At the Aug. 9 meeting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held at the Farmingdale Library to discuss their newly issued proposed cleanup plan for the Liberty Industrial Site in Farmingdale, residents gathered to present their oppositions and concerns regarding the levels of cleanup to be done.

Several residents of the Farmingdale and Massapequa area expressed anxiety about the anticipated capping of several contaminated wells at the site, stating that it would not be enough. While residents agreed that much has been done at the site, they further agreed that more progress is necessary and that they have been waiting long enough.

One resident, reflecting on the fact that the EPA took over the investigation and responsibility to clean up the site more than 11 years ago, said that all residents are looking for is an end to the problem, and the promises.

"I've come to meeting after meeting after meeting," he said, "and there doesn't seem to be an end to it. You've been telling me this [the same information] for years, when is it going to end?"

Representatives for the EPA, particularly Doug Garbarini, chief of the Eastern New York Remediation Section and Lorenzo Thantu, project manager, explained to residents that many factors have to be taken into consideration when deciding which levels of cleanup should be used at a site. The first thing, Garbarini noted, that needs to be looked into is the level of threat associated with the area.

"The first thing we do is evaluate the area to see if there are any immediate threats to the [surrounding] community," he said. "We look at the usage of the area," he said, adding that since the site is commercial/industrial it doesn't receive much, if any residential use, so human health threats are not an issue.

Garbarini added that since the Proposed Plan for Western Site Portions was issued in 1997, the EPA believes that much progress has been made. He explained that when the EPA met with residents of the community four years ago, they opposed much of the plan and expressed that many of their concerns were not answered. The EPA halted the plan and continued to investigate to answer some of those concerns.

He explained that residents told the EPA that the remedy was not comprehensive, soil cleanup numbers were too high, there was no assurance of groundwater remediation, no assurance of remediation on the eastern portion of the site and no assurance of creek remediation.

Comparing the new plan to the one proposed in 1997, Garbarini said "we feel we've addressed many of the concerns." He said that the remedy is comprehensive, soil cleanup numbers are much lower and intended to protect groundwater, groundwater remediation of on-property and off-property portions of the plume are addressed, there is a remediation of the eastern portion of the site stated and the plan includes a cleanup of Massapequa Creek's Pond A.

Garbarini and Thantu further explained that the plan includes objectives such as preventing any kind of human exposure to receptors and site related contaminants. He added that since drinking water provided to residents comes from areas away from the site, there is no threat to human health.

"All your drinking water comes from the Massapequa and South Farmingdale water districts, and the water comes from five to 600 feet below ground level," Thantu said.

Taking all this into consideration, the EPA issued a preferred cleanup alternative, which would cover 8.75 acres of the site. They evaluated three soil alternatives, SL-1, SL-2 and SL-3, and chose SL-2 as the preferred method. The SL-2 includes excavation and off-site disposal of 25,600 cubic yards of soil, followed by capping of low level contamination. The total cost for this method is $9,283,000.

Residents, opposing the SL-2 alternative, would prefer the SL-3, which would include excavation of all contaminated soils, a total of 73,000 cubic yards at a cost of approximately $15.3 million.

One resident, emphasizing how the community is not well enough aware of the happenings at the site, said that when people move into their homes and hope to raise a family in the area, they should be made aware of the problems associated with the site.

"You move in, you see a house, you see a factory, and people tell you it's nothing. People buy their houses here and raise their children here, there should be more public awareness [as to what is going on] in their neighborhood," she said, adding that perhaps she should have "done her homework" better prior to purchasing her home. She added that the SL-3 should be chosen, even though it is the more expensive alternative. "Are our children not worth $6 million?"

Garbarini explained that the factor of cost is not the only thing taken into consideration when evaluating cleanup alternatives, that there are nine feasibility study criteria which must be met. They are 1) overall protection of human health and the environment, 2) compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, 3) long term effectiveness and permanence, 4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment, 5) short term effectiveness, 6) implementability, 7) cost, 8) state acceptance and 9) community acceptance.

"A very important part of this process is to take comments from you all," Garbarini said.

With the nine factors presented, residents still expressed that they think the EPA is going with the most cost-effective plan and that the SL-3 would be in the best interest of the community.

"We all know that capping is not always effective," said Mike Grello, president of the Concerned Citizens Association of Farmingdale. He added that the proposed plan which was issued earlier this month stated that the SL-3 would be, overall, the best method to choose. He explained that out of the nine factors to be taken into consideration, the SL-3 met the majority of them. Garbarini said that all nine factors are not weighed evenly, and while it may appear as though the SL-3 looks like the best choice, when all factors are fully evaluated the SL-2 is the EPA's preferred alternative.

Butch Starkie, who leases a portion of the Liberty Site for his garden center, said that a major issue at hand is what the land will be used for following cleanup.

"The landowner has rights, they have to be taken into consideration," he said. "We live in a land of rules and laws; he can build the land how he chooses."

Garbarini explained that, in regard to money, the EPA goes after the parties responsible to perform the cleanup and if they do not comply, then the EPA taps into their funds and every contaminated location across the country is evaluated and the one in the worst condition is cleaned up first because funds are limited.

In addition to cost, residents also expressed frustration that the cleanup of the Liberty Site has been such a long, ongoing process. "Time is definitely a factor here," Starkie said. "We're worn out."

Many residents agreed, as did public officials who were present at the meeting.

"As long as I've been in government, this has been a problem for the community," State Assemblyman Steve Labriola said. "A lot of what you are hearing here is that the EPA has been taking so much time. What you're hearing is frustration from a lot of people. So much time has passed by and I think that people fear that the EPA has worn us down, and that's really not the case at all."

Labriola added that he is impressed with the level of cleanup that has been proposed and the amount that has already been done. Still, he added that it doesn't seem to be enough.

"I've sent out fliers in the past with Liberty Site updates and information and I'd certainly be willing to put together [literature] to notify people in the community to ensure that they are aware. I feel that we have been waiting long enough, I don't want to see any further delays. At the same time, when we're this close, I don't think another month or few weeks or so would hurt this community so we can ensure that the community is thoroughly informed and I will do my part in trying to notify them and send out mailing to their homes."

Residents agreed that the community needs to be better aware of the happenings at the site.

"These people are not scientists on the site," Grello said. "They have to know what's going on in the community." Grello requested that the comment period be extended further than Aug. 22 since many local families are still on vacation and were not able to attend the Aug. 9 meeting. EPA representatives agreed, and the new public comment time will continue until Sept. 13.

Although much still needs to be done, some residents agreed that a significant amount of work has already been completed at the site.

"There's a very different mood in the room," Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor John Venditto said, comparing the meeting to others held back in 1997 where residents and EPA representatives recall screaming at each other. "Don't mistake that as a sign of weakness. If what is going to happen around this area is not 100 percent, we will do everything to block something that is wrong or bad."

"Having said that, another reason why you see a different mood is because we have seen so much progress," Venditto, a Massapequa resident himself, added.

The supervisor told the EPA representatives that he is willing to invest money and put together a package of ideas, with his environmental colleagues, which he said "might close the gap" as to what should be done with the site.

"Everybody wants the nightmare to end," Venditto said, "but we're just not there yet."

Editor's Note: Next week's issue of the Observer will include a letter written to Project Manager Lorenzo Thantu from the H2M Group executive vice president and vice president regarding their comments on the cleanup proposed for the site, mainly focusing on soil and groundwater since they have to greatest potential to directly affect the Massapequa and S. Farmingdale water districts. The letter will include their recommendations for remediation, contingent upon certain conditions.