Jump to main content.


BoRit Questions & Answers - Reuse and Redevelopment

BoRit Questions & Answers Main Page

  1. Is the EPA aware of any site where a recreational facility is located on top of an asbestos waste dump?  (8-17-2009)

  2. During the Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting, several statements were made by CAG members which suggested that EPA has the final say on the future use of the site. (4-20-2009)

  3. What was done to the Metroplex property? (1-2008)

  4. Does the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Act 2 program release potential developers from all liability in order to develop? (1-2008)

  5. Several environmental advocates have indicated that state redevelopment programs are not all that protective of human health and the environment. What is the State of Pennsylvania's position on this issue? (1-2008)

  6. With regards to future development, is it correct that the owner of a developable property is not responsible for any release of airborne asbestos outside of the fenced area under Act 2 and is not required to test air past the fenced in area? (1-2008)

  7. What are Kane Core Inc.'s current plans, hopes, intentions, or actions for their 6 acres? (1-2008)

  8. Does EPA have a position on redeveloping the property and can it be done safely?
    (1-2008)


  9. Institutional controls (ICs) should be an integral part of any c1eanup action at the BoRit Site, including the removal action currently planned by US EPA and any future remedial action that may be taken. The removal action currently calls for the capping of any exposed asbestos and the stabilization of creek and stream banks on the three parcels that comprise the Site. As a result, contamination at potentially high levels will remain in the subsurface on the Site. If not properly addressed, any possible future use of any of the three parcels could cause soil disturbance, erosion, or degradation of the soil cap (even if only during the construction phase), thereby again exposing the asbestos and threatening human health and the environment. (12-27-2007)

  10. Is EPA consulting with the property owners, Whitpain Township and residents near the Wissahickon Park parcel see if the site can be used as some type of youth recreation facility? (12-27-2007)

  11. Will EPA consider issues such as safely accommodating reuse; limiting construction activities on days with high winds; dust control, wet down, and daily soil cover requirements to prevent asbestos from becoming airborne; notices to nearby residences, businesses, all effected municipalities, and the county of excavation times and dates; storm water management, soil erosion, and sedimentation controls specifically designed to prevent degradation of the cover; continuous air monitoring with public notification of any releases; washing for all vehicles and equipment exiting the Site; a cap or liner with thicker soil overlay for any open areas to be used or accessed by the public (e.g. ball fields); no wells on any parcel; deed Notices advising of the restrictions on the parcels' use. (12-27-2007)

  12. Does EPA intend to work with other agencies to implement Institutional Controls (ICs)? (12-27-2007)

  13. Does EPA have programs that support the reuse of cleanup sites? (12-27-2007)

  14. Does the EPA have evidence to show that building on an asbestos pile this large is a safe option for the land? (8-8-2007)

  15. Can we assume that strict land use regulations will be put into place for these 38 acres? (8-8-2007)

  16. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suggested to the public that the BoRit Site can be developed safely under the Act 2 program. How can development be possible without disturbance of the piles? (8-8-2007)

  17. What is the intent of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Act 2 program? (8-8-2007)

  18. What is EPA's role in evaluating redevelopment plans for the parcel currently owned by Kane Core?  (3-12-2007)

  19. What is EPA's role in evaluating development plans for the parcel currently owned by Kane Core? (1-24-2007)

  20. How can development be possible without disturbance of the piles? (1-2008)

  21. Can such sites be redeveloped safely? (9-2006)

    Top of page

  1. Is the EPA aware of any site where a recreational facility is located on top of an asbestos waste dump?  (8-17-2009)

    The following is a list that describes asbestos sites that have been reused. It provides a site description, cleanup methods, and reuse conducted on these sites.

