Town Crier

WILMINGTON — Since the EPA recently finalized their proposed re­mediation plan for the Olin Chemical Super­fund Site, two representatives from the town’s environmental consultant, GeoInsight, gave an overview of the plan at the Board of Selectmen meeting on Monday night. To start, Chairman Jona­than Eaton reminded the board that the site located at 51 Eames St. ceas­ed operation in the 1980s.

The main GeoInsight representative explained the EPA issued a finalized plan for two areas (soil and sediment, and surface water) and an in­terim plan for the third area (dapple brine and groundwater). The plan costing Olin $48 million includes the de­molition of one entire plant, the installation of a new remedial system to extract petroleum from the surface of the water, the installation of a new treatment system to treat the extracted groundwater, and the removal of contaminated soil and sediments.

Some areas will re­ceive protective capping. The EPA will work with and carefully monitor the existing slurry wall.

The interim plan invol­ves extracting dapple brine and contaminated groundwater. There is currently an ongoing in­vestigation that will help determine the updated timeline and finalized plan for this area of the site.

“Olin is looking for po­tential data gaps to see the extent of the contamination and the im­pact,” the GeoInsight rep explained.

The other GeoInsight representative, Robert Rey­­nolds, shared that this part of the process is expected to last about a decade with 2-3 years to get started. The first rep answered a question from the board to say that the new groundwater treatment system will be necessary through the end of the groundwater treatment.

Board member Kevin Cai­ra next asked how much extrapolated minerals would be transported offsite, and was told that the largest removal is the 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. He al­so brought up the afore­mentioned slurry wall.

The GeoInsight representative shared Caira’s concerns about said slurry wall, where the plan in­cludes closing the window for groundwater equal­ization.

“We’re going to be looking closely at the integrity of the slurry wall and the monitoring that’s needed to make sure it’s operating effectively,” he said.

However, he claimed that the wall isn’t damaged, while Town Mana­ger Jeff Hull remember­ed the wall has been up for more than 25 years.

Eaton cited a concern that perhaps the EPA had simply chosen the least expensive option for re­moving the least amount of soil and sediment as possible.

The GeoInsight representative responded, “The one picked is the least ex­pensive besides no ac­tion.”

He later said GeoIn­sight’s position is that the approaches highlighted by the EPA strike a fair balance between the risks of the remedial work and a better outcome for the site.

Another of the board’s concerns was that the EPA would only be targeting areas that have at least 5,000 nanograms of MDMA per liter.

“The threshold is over 4,900 nanograms per liter higher than what everybody agrees is too dangerous to drink,” Eaton said.

Caira stated this was un­acceptable and wanted to consider what steps may be taken to get the EPA to reconsider these levels. Reynolds answered they’re concentrating first on the areas of mass contamination but hope to figure out other ways to extend the area of extraction or de­crease the MDMA levels.

The board could also make their opinions known at upcoming meetings with the EPA regarding this site, GeoInsight re­minded them.

Special Town Counsel Dan Deutsch chimed in at the end to assure everyone that the solution isn’t perfect, but it depends on the information that comes up as the cleanup begins.

He said, “I share the con­cerns of the town re­garding the scope of the draft interim and final re­medial action plans and the reasons for adopting certain parameters.”

Hull also shared that he’s been working with other town staff on a document with questions and comments to submit to the EPA prior to the meeting on Aug 25.

While the state delegation were in attendance on the meeting for a different item, Senator Bruce Tarr, Represent­ative Ken Gor­don, and Representative David Robertson all said later in the call they ap­preciated hearing this up­date and look forward to working towards remediation.

The board didn’t vote on this item, but Eaton shar­ed dates for a public in­formational meeting and Q&A on Aug. 25 and an upcoming formal public meeting with the EPA on Sept. 22. More information can be found at epa.gov/superfund/olin.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.