An environmental engineering firm working for the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency says contamination at the controversial Ford Avenue redevelopment site in Milltown should be capped off.

 
Opponents of the project, however, contend that a cap is only a temporary fix and would not make the site safe enough for future residents.

 
"That's all hysteria," said Vajira Gunawardana, of Eatontown-based Najarian Associates, which conducted the investigation for the borough's redevelopment agency. "I am a professional engineer. I don't want to sign off on a plan that's not going to work. My license is at stake."

 
Gunawardana said a 2-foot-deep cap consisting of clean soil would prove sufficient to remediate the contamination, since there are only marginal levels of some metals in the soil there. The site investigation and remediation is being conducted jointly by the local agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in what is known as the triad approach.
In using this approach, Gunawardana said, significantly more locations at the site were tested.

 
"You want to make sure that you don't miss any contaminated hot spots," Gunawardana said. "This way, we get input from everybody, and no stone is left unturned."

 
Bob Spiegel, executive director of the Edison Wetlands Association (EWA), said caps only contain the contamination onsite. Often, the technique fails, Spiegel said, noting also that the caps are not typically maintained and checked as is prescribed.

 
"We've had nothing but problems with sites the DEP has allowed to be capped, especially at sites with residential development," Spiegel said. "They're going to clean up the site to an industrial standard, to a commercial standard, not a residential standard."

 
The site, once home to the Michelin Tire Co.'s first plant, is still zoned for commercial and light industrial uses, though a zoning overlay for residential was approved by the borough in order for the redevelopment project to be considered. The borough's redevelopment plan calls for 276 housing units, which may be all or partly age-restricted.

 
Despite protests from Milltowners for a $ensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment, a citizens group long opposed to the current plans, Redevelopment Agency Chairman Anthony Zarillo insisted that capping is a reliable and prudent way of dealing with the contamination.

 
"The site is referred to as a minimally impacted area," Zarillo said. "The capping of the site is a safe technology to remediate the contamination. As a result, anyone who would occupy the site would not be exposed to any harm, and more importantly, it would ensure that there would be no leaching into the Mill Pond as a result of the capping."

 
When the redevelopment tract was designated as a brownfields site by the DEP, it allowed the borough and agency to qualify for funding to cover costs of the site investigation and remedial action work plan (RAW), as well as for the cleanup itself, Zarillo said. The DEP approved the plan that calls for capping.

 
"The people who are opposed to the capping are going against what their own engineer is saying," Zarillo said. "The people who are opposing this are activists. Mr. [Charlie] Jegou and the Milltown group are entitled to their opinion, but the public must know that it's only an opinion."

 
Zarillo pointed out that Richard Chapin, an engineer who provides technical assistance to the Milltowners' group under the auspices of the EWA, has been working along with the triad group as an active participant.
Chapin told Greater Media Newspapers that he is not on board with plans for capping of the site.

 
"Capping of a contaminated site is an acceptable measure in the DEP's world," Chapin said. "I believe a residential property should be cleaned up to the residential standards. I think in the long term, it's going to be a problem."

 
Defending the practice, Gunawardana said residents would not be affected by the contamination. He said testing has revealed that groundwater is not impacted. He also pointed out that below the 2-foot soil cap, plastic orange fencing would be put in to serve as a barrier in case anyone digs there.

 
"What are the chances of a kid digging 2 feet, and then eating that soil - not likely, right?" Gunawardana said.

 
Spiegel said that since plastic breaks down over time, the barrier in the ground is not a reliable method of alerting residents to the contamination there.

 
Gunawardana refuted Spiegel's claim that capped sites are not checked and maintained, saying the DEP requires, by law, that such sites are inspected every two years to ensure that they are safe.

 
"Once the state allows capping, they rarely, if ever, go back to the site," Spiegel said. "The people who suffer are going to be the families that live there."

 
According to Spiegel, even when the sites are inspected, it is done by those who have a financial stake in the property. In this case, he said, it would be the redevelopment agency that would be held responsible for conducting inspections there.

