Hundreds of local residents filled the downstairs meeting room of the Farmingdale Public Library last Wednesday to voice their concerns over the preferred cleanup plan issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the Liberty Superfund Site on Motor Ave. in South Farmingdale.

Residents were joined by local politicians and representatives from various organizations in their plea to the EPA to grant the community an SL-3 cleanup of the site, which to residents is preferred over the SL-2 plan.

The SL-2 plan, which was released as the EPA's preferred remedy in July of last year, includes the excavation and off-site disposal of 25,600 cubic yards of soils, followed by the capping of low-level contamination. Residents prefer the SL-3 plan, which would include the excavation of all contaminated soils, which cover 73,000 cubic yards at the site, resulting in no capping being necessary.

At the meeting, Doug Garbarini, chief, Eastern New York Remediation Section, said he was pleased to see the good turnout and noted that this was the second public meeting regarding the proposed remedy for the site. During the first meeting, held in August, residents asked the EPA to hold another session since many may have been away vacationing during the summer. At their request, the EPA scheduled a meeting on Sept. 13, which was later postponed to January due to the events of Sept. 11. Garbarini explained that the main purpose of holding the meeting was to allow the public to address any concerns they may have.

"You will hear me tonight, probably reiterate on several occasions, that we believe this is a very sound remedy that we are proposing," Garbarini said. "We think it accommodates many of the concerns that were raised by the residents; we feel that it's a protective remedy."

Garbarini admitted, that although the EPA finds this to be a sound remedy, residents nevertheless don't agree. "We're trying to do the best we can, we're trying to hear what you've said over the years," he said.

To benefit those who missed the August meeting, Garbarini went over the Superfund Long Term Remediation Program Process, which involves the EPA going out and determining the nature and extent of contamination, determining the risks posed by the contamination and developing alternatives for reducing those risks to levels which are acceptable for the most reasonably anticipated future land use of the property as well as to protect groundwater. They then issue a preferred alternative remedy, take public comment on it, select a remedy and design and implement the remedy.

Garbarini noted that since investigations at Liberty have been going on for such a long time, the EPA has not, as of yet, selected the remedy they are going to use to clean up the site.

"Unfortunately we have not gotten to that remedy selection process yet, but it's for a couple of good reasons," he said. "One, this site is a very complex site; secondly we have had significant public interest from other stakeholders, business leaders, the local government, the responsible parties, the property owners, etc.; it's been a very active site. We've tried to address many of the concerns over the years and I'll just point out although we have not reached the remedy selection we have taken some very important steps to date."

Garbarini specifically noted the 1995 PCB Removal Action taken by the EPA, where a number of PCB drums, underwater storage tanks and contaminated soils were cleaned out from the site.

"It's very important that we point out here that we eliminated all of the current use public health threats that are posed by the site," Garbarini stressed. He added that due to the concerns regarding groundwater, the EPA worked collaboratively with the South Farmingdale and Massapequa Water Districts to install several sentinel wells which provide early warning of potential threats to public water supplies.

Garbarini added that in 1994, when the EPA went through a mediation process consisting of seven mediation sessions, a resolution could not be reached as to what the future land use would be so the EPA had to utilize their land use guidance and select commercial/industrial as the most reasonably anticipated future land use.

"That's very important because our cleanup goals are tied to the use of the property in the future as well as to protection of the groundwater," he said. Following those investigations, in 1997, a new proposed plan remedy was released and the residents expressed many concerns regarding that remedy, including that it was not comprehensive, soil cleanup numbers were too high, there was no assurance of remediation of groundwater, the eastern portion of the site or of the creek.

Compared to the 1997 plan, Garbarini said that the new plan consists of a comprehensive remedy, soil cleanup numbers are much lower (1/10 of what they were for metals in 1997), groundwater remediation on and off the property, remediation of the eastern portion of the site and the cleanup of Massapequa Creek's Pond A.

