ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2006

     Haverford's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) meeting on Tuesday October 17 was neither convened at 7:30 pm nor were minutes of previous meeting presented; there was one committee member present, the chairman of the EAC, who promptly confirmed his allegiance to EPA where he works in front of two invited representatives from the EPA program who were there for a presentation. The EPA members were Jill Lowe, the remedial project manager and an EPA federal-state liaison employee. Effectively, the township’s EAC review and critique of EPA has built-in conflicts of interest.

     Changing the EAC meeting date from the third Wednesday to the third Tuesday hasn't helped attendance: in fact, it has caused it to dwindle even further. Perhaps, switching it back would stimulate attendance once again. Who knows. . .

     About a half hour later, Ms. Lori Widdop and Joe Martin settled into the room while on a short break from another meeting. There were no monthly discharge reports presented. Ms. Widdop said nothing while attention was directed to an aerial photo of the major portion of the site and the houses downgradient, all of which are underlain by contaminants in the soil and groundwater. The aerial photo was considered preliminary so no copy of it was left as memorialization of the meeting nor was any documentation. Ms. Low did point to a report that she said she had personally prepared, but stated it too would not be presented as memorialization of what she proceeded to state. Another mystery.

     There was some discussion of what might  be occurring in deeper groundwater in one part of the site where contaminants heavier than water settled, however, no documentation was memorialized by presenting a written copy to the township. Neither EPA's project manager nor other discussants could be held solely to some verbal remarks. What's true and what's not is in the land of conjecture which, after spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money without improving the remedy and reuse of the site is a boondoggle.  There was no further mention of a well into which contaminants had been deposited.

     When asked, once again, whether a 5-year review to determine progress at the site would be prepared each year as requested -- and provided for in EPA's own guidelines -- instead of 4 years from now down the road, Jill Lowe furrowed her brow and said, "No, I'm too busy." Joe Donnelly from Rep.Curt Weldon's office appeared about 8:05pm but after introducing himself didn't ask questions. At the close of the meeting he offered a platitude or two that was pointed out to him as untrue; he seemed not to be informed himself about the lack of progress at the site or of questions about the remedy that were being asked. In a sidebar telephone conversation following the meeting, he asked me whether I questioned the ability of the State to administer the site after EPA pulls out and flips it to them. My answer is,: "The state would be handed an expensive, complicated and unworkable remedy" and Haverford would receive an unresolved mess.

     Most of the remaining minutes of the meeting focused on EPA's re-injecting effluent from the treatment plant into the groundwater rather than discharging it into Naylor's Run (that wasn't substantiated) creating for some period a "mound" of water beneath the site. No details were provided nor was anything other than a verbal description offered; this insufficient documentation has been characteristic of presentations to the EAC by remedial project managers and presents a rosier picture of the expensive water treatment plant at the site than actually exists for a facility that now processes about 35GPM when it is functioning properly. The functonality of the water treatment plant is also mysterious, however, comments made by EPA suggest it has undisclosed and/or undocumented performance problems.

     There was some discussion of what might be happening beneath the site, however, this seemed tangential to overall questions about the success of the remedy; contaminated water remains beneath the site, contaminated soil is at the site and commercial and residential structures as well as municipal open space with contamination beneath them are downgradient from the site.

     Ms. Low repeated the now standard EPA fairytale that an agreement of use was being worked out for the gum factory, however, this is undocumented and has been dangled at meetings since the late 1990's without bringing it to fruition. It is my opinion based upon conducting numerous real estate environmental audits that no environmental scientist or engineer with knowledge of accepted ASTM procedures for real estate transaction screening could or would bring in a report favorable to acquisition of such a site with underlain or surrounded by contaminated waste and across the road from a federalized Superfund site. Undoubtedly, a lending institution would turn down an application for a loan or mortgage on such real estate.

     For a prospective purchaser to enter such a transaction that  either mean outright purchase of the property or leasing it from the owner. Either outright purchase or rental of a contaminated property would leave substantial questions about both wisdom, worker health, insurability, safety and unusual circumstances related to requirements for environmental testing and use and occupancy. A business decision to buy or lease would entail substantial risks..

     Fee simple acquisition by bargain and sale of contaminated property with no documented prospect of fully restoring the site, while being in the realm of the really bad business decision-making would be egalitarian, that is, no longer would acquisition of polluted and contaminated property be solely a blight borne by the working class because it would be acquired by the wealthy and their lending institutions and would be fostered and, indeed, facilitated by federal and state governments.

     When Ms. Low was asked whether she would consider buying real estate on contaminated land at or on the site, she sidestepped the question stating she already owned a house. . . but not at or near the Superfund site.. I think she implicitly answered the question with a “No.” That being the case, contamination should be removed and the site and its environs rendered fit for unqualified reuse or resale.

     The decades old remedy at the site should be revisited because progress to return it to productive use cannot be documented despite ~$14M of taxpayers money having been spent so far and the site being readied for divestiture by EPA.

The meeting was terminated at 8:30p.m. with the rapid departure of the only appointed member -- of seven appointees -- who was present.