| Porchdog |
02-19-2020 08:19 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatbutt
(Post 10755437)
From your location it seems that you are in the area. From your PoV it's not as bad as the article states?
|
I live about an hour hour away. I don't have any direct experience with that site.
Reading the article and picking out the facts, as opposed to the speculation and opinion, suggests that it's a pretty standard industrial site from the era when it operated. Others have explained the law and process pretty well since my post - better than I could.
My previous employment was at a plant on a Superfund site. Our central building was a bronze foundry that opened in the early 1800's. There was continuous casting and machining on the site from that point on. Our site specifically was documented to have some heavy metal and oil contamination. That wasn't blooming into the groundwater and wasn't leaving the site, so we just monitored test wells and continued to work. By the way - our plant wasn't the reason for the Superfund designation - other plants in the same town had contaminated the groundwater. Over half the town including much of the residential property was in the "Plan".
I have been involved in work related to site cleanups - I have a current project supporting the cleanup over at the Naval Air Station. I also have friends at other refineries and similar historic industrial sites.
Many of those sites (including the subject of this thread) are never intended to become residential. As "brownfield" commercial or industrial sites they are preferable (to me) to developing current open space.
I do know one plant owner who is investigating cleaning up his historic site to "greenfield" status - suitable for residential or any other use. He believes it's the right thing to do and he has the resources to do it. Getting the local government and the EPA/DEP on board is a greater challenge.
I have to say that I'm disappointed to see personal attacks in this thread - they are unnecessary. Can't we get along?
|
