Bernards Voices

Dear Residents and Neighbors,

ICON Engineering, hired by Bernards Township to participate in the fill investigation at the Millington Quarry, submitted to the DEP its findings on the first phase of the investigation which began October 19 and ended December 4, 2009. During the investigation, ICON collected split samples for independent laboratory analysis. In its report, ICON states that Bernards Township “remains extremely concerned with the environmental conditions” at the site. Noting that the investigations are incomplete and much more is required to adequately characterize the quality of the fill, ICON advised that limited soil, surfacewater, and groundwater testing revealed samples with excessive levels of arsenic, lead, aldrin, chlordane and other contaminants.
Analytical results

Based on samples analyzed by ICON,

· 66% (21 of 32 boring locations) contained one or more contaminants exceeding the Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRS)

· 100% of the samples at the 32 boring locations contained one or more contaminants exceeding the Impact to Groundwater Soil Screening Levels (IGWSSL)

· 84 of the 87 total samples analyzed by ICON contained one or more metals exceeding the IGWSSL

· in Fill Area A* (consisting of @ 3.14 million CY of fill) one or more contaminants exceeded the RDCSRS at 83% (20 of 24) of the boring locations

· 50% of the samples (33 out of 66) in Fill Area A contained various PAH compounds, including benzo(a)pyrene, and one or more other contaminants exceeding the RDCSRS

*The Quarry has designated Fill Areas A, B and C as the areas of imported soils for investigation with the DEP. The Township and CCSMQ have advised the DEP that the investigation must be broader.

View ICON’s full report and test results.

DEP response:

A DEP source advised us that it will wait for the report of JM Sorge (the Quarry’s hired engineer) to determine the requirements for testing in Phase 2, which the DEP expects the Quarry to begin in April. There is no date certain for the Sorge report. The DEP will make no determination on the need for remediation at this time.

Three monitoring wells were installed in December and two more are to be installed for the next round of sampling to obtain additional groundwater results. The DEP advises that we have a long way to go before the investigation is complete.

News articles on this subject:

The Basking Ridge Patch, Feb. 1, 2010 (High arsenic levels and soil contamination found in initial testing at Millington Quarry)

The Bernardsville News, Feb. 5, 2010 (Excess arsenic levels found in Millington quarry water)

–Citizens for a Clean and Safe Millington Quarry

Dear Residents and Neighbors,

Without notice to the Township Committee, the Quarry reportedly advised the DEP that it plans to go forward with its’ own testing plan this week without DEP approval. The Quarry presumably is hoping to gain the DEP’s post-imprimatur for any testing it conducts. The Township learned indirectly of the Quarry’s plans and took prompt steps to ensure that the Township’s specially retained engineer, ICON Engineering, would be on site and conduct testing on our behalf. Quarry attorneys reportedly presented hurdles for ICON to be on site, but undeterred, the Township Committee called an 8:30 a.m. emergency meeting on Saturday morning to discuss retaining ICON Engineering and the parameters for ICON’s testing. View the Township’s press release and decision to retain ICON.

CCSMQ representatives attended the Saturday morning meeting and spoke in support of retaining ICON and in proceeding with an action for a temporary restraining order if ICON were denied access to the site when the Quarry begins testing.

CCSMQ is an apolitical organization comprised of members affiliated with all parties, with its’ only goals to permanently end dumping in our town (recall that we are enjoying only a temporary suspension at this time) and to achieve reliable testing of the quarry site. However, this author is compelled to express disappointment that Bernards Township resident Chris Daggett, a former DEP Commissioner, is a principal in the environmental consulting firm JM Sorge hired by the Quarry to put forth a testing proposal which the DEP deemed insufficient and which CCSMQ and the Township determined, upon evaluation and consultation with experts, was designed to avoid any finding of contamination. We would have hoped that Mr. Daggett, as former DEP Commissioner, would have used his expertise to assist the residents, rather than to allow his firm to assist the Millington Quarry, which has been politely dubbed a “bad corporate citizen” by our Township Committee and earned the Great Swamp Watershed Association’s distinctive “Swampbuster” award in 2008 for risks of environmental contamination the Quarry has presented to the Great Swamp and surrounding environment.

