Article date: August 31, 2000

Bonnie Gross

EPA Remedial Project Manager

By Dan Telvock

Environmental concerns were the talk of a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency public hearing on a proposed remedial action plan for 34 acres of the Avtex Superfund Site.

Only 10 people attended the public hearing on Aug. 17 in Town Council Chambers, and only three citizens spoke.

Concerns about arsenic and land use were discussed the most, with answers coming from EPA Remedial Project Manager Bonnie Gross and Community Involvement Coordinator Richard Kuhn.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earths crust. EPA Region III has calculated a risk based concentration of 3.8 parts per million of arsenic in the soil. The excess cancer risk associated with exposure to arsenic is 1 in 1 million, using the RBC of 3.8.

EPA says an acceptable excess cancer risk would be in the range of 1 in 10 million. Under industrial use , EPA Toxicologist Dawn A. Loven said it roughly translates to 380 parts per million of arsenic in the soil, assuming the absence of other environmental chemical contaminants.

"You would have it ingest the soil everyday for 25 years to even get to that 1 out of 1 million," Kuhn said.

The two parcels of land are called B and C. B is a 24 acre field next to the administration building and C is a parking lot across Kendrick Lane. There are two action plans to choose from, one being no action at all, making the parcels available for unrestricted use. The other choice is to implement institutional controls, which regulate future land use to commercial/industrial and places the parcels under a Conservation and Environmental Protection Easement. With the second choice, EPA will have to monitor the site forever.

"We really think institutional controls is the answer here," said Kuhn.

Both parcels B and C were sampled an characterized in a 1995 investigation. The remedial investigation found residual contamination present in the form of organic compounds. Parcel B had 10 soil samples taken and parcel C had six samples taken. Gross said 124 different constituents were tested for.

" We typically do this when we know nothing about the site," Gross said.

In the remedial investigation, parcel B had 22 out of the 124 constituents in the soil and parcel C had 18 out of the 124.

"About half of these were below what we call the required detection limit, which means it was low," Gross said.

In evaluating human health, parcel B did show problems with arsenic, with one sample exceeding the RBC of 3.8 parts per million. Parcel C had two samples slightly above the mark. Gross said the arsenic in the soil could be as high as 78 parts per million to .1 parts per million.

"There really is no risk to people based on eating that soil or using it for industrial purposes," Gross said.

The EPA feels using the site for residential use would pose a slight health risk to humans, due to the increased human contact. Gross said, with industrial use, human contact is far less.

Gross reiterated a person would have to ingest the soil every day for 25 years to become at risk of arsenic poisoning.

The same held true for animals, with Gross stating there is no risk to birds or other animals. Parcel C was not tested for ecological uses, since it is a parking lot and not a habitat for animals.

"We determined areas A and C do not present a risk to human health based on industrial use or to ecological users," Gross said.

Ed Ward asked how long it will be before the two parcels of land are removed from the Superfund site.

Gross said it will take about six months after a final clean-up plan is chosen.

Maya White-Sparks asked why there are land use restrictions at all.

"It’s EPA policy that you do realistic assumptions and you evaluate... We don’t believe residential use is very wise for this area, we have a lot of work to do here, " Gross answered.

White-Sparks then asked what would happen of the soil is disturbed during clean-up and the arsenic is inhaled by construction workers.

"EPA does not take action in industrial use if it’s (arsenic levels) are below 380 (parts per million), said Gross.

White-Sparks said the workers may be shirtless at times and the dust from the soil could get on their skin, saying that is different that ingesting it.

" Is ingestion more dangerous?" White-Sparks asked.

"Yes that’s what the toxicologist told me." answered Gross.

"Our agency feels comfortable that our remedy will be more than protective," added Kuhn. "These are naturally occurring levels of arsenic in the area. This area will never be residential, we would not want a child to walk on this property and ingest the soil."

"If we cleaned it up anymore it would just (reappear). There’s really not enough of it there," added Gross.

The EPA will review citizen and state comments and then choose either plan A (no action) or plan B ( institutional controls). A final clean-up plan will be chosen at the end of September and EPA will begin to remove the two parcels from the Superfund site.

"We can go ahead and reduce the size of the Superfund site, and what this does is reduce the stigma and promotes use of the land." Gross said.