Superfund Site Information

April, 2006

Michael Levin, Ph.D., F.A.A.A.S., a Havertown resident and activist for the conditions at the Havertown Superfund Site is asking all township residents to notify their Commissioners to contact the EPA regarding the Superfund Site and its effect on our quality of life. This is an issue that crosses township boundaries.

Dr.Levin has graciously given permission to post his comments here.

 

Superfund Index Page

The Sound Of Inaction

Twelve years have passed since the nine (9) reservoir tanks, two (2) pressurized charge vessels, and at least nine (9) different types  of wood preservative chemicals were taken from the Superfund site in a removal action.  Ten years have passed since the Superfund site was capped to be more protective of human health and five (5) years have elapsed since holes were punched into the cap for extraction wells from which groundwater is pumped to a treatment plant at the site.  A sewer line from the Superfund site was grouted and contamination has been found in undisclosed areas downgradient from the treatment plant.  About $15Million dollars has been spent so far, not all of it at the site, with costs probably averaging close to $1Million/year.  
     So, what have Haverford’s commissioners done to keep residents informed of the progress at the Superfund site?  What questions have they asked in response to personal written requests from EPA?  What public statements have they made about the progress?  What responses have they given to twelve (12) months of briefings.  The answer was summed up by Commissioner D’Emilio at the March meeting, “I personally live in Haverford but will not take on EPA?”   What does take on EPA mean in the context of fulfilling an elected responsibility to Haverford?
     Simple.  For example, it means asking questions and getting answers. That is not “taking on” anyone; that is fulfilling  an official’s responsibilities.

  1. Commissioner Fred Moran, in whose 4th Ward the treatment plant sits, stated  in 1996, “We want this site to be developable.”  So the logical question, if he hasn’t changed his mind, is: Please explain what this site is supposed to be developed for -- or as -- and give examples of other wood preserver sites with a lot of chromium and arsenic that have been developed for some constructive use?
  2. There is a recently completed 5-year review that ensures at least $1Million/ year of funding .  Would you tell Haverford how the reported results in the review compare to any baseline data taken 5-years (or more) ago that illustrate progress in the reduction of chemical contaminants in the soil or groundwater?
  3. Extraction wells are pumping water from beneath the site.  Would you tell Haverford what the cost is, so far, per unit quantity of contaminants removed from the groundwater and soils?

      Recently, what has Haverford done to improve the remedy, ask questions of EPA, ready the site for development, remove off-site and on-site contamination, file written reviews of Monthly Discharge Reports, even ask its own Environmental Advisory Committee – upon which Commissioner Andy Lewis relies -- to do something, anything, in the first three (3) months of 2006.   Answer: Nothing. 

    
If this project were on Mars Haverford would be better informed.       Commissioner Rob Trumbull in whose 3rd Ward the gum factory has sat vacant for years over contamination asked one (1) question of EPA in a year of briefings : “Are you leaving in 2013.“  Answer: Yes. Statutory authority is 10 years.  Guaranteed.   As sure as contamination left on-site remains, inaction perpetuates urban blight. . .