NDCA

Hopewell Council gets Rockwell plan update

Rockwell Automation has no immediate plans to sell Somerset properties and is unconcerned about possible rezoning in the area

By Aleen Crispino, Special Writer

Posted: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:19 AM EDT

   Representatives of Rockwell Automation — owner of at least four and possibly seven vacant residential properties on the south side of Somerset Street in Hopewell Borough — say the company has no immediate plans to sell the properties and is unconcerned with the possibility, being explored by the borough Planning Board, of rezoning.

   This information was reported by Councilman David Mackie and Borough Administrator/Clerk Michele Hovan to Hopewell Borough Council at its regular meeting Monday.

   Rockwell intends to apply to the Planning Board for permits to demolish the remaining homes on the properties, then “plant some trees and landscaping and maintain them as residential properties until the (groundwater) treatment is finished,” said Councilman Mackie.

   In a conference call Monday with Jennifer Elder Brady, project manager at the Cranbury-based environmental engineering firm Arcadis BBL, and John Persico, Arcadis BBL associate, Ms. Hovan and Councilman Mackie received an informal update on plans by the firm, hired by Rockwell Automation of Milwaukee, Wis., to build a groundwater treatment facility at 21 and 29 Somerset St. and to maintain the property surrounding it.

   ”They said their general procedure is they complete the remediation and then divest themselves of the property,” said Councilman Mackie. Exactly how long it will take to pump out and treat all of the contaminated groundwater is unknown. The project could be completed in “five, 10, 15, 20 years,” said Ms. Brady in June 2007.

   Rockwell Automation, which, as Rockwell Manufacturing Co., operated a plant at 57 Hamilton Ave. from the early 1900s to 1975, has been ordered by the state Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to clean up air, soil and groundwater contamination by “volatile organic compounds,” primarily trichloroethene (TCE), in an area extending from Somerset Street south to Lafayette Street and from Hamilton Avenue east to The King’s Path development in Hopewell Township.

   As part of its effort to remediate the site, Rockwell has purchased two residential properties: 19 and 21 Somerset St., and has already demolished houses and felled trees in order to remove contaminated soil at these locations. In addition, the company has either purchased or is in the process of purchasing the five remaining homes on the south side of Somerset that lie within the borough, Mr. Persico said Dec. 20. The borough has received copies of deeds for 29 and 37 Somerset St., indicating that those sales have been completed, said Ms. Hovan in May.

   Rockwell plans to build a recovery well and an approximately 60- by 40-foot Cape Cod-style treatment building, constructed of pre-engineered metal, at 21 and 29 Somerset St., said Ms. Brady in December 2007. Before doing so, it would need to present an application and site plan and receive the approval of the borough Planning Board. Demolition of any of the remaining houses also would require approval from the board.

   At its last few meetings, the Planning Board has been holding public discussions of the 2007 Master Plan recommendation that the south side of Somerset Street be rezoned for commercial or industrial use. This recommendation was triggered by Rockwell’s purchase of the residential properties for its treatment facility as well as future plans by New Jersey Transit to create a railroad parking lot on the north side of the street for a reactivated West Trenton Line.

   Members of the Hopewell Woods Homeowners Association, whose members reside on Elm Street and whose back yards are adjacent to the south side of Somerset Street, have publicly opposed rezoning for anything other than park or recreation use, and have stated their desire to keep the south side of the street residential.

   Richard Friedman, of 31 Elm St., president of the association, presented the board Dec. 12 with a letter citing homeowners’ fears that rezoning would “adversely affect the quality of life on our street and in surrounding neighborhoods,” as well as that “this action would have a negative impact on property values,” which have “already suffered due to Rockwell’s pollution of the groundwater and soil in the Somerset Street area.”

   The Planning Board has said its main concern is to prevent unwanted use of the properties upon possible future sale by Rockwell. “My overriding concern is to be able to control what happens there,” said Planning Board Chairman Bob Donaldson in May, describing a possible scenario where the land is sold to a developer wishing to build townhouses or condominiums.

