A local couple believe Cranbury can do more to better manage township soil and control pesticide residue accumulated over years of farming in the area.
By:Amanda Bok
A local couple believe Cranbury can do more to better manage township soil and control pesticide residue accumulated over years of farming in the area.
Cranbury residents Bill and Connie Bauder are volunteers with the Stonybrook Millstone Watershed Association. Ms. Bauder also is a retired science teacher.
According to the couple, the arsenic contamination recently found in Cranbury Millstone Park could be the result of poor soil management of the area, including the development of Cranbury Heights Estates, a small residential development built on Ancil Davison Road last year.
Township officials discovered arsenic contamination in the stream corridor of the park, which is near the development, in February. Officials attribute the contamination to the accumulation of pesticides, many of which don’t break down over time, that reached the corridor through erosion. They are working to remediate the problem.
Township officials found levels of arsenic between 2 and 50 parts per million in the soil of the Millstone stream corridor.
The contamination is not deep enough to reach the water table or threaten township wells, officials said. They also said that if the arsenic entered the waterways, it does not threaten public safety because it would be cleaned at the Raritan-Millstone Plant anyway.
But to Ms. Bauder, that thought is not reassuring.
"They keep saying this doesn’t matter because people don’t drink water from that brook," Ms. Bauder said. "But that brook goes to the Millstone and then to the Raritan. Elizabethtown draws its water from the surface water between the Millstone and Raritan rivers."
Pesticides that were legal before 1970, such as arsenic-based pesticides, DDT, aldrin and dieldrin, persist in the environment long after they are no longer used, according to a report issued by the New Jersey Historic Pesticide Contamination Task Force.
Some pesticides like DDT, aldrin and dieldrin may break down after a number of years. But lead and arsenic are elements that do not break down and will persist in the environment indefinitely, the report states.
The state Department of Environmental Protection estimates that up to 5 percent or about 240,000 acres of the state may be affected by former use of arsenic-based pesticides alone, the report states. The report also states that similar problems exist in other states and countries.
Because of its agricultural history, Cranbury likely is affected by wide-spread pesticide residue, according to Mr. and Ms. Bauder.
Arsenic-based pesticides such as lead arsenate were employed extensively on fruit orchards and vegetable fields for insect and agricultural pest control since the turn of the 20th century, the report states.
According to Township Committeeman Alan Danser, a farmer, for a long time before 1987 Cranbury farmers planted mainly potatoes. According to Mr. Danser, farmers used the pesticides that were available and popular at different points in time. These included arsenic-based pesticides, DDT and other substances, he said.
A soil sampling done by the task force that wrote the report in 1999 shows that an arsenic range of 5.8 to 32.7 parts per million was found in 92 soil samples taken from throughout Cranbury.
All arsenic levels above 20 ppm must be cleaned up under DEP residential soil cleanup criteria.
Translated into cancer risks and based upon the assumptions and calculations of the Environmental Protection Agency, a person exposed to 20 ppm of arsenic has a 50 in one million chance of getting cancer over a lifetime due to arsenic exposure alone, the report states.
The EPA allows 50 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water. The Clinton administration last year approved regulations changing that standard to 10 ppb. The EPA had proposed changing it to 5 ppb. But the Bush administration announced in March that it would withdraw the 10 ppb standard and continue to apply the 50 ppb regulation. According to data released by Elizabethtown Water Co. this year, the maximum detected level of arsenic was 9 ppb.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the environment. Arsenic in water is largely the result of minerals dissolving naturally from weathered rocks and roils, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Ms. Bauder said that even ingesting small amounts of arsenic is dangerous because the body collects small, seemingly harmless doses, accumulates them, and over time the doses may reach toxic levels and cause harm.
Arsenic has been identified as toxic and a danger to drinking water if the levels are high enough. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, run by the U.S. Department of Interior, arsenic is a health concern because it can contribute to skin, bladder and other cancers.
According to Mr. and Ms. Bauder, there are no health tests that take into consideration the influence of more than one pesticide over a lifetime. There are also no tests on the effects of pesticides on children, they said.
The park’s corridor is the first site the township has ever tested for pesticides, said Township Engineer Cathleen Marcelli. That’s because the township does not require soil to be tested for pesticides prior to development and soil is not tested at random.
Township officials decided to test the stream corridor after several empty barrels were sighted in the area and raised cause for concern. Tests of the barrels revealed they were clean.
Mr. and Ms. Bauder said the township’s lack of pesticide-test requirements is part of the problem.
Cranbury Heights Estates, an eight-unit housing development, was built on a parcel of land formerly belonging to the Zaitz farm, which still borders the development. The soil was not tested for pesticides.
According to Mr. Bauder, he warned the township that arsenic and other dangerous substances may be present in the soil of the proposed development.
In a letter dated Sept. 9, 1997, to David Nissen, chairman of the Environmental Commission, Mr. Bauder wrote: "Considering the intensive agricultural use of this site both legally and possibly illegally there is concern that the soil and water may contain contaminates that may pose a health risk to the future of this site (nitrates, arsenic, VOCs).
"There have been cases including at least one in Middlesex County that have required remediation after a development was built on soil contaminated over long periods of agricultural use which included the use of herbicides and pesticides."
The commission reviews grant applications and makes recommendations for development to the township in conjunction with the township engineer. It is only an advisory body.