    Asbestos Sites in Reuse

    Asbestos Dump
    US EPA Region 2
    Millington, NJ
    NJD980654149

    Site Description

    The Asbestos Dump site consists of the 11-acre Millington site and three separate satellite sites. The Millington site lies in a residential and commercial area. Beginning in 1927, a succession of owners operated an asbestos products manufacturing plant at the Millington site. Asbestos was disposed of at the Millington site, comprising a large mound approximately 1.5 acres in size. Prior to remediation, erosion and weathering of the mound exposed areas of asbestos along the Passaic River bank. One satellite site, known as the Dietzman Tract or the Great Swamp area (Operable Unit 3-OU3), is approximately 7 acres and is located within the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, about 2 miles southeast of New Vernon Road. This site was used as a refuse and asbestos disposal area for approximately 40 years and is bordered by Great Brook and a woodland habitat. The New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road satellite Sites are residential properties. The New Vernon Road Site occupies approximately 30 acres. Broken asbestos tiles and siding, as well as loose asbestos fibers, were landfilled on this former com and dairy farm during the late 1960's. The White Bridge Road Site, covering 12 acres, is bounded by the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and private residences. This property was a farm until 1969, when the current owner started landfilling asbestos waste from the Millington facility. The wastes were present on the site as subsurface fill or as part of an asbestos waste mound.
    Disposal continued until 1975.

    Cleanup

    Millington Cleanup (Operable Unit 1 – OU1): The remedy selected by EPA for cleaning up the Millington site includes: installing a soil cover on areas of exposed asbestos; building a chain-link security fence around all areas of known or suspected asbestos disposal; protecting and stabilizing the slope along the base of the asbestos mound embankment; building channels to divert surface runoff; conducting operation and maintenance, and long-term monitoring. A Deed Notice was filed, by Tifa Realty, Inc., in the Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk, on September 8, 2008 for the OU1 Millington property. The Deed Notice limits development on the asbestos fill areas and outlines the monitoring and maintenance requirements imposed on the property.

    New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road Cleanup (Operable Unit 2-OU2): The selected remedy involved in-situ solidification/stabilization treatment of asbestos containing materials. Phase I consolidation and solidification of asbestos containing materials, was completed as of December 1994. However, Phase II, which consisted of site restoration and wetland mitigation, was delayed due to the use of unacceptable fill material to backfill the residential properties. This issue was resolved at the White Bridge Road Site and remediation of this property was completed in November 1995. In summer 1999, EPA conducted activities at the White Bridge Road property to install a French drain in a ponding area of the cap. In May 2000, EPA conducted activities to re-establish the vegetative growth at the site. In August 2000, EPA completed all activities at White Bridge Road. On February 8, 2002 EPA deleted the White Bridge Road property from the National Priorities List (NPL).

    In June 1998, EPA acquired the New Vernon Road property. In July 1998, additional work to complete remedial activities at the New Vernon Road portion of the site was initiated. This work, which included the excavation and off-site disposal of the unacceptable fill and site restoration activities, was completed in March 1999. In September 2000, EPA approved the final Remedial Action Report for the New Vernon Road portion of the Site. In January 2002, EPA, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reached an agreement on the terms of the transfer of a portion of the New Vernon Road property to FWS to expand the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. In September 2002, the Final Remedial Action Report for New Vernon Road was completed. In September 2002, a 25 acre portion of the New Vernon Road property was formally transferred to the FWS and is now part of the Refuge. The remaining 5 acre portion of the New Vernon Road property was transferred to the State of New Jersey.

    Dietzman tract Cleanup (Operable Unit 3-OU3): The Dietzman Tract is located in the Great Swamp Natural Wildlife Refuge, which is owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). A remedial investigation was initiated by the National Gypsum Company in 1986. Due to the bankruptcy of National Gypsum Company, the Dietzman property is being addressed by DOI. DOI completed an additional Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for this operable unit (OU-3) in 1997. As part of its remedial action, DOI conducted removal actions on small areas where asbestos contaminated materials, buried drums and lead impacted soils may have been a potential exposure threat to refuge visitors. EPA issued a Record of Decision in September 1998, and by November 1998, cleanup activities were completed including consolidation of asbestos and the construction of a cap to contain asbestos. In September 1999, EPA approved the Final Remedial Action Report documenting that all remediation is complete at the Dietzman Tract portion of the Asbestos Dump site. Currently, FWS is conducting Operation and Maintenance activities.