We do not know whether Mr. Daggett has provided personal consultation to the Quarry. But we do know that Millington Quarry, with the assistance of Mr. Daggett’s firm, has cost our Township, i.e., all taxpayers, tremendous resources and continues to do so as the Quarry and their attorneys develop schemes, like using the pending mediation to stall and devise plans to undermine our efforts to achieve real testing. The Quarry’s proposed investigation plan consists of testing the Quarry’s own hand selected piles of dirt (which they designated as Fill Areas A, B and C), limited parameters for testing, no groundwater testing (despite the ability to do so with existing monitoring wells which they failed to disclose to the DEP), no surface water testing, misrepresentations as to the quality of fill and the history of dumping, and a description of the site as “non-residential”–although the Quarry’s Rehabilitation Plan proposes 40-50 homes on the site. This is the plan that Mr. Daggett’s consulting firm has promoted with the DEP.

It is this author’s opinion that Mr. Daggett, through his firm’s support of the Millington Quarry, is on the wrong side for Bernards Township on an issue which is critical to the future of Bernards Township, and determined to be the ‘number one issue facing our town” by Township Committee representatives. Mr. Daggett, as you aspire to lead our state, we welcome you to come over to our side and lead our Township in our battle with the Quarry.

The letter with the heading above and the content below was published in the Bernardsville News on September 24, 2009.

Editor:
A letter in your paper on September 17 endorsed the Republican candidates for Bernards Township Committee and included comments related to the quarry. These prompt a response.

The writer commends township officials for repeatedly making it known that “they are committed to a prohibition on any further fill and complete testing of existing fill.”

Some relevant history follows. In February 2005 the Planning Board recommended that the steep quarry slopes be reshaped to satisfy the township ordinance. It advised against the importation of fill for this purpose.

In January 2006, with no warning or explanation, the Township Committee rejected the board’s advice and voted to open the door to uncontrolled importation of fill. Four of those who voted still serve on the committee, including John Malay who is running for reelection this year

In 2008 township officials moved to stop the importation of fill. They have managed this so badly that we are now in the 18th month of expensive and paralyzing litigation. There is nothing in this record to brag about.

The writer states that some are proposing “high-density housing” on the quarry property, and that this will bring more school children.

A detailed alternative to single-family houses is described on the website in the post entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village”. The proposal is to substitute two townhouses for each single family house that is allowed under present zoning. An analysis on the same website explains why these townhouses will generate about the same total amount of property taxes, but will be home to only half the number of public school students.

The letter writer denigrates the proposal for a public park and suggests that the quarry pit will become “a sump absorbing all the run-off from surrounding yards, streets and parking lots.”

The most likely outcome for the pit is that it will fill from precipitation to the level of the water table. Because people will live near the resulting lake, and because some lake water will percolate to surrounding ground water, township government has a responsibility to work to assure that the lake water quality is good over the long term.

It must assure that any harmful substances, that are in the fill and near the future lake, are either removed or remediated. This in turn requires a comprehensive program for testing the fill now. The work is the responsibility of the quarry owner and operator.

Township officials must encourage a site design that will reduce the risks of pollution from human activities after the site is developed. The Quarry Park design will do this better than a conventional subdivision.

The lake must be monitored and managed over the long term to assure good water quality. It will be easier to do this if the lake and land immediately surrounding it are owned by a single entity. The Quarry Park plan provides for this.

The writer asserts that the park will be “a huge financial burden for the town taxpayers in perpetuity.”

The Quarry Park proposal addresses costs. There is no reason to conclude that those for taxpayers will be large. The townhouses will produce more school tax revenue than the costs for the public school students who will live in them.

Sonal Shah is the Democratic candidate for Bernards Township Committee. She has published no specific position on the quarry. However, one of her planks is: “Avoid costly, unnecessary litigation.” The quarry litigation is costly. And it could have been avoided.

Future problems of this kind can be avoided, if we elect township officials who will engage in respectful and rational discussion of important issues with each other and with the public. I believe Sonal will do this and I support her.

Vote for Sonal Shah on November 3!

Bill Allen, September 22, 2009

The letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on August 12, 2009.

