By Erin L. Nissley (Staff Writer)
Published: January 10, 2010

GLENBURN TWP. – As federal officials tout big decreases in contamination at a former industrial site, officials and residents are upset about the continued lack of information available about the cleanup.

“There’s a lot of frustration,” Glenburn solicitor Malcolm MacGregor said. “All we want is more information.”

Just under a year ago, several areas in and near the former Precision National Plating Services site were injected with calcium polysulfide to decrease the levels of hexavalent chromium that has leached into the soil, groundwater and Ackerly Creek.

Federal officials have said the levels of contaminants decreased significantly after the injections. Now, they are awaiting the completion of two reports that will help plot the next steps in the cleanup.

Residents and supervisors say they are not being provided with updated information about contamination levels and the cleanup’s progress. The lack of information fuels their concern about possible contamination still lurking underground and whether a public water source is necessary for those living near the former plant.

Cleanup progressing

The contamination at the 45-acre site could have begun as early as the 1950s, when chromium was used to plate locomotive crank shafts.

Precision bought the plant in 1970 and began dumping the chromium waste into an unlined lagoon on the site, according to EPA site coordinator Raj Sharma.

In 1994, water from private drinking wells on Arch Avenue tested positive for chromium contamination. Four years later, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an administrative order that held Precision responsible for cleaning up the site.

Precision closed the plant in 1999 and the building was demolished in 2000.

Injections of calcium polysulfide completed in early 2009 have been successful at decreasing the contamination levels in the soil and groundwater at and near the site, Mr. Sharma said.

In 2006, contamination in the soil was measured at 600 parts per million. But after the injections, those levels came down to 15 parts per million, which is 45 parts per million less than the federal maximum allowed.

Levels of contamination in parts of Ackerly Creek are still much higher than federal limits, though. One portion of the creek tested at 290 parts per billion in September 2006. Nine months after the injections, though, the same site found contaminant levels of 28.5 parts per billion, which exceeds the federal maximum of 11 parts per billion, Mr. Sharma said.

Glenburn Twp. officials and residents have criticized the EPA for not releasing enough information and for not keeping their Web site updated with current test results.

Mr. Sharma said the EPA is releasing information to residents and supervisors, most recently at a meeting last month open only to residents who lived near the former Precision site and township officials.

Glenburn resident and newly elected township supervisor David Jennings, a vocal critic of the ongoing cleanup efforts, said EPA officials talked about information at that meeting that even they could not find on the Web site when asked about it.

“This has been an issue for years,” Mr. Jennings said. “They say it’s on the Web site and it’s not. Or it is for a few days and then it’s taken down.”

Reports coming soon

There is more progress on the horizon, which Mr. Sharma said will be announced to residents and elected officials as it is available.

By February, Precision will submit a report to EPA officials outlining the next step in the cleanup process, including what they plan to do to continue decreasing contamination levels in Ackerly Creek. EPA officials will review the report before deciding to approve it, Mr. Sharma said, and may be made available for public viewing as early as March.

The EPA is also working on a report outlining options for longterm solutions to the groundwater contamination, Mr. Sharma said.

Precision has been resistant to the idea of providing a public water source to residents who live near the site, and Mr. Sharma said he is not yet sure that doing so would be necessary.

After that document is complete, Mr. Sharma said the EPA will hold a public meeting held to answer questions and address concerns, he added.

That report may answer lingering questions about whether Precision should or will provide an alternate water source for people who live close to the contamination.

Township officials said the EPA has been vague about whether it is safe to develop any property near the former Precision site, advising them to restrict development but not giving any direction as to how, where or why.

Because the EPA has provided no reasons why development should be restricted, township supervisor Bill Wicks said he and other officials have no clear path to follow when deciding whether to approve any development proposals in the areas near the contaminated site.

“(The EPA) say they think it’s a bad idea but they can’t really say why,” Mr. Wicks said. “So we’re going to landowners and basically forced to say they can’t develop their property. It’s not something I take lightly.”

Because of all the questions about the continued safety of the drinking water, township officials said they want EPA to force Precision to provide a public water source as soon as possible.

“I’d like to see a water line within the next six months,” Mr. Jennings said. “The EPA (has) the legal power to force Precision to provide one.”

Contact the writer: enissley@timesshamrock.com
Copyright © 2010 The Scranton Times Tribune