    Reuse Description

    The New Vernon Road Residential portion of the property and OU-3 portion of the site are part of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge which is owned by DOI. Portions of Mount Vernon and White Bridge Road have been redeveloped into residential properties.

    Sources:
    SURE 09/08/09
    http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200769c.pdf

    Coalinga Asbestos Mine
    US EPA Region 9
    Coalinga, CA
    CAD980817217

    Site Description

    The Coalinga Asbestos Mine Site covers 120 acres near Coalinga. The mill was operated by the Coalinga Asbestos Company as a joint venture between the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, the Kern County Land Company, and private investors from 1962 to 1974, when the mill property reverted to the Southern Pacific Land Company (SPLC). SPLC leased the facility to the Marrnac Resource Company for chromite mining in 1975. All operations ceased in 1977. The site consists of partially demolished mill buildings and a process waste mine tailings pile that occupies about 20 acres. Two large open-pit mines are located above the mill site and were used as the sources of ore for the Coalinga Asbestos Company milling operations. While the mill was operating, some milling and mining products from Coalinga and from the Atlas Asbestos Mine, located about 3 miles away, were transported to the City of Coalinga. Because these two mines contributed to the contamination of a 107-acre area in Coalinga, the contamination in Coalinga is also being cleaned up. (For additional information, please see the separate listing for Atlas Asbestos Mine Site.) The area surrounding the Coalinga Asbestos Mine is primarily rural. The land is used for ranching, farming, and recreational activities such as hunting. About 10 ranchers live within 5 miles of the site. The closest community is Coalinga, located approximately 16 miles away. The City of Coalinga has a population of approximately 19,000 people.

    Cleanup

    The cleanup remedy, selected in 1991, includes diverting the stream flow away from the tailings pile by building a cross-canyon stream diversion, minimizing the release of asbestos into a nearby creek by improving the existing sediment trapping dam, paving the road through the Mill Area to suppress dust, dismantling the mill building and disposing of the debris, and limiting access to the site by erecting a fence and placing deed restrictions on the property. As part of the City-wide effort, EPA demolished the storage buildings and excavated asbestos-contaminated soil. This material was placed in a specially built underground storage unit with a total capacity of 26,000 cubic yards. Once the asbestos contaminated debris was housed safely, the area above the storage unit was covered with an impermeable clay cover, revegetated, and secured the area with a fence. After EPA declared the cleanup complete, the City of Coalinga spread the word in hopes of attracting new businesses.

    Reuse Description

    The availability of clean land near the center of town was a lure for developers. Kmart entered and won a bidding war with a competitor for this prime property. The Kmart opened its doors in 1992. In addition, members of the Coalinga community call two of the former asbestos storage areas "home" following the construction of a 43-unit apartment complex and a 47-lot subdivision. These residences are helping to meet the housing needs of the Coalinga population, which has doubled since 1980.

    Sources:
    SURE 09/08/09
    http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/live/casestudy_coalinga.html
    South Bay Asbestos Area
    US EPA Region 9
    Alviso, CA
    CAD980894885