EDITOR:

I read with great interest the recent letter by Bill Allen, “We can turn quarry into a premier public park.” Then I reviewed his plan and map at www.BernardsVoices.org. I started to get excited about how wonderful it would be to have a lake to swim in right here in Bernards Township.

When my boys were growing up we spent many a lovely summer afternoon at Stirling Lake, which was a great place for them to learn to swim. It was also very inexpensive for residents to purchase badges, which was a huge plus for our family. Society Hill, where I now live, has a pool, but I love lakes. There is nothing like sitting in the shade of a tree, watching your kids play in the sand or in the shallow water a few yards away.

I was dreaming of swimming in a lake with sand under my feet instead of concrete, but then I started getting depressed. Twice in my life I have lived where a lovely lake existed and there was a proposal to develop it into a township park. One was in Wall Township, many years ago, and the other was Clover Hill in Millington (Long Hill Township.) In both cases, the plan failed to materialize, or was voted down, and each lake is now only accessible to the few owners of the lots surrounding it. We in Bernards Township can refuse to make the same mistakes that were made in Wall Township and Long Hill Township.

Readers, please look at the plan and map at www.BernardsVoices.org. And you will see what a great plan it is. Bill Allen seems to have thought of everything – not only aesthetics and engineering questions, but also management and fiscal issues. As Bill says, we can have this park if we want it. We need to let the Planning Board and members of the Township Committee know that we want it.

Carol Jones

Dear Residents and Neighbors:

In our last communication, we advised that the Township and CCSMQ had responded to the DEP regarding the Quarry’s application for a voluntary investigation of soils the Quarry claims are fill materials imported since 2006 (designated by the Quarry as Fill Areas A, B and C).   The DEP responded to the Quarry’s proposal on July 14, deeming the application insufficient and requiring additional parameters. CCSMQ and the Township believe that even if amended as the DEP requires, the Quarry proposal falls far short of what is necessary to ensure the site is clean.  Primarily, groundwater and surface water should be tested now, and the entire site must be tested prior to development. 

CCSMQ Representatives and Sally Rubin, Executive Director of the Great Swamp Watershed Association, met with the DEP on July 30 to discuss their shared concerns.  The DEP provided some confidence in the process, advising that the Township’s engineer ICON will oversee the investigation on site and retest each sample tested by the Quarry.  Interestingly, Christopher Daggett–Bernards Township resident, Independent Candidate for Governor and former DEP Commissioner–is a principal in the firm J.M. Sorge hired by the Quarry to initiate this DEP application and conduct the investigation.  (The DEP advised that it does not conduct the investigation other than to make occasional site visits and review the test results.) 

The DEP also advised that this stage is a fill characterization of specific soils–a preliminary and not final step to testing the site prior to residential development.  After completing this process, if no remediation is necessary or if any necessary remediation is completed for these three piles of dirt, the Quarry could seek a “no further action” letter for these specified areas but not as to the entire site.

CCSMQ advised the DEP that the Quarry has existing monitoring wells, not revealed by the Quarry, which would allow groundwater testing now.   We are hopeful that the DEP will grant this important request made by the Township, CCSMQ, and GSWA to test groundwater and surface water at this time.

For more important information, read on.

DEP Response to Quarry Proposal:

See the DEP’s response to the Quarry’s proposal MQI Tilcon DEP response July 14.

The DEP requires:

1)  75 soil borings instead of the proposed 25.
 
2)  225 samples v. the Quarry’s proposed 78.  
 
3)  Analysis of all samples for base neutrals, metals, pesticides and PCBs.
Although the DEP did not formally respond to CCSMQ’s letter, they advised that they added our request to test for chromium.  Significantly missing is volatile organics associated with gasoline (and as we know many fill sources were gas stations), emphasizing the need for groundwater testing.

