To the Editor:

The environmental picture at AvalonBay Princeton is growing worse. At the March 10 Council meeting, we learned some disturbing facts. Firstly, that AvalonBay’s tactics of intimidation are still in full swing. Secondly, that Council is following in the footsteps of the Planning Board by limiting the scope of the independent expert and thereby ignoring unresolved issues. Thirdly, that the hospital operated at least two different medical waste incinerators over a period of 40+ years.

[Ira] Whitman, Princeton’s newly hired independent environmental expert, downgraded his initial recommendations to delete lead from the substances for soil testing related to the incinerator. Lead, Mr. Whitman honestly admitted, was negotiated away by AvalonBay, even though it’s a recognized byproduct from medical waste incinerators. Residents and Councilman Simon correctly asked who permitted this negotiation and that Mr. Whitman’s initial unedited recommendations be provided for review. This raises the question whether the town’s previous independent environmental expert, Sovereign, gave in to similar intimidation during AvalonBay’s first application to the Planning Board.

Regarding “Recognized Environmental Conditions” of sewer discharge, facility decommissioning, asbestos, and lead, Mr. Whitman noted on page 6 of his report, “The Municipality of Princeton did not engage me to evaluate this list of environmental conditions.” Why not? With knowledge that the hospital was classified by the EPA as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste, there needs to be testing for hazardous residue on-site from the decades before EPA regulation. As confirmed on March 10, heavy metals do not disappear from the soil.

Our citizens should be entitled to protection of their health, safety, and welfare by independent expertise to supplement our town’s two overburdened engineers. This should mean guidance on all issues during the approvals phase. It should also mean on-site monitoring during demolition. Allowing AvalonBay to direct environmental and demolition decisions would continue the pattern of putting profit before safety. As pointed out by residents, it is Council’s responsibility to ensure public health, safety, and welfare, despite AvalonBay’s financial motivation to limit the scope of testing. The cost of an independent consultant should not be taxpayers’ responsibility, nor should the upgrading of sewers and additional school costs.

Mr. Whitman’s report stated that the incinerator was constructed between 1963 and 1969. During the Council meeting, he agreed with a resident’s presentation of a second incinerator, circa 1948, in a different location. First, AvalonBay didn’t question whether there ever was an incinerator. Then, after resident-discovered evidence, stated that it was used only for burning paper. Then, after more resident-discovered evidence, admitted it was for medical waste. Then, focused on one incinerator, until evidence of a second incinerator.

The pattern seen with the incinerator is telling, but not isolated — a complete lack of trust has resulted. As one of eight plaintiffs from APHS (Association for Planning at Hospital Site), I recognize that Council is paying more attention to environmental issues than the Planning Board ever did, but believe it’s only due to our lawsuit and residents’ involvement in pointing out the ongoing pattern of duplicity. APHS invites concerned residents to support our commitment by contacting us through www.APHSLLC.com.

Paul Driscoll

Harris Road