    Site Description

    The 550-acre South Bay Asbestos Area Site is located on the southern edge of the San Francisco Bay.  Portions of the site served as dumping areas for over 30 years. Three landfills located within the site boundaries (the Santos Landfill, the Leslie Salt Landfill, and the Sainte Claire Corporation Landfill) received asbestos wastes from an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturing plant, located 4 miles south of the site that operated from 1953 until 1982. Residents reportedly used waste asbestos pipe to drain excess water from their properties before curbs and gutters were installed. Several areas may have been filled with asbestos-containing soils transported in by residents to raise the elevation of their property and to improve flood protection. As a result of heavy rains in 1983, Coyote Creek flooded the site. The City of San Jose built a levee around the town to pump out the floodwater. The levee material was taken from the Raisch Quarry in southern San Jose and was later found to contain asbestos. Asbestos also was found in the Guadalupe River levee, the ring levee, and in surface soils around the town. Approximately 1,700 people live in Alviso. Most water is provided to South Bay residents through public supply systems that draw groundwater from the deep aquifer. The majority of private wells draw water from the less-protected shallow aquifer. The ring levee lies within the 100-year flood plain of the Guadalupe River and was built on portions of wetland areas adjacent to Alviso. The levee also abuts wetland areas next to a National Wildlife Refuge.

    Cleanup

    The final cleanup remedies selected to address contamination of the entire site include paving the asbestos-contaminated truck and industrial yards, wet-sweeping Alviso streets monthly, removing asbestos debris, installing landfill covers, implementing deed restrictions, and maintaining and monitoring the site. The design of the cleanup technologies was completed in 1992. Four truck yards have since been paved, and maintenance inspections and repairs take place on an annual basis. An ambient air study for asbestos was conducted in 1994 to assess the effectiveness of these cleanup efforts. Results of the study showed that there was no significant adverse health threat to the residents of Alviso due to asbestos fibers in the air. All construction was completed in 1993. Landfill covers meet applicable clean soil cover requirements, and deed restrictions will be implemented to control site property use. The City of San Jose is wet-sweeping the streets on a monthly basis.
     
    Reuse Description

    The 550-acre site supports a mixture of residential, commercial, light industrial, public service, and recreational reuses including elementary schools, supermarkets, restaurants, retail, recreational areas, and Legacy Tech Park, an industrial park. 

    Sources:
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CAD980894885?OpenDocument

    Top of page


  2. During the Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting, several statements were made by CAG members which suggested that EPA has the final say on the future use of the site. (4-20-2009)

    It is important to understand that EPA does not have the final say on the future use of sites. This decision is ultimately the responsibility of site owners. EPA's primary responsibility, under the law, is to make sure that our final cleanup of the site is protective of human health and the environment. As part of that cleanup process:

    EPA will evaluate the potential exposures, and associated risks, of any future use scenarios presented to us for this site. By doing this evaluation, EPA can select the proper cleanup standards that will ensure those future use scenarios are protective of human health and the environment. Again, we do not choose the reuse, we evaluate its protectiveness and feasibility.

    EPA encourages communities to consider future use scenarios as early in the cleanup process as possible. By doing this, EPA may begin evaluating the protectiveness and feasibility, and communities may begin working together to start leveraging the required resources that may be needed once a reuse decision has been made by the community.

    Top of page


  3. What was done to the Metroplex property? (1-2008)

    The work at Metroplex involved consolidating piles of asbestos containing material on portions of the site, allowing for on-slab development on other portions of the site. No two Land Development projects will be exactly the same. This site is an example of an inactive asbestos disposal site being safely redeveloped and put back into productive use.

    Top of page


  4. Does the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Act 2 program release potential developers from all liability in order to develop? (1-2008)

    The Act 2 program can provide potential developers release from liability from past contamination. They would still be responsible for properly dealing with current issues and complying with current environmental regulations.

    Top of page


  5. Several environmental advocates have indicated that state redevelopment programs are not all that protective of human health and the environment. What is the State of Pennsylvania's position on this issue? (1-2008)

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Land Recycling and Environmental Standards Act (Act 2) was designed to facilitate the remediation of contaminated properties and the reuse of these properties in a manner that is consistent with their intended use while being safe. Our involvement in the redevelopment of such sites is to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment while promoting the redevelopment of contaminated sites for productive reuse.