   Councilman Mackie said the views of neighborhood residents might be a factor in Rockwell’s future plans. “They’ve had some conversations with residents of Elm Street,” said Mr. Mackie, adding that this may have influenced the decision of company representatives to maintain the residential character of the property for the duration of the remediation effort.

   IN OTHER BUSINESS, council postponed a public hearing on the proposed 2008 budget to 7 p.m. today (Thursday) in the Hopewell Fire Department conference room on the first floor of the Municipal Building at 4 Columbia Ave.

March 12, 2008

One type of cancer is double N.J. rate

Sarcoma cases in Toms River

By LAUREN O. KIDD
TOMS RIVER BUREAU

The incidences of childhood cancer that occurred in Toms River from 2001 through 2005 were on par with what was expected to occur in a township of its size in New Jersey, but the diagnosis of one certain class of cancer — soft tissue sarcoma — was more than twice the expected rate, a state Department of Health and Senior Services analysis found.

The analysis compared the number of cases observed and how they occurred here with the number of cases expected to occur in a population of the township’s size over that period. Toms River’s population was about 93,000 in 2004, according to the U.S. Census.

Incidences of soft tissue sarcoma — defined by the National Cancer Institute as “a cancer that begins in the muscle, fat, fibrous tissue, blood vessels, or other supporting tissue of the body” — were more than double the expected rate, according to the study.

Four Toms River children were diagnosed with soft tissue sarcomas between 2004 and 2005. Three of those children are girls, which is statistically more than five times as many girls than would be expected to be diagnosed with the disease, Jerald A. Fagliano, program manager for consumer and environmental health with the Department of Health and Senior Services, told the Toms River Citizens Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster Monday.

Three of the diagnosed children also live in the section of the township that used to be known as the village of Toms River before then-Dover Township changed its name in 2006, he said.

“Chance is not the likely explanation, but it could be for that difference,” Fagliano said of the cause of the high number of soft tissue sarcomas.

Fagliano presented a summary of the study findings to the committee. A full report on the findings should be released next month, he said.

Overall, the analysis found 26 cases of childhood cancer diagnosed in Toms River residents up to the age of 19 during the five-year period between 2001 and 2005. The rate to be expected is 22.8 cases, meaning there were 1.1 times more cases in Toms River than expected, which is not statistically significant, according to Fagliano.

The study is just the latest to be launched since residents began observing a high number of children diagnosed with cancer in Toms River in the mid-1980s.

A previous study of the elevated childhood cancer levels in Toms River began in 1996 and was completed in 2001.

That study found that exposure to contaminated drinking water from United Water Toms River’s Parkway well field and to polluted air from the former Ciba-Geigy Superfund site was associated with leukemia development in young girls, but no links between environmental pollutants and leukemia development in boys or nervous system cancers in male or female children were found.

Researchers have stressed repeatedly, however, that the limited number of cases included in that study makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about causes. Both United Water Toms River’s Parkway well field and Ciba-Geigy plant were closed in the mid-1990s.

The most recent study found that the number of cases of childhood leukemia was less than what would be expected, while the number of brain and central nervous system cancers was slightly higher than expected, but not statistically significant.

Linda Gillick, chairwoman of the committee, said the data on leukemia are “great,” but the data of the elevated soft tissue sarcomas are troubling.

“We need to go and talk to the families and see if they have anything in common,” she said.

Fagliano recommended that the state continue to monitor the number of children diagnosed with cancer in Toms River. He said that so far, the state is not aware of any cases of soft tissue sarcoma diagnosed in 2006, 2007 or 2008, but he stressed that the data are preliminary.

“We are going to continue to watch,” he told the committee.

Gillick and others, though, pushed for the state to ask questions of the families of diagnosed children to find similarities in their cases.

“These parents want answers,” Gillick said.

Fagliano said that the state could gather information, but “the question is whether it will be meaningful in any way.”

Gillick noted that representatives of the state Department of Environmental Protection and federal Environmental Protection Agency and area legislators were invited to the meeting but failed to attend.

The state is in the process of starting a study into incidences of childhood cancer throughout Monmouth and Ocean counties, according to Fagliano.