The Courier - October 2, 2008

M'town ordered to 'clean up,' provide proper plan for Banfield

By MELISSA L. GAFFNEY
Staff Writer

    How many years does it take to get to the core of a contamination problem?
    Middletown Township purchased what is known simply as "Banfield," a piece of property located at 36 Church St., nearly 10 years ago.
    It is likely the township did not imagine it would still be in correspondence with the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to this day, seeking certification of "no further action" on land that is currently considered contaminated.
    But this is not the first time the township was required to clean up its act.
    Middletown officials had been ordered to provide a laundry list of documents and studies to the DEP since 2004.
    In a letter dated Jan. 11, 2007, it was stated that Green Acres funding from the state was in jeopardy of being cancelled due to a "lack of progress" on the town's Banfield Park Development project.
    The letter was sent from the DEP to Gregg Silva, the township's director of recreation, parks and cultural affairs.
    According to the correspondence, the project was approved on Nov. 14, 2003. "To date, we have been unable to obtain the necessary documentation to move the project forward," the correspondence stated.
    Green Acres is a program under the DEP that awards municipalities funds in order to preserve open and historic space, as well as land for recreational development and farmland.
    In the case of Middletown, the Banfield lot has to be given a certification of "no further action" from the DEP because the property formerly contained a diesel fuel tank stationed below ground, an Underground Storage Tank (UST).
    "No further action" signifies that all action has been taken to remediate any harmful environmental or safety factors, such as contaminated soil.
    In a subsequent letter dated March 23, 2007, the DEP listed 10 documents and/or actions that were not satisfied in order to properly certify the lot.
    The letter stated: "We (the DEP) were informed that the [diesel] tanks were closed by the former owner (Edwin Banfield). At that time, we requested the closure reports for the tanks, unless Middletown Township went through the Site Remediation Program, in which case a copy of the Department's 'no further action' approval letter will suffice."
    The referenced letter regarding closure reports was dated July 13, 2004, according to correspondence.

Notice of deficiency

    During the next year, the township must have submitted its paperwork.
    Approximately one year after the March 2007 notification, the DEP sent a "Notice of Deficiency" to the township.
    It was stamped with the date of March 3.
    In the letter, the DEP stated there are several deficiencies regarding the Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) and the Remedial Investigation Workplan (RIW) submitted, both of which were dated February 11 and received February 13, according to correspondence.
    One such deficiency, according to the letter, was failure to perform a remedial investigation, which included submitting a sampling results summary table, a baseline ecological evaluation, confirmation of ground water flow, monitoring well information and any required maps or diagrams.
    Notably, the letter indicated the township failed to use "appropriate clean fill material when restoring the site to pre-remediation conditions."
    The letter further stated that the township "has not submitted documentation from the fill provider certifying that the material used to backfill the UST excavations following UST removal on Feb. 15, 2000, is free of contaminants and meets all requirements."
    A UST Site/RIR certification form has since been submitted to the DEP, and is dated March 13. Bruce Archer, of T&M Associates, Middletown, evaluated the property. Frederick Jahn, the then-interim township administrator, signed the form.
    According to documentation, the baseline ecological study was since submitted.

Ground water & wells

    However, the DEP also identified a deficiency regarding the site investigation of ground water at the Banfield property. According to the letter of deficiency, ground water data from a temporary well point showed a benzene concentration of 4.8 parts per billion of bacteria.
A    dditionally, the well was recognized as not being installed at the correct location. "Based on the scale shown on the drawing, the monitoring well MW-1 was not installed within 10 feet down gradient of the location of the former UST," the DEP wrote. "Therefore, a ground water investigation in the former diesel UST area has not been completed."

Back to 1999

    The DEP also pointed out two soil samples that have not been delineated since 1999.
    "The soil sample DTS 6 that was collected on April 30, 1999, at a location south of the former 1,000-gallon diesel UST had the total organics concentration of 10,396 parts per million and the soil contamination at this sampling location has not been delineated," the DEP wrote.
    The soil sample labeled "G1" that was collected on Dec. 10, 1999, from the former UST area was identified as having the "total volatile organics tentatively identified compounds concentration of 6,960 parts per million," according to the correspondence.
    In its response on behalf of the township, dated March 14, T&M wrote: "This is the first time the department has referenced this requirement. It was T&M's understanding that these soils were removed when the tank was removed. These samples (the DTS series of samples) were acquired prior to tank removal. We request clarification from the Department on how to handle this requirement."
    Since receiving the notice of deficiency, the township supplied several of the required documents.
    According to correspondence from the DEP, dated May 16, the township still had to supply a revised copy of the Recreation and Open Space Inventory (ROS!) and plans for a site remediation program.
    On June 30, current Township Engineer Robert Bucco, of T&M Associates, sent a letter to the DEP with an attached "preliminary schedule depicting the proposed timeline associated with the remedial investigation."
    According to both the letter and the schedule, a RIW would be provided by the end of September.