    Top of page


  6. With regards to future development, is it correct that the owner of a developable property is not responsible for any release of airborne asbestos outside of the fenced area under Act 2 and is not required to test air past the fenced in area? (1-2008)

    Under Act 2, our Environmental Cleanup Program works in conjunction with our Air Quality program staff to ensure potential developers are aware of (and comply with) air regulations pertaining to fugitive dust. Our Air Quality program would first review related work plans to ensure measures will be taken to prevent dust from leaving the site. During active construction, periodic surveillance would be conducted to ensure adequate dust prevention measures are being taken.

    Top of page


  7. What are Kane Core Inc.'s current plans, hopes, intentions, or actions for their 6 acres? (1-2008)

    This is a question that should be more appropriately addressed to Kane-Core. It is not EPA's policy to speak for a private property owner as to the disposition and potential future use of their property.

    Top of page


  8. Does EPA have a position on redeveloping the property and can it be done safely?
    (1-2008)

    EPA has no position on the (re) development issue. EPA does consider it theoretically possible to do something safely with the property, without specifying a particular outcome.

    Top of page


  9. Institutional controls (ICs) should be an integral part of any c1eanup action at the BoRit Site, including the removal action currently planned by US EPA and any future remedial action that may be taken. The removal action currently calls for the capping of any exposed asbestos and the stabilization of creek and stream banks on the three parcels that comprise the Site. As a result, contamination at potentially high levels will remain in the subsurface on the Site. If not properly addressed, any possible future use of any of the three parcels could cause soil disturbance, erosion, or degradation of the soil cap (even if only during the construction phase), thereby again exposing the asbestos and threatening human health and the environment. (12-27-2007)

    EPA intends to coordinate with the state, local and municipal governments, and property owners to establish appropriate ICs. In addition, if asked, EPA will review any development plans for any of the parcels with respect to potential asbestos exposure.

    Top of page


  10. Is EPA consulting with the property owners, Whitpain Township and residents near the Wissahickon Park parcel see if the site can be used as some type of youth recreation facility? (12-27-2007)

    EPA has an ongoing dialogue with the interested parties and will continue with those discussions.

    Top of page


  11. Will EPA consider issues such as safely accommodating reuse; limiting construction activities on days with high winds; dust control, wet down, and daily soil cover requirements to prevent asbestos from becoming airborne; notices to nearby residences, businesses, all effected municipalities, and the county of excavation times and dates; storm water management, soil erosion, and sedimentation controls specifically designed to prevent degradation of the cover; continuous air monitoring with public notification of any releases; washing for all vehicles and equipment exiting the Site; a cap or liner with thicker soil overlay for any open areas to be used or accessed by the public (e.g. ball fields); no wells on any parcel; deed Notices advising of the restrictions on the parcels' use. (12-27-2007)

    EPA plans to consider these suggestions.

    Top of page


  12. Does EPA intend to work with other agencies to implement Institutional Controls (ICs)? (12-27-2007)

    EPA recognizes the importance of intergovernmental coordination in establishing ICs at the Site and we intend to work together with the State and local governments to ensure that appropriate ICs are put into place. EPA has already had discussions with most of the stakeholders in this Site and will continue to do so as long as we are actively involved.

    Top of page


  13. Does EPA have programs that support the reuse of cleanup sites? (12-27-2007)

    EPA has initiatives in place to facilitate and promote the reuse of Superfund sites, and will be happy to provide you with more information about this and to participate in discussions with stakeholders.

    Top of page


  14. Does the EPA have evidence to show that building on an asbestos pile this large is a safe option for the land? (8-8-2007)

    EPA does not have evidence. Each proposal, if any, would be reviewed to make sure human health and the environment is protected.

    Top of page


  15. Can we assume that strict land use regulations will be put into place for these 38 acres? (8-8-2007)

    Reuse of the land, if any, would be subject to local and state laws. It is possible that some deed restrictions will be put in place.

