To the Editor:

I’ve read the letter recently written by attorney Aaron Kleinbaum on the Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods website, and I find it concerning that, although the hospital site is listed as a contaminated site in the Environmental Resource Inventory for the Township and Borough of Princeton (DVRPC 2010), the undated report that AvalonBay cites to claim that the site is really uncontaminated is not available to public officials or the general public.

The hospital is indeed a “known contaminated site,” according to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) report submitted by Maser Consulting on behalf of AvalonBay. Yet Maser “has performed no exploratory or testing services”—and doesn’t plan to do so unless “environmental contamination or waste [is] discovered” (EIS, p. 10). The Maser EIS bases its conclusions on “Site specific investigations performed for the property by EcolSciences” that “revealed that no underground tanks or contamination were found in the property” (EIS, p. 10).

But here’s the catch: the EcolSciences report is not documented in the EIS “References” section. Maser won’t release it; the University Medical Center at Princeton — our health provider — has not responded to requests for the EcolSciences report; an Open Public Records Act request for the EcolSciences report yielded nothing. The public can’t see the report. If it’s not made public, who can verify the science of its conclusions? Contamination is a matter of public health; the public has a vested right to know the truth, now, not later.

The problems are stated in a letter sent by environmentalist attorney Aaron Kleinbaum (Eastern Environmental Law Center, Newark) to Jack West and Robert Kiser, Engineers of Princeton Borough and Township, and to all Princeton Regional Planning Board members (22 August 2012). Mr. Kleinbaum insists that AvalonBay’s application be deemed “Incomplete” until “a full site investigation according to State or federal standards” has been performed by an independent party. This is right: clearly, Maser works for AvalonBay; the unavailability of the EcolSciences report gives no one grounds to trust the methods of the report. According to Maser, AvalonBay understands that if “issues related to the presence of contamination … arise,” “a licensed site remediation professional will be hired to see that the issue is properly remedied” (EIS, p. 10). Who will evaluate “the issues”? Hired by whom?

Mr. Kleinbaum cites a New Jersey Superior Court judgment (2001): “a planning board has authority to deny a site plan application if it lacks sufficient specificity … to assess the adequacy of a plan because the plan may have a pervasive impact on the public health and welfare” (p. 3). The Planning Board should heed this legal judgment: AvalonBay proposes that hundreds of people should rent apartments over ground that may be contaminated. Mr. Kleinbaum advises the Planning Board to deny the application “until a thorough [Phase II] Site environmental investigation is conducted” and made public (p. 4).

The letter is posted on our website (facebook.com/PrincetonCitizensFor) or contact PCSN for a copy of the letter at princetoncitzensfor@gmail.com.

Dr. Vojislava Pophristic

Tee Ar Place

Editor’s note: The writer is associate professor and chair, department of chemistry & biochemistry, University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia.