Representatives of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with residents last month at the Farmingdale Public Library to discuss the progress of events occurring at the Liberty Industrial Finishing Superfund Site, located on Motor Avenue in Farmingdale.

Officials discussed the work which had been done at the site to date, including the 1995 PCB removal action, which eliminated all current use public health threats; the treatment of on-property groundwater, which was intended to prevent additional contaminant migration beyond the facility boundary; and the installation of sentinel monitoring wells to provide early warning of potential threats to public water supplies.

Project Manager Lorenzo Thantu, of the EPA's Eastern New York Remediation Section, also discussed the long-term comprehensive remedy selected by the EPA. In July of 2000, a supplemental remedial investigation was performed, in addition to a feasibility study report and in July 2001, the EPA released a proposed plan, known to residents as the SL-2.

Under the SL-2 plan, portions of the site would have been cleaned up to commercial standards, involving the capping of much of the site and removal of approximately one third (25,500 cubic yards) of contaminated soils. At a public hearing held soon after the proposed plan was announced, residents argued that the SL-2 plan is not enough, that they wanted a full cleanup of the site and all contaminants removed. They urged the EPA to select the greater SL-3 cleanup plan, which warrants the removal of all contaminated soil, resulting in no capping being necessary.

For years, residents pushed for the best level of cleanup possible and last March the Town of Oyster Bay answered their prayers when they announced that they were looking to acquire approximately half of the property to be used as parkland. This was done in an effort to increase the EPA's proposed cleanup plan and in late-March, the EPA released its Record of Decision, which announced that the SL-3 cleanup was chosen due to the town's intention to use the property as parkland.

At last month's meeting, Thantu explained that there are four major components in the EPA's long-term remedy. They include the excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 73,100 cubic yards of contaminated soils that exceed groundwater protection cleanup levels, the removal of contaminated aqueous and/or solid materials from underground storage tanks and other subsurface features, the remediation of on-site and off-site contaminated groundwater and the excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 2,600 cubic yards of contaminated sediments that exceed sediment cleanup levels within Pond A of the Massapequa Preserve.

Thantu continued to explain that in September, the EPA issued special notice letters to 15 potentially responsible parties (PRPs), inviting them to assist in the cleanup process, at least financially. He said that the EPA expects the consent decree to be final this summer and expects to begin remedial design activities in the summer. Thantu further stated that the EPA hopes to break ground on the remedial action in the summer of 2005.

He noted that the first issue to be addressed will be the soil pile removal at the former Building B basement ramp. He said that since the EPA issued an approval of the removal on Dec. 11, they expect the work to be completed nine weeks from the day of the meeting, which was held on Dec. 12. Thantu added that careful work has to be done to ensure that no contaminants escape into the air and that trucks must be carefully routed and washed prior to leaving the site. Other work to be conducted soon after will include subsurface feature and underground storage tank remediation, which will not only remediate the subsurface feature, but also the eastern leaching field and part of the other leaching field at the site. He noted that this remediation involves a 36-week schedule, commencing with mobilization and concluding with the submission of a removal action report.

Several residents questioned why much of the work will take so long to begin and why the main action of removing much of the contaminated soils will be done last. EPA representatives answered that after PRPs receive special notices, negotiations begin to discuss how the work will be paid for and conducted. The process then enters the court system, which they explained takes time.

"We're doing what we can as fast as we can," said EPA Assistant Regional Counsel Michael Mintzer. "We saw an opportunity to do some other work more rapidly. We cannot start remedial design until matters with the PRPs are settled. We have to go through the process."

Representatives added that there's a good chance that work will be completed by 2005 and anticipate that work will begin this summer. Other reasons they pointed out for the length of time necessary included that excavation must be done carefully. They noted that the safety of surrounding residents is of the highest concern and that barrier walls may be put up when excavation begins. In addition, it was noted that the dust on trucks and their tires has to be monitored as well.

"It will take about a year to come up with a plan," Thantu said, noting that preliminary discussions are already taking place.

"We will be using real time dust monitoring controls," noted Jim Perazzo, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. "It's better to work in small areas ... we'll use water to keep down dust levels ... working in smaller areas will help prevent dust."

He added that dust is not generated in the subsurface feature and that the only activity that has the potential of generating dust will be the excavation of 40,000 cubic yards.

Many residents were also concerned about the fact that progress reports regarding work being done at the site were not submitted to the EPA when they were supposed to. Representatives explained that progress reports were accepted in telecommunications and e-mail communications in lieu of more formal progress reports during the early stages of the performance of the work under the Consent Order. They said that this was acceptable because there were minimal activities to report. Residents said that they should still be made aware of the progress, regardless of how much or how little there is to report.

"This community is so cynical about this site," said Dave Mejias, a local resident and also on hand at the meeting representing County Executive Tom Suozzi. "I would ask that in the future, you let us know because we were wondering where the progress reports were. You say you used telecommunications for the reports - just let us know."

Concerned Citizens Association of Farmingdale President Mike Grello, also a homeowner near the Liberty Site, noted that a work plan was submitted three to four months later than was stated on the Consent Order.

"Why was this not done in a timely manner? You did not live up to this consent order, a legal, binding document," he said. "For seven years I've been coming to these meetings - I am tired of this procrastination."

Others echoed these concerns, saying that they hope work will commence from here on in on a timely basis. In addition, residents asked that they be made better aware of the activities being done at the site.