Following Garbarini's presentation, Project Manager Lorenzo Thantu, Eastern New York Remediation Section, explained the remedial investigation/feasibility study and showed residents how the proposed plan, if selected, would be implemented.

Despite the many investigations which have taken place at the site and the EPA's confidence that the SL-2 plan would protect human health and the environment, residents still urged the EPA to go with the SL-3 plan. One of the concerns residents brought up is what would happen if the capping placed on the site, covering the contaminants which would be left underground, were to crack in the future. Since the capping would have to be replaced in such a case and the EPA's preferred plan would warrant the monitoring of the site on a timely basis, residents argued that in the long run the costs between the two plans would balance out.

Even if that were not the case, residents still argued that the extra $6 million or so, when divided by the amount of people who are affected by the site, equals a minimal amount of money.

Other residents argued that while the EPA claims the groundwater in the community is safe, they are still concerned about the fact that there are plumes located throughout the area, including one under Farmingdale High School and one under Woodward Parkway Elementary School. In addition, they questioned the amount of cancer and other serious diseases which have taken place in the area throughout the years.

A representative from the New York State Department of Health was at the meeting and said that a cancer study taken between 1983 and 1992 showed no unusual amounts of cancer cases in the area, but residents said that information is outdated. Further, they said that the amount of cancer cases in Farmingdale alone has been high in recent years, and one resident read statistics from a Nassau County survey which omitted Farmingdale but included Massapequa and found the area to have the highest or second highest cases of lung, rectal and breast cancer in both men and women.

"This site is in the middle of a very heavily populated area. People are sick and people have died," said seven year Farmingdale resident Diane Blanchard. "I'm a little saddened that we even have to question what the level of cleanup should be. I don't think there should be a question - it should be a residential cleanup, and that's it. Just clean it all up."

Blanchard added that she too knows of people in the area who have suffered from diseases such as cancer and lupus.

"I'm sure every hand will go up in here; somebody who knows somebody in Farmingdale [who has suffered] from cancer, lupus, Parkinson's; I'm sure a lot of it is coming from that site," she said.

Many residents agreed. Concerned Citizens Association of Farmingdale President Mike Grello addressed the panel of representatives, and questioned why the EPA has spent $30 million in Mexico cleaning a sewage system and can't spend a fraction of that cost to clean up Liberty. Grello questioned the nine criteria the EPA has to evaluate prior to selecting a cleanup plan, wondering if all the criteria are equal and said that if so, the SL-2 and SL-3 plan are equal.

Grello argued that the first criteria, overall protection of human health and the environment, would be better met by the SL-3 plan, since all contaminants would be removed from the site, and the EPA's plan concurs. The second, compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), Grello questioned the EPA's consensus that the SL-2 and SL-3 were equal because of the Landfill Law, but stated that even if they were equal the SL-3 plan outweighs the SL-2 in other categories, such as the third criteria, long-term effectiveness and performance. The EPA's proposed plan states that Alternative SL-3 would provide the greatest degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence, as it would result in removal and off-site disposal of over 73,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils from the site. The fourth criteria is reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment. The EPA's proposed plan states that "Although Alternatives SL-2 and SL-3 do not employ any treatment technology, both of these alternatives employ an off-site disposal component that would result in reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume of contamination at the site." It further states that SL-3 would provide greater reduction than SL-2.

Garbarini explained that the EPA has to look into the mass of contamination removed from the site, and that while the yardage removed may be higher in the SL-3 alternative, the EPA said that the main concern should remain the mass of the concentrations that are left.

Criteria five is short-term effectiveness, and SL-2 and SL-3 both involve varying degrees of excavating, moving, placing and regrading of contaminated soils. The EPA's proposed plan states that the potential short-term risks would be greater for SL-3 because it involves the transport of a much greater volume of contaminated soils.

According to the EPA, criteria six, implementability, would be equally easy for both alternatives. The seventh, cost, is less expensive under the SL-2 alternative because less of the contaminants would be removed.

