2015 Road Paving Projects - Phase II Print E-mail

Phase II of the 2015 Road Paving Project begins Tuesday, August 25th

(Thursday, Aug 27) Old Bloomfield Avenue will be closed at the Parsippany border on Friday, August 28th for bridge repaving.  There will be no access to New Road and Route 46 from Old Bloomfield Avenue.  Please plan an alternate route.

(Monday, Aug 24) We were advised on August 24th by the paving contractor that they will begin work on Phase II of this year's paving project on Tuesday, August 25th between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm. The following streets will be affected:

  • Avalon Drive
  • Arthur Place
  • Millers Lane
  • Timber Drive
  • Hillcrest Road (Towaco portion)
  • Rockaway Valley Road
  • Stony Brook Road (from Old Land to house #23)

Milling work is scheduled to begin Tuesday morning on Avalon Drive and Arthur Place and continue until all of the milling is done, probably on Wednesday afternoon.  Paving is then expected to begin on Thursday and be completed by Tuesday, September 1.

Residents of the affected streets will have access at all times and police will be on scene for traffic control whenever work is being done.  Priority in traffic flow will be given to emergency vehicles. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please call the Engineering Department at (973) 331-3323.

Last Updated ( Friday, 28 August 2015 )
 
Indian Lane Organic Garden Update - Aug 28, 2015 Print E-mail

The following message was sent to all gardeners using the organic garden site on Old Jacksonville Road:

Dear Organic Gardeners:

In an ongoing effort to brief everyone, we are providing the group with the findings with respect to the initial soil analytical results from the organic gardens.  As you may know, we hired Louis Berger to perform professional environmental services at the organic gardens property located at 35 Old Jacksonville Road in Montville Township.  A summary of Louis Berger’s preliminary findings are as follows:     

Lead, arsenic, and DDT (and its breakdown products DDD and DDE) were detected in each of the 7 shallow soil samples collected, but ALL at concentrations below the NJDEP’s Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRS).  Dieldrin was detected in one sample, also below the NJDEP’s RDCSRS.  This is great news, in that from DEP’s perspective the town does not have a “contaminated site” on its hands, which means there are no regulatory obligations for further investigation or remediation.  

The DRAFT laboratory results of the preliminary findings are attached.

Upon further evaluation by Louis Berger of the shallow soil results, they determined some contingency analyses may be beneficial.  Specifically, the concentration of dieldrin at one location was above NJDEP’s Default Impact to Groundwater soil screening level.  They have activated the deeper sample from this location, to see if they can achieve vertical delineation of this contaminant.  They have also activated a contingent analysis of the shallow sample which will hopefully demonstrate that dieldrin is not leaching out of the soil and impacting the groundwater.  These data are due on September 2, 2015. In the interim, they are actively fleshing out their interpretation of the lead, arsenic, DDT, and breakdown product concentrations detected in the shallow soil.  

We would like to provide you with information contained in an email from a Louis Berger representative on August 27, 2015:

  • With respect to the organic designation, what we learned is that previous application of pesticides does not preclude a farm from being certified organic (not that we’re going down the certification route, simply as a thought exercise…).  Excluded compounds are not to have been applied in the last 36 months, and tissue samples from crops are collected during inspection.  The organic designation has more to do with how the garden is currently operated than how it was in the past.

  • Our investigation was developed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the NJDEP’s Findings and Recommendations for the Remediation of Historic Pesticide Contamination (March 1999) to evaluate for the need to pursue site remediation.  What we found is that lead, arsenic, DDT, and its breakdown products are found at generally consistent concentrations across the field, but all below the states Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRS).  Additionally, dieldrin was detected in one sample, also below the NJDEP’s RDCSRS but above the NJDEP’s Default Impact to Groundwater Soil Screening Level.

