The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) held its first public meeting of the year for the Newhall Remediation Project at the Keefe Community Center on May 17, 2005. The meeting focused on the results of Olin’s testing of residential properties in the neighborhood and its proposal to clean up the contamination that was found. The agenda included:

1. An open house during which residents could ask questions regarding the test results for their properties and other more general questions about the project;
2. A presentation by Ken Cichon, an engineer with the firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. hired by the Olin Corporation to perform testing on residential properties in the project area;
3. An update from DEP’s Elsie Patton on the next steps in the project process.

Sixty-two people attended the information meeting. Jill Barrett from Fitzgerald & Halliday welcomed those in attendance. She provided an overview of the purpose of the meeting and reviewed the evening’s agenda. She noted that there would be additional time at the end of the meeting for participants to discuss their individual property questions with DEP and/or project consultants. Ken Cichon presented a slide show summarizing Olin’s work to date on residential properties and their preliminary recommendations for a program to clean up the contamination. He reported the purpose of their most recent work was to:

1. Find the precise edge of the known former landfill areas
2. Find and test isolated fill areas – pockets of fill not part of the known larger landfill areas
3. Find and test bare spots overlying fill – areas of exposed soil with no grass or other vegetation which may have contaminants people could come into contact with
4. Groundwater investigation (more groundwater samples tested as part of regular sampling program) and additional fill testing
5. Identify, evaluate and recommend a Remedial Action(s) program

In summary, the most recent work on behalf of the Olin Corporation included:

• A total of 289 properties tested or inspected
• Over 700 soil borings drilled
• 511 soil and fill samples from borings analyzed
• 60 groundwater samples analyzed

The study concluded that:

• About 80 properties have no fill
• About 220 properties have fill present
• About 130 properties of those have fill only at depths less than four feet
• About 90 properties have fill at depths greater than four feet
• The substances that were found in the soils and fill at certain locations at levels that would require a remedy include Arsenic, Lead, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) Lead, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), and Extractable Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ETPH)
• The groundwater is only slightly affected.

The Study looked at 6 different possible programs to clean the impacted properties, all of which comply with the State’s clean up standards. They ranged from least intense (removing and replacing some of the contaminated fill) to most extreme (acquiring and demolishing all the impacted houses and removing and replacing all the soil and fill). Mr. Cichon emphasized that:

• This proposed remedy program is an initial recommendation from Olin to DEP.
• The final remedy selection is subject to public participation and approval by DEP.
• The final remedy must be coordinated with remedies for the Middle School and parks.

Olin’s recommended program revolves around federal and state guidance on remediation and includes:

1. Where fill is less than 4 feet thick: Remove all fill and restore the area at about 130 properties. This includes all isolated fill and properties on the edge of the contiguous fill. Property condition would be restored.
2. Where fill is greater than 4 feet thick: Remove the top 4 feet of fill and restore the area at about 90 properties. The property condition would be restored. A Land Use Restriction would be placed on the property deed for certain activities (in-ground pool for example) to reduce future exposure to materials remaining at greater than 4 feet deep.
3. Removed fill is proposed to be placed behind the Middle School at the site of the existing landfill and covered with a protective cap.

To review the slide presentation by Olin’s consultant, please select one of the following two options: download PDF file | view Web-version of slideshow (Please note that several slides may take several minutes to load, due to the complexity of the images. Please be patient...the slide image will appear!)

Elsie Patton followed up the presentation by first emphasizing that the final decision on a cleanup program will follow extensive discussion with everyone in the neighborhood, and particularly the Newhall Advisory Committee. She encouraged everyone to contact DEP directly or to speak with their community representatives on the advisory committee to share their views and concerns. The next steps in the process will include:

• Study of the impacts of the fill on home foundations and possible remedies;
• DEP review and feedback to Olin on the reports from this recent study phase;
• Possible requests for some added research to further define some aspects of the contamination;
• Discussions with the Newhall Advisory Committee and residents about the remedy program options;
• Coordination of the final agreed-upon remedy program with clean up programs recommended by the Regional Water Authority and the Town of Hamden for the Middle School and parks.

It is expected that a final decision on a comprehensive remedy program and full organization of the cleanup process will take about a year.

(back to top)

Questions, Comments following the presentations

Responses by Ken Cichon, Malcolm Pirnie; Elsie Patton, DEP; Meg Harvey, Department of Public Health

Q: Won’t land use restrictions lower property values for homeowners? (There were several comments made that the issue of loss of land value needs to be explored more and fair compensation considered for homeowners for any loss of value.)

A: The land use restrictions will only limit activities that would disturb the area underground below 4 feet where the fill remains. This means that, for example, a fence could be put up to surround the yard, but an in-ground pool could not be installed. The restrictions will therefore likely have some impact on value, but the data has not been collected yet to confirm this one way or the other. This is an area that the DEP and the Newhall Advisory Committee will explore in more depth. Real estate professionals do have a lot of experience in dealing with a variety of restrictions and easements on properties, so the land use restrictions should not affect their ability to help sell a property. But it should be noted that homeowners will be asked to agree to the land use restrictions, so this will not happen without homeowner consent.

Q: If just 4 feet of fill is removed from around a house with structural damage, what will that accomplish in terms of stabilizing the house and repairing the damage?

A: This is not an issue that Olin was asked to address in this phase of the study. DEP is committed to determining what can be done to stabilize houses and repair damaged foundations. This will be studied more in the future and will be part of the final remedy plan of action.

(back to top)

Q: If you have bare spots in your yard, how should you limit children playing there? How old do children have to be, to be safe from contamination in the soil?