 
Jegou also expressed little to no confidence in capping as a remediation technique, saying it is unsafe.
"They're going by the minimum that has to be done," Jegou said. "Whatever's the cheapest, that's what they're going to do."

 
According to Jegou, the redevelopment agency can only be made to clean the property to the standard of its zoning specifications, which are still light industrial and commercial.

 
Both Gunawardana and Zarillo addressed Jegou's statement from a December 19 Star-Ledger article, in which he said residents at the site would not become aware of the contamination until after they had moved into homes there.

 
"For Mr. Jegou to suggest that the residents of the site will not be informed that the area has been capped is ludicrous," Zarillo said.

 
Jegou stood by his claim.

 
"Most of the time, they won't find out until during the closing," Jegou said. "We will let the people know what's there."

 
According to Gunawardana, other options for remediating the contamination are simply not feasible. One example he mentioned was removing it completely, which he said would require about a dozen landfills in which to place the polluted soil.

 
"If it was in a landfill, at least it wouldn't be near people," Spiegel said. "At least children wouldn't be playing on it."

 
Spiegel said thermal treatment of the contamination would be a viable option. Such treatment involves bringing the contaminated soil to high temperatures to remove contaminants.

 
In any case, Spiegel remained staunchly against the capping method.

 
"It's like putting a giant pool cover on a giant toxic bathtub," Spiegel said.

 
This is not the first controversy sparked over the Ford Avenue redevelopment. Since the project's inception, it has been met with resistance from the Milltowners citizens group. More recently, a lawsuit lodged by Lawrence Berger, the owner of the Ford Avenue property, has threatened to thwart the plans of the redevelopment agency because of the town and agency's failure to address affordable housing obligations.

The constant deluge of misinformation regarding the Ford Avenue Redevelopment project requires an Agency response. This misinformation attempts to play on the fears of the public and create hysteria by misrepresenting the facts surrounding the project. The overall object is an attempt to kill the project at all costs. The project’s objectives, from the very beginning, were to fully and thoroughly remediate the environmental contamination at the site, demolish and remove the unsafe and unsightly blemish on Milltown’s image and to provide property tax relief to the already overburdened Milltown property taxpayer. None of those objectives are compromised by the proposed redevelopment plan.

 
CLAIM # 1 - The current litigation currently in New Jersey’s Superior Court, filed by the owner of the property, Mr. Berger is a charade.

 
RESPONSE - The suit is real, it is active and could be very costly to the Borough. Judge James Hurley has appointed a Special Master to oversee the issues in this matter and has set a deadline of November 9, 2007 for the Borough to respond to the allegations by the owner that the Borough has failed to meet its constitutional obligation of providing for affordable housing. Should the Borough fail to respond the Court and the Special Master would be left with only the Berger plan. The likelihood that the Special Master would recommend to the Court the imposition of what is referred to as the Builder’s Remedy and the Court affirm that recommendation regarding the imposition of the Berger Plan is real not a charade. This would effectively take the decision making out of the hands of the Borough. The potential imposition of 562 non-age restricted units of which 450 would be owner occupied and 112 affordable units should not be taken lightly by Borough officials. It would be a very dangerous and a cataclysmic risk on the part of Borough officials to “roll the dice” and assume the litigation is a charade.

 
CLAIM # 2 - The voice of the majority of Milltowners is ignored.

 
RESPONSE - The original proposals from all the developer’s responding to the Agency’s RFP proposed a mix use of residential, commercial and retail. There were no proposals for all open space or a mix of open space and retail and commercial. The proposals contained housing units that started at about 440 residential units and no developer proposed age restricted housing. The current proposed plan calls for 276 units a reduction of 174 units or a downsizing of the residential units at the site by 39%. In addition 114 townhouses of the 276 will be age restricted and 66 units will be constructed to meet the Borough’s affordable housing state mandated requirement. The site will also have a 100 ft. buffer from the Mill Pond’s edge in direct response to the request of the Milltown group. The proposed plan is a balanced and responsible alternative to a very serious court challenge.

