Published in the Asbury Park Press
By JEAN MIKLE
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
TOMS RIVER -- Nearly 90 minutes into last night's public meeting on cleanup options for the former Ciba-Geigy Corp. Superfund site, it appeared that some members of the audience were more confused than when the session started.
The meeting was scheduled by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the seven alternatives for cleaning up contamination at about 21 potential sources of pollution at the site off Route 37.
But the meeting often disintegrated into lengthy question-and-answer periods between members of the audience and EPA officials, often focusing on how a thermal desorption unit would operate. Thermal desorption, which involves heating soils to temperatures of 500 to 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit to vaporize and remove contaminants, is one of the options being considered for use at the Ciba site.
It is also the option that has caused the most controversy.
"For one of our alternatives, thermal treatment, we've gotten a lot of negative feedback from the community," said Romona Pezzella, the EPA's remedial project manager for the Ciba site.
EPA officials have consistently stressed that the agency is not leaning toward any particular technology and has made no decision about whether thermal desorption will even be used at Ciba.
"I think no matter which alternative we choose here, it will be better than what we have now," said Peter L. Hibbard, of Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water. Hibbard said last night's meeting frequently became bogged down reviewing points that had been discussed many times before.
He suggested the EPA prepare a fact sheet for the next Ciba meeting documenting what has already been accomplished at Ciba to give people valuable background.
A draft feasibility study released by Ciba in early September said thermal desorption could be the most technically feasible option for cleaning up pollution at the Ciba site. EPA officials have said repeatedly, however, that more than one technology is likely to be used to clean the source areas at Ciba, since there are many different types of contaminants there.
The Rev. Scott Minnich of Dover asked the EPA to consider choosing a cleanup method or methods that would have "the least impact on the community." Minnich was one of several residents to ask EPA to consider doing a risk assessment that would calculate the risks to the community of various Ciba cleanup options.
"Each one of the alternatives would pose a somewhat different risk to the community," he said.
Pezzella said the EPA does not plan to do a risk assessment for the treatment options at Ciba because studies the agency has done of treatment operations at other Superfund sites indicate that the risks at Ciba would be "well below EPA's acceptable risk levels." Pezzella said the short duration of the cleanup operation at Ciba makes any risks to the community very low.
Linda Gillick, who chairs the Citizens Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster, said residents will demand a lot of information about what is being released from the stack of any thermal desorption unit placed at the Ciba site.
"You'd better have data, to tell us what's coming out of that stack," Gillick said.
Published: January 20, 2000
|