Mr. Nissen said he doesn’t remember that specific development application or Mr. Bauder’s letter. But he said that at that time, no one in the township was focusing on arsenic.
"We were worried about drainage and about wetlands on that property," Mr. Nissen said. "At that time we weren’t focusing on the arsenic problem, we were not aware of it. In fact we didn’t understand the arsenic problem."
Mr. Nissen said he gives Mr. Bauder credit for drawing the township’s attention to the barrels in the stream.
According to Mr. Nissen, only now, after the township discovered arsenic in the stream, did officials become aware of the larger issue of historical pesticides.
"That was the first time anyone had became aware of the problem with any specificity," Mr. Nissen said. "Until then we had just lived in a world where there had just been farming. Now we understand that there’s a problem."
According to Mr. Bauder, finding pesticides is only one side of the coin. The other side is to better contain the soil that carries pesticides and prevent it from eroding and accumulating downstream or in lower levels of land.
"The main concern right now is keeping things on-site," Mr. Bauder said.
In the same letter to Mr. Nissen dated Sept. 9, 1997, Mr. Bauder also wrote that there needed to be some provisions to keep further contamination from reaching the Millstone River and that those provisions be required prior to granting any building permits or excavations.
Such provisions, as outlined in the township’s Master Plan, could be improved stormwater management practices, retention of natural vegetation, stream corridor buffers like bushes or trees or easements to minimize the impacts of development or agriculture to surface water quality.
The provisions were not required.
In a letter dated Sept. 18, 1997, to the township Planning Board from the Environmental Commission, the commission recommended the township implement soil erosion and sediment controls as well as "no activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or soil conservation."
But a township resolution for granting preliminary major subdivision approval for the project did not include these suggestions. Violation notices, dated Oct. 13, 1999, and April 14, 2000, from the Freehold Soil Conservation District, which oversees soil conservation in the region, cite two incidents when the Cranbury Heights Estate development was not in compliance with the certified soil erosion and sediment control plan. Among some of the violations are accumulated sediments in the drainage basin, gullies in the side slopes of the basin and lack of a sediment barrier to prevent further runoff of sediment into the drainage system.
According to Freehold District Manager Ines Grimm, those violations were addressed quickly.
Freehold began overseeing soil conservation on the project in 1998, Ms. Grimm said. According to her, the first violation notice addressed problems the site encountered after Hurricane Floyd went through.
"There were some on-site problems with retention areas. At the time, the project had a sediment basin, a sediment trap, materials washed through and got stuck," Ms. Grimm said. "But the intersection of the pipe to the stream remained clean."
The second violation notice addressed touch-up work, she said. According to her, the developer responded within five days. Ms. Grimm said there have been no more problems with the site since.
Soil that eroded from the site may or may not have contributed to the accumulation of arsenic in the stream. But Mr. and Ms. Bauder said that if the soil of the site had been tested prior to development, the cost of remediation would have been the developer’s responsibility. Now the taxpayer may carry that cost.
"I think the township now is partially paying for something that may have been caused by the developer," Mr. Bauder said.
Township officials said it may cost up to $80,000 to clean up the arsenic. It is in the process of applying for state grants to help with the costs. Officials hope to be reimbursed for costs incurred to test the soil.
That’s because the state does not provide funding to help remediate pesticide contamination, only to detect it.
"We only have money for grants and loans for investigation of the amount of contamination," said Mike Tompkins, case manager for site remediation with the DEP.
According to Mr. Tompkins, the idea is that once contamination is found, the developer of the site can bargain the cost of cleanup against the market value of the property.
Mr. Tompkins also said the state only provides funds in case of an emergency, like a chemical spill that would threaten a community’s drinking water.
There are four methods the township could use to clean the contamination: blend deeper, less contaminated soil with the top layer of dirt; blend the contaminated soil with noncontaminated soil from other portions of the property; seal off the contaminated area from the public or remove and dispose of the contaminated soil. The fourth would be the most expensive option. There are about 3 acres of soil in the park.
According to Ms. Marcelli the town didn’t require pesticide tests because there is no state, regional or township requirement that calls for soil sampling other than for septic systems prior to development. Township attorney William Moran said the jurisdiction to require such soil tests rests with the state Legislature.
"We’re pretty much pre-empted by the state for hazardous material testing," Mr. Moran said.
Mr. Moran also said that under state law, all agricultural land, except fruit orchards, is exempt from testing for pesticides. Orchards are tested because their intricate roots and soils trap pesticides and cause large concentrations of the poisons to build up, he said.
But Jane Nogaki, pesticide program coordinator for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said several towns including Moorestown, Manalapan, Mount Laurel, Evesham and Washington Township in Glouster County have passed ordinances that require soil testing and remediation if pesticide levels exceed DEP criteria for any new development.
"Other municipalities have done so recognizing that there is a gap in the law from protecting future property owners from moving unto contaminated soil," Ms. Nogaki said.
The state recommends, but does not require, that soils be tested for pesticides before development.
According to Mr. Moran, anyone can formulate such ordinances. The question would be whether a developer could challenge the township’s legal jurisdiction in court.
Mr. and Ms. Bauder said that if there is one case of arsenic contamination, it is likely that other areas in Cranbury also have excessive levels of arsenic or other pesticides.
"There are at least 40 places in Cranbury with inadequate prevention of erosion," Mr. Bauder said. "It is reasonable to assume there is contamination (on other sites), but at this stage the township is unable to remediate that."

