Public Reaction Mixed on American Cyanamid Project

Members of the public had a chance to offer their opinions on the EPA-and-Pfizer-approved plan to remediate the within township limits Thursday—and the thoughts ranged from support to concerns over flooding.

A wide range of people for and against the plan came out to to give their input.

“The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed plan for the cleanup of soil, groundwater and waste disposal areas [on the site],” Cecilia Echols, community involvement coordinator with the EPA, said at the beginning of the meeting.

Some members of the public came out in support of the plan, citing a belief that the EPA’s proposed remediation plan is the safest, most effective route to deal with the clean-up of the hazardous materials on the site.

“The EPA proposal appears to me to offer a balanced approach for remediation," said John Schmidt, a Bridgewater resident and chairman of the township’s Economic Development Advisory Committee. "It uses proven conventional technologies, it can be implemented in a reasonable time frame and it minimizes risks during construction with minimum surface disturbance and soil relocation.”

Bridgewater Township Mayor Dan Hayes said they are prepared to get started.

“We are eager to begin remediation and return the property to a purposeful use,” he said. “The implementation of [this plan] encompasses safety time use goals of the community and the re-use goals the township holds for this site. I recommend the approval of this proposal for the benefit of Bridgewater and the surrounding community.”

Other residents from Bridgewater and communities that lie on or near the Raritan River alike are not so sure that this plan will be to their benefit. Many believe that the proposal is a quick approach to solve a problem that goes much deeper than containing the toxins, including dangerous amounts of the chemical benzene, on the property.

Those attending the meeting said they think the proposed remediation plan will not solve the health risks associated with the property in the event of a flood similar to that seen at the site during Hurricane Irene.

“We really want to see treatment, we really want to see the contaminants eliminated, rather than contained,” said Ryan Boyle, an environmental studies major at Rutgers University and a resident of Bridgewater. “Looking at all the options that you guys have proposed, all I really see for the most part for the vast majority of contaminants is a practice of containing.”

Others simply said that Pfizer and other responsible parties are trying to cut down on time and costs in lieu of safety and an actual remedy. While other excavation and treatment plans for the contaminated soil could take years longer to complete and, in the case of a soil excavation, cost more than $1 billion, the current plan being pursued by the EPA and Pfizer will take 10 years to implement and cost $205 million.

“It’s obvious that you have much more dramatic risks due to flooding [than Hunterdon County], and the only factor they’re really looking at is cost,” said West Amwell resident Bill Wolfe. “You’re getting a half-assed remedy, and the cost factor is really driving that choice. To the community, that should be stated clearly [by you], that you don’t like the way they balanced the issues of remediation versus cost.”

North Brunswick resident Mark Hommer agreed.

“I’d like to remind everyone in this room that what happens here is that corporations privatize the profits and socialize the costs every single time," he said. "We’re all expected to pay for this. If the down-river cumulative impacts of all of this have impacted all of the ecosystems down the river, including the human ecosystem, who’s going to pay for that degradation?”

After it was made apparent to the EPA representatives in attendance that the entire Superfund site is under a flood plain, some members of the public pleaded with the responsible parties to reconsider an excavation or soil treatment option, as opposed to capping the contaminated land on-site, before moving forward.

“We support any alternative that treats the soil and excavates the soil and does not contain it on site,” said Dana Patterson, toxins coordinator with the Edison Wetlands Association. “A cap is not a clean-up. We will not accept that. This is a flood plain. You cannot cap toxic waste in a flood plain.”

At the meeting, the EPA also announced that it will be extending the public comment portion of this process to May 15. This is 45 more days from the original end date of March 31.

For more information, visit th EPA's website about the project.