CCSMQ ADVISES DEP OF MISREPRESENTATIONS/MISDEEDS BY QUARRY DEMONSTRATING NEED FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE TESTING

1) History of dumping:  Documents we shared with the DEP should dispel the Quarry’s longstanding contention that it only imported fill to satisfy the Planning Board’s 2006 requirement to pad the cliffs.  Quarry “dump price lists” date back to at least 2001 and a Sales Agreement between the owner of MQ and Tilcon for the profits derived from importing ”dirt, soils, fill, shale, rock and concrete rubble” (no mention of clean fill) date back to at least 2003.  Moreover, the Quarry admitted importing soils prior to 2006.  Theoretically, the Quarry attorneys may have objected to the PB requirement to pad the cliffs because it did not want its long running, profitable (an estimated 40.5 million since 2006) dumping business to be regulated by the Township and come to end (which is exactly what happened).  This is important because all soils, not just those imported since 2006, must be tested.

2) Quarry assertion that only clean fill has been imported:  Less than 1% of the fill has been tested; fewer than 100 truckloads out of @180,000; only self certifications of truck driver; fill from sites identified on the NJ and NY known contaminated sites lists; 17% failure rate of the small volume tested, etc., all demonstrate the need to test the entire site and the water as soon as possible.

3) Quarry’s assurance to residents that DEP tests water discharged into the Passaic River:  CCSMQ investigated and provided copies to the DEP of the NJDEPS permit which checks for only PHs and solids– further demonstrating the need to test the surface waters for contaminants. It is reasonable that the DEP assumed the permit may have been sufficient for a quarry operation, but certainly not for a landfill, which we believe the DEP, like residents, did not know about.

TOWNSHIP’S RESPONSE TO QUARRY PROPOSAL

For information on the Township’s response, see statements at Bernards Township Committee Press Release MQI Tilcon 09-05-13 and MQI Tilcon DEP response July 14 (following DEP letter).  We anticipate that the Township will continue to pursue more comprehensive testing through the DEP.  The Township must act quickly as testing may begin as early as mid-August.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION AND MEDIATION?

Litigation is on hold while mediation is deemed “active.”  CCSMQ’s concern that the Quarry would not engage in good faith mediation but would use it as a tool to buy time to control testing appears to be true with its’ unilateral DEP application, thereby undermining the Township’s earnest efforts to reach a fair and adequate resolution at this time. 

–CCSMQ

The article below was the basis for a letter published in the Bernardsville News on July 23, 2009.

To see the plan map and detailed description in separate windows click on map and description. Suggestion: Maximize each window and then toggle between them. The description contains six pages. For a table of contents click index.

It’s a balmy mid-summer day as I write this for residents of Bernards Township.  And I’m thinking that I would like to be in, or on, or just looking out over a nice lake. Today we have to drive many miles for this opportunity. But with imagination, and the will to achieve what we imagine, we can have a large lake for our use and enjoyment right here in Bernards Township.

The place is now the Tilcon Millington Quarry and the time–when the lake will be full and available for fishing, boating, swimming, and other things–will be about 2020. The lake will be inside what I call Quarry Park. The park will contain 100 plus acres and will have facilities for active and passive recreation, such as trails for walking and biking, a put-in ramp for non-motorized boats, and a slope for snow sports. Operations for a bathing beach will be financially self-supporting like Pleasant Valley Pool.

A detailed concept plan is described in a letter to the Planning Board dated July 17, 2009. This is a slightly revised version of a plan first submitted to the board on August 17, 2004.

The board is currently engaged in a review of the township master plan. I intend to present the park plan to the board during a period for public comment. The plan is presented here in two parts: a drawing of a map and a description of the map. To view them in separate windows click on map and description.

The map includes a private community of townhouses on the south slope that is surrounded on three sides by the public park. I call this Lakeview Village.

The wrapup for the letter to the Planning Board contains these comments:

• The park with lake and adjacent land will serve the general public and support many kinds of active and passive recreation.
• The lake will be part of the public park and be managed by the township. This will remove the uncertainties associated with management by a private association.
• The park will be a valuable amenity for the residents of Lakeview Village. The Village will probably become the premier townhouse community in the township.
• The fiscal impact of the substitution of townhouse units for single family units will be positive, because the property tax revenue for each public school student will be higher.
• This can be a case of win-win for the quarry owner and for township residents.

Bernards Residents: You can have this park if you tell your township officials you want it.  Start by attending and speaking at the Planning Board public hearings on the master plan.  Then speak to members of the Township Committee.

Bill Allen,    July 17, 2009