"When you [combine] South Farmingdale drinking wells and Massapequa drinking wells, you're talking about people who live in Farmingdale, Massapequa, North Massapequa, Massapequa Park, the village and parts of Bethpage. You're talking about over 90,000 people; divide that by $5 million, we are worth it," Grello said.

Garbarini said that criteria eight, state acceptance, has been met, while criteria nine, community acceptance, obviously has not. Grello argued that while, when added up, four of the criteria are more favorable to the SL-2 plan and four of them are more favorable to the SL-3 plan, with the sixth criteria being left out as equal, the SL-2 plan was chosen.

Garbarini explained that all nine of the criteria are not weighed equally, they just have to be met.

"[The first two criteria] are threshold criteria, and they are set up to make sure that any alternative that moves forward in this nine criteria analysis meets those criteria," Garbarini said. "One doesn't have to be better than the other, they just have to meet those criteria."

Grello asked EPA representatives why the soil under buildings E, F, H and U has not been tested. Thantu explained that they test as much as possible around the buildings, and if they find high levels of contamination, they test again once they enter the remediation process.

"If we have no reason to believe there is contamination in certain areas, we are not going to test there," Garbarini added. "We will assure you that we will take confirmation samples."

Residents still argued that although the EPA promises to take confirmation samples and monitor the site, they want all the contaminants removed, then none of that would be necessary. Many said that they didn't want to rely on somebody to monitor the area.

Farmingdale resident Fran Fkiaras, a resident for 18 years, who runs the community website www.fdale.com, agreed with other residents.

"One of the things that I have learned from the website [is that] most residents do not want to see the area capped," she said. "We feel that capping is not a solution, it's a temporary patch." She added that residents would just have to worry about the dangers of the capping, who is going to be monitoring it and who will be responsible for repair.

"It's just going to be another headache," she said. "We've been living with this for so long. There's too many people with illnesses around here. As parents, we are concerned about that. The $6 million between the SL-2 and SL-3, when you divide that by the health and peace of mind of all these people and all these children, (she noted that South Farmingdale alone has a population of 15,000) it comes down to a few hundred dollars. We don't think this is an exorbitant amount of money."

Several residents addressed the contamination surrounding the Massapequa Creek and Preserve. Friends of Massapequa Preserve President Rich Scharry, a dedicated environmentalist, questioned whether or not the dredging of Pond A at the creek would protect the remaining five ponds from contamination.

Thantu said that by addressing Pond A, the EPA is taking into consideration the remedy of the entire preserve.

"Over time, we are convinced that the cleanup of Pond A will benefit the remaining ponds," he said.

Joe Lorintz, executive director of the Long Island Drinking Water Coalition, said that he believes that if the EPA has the opportunity to identify and remediate drinking water, they should take advantage of that opportunity. He noted that money should not be an issue in deciding whether or not to clean up all the contaminants.

"You're putting dollars in a position that they shouldn't be in," he said. "You've defied logic in terms of supporting SL-2. Give the community what it deserves."

A representative from the Massapequa Water District spoke on behalf of both the Massapequa and South Farmingdale Water Districts and told the EPA that both are in favor of the SL-3 plan. They submitted their arguments and support for the SL-3 plan to the EPA and also addressed the audience.

"You heard from the community, you heard from the supervisor, you have the cooperation of the water district," the representative said. "You have to go to your regional administrator and tell her, we're working with guidance, but the guidance is not satisfying the community, or elected representatives, or the town, or water districts."

Agreeing with pretty much everybody in the room, Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto stepped to the podium close to the end of the meeting and asked the EPA to do the right thing and get all the contaminants out of the soil and away from the site.

"What you're hearing tonight are good, honest people, that except for this blight in their community for 15-plus years, otherwise live in a great place," Venditto said.