    Top of page


  16. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suggested to the public that the BoRit Site can be developed safely under the Act 2 program. How can development be possible without disturbance of the piles? (8-8-2007)

    Development would likely involve disturbance of the asbestos. Engineering controls would have to be in place to prevent any asbestos releases. The method used to limit disturbance while monitoring air quality would be something outlined in the redevelopment plan, but as mentioned earlier, there is no current Land Recycling/Act II redevelopment proposal for this parcel.

    Top of page


  17. What is the intent of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Act 2 program? (8-8-2007)

    PADEP's Land Recycling and Environmental Standards Act (Act 2) was designed to facilitate the remediation of contaminated properties and the reuse of these properties in a manner that is consistent with their intended use while being safe. Our involvement in the redevelopment of such sites is to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment while promoting the redevelopment of contaminated sites for productive reuse.

    Top of page


  18. What is EPA's role in evaluating redevelopment plans for the parcel currently owned by Kane Core?  (3-12-2007)

    Development of the property owned by Kane Core is primarily a local and state issue. EPA's role at the Site is to make sure that there is no immediate health risk to humans or the environment from the asbestos pile in its current condition.

    Because EPA has scientific and environmental engineering knowledge of the Site, we would be happy to provide input to the state and local government on any redevelopment plans that would affect the safety aof the public.

    If the Site were to be redeveloped, significant engineering controls would likely be required to ensure that the asbestos would not be released to the environment.

    Pennsylvania's Act 2 law allows the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to enforce cleanup standards, monitoring conditions and/or compliance requirements required by either agency. If there were no specific requirements, EPA could still comment on any notice of Intent to Remediate or Site Remediation Plan. PADEP has stated that it would welcome and consider any such comments when evaluating Act 2 submissions.

    Top of page


  19. What is EPA's role in evaluating development plans for the parcel currently owned by Kane Core? (1-24-2007)

    EPA does not take a position on whether the property should be reused or not, but recognizes that this is a local and State issue. If reuse is proposed, EPA, if asked, would be happy to work with the State and local government to review any proposals.

    EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) know of no current redevelopment plans by Kane Core and as such would rather not speculate on this nonexistent redevelopment plan. Generally speaking, Act 2 allows PADEP to enforce cleanup standards, monitoring conditions and/or compliance requirements required by either agency. If there were no specific requirements, EPA could still comment on any notice of Intent to Remediate or Site Remediation Plan. PADEP would welcome and would consider any such comments when evaluating Act 2 submissions.
     
    Regarding the risk should asbestos be moved, there are a large number of variables that will affect any predictive model of asbestos migration during soil disturbance. It is important to consider that engineering controls to prevent release of asbestos would be required during any potential movement. EPA will not significantly move the asbestos for the purpose of risk projection. The on-site activity-based sampling, even though it created only surface disturbance, has already shown that fibers are released to the air. EPA's directive at the Site is to find out if the Site is a health problem to the community “as is.”

    Top of page


  20. How can development be possible without disturbance of the piles? (1-2008)

    Development would likely involve some disturbance of the asbestos. Engineering controls would have to be in place to prevent any asbestos releases. The method used to limit disturbance while monitoring air quality would be something outlined in the redevelopment plan, but as mentioned before, there is no current Land Recycling/Act II redevelopment proposal for this parcel.

    Top of page


  21. Can such sites be redeveloped safely? (9-2006)

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protect
    ion Land Recycling and Environmental Standards Act (Act 2) was designed to facilitate the remediation of contaminated properties and the reuse of these properties in a manner that is consistent with their intended use while being safe. We have overseen several successful asbestos containing material disposal site cleanups across the state. The most notable regional example is the Metroplex site in Plymouth Meeting, which is adjacent to residential and commercial properties. Our involvement in the redevelopment of such sites is to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment while promoting the redevelopment of contaminated sites for productive reuse. By definition, such sites qualify as Brownfield sites.

    Top of page

Region 3 | Cleanup in Region 3 | Cleanup - Where You Live | EPA Home | EPA Cleanup Homepage


Local Navigation







Jump to main content.