A: In order for someone to get sick from contamination, they would need to come into direct contact with the source, such as inhaling it. That is why the evaluation of the bare spots, which can produce dust, was important and was done. Bare dirt poses more of a risk to people because unlike grassed areas, bare dirt is mobile and can cling to clothes easily and be brought into the house. Children age 6 and under are at the most risk for becoming sick from exposure to lead and arsenic, the two substances of most concern in the neighborhood. Where bare spots have been found to be contaminated, a temporary cover has been put in place (like grass and sod) until a permanent solution can be decided on. However, it is important to keep in mind that a person must come into direct contact with enough contaminated soil to become sick from it.

Q: What can you still do with the land use restriction on your property? Can you still put up a fence if you want to keep kids away from the contaminated area?

A: Yes, you can still put up a fence. You can do anything that will not require you to dig into the ground four feet or more. The 4 feet of clean fill that will replace the fill that is removed will make the ground safe to be on. It will protect you and your neighbors from health risk from the remaining fill that is more than 4 feet down.

(back to top)

Q: What will happen while all of this contaminated fill is being trucked out? If there was a concern that students at the Hamden Middle School should not be exposed, won’t there be a lot of dust that residents might inhale?

A: Yes, there will be dust. There will be other issues as well, such as noise and traffic. That is why the Olin report finds that students should not be in the vicinity while the cleanup is going on. The cost estimate for the recommended remedy program includes costs to temporarily relocate residents while the cleanup is happening on their property. However, you should also know that there are a number of state and federal requirements that will control how the excavation and trucking of fill will happen. The contractors will be required to control dust from the trucks, for example, by covering their loads or other means. So, the dust and possible exposure to contaminants will also be limited by the enforcement of these rules for contractors who do the work. There will also be an effort to do work when school is not in session.

(back to top)

Q: Won’t putting all of the contaminated fill at the middle school increase the health risks and chances of groundwater being contaminated by concentrating all this stuff in one spot?

A: Putting the fill all in one location will increase the amount of contaminated fill there, but will not increase the concentration. The concentration is the amount of hazardous substances relative to the amount of soil. This will not change. There will simply be a greater total volume of fill. The fill at the middle school is already very thick and used to be a landfill. The middle school site will actually be better protected after the fill is moved there. This is because once the removed fill is all put in place, it will be covered with an impermeable cap that will meet all state standards for landfills, be more stable than what is there now, and be more effective in controlling the possible exposure of residents to the contamination.

Q: But doesn’t putting more contaminated fill at the middle school increase the risk of the lead and arsenic getting into the groundwater?

A: The groundwater level or water table does not fluctuate very much in the neighborhood. It only rises and falls about 1 to 2 feet over the year. It is far enough below the fill that it does not come into contact with it now. So, it is very unlikely that the water table will raise enough to come into contact with the contaminated fill in the future.

(back to top)

Q: We are concerned that the middle school will become a dump site for other places. The neighborhood does not want that. Why can’t the fill be trucked out of the neighborhood to somewhere else?

A: The option of trucking the fill elsewhere was explored. It was found there are no local landfills with available capacity to take this much material. The removed fill will amount to about 20,000 dump truck loads. The closest landfill available to take that much material is in Michigan. The planning for travel this far is too complex and cost of sending the material that far is too great. The proposed middle school site is an existing landfill site. It has the capacity to accept the material from the neighborhood and be safely managed to protect residents and the environment. Fill from other places is not planned for disposal at the middle school.

Q: Is cost the reason that you are not recommending removing any fill below the 4 feet?

A: Cost is a factor. However, the 4 feet is also based on the standards and guidelines provided by the state (not sure if federal standard?) government about what are acceptable ways to remedy this sort of contamination situation. Also, when you dig deeper than 4 feet, it becomes more and more technically difficult to remove the fill and more likely to impact a house foundation; so much so, the house may need to be demolished. Our remedy plan tries to avoid that as we considered taking and demolishing houses undesirable. Since the state standards and regulations find that digging to 4 feet and replacing the fill is safe and acceptable, we believe this choice for a remedy program is a preferable option.

(back to top)

Q: How did the government decide on 4 feet? And, shouldn’t homeowners have a choice about what is done?

A: The 4 feet is not a magical number. Rather, it is a depth for removing and replacing fill that is found to be safe for protecting resident’s health, if the fill below the 4 feet is not disturbed. It is also below the freeze and thaw line so it is unlikely that contaminated material would be brought to the ground surface with seasonal freezing and thawing. This approach has been used elsewhere, including at school sites, and has worked well. Homeowner choice will be an important part of future discussions.

Q: If I live on a lot where the fill is shallow, will I still have a choice about having the fill removed?

A: Olin does not recommend leaving shallow amounts of fill in place. This is something some Newhall Advisory Committee members have suggested be considered. Olin feels that it is most logical to do a complete remedy for the contamination rather than on a spot by spot basis. It will be most effective in protecting all resident’s health; it will be faster, and less expensive to do a complete remedy.

(back to top)

Q: Will using the middle school as the landfill/dump site mean it can’t be used for anything else in the future.

A: No. The middle school site already sits on a landfill. This will not change. But, after the excavated fill is moved there, a new cap will be put on the landfill that will better protect the site. It will not affect its future use. Athletic fields can remain, or new buildings can be built.

Q: If the fill is cleaned down to 4 feet and we get a major storm like a hurricane or tornado, could this stir up the contamination again?

A: Under normal circumstances there are no activities that would be expected to disturb the fill that is below 4 feet. If there is a big storm, it is theoretically possible that some of the deep fill could be torn up, such as in the roots of mature trees. Olin realizes that keeping the deep fill covered properly in the long term is important. Also, DEP has the right to come back to the neighborhood to clean up the contamination again, if that rare weather happens.

Q: What is the Regional Water Authority going to do as cleanup?

A: This part of the project will be presented to the community at the next public meeting on June 21st.

(back to top)