"Everybody in this room understands that there is a very simple solution - get rid of it," he said. "It's time to use a little common sense. At an absolute minimum, you should have no hesitation, no obstacle, no qualm at all, about moving to SL-3."

Venditto added that the SL-2 plan defies logic, and that while the area is zoned commercial/industrial, if it were to be rezoned the probability that somebody would want to live on the area that was once the Liberty Site was highly unlikely.

However, Venditto asked the EPA if rezoning the property is what it would take to get the better cleanup.

"I know that you have to look at the future use and factor that into your determinations, I understand that," he said. "So we have a little bit of a Catch-22. If I and the town board were to zone this property residential, I

don't think we're going to find too many people who would want to live on that property."

Venditto noted that as difficult and even silly as it would be to rezone the property, he said that he wouldn't "mind being made fun of" if he could get his highest priority, protecting the residents of the community.

"If I have to look a little silly, by zoning the land residential, I will do that," he said. "I will do whatever it takes."

Garbarini told residents that it may be too late. He noted that the EPA has been looking, since 1994, to determine what the future land use of the property would be, and never before did they hear that it may, at any point in time, become residential.

"When we moved [into] mediation sessions, over '95 to '96, local businessmen, residents, property owners, potentially responsible parties, local government, state government, federal government; nothing good really came out of that. The EPA had to go back and rely on its land use guidance." He added that the EPA, to determine what the future land use of the property would be, had to look at what it was in the past. He explained that the property had never been used for anything other than industrial purposes and that they have no reason to believe it would in the future.

"I have nothing in my hands to date that changes the situation," Garbarini said. "The one thing that's important here, is that I need something of substance to go back to my manager with, and I'm not sure what we can do at this point. It is so far along the process, we've talked about this for eight years, I'm not sure what we can do."

"First of all, in terms of time, it's never too late to do the right thing," Venditto said. "When you're talking about the public health, safety and welfare, in particular; the lives of these people, their children, their grandchildren, it's never too late to do the right thing."

Garbarini questioned whether or not the property would be used for residential purposes, even if it were rezoned. He said that after all this time, he doesn't know if rezoning would help. In addition, he added that rezoning isn't necessarily what is needed to move to the SL-3 plan. He also said that he is not the decision maker, and that he needs to report back to his administrator and let her know of the concerns of the community.

Venditto questioned, if the current zoning isn't an obstacle in receiving the better cleanup, then what is stopping the EPA from issuing that better plan. Not to the residents' surprise, one of the main reasons, as determined by the EPA, was cost.

In addition to the supervisor, other local elected representatives attended the meeting to show their support. Among those who were in attendance included Oyster Bay Councilman Anthony Macagnone, a representative for Councilwoman Bonnie Eisler. Both councilmembers wrote letters to EPA administrators the following day in an effort to help the citizens they represent have their voices heard. Other elected officials who attended the meeting included Legislator Salvatore Pontillo, Senator Charles Fuschillo, a representative for County Executive Tom Suozzi, and a representative for Senator Hillary Clinton.

Residents are invited to contact the EPA regarding the cleanup plan issued and address their views and/or comments and concerns. Written comments regarding the proposed plan may be sent through Jan. 25 to Project Manager Lorenzo Thantu, US EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10007. Residents may also contact nine elected representatives and 10 EPA officials at the same time by logging onto the Farmingdale community's website, www.fdale.com and clicking on the "speak up for the cleanup of Liberty" icon or, log onto www.fdale.com/liberty/letters. This will allow residents to simply add their name to the letter already pre-written and forward it to those 19 individuals. The letter is pre-written to make it easy, but residents may change and add anything they wish to the letters before they are sent.

The proposed plan, as well as other material regarding the Liberty Site, is available at the Farmingdale Library.

Anybody seeking additional information regarding the Liberty Site may contact Cecilia Echols, EPA community involvement coordinator, at 1-800-346-5009 or at 212-637-3678. Echols may also be reached by email at echols.cecilia@epa.gov.