 
CLAIM # 3 - The Agency is not serious about the environmental issues at the site. Their only objective is the redevelopment of the site.

 
RESPONSE - The Agency reached out to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to work together in addressing the serious environmental challenges at the site. The Agency together with those agencies entered into a first of its kind agreement called (TRIAD) where all the interested parties in the environmental community would work together very closely in a cooperative manner, with the Agency’s environmental experts. This objective was to insure a complete and thorough site investigation and ultimate clean up of the contamination in accordance with all federal and state requirements. Again the Agency in order to insure the widest possible input on this important issue, authorized the participation in all the TRIAD activity of Mr. Richard Chapin, the environmental expert of the Milltown’s group.

CLAIM # 4 - The infrastructure costs including the upgrade to the electric, water or sewer facilities that can be attributed to the project will be borne by the Milltown property taxpayer.
 
RESPONSE - The cost of any infrastructure improvements that are attributable to any project are normally subject to the Borough’s “Fair Share” policy which has been consistently applied in all development projects. The “Fair Share” concept is where the developer and the Borough share in the cost of the infrastructure improvements. It is important to note that the Borough’s share of the infrastructure improvements are recovered by the Borough through the rates charged for the electric, water and sewer service. Those rates would be applicable to the residents of the Ford Avenue development.

 
CLAIM # 5 - A flier distributed by the Milltown group at Pride in Milltown Day attempts to project the yearly increase in property taxes to the Borough resident at $2,870,000 a year from the increase of 275 grade school aged children from the project and $3,282,500 a year from the increase in high school aged children from the project.

 
RESPONSE - The flier unfortunately does not contain any back up analysis nor is it sourced as to how and who developed the data. There is no supporting documentation for any of the claims set forth in the flier. Even if one could argue that the flier has credibility there is no proof to date to substantiate those assumptions. The assumptions in the flier involve very complex and difficult analysis usually involving specialized education and experience. Normally a high level of expertise or experience is necessary to develop this analysis. There no evidence submitted to support any of the forgoing.  For example some of the fliers short comings relate to the assumption that the rescue squad will have to out source its services in order to serve the Ford Avenue project. This is pure speculation not based on any experience with the squad’s scope of operation or financial condition. At the recent Council meeting a senior member of the squad stated that while the squad may have to outsource some of its services in the future that decision would be totally unrelated to the additional residents coming from the Ford Avenue project. Another area that is pure speculation is the assumption of the increased sanitation costs. The residents of Ford Avenue will become members of an association. It is anticipated that included in the association fees, similar to many associations, the cost of garbage collection and snow removal is handled by private collectors. Therefore there would be no impact on the Borough’s municipal services. The most serious bogus assumption is that the project will produce 275 school children. That assumption has as much validity as an assumption that the project will produce Zero or no school aged children. Both assumptions are preposterous. The Borough’s experts who have outstanding credentials in this area relying on studies from the Rutgers University Urban Policy Research Group and the Development Impact Assessment Handbook entitled The Urban Land Initiative stated that approximately 37 students will result from the proposed redevelopment plan. The best that can be said is that the Milltown group’s analysis cannot be supported by any reliable or credible data and must be accepted for what it is a mathematical exercise without any reliable substantiation. Furthermore a leader of the Milltown group stated at the Council meeting of October 9, 2007 that the Mill on Washington Avenue sends 14 school aged children to the Milltown school system. A check with Milltown’s School Superintendent, Dr. Linda Madison, who checked the records of the district indicates that only Two (2) children from the Mill are currently attending Pre K through 12 grade in the Milltown School system. The Mill is approximately 45 condos of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms.