  • The Residential Soil Remediation Standards were not developed with consideration for consumption of produce grown in the soil.  They are risk-based standards with consideration for other exposure pathways (soil ingestion or direct dermal exposure).  Connecticut has come up with some guidelines for lead, dieldrin, and DDT for vegetable gardening.  The samples collected from within the garden fall below these criteria, however three of the four samples from outside of the current garden area meet or exceed the Garden Soil Target Level for DDT of 0.2 mg/kg with concentrations of 0.22 mg/kg, 0.23 mg/kg, and 0.45 mg/kg.

  • Several California studies have quantified concentrations in soil of DDT, DDD, and DDE (as a sum) which are acceptable for the consumption of homegrown vegetables based on different levels of risk determined to be acceptable.   These concentrations range from 0.34 mg/kg to 3.4 mg/kg.  We detected DDT, DDD, and DDE (combined) at concentrations ranging from 0.26 mg/kg to 0.65 mg/kg in the current garden area, and 0.32 mg/kg to 1.15 mg/kg outside of the current garden area.

  • One important note: While the Connecticut Garden Soil Target Levels and the California risk-based remediation levels are useful as a frame of reference, care should be taken when comparing them to our data.  The current investigation was not designed with enough samples to provide the statistical power necessary to say with confidence that all soil within the current garden area is in fact below the Connecticut guideline of 0.2 mg/kg for DDT.

  • An available option would be to conduct a risk assessment, to help guide the Township in its decision with regards to the amount of risk it is willing to accept, including a comparison to the risks involved with alternative produce sources, etc.  Additional soil samples (probably 15 to 20) would be required to further characterize the current garden area to provide the requisite statistical power for such a comparison.

Based on the preliminary findings, the Township is undertaking the following actions: (1) another round of groundwater sampling, and (2) additional shallow soil samples throughout the garden area from 7 samples to 22 samples to ensure statistical probability for your safety.  We expect the results from both the groundwater sampling and additional shallow soil testing on either Wednesday, September 2, 2015 or Thursday, September 3, 2015.  We anticipate making a decision on reopening the organic gardens by Thursday, September 3, 2015 based on the additional soil sampling.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

Township of Montville

Draft Test Results

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 01 September 2015 )
 
JCP&L’s Montville-Whippany 230 kV Transmission Project Print E-mail

BACKGROUND:  On March 27, 2015, JCP&L filed an application with the Board of Public Utilities seeking to construct a transmission line between its substations in East Hanover and Montville.  This line will run through the Township of Montville and this section of the Township’s website is dedicated to providing the public with any updates regarding this application.

Update #8 (7/24/15): The parties have had an initial conference with Judge McGee, the Administrative Law Judge who will be hearing Montville Township's challenge to the JCP&L-Montville-Whippany 230kV Transmission Project  The Judge is asking the parties to come up with dates for discovery, the submittal of expert reports, and a timeline for the eventual hearing on this matter.  

While the Township has not yet agreed on any of these discovery dates, it is certain that no decision will be rendered in this case until sometime, at the earliest, in the second quarter 2016.  In the meantime the Township will continue to explore all possible experts and strategy to oppose this project.  We note that no other parties have requested to intervene and the Court has not yet established an intervening date. 

Update #7 (6/22/15): There are no new updates to report.

Update #6 (6/12/15):  This past Tuesday evening, the Mayor and Township Committee met in executive session with Mo Bonder, the Township’s expert engineer. Mr. Bonder outlined various potential issues relating to the upcoming litigation with JCP&L.

Update #5 (5/29/15):  This week the Mayor and Township Committee sent correspondence to other municipalities seeking support with respect to the Township's position opposing the Montville-Whippany 230 kV Transmission Project. In addition, the Township has scheduled an executive session with its expert, Mo Bonder, to discuss strategy going forward. The executive session will not be open to the public so that JCP&L will not be privy to the discussion as it relates to litigation strategy.

We will continue to post weekly updates here regarding this matter.

Montville Township Mayor, Committee and Administration

For additional information about this project, please click the "Read more..." link below.

Last Updated ( Friday, 21 August 2015 )
Read more...
 
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack