs in air. The OSHAstandards do not provide useful guidance for non-industrial settings such as a residential

building. A normal background level outdoors was measured at 0.010 ppm. The ppb Rae



464 Highland Avenue Mt. Vernon, NY

______________________________________________________________________________________

Indoor Environmental Survey

2

was calibrated using a 10 ppm isobutylene calibration gas standard provided by themanufacturer.

RESULTS

This report is based on a visual inspection and screening for VOCs

1. There was a fuel oil-like obnoxious odor in the back yard.2. Photos of the PID measurements and the fill material at Memorial Field are

attached.3. Levels in contact with the fill / soil ranged between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm. Which is

well above the outdoor background of 0.010 ppm measured in the front yard. Thehighest levels were measured when the soil was probed and turned over. These

results support the contention that there is chemical or fuel oil contamination ofthe fill material being dump at the field.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe levels of VOCs measured in the fill material suggest that there is chemical

contamination possibly with fuel oil or diesel fuel. The levels of VOCs were lowhowever the presence of contamination can result in runoff and spreading of

contamination. Breathing these levels of VOCs for long periods of time may increase riskof health symptoms, which can include headache, eye and nose and throat irritation,

dizziness, and nausea. Several studies suggest that exposure to VOCs may makesymptoms worse in people who have asthma or are particularly sensitive to chemicals.



Elevated VOC level in soil screening



Elevated VIOC level in soil screen



Elevated VOC level in soil screening



EXHIBIT 5



EXHIBIT 5

DUMPING UNDERNEATH GARBAGE UNDER THE ITEM 4

C & D TILES AND BRICKS FOOTING 2















EXHIBIT 6











EXHIBIT 7





EXHIBIT 8







EXHIBIT 9



WITNESS TESTIMONIAL

State of New York

County of Westchester

Name: -------------------

Address: ------------------------, Mount Vernon, NY 10553

I, --------------------, residing at --------------------- in Mount Vernon, NY, affirm that on December

11, 2015, I spoke with Andre Wallace. During his visit, I stated the following:

On or about October 13, 2015 -------- and ------------- located at ------------- Mount Vernon, NY 10553 contacted

city hall about the gasoline and diesel smell of the construction debris being dumped behind their home along the

back fence separating their property and Memorial Field. Commissioner Bove visited ----------- at his home and

had a conversation on or about October 15, 2015 and stated he will take care of the problem. Additional dump

trucks delivered more debris, which was then used to cover over the existing debris and smell. As per Mr --------

-- conversation with Commissioner Bove, Mr. -------- stated that Commission Bove mentioned that the diesel

odor was due to the leaking of the machine. As trucks continued to dump material the Mount Vernon DPW front

loader was used to push the C&D debris back into the field to spread the debris creating the existing mound.

------------ also affirmed that she would cooperate with the authorities with any investigation regarding

activity on Memorial Field.

I AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND

CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.

________________ _____________________________________

Date ----------------



WITNESS TESTIMONIAL

State of New York


Name: -------------------------

Address: ------------------------, Mount Vernon, NY 10553

I, -----------------------, residing at -------------------------- in Mount Vernon, NY, affirm that on December

11, 2015, I spoke with Andre Wallace. During his visit, I stated the following:

Ms. ------------ affirmed that because she works from home, she has seen and heard activity on Memorial

Field starting well before 7 am, during the week and on Sundays, and continuing throughout the day. She

affirms that Mt. Vernon DPW trucks, one white truck and one orange truck, were working on two

Sundays moving earth on the mound; she’s heard the noise of trucks, heard the lifts go up and heard the

noise of dumping. She has also seen an unmarked green truck working on the mound. The dirt is pushed

up against the fence on her property line, and is also pushing up against a tree on her property.

Ms. ------------- also affirmed that she will cooperate with the authorities with any investigation regarding




________________ _____________________________________

Date ------------------------------



WITNESS TESTIMONIAL

State of New York


Name: -----------------------------

Address: ----------------------, Mount Vernon, NY 10553

I, ------------------------------, residing at ------------------------ in Mount Vernon, NY, affirm that on

December 11, 2015, I spoke with Andre Wallace. During his visit, I stated the following:

On or about December 5, 2015 a visit was made to -------------------------- located at ----------------- Mount

Vernon, NY 10553 whose information was consistent with all other witnesses to the illegal dumping in

Memorial Field. “The dumping has gone as far back as that company that first started the job. That company

with the red trucks named Avanti would come early between 1:00am and 5:00am. They would back up

through the opening on Sandford Blvd and dump stuff in the field”.

Ms. ------------- stated that she has called over to city hall many time to have someone come out and address the

dumping against her property. Ms. ------- also states that there is a yellow truck seen, but mostly the blue truck

(shown in exhibit 3) that have been dumping most of the days and nights. Ms. ------- has also claimed that her

property value has diminished and the landfill is pushing into her yard.

Ms. ------- also affirmed that she would cooperate with the authorities with any investigation regarding




________________ _____________________________________

Date ----------------------------------------[



WITNESS TESTIMONIAL

State of New York


Name: ------------ and ----------------

Address: ------------------------------------------------------

We, --------------- and --------------, residing at ------------------------- in Mount Vernon, NY, state the following:

Mrs. ----------- observed activity on the field, especially behind their home along the back fence separating their

property from the Southeast side of Memorial Field. She observed the workers pull down and gut the cement

rock wall in this area of the field where the old hand ball courts used to be. In this area debris was being dumped

and pushed against the fence until it busted through the fence. Mr. --------- met with Tony, the Commissioner

managing the work on the field, to look at the fence that had been busted through. Tony asked if he could fill

with dirt to level it off, and Mr. --------- stated he was okay with that. The following day, and all day long, there

was an endless delivery of trucks dumping to fill against the fence. Tony was present directing the trucks where

to place the dirt. The City’s front end loader was pushing the fill back against the fence raising a mound until it

was as high as the retaining wall of their garage. The operator of the front end loader, who worked for Tony, was

also taking pictures. At some point, Mr. --------- asked Tony to stop raising the mound and explained he couldn’t

block his waterway. Mr. ---------- also noticed at this time that the fill was pushed in on all the walls from his

home and up several neighbors’ retaining walls.

On or about October 13, 2015, ----- and ------------- contacted city hall about a gasoline and diesel smell from the

construction debris being dumped behind their home along the back fence. On or about October 15, 2015, Tony

visited Mr. -------- at his home and had a conversation and stated he will take care of the problem. Additional

dump trucks delivered more debris, which was then used to cover over the existing debris and smell. As per Mr. -

---------‘s conversation with Tony, Tony mentioned that the diesel odor was due to the leaking of one of the

machines. As trucks continued to dump material the Mount Vernon DPW front loader was used to push the C&D

debris back into the field to spread the debris creating the existing mound. When Mrs. ------- expressed concernabout the height of the mound, Tony assured them that he will make it look nice and the work will increase their

property value.

Mr. ------- had taken pictures as well, but only after reviewing the pictures at a later time did he notice a crack in

his retaining wall. Now the mound is higher than the retaining walls by several feet, even higher than the height

of their garage.

Mr. and Mrs. -------- also affirm they will cooperate with authorities and any investigation regarding activity on

Memorial Field.

WE AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT

TO THE BEST OF OUR INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.

________________ _____________________________________

Date Mr. --------------------

________________ _____________________________________

Date Mrs. ------------------



EXHIBIT 10





EXHIBIT 11





EXHIBIT 12



Documents

Memorial Report Public