 
COMMENT - The most egregious statement used in support of the Milltown’s group’s opposition to the proposed redevelopment plan is an attempt to compare the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, where over 3,000 innocent lives were lost with the actions taken to address the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan. In a letter to the editor, from a senior member of the group, that appeared in the Home News Tribune dated October 9, 2007 it stated and I quote, “Let September 11, 2001, always be remembered not solely (Emphasis added) for the tragedies that occurred on that day but also for the travesty of justice that happened in Middlesex County where a wonderful little town in Middlesex County was compromised by inept professionals and politicians both elected and selected to protect the public.”

 
That statement is so far over the top that I refuse to make any comment. It is best left up to the residents of Milltown to be the judge regarding the forgoing statement.

Provided herein is a status report on the Environmental Investigations being conducted at the Milltown-Ford Ave., Redevelopment  Project.

A: MINIMALLY IMPACTED AREA (MIA)

All fieldwork (Stage-3) required to investigate the MIA towards developing a RAW has been completed by the project team.  A Stage-3 Report was submitted to NJDEP in June 2007.   Upon approval of the Stage 3 Report, and resolution on the existing litigation, a Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) will be prepared.  Upon NJDEP approval of the RAW, site development in the MIA can commence.

B: INVESTIGATIONS IN THE IMPACTED AREA (IA) & MILL POND

NJDEP approved the Workplan for the Impacted Area on November 19, 2007.  The investigation in this area will continue, once funds are released from NJDEP. 
 
At the request of the Redevelopment Agency, NJDEP has allocated Funds for developing a Workplan for investigating Mill Pond.  Prior to commencing this work, it is important to identify the contaminant interaction between the IA and the Pond.  Accordingly, this work will commence upon completion of the IA investigation.

C: FUNDING:

a) Site Investigation (SI)/ Remedial Investigation (RI)
To date, funds have been provided by numerous entities including USEPA (through the MCIA), NJIT, NJDEP and the developer for investigative work (i.e. SI/RI) on the site totaling approximately $3 Million Dollars.  Additional funds will be released to the Agency as the project progresses and workplans are approved.
 
b) Allocation for pending Remediation (RA) of the MIA
A total of $3,973,519.00 was allocated in 2006 for Remedial Action of the MIA, which has been estimated at $11,571,694.00.  The NJDEP has approved an additional $5 Million under the Agency’s 2007 allocation for this work. This was approved by the EDA on 12/11/07.  In addition, the Agency is eligible for an additional $5 Million for 2008 for the RA work in the MIA. Receipt of this funding would fulfill the Agency’s share (75%) of the RA costs for the MIA.
 
CONCLUSIONS:

All the Environmental Investigations in the MIA have been completed,  This comprehensive investigation was conducted using the sophisticated TRIAD approach to ensure that all contamination within the site has been thoroughly investigated.  This was conducted with complete stakeholder participation including Mr. Richard Chapin, P.E, representing the Edison Wetlands Association.  Based on the results of the investigation, it is the consensus of all stakeholders that capping the site is the most viable alternative for site remediation.  This will ensure that the redeveloped site will have no adverse impact on both the human and ecological environment including Mill Pond.  The next step in the process is the preparation of a RAW, which upon NJDEP approval site development can commence.

In addition, further investigations in the Impacted Area and Mill Pond will continue towards developing a similar RAW for that area.   Implementation of the RAW for the Impacted Area will be the final phase of Remediation for the Redevelopment Project.

To date, approximately $3 Million has been received on behalf of the Agency for environmental investigations. The investigation work continues to be funded by NJDEP under their Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation (HDSRF) program. The pending Remedial Action Work has been funded to date in the amount of $3,973,519, with an additional $5 Million recommended by the DEP and approved by the EDA at their meeting of December 11, 2007. The minutes of the meeting require the Governor’s approval which we are advised should occur by the end of the week. The Agency is also eligible for an additional $5 Million in 2008. Should this request be approved this should be sufficient to meet the Agency’s share (75%) of the Remedial Action Costs for the Minimally Impacted Area. This will bring the total HDSRF funding available to the Borough to address and resolve the environmental issues at the site to almost $14 million at no direct cost to the Milltown property taxpayer.